AN OFF AND ON COMMENTARY ON SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES
by John Q. Pridger, C.P.
[Return to PRIDGER's PI Index]
THE GRAND IMPEACHMENT
18 February 1999: According to polls, about 70% of Americans see nothing wrong with having a morally deprived man in the White House. The Senate, in acquitting him of the impeachment charges, reflected the public view. This says more about the state of the union than anything Clinton might have said in his State of the Union address. The president will undoubtedly wear his House impeachment as a medal of honor to the end of his term. As the commander-in-chief of the most lethal military machine in the world, he can bomb to his heart's content without fear of serious consequences. The consequences, however, accrue to our children, and in more ways than one. We are building our national moral capital with immoral material. With such moral leadership, there appears to be little hope for the redemption of our once proud republic. But, who cares, as long as the stock market is up, Social Security is sound, and the economy strong?
HUSTLER MAN OF THE YEAR
Many find it comforting that the president is somewhat less than morally upstanding. They like a president that is a "regular guy" rather than a sterling role-model for our youth. Many progressives are proud of our first X-rated president. It vindicates Hollywood and the Larry Flint publishing empire. Pridger nominates Clinton as the Hustler Man of the Year.
PRIDGER IS BACK
28 December 1998: Pridger has been out of pocket for over three months on a fact-finding tour of sorts — off line and out of touch. Two months of email has been lost overboard, so if you dropped Pridger a line during the months of October and November, your email dropped off into the memory hole unread. That's why Pridger substituted a snail mail address for the email address on most of these pages.
President Clinton has been impeached in the House of Representatives and his job approval rating remains high. Apparently about 70% of the people polled really haven't the slightest idea what the impeachment is all about. Most think it has to do with his private sex life. Unfortunately, Ken Starr is the author of that opinion. In the end, he chose to move on low crimes and misdemeanors rather than the abundant store of high crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, he mis-judged the character of the nation, and lost his public credibility.
We've bombed Iraq and added considerably to our already considerable accumulation of hate-capital, enhancing our "great Satan" image in the Moslem world and elsewhere. What can small, relatively defenseless, nations do when a distant super power picks on them? The only thing open to them is terrorist action. It is surprising we have not seen more of it, but we'll undoubtedly see more in the future. We're obviously openly courting it. When it strikes, of course, we'll be indignant and outraged. Few will remember, nor consider, the fact that we asked for it.
WHO WON WORLD WAR TWO?
Again I've had to ask that question. Was it the Allies—the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union? Of the "Big Three," the Soviet Empire was the only clear winner until its recent downfall. Great Britain certainly won nothing—it lost both its Empire and its greatness. Despite much moral posturing and self-congratulations, we won nothing but a rather lengthy period of global prestige. But we lost our national moral compass during the conflict. Now, after losing the Cold War with American capitalism, the USSR is also a big loser. Half a century after the war, according to the financial balance sheets, Japan and Germany look pretty good, in spite of continuing and increasing financial problems in both countries. But they have not won either. Globalism now appears to be the only winner. Globalism was the hidden "cause" of the two major conflicts and most of the minor ones of the twentieth century. Who and what are the global cabal that has won this century of conflict? Who do they represent? Clearly they do not represent freedom and independence, individual liberty and global prosperity, egalitarianism and self-determination. They represent the very fabric of which conspiracy theory is woven. They are none other than the fabled "money power."
Don't believe it? Who is "the shining knight" that rides out to the rescue of all nations in distress? None other than the International Monetary Fund. The World Bank, and the ever-chivalrous United Nations, are integral parts of the globalist financial program. What single powerful entity has managed to prevent national and global economic chaos from engulfing us? The Federal Reserve, headed by Allen Greenspan, of course. Who are these people, taken in aggregate? They are most literally, and obviously, the Money Power. Who can deny it? Their power is in their ability to reach into the pockets of American and Western European taxpayers and float loans which ensnare all peoples, and their governments, in perpetual debt. They are the tools of the globalist who won World War Two. They are the ones with whom Hitler sought to do battle and lost through our agency—the enemy which not one in a thousand Americans yet recognizes. No, it isn't "the Jews," who were made to pay in blood, along with tens of millions of others in WWII, but a global cabal that has skillfully and repeatedly used them to fulfill its goals. The Jews, as a people, have been made to serve as their tools, their vassals, and their whipping boys. The so-called Zionist Occupational Government (ZOG), is real, but it isn't necessarily Jewish at its core, (though Zionism may be one of its roots). It uses the Jews for the tail with which they wag the dog, and the Jews have suffered horribly and repeatedly at its hands throughout history. In spite of its repeated suffering, the international Jewish community is made to do its bidding through the coercion of fear endemic to their race—the fear of virulent anti-Semitism kept ever alive and current for the benefit of this globalist cabal.
