2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

One of the more worrying parts: reinterpretation of constitutional rights, abuse of obscure laws to get what you want.

Interestingly: it confirms what Q wrote: infiltration and subversion. Assange's case shows what a dark place this brings us.

All the laws in place, paper, cannot protect unless it is supported by people who are virtuous. And clearly: Kansas/Bill Bar do not belong in that category but belong to the expedient and economic and equity group, who give a damn about fundamental and God given rights, despite their lip-service to scripture. This goes for the many judges and politicians too who favor political expediency and have no backbone, while falling for the STRAUSSIAN: re-imagining human rights as espoused by the WEF high Priest: Klaus Schwab.

It also goes to show there are still people who retain their humanity.

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

...to exact ...

  1. resources
  2. labor
  3. valuables.

See also the book: History of Tax Rebellions David F. Burg. 4300 years of Tax rebellion. Interesting tidbit is that States, just like people, don't like taxes, try to evade it, and go to war over it.

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

True. In that sense it is correct RFK exposes the basics. And it was designed to be vague/ secret/ occult. One in a million, Henry Ford said.

4
redtoe-skipper 4 points ago +4 / -0

Amazing.

Not the RFK story or even the analogy he makes, but the fact that people still can consider this to be exposure .... It is not even a secret. It was spoken about by representative Patman from Texas in 1933, and his words were even stronger than RFK's.

Patman Argues for Payment in Money," Dallas (TX) Morning News, January 16, 1933, sec. 1, pg. 4, col. 6. This appearance includes only the first part of the quotation ("If the American people ever allow the private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered").

And that is where we are.

What to most Americans is a secret, is that the FED is on the wrong end of the Gold bet.

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Funny. Given the comments I read, the FBI is one big behemoth with the same agenda.

Ask yourself, if you have read any Q drop: is it harmonious with the Q drops to expect that the ORGANISATION called FBI is only made up of: bad people?

Or are operators standing by?

I would say, of course they will TRY to deep six this investigation. But can they?

Interesting tidbit: Megyn Kelly on Tucker Carlson said: there was a story that will come out within the next 12 months in relation to this whole Epstein - Diddy thing.

So, may be indeed. This move may signal bad actors trying to front run the inevitable, in the hopes of saving as much as they can ..... so I refer to Q's post: with the phrase: not the only ticket in town.

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Kerry:

[..]problem around building consensus surrounding any issue, it is really hard to govern today[..] the kind of referee we used to have is kind of eviscerated, and people self select where they go for their news and their information,and then you just get into a vicious cycle. [..] there is now a lot of discussion on how to curb these entities so you can have some consensus on facts. If people go to one source, and that source is sick and an agenda, and they are putting out this information our first amendment stand as a major block to be able to just hammer it out of existence. So, what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern. Hopefully, winning enough votes you'be be able to implement change.

Chilling comment, indeed.

First, Kerry is in violation of his allegiance. Second, even IF there was no first amendment, there real issue is with: people self select. That is their issue. Because, the one source being sick and having an agenda, goes for them as well. Third, consensus politics yields the same result as consensus science. Bullshit, and it is not even science or politics. Fourth, here you see the real agenda: the right to govern for its own sake, without the rooting of it in a well established moral soil. Fifth, a government that no longer is rooting in the moral senses of the population, withers away, and probably will be violently overthrown.

His comment is the perfect example of the nihilist agenda of the WEF.

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your question relates to the first step. The second step is realizing that the moral basis on which the system rests, needs to be reset, as the dark side of commerce prevails. And the moment they discover it is their brethern being responsible for that, causing harm and misery and death for untold millions of people who now live and have lived .....

That will be a day ....

3
redtoe-skipper 3 points ago +3 / -0

On a certain level, you see Trump's loyalty on display: you scratched my back by doing the right thing, now I will do the right thing for you.

Z may not get what he wants ... far from it, the war will end, whether he likes it or not. But his ass is on the line. He knows it.

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

There is an important observation that is missing from this graph. The economy before the 70-ties was based on production. The economy now is based on moving dollars around ....

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

New meeting in the very near future .....

Answer:

could very well happen.

Or could not. The happy camper to Trump's right is rather ...eh .... not such a happy camper ....

