The latest ShitShow

Steve's response comes VERY close...

...but finishes with a myopic target:
In my defense, I am regurgitating the theme from Gregg Jarrett's book "Russia Hoax" which was focused on the myopic target of Russian collusion and was never meant to address the "big" picture. It was an introduction to my three discrete themes of who the "shakers" are.

... "other side" Doc, Steve, Pat and you (if I left anyone out I apologize) will one day realize that we are all being played and pitted against one another and will turn our focus on the REAL antagonists and stop fighting each other - for that it is what they really fear. One day...
I have never denied that we are being "played". I've identified three discrete themes of who the players ("unknown shakers") are. @NauticalGent, do you have any further insight into who "they" are?
 
What if the left doesn't believe in cabals like the the Bilderberg Group? Asking for a friend. ;)
 
Steve,

Apologies if I presume incorrectly. Your recent posts in the watercooler seemed to have a heavy Trump defense theme to them so that is where I was coming from.
@NauticalGent, do you have any further insight into who "they" are?
And here we go...

I took two college courses in American History while I was underway on the USS John F Kennedy. The professor was a very impressive man who I accused of actually teaching civics instead of history. He LOVED the concept of the United States (the Constitution) but would take pot-shots at how quickly it was disregarded - his example was the Louisiana Purchase. He was fond of telling us that when Jefferson was reminded that the Federal Government was forbidden to buy land as per the Constitution, his response was "let us not concern ourselves with metaphysical subtleties."

Once, while discussing my final term paper, I brought up the JFK and Abe Lincoln assassinations and how maybe one day we will learn the truth. He got a twinkle in his eyes and told me he KNEW who ("they") were and why. I asked him to expound and he told me that it would be no where near as "sexy" as I would hope it to be and that I would be disappointed and maybe even dismissive of his reply. I assured him I would listen with an open mind and he went on. Words like fiat currency, The Federal Reserve (which is as "Federal" and Federal Express) and the Rothschilds were used and I soon developed a glaze over my eyes and started nodding my head to be polite.

That was in 2001 and time went on. Skip ahead to the 2008 elections and I happened to see a YouTube video of Ron Paul speaking out on the evils of the Federal Reserve - I was intrigued and soon after became a staunch RP supporter and dived head first into the rabbit hole. The rabbit hole led me to read a few books but by far the most informative and eye-opening book was "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin - if you are content with where your mind-set and opinions are, do NOT read this book. Sometimes it is best to stay pluged-in to the Matrix. You have been warned...

As time marched on, I became aware of two things: People do not want to hear anything contrary to their narrative and no one gives a flying flip at a rolling donut about what I have to say on this matter, so I tend to throttle back on this subject. The people on this forum are somewhat more intelligent, mature and objective (not enough when it comes to politics!) then the FaceBook masses so I make exceptions here.

So much more to discuss on this and this subject is an inconvenient truth that most people do not want to deal with. Funny thing is, I have never tried to convert anyone over to my point of view and do not take it personally when they do not. I wish that consideration would be returned...
 
If you want your own tin-hat I know an excellent source who will fit it for free...
Haha yes, not surprised you referenced Jekyll Island. That only opens the door for more criticism and becomes a circular firing squad. Good stuff NG. Peace ✌
 
Just re-educate, stuff those missing brain cells in my head 🙃 so I can get on with this illusion already.
 
We all wondered why the capital police were grossly unprepared, it makes sense now. Also President Trump wasn't cheering by the Television like we were led to believe.

The story here

1614646180097.png
 
We all wondered why the capital police were grossly unprepared, it makes sense now. Also President Trump wasn't cheering by the Television like we were led to believe.

The story here

View attachment 89633
The Democrats are superb at playing underhanded "dirty politics". From the conspiracy angle, the Democrats may well have stood-by (refused to accept additional law enforcement assistance) to allow an adversarial event to materialize. We will never know the truth.

While we may never know the truth, the prior clearly observable public actions of the Democrats (attempting to lynch Trump through impeachments, the Mueller witch-hunt, and the abuse of FISA court process) add credence to the possibly that the Democrats may have somehow inserted their "fingers", as a set-up, into promoting the temporary occupation of the Capital building. Immediately following the temporary occupation, the Democrats were all prepared to start hysterically, in unison, (falsely) screaming insurrection subsequently followed by a Kangaroo Court impeachment. There was no insurrection, that was a false label. Though speculative, the Democrats may well have orchestrated the temporary occupation of the Capital building.
 
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser also refused national guard even though she was clearly warned of the danger. This looks more and more like a Democrat setup, similar to the vote.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom