My Epitaph

If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything!

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Following up on former internet fame.

The Armageddon Conspiracy website has taken down its article that included my initials that I posted about here.  However, maybe I should take the opportunity to address what I perceive to be flaws in their simplistic thinking in this new article?

Even when the original website was being built with, generally, great articles, the authors clearly demonstrated a grossly inferior knowledge, comprehension and understanding of US history, culture and politics.  More than once in Facebook groups did I emphatically state that they exhibited at best the knowledge and understanding of US history of an eighth grade history class, but that on the average, they were more likely to demonstrate an elementary education level of US history.  However, I never meant this criticism as being unreasonable because I knew that the authors were not writing from the US, nor did they seem to demonstrate firsthand knowledge of even taking a trip across the pond from the British Isles.  I usually admitted that their commenting on US history, culture and politics, although if taken seriously would clearly be the authoritarian fallacy based on their otherwise good knowledge, should be like me commenting on the history of any other nation: taken with more than a few grains of salt!!!  I intend to scatter some of these grains of proverbial salt.

This doesn't mean that I don't know anything about the history of the world outside the USA, nor that I am an expert at US history, but most of the top in intelligence around the world educated inside any country will know more about that country than those educated in another country: and I don't mind replacing "educated" with "indoctrinated"!  However, to a website whose worldview held that 6000 of the world's wealthiest old men (the Old World Order) were the "conspiracy" against the 7 billion, a website claiming to have freely published over 2 million words (how many repetitive rants were included in that total?) dedicated none of those words to discussing the most evident scandal of a truly global conspiracy of an extremely minute group of plutocrats that I have witnessed in my lifetime: "Iran Contra".

I had just turned 16 the summer that the Iran Contra Hearings dominated the news, and, although we didn't have cable, I did everything I could to watch as much of those congressional hearings as I could.  Before I could legally vote, I had already made some strong opinions about the world, largely a result of how the laundry list of high crimes and misdemeanors involved in such a complicated scandal as "Iran Contra" led to no serious convictions, and those who were convicted seemed to all get pardoned by Poppy Bush before Slick Willy moved into the Oval Office.

Most people who know me usually make some statement, at some point, about being amazed at my ability to remember things: the names of the major Iran Contra players number among the things I have not done well at forgetting.  It was for this reason that I was expecting the worst scandal in my 30 years when George W Bush ascended to the Oval Office in 2001 when two of his first appointees (I don't believe either needed Congressional approval, but that may not be historically precise) were Elliot Abrams (pardoned Christmas Eve 1992 for perjury and obstruction of justice for his testimony to congress for Iran Contra I believe) and the former ambassador who was actively recruiting the Contras to be trained at the "School of the Americas" to wage guerrilla warfare against the Sandinistas during the 1980s, John Negroponte, to be his UN Ambassador.  I watched The Lone Gunman premiere in March, so maybe I should have predicted what was coming more accurately than just expecting the worst from the returning to power of the Republican Iran Contra players.

I see the US Government as being the field where the baseball game of power is played between the Republican Iran Contra players and the Democratic Iran Contra players and have stated more than once that if we had ever gotten to the bottom if Iran Contra we would know who killed JFK (and why) as well as exactly what happened on 9/11 {other than Paul McCartney being killed in a car crash on 9/11/1966, that is!? 😉 }.  But, I also believed in the early 1990s that Whitewater was just the Clinton's kickbacks for turning a blind eye to what was happening out of the Mena, Arkansas airport and its direct linkage to the arming of the Contras after the passage of the Boland Amendments prohibiting said arming, and Al Martin claims that Janet Reno was Florida Attorney General who would make sure that any Iran Contra linked cases were held in state courts to keep the national press from reporting on them like they would have had the cases been tried in Federal Court.  Al Martin, as an insider to the myriad of schemes, scams and scandals of the Raygun 80s, would help all realize that even the Savings and Loan fiasco of the 1980s should be considered as part and parcel to what we know as Iran Contra.  I prefer to use "Iran Contra" as the umbrella term that best describes, and best allows the names to be known of active conspirators, of the "domestic" conspirators of the global threat to humanity at large.  Other appellations utilized usually remain so vague that names can never be known.  Who are Alex Jones' "globalists"?  Who are the "Illuminati"?  Who are the 6000 names of the "OWO"?  These types of nomenclature don't really help us know who is to blame because names are not easily recognized behind such appellations.  This is why I prefer "Iran Contra" - especially with its use as a blanket/umbrella terminology that encompasses far more than just the official story associated with its name because it allows for the unraveling, at least of the lower players, because the names are known to posterity.  Once you know the names of the major and minor players, then you can examine their careers before Raygun's 80s, as well as what they did afterwards.  Many of the same players in the scandals bordering on treason in the 1980s were also seemingly at least on the sidelines of Watergate, as well as in positions secured by the Continuity of Government provision on 9/11.

