The Greatest President of All Time Is…

11/10/201851 Comments

Well, another cycle of (s)election hysteria has come and gone in the disUnited States of Amerikkka, Inc., and, as you well know, everything in the world has transformed overnight. Now that the Demopublicans are in control of the House and the Republicrats have kept the Senate, we have all seen the drastic changes in our . . .

Haha. Sorry. I couldn’t keep a straight face while typing that twaddle. But in honour (that’s right, honoUr!) of my American brethren and their recent political ritual (meant to absolve them of any substantive action for another two years until they can once again stuff a piece of paper in a ballot box and go back to sleep), I thought I would engage in that age-old game that seems to be America’s other pastime: debating who was the greatest president of all time.

You know what I’m talking about.

“I think President Whiskey Rebellion was better than President If I Could Save The Union Without Freeing Any Slave I Would Do It!”

“No way! President Japanese Internment Camps was better!”

“Nuh uh! What about President He Kept Us Out of War?”

“Come on, guys! You’re all forgetting about President Kill List!”

As I say, you all know how that game goes.

Now, full disclosure: I’m not American. Heck, I’m not even a statist. As an anarchist, it would be physically impossible for me to care less who 51% of the 41% of the population that votes (s)elected to rule over everyone else. And as a Canadian, why would an American care what I thought anyway?

So I’ve decided to broaden the scope of this little debate. This is no mere American political argument about whether Millard Fillmore or William Henry Harrison was the G.O.A.T. of the Oval Office. No, that would be silly. Let’s expand the list a little and include executive office holders from around the world. Heck, let’s include off-worlders, too. And when I say the greatest of all time, I mean ALL TIME. Past, present and future. Real OR fictional.

With all those caveats in place, I think we can all agree that the greatest president of all time (and space) is . . .

Who? Who?!! Who is the greatest president, James? Well, you’re just going to have to subscribe to find out, now aren’t you? Well, either that or click the link to the free version of this editorial that is included in every single edition of this subscriber-only newsletter. Go ahead, just bypass this and click it! Steal food out of my children’s mouth if it makes you feel any better! Anyway, either way, you probably won’t want to miss this edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber. For full access to the subscriber newsletter, and to support this website, please become a member.

For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE.

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register here.

Existing Users Log In
   

Filed in: Newsletter

Comments (51)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. manbearpig says:

    This morning I’d tend to say that the schizophrenic cerberus that is POTUS, in addition to red-herring tittytainment, is the Hegelian deep state stick herding people down the happy politically correct middle road to smart slavery.

    Bark the masses to the left, then bark them to the right, then a little to the left, then a jerk to the right…

    ultimately barking them straight down a synthetic road to the nearest smart city where they may commune as a single rightous sustainable hive mind.

    flixed into the net by a joli little angel amazon, drowned in the technological depths of a black mirror staring google-eyed at their own facebook reflection, the apple of their own eyes…

    now I’ll go pig out on sawdust and hamster pellets…

  2. calibrator says:

    Ha ha – good old Zaphod! Long time no see!

    But – myself also not an American, perhaps that’s why I am more fascinated with that crazy country – for the sake of “realism”: Who was the “best real president”?

    Actually, having read quite a bit about the US presidents in the last weeks (and the power structures that exist since at least the early 19th century) I couldn’t point out a truly “best” president.

    It also seems to me that in the 20th century and especially after WW2 it only got worse: Everybody was either a willing accomplice, a power-hungry narcissist, an actor/impostor or a total idiot.

    Or several of those combined.

    My “best guess” would be JFK (because they eliminated him so quickly) but he came from the very same corrupt, criminal, self-serving circles as most other shitstains in that office and we still don’t know if he was responsible for rubbing out Norma Jeane.
    Still, apparently he was so dangerous to the bomb-throwing and money-grabbing establishment that he had to get rid off brutally. That says something positive, after all.

    Now, what about the “worst president”?

    My entry would be Woodrow Wilson for sealing the fate of the USA by handing over the keys to the Fed-cabal, entering WW1 under false pretenses and more. This practically was the base for everything we have to today, especially WW2 and also the suffering in the middle east.

    I think Trump (aka “the best trolling president”) is not even a runner up – that would be FDR for enabling WW2 in the first place, sacrificing Pearl Harbor, not stopping the Holocaust and letting the Russians get their hands on nuclear tech (via the lend-lease program) and thus enabling the Cold War.

    Truman gets third place for letting the second bomb drop on Nagasaki. In my book this is one of the biggest warcrimes in human history.
    Of course one could debate the Hiroshima drop, but I think every US president would have approved that. Nagasaki however was a technology test & power demonstration and not necessary from a war strategy point of view.

    The only people worse than those presidents are the crazy falcons (“psychopaths”) in the Pentagon like Lyman Lemnitzer who don’t value life at all, anywhere. Yes, also in the USA itself: See Operation Northwoods, “winnable nuclear war”, testing toxic aerosols on the population etc.

    Lyndon B. Johnson probably comes next. A man that was called “a wild animal” by Nixon no less! Nixon appears as a peacenik compared to him…

    • mkey says:

      This (rather detailed and long) article may prove interesting regarding the Holocaust thingy.

      http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

      • Mark K. P. says:

        yep, a top article.
        Unz admits openly that he has no specialty or long research experience in the topic, so you gotta ask yourself what he can really contribute in any authoritative way.
        So when he points out that there is no holocaust in the post-war literature (other than debunking it as rabid war-time propaganda), until the 1960s, you gotta admire the thoroughness of his review. Its vital but also simplest historical method to trace an idea or event to its context & origins, and illustrate its diachronic development. Holocaust’s failure to pass this basic test demonstrates it hollowcaustness.

        That being demonstrated, what can you say about the sheer malevolence involved in the propogation of this lie? Wow this is hate-speech on a level all its own

        • mkey says:

          I’d say this was a litmus test to see how long does propaganda take to incubate and proliferate. Some 20 odd years, taking into account girth of the calumny.

      • calibrator says:

        Thanks for the link, wasn’t aware of the article.

        Apparently it already awarded Unz the badge “Holocaust Denier”(tm).
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Unz

        • mkey says:

          It did, but at least they haven’t beaten him up, jailed him in or burned his house down. ADL is getting soft, I guess PC bullshit is cutting both ways.

          • Mark K. P. says:

            Give em a bit of time for that, but it also looks like they might be scared of him — and to judge by his devastating article on the Leo Frank trial they should be. There its all laid out just how disgustingly dishonest ADL has been since its inception ; besides contemptuous of all fair legal process, and in essence a criminal gangster outfit from day one.

            Incidentally James Corbett’s Dancing Israelis vid on 9/11 suspects gets a citation and admiring comment in Unz’s article on 9/11 ;
            http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/

    • candlelight says:

      calibrator,

      How does one go about as a matter of course debating the merits of dropping an atomic bomb on a city killing one hundred thousand and more civilians in minutes or seconds, together with the incredible suffering of the tens and tens of thousands of those who were fortunate enough to survive the initial explosion? Though, for many, I can only assume the descriptive word “fortunate” in this context is a relative term.

      The truth of the matter is there are none to debate.

      One might think there are no absolutes in this world, on perhaps a philosophical level, but to engage in a debate on the merits of dropping nuclear bombs on cities is, first and foremost, absolutely delusional.

      One can debate anything they wish, but then again, some people are absolute morons, being utterly and absolutely delusional or deluded, as the case may be. And that is very unfortunate.

      Of course, fueling any such debate are none other than the lurid lies of propaganda, as we all well know.

      • calibrator says:

        I don’t see any merit in dropping atomic bombs – these are first and foremost weapons against civilians including children.
        Like I wrote above, I consider it a war crime.

        • candlelight says:

          I was appropriating your words, verbatim, in an attempt to make the point, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear warfare has no merit. Period. Neither in debate, nor anywhere else.

          Indeed, your post states that Truman, by allowing the bomb to be dropped on Nagasaki, committed an egregious war crime – among the biggest in human history. However, about Hiroshima, you add “Of course one could debate the Hiroshima drop,…”.

          So, which is it?

          Or, in some roundabout way are you simply playing the devil’s advocate here? That Hiroshima is open for debate from a war strategy point of view? “Of course”?

          My whole point is it’s not. And to suggest so, in my book, is to dignify, from any point of view, including the devil’s, such incredibly numbing atrociousness.

          I’m not singling you out, by any means, calibrator. Your phraseological take on the historic record has been expressed since 1945, no doubt. But, I was just thinking of the guy whose website this is, and was doing a bit of projecting in terms of what it would feel like to read your words after living in Japan, marrying, and raising a family….

          I remember in my college years a rather lovely student of Japanese decent where rumor had it that she was suffering from leukemia due to her mother being a survivor of the bombing of Nagasaki; that the mother’s leukemia was passed on to her even though she, the student, was born some dozen years after 1945. I could only surmise at the time that if true, nuclear radiation would have somehow played a direct roll in such a very sad turn of events.

          The above informs, in part, my own point of view and feelings towards the subject. It’s not a light matter. Though if I’ve gotten too heavy here, or have gotten on your case, I apologize. I’m just hoping I’m not being too pickayune, and that you see that the point I’ve been attempting to make is not completely trivial.

          Thanks.

          • calibrator says:

            No worries and no need to apologize as I don’t feel offended – but I admit that I wasn’t entirely sure if I understood your first post correctly.

            To clarify what I meant with debate is not that *I* want to debate this (and I won’t – my opinion on these weapons is set in stone) but that I can understand the reality of people debating the necessity for the drop. You surely also have read them all, it’s better to end the war quickly, less loss of US lifes etc. etc.

            That doesn’t mean that I merit the bombs, I only recognize that others do.

            Finally, while I don’t write comments to offend anybody (except those using shitloads of money to bend society to their will) I don’t think that there should be limits to thought or debate because of the fear of offending other people.

            And if I were to project I would assume that James would rather discuss something that is offending him than stop a debate entirely because of hurt feelings.

            • manbearpig says:

              “That doesn’t mean that I merit the bombs, I only recognize that others do.”

              Yup, was perfectly clear to me.

              “And if I were to project I would assume that James would rather discuss something that is offending him than stop a debate entirely because of hurt feelings.”

              So would I. That’s what’s so great about this site.

              Just offering, as usual, my own unsollicited perspective. That’s what’s so great about this site!

