Trump era: Fascist dawn, or road to liberation?

seek10 said:
I don't know russian rapist portion, it looks to me a like typical russophobic western narrative.

This particular documentary doesn't cover the horror suffered by Russia. It actually does come across as Russophobic. Still, I have come across with similar documentaries and articles explaining the "raping portion". Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn writes about it in passing from his days in WWII in his book The Gulag Archipelago.
 
Sin City: US Federal Forces Deployed to Chicago Amid Soaring Murder Rates
Amid soaring murder rates in Chicago, the US government is sending federal forces to tackle the spike of violence.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201702041050335581-chicago-federal-forces-deployed/
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is going to send some 20 agents to Chicago in order to increase the federal presence in the city, to stem the violence, US media reported.

The decision to transfer additional government agents, who will form a so-called Chicago Crime Guns Strike Force, comes after President Donald Trump's statements about the efforts necessary to reduce gun violence in the city, CNN reported on Friday citing two law enforcement officials.
e1c1c834e4797e8d0ffeb177fa58e0fb.png


In late January, Trump promised to send forces to the city if the local administration fails to "fix the horrible 'carnage'," stressing that 228 shootings had occurred in the city since the beginning of 2017.

Chicago has become notorious for its ever-growing violence rates. By the end of November 2016,some 701 homicides were registered in the city. The number of killing in the city has surpassed the combined total homicides of New York and Los Angeles, which stood at 565.

There were 970 murders in Chicago in 1974, the highest number in relatively recent years. Homicides numbered in the 800 and 900s in the violent early 1990s, but had declined steadily until 2015. This year's uptick is dramatic.

Chicago Mayor Responds to Trump's Crime Tweet
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekTfcTT40sc

Related:Added Edit

Does the Government Own Your Thoughts? | Robert Ellis Smith
Published on Feb 3, 2017
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oROKacGzBw
How have we unwittingly opted into a loss of our intrinsic rights to be free people? From the paperless office to NSA email snooping, from Social Security as a simple means of administering a retirement plan to the key to tracking our every transaction, from convenient online searches to a bookless world where our thought patterns can be tracked and regulated, how have we “willingly” surrendered our privacy and what can we do to reclaim it?
 
Windmill knight said:
One thing that worries me is that Bannon's interpretation (correct or not) of 'The Fourth Turning' thesis sounds a lot like Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations', which was much applauded by the neocons and was one of their inspirations. There is that idea in there that there will be an unavoidable confrontation with China and Islam. Again, if a theory of history is descriptive of cycles or patterns, and even if it tries to make predictions, that's science and that's ok. But to take such theses as destiny, to the point that those in power think they have an important role to play in it, has a dangerous schizoidal flavor to it. Think of Marx, Lenin and the "bearded intellectuals" Lobaczewski gave as examples of schizoids, who were trying to bring about the global revolution.

Then contrast with how Putin would take such a theory if one of his advisors whispered it to his ear. Would he decide that it's time to prepare for WWIII and make the first strategic moves in that direction because that is what History has declared? Or would he, on the contrary, do as much as he can to find alternative solutions, while being cautiously prepared, because he will not accept that is a necessity? I think he is smart enough to do the second. But Trump? I'm afraid not, as his stance towards China and Iran shows lately. Bannon's comment about the "blunt instrument" is quite telling too.

This Bannon guy IS worrisome. I suppose peeps should get out and find stuff and Tweet it and include @realDonaldTrump in the tweet. Maybe if he gets enough of anti-Bannon tweets???

And yes, Bannon has the schizoid flavor while Trump appears to be a fairly righteous person who is also in some odd ways naive. Very dangerous combination. I'm willing to bet that Bannon plays Trump like a Stradivarius.

As I've mentioned already, all of these things take on a slightly different cast because of my recent reading: Mary Douglas' "Purity and Danger" and "Natural Symbols". Basically the thesis is that the human body and the body politic mirror social/political realities. If that is the case (and it's a bit more complex than that), we have some big problems.
 
Gaby said:
seek10 said:
I don't know russian rapist portion, it looks to me a like typical russophobic western narrative.

This particular documentary doesn't cover the horror suffered by Russia. It actually does come across as Russophobic. Still, I have come across with similar documentaries and articles explaining the "raping portion". Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn writes about it in passing from his days in WWII in his book The Gulag Archipelago.