The modus operandi of the "6000 members of the OWO" has been to employ the best and the brightest in a very compartmentalized system (i.e. the relatively few families that own "controlling stocks" - enough to insure a crony be elected to the Board of Directors to influence the corporation's agenda to align with each family's agenda - in every publicly traded corporation) to utilize that brainpower to create such elaborately complicated swindles and scams (i.e. most of "financial instruments" like the entire derivatives market as being anathema to the wellbeing of our Gross Domestic Product that was essentially bailed out via the TARP Bailouts) that most people can't believe it's even plausible because it seems humanly impossible to create something so complicated and intentionally deceptive.  The Savings and Loan crisis in the 80s, understood as being another tentacle in the octopus I call "Iran Contra" (although that is probably best understood in this analogy as the dominate tentacle visible to thus name it something related to the most dominant characteristic), exemplifies the machinations of this "Old World Order" of 6000 of the wealthiest old men, of whom a percentage live inside the US, and the official story of Iran Contra would seem to exemplify the international conspiracies this group of men orchestrate for their lust for more power (money means nothing to this 6000, they measure their wealth in power, not money).

So, to reiterate, one of the huge problems I had when the original Armageddon Conspiracy website was being built with some great information was their complete failure to even mention Iran Contra once among their "2 million words".  Even when bitching about the financial meltdown of 2008, they never once addressed the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s which preceded the TARP bailout, and may have exceeded its relative dollar amount because they, obviously, don't possess a greater understanding of US history than the 3rd grade concept that the "Civil War" was fought over slavery.  (They stated this misinformation of history as though it were incontestable fact multiple times when history really indicates that slavery was a minor issue in the lead up to that horrendous war.  Instead of helping shatter the icon of Lincoln, they uphold that icon with the illiterate version of history about his Presidency while pretending to be total iconoclasts to most other conditioned historical beliefs.)

But, outside of Henry VIII, in particular, I really haven't studied much of the history of Great Britain, either, but wouldn't try to present myself as an authority beyond questioning on any comments on history I barely know.  [Henry VIII, Leo X and Martin Luther are three overlapping histories that I have studied somewhat (and although the bias is blatant in the linked source for all three, its neutrality of tone deserves respect as a secondary source) to get a feeling of Europe at the time, as I have read up on the time frame of the Crusades and its different knighthoods: Templar, Hospitaller/Malta and Teutonic.]  The same (studying any period of US history as extensively as I have studied the two eras stated above of international history) cannot be said of the old, let alone this new author writing for the Armageddon Conspiracy website, and I feel obligated to address a few points with this rebooting of the source.

Needless to say, my hopes weren't too high that I might actually see some high intellect in discussing US history with the headline of Watergate, and I contend that the quote used directly under this headline explains well enough the extent of their breadth and depth of knowledge about the topic of Watergate, as just one an example of a major US historical event that they have chosen to demonstrate the extent of their "wisdom" (in my sarcastic voice in case you didn't hear my sarcasms dripping with the quotation marks) by "enlightening" the reader.
"Watergate was thus nothing but a lure held out by the system to catch its adversaries - a simulation of scandal for regenerative ends." - Jean Baudrillard 
The author wants to succinctly surmise a scandal from 45 years ago in a country the website's previous authors repeatedly demonstrated elementary educational understanding of said country with a quote from a philosopher not from said country, but of a country well known to have huge animosity towards the USA (Jose Bove was a hero to me because I respect the French for wanting to keep their culture dominant, especially in comparison to the Levi's, Coca-Cola and McDonald's "culture" exported; however, although I am definitely not afraid of them, I probably would qualify as a "Francophobe" because of what I have seen of Europe, I would only go back to France for the barreling surf near Biarritz, but would probably rather go to Mundaka in Spain just to not be in France because my subjective experiences in France have not been superior to those elsewhere in Europe)!  My most recent read on Watergate would possibly agree that it was about a blackmail operation out to "catch its adversaries" but this quote seems to exemplify the bias even world-class philosophers can display by trying to force everything in the world into their own pet theories of the world.  Or, to use a more adept paraphrasing from Dr Leary: the reality tunnel of Jean Baudrillard would, of course, limit his perspective of a foreign scandal into being interpreted via his reality tunnel.  He has grossly simplified Watergate into fitting his world-class ideas about simulations and simulacras.  Will the discussion improve under the heading of Watergate to actually dissect a US scandal with facts and provide a clear insight as to how it would fit into the conspiracies of these 6000 old wealthy men/OWO?

