2020 US Election - Let The Games Begin!

[moyal]

...He can also be a bit of a broken record. "It was the Crypto-Jews from the royal peerage playing games with us in league with the boys at Langley; everybody was in on the gag and none of it really happened, just one big happy Psyop; all these photos were faked ...etc etc"

It gets old.
...
What was most important about Kennedy was what he represented: A humane, hopeful, co-operative vision of the world.

What do you expect he should change, that it get's "new" again. Since today it is the Eskimos?

From the Kennedy paper:

...That is what is strange about almost all the alternate theories: they are ludicrously pro-Kennedy. I can
understand being anti-Castro, or anti-Mob, or anti-Johnson, or anti-CIA. But that does not mean you
have to think Kennedy was a saint, battling these combined forces of evil. I am about as far from the
Republican or big-money agenda as you can get, but I know something about Kennedy, too. I know
something about American politics, and I know you don’t get to be President by being a white knight of
any kind.
Morningstar, by his own admission, worked for the Kennedy campaign in 1960, and all his theories
are slanted toward Kennedy to this day. Other alternate theorists are even more one-sided, and if we
were to believe them, Kennedy was turning America into a paradise, only to be thwarted by closet
Nazis in his own cabinet, Nazis he had appointed himself. [Even Lyndon Larouche pushes this view of
Kennedy, which is highly strange.] Johnson, we are told, wanted nothing more than to escalate in
Vietnam, simply to get richer, and yet Jack had no inkling of this. In other words, Johnson, though
Democrat, was a fascist swine, while Kennedy was a purblind idealist, ignorant of the most obvious
facts around him. I have to admit that I don’t like this sort of silly and transparent propaganda any
more than I like the sort of propaganda I get from mainstream sources.
As further support of this, I send you to the full speech of Kennedy on the shadow government, the
one I mentioned earlier*. The web is now stiff with excerpts from this speech, and the excerpts are
used for two main reasons. 1) To show that Kennedy was fighting against this shadow government, in
the way that Teddy Roosevelt is said to have done, 2) To show us that this shadow government has now
taken over, after the false flag of 911. But the full speech does neither one. All you have to do is listen
to the full speech to realize that the excerpts are taken out of context, and that the gist of the speech is
the exact opposite of what we have been told. JFK is in fact speaking in favor of governmental
secrecy. There is no doubt of this, no room for debate. He says it outright, in plain language. He is
speaking before the press, asking them to censor themselves out of patriotism. He says that war has not
been declared—so certain legal provisions are not in strict effect—but he asks the press and the
American people to act as if they are in a declared war, and to therefore put up with heightened levels
of governmental and official secrecy. Not only is JFK’s speech not a contradiction of Bush’s speeches
after 911, it is a clear precursor. JFK has a better speaking voice, but he is saying the same thing. He is
using the cold war as an excuse for secrecy and unaccountability.
The real meaning of the full speech kills #1, above, since Kennedy was already a member of the
shadow government, asking for more shade. But notice that it also kills #2. The shadow government
did not take over after 911. The shadow government always existed. We will see to what extent below.
That this speech should now be used by liberals to counter the neocon’s agenda is amazing.
We must assume that those who use it this way, including 911 Truthers and JFK alternate theorists, are
either very ignorant or very dishonest, or both. I think it is possible, even probable, that disinformation
is being purposely broadcast by all sides; and it is also possible, even probable, that those who hatched
the Kennedy plot are in control of both sides and both theories, both for and against, both the standard
model and the alternate model. ...

 

[Heather]

What do you expect he should change, that it get's "new" again. Since today it is the Eskimos?

From the Kennedy paper:

Hi @moyal. I haven't read it in its entirety yet, but if you change your mind about looking more into history, I recommend you read "JFK and the Unspeakable; Why he died and why it matters," by James W. Douglass. One speech is not enough to understand the context in which it is uttered. This book goes deeply into these matters. Not long into the book you'll come to understand the stakes involved in what was then the relatively new age of nuclear destruction; this includes Kennedy's thwarting the Joint Chiefs' proposition to drop a nuclear bomb on Russia. The Bay of Pigs operation was already in gear when it was handed over to Kennedy by Eisenhower. Kennedy SHOCKED the Joint Chiefs and the CIA when he WOULD NOT play ball, when through a secret correspondence with Khrushchev -- which itself was almost a kind of miracle given the two men had no reason to trust each other initially -- a diplomatic feat was accomplished, an equitable deal was arrived at, and de-escalation occurred with Russia removing its nuclear warheads from Cuba.

