Who Do We Save?

judykott · 01-24-2009, 06:23 PM

http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm

Who Do We Save?

There's a most excellent blog in Iceland worth reading now and then as that country is among the first to experience the modern-day analog to the financial implosion that swept Argentina a few years back. This morning's post, which harks back to the Jeffersonian quote "When government fears the people there is Liberty as it headlines "Fear the People yet?"

Iceland is a perfect example of 'country-jacking' by that amorphous stew we call "corpgov" or the "PowersThatBe". A key quote from the "Fear the People yet?" post today puts this week's rioting there in stark relief:

"That’s what triggered the events of Tuesday and Wednesday. If you remember a few months back the people of Iceland demanded the government hold elections as they had lost all faith in the politicians’ ability to run the country—what with their gross neglect of enforcing sound fiscal policies like that of Liechtenstein, for example, (another very small country with exceptional wealth).

Another factor being that the last poll revealed an overwhelming margin of the Icelandic people calling for a referendum on EU membership but the government sat on their hands each afraid to take responsibility or even push forth any action.

What did the government say when the Icelandic people demanded change? They said, “Thanks but no thanks, we just can’t fit it into our schedule.” An election is costly and time consuming, let’s not bother (not in those words exactly but you get my drift).

I wondered how on earth the government got away with saying something like this to the people they are meant to serve and then a quote by Thomas Jefferson flooded my mind:

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

What to do with Iceland is a thorny global problem: Obviously, something has fun off the rails of globalist control, but there's no convenient scapegoat like "terrorism" to hang it on, save the flimsiest of excuses that narco dollars might have flowed through their banks, but we know that's a sham because drug money flows through virtually all banks - it's just a matter of what stage along the laundering process you want to measure things.

Because folks in the UK had accounts there, we saw references to 'terrorism', but some mostly good natured Icelanders ain't an easy sell, even to dumbed down Western corpmedia which we call the MSM.

Yet there sits Iceland, more of less ready for the taking, and in a worst-case outcome, Iceland could become a leader of a Different World Order - one that doesn't succumb to the will of the international elites.

Obviously, if Iceland had more than good humans and a bit of geothermal, we'd have invaded with purple finger dye at the ready - forcing elections and leveling whatever seemed offensive. But, since they don't have oil in sufficient quantities, who'd give a damn about invading and securing their freedom?

Can you picture the marketing problems Iceland is causing the globalist PTB's? It's one thing to point to a country with only a handful of Christians and a ****-load of oil and make the case for invasion to right-wing America. That's a pretty straightforward exercise, helped along by 'terrorism'.

But, how does the PTB argue use of international forces against a country which the CIA World Fact Book reminds us is 82% Lutheran and 70% of its economy is based on their fishing industry? Crusades against Lutheran fish & chips types? I don't think so.

Oh sure, at some point, Iceland will be cast as some kind of rogue nation. Like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, can't have too many threats popping up questioning the Western Consumerist paradigm. Bad juju there, especially if visions of villagers with torches, pitchforks, and ropes, means anything.

The article in the Australian that begins "ICELAND has no army, no navy and no air force -- but it does have riot police." reminds me of one of those Axiom's of Ure, #413 I think it is: "When there's more authority power devoted to controlling people in a country than keeping people out, odds are good it's a dictatorship of some form and you don't want to be there..."

---

Not that Iceland is alone, of course. In the Middle East, we read earlier this month how "Indians flee Dubai as dreams crash..."

It's likely all part of the New Diaspora, where people are starting to get up and move around the planet for economic & survival reasons, more so that economic advancement and upward mobility reasons. A subtle shift, but it's already evident as reports are starting to circulate that Mexican workers in the USS are starting to return to their home country - which certainly holds the potential to ratchet up tensions there by late summer as social demands would be pressuring up.

I suggested to a friend in Mexico he consider stability of his country, but he made the most excellent point that it's where his whole family is - so what's he to do? We're all in that boat, it seems.

Perhaps it's the prospect of something contentious along the US southern tier that is behind the "Mysterious Prison Buses in the Desert" in the Tucson area. Or, as the article asks "Prison buses are driving around empty in the Tucson area. Are Wackenhut and the DHS preparing for civil unrest? " Maybe they are, but which side of the border?

---

This developing global context/Diaspora/economic chaos has important implications for America.

As the Second Depression grinds up what's left of the economy, headlines like "Welfare cuts expected to be deep" are only the leading edge of what I expect will become a tumultuous roar from the masses over these next couple of years. Which brings into focus what solutions are being proposed now to deal with the developing/deepening crisis as the year goes on.

Perhaps the most curious video on YouTube is Obama economic advisor Robert Reich is seen responding to the evolving economic crisis in America by saying in part:

"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that those jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to WHITE MALE construction workers..."

