Skip to main content

naive or paranoid?

I feel the need to expand on this stuff I corralled over at my news place, I suppose because it really highlights the problem of perspective and audience and how truth can seem to change and be relative depending on where you stand and what you know. But in fact truth is a journey and you have to meet people where they're at and hopefully take them along with you for a distance, and then if you're lucky you'll all meet some other people along the way and we will travel together and eventually get there.

So let's talk about Ahmadinejad. How did he achieve power in the first place, and how does he remain there? One might say he's lucky, and that could be a naive way of looking at the situation. Alternatively, one might consider that he has been co-opted into an occult drama as the price of being in power, but that might sound paranoid. And there's always the third way split the difference kind of thinking the truth is somewhere in between, such thinking which always accrues the benefit of the doubt to liars. So I'm gutting that option here. Either Ahmadinejad is exactly who he appears to be, an Iranian leader who somehow has the nerve to challenge Israel at the risk of getting many innocent Iranians killed and triggering WW III, or he has some kind of protection to take these risks, the nature of which remains hidden.

The naive perspective: Ahmadinejad's background doesn't matter:

Gilad Atzmon takes the UK corporate media to task for the debate over Ahmadinejad's roots, noting that this whole debate shifts the discussion away from Ahmadinejad's arguments about Israel, which are solid.
One may wonder how come a Western media outlet happens to selectively engage with issues to do with the racial or ethnic origin of the Iranian president. At the end of the day, digging into peoples ethnic past and family bloodline is not a common practice you expect from the Western press. It is something you tend to leave for racists, Nazis and Rabbis. For one reason or another, no one in the so called free press tried to dwell on the close ties between multi billion swindler Bernie Maddof and his tribe. The Free Press saved itself also from dealing with Wolfowitz’s ethnicity, in spite of the fact that the Zionist war he brought on us has cost 1.5 million lives by now. If you wonder how it is that the Western free media is reverting to ‘pathology’ in order to deal with a Muslim president, the answer is simple not to say trivial:

The so called ‘liberal West’ is yet to find the answers to President Ahmadinejad within the realm of reason. It lacks the argumentative capacity to address Ahmadinejad. Instead, it insists to spin banal racially orientated ideas that cannot hold water, "By making anti-Israeli statements” says The Daily Telegraph, “he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections.” The truth of the matter is clear. Ahmadinejad has already managed to re-direct a floodlight of reasoning and skepticism just to enlighten our darkest corner of hypocrisy. He somehow manages to remind us all what thinking is all about.
Digging into people's ethnic past and family bloodlines is something "you tend to leave for racists, Nazis and rabbis." Ahmadinejad's arguments stand on their own merits, so the discussion over his background serves as a distraction. It doesn't matter.

The paranoid perspective: Ahmadinejad is acting a role in the grand narrative, a role he was groomed for because of his secret background:

Once you progress along the road and understand how Iran fits into the broader narrative, your perspective changes and the question of Ahmadinejad's background definitely matters, and you don't have to be a racist, Nazi or rabbi to think so. From my perspective, Atzmon's statement that the question of bloodlines is something left for racists, Nazis and rabbis is a gatekeeper statement. He is saying: Don't Go There.

But why? That's where the bodies are buried.

I mean, whose job, exactly, is it to watch the racists, Nazis, and rabbis and figure out what they're up to? How is it that the evil always seem to outwit the good? Are good people terminally obtuse? Is there some establishment corner of the world untouched by corruption where people study such things and pronounce their authoritative findings to deliver the world from evil? Academia? The Jesuits? Slick online journals with high overhead and paid writers? Surely you jest. Please tell me where it is. The Political Ponerology manuscript disappeared once into a furnace and once into the Vatican before finally seeing the light of day decades later.

The knowledge of how to practice mass evil has been jealously guarded by powerful people, because they're the ones who benefit from the knowledge and they must keep it secret.

