660 replies to this topic

[SJL]

ultimathule, on Nov 20 2008, 01:16 AM, said:

The forecasted numbers for turnout at the inauguration are 1,000,000+ ecstatic Obama supporters. I sure hope that the security is top-notch. Terrorist attack, etc. would be tragic... and could spark extreme civil unrest if something happened to Obama and/or citizens.

Yep, we certainly do not want dumb white economicaly disgruntled liberal voters joining the KKK to foment attacks there either, with a KGB gullible media all ready to fall in the trap of blaming the right.

Dialectics at work... divide, conquer and confuse and what not.

A lot of marxist/homosexual white comedians out there promote so much hate speech and racist jokes, it is shocking the media let them... oh, wait a minute... the media's filled with them... and it is PC since they're homosexual or "cute" and gay doing it.

"Domestic" violence/terrorism is PC if gays do it. It's still the angle sought, though. The military does not care, terrorist is terrorist, but there is a strong push by this article and culturaly to make anything domestic as terroristic, and anything "world" as good and freeing no matter what. This helps the agenda of foreign manipulators of all nations and ideologies.

Illegal immigration works the same way. Only the left is allowed to hire or vote for foreigners. Entrepreneurs, churches and legal or meritocratic processes are being shut out or prosecuted.

[Apollo5600]

An Al-Qaeda assasination would direct all the hatred towards the Islamists... Instead, if anyone were to harm Obama, it would most likely be an "evil Whitey", thus the hatred can be directed at the country itself. A Al-qaeda strike killing millions, including all the government, seems like a waste when one thinks about it afterwards. There will always be time for that later, anyway.

[bm_cali]

That One Guy, on Nov 20 2008, 12:23 AM, said:

I really don't see an attempt on Obama himself, but possibly like you said.. with all of the VIPs in one spot, yes. I can't reason out why they'd attack a man that has the potential to bring down the USA from the inside, in the worst way possible. That's what they want.

Then again, when Al Qaeda says the next attack will be one thousand times more spectacular than the last, one wonders. With more than half the country glued to their tubes watching, that would be something "spectacular" in their minds, right? When I think of the word spectacular in regards to how terrorists describe their attacks, it's something that has to be wide media coverage. More than half the country watched the fate of New Yorkers live on TV during 9/11.

The logic plays out on both sides. It's definitely something to think about.

Jeff Head wrote a series of books depicting WW3. It is a variant of JRN's scenario which is depicted, over a much longer period of time. There is one part of one of his books, which describes an assembly in the Mall, in DC. The assembly is an awards ceremony for war heroes, being awarded in the midst of the war years. Enemy operatives flying kamikaze ultralights with bombs integrated into their construction attack the assembly, killing a significant percentage there. Then there is the psychological impact of such an attack. In Head's scenario, the President survives. However, his scenario did not involve nuclear devices.

Also, such an attack may be part, as you note, of a much large set of attacks upon the US and our interests and friends abroad. A coordinated attack by "Al Qaida" and Spetznaz (and miscellaneous GRU overt and false flag recruits) occurring on or around Jan 20 2009, with our economy in its current state, would be much, much more painful than 9/11.

Apollo5600, on Nov 20 2008, 02:08 AM, said:

An Al-Qaeda assasination would direct all the hatred towards the Islamists... Instead, if anyone were to harm Obama, it would most likely be an "evil Whitey", thus the hatred can be directed at the country itself. A Al-qaeda strike killing millions, including all the government, seems like a waste when one thinks about it afterwards. There will always be time for that later, anyway.

You are thinking too small. See my response to TOG.

lancee, on Nov 17 2008, 03:32 AM, said:

According to East-Asia Intel the regime in North Korea sent a senior official to New York last week to meet President-elect Barack Obama`s security adviser.Pyongyangs official media were also swift in reporting Obamas election win-just two days after the elections.It is important to note it is very rare for the N Korean state media to so rapidly report the outcome of a US presidential election.
Hmm, I wonder what Obama and the N Koreans are talking about, maybe it is all perfectly innocent stuff like swapping recipes or could be laying the foundations for a more benign and respectful American foreign policy towards those nations actively seeking the destruction of the US and her interests.
It is interesting that the North Koreans blasted McCain as a "scarecrow of neoconservatives", whatever that means.
Is this big news in the US or what?

Take care

I seriously doubt that there will be any substantial change in US policy vis a vis the DPRK until it is far, far too late. Our current policy (and our policy since 1953) has been "kick the can down the road."

