Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Is US Now Allied With ISIS ???

Without Changing a Stripe, ISIS Morphs from US’s Deadly Enemy to Useful Weapon to Perfect Target

By refusing to eliminate the ISIS contingent, while also not impeding the fighters fleeing westward, the anti-ISIS coalition, who profess their dedication to preventing ISIS from exporting their terror around the world, have not only not been helping to mitigate this outcome but have actually helped to enable it.

You can read the rest @

The available evidence suggests that al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other so-called terror groups are and perhaps always have been allied with the US.

This brings the rationale of the entire "war on terror" into question. My best guess is that the US and Israel are acting in concert to use terror, from any available source, to accomplish their nefarious goals - NONE of which benefit We The People.

Once again, we have been lied to and swindled by monsters.

Teaching Robots To Fight Humans

This is stupid on SO many levels:

You should FLEE from anyone who tells you that robots are not a danger to us.

Here Is Why NK Wants Nuclear Weapons

The US used biological weapons against the North Koreans and the Chinese during Truman's war against them. Here is the proof, in a report from 1952 which was just released:

I have written about this before, and I showed how it may be related to the issue of "brainwashing" and the US use of torture. You can read my essay here:

And yes, our lies from the Korean War STILL matter. As I stated in my 2013 blog post:

Perhaps our “big stick” diplomacy can delay the outbreak of another war on the Korean Peninsula, and perhaps it cannot. In my view, it’s past time for the United States to confess to its war crimes of over 60 years ago and to atone for our national sins. It’s also past time to determine the true circumstances of Frank Olson’s death and the true rationale and outcome of the CIA’s programs which led to our current interrogation techniques. Doing so might delay or prevent a war, and it might also help uncover more of the fundamental lies of the “War on Terror”.

Or we could just do what we always do - ignore the truth and start yet another war.

Which would YOU prefer?

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

ANOTHER New Pearl Harbor ???

In the wake of last week’s indictments alleging that 13 Russian nationals and entities created fake social media accounts and sponsored political events to sow political discord in the U.S., something of a consensus has arisen in the political and media class (with some notable exceptions) that these actions not only constitute an “act of war” against the U.S., but one so grave that it is tantamount to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Indeed, that Russia’s alleged “meddling” is comparable to the two most devastating attacks in U.S. history has, overnight, become a virtual cliché.

The claim that Russian meddling in the election is “an act of war” comparable to these events isn’t brand new. Senators from both parties, such as Republican John McCain and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, have long described Russian meddling in 2016 as an “act of war.” Hillary Clinton, while promoting her book last October, described Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inbox as a “cyber 9/11.” And last February, the always war-hungry Tom Friedman of the New York Times said on “Morning Joe” that Russian hacking “was a 9/11-scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor-scale event.”

But the last few days have ushered in an explosion of this rhetoric from politicians and journalists alike.

You can read the rest @

The last two "Pearl Harbors" (the original and 9/11) led to devastating wars. Is that what our deep state now wants, a war with Russia? That's insane.

In my view, it should be obvious to any sane person that the REAL attack on our democratic process is coming from Obama ad-Dajjal, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of those who are trying to overthrow President Trump and start a war with Russia. DON'T LET THEM DO THIS.

Good Violence Vs. Bad Violence

Essays such as this one bemoan America's "toxic cult of violence":

Note well it does not address the violence we are causing and/or sponsoring in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and other places in the world.

Does that mean violence against Americans is "bad", while violence against our alleged enemies is "good"?

What did Syria ever do to harm us? How about Iraq or Libya? With the exception of dubious claims (e.g., the Lockerbie bombing), I would argue that none of them EVER harmed us. Most of what they did was an effort to keep us from harming THEM.

Maybe we should consider the possibility that ALL violence is bad. Then perhaps we could stop glorifying it in our daily lives.

Are Women For Or Against War ???

Here is an interesting paradox:

In the last few years, arguably the most visible and well-publicized march on the U.S. capital has been the “Women’s March,” a movement aimed at advocating for legislation and policies promoting women’s rights as well as a protest against the misogynistic actions and statements of high-profile U.S. politicians. The second Women’s March, which took place this past year, attracted over a million protesters nationwide, with 500,000 estimated to have participated in Los Angeles alone.

However, absent from this women’s movement has been a public anti-war voice, as its stated goal of “ending violence” does not include violence produced by the state. The absence of this voice seemed both odd and troubling to legendary peace activist Cindy Sheehan, whose iconic protest against the invasion and occupation of Iraq made her a household name for many.

Sheehan was taken aback by how some prominent organizers of this year’s Women’s March were unwilling to express anti-war positions and argued for excluding the issue of peace entirely from the event and movement as a whole. In an interview with MintPress, Sheehan recounted how a prominent leader of the march had told her, “I appreciate that war is your issue Cindy, but the Women’s March will never address the war issue as long as women aren’t free.”

You can read the rest @

I hear echoes of what Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his "Beyond Vietnam" sermon:

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?" "Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people," they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

You can read the rest @

The refusal of the Women's March to address state-sponsored violence suggests two things (at least):

  1. they do not really know the world in which they live, and/or
  2. their leadership is in favor of such violence, as long as it is used to carry out an agenda which they support.

It kinda reminds me of Thomas Jefferson, who was against slavery but didn't want it to end during his lifetime. It also reminds me of Hillary Clinton, who allegedly wants women to be free, but who lusts to use warfare to accomplish the goals of her deep state sponsors.

What do you think?

Are Boys Broken ???

According to this report, they certainly are:

There was no such violence when I attended public school. Not even close.

Of course, much has changed since then:

  • illegal drugs are FAR more plentiful,
  • ADHD and psychiatric drugs poison our sons' minds,
  • video game violence is endemic,
  • movies pump filth and violence into their heads, and
  • the Internet has destroyed our patriarchal culture.

But somehow "toxic masculinity" is at fault? What moron dreamed that one up?

I would say it's more likely that "toxic feminism" is the culprit. What do you think?