Do not hold your breath, dear reader (unless, of course you're holding in your hit!).

I did take their recommendation to watch the Adam Curtis documentary Hypernormalization, but found it best to first watch his documentary called Bitter Lake.  It appears as both of these documentaries did not air on BBC broadcasts, but were uploaded online via the BBC.  It appears as though Curtis has access to the entire BBC video archive, but it also seems as though he has an ultimate editor, or just knows not to question the agenda of the BBC, or of the previous newspeople whose recorded stories he can access via the archive.  Every source has an agenda: INCLUDING all of our own sub/unconsciousnesses, but it seems that either he knows not to bite the hand that feeds him (the BBC), or he has an editor who insures that the agenda of the BBC not be encroached upon.  It also seems as I am not the only person thinking you need a grain of salt with Adam Curtis.

Watching Bitter Lake caused me to get a couple of books off the shelf to compare the excruciatingly simplistic telling by Curtis in the documentary in comparison to what I had read on the subject.  One of the these books was The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Saud by Robert Lacey.  If Adam Curtis had ever taken the time to read this great book on the topic (and any credible documentary I have seen on the Saudi kingdom and/or Saudi royal family interviews Robert Lacey as an expert), he might know just how his actions and his narrative over video clips exemplify the simplifying of political narratives he vilifies throughout both Bitter Lake and Hypernormalization.  To my reading, Lacey's book helped explain much about that part of the world, but the way that Curtis presents many things should be considered as equally simplistic as the political painting of good versus evil he vilifies with his narrative.  The best example would be in the machine gunning of the Ikhwan (a term Curtis doesn't use, but Lacey uses throughout his book).  Curtis presents this as the most simplified version possible, with just repeating the same simple sentence about how Abdul Aziz machine-gunned the army that helped him get power but without discussing any details of the hows and whys behind the decision and the years building up to it, or its relevance in history, let alone the actual setting for its necessity because they were desert raiders and they would never give up the desert and looting and pillaging villages would be a more accurate simple assessment of the group's desert culture eventually machine-gunned into history.

(Back to the Armageddon Conspiracy article)
"and the catastrophic financial crash of 2008 (which was the formal death of capitalism since it had to be bailed out by socialism), the elite knew they needed radically different tactics."
On this point I want to make myself clear on this blog where I was vocally clear ten years ago to anyone who would listen, and more than one who didn't want to hear it.  Before I had even gotten into the back brace 10 years ago, but definitely during that summer of 2007 as I spent more time in libraries questioning everything, I had begun preaching from my soapbox that the multi-generational goal of the plutocracy (the ruling wealthy elite) had been to create both communism and fascism to pit them against each other with an ultimate goal in mind that the originators of the conspiracy would not live to witness their efforts bear fruit.  But, first we must understand each to be like a coin: having both head's and tail's to them.  Communism would be the head's of one coin; socialism would be the tail's to that same coin.  Fascism would be another coin's heads.  Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini said many times and in many different ways that fascism was essentially the marriage between corporations and government.  This would make the tail's to fascism be corporatism.  The century long goal of the plutocracy was to fund these opposing coins with the ultimate goal of merging them inside the USA.  To put it in terms the Armageddon Conspiracy author should recognize: the dialectic goal was to create a synthesis of fascism (thesis) and communism (antithesis) inside the USA.  This goal was realized in the TARP bailouts of 2008 which essentially created a perpetual system of corporate-socialism, or social-corporatism: the new economic synthesis.  But, I also know that "monied capital" does not have to be the only "capital" to define "capitalism" because the truest essence of "capital" means relating to the head, and the ideas that end up becoming possible to consume represent the truest meaning of capital.
If you don't master your language you will always have a master!
(The hours I have spent as an adult between my Webster's and my etymology dictionaries seem to have made my English a foreign language to far too many who supposedly speak the same, and only language I know!)

