Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Trump Has Upped the Ante, Voicing the Dangers of Vaccines

*I am a little bit late in chiming in on this...

Just when you thought Donald Trump couldn't possibly say or do anything to further incite the disdain and wrath of the political establishment and media muppets, the man has raised the bar once again. Let's make note of the fact that his most recent "debate" was carefully orchestrated ahead of time in such a way that Trump and fellow popular candidate Ben Carson were to be deliberately silenced. As 21st Century Wire has relayed:

"CNN’s own debate protocol on the night stipulated that if another candidate’s name is mentioned in a contestant’s answer, then that other person is automatically given the right to rebuttal. In other words, if Tapper asks a question to Jeb Bush and Bush mentions the name ‘Rand Paul’ during his answer, then Rand Paul is summarily given time to reply. In this way CNN purports to be the ‘fair and balanced’ broker, but in reality the exercise is almost completely controlled by the moderator asking the question and the establishment candidates. Rule number one: don’t mention Trump. Using this clever formula, during one long stretch CNN, managed to shut-out Donald Trump for a full 40 minutes towards the third hour of the debate – just as viewer numbers began to gradually erode."

I did not watch this episode of American political theater, but it is my understanding Trump was given very little time to be heard in contrast to the previous episo... er, I mean debate. Suffice it to say, what little opportunity he was afforded was apparently seized in a most magnificent fashion. Trump has made crystal clear to the people of America -- including its establishment marionettes -- what little regard he has for others' perceptions, and his willingness cross boundaries of the political career-ruining variety. As has been firmly established as fact at this stage of the game, his propensity for rejecting these unwritten rules is the primary reason for his sustained campaign success. This time around, however, his audacious approach was manifested in a new, much more meaningful way. 

Over the course of approximately the last year, the medical-industrial-complex has kicked into high-gear its relentless and tyrannical agenda of forced vaccination of America's children. This push towards a medical police-state has unfortunately led to new restrictions and even eliminations of legal exemptions from these unproven, unnecessary, ineffective, inadequately-studied and -- as a matter of irrefutable fact --deadly vaccines. This surge in attention being given to the subject of vaccination, and the "outbreaks" that are alleged to have occurred due to "substandard" vaccination rates, obviously has not gone unnoticed by Mr. Trump. As fate would have it, The Donald offered his brief take on the matter:

“Autism has become an epidemic. Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics — not even close. It has gotten totally out of control. I am totally in favor of vaccines, but I want smaller doses over a longer period of time … But you take this little, beautiful baby and you pump — I mean, it looks like just it’s meant for a horse and not for a child. And we’ve had so many instances, people that work for me. Just the other day, a 2-and-a-half year old, a beautiful child, went to have the vaccine and came back and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.”

While this statement is hardly provocative and merely scratches the surface of what should be the subject of sincere and persistent discourse in the mainstream media, these words contain a great deal of truth; truth which few, if any, other public figures or politicians have the cojones to acknowledge, lest they become the subject of intense slander and ridicule from the controlled media who dutifully peddles the disingenuous rhetoric and filthy lies of the mighty pharmaceutical industry. Once again, I am obligated to applaud the man, in spite of his otherwise general personification of much of what is rotten in the world. The bottom line is, for better or worse, and for however misguided the reasons, Trump remains firmly at the top of the polls to this point, and as a result, his words on the matter are going to resonate with a significant portion of the public at large. To not emphasize the gravity of this development is to do a tremendous disservice to the countless children who have been maimed and killed by vaccines, and their families who have equally suffered as a result. 

Whether or not Trump is a "plant" or playing some other role in order for the establishment to achieve a pre-arranged desired end is at this stage irrelevant in my mind. It has become ever-more evident that to whatever extent he is being used, he has capitalized on the opportunity to further whatever personal ambitions he is able to fulfill in the process. If the "plant" theory has any validity to it, it would be safe to assume that arrangement has now backfired. If any doubt had previously lingered as to the damaging effects on the establishment's status quo of Trump's campaign, such doubt should now be vaporized in the aftermath of his latest show of defiance. What most who fancy themselves enlightened and reject the political theatrics in America should remain mindful of is, not everything that transpires within the political landscape represents a means to singular end. The fundamental character of the United States of America obviously will not change with any candidate, nor can the damage of the past hundred or so years be undone or reversed. That being said, as someone who would be considered a most hardened "conspiracy theorist," I cannot help but be encouraged by the breaking down of barriers that have previously stood unscathed, and none more so than one that has claimed the lives and livelihood of many thousands of innocent children.