How about just hiring the best workers and skip setting up any kind of 'reverse discrimination program' - which is what seems to be implied"

A sort of soft discrimination is what I think I'm hearing off in the background of his comments, but as a life-long advocate of equality anything other than equal opportunity are worrisome at their core.

My best read is that equality means everybody starts from the same starting blocks: It doesn't mean some of the fastest runners are hobbled so those behind can catch overtake them. Where's excellence and incentive in that?

---

Ah, we're not going to solve that one this morning. Besides, Obama's 'test' is due any time now.

About the best I can offer is looking forward to the coming 'test' of the new president - and while I've been waiting for a 'ship grounding' to set things off, a reader in the UK sent this:

"Whats in a word - is a ship laid up at anchor in a deep water estuary grounded? If it is then stop looking. The Maritime Insurance section at Lloyds of London are reporting that over 250 vessels worldwide are already being laid up in deep water anchors everywhere and the number continues to rise every day. Not at the worst of times in the modern recessions that predate this emergency were even a fraction of this number laid up. World transport and trade are collapsing visibly as backwaters with deepwater channels suddenly become home to unwanted ships. Source UK news late on 22.01.09 - can't recall which channel. "

Linguistically, it's a close fit, since a ship being 'aground' is very close (at the archetype level) to being 'grounded'. In fact, the collection of anchors, rode, chafing gear and such that holds a ship at anchor is called "ground tackle". No, I don't expect you to be a rode scholar on Saturday morning, but a prerequisite for being a linguistics jock to know such things.

---

So, there we have it - a sort of Saturday morning "That's how the global golf ball landed for the week." We tee off again Monday morning. Hand me my 2-iron?

Oh, should I mention gold was up almost $42 on Friday as the Obama folks are trying to pull another $825-billion off the printing presses, which will continue to water down your paper assets?

No, that'd be rude. Mention almost $89 bucks for the week? Who me, say "Told you it would happen!"...naw...

But what's come into focus as I watch events of Iceland, the eastern European hot spots, Greece, and so on is this: When the question comes up about needing to 'save' some next country from imploding under the weight of financial delusions and the inability to understand that interest can't compound forever, (or simply because they have some cheap resource we can't do without) the answer to the "Who do we Save?" question is becoming starkly clear:

We'll be doing very well to just save ourselves.

Trans-What-ency?

"Clinton Foundation's secret donor" identity is not being revealed. Quick! Look surprised.