Actually, I believe it was in Guyenot's book ("From Yahweh to Zion") where we learn that Kennedy did not want LBJ as his running mate. He wanted Adlai Stevenson. On this matter, Kennedy was blackmailed by the New York Times who promised to smear him in such a way that he would never win the election UNLESS he chose Johnson (who happened to have been a serious Zionist -- which of course was Guyonet's point given the theme of his book).

Meanwhile, what you come to understand in Douglass' book is that Kennedy's learning curve during the brief time of his presidency was nearly vertical. To understand the man, you also have to understand what he was rapidly coming to terms with concerning the whole "deep state" set-up, and how he was responding to it in ways that would inevitably get him killed. Actually, this is a good example of how extreme circumstances can either destroy a person or challenge him or her to "become." In that sense, not even death destroys us, nor did it ultimately destroy Kennedy, who's thinking had entirely changed in the short time he was in office to the degree that he was not the same man by the time of his assassination. To those who believe him to have been exceptional, it's that he bravely became so through extreme adversity.

I agree that no one who gets to that level of power is an angel. Significant here is Kennedy's father who, as I understand it, was able to rig the election to win the presidency for his son. As we all know, Jack Kennedy was also a womanizer, but in those days the press felt that such matters were not only personal but beneath the journalist's more serious calling. Journalism was a far more formal affair than the "normalized" tripe we see now. (That sexism and racism didn't need to be addressed I don't deny, but that's another conversation.) Anyway, I only bring this up in that I agree that Kennedy was far from being a "saint." Having said that, and as I touched on already, there are real reasons why he is often thought of so highly, and a discerning reading of history begins to bear that out.

As for my personal take on this Mathis person, the more I read his stuff, the more convinced I am he is controlled opposition -- and a pretty obvious version of it too. I'm certainly not tempted to go any further with him. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Recto]

Meanwhile, what you come to understand in Douglass' book is that Kennedy's learning curve during the brief time of his presidency was nearly vertical. To understand the man, you also have to understand what he was rapidly coming to terms with concerning the whole "deep state" set-up, and how he was responding to it in ways that would inevitably get him killed. Actually, this is a good example of how extreme circumstances can either destroy a person or challenge him or her to "become." In that sense, not even death destroys us, nor did it ultimately destroy Kennedy, who's thinking had entirely changed in the short time he was in office to the degree that he was not the same man by the time of his assassination. To those who believe him to have been exceptional, it's that he bravely became so through extreme adversity.

I wonder what has been the first-hand experience of Donald Trump in that regard. He knew part of the government was corrupt but he must have been surprised the day he took office. Let's hope someday we'll get a sneak peak behind the curtain of his presidency. It should be as equally fascinating/important to read, IMO.

 

[Heather]

Just a quick comment here. Great interest in what you have written, will look up that book by Guyonot. Primarily, I've been following Webb off and on for a couple of years on various platforms and have the question, why is he still alive, basically. I concluded his information and dot-connecting are highy accurate. A smart friend of mine, when I mentioned him to her, half-muttered that he 'drank a lot'. Maybe he has been dismissed, written off? A smear campaign (yes, MSM as I just found call him a conspiracy theorist)? On the other hand, another smart friend likes him a lot and never mentioned alcohol.

New York Times describes him in a 2017 article as "a prolific social media conspiracy theorist", and "With almost 17,000 followers on Twitter and nearly 40,000 subscribers on YouTube, Mr. Webb does not have the reach of prominent conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones...". I think I should post the link here, since I've mentioned this NYT article. I'm not experienced on protocol here on the forum - yet, but likely I just cut and paste. How a Conspiracy Theorist’s Call About a Dirty Bomb Shut Down Part of a Port (Published 2017)

Didn't mean to get further into this, but found that George Webb's brother, David Webb, is a cybersecurity expert and author. George Webb himself is named a co-conspirator in the case of a the dirty bomb story in the NYT article above and was arrested the following day for DUI. The brother, David, wrote " The Port of Charleston Dirty Bomb Hoax and Social Media Liability" about the incident of June 14, 2017. Well! Connected to a cybersecurity expert. Also his father was the first inventor to patent the cordless phone. So between money thanks to cordless phone, perhaps, and a brother who may be a better writer (who wrote a book on cyberwarfare and has multiple credentials in that field), maybe a film is not such a stretch. Link: Port of Charleston Dirty Bomb Hoax - EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki.

