Is Trump a fascist? It’s much worse. Followers are morphing into Nazis in the still-emerging fourth reich


Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_4

False flags revised

This is Part 3 of Barrie Zwicker’s series on false flag operations. You can also read Part 1: An Introduction (April 14, 2013) and Part 2: Maximum Illusion Time. (June 10, 2013)

December 20, 2015

Part 3: Trump Is Heralding Nazism

the general public is being reduced to a state where people not only are unable to find out about the truth but also become unable to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception and trickery that have determined their convictions, satisfied with a fictitious reality created by design… – Josef Pieper

Those who worry that Donald Trump is a fascist are behind two curves. One
is that there are valid grounds for calling him a Nazi. Too far? No, not far enough.

The second curve is the worry—now being expressed even in some mainstream media—that the USA and maybe Europe are going fascist. Again, this fear falls short. There are valid grounds for describing the direction of the USA and Europe as moving toward the worst manifestation of fascism: resurgent Nazism. Yes that far.

These valid grounds lie in evidence: accepted definitions, disturbing poll results and parallels between Hitler and Trump. Just two of 27 parallels:

√ Hitler early on was seen as a buffoon. Writes Michael Berumen:[1]

Throughout most of the 1920s and up to 1933, Adolf Hitler was a laughing stock and a figure of derision among the elites on both the conventional right
and left, including the governing and military classes. He was thought to be a comical buffoon by the political cognoscenti; a crass vulgarian by the upper classes; a semi-literate theorist by the professoriate; and as a silly erstwhile corporal and martinet by the senior officers of the Reichswehr…

For months until his lead in the polls became worrisome even to some leading figures on the U.S. right, Trump was written off as a lightweight. The Huffington Post famously announced back in July that it would categorize all Trump stories as “entertainment” rather than “politics.”

√ Hitler masterminded false flag “terror” operations, creating public fears so great that Germans welcomed a strong leader, a führer, to protect them from foreign elements. William L. Shirer in his monumental The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, writes:

For months prior to July 1934 the Austrian Nazis, with weapons and dynamite furnished by Germany, had instituted a reign of terror, blowing up railways, power stations and government buildings and murdering supporters of the Dollfuss clerical-fascist regime.[2]

Killing fascists was particularly clever. Who else would assassinate fascists other than anti-fascists? Indeed all the incidents were blamed on communists and socialists, the traditional enemies and scapegoats of capitalism. This laid much of the psychological groundwork for Germany’s launching World War II.

In the case of Trump, a “reign of terror” has brainwashed the public with fears that he exploits. Starting with 9/11, powers within the American Empire in collusion with elements of “America’s allies” have deployed agents to mount a series of false flag operations that fuel Trump’s base. A groundwork has been laid.

Hitler went on to start World War II. Can anyone guarantee that Trump, if he reaches the Oval office, would not somehow start World War III? Or should it be said, escalate it? Pope Francis has observed that World War III is underway “piecemeal.”

Back to the curves. Some alternative media since at least the 1990s haven’t shrunk from using the f-word. Adbusters asked in its Sept/Oct 2003 issue: “Is America Becoming Fascist?”[3]

Sure it’s welcome that mainstream media are finally permitting discussions of fascism, but only as a byproduct of them being unable to avoid discussing the phenomenon of Trump. One of a plethora of instances: on Nov. 30, 2015 The Globe and Mail published an opinion piece under the headline “Is Trump a Fascist?” Other opinion pieces and letters followed.

The larger question is to what extent the USA and Europe are going down a Nazi path, arguably risking World War III, exactly when the world instead should be mobilizing for a just war—if ever there was one—the war to save the planet from destruction caused by global warming.

Where have the mainstream media been in the 35 years since the time of Reagan, during which the political and ideological goal posts in the USA have been moved so far to the right that it’s a different playing field from the one that existed for the 35 years from 1945 to 1980?

America has been edged, then pushed, then hurtled past the sign reading “Fascism Lives Here” on the road to what should rightly, technically, and morally be called Nazism.

This prolonged lurch to the right has not been a natural evolution, what Alexander Zinoviev calls elemental, meaning unplanned and uncontrolled. It has been, rather conscious-volitional, planned and controlled, specifically by what Zinoviev calls the Global Suprasociety.

In the USA members of the Suprasociety are extremely right-wing and often immensely rich such as the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. A gambling billionaire and mega-donor to right-wing causes, Adelson met with Trump and called him “charming.” They direct the hired brains of their think tanks. In his book Blinded by the Right,[4] David Brock, former fellow of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, writes that the “major corporations” and “the Wall Street venture capital class” team up to promote right-wing ideology through a network of think tanks, issue lobbies and publications…”

These oligarchs are cunning, well informed on how to manipulate the public, and possess increasingly sophisticated Big Data and other tools. They’re powerful. They were preceded by the likes of Hitler-admirer Henry Ford. But I must rule out here the exploration of the American Empire from its inception. Professor Anthony James (Tony) Hall, a 9/11 truth activist and professor of globalization studies at the University of Lethbridge in Lethbridge, Alberta, has done so at length in his books[5] and concisely in his letter to the Iranian leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, posted on this site recently.

Adequately recognizing the shift of the USA since around 1980 to the far right, and identifying the masterminds of the shift, are necessary steps in deflecting the juggernaut and creating the possibility of more peaceful tomorrows. This presents a steep learning curve even for most of those calling Trump out. The curve requires facing the single most insidious, unrecognized and dangerous contributor to today’s toxic political atmosphere—false flag operations.

These are the basis for unreasonable fear of terrorists, specifically “jihadi extremist terrorists,” now being inflated to fear of all Muslims. False flag ops have created this atmosphere in which Trump and his admirers alone breathe easily. This is because widespread public fear is their friend. It’s the wind in their sails.

Now let’s correctly invoke the power of naming, which can help us get around the seemingly far-fetched idea that Nazism, rather than Jesus, may enjoy a second coming.

Characteristics agreed in standard dictionaries as inherent in Nazism can be seen as a pattern. We then can ask: has that pattern emerged again?

In my preferred dictionary, Collins Third Edition, fascism [my numbering] is “any 1 rightwing 2 nationalist ideology or movement with 3 an authoritarian and 4 hierarchical structure that 5 is fundamentally opposed to democracy and 6 [opposed to] liberalism.” Add 7 racism and 8 brutality and you have Nazism, Hitler style. [6]

What now must be considered a movement with these characteristics has coalesced around Donald Trump’s demagogic racist ravings and bald lies. According to conventional mainstream media this has happened suddenly. But has it? Consider, one by one, the above characteristics that beginning in the 1980s increasingly should have been recognized as describing the U.S. political scene overall.

Before we continue exploring the increasingly ugly nature of the most powerful nation on Earth, a caveat: I am soulfully aware of the tremendous numbers of Americans ashamed, appalled, angry and even afraid about the directions of their country and too many of their fellow citizens. These are Americans who have been able to escape to one extent or another the cocoon of self-absorbed American mythology and see through the “maximum illusion” discussed in Part 2 back in 2013.

By the numbers, then:

1) Any sober analysis recognizes that the USA has become increasingly right-wing.

The unusualness of the Bernie Sanders run for the presidential nomination by the Democratic Party simply highlights the shift to the right. It is an anomaly. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, in their runs for the presidency, for instance, never breathed the words socialist or socialism. A self-described socialist, Sanders has always been an outlier federally and treated as such except in his home state. He’s now a serious populist figure benefitting politically, as does Trump, the right-wing populist, from widespread grievances over lack of decent jobs, outright unemployment, lack of opportunities, a corrupt political culture, poverty, and a general malaise.

The history of 1930s Germany does not bode well for Sanders and socialism, however. If the ’30s experience repeats itself, socialists in the USA let alone communists, if there are any real ones left, will be dealt with harshly. Hitler simply rounded them up and jailed or executed them—a fact that tends to be overlooked with the emphasis usually and understandably made on the Nazis’ genocidal treatment of Jews.