THE INFAMOUS, PROPHETIC, PROTOCOLS
The agenda of the global cabal, who seem now to be the ultimate winners of WWII, is spelled out in great detail in the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. This infamous and extraordinary work came to light in the last decade of the 19th century, apparently out of Russia. Hitler, appalled at the plight of post-WWI Germany, obviously read, digested, and believed every word of it. It surfaced in an English translation in in the United States in about 1920, and Henry Ford gave it a great deal of exposure in his private newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. Nobody seems to know it's true authorship and it is denounced as a "forgery" or "fraudulent document" by all reputable scholars. Forged by whom? Jews and Zionists, of course, loudly deny that it was the work of any their "Learned Elders." According to the the Encyclopedia Britannica, their "spurious character...was first revealed in 1921 by Philip Graves of The Times (London) who demonstrated their obvious resemblance to a satire by the French lawyer Maurice Joly... Subsequent investigation... revealed that the Protocols were forgeries compounded by officials of the Russian secret police out of the satire of Joly, a fantastic novel (Biarritz) by Hermann Goedsche (1868), and other sources."
Some satire! Forgeries? Whether or not the Protocols were the work of early Zionist elders is actually of little import. The fact is the Protocols where definitely written by "learned somebodies" whether elders or extraordinarily cleaver anti-Semitic Russian secret police—and the work certainly does not resemble what we today call satire. They more accurately resemble a serious and apparently workable "plan" for conquest of the western world by a "chosen people," which is what they purport to be. More importantly, they appear to be a plan that has been followed to the letter, and successfully, and almost completely, implemented. If it was a forgery and a fraud, it was one perpetrated by a true prophet, for it was history written in advance. And, in spite of all disclaimers to the contrary, all appearances point to international Jewry and Freemasonry as being the primary, (though largely unwitting) agents of its accomplishment on behalf of the "real culprits" whosoever they may be proven to be. Of course, anybody who brings the subject up, and makes such statements as I am now making, is inevitably and invariably branded and discredited as an anti-Semitic, and therefore untrustworthy and basically an evil scoundrel, no matter how respectful he may be of the Jewish people or his many Freemason friends. This obstacle to free and open consideration of an important subject, of course, represents a great, intentional, and seemingly unbreachable divide which paralyzes today's society and prevents broad-spectrum understanding and true humanitarian progress. It is the stone wall between the false universalism of modern liberalism and leftist philosophy, and the universalism of true enlightenment.
The Protocols is a banned book in some countries, and considered an "underground" publication where it is still published. From its first appearance the Protocols has been suppressed and decried as a textbook of anti-Semitism, and has thus never been widely read. "Knowledgeable" liberals simply loath and condemn it without reading it, as do the more common variety of conservatives. To find the Protocols interesting and informative would be like finding Hitler's Mein Kampf interestng and informative, (which indeed both are, if one is interested in learning what has shaped our modern world!). Those who seek it out today are likely to be conspiracy theorists with a pre-formed anti-Semitic opinion, searching out more ammunition for their beliefs. If it were more widely read, however, (by people with at least a smattering of education) and placed in both current and historical context, it would be an important bridge to understanding. It ought to be required reading for everybody—not to encourage anti-Semitism but to promote understanding. If Jewish people and Freemasons read the book they would perhaps begin to understand why they figure so largely in conspiracy theory, and maybe that understanding would change the course of history and prevent a repeat of what has happened before. For everybody else, other than conspiracy theorists, it would put conspiracy theory into an comprehensible context. Most people, of course, simply don't read, and most who do read avoid works of consequence. For those of us who are conspiracy buffs "without animosity" the text helps to explain the otherwise inexplicable—how we got to where we are today.
PRIDGER IS A PACIFIST
Being a "Christian person" Pridger is a pacifist—almost. Pridger isn't perfect. Whosoever smites him upon the right cheek had best not repeat the offense when Pridger turns to him his left cheek. Pridger can be counted upon to fall temporarily from grace and smite hell out of the original smiter. When he gets mad he reverts to Old Testament justice, but when he isn't mad he professes New Testament love and universal brotherhood.
