Heather
Dagobah Resident
Hi @cope. Thanks for your detailed response to my post.
I can't see putting Guyenot and Mathis in the same category since I see Guyenot as a serious researcher, and from what I've read of him so far I just don't see that with Mathis. Guyenot gives me some serious things to consider, whereas Mathis I find difficult to take seriously. (I won't say more on Mathis unless I start to read him in earnest. As it is, I've only read excerpts.)
Interesting your take on George Webb, his being focused more on the newer generation of Mossadi policies and the damage they do to the world and Israel, as opposed to "Zionists as such." Calling him a peacemaker seems to fit his personality too. He's treading in very dangerous territory regarding intelligence operations, and yet he's bringing people together in his efforts (I'm thinking of his little crew, including Addy Adds, a young man who seems to be following in Webb's footsteps as an investigative reporter). So, it's something of a "one big happy family" approach that includes some lightheartedness, which is a good disposition to have and cultivate. Otherwise, you can be taken down by the heaviness of the material you are unearthing. But that isn't at all the case with George Webb who's tan, beach prone, usually relaxed, and by all appearances, big-heartedly sincere.
As for Webb and Guyenot and JFK, as I said in a later post, seems Webb is aware of Mossad's involvement when it comes to Oliver Stone's "JFK" film. According to Webb, it seems the Mossad had a hand in censoring at least one scene (according to Webb's tweet), so my speculation that Stone's ability to produce such a controversial film, certainly by Hollywood standards, is tied to his sidestepping the Mossad involvement in the assassination is borne out right there. This also supports Guyenot's contention that the "hidden hand" (as some call it) of the Deep State is very often (or, for Guyenot, typically) tied to Zionist objectives.
I'd have to read Guyenot's "Yahweh" book again at some point, but in my first read I did notice a parallel he made that simply does not hold up. I'm referring to Guyonet's contention that the way the Mossad was involved in the JFK assassination -- basically by subverting the CIA set-up for a near miss by inserting its own assassins for a real kill -- could be used to dissect Mossad involvement in 9/11 as well. I'd have to look at the book again, but I believe he had the Bush's involvement only extending to the attack on the Pentagon, not the Twin Towers, which I believe he attributed solely to the Mossad as something of a "surprise attack" (where the Bushes were concerned). This is patently wrong. In fact, Marvin Bush was the head of the security company for the Twin Towers prior to the attack, which was how they were able to wire the building in preparation for the controlled demolition. (And that's just one example of the Bush's obvious involvement, which some serious research will bear out.) Yes, there was division concerning this operation. The Neo-Cons (which Guyenot claims are all Zionist), led by Dick Cheney, performed a veritable coup against the president, or, really, the Bush faction (given how puppet-like "W" was). Note: the Bush faction represented the old guard at the CIA, as per papa Bush's former directorship. The coup concerning 9/11 went into operation mode the day before 9/11 when President George W. Bush was threatened with assassination if he did not obey the Neo Con's "script." (For a detailed description of such events unfolding on 9/11 look at chapter IX in Webster Tarpley's exceptional book "9/11 Synthetic Terror; Made In USA.") What's interesting about Tarpley's material is that once you have it in mind you can trace this division at the top in subsequent events, like the "yellow cake" scenario (which some of you may recall) (I'd have to re-open all that, memory wise, and research wise to say more). Even today you can trace the outlines of such division. Note that the Clintons eventually joined forces with the Bushes, as did Obama, which is why there is friction concerning Zionist objectives and this particular faction (George Bush senior was never pro Zionist). Interesting too that one of Trump's biggest RINO enemies right now is Liz Cheney, daughter to the top dog Zionist involved in 9/11 (if Guyenot's contention that "Neo Con" is really just a euphemism for Zionist is correct). Now, Trump and Neo Con (I believe) Pompeo seemingly should have secured the support of the Cheneys, so, as usual with all things Trump, things are never that easy to decipher, behind the scenes wise. Not that I've seriously dug into all of this. I guess it would be to start with Liz Cheney, and see what her ire is actually based on.
I know I went off on a tangent with that last paragraph, but just to say, this Zionist (Neo Con) aspect has some deep roots the unearthing of which can only be helpful in furthering a more comprehensive understanding of what we are presently seeing unfold. Having said that, many researchers start to sound anti-semitic when parsing such things out, which of course is its own kind of trap. George Webb seems to have a good approach. His perspective may include knowledge of some of these deeper workings (although I honestly don't know how he would assess such things), but, in any case, when the Mossad comes up in his research he will matter-of-factly include that aspect in his reporting, period. No muss, no fuss. (He's not much for editorializing at any rate.) To add to what cope said before, Webb actually seems to have an affection for Israelis in general, as he does for "the people" in general. Again, it's a good disposition to have, especially when doing this heavy type of research.
Last edited:
