The unthinkable

Investments, gold, currencies, surviving after a financial meltdown
John
Posts: 11494
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: The unthinkable

Post by John »

gerald wrote:John on your "state of the world" don't you think the US should be listed?

kill white people -- homeland security
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... e-n1671808
and what else is hidden? --- or is this just a lunatic fringe? -- black on white crime -- http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html
Who foments hate amongst people? and for what ends? --- same old same old? ---- hmmm

Those stories are dealing with isolated incidents, and do not indicate
the existence of any hard fault line. I would also point out that
crime rates are down substantially since the 1980s, thanks to the
aging of Generation-X.

I'm not aware of any potential fault line in the U.S. that could lead
to a conflict, except for the remote possibility, that I've stated in
the past, of a conflict between Yanquis and Latinos.

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: The unthinkable

Post by gerald »

John wrote:
gerald wrote:John on your "state of the world" don't you think the US should be listed?

kill white people -- homeland security
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... e-n1671808
and what else is hidden? --- or is this just a lunatic fringe? -- black on white crime -- http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html
Who foments hate amongst people? and for what ends? --- same old same old? ---- hmmm

Those stories are dealing with isolated incidents, and do not indicate
the existence of any hard fault line. I would also point out that
crime rates are down substantially since the 1980s, thanks to the
aging of Generation-X.

I'm not aware of any potential fault line in the U.S. that could lead
to a conflict, except for the remote possibility, that I've stated in
the past, of a conflict between Yanquis and Latinos.

Sorry John , but I think there is a bad thing going on between "blacks" and "whites" however that is defined ( I have been on and seen the periphery of it , it is not good, and it can be very nasty, deadly ). It is Not Good, and it appears planned, bad news. --- Yankees and latinos, less likely ( personal experience ), unless you are talking about California, maybe, I do not know, no personal experience. The powers that be seem to want the latinos to over run the" blacks", since the" blacks" are "considered" "inferior" by others and need to be diluted. The orientals ( some) also consider the "blacks" and "whites" inferior to themselves. The US has a large population of the " less then desirables" as viewed by some and this needs to be "corrected". Sorry if I got into the un PC race issue, but that issue underlies many problems. Which could prove deadly. Sorry --- Ability, intelligence and competency is individual, not racial. We have big problems.

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: The unthinkable

Post by gerald »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-2 ... un-control

Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man blog,

Nearly 2,400 years ago, Aristotle wrote one of the defining works of political philosophy in a book entitled Politics.

It’s still incredibly relevant today, particularly what he writes about tyranny.

The ancient Greeks used the word ‘turannos’, which referred to an illegitimate ruler who governs without regard for the law or interests of the people, often through violent and coercive means.

Aristotle attacks tyrants mercilessly in his book, and clearly spells out the criteria which make a leader tyrannical. You may recognize a few of them:

Artistotle suggests that a tyrant rises to power by first demonstrating that he is a man of the people:

“He ought to show himself to his subjects in the light, not of a tyrant, but of a steward and a king.”
and

“He should be moderate, not extravagant in his way of life; he should win the notables by companionship, and the multitude by flattery.”
But once in power, a tyrant uses all available means to hold on to power, including spying on his people:

“A tyrant should also endeavor to know what each of his subjects says or does, and should employ spies . . . and . . . eavesdroppers . . . [T]he fear of informers prevents people from speaking their minds, and if they do, they are more easily found out.”
Furthermore, Aristotle tells us that a tyrant thrives by creating division and conflict– “to sow quarrels among the citizens; friends should be embroiled with friends, the people with the notables [the rich]. . .”

Controlling the economy and stealing the citizens’ wealth is also another mark of a tyrant:

“Another practice of tyrants is to multiply taxes. . . [and] impoverish his subjects; he thus provides against the maintenance of a guard by the citizen and the people, having to keep hard at work, are prevented from conspiring.”
And as Aristotle points out, a tyrant also attempts to disarm the people such that “his subjects shall be incapable of action” because “they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny, if they are powerless.”

Naturally, a tyrant “is also fond of making war in order that his subjects may have something to do and be always in want of a leader.”