As far as I've learned so far, every organization with any prestige whatsoever has the taint of insidious, hidden corruption. You can get bits and pieces of truth here and there, but good luck cobbling something coherent together from anyplace establishment. The thankless job of uncovering the truth has been left to a handful of unknown volunteers with no prestige who are roundly dismissed and derided as wacky conspiracy theorists but who thankfully don't care. And those people know that bloodlines matter to the people who rule nations. Is that racist? Yes it certainly is. That's why people should know, because they would be appalled and outraged. And that's why the information remains hidden, and that's why it's not helpful for established anti-establishment people to say Don't Go There.

But anyway, I'll give Atzmon the benefit of the doubt and agree that people who are just now realizing, for instance, that Israel is a rogue criminal state with a hidden agenda are prone to confusion, and maybe we shouldn't overtax them at this juncture. It would be great if they could wrap their minds around some basics:
It is pretty much impossible to deny the fact that Ahmadinejad’s take on the holocaust and Israel is coherent, consistent and valid. He seems to have three main issues with the narrative:

1. Around sixty Million died in WWII, the vast majority of them were innocent civilians. How is it, asks Ahmadinejad, that we insist to concentrate on the particularity of the suffering of one ‘very’ specific group of people i.e. the Jews?

2. The Iranian president rightly maintains that this historical chapter must be historically examined. This would mean as well that every event in the past should be subject to scrutiny, elaboration and revision. “If we allow ourselves to question God and the Prophets, we may as well allow ourselves to question the holocaust.”

3. Regardless of the truthfulness of the holocaust, it is not a trivial fact that the suffering of the Jews in Europe had nothing to do with the Palestinian people. Hence, there is no reason for the Palestinians to pay for crimes committed by others. If some Western Leaders feel guilty for crimes committed against the Jews by their ancestors, which they seem to claim, they better allocate some land for the Jews within their territories rather than expect the Palestinians to keep upholding the Zionist murderous burden.

As much as it is obviously clear that the above points raised by Ahmadinejad are totally valid, it is also painfully transparent that the West lacks the means to address those issues. Instead we seem to revert to supremacy and pseudo scientific discourse dwelling on blood, pathology and lame psychoanalysis.
For the extra-curious: Hmm, WHY DOES "The West" lack the means to address those issues? How has this happened? What is the explanation for such massive obtuseness?

Well, you know, in order to answer those questions you have to look into Conspiracy Facts like who owns the media, who owns money, who owns the politicians, who directs the NGOs and think tanks and medicine and the food supply and education and entertainment, and what goes into these things and what comes out of them. And the next thing you know you're talking about a surprisingly small group of people who travel in certain circles and have their hands in seemingly everything: the Illuminati and their bloodlines. But be advised, attempting to follow this fascinating train-wreck might cause you to "revert to supremacy and pseudo scientific discourse dwelling on blood, pathology and lame psychoanalysis." Oh well. We work with what we have. Truth seekers are nothing if not scrappy, especially since the "professionals" refuse to touch this stuff with a nine foot pole with a ten foot handle, because let's face it, they might offend someone and lose their cushy jobs.

So Israel loves to hate Ahmadinejad. He is a tool. But is he a tool wittingly or unwittingly? THAT is the question.

When you realize that world leaders are being directed as actors on a stage, executing a grand agenda spread out over generations, you can not simply dismiss the importance of knowing about things like bloodlines. The fact that it *shouldn't* matter to normal thinking people is beside the point! It *DOES* matter to the people calling the shots.

As for gate-keeping, people who fear the truth have something to hide. What is the danger for normal people to research and question the relationships of people in power? If you're not a racist, finding out that other people *are* racists will not turn you into a racist. If you're not a liar, finding out that other people *are* liars will not make you a liar. The truth poses no danger except to those in power. The truth is simply the truth.


Greg Bacon said…
After his last performance at the UN, IMO, Ahmadinejad is a Zionist shill.

He could've used his 15 minutes to speak for those who have no voice, Palestinians and showed graphic pics of what the Israeli Death Machine did in 2008 and 2009.

Instead he choose to blabber about the holocaust and give the Zionist MSM the sound bites it needed to portray Israel as being set upon by ME madmen.

Which they did and by doing so, Ahmadinejad helped bury the Goldstone report.
A. Peasant said…
yeah. i have to say i lean that way too.