              • mkey says:

                As long as we’re offering unsolicited garble in text format, what always left me dumbfounded is the difference between dropping one bomb that levels everything and dropping a thousand bombs that level everything.

                The entire notion that “Japs” were forced to skedaddle out of world conflict because one bomb (or two) was dropped while thousands of their cities were completely razed to the ground by means of bombs dropped at a tune of thousands of tonnes is completely ridiculous. It’s nothing but an echo of cartoon villainy in form of cartoon (perversion of) heroism. This plot is something cartoons would be watching in cartoons.

                There might have been two reasons for Japanese kicking the bucket: brutal expulsion out of Manchuria and assurances made they’d be able to keep their emperor post WW2. Which war ever ended because a bomb was dropped?

                Aaaaanyway…

              • candlelight says:

                mbp,
                Okay, please debate the merits of dropping an atomic bomb directly over the city of Hiroshima without resorting to the supportive propaganda for doing so that has already been very thoroughly debunked on this very same website.

                Maybe I should have qualified my statement to read that today, in 2018, a person would have to be a delusional moron to enter into such a debate. Whereas in 1945 they would have been simply duped.

                Above, in your post, you are responding to calibrator’s explanation of his original post, and not the post itself, which follows:

                Truman gets third place for letting the second bomb drop on Nagasaki.

                In my book this is one of the biggest warcrimes in human history.

                Of course one could debate the Hiroshima drop, but I think every US president would have approved that.

                Nagasaki however was a technology test & power demonstration and not necessary from a war strategy point of view.”

                I believe had calibrator simply put Truman in third place for allowing the dropping of atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would have moved on.

                Do you understsand anything of what I’m saying here, or in my last two posts? A nuance? Anything?

                I get the debate thing. Really, I do. And I get that calibrator I am sure is completely against the use of nuclear weapons. Yes, I get that. But, that wasn’t my point.

                Anyway, yeah, this is a wonderful forum for debates. Including, I see, debating the veracity of the holocaust. That’s pretty cool. That alone should draw a lot of positive interest in The Corbett Report, don’t you think?

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                mbp,
                Okay, please debate the merits of dropping an atomic bomb directly over the city of Hiroshima without resorting to the supportive propaganda for doing so that has already been very thoroughly debunked on this very same website.

                Maybe I should have qualified my statement to read that today, in 2018, a person would have to be a delusional moron to enter into such a debate. Whereas in 1945 they would have been simply duped.

                Stay the course candlelight. I get what you are saying and would be curious to see how mbp and calibrator resolve this, in detail.

              • manbearpig says:

                O.k. Candlelight,

                let’s go back to one of the opening passages of the article on which Calibrator was commenting, that I assume you read, satirically entitled “The Greatest President”:

                “…Haha. Sorry. I couldn’t keep a straight face while typing that twaddle. But in honour (that’s right, honoUr!) of my American brethren and their recent political ritual (meant to absolve them of any substantive action for another two years until they can once again stuff a piece of paper in a ballot box and go back to sleep),

                I thought I would engage in that age-old game that seems to be America’s other pastime: debating who was the greatest president of all time…”

                You see, Calibrator was commenting within the context of a satirical game.

                Or perhaps you should take a moment to refer back to this piece by Mr Corbett:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piOOiCbO2Is

                When you’ve entered the realm of choosing “the best or worst presidents”, especially when debating the relative merits of 20th and 21st century specimens, you’ve inevitably entered the realm of tongue-in-cheek “atrociousness”. Choosing your poison, as it were. A morbid or facetious activity at best.

                So choosing between a murderous criminal who dropped the first or was it the second? nuclear bomb, or who put control of the country into the hands of those banksters who would make dropping nuclear bombs possible or those who perpetuate the criminal projects laid out by all of the former

                is choosing whether you want to die from the plague, AIDS or radiation poisoning;

                A hypothetical one that does not entail genuinely debating the merits of nuclear warfare.

                I hope such facetious activities as proposed by Mr Corbett will not be effectively eradicated by those who seek to stake out the moral high ground.

                And yes, that people may cooly and respectfully evoke here the details of something as sensitive as the Holocaust, questioning whatever they deem worthy of questioning, or include links they find fascinating or important, whatever the topic (that in this case only got me a 401 message for some reason) amongst a plethora of other subjects as pertinent as they are taboo

                is what is so great about The Corbett Report.

                Even if the ill-intentioned might try to turn this fact against the site, the site owner and his regular followers. A constant nuisance.

              • calibrator says:

                Hi MBP,
                I seem to not be able to reply to the newer answers in this thread, which is why I’m replying here.
                As nobody replied to me I only see this slew of posts right now.

                @all
                Thanks for MBP for focussing back on to the context of my post – and you hit the nail on the head with your assumption that the element of satire was more than inherently featured in “Choosing the worst president ever”. But wait there is more:

                Of course my post was also meant as a (hopefully not too mean as I generally like and value the intelligent and educated posters here) -> PROVOCATION <-!

                Gasp!

                I hope we all agree here that the US president isn't simply a singular person, that gets handed the keys to the empire and – because of his infallible genius – simply decides who will live or die, who gets rich and who stays poor etc. – because he/she can't be wrong.