Hi @LyndiLama.

I didn't know about his brother, but I do know he's been smeared by the MSM many times. I'd have to look up the details again, but it seems they deliberately mischaracterized his accurate (too accurate, as it turned out) reporting concerning the dirty bomb, in an attempt to dirty his own reputation. The "drinking" incident they smeared him with in reality had to do with his pulling his car over to the side of the road in order to get some sleep (or maybe he used an abandoned parking lot somewhere, I don't exactly recall). Now, last time I checked, this is what you do for safety reasons if you find yourself too sleepy to drive. In fact, it's the "responsible" thing to do. But not if you're George Webb, and your reporting is too "on the money." In that case the cops take you in on a DUI charge (!)

I didn't know about his father either, and the father's cordless phone patent. That's particularly interesting given Webb's exposing the whole encrypted blackberries scenario.

Actually, it seems that initially Webb's reputation as a cutting edge (independent) investigative reporter -- well, except by the MSM, who of course call him a conspiracy theorist -- had a lot to do with the encrypted blackberries discovery, which still has relevance even now. For example, Webb recently stated that many of the current players in the new Biden administration have these encrypted blackberries, which, to those that understand what they are used for, is "smoking gun" in its implications. Seems the more you dig into the George Webb material, the more you understand the importance of these blackberries.

Funny that the Times puts down Webb not just as a conspiracy theorist, but a conspiracy theorist with not nearly the following of Alex Jones. I mean, for those of us who follow Webb, that goes to his credibility, and isn't a slight on his legitimacy at all! (Very much the opposite.)

More recently, the MSM has tried to threaten Webb for what really amounts to his doing too good a job with the capitol "insurgency" operation. Webb, being the on the ground reporter that he is, had been at the capitol that day, and had been filming, as had others in his crew. Once the operation started playing out, and they got wind of what was happening, they were all over the role Antifa operatives (among others) were playing since Webb and others actually filmed them, and were later able to photo I.D. many of them. But George Webb noted right away that it was the "orange hats" (tied to Antifa) who toppled the rather low metal fence outside the capitol building, not MAGA's red hats -- although he and his crew also discovered that some of them changed their orange hats for red ones as the operation unfolded. Webb, et. al., were also there creating a time line proving that Trump supporters, who were still listening to the end of Trump's speech, were not even at the capitol building when the so called insurgency first started. In the films he and his crew took, he eventually would I.D. known Ukrainian terrorists too, and even has footage where the "insurgents" were shouting in Russian (!)

Webb also tied all the extremist groups (left and right) used in the operation to something called "4th Psych Ops" out of Fort Bragg (I believe it is) -- oh, and he discusses how the FBI is all over the operation as well. (Many here may already be aware that the leader of the Proud Boys is a known FBI informant, but that is just the tip of the iceberg where the FBI's considerable role in this is concerned.)

Anyway, the MSM responded to Webb's initial reports by saying that because Webb was the first to expose Antifa's role in the capitol "insurgency," he must be part of Antifa's operation himself (!!).

Let's rewind that a second: so, because someone is doing YOUR job (MSM); that is, because Webb is doing the on the ground investigative reporting that you, CNN, NBC, etc. should be doing, he must therefore be "involved" in the operation he is exposing. (Ha!) So, yeah, Webb has had to do a lot of fencing with the MSM maniacs who are busy manipulating every move he makes.

Actually, as usually happens when you start to focus on a particular source, the more I listen to Webb, the more bits and pieces of his personal history begin to emerge. Interesting to note, he used to be an independent reporter used by CNN, which is why he keeps tabs on them in particular since he actually knows a lot of the people who work there. It seems that at some point Webb realized he had to function entirely on his own if he wanted to do the kind of reporting he's doing now, and has been doing for some time.

You could be right, Lyndi Lama, Webb may have some family money with which to finance a feature film, although I'm sure he'll also use something akin to Patreon to raise money online. Patreon, by the way, recently kicked Webb out, and in so doing deleted many many videos and other materials he had posted there over quite some time, so... so much for Patreon.