Yes a shocking documentary, though I got a little annoyed by the Russophobic flavour. Just after the clip about the D-day landing, it cuts to a scene where the narrator was saying that not all of Germany's enemies were so merciful, and then showed the killing of a whole village by allegedly the Russian army and the scene of Russian soldiers dancing with the words by the narrator of revenge and kill, kill, kill.
A little over the top. And there were quite a number of scenes and cuts that made the "Western allies" look like angels as opposed to the Russians. No mention of the firebombings by the allies of entire German cities with no military objective. Or the fact that despite the picture that one gets from the documentary, the war was won by the Red army with a loss of 25 million people and against whom the German army had thrown 90% of their best forces.

But despite that, well worth watching and especially in context of the current state of affairs.

I am also reminded of the comments by the C's that "WWII was just a trial run" and "United in suffering". It would probably be too much to expect that a the people of a civilisation conditioned into being black and white 'thinking' authoritarian followers with a steady diet of exceptionalism and believing to be blessed by God as his special people indispensable for the world, would magically change overnight and see the light.
 
Aeneas said:
I am also reminded of the comments by the C's that "WWII was just a trial run" and "United in suffering". It would probably be too much to expect that a the people of a civilisation conditioned into being black and white 'thinking' authoritarian followers with a steady diet of exceptionalism and believing to be blessed by God as his special people indispensable for the world, would magically change overnight and see the light.

Yeah, that "trial run" business is chilling. But, what if "trial run" meant trying to figure out a way to impose that kind of Reich on everyone without it breaking into war? Yeah, maybe I'm reaching, but not sure that global conflagration is the objective, rather selective culling might be.
 
Gaby said:
seek10 said:
I don't know russian rapist portion, it looks to me a like typical russophobic western narrative.

This particular documentary doesn't cover the horror suffered by Russia. It actually does come across as Russophobic. Still, I have come across with similar documentaries and articles explaining the "raping portion". Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn writes about it in passing from his days in WWII in his book The Gulag Archipelago.

There's this article in Russian where the author explains how the myth about "two million of German women raped by the Soviet soldiers" appeared. I don't know how true this article is though. In short, the author explains why Antony Beevor's (the author of The Fall of Berlin) figure (2,000,000 women) is nothing more but statistical assumption.
 
Neil said:
In the 4D/5D spheres, what higher dimensional forces are behind Trump, what animates him and drives him, and how doe this compare to the forces behind Putin? Is Trump neither good nor bad in the grand scheme of things, and just the method that the universe has chosen to balance the karma of the Anglo-American axis while mitigating the damage to the rest of the world to the greatest extent possible?
I realize I'm probably chasing goblins with the Antarctica thing, but my curiosity is piqued, so I can't help myself. Do you mind asking my second question or some variation of it if she doesn't address it in the first part of the webinar? Or does somebody else have better questions?

Neil, I don't mind asking a variation of this question. I haven't followed her work very much, so should be interesting to hear what she has a say.
 
Bear said:
Neil, I don't mind asking a variation of this question. I haven't followed her work very much, so should be interesting to hear what she has a say.
Her website's claim to fame is that she analyzes the "Earth Shift" which is sort of her equivalent to the Wave, from a geopolitical standpoint. I've listened to some of her Earth Shift Reports, and her basic premise is that the US is the focal point of humanity's Yang energy, China is represents the Yin energy, and Russia is the "Great Balancer" which is supposed to bring the best of both sides together and create a new reality. Kind of an active, passive, neutralizing force kind of thing. I'm not sure about her psychic capabilities, some of it seem like she's just making it up like her "Quantum Calibrations," but she does seem to have a pretty good track record so maybe there's something there. She calibrates Trump at like 185 which represents pride, and Putin at something like 600 (out of 1000) which corresponds to enlightenment. Hillary was less than 100 as I recall, which was fear/death.

While there are some intelligent academians out there who can give an astute and cogent analysis of things from a political science perspective, I think they leave a bit to be desired because they can't really step back and SEE the big picture. Equally annoying are UFO buffs who talk about aliens and nothing else, but Lada seems to have some understanding of how the mundane and the arcane intertwine and that's why I find her interesting.

Her understanding of densities and dimensions is a little bit different than ours. She defines a 4D being as a being with intense mental energy which is able to access the realm of information and manipulate it for good or ill to get what they want. She says there are a lot of people on Earth engaged in 4D warfare. According to her, a 5D being has attained some kind of spiritual gnosis and realizes how they relate to everything in the universe so they have a bit more "heart" and don't fight as much. She talks a little bit about 6D and 7D beings (her scale goes higher than 7) which are kind of like spiritual guides. The purpose of the Earth Shift is to provide an environment where humanity can evolve towards the 5D understanding and the symptoms of it are discernible through geopolitical events. Although a good bit of it jives with the Cassiopaean material, the two systems are not entirely compatible. Just a little background for those unfamiliar with her.
 