2) The nationalism of the USA is clear. It has for some time been a present danger to non-Americans, who can see it more clearly than most Americans living within the bubble of their nationalist culture. Just one manifestation is the invasion of militarized nationalism into the spectacles of professional sports. Karen Armstrong, author of Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence argues that violence and war have as much to do with inequality and nationalism as with religion. On a recent interview on “That Agenda” on TV Ontario, she said she sees nationalism essentially as a religion. Some people make sports their religion. In his 1987 book Television and Religion,[7] William Fore writes: “In America we are developing a new kind of liturgical year to mark the passing of the seasons, which includes the Rose Bowl Parade, Super Sunday baseball … and that key religious festival, the Super Bowl. Joseph Price suggests that the Super Bowl now signals a convergence of sports, politics, and myth.” To this has been added militarism, which has crept up into Canada, with Canadian Armed Forces personnel from time to time now lionized uncritically at major league sports events.

3) Signs of growing authoritarianism in the USA have been clearly evident for many years especially to those outside the thick cocoon of American fictional legend. The psychological makeup of authoritarian leaders and followers has been extensively studied by retired University of Manitoba Professor of Psychology Bob Altemeyer. He produced the test and scale for “RWA” or Right-wing authoritarianism. His book The Authoritarians is freely available online.

One sign of authoritarianism is the supine attitude toward authority of most of the mainstream media. Most especially seen in the cover-up, rather than coverage of, the most overarching crimes of the power elite. For instance, an objection by those who deny there could be top-level fascistic conspiracies is that “surely the media would have a lot to gain from blowing the lid off such operations.” This betrays a lack of understanding of the essentially subservient place of the media in this society. On pages 303 and 304 of The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease,[8] Walter Karp of Harper’s magazine is quoted on the hazards for journalists who engage in “source journalism.” These are the top journalists, who live by their relationships with high authorities. For them, Karp writes, the hazards of challenging the official story on JFK’s assassination include “lost access, complaints to editors and publishers, social penalties, leaks to competitors, a variety of responses no one wants.” Karp continues: “It is a bitter irony of source journalism that the most esteemed journalists are precisely the most servile. For it is by making themselves useful to the powerful that they gain access to the ‘best’ sources.”

4) Contrary to incessant rhetoric about democracy, the U.S. power structure is considerably hierarchical. Money power comprises the main rungs of the hierarchy. Even back in 2004 the Republicans, according to the New York Times,[9] were confident of raising at least $170-million for George W. Bush’s election campaign, redefining what the Times called “standards” for fund-raising. Standards now are quaint.

5) Both the hierarchy of money and the antagonism to democracy are spelled out in Greg Palast’s The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Truth About Corporate Cons, Globalization, and High-Finance Fraudsters and many other books by investigative reporters and authors such as Howard Zinn.

6) That the U.S. establishment is opposed to liberalism—no matter how you define liberalism—is beyond debate. This is especially clear from north of the Canadian-U.S. border, or as Margaret Atwood calls it, “the longest undefended one-way mirror in the world.” Creating an interesting and even worrying contrast, Canada now has a progressive liberal Liberal government. The gap seems to be growing between conventional (that is, right-wing) stances in the USA and conventional (that is centre-left) stances in Canada on immigration, war and militarism, social benefits and multilateralism, to name five. If the extreme right continues to grow in the USA, calls already heard for building a wall along the Canadian border may multiply and morph into something quite dark and unpredictable, rather than silly and humorous.

7) Racism. Most of the Fourth Reich’s victims have been Asians (Vietnam War), indigenous peoples of Latin America (Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile et al) and historically Arabs. During the American-led aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq the epithet was “towelheads.” The racism is clear. With the so-called “war on terror” ramping up from its launch pad on 9/11, the increasingly defined enemy out-group has morphed from (the CIA-created) Al-Qaeda to “extremist jihadis” to Muslims in general. Muslims comprise a quarter of the world’s population. By the conflation of racism, religious and cultural intolerance, and identification with terrorism, they have become the largest scapegoated group in history.

8) Brutality. The number of people slaughtered by military and paramilitary actions in both the Third and Fourth Reichs is in the millions. Hitler reigned over the slaughter of more than 60-million souls. Backdate the Fourth Reich to the end of the Second World War and the number murdered by U.S. forces equals or outnumbers the toll in the Holocaust. Three million in Vietnam alone. The brutality is a matter of record for those who are willing to look at it. See William Blum’s Killing Hope[10] for one researcher’s record of countries invaded and despoiled. As to the leaders’ styles, the treatment of hecklers by Trump and his supporters is eerily reminiscent of Hitler’s goons.

We already have eight grounds for applying the term Fourth Reich. There are another 19 parallels between Hitler’s Germany and the USA today, here reduced to one line each, to be explored in the next Part of this series:

9) The ambition of world domination.

10) Glorification of militarism.

11) A fundamentalist faith in capitalism.

12) Anti-socialism, anti-communism, anti-Marxism.

13) Corruption at the top endemic.

14) In the case of Hitler on January 30, 1933 and of George W. Bush on January 20, 2001[11] the leader was illegally installed into power.[12]

15) Seizure of other countries’ oil.

16) The “pitiful giant” syndrome is invoked.

17) Pre-emptive or “preventive” war is policy and practice.

18) Use of religion, invocations of God’s approval.

19) Preoccupation with secrecy.

20) Highly orchestrated propaganda campaigns.

21) Censorship and intimidation of selected media.

22) An ever-encroaching police state.

23) International and domestic laws breached, resisted and undermined.

24) The use of actual terrorism—wholesale and retail[13]—is central to a Reich’s operation.

25) The use of the terms “terrorism” and “terrorists” ascribed unfairly to resisters against the Reich, to sow fear and loathing.

26) Deception, above all, is the key to everything for a Reich.

27) Stunningly effective deployment of the masterwork of deceptions: false flag operations.

I recognize and appreciate that my definitions and criteria can be challenged individually or overall. The most relevant article I’ve encountered so far in this regard appears on a website new to me named VOX. A well written piece by Dylan Matthews appeared there on December 10. It also begins with the question “Is Donald Trump a fascist?” Matthews did something simple but too seldom attempted. He interviewed four authors who have written a book on fascism and one, Roger Griffin, who has written two. The article can be found at http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/10/9886152/donald-trump-fascism

Summarized, the drift of these authors’ answer to whether Trump is a fascist (and by extension whether his supporters are) is that he’s getting there but still doesn’t qualify, for various reasons. These authors can fairly be described as “fascism experts.” Matthews himself writes: “To be blunt: Donald Trump is not a fascist.” The experts’ collective stance is fault-laden. Matthews simply condensed it.

First, the authors’ comparisons of Mussolini’s and Hitler’s trajectories, impacts and potential impacts are not properly related to the potential impacts of a USA gone fully fascistic. To take just two examples: Hitler did not have nuclear weapons at his command, nor did he have the capacity—as arguably do giant U.S. oil, armaments, and other corporations—to stall or thwart the battle to save all life on the planet, threatened by global warming.

Second, the authors are far too sanguine about, or seemingly even oblivious to, the damage already inflicted on the world by the American Empire.

Third, as a result, they fail to appreciate the threat to the world that the USA represents, with potential outcomes that would make even Hitler’s bloody successes pale.

Michael Berumen wrote an analysis of the Vox piece. A few of his comments:

I shall have to say that the article is almost wholly incorrect, both in its historical analysis and attempts to arrive at a single definition.

The “experts” cited, chiefly Griffin, seek to invent or consolidate a definition that is at best wobbly from a historical perspective, indeed, in several critical respects, his definition is ahistorical.

Here are the real “experts” on the matter, though: Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Goebbels, Gregor and Otto Strasser, Ernst Rohm, Giovanni Gentile, just to name some. One need only read these folks extensively, as I have, to reach a full understanding of Fascism from an ideological perspective

What is more important, I think, is that the article is very wrong in its analysis of Trump the man, for it seeks to reduce him to a populist, racist, demagogue. He is certainly those things.  But he is much more. The essence of Fascism is its authoritarian leadership, which is   inherently anti-democratic, but not just any kind of authoritarianism, for it is an authoritarianism whereby the leader’s personality becomes emblematic of and inextricably identified with the state and vice versa.

