A BOUDICA POINT OF VIEW
By Alexis Ainsworth / 6/10/10
“GLENN BECK MISSES THE POINT – AND THE LOCATION – OF ‘CRIME INC.’!”
LETTER TO GLENN BECK
SUBJECT: GB FOX NEWS PROGRAM CONTENT THURS. 6-10-10:
“CRIME INC’S SUBSIDIARY DIVISIONS:
COLUMN LEFT/ # I: THE POLITICIANS
COLUMN RIGHT/ # II: THE REVOLUTIONARIES / MARXISTS.
Dear Mr. Beck:
Are you laying low for legal reasons? Obviously, Obama (along with Jarrett) is the link between the two columns recited on your program this evening – which I define as subsidiary divisions of “Crime Inc.”. Why have you not said so? Why aren’t you making this connection between the two, your front and center report?! It is the only real report on the issue!’. We have a communist-Marxist revolutionary in the office of the presidency of the U.S.
You speak all of the way around the core point; you ponder how these two columns will afflict and affect the other, but you totally ignore how they cross-link – other than each attempting to use the other. For God’s sake, each one IS the other, by virtue of the fact that the chief politician in D.C. is POTUS, and as such each column is integrally linked to the other, because Column Right could not haven’t become the water-carriers for Column Left if column left had not had a fundamental agenda to achieve the goals of Column Right. How much more obvious could it be? When did Column Right become the underlying gophers for the W.H. other than when a Marxist member of its battalion became POTUS and immediately opened the front doors to the revolutionists, led by him and Jarrett.
They did not get into the W.H. uninvited, and no one in the W.H. prior to Obama/Jarrett/Axelrod/Emanuel, other than Clinton who has been out of it for 8 years prior to Obama’s entrance, would have given security clearance, a desk and office, a podium and influence to Marxist Revolutionaries prior to Obama becoming POTUS.
You are dead wrong in your analyses when identifying a strategy between these two columns as being of opposite goals; both want power; C-Right merely employs an undisguised method of seeking it, but no less indirectly than is C-Left’s methodology; though C-Left employs a subversive method by use of C-Right to do its public dirty work. You have forgotten that C-Left has the same ‘chief’ that C-Right has – and, that there is no way to disguise this fact, by virtue of the foregoing evidence of the timing of C-Right’s advancement into the W.H. – prior to having the tools by which to advance its propaganda into the integral social systems of mainstream America, in a totally coordinated strategy with the media. Anyone who thinks that these two columns are not each on the same page is stark raving naïve. The only unscheduled disruption of an otherwise perfectly designed swarm-intelligence strategy that unites these two columns against America, is the elimination of The One as chief of Column Left;
Mr.Treason will be aborted as Column Right loses to the American Public’s revolutionary resistance to Crime Inc.
When this occurs – in the not too distant future, whether by an act of the legislature, or by default until his term ends, or by assassination – it is bound to come within the coming 12/15 months at a maximum. “TOTUS” , has a more significant definition than ‘Teleprompter’, it means “TRAITOR OF THE U.S.”. When he has lost his leverage, his own constituents in Column Right will eat him for breakfast. They’ll unleash all of that pent-up hate and violence on their own ‘Bridge to Nowhere’: the POTUS who blew their single opportunity to destroy this country permanently.
Who in the world are you protecting by omitting the punch line: “America we have a president who is running a counter-intelligence operation against the U.S. Barack Hussein Obama is our Chief Political in the U.S., and he is also its Chief Revolutionary-in-Residence at the White House; Obama is at the head of both Columns Left and Right. Who is stopping you from articulating this obvious fact? Is it Murdoch/Fox – or, yourself – or both?
It is amazing that you have gone as far as you have, and, for you to protect yourself is understandable. The question that remains is: You’ve gone soooo far already…why not nail it?
Regardless of any philosophical or religious differences, I doubt that few of those who appreciate what you have done do not recognize that what you are doing is in some mystical manner God’s work. (just, please, do not spoil all of it by being too precious, religiously. Please, for the sake of the country leave notions of this kind to your own private altar; it won’t help our pathetic society, for you to take your prowess in this fight – between the elements of good and evil – to a side-issue, to make it either directly or indirectly an issue of religious belief. It isn’t a ‘religious’ fight; any more than the founding of this country and its Constitutional mandate was a ‘religious’ fight. It was not, rather it was a fight for ‘morality’ – within which lies ‘personal liberties’ – including the choice of religion.
Today’s issue is precisely the same, but at this point in time we are more apt to define ‘moral values’ in terms of ‘energy forces'; positive vs. negative, while we recognize that energy is a function of positive/negative human attitudes and behavior. The most representative of this confrontation in the Judeao-Christian ethic being that of the proverbial confrontation of Jesus with Satan, “up on the mountain“.
Please don’t end-run yourself; remember that the Moses Hess/Marx/Alinsky model works both positively and negatively: Whether by omission or by commission. Omission of an auxiliary issue, (i.e. Religious doctrine/theological mandates) is a positive commission of the mind energy of the crowd’s focus toward the goal intended – the achievement of destroying the enemy of our individual rights. It is an informed choice – which by omission of an auxiliary issue eliminates the opposition. (the end – purpose – justifies the means, by having omitted a false premise relative to the issue).
On the other hand, the ‘right column’ enthusiasts of the philosophy of ‘The end justifies the means’, exercise this ‘Rule’ by omitting truth/facts; and, in doing so it erects a fraudulent target for the crowd’s focus; one that turns the crowd into a mob. By this means it destabilizes the crowd, causing it to be vulnerable without a functional system by which to govern itself; allowing its revolutionary handlers to steer it into their ‘auxiliary’ trap: Their underlying agenda/issue. They have won a battle by commission of a lie; having indirectly employed a false premise to directly achieve an intent. (by commission of an auxiliary issue).
The latter, being precisely the opposite – the reverse – of the former strategy, while each is achieving its goal to win – by use of the same technique: “The end justifies the means: — one by omission of a negative, the other by commission of a negative.
It is neither smart nor honest to use religion as leverage to make your point about man’s God-given inalienable rights of liberty and individualism. Play to win by playing honestly – and you will win; all of us will win. As Sun Tzu promised in his own rules of war, ‘God will be the wind at your back’ if you play smart’. Playing smart is to play by a principle, not by an emotion. Religion is emotion-driven; principle is energy driven.
Eliminate religion in favor of spiritual values, which translate to moral and philosophical values; each man is inalienably entitled to his own God-given investment of this experience within him, without the violence of another individual grading his experience by an emotional or intellectual interpretation of God;; thereby, defining the degree of God’s investment of intelligence and individual rights within another. We have civil laws to monitor misbehavior; we have cosmic energy principles of motion in order to monitor ourselves.
Instead of committing a spiritual violation against that which is by definition God-given individual liberty and rights, by attempting to define those rights on a man-made tablet’ , play it smart – don’t interfere with God, by interfering with each man’s right of direct understanding of God’s investment in him.
The former is interference of man’s individual right of choice, by use of the Alinsky Rule, by commission of a negative, while employing “The end justifies the means”: God-by-force; the interpretation of God by-organized-religion; an act against each man’s direct understanding of himself and a separation of him from his individual right to be alone, directly with his God, internally..
Kindest regards, Alexis Ainsworth