PolCheck

The website PolCheck consists primarily of this page. If you’ve already been here, you might want to skip the introduction and go straight to the checklist, which features 10 killer tips for separating genuine leaders from frauds. Part II simply lists some additional tips, while Quick Check is designed to help you speed up the process.

Introduction

One of the hottest topics in contemporary politics is controlled opposition (aka con-ops or fake leaders). Bernie Sanders, Noam Chomsky, Sean Penn, Jesse Ventura, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Hedges, Alex Jones, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange (the WikiLeaks guy) and David Duke are just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless activists, leaders, political organizations and media that are actually secretly working for the dark side while pretending to stand up for the exploited masses.

This begs the obvious question: How can we recognize controlled opposition? And, vice versa, how can we recognize a genuine political leader?

Identifying a genuine leader with 100% certainty can be painfully difficult. The CIA, the media and other organizations and institutions can work together to create some really amazing conspiracies. But exposing an individual who is not a genuine leader is generally much easier. There are some amazingly simple tricks or rules that can help you unmask most conops very quickly and easily.

David W. Blomstrom, a Seattle-based activist and political science student, brainstormed a convenient checklist that people can use to analayze everyone from “pop activists” to political candidates. He dubbed the primary list of ten rules PolCheck (Political Leaders Evaluation Checklist).

It’s very important that you start from square one, presuming everyone in the political arena guilty until proven innocent. We are at war with our own government and the powers that control it, and one simply cannot casually assume strangers are friends in wartime.

The checklist below targets a fictional con-op named Mr. X. Click the link at the end of each rule to learn more details and see some examples.

Note: Though PolCheck is amazingly simple and effective, there is one drawback: It can be time-consuming, especially if you need to check out a dozen political candidates. The solution is Quick Check, which can help you evaluate a politico with a high degree of accuracy in as little as sixty seconds.

Political Leader Evaluation Checklist

1. Mysterious Beginnings? — Many con-ops appear to suddenly pop up out of nowhere. This is especially true of political candidates who call themselves activists, even though few people have heard of them. (More…)

2. Website? — An activist or leader who doesn’t have his or her own website is like a dog without a bark. Government websites don’t count. (More…)

3. Is it user friendly? — If Mr. X has a website, is it user friendly, or does it bury you under a mountain of rhetoric you can’t understand, political banners, ads, unorganized links to scattered articles or a blizzard of links to other websites? (More…)

4. Track Record & Resumé? — Is information about Mr. X’s background, qualifications and accomplishments readily available (preferably on his website)? If he’s vague about his credentials, be suspicious. (More…)

5. Issues? — Now that we know a little about Mr. X, what does he stand for? Beware the dreaded “one-issue candidate” and lissies (people who embrace lame issues, often while ignoring more important issues). Does he have much to say about the issues? (More…)

Jewarchy

6. Taboo Issues? — Does Mr. X have the courage to tackle complex, divisive issues or say things that aren’t politically correct? You might start with the “Holy Trinity” — Bill Gates, the troops and Jews. Very few people publicly criticize Bill Gates, the U.S. military or Jewarchism (Jewish corruption, including Zionism). Actually, many con-ops do criticize Zionism, but they generally steer clear of discussing other types of Jewish corruption. (More…)

7. Truthful? — If Mr. X is kind enough to share his resumé, track record and his views on a variety of issues, then the next step is to scrutinize the information he offers. Does it appear to be logical and honest, or do you see some red flags? (More…)

8. Reach out to beginners? — How can you claim to champion political reform if you don’t even educate people? Very vew con-ops offer anything similar to Geobop’s Politix 101 series. (More…)

9. Connections — Bernie Sanders is a Democrat. Edward Snowden worked for the CIA, Chris Hedges the New York Times. Dennis Kucinich works for Fox News. Jesse Ventura’s conspiracy series was cool, but how did it get broadcast on prime time corporate TV? (More…)

10. Publicity — Con-ops mysteriously get lots of publicity, much of it positive. If the mainstream media snub them, the alternative media pick up the slack. (More…)

PolCheck — Explanation

Beginnings

Everyone has to start somewhere. Moreover, genuine activists are normally snubbed by the media, including the alternative media. And who can guess what event will catapult an individual into the public spotlight? So keep in mind that even a genuine leader could have seemingly mysterious beginnings. However, real leaders who seemingly appear out of nowhere should have a respectable resumé.

(Note: A mysterious beginning has a counterpart in a mysterious ending.)

