a93

first, we have this nice backpack comparison pic:

whoops! totally fucking different than the backpacks either of them were wearing:

then, we have some nice photos of the Tsarnaev brothers looking totally innocent at the marathon:

whoops! biggest false flag fuck up ever.

now, as for the lady in the green down jacket, the woman with glasses and a gray jacket, the guy with the blue and black sunglasses, and the woman with the blue poster...what are THEY smiling about???

and here's Tamerlan Tsarnaev:

oh yeah, looks like a total "brainwash your brother into bombing a marathon" type.   Boston Bombing Bros 2013, starring Sacha Baron Cohen.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IemQiJ0QNs

Aunt of the accused thinks it's a set-up...

http://www.infowars.com/father-of-boston-suspects-us-security-services-set-up-my-sons/

Father of the accused thinks it's a set-up, is travelling to America to help with their defense...

https://twitter.com/xXjungaXx/

their friend  thinks it was a set-up, points to the twitter of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev where he says he takes pride in being a lifeguard because he can save lives...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/bomb-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-throat-injury-self-inflicted-article-1.1323323

Dzhokhar shot in the throat - allegedly by himself.  question - assuming he is innocent, how will this affect the public's perception of him during a trial?  answer - it removes the public's ability to sympathize with him.  a young man with a clear concience exonerating himself under cross-examination can destroy an entire case - especially considering that there doesn't appear to be a single shred of evidence tying him to the planting of bombs, the instigation of a shoot-out, the throwing of bombs out of a moving automobile, or the robbing of a 7/11. 

somebody please correct me if i'm wrong here, and there is evidence that either of these two brothers have done anything at all.

in lieu of such evidence, all i can conclude is that this is one more example of the ruling class/government sacrificing innocent people, blaming them for crimes, and then expecting the public to pay them more money for more oppressive crackdowns on society.   in other words, another Timothy McVeigh/Waco (the OLD Waco incident, where the ATF burned all those religious people alive)/Osama Bin Laden staged PR event.

i took a screen-grab of the xXjungaXx twitter right here - it is certainly persuasive.

where's the evidence?

so what evidence do we have that seems to prove SOMEBODY ELSE is guilty?

well, first, here's a detonated backpack:

black body, black strap with white to gray extra fabric stripe, and white stuff coming out of the interior. right?

so, here are the surveillance shots of the brothers:

they don't have that backpack.

who has backpacks resembling that one? well, the guys who were apparently working the event from "Craft International" - the guys dressed in the khaki pants, black jackets, and combat boots, hiding behind the crowd and talking in earpieces - would be some people's first guess:

but we can plainly see their backpacks have fully black straps - which leaves them as candidates for the other explosion, but not the first.

who was holding the backpack that exploded?

THE REALLY SKETCHY LOOKING GUY IN THE BLUE JACKET AND RED SHIRT, WHO'S SEEN HOLDING THE BACKPACK IN FRONT OF HIM.

this is basically slam-dunk evidence.  as you can see from this photo right here ^, he is not only apparently planting the backpack, but even casing the scene.

the entire society is going on a witch hunt.  vulture politicians are already swooping in to try to turn this into a debate on IMMIGRATION:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/21/graham-boston-marathon-bombings-ought-to-prompt-swifter-action-on-immigration-reform/

as if we're going to solve the problem of people violent acting out against society (if they had even done it!) by making society subject to even more crackdowns and misery?

this is pathetic.  our society is driving off of a cliff right now.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/romney-obama-boston-90305.html?ml=la

Mitt Romney: Obama ‘superb’ in Boston

Mitt Romney on Thursday said his former presidential rival gave a “superb” speech at a memorial service honoring the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings.

