This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
We Begin
The Matrix was a movie released on 33-11-999, or as more commonly formatted (in the USA), 3-31-1999. In the 14 years since it's debut it has become one of the most influential cultural icons of any generation, not only here in America but throughout much of the globe. Everyone, at least those ones in Western sphere societies, somehow, can readily identify with it. I wonder why?
No, I don't. I know exactly why. The Matrix was an urgent tap on the shoulder of ones who slumbered for too long. It was Neo's alarm clock going off after he had spent the night chasing the White Rabbit. It itself was a Red Pill, subliminal and subconsciously delivered, setting us on a collision course towards a wakeful state.
On 9-11-2001, WTC #1 and #2 were offered to Americans as the Red Pill and the Blue Pill. Except there was no choice: we were force-fed the Blue Pill, a concoction of Prozac, Viagra, Extenz, and Meth. A review of our history from that choreographed day to now reveals all too plainly the grotesque tragedy of America the Empire as it played out towards its predictably inevitable demise. Today, America is a mere rumor of what was once upon a time a respected nation of common statesmen and country scholars; the land of the free and home of the brave. Oh, what a sad irony those words now elicit.
So here it is on a 13 date, and it's 11:55 as I glance at the clock on my computer. This day is a long one in coming. I asked Tyler to let me blog on Zero Hedge over a year ago. I wanted to begin spreading a word, a gospel--the Gospel of Chumba. Perhaps I am an arrogant man. Or perhaps I see what is happening today as Biblical in proportions. The Sequle, as it were, being written before our very eyes. We are witness to the next aeon of history; the year zero. It is begun again.
I know, I know, none of this makes any sense whatsoever. Chumba's a douche, and Tyler's a fag for letting him on here to spew this horse shit. My response to you is: patience, brother. Patience. This is a process. First, we need to open your eyes, but it must be done slowly. The first actual rays of real light shining into your pupils are going to be overwhelming and painful. This is normal. You will be dazed and confused, cognitively dissonant. I am going to blow your mind, and you will not like it one bit. But you will thank me for it later. You're welcome.
To begin this journey, you must awaken within the dream, before you can awaken out of it. So follow the white rabbit. Don't worry about over-sleeping and being late for work. You're soon to find out your job or career or whatever is irrelevant anyway, once you come to the realization that modern society is merely the modern day equivalent of the Colonial American slave plantation, just with benefits like a corner office and vacation time. It's an elaborate stage performance put on to convince you that you're free, and everyone is a player in the charade, too doped up to realize what they're watching in the TV is themselves. A caricature for sure, but ourselves nonetheless, a carnival house reflection of what we have become.
But the crazy dream, it ends now. Wakey wakey. There is work to do.
I am Chumbawamba.
»
- chumbawamba's blog
- 25316 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Pop quiz, are you going to begin butchering the english language and legal terms of art before your next article is published (as I predicted)? All you have are parlor tricks bud... show us the content. No more conjecture... no more thigh... tits or get the fuck out.
i see your point, but address the issue.
What issue? The one where he calls me an ameoba? Or the one where he wrote an article without content and somehow wants us to stay on topic... whatever that is...
This is chumba's game... it's parlor tricks for the kiddies... he thinks that by asking these questions that it's going to prove anything (the truth of the matter he asserts). The reality is that he doesn't want to actually assert anything fruitful because it will be falsifiable and he will be subject to academic debate. He does not want this... and I will not engage him in his line of questioning... he can make a formal article and I can respond, if I choose...
You are a sorry nigger. Maybe your pedestrian attempt to pre-frame the discourse will work on fellow single-celled organisms, but I give my audience far more credit than you do. I'm sorry I could not write my entire two thousand page treatise in one night and in one posting on Zero Hedge. Forgive me.
Now, either answer the question I proffered or beat it. If you can't answer even a simple interrogatory then you seriously have no business being here.
Quit beating off around the bush and either put up or shut the fuck up already.
Hey chumba; since you are so smart and good with words, can you tell us who is the stupider "nigger" and why? Mr. T or Reggie Middleton?
so we agree, odd.
point taken about semantics, only in the sense that the law can be perverted over time through misuse of stare decises, based on semantic shifts.
you understand that we agree no? but that you are unable to admit such?
We may agree, but you're putting words into chumba's mouth that are completely contrary to his arguments...
And semantic arguments don't pervert the law over time... there is a record that effectively prevents it (once it's decided, that's it... the interpretation of the meaning of a law doesn't change over time)... rather, what primarily perverts precedent and chips away at the foundation of the law is inconsistency and divergence created by a result oriented judiciary. In other words, on bleeding heart cases or cases of high societal importance, the appellate courts tend to toss out precedent and the foundation of the law in favor of a result they desire or that is publicly palatable or that their appointer/benefactor/financier desires. While I think this is the exception, and not the rule, it does have an impact on the practice of law... [I also do quite a bit of appellate work].
