Pass me a bottle, Mr. Jones

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm excited. My previous blog, about the "outing" of an Obama staffer named Van Jones? Mah man just got his ass fired -- well, you know, in Washington it's called a "voluntary resignation", for the good of the administration, blah blah blah. But -- as the MSNBC thumbnail reads, "What Did Jones Say That Caused Controversy?" In other words, what, exactly, did this guy do to merit instant termination? Was it because he admitted to being, or having been, a communist? Ho hum, as I said before. What else is new? As someone said, communism is "socialism with balls". So one can even grant him grudging respect. So was it because he "disparaged Republicans"? Pardon me while I die laughing. What else do the Democrats spend every waking moment doing? No -- it was clearly because his name appeared on a "truther" petition, i.e. a petition intended to stimulate Congress to investigate a possible government role (even if passive) in 9/11. In other words, a member of the administration -- which means a servant of the Regime -- had his name connected, however tenuously, to an initiative which represented -- horror of horrors! -- skepticism as to the truth of the government's official line on 9/11. And to think the unthinkable! Namely, that the government, or certain elements thereof, knew in advance about the attacks (i.e., the plans if not the exact details) and did nothing to prevent them, because they would provide a "casus belli" for the initiation of a war on Islam, AKA "Operation Iraqi Freedom", and whatever the debacle in Afghanistan is called. Now... this is not to claim, necessarily, that the government committed a "provocateur" stunt, a la the Reichstag fire... only that they knew, or suspected, but did nothing, because preventing a terrorist act was less important than waging a war to the death against terrorism in general... i.e., militant Islam. But this is, guess what, controversial, on the basis of the naive premise that, well, of course, the American government, which represents the American people, would never do anything so dastardly -- after all, aren't the lives of American citizens more important than anything else? To which, all I can say in reply is, "Pearl Harbor", "Vietnam", "Waco", and probably a hundred other cases -- known, suspected, and as yet unknown. It is time to admit that our government has gotten so big, and so distorted and corrupt, that the lives of individual citizens are of no value. The individual is expendable, in other words -- for a thousand different reasons, all of which have to do with the vast distance between the citizen and the ruling elite. It is often complained that our troops are no more than "cannon fodder" -- but the truth is, we are _all_ cannon fodder, when it comes to the games that the powers that be play against one another. Did the lives lost on 9/11 mean anything to the Regime? Yes -- as a casus belli. But nothing more. The individual, under this system, is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Even the Regime is, I suspect, above the interests of any of its members -- even the most elite. Think of it as not unlike the Mafia -- capos come and go, but "cosa nostra" lives on. A sure sign of collectivist elitism is that, ultimately, the individual doesn't matter. Even Joseph Stalin was replaced -- albeit by three men at first, on the premise that no one person could possibly fill the shoes of the great leader. And Hitler would have been replaced as well, if the whole business hadn't come crumbling down. American presidents are replaced -- Lyndon Johnson, who I have called "The Last Tyrant", was replaced by Richard Nixon, who certainly had delusions of grandeur, but in the tyranny department was no match for LBJ. Bill Clinton, "The American Nero", was replaced by the clueless George W. Bush. Yes -- there is something about the grave (either literal or political) that has an "equalizing" tendency. After all, the worse tyrants of all time were still mortal, and thank goodness! Can you imagine if Napoleon was still hanging around?

And the point is -- want to talk about real "hope"? -- Obama will suffer the same fate, as will all of his lackeys and hangers-on. But not before they take a big bite out of the liberties of the American people. Maybe we should be glad that at least one of that crew has fallen by the wayside... except he will be replaced in a few days and life will go on.

But here's what's exciting (to me, at least). I mean, one can rave on, day after day, about this mythical thing called "The Regime" -- you know, the many-headed beast that includes both major parties and the intelligence agencies and the mainstream media, etc. -- but how often does something happen that enables one to say, "Aha!" This, I submit, is one of those rare cases. The dude was fired because he was connected to a "9/11 conspiracy petition". But why should the Democrats, or a Democratic administration, be concerned about that? It was on the Republicans' watch, right? And any revelations about the evil deeds that took place under the Republicans would only make the Democrats stronger, right? So why not keep this guy on the job... and give him a medal besides? Well, it's because 9/11 speculations are strictly prohibited, no matter which party or administration you belong to... and that only works because both parties, and any administration, are working for the same entity... namely The Regime. And The Regime dictates what can and cannot be discussed, or speculated on, by its servants. And 9/11 is in the forbidden zone precisely because the official explanations are so blatantly full of holes. In other words, it has to be an article of faith that the "official version" of 9/11 is unquestioned gospel, the same way the official version of the JFK assassination was unquestioned gospel. See, not everything the Regime does can be done in secret -- once in a while there is a public display. But that display has to be "spun", immediately, by the Regime and its servants, lest the American public grow suspicious. And of course there will always be "nut cases" out there who will question everything, but we can ignore them. It's only when someone like Jones -- an "insider", no less! -- starts questioning, or appears to, the party line, that sterner measures are in order... and that's precisely what we have seen in this case.

And that's why I'm excited. I have another big chunk of evidence that not only is there a Regime, but that it has an agenda, namely suppressing all respectable speculation about 9/11... which, in turn, means that 9/11 is open to all sorts of speculation, because if it weren't, what would all the fuss be about? And, as a kind of bonus, we can now rest assured that the Obama administration is every bit as much a servant of the Regime as the Bush administration was. In other words, "hope" and "change" are for chumps. Now, maybe that makes you feel better in a way, or maybe worse -- or maybe both at once. Just the fact that an Obamaite has been brought to heel in no uncertain terms ought to tell you something -- namely that Obama is not in charge, and his administration is nothing more than a false front. I guess that's good in a way -- but it's also a bit pathetic and depressing. And what's even more pathetic is that he probably doesn't even fully realize it as yet. But if he's half as smart as everyone says he is, he will, eventually...