 

[Heather]

I wonder what has been the first-hand experience of Donald Trump in that regard. He knew part of the government was corrupt but he must have been surprised the day he took office. Let's hope someday we'll get a sneak peak behind the curtain of his presidency. It should be as equally fascinating/important to read, IMO.

You know who likes to probe such matters is "Dark Journalist," Daniel Liszt, who has looked into "pre-election" Trump as well. Liszt has noted Trump's longtime relationship with Richard Nixon, believe it or not, which some months ago had some (but not much) media coverage when the Nixon Library decided to put Trump's letters to Nixon on display. Also, Trump's uncle, who was some manner of engineer, actually knew Tesla, so there's an interesting connection/history there as well. But even with such an interesting background (Nixon, by the way, encouraged Trump to run for president, thinking he'd be very good at the job), Trump's entering politics at the highest level had to have been an eye opening experience, to say the least. So, I agree, there will hopefully be some interesting books to come out eventually, which will take us behind the scenes. Of course, Trump has not said he won't run again, either. So, it ain't even over yet.

Actually, the more I contemplate the connection between Nixon and Trump, the more I start to see Nixon in a different light. Like Trump, Nixon himself was framed -- not initially, but (again according to Guyenot) once Nixon started to distance himself from (Zionist) Kissinger. Liszt also talks about Nixon and something called "the UFO file." Nixon, like Eisenhower, had a time capsule that was supposed to be opened this past year I believe (with Eisenhower's to remain sealed for some decades longer). Liszt speculates that Nixon's time capsule could in part have to do with the UFO file. So, that's something to check in with Liszt about since I'm uncertain as to whether the time capsule has even been located, let alone opened. As for Trump, he may have been brought in on this aspect of things as well, given his personal connection to Nixon.

While we're discussing Trump, I listened to his CPAC speech yesterday. From what I can put together, Trump's first goal, aside from raising some badly needed funds, is to focus on election reform and clobbering the Dems in the 2022 election. I'm assuming those two have to work hand in hand or else how are the republicans ever going to win? By the way, Georgia just passed a bill having to do with election reform... I'm forgetting exactly what that bill states, but it was definitely a positive sign.

Actually, speaking of Trump's speech, if anyone here is interested in contributing to this effort to win back congress, Trump actually spelled out where to do this: go to DonaldTrump.com OR contribute to the Save America PAC.

What I also gauged from Trump's speech is that once they clobber the Dems in '22, the stage will be set for Trump to run again in '24 -- but, again, not if the republicans fail to win back congress. So, it's a two-pronged initiative.

 

[Mark7]

You know who likes to probe such matters is "Dark Journalist," Daniel Liszt, who has looked into "pre-election" Trump as well. Liszt has noted Trump's longtime relationship with Richard Nixon, believe it or not, which some months ago had some (but not much) media coverage when the Nixon Library decided to put Trump's letters to Nixon on display. Also, Trump's uncle, who was some manner of engineer, actually knew Tesla, so there's an interesting connection/history there as well. But even with such an interesting background (Nixon, by the way, encouraged Trump to run for president, thinking he'd be very good at the job), Trump's entering politics at the highest level had to have been an eye opening experience, to say the least. So, I agree, there will hopefully be some interesting books to come out eventually, which will take us behind the scenes. Of course, Trump has not said he won't run again, either. So, it ain't even over yet.

Actually, the more I contemplate the connection between Nixon and Trump, the more I start to see Nixon in a different light. Like Trump, Nixon himself was framed -- not initially, but (again according to Guyenot) once Nixon started to distance himself from (Zionist) Kissinger. Liszt also talks about Nixon and something called "the UFO file." Nixon, like Eisenhower, had a time capsule that was supposed to be opened this past year I believe (with Eisenhower's to remain sealed for some decades longer). Liszt speculates that Nixon's time capsule could in part have to do with the UFO file. So, that's something to check in with Liszt about since I'm uncertain as to whether the time capsule has even been located, let alone opened. As for Trump, he may have been brought in on this aspect of things as well, given his personal connection to Nixon.

