Sunday, August 31, 2014

ISIS is the Blunt Instrument of the Anglo-American/Muslim Brotherhood NEW WORLD ORDER.

I have been telling anyone who would listen or bother to read that ISIS was, CREATED by, ARMED by, Financed by and Politically Supported by the Anglo-American NEW WORLD ORDER. It was created as a blunt tool to use to whip nations into New World Order Compliance.



"
Though Obama plays the role of a weak, indecisive, liberal president, and while pundits from the right have had a lot of fun with that image, this is just a facade. Some presidents, like George W. Bush, rely primarily on overt military aggression. Obama gets the same job done, but he prefers covert means. Not really surprising considering the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski was his mentor."


Mirror from SCG News:

The Covert Origins of ISIS

Evidence exposing who put ISIS in power, and how it was done.
The Islamic militant group ISIS, formerly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and recently rebranded as the so called Islamic State, is the stuff of nightmares. They are ruthless, fanatical, killers, on a mission, and that mission is to wipe out anyone and everyone, from any religion or belief system and to impose Shari'ah law. The mass executions, beheadings and even crucifixions that they are committing as they work towards this goal are flaunted like badges of pride, video taped and uploaded for the whole world to see. This is the new face of evil.
Would it interest you to know who helped these psychopaths rise to power? Would it interest you to know who armed them, funded them and trained them? Would it interest you to know why?
This story makes more sense if we start in the middle, so we'll begin with the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
The Libyan revolution was Obama's first major foreign intervention. It was portrayed as an extension of the Arab Spring, and NATO involvement was framed in humanitarian terms.
The fact that the CIA was actively working to help the Libyan rebels topple Gaddafi was no secret, nor were the airstrikes that Obama ordered against the Libyan government.However, little was said about the identity or the ideological leanings of these Libyan rebels. Not surprising, considering the fact that the leader of the Libyan rebels later admitted that his fighters included Al-Qaeda linked jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq.
These jihadist militants from Iraq were part of what national security analysts commonly referred to as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Remember Al-Qaeda in Iraq was ISIS before it was rebranded.
With the assistance of U.S. and NATO intelligence and air support, the Libyan rebels captured Gaddafi and summarily executed him in the street, all the while enthusiastically chanting "Allah Akbar". For many of those who had bought the official line about how these rebels were freedom fighters aiming to establish a liberal democracy in Libya, this was the beginning of the end of their illusions.
Prior to the U.S. and NATO backed intervention, Libya had the highest standard of living of any country in Africa. This according to the U.N.'s Human Development Index rankings for 2010.However in the years following the coup, the country descended into chaos, with extremism and violence running rampant. Libya is now widely regarded as failed state (of course those who were naive enough to buy into the propaganda leading up to the war get defensive when this is said).
Now after Gaddafi was overthrown, the Libyan armories were looted, and massive quantities of weapons were sent by the Libyan rebels to Syria. The weapons, which included anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles were smuggled into Syria through Turkey, a NATO ally. The times of Londonreported on the arrival of the shipment on September 14th, 2012. (Secondary confirmation in this NYT article) This was just three days after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Chris Stevens had served as the U.S. government's liaison to the Libyan rebels since April of 2011.
While a great deal media attention has focused on the fact that the State Department did not provide adequate security at the consulate, and was slow to send assistance when the attack started, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh released an article in April of 2014 which exposed a classified agreement between the CIA, Turkey and the Syrian rebels to create what was referred to as a "rat line". The "rat line" was covert network used to channel weapons and ammunition from Libya, through southern turkey and across the Syrian border. Funding was provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
With Stevens dead any direct U.S. involvement in that arms shipment was buried, and Washington would continue to claim that they had not sent heavy weaponry into Syria.
It was at this time that jihadist fighters from Libya began flooding into Syria as well. And not just low level militants. Many were experienced commanders who had fought in multiple theaters.
The U.S. and its allies were now fully focused on taking down Assad's government in Syria. As in Libya this regime change was to be framed in terms of human rights, and now overt support began to supplement the backdoor channels. The growing jihadist presence was swept under the rug and covered up.
However as the rebels gained strength, the reports of war crimes and atrocities that they were committing began to create a bit of a public relations problem for Washington. It then became standard policy to insist that U.S. support was only being given to what they referred to as"moderate" rebel forces.
This distinction, however, had no basis in reality.
In an interview given in April of 2014, FSA commander Jamal Maarouf admitted that his fighters regularly conduct joint operations with Al-Nusra. Al-Nusra is the official Al-Qa’ida branch in Syria. This statement is further validated by an interview given in June of 2013 by Colonel Abdel Basset Al-Tawil, commander of the FSA's Northern Front. In this interview he openly discusses his ties with Al-Nusra, and expresses his desire to see Syria ruled by sharia law. (You can verify the identities of these two commanders here in this document from The Institute for the Study of War)
Moderate rebels? Well it's complicated. Not that this should really come as any surprise. Reuters had reported in 2012 that the FSA's command was dominated by Islamic extremists, and the New York Times had reported that same year that the majority of the weapons that Washington were sending into Syria was ending up in the hands Jihadists. For two years the U.S. government knew that this was happening, but they kept doing it.
