No telling how long it will stay up ?

Some interesting info.

For those who have wondered how they would remove Trump... well here was a more direct try.



Surprised more people were not shot as there were several shots fired... Gotta go for the head as Trump has bullet proof vest on ...

We learned a long time ago that 1984 is a primer, and we can't say we were blindsided. They have been gearing up before 1984.

We knew it was coming. The beginning phase has arrived.

https://www.flocksafety.com/faq#:~:text=...nforcement.



Thought crimes and the mandatory chip is next.

Interesting history of Hamas

Quote:Where did the terror organization called Hamas first come from? What is the true origins of Hamas? They are an off shoot break off faction from the Muslim brotherhood who also broke off from a charity organization created in the 1960s. Then in 1973 a Palestinian Cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin helped establish an islamic charity organization called Mujama al-Islamiya also known as the Islamic Center. This group is the precursor to Hamas. Yassin was a refugee of the Arab-Israeli War. A childhood sports accident left him wheelchair bound. Yassin’s charity group registered with Israel in 1978 as a non profit Non Government Organization. Although the name wouldn’t officially be used until January 1988 when they published their charter outlining their reason for existing, calling for armed resistance to establish a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel. Hamas envisioned a Palestinian state that would cover all of the territory that had previously belonged to the British Mandate for Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. In 1989, the Israeli government arrested Sheikh Yassin was arrested and sentenced him to life in prison for ordering the killing of Palestinians who had allegedly collaborated to help the Israeli army. In the summer of 1991 they organized into newly formed armed militia units called the Al-Qassam brigades. At the same time, an engineering graduate named Yahya Ayyash joined Hamas and put his engineering skills to work for the group building bombs. Nicknamed “the Engineer” , Hamas first used Kamikaze bombings in April 1993. They condemned the 1993 Oslo Accords and rejected the deal. This agreement created the Palestinian Authority that was intended to be an interim self-governing body with the responsibility of managing certain aspects of civil governance in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The expectation was that the Palestinian Authority would eventually be replaced by a democratically elected government. The idea was to help Palestinians reach self determination for their government. The expectation was that final negotiations would eventually address core issues like where the exact borders would be drawn, the status of Jerusalem, and the establishment of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state. The terror organzation got the vast majority of its funding from Iran. Israel has had success in fighting the group over the years militarily but it's been a difficult group to destroy entirely.

Quote:By Kit Knightly

In my previous article, Why you should never believe your eyes, we discussed new technologies that make the creation of literal “fake news” more possible than ever. In this follow up we’re going to discuss the potential benefits of faking the news vs creating the news.

A false flag operation is generally defined as ”an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party”

The phrase originates in naval warfare, when ships would literally fly a flag of another nation’s navy.

Historically speaking, they are covert military operations carried out with the aim of creating a cassus belli, either initiating, justifying or perpetuating a war.

The attack is very real, only the flag is false.

But recent years have seen the rise of a new idea – the false false flag.  That is to say – entirely fake “events” with only the barest relationship to objective reality. Blanks and crisis actors, fake victims and fake shooters.

This concept has been the subject of discussion recently, with the civil suit against Alex Jones for calling Sandy Hook a “hoax” and the on-going trial of journalist Richard D Hall in the UK for suggesting the Manchester Arena bombing was fake. Similar suggestions have been raised about the Boston bombing of 2013 as well. Others, including Riley Waggaman, have raised questions about the recent “terrorist attack” in Moscow too.

Now, I’m not definitively claiming any or all of those events were faked – though of course they may have been. What I’m pointing up is the shift in discussion.

But then, we don’t need to look far for the greatest provably “fake event” in recent times: “Covid”, which was purely a construction of media hype and corrupt science creating an entirely fake pandemic.


Once you’ve absorbed all the facts of the case, that’s the only interpretation that stands up to scrutiny.

In fact it was such a vast infestation of fakery it spawned mini-fakes. It wasn’t so much a fake event as a flock of fakes of varying sizes.

Covid alone proves that the powers-that-be certainly do engage in staged or faked events. And, as highlighted in the first part of this series, it’s been known for decades that news reports are regularly faked, on both the small and large scale.

Yet, still, the question that gets asked whenever the possibility of fakery is invoked is “why?”

Why would a state apparatus with the power to really do something, opt to only pretend to do it?