Nazism was of course an unholy alliance between both cartel-capitalism and socialism.  And he is a self-proclaimed militarist … he himself says he is more militaristic than anyone!  He obviously relishes the tough-guy, bully approach in campaigning, and with this constant talk about who is weak, who is tough, etc., which is not at all dissimilar to Hitler or Mussolini.

When I wrote, in 2004, the precursor version of this piece, my opinion was that revealing the fraud of 9/11 “is the single most important task faced by civilization today.” That 9/11 was dared, I wrote, was the supreme Achilles heel of the Fourth Reich. Or would be, should it be exposed as a Reichstag Fire 2001.

But this would require the mainstream media to become born-again courageous investigative agencies with moral backbone and a sense of history, or even just of danger. I see no signs of such a conversion from their ongoing supine megaphoning of official narratives.

Now, with a would-be Hitler 2016 on the hustings, my opinion has changed. It now seems to me that the single most important task is to reveal the big picture, the master illusion, the expansion of Operation Gladio into a global integrated false flag blanket fraud called “the war on terror” that now is being crystallized by Trump and his supporters into a war on all Muslims. Operation Gladio2 is comprised of a series of false flag ops arguably beginning with 9/11 plus all the ones that have followed, including the Madrid train bombings in 2004 and London 7/7 and Bali 1 and Bali 2 and the Mumbai bombings, and Charlie Hebdo—and so many others.

If enough people can be awakened to the enormity of the crime of manufacturing a threatening illusion, they could become a politically relevant constituency to slow down a stampede. Then the possibility of a cleansing transformation would emerge. Every worthwhile initiative you can name, be it environmental, social, political or economic, would benefit from a highlighted and hammered expose of the maximum illusion that continues to be buttressed by false flag op after false flag op.

In America there’s a community of peace and environmental and justice activists, that includes theists, atheists, artists, workers, intellectuals and plain folk, old and young. This community is unidentified, unrecognized and therefore disenfranchised by the mainstream media. It may number 30-million, equal to the population of Canada. It appears to be the responsibility imposed by history on this community to recognize its own existence, importance, and power and to exercise that power non-violently before it’s too late, to save their country and the world from the black blossoming of a full-fledged Fourth Reich.

Many Americans have told me they’re aware of the possibility of the suspension of the U.S. Constitution. There likely would be a startling false flag pretext, although their constitution might just continue to be whittled away. “Trump has said on any number of occasions,” Berumen writes, “things that would be in obvious contravention to the US Constitution, specifically, the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments and Article Two.  Probably more. “

The Fourth Reich and its outposts, including the ones within each of us, is perhaps humanity’s last major challenge. Its vast military machine undermines a war truly worth fighting, the war to save the planet from global warming. The fake “war on terror” distracts millions from the reality and enormity of the climate change threat. Even the beginnings of dismantling the American Empire would probably lead to a period of chaos. But from that could emerge a safer and saner world, still imperfect, but one less in imminent danger of Armageddon. In it we might finally face a reasonable future.

 

Footnotes:

1 A member of the Bertrand Russell Society (BRS). writing on the Society’s listerv on Dec. 5, 2015

2 See The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, Touchstone Press, 1990, ISBN (paperback) 0-671-72868-7 (p 280)

3 p. 33

4 Crown Publishers, New York, 2002

5 The American Empire and the Fourth World (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003) and Earth Into Property: Colonization, Decolonization and Capitalism (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010)

6 p. 561

7 Augsberg Publisher House, Minneapolis MN. 1987

8 Feral House, 2003, ISBN 0-922915-82-2 (www.feralhouse.com)

9 June 15, 2003

10 Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, 2004

11 See Stupid White Men, by Michael Moore, Regan Books, 2001, ISBN 0-06-039245-2, chapter 1

12 Strictly speaking Hitler was invited to take over, but only after a series of supremely undemocratic moves on the part of the führer.

13 To my knowledge the terms “wholesale terrorism” (meaning state-sponsored) and “retail terrorism” (meaning acts of terror committed by non-government-sponsored individuals or groups) were originated by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman in the 1970s.

This Part of the false flag series is an update of a chapter the author wrote 12 years ago for a book, War, Media, and Propaganda: A Global Perspective, edited by Nancy Snow and Yahya R. Kamalipour and published by Rowman & Littlefield. The chapter was entitled “America: The Fourth Reich.” It was based on remarks he delivered June 30, 2003 to the World Association for Christian Communication, North American Region, at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, B.C.

162 comments

    1. So we’re saying Merkel is a Nazi? Is that the jist of it? And Hitler started WW2 and the Allies and the Soviets and Uncle Joe were the good guys, am I correct? Just checking…

      1. No I am saying that Hitler and uncle Joe played chess together outside the Tavistock Institute per Hitler’s family. Uncle Joe was an ordained jesuit priest from Georgia with a “historic” mission. Hitler was a Rothschild. There were never an real nazis or communists, just a front for wealthy industrialists to plunder both countries.

        Miles Mathis does a pretty good job with it here. Hitler had help from the Prussian Royal Theatre and actors to pull off the beer hall Putsch. Eckert had connections there. Germany was much more theatrical than the Russians.

        https://dublinsmickdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/hitlers-beer-hall-putsch-was-faked-crisis-actors-from-the-prussian-royal-theatre/

  1. Damn, Barrie, this is pretty heavy. Thank you.

    Regarding the nationalization of sports games, I noticed one thing about baseball that was different pre vs post-9/11.

    While both eras featured the National Anthem before the beginning of the game, the song to be sung in the 7th inning stretch was “Take Me Out To The Ballgame.” But after 9/11, this changed and “God Bless America” became the song. So we now have two patriotic songs sung at each game, and zero songs about baseball.

    I think you are also right about shifting priorities to the big picture.

    I think that the media and public thinking has gotten worse since the Bush years. When, in 2006, the Scripps Howard poll showed that 36% of the public believed there was some government deliberateness with 9/11, the MSM had to not only acknowledge it but treat it at least halfway seriously, especially around the 5th anniversary, because at the time, the topic was always the no. 1 thread on each political blog and message board on the web. The politics forum on Amazon, for example, had an epic thread that was over 10,000 comments, several times more than the 2nd biggest thread.

    In other words, they couldn’t tell 36% of the population to “get a job.” They at least had to acknowledge our arguments and that there were scholars on our side. Tucker Carlson hosted a skeptical but not-too-disrespectful interview with Dr. Steven Jones on MSNBC, and the BBC did a VERY fair interview with David Ray Griffin.

    But today, only 9/11-specific sites continue to talk about it. Go to the politics forum of a bodybuilding site, or a marijuana site, and there hasn’t been a new or bumped thread about 9/11 in years. The general population isn’t talking about it anymore.

    Factor in that the movement itself lost some steam when the new Democrat president was inaugurated, and REALLY turned off the volume after the 10th anniversary. Activists came to the conclusion that the digital iron curtain of propaganda and collective denial is too great and the movement has no chance. Others simply realized that their activism distracted from and diminished other areas of life and decided to regroup and balance out.

    THEN figure in also the amount of new people in the world between a decade ago and now, years of school children indoctrinated with the official story.

    It is in this context that the MSM can be silent about the Truth Movement for months or even years… and then the moment a redneck blacksmith from Georgia makes a completely flawed and unscientific video attempting to “debunk” controlled demolition, which misses the mark on so many levels yet somehow hits the e-lottery and goes viral, numerous sources, including HuffPo and even Washington Post, just RUN with it and scream it from the mountaintops as the ultimate smackdown to the “conspiracy theorists” who need to “find a job.”

    With the events of 9/11 itself, much of the public has an extremely poor understanding of what the truth movement’s evidence actually is. They aren’t aware that there actually was molten steel. So they see a friend share the Facebook meme “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams,” then see the blacksmith “prove” that it didn’t need to melt, merely weaken, and can then click “thumbs up” on the video and share it with their friends and encourage others to do the same, reveals the sheer level of ignorance on so many levels. First, that controlled demolition is the movement’s only claim of government complicity, which it isn’t, and then, total ignorance even of what the arguments for controlled demolition actually are.