3
redtoe-skipper 3 points ago +3 / -0

Indeed, but the first act in such disloyalty is one towards oneself for the temporary benefits offered by a death cult.

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bright. not light.

Light is from [germanic/frysian] Logh => in Greek: Logos = word, Latin: lux = light. related to law: legh.

10
redtoe-skipper 10 points ago +10 / -0

Bribery, foreign donation, false statements, concealment, conspiracy to commit is heavy enough. I wonder why they left out FARA ......

3
redtoe-skipper 3 points ago +3 / -0

Dems were posing: Trump = Julius Ceasar.

Now dems are posing: he will declare himself king.

Interestingly, this was the accusation towards Julius Ceasar. They are simply confirming their first propaganda idea.

Given the amount of assassination attempts, the picture is rhyming.

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Of course. It is not necessary to label government with infamous names. All government is the leading cause of death.

There is an interesting book: Tax Revolt. It delineates all known tax revolts. hahaha, it lines up perfectly with history. Either governments revolt against a tribute, resulting in war, or try to exact tribute from another country, with rape, pillage, death and disease on its heals.

On a smaller scale, people do the same thing. Protesting tax, levies, tributes, robots [ corvee, service in kind], draft, you name it. Why is that? We' ll get to that a little later[1].

Who started WOII? I am not sorry to say so, but you are typically deep into the: we good guys always pardigm. No, UK, USA played a very foul ploy and the continuation of the war AFTER Dunkirk was totally unnecessary from a logical point of view. A peace proposal with far reaching concessions by Germany was made. Alas, drunk Churchill would think differently. But really, his money masters thought differently.

In a sense, comparing the Peloponnese War, especially the part played by Athens in the Delos confederacy, it is quite clear that when government goes into the direction of forcing its people to support something, instead of the other way around, shit happens. In Athens, it meant twice the downfall of Athens. In this case: twice the downfall of the UK. [we are watching the last vestiges of it][2]

As Freeman Dyson, a former member of bomber command succinctly said with shame: the [fire]bombing orders were unnecessary.

Yet, people followed orders. Only a few said no, and were executed, or sentenced to long prison sentences.

But ... it is logic when look at from a different perspective: This war was wanted by money interests. Since 1933, these interests have frustrated, boycotted, sabotaged any process that lifts people up from despair.

You think FDR with his green new deal was a success? Or typically American? It is a shameful program that has made everyone dependent on big gov, grew the federal government out of proportion and set the people up to participate in the war they wanted on the wings of incessant propaganda. And many among the American people fell for it. The hate the left exudes towards those who think different is difficult to describe, but currently you can see it iteration.

When you would compare contemporary writings of Marx and Stirner, the differences could not be starker. And as usual, socialist / commie policies revolve around the perpetration of unlawfulness.

And this is why people protest taxes, levies, robots, etc. Because it IS unlawful. It is theft, often based on warped reasoning, sucking life-force from those choosing to give in. And this is why governments protests tribute. For the very same reason.

If this would have been your reason to say: stupid, I would have agreed with you.

[2] I am not a psychologist. As far as I am able to analyze things, and I have listened to many of Hitlers speeches, and read his book, and some other source material, he was quite aligned with himself, living out his design. It does not mean I judge his policies, for good or bad, it is just a observation from a human perspective.

When it comes to things he was in favor of, or against, there is much, I am reluctant to admit, I agree with. And this brings me to means and methods.

It seems to me, that he has curbed his idealism with pragmatism, and not shying away from paying in kind. He was politically savvy enough. Many of the process steps on the international arena, reminds me of what Putin is doing. Step 1, step 2, etc, careful, always trying to not escalate, while pushing through ruthlessly his own agenda, driving hard bargains.

I think it would be easy to compare the Munich 1938 agreement with the Minsk II accord. It is almost the same type of agreement and subsequent behavior from those resisting a movement against their predatory schemes.

A populist is in essence connected to the general senses of the population. He does not try to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people, but tries to connect to it, embody it. An ideologue, be they Marxist or worse: Straussian or simply: power hungry [Macchiavellian], tries to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people by repression, distinction, double standards, blowing up the very fabric of society, creating havoc and superimposing his own solutions to the problems he himself created.