Must reading in this regard - "While America Sleeps" - Kagan and Kagan. Still prescient even nearly 9 years after going into print. That alone tells me something.

[Jeffboyrd]

Obama solidifies his Socialist schemes. This is like a disturbing dream that continues getting worse.


WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama plans to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state after Thanksgiving, a new milestone for the former first lady and a convergence of two political forces who fought hard for the presidency.

One week after the former primary rivals met secretly to discuss the idea of Clinton becoming the nation's top diplomat, an Obama adviser said Thursday that the two sides were moving quickly toward making it a reality, barring any unforeseen problems.

The senior adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president-elect is not prepared to officially announce the nomination, said Obama believes Clinton would bring instant stature and credibility to U.S. diplomatic relations.

Obama is convinced the advantages of Clinton serving far outweighed potential downsides, the adviser said.

Transition aides said the two camps have worked out financial disclosure issues involving Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, and the complicated international funding of his foundation that operates in more than 40 countries. The aides said Obama and Hillary Clinton have had substantive conversations about the secretary of state job.

Clinton has been mulling the post for several days, but the comments from the transition aides suggested that Obama's team does not feel she is inclined to turn it down. Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines would not comment, except to say that anything about Cabinet appointments is for Obama's transition team to address.

Clinton would have to surrender her New York Senate seat, which she has held for eight years, to take the job.

The nomination would be a remarkable union between the former first lady who was an early favorite to win the presidency and the first-term senator who upset her in the primary and cruised to a general election victory. Such a high-profile seat in the Cabinet for Clinton also would be another achievement for the most accomplished former first lady in U.S. history, who has been the first presidential spouse to serve in the Senate and run for the White House herself.

Obama was picking other Cabinet posts as well. Obama has informally selected Washington lawyer Eric Holder as attorney general and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as health secretary and is likely to choose Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to be secretary of homeland security, Democrats said.

Any of the plans could be sidetracked by unexpected glitches in the final vetting process, officials note.

___

[watchman92]

It's interesting how Obama's picks for his Cabinet mysteriously 'leak' to the press without anyone in the Obama camp denying or confirming them.

It's almost as if he releases these names to gauge public reaction before moving forward them. Reminds me of the feedback loops the Soviet Union set up within the American and British intelligence services.

Haha - even though they control virtually all of the media, they're still too cowardly to simply come out with a choice. They first release it sneakily, gauge public reaction, and then move forward accordingly.

[bm_cali]

lancee, on Nov 21 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

Hello WM, what you are referring to is known politely among democratic communists as "flying a kite".

Welcome to the mind of the politician. The trial balloon is an age old tactic. Even Bush did it.

Bushbama? Or is it, Obusha?

[bm_cali]

Troubled times, where the mere existence of the West is challenged, make for often surprising outcomes.

In retrospect, now that we have witnessed all but the culmination of the Bush 43 administration, I can say with evidence and authority that although Bush 43 used our existing forces reasonably well, he did not reverse the general long term "post Cold War" draw down begun by Bush 41 and continued by Clinton. Therefore, from a TFP perspective, I group Bush 43 with Clinton and Bush 41.

In both good and bad ways, Obama may somewhat echo FDR.

Among the possible good ways, he may build up the defense budget and grow the military.

His offer to Gates, now accepted, was a wise move.

He says he also wants to increase the military headcount and armaments.

Now, if we can get him to abandon the silly notion of nuclear disarmament.

If we could convince him of this, we may break the disturbing and negative trend begun in the late 1980s. Because, treaties are like pie crusts.

[kulthur]

maybe you're right BM - it's hard to say. personally i like how you applied the pattern of the Phony War to the likely scenario of a near-future world war: perhaps war betweeen india and pakistan, we stay out, then perhaps israel is nuked, and still we stay out, and then we and london and who knows who else is hit, and then it's on.

a poster on another site claims that our government actually knows of the final phase theory, but they simply can't reveal that they know it, partly because all public diplomacy was so profoundly shaped by the successful controlled implosion of the USSR. to describe russia and the communists as the threat they are would be indefensible against charges of conspiracy theory and paranoia - just like what happened to golistyn, angleton, bagley.

and yet, they know it exists, and so they do what they can behind the scenes, doing what they can.

if obama is an agent of convergence - and all his background says that he is - it may be that he was actually manuevored to be in this position, and he just truly believes that he is just this fortunate person, this american destiny. it's possible. meanwhile, people like david axelrod and ayers - who, by the way, *must* be a communist intelligence asset - open all the doors in the mass of the government that's below the media radar.

but obama himself has probably heard now in his intelligence briefing that - in spite of his campaign promises - there are major, major events coming our way, and i bet you're right - i bet he decided that he couldn't but increase the military and take the situation seriously.

is it me, or doesn't it feel like something big and bad is just over the horizon?

