New Kindle Book: “Values and the Future (Revaluation of Values)”

Values and the Future (Revaluation of Values) is now available at the Kindle Store

Nietzsche said revaluation of values is the supreme task of the philosopher. Nietzsche called philosophers lawgivers. And yet the world continues to operate as though values were not something we are called to revise, develop, enunciate. The position of these recent reflections is allied with Nietzsche. The values suggested are vastly different from the usual, traditional pantheon.


Connecting Dots on Jobs

Getting tired of simplistic laments about losing jobs, especially from the liberal Ed Show side. The fact of the matter is that many car jobs and defense jobs and other jobs that have to do with the 20th Century are not gonna be restored.

At least if the President is successful in minimizing wasteful defense spending and ending the tyranny of oil.

The laments will be sounding loud and clear over coming weeks and our response should be:

Be honest about it. Talk about the green economy. Talk about new professions that will deal with the coming aging of the population and the need to start building communities that do not get washed or blown away whenever the weather acts up. Talk about the new jobs that would come into being if we really did preventive health care. Talk about new modes of teaching if we really did move more toward a culture which offered more than one route toward becoming qualified.

The jobs we associate with Detroit are going away and any effort to resuscitate the automobile economy that we have known is throwing the future down the drain.

The underlying political controversy now is between the predatory and the civilized. Between those who would turn the US into the New Barbarians and those who would move us gently toward something like a Civilization where people are not ashamed to be civil, not ashamed to tolerate, not ashamed to do things that celebrate life.

We have the Cheneys of the world wishing for a nice attack to reignite the paranoia and fear around 9/11. And we have the Obamas of the world going for a new synthesis in which smartness counts for something in creating security and hope is not subject to the cynical Cheney sneer.

All we have to remember from our past is that the Cheneys of the world are no strangers my code phrase “jaws of hell”. Hit the tag for more. And that the Obama’s of the world are aware of this underside but smart enough to contain it and ward off its worst expressions.



Obama: Closing The Jaws of Hell

One nice thing about the Web is that someone who thinks can send out messages which gain traction as key phrases. Three of mine — more noted now than when first conceived — are benign genocide (actually first created in Australia), creedal messianism and, pertinent to this post, jaws of hell.

Jaws of hell is my phrase for the nether regions of American life, the smoky realm where conspiracies may exist, where means conquer ends and where such phenomena as 527 ads poison political discourse. It is the realm where the worst part of the spectrum which is all of us takes on tangible form and wreaks havoc with everything it impacts.

This is a prologue to a simple observation about what the Obama campaign means, what it is about.

It is about closing the jaws of hell.

Closing — or at least beginning to close — the wounds of the 60s assassinations.

Closing — or at least beginning to close — the wounds of LBJ’s duplicitous lies which escalated Vietnam into an enduring national tragedy.

Closing — 40 years of gridlock politics engendering corruption on a wide scale, much of it enabled by a conscience-free suspension of elementary regulation of human greed,

Closing — a century of design built around the autocracy of the automobile and the enslavement of our economy to oil, leading to wars past and the prospect of wars in the future.

Well you have my laundry list — what’s yours?

The point is that the Obama campaign has a much larger symbolic significance than the MSM see. But most ordinary people understand it at some level.

This is why silliness and genuine bile mingle like a toxic cloud over the campaign as people nervously react to the prospect that Obama is opting to help SET THINGS RIGHT — after a long season of wrongs.

All this is played out within the ambient regions of consciousness.

It is really just a thought.

Obama closing the jaws of hell.

McCain as the grand master of opposition.

Clinton as McCain’s biggest fan.

Is it all rock and roll?

I don’t think so.

It is a long shot that is looking like it might win.

barack obama, jaws of hell

As President, Will Barack Reopen JFK Questions?

About | Popular | Superdelegates | Predictions | Polls | Game

As President, will Barack Obama reopen alleged JFK coverups to help arrive at cloture after two failed investigations?

“If guilt is the question, then truth is the answer.” A famous line from the great Willie Nelson. The song, from Red Headed Stranger, goes on — “I’ve been lying to me all along.”

I wonder if, in the interests of truth, Barack Obama. as President, will encourage the answering of the following questions. Out of more of more than 600 books about the Kennedy Assassination, these are the few questions I feel, with some help from reading Gaeton Fonzi, cry out for some sort of cloture:

1. The role of the CIA. This is a virtual void and therefore a hotbed of conspiracy speculation. What we do know is that we still have no cloture on the issue of CIA involvement. In particular, the issue of whether David Atlee Phillips was Maurice Bishop needs to be determined to the satisfaction of all. Another way of putting this is: What did the CIA conceal from the Warren Commission and then the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation? And why?

