The Election Hoax
Numbing the Masses to the Real Issues
By Jack Allis
In this writer’s humble opinion, by the time you read this, John Kerry will be president of the United States. If I’m wrong, and “W” still sits on the throne, read on because it doesn’t make any difference anyway, and this is an important feature of what’s going to be discussed here. My belief in Kerry’s election can be summed up in one word: pedigree. The behind-the-scenes powers that control the world aren’t going to select a candidate with such a bloodline, Eastern Establishment, married into the Heinz fortune, Skull and Bones, etc., unless he was meant to win. But then again, appearances not withstanding, “W” has pretty fine genes too. But his dad only stuck around for one term, and lost to a guy with inferior lineage, so we’ll see.
Be that as it may, there is one thing that can be predicted with absolute certainty, regardless of who’s wearing the crown: nothing of substance will change. Bush and Kerry are the same person, just different sides of the same coin. The War in Iraq will continue, perhaps with a different guise, the deficit will grow, the government will demand more and more of our money, the dollar will continue to plummet, and the American consumer will continue to buy stuff they don’t need, with money they don’t have, until the golden goose stops laying it eggs. As far as the true agenda is concerned, the two major parties are indistinguishable, standing for precisely the same thing: a big brother government that assumes the responsibility of running every aspect of our lives because, from its elitist perch, it sees us as too helpless and stupid to do it ourselves, and ultimately, merging itself into the monolith of the emerging world government or New World Order that is taking shape around us.
The presidential election is the grandest of hoaxes. The campaign is a twelve-month show for the purpose of the ongoing process of dumbing down the masses, and distracting the people from the real issues in our world. It’s just another Super Bowl, another fireworks display, another video game. For if the people ever woke up from their slumber to what’s really going on in the world, and the real issues that are camouflaged behind this extravaganza, and what their leaders truly had in store for them, there would be Hades to pay. With their eyes opened, people wouldn’t stand for it, and the current system would be quickly and effortlessly transformed. But as long as the herd remains in its snooze, things are just fine the way they are. “Hand me the remote, dear. Law & Order’s on.”
So, let’s take a look at the major issue of the campaign: the War on Terror. And let’s look at it both from the point of view of what the presidential candidates talked about, as well as what they chose not to talk about, but which we know for a fact to be true. This means opening our eyes to realities that are staring us starkly in the face, but which the benumbed herd chooses not to see because they are told something different on their televisions, in their morning paper, and by the candidates.
President Bush declared the War on Terror in response to the events of 9/11. The mainstream version of 9/11 is that a group of approximately 20-members of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida Terrorist Network hijacked four-jets, crashing two of them into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon, and one accidentally in a field in Pennsylvania, in a suicide attack on the United States. Within hours, bin Laden was convicted of this act of war in the court of the media, in spite of the fact that there was not a shred of tangible evidence against him, nor has any been produced in the time since. From the start, it has always been purely circumstantial. He’s a bad guy, with a turban, and he’s done bad things in the past, and we don’t like him. Therefore, he must have done it. There has never been a true investigation, as is required in a criminal case. Why? Because just like with Lee Harvey Oswald, they already had their patsy… err, man.
Our Presidential candidates are in total agreement that the War on Terror is the proper course, and that bin Laden and al-Qaida are the culprits. However, the mainstream version of 9/11 is so full of holes that it quickly crumbles and blows away like dust in the wind when placed under the scrutiny of a true investigation of the facts. It is not my intention here to go down the list of all these smoking guns, but suffice it to say there is a virtual mountain of evidence to support the fact that the mainstream version of 9/11 just doesn’t hold together. Numerous books have been written by some very credible folks, and there are scads of websites dealing with this single issue alone. If you want references, send me an email, and I’ll send them to you.
What I do want to highlight, and what’s most significant here, is that none of this information ever sees the light of day in the mainstream media, and Kerry, in his critique of Bush’s policies, makes no mention of any of it. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was the closest thing to a mainstream exposure, and just look at the public outcry that created, at least briefly. The only tidbit of contrarian information that found its way into the mainstream was the suggestion that high officials in the Bush Administration and the intelligence agencies had forewarning of the attacks, and did nothing to prevent them. This, then, was talked away, and attributed to bumbling, misinformation and poor communication. The notion of the CIA and the FBI as bumbling and inefficient, and in need of more public funding, is so preposterous that my eyes practically roll out of their sockets at the thought. These cold-blooded agencies are highly calculating and efficient in pursuit of their carefully orchestrated designs. If “W” was given bad information, it was for a reason.