[watchman92]

kulthur, on Dec 2 2008, 10:01 AM, said:

a poster on another site claims that our government actually knows of the final phase theory, but they simply can't reveal that they know it, partly because all public diplomacy was so profoundly shaped by the successful controlled implosion of the USSR. to describe russia and the communists as the threat they are would be indefensible against charges of conspiracy theory and paranoia - just like what happened to golistyn, angleton, bagley.

and yet, they know it exists, and so they do what they can behind the scenes, doing what they can.

I doubt it. What site was that on? Perhaps a few in the military are aware of the threat, but I highly doubt there's a solid bloc in power that are fully conscious of the Communist threat. If so, that would be music to my ears and help me sleep at night. However, it seems like a slim possibility.

kulthur, on Dec 2 2008, 10:01 AM, said:

if obama is an agent of convergence - and all his background says that he is - it may be that he was actually manuevored to be in this position, and he just truly believes that he is just this fortunate person, this american destiny. it's possible. meanwhile, people like david axelrod and ayers - who, by the way, *must* be a communist intelligence asset - open all the doors in the mass of the government that's below the media radar.

Yes, I believe this is possible too. Obama could be a useful idiot, guided by the agent Ayers or other agents of influence. News reports mentioned how Ayers was extremely influential during the election, with Obama calling him frequently. I believe this is probably continuing.

kulthur, on Dec 2 2008, 10:01 AM, said:

but obama himself has probably heard now in his intelligence briefing that - in spite of his campaign promises - there are major, major events coming our way, and i bet you're right - i bet he decided that he couldn't but increase the military and take the situation seriously.

is it me, or doesn't it feel like something big and bad is just over the horizon?

That danger is always there. We feel it heightened because of the transitional period, an untested and unknown president, combined with the military improvement of our enemies and the blindness of many.

[kulthur]

well, the reason i think that the government, or the strategic-minded areas of it, are probably aware of TFP is because i basically found my way to this perspective much like JR Nyquist: just reading a bunch of conventional history, and then realizing that everything real is classified after 1950 or so, if not before, and that, if the communist/soviet threat was what it was before the trail goes dead, so to speak, they must just be doing the same thing. so i read golitsyn and pacepa and lunev and - especially - watched the bezmenov video on youtube. and then you see the hippies, the general fashionable nonsense that passes for art and culture generally, and you notice that everyone engaged in this stuff for reasons of status and to be cool all seem to be sympathetic to a certain political philosophy articulated by lenin...

and honestly, i just find it hard to believe that there isn't at least a faction in the government - the pentagon, the actual military, some part of the state department, some part of CIA or DIA or wherever - i just can't imagine that no one's ever looked at Russia today and thought: hey, wait a sec, *all* you guys are former KGB officers!?

i mean, what about the ChiCom e-attacks on the White House and Pentagon? what about those IMF attacks JR Nyquist wrote about?

it just doesn't seem possible to me that people capable of crossing the street, faced with this information day in and day out - that some number of these people wouldn't have TFP cross their minds eventually. i could be wrong, of course, but if i am we are in Big trouble.

[CAseal]

Kulther, I think you're correct and weirdly, because it's not a benign 'head in the sand' mistake but a life and death error, to not face up to it. Then again, on another major revelation, nuke materials in Iraq, Bush decided to keep quiet and not defend himself. I know, its the strangest thing, like Europe, we are 'nice, forgiving, PC, negotiating, etc' until the rockets fly. "Ohhh, you guys ARE serious, OK now we'll fight back". Maddening.

[watchman92]

kulthur, on Dec 2 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

and honestly, i just find it hard to believe that there isn't at least a faction in the government - the pentagon, the actual military, some part of the state department, some part of CIA or DIA or wherever - i just can't imagine that no one's ever looked at Russia today and thought: hey, wait a sec, *all* you guys are former KGB officers!?

I think the military definitely is. They're generally the most aware because they deal in life and death, they are aware of the high cost of freedom. There might be some and the leftists might be trying to infiltrate them, but its going to be mighty hard when you've got somebody shooting at you to swallow lib drivel.

It's when you start getting away from the front lines that I believe perception wanes. Those who have always enjoyed security and safety without sacrificing anything are the first to welcome enemies as friends. We do not appreciate peace without war.