    Bravo Barrie, you hit it out of the park with this one! The way protesters at Trump rallies are brutalized with supporters chanting “USA” should make it clear that Trump is not merely “getting there.” It is indeed full blown Nazism.

      1. Thanks Adam, you add interesting important points. Your observations, in an almost historical context, about the topography of information about 9/11 since 9/11, within changing demographics even while the temperature of the water the frog (us) swims in continues to rise, is particularly welcome. One really feels one’s age when one must look back almost historically on 9/11. Fortunately, on the other side of the ledger the parallels between this decade and the decade of the 30s are increasingly being pointed out. An area I could not deal with in this part of my series is the history of fascism–yes, and Nazism–in the USA. Charles Higham’s books American Swastika and Trading With The Enemy contain material that would absolutely astonish 99% of Americans. Such as the plot by corporate American fascists to assassinate FDR and install an American fuhrer.

      2. An article for the “not so informed” people. That seeds can be planted, good or bad. Very deceptive writing, trying to rationalize Trump that way.
        From some psycho in the article: “The nationalism of the USA is clear. It has for some time been a present danger to non-Americans, who can see it more clearly than most Americans living within the bubble of their nationalist culture.” Multi-cultural advocate. USA’s worst…
        If your here legally, great, have a good time. Trump’s talking about the “illegals”. Twisted it, didn’t cha? Deceptive, too..
        Are you guys actually living in the same world as us. I see nationalism because we don’t have a southern border no more, nor do we have a nation anymore. Not because of fascism. The press has not been very kind to Mr. Trump, and oh, don’t forget the thugs who decided to stop AZ people from going to Trump’s rally, leaving them in the desert. No mention of stuff like that. That’s Fascism!
        All one-sided writing and us people see right through it.
        You guys are so far into left field, calling Trump rallies, Hitler rallies all that kind of crap.
        I regretted one thing on reading your article, I trudged through the whole thing. I couldn’t believe some of the shit to wade through with that one.
        Terrible article that tries to shift Trump to the right about 30 degrees.
        One of those stupid people that believe “Trump for Dummies” really exists.
        Sick motherfucker’s, you are.
        Not Believable…, I got the Trumpster in a landslide.
        And you will like it. Heheheh…..

        1. You are the one who’s sick. The Bushes have always been fascist. Donald Trump is the culmination of fascist tendencies that began at least with Nixon and were exploited during the Reagan years. You apparently have no sense of history or how fascism infiltrated the Germans, or the Italians, or the Japanese.

  2. Well Barrie I normally agree with your articles and statements however this time I think I have to disagree on a couple points in particular.

    First of all let me say from the outset that I think trump is an asshole. I also think Clinton is an asshole and so is Jeb Bush but on the scale of measuring how big an asshole each candidate is I have to say that Trump is the smallest of the three assholes. There are a number of reasons for that however let it be said here and now that we have no good choices offered in this election at all and that includes Bernie Sanders.

    My main beef with this article is not so much that you do not like Trump, I don’t like him either, but rather that you do not see the other candidates as potentially even worse authoritarians. Left wing authoritarians by the way are just as dangerous and corrupt as the right wing ones, a point missed in your article. If Mao does not qualify as a left wing authoritarian then who does? Mao by the way is far and away the worst mass murderer in history and even surpasses Stalin. Both Mao and Stalin easily surpass Hitler in the numbers of murders and brutality of their respective regimes. Very few talk about Mao or Stalin’s reign of terror yet most commentators point to Hitler as the worst of the worst which I think indicates a substantial amount of bias conditioning by our largely Zionist controlled media. Hitler was not the worst of all time, in fact he is at best the third worst.

    This tendency to portray right wingers as the only fascist dictators in town is just plain wrong. I see Clinton as potentially another Mao and Jeb Bush as potentially another Hitler. Trump comes in third on the danger scale in my mind although that isn’t saying much considering how bad they all three are. The issue I have is that singling out Trump misses the point that all these candidates are potential genocidal maniacs.

    In my opinion this portrayal of the “right” as the bad guys and the “left” as the good guys is not only false but it plays right into the hands of the NWO who play us off against each other in a cynical divide and conquer strategy. In my view the NWO is neither right nor left but rather they are interested in power and power alone. They do not care how they get power, whether it be from a left wing dictator puppet or from a right wing dictator puppet, it makes no difference to them. This is why the NWO, which is really the people who control the mega banks, fund both sides in almost every conflict.

    My second issue I will post another comment about below but it has to do with your portrayal of “global warming” as the battle we should all be focusing on. I could not disagree more and I will explain below in detail why man made global warming is a myth and a giant scam aimed at creating a world government and taxation apparatus.

    1. I will have to say here Mr Ruff, that we have are simulators set on stun. I am not quite ready to set in to the kill switch, but I agree with you on this.

      We are dealing with the Hegelian Dialectic here with this article. The false Left/Right paradigm.

      I deal with this problem daily on the JFKfacts site that I am pretty much consumed with these days. The most egregious deniers of the Coup d’etat of November 22, 1963 are indeed so-called “right-wing ideologues” , yet many of those who think they are hitting the Truth on the button and are utterly confused can be characterized as “left-wing ideologues”.

      While the “left-wingers” aren’t so blatantly arrogant and abrasive as the fascists on that blog, they are still out in the boondocks chewing Locoweed.

      As you point out here, as true as everything Barrie says here is, there is a mirror image that is not being addressed at all.

      I won’t vote for anybody. Government is a racket, it has always been a racket run by mobsters in marble halls. There’s no business like bullshit.
      \\][//

      1. I enjoyed the article very much but I completely agree with Hybrid and ruffadum. Government is a conspiracy of psychopaths. Nothing more.

        For that reason there is still this entrenched idea that some how liberalism and left-leaning politics is the antidote in waiting for this rise in fascism when they are both part of the problem. Socialism informed by Fabianism for example favours a gradualist ethos of social engineering next to vertical collectivism which offers a rather insidious change via the back door of state ‘altruism’.

        Whilst authoritarianism brought to boil through conservatism and European synarchy has a more Zio-Con, “take it now” approach I see only a complete hybridisation of Establishment politics dispensing ideologies and beliefs like Hegelian candy – always keeping the core nature of institutionalised psychopathy safely protected.

        When are we going to get the reality – even the “terror of the situation” – that there is NO ALTERNATIVE which transcends the endless repetition of pathological camouflage, at least, while the State exists.

        I am however, a huge advocate of community building outside the state and preferably far away from weapons-hoarding survivalists and new age BETA-ville. There, I ended on a hopeful note….lol

        Thanks again for the article and the opportunity to rant.

    2. A government given the responsibility to care for a peoples every vital need—MUST be given the power to carry such a task out, which means the power to rule your every vital action. This is the very definition of TYRANNY.
      \\][//

  3. Barrie I quote from your article:

    “The larger question is to what extent the USA and Europe are going down a Nazi path, arguably risking World War III, exactly when the world instead should be mobilizing for a just war—if ever there was one—the war to save the planet from destruction caused by global warming.”

    Man made global warming is a myth and here is why:

    Myth #1: There is a consensus among scientists that man made global warming is happening,

    The ‘97% consensus’ of scientists on climate change is complete bunk… fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD http://www.naturalnews.com/052317_climate_change_scientific_consensus_fraudulent_science_survey.html

    “The 97% consensus claim is total science FRAUD based on selective editing of the survey data. From “A Disgrace to the Profession”:

    An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008.

    Aside from his support from Dr Pantsdoumi, Mann often claims the imprimatur of “settled science”: 97 per cent of the world’s scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requiring massive government intervention. That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.

    The “survey” was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.

    Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.

    Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

    Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.

    Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

    Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts.”

    Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.

    So this is a very Michael Mann “reconstruction”: just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

    Nonetheless, the compilers also invited comments from respondents and published them in the appendices. In terms of specific scientific material, the hockey stick attracted three comments – one blandly positive, the other two not so much.

    Wow, you mean the 97% consensus number comes from just 75 scientists that were hand-picked from an email survey?
    Yep. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, only 75 of them were selected to “count” for the climate change survey.