Something rather sensible for a change:

https://regiehammblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/this-hitler-nonsense/
THIS HITLER NONSENSE …
February 1, 2017 363 Comments


I am not an expert on Hitler. But my father is.

He toured post-war Germany extensively in 1957 and ’58 as a child performer. And he often recounts the stories. He befriended teenage Lebensborn children (if you don’t know what Lebensborn children are …well …before you post anymore about Hitler you should read about them). He visited an SS widow and got a peek at her husband’s uniform and Luger (that he’d committed suicide with), she had stored in an old trunk, in the attic.

These and other intense experiences in Germany sent my father on a life-long quest to understand this sociopath (Hitler) and the country that allowed itself to be dragged into one of the darkest chapters in world history. My dad is a Hitler/Nazi buff the way Indiana Jones’ dad was a Holy Grail buff.

As the son of a man with this hobby (one might call obsession) I learned a lot about Hitler and the Third Reich just by osmosis, growing up. My father would weave WWII stories into his sermons. He would talk about new books he was reading on the subject. When I was nine-years-old I bought him a book on the battle of Stalingrad for Christmas. Not a tie or a pair of socks. A book …on the battle …of Stalingrad. Yeah …it was kinda like that.

The thing my father and I have often discussed, through the years, is the eye-rolling art of comparing American presidents to Hitler. It is such an absurdity we find it amusing …and frustrating. It’s often just a punch line. Like the Soup Nazi wasn’t really a Nazi. He was just mean. The Nazi part made it funny. You know …over-the-top. Like “grammar Nazi” or “spelling Nazi.” Nobody is really a “Nazi.” It’s our representation of something we consider jarring, strident, intractable and inhumane.

But the truth about Nazis isn’t funny at all. It’s bloody and horrible and gut churning. And it involves machine guns and butchery and inhumanity on a scale that takes your breath away. Nobody is really a “soup Nazi” …unless they served it in a concentration camp.

The idea of comparing an American president to Hitler is just as absurd …from any angle, in any context. The American system ITSELF pretty much prevents “Hitlers” from showing up. And America ITSELF is anathema to what Hitler was trying to create. An American ANYTHING or ANYONE is hard to fit into the Hitler model. It’s just not apples to apples.

There are some fundamental things to understand about Hitler:

1. He took over a small, failing state that didn’t have separated government, enumerated powers or checks and balances. It’s difficult for a guy like that to show up here, in this system.

2. His entire political career was violent from the beginning. There was always death in his wake. He didn’t just suddenly “turn” violent. It was a pattern …as it always is with sociopaths. This is THE most important thing to watch; the violence. I always keep an eye on who is rioting …breaking things …throwing rocks and bombs. It doesn’t make them Nazis. But it signals how far they’re willing to go.

3. He entered office with his own personal military construct (the SS) with allegiance to him ONLY. They would carry out things the regular military would never carry out: i.e. the murder of private citizens and political opponents. Nothing like that exists or COULD exist in America. We simply wouldn’t allow it.

4. He didn’t start out just killing Jews. He started out euthanizing people with special needs …for the betterment of the care-givers’ lives. (You can decide which side of the aisle favors the extermination of “inconvenient” people).

5. He disarmed the population, then nationalized healthcare and education. (Two-out-of-three of those are Bernie Sanders moves …But, guess what? Bernie isn’t Hitler either …not by a long shot)

The list goes on and on. But the deal is this:

Hitler was a real life murdering sociopath. He wasn’t just a charismatic speaker who incrementally fell into bad behavior. He wasn’t just a racist corrupted by unfettered power. In other words, you or I probably couldn’t end up being Hitler. A garden variety KKK leader probably couldn’t end up being Hitler either …or a community organizer …or a New York real-estate tycoon. It’s not that easy or simple.

NONE of our American presidents have ever been Hitler. But the people of Germany certainly thought FDR was a murdering dictator when B-17s started dropping bombs on them. This is why you have to KNOW what you believe and why you believe it. Good guys and bad guys are often in the eyes of the beholder. And they often look similar in the fog of conflict. I would imagine Japanese Americans in internment camps wondered if their president was Hitler-like. Nope. Horrible act …but not close to Hitler.