While we're discussing Trump, I listened to his CPAC speech yesterday. From what I can put together, Trump's first goal, aside from raising some badly needed funds, is to focus on election reform and clobbering the Dems in the 2022 election. I'm assuming those two have to work hand in hand or else how are the republicans ever going to win? By the way, Georgia just passed a bill having to do with election reform... I'm forgetting exactly what that bill states, but it was definitely a positive sign.

Actually, speaking of Trump's speech, if anyone here is interested in contributing to this effort to win back congress, Trump actually spelled out where to do this: go to DonaldTrump.com OR contribute to the Save America PAC.

What I also gauged from Trump's speech is that once they clobber the Dems in '22, the stage will be set for Trump to run again in '24 -- but, again, not if the republicans fail to win back congress. So, it's a two-pronged initiative.

What I also gauged from Trump's speech is that once they clobber the Dems in '22, the stage will be set for Trump to run again in '24 -- but, again, not if the republicans fail to win back congress. So, it's a two-pronged initiative.

In his CPAC speech, Trump bragged about getting the Covid-19 vaccine out quickly - big blind spot. Trusting 'the system' has gotten him in trouble before. No potential conservative celebrities have enough knowledge to do what really needs to be done. We need a real Moses figure to lead us out of slavery, but even the original Moses was flawed it seems. Q-sterism goes back a long ways.

 

[Heather]

In his CPAC speech, Trump bragged about getting the Covid-19 vaccine out quickly - big blind spot. Trusting 'the system' has gotten him in trouble before. No potential conservative celebrities have enough knowledge to do what really needs to be done. We need a real Moses figure to lead us out of slavery, but even the original Moses was flawed it seems. Q-sterism goes back a long ways.

Yes, I know what you mean about Trump and the vaccine. The way I see it, though, has to do with how he approached the whole Covid crisis from the outset: think of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (and no doubt other governors) saying there aren't enough ventilators. So, what does Trump do? He goes into full production mode, manufacturing ventilators like crazy. Not enough hospital beds you say? He sends a huge Navy vessel ready to be used as a hospital up to New York City. (Of course, Cuomo didn't need either of these things.) Anyway, this is how I view Trump's Operation Warp Speed. Oh, you want a vaccine? You say the only way we can open the economy back up is with a vaccine? You say a vaccine will take years to develop? So, Trump does the vaccine in record time. Not that I agree with him or any of them on even the need for a vaccine. But that's how I see Trump in this. If the best way to get the economy back up an running is a vaccine, then we'll do a vaccine.

Did he understand the sinister forces at work concerning vaccines? That's a good question. I noticed he didn't get the vaccine himself, nor did his family. In fact, it was rumored his youngest son may have some form of autism due to vaccines, although I don't know if that's accurate or not. At the very least, even though I disagree with Operation Warp Speed, and the whole corrupt system that it represents (to those of us who follow Deep State maneuverings), I still don't see Trump as a knowingly sinister player in this. I see him in this, and in other things he's done or said, as someone willing to compromise for political/pragmatic reasons.

In the end, though, I think something Catherine Austin Fitts said holds true. Even though she understood all the excuses Trump had for shutting down the economy (after all, he was threatened with having 2 million deaths due to Covid-19 as his legacy if he didn't), she still thought he shouldn't have done it. How else to stop in its tracks the transfer of small business' 44 % of the U.S. economy to Wall Street private equity firms under the guise of a health crisis? If Trump only had the courage to say no. Similarly, Fitts also felt Trump should have stopped the rioting across the country as soon as it started (with such destruction targeting properties and neighborhoods in order to ready them for cheap buy outs to make way for "smart city" development). Again, it's not that Fitts didn't understand Trump's hesitation (i.e., he would have been labeled the fascist, militaristic dictator the left always said he was). Still, she felt he should have held his ground.

In other words: the truth is its own mandate. Stick with the truth, Fitts was saying to Trump. Don't do the vaccines given there is reason enough to believe they are harmful (especially given the obvious criminality of the WHO, HHS, CDC, etc.), so don't fund them. Don't shut down the country just because you are being pressured to. But Trump felt, and maybe still feels, he has to find some middle ground, he has to "reason" with the most unreasonable psychopaths on the planet. Could he have done otherwise? The C's suggested that maybe he could have. But what would that even have looked at? Who did Trump have to turn to when the Deep State's reach is just about everywhere? Look at how grossly undermanned he was when it came to confronting the massive election fraud? He really was between a rock and hard place. Still, what if he said no to the shut down? The rioting? The vaccine? The masks? It's almost hard to imagine. But what if he didn't give an inch? What would have happened then?