And the FSA's ties to Al-Nusra are just the beginning. In June of 2014 Al-Nusra merged with ISIS at the border between Iraq and Syria.
So to review, the FSA is working with Al-Nusra, Al-Nusra is working with ISIS, and the U.S. has been sending money and weapons to the FSA even though they've known since 2012 that most of these weapons were ending up in the hands of extremists. You do the math.
In that context, the sarin gas attacks of 2013 which turned out to have been committed by the Syrian rebels, makes a lot more sense doesn't it? If it wasn't enough that U.N. investigatorsRussian investigators, and Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh all pinned that crime on Washington's proxies, the rebels themselves threatened the West that they would expose what really happened if they were not given more advanced weaponry within one month.
By the way, this also explains why Washington then decided to target Russia next.
This threat was made on June 10th, 2013. In what can only be described as an amazing coincidence, just nine days later, the rebels received their first official shipment of heavy weapons in Aleppo.
After the second sarin gas fiasco, which was also exposed and therefore failed to garner public support for airstrikes, the U.S. continued to increase its the training and support for the rebels.
In February of 2014, Haaretz reported that the U.S. and its allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, were in the process of helping the Syrian rebels plan and prepare for a massive attack in the south. According to Haaretz Israel had also provided direct assistance in military operations against Assad four months prior (you can access a free cached version of the page here).
Then in May of 2014 PBS ran a report in which they interviewed rebels who were trained by the U.S. in Qatar. According to those rebels they were being trained to finish off soldiers who survived attacks.
"They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road,” said the fighter, who is identified only as "Hussein." "They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush."
This is a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions. It also runs contrary to conventional military strategy. In conventional military strategy soldiers are better off left wounded, because this ends up costing the enemy more resources. Executing captured enemy soldiers is the kind of tactic used when you want to strike terror in the hearts of the enemy. It also just happens to be standard operating procedure for ISIS.
One month after this report, in June of 2014, ISIS made its dramatic entry, crossing over the Syrian border into Iraq, capturing Mosul, Baiji and almost reaching Baghdad. The internet was suddenly flooded with footage of drive by shootings, large scale death marches, and mass graves. And of course any Iraqi soldier that was captured was executed.
Massive quantities of American military equipment were seized during that operation. ISIS took entire truckloads of humvees, they took helicopters, tanks, and artillery. They photographed and video taped themselves and advertised what they were doing on social media, and yet for some reason Washington didn't even TRY to stop them.
U.S. military doctrine clearly calls for the destruction of military equipment and supplies when friendly forces cannot prevent them from falling into enemy hands, but that didn't happen here. ISIS was allowed to carry this equipment out of Iraq and into Syria unimpeded. The U.S. military had the means to strike these convoys, but they didn't lift a finger, even though they had been launching drone strikes in Pakistan that same week.
Why would they do that?
Though Obama plays the role of a weak, indecisive, liberal president, and while pundits from the right have had a lot of fun with that image, this is just a facade. Some presidents, like George W. Bush, rely primarily on overt military aggression. Obama gets the same job done, but he prefers covert means. Not really surprising considering the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski was his mentor.
Those who know their history will remember that Zbigniew Brzezinski was directly involved in the funding and arming the Islamic extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to weaken the Soviets.
By the way Osama bin Laden was one of these anti-Soviet "freedom fighters" the U.S. was funding and arming.
This operation is no secret at this point, nor are the unintended side effects.
Officially the U.S. government's arming and funding of the Mujahideen was a response to the Soviet invasion in December of 1979, however in his memoir entitled "From the Shadows" Robert Gates, director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, and Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, revealed that the U.S. actually began the covert operation 6 months prior, with the express intention of luring the Soviets into a quagmire. (You can preview the relevant text here on google books)
The strategy worked. The Soviets invaded, and the ten years of war that followed are considered by many historians as being one of the primary causes of the fall of the USSR.
This example doesn't just establish precedent, what we're seeing happen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria right now is actually a continuation of a old story. Al-Nusra and ISIS are ideological and organizational decedents of these extremist elements that the U.S. government made use of thirty years ago.
The U.S. the went on to create a breeding ground for these extremists by invading Iraq in 2003. Had it not been for the vacuum of power left by the removal and execution of Saddam, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, aka ISIS, would not exist. And had it not been for Washington's attempt at toppling Assad by arming, funding and training shadowy militant groups in Syria, there is no way that ISIS would have been capable of storming into Iraq in June of 2014.
On every level, no matter how you cut it, ISIS is a product of U.S. government's twisted and decrepit foreign policy.
Now all of this may seem contradictory to you as you watch the drums of war against ISIS begin to beat louder and the air strikes against them are gradually widenedhttp://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/president-obama-considers-possible-...). Why would the U.S. help a terrorist organization get established, only to attack them later?