It must be understood, expressing an appreciation for what Trump has introduced into this entire contrived presentation is not an endorsement of him as a person, or of the farce he has now made himself a part of. It is a rare occasion where the 'bigger picture' becomes partially or wholly irrelevant, taking a backseat -- so to speak -- to circumstances of the present which are both positive in nature and have practical implications in our daily lives (over which we possess very little control at this point). This is one such instance. Hardly a semblance of prescience is required to know that if Trump's candidacy is purely of his own doing, he will simply not be allowed to  win, and therefore the less-appealing and even downright frightening aspects of his 'platform' are, in this writer's opinion, unworthy of a second thought.

Should one get even more "conspiratorial" and posit that perhaps, in the process of what is an entirely contrived role on his part, voicing on national TV concerns over vaccine safety is merely a slick way of discrediting vaccine opponents or individuals otherwise skeptical of medical tyranny, I would fairly adamantly disagree. Although not impossible to consider, it seems a bit too risky of an undertaking on their part. These psychological operations are not conducted on a whim, but carefully and meticulously designed so as to ensure maximum results. The suggestion is made even less plausible when you consider the stage of the 'race' at which this occurred and Trump's staying power thus far.

Whatever the intentions behind allowing this subject to be addressed, given Trump's history of saying whatever the hell he damn well pleases, the end result was not a favorable one for media muppets, their establishment handlers and the medical-industrial-complex. Taken alone, this particular foray into challenging the sanctity of the state-sponsored propaganda machine is deserving of commendation. The vaccine schedule in the United States is positively out of control and the deadly consequences of blindly submitting to this barrage of toxic injections are well-documented. Though by no means surprising, it is a sad and frightening reflection on the state of our society that what was required to bring this topic into the national spotlight was a presidential 'candidate' who appears to relish in the villain designation. No less disturbing is how a statement as reasonable and benign as the one he made is perceived as somehow controversial. It is anything but, and in fact falls decidedly short of what truly needs to aired in the public discourse for all to consider for themselves. Inadequate or incomplete as it may have been, the skepticism attributed to the matter and the forum in which it took place will undoubtedly tip the scales, however slightly, in favor of healthy skepticism and rejection of blind obedience out of fear. Needless to say, any trend in that direction is hardly trivial -- and may indeed save the lives of some innocent children along the way. 

Allow me to once more emphasize the fact that there is zero long-term hope to be found in the present state of affairs or any of its participants. That does not, however, necessarily denote the impossibility of attaining temporary reprieves from certain oppressive symptoms of the diseased and rotten larger establishment body. This latest episode of 'Trump' comes with the potential to offer such a reprieve for many, in the form of evading increasingly compulsory "preventative medicine" which is destroying lives left and right and transforming American society into nothing less than a medical police state. I, for one, will have no complaints about how that prospect comes about, and Donald Trump is no less worthy of appreciation than anyone else would be for his role in making that happen. 

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

The Cynical Nature of the New 'Radical Left': Justified, Yet Misguided

As the "New World Order" of financial terrorism in the form of unelected oligarchies continue to tighten their grip on developed nations across the world, and especially in North America and Western Europe, the disillusionment of the masses continues to grow exponentially. The result of this has been the emergence of movements on both the 'left' and 'right' that fall far outside the realm of today's political landscape and the character which it has embodied. As the concentration of wealth further accumulates in the hands of a very small group in the upper echelons of society, growing discontent among the general public is becoming ever-more apparent, being equally evident among those representing all positions in the political landscape. From the rise to prominence and political power of self-proclaimed 'radical socialists' such as Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain -- to the gaining steam of quasi-fascist, far-right movements in typically heavily left-leaning parts of Europe -- to the growing support and enthusiasm for the 'non-factor-to-renegade' candidates on both the left and right, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, in America -- public outrage at the near-universal deterioration of living standards has reached a fever pitch.

The newest development and expression of the current public sentiment has come in the UK, where avowed Socialist Jeremy Corbyn has been elected as leader of the long-bankrupt Labour party, and by an absolute landslide. Prior to my semi-exile from Twitter, I observed a great deal of enthusiasm and optimism emanating from the ranks of leftists in the UK, but I observed even more cynicism and even hostility towards what -- by this other faction of radical leftists -- was viewed as another fraudulent political pitch from a man who would eventually take the same route traveled by that of Greek Prime Minister and self-proclaimed 'radical leftist' Alexis Tspiras (more on him later). One would be severely lacking in hindsight and perspective to not find in this fatalistic sentiment a great deal of validity, for very little precedent can be found to dismiss it. While this readiness on the part of the radical left (made up, primarily, of Anarchists, Marxists and revolutionary Socialists) to immediately dismiss such a development as nothing more than superficial bourgeois posturing, is largely an accurate assessment, they nevertheless remain as hopelessly deluded and misguided as those who have placed legitimate hope in the current political process, and to whom Corbyn's victory signals a monumental shift in the political landscape.