CLINTON'S JOB APPROVAL RATING
15 September 1998: Many people express surprise at the continued strength of Clinton's job approval rating, even after an ordinary person of modest moral character would have crawled into a hole. Clinton, having disgraced himself and the presidency, is believed by the general public to be "doing a good job in office — and that's what counts." As incredible as this may seem, one must remember that this approval is given by the same people who elected and re-elected Clinton in the first place, with all the skeletons he already had in his closet. This is the same electorate for whom scandal sheets masquerading as newspapers are the reading material of choice — the same public that has popularized junk daytime TV. This is the same general public that has demonstrated that erotic web-sites are the most popular of all information superhighway destinations. Given these facts, Clinton's job approval rating is not so puzzling. The polls aren't lying, they merely reflect the moral level to which the nation itself seems to have dipped in recent decades.
As for the job of being president itself, Jay Leno could certainly do as well as Clinton, if not better. (My apologies to Mr. Leno.) Unfortunately, the presidency has become a position which requires a photogenic smooth talker, fronting for powers behind the scenes. It has become the domain of "Tricky-Dicks," Hollywood actors, and "Slick-Willies." Slick Willie, of course, has brought the office to a new low. Nixon at least had some redeeming moral character, even if he was a political crook. President Reagan actually enhanced the image of the presidency and redeemed it from the depths it had hit during the Nixon and Carter years. (If Carter had weaknesses, at least they weren't in the realm of personal morals and uprightness of character, though he did admit "lusting in his heart" and succumbed to the folly of allowing himself to be interviewed and published in a skin magazine.)
If the presidency has any real power left in it, it is in the realm of symbolism and moral leadership to the nation and the world. The real important domestic and foreign policy issues are no longer entrusted to the man in office, but are handled by "experts" far removed from public scrutiny. The president merely serves as a "talking head" for the puppeteers of a shadow government, (and had better not get too independent minded and outspoken if he knows what's good for him). The president's most important "real" job is providing the nation with its number one political celebrity icon — providing our youth with its preeminent "real-world, yet bigger-than-life" role-model.
In light of this, Clinton's job approval rating should be about zero. But the general public, (at least the one political pollsters seem to know) apparently hasn't the foggiest notion of any of this. They actually believe Clinton is the author of our "booming economy," world peace, and "great prospects" for a brilliant future — and, after all, what else really matters to such a public? "Personal comfort level" is their only real measurement criteria. For many it is somewhat comforting to know that the president is just as morally depraved as the lowest common denominator among us. Clinton may not be in the same league as the Larry Flints among us, but he's certainly running neck and neck with the more morally up-lifted Hugh Hefners of society. (Apologies to Larry Flint and Hugh Hefner — at least they never visited their standards upon the presidency of the nation, and Pridger doesn't question their personal honesty.)
It will be ironic if the Congress impeaches the president, not for his habitual moral transgressions, or bringing disgrace to the office of the presidency, but for lies and cover-ups that each member would almost undoubtedly have engaged in had they been guilty of the same immoral behavior. (Which, indeed, many may in fact be guilty of.) Not for the sins themselves, but for their attempted cover-up, (to protect himself, his family, the prestige of the office of the presidency, and the national image itself). Lying and cover-up, and plausible deniability, are endemic to political intrigue, and unfortunately permeate the entire political establishment. The sins are not the crimes, it's getting caught that constitutes the crime.
ILLINOIS CORN GROWERS
14 September 1998: Pridger has just received another one of those cards from the Illinois Corn Growers Association asking him to contact his representatives and urge them to pass "Fast Track" trade legislation. The message goes like this: More Exports = Higher Prices; Fast Track = More Exports; FAST TRACK = HIGHER PRICES.
A lot of farmers are being hoodwinked by this seemingly rational message. As the card points out, corn prices are down because corn exports have declined by 25%. More exports of corn would bring prices back to a higher level. True enough, perhaps, but that isn't even half the story. Corn and other commodity prices were low before the recent decline in exports. They will always be low, as long as prices are determined in global, (lowest denominator) markets. We are a high cost economy selling, mostly, into lower cost economies. At best, depending on export markets will keep commodity prices low. The more farmers come to depend on export markets "to keep prices up" the more vulnerable they'll be to export market squeezes such as the the current one caused by on-going troubles in Asia and just about everywhere in the world. The present problem has occurred because American farmers are already overly dependent on export markets. The Illinois Corn Growers Association, while purporting to speak for Illinois corn farmers, actually speaks for the corporate agribusiness conglomerates and commodity trading giants, all of which profit from commodity traffic regardless of source or direction, whether real farmers profit or not. These titans of the global economy are interested in increasing the volume of trade and their profit margins and little else. But they're trying to fool farmers into believing they represent their interests. A lot of farmers are falling for it — literally. Thus the continuing decline of the American farmer.
