STIFLING VIEWS/CENSORING IDEAS
Mr. William Gates, Chairman of Microsoft Corporation, Seattle, Washington, and I, sole proprietor of a micro-company of Falls Church, Virginia, live in different universes.
For the record I live in a universe which includes the nation known as the “United States of America.” It was conceived originally to be a sovereign state, and it was organically defined by a constitution. As it originally existed,this constitution was sufficiently suspicious that it was not going to be accepted by the original thirteen sovereign States. With some due diligence, ten amendments were added to placate the thoughtful dissidents amongst those sovereign States. Even so, such famous leaders of the Founding Revolution as Patrick Henry refused to sign the document, stating: “I smelled a rat.”
Ten Articles in addition to the Original Proposed Constitution to Amend the Articles of the Confederation, drafted in Philadelphia, PA, were added, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. To refresh the minds of all students of advanced Blog-ucation, the First Article of those additional Ten Articles reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Now, Mr. William (”Bill”) Gates is a very rich and influential man. Great wealth tends to make lesser sorts pay heed to the views of those possessing such wealth. Politicians are “all ears” when a man of great wealth chooses to express himself. They may fall over themselves in their rush to pass legislation which accommodates the views of such men. Therefore, it isn’t so surprising that people in lesser positions than politicians are in awe of such a rich man, falling prostrate at the sight of such a one. Men such as Bill Gates must have, over time, had indwell in them the conceit that they are “not like other men.”
The “Wasp of Twickenham” [Alexander Pope] composed in heroic couplet the lines: “Some of their chiefs were princes of the land, In the first rank of these did Zimri stand, A man so various that he seemed to be, Not one, but all mankind’s epitome.” These lines seem to catch the spirit of America’s fabulously wealthy men, such as Bill Gates. Another such, who may be considered a peer of Bill Gates, is Warren Buffet, the “Lord of Berkshire Hathaway,” the extraordinarily successful securities fund, operated out of Omaha, Nebraska. He is viewed as an investment “guru.” Perhaps not so surprisingly, these two “Zimris” are friends, apparently. At any rate the press has informed the interested amongst the public that Warren Buffet has decided to leave the bulk of his estate of some $30 billion dollars to a foundation. That foundation is either one set up by Bill Gates for the purpose of dispensing money generated by his own foundation or which will be operated in conjunction with that of Bill Gates’s foundation. Bill Gates’ foundation will be endowed with something in the order of $60 billion. These two together will generate more than a little “pocket money” to dispense. One may say that the influence of these two “Zimris” will linger on.
Interestingly, Warren Buffet may be better “connected” than Bill Gates. I recall seeing a photograph in the American Free Press, one of several essential small-media voices, which included three figures. As one viewed the photo, to the right was a Lord Rothschild, in the center was Warren Buffet, and to the left was Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now, engenues among blog-ucation students might think nothing of this at all. However, tis said that a picture is worth a thousand words. My perception of this is that Warren Buffet was and is an agent for a portion of the vast wealth accumulated by the Rothschild family. [One should bear in mind that at it's greatest prominence during the middle of the 19th century, the Rothschild family was richer than European nations, specializing in long-term loans to nations. However, they were also investors in America via agents such as August Belmont and the Erlangers, etc. This family hasn't vanished to "Seventh Heaven."] I believe that Warren Buffet was one of this family’s agents, and that his Berkshire Hathaway fund was and is invested according to this family’s interest, whether wealth or policy.
As for Arnold, well, if the constitution is changed to allow him to run for president, the perceptive will know who holds his leash.
Now, a very interesting connection of Warren Buffet is his position on the board of directors of The Washington Post Company. His Berkshire Hathaway fund has accummulated a large position of common shares, as I understand it, in this company. It is a company that Warren Buffet apparently understands, for he indicated in an interview with a financial press entity, such as Barron’s, that he didn’t understand a certain hightech area and preferred investing in companies he understood, such as McDonalds, Coke-Cola, and the like [apparently].
Warren Buffet’s relationship with The Washington Post Company go back to the early years of the Katherine Meyer Graham Era of The Washington Post Company. The “Bosslady” was a capable businesswoman. There is little doubt that her tenure at the helm was one that saw a very nice increase of wealth for Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway. He may have offered advice that proved useful to her, thus sealing their relationship nicely. When her son, Donald, inherited the “helm” at The Washington Post Company, the relationship with Warren Buffet continued. If one perceived that a friendship had developed between The Grahams and Warren Buffet, separate from business, then he surely is not in error.
Furthermore, there might well exist a “people connection.” If the Berkshire Hathaway fund was a clandestine investment mechanism (and vehicle of influence) for one branch of the Rothschild family, then Warren Buffet would basically be an American face for this influencial Jewish family. According to some biographers, the Rothschild family were of Ashkenazic Jewry [eastern, non-Israelitish origins]. Yet, Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, who was Prime Minister of Great Britain during a period of Queen Victoria’s rule, had written a roman a clef which clearly referred to the Rothschild family as being a part of Sephardic Jewry. If Disraeli, a Rothschild man, was not being coy, then the likely true origins of this extraordinarily influential family was, indeed, Sephardic, via Iberia.
