So, we've seen Obama being put on the ropes by Hillary over the question of Israel. The two are involved in a spitting match to see who can support Israel in the most rabid and mindless manner.

It seems some influential supporters of Israel had a little get-together back in March to challenge representatives from the three presidential candidates who have Israel's backing to make the most outrageously pro-Israel statements imaginable.

In McCain's corner, former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger. Representing Hillary Clinton: former White House official Ann Lewis. Representing Barack Obama: Princeton professor Dan Kurtzer, a former ambassador to Israel.

Important people. Obviously so important that "Security guards with Israeli accents turned away people at the door as the room overflowed."

And we all know about security guards with Israeli accents, don't we? That's why Milibank can mention it in his article. You say that phrase and "it means something". That's how well the programming has worked.

Kurtzer's opening gambit was to try and draw parallels between the attacks on Obama and anti-Semitism because it seems that "Jews, a small but influential group in Democratic politics, had been worried about Obama" since his preacher was shot on video accusing Israel of "state terrorism". Ouch! That's gotta hurt the fund-raising bottom line.

Think about it. Most anyone would say, "Yes, if you accuse Israel of state terrorism, then your supply of political funds will likely be severely restricted." It is an ABC of American politics. But draw the logical conclusion, that supporters of Israel are a potent and even overpowering force in US political life, and you will be pilloried.

Said Kurtzer:
"There's a question in the community that's unfortunately been stimulated and stirred about and played with in e-mails and innuendos and newspaper articles," he said, "that suggests that there's something wrong with Senator Obama's views about Jews, about Israel." He then suggested that Jews could relate to Obama's persecution. "There are nagging doubts, there are e-mails, there are innuendos: These are the kinds of things which we as a community have suffered over the years at the hands of anti-Semites."
Seems it didn't go over well at all. It isn't the sixties anymore when liberal Democratic Jews were active in the civil rights movement. The tide has turned.

The article continues:
It seems recent divisions between African Americans and Jews were aggravated by matters such as Obama's sympathy for the Palestinians, and his willingness to take advice from Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Carter administration official who calls U.S. Middle East policy "morally hypocritical."
Clearly, no one can even be indirectly associated with Jimmy Carter these days and hope for any support from the Zionists. Carter had the audacity to go and meet with Hamas after he was explicitly instructed not to.

But to show how bad it is, we all know about Brzezinski, the man who tried to kill the publication of Political Ponerology, among his lesser known, if not least important, exploits, not to mention creating the chaos that continues to this day in Afghanistan. Brzezinski is not a man of conscience, but he doesn't put Israel's interests before those of the United States, therefore he is not to be supported by the Zionists, nor is anyone who takes his advice.

Obama and his reps can grovel all they want. If he had a conscience, Obama would take to the pulpit of his church and support his preacher, he would stand behind the statements about Israel's state terrorism.

But the knock-out punch was delivered by Clinton rep Lewis. Dana Milbank reports:
Next question to Kurtzer: Obama's assertion that he needn't have a "Likud view" -- that of Israel's right-wing party -- to be pro-Israel. Kurtzer explained that Obama wanted to see a "plurality of views." Silence in the room.

To that, Lewis retorted: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties." The audience members applauded.
But there's no Israel Lobby, right? Arriving at this position, that the US should blindly support the decisions of the people of Israel, just happened because it is the just and correct position, supporting Israel with billions of dollars, arming her, allowing her nuclear weapons while denouncing Iran. These are simply well-considered and rationally thought out political views. Right?

Where is real power? Could it be in those words we quoted above: "Jews, a small but influential group in Democratic politics". But you can't speak of it. That is how powerful it is. The thought police have done their job so well that you can't read this article by Dana Milbank and say, "Hey, what the heck is going on here that the three main candidates have to descend to the level of performing fleas when the question of Israel comes up? What kind of president will any of these people make if they are willing to abase themselves to such a degree? Have they no spine, no self-respect?"

And some people think that getting rid of Bush will change something. How could it possibly change anything when we see the character of his potential replacements?

The idea that something is seriously wrong with the US political process is the logical conclusion any reasonable person would come to after reading this article. The data is all there. It is right there in the mainstream media.

But having said that, it is necessary to point out that it isn't all "Jews", either, in spite of Milbank's use of such a general term. It isn't even all "Jews" in the Democratic Party. But Milbank can making sweeping generalizations about Jews that people who are critical of Israel are never allowed. Unfortunately we see the double standard all the time.

But the really, fiendishly, mind-blowing realization is that this whole double standard is actually a screen to protect the real culprits! The "Jews" are used as the bait to draw attention away from the deviants, from the psychopaths, who are found in all societies and at the positions of leaderships in all countries. After all, if there is a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East, will Israel somehow be spared? Isn't it convenient to group together as many Jews in one place if your goal is to kill them off?

So, while it is true that Israel wields power far beyond its weight in the United States, at the United Nations, and all across the world, in such an obvious way that people of conscience everywhere are scandalized and horrified at its special status, the forces that are behind Israel are using the "Jews" as a shield.