Well why did the CIA put Saddam Hussein in power in 1963?, Why did the U.S. government back Saddam in 1980 when he launched a war of aggression against Iran, even though they knew that he was using chemical weapons? Why did the U.S. fund and arm Islamic extremists in Afghanistan against the Soviets?
There's a pattern here if you look closely. This is a tried and true geopolitical strategy.
Step 1: Build up a dictator or extremist group which can then be used to wage proxy wars against opponents. During this stage any crimes committed by these proxies are swept under the rug. [Problem]
Step 2: When these nasty characters have outlived their usefulness, that's when it's time to pull out all that dirt from under the rug and start publicizing it 24/7. This obviously works best when the public has no idea how these bad guys came to power.[Reaction]
Step 3: Finally, when the public practically begging for the government to do something, a solution is proposed. Usually the solution involves military intervention, the loss of certain liberties, or both. [Solution]
ISIS is extremely useful. They have essentially done Washington dirty work by weakening Assad. In 2014, while the news cycle has focused almost exclusively on Ukraine and Russia, ISIS made major headway in Syria, and as of August they already controlled 35% of the country.
Since ISIS largely based in Syria, this gives the U.S. a pretext to move into Syria. Sooner or later the U.S. will extend the airstrikes into Assad's backyard, and when they do U.S. officials are already making it clear that both ISIS and the Syrian government will be targeted. That, after all, is the whole point. Washington may allow ISIS to capture a bit more territory first, but the writing is on the wall, and has been for some time now.
The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that this will never lead to boots on the ground, however, the truth of the matter is that anyone who understands anything about military tactics knows full well that ISIS cannot be defeated by airstrikes alone. In response to airstrikes ISIS will merely disperse and conceal their forces. ISIS isn't an established state power which can be destroyed by knocking out key government buildings and infrastructure. These are guerrilla fighters who cut their teeth in urban warfare.
To significantly weaken them, the war will have to involve ground troops, but even this is a lost cause. U.S. troops could certainly route ISIS in street to street battles for some time, and they might even succeed in fully occupying Syria and Iraq for a number of years, but eventually they will have to leave, and when they do, it should be obvious what will come next.
The puppets that the U.S. government has installed in the various countries that they have brought down in recent years have without exception proven to be utterly incompetent and corrupt. No one that Washington places in power will be capable of maintaining stability in Syria. Period.
Right now, Assad is the last bastion of stability in the region. He is the last chance they have for a moderate non-sectarian government and he is the only hope of anything even remotely resembling democracy for the foreseeable future. If Assad falls, Islamic extremist will take the helm, they will impose shari'ah law, and they will do everything in their power to continue spreading their ideology as far and wide as they can.
If the world truly wants to stop ISIS, there is only one way to do it:
1. First and foremost, the U.S. government and its allies must be heavily pressured to cut all support to the rebels who are attempting to topple Assad. Even if these rebels that the U.S. is arming and funding were moderate, and they're not, the fact that they are forcing Assad to fight a war on multiple fronts, only strengthens ISIS. This is lunacy.
2. The Syrian government should be provided with financial support, equipment, training and intelligence to enable them to turn the tide against ISIS. This is their territory, they should be the ones to reclaim it.
Now obviously this support isn't going to come from the U.S. or any NATO country, but there are a number of nations who have a strategic interest in preventing another regime change and chaotic aftermath. If these countries respond promptly, as in right now, they could preempt a U.S. intervention, and as long this support does not include the presence of foreign troops, doing so will greatly reduce the likelihood of a major confrontation down the road.
3. The U.S. government and its allies should should be aggressively condemned for their failed regime change policies and the individuals behind these decisions should be charged for war crimes. This would have to be done on an nation by nation level since the U.N. has done nothing but enable NATO aggression. While this may not immediately result in these criminals being arrested, it would send a message. This can be done. Malaysia has already proven this by convicting the Bush administration of war crimes in abstentia.
Now you might be thinking: "This all sounds fine and good, but what does this have to do with me? I can't influence this situation."
That perspective is quite common, and for most people, it's paralyzing, but the truth of the matter is that we can influence this. We've done it before, and we can do it again.
I'll be honest with you though, this isn't going to be easy. To succeed we have to start thinking strategically. Like it or not, this is a chess game. If we really want to rock the boat, we have to start reaching out to people in positions of influence. This can mean talking to broadcasters at your local radio station, news paper, or t.v. station, or it can mean contacting influential bloggers, celebrities, business figures or government officials. Reaching out to current serving military and young people who may be considering joining up is also important. But even if it's just your neighbor, or your coworker, every single person we can reach brings us closer to critical mass. The most important step is to start trying.
If you are confused about why this is all happening, watch this video we put out on September 11th, 2012
If this message resonates with you then spread it. If you want to see the BIG picture, and trust me we've got some very interesting reports coming, subscribe to StormCloudsGathering on Youtube, and follow us on Facebook, twitter and Google plus.