Sorry for your chosen profession. Law is very easy to understand. Ultimately it's what the powers that be say it is.
again untrue.. that's exactly what i said. initial(or factual) interpretation becomes irrelevant..
how do they do what you describe? please, how does the judiciary create (even through their underlings) "divergence created by a result oriented judiciary. In other words, on bleeding heart cases or cases of high societal importance [INSERTED>>(lol perception controlled and manipulated juries)], the appellate courts tend to toss out precedent and the foundation of the law in favor of a result they desire or that is publicly palatable"
Fairly simple really... they desperately hang their hat on some inconsequential issue and weigh it more heavily than competing legal interests/policy foundations. Happens literally every day. They can't simply come out and say that "we think the blue haired grandma in a wheel chair, without a case, ought to win this one against the asshole drunkard degenerate, with a sound legal defense". As complex as the law is, there is always some minor issue that can decide an appeal if the judiciary is so inclined.
Often times it comes when the trial court picks a winner based upon emotion and the appellate court decides to uphold the lower court based upon some minor issue. Standard of review can be a bitch, but legal issues are appealed de novo.
One area where this recently came up on an appeal I was working on was the difference between a void and voidable judgment. Huge divergence in case law... if you don't get service on a defendant and you get a default judgment against that defendant, then the judgment is void ab initio... there is no reviving it... however, if the defendant had notice of the lawsuit (not service), then there is a divergence as to whether he can set aside the judgment against him. You'll get the standard fan fare, "service rules in derogation of common law; strict compliance, yada", but then "oh, yeah, but if he had notice then you don't have to get service on him". Typically what happens, again, is bad guy loses lawsuit down below, but has perfect legal defense, appellate court agrees justice was served, but thereby creates bad precedent.
PS, I presume that you don't believe in the jury system based upon your comments?
For monkeys locked up in an equity cage, yes, that's about how it goes. For those in courts of record proceeding according to the common law, no problem.
You just lack imagination, my friend. Your response to this will provide evidence to the claim.
While everything you said makes sense and is true, you just masturbated all over the page, in front of everyone. Have you no shame?
I'm trying to give a serious presentation here. Can you please keep your commentary relevant?
Your serious presentation is seriously lacking in content... long on conjecture... and big on promises of what's in store for us in future installments... I'll hold off on labeling it masturbatory until your next installment, but I'm guessing it will be nothing short of auto-erotic asphyxiation...
Wow, you have insight beyond that which the boundary of words limits us mere mortals. Are you claiming to be able to project my words into the future and make a contemporaneous determination that they will be "seriously lacking in content... long on conjecture... and big on promises"?
You write many words, and yet you say nothing. I may have use for this, uh, talent, as we progress. We shall see. Stick around. Just, please, keep your verbal dick in your pants.
When will Phoenix Capital post again. God how I miss those posts.
Maybe they will let Chumblz debate Chuck Beedermon or Mad Hedge Fund Trader?
Unreal. You better have some sublime shit to say.
About time we got someone who is capable of telling it like it is - as an antidote to George Washington's daily fear-mongering. Congrats to Tyler for allowing it.
Not sure if I'll agree with everything (particularly your anti-joo broad brush, unless you have trimmed it), but looking forward to your uncensored opinions.
You are Chumbawamba.
.
sorry
let the gray turn to black so i can explore my inner feelings - bring i on a huge dose of reality...
OT i-dog, but you seem to be one of the more enlightened denizens of this realm. You mentioning "the anti-joo broad brush" prompts a query; Why have I never seen (maybe I missed it) any discussion of the City, you know that square-mile in London?
Seems to me that this entity, "crown" if you will, was the catalyst for creating Is-Ra-El in the first place? Any thoughts?
It was never about Jews. I identified the problem early on because my dad clued me in: it's the zionists.
These days I couldn't care less, because Israel will be gone by 2025, and because I know that it's just another diversionary and dividing distraction.
-Chumblez.
Bummer; ain't going to be so, though. Sorry.
You have a working crystal ball? Fucking awesome. Broke mine a while back. Been a real bitch ever since. Wife is really angry. So are the kids.
lol
It's a long story, but the push by the Khazarians (Ashkenazis) to re-create a state in Israel pre-dates the rising independence of the Square Mile in the late 1700s and the power of the London bankers. Prior to the 1790s, Amsterdam was the home of the most powerful jewish bankers. It was Napoleon who drove them to England.
The first attempt to settle in Palestine was in 1649, when a petition to the English parliament requested assistance to resettle jews in Palestine (at the same time that Sabbatai Zevi was beginning his messianic mission from Turkey - and the jews were financing Oliver Cromwell in order to gain a foothold in England). This was 150 years before Rothschild became rich and the City of London came to prominence.