As to your first part, it's so true. I'm surprised these hippies and the 60's freaks, and the musicians and the 'artists', and the actors never looked at each other and realized, "Man, there is some weird groupthink going on here..." It never crosses their mind because their primary goal is fitting in, regardless of the cost. So they'd rather not actually think about these issues, and if a Commie hands them propaganda to support their ignorant position, all the better. Now they have misguided passion to top off their ignorance..

[kulthur]

exactly. actually one thing that encouraged me a lot was when American Enterprise Institute (I think, or Hoover) hosted a talk just after Russia provoked and then invaded Georgia. They had Fred Kagan and Ralph Peters and then some Army strategist. The Army strategist, speaking for himself, actually said "the Russian elite and military retains the Leninist paradigm." He didn't go on to actually say that the USSR was still with us, but his description was definitely consistent with the ideas here. So there's one guy. You can find it on their website as an mp3 video download, or streaming.

What I wish I could find was someone who would touch the Grey Terror thesis. Not only do you have Suvorov, you have Pacepa saying that Sakharhovsky told him that, in the nuclear age, terrorism should be the main weapon. That's the one that gets me freaked out. Especially with all this Russian alliance-rebuilding and apocalyptic speeches about America facing a crisis of our existence soon & etc. Does anyone know of any other references to grey terror by defectors or other knowing parties?

With all these things, I think the most persuasive and hard-to-ignore part of the theory you find in New Lies for Old and in Suvorov is the *timing* of it all, the sequence. Golitsyn says, "No - they will attempt a New Economic Policy, engage in a false liberalization, even bringing down the Wall, starting the event in Germany, and deprive the West of the 'image of the enemy.'" And then - bam, it happens.

Frankly, who knows whether it went totally according to plan; maybe, like Golitsyn says about Czechoslovakia '68, the whole thing got away from them a little bit. But even when you look through Wikipedia articles about how each individual former Bloc country transitioned from overt Communism to something else, it all definitely seemed to happen from the top down - which is just inherently suspicious.

And then 10 years later, on Felix Dzerzhinksy's birthday/founding of the Cheka (i can't remember which), you get September 11 - and you read about 'grey terror' as a prelude to World War 3.

It seems to me that the two basic strategies of grey - "Islamic" - terror is (1) to get the USA involved with the barbarians, and (2) to build up the Islamist terrorists as a credible delivery device for a WMD attack.

I mean, the main problem has got to be to really *make sure* that people believe Islamic terrorists in totally barren places like the Hindu Kush and Afghanistan are actually capable of deploying a nuclear or bio weapon - and then that you make them so cunning and dangerous that the claim that "they stole it!" is actually credible. Every big Islamic attack, as in Mumbai, makes a nuclear attack on the USA that we cannot respond to more and more likely, I think.

[SJL]

watchman92, on Nov 21 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

It's interesting how Obama's picks for his Cabinet mysteriously 'leak' to the press without anyone in the Obama camp denying or confirming them.

It's almost as if he releases these names to gauge public reaction before moving forward them. Reminds me of the feedback loops the Soviet Union set up within the American and British intelligence services.

Haha - even though they control virtually all of the media, they're still too cowardly to simply come out with a choice. They first release it sneakily, gauge public reaction, and then move forward accordingly.

THe leak policy is the policy of the rapist taking the reins of being judge and shamer of the nation. By the leak they make the crime acceptable... they test the waters... shamelessly.

The way Obama's pompousness reverberates, as a younger sibling of the KGB, in muslim ways, making grandiose statements of making change and running on a campaign of shaming those critical of him, bears very evil omens.

Combine that with gays now shaming Christians, and the world is really upside down. In a different world these gays would be on trial for rape, or running scared, or even shooting and murdering witnesses of their vileness. The criminal and rapist does not want to get caught, it's he or she murders ultimately the intended target of abuse.

By and by the communists have wallowed in such shame and used the "leak" and so called "bias" system to build a world of moral relativism, stating that Jesus was just like any other man, nor a jew, nor special.

It's very easy to go down this slippery slope through such Soviet psychobable, philobable and careful choice of words for select targets. Use the word bias, not truth vs. lie. Spread the premeditative murder idea that it's all bias and politics, there is no truth, but two sides and all is politics. Call them paranoiac etc... is the policy of neutralization. Moraly relativize things, spread a slow but sure poison. Undocummented for illegals, identity thieves for the old lady who asks for a new ID at the license branch... etc... Well, there still is truth vs. lie in battle, courage vs. cowardice, those facing the pain of guilt vs. those shamelessly running away and murdering the witnesses, or trying to use their words against them when those are being honest. Switch the conferences from being benign open discourses to actual places of trials, from claiming it is free speech to protest, to now using the protest to prosecute and make the other side guilty.