Website

In this day and age, it’s hard to imagine a political leader or activist without a website. Government and campaign websites don’t count, nor do personal websites that neither discuss socio-political issues nor offer substantial information about an individual’s background, experience or qualifications. Ditto for Facebook and other social sites. (However, a politico who has a social website in addition to his or her personal website may not be a bad person. The Facebook game is complex.)

Many politicos don’t have political websites until they decide to run for public office. After the election, their campaign websites (which are typically pretty lame) generally disappear. Candidates who get elected may acquire a page on an official government website. However, that page usually offers little more than a brief bio. On the other hand, some elected officials have government web pages that are bristling with information, which is generally slick propaganda. Many con-ops have websites that seem to force visitors to chase their tails in circles.

Is it user friendly?

The home pages of many political websites are very unorganized and/or loaded with more content and features than a visitor can absorb. This is often a deliberate attempt to overwhelm and confuse visitors.

A well organized webpage would likely feature links to some key pages or topics, like “Issues,” “About” and “Contact.” It also helps to designate a page, section or topic that serves as a starting point or introduction.

As a website grows, it makes sense to index and organize articles, perhaps adding an archives or reference section. When Eat The State — an alternative paper published in Seattle — ceased publication, it vanished into thin air. Apparently, its content wasn’t important enough to archive. Or perhaps the owners were simply embarrassed by the growing number of lies they published.

Track Record & Resumé

People who are job hunting are generally expected to have a resumé. Why should activists or political activists be any different?

Key information might include date of birth, birth place, education, military service (if any) and employment. It would also be nice to know a little about a political leader’s political beliefs and activities.

Track records are a little more complex than resumés. What can activists list as accomplishments if they’ve never been elected to public office, and how can they actually accomplish anything without getting elected?

Fortunately, we can and should give people credit for merely trying, especially if they educate and rally other people in the process. Merely creating a respectable website is an accomplishment, and running for public office can be considered an accomplishment, even if a candidate doesn’t get elected.

Issues

A political leader who doesn’t discuss any political issues is like a dog without a bark; he or she sticks out like a sore thumb. In fact, many con-ops do discuss at least a few issues, and their propaganda can be very slick, making it really hard to evaluate them. Issues can be divided into several subcategories, including number of issues, amount of information and quality of information (i.e. truthfulness).

# Issues — Beware the dreaded “one-issue candidate.” Leaders who promote three issues are even suspect. We live in an increasingly complex world, and we need leaders who have some knowledge of a variety of issues.

Lissy? — A lissy is a person suffering from Lame Issue Symdrome. An example is Seattle’s Kshama Sawant, whose primary issue is the $15 minimum wage, a very simple, non-controversial issue that virtually no other elected official or activist opposes.

Amount of Information — Anyone can say “Water pollution concerns me.” But do they offer more details? Can they offer solutions?

Info Quality — Judging the quality of a leader’s statements on the issues can be difficult. con-ops typically say what people want to hear, even if they’re just spouting empty rhetoric. One may have to spend some time investigating a con-op to 1) evaluate their truthfulness and accuracy and 2) discover any past words or actions that contradict their official views. For example, Bernie Sanders promotes himself as an anti-war activist, yet he voted for the invasion of Afghanistan, which further suggests that he believes the government’s lies about 9/11.

There are exceptions to these rules. For example, there are people who may dedicate their lives to saving the giant panda from extinction or protecting their local environment from pollution. Such people can’t be expected to be experts on a dozen different issues.

Jewarchy Taboo Issues

There are certain issues and topics that almost all politicos dread. Even hard core activists generally steer clear of the “Holy Trinity” — Bill Gates, the troops and Jews. You can easily verify this by searching for con-ops that criticize this sacred trio. Even ordinary citizens who claim to be anti-war generally support the troops, and public criticism of Bill Gates is virtually unknown even in his home town, Seattle. Criticism of Zionism is quite common, but many critics go out of their way to make it clear their beef is with Zionism alone, ignoring “Jewish bankers,” Jewish control of the media and the Internet and similar problems.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks present a different, though similar, dilemma. Politicos may talk about 9/11, but whose side do they support — the government or the Truthers? Any politico who sides with the lying goverment and corporate media should be considered a con-op.

Truthful

We’ve already discussed the importance of truthfulness regarding one’s position on the issues. Now let’s look at the whole enchilada.

All con-ops lie. They typically lie about their allegiance and their position on various issues. They may also lie about their backgrounds, beliefs and connections.

One of the most spectacular examples is Obama, who promised “Change we can believe in” when he first ran for President, then broke virtually all his promises after he was elected. Obama further advertised himself as a Muslim born in Hawaii, but many view him as a Jew born in Kenya.

Reach out to beginners

Education is a vital part of reform. Knowledge is power, and the more information you have about the enemy, the easier it is to defeat that enemy.

A continuing torrent of propaganda, mind control and manipulation makes it difficult even for political veterans to understand politics. So how much harder is it for a newcomer who may not even be aware of media corruption?

At the same time, no one can be an expert on all socio-political issues. Moreover, confusion can also arise over political differences and an often complex and manipulated political vocabulary.

In this spirit, a good leader should throw beginners a life ring, at the same time explaining not just their position on various issues but their vocabularly or conventions.

Does that mean all politicos should spend hundreds of hours working on series similar to Politix 101? Of course not! They’re perfectly welcome to link to Politix 101. Put the link on your website’s home page and make it really stand out. Here’s an example:

Sam Two Bears
West Dakota Firebrand
About | Issues | Blog | Contact

Politix 101

Hi, I’m Sam Two Bears, a shamelessly vocal critic of everything that’s rotten, including Jewarchism and Bill Gates. I don’t support the troops, except through the taxes I’m forced to pay. As a victim of the ongoing Native American Holocaust, I want to tell white people and Jews to all go back where they came from — Europe…

PolCheck
(footer)

If you have any problems with Politix 101, don’t be shy. There’s a page reserved for comments on the series right here. If you think Politix 101 is so bad it can’t be fixed, you’re welcome to link to a similar resource (or create your own beginners’ guide). But it would still be nice if you could find the courage to publicly state why you don’t like Politix 101. Better yet, maybe you can offer some tips on improving Politix 101.

Connections

This is one of the most powerful tools listed here, because almost all con-ops have surprisingly visible connections to corrupt entities. The problem is that the public is often blind to those connections.

Edward Snowden worked for the CIA, Chris Hedges the New York Times. Snowden might get a pass because he spoke out against the CIA (though he still appears to be a con-op), but where’s Hedges criticism of the New York Times?

Dennis Kucinich’s position with Fox News is simply mind boggling; that fact alone marks him as a fraud. Jesse Ventura seems cool, and few have done more to promote conspiracy theory. But, seriously, how could his conspiracy series get a pass from the corporate media? And how did Ventura get elected Governor of Minnesota?

Just about anyone who’s a Democrat or a Republican is a suspect, and the higher the office the greater the suspicion. Bernie Sanders was allowed to serve as Hillary Clinton’s main challenger in the runup to the 2016 presidential campaign. He received a vast amoung of publicity and support from the corporate media and private citizens alike. If you’ve ever run for state office, you know how preposterous Sanders’ situation is.

Nor is the problem limited to Demopublicans. Most political parties (as well as unions) in the U.S. have been infiltrated and corrupted. That may explain why so many candidates who call themselves socialists run such embarrassing election campaigns.

And, yes, endorsement interviews are a type of connection. Why would anyone who truly understands politics seek the endorsement of a corrupt newspaper or political group?

Publicity

Con-op’s mysteriously get lots of publicity, much of it positive. If the mainstream media snub them, the alternative media pick up the slack.

This can be confusing for political newbies because of the inverse relationship. People who are genuine leaders should be praised, so why should we shun political leaders who are praised? In fact, praise from the right sources is a good thing. The problem is leaders who are praised by the media or other corrupt entities.

Hugo Chavez and Muammar Gaddafi were the real thing, and both were tirelessly demonized by the corporate media. Compare that to the publicity given Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Both have received some token insults and even alleged death threats. But most of the publicity they receive is surprisingly respectful.

Real leaders, on the other hand, are heavily censored by the media. Even Google insulted David W. Blomstrom’s 2015 campaign website, and Blomstrom further claims Google has used a variety of high-tech tricks to effectively hack his websites. If you doubt the power of the establishment to silence people even without physically harming them, then you’ve never run for public office or engaged in political actvism.

Part II

One could probably brainstorm many more rules for evaluating politicos. Politicos who obediently follow patriotic rituals (e.g. saluting the flag, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.) are suspect. Probably 99% of political candidates attend endorsement interviews with the corporate and/or alternative media. Many phony activists talk about corruption in the abstract, refraining from naming names. Any person who gets elected or appointed to public office in a big city or in state or national government should be regarded with suspicion.

