2020 US Election - Let The Games Begin!

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.
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:
9/11 crossed my mind, too. The thing there was about hitting the Pentagon instead of the White House.
George may have contacts in the old Mossad. And reads all the books criminals write about themselves.
His take is that when evil behaviour is not adressed, it goes a step further. Like, when you throw your opposition out of an airplane, you might as well take their organs first before you kill them.
Ofcourse the old nazi, now vaccine, clique is not really friends with the zionists.
 
Last edited:
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!
My guess is Trump is just a bit naive about some things and people. He's also been lied to a lot.
 
Yes. As I was saying, you can trace the "divide" between the Neo Cons (Zionists) and the Bush/Clinton/Obama faction (stemming from the Old Guard at the CIA) even today. This clique as you call it is tied to the latter.
One other thing I just thought of related to this. Guyenot claims that (at the time of his publishing his "Yahweh" book in 2018) no president after WWII was re-elected without the approval of the Zionists, with the exception of LBJ who, although a serious Zionist, could not overcome his unpopularity due to the Vietnam War.

Enter Trump: now that Liz Cheney stands out as a major opponent (the Cheney's status as Neo Cons tying them to the Zionists), was Trump "nixed" by Zionists (if we take Guyenot's claim to heart)? Why were Clinton and Obama able to "pass" in this respect? (I'm assuming Guyenot tells us why in his book, but I'm not recalling what he said right now). So, either Guyenot's claim is an erroneous one, or there's something here to investigate further.
 
One other thing I just thought of related to this. Guyenot claims that (at the time of his publishing his "Yahweh" book in 2018) no president after WWII was re-elected without the approval of the Zionists, with the exception of LBJ who, although a serious Zionist, could not overcome his unpopularity due to the Vietnam War.

Enter Trump: now that Liz Cheney stands out as a major opponent (the Cheney's status as Neo Cons tying them to the Zionists), was Trump "nixed" by Zionists (if we take Guyenot's claim to heart)? Why were Clinton and Obama able to "pass" in this respect? (I'm assuming Guyenot tells us why in his book, but I'm not recalling what he said right now). So, either Guyenot's claim is an erroneous one, or there's something here to investigate further.
Trump was better for Israel. The Cs said it was the neocon MIC that didn't like him. Zio's/banks just like the chaos?
 
Q: (L) So despite the fact that Trump was so friendly and always playing up to the military, they really still didn't want or like him because he wasn't a war monger. Is that correct?
A: Yes
Q: (L) And high mucky-muck military guys are basically war mongers.
MIC military industrial complex
So, are these top military guys Laura is referring to Neo Con/Zionist in their politics? Even if the answer is no, Trump's "Israel friendly" approach, let's call it, wasn't enough to override MIC's war mongering faction; whereas the Biden camp is already going for Syria. So, maybe Guyenot's theory holds even for Trump: if Trump had been more hawkish he may have had the Deep State (or Zionist, according to Guyenot) support he needed to win either initially, or in overturning the fraudulent election results.

But notice how this is not a simple equation, with the (historically) anti-Zionists on the left cutting deals anyway to get a "pass." If war mongering is THE crucial issue, then this would make sense.
 
Last edited:
So, are these top military guys Laura is referring to Neo Con/Zionist in their politics? Even if the answer is no, Trump's "Israel friendly" approach, let's call it, wasn't enough to override MIC's war mongering faction; whereas the Biden camp is already going for Syria. So, maybe Guyenot's theory holds even for Trump: if Trump had been more hawkish he may have had the Deep State (or Zionist, according to Guyenot) support he needed to win either initially, or in overturning the fraudulent election results.

But notice how this is not a simple equation, with the (historically) anti-Zionists on the left cutting deals anyway to get a "pass." If war mongering is THE crucial issue, then this would make sense.
Sorry, if this gets convoluted seeming and so confusing, but I was attempting to use Guyenot's equation as my control, as it were.
 
If I side with the powers that be, I'm lost. If I pick up that baseball bat, I'm lost. The only real solution is to choose neither, which means enjoying the show. That's the most difficult choice
Oh this so true!
Recently I deactivated my fb account. I had been sucked into the “drama” this last year, thinking I was merely observing but in fact I was participating. Now that I’m out, I feel so incredibly better. My creativity has come back, like a torrent. I have more clarity and energy to be more productive.

