It’s all in “Magick: Book IV”
Another thing occurred to me:
All those times the zero voted “present” as a senator; I thought it was just indecisiveness or stupidity. It makes more sense to me now to think of it as a conscious strategy NOT TO LEAVE ANY SORT OF RECORD. He was purposely casting himself as a cipher. That had to be his strategy in Harvard, too. I mean, how absurd it is that someone gets into Harvard Law and does not leave behind any sort of paper trail; no papers, no opinions, nothing. If a young black man worked hard and was admitted to Harvard, wouldn’t he by pulling at the leash to prove himself? To write SOMETHING to show how brilliant he was? Of course. Anyone would want to do that. Yet he wrote NADA! That’s just as kooky as voting “present”. It’s as if someone behind the scenes were instructing him “Keep a low profile; don’t let your real personality or intellect show; write as little as you can get away with.”
Then he becomes some sort of visiting teacher, or adjunct professor, at the University of Chicago. When they offer him a full-time tenured spot, he turns it down!. Good grief! What person of normal ambition — black or white — who makes it through Columbia, makes it through Harvard Law, would TURN DOWN a tenured position at U. of Chicago? It wouldn’t necessarily have interefered with any political aspirations, by the way.
But...when you’re on tenure track — especially at a major university — you gotta “publish or perish”. According to a NYTimes piece a few months ago (positive but revealing nonetheless) zero had the reputation of being aloof (though popular with students), and standoffish with the other teachers. Why?
I think it was because he was afraid of being found out. And he rejected the tenure-track position because it would have required him to write and publish — something that would have given him away as a fraud.
This brings up another question that has probably already been answered — perhaps a FReeper can help me here. In any articles since the campaign started, have any Harvard faculty written anything like “Yes, Barack Obama was in my class, Contracts 101, and wow! was he ever intellectually curious! What a bright guy!”
Could be wrong, but I don’t remember reading any testimonials like that, and I don’t remember reading any testimonials by any former Harvard classmates of his (”He always sat alone in the corner, brooding, but would suddenly raise his hand and ask an extremely insightful question”).
The more I think about this, the more it’s apparent that there’s something abnormal and just VERY WRONG with this whole picture.
An early page of the hypnosis article describes how to avoid being affected. "Use critical thinking." Well, what we are witnessing is a public that lacks the ability to engage in critical thinking. This situation has been cultivated deliberately, for years.
Don't take this as drawing any sort of equivalence, but the last cipher that came around that really got my attention was Harriet Miers. Offering a person because their background is obscure (ostensibly to avoid the difficulties that come with substantive objection) is just plain wrong. And yet, a significant fraction of Republicans supported this cipher based on trust in GWB.
The antidote is "use critical thinking." My prognosis is that the supply of critical thinking is diminishing at this point in history.
Very good points. I’m thinking that ever since Frank Marshall Davis met Obama in Hawaii he’s been groomed. Davis had connections in Chicago and one of his wives Helen Canfield was described as a white socialite from Chicago. Who knows what kind of connections she had. They also had children together and I’m curious to find out where they are now.