As it happens Katherine Meyer Graham’s father, Eugene Meyer, was descended from a family connected to and intermarried with the thousand-year-old merchant banking house, Lazard Freres. This Sephardic house suggests that the Meyers are also of Sephardic origins. If so, the comfort level of Warren Buffet at the board of directors of The Washington Post Company must have been elevated, and vice versa.
The genealogy of William Gates is not known to me. Religious researcher and bulletin writer, Tex Marrs, has stated that Bill Gates is of Jewish origins. What is curious to me is the possible linkage to John D. Rockefeller’s advisor, “Rev.” Frederick T. Gates [who helped John D. swindled the Merritt brothers in the Mesabi Range affair]. All observers of the American political seen can hardly fail to note that individuals with the same family names, indeed, often the same individual, are appointed to high positions in various Executive Branch departments, administrations, agencies, and councils. One would suppose that in a “democracy” with a rapidly growing population that new names would rise to steer the various helms. At the top, NOT! And when they aren’t in government running things, they are nearby, making tons of money at firms dealing with the federal government.
In his roman a clef, CONNINGSBY, Disraeli had a prominent character observe to “Conningsby” that the world operates quite differently from how ordinary people suppose. Then, he demonstrates this by rattling off a number of very prominent figures in various European countries all of whom were Jewish. The implication being that their “invisible hands” were actually at the helm, directing or influencing the ship of state. The validity of this inference is virtually established by the position of Benjamin Disraeli as Prime Minister of Great Britain, as well as the son of an influential man, and the “man” of the Rothschild family. He was in a position to know. Is it reasonable that he would write a roman a clef for the purposes of deceit? I don’t think so.
Another interesting quote which bears witness to the views of the American Establishment toward the mass of citizens has its origins with the John D. Rockefeller, Sr., group. In the Rockefeller-Gates Occasional Letter No. 1, issued in 1904, they openly stated that the purpose of their G.E.B. ["General Education Board"] was to brainwash the nation, through education and all media of mass-communication, into subjection to their dictates. Paraphrasing Weishaupt, they wrote: (15.125f; 29:17) “In our dreams we have limitless resources (the pocketbooks of the nation) and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds (the 3 R’s, morality and ethics) and we work our own good will (tax looting, regimentation and war) upon a grateful and responsive rural folk (peasants).” [THE "FEDERAL" RESERVE CONSPIRACY & ROCKEFELLER, Emanuel M. Josephson, p.34]
Parenthetically, this citation’s spirit was reawakened in David Ben-Gurion, when he commented: “The old die. The young forget.”
And additional historical comment may be useful as a witness. Consider: “Grand Duke Alexander, of Russia, visited our country in that year (1913), after an absence of twenty years. He relates in his autobiography entitled Once a Grand Duke: “The rustic republic of Jefferson was rapidly giving way to the Empire Of The Rockefellers, but the average mentality of the man-on-the-street had not caught up with this new order of things…” (80:242)[Josephson, supra]
All of the above has been brought to bear to, one, project a potential elite group of SHAPERS at work now, and, two, establish that leading observers suggested in the past that such existed. The issue is not Jews, per se, as both Disraeli and Josephson are Jews, who noted a dangerously revolutionary and an ultimately autocratic minority at work. The “Baptist” John D. Rockefeller, Sr., was as much an agent of revolution as Lenin or Trotsky. Just as Comrade Jonesky didn’t know which way the wind blew, so Mr. Jones in America could not judge its direction.
I believe that Mr. William Gates is part of the “John D. Rockefeller, Sr. Revolution.” I believe that Warren Buffet is part of it. I believe that Donald Graham is part of it. Further, I perceive myself as not being part of this “revolution” nor part of the great bulk of Americans who are as happy as otters in the “planned reserve” in which they dwell. I believe that I’m in a group of perhaps three percent of the American population who strive against the PLANNERS.
As one who strives in opposition, I look for a forum. I have succeeded modestly, against considerable odds. Every step of the way, it sometimes seems, is a fight over matters that one might otherwise consider routine. Now, I have a blog here at WordPress.com. I also have a “free” website with Microsoft Business Office Alive. It is entitled BlueSun Productions [celebration@ivideoseer.net].
When I clear away some of my old blogs from WordPress, I offer the old blogs to interested parties for a modest sum, covering my costs. This seems fair enough. They are listed at the website cited in the above paragraph.
