If the current Admin in fact represents a belligerent occupation, how could it maintain that status but be acting on behalf of the sovereign authority it has replaced?
You think Biden cares about "maintaining that status"? It's all about optics. If you can control your enemy and make them work for you why wouldn't you?
You think Biden cares about "maintaining that status"?
Perhaps you misread my question? I never said or intended to imply that.
I mean, if (sic) Biden admin is a so-called belligerent occupation, why would it act as a proxy on behalf of the legitimate sovereignty? Could it still be a 'belligerent occupancy' if in fact it is operating on behalf of the legitimate sovereign?
In fact, it seems to me the logic you are using actually requires the predicate that indeed, Biden Admin does care about 'maintaining their status' as head of the corporate entity OR as pseudo US admin. That's why they would cooperate with their opponents, on account of the opponents having superior influence over them, no?
My question here is: (what is your understanding of) WHY the Biden admin is executing the legitimate authority's agenda IF it is opposed to that agenda?
To my mind, either they are controlled, and therefore not actually a foreign or belligerent occupancy, or cooperative, and therefore not a belligerent occupancy, or they are a belligerent occupancy and they would not be cooperative.
I find the idea that the Biden admin is a puppet of the legitimate sovereignty (i.e. who the white hats serve) is very plausible, based on the data, but I cannot reconcile that with the idea that they are actually opposed, or a foreign controlled occupancy. The two notions seem contradictory to me, at this juncture.
If you were actually able to explain this in your own words in a clear and systematic way, I think it would be more understandable that two sentence comments on an internet forum. But I guess not a lot of people are into that? No disrespect, but if one cannot articulate one's thought process or ideas, then it begs the question, how much sense is there really there? It might be there, but then you should be able to articulate it, no?
I have struggled with that inherent contradiction when reading these things as well. I wonder if maybe there was a period of belligerence, followed by submission. That maybe the military occupation needed to then be extended during the "deprogramming." Or maybe that somehow given the cancerous nature of the deep state the period of belligerence is extended until all cancer cells are eradicated, especially from the executive branch which would take some time. I fell asleep trying to listen this interview so I'd have to listen again and look at the timing of these EO's and other information that this guy is "proving" military occupation.
I will say that the EO's themselves beg a lot of questions.
The simple fact is that we don’t have all the details regarding this and other similar things. We’re not going to know until this is all over with us as the winners in this war
You think Biden cares about "maintaining that status"? It's all about optics. If you can control your enemy and make them work for you why wouldn't you?
Perhaps you misread my question? I never said or intended to imply that.
I mean, if (sic) Biden admin is a so-called belligerent occupation, why would it act as a proxy on behalf of the legitimate sovereignty? Could it still be a 'belligerent occupancy' if in fact it is operating on behalf of the legitimate sovereign?
In fact, it seems to me the logic you are using actually requires the predicate that indeed, Biden Admin does care about 'maintaining their status' as head of the corporate entity OR as pseudo US admin. That's why they would cooperate with their opponents, on account of the opponents having superior influence over them, no?
My question here is: (what is your understanding of) WHY the Biden admin is executing the legitimate authority's agenda IF it is opposed to that agenda?
To my mind, either they are controlled, and therefore not actually a foreign or belligerent occupancy, or cooperative, and therefore not a belligerent occupancy, or they are a belligerent occupancy and they would not be cooperative.
I find the idea that the Biden admin is a puppet of the legitimate sovereignty (i.e. who the white hats serve) is very plausible, based on the data, but I cannot reconcile that with the idea that they are actually opposed, or a foreign controlled occupancy. The two notions seem contradictory to me, at this juncture.
If you were actually able to explain this in your own words in a clear and systematic way, I think it would be more understandable that two sentence comments on an internet forum. But I guess not a lot of people are into that? No disrespect, but if one cannot articulate one's thought process or ideas, then it begs the question, how much sense is there really there? It might be there, but then you should be able to articulate it, no?
Anyway, thanks for the input.
I have struggled with that inherent contradiction when reading these things as well. I wonder if maybe there was a period of belligerence, followed by submission. That maybe the military occupation needed to then be extended during the "deprogramming." Or maybe that somehow given the cancerous nature of the deep state the period of belligerence is extended until all cancer cells are eradicated, especially from the executive branch which would take some time. I fell asleep trying to listen this interview so I'd have to listen again and look at the timing of these EO's and other information that this guy is "proving" military occupation.
I will say that the EO's themselves beg a lot of questions.
Whut?
'sall greek. :D
"than"*
typo.
The simple fact is that we don’t have all the details regarding this and other similar things. We’re not going to know until this is all over with us as the winners in this war
True. Even then, there is much we may never directly know.