Sunday, December 23, 2012

Over the Cliff

The chances for avoiding the "Fiscal Cliff" are not looking good at the moment. Obama is chillin' on a warm beach in Hawaii, and congress has closed shop for the holidays.

I am amazed and irritated that a deal couldn't be done. I really thought a deal would emerge after everyone had their turn at calling names and laying blame. A last-minute scaled-down compromise could still happen, but even so, it would likely amount to punting the tough decisions once again.

The bulk of the blame should be reserved for the Republicans. Even though the election was lost and their Raison d'ĂȘtre under question, enough anti-tax hysteria prevailed in the House to humiliate Boehner's negotiating efforts. It's hard to believe these folks would place the nation at risk for the sake of their passionate belief that the wealthy should be shielded from paying an additional dime in taxes, but there you have it.

Some blame could be handed to Obama as well, for he seemed determined to push Boehner to the wall and continually rub the election result in his face. It seems as though Democrats have concluded that it's best to leap over the cliff at this point as long as Republicans can be squarely blamed for it. A large chunk of mandated cuts would be from defense programs, which isn't all bad. Tax rates would simply return to where they had been prior to the Bush tax cuts, although in the absence of the annual AMT patch some middle-class families will be hit hard.

The short-term risks of going over the cliff are obvious: A stock market crash and renewed recession as working families shoulder a large tax increase. What most don't seem concerned with is that no one has yet proposed a comprehensive solution to the national debt problem. If Obama had proposed more serious restraints on spending in exchange for higher taxes on the rich, perhaps Boehner would have had a chance at selling it to his colleagues. The irony is that by doing nothing, rates rise for everyone, and it's difficult to see how Republicans gain from that.

Whatever happens by years end, the next congress will likely continue the debate. The concern is that partisan divisions are so deep as to preclude the type of compromise we used to take for granted. So what if Obama wins points in public opinion and further vilifies Republicans; the next election is two years away and much damage could result in the near-term. If the rift becomes too wide, it erodes the ability to govern, and no one wins in that outcome.

Another example can be found in the debate over gun control in the wake of the latest school shootings. The emotional ground-swell of opinion in favor of more restrictions on guns collides with an equally emotional (and more irrational) viewpoint that claims Obama wants to disarm everyone. There are in fact some bizarre and disturbing aspects to the Sandy Hook tragedy, which will take a future blog to discuss. While it seems possible that the PTB somehow conspire to promote such shootings in order to sway public opinion, any benefit to public safety from increased gun control would be offset by deeper cracks, divisions and widespread cynicism among those opposed. The latter is my primary concern, and the present meme of revolution and national disintegration will need to be watched.


Wednesday, December 5, 2012

What Lies Beyond the 2012 Solstice?

In a recent post on my companion blog at, I dismissed the chances of anything catastrophic occurring on the solstice date, and focused instead on the spiritual aspects. However, I want to examine the "doom n gloom" thinking a bit more. Not that my mind has changed on this, but just that the subject is fascinating and won't go away. Plus, it is abundantly clear that extinction-level events have visited Earth in the past, and there is no amount of "love and light" thinking can guarantee that won't happen again in a year or 5000 years. This is just plain, realistic fact.

Well, for starters, you can forget the photoshopped images of Planet-X depicted in plain view near the sun, or of Mercury, Venus and Saturn all neatly lined up over Giza. Ignore the colorful diagrams of the galactic plane that illustrate the solar system somehow magically aligning with the core on December 21. I explained the celestial mechanics of alignment on the solstice in the aforementioned blog.

One disaster scenario that has at least a plausible risk is damage from extreme solar flares. Although some psychics and remote viewers foresee vast destruction as the Earth becomes enveloped in hot plasma ejected from the sun, this appears as likely to me as the prospect of a large asteroid or comet decimating the planet - not impossible, but not worth raising one's anxiety level over.

A much more plausible scenario would be a repeat of the 1859 Carrington Event, in which a massive solar storm erupted. Auroras were spotted in the tropics, and were so bright in the night sky that gold miners in the Rocky Mountains thought dawn was breaking and began cooking breakfast. The electrical effects were severe enough to cause fires at telegraph stations and cause arcing that zapped telegraph operators. One can only imagine the damage such a storm would cause to the modern electrical grid and to satellites in orbit. The huge electrical currents that are induced are capable of melting the large transformers in power substations, and this actually happened on a minor scale during a 1989 storm. Some experts have speculated that a modern Carrington-sized event could cause the grid to go down for an extended period - perhaps months or years. The amount of damage to electronics and infrastructure could be mind-boggling. It could push civilization back hundreds of years.

Power outages are usually brief and inconvenient, but a widespread and sustained outage would lead to the end of the world as we know it. Stores would find it difficult to conduct business and refrigerated food would quickly spoil. Modern life is extremely dependent on power and electronic gadgets. Most of the populace would soon be hungry and cold (or hot depending on the season), and order would certainly break down.

The preppers in bunkers with stored food and water would fare better for a while, but emergency generators only have fuel for a limited time. With civilization giving way to anarchy, survival would be dicey at best. And besides, who would want to survive like that, sitting with a shotgun over your dwindling hoard?

At the moment, the Sun is doing something strange. The expected sunspot maximum seemed to be finally underway earlier this year following an extremely quiet minimum. At present, activity has tapered off again instead of continuing to rise as expected. There were predictions of massive solar storm activity and large earthquakes for early December, based on a supposed correlation with planetary alignments. This was supposed to be but a prelude to much larger events near the solstice. However, as of this writing, the largest earthquake worldwide was a 6.4 on December 2. Even earthquake activity seems to have tapered off of late.

Is this just the calm before the storm? Your guess is as good as mine, but there is nothing to correlate the 2012 solstice with increased chances of solar or earthquake activity. The projected 11-year solar maximum is supposed to occur in 2013, and CME activity seems to peak following the solar maximum. Even so, the current cycle seems more subdued than recent ones. There is always a chance that the increased levels of galactic dust we are currently heading into will instigate large upheavals in the sun. This could be part of the same long-term natural cycle that caused the last ice age, the flash-freezing of woolly mammoths, and subsequent rapid melting of the glaciers 12,000 years ago.

Many spiritual and intuitive people shy away from discussion of possible catastrophic scenarios. Of course there is a lot of fear mongering regarding 2012, but we can't ignore that destructive cycles are part of nature. Also, as the Kali Yuga - Age of Iron draws to a close, we realize that a new age is dawning. I suspect that ages don't transition as quietly as we would prefer. Something must breakdown to make way for the new. This process could get ugly at times.

Right now, the Shift is already underway, and intuitives can feel it. There must be tension building between the emerging conscious awareness, and the iron grip of the dark ones in control. They are afraid, and they are watching.