Aristotle also tells us that tyrants hunt down those who oppose their power:

“It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike everyone who has dignity or independence; he wants to be alone in his glory, but anyone who claims a like dignity or asserts his independence encroaches upon his perogative, and is hated by him as an enemy to his power.”
Ultimately, though, Aristotle concludes that “No freeman, if he can escape from [tyranny], will endure such a government.”

He’s right. And in the past, people had to rise up in the streets to defeat tyranny.

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: The unthinkable

Post by gerald »

interesting --------------

Are The Real Enemies In Syria Or Washington? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-1 ... washington


Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

“Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”–Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The definition of what makes an “enemy” may vary from person to person. But I would say that, generally, an enemy is one who has an active ability to do irreparable harm to you or your essential values. He is motivated by destruction, the destruction of all that you hold dear. He is capable and unrelenting. He is a legitimate threat. He will not compromise. He will not waver. He will do anything to wound you. He will not stop. He is possessed.

Americans have spent the better part of a century being told who their enemies are with very little explanation or substantiation. We have blindly rallied around our patriotic prerogative without knowing the root cause of the conflict or the nature of the target we are told to annihilate. We have been suckered into war after war, conjured by international interests in order to lure us into accepting greater centralization and concentrated globalism. As a culture, I’m sorry to say, we have been used. We are a tool of unmitigated doom. We are the loaded gun in the hand of the devil.

This paradigm has done irreparable harm to our standing in the eyes of the peoples of the world. But until recently, it has done very little harm to us as a society. We have allowed ourselves to be used like a bloody club, but we have not yet felt the true pain or the true cost. We have been insulated from consequence. However, this comfortable situation is quickly coming to an end.

When one applies the above definition of “the enemy” to Syria, one comes away with very little satisfaction. The Syrian government poses absolutely no immediate threat to the United States. In fact, the civil war that now rages within its borders has been completely fabricated by our own government. The insurgency has been funded, armed, trained and ultimately directed by the U.S. intelligence community. Without U.S. subversion, the civil war in Syria would not exist.

So, the question arises: If Syria is not the real enemy, who is?

I point back to the core issue. That is to say, I would examine who pose a legitimate threat to our country and our principles. The Syrian government under Bashar Assad clearly has no capability to threaten our freedom, our economic stability, our social stability, or our defensive capabilities. There is, though, a group of people out there who do, in fact, pose a significant threat to the American way of life on every conceivable level. These people do not live on the other side of the world. They do not wear foreign garb or speak another language. Most of them do not have pigmented skin or Asian features. They look just like you and I, and they live in Washington D.C.

If the so-called “debate” over a possible military strike in Syria has done anything, it has certainly brought the American public’s true enemies frothing to the surface like so much sewage. Men who posed as liberal proponents of peace not long ago now salivate over the prospect of bloodshed. Men who once posed as fiscal conservatives now clamor for more Federal funding to drive the U.S. war machine. Men who claimed to represent the citizenry now ignore all calls for reason by the public in the pursuit of global dominance.

I have warned of the considerable dangers of a war in Syria for years — long before most people knew or cared about the Assad regime. Being in this position has allowed me to view the escalating crisis with a considerable amount of objectivity. In the midst of so much chaos and confusion, if you know who stands to gain and who stands to lose, the progression of events becomes transparent, and the strategy of the actual enemy emerges.

So what have I observed so far?

If you want to know who has malicious intent toward our Constitutional values, simply move your eyes away from the Mideast and focus on our own capital. The ill will toward liberty held by the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties is obvious in the Congressional support of the banker bailouts, the Patriot Acts, the National Defense Authorization Act, the President’s domestic assassination directives, the hands-off approach to National Security Agency mass surveillance, etc. But even beyond these litmus tests, the Syrian debate has unveiled numerous enemies of the American people within our own government.

The catastrophe inherent in a Syrian strike is at least partially known to most of the public. We are fully aware that there will be blowback from any new strike in the Mideast (limited or unlimited), economically as well as internationally. So if the average American with little political experience understands the consequences of such an action, the average politician should be more than educated on the dangers. Any representative who blatantly ignores the calamity ahead is either very stupid or has an agenda.