Mind you that I was saying this a good year before the crash happened, so when the bailouts came, only those humans acting like ostriches could deny my deductions made by the summer of 2007 because it was headline news that socialism was to be provided to corporations.  If "capitalism" had its formal death in 2008, it took a century of preparing for the "softer, gentler" sides of both fascism and communism: corporatism and socialism respectively, to be synthesized via the dialectic inside the USA and was seemingly the dialectic at work over a century by a plutocratic elite to gain more dominance over other human life and make their golems (corporations) immortal (too big to fail).

So, is "capitalism" really dead, as the author at AC would have us believe?  Or has the evolutionary process driven via the dialectic created a new thesis that we can counter with a new antithesis with the wisdom of forethought about what new synthesis that would better all mankind?  For a representative of a group so dedicated to preaching the dialectic, how can this author fail to recognize that it couldn't have been the death of capitalism, but the end goal of the plutocrats who created both communism and fascism?  From the same group who proclaims that absolutely everything must endure the crucible of the dialectic, they sure seem consistent about not seeing it at work in the world we inhabit!  An example of not practicing what you preach, I suppose.

When I was asked my opinion about the election last year, I summed it up as three warring factions of the 1%.  Granted, I have read "The Yankee Cowboy War" by Carl Oglesby as well as Dr Leary and Robert Anton Wilson, so I tend to hold that the 1% are not a unified social strata.  The "old AC" (Armageddon Conspiracy) was adamant that the "Old World Order" (OWO) was made up of only 6000 members of the world's wealthiest.  I don't believe that the original authors, although they utilized the rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street of the 1%, would ever proclaim that so many people were intimately involved in the Old World Order: they seemed set that we really only needed to eradicate 6000 old men and their systems would collapse without them, even when utilizing the Occupy rhetoric.  So I find it disappointing that this current writer on the supposedly same website wants to present a unified front of all the 1% acting in complete accord via the Presidency of Donald Trump.  I saw it as three factions of the 1% in clear war against each other: the secular Zionist/communist Jews of the 1% had their candidate in Bernie Sanders, the Crony Plutocracy had their choice (not all in the Crony Plutocracy are Zionists, Jews, or Communists) in Hillary Clinton (the queen of the Democratic Iran Contra players), and it appeared as though one man born into wealth was willing to fight against the other two dominant factions that constitute the 1%.

I did not vote for Trump and tried to give him 100 days to prove that he truly wants to drain the swamp, as he put it.  I don't expect the entire lobby industry to go without a fight, but it seems as though the best thing that can come from Trump's administration over the next three years will be the ability to address the Jewish influence in our government and the % of Jews that constitute "the swamp" that will never drain so long as we cannot rationally and reasonably discuss the topic because of the intellectual terror we endure for even trying to broach the topic.  I understand fearing reprisals from saying before elected that AIPAC is a huge part of the swamp needing drained, but his actions thus far seem to make me think he had both corporate and personal debt forgiven by the likes of Goldman Sachs and that's how he was bought out by the swamp he claimed to want to drain.  His claims of being Israel's best friend seems to out trump his lip service of America First that got him into office; but this may finally be the alarm clock to those who seriously desire to eradicate the corruption and cronyism rampant in DC who are still suffering from the Christian Zionism they were indoctrinated into as children.  It seems to me as though Trump seeks to start World War 3 for Israel before he can eradicate lobbying domestically, but I have been wanting to hit rock bottom for years so we can finally make progress instead of treading water wasting all our energy just to stay afloat instead of using our energy to make a better world.  Because I know rock bottom is where we absolutely need to hit before we grow up as a culture and make the adjustments to our culture to eradicate the traitors among us and return to being a beacon of liberty to the world.  The religious Jewish Zionist swamp's stranglehold on Trump may be the greatest gift to make those who voted for Trump because they wanted to "drain the swamp" realize that there is a Jewish element of the swamp that seems to act as the plug to the drain keeping the swamp filled to the brim?

