Skip to main content

They Went Too Far

Trillions spent on military intel produce mistake after mistake

The recent airstrikes the US (and the "Coalition Of The Killing") made against the Syrian army are indefensible. They have gone too far because nobody believes this could possibly be another mistake by those who posses the worlds best military intelligence. Another mistake that supports ISIS and other terrorists, another mistake that supports the mantra "Assad must go", their one true goal.

They have gone to far because even the MSM is struggling to do damage control over this one, and with recent polls showing the declining public trust in the MSM (especially after the US election coverage) they seem just a tad less eager to lie to quite the same extent:

Regular readers of this blog will be used to seemingly outrageous claims I make being vindicated after the passage of time, from Libya to the Ukraine Coup, and now regarding ISIS.  I have long been providing in depth insight into exactly how the Western/Gulf Coalition backs, arms and funds not just terrorist rebel groups, but ISIS as well.  If you take the time to read right to the end of this previous post of mine you will have your "Ahaa" moment.

And now the media and the diplomats on the Russian side (who have all along known the truth but waited for an obvious act such as yesterdays)  are becoming a little less afraid of saying what I have been saying all along: Washington is behind ISIS. They formed them and they support them.

This position is supported by SouthFront, the premier source of military and strategic intel analysis:

Regarding the pro-Western media, I eagerly await their deconstruction of events to see how they deal with this hot potato.

Regarding the pro-Moscow, the below is an episode of Crosstalk.  It is the flagship program of RT International which packages the Russian case very well in a Western friendly format.  In the past it already had a viewpoint that is critical of US action but has always stopped short of going that one step further, of accusing Washington of deliberate action instead of constant errors.  This episode represents to me what a critical milestone we have just reached because of a subtle change in perspective of a few very important angles raised (more in the first half of the show)

  • They finally seriously entertain the possibility that Washington is behind Daesh/ISIS but then pull back.
  • They realize that Rothschild/Israel Schill, Ashton Carter of the Pentagon, runs military action and, in fact, Obama and Kerry have no real power.
  • They accept that there will be no change of policy and that no negotiating is possible with Washington, which more than anything else is irreparably fragmented.

This all goes to demonstrate my case, which follows from the title of this post.  The Anglo American Zionist Globalists are desperate, they have gone too far, their actions have become too difficult to defend (even at times for MSM).  In Addition the globalized central bank ponzi scheme that funds the war effort is coming apart at the seams and political disunity characterizes the West both in Europe and the US.  It follows logically that their action will become more provocative.  Now is the time to keep your ear to the ground, shit is getting real.

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…