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. Still, the "fight" this current populist movement is engaged in does represent pretty down to earth concerns, including constitutional rights (by the way), and so my sympathies go in that direction regardless of how I feel about knee jerk partisan politics, which is always problematic.
As always, at least for myself, it's useful to develop the ability to hold two thoughts simultaneously. While it's important to question partisan politics, and other devices being used to divide us, that shouldn't mean throwing the baby out with the bath water. If there is a worthwhile "fight" (and I'm not talking about violence, but populist forms of political action, including donating time and or money, and engaging in discussion), then the powers that be will want to disrupt that perspective as well. We see how they do this too since they do it constantly. For example, as we've seen for a long time now, the left is acting both overtly and covertly like domestic terrorists, so what do they do? 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. 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).
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.
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.
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 has escaped me at present) that the Mossad infiltrated the CIA operation so as to succeed in carrying out an actual assassination.
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?
After I wrote the above, I saw a new tweet by Webb in which he mentions a scene from Stone's JFK film that the Mossad censored. [??] Wow, if that's true, I'd never have imagined their involvement to be so direct. So it seems Webb is at least aware of this as an issue.
Related to this: what's pretty wild about George Webb re: Oliver Stone's JFK movie is that he claims to be "updating" it based on his research. He's written a screenplay and plans to go into production; he is casting the film as we speak.
I have to say I was rather shocked to see Webb is now in the "movie" business. Having knowledge of narrative filmmaking myself, I can tell you first hand it's a far cry -- especially cost wise -- from doing a documentary. So, how is Webb able to, uh, just update Stone's (a seasoned Hollywood director) 40-60 million dollar budget production [not sure how much exactly]?
This development is something I'd like to follow closely to see what Webb is actually able to pull off even just production wise, but also in terms of its "updated" content. But, I mean, production wise, he could be in the midst of some grand "misdirected" folly! Of course, it will likely be an extremely low budget "verite" sort of endeavor. Nevertheless, it still takes some skill and experience to do that with some proficiency.
As a source, George Webb is something of a conundrum. He seems legit, and yet he isn't the easiest source to follow. He isn't good at "fleshing out" ideas. I bought a small pamphlet of his, it's hard to call it a book, titled "Why Blackberries Matter." (This refers to the encrypted blackberries Hillary Clinton, et. al., have used for their nefarious activities. Webb discovered this significant aspect of their whole operation some time ago through his rather daring, on the ground ventures in investigative reporting.) The slim book has some good nuggets in there, but Webb's writing doesn't seem to be his strong point. It's missing a lot of connective tissue, so you're left to puzzle with the pieces he presents you with. But, with that in mind, how could Webb write a convincing feature length screenplay? Or, maybe it's a short. Hard to imagine him writing a feature.
Anyway, I'm keeping an eye on Webb, following him on Twitter, and may read more of his books, which are cheap and, I assume, all rather brief.
As for his film project... should be interesting to keep track of.