Mirror from THIS WEEK:

Are Libyan rebels being led by a CIA plant?
Until recently, Khalifa Hifter — who's leading the anti-Gadhafi forces — lived five miles from CIA headquarters in Virginia. Coincidence?
LIbyan rebels ride a tank in the eastern part of the country: The anti-Gadhafi forces are led by a former Gadhafi army commander... and possible CIA plant.
LIbyan rebels ride a tank in the eastern part of the country: The anti-Gadhafi forces are led by a former Gadhafi army commander... and possible CIA plant.
CC BY: BRQ Network
Now leading Libya's ragtag army of rebels, Khalifa Hifter has a mysterious past that's raising provocative questions. Once a top commander in Moammar Gadhafi's own army, he left its ranks after a disastrous campaign in Chad, then moved to a home five miles from CIA headquarters in northern Virginia, where he lived from the early 1990s until mid-March, 2011. What happened during those 20 years in the U.S.? Hifter's lifelong friend Abdel Salam Badr reports only that Hifter somehow supported a large family. With the CIA mingling among the rebels, some commentators are wondering: Is Hifter a CIA plant?
Hifter is pretty clearly CIA: So a former top chief in Gadhafi's army is allowed to settle in the U.S., soon after the Lockerbie bombing, says Patrick Martin in Axis of Logic, then spends 20 years "about five miles from CIA headquarters in Langley," with no apparent job? "To those who can read between the lines," that's enough to conclude that Hifter is a CIA operative. Need more proof? "Even a cursory Internet search" ties Hifter to the CIA as far back as 1987.
"A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels"
We shouldn't be using covert operatives: There's no need for the U.S. to play games, says John Gizzi in Human Events. As Paul Wolfowitz told me, the CIA shouldn't be involved, simply because "we should be right out in the open" in our dealings with the rebels. Let's not "reinforce the notion in the Middle East that the CIA is behind everything the Americans do."
"Burning Libya question: Exactly who are Gaddafi's opponents?"
The bigger issue: Can Hifter win? He cuts something of an odd figure for a military commander, wearing "a pinstripe suit and a black turtleneck sweater" instead of battle fatigues, say Alexander Marquardt and Mark Mooney in ABC News. And he incorrectly predicted that Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte "would fall easily". Despite Hifter's status as "self-proclaimed commander of the Free Libyan Army," it isn't clear that he's actually commanding the fleeing rebel forces. The only certainty is that somebody needs to "whip his army into shape." 
"Libyan rebel commander is from Fairfax, Virginia"

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

More On the Depth of the Mind War.

Are you living in a stunned hypnotic state, thinking rather it is just life as usual, maybe more challenged, still nothing but the old remedies will work?

This conversation reflects the depth of the damage of the MIND WAR and people endlessly repeat the same processes expecting different result.  Rex Christi, someone I believe to be sincere and truly concerned for his nation demonstrates "Cognitive Dissonance" which he substitutes for reason. Like I say, I believe him to be sincere, a bright young articulate, libertarian leaning conservative Roman Catholic, yet Cognitive Dissonance is the closest he can come to reason.