I find it fascinating that politicians and bureaucrats from both sides of the aisle are now coming out of the woodwork to cheerlead alongside each other for war and the state.

For those who are predominantly preoccupied with Barack Obama as the source of all our ills, I would gladly point out that Republican leader and House Speaker John Boehner has also thrown his support behind a Syrian strike, even before the U.N. investigative report on Syrian chemical weapons use has been released.

In the meantime, self-proclaimed Republican stalwarts like John McCain (R-Ariz.) have argued that Obama’s “limited strike” response is “not enough.” This is the same man, by the way, who has been instrumental in the monetary and military support of Al Qaeda in Syria. McCain has recently called for avid pursuit of the new Russian proposal for chemical disarmament in Syria, not because he wants to find a peaceful solution to the situation, but because he believes the deal can be used as a bargaining chip to convince Congress to VOTE FOR military force, in order to "keep pressure on Assad".

Secretary of State John Kerry, who not long ago ran for President on the platform of being an anti-war Democrat, now regularly begs the American people to back further war based on the same dubious evidence for which he once criticized the George W. Bush Administration. In fact, Kerry has made it clear that even if Congress votes “no” against a strike, he believes Obama has the right to set one in motion anyway.

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), the man who openly admits in mainstream interviews that he believes the President has the right to indefinitely detain or assassinate American citizens without trial or oversight, has loudly indicated his support for a war on Syria. His criticisms parallel McCain’s in that he believes the Obama Administration should have attacked without Congressional approval or should commit to an all-out military shift into the region. That is to say, he believes the goal of the White House should be invasion and regime change, not just disarmament. Graham consistently fear mongers in the mainstream media, often warning that without a hard, immediate strike against Syria, catastrophe will befall Israel, and chemical and nuclear weapons will rain on America.

All I have to say to Graham is, if chemical or nuclear weapons are used against the American people, it will be because the establishment ALLOWED it to happen — just as it has allowed numerous attacks in the past to occur in order to facilitate pretext for a larger war. (The Gulf of Tonkin is a fitting example considering the many similarities between the Syrian debacle and Vietnam, the only difference being that this time the establishment is throwing its support on the side of the insurgency, rather than the prevailing government).

For those out there in the movement who are hoping for reason and logic to prevail during a Congressional debate on the Syrian issue, I would suggest that they do not hold their breath. This vote was decided before Obama ever allowed it to go to the Hill. The vote has been cast. The debate is a sideshow designed to make the American people feel as if their system of government still functions as it should. Remember, no Congress in the history of the United States has ever refused the request of a President to make war.

The more than 150 Congressmen who demanded a vote on the Syrian crisis did so because they wanted to be included in the process, not because they necessarily opposed a war. That leaves nearly 300 representatives who had NO PROBLEM whatsoever with Obama attacking Syria unilaterally without any checks or balances. The Senate panel that initiated the voting process on the strike plan passed the initiative 10-7. I have no doubt that Obama has the votes to confirm the use of force, even with all the talk of uncertainty in evidence or planning.

The Russian offer of organizing chemical disarmament has barely made a dent in the White House's war rhetoric, as was evident in Barack Obama's address to the nation yesterday. When asked in an interview with NBC if he has made up his mind whether or not he will forge ahead with military action if Congress votes his proposal down, Obama stated:

"It's fair to say that I haven't decided..."

Putting on the airs of a Roman Emperor, Obama's thumb remains in the neutral position over the gladiator pit of Syria, but as he clearly points out, he can give the thumbs down anytime he chooses. If anything, the White House and the elitist machine are simply using the next few weeks (the approximate time being discussed for chemical disarmament) to establish further precedent, or conjure new atrocities, in order to garner a minimal public backing for violent action in the region.

And, let's not forget our friendly enemies in the mainstream media. The MSM is in rare form the past week, fabricating numerous arguments as to why the average American "just doesn't get the Syrian situation". The latest disinformation campaigns seem to be revolving around generating alternative motivations for a strike -

Obama's "red line" was crossed and we must strike in order to save face amongst our allies.