The media is attrocious in this because the media is KGB influenced. The DOW is dead, a cover up is going on, bail outs upon bail outs... all to naught... nakedness comes to the forefront... and all will be naked before God.

Now we have President Bush himself showing remorse and shame. A RINOing GOP running wild to the umbrella of liberals. All who foolishly forget that the reverences and gayness they seek is going to be used against them, when things go down badly, for future trials.

Take the loud silence around the shameful scandalous issue of Obama not being even elligible after every one voting and expecting him to office. It's RIDICULOUS!

This is a KGB op, right there. A KGB PSY OP right there in front of our eyes, or, even if you took the KGB out, it's a precedent test and a psy op on our own selves. Sure, call me paranoiac to look for a devil or the KGB... FIne, let us drop it, let us not use the words communist or KGB.

STILL, the issue of psy oping ourselves to fraud in front of us is there for all to see.

And yet we all know Russia is now trying to stand at the throne of shaming Europe for being with America, for shaming Bush, for shaming America... or even China and the others into the reverence for their clever little freaky schemes of cheaps... when all along they are the ones running the Che Gevara KGB method of provocation, creating winds and dragging us into pointless and costly wars, just for their little petty vanities of the day. But wath it, they are about to blame us also for dragging them to Afghanistan and vice versa. This is to no end a nightmarish ridiculous argument with idiots.

Now the conspiracy theorists will point to a shamed capitalist trying to reset things in its own right, to make a scene to avoid casualty, saying again that "Bush knew it".... HORSE HOOKIE!

It's time America and AMericans had a talk of its own without foreign interference, as to who takes the throne of shame in this world, and why should America shy from appeal to a form of sainthood while all the others manipulate and feel so vindicated by this folly of theirs of seeing AMerica physicaly/moraly and hence politicaly weakened.

I am telling you, who should be ashamed? The ones fighting back for their rights of dignity from rapists, or the ones daring with robes to shame us while they rape us?

There lays the crux of this flip flopping of the situation in this secular antigod godless world of creeps.

As is said in Habbakuk: those trying to make us drink and naked so as to be thus gazed will be the ones drunk and naked and shamed to the core.

[SJL]

kulthur, on Dec 2 2008, 04:41 PM, said:

I mean, the main problem has got to be to really *make sure* that people believe Islamic terrorists in totally barren places like the Hindu Kush and Afghanistan are actually capable of deploying a nuclear or bio weapon - and then that you make them so cunning and dangerous that the claim that "they stole it!" is actually credible. Every big Islamic attack, as in Mumbai, makes a nuclear attack on the USA that we cannot respond to more and more likely, I think.

It's a proselitic process, a process of conversion. They want to make terrorism normalcy. The bomber is essentialy a coward who sneaks in, bombs, rapes and runs away, and then tries to shame the world for retaliating. Once this is set in the "mind" of the world, and in the mind of America with the election of dangerous images of this sort such as Obama, the KGB will run amok these places. They will be in a position to judge us while destroying us.

The denial and fear of liberals and RINO republicans is incredibly foolish and dangerous at this point in time. And the media is obviously their instrument but also an instrument manipulating them too. The murderer sends an idea which makes later his crime acceptable in a court of law or in society, and thus can do whatever he or she wants.

[That One Guy]

Thought I'd ask for some insight and input on this one here:

Obama Vows US Military Rule Over Planet As 1 Million Soldiers To Secure Homeland

As crazy as it sounds, we already have 20,000 military personnel here to 'protect the homeland' and this article implies it will be up to 1 million strong in the near future.

I definitely take info from this site with a huge grain of salt. Seriously, you know your news site is reputable if the logo has a Pegasus, Masonic symbols, religious iconography, a dragon, the Virgin Mary, a tarot card, Noah's Ark, AND the constellations in it.

I still have no clue who this "Sorcha Faal" person is lol... The homepage has some pretty resourceful and external links though -- surely more trustworthy.

[Apollo5600]

Quote

Seriously, you know your news site is reputable if the logo has a Pegasus, Masonic symbols, religious iconography, a dragon, the Virgin Mary, a tarot card, Noah's Ark, AND the constellations in it.

What! I happen to have a full body tattoo with all of those symbols on me. Got a big masonic symbol right on my forehead too! You saying I'm not reputable?

[CAseal]

I'm saying you're an NFL player!