I do know that I don't want to be a crazy lefty, and I don't want to be a crazy righty.
I agree. While I was on fb, I belonged to some “free debate” type groups mostly about politics. As a South African I found it fascinating as we don’t have this weird two camp system that’s closely tied to your identity. I’ve always leaned slightly left on social issues because in SA growing up it was extremely conservative. Yet in that fb group I realized that I agreed more and more with US conservatives, the “right”. At the end, even though I learned so much from them, I could never join their camp. They, just like the left still have their own dogma and sacred cows.
For now, I think a good goal is to just work on being more 'centered': The minute we feel slightly angry or depressed about this or that, we must stop and ask why. The minute that happens, we're being sucked in and most likely we are no longer objective.
The reason I left fb was that people were making me feel sad and angry pretty much every day. It was either about BLM or the pandemic or their general blindness to the truth as I saw it. I started to realize that it’s impossible to just be the observer and enjoy the show if I’m feeding the drama with my emotions. That it’s set up so that we feed it. Once I cut that feeding tube, I feel like I’m better capable of “enjoying the show”. Of course I’m lucky because my immediate situation is not dire, I live in Taiwan where we don’t really have the “crazy left or right”, we also live pretty normally during this pandemic. My local community don’t have mask nazis or restrictive rules. However this could all change in the future.

I’m taking this as a lesson to always seek that which expands (gratitude, creativity etc ) over that which contracts or restricts (negative emotions, going against another’s free will). This will always be the battle.

Of course I think most people in this group aren’t even on fb, so my experience won’t be the same as yours. For me I used fb because I’m an expat and originally it was a tool to stay in contact with family and friends. However over this last year, I realized they are lost to me. I tried to share information in a considerate way on my timeline, nothing ever remotely conspiracy orientated. But I felt it was not wanted. I felt like I was going against thier free will by sharing scientific studies. Knowing they were lost to me, added to my pain and to feeding the drama.

So now I will try to balance observing the world with not getting sucked into the drama, even if it means I keep knowledge that is true and helpful to myself. Of course this easier said than done.
 
Oh this so true!
Recently I deactivated my fb account. I had been sucked into the “drama” this last year, thinking I was merely observing but in fact I was participating. Now that I’m out, I feel so incredibly better. My creativity has come back, like a torrent. I have more clarity and energy to be more productive.


I agree. While I was on fb, I belonged to some “free debate” type groups mostly about politics. As a South African I found it fascinating as we don’t have this weird two camp system that’s closely tied to your identity. I’ve always leaned slightly left on social issues because in SA growing up it was extremely conservative. Yet in that fb group I realized that I agreed more and more with US conservatives, the “right”. At the end, even though I learned so much from them, I could never join their camp. They, just like the left still have their own dogma and sacred cows.

The reason I left fb was that people were making me feel sad and angry pretty much every day. It was either about BLM or the pandemic or their general blindness to the truth as I saw it. I started to realize that it’s impossible to just be the observer and enjoy the show if I’m feeding the drama with my emotions. That it’s set up so that we feed it. Once I cut that feeding tube, I feel like I’m better capable of “enjoying the show”. Of course I’m lucky because my immediate situation is not dire, I live in Taiwan where we don’t really have the “crazy left or right”, we also live pretty normally during this pandemic. My local community don’t have mask nazis or restrictive rules. However this could all change in the future.

I’m taking this as a lesson to always seek that which expands (gratitude, creativity etc ) over that which contracts or restricts (negative emotions, going against another’s free will). This will always be the battle.

Of course I think most people in this group aren’t even on fb, so my experience won’t be the same as yours. For me I used fb because I’m an expat and originally it was a tool to stay in contact with family and friends. However over this last year, I realized they are lost to me. I tried to share information in a considerate way on my timeline, nothing ever remotely conspiracy orientated. But I felt it was not wanted. I felt like I was going against thier free will by sharing scientific studies. Knowing they were lost to me, added to my pain and to feeding the drama.