The program (or whatever semblance of one) the radical leftists of the Marxist/Communist variety adhere to for the transformation of Capitalist society hinges upon an overthrow of the existing order in such a manner that eliminates a transition period from one structure to another; an overthrow which is dependent on a mass 'awakening,' revolt, and ultimately the organization and action of a monstrous group of individuals who shall then take into their own hands the course of events. I have discussed previously the impossibility of success in such an adventure and its applicability is present in this context as well. Without exploring the flaws in their dogma itself, and without disputing the validity of their cynicism towards the aforementioned developments, the defeatist approach is a destructive one, which aptly summarizes the inherently rigid character of the movement, and serves as one of the predominant reasons as to why it is one of futility. From the Marxist/Communist perspective (a perspective I once adopted), the class structure and its architects and beneficiaries remain standing on a foundation of accumulation of surplus value as gospel, an end to which all existing mechanisms of society are established and synchronized. With little else being given its appropriate analysis, there is no conceivable way in which this cynicism and hostility can be accompanied by an understanding of the true nature of these developments -- and therefore a starting point from where to begin disassembling the configuration that produces these leftist false messiahs. To put it another way, what is expected is the emergence of a modern-day Che Guevara, rising like a superhero from within the ranks of the official order, proving once and for all that, in all certainty, each and every figure who previously came into the picture with compelling rhetoric and lofty promises, was nothing more than a coward and deceiver. It is somewhat puzzling, in that sense, for what reason this faction would pay any attention whatsoever to such a development, if not for the purpose of solidifying for themselves the rightfulness of their own ideological persuasions. After all, what else should the Marxist expect to come of a figure such as Corbyn?

I would dare to go a step further and make the assertion that any substantial swell in leftist sentiment, regardless of the individual(s) or circumstances which have breathed life into it, could be used as a springboard and harnessed in the direction of the more radical leftist cause. Indeed, there would be no more opportune time to introduce the outraged masses to the Marxist cause and therefore cultivate the 'class consciousness' espoused by followers of Lord Marx. Alas, as I have stressed over the last several months, this apparently self-evident formula for success is lost upon these 'revolutionaries.'

I am, in very large part, a nihilist. As such, I cannot offer my support, or even the benefit of the doubt, to a politician or candidate who has risen to a role of recognition and even prominence as part of the political establishment anywhere in the developed world where obedience to the hidden hand is the name of the game. We witnessed the shameful and downright traitorous actions of Greece's Tspiras, the latest and unquestionably the most grievous example of exorbitant promises gone by the wayside. I watched the Trotskyist World Socialist Website (Fourth International) accurately assess the Syriza regime and even more accurately predict every step of the way how those events would play out. But like all other Marxist/Communist factions of the far-left, the fundamental analyses of the causes and conditions that are instrumental in dictating the usual acquiescent outcome are extremely one-dimensional. As I was saying, you will not find me lending an endorsement to any of these establishment figures (although, to be far, Tspiras gave a hell of an appearance as something other than that), nor do I find it useful to invest so much as a half-hearted shred of emotion into such a development, positive or negative. The reason for this lies in the very elements of the established order that, like the naive who see in many of these political figures a messiah, the radical leftists of the orthodox Marxist/Communist faction remain completely blind to.

When we consider the fact that the doctrine of the Marxists finds its origins in the leader of a revolution that would never have survived a full week if not for the array of behind-the-scenes financial support from Capitalists of the highest order, we can automatically conclude that a fundamental understanding of the power structure that exists is entirely absent. This absence of understanding and its resultant puritanism represents the barrier of the radical leftists to challenge in any way the conditions wherein these 'pseudo-leftists' find their way into the public spectacle -- and therefore the ability to cross over from impotent armchair slander and demagoguery to meaningful criticism. Despite the nihilism in me, what I do hold to be true (at least to some degree) is that a certain level of public understanding and willingness to vocalize the consequences of the established order cannot but influence events moving forward. The likelihood of that level of public enlightenment being attained is another matter altogether, and admittedly, that likelihood hovers near the 0 mark.