It explains why the current clique is vehemently anti-populist. Stalin, FDR, Churchill were no populists. They were ideologues or in the service of ideologues.

3
redtoe-skipper 3 points ago +3 / -0

If we go old forum: Here is a searchvoat: Greatawakening post featuring p.diddy: https://archive.searchvoat.co/v/GreatAwakening/3689890

Potentially,Ronald Birkle, 100 million investor in Diddy clothing line, may be closer to both Billy Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein who did not kill himself.

Longtime Democratic fundraiser a close friend of Bill Clinton; former President calls Burkle's 757 private jet "Ron Air."

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

friend? wow .... temporary local common interest. The scourge of commie propaganda and terrorism was rampant.

And besides, as for choice, The commitment of troops and material was jinxed by Italian fuck ups in Greece and the Balkan. To secure the flank, something had to be done.

As far as your opinion is concerned, you are under no obligation to change that.

stupid: mentally slow, lacking ordinary activity of mind, dull, inane,

2
redtoe-skipper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes ... and ... same Tribe too. Just different regions ...

u/#q3035

u/#q1964

Q says: deeply entrenched this one is ..... ( smile for the camera ...)

u/#q4784

3
redtoe-skipper 3 points ago +3 / -0

Your question is an interesting one. On it's surface the answer to the question should be: no sensible person would that, right? Unless....

First question series:

  1. What is a state?
  2. What is a people?
  3. What is a Nation?
  4. Are these fixed or malleable?

2nd series of questions:

  1. What does Max Stirner write about the nature of man?
  2. What does Karl Marx grossly simplify about the nature of man?
  3. What does Hegel write about the nature of man?
  4. What is preventing the victory of Marx and Hegel?

3rd series of questions:

  1. What is money? What does money represent?
  2. What does FIAT represent?
  3. What does land, forests and lakes, streams, rivers and seas represent?

4th series of questions:

  1. What are sedentary people?
  2. what are nomadic people?
  3. What is of each the relationship with the questions series 1-3?
  4. What kind of moral do each nation have?
  5. Is it fixed or malleable?

5th series of questions:

  1. Who control your news?
  2. Who control your medium of exchange?
  3. Who control the laws?
  4. Who are you not allowed to criticize?
  5. What is their relationship to the questions of the series 1-4?

6th series of questions:

  1. What is the purpose of the establishment of empires and kingdoms?
  2. How are empires and kingdoms and states financed?
  3. What is debt?
  4. Who control the debt?
  5. What is taxation?
  6. What modes of taxation are there?
  7. Who are employing which modes?
  8. What mode of taxation is fit for a freeman?
  9. What is inflation really?
  10. What is your response to inflation?
  11. Why do Empires, Kingdoms and States and Nations disappear? 12: Cui Bono? How?

Bonus questions:

  1. What is decentralization?
  2. What is power?
  3. How do you project power?
  4. How do you deploy power?
  5. Objectives dictate means and methods, or, the other way around?
  6. What is: just cause?
  7. What are just means and methods?
  8. What relationship is there between resources, trade, taxation and war?
  9. What is the source of government?
    10.How does government become divorced from its source?
  10. What happens when government becomes divorced from its source?

Bonus activity:

Combine all answers in drawing one picture.

1
redtoe-skipper 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hitler stupidly launched Operation Barbarossa.

What if there was no other option?

And two, the General staff planners had calculated they could be fighting a mobile war for 3 months only.

When did the tank battle of Kursk play out? 1943? How many months?

So ... question: how did they do that?

The 1941 Winter indeed brought everything to a halt. It slowed to advance. What would have happened, had Operation Barbarossa commenced 2 months earlier, as had been the plan?

And it, the tank battle at Kursk, was just months after the debacle of Stalingrad in 1942/1943. All they had to do was hold out.

Considering these things, one had to wonder, whether indeed was "stupid" as you claim. The more so, since Joseph Mustache Stalin blurted out to FDR in 44, when the latter claimed Hitler to be stupid: You really think a stupid man can get to a Great Leader like me? I considered becoming a NSDAP gauleiter, because on a personal level: Adolph likes me.

Stalin knew, it was only by the skin of the teeth of the soviet slaves ....

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›