Furthermore, there is an abundance of information to indicate that the Bush Administration, as well as the higher powers that are pulling his strings behind the scenes, not only had foreknowledge of the attacks, but also were complicit in orchestrating them, just as was done with Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Lusitania, leading to the U.S.’s involvement in the two major wars this Century that changed the face of the planet. Read on to see why. It all boils down to the same thing.
But one thing at a time. We have now arrived at the next stage in the War on Terror. After the half-hearted foray into Afghanistan, the Bush Administration launched its signature piece: the War in Iraq. The justifications for this have shifted more than the leaves blowing around on this fine autumn day in Wisconsin. It started as a necessary step to remove weapons of mass destruction. Soon it was clear there were none, so the shift was to removing the global menace, Saddam Hussein, from power. With that done, it shifted to the crusade to set the people of Iraq free. “W” now states that spreading democracy around the world is the surest means to fight terror, which is a far cry from removing WMD’s, and which also begs the frightening question: Who’s next in this crusade? One thing is for certain, at least in the Bush mentality (a scary place for sure): the War in Iraq is an integral piece of the War on Terror, even though it is now common knowledge that there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11 or al-Qaida.
Don’t you agree that the credibility of all this is stretching to the breaking point? Me too. So, what’s really going on here? What’s the true purpose of the War in Iraq? The most commonly cited theory has to do with gaining easier access to the oil fields of Middle East, at a time when there is compelling evidence that the supply of oil will soon run out. Another maintains that it is to gain a strategic military position in the Middle East, other than Israel, which would be fraught with too many political complications. This strategic position could serve several purposes: one being oil, and another being to be in better position to deal with any renegade Middle Eastern states, such as Iran, or other Middle Eastern Crises, such as the impending revolution in Saudi Arabia. Yet another theory for this war is that 9/11 was a set up, designed specifically for Bush by our friends, the global string pullers, in order to manipulate him into attacking Iraq, which they knew he was just itching to do anyway. This would embroil the U.S. in a Vietnam-like war that it could not possibly win, draining its finances and resources, and damaging its credibility and reputation around the world, which is exactly what the string pullers want. A weaker U.S. is far less likely to stand alone, and resist their prize jewel, the emerging world government, known as the New World Order.
Here too though, the real answer is not so complicated. If fact, it’s quite obvious, and as soon as you see it, it becomes a continuous slap in the face. Once you accept certain premises of how the world really works, behind the scenes, and has for thousands of years, it ultimately can always be traced back to the same thing, just as with the façade of the Presidential elections. The real purpose of 9/11, the War in Iraq and the War on Terrorism is the same as why there was a Cold War for over 50-years, which then disappeared, practically overnight. It’s to create a boogieman, which will cause the people of America and the world to live in a state of constant fear. This way they are easier to manipulate. It’s a time-honored tactic. Bush and al-Qaida are no different from Hitler and the Jews, and countless other examples throughout history. When people live in fear of a ubiquitous enemy, they are far more willing to give up their rights and freedom in return for the protection they’ve been brainwashed to believe they need, and to get in line for the global police state, which continues to rear its ugly head as we look at what’s going on around us.
Once you factor the New World Order into the equation, the whole crazy world is a lot easier to understand. And here again, John Kerry comes in very handy to the behind-the-scenes string pullers. Kerry and Bush agree on virtually all the major premises of the War on Terror, and specifically the War in Iraq. Kerry goes through the motions of his critique, but never comes close to proposing that the U.S. do the one right and proper thing: an immediate end to the War, and begging the forgiveness of the people of Iraq for this horrific “misjudgment.” The only difference between Kerry and Bush on the War is a difference in tactics that might seem slight at first glance, but which is quite significant when you probe deeper. Kerry talks about taking a more multilateral approach, with more of an emphasis on working with our alliances. This translates into the use of such international organizations as the UN and NATO, which are fronts for the New World Order. When these types of organizations gain a foothold in these international “peacekeeping” operations, it greatly expands their sphere of influence, and is another step forward in the exorable march of the New World Order.
So, Bush is the patsy who sets it all up, and Kerry is the patsy who is put into position to move the next piece. If not Kerry now, it’ll be somebody else later. It doesn’t make any difference. Four more years of George Bush won’t change anything either. The agenda moves forward, as the people slumber.