Whether or not this post is merely another polemic against an ideological persuasion that has left a tremendously bad taste in my mouth, is for the reader to ascertain. The number of flaws and inconsistencies that surfaced as I made my way into, through and out of that radical leftist stage of my life are certainly bewildering, although the primary direction of this particular post serves to tie these ideological and philosophical deficiencies into the recent events that unfolded globally and led to a sort of rebirth of leftist sentiment among the public at large. If there might be an opportunity presenting itself against the backdrop of these developments, you can be sure the radical leftists of the first-world, clinging like a leech on skin to their orthodoxy, and incarcerating themselves in the prison of absolutism, will lead the charge in slamming that window shut and then boarding the motherfucker up just to be safe.

As we look around the world and especially in austerity-ravaged Europe, and observe a sort of revival of leftist sentiment, it is entirely justified to expect minimal, if any of the changes championed by the likes of Tspiras, Corbyn, etc to actually come to fruition. One would be badly mistaken, however, in attributing that non-fulfillment to such simplistic factors such as inadequate ideas/platforms, callousness and/or blatant dishonesty (which is to say, an underlying sympathy with the ruling elite and their vicious program), or some sort of agenda of pacification to steer the energy of the downtrodden and fed-up masses into a direction of manageability. While I will be the first to tell you, any of these are still possible, beyond a shadow of a doubt, there has come to pass circumstances in which well-meaning and strong-willed figures have assumed positions of high authority, only to fail in what they set out to accomplish. We live in a world where nation-states exist essentially as a formality; where labels and ideologies hold meaning only to those who do not possess the ability to put those ideologies into action; where Capitalists and Communists worked hand-in-hand for a cause that transcends everything open for public debate or scrutiny; where not a single action or event transpires without the approval of, or ramifications from, a ruling group whose self-anointed authority dates back thousands of years.

Though Communism as passed down by Marx, Lenin and Trotsky is no longer of any appeal to me -- and in fact, owing to its true history, is repulsive -- I remain a believer in a Socialist-style economy and governance. With that said, the developments I've spoken to here would be extremely encouraging  from my point of view, if not for the fact that the world is governed by a hidden hand, whose ultimate goal is total consolidation of power and resources under laws that bear no resemblance to the ones the world exists under. Radical leftists are correct in that this current crop of leftist leaders will undoubtedly make little or no difference in changing the order of things or improving the lives of the masses. However, despite their unwavering belief in the idea of a 'real' leftist, riding a wave of 'class consciousness' that overturns the existing order, ushering in a society characterized as a worker's state, it is not a matter of 'class warfare' which persists as the struggle to liberate mankind. Nor does any politician who rises to fame professing leftist ideals offer any real criteria from which to formulate an accurate assessment of their sincerity, acumen, or primary motives. The radical leftist believes that all these figures are fraudulent 'pseudo-leftists' (again, many or all may be) because Communism, and only Communism, is the solution, and yet at the very same time these same figures draw the ire and condemnation of those radical leftists as if expectations were present to begin with. The sad truth of the matter is, the Capitalist is to the radical leftist what Lucifer is to the Christian. Therein lies the source of all the world's ills, with no problem too big or small to be attributed to that great evil. While the millenniums-old conspiracy grows more and more apparent by the day, the radical leftists chase a phantom enemy and make scapegoating of puppets and political theater an art form. The true face of the enemy eludes them. Perhaps if the hidden hand were revealed for most to see, and its choke-hold on the political affairs of nearly the entire planet were removed, the upstart leftist politicians like Jeremy Corbyn could indeed alter the landscape. Until that day comes, speculation as to his motives and character, and designations along the lines of 'pseudo-leftist,' are completely devoid of real meaning or substance.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Charlatans, Operatives and Disinformation Agents - Epsidoe III: Sibel Edmonds

As I and countless others have stressed over the years, the events of 9/11/2001 and the official lie that has been told to "explain" those events, are of unparalleled importance when it comes to making a proper assessment of the goings-on in the world in the subsequent fourteen years. Understanding the facts of 9/11 (at least the ones we know of at this juncture) is absolutely crucial to countering the establishment propaganda machine and piecing together the reality of the situation we live under in the post-9/11 world. The official lie of 9/11 is the glue that holds together countless successive lies and psychological operations that have led to a state of global chaos and suffering from which we may never fully recover. It is with this in mind that I have chosen to zero in on Sibel Edmonds as the third subject of this ongoing series. Before getting into Sibel herself and why she qualifies for this post, let's review some basic facts about 9/11 that anyone reading this should be well acquainted and fully at terms with:

1) The 9/11 attacks were not orchestrated from a cave in Afghanistan and carried out by boxcutter-wielding Muslims affiliated with 'Al Qaeda.'

2) Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, and literally zero evidence has ever been produced to suggest otherwise.

3) In all actual fact, the available evidence suggests significant if not primary responsibility lies with the Israeli Mossad and its agents embedded throughout the United States.