Will we suddenly wake up one day and find the world has transformed overnight for the better? I don't have answers to that, but I sense that something is transforming in our midst. Dolores Cannon has much to report on this. She feels that there will soon be a split between Old Earth and a New Earth. I suspect this is correct, but have no idea how it will take place. Actually it might be explained by the parallel timeline theory. Perhaps prophets of doom who foresee hellish scenarios could be focused on the Old Earth timeline. That would explain why remote viewers see such divergent conditions when they attempt to foresee the future.

Could be that the airy-fairy scenarios are correct, but for now I'm putting more stock in Dolores Cannon's research regarding the New Earth.


Sunday, November 18, 2012

A Shift in Reality

So good to have the election over with, but didn't it seem as though a switch had been flipped somewhere on the following day? Just prior to election day, every one's assumption seemed that Romney was gaining ground and Obama was on the ropes. Republican campaign propaganda appeared to be defining the debate on major issues.

Starting on the day after, it was like any moron could have seen that Romney didn't stand a chance. Republican pundits expiated over the their party's strategic blunders. The numbers of white males and Christian fundamentalists were now seen as shrinking in favor of Hispanics and other progressive people of color, so Republicans began to openly suggest that the party needs to reinvent itself.

Rather than continuing the assault on common sense, right-wing pundits suddenly began sounding reasonable for a change! William Kristol weighed in on the "fiscal cliff" by stating that "it would be foolish for Republicans to fall on their swords" by opposing tax increases for the ultra-rich. Grover Norquist has suddenly become a non-person! And then even the likes of mega-bitch Ann Coulter chided Republicans for their misogynist blunders regarding rape. It was like Alice in Wonderland, with everything turned around!

But back to reality: the nation is deeply divided, the fiscal cliff must be resolved, and warmongering is ramping up in Israel.

The situation in the Mideast is particularly worrisome. As usual, the Zionist-controlled media is portraying Hamas as a terrorist organization, hell bent on destroying Israel. Hamas launched rockets on Tel Aviv in a brazen provocation, we are told. Coverage focuses on the 3 Israeli civilians killed and 60 wounded, while the losses inflicted by Israel in Gaza are many times greater.

The corporate media does not ask the obvious question of why Hamas would make the suicidal mistake of provoking an attack. There was evidence of Israeli agents launching rockets from Hamas in the past, so I certainly would suspect it again. An expanded war would seem to fit into Israel's agenda at the moment.

Fighting rages in Syria, and the destabilized situation must present a tempting opportunity for Israel. Provoke a few rocket exchanges with Egypt, trade fire with Syrian tanks at Golan, and perhaps a major conflagration could be kindled. This could provide perfect context for the long-awaited attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

This warmongering is flirting with disaster, but few voices are heard in opposition. Corporate media can't even report events accurately, and little spotlight is shone on the carnage suffered by Palestinians. Hopefully we can avoid nuclear exchanges and WW III, or at least reschedule Armageddon for a later date.


Friday, November 9, 2012

Obama's Golden Opportunity

The Tea Party madness has left the Republican party gasping for air, and right-wing pundits are wailing and gnashing their teeth. No time for Democrats to bask in the victory; the fiscal cliff looms ominously ahead, while Republican congressional leaders appear to be digging into no-compromise mode on taxes.

This moment of peril could also be a time of historic opportunity. President Obama could capitalize on his new-found momentum by unveiling a daring new approach for resolving the budgetary woes.

What if...Rather than continuing the old polemic as before, Obama carved a new path on higher ground? Republicans are angry and hurting, and pushing them deeper into their defensive stand on taxes only plays to their strengths.

Obama could redefine the debate by delivering this televised speech:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm taking this opportunity to speak to you about a serious issue facing this country: The so-called Fiscal Cliff. This situation came about because Congress elected to put off difficult budgetary decisions until after the election. If we fail to act decisively, large cuts in important programs will take place automatically, and taxes will rise for everyone effective January 1st.

The budgetary gridlock we are in represents failure by both parties. Democrats and Republicans share in the blame. We have lacked the discipline to manage our budget responsibly, and have come to rely on borrowing as a too-easy fix.

The burgeoning debt is a legitimate issue that causes understandable angst among our citizens. Republicans have responded by taking a hard line on only one side of the equation: tax revenue. Unfortunately, this is like attempting to kill a virus by starving the patient. They decry our debt, but remain willing to borrow as an alternative to taxation, particularly when their pet projects are on the block.

We all agree on the need to restrain spending, but senators and congressmen on both sides of the aisle have their respective favorite projects and programs. We can and will continue to debate how to best spend the taxpayer's dollars, but what is needed now is a new-found common resolve to stop feeding the debt monster.

We are a great nation and we can do this. We have the resources. All we are lacking is the resolve.

Republicans have made the argument that the size of government is relentlessly growing, and feel that increased revenue only fosters more growth in government. On this, I am ready to concede that they have a valid point. The size of government cannot be allowed to grow uncontrollably.

Government spends money on many essential programs, and our constitution laid it upon the congress to decide how much to appropriate and how much to raise in revenue. This is now our challenge: To balance taxing and spending in a responsible manner that does not rely on borrowing as an acceptable means of filling the gap.

To this end, we need a mixture of spending cuts and increased revenue. Republican leaders may tell you that increasing any tax is wrong; I'm telling you that borrowing is not better than taxation. I call upon Republicans to change your pledge to "no new borrowing".

I'm calling upon Congress to address the "fiscal cliff" crisis with a balanced mix of spending restraint and increased revenue. I'm not willing to allow austerity to fall disproportionately upon those of limited means, and the wealthy certainly can pay their fair share.

I am asking for all members of Congress and the American people to support my budgetary proposal. In return for your support, I am proposing a constitutional amendment that limits the total amount of government spending to a fixed percentage of the gross national product except in times of national emergency.

Under these proposals, we will stabilize the federal budget in a equitable manner and set the foundation for future economic growth. A small amount of sacrifice now will pay dividends later. I ask that we put aside our partisan differences and move forward together as a nation. Thank you and good night."


Thursday, November 8, 2012

Republican Meltdown

This is really phenomenal. This goes beyond anything I would have expected. I'm not surprised that Obama was reelected, but the Republican whining and blame game reveals much about what their party now stands for.

Karl Rove complains that Obama "suppressed the Romney vote" by painting him as "a rich guy who only cares about himself". Wowzers! And didn't Romney help that along just a bit with his occasional candid comments and background as a vulture capitalist? Was Romney's character really that hard to judge without help from Democratic campaign ads?

Maybe what this really tells us is that voters aren't as stupid as Rove had assumed. Perhaps blatant lying with implausible whoppers didn't pay off after all. Rove seems to think that it should have. Shame on us for not falling for the lies! This attitude is an insult to all voters.