                Of course the president is always part of a club, a clicque, a cabal – if you will, that strives for domination. The circles that pay for his/her campaign…

                What happens under his/her presidency is not something he/she decides. It gets decided elsewhere and then he/she simply puts his/her signature under it – and plays the actor (= name & face) for history and the television.

                So HOW can I even compare one marionette with the other?
                We should rather be interested who the puppet masters are!

                Next, my choice of #1, #2 and #3 is simply RIDICULOUS. I mean, come on!

                When I chose Wilson for #1 *way* before Truman some bells should be ringing. A president who's biggest crime was installing the Fed? Yes, he sold out the country but he didn't vaporize whole cities!

                Wilson was a dumb, vain academic who was carrotted into politics by people who wanted to sell a believable, respectable stooge who they can exploit. And then they did.
                Yes, Wilson was a "made president", who was blitzed through the senate faster than Obama to quickly start his presidency run. (I'm sure though that Obama was always in the clear what he was doing)

                Also, yes the Fed is super-terrible, perhaps the most dangerous central bank of it all – but the most victims of it seem to be Americans. It's only fitting that a US president sold out his own people. He probably never realized the extent of his doings.
                And I didn't even mentioned the BIS. On this forum I expected at least a "But!" for this.

                Wilson promised for years that he wouldn't lead the USA into WW1. After his re-selection he succumbed.
                But can he really be declared guilty for anything related to WW1? Or what came after it?

                I mean, the man probably had some lofty goals of his own – like international peace – that he just simply wasn't allowed to turn into reality.
                And what was in for him? A place in history as one of the presidents – as he apparently wasn't in it for the money. He is now only a face in the history books (or on Wikipedia) and nobody really remembers anymore what he did or did not.

                And YET I name Wilson the worst US president of all time, in front of Truman.

                I also even named FDR in front of Truman and nobody objected…

                Yes, other "commanders" killed more people, more gruesomely, for a longer period of time etc. than the late entry to the wargame, Truman.

                Still, the drops were warcrimes and if you don't get the difference between a bomb that kills and maims decades after it was dropped and, for example, a lengthy bombing campaign that you can clean up afterwards and start anew then you haven't understood the character of this weapon. There really is a fundamental difference between annihilating Hiroshima or Nagasaki and firebombing Tokyo.

                The same goes for chemical or biological weapons that have the potential to alter the genome or similar nasty stuff with consequences that can't be foreseen.

                In short: Everybody who uses ABC weapons is an asshole.

                Except Americans, of course.
                They are allowed to do everything.
                Because it's for peace.

                /irony off 😉

                Peace!

              • candlelight says:

                To all the principal players here who may be reading this tripe, including

                Beware. The following may contain capricious content designed to confuse, to confirm, and to obfuscate its malicious content. Be forewarned therefore that herein contains arbitrary material, hidden within a facade of the absurd. Content that necessarily infuses the real with the unreal. The fallacious wanton beats of misplaced logic. Farcical. And in the final analysis: containing within satirically plagued potholes in an otherwise plain, smooth highway of ideas….degenerate

                To wit:

                Cornucopias carborundums! calibrator, you have verily earned your strips tonight. Calling out the dumbass idiot who can’t tell the difference between a one hundred thousand ton bomb and a thousand hundred ton bombs.
                With zero sarcasm, I do thank you for that. There will be not but another syllable moving forward, henceforth, that I shall be wont to disagree, nor argue about. So help me.

                I diverge:

                And this is the same idiot (to whom I assume you’re referring to) that among other idiots, calls out the cryptic, yet arbitrary nature of the number six – as in six million. Come out of a hat. Magic.

                Will one million due? I don’t know, have the Turks finally conceded to promulgating the HOLOCAUST of one million Kurdish souls?

                I don’t know. How many piles of bulldozed flesh covered, human skeletal remains need there be to constitute a holocaust? Or as some may “cooly and respectfully” quip, a hollowcaust? If not six million, how about five million? Two million?

                Call it seven hundred thousand for fuck’s sake.

                But, c’mon, let us be cool and respectful in debating this matter.

                O.K. manbearpig?

                O.K.?

                You make a great argument concerning the satirical context of what I was griping about concerning calibrator’s post. Granted. I lost my way in the satyrism of its nature….

                Oops.

                Thanks much.

                And to fawlty towers: We haven’t crossed paths since we strenuously argued over the lady from Oregon (displaced lady, obviously). Anyway, obviously, we fell into the same boat here, in this instance, eh?
                Land lubbers drowning in a sea of satire. We are the .0001% who are so literal, we just don’t get it.

                We need a FLOTATION DEVICE.

                cHEERS, EVERONE.

                aND PEACe.

                PS: Fawlty towers, the phrase “staying the course”, though fully understood, is anathema to me.(see the lost audio archives of a one stupendously beef jerky dubya.

                Peace, again, y’all.

              • mkey says:

                calibrator, I didn’t catch your reference to my reply previously since it was quite a lengthy post and I glanced over it.

                The opinion I stated had absolutely no reference to biological or chemical weapons, whatsoever. Ill effects of agent orange, for instance, are still visible today. I personally need to look no further for proof against using insane stuff like that even though I’m really not certain to what extent exactly are these effects still present today.