4) 'Al Qaeda' is a creation of the CIA and Israeli Mossad.

5) Only once in all of history has a skyscraper collapsed due to fire. On September 11th, 2001 -- and it happened to three of them.

6) Since 9/11, the United States and its allies (puppet regimes) have waged relentless and uninterrupted war across the Middle East and North Africa, killing, maiming and displacing countless millions of people.

7) The primary beneficiary of these wars, by and large, and on multiple fronts, has not been the US or its client states, but Israel.

8) The 2000 PNAC document entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' states the need for a "catastrophic or cataclysmic event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

9) Prominent Zionist Jews had been on-record predicting a 9/11-style attack for up to three decades.

10) 'The Yinon Plan' for "Greater Israel" calls for a massive expansion of Israeli land "from Egypt to the Euphrates." 

All of that and much more borne in mind, it will become clear that Sibel Edmonds is another charlatan, limited hangout, or worse.

Edmonds is an FBI translator turned "whistleblower" who was fired from her job after what she alleges to be retaliation for various complaints on her part pertaining to impropriety and misconduct within the FBI. These allegations led to a congressional investigation and ultimately her allegations were found to have some merit to them, although no action was ever taken. Additionally, she is the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), whose membership sports the likes of Daniel Ellsberg (AKA the original Eddie Snowden) and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, among others. She has been the recipient of a great deal of acclaim and praise, not only from certain elements of "truth-seekers," but also from many in official government positions and current and former intelligence circles. Needless to say, although not the media darling Ellsberg and "Snowden" were. this can rightly be taken as red flag number one.

For all the hullabaloo and fanfare, the "most gagged woman in America" has lived up to the moniker exceptionally well. What exactly is it she is "gagged" from speaking about? Based on claims she has made and her "whistleblowing" activity to this point, not to mention the attention she has garnered as a result, it is safe to assume that the secrets she has allegedly sat on are rather inconsequential. That is, if any secrets do indeed exist.

Her claims regarding the 9/11 attacks are centered around "the government let it happen," with "rogue" elements of the FBI and other outside influences preventing the "good guys" from properly doing their job, and therefore impeding a proper investigation. In typical "muddy the waters" fashion, she offers up vague and ambiguous implications, while remaining hesitant to, you know... blow the whistle. She has alluded to involvement in the 9/11 attacks on the part of Turkish and Pakistani intelligence, and consistently maintained the narrative of Saudi responsibility, at least in large part. The true masterminds of the attack, the Israeli Mossad and its agents embedded within the United States, are virtually nowhere to be found in Sibel's claims, allusions and implicit indictments. For someone with a significant degree of insider knowledge of the investigation, or lack thereof, this is alarming -- and of course very telling. When one consider's Sibel's April, 2011 article entitled Is Israel the Sole Determinant of US Presidential Elections?, in which she is upfront and candid about Israel's unrestrained influence over US politics, and even congratulates them for achieving such power, it becomes ever-more difficult to accept at face value the genuineness of her crusade.

The 'good guys' in the FBI

Allow me to backtrack for a moment and touch upon this notion of hers that many low-to-mid-level FBI 'field agents' are actually the 'good guys.' It should be abundantly clear at this point to any sane, truth-seeking American that there are no such thing as 'good guys' in the FBI. Nor are there any in the NSA, DHS, DIA or any other alphabet soup agency currently raping the American people of the last shred of individual freedom and privacy we still cling to. Such an assertion is patently absurd, for obvious reasons that we see play themselves out on an almost daily basis. Seeing as there can be no 'good cops,' owing to the complicity in the repressive and destructive behavior exhibited by their peers, the same rule applies to the aforementioned federal agencies -- only to an even greater extent. Anyone with the best interest of the American people -- and, really, humanity as a whole -- at heart cannot but realize the danger these agencies pose.

Same old red herrings

We have witnessed the obstructive and evasive character of many alternative commentators when it comes to assessing the attacks of 9/11, so Sibel is far from alone in this matter. What makes her somewhat unique is the inside perspective from which she established her voice among 9/11 "truth" movements. This lends her a degree of credibility and benefit of the doubt that most others within the movement would certainly not be afforded, and it is precisely this fact that has allowed her to maintain her "cred" while revealing very little of the information she supposedly possesses. In one of her more forthright moments, in 2009, she made the claim that Osama bin Laden had been working with US intelligence right up to the day of the 9/11 attacks. It is no secret by now that, at the time of the attacks, the former CIA asset was gravely ill, and by all indications died just a few months after 9/11, in December of that year. Although it is not wholly outside the realm of possibility that some sort of communication took place, it is extremely unlikely and in any event utterly irrelevant. In light of the fact that he had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks, inserting bin Laden's name into the equation serves one purpose and one purpose only: To solidify the Zionist-occupied government's fundamental version of events, of which the boogeyman bin Laden is the centerpiece. The 'Saudi involvement' red herring is perhaps the most crucial element of a controlled opposition campaign, and by now should be considered the most obvious as well. This is not to say Saudi Arabia does not have a lengthy track record of support for violent terrorist movements, because it absolutely does. However, we must recognize that such support is always given either at the direction, or with the explicit approval of, the United States, who in turn operate, almost without exception, under the guidance of the Zionist regime in Tel Aviv. 