Here are five more key rules…

Heroes & Zeroes — You can tell a lot about a person by his choice of heroes as well as the people that person hates. This point is actually covered under Connections, but it deserves special emphasis. Most con-ops were strikingly silent regarding Hugo Chavez and Muammar Gaddafi, two of modern history’s greatest heroes. Nor will you hear many of them comment on the legendary Che Guevara. However, many of them rally behind corrupt politicos like Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky.

Carpetbaggers — Beware of leaders who have no roots in the community, especially those who frequently move from place to place. Carpetbaggers are a particularly striking phenomenon in public education. A classic example is Rudy Crew, who walked out on the Tacoma (Washington) School District for a higher paying position in New York City, returned to Seattle where he was recruited by Bill Gates to head a bizarre, short-lived K-12 Leadership Institute, then jumped ship for California before becoming the superintendent of public schools in Miami.

Working for 3rd party? — Rather than continue voting for the lesser of evils, Politix’ webranger founded a new, untainted political party, the Fifth Republic Party.

Bon voyage — Evaluating retired con-ops is easy. The fact that they’re retired suggests they may have never been really committed to a cause in the first place. Did they leave any helpful information or words of wisdom for budding activists? In fact, many con-ops disappear just as quickly and mysteriously as they appear.

Persecution — Genuine leaders are often persecuted, especially if they become well known or powerful. John F. Kennedy, Muammar Gaddafi, Patrice Lumumba, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were all assassinated, and the CIA made many attempts on Fidel Castro’s life. Socialist President Salvador Allende committed suicide after Chile’s government was toppled by a coup backed by the U.S. government, and many suspect Hugo Chavez, Paul Wellstone and even John F. Kennedy, Jr. were victims of assassination. Other leaders may be beaten, sued or libeled.

Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have both been given political asylum in foreign countries. However, their stories raise a number of red flags. It’s quite possible that their refugee status is just a political stunt designed to make it look like they’re being persecuted.

Red Flags — Don’t ignore your intuition. If something you read or hear about a politico strikes you as strange, sit down and think about it.

Quick Check

Evaluating a politico can be a time-consuming process. The good news is that you may not have to perform a thorough, step-by-step analysis. There are two powerful tools that can help you do the job in just a few minutes, in many cases. The first tool is the politico’s website. If Mr. X has no website, cross him off your list; he’s almost certainly an operative. If he does have a website, you can learn a lot about him by just skimming over the home page. Is it well organized? Does he promote any important and/or taboo issues up front? Does he display any revealing connections?

The second tool is called a search engine. Just type a politico’s name into Google, Bing, Yahoo or some other search engine, and the first ten results will probably speak volumes. Is Mr. X well publicized? Is the publicity positive or negative? Do any corrupt or untrustworthy parties support him or link to his website?

Keep in mind that good publicity is a danger sign. Mainstream politicians and media normally demonize true leaders and praise charlatans. Real leaders are sometimes given credit where credit’s due, especially by the alternative media. But the general trend is to insult and/or ignore genuine reformers.

* * * * *

And now, here are a few parting thoughts…

When using PolCheck, it’s perfectly OK to replace those thumbs-up/thumbs-down icons with letter grades (e.g. A, B, C, D or F). However, it’s much simpler and quicker to simply give people passing or failing grades; if a politico is a Demopublican and doesn’t have a website, then there’s no gray area surrounding those particular rules. And if you find just one record of a politico lying or engaging in unsavory behavior, it’s a pretty good bet it wasn’t the first or last time.

Keep in mind that PolCheck isn’t 100% objective. How you rate a politico on the issues will likely depend somewhat on your belief system.

In that spirit, take the evaluations in the Profiles section with a grain of salt, and beware of anyone who says they scored a perfect 10 on PolCheck; check them out for yourself.

Ultimately, your ability to evaluate a politico is based largely on your knowledge of politics. It’s hard to evaluate a person’s stance on the issues if you don’t understand the issues yourself. It especially helps to have some understanding of mind control (including propaganda), manipulation, the media and controlled opposition.

Remember that genuine leaders are extremely rare and seldom become well known on the national level. There probably isn’t a single honest member of Congress, and there probably isn’t a single honest elected official in most big cities. Genuine leaders understand this and should make a heroic effort to prove themselves. If you have to work hard to find information about them, be suspicious.