But, most importantly, what the fuck did anything they have to say under the heading of Watergate have to do with Watergate?  One quote from a French philosopher?  Why not actually discuss any of the facts about Watergate and how it fits into the narrative they have presented about the Old World Order?  Had Squeaky Fromme been successful in her attempt against the unelected Gerald Ford, the unelected Nelson Rockefeller would have been sworn in as President.  Combined with the apparent motive for the actual break in to be the stealing of the Little Black Book of which Democrats had been sent to an organized crime turned CIA blackmail escort ring, and how, although apparently consisting of of-age working girls at the time of the Watergate break-in, they could have pointed out the apparent congruency between prostitution stories and the rings of power in DC like the headlines from June 29, 1989's Washington Times "Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan and Bush".  Or even a serious critique of John DeCamp's "The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism and Murder in Nebraska" including asking just what loyalties and agendas the author might have, having admitted to being a participant in Operation Phoenix in Vietnam and remaining friends with William Colby after Vietnam, and if Colby was murdered.  They could have also given a serious scrutiny to the accusations against Michael Aquino, who was the favored scapegoat during the "Satanic panic" of the 1980s.

(I have read all three books in the MindWar series: MindWar, MindStar and FindFar, and I must admit that this "Satanist" who served in Vietnam and had a career in the Army appears to possess a far superior ethics and morality in how "war" should be waged than far too many monotheists who seem dedicated to the eradication of all heretics and infidels.  He was completely exonerated, because he wasn't in San Francisco when accused, and there has never been enough evidence for a grand jury to indict for the heinous crimes he's been accused.  The glimpses of a career Psychological Warrior for the US Army provided in MindWarMindStar and FindFar indicates a war veteran appalled at the effects of physical war and wishing the world would replace the machinations of physical war with specialists who can help stabilize irrational people into agreeing to pursue the best possible outcome to the confrontation where no life nor property be harmed.  But, I also will proclaim that Aleister Crowley's infamous quote about a ritual killing of children would be quite appropriate phrasing to openly occult that he was making a reference to any sexual act that could not lead to procreation because he belonged to Victorian England which held, much like Catholicism, that even masturbation was a sin because it was the death of a generation.  Today, we know that the average sperm count to be well over 100,000,000, which definitely by the common thinking of the Victorian Age would be mass ritual child murder, especially if one were to be writing about a specific ritual of "sex magick" in the Victorian Age where one could not just write: be careful if you use your belt to hang yourself while beating off otherwise you might end up like Grasshopper or Mork chasing that ultimate nut busting!)

They could have discussed if Monica Lewinsky was a MOSSAD honeypot agent because she made Slick Willy too impotent to force Israeli concessions in peace talks when it looked like he was going to be able to force concessions in favor of the Palestinians between his reelection and the time the Monica Lewinsky story broke in 1998.  Or, had they known anything about Iran Contra, they could have discussed the names that returned with W to power in 2001; or, in keeping with the sexual theme, they could have discussed how the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert story was dropped like hot potato (as well as CIABCNNBCBS Fox made their first major pitch to discredit the internet as "fake news") right about the time that Noreen Gosch started saying that Gannon/Guckert was her missing son, abducted from his paper route in 1982.  They could have used these recurring themes to help define the absolute best method of blackmail ever conceived: providing whatever sexual perversions are desired so they can take evidence to blackmail someone (think Godfather 2: the Senator probably didn't kill the hooker but was drugged to be set up for blackmail by the family, or he might have been one of the sexually violent type like Cathy O'Brien accuses Dick Cheney of being and that's why he was in the Senate in the first place).