It's clear to see what has motivated the GOP push for voter suppression measures, ostensibly known as "Voter ID". They fear that they cannot win if too many of Romney's 47% show up to vote. This apparently accounts for the gross miscalculation made by Rove, Dick Morris, George F. Will and others.

Republicans accuse Obama of engaging in class warfare for attempting to limit tax breaks for the wealthy, but now we see true class warfare clearly demonstrated in their campaign strategy. Unfortunately for them, it's harder than expected to piece together a winning coalition of banksters, angry, white male voters and religious fundamentalists. This has left the nation divided and cynical, but hopefully still intact.

It will be interesting to watch how the Republican party evolves from here. The lunatic fringe Tea Party takeover is complete, and related or not, the fact remains that not one Republican of significant stature bothered to compete for the presidential nomination. It's been suggested that Jeb Bush sat this one out to allow the madness to work its course and then be in line to save the party in 2016. That would require new leadership and some serious changes in four years. One thing for certain, Rove and El Rushbo won't be leading the charge.


Wednesday, November 7, 2012

So What Now?

This is like dodging a bullet; it's good to escape, but it's no fun being shot at.

It's a relief that Romney was turned back. That sums up my reaction.

My conservative friends can take comfort from the fact that Romney was the "designated loser" in a race that was remarkable in that not a single Republican of stature competed for the nomination. Romney could have damaged the Republican brand and dragged the party down prior to the next election in 2016. It's widely suspected that Jeb Bush has been quietly waiting in the weeds for that date to arrive. If Obama doesn't make the most of his second chance, it will be bad news for Democrats next time around.

As an intuitive, I am most concerned with the broad trends and forces shaping current events. As stated before, we are perilously close to the edge of a cliff, and not just the "fiscal cliff" that must be dealt with by year's end.

Immediate problems on the horizon include:

  • Massive debt bubble about to burst
  • Public unrest at the Bankster cartel for siphoning wealth from the economy
  • Earth changes (including abrupt climate change) - this could soon be headline news
  • Warmongers threatening to launch a conflagration in the middle east
  • Individual liberties threatened by the police state that began under Bush
  • Deep divisions tearing at the nation as Uranus-Pluto square up
The candidates failed to address these issues during the campaign, and there is no reason to think that either one had any better shot at them. Romney used deception to raise false hopes that he had solutions in general, but now that's in the rear-view mirror.

My opinion is that coming events will render the government relatively irrelevant. The brighter future that many intuitives foresee will begin in small pockets under local initiative. Prior to this there may be heavy seas and turbulence.

So now the task is to figure it all out...

Monday, November 5, 2012

If Romney Wins...

Sometime in the next day or so, we should know the identity of the next president. That is, if we're fortunate. If not, the recounts and disputed totals could go on for a long time.
Well, I for one am not holding my breath. As made clear on the pages of this blog, I consider the political system to be rigged and fraudulent. There is not nearly enough difference to be made between electing this Dickhead over that one to account for the tremendous, passionate animosity being slung around by both sides. Romney seems to me to be more despicable and disgusting than the incumbent, so I will vote accordingly.
If Romney wins, it could be an unfortunate moment for this country, but not for the reasons one might expect. The downside I would expect would be vastly increased levels of cynicism at some point, given the salesmanship he has exhibited on behalf of his campaign promises. Here is a number of points to consider:
1. Jobs - Obama has been hammered by a relentless tirade of criticism regarding the economy. Unemployment is too high, hasn't dropped as fast as Obama promised, etc. Now it's perfectly reasonable to attack the opponent's record, as the challenger needs to make the case for a change. However, he needs to have a realistic and plausible alternative proposal on the table. On this issue, Romney clearly has not. Cutting taxes is the centerpiece of his agenda. He promises to create 12 million "good paying" jobs. Good luck with that. Most economists expect the recovery to continue if nothing else is done. Whichever dickhead gets elected, it looks like things will slog on as before.
Bottom line: If people are dissatisfied now, they will continue to be regardless of who wins. However, expectations for Romney will be much higher, so he has much farther to fall.
2. Budget - As has been documented ad nauseum, Romney's math is complete nonsense. His promises to cut taxes likely will be derailed rather quickly, as frenzied budget negotiations ramp up. A huge factor is the immediate need to cut the deficit by January 1, or else the draconian sequestration measures kick in. There will likely be a lame-duck session of Congress during December that will make huge tax and spending decisions before the next presidential term even begins. If this is not done properly, the economy could stall and dip into another recession. Romneys' goose might get cooked by events before he gets sworn in over the Book of Mormon.
Bottom line: Romney will be in for a rough ride if he remains serious about his promises for a tax cut, extra trillions for defense, and a balanced budget. If he reneges his hollow promises will be exposed for the empty deception that they are. At some point the real math will catch up.
3. Foreign policy - There is a tremendous disconnect between what a president says and the policies that are actually carried out. As demonstrated in the final debate, there is little that the two parties actually disagree on. Romney exposed himself as sounding more reckless about throwing American power around, but that's just campaign noise. It appears that the PTB plan to ignite more wars in the near future, regardless of who the president is.
Bottom line: No difference under Romney, except people might be more prone to associate deceptive warmongering with Bush, so Romney would inspire more protest and opposition than Obama.
4. Religion - Romney's involvement in the Mormon church has been downplayed as a private matter of personal faith, but there are secretive, mystical aspects that are reason for concern. As pointed out in a Huffington Post blog, Romney holds the title of Bishop. Considering the racist elements within Mormon teaching, and the eclectic prophecies of end-time events, Romney's interaction with the church bears close watching.
Bottom line: Christian conservatives appear to support Romney in large numbers, largely because he is white and supposedly pro-life. While he surely won't be changing his skin color (he probably would if he could along with everything else that he has changed), if he reverts to moderate form on abortion, there will be tremendous anger and frustration among the Christian faithful. At that point, lingering suspicion about Romney's Mormonism will probably flare.
The silver lining for Democrats is that the Republican party brand will likely suffer severe damage under a Romney presidency. Given the surreal nature of the campaign, Romney's vacuous campaign rhetoric, and the likelihood of major events really hitting the fan during the next 4 years, this might not be the best time for a Democrat to occupy the white house.
There might be some wry satisfaction to be gleaned for progressives in watching right-wing talking heads turn against one of their own, once Romney either a) fails or b) succeeds by reverting to sensible, moderate positions.
Final Note: The Prophecy Wonk John Hogue is still sticking to his prediction that Obama will complete a second term. He has not erred in calling presidential elections since Nixon won in 1968. Others are claiming that Nostradamus predicted that the 2012 election will be deadlocked, and Obama will exercise martial law to remain in power while Romney attempts to rally support among the military. That sounds rather far-fetched for this blogger; Something is undoubtedly being lost in translation of the archaic French.
Whatever happens will soon be history.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The Mystery of Benghazi

When Willard Romney began hammering Obama over alleged confusion regarding the Benghazi attacks,  I thought this was just another campaign tactic. If the State Department had miscalculated the danger or neglected the security of a consulate in a dangerous part of the world, then of course Obama should eventually fess up and admit that mistakes were made. Meanwhile, Obama seemed correct in vowing to investigate and pushing back on Romney for distorting the tragic event for political gain.