This is a standard argument made against the idea of state-sponsored fakery, and although it is logically flawed as being purely an argument from incredulity, it is a question we can and probably should endeavour to answer.

So – why would the state, or powerful actors within the state, choose to fake something rather than simply do it?

Clearly we can rule out moral or ethical considerations. That shouldn’t require further explanation. The state has no objection to causing suffering, that has been demonstrated over and over again. It wouldn’t shrink from sponsoring a real terror event just because real people would end up dead.

Indeed, a “fake event” doesn’t even necessarily preclude real death – as (again) “covid” has shown us.

The “pandemic” was entirely fake but those allowed to die through inaction or directly killed by DNRs, denial of care or ventilator-abuse were real.

As was the very real and often very fatal fallout of lockdown and other “anti-Covid” measures.

But, if not a moral objection to inflicting real death and/or suffering, then why would a fake event be perceived as a better option? What benefits does fake have over real?

Well, here are some possibilities for consideration:

1. You can’t prove a negative. A fake event, in an odd way, is harder to disprove than a real one. It is quite easy to show the official explanation for a real event is false (think 9/11). But if there is no real event, only a story, then there will be no inconvenient facts  to challenge you. And of course it’s virtually impossible to prove a negative – an absence of existence.
   
2. Lack of physical evidence. An extension of point 1, but a fake event cannot be forensically traced back to real culprits. Real gunpowder and explosives are traceable and leave real chemical residue. Fake events have none of this baggage.
   
3. Keeps your options open. A real event is bound by the physical realities of the situation. Your story must try to fit those facts. A fake event is open ended and can fluidly change as the needs of the story changes. Again, we saw this with Covid.
   
4. No real victims. A real shooting or bombing creates real victims and leaves real grieving families who might demand investigations and ask awakward questions (see the 9/11 victims’ families). A fake event has only fake victims who are on your payroll, not only will they never ask awkward questions they are incentivized to conceal the truth.
   
5. Less guilt or regret. Institutions and agencies don’t have consciences, but individuals do. It is generally easier to persuade “foot soldiers” (literal and metaphorical) to pretend to hurt people than to actually hurt them. It’s an extension of the single blank in the firing squad.
   
6. Easier to control. An entirely staged event is easier to control than a real event. For example, a real pandemic disease might fade away too quickly or not be deadly enough. Worse still, it might kill the wrong people – you or your family. A fake disease kills exactly who you say it killed and no one else, and can go away or come back as your need dictates.
   

Those are all just practical considerations, of course. We haven’t even got into the more unknowable world, the potential psycho-social motivations of what we call the global deep state.

What might be the victory conditions of this psychological war  “the Elite” are waging against the people of the world?

As I noted in my article The Perfidious Unreality of the New Normal, observation would suggest a deliberate agenda of undermining the very idea of objective reality. A move by our controllers to insert themselves as a filter between every person on the planet and the world they experience.

The final aim being that everything – everything – the entire fabric of our shared reality – is made up?

Because that is the ultimate demonstration of total control?

Here we come to the point where we should address the key difference between a staged event and real one – the target.

If you need a President dead, you can’t pretend to shoot him. If you need to claim terrorist insurance, you can’t pretend the buildings fell down.

A fake event can only be a  preferred possibility when your aim is purely optics.

In other words, the real target of a fake event is always the audience.

It’s always a psychological attack aimed at our perception of the world or of certain groups of humans, or certain alleged dangers.

With the advent of AI generative technology, deep fakes, voice synthesizers and the like, the fact of the matter is we can likely expect a great flood of “fake news” sold to us as real – because why not? Why wouldn’t this option be utilised at least sometimes?

The questions moving forward  are – how far has it already gone or will it go? And are we prepared enough psychologically to be able to tell the difference?

yes it is a long video but it does contain some good info on how the deep state actually works... Most of us knew the Taliban was started and financed (remember the nice new Toyota pickups ?) by the CIA.