They could have taken the opportunity to recognize how their Old World Order actually works other than the above form of sexual blackmailing which might include investigating if Donald Trump has had massive debt forgiven, and by whom, (this could be his motive in not revealing his taxes/income sources?) but that might lead to addressing another topic that seemed taboo to the website: just to what extent is their OWO nemesis "Jewish".  They had no qualms with the logical rejection of the "god" of Abraham clearly being the devil deceiving the gullible, but to actually address exactly what should be inferred from the disproportionate percentages of Jews in positions of influence seemed to be in too much bad taste for them.  They once had at least one article specifically about Goldman Sachs being the epitome of what's wrong in the world, but they didn't call it out for being the best example of Jewish domination among the financial markets nor how that parasitic nature of Goldman Sachs seems directly from the Talmud.  You don't have to be Jewish to work and succeed at Goldman Sachs, and they apparently will reward any employee that excels at their job, a la Steve Bannon, but the system establishing the definition of meritorious actions to said same system was created by two Jews: Goldman and Sachs.  Nor did they really get into the names of Goldman Sachs executives that have left Goldman Sachs for an appointed term in Treasury, the FED, or the SEC in the decades of my life I have been paying attention even in the articles they lambasted Goldman Sachs.

So, we again see that the volume of taboo topics shouts louder than any rant that still gets published.  Although they may have some intellectual merits worth considering, they have yet to be able to convince me that their political system would be beyond corruption.  For one, I was raised in the US culture where I was conditioned from childhood that the best in any field get recognized and rewarded for their abilities: which seems to be the very ideology they promote.  This, again, exemplifies that the author's comprehension about US history and culture to be virtually nonexistent.  I can understand why someone living under a constitutional monarchy would desire to create an utopia of a "meritocracy" but since I am sure to not be alone in my conditioning of the USA being a meritocracy, as well as the evidence of those I have witnessed willing to play the games established by the OWO/1% for a career being rewarded for the merits of their efforts, I cannot accept their political ideal of a "meritocracy" as incorruptible.

However, my greatest revulsion to the terminology to define their ideal comes from my comprehension of our language.  Merit, in and of itself, lacks meaning.  Every system in the recorded history of mankind has defined what it will reward as being meritorious to said system.  This seems especially true in the observable world today.  Not every institution promotes from within using the same definitions of meritorious actions for each institution, but each and every institution from the beginning of recorded history has rewarded what it considered to be meritorious to the survival of said institution.  What would have earned promotion in the Soviet Union would not likely seem to be the same for, say Chase Manhattan.  What defines merit in a monarchy?  Being the firstborn son of the king defined the greatest merits possible to a monarchy: even if a younger son would govern more wisely and justly, he would not have the greatest merit to the system by not having been born first.  Scrutinize the emigration requirements for Israel and you will see that they still demarcate between one born from a Jewess as being a true Jew and one conceived from Jewish sperm as being of "Jewish heritage" - the most meritorious Jews to the State of Israel are those born from a Jewess, no matter who the sperm supplier was.

Every business and corporation has created its own standards as to what actions and efforts it considers meritorious to its "ongoing concern".  Merit needs a context for it to possess any true meaning.  In many businesses, making partner rewards the meritorious worker by making him a part owner of the business.  I cannot think of any system of organization that has not defined its own factors to define merit, and I remain reticent taking a term lacking context on its own and making it the foundation for a new utopian ideal of political organization.  I was not willing to play the games established by the plutocracy to discover those possessing the greatest abilities to perpetuate a corrupt system.  However, I have seen many willing to play those games succeed and be rewarded for the merits of their serving a system.  If the USA truly lived up to the myth of merit being the sole foundation for success (i.e. the hard work of the Protestant Work Ethic), then maybe I could accept the nomenclature.  However, I see the machinations rewarding merit inside the USA as being the path to achieving crony status to the plutocrats, and these authors from Great Britain don't know enough about the USA to know that generations have been conditioned to believe that "merit" was the primary factor of success inside the USA.  (Even when using pop culture references like the bank VP speech in Assault on Wall Street where he essentially states that he was made VP because his work was most meritorious to the bank and the beginning class scene in The Skulls where the Yale professor asks the class if the USA was the meritocracy we were all conditioned to believe it to be, or whether systems of privilege actually ruled, my examples were just ignored by the devout "meritocrats" that believe reading a website gave them "merit" in anything.)

I used to think that there were intellectual peers authoring the articles on the Armageddon Conspiracy website.  I haven't felt that way in years.  But, maybe like any addiction, I keep going back hoping to get the same feeling that once was generated when it was new and fresh and the thoughts of a novel called The Soul Camera were constantly dangled like the dragon being chased on foil?
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...