 

[Heather]

Actually, I'm wrong. Epoch Times just put out the headline that Trump and Melania both got their Covid-19 vaccines in January. Hmm...

 

[Yupo]

Actually, I'm wrong. Epoch Times just put out the headline that Trump and Melania both got their Covid-19 vaccines in January. Hmm...

Does not make it true.

 

[Heather]

Does not make it true.

True. But if they're lying about it that's problematic too.

 

[SOTTREADER]

Don't know where else to put this..



Cuomo is guilty as hell.

 

[Niall]

Steven Crowder's show returned at the beginning of this month, and this week published evidence of specific votes having been cast for or by people with non-existent addresses. In these show notes, they explain how they did it:

Crowder and team wanted to just keep going like this, but they're trying to 'walk the line' with social media platforms' "community guidelines" regarding what they can or cannot claim about election fraud. So their lawyer advised them to make the additional step of physically visiting these 'residential addresses' to verify that they do not in fact exist.

They ended up with a sample of 20 cases [10 in Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada, and 10 in Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan] to go visit and physically check. The relevant segment of the show begins here:

Crowder is hoping that people watching his show will follow his lead and check vote records against actual addresses, possibly generating some kind of momentum towards opening official investigations:

Twitter then briefly blocked the @scrowder account when he posted notification of that show (from Feb 23), reinstated it when they complained, but left that particular tweet 'un-interactable' so that it couldn't be shared or commented on. In Crowder's subsequent show (Feb 24), he further explained their vote-checking methods and general strategy of trying to hold the tech companies to their own 'standards'.

Among the 20 cases they verified as fake votes, one was done on behalf of a criminal currently in prison, and another was by (or on behalf of) a Las Vegas lawyer and (former?) Clinton staffer named Christina Gupano, who was outed by Project Veritas back in 2015 for hiring polling workers and telling them, "whatever you can get away with, just do it."

She later 'went missing' after getting caught breaking campaign laws and being investigated by the state of Nevada. Crowder's team found that Gupano has postal address listing her as currently being in London, while her Instagram account placed her in the Philippines last Christmas... yet she 'voted' two months earlier in the 2020 election from a Las Vegas address that doesn't physically exist.

An update on fake voting addresses fund by the Crowder crew: they have since found that voter rolls are being 'updated' as Crowder discovers them! In the case of Christina Gupano, her address was changed from 'West' to 'East' Bonneville Avenue in Las Vegas... which fits better because that address at least contains residential apartments, but one of Crowder's staff went there and was told there is not (and never was) someone by that name living there.

They also found other instances in which addresses in voter rolls (which are used for all official purposes, like tax registration, license verification, etc) are being changed, in real time, apparently in an effort to 'dodge' discovery of illegal votes.

 

[Yupo]

True. But if they're lying about it that's problematic too.

Useful optics. I don't know if he did or he didn't. Story somewhat suspect as source was "sources" or "a source" if I recall. If he had Covid (who even knows?), why would he need the vaccine, beyond manipulative optics? IMO, extremely useful just to knock down that wall of criticism.

 

[Heather]

Useful optics. I don't know if he did or he didn't. Story somewhat suspect as source was "sources" or "a source" if I recall. If he had Covid (who even knows?), why would he need the vaccine, beyond manipulative optics? IMO, extremely useful just to knock down that wall of criticism.

That's certainly one way to view it. And although I would like more "truth" from Trump, less politics, at this point he's made the vaccine one of the centerpieces of his accomplishments as president, so it's unlikely he's going to demonstrate concern as to its safety and/or effectiveness!

 

[cope]

Hi @moyal.

I thought I'd further the ongoing discussion (on threads like this one) about source. Miles Mathis admits in his piece he links to re: the 2020 election fraud that his sources are Zero Hedge, Natural News, and Alex Jones. So, he's on very shaky ground right there. I haven't read either of these articles in their entirely but right off the bat with the election fraud piece his analysis is far too simplistic. While I agree there are a lot of shady areas with Trump -- it's been difficult to know just how tied to the Deep State he actually is -- but to miss the fact that he represents a phenomenon around which a new populist movement has emerged makes me question Mathis' analysis skills, if not his intentions. I agree that partisan politics is problematic. I'm always stepping back from it, trying to gauge things from a wider perspective.