The farmer not only needs higher prices, he also needs stable markets — things he will never see under free trade and fast track policy. The only hope for higher prices and a stable market is in developing stable domestic markets and depending as little as possible on the inevitable vagaries of unpredictable export markets.
And that is only part of the story. American commodities sold at fire-sale prices over the world destroy local agricultural economies elsewhere, making them more dependent on the corporate commodity traders. At the same time, the very corporate conglomerates encouraging American farmers to depend on exports are taking over vast commodity producing areas of the globe elsewhere. Eventually lower priced commodities from these areas will under-sell American commodities in American domestic markets, driving more American farmers out of business. Import barriers are a "no-no" of free trade, so there will be no protection for the farmer against import invasion. Fast Track, of course, equals more Free Trade; Free Trade is a omni-lateral virtual Street wherein commodity traders, who set and manipulate global prices, (and increasingly own or control production) profit regardless of the direction of the trade, but farmers world-wide are sold short. Free trade spells "Power to the corporate middle-men and runaway flags" and "down with the power of the People."
SO THE REST OF THE STORY IS...
MORE EXPORTS = HIGHER PRICES (short-term); FAST TRACK = MORE EXPORTS; MORE EXPORTS = MORE DEPENDENCE (On unstable markets and flim-flam artists); FAST TRACK = MORE IMPORTS; MORE IMPORTS = LOWER PRICES; LOWER PRICES = FORECLOSURE. A VOTE FOR FAST TRACK = A VOTE FOR FORECLOSURE.
Of course the few American farmers left, (at least the ones in major commodity cash crops) have long been between a rock and a hard place. To most there is really little choice left except to strive for short-term relief, even if it leads to ultimate doom. Pridger imagines most Illinois corn growers will call the 888 number and beg for Fast Track.
TEACHING THE WORLD — PROFESSIONALS FROM THE GROUND UP
A recent ad campaign by an alleged farmers' organization, featured American farmers, (read agribusinessmen) teaching Russian farmers how to produce, high-tech, (using GPS satellite technology, etc.). "American farmers. Professionals, from the ground up!" was the ad's message.
There are vast areas with great productive potential in greater Russia, Asia, and South America being prepared for production by the likes of ADM, "Supermarket to the World." While American farmers are being taught to pin their hopes on expanding export markets in those very areas, the same ones doing the teaching are preparing to back-wash American farm exports with imports from the developing regions. It matters not to the middlemen how low global commodity prices ultimately fall — in fact, the lower the better, for their profit is the difference between the farmer's price and that at the chain supermarket counters.
It would be great if the rest of the world could feed itself, (which it could usually do before the modern era). So Pridger certainly doesn't begrudge teaching Russia, China, or India how to be more food productive. However, the process should not totally destroy traditional agriculture and regional economies, as will be the case under the global trading standard. Before Russia, China, and Latin America are able to adequately feed themselves, they will be dumping their "excess" into international trade channels. The commodity conglomerates will then use their increased market leverage to destroy what's left of American agriculture — at least as far as the independent farmer is concerned. There will inevitably be export dumping even before the local populations are adequately feed. It is happening even now. In fact, that has been the story of the Third World since the rise of colonial empires. Today poor producers go hungry to feed the export market in order to provide foreign exchange for their corrupt leadership and profit for corporate multi-national giants. Have a Chicita banana!
CLINTON'S TRAGIC PRESIDENCY
12 September 1998: The media is now doing the same sort of job on president Clinton as was done on president Nixon. Both presidents were popular, but relatively minor sins were used to bring them down. The turning point in public opinion in Nixon's case actually came when the famous tapes revealed Nixon's very unpresidential language. The actual cover-up and other high crimes and misdemeanors were all forgivable, (as far as the public was concerned) but not the gutter language. The turning point for Clinton seems to be, not the many sins themselves, but in actually admitting to them after decades of hard-nosed, successful, denial. All allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors, (re: Whitewater and others) have pretty much disappeared from the impeachment scenario. All that's left is Clinton's lying to cover up illicit sex acts and adultery — something just about anybody could be expected to do under the circumstances. Clinton's alleged "obstruction of justice" in the matter of his Lewinsky affair amounts to little more than a man invoking the fifth and trying to head off embarrassment for himself and the presidency.