The next attempt was in 1700, when Judah he-Hasid Segal ha-Levi led about 1,500 jews from Eastern Europe to settle in Jerusalem. (20 years later, the Ottoman Turks burned their synagogue to the ground and barred Ashkenazis from Palestine). In 1777, Menachem Mendel and a large group of Ashkenazis from Belarus emigrated to one of the holy cities in Palestine - and 6 years later, they were also forced out. In 1799, Napoleon offered a promise of Jerusalem to jews during the seige of Acre. However, he failed to deliver after losing the seige of Aleppo.
In 1841-2, correspondence between Moses Montefiore, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and Charles Henry Churchill, the British consul in Damascus, is seen as the first recorded plan proposed for political Zionism. Later, in 1844, Rev. Samuel Bradshaw called on the English parliament to allot 4 million pounds for the restoration of jews to Palestine, with another 1 million to be collected by the church. Finally, in the 1880s, pogroms against the jews in Russia and Poland drove many of them to Palestine (among other places). The term 'Zionism' was coined by an Austrian Ashkenazi jew in 1890. You are probably already aware of the 1917 Balfour declaration, obtained by Nathan Rothschild within minutes of the end of WW1, that eventually saw Israel founded after WW2.
As you can see from the foregoing, the "City of London" had little to do with creating Israel, other than providing finance (through Montefiore and Rothschild) in the later stages. Indeed, the takeover of the City of London by the Jewish bankers was just one small step along the way.
But you'll never understand the story of the Ashkenazi 'jew' unless you also follow the parallel history of their alter-ego, the Jesuits, from after the Spanish Inquisition in the 1530s.
Thanks so much for your reply. Indeed, I thought the Balfour Declaration was the "beginning"- now I see that it was merely the culmination of a centuries-long effort. Not sure my cranium can accomodate all this, but damn appreciative of your effort. Thanks again!
The Thirteenth Tribe (1976) is a book by Arthur Koestler, which advances the thesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from the historical Israelites of antiquity, but from Khazars, a Turkic people. Koestler's hypothesis is that the Khazars converted to Judaism in the 8th century, and migrated westwards into Eastern Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries when the Khazar Empire was collapsing.(wiki_)
I read this book many years ago. Don't know if its credible, but Koestler was always an interesting read. Koestler was a Hungarian Jew.
Koestler only tells 1/3rd of the much longer story of the Khazarian involvement in the creation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They weren't the thirteenth tribe...they were the FIRST tribe.
Perhaps it was the only part of which he knew. Or, perhaps it was the only part he wished to fit into a book.
Great post. This should be an article all by itself.
How did I miss learning any of this all my life? Weird.
Very interesting post i-dog. My minor was ancient history. I do not recall any of this but then that is another story. Enjoyed your information. Also Chumba congrats on a good first post. Milestones
Jews got into banking because Christians weren't allowed to charge each other interest (which 'slightly' harmed their ability to profit from usury, like their Jew competitors). Since then, the most ruthless, and cunning banksters have merely hid behind the label 'Jew'.
Its an attempt to shield them from criticism, an attempt to convince people that criticism of their ruthlessness is indiscriminate hatred, not a logical analysis.
If anything, these banksters are occultists/Satanists.
Last sentence is interesting when you consider that under two of the major wordl religions; Christianity and islam, usury (charging of interest) is a sin.
Attention Francis_sawyer and all the other aliases who post things trying to pin all this stuff on the Jews. Please reread the above post until you understand.
Of course I realize you are paid to post what you do, so your not going to stop, but hey it's your soul, your choice right?
acetinker asked:
Ah yes, the City of London, which is in the city named London but is distinct and separate from London, the city.
Yeah, it's been discussed. You must have missed it.
There are three autonomous city-states in the world: The Vatican, City of London, and District of Columbia.
Vatican = Spiritual capital of the world
City of London = Financial capital of the world
District of Columbia = Military capital of the world
We will be getting into that, too.
-Chumblez.
Don't forget San Marino, Lichtenstein, and Monaco.
Monaco = Douche bag capital of the world
Singapore = Big brother capital of the world
what is thailand?
the banker cabal is not the top of the pyramid, but rather just another class of minion. behind it all are the clerics, who live in a world that most average people will never believe or understand. But if think these things (discussed at link) are not real, just look around at the world today... the matrix is not without its mysteries:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167631#.UYLDVkp4-MR
The Iranians had to break out the magic carpets and the genies to protect themselves.
I think you will find 'the Djinn' to be the correct terminology.
Tilt long enough at windmills and the windmills tilt back.
Aldous Huxley was on to something. But folks have been scrambling for the blue pills forever.
Preach it, brother Chumba...
If you've got money you are free; if you owe money you're a slave; if you have no money or credit - well, you're screwed, usually young, usually disenfranchised or homeless or all the above. If you have money you are free.
Geld macht Frei - nichts!
"If you have money you are free"
Not if your money is in the bank. You could wake up a slave just like everyone else one bright sunny morning.
Yes and no.
If you have money that they don't know about, you are free.
If you also have guns, you are freer.
If you owe money, you are a slave.
If you owe money but have guns, your slavery is negotiable.
If you have no money but have guns, everything is negotiable. hujel