                Of course, I’m just as much as against using bombs in general to destroy people and the ecosystem. That’s an important distinction to make, because it seems people like drawing red lines someplace, be it nuclear or chemical weapons, which in comparison may seem “conventional” weapons to be OK. Cassette bombs, all sorts of mines, fragmentation grenades, napalm, big bombs, small bombs, “normal” bullets or ones spiked with depleted uranium are not OK. The red line ought to be drawn with a permanent marker at mass destruction, means to achieve it from that point of view are completely immaterial.

                Regarding my “it’s the same” stance on using a thousand bombs against one bomb, that’s something that has been reflected by historians, like Oliver Stone in his documentary series “The untold history of United States” when he was making the case against the established argument that those bombs were necessary to end the war because otherwise the Japanese wouldn’t surrender.

                His opinion was that the destruction by these single bombs didn’t do it (since Japanese suffered so greatly anyway,) but the fact they were thrown out of Manchuria and that they were looking for assurances nobody will harm their emperor god.

                Of course they were ready go give up a lot sooner but the war needed to drag on so it dragged on, ending how it ended.

              • mkey says:

                As far as your assertion “kills and maims decades after” goes, what is it based on? I’m not aware of any side by side comparisons of rebuilding of Hiroshima and Tokyo, if you have any I’d like to look at that. It’d like to see a comparison for two similar regions, differing in means of destruction, on how their respective recuperation went through.

                https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki

                Sources I find mostly state that these two places weren’t left as a nuclear wasteland, in fact residual radiation had dissipated far faster than anyone expected. Flooding that occurred not long after washed away much of the relief effort but most of the fallout as well.

                Of course there were a lot people who caught the initial radiation blast and died due to that through following weeks and months. There were various reasons for these deaths, not only radiation sickness. Unborn children took a toll as well through various birth defects, but not as much as born children did. There were increased chances for cancer as well.

                In comparison to “conventional warfare” during those “extended” bombing campaigns people have the tendency to starve, just as an example. I’m obviously not an expert on what’s worse for the unborn child, a starving mother or an irradiated mother so I won’t comment on that. But “kills and maims for decades after” sounds way too excessive to me. Again, if you have anything to back that up I’ll be glad to adjust my view accordingly.

                The thing with radiation is the expectation, which seems to me to be more of a dogma than anything based on science, that radiation blasts will always leave a wasteland, which they tend not to as history shows.

                Again, to decry multiple bomb effects over single bomb effects is complete and utter lunacy in my book.

      • generalbottlewasher says:

        Candlelight, About the a-bombs. I am moved to ask ” what does Billy Pilgrim say on the matter” I believe the Trifalmordorians think humans are bing bong mickey ficky crazy. Boocoup´dinky Doe Dow humane´.

  3. Lance says:

    I convinced one of my sons to read the Hitch Hiker’s Trilogy a few years back. It contains more truth about the nature of power than any degree at university would be allowed.

    Every time my wife talks about Trump I refer to Zaphod. Trump is a an orange, racist, mysoginist NY builder – how much more distracting could you possibly get? In the UK we just have a series of gray lizards as Prime Distractor – I’m always amazed at how easy it is to distract us Lymies.

    The US is so much better at it. I think the current trend really kicked-off with Reagan – a really poor actor delivering lines with all the sincerity of a washing powder advert. Our best attempt was Tony B Liar – he played “Everybody’s Best Friend”, who also had side lines in kleptomania, mass murder and general psychopathy.

  4. Mielia says:

    when we say 7 or 8 billion people
    0.00000001% is
    0,7 or 0,8 people. Even less than 6.

    I know I took this too seriously. Please don’t take me too seriously.

    Apart from that, great article.

  5. n4x5 says:

    The late Rob Ford is the greatest mayor of all time.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Good brief video clip with the Toronto Mayor.
      He really gets close to the camera.

  6. generalbottlewasher says:

    I can’t remember his name , but I talked at length with people who knew him. Im speaking of the Venezuelan Dictator who resigned his role as King and let democracy and ideals of the Republic reign supreme. Power being shared between the White and the Green party for decades . Of course Big Oil, the CIA, and the US Army came to the rescue of these tortured people and saved them from that crazy ideal. Now what was his name?

  7. herrqlys says:

    I’m Canadian but born in England (a social aeon ago), and therefore just sufficiently removed from American and British society to observe their carefully-conditioned reflex actions, while retaining some cultural understanding, so that I have a different perspective on some of these things. I pay more attention to what is happening in Syria, Gaza, Yemen, Ukraine and Venezuela than I do about the ballyhooed celebrity antics of the day. Or hubris in the House of Commons or on Capitol Hill. Yes, you’re right: I don’t watch TV or read legacy media publications.

    Anyway, given my proclivities, when I review the following lists of portraits/times in office:

    The presidents of the United States of America
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

    The prime ministers of the United Kingdom
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom

    I find myself looking at a funny group of people that, for the most part, did nothing really startlingly positive for mankind, and even less for their average citizens. They generally came from the ranks of the power elite of their time, or were sponsored by the same groups. Cui bono? A rhetorical question, of course. That’s why the rich always seem to get richer.