To that point, ironically, the American president who could’ve actually been likened to Hitler (before Hitler) in some of his methods was …wait for it …Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln broke more constitutional law than any other president in U.S history. He imprisoned political opponents without due process. He suspended habeas corpus. He was personally responsible for the deaths of six hundred thousand people.

He invaded countries that had declared their own sovereignty and forced them back into a union they didn’t want to be a part of. He unilaterally annexed Nevada, without 60 thousand residents, (a pre-requisite for becoming a state) in order to carry it and win the 1864 election. In other words, he pretty much rigged it.

And when he was killed by the highest paid and most famous actor of his day (ironic …don’t you think?), the actor screamed “death to tyrants!” (in latin) because the man thought he was being a patriot for ridding the world of a dictator. But he wasn’t …and he didn’t.

Lincoln did all of those things to end and win the Civil War. And today we love him for it …as we should. Because in the end, his vision was right …even though his methods were suspect in the heat of the moment.

When people think they’re seeing a Hitler, they might actually – sometimes – be seeing something closer to a Churchill. Before WWII everyone thought Churchill was the big bad wolf. His own people hated him and thought he was a Hitler type character (again …pre-Hilter). But he just kept saying, “guys …I’m telling you. This Hitler guy is the real problem. Not me.” And he turned out to be right. There’s a difference between an abrasive leader who makes you uncomfortable …and a despot.

Now, people are comparing Donald Trump to Hitler. And the countdown has officially begun, to …well …I don’t know …but something really bad. I get that someone who is combative with the press and who wants to vet refugees and shut down open immigration fits the bill some are always looking for when it comes to finally getting their “Hitler” villain.

But if you study enough about it, you realize the guy vetting and banning refugees is probably not Hitler …the guy CREATING refugees probably is.

If we keep looking for Hitler in every United States president we disagree with, we’re not going to recognize the real one when he actually shows up …in a different country.

R
 
Well, things aren't improving with our food sources. GMO and Monsanto are still in control it seems. Michele Obama's school lunch program came to mind while reading about Obama's ties to Monsanto.

More from Organic Consumers Association. -https://action.organicconsumers.org/content_item/oca-email?email_blast_KEY=1364712

by Jon Rappoport
February 1, 2017
-https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...que-as-obamas/

Quote In articles about Trump, I have praised the man for certain things he’s done and is doing. But that isn’t a reason for closing my eyes and accepting his programs wholeheartedly.

This is what I predicted in recent articles. Unless some miracle turnaround occurs, Trump’s pick for Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, will be a catastrophe. Lights out. Bang.

Big Ag vs. the small American farmer? No contest.

Katherine Paul, the associate director of the Organic Consumers Association, has the story:

“Trump heaped predictable praise on Sonny Perdue, promising that the former governor of Georgia will ‘deliver big results for all Americans who earn their living off the land’.”

“The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), that multi-billion-dollar lobbying group that represents Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Coca-Cola, General Mills (you get the picture) rushed to praise Perdue’s nomination. In a statement, GMA’s president said her group ‘looks forward to working with [Perdue] on issues key to keeping America’s food the safest and most affordable food supply in the history of the world’. Coming from the GMA, leader of the charge to keep labels off GMO foods, we know that ‘safest and most affordable food’ is code for ‘industrial chemical GMO food’.”

“And by now, we also all know that Perdue, who was named 2009 Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, counts both Monsanto and Coca-Cola among his many corporate campaign donors.”

“A former fertilizer salesman, Perdue at one time owned Houston Fertilizer and Grain which, after its acquisition of Milner Milling Co., morphed into AGrowStar, a grain business with operations across Georgia and South Carolina. His supporters cite his business operations as proof that he’s qualified to lead the USDA. They fail to mention the role chemical fertilizers play in water pollution and global warming [I reject that latter connection], much less the cost to farmers of relying on synthetic inputs…”

“Perdue has no qualms about taking government handouts. Environmental Working Group (EWG) reports that between 1995 and 2014, he cashed in on $278,679 in taxpayer-funded subsidies for his various businesses. Will he be open to overhauling the current system which doles out $25 billion/year in subsidies (paid out mostly to large producers, not small farmers) for commodity crops, like wheat, GMO corn, GMO cotton and GMO soy?”

“At a 2003 meeting organized by his wife (then first lady of Georgia) and sponsored by Coca-Cola and Chick-fil-A, Perdue praised the soda giant for its ‘its continued effort to grow its business presence and invest in Georgia, as the Company prepares to open a $100 million plus expansion to its Atlanta production facilities’.”