Zionism is not the political expression of Judaism; Zionism is the political expression of psychopathy. It is Jewish only to the extent that Judaism contains psychopathic ideas. But each of the three monotheistic religions contains psychopathic ideas: submission to one, final power with the hold of life or death over its adherents. They issue rules that are meant to be applied in a mechanical way, and salvation lies through their mindless application by the believer. Believers are not meant to think independently and critically, they are meant to blindly follow the rules. If the rules change, then one day they may be doing something completely contradictory to what they did before.

As we have been saying here at SOTT for years, the real problem at the root of the ills of our world is psychopathy. It is the rule of our societies by those with no conscience. It is their influence on the values we live by. It is their instrumental view of life, where the rest of us are either means to their ends or impediments that must be eliminated.

Think back to the statement above about supporting the decisions of the people of Israel. What about the decisions made by the Palestinian people, the ones who elected Hamas in a democratic election? In January 2006, the Palestinians elected a government led by Hamas, in free and democratic elections. Don't they count? Shouldn't the American president be supporting that democracy as well?

No, of course not, because there is no one to grovel before or to submit to who is defending the Palestinians. There is no bigger psychopath on the Palestinian side with his grip on the purse strings and the club. The deviant leaders of the Arab countries are part of the same club as Israel and the US, and that is the explanation why they do nothing, why they sit back and refuse to stand up for Palestinian rights.

They are on the same side, and they stand against people of conscience no matter their colour, their religion, their economic and political beliefs.

What about the populations under their rule? Why don't they see the obvious contradictions and absurdities such as those above? Polish psychologist K. Dabrowski explored the relationship between psychopaths in positions of rule and their citizens in his book The Dynamics of Concepts. He writes:
Some psychopaths endowed with above average intelligence and energy may give the appearance of identification with society and, consequently, substantial parts of society may identify themselves with this kind of psychopath.
While I wouldn't put Bush in the category of the psychopath with above average intelligence, certain portions of society have certainly identified with him, either with his "Christian" mask of sanity or with his "I'm just like you" mask of sanity. It appears to me there was a shift during the nineties where politicians emerged who played the card of the "good ole boy, just like you, and I've made my share of mistakes, but who hasn't?" It may have been a reaction to the various scandals that began with Watergate and the following discouragement and distrust of politicians. The bubble of the "statesman" had burst, and in its place we were left with the mediocre, people who made a showy display of being interested only in their most primitive drives: success, money, and power. This open show of primitive drives seems to have been construed as a form of honesty by a part of the population imbued with the same desires through the media. Self-interest became not only acceptable but desirable.

When a politician showed he was only in it for himself, the ordinary guy could relate to it because he had been programmed to desire the same thing.

Dabrowski continues:
It is only after a period of hypersuggestive influence of the psychopaths, after a period of mental "asphyxia", that the feeling of alienation becomes widespread. The consequences of this kind of alienation are very grave.

An analysis of the life and political activity of such influential psychopaths as Hitler or Stalin shows the significant difference between superficial and authentic forms of identification of peoples with their political leaders and its impact upon the resulting process of alienation.
I would suggest that the popularity of JFK was an expression of an authentic form of identification, while the identification with Bush is a superficial identification. JFK could not be allowed to live because of that authentic identification. The pathocrats saw Kennedy had the postive traits that could mobilize the population for change. That scared them. JFK and his brother Robert were taking on the mob and corruption in government.

That the population identified with them made them dangerous.

What was it that the Kennedy's had that is missing today? I think it is that they held themselves responsible to something higher than their own survival, a fact shown in their two deaths. Jack and Robert Kennedy continued on in spite of the death threats and open hostility against them on the part of the entrenched forces they were taking on: the CIA, the mob, J.Edgar Hoover, to name a few.
This conception of responsibility counteracts the spread of parasitic forms of responsibility, the so-called verbal responsibility which amounts to oral declarations. It unmasks and counteracts those forms of responsibility which always choose the easier course of action, which avoid risks and sacrifices and are excessively concerned with the preservation of oneself "for some future important task". This is, in fact, pseudo-responsibility at the service of primitive drives, especially the instinct of self-preservation.
The last two sentences describes the form of responsibility of the political puppets we see performing today, oral declarations. We have discussed many times the idea held in the White House that declarations create reality. We have analysed many times how this form of oral declaration is an integral part of the psychopath's view of reality. Their word is reality.

Responsibility Huh?

I suggest that things are so bad today that the "some future task" these pitiful creatures are holding out for today is nothing but an even greater subservience to their masters. And this state will continue until they are held to account by the people.
As long as the suggestive power of the psychopath is not confronted with facts and with moral and practical consequences of his doctrine, entire social groups may succumb to his demagogic appeal. We are dealing here with mental states analogous to pulmonary asphyxiation.
Hmmm. Pulmonary asphyxiation. What does that remind you of?
Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]
In other words, having a psychopath in charge with whom the populace identifies is like waterboarding the body politic.

The moral and social ties of society are being tortured and broken apart.