Let us jump ahead to the cognitive dissonance part. You know that cognitive dissonance is thorough belief in two truths, or sets of truth, each destroying the reality of the other.

Here is where Rex expresses cognitive dissonance. "I don't doubt that a practical coup has already occurred. Nor do I doubt that it was perpetrated by both national parties and that the grassroots are persistently subverted."
AND
"The coup can only occur so long as we give it consent, whether active or passive matters little. There is no reason to give up trying to take over the existing system while preparing for its eventual demise and restoration project. If nothing else, at least it may slow down the police state and the pseudo-empire."

How can, participation in a fake political process that has been empirically proved POWERLESS, except to give political cover to the illegitimate government created by coup d'etat, "slow down the police state"?  Public outcry, massive protest, resistance, civil dis-obedience and revolt can slow it down, but participating IN its psycho-political tools, CANNOT. The entire political party system in the U.S. is FAKE, a mere psycho-political tool to make you think and feel YOU are responsible for your own enslavement.

Do you see the cognitive dissonance?
One: A coup has occurred, he admits.
He did not plan it.
He did not give the conspirators permission for the coup.
In fact it happened WITHOUT his knowledge.
He can only reluctantly view it post-event.
Yet he says, "The coup can only occur so long as we give it consent, whether active or passive matters little. There is no reason to give up trying to take over the existing system while preparing for its eventual demise and restoration project. If nothing else, at least it may slow down the police state and the pseudo-empire"

"The coup can only occur so long as we give it consent, whether active or passive matters little."
So a coup cannot happen without the consent of the governed?
Cognitive Dissonant statement: (1) If a change of government happened by the consent of the governed it would be a "democratic process" OR Legitimate Revolution, like the American Revolution or the recent Egyptian Revolution, and not a Coup d'etat.
(2) The difference between a Coup and a legitimate Revolution IS by the "consent of the governed."
"There is no reason to give up trying to take over the existing system"
(3) If it is a system constructed by a coup, it is illegitimate and participating in its processes EMPOWERS IT.  One can only CONQUER a illegitimate Totalitarian System by forcing it to collapse.

Even the simple statement "police state" and "pseudo-empire" used together expresses cognitive dissonance. It is indeed a police state, but it is most certainly not a "pseudo-empire." It is Empire Indeed, wrecking havoc all over the globe. If the Anglo-American New World Order is not an Empire, the word "super-power" had no meaning, and Rome and Persia must have been small villages.

If you can understand that Cognitive Dissonance is the product of hypnotic conditioning - ie, Psycho-Political conditioning in this case, then this conversation will be interesting and make sense to you.  If not suspend disbelief long enough to truly entertain the historical veracity of what each person contributes.




STUNNING THIRD AUTOPSY!

According to an unusual third autopsy, it has been determined that the pachyderm that was once the Republican Party is still a dead rhinocerotoidea.

LikeLike ·  · Stop Notifications · Share
  • Arleen Harnois and 19 others like this.
  • Rex Christi I won't let them have peace. 
  • Dee Saddler I knew you were in there somewhere, Rex!
  • Arleen Harnois The body has already been embalmed, should be an interesting autopsy.
  • Piano Butch Robinson I wish it were dead, and not the second lung of the very much alive New World Order Monster that destroyed our Republic.
    16 hrs · Like · 2
  • Rex Christi I meant it was dead as far as it being the Republican Party as a somewhat conservative opposition to the Democrat-Socialists, which they purport to be in their platform. That Party is dead, has been dead and unless it is taken over by actual conservatives shall remain dead. Unfortunately, the Globalist Super State is very much alive - but, it can still be killed.
    14 hrs · Like
  • Piano Butch Robinson Trust me when I tell you that the Republican Party will never life a weapons against the GSS.
    13 hrs · Like
  • Rex Christi Perhaps, but we can't know tomorrow today and it seems easier to takeover an existing structure than to elevate another (although both can be done concurrently.)

    With the current state of the average American citizen, a revolution (restorative) within the form seems more likely than an overthrow.
    1 hr · Like
  • Piano Butch Robinson Rex, as we have previously established, your statements fall within a false paradigm. That false paradigm says (1) a coup d'etat has not already happened, (2) that it wasn't constructed and aided by both the Republican and Democrat Parties, in cooperation with the real governing power, which is the world Oligarchy.(3) It says that there are meaning grassroots democratic process in the parties that are not subverted and voided at the national level. (4) That the people have a voice and power to speak INSIDE the present system. 