“I must admit I was also very impressed with the words of the mayor, Mayor Menino, with our governor, Gov. Deval Patrick, and with the president,” Romney said, speaking on CNN’s “The Situation Room” several hours after the interfaith memorial service at which those leaders spoke. “I thought the president gave a superb address to the people of this city and the state and the nation. It was inspiring day.”

every time i think these people couldn't stoop any lower, they do.

as of 2007, 6640 people die every day in the United States.  i stopped keeping track of how many people died in the clearly government-orchestrated Boston Marathon bombings pretty quickly, but i'm pretty sure it didn't exceed twenty.  

the vast majority of people are dying from preventable diseases related to pollution, their diets, and lazy, gluttonous lifestyles - cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc.. - and yet these plagues on our society are only given passing mention by politicians.  Obama leaves the food concerns to his wife, Michelle - i won't call that sexist, per se, as it's more of a PR thing.   she's supposed to be the caring mother figure, while her husband is supposed to be the Brave, Strong, Commander-in-Chief, who is too busy focusing on protecting America from the U.S.S.R. terrorists to think about heart disease and cancer.

so these deaths are blown MASSIVELY out of proportion.  the media reports over and over on these miniscule attacks - about 20 people dead a month, for the last few months (Newtown, Dorner, Oslo, etc.)- and yet barely mentions the 200,000 other people dying every month from preventable diseases and our earth-destroying culture.

and where are Obama, Romney, Deval Patrick, Chris McChristie, and other career manipulators/opportunists politicians  directing their attention?

the same place. violent attacks.  

what is the reason for this?  i offer a simple theory, that's been repeatedly endlessly in the past, although maybe not quite in these words.  the entire reason is to keep everyone afraid.  they want to keep us terrified of each other, so that we don't even think twice about paying them a third of our ~190 million collective paychecks, so that they will keep us safe from each other.  nevermind that the evidence for each of these events clearly shows that they're the perpetrators - as long as people don't investigate them (which now, thankfully, they are), the ripoff keeps working.

the careers of politicians feed on death.  in a society brainwashed into supporting politicians, a politician is the most successful when he/she is able to exploit tragedy to make himself/herself appear like a empathetic and strong human being.  

beneath the smiling photos, the baby-kissing, the campaign promises, the glitter, the confetti, the red, white and blue banners, and the podiums, politicians are only ghouls, whose souls have been shredded so horribly by tragedy that they take the roles of the creator of tragedy - because they think being a lying, war-mongering, death-dealing sellout is the best deal they will get in their lives.

what does Romney have to say about Obama's exploitation of this new suffering that the media is shoving down our throats?

it's "superb".  an "inspiring day".  not sure what's so inspiring about it, but Santa Claus - oh, i mean, excuse me - Mitt Romney - sure seems to get it.

i guess all that petty election business is behind them now.  they can both concentrate on their shared goal - exploiting human death and fear for personal gain.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-5/mitt-romney-smiling.jpg

the FBI "released" (got from a local camera and then put on their website)  photos of two "suspects" (according to them) for the Boston bombing.  

they claim that video exists showing one of these suspects putting down a backpack, but fascinatingly, haven't released that video.  internet experts claim this is an attempt not to bias future juries against the accused, which is 100% consistent with how the FBI released photographs of them (sarcasm alert).

 

meanwhile, sources all over the internet pinned the attacks on these suspects:

who are actually in publicly-available photographs in possession of what strongly resembles the backpacks containing the bombs.

surprisingly, the government seems uninterested in investigating these strong leads, which implicate government-affiliated agents in the attack.

interestingly, the founder of the company these people have been associated with, "Craft International", was murdered two and a half months ago:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/03/eddie-routh-chris-kyle-murder-navy-seal_n_2611117.html

an "Infowars" article posted a few days ago contains photos of additional suspects:

http://www.infowars.com/boston-bombing-culprits-found/

thankfully, orchestrating these false-flag events grows more impossible with each passing year, as cellphone cameras end up in everyone's hands.

compare and contrast two opposed world views, and their associated real-world phenomena:

a) "we are a product of nature and have to conform to its demands"

associated phenomena: anarchoprimitivism, environmentalism, vegetarianism and veganism, minimalist agriculture, permaculture, foraging, nutrition, sustainability, organics, food forests, green construction, etc.