Recently, more information has surfaced regarding the attack, in the form of bits and pieces of unsubstantiated reports and rumors. Nevertheless, bits and pieces of rumors is often all we have to work with if we don't trust corporate news media to do an accurate and thorough job of investigating. And of course, it's a given that the government would be holding back on the full truth, and various agencies within the government may not even be on the same page. Thinking people simply have to work hard connecting the dots and piecing the true picture together.

Two conflicting stories have surfaced regarding the Benghazi attack: One alleges that Obama had been planning an "October surprise" by allowing an abduction of Ambassador Christopher Stevens to be staged, followed by a "miraculous" rescue by Navy Seals. 

The other story sounds a bit more plausible, wherein Stevens was in Benghazi to direct the flow of arms to Al Qaeda fighters operating in Syria. The attack was allegedly by Iranian special forces commandos. Iran would have sufficient motive given that economic sanctions are a virtual act of war against them, and the US intervention in Syria is widely seen as a step along the path leading to all-out attack on Iran.

There are several reasons to expect that details of the attack would be shrouded in murky haze; For one, the US does not openly admit to the training and hiring of Al Qaeda terrorists, despite heavy reliance on them for toppling Gaddafi, and now employing them as a proxy army in Syria. We are still operating under the official fiction that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that sponsored the 9/11 attacks in the US, and that they are an enemy that justifies the costly "war on terror".

It's also clear that the US would not want a spotlight directed on the intervention in Syria; the official line is that "freedom fighters" rose up spontaneously against the Assad regime, while the reality is that the bloody mess is largely due to foreign instigation. Syria is that last major ally remaining for Iran, and is probably the primary reason that Iran has not yet been attacked by the US or Israel. Given the incessant beating of war drums against Iran, the geopolitical reasons for US intervention in Syria are clearly discernible.

Another tidbit that seems to come from multiple sources suggests that a faction of the CIA has gone rogue and is operating at odds with administration policy. One extreme version suggests that Romney's people have links with the rogue CIA faction, and that the CIA may have played a role in setting up the ambassador's murder to embarrass Obama.

I'm skeptical of the more extreme rumors, but unfortunately there are powerful forces behind concealing the truth. Recent history in Libya should also be kept in mind: The US and NATO employed Al Qaeda mercenaries to attack Libya and remove a relatively progressive and stable regime. Libya has been pushed back to the 12th century dark ages, thanks to our tax dollars at work. The nation has been split into two power centers with much instability. It's fair to ask questions about just what Ambassador Steven's assignment was in Benghazi. Word has it that he worked for the CIA for many years as specialist on Iran.

Also, it's customary for embassies to rely on the host country for security. Marines are stationed for symbolic reasons, but no one expects them to defend against a determined assault. On this point, Romney sounds particularly silly for suggesting that Obama should have rushed in reinforcements.

I seriously doubt that Romney knows anything of the dark intrigue in Benghazi, and Obama may not be so much in the loop either. For them, Benghazi was just a flash point in a nasty election campaign. The American people have good reason to ask more questions, particularly as this ties in to the prospect for expanded war in the Middle East.


Saturday, October 27, 2012

The Designated Loser...Revisited

A few weeks ago, Romney's campaign seemed to be spiraling hopelessly downward. Then came The Debate in which Obama was caught napping. Seemed as if another switch was thrown somewhere, and Romney came surging back. Despite stronger performances by Biden and Obama in subsequent debates, the race remains quite close.

Since much of what we take for reality is projected and controlled by others, it's difficult to get a grip on what's really going on. This much seems clear: the two-party partisan battle is but a ruse. If Romney wins, nothing much will change, just as very little changed from Bush to Obama. The designated loser is really the voting citizen, who is in delusion that voting actually makes a difference.

I suspect that many voters are planning to vote against either Romney or Obama rather than vote for their preferred choice. Such is the nasty scenario that the PTB have shoved in our faces - vote for Dickhead #1 or #2. Sure, we can vote for the perceived lesser evil, but it's still voting for evil. I'm tempted to vote for a minor party such as Green, as this is the only way to register a "none of the above" selection.

My concern is that the partisan ruse fuels cynicism. If Romney convinces enough voters that he has answers to the intractable problems that face the nation, this sets the table for a huge disappointment. Likewise, Obama voters are already disappointed in wake of the last election, but fear Romney will take us down a much worse path. In truth, as I said, little will change either way.

The PTB have created the problems of massive debt and imploding economy. Of course Romney's proposals are laughable, but in reality, what can be done? Debt of this magnitude can only be dealt with through massive inflation or complete collapse of the system. Either way, it will eventually become clear that massive wealth has been removed from the working class. This has been nothing short of a huge shake-down; the pump-'n'-dump tactics like the housing bubble have been used by somebody to redistribute an enormous amount of wealth. According to such luminaries as Catherine Austin Fitts, the wealth was moved offshore, into the hands of corporate barons and globalist banksters. They never plan to return it and invest in the economy, so any politician that talks about a "plan for recovery" is either lying or completely out of touch with reality.

So what will people do if they one day wake up and discover that they have been robbed? I shudder to think of the possibilities. The cynicism and divisions are already there. I do predict that at that point, tax cuts for the rich will no longer be a popular notion. Indeed, the day is approaching when it may be unsafe to be identified as part of the wealthy 1% class.

Of more immediate concern should be warmongering in Iran and Syria. It appears that the PTB are determined to attack Iran, and this could quickly spiral out of control with nuclear exchanges. Also, rumor has it that a lame-duck session of congress will pass budgetary measures that have already been secretly agreed to. The PTB fix will be in place regardless of who gets elected in November. Look for sneaky attempts to attach unrelated bills to the legislation - could be in for a nasty time!

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The Man who Would be President

If consuming ambition disqualifies a presidential candidate, none would be left standing. And lying is something that comes with the politician's trade. All that aside, there is still something remarkably troubling about Romney's candidacy.

Having served as governor of the state that gave us Ted Kennedy and Michael Dukakis, Romney faced a difficult challenge in reinventing himself as a true conservative. His moderate image would have served him well in the Republican party of a generation ago. In the lunatic fringe asylum that passes as the modern-day Republican party, however, moderates are an extinct species.