    Even Princeton University in their many years study of American Public Politics, just released, has proved that the will of the people in the last forty years has been expressed NOT ONCE (their language 'to a degree so little as to not be measurable). At present the Totalitarian State has redoubled their political Kabuki Play to make you think there is a functioning Republic with REAL processes inside it. The Goudy show hearing for example, when 15 of the crucial eye witnesses have been KILLED. It is not only not functioning, it is false, a fraud, pure manipulation wizardry - 100% psycho-political manipulation. 

    EVERYTHING you do, EVERYTHING REAL or false opposition does inside this system serves no purpose OTHER THAN to give psycho-political cover for the illegitimate government. And until people like you GET IT. America is without hope. 
    http://lettersfromthegulag.blogspot.com/.../american...


    lettersfromthegulag.blogspot.com
  • Rex Christi I don't doubt that a practical coup has already occurred. Nor do I doubt that it was perpetrated by both national parties and that the grassroots are persistently subverted.

    What I do doubt is that the American people at large are in any way shape or
     form prepared for an armed revolt, much less one with a reasonable chance of success.

    The problem with either/or thinking is that it eliminates the opportunities of multiple strategies. We are far less responsible for that which will occur than we are for the correctness of our present actions.

    The coup can only occur so long as we give it consent, whether active or passive matters little. There is no reason to give up trying to take over the existing system while preparing for its eventual demise and restoration project. If nothing else, at least it may slow down the police state and the pseudo-empire.
  • Piano Butch Robinson Your immediate reference to "an armed revolt" is really ridiculous when the vast majority of Americans do not have a clue there has been a revolution, much less the capacity to comprehend that it has been a capitalist/marxist revolution, wiping out ALL democratic processes. If they had a clue they would not be as you, still using the same hammer to drive the same nail, when the object they are trying to build has obliterated. So by default you are right, the American public is not ready for an armed revolt, and that should surprise no one, since you prove even the ones claiming to be wake, are not even ready to view reality. Much less revolt. Why? Because they are conditioned to a false reality. 

    You spend hours every week conversing in that false reality, and even you can't grasp that your only accomplishment is to play into the hands of your slavers, giving them COVER, under the FAKE political system to which you are addicted. 

    It is mass hypnosis Rex, a psycho-political meme, with NO underlying reality. I am reminded of the gag I used to play showing how hypnotically suggestible people really are. In a crowd I would point to something obscure in the distance and ask, "What the hell is that?" Then in a matter of moments I would have the crowd seeing exactly what I wanted them to see, and all of them would have sworn on a stack of bibles they were actually seeing it. You are a "pointer" and every time you point to the FAKE political process as a true means of change, you give it reality in the site of those with whom you share a common delusion. A delusion Proved and RE-PROVED again and again to be delusion. The Princeton study being just the latest example.

    What's more NONE of this is a surprise. A lot of people sacrificed EVERYTHING to tell the true you continue to ignore.



    • Rex Christi Gee, Piano Butch, I wish Chris and I were as effective as you are at convincing people of the problems, but alas I lack your eloquence and oratory. It must be very empowering to know with absolute certainty not only exactly what went wrong, but precisely what to do about it (I obviously lack the comprehension because I haven't grasped your solution as of yet.) 

      I'm just a dumb sheep that thinks more people need to be aware of the problem and do all that we can to restore a Republic.
    • Rick Smith Wow. Compared to pianoman? Rex? You are positively sane! So Piano? Besides declaring all is lost.... do you have any hope? Any plan? Any faith in humanity at all?
    • Piano Butch Robinson These last two entries are actually lies. Rex, your assessment of what I'm saying, and Rick's assessment hold more lie than truth. I DO know how our Republic was taken down, because I have researched it, watched it, like a slow motion nightmare for more than fifty year. 

      You both are in the "bargaining" stage of SHOCK. What you KNOW in your gut, if even you do not yet know it in your intellect, is that everything has fundamentally changed in America. To change it back you want a "quick fix." And the fact is we cannot begin to "fix it" until we identify and thoroughly understand the manner and nature of the fundamental change. Those who are ignorant of their own history are CERTAINLY bound to repeat its same mistakes, over and over, and over. Trust me, without a real awakening, on your part, before 2016 you will both be telling me how I need to "suck it up, hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." 

      When either of you disprove an EVENT, factually related in this article, then I will reassess and believe your participation in a fake political system has merit. 
      http://lettersfromthegulag.blogspot.com/.../the-ghost-of...