    Not quite the “settled science” you’ve been told, is it?”

    Founder of the Weather channel says the “scientists” who promote the global warming myth are the only ones who receive grants to do climate “research” those who oppose the global warming myth receive no grants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8nB3IjVqHE

    1. To continue about Myth #1:

      First of all when has science ever been about consensus anyway? Isn’t consensus actually flagrantly unscientific to begin with? Should not the scientific experimentation results themselves decide what is true and not true scientifically rather than a popularity contest?

      At any rate even the idea that there is an actual consensus among scientists is a blatant lie as illustrated in the following survey.

      http://www.petitionproject.org/

      31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

  4. Myth #2: The globe has been steadily warming since man has been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere through industrialization.

    There has been no global warming for 18+ years now.

    According to satellite temperature data there has been no warming for 18+ years.

    1. Most everybody disagrees with me on this one.

      https://dublinsmickdotcom.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/thawing-permafrost-the-speed-of-coastal-erosion-in-eastern-siberia-has-nearly-doubled-arctic-methane-released-at-blinding-speed-climate-change-core-of-earth-heats-up/

      By the way the phrase “truth is the only religion” caught my attention here. I have said this for a very long time. You know religion itself is defined by the Greek as the search for truth. Hinduism also is defined as simply the search for truth. The Rishis used to say, even an atheist can be considered a Hindu for he has embarked upon his own search for truth.

      https://dublinsmickdotcom.wordpress.com/2015/07/31/raising-kundalini/

      1. Mr Ruff,
        Thanks for finding that direct to YouTube version. I did try to find it, but couldn’t in the amount of time I was willing to look for it.
        Cheers!
        \\][//

  5. I have only about 5 minutes to respond to this at the moment. I am packing my bags and cleaning my house before getting on a flight to go home to Ohio.

    I have the utmost respect for Whitten and my good friend Adam Ruff, but after having looked at this issue of man-caused climate change, I have to take the side of Barrie and David Ray Griffin. I was on the fence about this issue, being open to the arguments that its all a giant tax scam, but after having read DRG’s book on this subject, and particularly his chapter titled “Climate Change Denial,” and actually seeing the arguments put forth, and the answers to them, I think that man-caused climate change is not a fabrication.

    The idea that climate change is a giant, elite tax scam to further control us falls flat when we realize that the tax only applies to fossil fuel emissions. Get off fossil fuels and onto electric, solar, hydroelectric, Tesla, etc. power, and this carbon tax vanishes into thin air.

    I wonder if, later, it would be easier for me to take photos of individual pages of DRG’s book and post them. It would save me a lot of typing.

    For right now, it’s the best I can do to drop a few links.

    Personally, I liked the statement Arnold S. delivered recently:

    I have a final question, and it will take some imagination.

    There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.

    I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.

    I’m guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice – who would ever want to breathe those fumes?

    This is the choice the world is making right now.

    To use one of the four-letter words all of you commenters love, I don’t give a damn if you believe in climate change. I couldn’t care less if you’re concerned about temperatures rising or melting glaciers. It doesn’t matter to me which of us is right about the science.

    I just hope that you’ll join me in opening Door Number Two, to a smarter, cleaner, healthier, more profitable energy future.

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/arnold-schwarzenegger/i-dont-give-a-if-we-agree-about-climate-change/10153855713574658

    David Griffin shows in his book how the arguments in favor of the “hoax” originated as talking points from fossil fuel corporations.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/08/3729509/greenpeace-fossil-fuel-funding-academic-nondisclosure/

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/01/exxon-targets-journalists-who-exposed-massive-climate-cover

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/24/3725320/exxon-koch-climate-misinformation-polarizing

    PS Craig, I don’t think this thread will suffer from a lack of comments!😉

    1. I just hope that you’ll join me in opening Door Number Two, to a smarter, cleaner, healthier, more profitable energy future. – Arnold S. via Adam Syed

      Sadly, this is such an extreme oversimplification of the issue presenting us with such a false paradigm that I am surprised that this argument gets any traction, especially with Adam Syed.

      The reality of these two rooms in the case of carbon tax or cap&trade is more like this:

      Room #1 has an electric car used by someone with an environmental conscience who does not want to pay extra tax to drive to work, to the mall, to the kids’ soccer game. Right next to it, there is a gas guzzler spewing toxic fumes and pollutants that belongs to a corporation that makes a fortune transporting goods with this vehicle. The profits made with this vehicle are far greater than the carbon tax this corporation would need to pay, and are factored into the cost of the goods. So, the soccer mom and her little soccer players still breath the fumes, while they themselves are paying a premium to live an environmentally conscious lifestyle.

      And room #2??? There ain’t one… There is only one room!

      1. Okay, i maybe dense, but.. How are they paying a premium? This is assuming the electric car is far more expensive than the gas car? What about if that changes and everyone can afford the electric?

        How about a room of 2 electrics and no gas guzzler?

        1. Okay, i maybe dense, but.. – Adam Syed

          For what its worth, Adam, I think the exact opposite of you… You are anything but…

          You kinda hit the carbon tax scam nail on the head… Because, the carbon tax is being sold to the public as a deterrent… And proposes that all of the collected carbon taxes will be spent for “sustainable energy” development. Which, we all know (we do, right?) that it will not be the case. Because it never is.

          But, let’s please not fall in the trap they have skillfully set up for us and mix up the positions of being “anti-climate-change-agenda” with the let’s-not-do-anything-about-cleaning-the-planet-up. It is not an either/or argument.

          The former is a plan to set-up a globally binding taxation system, along with a global tax enforcement “agency”, which are prerequisites for their “world-government” .

          I could give a similar, but simpler example to this kind of doublespeak: Although it has been beta tested many times over the years, Texas just announced that they will implement check points by police and military along the highways in an effort to curb drunk driving. We all know that the military is not supposed to operate within the borders of the US, and the mere mention of “check-points” is sufficient to raise the hair on people’s backs for good reason. So, if I am opposed to this practice, it should not mean that I am in favor drunk driving, or that I “believe” drunk driving does not exist.

          In other words, the problem may or may not be real… But the solution offered to us is most certainly poison, and the gang of characters propagating the solution are the same crooks who are busy creating a fascistic world government.

          1. Very well said David. Just because I do not subscribe to the AGW myth it doesn’t mean I am pro pollution or against clean energy. I am not for pollution nor am I against clean energy at all in fact I promote clean energy. Take a look at this:


            “The Perendev magnetic motor brings a new form of energy to the World, No fossil fuel is used in the running of the motor, the motor runs on Magnetic/electric energy produced by the repulsion of the magnetic fields.”

          2. “But, let’s please not fall in the trap they have skillfully set up for us and mix up the positions of being “anti-climate-change-agenda” with the let’s-not-do-anything-about-cleaning-the-planet-up. It is not an either/or argument.”~David Hazan

            Splendid point. There is no doubt that the planet is awash with pollution. There is no doubt it is the very industrial system that is the proximate cause of this. To turn to that same system for redress and relief is absurd. The “Global Warming” meme is a financial scam, once again.
            \\][//

            1. Exactly… And how bout that COP21, eh? We are all safe now!!! So are all the 3rd world dictators and their families, who are now on a 100 billion a year payroll… I wonder if they will spend some of that money to to upgrade their militaries to fight climate change more effectively.

              One of the most outrageous parts of COP21 is that they agreed on a goal “to keep global warming below what most scientists say is the critical threshold of 2 degrees Celsius of warming”, which everyone is applauding.

              This reminds me of an old joke about four people traveling in a train compartment through Minnesota. One of the guys has two big bags at his feet, one full of hotdog buns, and the other full of bananas. Every 5-10 minutes or so, he takes a banana, peels it, puts in a bun, and tosses it out the window. After a while, one of the passengers just can’t resist, and asks him why he is doing that. He replies “This is an old trick to keep elephants from attacking the train.” The others, stunned by the answer, all say “But there are no elephants around here”. The man shakes his hand knowingly and says “You see? It works!!”

              We, the shitizens of the world, just need to keep paying for those bananas I suppose… Or else!!!!