Somehow, he managed to secure the nomination despite the extremist's misgivings about him. It took two tries and naked manipulation by the PTB, as they paraded a series of "flavor of the month" loony tune primary candidates to divide and distract the Tea Party extremists. It also took repudiation of many positions he had once espoused.

Hearing Romney try on a tough-talking rant during the primaries, it came across as anything but authentic. Watching him attempt to transform back to moderate in the final stretch is almost nauseating. And then he makes an amazing discovery: Bold-faced lying really works!

As I've said many times, Obama is no saint, and the Democratic ticket is only marginally better than the Republicans - but the margin is large enough to easily secure my vote.

Here is my take on a few of the cliches and issues raised during the debates:

"The middle class is being crushed under Obama".  OK, Mr. Elite, what would you know about the plight of the middle class? It's been a long-term socio-economic trend that the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, while the middle class have shifted downward a notch in the strata. The trend has continued for several decades; sociologists and economists have written books about it. Obama's numbers didn't get helped by the worst recession in modern history. And you're going to reverse this

"Obama believes in trickle-down government"  Oh, give it a rest, would you? You think jacking the phrase that Dems used against Reagan's tax cut philosophy will get you somewhere? And if Obama is to be faulted for not bringing down unemployment enough, then how is Romney going to change anything except through the same means - being in charge of the government?

"I will create 12 million new jobs"  The president has very little control over the economy and employment. Romney's centerpiece proposal is to cut taxes, something that has not worked well in the past. If unemployment had dropped under 6%, Obama would be a national hero, despite the fact that he simply would have been lucky. Romney's empty promise could become his legacy if the economy downturns again.

"I will balance the budget" The math just doesn't add up. Cut taxes 20%, and then make it up by eliminating deductions? Gee, good luck with that. Every time congress tries to simplify the tax code by eliminating deductions, the affected interest groups push back. Last year Republicans killed every attempt to curtail deductions that favor the rich, insisting that it violated their sacred Grover Norquist no-tax pledge. Even so, the math still doesn't work unless middle-class deductions are included. And all that just to get back the 20% in additional tax cuts - Romney doesn't mention how to get additional revenue to close the current deficit. Oh, did I mention that he also wants to increase defense spending by a couple of trillion?

"I will repeal Obamacare" This one really puzzles me. How can Romney run away from his own health care model in Massachusetts? What would his replacement for Obamacare look like? Since the same health care lobbyists that wrote Obamacare would still be around to write a RomneyCare bill, chances are only cosmetic changes would result. Unless his elitist impulses win out, in which case he might simply say "If you can't afford insurance, too bad. You're part of the 47% useless eaters".

One of the biggest problems with Romney, in my opinion, is that we just don't know what he really believes in. Candidates all make promises and then evolve as conditions warrant once they are in office. Perhaps by then none have any scruples left, so then it becomes a question of who controls them. Sometimes following the money trail sheds light on that, so you at least have some idea of what to expect.

Who controls Romney? The mystical elders in the Mormon church? He's not a typical political insider, although he's surrounded himself with requisite Neocons and certainly kissed enough insider ass. All we know about him are his intense ambition and his ability to change colors like a chameleon. What we don't know is what kind of deal he made with the devil or who that devil might be. If he gets elected, we are sure to find out eventually.

Granted, a similar question could be raised as to who controls Obama. For a community organizer to rise to junior senator and then president in such short order, powerful forces must be at work behind the scene. Which devil is Obama dealing with?

Here's the real irony: What if Romney's and Obama's devil are one and the same? What if they both work for the same boss? Whoever the boss is, he must be laughing at the pretend drama in the campaign and debates. Bwahahahaha!


Saturday, October 13, 2012

Choosing The Lesser of Evils

It's been fascinating to observe that many Christians are lining up solidly behind Romney for president. Given the fact that he's a Mormon is not easy to overlook, since many Christians still regard this as a heretical "cult". Then there's the fact that Romney has adopted lying as a primary campaign tactic. Oops, what does the Good Book have to say about that? Do the ends justify the means if lying gets him elected and then works to outlaw abortion? Hmmm...

Of course, evaluating candidates on moral issues is aways a tricky affair. Much hinges upon a person's prevailing worldview. For some, abortion is the ultimate evil, and they will automatically pivot toward anyone that identifies with the "Pro-Life" label.

Other Christians may recall that the only time Jesus really lost his cool was when he drove the evil Banksters out from the temple. No similar scene is recorded of him castigating homosexuals, or condemning socialist economic policies. In fact, some of his pronouncements regarding the poor could be construed as socialist-leaning.

The Christian spectrum spans from Neo-Nazi to Liberation Theology, so that takes in a lot of political territory. Thus it's understandable that both candidates get demonized by one side of the spectrum or the other.

I have bad news for anyone that thinks their candidate is "good" and the other one is "evil": Both parties are corrupt and irretrievably evil. Our entire political system is evil, and has been taken over and dominated by an evil force for some time. Perhaps it has been that way since the founding of the Republic. This is simply the way things are in the world.

Here's how it works: We go through the motions of an electoral process to choose our leaders. This way we can remain attached to the delusion that we are a self-governing democracy. However, the Powers-That-Be (PTB) control both major parties. They don't care if you hate the Republican Bum and vote instead for the Democratic Bum. The PTB controls journalists and corporate media, and even the judiciary. Any candidate that decides to speak truthfully and independently is not given a chance.

The conspiracy is very subtle. Journalists can only rise to key positions in corporate media if they subscribe to the prevailing worldview of the PTB. Stories that stray into undesirable areas get killed with a phone call to an editor. I have seen many examples that document and illustrate this. This is why the mainstream media never reports on controversial subjects like who owns the Federal Reserve, what government agency is behind spraying Chemtrails, or the fascinating proliferation of crop circles. These subjects are strictly verboten except in the fringe or alternative media. The alternatives can print what they want, but the PTB deals with them in a different manner.

Since the corporate media cannot even acknowledge that certain issues exist, politicians certainly cannot address them. It's widely known and understood that you must adopt the expected official line or else you cannot participate in the political system. It's thoroughly accepted that some unknown power center guides these things.

This is why John Kerry could not accuse President Bush of lying about the 9/11 attacks. Think about it...if the evidence could have been presented by the president's opponent in 2004, that the 9/11 attacks were contrived to get the nation lined up behind invading Iraq and Afghanistan, not only would Bush not have stood a chance of being reelected, but he and Cheney would likely still be serving time in prison. But this does not happen, and cannot happen. If Kerry had tried such a brash move, he would have been swiftly dealt with. An "accident", or perhaps sudden "psychiatric illness" would have quickly taken him out of operation. The facts are all problem with that. But facts don't matter if they conflict with the prevailing implausible myth concerning 19 hapless Arabs.