Does that bring to mind transmarginal inhibition, the states outlined by Pavlov that are necessary for breaking down the mental stability of an individual and which we have shown are at the basis of much of the work of the pathocrats in subduing and reprogramming the population?

But there is hope: knowledge, the objective light of what is actually going on. Writes Dabrowski, continuing his idea of alienation:
The liberation from this spell comes only through multiplication of facts, which clearly contradict the official doctrine and the promises of psychopathic leaders. In such cases the whole society is frustrated and shocked. Basic social and moral dynamisms disintegrate. This is a state of profound alienation.
Is this not the state of the United States, Britain, and other Western countries today? The Western world, which thinks of itself as the bastion of civilization, as the force that will raise the savages out of their backward state, is suffering a deep malaise. It is a moral and social malaise that touches society at its roots.

It is founded upon a lie, the lie of the supposed advance of Western society on the rest of the world. It is a lie that can remain in place, unquestioned, because of the one-sided development of its population.
The question arises: how is it possible that social groups or even whole societies, of a more or less advanced culture and some degree of mental health, identify themselves with psychopaths or psychopathic leaders of a political movement which inevitably brings about extreme forms of social evil, degeneration and crimes? The answer to this question and the responsibility for this kind of social disaster is in the mistaken approach to education, which disregards the ability to distinguish authentic and seeming values and is restricted to a purely professional training. Thus, one-sided education is conducive to the formation of a mentality which praises dynamic activity and aggressiveness above other values and is incapable of authentic valuation and resistance to primitive forms of persuasion and suggestiveness.

There also are cases of social alienation which follow from certain philosophical and social doctrines and their influence upon political life. They are particularly conspicuous in totalitarian systems shaped by one-sided dynamisms characteristic for the mentality of political groups which control the government. Their dominant dynamisms are completely or substantially different from those of the majority of society. Consequently, they are forced to rely on terror in order to remain in power. A one-sided and imposed system can never fulfill a positive role in education. It impedes and distorts fully rounded human development.

The so-called democratic systems may also generate alienation, especially if the originally democratic forms degenerate and lead to serious deprivations. Sometimes formal democracy serves as a cover for ruthless dictatorial practices and this process of degeneration of democracy takes the form of behavior which may be called "as if democratic". This seemingly democratic behavior may create favorable conditions for the pursuit of the interests of those who are cleverer and better adjusted, in the sense of negative adjustment -- that is to say, adjusted to a successful attainment of their aims which may be contrary to the interests of a democratic society. On the other hand, if the conditions are favorable for fully rounded human development, negative forms of alienation decrease.
Rigged elections using touch screen voting machines that leave no paper trail. Taser deaths. More and more police. Elimination of individual rights in order to fight "terrorism". Government spying on personal mail and email. Greater restrictions on the circulation of money. Humiliating delays and searches at airports, not to mention the childish obedience demanded when you are instructed to put your shampoo in a plastic baggie "for your security".

"As if democratic", indeed.

So we are in a dire situation. The most primitive drives of humanity, those that come from what we call our animal nature, have been enshrined as the highest among some parts of the population or the best we can hope for among others. A defeatism has set in that "'twas ever thus". That there is nothing anyone can do to change it.

The higher drives, the need for a moral order and a society that reflects that moral order, have been jettisoned and ridiculed and degraded as hopeless or idealistic -- meaning unattainable or unreasonable.

But the situation is not hopeless. Remember these words from Dabrowski:
This conception of responsibility counteracts the spread of parasitic forms of responsibility, the so-called verbal responsibility which amounts to oral declarations. It unmasks and counteracts those forms of responsibility which always choose the easier course of action, which avoid risks and sacrifices and are excessively concerned with the preservation of oneself "for some future important task".
Responsibility. What is your responsibility? Are you willing to accept your responsibility?

To do so means choosing a course of action that accepts risks and sacrifices. I am not saying that one should fly off the handle and take on unnecessary risks. But what about speaking your mind when a group of people are discussing the current situation in Iraq or the follies of George Bush instead of remaining silent. Your silence calls forth silence from others who may share your ideas.

Psychopaths maintain their power through terrorizing their victims into silence. They depend upon fear. Each time you hold back you views out of fear, they have won.

It is time to speak up, to shine the light of truth in all the dark holes dug by the pathocrats. Those dark holes will be our graves if we do not speak out.

"The liberation from this spell comes only through multiplication of facts, which clearly contradict the official doctrine and the promises of psychopathic leaders."

Those facts are available. As we saw above, they are printed in the mainstream media. It is your responsibility to point out the logical inconsistencies and absurdities of the facts as promulgated by the pathocrats. It is your responsibility to speak your mind. It is your responsibility to accept the risks and self-sacrifice. What is there to lose? If you do not speak out, the dire future of a world under psychopathic control is ensured, and you can see where they are leading us: famine, a more and more open police state, war, poverty, and the loss of any rights we have left.

And if you accept the challenge, take on the risks and make the self-sacrifice?

Who knows.

But you do know what the consequences of inaction will be.

You see it. You can act. Responsibly.

You just cannot stand by and remain silent. Silence is complicity.