    2. The word “denial” was not chosen by accident as it is used against man made global warming skeptics. It is meant to imply that we are just like holocaust deniers. It is the language of propagandists. I just wanted to make that point first of all and then I will proceed to shatter the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) myth into utter oblivion where it belongs. I have plenty more information to post about this issue but from here forward I will use the acronym AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) to stand for man made global warming so I do not need to type in “man made global warming” every time I need to refer to it.

      AGW = (Man made global warming) from here on.

    3. I want to point out that, while electric cars are cool and I personally would love to have one, the manufacturers require fossil fuel energy to manufacture them. In most cases coal power plants provide the energy for the manufacturing plant itself. In many cases like with the Toyota Prius the manufacturing process involves mining lithium for the batteries from Korea (I believe) shipping the lithium to Japan to make the batteries and then shipping the batteries to America and other places to be installed in the completed cars which are then shipped to where they will be sold. That is a whole lot of fossil fuels used to bring one Prius to market. So just because it says “green” on the label doesn’t mean it really is green.

      I am all for alternative energy in fact I am a proponent of what they call zero point energy. Run a search on youtube or google for zero point energy and see what you find. What I am opposed to here is the idea that AGW is real. In my view deforestation is far and away a more serious problem for the environment, since it is actually happening, but there seems to be no global push to prevent that. Considering that plants sequester CO2 and provide oxygen for us all shouldn’t deforestation be the issue we all unite in stopping? The Amazon rain forest is largely gone you know.

      1. I also agree on a pro-environmental, anti-pollution stance, yet don’t give credence to the global warming sold as the biggest threat from the people causing most of the pollution, governments and industry. Deforestation I agree is a bigger problem. The idea that turning to world government to help the environment is laughable to me. Studying permaculture has been an important part of my life that I think helps one see how to really increase the vitality and health of life, rather than the normal faux environmental statism we hear on the media.

        Also, to me Trump seems like, despite me not liking his personality or mannerisms, more of a individual and more of a realist, in that he is willing to go against the mainstream narratives on a given issue. The fact that both Fox News and the left-wing media are trashing him, tends to earn him a few points. It’s just a smidge of respect I have gained I suppose. And to be clear, I’m really an anarchist but I can have an opinion on who seems the least damaging statist likely to *try* to take the reigns of power. No idea if he would be successful in that if elected, if he isn’t an TPTB sponsored candidate. I think Hillary, Sanders, Rubio, and probably Cruz, are. So why is Trump suddenly about to be Hitler? Am I living in an alternate reality?

        The lack of recognition of left-wing tyranny is also deafening in this piece, like @hybridrogue and @ruffadam pointed out.

  6. One of the big problems with the AGW debate is that each side of the debate thinks their “scientists” are the only legitimate “scientists” and the enemy camp “scientists” are all paid shills from either big oil or receive huge grants to come to predetermined conclusions. So it comes down to my “scientists” are better and more pure than your “scientists” so I am right and you are wrong argument.

    In order to avoid that argument I am going to suggest to everyone what I think is the truth of this issue.

    “Science” has been corrupted from many sides and much of what science says today is simply false. In other words we just don’t know how the climate works because it is so complex that we can not possibly account for all the factors involved. Even though we don’t know the truth we are going to say that we do know the truth about the climate because we are getting paid to promote an agenda.

    “Science” has become to some almost a religion where people calling themselves “scientists” are pure as the driven snow and beyond all reproach. They are essentially priests who always use the “scientific method” and are never ever corrupted by money or personal bias. In the simplistic view of the world “scientist” are the all knowing priests of our time, they are moral, they are incorruptible, and of course they are never ever wrong. Of course that is WRONG. “Scientists” are frequently wrong and their theories are proved to be bunk all the time by “scientists” who are themselves later proved wrong by other “scientists” who in turn are proved wrong. Science is an ongoing evolving process and the truth is their are some things we just don’t know enough about to make valid scientific arguments one way or the other. Climate is one of those things.

    So we need to get past this basic road block of (my scientists are better than your scientists) before we can get to the bottom of this issue. The truth is your “scientists” are not better than my “scientists” nor are mine better than yours they are all fallible human beings subject to human frailty and subject to coercion. The truth is they just don’t know how some things work.

    1. As an example of how impossibly complex this issue of AGW actually is see if you can find an answer anywhere in scientific literature to either of these two questions:

      1. How much CO2 do plants on land and sea absorb on a yearly basis?

      2. Since plants essentially eat CO2 and grow faster and larger the more CO2 is present how much does their CO2 sequestering ability increase as CO2 concentration rises and how much does it decrease as CO2 concentration falls?

      Now in order to determine that mankind is definitely the culprit for “global warming” which isn’t even happening actually wouldn’t “scientists” need to know the answer to those two questions among others in order to know for sure one way or the other?

      How can man be to blame if we don’t even know how much CO2 is sequestered by plant life on Earth? How can mankind be to blame if we don’t know how much sequestration is increased or decreased by rising and falling CO2 levels?

      Is it possible we don’t have all the answers needed to come to this conclusion in the first place? YES!

      Is it possible that there is a built in balancing factor which regulates CO2 on planet Earth? YES! It is called plant life.

      Is it possible that we just don’t know how much CO2 plants can absorb and that there absorption capacity is constantly changing as CO2 levels rise and fall? YES!

      Is it possible that “scientists” just don’t have enough information to blame mankind for rising and falling temperatures? YES!

  7. I find it curious that after the Truth movement’s experience with NIST and it’s wanking the software modelling the collapse of the WTC towers and Bldg 7,

    ‘Simulations’ and ‘Models’ are NOT reality.
    \\][//

    1. Yes indeed Willy the predictive software models for the climate have proved faulty just like the WTC “collapse” models have. Perhaps we just don’t know all the factors involved to accurately predict the climate?

  8. The expansion and brutality -cruelty – of the criminal deepstate, within and without continental USA, absolutely argues global fascism. And there is no doubt the patterns you describe, fit. They tally my thoughts and expectations. Thank you for writing it so clearly. I suppose it pointless to hope we are wrong.

    Recently understood NATO/USAMO Alliances with Ukrainian fascists; the established creation and use of jihad fascist mercenaries in proxy war and death squad strategies throughout the theatre of operations, corroborates the power source of this ‘deepstate’, as malevolent, violent and greedy.
    I call it NEOCONAZION for want of better description.

    GLADIO 911 itself, pivot and ‘actualizer,’ took the blurr off all ‘doubt’, establishing the set, and focussed intention. Make or break. It’s need was prescribed. The spellbinding success of its deception and control of all ‘public’ discourse – – that is truely the sandbag of fascism. Of its power. To pull that off is an insult to free thought and the investigative will, making a monkey of the enlightenment.

    All projections have GLADIO type attacks in the homeland over this next period certain and essential for the program to succeed.
    Christmas comes………….what does Santa have in his bag of tricks?

    1. I agree with every word you say here Fremo, I agree with much of Barrie’s essay, it is only the language of Left v Right. Fascism is simply Corporatism, and that is both neoliberal and neoconservative linked at the hip. Any core differences are merely rhetorical and appearances,
      \\][//

      1. Agreed Willy Barrie is correct that we are driving headlong into full blown fascism however it is neither right nor left at the steering wheel it is both driving the car. The “corporations” as you put it Willy are the ones telling the left and right where to drive the car.

  9. Myth #3: More CO2 in the atmosphere causes the temperature to rise.

    In reality higher temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise. That’s right CO2 levels rise AFTER temperature goes up not the other way around. CO2 levels follow temperature changes, temperature changes do not follow CO2 level changes. In fact there is about an 800 year lag time between temperature changes and CO2 level rise or fall. What that means is that the temperature changes and then 800 or so years later CO2 levels follow that change either up or down. When the temperature trends down about 800 years later you will see CO2 levels trend down in almost a mirror pattern.

  10. “Hitler masterminded false flag “terror” operations, creating public fears so great that Germans welcomed a strong leader, a führer, to protect them from foreign elements.”

    I believe Hitler’s events are left in the dust compared to what has happened under The long-legged mack daddy.