    The trick is to elevate the office for the head of state into such an exalted status that Leona Helmsley’s “little people” will stand in awe of their demi-god, think what they’re expected to think (home of the brave and land of the free = me), and are conditioned to follow in the way they are expected to act (pay your taxes and support the troops). But the revered sheperd is a man who (probably) knows his lambs are being led to a fleecing, or the dinner table (“They hate our freedoms.”). A sheep dog has far more honourable intentions with their flock.

    Upon reviewing the lists, above, I was more interested in the greater number of these people who failed to make any significant mark in general history. A surprising number of American presidents died in office. I also note that a former vice president Clinton (George) also died during his term, and that made him far more notable and interesting than most of the other non-descript VPs.

    True democracy isn’t scalable into the masses of citizens grouped in the modern world, who are found in mostly metropolitan habitats. Yet the general population matters because if properly manipulated (think Herman/Chomsky’s “Manufacturing of Consent”) then power elites can get on with their own agendas without hindrance. That’s why elections are essentially rigged, to maintain the status quo and prevent turbulence. If you already have wealth and power, then at a personal level you also want the freedom to spend/wield it as you see fit. People and movements that threaten this tranquility are dealt with harshly. Concepts of human justice do not apply.

  8. Wakeywakey says:

    Up until recently I have agreed with James that voting is a fools errand. HOWEVER, with the advent of Donald J Trump I have been pleasantly dissuaded (at least temporarily.)

    Unless you have been following Qanon, (pause for the usual LARP comments and guffaws from the uninitiated), you do not and cannot know why the aforesaid POTUS is the best EVER.

    Why did Trump give up the millionaire life he had? Why does he put his and his family’s life on the line daily?
    Because, the American Military, tired of seeing what was happening to their country, persuaded Trump to be the figurehead of what is the greatest military intelligence operation EVER, to stop the destruction of America started by the NWO puppets Obama and Hillary Clinton and their cohorts.

    Research Qanon with an open mind, it’s all there to see with proof that Qanon is very closely working with Trump to bring down the Deep State including the traitors Obama and HRC. Merkel? She’s toast, up to her neck in NWO fuckery. Soros likewise.

    Now that Trump has a majority in the Senate and in the Supreme Court the stage is set for military, yes military tribunals. When you find out that the CIA was running North Korea, (no longer thanks to Trump), and Iran, (no longer thanks to)…you guessed it. The Saudi Princes arrests…thank you Mr. Trump.

    Not only has Trump and the Military Intelligence averted WW3, which would have happened if the wicked witch Hillary had got into the White House, but he has initiated the fight against child trafficking worldwide ( bigger than you can imagine), he has cleaned out the FBI, the DOJ and the top corrupt brass of the CIA. And all this with a violently anti Trump opposition and main stream media’s best efforts aka lies and fake news.

    This is just part of the story of why DJT is the bravest, finest President EVER bar none! Still not convinced? Watch closely, the Great Awakening is upon us. This will affect us all.

    I hope James doesn’t mind me mentioning a few YouTube sites to check out re Qanon. 1. In pursuit of truth. 2. X22 report. 3. Praying Medic. 4. Dustin Nemos. And a great website for Qanon proofs and archives Neonrevolt.com

    Peace to all

    • generalbottlewasher says:

      WakeyWakey, I hope you are right i really do but i have a gut feeling going the other way. I’ll list them feelings and please help me get over what I know about human nature and history. And again I hope you are correct.
      1. The Donald seems to have BiBi’s schalong in one of two places.
      2. John Bolton, Wilbur Ross, Rothchilde 1992.
      3. Is not that enough?
      4. The mystery man behind the curtain who will save the world is one of the oldest of Cons.

      I hope you are not being mislead by a Robert David Steele or Madam Blavatsky or Q.and it really does come to pass. Hope is eternal.

      • Wakeywakey says:

        generalbottlewasher, I do agree there are some potentially negative aspects to DJT. As you mentioned, there is his closeness to Zionist elements, some close to home, also his friendship with 9/11’s very own Larry Silverstein.
        But, remember Q’s post when he said Saudi Arabia, N Korea, Iran, Israel will be last. After all the Military Intelligence are running the show, THEY call the shots, POTUS is the front man who, masterfully does their bidding.

        However, let’s remember 1. Trumps patriotism and bravery for taking up the (potentially fatal) cudgel of POTUS. 2. The amount of positive things he has achieved at home and internationally in a very short time against a 24/7 hateful media and a very corrupt and compromised DOJ, FBI and CIA. 3. He has neutralised the CIA control of North Korea, turning a potential war into peaceful solution. 4. He has successfully allied himself with Putin and worked with him to rid Syria of ISIS. 5. He is totally and utterly against the Globallists, fights America’s corner and is a shining beacon of hope. The Euro leaders are frightened of him with good reason. I Hope and truly believe that what is happening in America spreads to the rest of the world and the Brussels globallists and pathetic so called leaders of European countries get what’s due.

        6. And importantly, he has got traitors and war criminals in his sights and the pain is coming very soon.

        • generalbottlewasher says:

          Wakeydito, I fear Corbetts take logically out ways the paradox you propose. Real Power directed The Donald into the roll he is in. I agree it is very dangerous for him to go with any preconceived predilections he may have want to act on independently. I fear he is reading the script not writing it. We, as Corbett points out will be the last to the party real´. Hope you are right.

