Paris and the ‘Illuminati’, the Death of a King, the Imprisoned Princesses, the State of the Union Address & How SARAH PALIN Wants to Impeach Obama & Rewrite the Constitution…

Posted: February 7, 2015 in (Politics) CURRENT AFFAIRS, This Week's News (From a Certain Point of View)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

So who noticed this curious footage of French President Francois Hollande addressing the nation after the Paris attacks?
On the 9th January – a day after the end of the Paris sieges – Hollande gave a live speech on national television about the terror attacks. During his speech he appears to have said the magic word; that “the illuminati are behind the Paris attacks”.

Arguments have ensued in various forums concerning his words; ‘Illumines’, a number of French-speaking people explain, means ‘crazy’ or ‘fanatic’ and not  Illuminati.  I’ve been told that from French to English, illuminé is translated to mean ‘illuminated’. Two possible definitions: the first could mean someone who is a crazy fanatic. This would be the obvious translation, but then right after the president says “ces illuminés” he also says “ces fanatiques”, meaning “these fanatics”; which raises the question of why he’d use two different terms consecutively to describe the same thing. However, the fact is that a lot of people have that manner of talking, with repetition or rephrasing designed to emphasise a point; so this element can’t really be taken as proof of a deliberate reference to a broader conspiracy.

I asked a reliable new friend of this blog who lives in France about the matter and she (who goes by the name ‘Intellecteur’), explains it thusly: “About François Hollande’s video, he clearly says that in the way of “crazy fanatics people”, the word “illuminé” is supposed to describe someone with really, really weird thoughts, who claims to have a superior knowledge of the truth, someone like you could only find in a mental hospital.”

Which probably settles the matter. But it is perfectly understandable why that apparent choice of words would spark a response (particularly among the legions of on-line ‘Illuminati watchers’), given a context (the Paris attacks) in which the very thing he is talking about has already been convincingly exposed as a staged terror event. When a world leader is talking about martial law (in all but name) being declared and armed soldiers being deployed into the streets and with people being arrested all over the place simply for comments made on social media platforms… and then he also appears to use the term ‘Illuminati’, it’s difficult not to be highly suspicious.

Highly suspicious is all we can be, unfortunately; with Belgium having followed France’s martial law example and with seemingly all Western, democratic governments apparently trying to push through mass surveillance and enhanced police powers, we appear to be being marched into a dystopian age that has been orchestrated at great length. What is presently happening in France, especially involving the mass arrests of innocent citizens merely for ‘comments’ and possible ‘opinions’  (here’s an example, brought to my attention by the same ‘Intellecteur’), may be merely a staging ground: this same state-strategy for legally-enforced thought-policing, information control and silencing any views that threaten the establishment agenda might be extended into other countries too, which would be why our governments are pushing their own surveillance agendas.


For the most part, no high-profile political figure in Western governments is going to openly say or suggest certain things even if they want to; they might therefore be forced to make veiled references or allusions instead (which could *still* be what Hollande might’ve been doing; though probably not). The alternative is to be totally blunt and make something like the famous John F. Kennedy speech warning about the rise of secret societies, with his assassination following shortly after, or British MP Robin Cook being found dead after revealing that “Al-Qaeda doesn’t exist”.

Elsewhere, the death of Saudi King Abdullah prompted an outpouring of tributes and statements of respect from various world leaders and political figures, giving us a new opportunity to witness the hypocrisy of most our leaders and to observe the power dynamics at work in international relations. . It also prompted a flood of uncomfortable (or scathing, in many cases) reactions from ordinary people, journalists and campaigners who saw the enormous levels of hypocrisy at work in this perceived celebration of a totalitarian monarch and regime that permanently suppresses its population, has one of the worst human rights records, and has no regard for the idea of freedom of speech (though neither do the French anymore, apparently). Most of all – and seldom mentioned in corporate media or journalism – it is the nation from which extremist Islamist ideologies most flow out from and can be regarded as the ideological *source* of the various toxic tributaries that flow out across the Islamic world, inspiring sectarianism, intolerance and extremism.