b) "we are mankind, and nature will conform to our demands"

associated phenomena: clear-cutting, urbanization of the planet, unnatural forest fires, mass extinctions, species population distortion, slaughterhouses, animal dehabitation, pollution, oil spills, genetically modified crops, deforestation, soil desertification/demineralization, aquifer depletion, etc.

which idea is more realistic?  what are the positives and negatives of the two ideas?

extra credit questions: which world view is more common in Judeo-Christian cultures?  is there a foundation for that world view in historical texts universal to those cultures?  have beliefs that stemmed from those cultures been exported to other cultures?

i read some really interesting history today - transcripts from the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/10thcong/ch04.htm

The way the enemies of the proletariat take advantage of every deviation from a thoroughly consistent commu- nist line was perhaps most strikingly shown in the case of the Kronstadt mutiny, when the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries and whiteguards in all countries of the world immediately expressed their readiness to accept the slogans of the Soviet system, if only they might thereby secure the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, and when the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries in general resorted in Kronstadt to slogans calling for an insurrection against the Soviet Government of Russia ostensibly in the interest of the Soviet power. These facts fully prove that the whiteguards strive, and are able, to disguise themselves as Communists, and even as the most Left-wing Communists, solely for the purpose of weakening and destroying the bulwark of the proletarian revolution in Russia.

[...]

9 Preliminary Draft Resolution Of 
The Tenth Congress Of The R.C.P. 
On The Syndicalist And Anarchist Deviation In Our Party

1. A syndicalist and anarchist deviation has been definitely revealed in our Party in the past few months. It calls for the most resolute measures of ideological struggle and also for purging the Party and restoring its health.

2. The said deviation is due partly to the influx into the Party of former Mensheviks, and also of workers and peasants who have not yet fully assimilated the communist world outlook. Mainly, however, this deviation is due to the influence exercised upon the proletariat and on the Russian Communist Party by the petty-bourgeois element, which is exceptionally strong in our country, and which inavitably engenders vacillation towards anarchism, particularly at a time when the condition of the masses has greatly deteriorated as a consequence of the crop failure and the devastating effects of war, and when the demobilisation of the army numbering millions sets loose hundreds and hundreds of thousands of peasants and workers unable immediately to find regular means of livelihood.

3. The most theoretically complete and clearly defined expression of this deviation (or : one of the most complete, etc., expressions of this deviation) is the theses and other literary productions of the so-called Workers’ Opposition group. Sufficiently illustrative of this is, for example, the following thesis propounded by this group: “The organisation of the management of the national economy is the function of an All-Russia Congress of Producers organised in industrial unions which shall elect a central body to run the whole of the national economy of the Republic.”

this is a fascinating piece of history.  this represents a point where the now-entrenched Bolshevik Party, of the supposedly worked-controlled economy of Russia, orchestrated a violent wrenching of control away from the proletariat they claimed to represent.  

the Workers' Opposition were actually members of the Communist Party, composed of trade union leaders and administrators of industry.   their demands were that direct representatives chosen by workers should by the ones to manage the economy - that the Communist Party should stop interfering in it.  as the Kronstadt mutinies mentioned earlier in the document make clear, the Soviet economy had entered a state of severe disrepair - this same 10th Congress that had issued this document also implemented a new economic policy, with mild 'liberalization' (relinquishment of government control) of some parts of the economy, in attempt to address how destructive the government's role had become.

these events cut directly to the deception that the Bolsheviks had pulled over the eyes of Russia.  notice how, in the quoted text, Mensheviks, the Kronstadt rebellion, and most insanely, anarcho-syndicalists, are painted as 'petty bourgeoisie', 'whiteguards', and 'counter-revolutionaries'.  Lenin and his writers were performing the classic political move of 'painting the oppressed as the oppressors'.  

in fact, as the educated know (i love saying that), Lenin and his troops had overthrown Tsar Nicholas with arms and money supplied by Wall Street banks:

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

Russia had historically been a major battleground for their power structure, as shown by their attempts through their pawn Napoleon to gain control of Russia a century prior, in the 1812 invasion of Russia by the Napoleonic Empire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#The_Napoleonic_Wars

which had failed in the end, giving way again to the 303-year rule of the Romanov dynasty.  in the end, the Romanov dynasty fell to the Bolshevik revolt, in the name of popular justice against the bourgeoisie (upper class) oppressors.  however, as is so often the case in history, the surface appearance was false.  the 'popular revolt' had been orchestrated by rulers behind the scenes, who simply wished to use popular sentiment to overpower their rivals.  the Romanov regime of Russia gave way to the Rothschild regime of Russia.  people will believe what they will about who was responsible for orchestrating the oppression of the U.S.S.R., but one thing is for absolutely for certain - Lenin and the Bolsheviks never seriously believed that they were using their powers for the good of the people.  they stooped so low as to describe anarcho-syndicalists, people who are for the total democratization of wealth, as puppets of the 'bourgeoisie', a lie that simply cannot have been believed by anyone in political power who spoke it.

and so, at the 10th Congress of the R.C.P., the total lie that the 1917 October Revolution was supposed to supply the citizenry with economic justice was fully revealed - Lenin and his ilk only wished to continue perpetual dictatorship  by themselves, in the name of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.  workers were denied even corruptible representation, and were made - by force - to accept the economic system of the Communist Party.  

this is a crystal-clear depiction of the principle narrative of history - the wants of the ruling class taking precedenec over the wants of the people, and the total lie that nails that injustice in place.

"Doctor Zhivago" (1965): workers march in Stalinist Russia

everyone who spends some time trying to keep an eye on the out-of-control 'government' cult/power structure probably got the usual lump in their throat when they heard about the Boston Marathon bombing.  another pointless bombing at a high-publicity, as-American-as-apple-pie event, killing about 1/100 as many people that die in this 'country' on the average day, with a swift 'JUSTICE WILL BE DELIVARED" response by the Emperor in Chief Commander in Chief?

well, we have some interesting pics over at "Infowars" (NOT my favorite site, by any means, but good content is good content):

http://www.infowars.com/boston-bombing-culprits-found/

having taken a decent preliminary look - it looks like we have the actual culprits.  and boy, do they look like 'government' agents.

as usual, the 'government' kicking the shins of the local mom & pop shops to make them pay up for 'protection'.  looks like they're really getting desperate to scare us back into their arms...

a bank is entrusted to guarantee the security of your deposits, and in some cases, to provide interest on them.  the hypothetical bank doesn't place a condition on this - you put your money into the bank, and you're supposed to be able to get your money back out - no matter what.

however, in our modern society, a person's bank account can be frozen, seized, and redirected by court order.  

what organization has this power, that it shares with no one else?  the 'government' -  whether federal, state, or local.

so in other words, the people that we entrust to handle our money - the 'value-carrying' assets we spend our lives collecting, and wish to guarantee the absolute security of, since they provide our means to survive and live - these banks, credit unions, or any other group that hold our money - they will simply stop agreeing to hold the money we entrust to them, and will simply give it to somebody else - only if that other group says it's mandated by the laws that same group makes.  that is the special arrangement the 'government' has managed to work out with our modern banks.

so banks will guard your assets with the utmost security - unless the people who are, realistically, in charge of the banks' safekeeping of assets, decide to take them.    

you may wish to safeguard your assets from being confiscated for 'taxes', so that they may be spent on war, 'bailouts' of those same banks, corporate subsidies, oppressive 'policing', domestic surveillance, or any of the other million objectionable roles of 'government' - but domestic banks, who came into existence only to safeguard our funds, will simply give up your funds in that event.  they will say, 'sorry, it is mandated by court order that we hand over your funds.'  their organization, in other words, have devised a procedure that means you can't take back what you gave to them for safekeeping.