2. Sylvia Odio testimony. Fonzi regards the testimony he gathered from Sylvia Odio as the most convincing direct evidence that there was a conspiracy — that Oswald and others were involved. Is her valediction quoted by Fonzi something we can reverse at this late date? “We lost. We all lost.”

3. Single Bullet Question. Fonzi notes an indisputable evidence of conspiracy: That the location of bullet holes in the back of Kennedy’s jacket and shirt refute a single bullet theory.

One convincing validation of Fonzi’s evidential approach seems to me to be that he does not flesh out a conspiracy theory. He merely indicates that there was a conspiracy.

My own impression is that there were forces that had an interest in ridding the world of persons deemed a fundamental threat to their powerful and passionately affirmed interests. And that it mattered not who they were. I can imagine an atmosphere in which rumor, innuendo and fact led to a general assent to specific plans to achieve the decimation of JFK, RFK and MLK. And that at some point wishes turned into commands.

The assassination of Malcolm X seems to me a transparent indication of how this works. More than one were clearly and openly involved. In the case of the less transparent assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, the need to create an easy and satisfying story led to the involvement of patsys who participated, but not alone and not without connection to the jaws of hell world which they were serving.

The CIA was and is an entity which has essentially been legally permitted to flaunt the canons of democracy.


What is the “payoff” of believing there has been conspiracy?


It vindicates an understanding of how society works that is more true than a romantic one which gives to lone individuals the power to change everything.

My use of the phrase jaws of hell is a way of making immanent and understandable and therefore vulnerable forces which have hitherto been assumed to be beyond fathoming and likely signs of a real hell somewhere. We do not need that superstructure. We know how conflict is created and how forces coalesce and how difficult it is to achieve reason and fairness when confronted with those who will not play by civilized and just rules.

Barack Obama in PA Today

Send a Personal Email to Stephen C. Rose



Obama Blog

FOX, jaws of hell, rupert murdoch

Bill Moyers on Rupert Murdoch Cites Clinton Ties

About | Popular | Superdelegates | Predictions | Polls | Game

This remarkable Bill Moyers journal was made prior to the Wall Street Journal’s purchase by Rupert Murdoch. That is significant for two reason. He notes a Clinton tie-in to Murdoch and FOX News then.One which persists. And, by implication, he implies exactly what is unique about this race. Obama does not take anything from Murdoch. And that means Murdoch and his ilk can only be beaten by “we the people”.

What makes this dynamic new is the rise of cyberspace as a reasonably democratic entity. I have little doubt that if Obama wins the nomination and Presidency that Murdoch and his other jaws of hell entities will seek to close the door on internet democracy.

My only reflection on the Moyers video, beyond the above, has to do with LBJ. Moyers was an LBJ protege, almost a sun. I associate LBJ with the very jaws of hell. I will be searching around today to see if Moyers has ever rejected and renounced the man who helped eviscerate any shred of hope that existed for an achievement of the sort of hope that Obama represents.

Make no mistake, the Murdoch-FOX attack on Barack is not playing games for ratings. It is dead earnest and mandated from the top. No one is better able to identify a threat than one who is infested by the various demons associated with the jaws of hell.

Here is a direct link to the YouTube Video BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Moyers on Murdoch | PBS

Jaws of hell posts can be found by clicking the label jaws of hell.

Send a Personal Email to Stephen C. Rose


jaws of hell

Obama Blog

FOX, politics

FOX, Sean Hannity, Hal Turner: Jaws of Hell on the Right

FOX, Sean Hannity, Hal Turner: Jaws of Hell on The Right

FOX is not a news channel. It is a propaganda mill. It engages in search and destroy missions. And it is apparently hospitable to influences that are vastly more alarming and noxious than the wall-to-wall soundbites they have been playing of the Rev. Wright. See my note on Sean Hannity and Hal Turner below.

I have no idea whether, by calling its propaganda news, FOX exposes itself to any FCC regulation. Certainly if the requirement were honesty, there would be cause to lift its license.

The foregoing was written as a simple reaction to the following from the Obama Blog. I should mention as a veteran of innumerable forums since before Al Gore invented the Internet, the Obama Blog and its thousands of comment-makers has an almost unbelievable degree of civility.

So Fox News evidently decided to pore through our millions of user-created pages on My.BarackObama.com and put a screenshot of inflammatory content on the front page of FoxNews.com.