A refusal to strike Syria will "embolden Iran" and lead them to use their own WMD's in terrorist acts (WMD's which are still not proven to exist).

And my favorite argument: That refusing to strike would mean "abandoning" the Syrian rebels in their war on Assad. You know, the same rebels permeated with psychopathic Al Qaeda operatives that our government trained and funded.

The mainstream media steamroller is barreling forward, searching for ANY talking point that will hook the American populace into rationalizing an attack. I have to say, I don't think I've ever seen so many pencil-necked weaklings call for so much blood. The strategy seems to be an attempt to shift America's attention away from the alleged chemical attack alone, and discombobulate us with multiple sales pitches of death in case Congressional support turns sour (which I doubt).

But let’s say Obama does not get his Congressional approval; as stated earlier his office has asserted on numerous occasions that he has the authority to trigger war regardless. A “no” vote in Washington means nothing today due to war powers granted after 9/11. The probable scenario, though, is the most common scenario. Congress will likely authorize the “use of limited military force” without directly declaring war on the Assad regime. This is exactly what Congress did in the wake of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no evidence of an Al Qaeda support structure and no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but war exploded nonetheless. Congress gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he saw fit, and I believe Congress will do the same for Obama.

America is being set up to look like the bad guy or the fool, but why?

Our political leadership is devoted to the ideology of globalization, not sovereignty or U.S prosperity. A Syrian strike places the United States in tremendous peril, the likes of which have not been seen since the Cuban missile crisis. Syria itself is a vacuum of suffocating calamity; a black hole swirling in a void of economic and sociological interdependency. Where the United States enters, so follows Iran, so follows Israel, so follows Saudi Arabia, so follows Lebanon, so follows Jordan, so follows Egypt, so follows Russia, so follows China and on and on.

In my analysis of Syria over the years, I have exposed this domino effect of war as well as the possible calamities of an economic chain reaction. Escalating conflict in Syria will eventually lead to the end of the dollar’s world reserve status and the collapse of the U.S. financial system. Knowing that this is the ultimate result of a strike in the region, many people would ask WHY the White House and so many prominent figures in Congress would be so hell-bent on setting such wheels in motion. I would stand back from the chaos and ask what I always ask: Who gains the most from the disaster?

The demise of American currency dominance and the degradation of the American spirit do indeed benefit a select few. For the most part, central banks and globalists have taken a hands-off approach to the Syrian debacle. Perhaps that’s because doing so makes it easier for them to survey the inevitable collapse from a distance and swoop in later as our “saviors,” ready to rebuild the world according to their own ideals. Having a debased and desperate U.S. populace certainly makes the transition to total globalization and centralization much easier.

My original query was: Who is the real enemy? No matter what happens in the coming months and years, never forget that question. Who poses the greatest threat to our freedom: Syria or the political ghouls trying to convince us to decimate Syria?

Who claims the power to take everything we have? Who claims the power to take our liberty and our lives at a whim? Who claims the power to kill innocents in our name? Who disregards the checks and balances of Constitutionalism at every turn? Who truly threatens our future and the future of our children?

Do not be distracted by stories of foreign monsters far away when the real monsters lurk so quietly under your bed. Even if we can find a successful strategy to pressure Congress into avoiding a Syrian conflict, I say remain vigilant. America is one global hiccup away from oblivion. And if this is what the establishment wants, they will find a way to make it happen. The threat of continuous U.S. catastrophe will only end when the poison is removed from our very veins, and that process of purification begins with the removal of the criminal political structures and banking structures in Washington.

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: The unthinkable

Post by gerald »

Tin foil hat time?

A hidden agenda?

Are we in a mushroom culture? http://thinkoak.com/2012/12/10/avoid-th ... adly-sins/ --"They treat us like mushrooms. They keep us in the dark and feed us manure or nothing at all!’ – telling lies, partial truths or nothing at all".

What is the true size of the US Black Budget operations? How many times have we heard that there is an appropriation for say "A" but hidden in the appropriation there is money for "B" which has nothing to do with "A".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report ---- brookings report 1960 -------- over fifty years ago, --- what has changed?