The enduring theme of Sibel's narrative is this Saudi involvement and an ongoing, strenuous effort by the highest echelons of the US government to cover up for "mid to high level al Qaeda operatives." This, my friends, is textbook disinformation. To summarize, we have the 'stating the obvious' factor ("The government is lying and there is a cover-up in place!"); the reluctance to elaborate on the claim in any meaningful fashion ("I have secrets -- really BIG secrets -- but I can't tell them to you because I'm gagged!"); and the "revelations" that she "can get away with" ("Bin Laden! Al Qaeda!"). She will, from time to time, muddy the waters with various references to other nations and entities without offering much in the way of substantiation for their connection, but the central theme remains intact. Does it seem fishy yet? I should hope so.

The 'what' of the matter (i.e. the blatant disinformation) is irrefutable. What is not at all clear is the 'why' (i.e. her motivation). The complexion of the deep-state apparatus is, of course, not fully discernible, and various elements and networks, each serving their own purpose and achieving a multitude of individualistic ends, exist within it. The more exhaustive the effort undertaken to pinpoint the precise role of a single actor in the larger machinery can be an arduous and ultimately unfulfilling task. In this instance, as in the case of all controlled opposition polluting the 9/11 truth movement, an individual's personal motivation is of a secondary nature anyway. I have seen it suggested that Sibel has a Jewish background, though I am thus far unable to verify that claim. And while it would indeed make sense that concealing the Jewish Zionist role in the 9/11 attacks would be all the motivation such a person would need (and indeed, these gatekeepers are to be found in every nook and cranny of the American power structure), the spreading of disinformation about 9/11 serves that very purpose above all else, regardless of personal ambitions. It is evident that this is an area Sibel has no interest in venturing into, and what she HAS said about the 9/11 attacks leaves little room for doubt that whatever it is she has allegedly been sitting on also conveniently avoids the hard truths of the matter at hand.

If Sibel Edmonds is in fact privy to damning information that can shed light on the truth of 9/11, bring some sort of justice to the families whose lives were ruined in the process, and perhaps even change the direction our society has taken as a consequence of those attacks, I would urge her to take one for the team and air that shit out. In the absence of such a development, we are left with no real reason to believe she is anything other than just another controlled opposition figure and cog in the establishment disinformation machine.    

Saturday, September 5, 2015

More On Putin: More Questions Than Answers

There have been rumors circulating on the internet recently about Putin sending "thousands of troops" to Syria to fight alongside the Syrian Arab Army. These rumors appear to have originated with the Zionist rag 'YNet' and there is no evidence they have any basis in fact. However, said rumors have brought to the surface what I believe to be a very important question -- Has Vladimir Putin done enough to assist his 'ally,' Bashar Al Assad? In scouring the internet the past few days trying to gather as much information as I can on the subject, and taking into account many different arguments and view points, it's clear there are very legitimate reasons why Putin has offered only limited support. Still, it is beyond dispute that, even after over four years of steadfast resistance, the government of Bashar Al Assad is in jeopardy (The overthrow of Assad's government has been revealed to be official US policy and in the cards for a very long time). With that being the case and no real reconciliation to the situation in sight, it's safe to say these are becoming somewhat exceptional circumstances and I must admit I am left wondering why Putin has not done more to aid his Syrian counterpart. The ultimate goals of the US and its Zionist overlords in regards to Syria and the greater Middle East are well-known, and the overthrow of Assad is not the endgame, but only another step in the bigger plan. Iran, of course, would be on the chopping block next, and it would be foolish to think Vladimir Putin is not fully cognizant of this fact. Should the US and their Zionist Jew masters succeed in toppling Assad, and subsequently the Islamic Republic of Iran, this would present a grave threat to Russia, would it not? To that end, serious and important questions emerge about Putin and what his angle truly is. Which, put in a greater context, begs even more questions. In my opinion, these are the possible explanations for Putin's half-hearted approach to situation in Syria.