The flag flying at half-mast over Westminster in honour of the deceased king understandably prompted scorn and objection from numerous people up and down the length of the UK; the way so many international figures from supposedly ‘democracy promoting’ countries responded to the royal passing, you’d have thought the Emperor Augustus had just died.

By the way, for ‘promoting democracy’, read destroying Libya, destroying Iraq and arming Ukrainian fascists to spark a war with Russia. This selectiveness when it comes to condemning undemocratic regimes and trying to “promote democracy” has been evident for a long time of course, simply reinforcing the view that these ideals really only ever go hand-in-hand with military or corporate interests. A case in point: I remember when Muammar Gaddafi died his brutal death, there was no one in Western, democratic governments even hinting at any of the good Gaddafi genuinely accomplished in his country, let alone mourning or paying tribute. On the contrary, some of our highest-profile politicians were practically jumping for joy and high-fiving each other, particularly Hilary Clinton. But for the Saudi monarch, whose society makes Gaddafi’s Libya look like a beacon of tolerance, we have world Western leaders and royals practically barging each other out of the way to be first in line to pay respect.


Aside from the issues of the totalitarian state the Saudi rulers keep their subjects in, a more personal story that has been receiving little coverage in the mainstream media over the years is the alleged imprisoning of the Saudi princesses, completely cut off from the outside world. Princess Alanoud Al Fayez maintains that her four daughters – Princesses Sahar, Hala, Maha and Jawaher – have been subject to years of abuse and are effectively held under permanent house arrest. There is no outrage over this, of course; not a peep out of any of our leaders – it doesn’t fit the narrative. Besides, our leaders are far too busy attacking Vladimir Putin for a conflict he didn’t start or Bashar Assad for trying to rescue his country from terrorists.

Elsewhere, Barak Obama’s recent State of the Union Address predictably came under a lot of fire from his critics and enemies in the US, which are legion; to be honest though, Obama could announce world peace, an end to poverty, an end to hunger and free doughnuts for everyone and he’d still be hated by so many in the US.

The amount of bile and hatred towards him has been extraordinary from the very beginning of his presidency; I’m not sure there’s been any US President in modern times that has attracted so much hatred and so much opposition (merely for opposition’s sake, in the case of Republican Congress) and sabotage from within Capitol Hill. George W. Bush came into office only after a highly controversial election that was of questionable legitimacy (the video below has ex-President Jimmy Carter touching upon that point) and then his administration took America into an illegal war based on proven lies and created an apocalypse in Iraq and the Middle East, while at the same time doing practically nothing for US citizens in America: yet he faced nothing like the level of opposition that Obama has faced. It’s frankly a miracle that Obama has managed to accomplish anything at all while in office, though now widely regarded as a ‘lame duck’ President for what remains of his presidency.

There isn’t much to be made of the State of the Union Address itself, as these occasions are essentially little more than propaganda reinforcement platforms, but what Obama demonstrated not for the first time is his great power as an orator. When all is said and done and his presidency passes into history, Obama should surely be remembered as one of the great orators (and not, as numerous people keep insisting, as ‘the worst president in US history’). You would have to go back to John F. Kennedy to find a US President who was able to speak so powerfully, and to even inspire at times. You might also have to go that far back to find a President as hated by the right.

Unfortunately the legacy that Obama could have left behind has been severely compromised by his repeated concessions to Republicans; he has allowed his uncompromising opposition to bully him into compromising his health-care plan, maintaining overly imperialistic US military policies, and generally watering down what would one suspects would be his true opinions concerning Israel and the Zionist operations, US foreign/military policies, and the growth of the police state on home soil. He has been a truly hamstrung and compromised president; however, the same could be argued to have been the case (to varying degrees) for every leader in his position from John F. Kennedy onwards. There are some levels of policy, both official and (especially) secret, that can be seen to operate irrespective of whatever individual President happens to be occupying the Oval Office, the biggest of which center on the enterprises of the corporate and banking cabals, activities of the CIA and US intelligence agencies and the operations of America’s vast military-industrial complex.