The report has become noted for one short section titled, "The implications of a discovery of extraterrestrial life," which examines the potential implications of such a discovery on public attitudes and values. The section briefly considers possible public reactions to some possible scenarios for the discovery of extraterrestrial life, stressing a need for further research in this area. It recommends continuing studies to determine the likely social impact of such a discovery and its effects on public attitudes, including study of the question of how leadership should handle information about such a discovery and under what circumstances leaders might or might not find it advisable to withhold such information from the public. ------------------

Is this 4 minuet video from a valid congress commette hearing?----------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83v5Rgeu2Yc ----------- If so we appear have some serious problems.

hmmmmmmmm

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: The unthinkable

Post by gerald »

The independent media -- Joseph Goebbels would be proud -- an update on The Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda

"It's OK, You Can Admit It..." - The "Independent" US Media Just Wants You To Shop Till You Drop
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-2 ... l-you-drop

Watch the 2 1/2 minute Conan video

nothing to see just move along ----------

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: The unthinkable

Post by gerald »

red pill or blue pill

to present the truth, it must sometimes be presented as fiction, or a joke ---------


"The United States' domestic and international policy has been driven by an 'alien/extraterrestrial intelligence agenda' since 1945."
The "incontrovertible proof" supporting the revelations was (apparently) found in a Federal Security Service (FSB) report, carried out by American computer specialist Edward Snowden - and is confirmed (somewhat amazingly) by former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer in the following interview.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-1 ... run-aliens

Snowden reportedly contacted the Guardian’s columnist Glenn Greenwald telling him, according to Fars, that there “were actually two governments in the United States, the one that was elected, and the other, secret regime, governing in the dark.”

The agency added that Snowden’s revelations were confirmed as “accurate” by former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer, during an appearance he made on Russia Today’s program SophieCo.

Hellyer said: “This information is top secret in a way that the governments aren't talking about it, but if you listen to whistleblowers and the people are had worked in the industry and who know what is going on, there is just a lot of information out there and it doesn't take very long to get your hands on it.”

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: The unthinkable

Post by gerald »

What do you want to believe?
Is Mars dry as a bone, as we are generally told, or does it have standing water? And if standing water, that else does it have?

"The NASA Mars rover Curiosity used its Mast Camera (Mastcam) during the mission's 120th Martian day, or sol (Dec. 7, 2012), to record this view of a rock outcrop informally named "Shaler."

this http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/figure ... 0_fig1.jpg came from
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16550

Do you see the shadows and the apparently transparent whatever? Have you ever looked at sand through standing water? What did you see? Something like this image?

from the 1960 NASA commissioned Brookings Report, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report

"While not specifically recommending a cover-up of evidence of extraterrestrial life, Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs does suggest that contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life (or strong evidence of its reality) could have a disruptive effect on human societies. Moreover, it does mention the possibility that leadership might wish to withhold evidence of extraterrestrial life from the public under some conditions.[4]"

red pill or blue pill?

psCargile
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: The unthinkable

Post by psCargile »

I don't see a liquid. I see shadows of rocks following the contour of fine sand that blends into course grains.

Besides, wouldn't it be ice?

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: The unthinkable

Post by gerald »

psCargile wrote:I don't see a liquid. I see shadows of rocks following the contour of fine sand that blends into course grains.

Besides, wouldn't it be ice?
Others have said that it can't be water because the official position is that Mars is dry and too cold. Only dry ice (CO2) could be on Mars.( while others think it looks like water ) However It looks like water, at least compared to water I have seen in placid mountain streams. Assuming of course that the image was not doctored.
-----------------------------------
Winston Smith of George Orwell's 1984

2 + 2 = 5 because that is the party line.

2+2=5 comes from the book "1984", where the Government had so deeply trained society to instantly, without thought, accept any official statement as true and instantly erase the past (2+2=4). Harkens to the Marxist belief that the State is the ultimate truth and individuals with an alternate "truth" are dissidents. Some employers and leaders also fall into this belief that reality is nothing but paradigms despite empiric facts offered by "not a team player" people.
----------------------------------
cheers

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests