Change, Change, Change…
To More Of The Same
By David Icke
Hello all …
I said many years ago that there would come a time when the conspiracy would break the surface where all but the most blinkered and blind would see the obvious.
That had to happen because we are living at a time when the hidden manipulation wants to morph into daily reality with a global political, economic and military dictatorship. We are now seeing this with the onslaught of surveillance and control that invades every area of our lives and the constant centralisation of power across the world.
And over the last two weeks in the United States another major expression of the conspiracy has been exposed for those with eyes to see - the utter irrelevance of ‘democratic’ elections. It is one more prime example of the hidden now becoming manifest … manifestly obvious.
What a ‘choice’ Americans face in ‘choosing’ (if only) their president. In terms of those with a chance of winning in November there is no choice, except between masks on the same face.
We have the same mantra at every ‘election’ about the ‘old’ politics and the need to break the grip on America of the ‘Washington establishment’. We need ‘outsiders’ not absorbed into the Washington web of lobbyists and ‘special interests’, the [fairy] story goes.
This is vital to manipulating the people into believing they still have a choice between different policies and philosophies and thus they are still ‘free’. The key word with regard to this is ‘change’ - ‘We need change’; ‘this country wants change’; ‘I stand for change’. ‘Hope’ is another connected theme thrown in for good measure.
In 1992, a guy called Bill Clinton, an establishment place-man and crooked to his fingertips, swept to office by talking about ‘change’, ‘change’, change’. One of his catchphrases 16 years ago was ‘courage to change’ and he also stood for ‘hope’.
This can be a potent weapon in twisting the minds of the populous because most people are not happy with their lives or the state of their country and so ‘change’ can seem a very good idea. ‘Yeah, that’s right, we need change’.
But the ‘change’ always turns out to be very loose indeed. Bill ‘Change’ Clinton was a close associate of the very father George Bush that he was seeking to replace in the White House. They had been running drugs together for years through the Mena Airstrip in Arkansas where Clinton was governor and his wife was a corrupt lawyer at the Rose Law Firm which financially and legally stitched up the State.
Sure, Bill stood for change alright - changing the personnel at the White House by bussing in the Arkansas establishment to relocate their criminal activities to Pennsylvania Avenue. Nothing changed, except the names of the people who ensured business-as-usual.
So it was with heavy heart and shaking head that I have watched the vacuous stage show of ‘rock star’ Barack Obama. What does he stand for, he tells us with every breath? ‘Change’. He is even quoting the Cocaine Kid from 1992 with his ‘courage to change’.
Strategically placed behind him at almost every rally are the moronic rent-a-crowds waving their banners emblazoned with two words ‘Obama - Change’. The entire strategy is based on that one thought with ‘nice guy’ and ‘straight guy’ thrown in here and there.
That’s it. No substance, no depth, just repeated single words. Political ‘debate’ in 2008 has plumbed still new depths.
When I first came across Barack Obama I knew nothing about him, but when I saw his eyes and his body language and heard his empty rhetoric and carefully-practiced delivery it was clear to me that we were dealing with yet another member of the Actors Union. Another Tony Blair, another Bill Clinton. Obama is not a man I would trust to tell me anything without checking.
As a professional spinner might say: ‘He doesn’t have to believe it, he just has to sell it’.
He claims to be the son of a goat herder in Kenya and we’re now told that ‘an African goat herder’s son could be the President of the United States’. But the truth is rather different according to American columnist Andy Martin, who says the claim is a lie.
Obama’s grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was a prominent and wealthy farmer. His son, Obama’s father, was a child of privilege, not privation, Martin writes. He was an outstanding student, not a herdsman. Martin also reveals that many other statements Barack Obama has made about his father and the family background in Africa are false and paint a picture that simply isn’t true. As Martin said:
'I feel sad having to expose Barack Obama, but the man is a complete fraud. The truth is going to surprise, and disappoint, and outrage many people who were drawn to him. He has lied to the American people, and he has sought to misrepresent his own heritage.
‘Obama’s life story is vastly different from the one he portrays. My point: if he will lie about his mother and father, what else is he lying about? Can we expect “bimbo eruptions”?’
The first term Senator for Illinois is playing the ‘outsider’, the fresh face and fresh mind, who is not connected either to the political past or the lobbyist mafia that controls much of the legislation agreed, or squashed, on Capitol Hill.
That’s what he says he stands for, but it’s not what it looks like.
His foreign policy advisor and vocal supporter is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, who says that Obama offers ‘a new definition of America’s role in the world’.
This is the same Brzezinski who created the Illuminati’s Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973. The Trilateral Commission is dedicated to a world government dictatorship and closely connects with other strands in the web like the Council on Foreign Relations (member: Barack Obama) and the Bilderberg Group.
Brzezinski’s foreign ‘policy’ during the Carter administration, as he has since admitted without regret, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan in December, 1979. The idea, he said, was to weaken their rival superpower and the result was a ten-year occupation that cost the lives of an estimated 1.3 million Afghans and spawned the Mujahedin, Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
Deep breath: he’s now advising Barack Obama on foreign policy
The Polish-born Brzezinski’s books and public statements have confirmed his belief in the Trilateral Commission’s commitment to a world dictatorship. In his book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era, he described a new society ‘… that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics - particularly in the area of computers and communication’.
