It Seems I Was Wrong To Think Brian Williams' Farewell Address Meant He Was Leaving The Media Elite Bubble Mentality

He Was Enforcing It

I was reading the comments about last night’s clip I posted of Brian Williams, an MSNBC broadcaster of unclear personality, except that he embodies the establishment haute media’s royalist disdain for the despair of the peasantry, at all times.

They sound like the “American people” embody the views of the kind of people who work at these networks. This is the great chasm of national dialogue, to put it mildly. Has Williams once interviewed a Cleveland plumber* who drove to Washington DC on Dec 6 without gloves, to lend his body to the cause of election integrity, abandoned on that day, by Donald Trump?

(*This is a real person, who I spoke to in DC on Jan 6. on a frigid night, outside his hotel. He told me that when a media person approached him for an “interview” as though he were a zoo animal, he said: “Put that camera down. I’ll talk to you, but you’re not going to condescend to me. You’re not going to humiliate or bully me. Are you willing to talk to me? I’m a human being.”)

(I tried to reach him the next day but he didn’t answer his phone, and who can blame him? I was thinking he would, if properly interviewed, stand as a landmark and bulwark against all the class warfare and contempt that has become so normalized by the once-upon-a-time working class, now thoroughly elitist press corps.

My dispatch after Jan 6 here. I just re-read it and I regret the tone, it would have benefited from being calmer. )

It’s one of the staggering injustices of mass media that they never even try to speak to non-elite people in a serious way, to understand how they feel or why. Only elites, speaking in terms that seem to mimic a renaissance dance, maybe this one, the Galliard:

First, let’s straighten a few things out:

1. I was not listening to MSNBC; I was sent only that clip of Williams, via a mailing list.

2. On another note, I have corrected the error in the age range of the article about the Renz data and apologize for the oversight. I accept the criticism that I need to make sure my posts are error free before I publish—take more time, slow down. When I am publishing about the genocide, especially. I owe it to all of you to be accurate.

3. I have come to believe, this morning, that yes I did misinterpret Brian Williams. He is actually so far gone that he thinks the FBI coup on Jan 6 was really white supremacists seeking to overthrow the US Government.
   
   ”Burn it down…” and “mob” seems to have been a reference to Jan 6, incredibly. To all the working men and women who were there that day, peacefully protesting. I interviewed many of them myself and there was no violence in the air whatsoever. But the media had a story, a PSYOP, to tell and sell. To adjust last night’s belief that Williams was signaling he was on the side of anti-Covid tyranny, I watched an interview he did with Doris Kearns Goodwin, Presidential historian. A period piece. In it, they speak of the Democracy crisis, but they never once refer to the ushering in of In-Siloco Virus Fascism by the media, in lockstep with the pre-ordained pharmaceutical/NWO depopulation and economic reset agenda. Instead we are to believe that midwestern plumbers got off the leash and wrecked our beautiful democracy in a single day. To make matters worse, they have their hand-twisting conversation about the imminent death of democracy in a rarified atmosphere of language that lacks all specificity, that only media royalists can speak. They even hold up LBJ as some kind of high water mark. In defense to my friend Richard Kotlarz, quoted below, I should say he knows Goodwin and considers her a good egg. For me, this conversation places her firmly in the out of touch elite camp— for the realities it denies and the dangerous banking class hallucinations it peddles, placing the blame of the destroyed democracy on the working man, not even respected enough to be named explicitly. His experience makes an appearance only as an ominous shadow over the nation, which would, but for him, still be the land of the free. He’s bad because he can’t afford gas or food and he’s upset. He voted for Trump. He failed to lament Climate Change and environmental activism, like the “younger generation” Goodwin places her faith in. Now his crimes of Jan 6 have been replaced by his resistance to masking, followed by his resistance to “vaccines.” In any case, it’s all his fault.
   
   

Brian Williams and Doris Kearns Goodwin, here

I did say that Williams farewell clip was “encrypted,” and you can witness this encryption in this clip. You feel that you are too stupid to be allowed to know what exactly they are talking about. One knows only that ones own perceptions are ugly, dirty and wrong. The brutal overnight destruction of the working classes and small businesses in the name of (spectral) Virus Protection doesn’t come up at all. The loss of all rights including the right to breathe, or to not inject your own children with something that can cause their blood cells to entirely malfunction also does not come up. These are the concerns of the dirty masses. As many have noted, the whole monstrosity is made possible by way of advanced and incurable class contempt. It’s class warfare.

Abraham Lincoln knew exactly who he was at war with: The banks.

Lincoln said:

“I have two great enemies, the southern army in front of me and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is the greatest enemy.”

For the quote in context: An outtake from the writings of my good friend Richard Kotlarz, monetary historian

(www.richardkotlarz.com:)

”The outbreak of the Civil War demanded that some way of financing it be found. Though under great pressure to borrow the funds from the private banking system, Abraham Lincoln instead had the Treasury issue $450 million dollars in “United States Notes”, popularly known as “Greenbacks”. The monetary policies of Lincoln are a generally overlooked, but pivotal part of our history. Indeed, they may have been, as much as his better-known proclamations, a crucial factor that allowed the Union to prevail. Reportedly, Lincoln had much to say regarding the public-vs.-private issuance of money which we would do well to contemplate today:

“Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as an exclusive monopoly of National Government.”

“Government possessing the power to create and issue currency . . . need not and should not borrow capital at interest as the means of financing governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity.”

“The taxpayers will be saved immense sums in interest . . . Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.”

Congressman Wright Patman, former chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, commented a century later:

“If instead of issuing ‘greenbacks,’ the Lincoln administration had issued the interest-bearing bonds, as urged, naturally, these bonds would still be a part of the Federal debt today.”

At compounded “interest”, the amount would be many times greater. The significance of Lincoln’s monetary policy did not escape notice in certain European quarters, although from an entirely different perspective. There appeared in The London Times during the Civil War the following from Otto Von Bismarck:

“If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic (the public issue of usury-free currency) should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

In 1876, Bismarck explained further:

“The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence which would upset their financial dominance over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds prevailed. They saw tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, indebted to the financiers, for the vigorous Republic which was practically self-providing. Therefore, they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question of slavery . . . Lincoln’s personality surprised them. His being a candidate had not troubled them; they thought to easily dupe a woodcutter. But Lincoln read their plots and understood that the South was not the worst foe, but the financiers.”

Lincoln agreed:

“I have two great enemies, the southern army in front of me and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is the greatest enemy.” “

—Richard Kotlarz

[Link]