01-24-2009, 06:23 PM	#1
judykott Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Calgary, Canada Posts: 711	Who Do We Save? http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm Who Do We Save? There's a most excellent blog in Iceland worth reading now and then as that country is among the first to experience the modern-day analog to the financial implosion that swept Argentina a few years back. This morning's post, which harks back to the Jeffersonian quote "When government fears the people there is Liberty as it headlines "Fear the People yet?" Iceland is a perfect example of 'country-jacking' by that amorphous stew we call "corpgov" or the "PowersThatBe". A key quote from the "Fear the People yet?" post today puts this week's rioting there in stark relief: "That’s what triggered the events of Tuesday and Wednesday. If you remember a few months back the people of Iceland demanded the government hold elections as they had lost all faith in the politicians’ ability to run the country—what with their gross neglect of enforcing sound fiscal policies like that of Liechtenstein, for example, (another very small country with exceptional wealth). Another factor being that the last poll revealed an overwhelming margin of the Icelandic people calling for a referendum on EU membership but the government sat on their hands each afraid to take responsibility or even push forth any action. What did the government say when the Icelandic people demanded change? They said, “Thanks but no thanks, we just can’t fit it into our schedule.” An election is costly and time consuming, let’s not bother (not in those words exactly but you get my drift). I wondered how on earth the government got away with saying something like this to the people they are meant to serve and then a quote by Thomas Jefferson flooded my mind: “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” What to do with Iceland is a thorny global problem: Obviously, something has fun off the rails of globalist control, but there's no convenient scapegoat like "terrorism" to hang it on, save the flimsiest of excuses that narco dollars might have flowed through their banks, but we know that's a sham because drug money flows through virtually all banks - it's just a matter of what stage along the laundering process you want to measure things. Because folks in the UK had accounts there, we saw references to 'terrorism', but some mostly good natured Icelanders ain't an easy sell, even to dumbed down Western corpmedia which we call the MSM. Yet there sits Iceland, more of less ready for the taking, and in a worst-case outcome, Iceland could become a leader of a Different World Order - one that doesn't succumb to the will of the international elites. Obviously, if Iceland had more than good humans and a bit of geothermal, we'd have invaded with purple finger dye at the ready - forcing elections and leveling whatever seemed offensive. But, since they don't have oil in sufficient quantities, who'd give a damn about invading and securing their freedom? Can you picture the marketing problems Iceland is causing the globalist PTB's? It's one thing to point to a country with only a handful of Christians and a ****-load of oil and make the case for invasion to right-wing America. That's a pretty straightforward exercise, helped along by 'terrorism'. But, how does the PTB argue use of international forces against a country which the CIA World Fact Book reminds us is 82% Lutheran and 70% of its economy is based on their fishing industry? Crusades against Lutheran fish & chips types? I don't think so. Oh sure, at some point, Iceland will be cast as some kind of rogue nation. Like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, can't have too many threats popping up questioning the Western Consumerist paradigm. Bad juju there, especially if visions of villagers with torches, pitchforks, and ropes, means anything. The article in the Australian that begins "ICELAND has no army, no navy and no air force -- but it does have riot police." reminds me of one of those Axiom's of Ure, #413 I think it is: "When there's more authority power devoted to controlling people in a country than keeping people out, odds are good it's a dictatorship of some form and you don't want to be there..." --- Not that Iceland is alone, of course. In the Middle East, we read earlier this month how "Indians flee Dubai as dreams crash..." It's likely all part of the New Diaspora, where people are starting to get up and move around the planet for economic & survival reasons, more so that economic advancement and upward mobility reasons. A subtle shift, but it's already evident as reports are starting to circulate that Mexican workers in the USS are starting to return to their home country - which certainly holds the potential to ratchet up tensions there by late summer as social demands would be pressuring up. I suggested to a friend in Mexico he consider stability of his country, but he made the most excellent point that it's where his whole family is - so what's he to do? We're all in that boat, it seems. Perhaps it's the prospect of something contentious along the US southern tier that is behind the "Mysterious Prison Buses in the Desert" in the Tucson area. Or, as the article asks "Prison buses are driving around empty in the Tucson area. Are Wackenhut and the DHS preparing for civil unrest? " Maybe they are, but which side of the border? --- This developing global context/Diaspora/economic chaos has important implications for America. As the Second Depression grinds up what's left of the economy, headlines like "Welfare cuts expected to be deep" are only the leading edge of what I expect will become a tumultuous roar from the masses over these next couple of years. Which brings into focus what solutions are being proposed now to deal with the developing/deepening crisis as the year goes on. Perhaps the most curious video on YouTube is Obama economic advisor Robert Reich is seen responding to the evolving economic crisis in America by saying in part: "I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that those jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to WHITE MALE construction workers..." How about just hiring the best workers and skip setting up any kind of 'reverse discrimination program' - which is what seems to be implied" A sort of soft discrimination is what I think I'm hearing off in the background of his comments, but as a life-long advocate of equality anything other than equal opportunity are worrisome at their core. My best read is that equality means everybody starts from the same starting blocks: It doesn't mean some of the fastest runners are hobbled so those behind can catch overtake them. Where's excellence and incentive in that? --- Ah, we're not going to solve that one this morning. Besides, Obama's 'test' is due any time now. About the best I can offer is looking forward to the coming 'test' of the new president - and while I've been waiting for a 'ship grounding' to set things off, a reader in the UK sent this: "Whats in a word - is a ship laid up at anchor in a deep water estuary grounded? If it is then stop looking. The Maritime Insurance section at Lloyds of London are reporting that over 250 vessels worldwide are already being laid up in deep water anchors everywhere and the number continues to rise every day. Not at the worst of times in the modern recessions that predate this emergency were even a fraction of this number laid up. World transport and trade are collapsing visibly as backwaters with deepwater channels suddenly become home to unwanted ships. Source UK news late on 22.01.09 - can't recall which channel. " Linguistically, it's a close fit, since a ship being 'aground' is very close (at the archetype level) to being 'grounded'. In fact, the collection of anchors, rode, chafing gear and such that holds a ship at anchor is called "ground tackle". No, I don't expect you to be a rode scholar on Saturday morning, but a prerequisite for being a linguistics jock to know such things. --- So, there we have it - a sort of Saturday morning "That's how the global golf ball landed for the week." We tee off again Monday morning. Hand me my 2-iron? Oh, should I mention gold was up almost $42 on Friday as the Obama folks are trying to pull another $825-billion off the printing presses, which will continue to water down your paper assets? No, that'd be rude. Mention almost $89 bucks for the week? Who me, say "Told you it would happen!"...naw... But what's come into focus as I watch events of Iceland, the eastern European hot spots, Greece, and so on is this: When the question comes up about needing to 'save' some next country from imploding under the weight of financial delusions and the inability to understand that interest can't compound forever, (or simply because they have some cheap resource we can't do without) the answer to the "Who do we Save?" question is becoming starkly clear: We'll be doing very well to just save ourselves. Trans-What-ency? "Clinton Foundation's secret donor" identity is not being revealed. Quick! Look surprised.