“Before his nomination, Perdue served on Trump’s ag advisory committee whose talking points, as reported on November 15, by Politico, ‘offer a roadmap on how President-Elect Donald Trump’s agriculture secretary could shape agricultural policies, including the sweeping promise to “defend American agriculture against its critics,”’. Of course, what the committee means by ‘American’ agriculture is industrial factory farm and GMO commodity agriculture. And we all know who the committee sees as its critics—that would be us and a host of other groups that advocate for healthy food and a clean environment.”

“…in 2009, Perdue signed a bill that blocked local communities in Georgia from regulating animal cruelty, worker safety and pollution related to factory farms. That’s hardly ‘looking out’ for the little guy.”

—No need to read between the lines. Perdue will be Big Ag’s man in Washington.

But just in case you think he’ll reverse all the wonderful farm policies promoted by Obama, read on. Obama was nothing less than Monsanto’s man in the Oval Office. Here is my piece, from 2013:

After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

* Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

* Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

* Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

* Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

* Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

* Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

* Pioneer GMO soybean.

* Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

* Bayer GMO cotton.

* ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

* A GMO papaya strain.

* And soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade.

Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

He didn’t make that many key political appointments and allow that many new GMO crops to enter the food chain through a lack of oversight.

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Obama, while on the campaign trail in 2008, was promising transparency in government, was claiming that every person has the right to know what’s in his food (GMO labeling). But clearly, that was all cover and fluff. He was lying through his teeth and he knew it. He hasn’t changed. He’s been a covert agent since the beginning.

Imposter. Charlatan. These words fit Obama. He doesn’t care that GMO food is taking over the country and the world. He wants it to happen. He’s always wanted it to happen.

Obama, Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, among others, are prepared to do whatever is necessary to make GMO food and their attendant pesticides dominate America and, through exports, the world.Whether Trump has his eyes open or closed, he’s walking down the same path. His meetings with small farmers, and his pledge to protect clean water and air, were so much fluff.

Theoretically, he has time to reverse course, but don’t bet on it, don’t hold your breath—unless you’re living in an area downwind from a corporate factory farm, where the air is full of gently wafting toxic pesticides and GMOs.

Jon Rappoport
 
Laura said:
Aeneas said:
I am also reminded of the comments by the C's that "WWII was just a trial run" and "United in suffering". It would probably be too much to expect that a the people of a civilisation conditioned into being black and white 'thinking' authoritarian followers with a steady diet of exceptionalism and believing to be blessed by God as his special people indispensable for the world, would magically change overnight and see the light.

Yeah, that "trial run" business is chilling. But, what if "trial run" meant trying to figure out a way to impose that kind of Reich on everyone without it breaking into war? Yeah, maybe I'm reaching, but not sure that global conflagration is the objective, rather selective culling might be.

It seems to me that a number of things are rhyming with the past or lurking under the surface. Radical change seems to be in the air and I’m trying to wrap my mind around how this might piece together with being the next run of the rise of Nazis, etc. From a higher perspective Trumps election would seem to just mean a different path to similar results from if Hillary was elected.

Trump seems to be the leading edge of the push towards renewed nationalism and isolationism globally or at least in Western countries. This is at least on the surface at the expense of globalism and possibly the influence of the UN depending on what Trump pushes to do. This is rallying the masses under patriotism and actions being taken for the people as the mass hypnosis. Under Hillary it seems we would have gotten the culmination of globalism and mass hypnosis of liberal ideology we’ve seen uncovered with the left’s reaction since the election.

I did a little reading and the last time globalism really spread rapidly was in the 1800’s up to WWI. After this period in general we had the rise of nationalism in various forms and under various ideologies eventually culminating in the rise of the Nazis and WWII. In addition the League of Nations was formed in response to WWI and eventually the UN formed after WWII.

Also, going on at this time was the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the Bank of International Settlements, the central bank of central banks, in 1930. The various economic problems from WWI culminating in the Great Depression lead to the radical departure from the norm of paper money no longer being redeemable for gold. Economic problems also played a key role in the why of Nazis rise in Germany. Eventually, all gold and silver relation to currency was removed in the 1960’s and 70’s. Today we have a crash in countries and world economy just waiting to happen and another radical change in money – that being cashless society and the birth and growth of cryptocurrencies.