He said that ‘national sovereignty is no longer a viable concept’ and suggested the movement, in stages, ‘toward a larger community of the developed nations [world government] … through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty’.
His son, Mark Brzezinski, an ‘international lawyer’ in Washington, is also an Obama advisor and commends the would-be president’s ‘global approach’ … (‘global approach’, ‘global security’, ‘world community’ and so on is all Illuminati Newspeak for the centralisation of global power.)
Obama’s advisor on the Middle East is Dennis B. Ross, who was director for policy planning in the State Department under President father Bush and special Middle East coordinator to President Bill Clinton. So much for Obama’s ‘change’ with the past and ‘breaking the grip’ of the Washington establishment.
Ross was born to a Jewish mother which hardly makes him the ideal person to talk independently, and therefore credibly, about how to end the Israel-Palestine conflict and he became the first chairman of the Jerusalem-based ‘think tank’, the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, which is funded and founded by the Jewish Agency.
In fact, the Canadian Jewish News and other Jewish publications have pointed out that Obama ‘has made Jewish leaders an early stop at every stage in his political career’. The first foreign policy speech of his candidacy was delivered to the notorious lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is 100% dedicated to securing US policy that suits the interests of Israel.
Obama says ‘bring the troops home’ and ‘diplomacy, not war’. All good stuff and it is a compelling message, if it were genuine. But around him are those, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, who see war and aggression as a means of global expansion and colonisation. Obama himself said he would have no problem bombing Pakistan if it suited American interests:
‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will’.
That’s what Bush said, and did, when he made the ‘actionable intelligence’ fit the agenda for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact is that Obama is not againstwar; he is against the invasion of Iraq.
He advocates deploying troops in Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight ‘terrorists’ and he says of Iran: ‘We should take no option, including military action, off the table’. So he is not against war, which appears to be his image for many, he is against one war.
Another Obama claim is that his administration would not be influenced by lobbyists for the corporate cartels and yet he has precisely these people among his campaign advisory team, including Moses Mercado, who has lobbied Congress and the Bush administration on behalf of two Illuminati private-equity firms, the Blackstone Group and the Carlyle Group.
The Carlyle Group, which is closely connected to father George Bush and has had the Bin Laden family among its clients, paid Mercado $260,000 while the Blackstone Group rewarded his work with $3.7 million.
Among other professional lobbyists (manipulators of policy) on the Obama team is Daniel Shapiro, a foreign policy advisor on the Middle East, who has some of America’s biggest corporate names on her client list. These include Anheuser-Busch, Daimler Chrysler, the American Petroleum Institute and Freddie Mac. Shapiro also served on Bill Clinton’s National Security Council.
In short, Barack Obama is just another fraud and fake selling a lie - a front man for the same people who have controlled American politics for decades. He doesn’t stand for change, nor hope, but for more of the same, sugar-coated as ‘the new JFK’.
Whether America votes for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton the outcome will be the same because they won’t dictate policy - the Shadow People will. Obama says he stands for ‘change’ and Clinton responds by saying she also stands for ‘change’, but she has the experience to make the ‘change’ happen.
In truth, they stand for the status quo because that’s the position of those who control them. All the rest is fakery.
This nonsense about a ‘Kenyan goat-herders son’ becoming the most powerful man in the world or Clinton’s ‘strike for women’ is just for effect. They are two come-and-go people, the latest in their line going back centuries, who have only the appearance of power, not the reality of it. Clinton is far, far higher in the hidden hierarchy, however, and she is probably the one they want, although she is a hard sell and others are ready to play the game should she not make it.
What a shower America is being offered in this election year. On both ‘sides’ they line up their crooks, liars, manipulators and airheads and say ‘choose your president’. Never has the ‘choice’ been so blatantly irrelevant.
With, that is, one exception.
What a joy it has been to see Republican rebel Ron Paul take on the establishment repeaters with such incisive intelligence and common sense. To see this 72-year-old demolish his yes-men rivals with the sheer logic and grasp of his case has been some real ‘change’ and he has exposed both their staggering ignorance and their disinterest in anything, but their own desire for status and power.
He has brilliantly taken his media opportunities to demolish the ‘money’ scam, the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, and the way the system is designed to steal the peoples’ income through criminal levels of taxation.
Paul doesn’t seem to have the big picture and this week he distanced himself from those who say that 9/11 was an inside job, which was disappointing. It was, I would suggest, a major mistake.
But compared with the rest, thank goodness for Ron Paul amid the political pantomime unfolding on the TV news. I work on the basis of ‘don’t vote because it only encourages them’, but if I were American I would make an exception for Ron Paul this time around if only to increase his public platform.
He can’t win because he’s not an insider, but he is alerting many people to the nature of America and at least some of the forces that control it. This makes Ron Paul a true advocate of ‘change’ while Barack Obama is just another fake, another ‘rock star’, who joined the club.
article with images: http://rense.com/general80/icke.htm