Quote:I sat down with former State Department officer, Trump speechwriter and censorship whistleblower Mike Benz. He tells me the truth about the deep state - how it operates, why does it operates. What’s really going on in the so-called “Blob”, the CIA and State Department. What is the real history of US foreign policy that they’re not telling us? We look at the Ukraine war and the role the US played in the 2014 Maidan Coup. Are we on the verge of World War 3? What are the establishment doing to snuff out the populist movement which threatens it? All this and much more…

Quote:The oldest argument against democracy is that it is essentially mob rule, which means it is susceptible to the terrible dynamics of the mob. Something excites the mob and the members of the mob compete with one another to show they are more excited than anyone else inside the mob. In his Lyceum Address, Lincoln warned that the mob is the antitheses of the rule of law, because inevitably the mob comes to see the law as a barrier between itself and its goal.

It is why ruling classes have always feared mobs. Mobs are fickle and once they get going it is not clear where or how they end. It is a sign of our decline that the Cloud People caught the democracy bug and they have been chanting the phrase “our democracy” as if they have a strange form of Tourette’s syndrome. Everything they do is in defense of “our democracy” while even the slightest push back is called a threat to “our democracy” which is always a signal to the mob.

The promiscuous use of mobs has been the main tool of the regime going back to at least the Obama years. The entirely fake antiwar movement in the Bush years might be the first use of an official mob. It was, however, in the Obama years that the official mob was perfected. The rape on campus nonsense set mobs of internet feminists upon the remaining white boys in college. Then we got the BLM mob, which unleashed a one-sided race war on the white middle class.

Cancel culture is another form of official mob. First, they unleashed the “me too” nonsense, which set mobs of digital lunatics on men who were accused of being too normal around the ladies. That moved to digital kooks chasing after imaginary fascists and racists online. Antifa can probably be viewed as the first digital mob to break into the analog world or maybe it is the other way around. Either way, like the antiwar mobs, it was a creature of the regime.

The thing about the digital mobs is they took what existed in the analog space, the media frenzy, and then democratized it. Instead of a gaggle of credentialed press people chasing a guy down the street shouting questions, the digital mob is internet characters filling up the timeline of the victim with accusations. The dynamics are the same, except now one does not need a credential. You just have to possess a weak mind and access to social media.

It is what makes the present crisis around Joe Biden amusing. The people who have profited from the mob are now being eaten by the mob. The great and the good are taking turns telling their favorite media actor that Biden is too old, too feeble or too narcissistic to be president. The same people who brought us the Russian collusion hoax and the Covid panic are now hammering away at Biden. It would take a heart of stone not to see the humor in this.

This has always been the problem with mobs. Once the mob forms up it keeps going until it either burns itself out or is snuffed out. The former only happens after they have tasted the blood of their victim. The latter happens when they taste enough of their own blood that being a mob is no longer fun. Since the White House is not going to start shooting media toadies, which would be a welcomed result, it means this mob ends with the head of Joe Biden on a pike.

This brings up the other problem with mobs. The mob exists purely in the moment, which means anyone in contact with the mob exists in the moment. The reason Kyle Rittenhouse killed two men and wounded a third is no one in the mob, including himself, could even think, much less act outside the moment. If Rittenhouse could have saw one step ahead before the mob set upon him, no one outside his family would have reason to know his name.

The mob chasing Biden is not thinking about what comes next. They can only think about the joy they will feel when Biden steps aside. The chaos that will erupt in the regime when suddenly they do not have a body to parade around as the official nominee is outside the event horizon of the mob. What if the mob forms up in favor of someone that turns out to be worse than Biden? What if the mob splits into warring tribes organized around the various parts of the regime?

No one can think about that right now. All that matters for the members of the mob is creating some new way to yell “get him” at Joe Biden. They sense that time is running short, so they have to put everything into it, or Biden will escape. Realistically they have until the end of next week to drag his corpse from the ticket. After that, the mob will run out of steam and the regime will run out of time to stage a fake process to name a replacement, so they will be stuck with Biden.

From the Dirt People perspective, this is all to the good. The more intense and grinding this mob fury is over Biden, the deeper the anger between factions of the regime after the frenzy is over. One of the ironies of the mob is the longer it goes, the more destructive it becomes of its own ends. That means the nastier this fight gets, the more the regime damages its own interests. With any luck the Democratic convention is an even more chaotic replay of 1968.

Of course, this is the lesson of democracy. Of democracy, John Adams wrote, “I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious, on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy, but while it lasts it is more bloody than either.” Maybe that is what this mob chasing Biden signals. The democracy fever that set in after the Cold War is now reaching its natural end point.