Given how connected the world is today, how fast information travels and how fast actions seem to take place as compared to 100 years ago, could it be we could have the rise of nationalism in various locations, economic collapse in some capacity, war, the final pieces of the institution of world government put in place in response, and cashless society as one result take place in some order and all compressed in a lot shorter period of time. What took 40 years to happen 100 or so years ago might take a lot shorter time? 5-8 years? Also, it might take a lot shorter time because certain pieces have been put in place and not fully activated, such as the police state in the US.

Another thing that has been on my mind is this Antarctica business that Neil plans to ask Lada Ray. Maybe it has a connection to how things may play out given what the C’s have said about the subject of Nazis and Antarctica.

Neil said:
There have been rumors circulating on the internet that the NWO gang has been travelling down to Antarctica over the past couple of years to investigate the relics of an ancient advanced civilization similar to Atlantis. There is also the long standing conspiracy theory that a contingent of Nazis built a base there where they smuggled out Hitler's most exotic technologies. Allegedly, the Nazis were able to reverse engineer ancient technology to build UFOs and continue development of the Aryan master race. There has been speculation that the NWO/deep state spooks are going to use this revolutionary technology along with controlled revelations and possibly a faked alien invasion to try and create a sort of sci-fi dictatorship by offering a "miraculous" solution to avert the Mad Max sort of a future that will be developing after the Soros/Davos elite institute a controlled demolition of the world economy. So my question is, do you see any "off the wall" attempts like this by the NWO to preempt the Earth shift and disrupt Trump's presidency by radically changing the rules of the game so much that he essentially becomes a deer in the headlights and is made irrelevant?

Clif High’s work might be a significant source of these rumors given in recent reports he has a lot of information along the lines of Neil’s summation in terms of Antarctica. Wouldn’t it be convenient for full take over and control to have saviors whether it being people, aliens or information (or some combination of all three) come from Antarctica (the Nazis or whatever is down there) if things get bad enough and people are ripe for ‘help’ from their suffering in any form?
 
Re: Trump, Brexit and psychometrics

Hithere said:
Interesting article about Big Data being utilized to manufacture messages targeted at specific types of people, allegedly a big part of the reason Trump got elected and also behind Brexit:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win

I had a synchronicity after reading this article. Computers and the science of applications and what to do with all that information is hard to wrap my mind around....but facinating none the less. I had just started reading The Girl In The Spider Web by David Lagercrantz the night before. I was hesitant about spending time on a book of fiction. As I read more of the book that day, I began to confuse the characters from the article with the ones in the book. The story line was so similar. It's opening up the AI topic to my thought process. In most aspects it seems entirely ominous.

Also I read the articles on SoTT about the move to restrict air travel because of unpaid tax debt. And this feeds into restricting travel between states, on the horizon, without proper ID. I arrived at the TSA checkpoint in a California airport that same day, yesterday, to see a sign for the first time that stated in the near future travel between Canada and the states bordering Canada will require more than a passport to be allowed travel. It's not that the ID's haven't been required already. It will just be used to track us more extensively and perhaps be an excuse to detain or restrict where and when we travel. Another ominous sign, IMO>
 
Re: Trump, Brexit and psychometrics


Hithere said:
Interesting article about Big Data being utilized to manufacture messages targeted at specific types of people, allegedly a big part of the reason Trump got elected and also behind Brexit:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win

Has anybody gone to this website and checked to see how well they predict? I did and opted for the text examination rather than giving them access to my FB stuff. I pasted in the first couple of pages of my new book that isn't out yet and I'm attaching their assessment of me as a pdf (took screen shot).
 
Okay, I put in three more text chunks from 3 articles I wrote that are on sott and tried 3 more times. Attached below.

You will see that I'm fairly consistent to myself, but they sure peg me wrong.
 
Re: Trump, Brexit and psychometrics

Charade said:
Also I read the articles on SoTT about the move to restrict air travel because of unpaid tax debt. And this feeds into restricting travel between states, on the horizon, without proper ID. I arrived at the TSA checkpoint in a California airport that same day, yesterday, to see a sign for the first time that stated in the near future travel between Canada and the states bordering Canada will require more than a passport to be allowed travel. It's not that the ID's haven't been required already. It will just be used to track us more extensively and perhaps be an excuse to detain or restrict where and when we travel. Another ominous sign, IMO>

Unless you read some article I missed, there was a recent article about the IRS possibly revoking passports, which would restrict travel to any place that requires a passport to enter. But it doesn't restrict travel inside the US.

Did you read a different storry?
 
Back
Top Bottom