Miles is adept at finding inconsistencies in visual material, he is a painter. As i do not always believe my eyes, i have to take some of what he reports with a grain of salt.

As always, at least for myself, it's useful to develop the ability to hold two thoughts simultaneously. They accuse Trump supporters of being that themselves. And because they do this "projection" routine so thoroughly and consistently, it really does create this twisted form of "mirroring realities." Theirs is the "fun house" version of the truth because of this incessant lying and propagandizing.

Having said that, staying with the truth is not always easy given the insidious nature of the deep state, and how it infiltrates all of our efforts. Regardless of all that, it's important not to do away with common sense, which is what a lot of these actual conspiracy theorists tend to do (including Mathis). They play on our skepticism, and destroy what should be obvious to us (always remember the "flat earth" phenomenon, and how that preyed on and perverted many people's legitimate skepticism regarding the mainstream).

I do think Miles is sincere. If only with the respect a logical mind tends to have for other logical minds.

Also on the issue of source: right now I've been following George Webb more closely, trying to determine what kind of source he actually represents. I'm baffled why he's allowed on Twitter. I believe he lost his account on Youtube but is now appearing on another Youtube channel with some of his associates. Unlike Mathis' take, Webb didn't think the shooting of Ashli Babbitt was fake, based on the footage. He indicated she was led to her execution, in fact, with a senate aide on her left and another operative dressed in black on her right (each taking her by the arm as she entered). Then there was the hand with the gun appearing left of screen, with specific bracelets on the wrist that helped identify the shooter as the Washington security person involved in Congressman's Scalise near murder. As I understand it, he was Scalise's body guard but didn't do his job -- it was someone else who stepped in to save Scalise.

George thinks in narratives, scenes and Modus operandi's. And, he has a huge knowledge to puzzle with.

Anyway, I haven't looked into the Ashli Babbit scenario more than that. Even though she's a vet (possibly tied to intelligence) and even if she happens to be Jewish that doesn't automatically mean she was part of the capitol operation as Mathis is saying. I'm not saying she wasn't either. I'm just questioning his automatic assumption. Also: why wouldn't Webb, who is all over such "ties," have indicated as much? So, more work would need to be done in order to come to such conclusion

On a somewhat related topic, if the "Yahweh" book by Guyenot is even half correct you'd think we'd be hearing a lot more about the Mossad's involvement in present domestic terror operations. Maybe such info. is out there, I just haven't come across it.

Maybe so, did not the Cs speak of "the usual suspects"?

In so speaking, I've been thinking it might be useful to assess present domestic terror operations in light of the cited material in the "Yahweh" book, specifically Guyenot's contention that the CIA's involvement in the JFK assassination has been misrepresented -- if it's true the CIA's actual intention was a "near miss," not an actual assassination. As the story goes, this misrepresentation of the CIA's almost exclusive involvement then became the focus of virtually all of the subsequent theories surrounding JFK's death -- as opposed to Guyonot's claim (in citing a researcher whose name escapes me) that the Mossad infiltrated the CIA operation so as to succeed in carrying out an actual assassination.

Guyenot i read only partly, like Mathis he puts the deep state in all jewish hands, George sees the Nato fascist eugenicists better. George is more upset about the damage the newer generation mossadi policies do to the world and israel, than with zionists as such. George is more a peacemaker than a fighter.
Both see the value of a quickly die-ing Asli for the narrative, Miles searching in her jewish background was interesting, just like George searching in the 'antifa' background of the camaraholder. Who is right it don't know, but i feel thankful for the effort of both. Maybe both are right, like Guyonot with JFK.

In other words, in light of the research in that book -- which should also be examined closely for its own potential shortcomings -- but, in light of such research, it seems like we should always be asking the question as to whether the Mossad's role is being covered up in some way, no matter what the operation. Is Webb himself misdirecting? Is that why he's allowed his presence on Twitter and Youtube? Or is he, as he attests, in imminent danger?
Was Oliver Stone allowed to make his JFK movie because it continued the cover-up concerning the Mossad?

I would think everybody is weary of the Mossad.