So now I will try to balance observing the world with not getting sucked into the drama, even if it means I keep knowledge that is true and helpful to myself. Of course this easier said than done.
Well said, and I agree totally. I deleted my FB and Twitter accounts in the end of January, and I feel much 'lighter'. I guess the hook for many people, as it was for me, to stay on FB goes something like "well, okay, FB:s censoring and stuff is pretty evil, but I need to stay on so that I can be in touch with all my friends and acquaintances that I would rarely meet in real life".

I think what finally made me decide to delete my accounts was the principle that is repeated throughout the Ertugrul series (God bless that series). Paraphrasing: "If you side with evil/the enemy even for a moment in order to be victorius, you've strayed from the path of justice, truth and righteousness". So, I decided that I will not support evil (FB, Twitter) anymore – the chips may fall wherever as a consequence (loose contact with 'friends'), but I need to follow God's path.

At moments, some small voice is telling me that "you're such a coward for leaving the battleground!" but then I remind myself of "c'mon man, if you participate you will 1) make no difference (for goodness in the world) 2) expose yourself, make you a target, waste time in useless debates 3) side with evil and criminals (those in charge of FB), thus, straying from the path.
 

Trump returning to social media with 'his own platform' in 2-3 months: adviser​



Former President Donald Trump will be back on social media in the near future with his own service, according to one of his senior advisers.

Trump was banned from Twitter following the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. He had been a prolific poster on that platform before and during his presidency.

"I do think that we’re going to see President Trump returning to social media in probably about two or three months here, with his own platform," Trump senior adviser Jason Miller told Fox News' "#MediaBuzz" on Sunday. "And this is something that I think will be the hottest ticket in social media, it’s going to completely redefine the game, and everybody is going to be waiting and watching to see what exactly President Trump does."

Miller said he was unable to provide much more in terms of details at this point, but he did reveal that Trump has been having "high-powered meetings" at Mar-a-Lago with various teams regarding the venture, and that "numerous companies" have approached Trump.

"This new platform is going to be big," Miller said, predicting that Trump will draw "tens of millions of people."
 
I suppose I should be shocked . . .

BOMBSHELL: ‘Voter Fraud Expert’ Says He Was Bribed $10 MILLION To Stay Quiet About 2020

When Jovan Pulitzer gained fame for testifying before state legislatures about voter fraud, he was attacked heavily by mainstream media and Democrats. They tried to discredit the man in hopes that nobody would look at his astounding work in demonstrating how voter fraud was perpetrated during the 2020 election. When that didn’t work, they tried a different approach.

In a recent interview with David K. Clements on The Professor’s Record, Pulitzer revealed something only his inner circle had previously heard. When bullying didn’t work at silencing him, they tried the good ol’ bribe… and what a bribe attempt it was.

“So you know how bad this is, and I’m going to give you a nugget that nobody outside of my inner circle knows this,” he said. “I got offered $10 million dollars to not do this.”
Interview on rumble (1:56:17):
After a brief pause to allow the bombshell to sink in, he continued. “I have no price. It can’t be done. This is about America. There isn’t enough money in America to turn us communist and to sell out America. I’ll take a bullet to the head. And, maybe that’s what’s waiting for me.”

Pulitzer’s rise to fame during the aftermath of the 2020 election steal was not his first. He has been in and out of public life for the better part of three decades with inventions and patents that have helped shape the world we live in today. Along the way, he’s made a splash in the worlds of technology and media, but one can argue his most important contribution to the world is his effort to correct the 2020 election.
There may be fruit coming at some point in the near future. Various attempts to perform audits, for which his machines may be used, are starting to gain traction across the country. It prompted our EIC to write a post detailing how it can all come together for a Constitutional solution to the problem at hand.

The Constitution does not offer a direct remedy for a situation in which a presidential election is deemed fraudulent after-the-fact. The Supreme Court may use its wide powers to fix things, but that seems very unlikely even with a so-called “conservative” lean in five of the nine Justices. If we learned anything in the last year or so, it’s that we cannot and must not rely on government or the judiciary to make things happen. They are heading in the wrong direction across the board. This is a nation of free people who must stand up.
As the saying goes, every man has his price. But Jovan Pulitzer isn’t just any man. He made a decision that many would find challenging, to pass on a tremendous amount of money for the sake of fighting for our nation’s future.
 
Back
Top Bottom