          “ALL THE KINGS OF THE NATIONS LIE IN GLORY;
          Cased in cedar and shut in a sacred gloom;
          Swathed in linen and precious unguents old,
          Painted with cinnabar and rich with gold.
          SILENT THEY REST, IN SOLEMN SALVATORY,
          Sealed from the moth and the owl and the flittermouse-
          EACH WITH HIS NAME ON HIS BROW.”

          Jean Inflow 1888

  9. laing says:

    I hate to say it, because I have always disliked the man, but I now think that Donald Trump deserves the honor of being the best president the US has ever had. Why on Earth…? Several reasons. First, against all odds, he succeeded in winning the 2016 election against what was, by all accounts, a rather formidable slate of contestants. This is attributable to his saying the right things to an electorate that had become increasingly fed up with the do-nothing congress that had nothing better to show for themselves than the ability to acquire and to hold power in Washington.

    Second, he declared several objectives on the campaign trail, and by and large he has lived up to them. One by one, between gratuitous tweets, he has quietly succeeded in bringing about most of his promised changes.

    Third, he has a vision for America, which is, lo and behold, to bring us back to some semblance of our constitutional roots, and in so doing he has elevated the concept of the “common man,” which of course includes the common woman, in an increasingly divided and yes, racist society, in which the color of one’s skin counts for much more than his/her ability to become a worthy person through growth and experience.

    Fourth, he has quietly absorbed the totally unwarranted taunts of the outraged Democrats that he is racist, totalitarian, bigoted, uncompromising, etc. (all terms more applicable to his detractors than to him), while equally quietly doing what he was elected to do: namely moving his egalitarian platform forward.

    Fifth, he has correctly seen that nationalism offers far more promise to America than globalism. Under the latter form of governance, large, international corporations would naturally assume leadership roles in whatever “world government” was to evolve, whereas local problems would be far more easily solved at the local level.

    Sixth, He’s correctly seen that America could lead the world in energy resources, and he is currently doing his best to make this possible, and he is succeeding, much to the anger of the Democrats, who have long supported the globalist trend, preferring that to the unthinkable sin of being a “Proud American.”

    Seventh, and this is a big one, his withdrawing America from the disastrous Paris agreement with its draconian restrictions on carbon-based energy production. He has, in fact, single-handedly prevented the globalists from committing the single greatest blunder that has threatened our world in modern times, that is depriving our civilization from the very source upon which it has flourished to date, namely a reliable source of cheap and concentrated energy. But what about global warming, oh, I’m sorry, I mean climate change? Well, the fact is that there is no hard-data-based study in the peer-reviewed literature that supports the concept that CO2 causes global warming. Further, my own peer-reviewed research has shown that CO2 not only doesn’t cause global warming, but that it can’t! (send me your email address, and I’ll send you a copy of my paper explaining why).

    I could go on, but that’s probably enough. I’m still not wild about “The Donald” on a personal level, but I do rate him, very highly, for what he’s done in his first two years in office. I really can’t honestly say that I could come up with a better president than he’s been for us so far.

    David Bennett Laing

    • Trudy-Alan says:

      like your reasoning

    • mkey says:

      Regarding point number one, Trump didn’t win the popular vote, did he?

      Regarding point number two, I seem to remember promises to “drain the swamp” and to “lock her up” whatever happened to those?

      He was also quite antiwar, or at least he often got on Obama’s ass over his hawkish policies but then it turned out he too possessed the ability and willingness to order in some missile strikes.

      What about withdrawing ‘merica from disastrous military involvements across the globe?

      I have nothing against Trump personally, but he’s a sad joke foisted upon us all.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Trump and ‘his men’ (EPA appointment)
      This is just one of his hired guys. No, I mean ‘goons’.
      I have a problem with this…

      Court orders ban of top-selling pesticide, says EPA violated law, ignored scientific studies
      https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-pesticide-epa-20180809-story.html

      EXCERPTS
      A Federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration endangered public health by keeping a widely used pesticide on the market despite extensive scientific evidence that even tiny levels of exposure can harm babies’ brains…

      …A coalition of farmworkers and environmental groups sued last year after then-EPA chief Scott Pruitt reversed an Obama-era effort to ban chlorpyrifos, which is widely sprayed on citrus fruit, apples and other crops. The attorneys general for several states joined the case against EPA, including California, New York and Massachusetts.

      In a split decision, the court said Thursday that Pruitt, a Republican forced to resign earlier this summer amid ethics scandals, violated federal law by ignoring the conclusions of agency scientists that chlorpyrifos is harmful.

      “The panel held that there was no justification for the EPA’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children,” Judge Jed S. Rakoff wrote in the court’s opinion…
      ~~~~~~~~~~
      The article goes on. Pruitt (an arrogant asshole in other ways) rubs noses with Dow Chemical to pull it off.
      Poison children and make a buck.

      I have a big problem with that.

  10. mkey says:

    Why More Gridlock in Congress is Good for America
    https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/why-more-gridlock-in-congress-is-good-for-america/

    Daily Bell has the “top president” candidate in Calvin Coolidge, a man who supposedly stated that it’s more important to block bad bills than to introduce good ones. He also may have cut taxes, government spending, payed off some debt and other such fluff.