You see, more than 700,000 people have created accounts on the system. You can create one right now if you choose, in about a minute — anyone can.

Now, from time to time people get up to no good — creating fake profiles (like one for Sean Hannity created today), or posting profane or inappropriate content. When they do, the community reports the offending content and if it violates our terms of service it is removed (as the Sean Hannity profile was).

My.BarackObama.com has been at the core of our bottom-up organizing strategy. The tools available have been put to work by a community of supporters that is bigger and more powerful than anything presidential politics has ever seen.

Evidently, Fox News didn’t think it was a big deal that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans are participating in the democratic process creating groups and local events in communities all across the country.

But they did think it was a big deal that one random person on the Internet, without the knowledge of the Obama campaign, posted a profile in the system with the image of the New Black Panther Party on it.

When we were alerted of the existence of this page, we pulled it down. Yet even after we pulled the page, Fox News continues to disingenuously and prominently feature this “story” on their homepage.

If you have feedback for Fox News, you can email foxnewsonline@foxnews.com.


One of the worst persons on FOX is a person named Sean Hannity whose past associates and mentors include a fellow named Hal Turner. A brief glance at the archive titles of Mr. Turner’s internet radio shows will suggest the scope of his interests and the likely ethos that formed Mr. Hannity’s worldview:

THE SUBSCRIPTION SYSTEM IS BACK ONLINE. In order to hear the archives, you must be a paid subscriber. The fee is
Four Dollars ($4) per week, billed monthly ($16). You may subscribe with cash, check, money order or credit card. To sign-up as a subscriber, Click Here

HT = THe Hal Turner Show
AH = The Adolf Hitler Show
AN = Aryan Nations
BPL = British People’s League
GE = Grandmother Elizabeth
HH = HoloHoax
LH = Logan’s Hunt
NA = National Alliance
PG = Paul Gellar
RR = Resistance Radio (All Music)
SJ = Shouts of Joy
TD = Turner Diaries
WAR = White Aryan Resistance YT = Yahweh’s Truth
SY = Church Of The Sons of YHVH


If you Google the various show titles above, you will find yourself in a cesspool of racist and white supremacist and crazed theoretical stuff. Compared to the depth of hatred and ill-intent emanating from Hannity’s right, the bilious soundbites from Rev. Wright are a drop in the bucket. And, I might add, a miniscule fragment from a 20 year output that was offered up in a congregation whose dominant ethos was love and upbuilding, not the wall of hatred that underlies the consciousness of FOX News. Hannity apparently reduced his active relationship to Turner as his own career began to take off. He is apparently more than reticent now when questioned about the relationship. And he has apparently learned that imputing racism to others is the best way to avoid being tagged a racist. It takes initiation into the world of Roger Ailes to become an emissary of principalities and powers.

Here is an account of the relationship between Sean Hannity and Hal Turner.



About Sean Hannity and Me. . . . .

Yes, we were friends and yes, Sean agreed with some of my views

Recently, Barak Obama has come under serious scrutiny for attending a church whose Reverend Wright espouses anti-American and racist views. One media outlet that has been especially critical of Obama has been the show “Hannity & Colmes” on Fox News Channel.

On Wednesday, March 19, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party appeared as a guest on “Hannity & Colmes” to discuss the Obama / Reverend Wright controversy. During that appearance, Sean Hannity asked Shabazz if Barak Obama shouldn’t be judged by his past affiliations with Reverend Wright, to which Shabazz replied by asking Sean Hannity “Should you be judged by your past association with Hal Turner, a neo-Nazi?”

I was quite disappointed when Sean Hannity at first tried to say he didn’t know me and then went on to say that I ran some senate campaign in New Jersey. In fact, Sean Hannity does know me and we were quite friendly a number of years ago.

When Hannity took over Bob Grant’s spot on 77 WABC in New York City, I was a well-known, regular and welcome caller to his show. Through those calls, Sean and I got to know each other a bit and at some point, I can’t remember exactly when, Sean gave me the secret “Guest call-in number” at WABC so that my calls could always get on the air.

When I utlized that call-in number, Sean would very often come onto that line during commercial breaks so we could chat before I went on the air. Our off-the-air chats grew to an exchange of other phone numbers, me giving Sean my home and cellular number and Sean giving me his direct dial-in number at Fox News channel.

In 1993, My wife got pregnant and around a month later, Sean reported that he and his wife were expecting their first child. We got to talking about things expectant dads talk about and the relationship grew.