1) It is logistically impractical and ultimately to the detriment of the Russian Federation to take a larger or more direct role in the Syrian conflict. Or to put it another way, the risks of doing so and saving the Assad government far outweigh the benefits. As I said, I've read fairly compelling arguments for this. -- The Russian military is not equipped to undertake conflict more than 1,000 km from its borders; Russians overwhelmingly do NOT support the idea of military involvement in Syria, and Putin speaks for the Russian people; Even if Assad's rule was ensured and the conflict brought to an end, it is not a winnable situation due to the state of chaos of the greater Middle East/North Africa region, so the venue for the conflict would just move elsewhere; Russia simply does not express itself militarily unless its own borders are directly threatened. -- I fully understand and can appreciate all of this. However, it does not take into account the long-term prospects and implications of the broader situation. As I mentioned before, Assad himself does not represent the endgame to the sociopaths responsible for this destruction. Russia's interests in Syria may be worth sacrificing in order to avert a larger and much more dangerous conflict, but what about its long-term interests elsewhere? Namely, within Iran and even at home? Does Putin truly believe, even if the government in Damascus ultimately falls, that some sort of understanding can be had with an American entity that (at least on the surface) has his very government in its cross hairs? It would seem beyond belief, at least to this observer, that a continuation of the conquests cannot be easily foreseen by Mr. Putin if the assault is not only brought to a halt, but reversed so that Assad's 'legitimacy' as the president of Syria is fully and indisputably restored. One wonders, therefore, in what manner Putin seeks to assure the existence and stability of not only the government in Damascus, but also the one in Tehran and even the one in Moscow... Perhaps at this stage of the game Putin has a better picture of the situation on the ground in Syria than the lot of us, and has reason enough to believe that the conflict is still winnable in the hands of the Syrian army, Hezbollah and whatever Iranian forces are currently directly involved in combat. It cannot be entirely ruled out. But, there are other possible explanations to consider.

2) The military might and overall geopolitical fortitude of the Russian Federation has been greatly exaggerated. Mainstream and alternative commentary on the 'new Cold War' scenario all pretty much agree on one thing: Russia represents a formidable challenge to the United States -- from not only a geopolitical standpoint but also a military one. It is generally agreed upon that the military capabilities of Russia are potent enough that a deterrent to aggression on the part of the US is in place. This notion is true insofar as it pertains to avoiding nuclear war of apocalyptic proportions. Anything short of that remains to be seen because, as we've seen, Russia is getting bullied left and right with little to no real counter-measures. Again I ask, is Putin really just an overly peaceable and optimistic individual who thinks these indirect attacks on Russian interests will eventually just play themselves out with little noticeable consequences? I highly doubt it. That hyping the might of the Russian Federation and its competency as an opponent of the US serves both the former and the latter well is certainly a reasonable assertion. But in reality, if the warmongering neocons in Washington and their NATO cohorts take their absolutely reckless and provocative behavior up a notch, will we see a response from Putin that sends a real message? It is more likely that the purely defensive character of Russia's counter-measures are indicative of major vulnerability rather than a reluctance to express its might. From that point of view, it is entirely conceivable that taking a larger, more direct role in the fight to preserve the Assad government is not something that would bode well for Russia. Yet, all the bluster about Russia's status as the one, true challenger of US hegemony coming out of both the pro and anti-Putin camps could lead one to believe otherwise. None of us can be certain how the US would respond to direct Russian intervention in Syria. Could it set off a conflict unlike any we've ever seen, ultimately leading to the end of life as we know it? It's possible. But it's also possible that such a clear and decisive measure on Russia's part would finally put the Western warmongers in check. Indeed, it is not unimaginable that such an unprecedented act on their part would cause those warmongers to start re-evaluating their approach and policies when it comes to laying waste to hostile enemies of the Zionist regime. Is Putin doing the world a solid, preventing a catastrophic global war scenario? Is it a risk he's just not willing to take? Or, have we all been misled on the true nature of the US - Russia 'showdown?' Which brings me to my third possible explanation...

3) The 'new Cold War' scenario is pure theater. This is where things get much more complex, and many other factors, including ones of an historical nature, must be borne in mind. First and foremost, a factor that cannot be overlooked (as is always the case) is the money factor. Who benefits tremendously from a supposedly looming conflict between the world's two most powerful nations? Weapons manufacturers, of course. It was revealed in June that during the same week the EU voted to extend sanctions against Russia, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were doing deals with the Russian Federation, with the Pentagon lobbying hard to have sanctions eased for this purpose. In this context, we can see plainly how such a purported conflict takes on a whole different dynamic. Needless to say, Boeing and Lockheed, among others, stand to gain enormously in the midst of a 'new Cold War.' As we know quite well, special interests such as these have more influence over government policy than any 'elected' representative operating within the official governmental body.