  11. CRM114 says:

    Johnny Gentle is probably my favorite president. President of ONAN (The Organization of North American Nations) where they celebrate Interdependence day.

    And Good as Gold by Heller is one of the best depictions I’ve seen of govt workers

  12. Octium says:

    You know you have a good President when comes in a quality box ⚰

  13. NES says:

    Fun. The analogy fits our planetary circus, most especially the one that was just in town here in the USA. General crazy people, known criminals re-elected (by landslide), ANTIFA attacks on innocents. GOD! What a bunch of losers.

    Zaphod! Zaphod! Zaphod! Zaphooooooooooood!!!!!

  14. manbearpig says:

    I say the best president who ever was, is the one who wasn’t! The one who obligingly gave in to vote fraud and gave his name to an inimitable throbbing beat, pulsing and pulsating throughout climate change models across the endangered planet!: That’s right! Al Gore and his ever consensual glacier-melting Algorythmn! (I never met a stale pun I didn’t like!)

    My hero! My creator is back and better than ever!!

    According to Forbes magazine South Park has had to get super cereal and atone for “contributing to the apathy of the general public!” making man-made climate change skepticism even cooler than it already was!! :

    “…So here we are, recognizing that it’s finally “Time to get Cereal,” in one of the best episodes of the season, so far..

    …Gore reveals that ManBearPig is actually a demon, one of those dealmaking ones who always make their target regret their choice. It’s a perfect metaphor for climate change…

    …The scene in which the creature tears up a restaurant while an annoying climate change denier sits sipping wine, casting doubt on the creature’s existence, is so spot-on it hurts; especially when he finally acknowledges that the creature exists, but that it’s too late to do anything now.

    Thankfully, he gets torn to pieces…”

    Gore-y entertainment at it’s hottest!

    (if I do say so myself!)

    forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2018/11/08/south-park-review-time-to-get-cereal-atones-for-past-sins/#3b937e0c6e8d

  15. Trudy-Alan says:

    Well guys the best Prez has always been the one you got, because you can try to influence him, like the MSM jerk hoarding the mike. Opinions, as in polls, demonstrate their meaninglessness with each and every time they are quoted as some kind of proof of argument. Action makes a difference, so keep up the unpredictability of decisions and the best Prez will surely emerge.

  16. Trudy-Alan says:

    Having read some of the comments, let me say I am a US citizen, and used to hitchhike a lot – when cars were what other people had, but I joined the Air Force and ceased that manner of enlightenment. Now I’m just aware, and that’s why I’m here. Good comment-generating topic James popped out.

  17. sTevo says:

    Don’t Panic! It’s all you need to know, that and 42. All else is noise.

  18. Rooster_Ninja says:

    Love that Freeman Fly interview, I had got myself snared up in what turned out to be pointless debate in the religion versus atheist debate; I was an atheist (embarrassing now that I look back on it.) I walked away from it as it was going no where, and I began to encounter new information that changed my world view. Hopefully this information will propel the atheist vs religious debate out of the decaying orbits both sides currently occupy. Thanks again James!

  19. royb says:

    It is easy to point to the best president. Yes, there was a good president. Andrew Jackson who won the bank war against the Rothschilds in 1828, of course. Isn’t it strange, all you anarchists ;)?

    The president actually had power, and used it for something really good. What he did kept the banks away from power for more than 70 years! The Rothschilds were furious on him, and made several attempts to kill him.

    How come he did the right thing, although he was not a saint, which he was not? Well, simply said, the people get the president they deserve. God turns the hearts of kings and presidents to make the right descisions if the people fear God. When they don’t, he does not. Alot about that in the odl testament in the bible.

    Democracy is the best possible human system there is, but only if enough people fear God, and therefore the politicians have a sense that we all have to answer for our actions before a holy God, who is in his right and power to cast us into hell. When people turn from God, the democracy evaporates as we see it do today.

    So the only hope for mankind is jesus Christ, the only one able to save the world. When he comes back, he will destroy all evil men, all those who destroy other human beings and the rest of his creation. I hope all who read this will learn about him, for instance by reading the gospel of Mark. His words are the only message that can give peace in our hearts and the world and make us realize that we all are evil and have committed sins and need forgiveness. Jesus paid for all our sins. Repenting of sin, believing in him and start doing the love he showed and spoke about, saves us from the wrath of God that is coming, when he judges all men. That day, the Bible says, people will ask the mountains to fall over them to hide them from the wrath of God. As most of us knows, the richest have prepared hiding places in the mountains for the storm they know is coming. But it is impossible to hide from God, outside the hiding place that he himslef has made for us. That is what I described, which is a hiding place the bible calls being in Christ. So become a part of the fast growing crowd of believers, most of all ordinary and poor people in “major world”, Asia, people who actually ditch the ordinary churhes that are a part of “the system”, and gather in homes. This “body of Christ” as it is called, has a flat structure, no hierarchy among the people, only Jesus is the boss. If this keeps growing as fast as today, half of the population of the world will be part of this growth within twenty years. This is what the NWO people and their boss the devil really fears. So we are fast approaching the final battle. Be sure to have the covering of Jesus that day.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top