My wife gave birth to our son in June 1994, Seans wife gave birth to their child about a month later.

Over the course of the next three or four years, Sean and I spoke regularly off the air about our kids, politics and news of the day. My on-air calls to his show remained regular and welcome.

Around 1997, Sean invited me and my then-three-year-old-son, to come to Fox News Channel to be in the studio (NOT ON THE AIR) during a live broadcast of “Hannity & Colmes”. I accepted the invitation and my son and I went. We were inside the studio standing between the camera men as the show aired live. We got to speak with both Sean Hannity and Allan Colmes before the show. Like most three year olds, my son’s willingness to stay quiet didn’t last, so I thought it best to take him home rather than have his noise air during their show.

Sean and I spoke by phone the next day. I thanked him for the chance to be there and he said it was a real pleasure meeting me and my son.

In the year 2000, I sought the Republican nomination to the US House of Representatives from the 13th Congressional District of New Jersey. Since I was a candidate for federal office and since WABC served the area in which I was running for election, WABC was FORCED by federal law to accept my campaign radio ads, many of which were quite explicit. The station did not want to air the ads but the law left them no choice.

At about the same time, WABC changed program directors from John Mainelli to Phil Boyce. It seems to me that Mr. Boyce objected vehemently to my campaign commercials and political beliefs and I suspect he told Sean Hannity that I was not to be welcomed on WABC anymore. Since Boyce had the power to fire Hannity, it appears to me that Hannity did what he was told. From that point on, Sean Hannity never spoke to me again. Not on the air or off.

Here we are, more than eight years later, my friendship with Sean has become some sort of hot issue. Morons are trying to equate my relationship with Sean Hannity, with Reverend Wright’s relationship with Barak Obama, a man who may well become President of the United States. It is an intellectually dishonest – even meaningless – comparison but someone thinks they should make this fuss. Fine. So be it.

I can tell you from my firsthand, personal experience that Sean Hannity does, in fact, agree with many of my political and social views. I can also tell you that Sean Hannity disagrees with some of my political and social views. I won’t go subject-by-subject to say which he agrees with and which he disagrees with. You can figure that out easy enough on your own! Suffice it to say that my recollection is that when Sean and I spoke by phone, while no one else was listening, he and I exchanged the kinds of views that most White, Irish-Catholic guys hold, but won’t speak in public.

In my opinion, based on my first hand experience, I believe Sean Hannity is, in fact, a Hal Turner sort of guy. It seems to me that a big difference between Sean and me is that I am willing to say publicly what I think about savage Black criminals, diseased, uneducated illegal aliens and the grotesque cultural destruction wrought by satanic jews while Sean and many others keep quiet to protect their paychecks.

Another big difference is that I am perfectly willing to use force and violence against my enemies while Sean Hannity and others are not. Those using me as a prop to attack Sean Hannity would do well to remember this fact. Rest assured I will remember them when the opportunity presents itself; especially as it pertains to that douche bag sodomite Max Blumenthal for the falsehoods and total trash he wrote about me in “The Nation” magazine.

jaws of hell, politics

Notes on the Conspiracy Theory Trail

I did not begin to seriously contemplate the role of conspiracy in the last 50 years of US history until I began dipping into the fiction of James Ellroy. Ellroy’s American Tabloid and The Cold $6000 are hellish evocations of the 1960s, written long after the time.

Ellroy showed how it was possible to imagine relationships that stretched from the offices of the high and mighty (J. Edgar Hoover, for example) to the precincts of organized crime (Carlos Marcello & Company). How it was not unlikely that the CIA could develop completely covert and “unsanctioned” operations, assisted by criminal types and persons with radically violent agendas — revenge for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, for example. How it is not impossible that the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK all could have had plausibility in themselves and still be conducted within the shady web of connections that Ellroy was evoking.

Then there is a reasonable piece on What The Conspiracy Bashers Get Wrong from TruthNews that concludes:

When you strip away all the tall tales of JFK’s assassination, the unsatisfying and infuriating truth is that we still don’t have the full story.

And finally there is the clear notion of a main chance. That somewhere within the welter of materials a clear and definitive answer will emerge. This is probably as likely as our being able to parse what Jesus would believe if he was asked to evaluate all the content of the New Testament. Or guess what LBJ would answer if we could ask him why he said No wider war in the 1964 Presidential campaign.

That we are a fallen world I have little doubt. That everything is a spectrum I have no doubt. That conspiracy is not beyond the bounds of possibility? Likewise. No doubt.

See also my post jaws of hell.