Many are saying "If only he had leveled with the American people when the Lewinsky scandal broke, the public would have forgiven him." But the notion of Clinton choosing any particular moment to level with the American people is absurd. He'd got away with so many lies for so long, he fancied himself totally bulletproof. After all, the media had protected him through all the "bimbo eruptions" of the past, and accepted at face value, (on behalf of the public) what they knew to be lies. Had Clinton been truthful from the beginning, he would never have become a candidate for president in the first place. Had the media done its usual "job" during the first Clinton campaign, (as it had done in the case of Gary Hart) Bush would have served a second term in spite of his broken "Read my lips" promise. Clinton's varied and numerous Arkansas sex-capades were known to the media well in advance of his nomination for president. But Clinton has miraculously shed the allegations of scandal like a duck sheds water.
As in the case of Richard Nixon, there seems to be something deeper and darker at work here. It wasn't Watergate that brought Nixon down. Watergate was merely the pretext. Likewise, the Lewinsky affair is merely the pretext for bringing Clinton and the presidency into disgrace. Chances are, Clinton was exercising too much presidential discretion, and managed to rile the wrong people. What could it have been? Of course, Pridger isn't sure, but didn't Hillary express the opinion that the Palestinians deserved to have their own Palestinian state? That kind of reasoning can be dangerous in this country — and if the president ever, by any word or action, admitted a soft spot for Palestinians, he may have thereby lost the protection of the media and doomed his presidency. Kenneth Starr was an attack dog who could have been called off at any point, (as it appears he indeed was in the case of the real high crimes and misdemeanors) had the right buttons been pushed and the right people appeased.
Clinton is now in a very dangerous situation — both for himself and for the presidential "handlers." Under his present duress, he may be tempted to say things publicly that the powers in control of his fate would rather a credible person not be guilty of saying. Thus the media will continue to be unrelenting on their once most-favored boy wonder. If Clinton should utter some indiscretion, it can be dismissed as the rantings of a proven liar and possibly that of an unstable mind.
It is very late in the day for the Clinton presidency. His personal credibility has been destroyed, public opinion is now successfully being turned, and his presidency is all at once a very fragile and vulnerable affair. If Clinton falls, rest assured that it was not the work of any "vast right-wing conspiracy." What has happened, and continues to unfold, is more akin to "insider trading." The right wing has never liked Clinton, and may even rejoice at his fall, but has had very little to do with it except in the most superficial of ways. Perhaps the right wing has been part of the side-show, but the real action is taking place behind the curtains back-stage.
It ain't over until the fat woman sings, as they say.
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND
23 years ago, when president Nixon resigned from the presidency in disgrace rather than face impeachment proceedings, it was, in large measure, the result of an inquiry and report prepared and issued by a group of lawyers and researchers charged with the mission of determining whether, and on what grounds, Nixon could or should be impeached.
Ironically, Hillary Clinton was a member of that select group whose report will now serve as a road map in the impending Clinton impeachment inquiry.
Apparently Bob Barr, (R., GA) and member of the Judiciary, Banking, and Government Reform and Oversight Committees, has written to Mrs. Clinton thanking her for her groundbreaking work.
WILL CLINTON DO SOMETHING MELODRAMATIC?
10 September 1998: Pridger sees Clinton's increasing problems as not only a national tragedy, but also fears a most tragic and lamentable conclusion. He hopes his fears are groundless, but did anybody notice that, in Clinton's continuing contrition, and seemingly desperate effort to seek public forgiveness, he recently made reference to choosing the way by which one exits or departs this life? Not public life, the presidency, or legal problems, but life! To Pridger, that was a rather peculiar allusion. This was on national TV, yesterday or the day before, (Pridger probably saw it on Nightline) but missed the specific time and place, and doesn't remember the president's exact words. Did Clinton put those words in his speech, or were they placed there by a speech writer? Might it have been a hint that Clinton is considering something melodramatic? Or might something melodramatic be planned for him? Pridger hopes neither. Hopefully, the worst implication was unintended, and any need for concern about the president's state of mind, intentions, and physical safety, are groundless.
There is something known as the "Clinton body count," and the term "Arkancide," with which most discerning Americans are uncomfortably familiar. Let us hope that the count has ended.
Speaking of drama and body counts... Last night on national TV, U.S. News & World Report Editor at Large, David Gergen, suggested that Clinton needed to pull off some kind of spectacular event in order to take the edge off of his domestic political and legal troubles. This advise is somewhat surprising coming from someone like Mr. Gergen — and very ill advised, in Pridger's opinion. Just what might David have in mind? Clinton has already lobed missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan, with minimal effect, (except to kill a few innocent people, further alienate the Islamic world, and invite indiscriminate reprisals from Moslem extremist groups). What more could he do? Nuke Iraq? Provoke a stock market crash and declare marshal law?
Pridger is not a particularly religious man, but he feels if there were ever a time for prayer — for Clinton and his family, for the nation, and the world — it is now.