To draw attention to this offering of old blogs, I attempted to initiate a modest ad campaign. This was , again, utilizing the services of Microsoft Business Office Live. The MSN search engine was basic. Naturally, I purchased some “key” words. Things went well enough until I attempted to apprise the cyber-world of those “Faux News” items involving Katherine Meyer Graham, Donald Graham, and Patty Hearst. Suddenly, every “key” word was “rejected,” as were their replacements. Words such as “mergers & acquisitions,” “posh digs,” “rich kids,” “prostate organ,”"prostate,” “Katherine Meyer Graham,” “Donald Graham,” “Patty Hearst,” “SLA,” “Symbionese Liberation Army,”"prosthesis,” “media moguls,” “C.I.A.,” “Haiti,” “Haitian,” “Mandingo” [there was a pulp fiction potboiler entitled "Mandingo" available in the '60s], “D.C. Metropolitan Police,” “The Washington Post,” “accidental death,” “sex-change,”"transsexual hate crime,”"same-sex relationship,” ”Hearst publications,” “Richard Widmark movies,” “ street cop,” “drugs,” “last Queen of Scotland,” “genealogy,” Donny,” “strange Donny,” and some others.
Now, I’m certainly not a lawyer, but for the MSN search engine to refuse to handle all those words is “fishy.” There are implications that should be considered. I’ll touch on a few. Is the American cyber-nation part of a different jurisdiction from the “real” nation? Does it reside in a place with different organic law from the Constitution of the United States? Or does Microsoft under the guidance of Mr. William Gates assert itself an “independent Nation” ready to stand free and equal with the other nations of the world and possessed of its own fine-print, lawyer-crafted constitution? ["We hold these truths to be self-evident that Microsoft Corporation is the sole judge of its rules..."]
Early in this blog I saw fit to quote Article I of the Additional Articles, pursuant to rules for amending the Constitution found at Article V of the original document. One might well suppose that the ideals found in that Article might be embraced by all Americans and certainly those “born in the U.S.A.” Yet, it seems that Bill Gates finds such concepts repellant and not in accord with “the Microsoft way.” The concept of horror and dread at “hate words” takes precedence over any alleged concept found within the objected-to word or phrase. If the thought of “freedom of expression” is repellant to Mr. Gates, as it seems also to be repellant especially amongst the younger Americans and “immigrants,” then the fault cannot be with him but must be with the expression. Thus vanity proceeds always.
When I was growing up, there was a popular expression, “the truth hurts.” The older of my two sister was quite the master of this reproof. The reposte which seems to be everywhere embraced, from public schools to the “solons” of Capitol Hill, is: “Never tell the truth because truth hurts and there is nothing worse one human can do to another than ‘hurt’ them” (with truth). After Dr. Spock led the rebellion against the use of the ”rod” to reprove erring children, perhaps the removal of truth was inevitable.
Nevertheless, the thought entered my mind that maybe Mr. Gates was not the one who really cared about my choice of “key” words? Maybe Microsoft Corporation lawyers weren’t really concerned either. Well, then, who might have a reason for stopping the dissemination of my old blogs, especially my Faux News blogs, and especially the ones dealing with Katherine Meyer Graham and Donald Graham? Then, it hit me like a proverbial brick! Donald Graham may well feel that these blogs should be “deep-sixed.”
As Chairman of The Washington Post Company, he would be a wielder of considerable power by himself. Yet, what if he really didn’t know William Gates well? Through some lawyerly contact, he might be able to convince the Microsoft lawyers that it was in the best interests of everyone concerned [neither the Constitution nor I merit any consideration], if the ad never appeared. Those blogs are embarrassing to Mr. Donald Graham. Next time, that Nomoonnight may write Faux News blogs about Mr. William Gates! A word to the wise is sufficient.
My thought is that fellow Washington Post board member, Warren Buffet, would most likely be selected by Donald Graham to speak to Mr. William Gates privately and see if he can and will be helpful to Donald Graham in regard to the detested Faux News blogs which Nomoonnight has written and published, and which detested blog gems he is making available to the public at a Microsoft-controlled website. Can’t we stifle them?
Since Warren Buffet, head of Berkshire Hathaway fund, is a friend of Bill Gates, or perhaps they work as fronts for the same people, Mr. Buffet would be the ideal intimate “go-between” for Donald Graham on the issue of Bill Gates’ help. Once contacted by Warren Buffet and the issue broached, there is every reason to suppose that Bill Gates would, indeed, help his comrade Donald out. “It’s not right for a peasant to mock a lord,” Bill Gates might venture heatedly. “I’ve always hated the U.S. Constitution!” he might further assert. And that is the scenario that I believe obtained, however the minutiae of words, thoughts, and deeds may vary from the above scenario.
Always one asks: Qui bono? ["Who benefits?"] As a corollary, one should ask: Who and/or what is injured? Nomoonnight? Good riddance! The U.S. Constitution? Good riddance! Why should the powerful be limited by the weak?
Such issues as “freedom of thought,” “freedom of expression,” and so on, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution must not be allowed, if they prove annoying to the rich and powerful Establishment. They believe that they should mock the people, but the people may not mock them. For this reason a media lord such as Donald Graham may well conspire with his peer comrades in wealth and power to stifle views and censor ideas.
All rights reserved. Nomoonnight, 2007.