Or conversely, when the Obama administration claimed to have killed Bin Laden, and basked in the glory of it, Romney could have presented convincing evidence that Bin Laden had been killed years earlier, or had died in a cave of kidney failure (There were actually multiple Bin Ladens). The available facts would have backed him up, but no such chance that would happen.

So the result is, we get lied to and everyone on the inside accepts this. Politicians are only allowed to attack each other on marginal issues. Even when they promise they will change things, nothing changes. This is the most damning piece of evidence for this thesis, that so little changes between administrations. It's clear that someone is in control; we just don't know who it is. It wasn't Bush, and certainly not Obama, since very little changed despite vast rhetorical differences.

Before making serious runs for the presidency, Ron Paul was sympathetic to the 9/11 Truth movement. Presumably he was made to understand that this would not be tolerated in a national forum, because he dropped mention of it. What he had to say in the 2012 Republican debates was radical enough, with his questioning of military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was the only candidate in either party to take an anti-war position, but the corporate media ensured that Paul's message was ignored or ridiculed.

So what choices do the voters have in the 2012 election? Vote for more war, or vote for more war. Vote for more debt, or vote for more debt. Whether there is a robust economic recovery or another recession is probably out of the hands of the next White House occupant. Romney claims "the middle class is being crushed" but the decision to do this was not made in the White House, nor by any elected official, and no president can do anything about it.

I choose to vote for Obama because (a) Romney's lying is blatant and disgusting, going beyond the "normal" level of deceit by a politician, and (b) because the Democratic party tends to take marginally better care of the poor and working class. The Republicans will attempt to gut labor unions with "right to work" legislation and roll back help for the poor. I'm under no illusions that Obama will ever do anything meaningful to challenge the power of Wall Street and the Bankster cartel, but the rhetoric of standing firm against further tax breaks for the rich at least feels better.

For anyone that feels convinced that Romney would truly make a difference for the better, I pity that. Disappointment is sure to follow. Likewise Obama supporters had best not harbor hopes that their guy will improve things. Maybe stave off disaster a bit longer than Romney; that's my hope.

On the other hand, we are all victims of a corrupt system that limits our choices. What ardent Christian conservative would not rather have Rick Santorum or even the faux-pious Rick Perry on the ballot in November? What progressive wouldn't wish to see their side represented by the likes of Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich?

For this reason, I offer a bit of empathy and respect to my right-wing Christian friends. The way the system is rigged, we are all so screwed. We are all in this together.


Friday, October 12, 2012

Pants on Fire!

It's a given that all politicians lie. They really have no choice, given the corrupt nature of the system. There are lies within lies, and lies based on entire premises and frameworks being false.

For example, some commonly accepted lies are de rigueur for any public figure, such as the pervasive myth that 19 hapless Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. Within that false framework, Joe Biden was telling the "truth" during Thursday night's debate when mentioning that "Obama got Bin Laden". Paul Ryan didn't dispute that point - but could have, and would have been correct to do so. The implausibility of the claim that Bin Laden was captured and killed is enormous, given the many reports of his death years earlier. Dumping the body at sea, and taking no steps to prove identity almost begs a challenge. But, this sort of truthful thinking is strictly forbidden for any candidate above the level of county dog catcher. No point in even going there.

So if the entire framework in which the two VP candidates squared off is based on lies and deception, why even bother to pick particularly on Ryan's whopper list?

It's because Romney & Ryan have raised falsehood to a new level, and appear to have designed their campaign strategy around it. This is cynicism that must have Karl Rove smiling in admiration. And the worst part about it is that it seems to be working.

Prior to the first presidential debate, pundits were talking about the Republican ticket sinking into the mud, and Romney's managers were said to be in panic. Romney went into the first debate with a strategy of lying blatantly, repeatedly and overwhelmingly. The lies were so thick that it apparently caught Obama off guard, and he struggled. Viewers thought Romney looked "presidential" as he confidently spun through one yarn after another. Result: Overwhelming perception that Romney struck a knockout blow. Overnight, the polling trends reversed and now it's said that Obama's campaign is in panic mode.

We still have more debates on the schedule, and one would think that Obama will make adjustments in his game plan to counter the lying blitz.

Perhaps the lying campaign strategy will backfire at some point, because hopefully voters aren't completely brain dead and don't really wish to be lied to so openly.

However, if Romney succeeds by abusing the truth, and ultimately takes office, it raises some interesting questions about this country. Does it mean voters are saying "lie to me as long as it feels good"? Do we wish to believe in generous tax cuts for all leading to a balanced budget? That tax cuts for the rich will create jobs? That Obama is a failure at job creation despite the Republicans stonewalling nearly every measure that he proposed? That Obamacare sucks, even though Romney invented the model in Massachusetts?

The price of Romney's possible victory in this manner could be steep. Overloaded with cynicism, the American people will not cut the new administration any slack. When the economy tips in recession once again, and any of a number of pending crises explode, an enormous rage could ignite. Unemployment will rise, and debt will balloon once again. Of course, this could happen with either party in power, but Romney's promised actions threaten to bring us to the brink that much sooner.

Then again, Romney could return to the pragmatic moderate he once appeared to be. The only rage to be heard would then be coming from the Tea Party extremists and right-wing lunatics that took over the Republican party. Business leaders and economists would sigh with relief, and life would go on without much change from the Obama years.

There is a sense of a wild card in the air. Could be an "October Surprise" in the works. Could be Romney's flip-flops will catch up, as Biden put it in the debate, "I'm not sure what Romney's position is at the moment, he changes it so frequently". I had thought Romney was the designated loser, and this could still be the case. Is the lying simply an experiment by the PTB in how gullible the populace is?

The way this election plays out will be fascinating to watch. If the voters choose to buy snake oil from Romney, it's a sad day, but perhaps another sign that the corrupt system is collapsing in on itself. Obama is open for legitimate criticism on many issues, but most economists credit the stimulus plan with staving off complete economic collapse. One truth very few seem to recognize is that the president really doesn't have much control over unemployment.

One more thing: It's rumored that plans are being laid for a lame-duck session of Congress to meet in December and pass a massive tax and spending measure to head off the "fiscal cliff" due to hit in January. Could be that the basics are already negotiated and agreed to, meaning that the entire election-season debate on these issues has been meaningless. Rendered particularly meaningless will be which party wins the presidential election. Oh well. The fix is in.


Friday, October 5, 2012

And Winner of the First Round is....

The first debate: I can't add much to the verbiage already written on how Romney came ready to shed blood while Obama looked like he wished the NBA season would soon start. Clearly Obama had the most to lose and Romney capitalized on his underdog status.

I would be thoroughly surprised if Obama doesn't recover and really go for the jugular in the next debate. It's no secret that he has mastered NLP techniques and can be a truly eloquent and convincing speaker. Romney has exposed himself to counterattack on several key issues, and if Obama doesn't pick at the ripe fruit dangling in front of him then he doesn't deserve another term.