Also of importance when examining this ostensible standoff is the historical roles of the US and Russia in regards to Zionism and the creation of the 'state' of Israel. Here, if we are to conclude that the current standoff is mostly or purely fictional, we must also conclude the same of the Cold War standoff of the century past. From where I'm sitting, this is absolutely plausible. Let us not forget that it was Russia where the headquarters for Talmudic world Jewry existed prior to the creation of Israel. What followed the establishment of this headquarters of Talmudic Jewry by Khazars in Russia was the Bolshevik revolution first, followed by a mass migration of the Ashkenazim to Palestine under the "leadership" of Joseph Stalin. Were it not for these developments, and the crucial role the played by the Soviet Union, the creation of Israel would not have been possible. It was from the Soviet Union that so many who made up the savage Zionist terrorist organizations came. The Bolsheviks, being brought to power as part of the Talmudic Zionist conspiracy that was being devised and nurtured in Russia, could not be anything but inherently friendly to the Zionist cause. (In actual fact, they were parallel movements.)

Then you have the American-Israeli "special relationship." If Russia is to be (rightly) viewed as the bearer of Zionism, America would be its procurer. Russia and the US are united in their unique relationship to the Zionist entity. One gave birth to it and the other sustains it. This entity, now surviving on the blood of American taxpayers, has gotten its tentacles into the working machinery of governments spanning the world, with only a handful of exceptions. If Russia is one of those exceptions, I have not seen convincing evidence of it. For all the rhetoric about Putin "kicking out the Jewish oligarchs," I have had no success verifying this alleged crusade. The fact of the matter is, Russia's entire historical legacy is tied inseparably to Zionist conspiracies, Zionist-instigated wars and Zionist mythology about those wars, which to this very day are enforced by law. The bearer and procurer of the Zionist entity operate in absolute harmony alongside one another in keeping the world subservient to the Zionist order of things. Russia is obviously not beholden to the cult in Tel Aviv in the same manner which the US is, but it operates safely within the cult's architecture and sphere of permissible narratives. To break with the Zionist entity and cast aside as inconsequential its cultivation inside Russian borders, the Russian Federation as it exists today would also have to break with the legacy it prides itself on. They are two parts of the same process, and without the completion of that process, the two nations remain synchronized where it counts.

I am compelled also to invoke America's last (and possibly only) real president. While the enemies he accumulated and his transgressions against TPTB are both extensive, it's imperative for the purpose of this analysis to recall the president's efforts to improve relations with the Soviet Union. Maintaining such a conflict, real or imagined, is paramount in shaping the perception of the masses and directing their attention and energy away from what must remain hidden. The absence of Cold War drama and fear-mongering leaves an enormous void of collective energy that could be harnessed for purposes detrimental to the established order. Furthermore, it applies to the world configuration an absolutist essence; a sort of 'good cop - bad cop' depiction which serves to conceal the true machinations of the power structure. This simple routine has yielded wildly successful results as a tool of public containment, and it cannot be ruled out in this particular context.

In order to take this 'standoff' at face value, you must accept as fact that there are certain individuals who are so raving mad that they are willing to risk an extermination-level fallout -- and therefore their own lives -- in their quest for arbitrary power and dominance. In light of the fact that I am not an absurdly wealthy, power-wielding psychopath, I cannot say for certain whether or not utter disregard for one's own life is a trait someone in that position can pick up along the way. Though, admittedly, it is somewhat difficult to grasp when you set aside all the posturing and hyperbole.

Getting back to the original topic at hand...

It remains to be seen, of course, whether Russia does ultimately insert itself into the conflict in a more direct way. Though this seems extremely unlikely at this juncture. Truth be told, it's anyone's guess as to what Putin himself is thinking and what his intentions are -- not just as it pertains to Syria, but in general. There is an awful lot of mystery, legend, hyperbole and sycophancy surrounding this figure and while I'm personally still somewhat unsure of where my assessment will ultimately lead, I'm finding myself leaning towards explanation number three. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to believe that Putin the anti-hegemonic-ambition renegade would be willing to sacrifice his ally in Syria in the hope of the US being content thereafter. From an outside, unbiased perspective, there appears to be a significant lack of urgency on the part of the Russia with regards to Syria. Exactly why is up for debate, but what is beyond question, in my opinion, is the damaging effect this lack of urgency is having on Putin's reputation as the unquestioned challenger of American imperialism.