replace the 'government' with any other group, in the example.  a local pawn shop, a local gas station, a local ice cream store, a local music school.  the local ice cream store ordered the bank to hand over your money to them, and so the bank played along, and the $100,000 you spent your entire life earning is now gone?

that's where we're at today, in our modern, enlightened, just, 'free market' society.  we cannot earn money and even come close to guaranteeing that we get to keep it.  people whose entire profession, historically, has been to keep our money safe for us, will hand our money to somebody else.  

should we accrue unlimited wealth for our personal wants?  of course not.  if we are more than financially secure, and somebody else is in need, it's a moral and social obligation to share our resources with them.  attempting to live life tolerating knowledge of misery elsewhere results either in anguish or maniacal suppression of empathy - that's a simple fact.  it's good for everyone to have a more-or-less equal amount of resources at their disposal, and it's a sign of an enlightened society that people receive what they need, and give what they can.

but this does not excuse this form of 'collusion' between governments and banks.  

even indoctrinated Republicans and Democrats recognize that poor people suffer, and find themselves forced to pay 'government', while richer people safeguard their funds overseas.  'government' simply does not use this power to fix class divisions - the educated know that the government, through its twisted creations of 'property law' and 'corporate law', are, in essence, solely responsible for class division in the world, and all of the suffering that carries with it.  they designed the society.

that's no surprise, really, when you notice that there are billionaires paying 15% capital gains taxes on their income, or even less, while poor people barely have enough money left after taxes to pay their rents/mortgages and utility bills - taking into account sales taxes, income taxes, withholdings, and others, that adds up to over 50% of what they earn.  

but is it really a surprise that there's horribly rich people, and poor people living paycheck-to-paycheck, in this society - where a 'government' will invent 'corporations' into law*, put a fraction of the people of that 'corporation' in charge of determining everyone's payment, and then turn a blind eye to the monstrous fortunes - $1,000,000-$100,000,000 a year - gained by the people in charge, while raiding every place the workers, getting paid $16,000-$60,000 a year, try to stash their money?   

it would seem, in that case, that the rich people in the country wrote all of the laws - and judging by the outcome, where the government has the final say in who owns what, and where some of us (often with government connections) are monstrously rich, while the vast majority are sinking deeper and deeper into poverty - it would seem that they took total advantage of that power.     somehow, the millions of people manipulating the legal control of our society have crafted a country where the vast majority spend their entire lifetimes being ripped off, and a tiny minority is ripping everyone off.  

and if the rich didn't simply run the government - how else could this have happened?

but there's one more big issue - it gets even worse.


as you can see from this graph, the actual base currency in our economy - unadjusted for fractional reserve practices - has skyrocketed in size in the last century.  we see that it hit 100 billion in 1976 - when our population was ~218,035,164.  as of 1998, it was 270,298,524, and the currency in circulation had hit 500 billion.  so the currency increased to 5 times its previous size, while the population had only grown 23.97%!

where did this money enter the economy?  we were not mailed the money, we didn't get the money as oversized tax refunds, or Social Security payments, or anything.  the money entered the economy as under-the-table, unaudited payments made to banks, mutual funds, and other groups that 'invest' in so-called "Treasury bonds" - the "investment" that is profitable because it sucks value out of all of the rest of the money in the economy when the government prints money to back it up.

this practice certainly has extreme potential for insider trading - and predictably, we see a massive consolidation of control in the banking market as a result:

and, as a review of the shareholder lists for any major corporation will show you, these same banks have also managed to include massive corporate ownership into their holding portfolios.

so what is a modern bank in the United States? it is a complex, Frankenstein monster of an institution, which the government uses to micromanage the personal finances of everyone in the economy, and which the ruling class uses to funnel money out of the government, and out of corporations, into their personal accounts and trusts. banks - including investment banks - are the junction where the ruling class destroys the non-ruling class.

* if you don't believe corporate structure is reinforced by 'government' agents, such as police, watch what happens when the workers of a company attempt to take it over without the consent of 'management'.


the myth of efficient and humane 'government'