If Romney were elected, it wouldn't be the end of the world (that particular event is scheduled for a later date regardless of who is president). In the many ways that it has been difficult to distinguish Obama's policies from Bush's, the same would hold true if we flip back to a Republican regime. Given his obvious attempt in the debate to migrate back to the moderate Republican that he once was, this is a clear signal that very little would change under a Romney presidency.

Romney's bigger problem is the rage and betrayal that the Republican right wing would feel if he were elected. It's all good to blame Obama for every problem now, but when the same problems and same policies persist under a Romney regime, who will be the target of angst?

Obama should press the Mittster to fill in some of the blanks on his deficit cutting plan. How to maintain military spending and cut taxes without gutting programs that many depend on? Oh sure, now he says the tax cuts will be "revenue neutral"; let's spell out in advance just which tax deductions and perks will be eliminated. In the past, this sort of approach has never flown in congress. Powerful interests stand ready to defend their specific tax perks. Also, recall how just a few months ago, the Republican congressional leadership refused to sign on to elimination of deductions for corporate jets - they called it a "tax increase". Mr. Romney, it's time to 'splain just how you would do this.

Normally, I would not be so open in my bias toward the Dems. However, given the foam-at-the-mouth extreme rightwing lunacy that has overtaken the Republican party, it's frightening to imagine how the landscape could change without a Democrat in the White House to block their draconian impulses. For the first time in many decades, a serious attempt is being made to pass a national "right to work" bill that would gut the labor movement. Elimination of unemployment and food stamps would be next. An entire generation's progress on many humanitarian issues could be rolled back. If this happened to coincide with another economic downturn, serious civil unrest would result.

If all this political fighting is turning you off, here is an alternative to take your mind off it. All the blood and guts, and none of the boring pedantic politics!

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The Designated Loser

I'm sure the awareness has not caught up with him yet, but it's becoming painfully obvious that Romney has been set up as the designated loser in the 2012 election. Playing from the same script that resurrected John McCain from certain death in the polls during the 2008 primaries and propelled him into the nomination, Romney appears to be treading the same path.

McCain's choice of Sara Palin helped seal his demise, but was this simply an ill-considered, hastily conceived gaffe? A story surfaced at the time that a web site name had been reserved several months previously that incorporated "McCain/Palin", long before McCain's nomination had been secured. This suggests a high level of guidance for these events from unknown hands.

Whatever motivated McCain's quest, Romney appears to be driven by strictly personal ambition. To succeed in his quest for the nomination, he had to abandon whatever shards of principle he might have once possessed. He managed to sufficiently overcome his image as a moderate to placate the misgivings of the rightwing extremists in his party. Conspiracy theorists were skeptical that the PTB would ever accept a candidate such as Romney, who might not have the necessary moral weaknesses that allow complete control over other politicians. Now it appears that he has what it takes to pose as the Designated Loser.

The theory, of course, is that the PTB have perfected total control over our erstwhile democratic process, while still permitting the illusion that leaders are chosen by the voters. For whatever reason, Obama is their guy at the moment. He was handled from an early age in preparation for his rise to power. His rapid ascension from community organizer to first-term junior senator to President took place in just a few short years, a very implausible feat without help from powerful sources.

The PTB have decreed that Obama serve a second term, but he needs a credible yet defeatable opponent. The nation is deeply but evenly divided along partisan lines, so a charismatic Republican candidate could conceivably turn the tide and defeat the incumbent. To ensure this did not happen, the PTB carefully manipulated the Republican primary process by promoting a succession of looney-tunes candidates such as Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. This tactic successfully distracted and divided Tea Party extremists and kept the field in play long enough for Romney to slog through to the finish.

Interestingly, no Republican of notable stature and credibility stepped forward into the obvious vacuum. That fact alone would argue convincingly in favor of conspiratorial explanations.

Once he had secured the nomination, Romney began spinning into gaffe after gaffe. His choice of Paul Ryan as running mate looks like a boneheaded move that may not even manage to carry Wisconsin. Many Republicans now speak as if the cause has already been lost.

Is Romney really such a bonehead? It doesn't seem likely, given his past accomplishments. He probably is every bit the heartless aristocrat as he is being portrayed, but smart politicians spin a smooth image that has public appeal. Why that hasn't been done in this case is the open question. The "secret video" of Romney's callous remarks during an elite fundraiser may not have been an accident, and it seems hard to believe such a thing could surface with perfect timing without powerful help.

As often stated in this blog, it makes little difference which party is in power because the real power is behind the scenes. Every president is assigned a handler and is briefed regularly on what is expected of them. They learn how to follow orders...or else. Romney has surrounded himself with Trilateralists, CFR members and Bilderberger attendees. Although he's an outsider, he apparently realizes how insiders run things and is willing to cut his deal with the Devil.

Nevertheless, the men behind the curtain appear to have decided that Obama is their preferred puppet, so that seems the likely result. The faux partisan debate is meaningless, since the real problems cannot be openly discussed. Republicans call Obama a socialist and claim his policies are bent on "destroying America", but that horse left the barn a long time ago - and probably under a Republican administration.

As meaningless as it might be, my bias favors Democratic party positions on issues that affect the working class. I'll probably enjoy the presidential debates, as Obama the skilled orator takes on the gaffe-prone Romney. Would be entertaining to see a knife get stuck into the premise that the values of a wealthy elitist could possibly be in the interest of the working class. Just remember that at the end of the day, none of it really matters.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Is God a Crutch for the Neurotic?

Having spent many years as a bible-believing, born-again Christian, I know first-hand what I speak of when criticizing the Faith. While not on a crusade to attack anyone’s beliefs, there are instances when certain elements of Christianity stand out as being contrary to the well being of humanity. I comment on issues where I feel that Christian beliefs act as a hindrance to true spirituality and general good common sense.

I recently visited with a friend who had been “brothers in the faith” with me at one time. Though his beliefs had moderated somewhat over the years, he still clings tenaciously to a theistic model of an all-powerful God, creator and sovereign of the universe.

My friend had been suffering through a dark period of anxiety and depression that was severe enough to place him on disability. Of course he has my deepest sympathies and support as a friend, and fortunately his condition has improved somewhat of late.

During this particular visit, my friend made a comment that really caused me to think. He questioned why God had ordained of him to traverse through this difficult and painful path, and he disclosed that he often felt angry at God for this.

Of course, in my previous life as a Christian (and confessed neurotic), I believed that God was in control of everything. Although my particular flavor of theology allowed for limited freewill, I was aware of ongoing debate as to whether freewill was an illusion embedded within the larger context of God’s sovereign will. At that point in my life, my friend’s comment would have made sense, and I often wondered why good people have to suffer if God is in control. I tried blaming suffering on “The Devil” but then that would detract from God’s sovereignty. That particular paradox eventually influenced my exodus from the Christian worldview.