While those vast areas of corrupt operations and agendas remain untouchable, there will *always* be a severe limit to what any American President or administration can accomplish in terms of serving the genuine good of the people or society. The most high-minded, noble and well-meaning individual could come into the White House and is guaranteed to accomplish very little according to their own vision. Yet even in that context, Barak Obama has had an uncommonly difficult time trying to maneuver. No President in US history has had to fight such an uphill struggle from the outset, his every policy or idea being stubbornly, even spitefully, opposed by the Republicans, while propagandists like The Tea Party and various right-wing media outlets have kept him under constant attack. You cannot run a country while facing that degree of opposition (and in most cases, it’s opposition merely for opposition’s sake) from within.

No other US President has been asked, in all seriousness and by high-profile, figures to *prove* his American citizenship and produce birth certificates. No white President would’ve been asked to do that. Under these toxic sorts of conditions, the fact that Obama has accomplished anything at all while in office is frankly something of a miracle.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin – America’s answer to Abu Hamza – happily comes out and says things like God wants Obama impeached. This, I presume, being the same oil and military-industrial loving ‘God’ who told the Republicans to invade Iraq? Only Republicans seem to have this extraordinary privileged relationship with God, whereby they’re able to act as divine interpreters. It only ever seems to be the dumbest, least literate people who ever try to speak for God, whether it’s in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria or the US. Coincidence? Or is ‘God’ about as interested in partisan politics as I am in the next Kim Kardashian gossip-column story? It is also the strategy resorted to by people who have nothing more intelligent or substantial to argue; play the God card and appeal to the lowest common denominator.. and if that fails, always fall back on the ‘Commie’ card or blame the Muslims or ‘the immigrants’.

That is the intelligence level of the discourse Obama has had to deal with all through his presidency; a discourse that he has largely avoided stooping to.  Just read this; this is a typical right-wing, fundamentalist view of Obama that I’ve picked out from a comments-section of a You-Tube video and it demonstrates how retarded the conversation has gotten. “Watching Obama on TV last night was almost like watching Satan himself (Satan means liar and man-slayer) personally destroy the world through lies and deceit without any remorse. Looks into the camera and persuades the people he alone is the Coming Messiah, Savior of the World. What’s really terrifying is that he is getting away with it.” So says Louanna Davis-Wesley – a ‘ Top Commenter’, apparently. It’s kind of scary to think that ‘Louanna Davis-Wesley’ might breed (or may already have children).

But it’s hardly surprising to me as an outside observer to see how fed up and bored Obama looks half the time now; he’s had years of this. Americans in general should be mortified at the prospect of political figures on the level of Sarah Palin gaining any kind of ground, particularly at this incredibly sensitive time in international, inter-cultural relations. Palin is the No.1 American political figure that non-Americans use to illustrate how stupid they think Americans are. The same was true of George W. Bush for a long time too, but next to Palin, Bush looks like a scholar. If I was a forward-thinking, liberal-minded, non-racist, non immigrant-hating, American right now, I would be very worried about who comes into office once Obama’s term is up.

For one thing, the chances are that America will revert to its dynastic succession, with either another Bush or Clinton coming into office; which would make  Obama’s presidency merely a brief break in the dynasty.

Hilary Clinton, an absolutist ally of Zionist Israel, the banksters, and the military/industrial complex, is unfortunately the Democrats’ current favorite for their next presidential nominee, which is somewhat scary. Just as bad would seasoned, right-wing warmonger like John McCain or a Crusading comedy act like Sarah Palin. People (I’m not allowed to call them racists) try to accuse Obama of ‘destroying America’; but seriously have a look at what Palin’s ideas for America are (and check out what her daughter thinks); she wants to turn the US into the Christian Saudi Arabia. But apparently rewriting the constitution isn’t ‘destroying America’ – but better health-care access for more people, why that’s the Devil’s work! Be afraid, be very afraid.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.