              1. Why should I regret it?!? I got a solid gold violin for signing that work order!
                I am playing ‘Swan Lake’ on it right now.
                \\][//

      1. Adam, it is Barack Hussein Obama that is The long-legged mack daddy, and I am saying that I believe the false flag attacks and hoaxes have really gone off the charts during his so-called presidency.

        1. Well Magnus,

          It is a matter of momentum and trajectory isn’t it?

          Obammy is worse than when the Bush baby was at the helm. And Bush was worse than when Clinton was at the helm, And Clinton was worse than when daddy Bush was at the helm. And daddy Bush was worse than the Peanut Man…and it just gets worse as time goes on because the fruition of the process of the New World Order is a time bound agenda just like everything in the space/time continuum.

          Presidents my man: They all be puppets dancing on strings by hands of a higher order.
          \\][//

            1. In the allegory of wine; Scum.

              In the allegory of milk; Cream

              In the allegory of bread: Upper Crust

              If you want to skip the allegories, learn some real history.
              \\][//

  11. I could have saved various of you folks who have waded in with comments a fair bit of time if I’d left out mention of global climate change. Especially Adam Ruff of course, whose comments deserve substantial follow-up. But I could not in good conscience have the nerve to tackle a very large picture and then leave out about half of it—even if I failed in the post to provide a scrap of evidence for global warming.

    Anthropocentric-induced global climate change has, by my observations going back to the 90s been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The observations include not only such books as Ross Gelbspan’s The Heat is On and DRG’s latest book, but also documentaries such as Chasing Ice that show the Greenland ice mass disappearing before the camera’s very eyes. A trailer running 2:14 is here…
    http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi74949657/

    But right now (now by the way involving a string or record-breaking warm days up here in the Great White North) so that today I was wearing only a tee shirt outside (well, okay I had pants on too) I gave the place from which I dispatched my Christmas e-cards as “Not-a-Flake, Ontario.” Green Christmases are weird.

    I’m not attempting a full response to Adam here, as you can see. Onward to just a very important and fascinating thread, namely that there’s not so much difference between Left and Right. There again I disagree. If the overarching forces posited to be setting up a big Truman Show and give a nod to neither Right nor Left just seek power (and by extension, power for power’s sake), well that is a classic right-wing ultimate aim. The Left, for all its failures, seeks power not for its sake, but for the good of all.

    This I grant is a scandalously over-simplified assertion. But I think a few hundred thousand words on, the evidence would tend to support it. I’ve never been able to see a problem with Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” I’d been interested to hear the equivalent condensation of the purposes of capitalism.

    Finally (wish I had more time this day) I can’t help but worry that fromo.remo isn’t on to something. It seems to me that on and off for decades now, some outrageous “terrorist” incident has “marred the holiday.” A not-insignificant fact is that over holiday periods, especially Christmas, millions if not hundreds of millions of people are off work and home or visiting homes of loved ones and some of the time is spent in front of TVs. So there’s an enlarged audience and that audience shares a mindset of comparing and contrasting whatever’s happening in the world iconically with the way people are supposed to treat each other—especially in the Christian tradition of the Prince of Peace. In other words, a vast mindset that makes psychological warfare types drool.

    Maybe they’ll take a holiday themselves this holiday season. I won’t be watching but I think I’ll find out.

    1. “I’ve never been able to see a problem with Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” ~Barrie

      Quaint rhetoric there my friend.

      I’ve never been able to see a problem with “Unalienable Rights to Liberty”. And I certainly prefer that principle to collectivist yackenjabber.
      \\][//

    2. “But right now (now by the way involving a string or record-breaking warm days up here in the Great White North) so that today I was wearing only a tee shirt outside (well, okay I had pants on too) I gave the place from which I dispatched my Christmas e-cards as “Not-a-Flake, Ontario.” Green Christmases are weird.”

      The situation is the same here in Sweden. I have never experienced a yuletide this warm. We had 12 degrees Celsius a few days ago and of course no snow at all. If it had been a normal winter we would have had snow since the last week of November and not many days with temperatures above 0 degrees Celsius. For the sport of cross-country skiing it is a big problem maintaining courses for e.g. the World Cup races.

      1. Your recollections are anecdotal just as Barrie’s are. In point of fact there have probably been multiple warm winters on record in both your locations. It really means nothing. If you care to look at global temperature charts derived from weather satellites you will discover that the globe has not warmed at all for the last 18+ years. Gore’s predictions in An Inconvenient Truth have already proved to be quite wrong and in fact his film was removed from grade school programs in England after dozens of serious factual errors were found in the film and exposed.

        The ice is still there, the seas are not rising, the polar bears are thriving not drowning.

        You will find all this out yourself if you take an independent look at each issue and do some research.

        At any rate personal opinions about the weather this year as compared to other years are very subjective and suffer from confirmation bias and have to be thrown out as anecdotal especially when the global temperature data shows something different. Many people in Boston would say last winter was the worst ever and the coldest too.

        1. You are correct, Adam, there has been multiple warm winters, especially the latest 26 years. But you are wrong in saying that it doesn’t mean anything, and personal opinions is not what I convey here. The winters here in Sweden and most of Europe the latest 26 years have been very unstable with a few exceptions, among them for Sweden 2005-2006 and 2009-2010.

          1. OK how about 1850 to 1900 were there any similar anomalies? I bet you there were years that were hot and years that were extra cold. How about over 1,000 years? Were there extremely hot periods and extremely cold periods? YES! So your short term observations mean nothing really. Look at the medieval warm period and see what you find. Temperature is always going up and down and trending up and down over decades, over centuries, over eons. In the last 20 years has there been a solar maximum? Do you know? Probably not but yet you are apparently ready to blame mankind for the temperature of today as though the sun has nothing to do with it. My God man you have to look much much deeper.

  12. Barrie: “I’ve never been able to see a problem with Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.””

    This is the model of the family, which is based on love. Dad may bring in all the money, but that doesn’t mean he eats lobster for dinner while everyone else gets oatmeal. In an economy of love, Marx’s plan works.

    But humanity hasn’t evolved to that point yet. I hope we get there one day, but it’s still a ways off.

    OTOH, some form of socialism is going to be necessary once the robots take all our jobs.

    Biggest argument against man-made climate change is that the climate has ALWAYS been changing. Glaciers once covered most of north America that is now a verdant green. What made those glaciers retreat thousands of years ago? Certainly not fossil fuel emissions.

    And it hardly matters which puppet we get — they will do as they’re told or end up like JFK.

    I’m being very brief, even curt in this comment as I’ve got to be somewhere and already running late. G’night.

    1. What are your thoughts if any to the morality of forcing love? If it is voluntary, I don’t think it really qualifies as marxism since it is just free exchange and charity at that point. It is the force, and the pretense that there is none or that it is somehow charity, that is an important distinction.

      Different example: making love is great, but forced love making is no longer love, it is a violation and an attack. I believe this should apply to ideas of marxism as well. I like sharing with my neighbor even though he doesn’t have as much to share back, or at times spends a while owing me. It is the friendship I value. This idea is totally lost when it is placed in a forced institution run and enforced by theft and violence. I don’t think it’s about evolution, really. The means matter as much or maybe more than the ends.

      Oh, sorry, but one more thought. Bringing the issue of means vs. ends to the family example, if love and kindness are the goals, but any deviation from that by a child is dealt with by pain and cruelty, a withdrawing of love, then the goals cannot be met. They are corrupted by the non-loving means. It will instead teach violence and taking advantage of power over others, and a lot of confusion and strife. Love is an action, not an abstract goal reached through the exact opposite of it.

  13. Barrie, I knew the thread would take this direction when I read your piece. I don’t have too much time but I want to provide some balance on this issue since so far the majority of the comments here have been in favor of the contrarian side. On the first page of his chapter on this subject, DRG explains exactly why, in this instance, he does feel the word “denier” is indeed appropriate.

    I am hoping to not only save many dozens of minutes of typing, but show in David’s own words, the details of his take on the subject. Has anyone here who opposes DRG’s point of view has actually read his book? I have read the book and I support his POV.

    I’m experimenting with Imgur for the first time here.