Now I have come to the understanding that the theistic, personal God of religion is fully contrived and projected by humans. This explains why there are so many conflicting beliefs about what God supposedly thinks and commands of His followers. God is painted as humans wish to portray Him, complete with all the emotions and personality foibles that humans suffer from.

My path has brought me to accept the Hermetic view that a single, unitary consciousness pervades all that is. I perceive true spirituality as that which honors the soul as an indivisible piece of the whole. The answers to all of life’s questions can be found by seeking to understand the soul’s purpose for incarnating as flesh.

So what disturbs me to hear my friend express anger at God for his situation? Obviously I don’t believe that God will be offended, so what is it? In essence, blaming God is to place responsibility for your situation upon something that you yourself have created. If the God you have created and projected is the supposed cause of your problems, then how is that not some kind of circular reasoning? People generally are more successful at tackling problems when they feel empowered. How can it help to give your power away?

I asked my friend, “What if you were to discover that the God you worship was created from within your own mind? Who would you be angry at then?”

Although there must be many positive and admirable aspects within Christianity, I continually notice that Christians seem quick to place responsibility onto God whenever difficult issues arise. To the extent that they do this, they fail to take responsibility for themselves. The problem with this is that we are powerful souls, but pretend that we have no power. We project all of our power onto this God essence, and then perhaps draw some of it back when we pray, supplicate and ask for help. Religious icons, such as Jesus, Virgin Mary and various patron saints get charged by the collective soul-energy of the faithful, and they become proven as reliable sources of help when in need. It’s really no wonder how that works.

My entreaty is thus: Why take the roundabout path of shifting responsibility and vesting your power onto the contrived God? Why not stand as the powerful soul that you are, and take responsibility for your own personal reality? Somewhere between your two ears lies the source of all that you experience and perceive in this physical existence. Within there can be found the keys to your successes and failures, the source of both joy and pain.

Your soul came here with specific purpose, and suffering generally results from either resisting that purpose, or failing to understand it. Although there can be a number of underlying root causes for neurotic behavior, one common characteristic is avoidance of responsibility and a system of defensive mechanisms to deal with pain and suffering. The defenses may vary, but it’s my contention that belief in a theistic God can be one more crutch in the defensive arsenal.

This is not to minimize anyone's problems or to suggest that answers should come easy. Life's journey is an ongoing process for all of us. Pain and suffering is a reality for many. I've simply found that it helps to understand the root causes, and discovering my soul's agenda has been a key part of that in my own journey.

It's all about the soul. To the extent that Christianity and other religions inhibit the true expression of who we are as souls, I oppose it. Where dogma takes precedence over open-minded inquiry, spirituality suffers. For those who feel well-served by their religion, so be it, but for those who suffer and haven’t found effective solutions, I suggest exploring the unknown country of the soul. Become aware of who you really are.

P.S. For those interested in pursuing Hermetic concept of God, I highly recommend The God Theory by Bernard Haisch.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

End of The World (As We Know It)

Does Hell break loose on Earth beginning December 21, 2012? Doomsday predictors are beginning to hedge their bets, with some sliding the date ahead into 2013. The Mayan End-Date is barely  3 months away, but by some calculations, the 2012 date is off, having occurred in 1999 or 2008. In any event, the astronomical significance is quite minimal, with any galactic core alignment taking place over many years.

One predictive thread I've been watching with interest is Cliff High's Half Past Human . Using "web bot" algorithms to analyze the words and phrases used in online posts and articles, the theory is that the collective unconscious mind offers clues that predict the near-term future. It's a fascinating concept that draws loosely from the work of Carl Jung, but the track record thus far hasn't been impressive. Cliff has forecasted a number of "turning points" and global meltdown dates that have not yet resulted in significant events. He had one major hit when the fall of Gen. Zia in Pakistan was predicted months in advance, but predicting the future is a dicey affair - you're bound to roll lucky sevens occasionally.

Anyway, Cliff's current focus is on a "global coastal event" that is supposed to occur during the first half of 2013. Whether caused by a meteor, massive cracking in the Pacific crust, or a hitherto unknown phenomenon, the prediction is that it will effectively cull the population by over a billion people. Throw in the effects of a renewed meltdown at Fukushima, and major flaring on the sun, and life will simply not go on as before. Cliff foresees government being rendered irrelevant (and then disapearing), and the few that survive will be reduced to stone-age existence.

The basic premise of looking for information from the subconscious via patterns in word usage is intruiging, but how do we know whether the data is painting images of the future, or simply reflecting the deeply rooted fears that must also inhabit mass consciousness?

Cliff says he met with Courtney Brown and found correlation between Brown's remote viewing experiments and the Web Bot predictions. However, I watched some of Courtney's videos and heard him say that remote viewing is not a reliable method of predicting the future. The FarSight exercises looked at the conditions that will exist in select cities in June 2013, and several divergent pictures emerged. A minority saw evidence of a major global catastrophe that seemed to involve something affecting the coasts, but the remainder saw only minor problems or none at all.

Courtney goes on to explain that due to the phenomenon of multiple timelines, it's quite difficult to predict which timeline one will actually be experiencing. This is exactly the problem, and one that Cliff High would do well to consider. The collective unconscious is aware of every point of data that exists in an Akashic record - like matrix from past to future, but multiple parallel timelines appear to be a fact of life that governs our existence.

Evidence suggests that the human mind can, consciously or unconsciously, select which timeline to experience. Coupled with the apparent recent increase in timeline instability, this could explain many of the anomalous experiences that I've written about here and here.

To sum it up: Things certainly are changing, and the pace of change is accelerating. However, it's difficult to accurately predict through divination where this change will take us. Furthermore, it's my contention that it's up to us to actively select which timeline we will experience in the future.

According to my thesis, timelines are diverging and some major differences are emerging. The differences are becoming pronounced enough to eventually allow for a horrendous hell-on-earth scenario to parallel the Golden Age Nirvana that others foresee.

How do we make the selection? There are mysteries to uncover regarding the subconscious mind, but in general, it appears to be a matter of your vibratory level matching your timeline. I believe there are things we can do to actively select the highest and best outcome. Focusing one's expectations on doom 'n' gloom and various negative thoughts that are pervasive probably biases your chances toward one of the less desirable timelines.

In coming months, we face an election season in which we will be pummeled by an unprecedented degree of divisive vitriol from both sides. Just be aware that neither side is telling the truth and neither side has real answers. You can vote for the apparent lesser of evils, but be aware that this is just a side-show. The real play of events requires full awareness and subtle perception.

Stay tuned!