    1. Yea Mr Syed, that DRG sure is big on “consensus”! No mystery there.
      And yet, what is the consensus on what the real measures to properly mend the problem?
      That is what I think Adam Ruff and myself are pointing out. At least I am. Is depending on the same power structure that caused the problem in the first place – the corporatist system, the place to seek redress? This “carbon credit” scheme is in my view, nothing more that the same sorts of machinations we see in the financial markets that have sucked the wealth from the common people and created an oligarchy of such political power it can move the chess pieces anywhere it chooses, and spread PR to entrance any but the most aware. Not “scientifically aware” – but sociopolitically aware.

      Aside from my critique, thank you for your efforts in presenting your argument.
      \\][//

      1. Actually Willy I am saying that the entire AGW meme is a fraud. A fat stinking massive global fraud. Not only are we not warming but even if we were man would only play an infinitesimally tiny part in it by our contribution of CO2. The cycles of the sun are responsible for the lions share of temperature changes on Earth and then other factors such as water vapor in the air (clouds) play a large part. So on and so on until you finally come to the trace gas CO2 which plays a comparatively tiny roll in global temperature and I mean TINY!

        CO2 actually is good for plants and they do grow larger and faster with higher concentrations. Larger plants and more plants naturally sequester more CO2 so there is a natural balancing mechanism built in already for CO2. But the real clincher here is that even if man stopped all of our CO2 emissions completely the effect on global temperature would not even be noticeable. In the mean time all power plants, all vehicles, and virtually all human activity would have to cease. Billions would starve to death and for what? A theoretical tiny drop in global temperature. Besides cold is far more dangerous to mankind than warming is anyway.

        You do realize that to stop mans production of CO2 billions of people have to go without power and sanitation and industry right? You do realize literally billions will die as a result right? If you do not realize that then you have not thought this through.

        At any rate this is rapidly becoming useless because critical logical points are being ignored. For example I said above that temperature changes do not follow CO2 level changes but rather CO2 levels change as a result of temperature changes with an approximately 800 year lag. For AGW to be a real threat temperature changes would necessarily have to follow CO2 level changes. Do you follow the logic? Temperature drives CO2, CO2 does not drive temperature. Game, set, match.

        There are dozens of other fatal flaws to the AGW scheme but just digest that one and let it sink in.

    2. I already made an extensive post addressing the so called “consensus” among scientists. The article I posted exposes the fraud that the “consensus” really is. I also posted a petition with over 30,000 scientist names on it who dispute AGW. Obviously that post was not read. So the whole idea that there is a consensus is patently false in the first place and therefore I am not ignoring any scientific consensus, and so according to DRG’s own criteria I am not in denial.

      The supposed scientific consensus is a fraud.

  14. It makes sense to me that if there is ice melting anywhere in the world the oceans’ rise would be uniform. A one centimeter rise in San Diego means a one centimeter rise in Miami. That may be the case but all I’ve heard about so far are how there are beaches sinking in the Solomon Islands. I have also read that due to pollution the coral is dying off the Solomon Islands and that is causing the beaches to decay.

    1. So according to Griffin these six scientists were supported and publicized by Exxon Mobile. I see no reference though to back up the claim. Let’s assume Griffin is correct that these six are in fact supported and publicized by Exxon Mobile. I see no evidence presented that any of the 30k+ signatures are fraudulent so what are we supposed to conclude here? I’ll tell you what we are supposed to conclude and that is that all the signatures are tainted because these six are supported and publicized by Exxon. Guilt by association anyone? No sale on that point with me. I consider the 30,000+ scientists to be valid until I see evidence they are not. I have presented evidence already that the 97% consensus is in fact a total fraud and based on a hand selected 77 out of over 1,000.

  15. Matt Sullivan wrote a detailed article about the scandal of climate scientists fudging the data several years ago. It’s still good. http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/283942989/climategate

    Here’s an excerpt:

    The scientists involved in the Climategate scandal are the very ones who have attempted to prove the link between CO2 and global warming. The main tool they have used to demonstrate a link is a variation on the famous “Hockey Stick” graph that Al Gore made the centerpiece of his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”. The Hockey Stick, created by Dr Mann of Penn State, is a graph of global temperature plotted over the span of the last 1000 years. The graph is very dramatic because it shows past temperatures basically flat until 1900 when the graph takes a turn up, then dramatically higher for the last few decades.

    Hockey Stick Graph When you compare this climate Hockey Stick graph with a graph of atmospheric CO2 levels, which follows an almost identical pattern, flat for centuries then rising ever steeper after 1900; BINGO! They match! Proof, they say, that CO2 is causing the warming.

    There is only one problem. The actual record of temperature looks nothing at all like the Hockey Stick suggests. For one thing, the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, when temperatures were higher than they are today, has been completely eliminated, and the Little Ice Age is also reduced significantly. Even more recent climate anomalies, such as the extraordinarily warm decade of the 1930s (remember the dustbowl?) have been erased from the data as well. (Actually, as the e-mails show, the 30s “blip” is in the data; it’s simply been erased from the graph.)

    Here is a graph of what we used to think the temperature record looked like, from the IPCC’s own publications in 1990:

    Climate History from IPCC 1990 The CO2 website, http://www.co2science.org, lists papers by more than 750 scientists from more than 400 institutions in the peer-reviewed literature that provide hard evidence that the MWP was real, was global, and was warmer than the present.

    The scientists, Jones and Mann, contend that they are justified in rewriting the temperature record based on new data gathered from tree rings and other “proxies”. The theory is that the growth rings of certain trees can be used to deduce the temperature in the past, i.e. that tree data can be used as a proxy for temperature….

    1. I actually downloaded all the e-mails for the climategate scandal and read them one by one and they falsified the results. They cheated, they lied, they committed a huge fraud, and they got caught! So the “science” that the IPCC used to foist off the global warming scam on the world was based on fraudulent data. Not scientific at all.

  16. It would be prudent, as we maintain vigilance against Trump’s fascist potential, to keep our guard up against being drawn into other insidious campaigns based on fear and false information. Chief among these is the “threat” of climate Armageddon. Everywhere, we hear the drumbeat and the ridiculous (and dangerous) claim that “the science is settled,” that “we have consensus,” and that “the debate is closed.” The proper name for settled science is religion, and that is exactly what the “closed debate” on greenhouse warming has become. The issue has become so polarized and politicized that those who have variant opinions are labeled with such pejorative epithets as “climate deniers” and “shills of Big Oil.” Even that once respectable term “skeptic” has been given a strong pejorative connotation, and those who dare to question climate orthodoxy as presented by that omniscient clearinghouse of climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stand in jeopardy of losing their careers. Some have even proposed that such dissenters should be jailed for “crimes against humanity.” Some have understandably styled this disturbing trend as “environmental fascism.”

    Science as I know it is never settled, and any reputable climate scientist should be well aware that when dealing with so complex a system as Earth’s climate, “consensus” is both irrelevant and counterproductive, and with good reason. My colleague Peter Ward and I have pored through over 10,000 climate-related journal articles, searching for experimental or observational evidence bearing on the validity of greenhouse warming theory. We found only one experiment, performed by Knut Angstrom in 1900, and Angstrom’s conclusion was that there is very little warming effect on air due to increasing concentration of carbon dioxide. In other words, greenhouse warming theory is just that, theory, and it is unsupported by any solid experimental or observational evidence whatsoever. The fact that our sophisticated climate models, based on greenhouse warming theory, fail to explain the feeble warming trend of the past 17 years should be a serious heads-up that something is wrong. Ward and I address this in great detail in our new book “What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse Gases or Ozone Depletion?” available on amazon.com, and on our website WhyClimateChanges.com.

    1. davidbennettlaing,

      Thank you for you very sophisticated and knowledgeable commentary.

      I will check out your website.
      \\][//

    2. Hello, David!

      At your website on your “Challenge” page and on your “Book” page you have the title of your book wrong.

      You have it as:

      “…..What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse gases or global warming?…..”

      You might want to correct that.

    3. Have you read over research regarding the saturation point of CO2 and its warming effect? Is there any credence to the claim that CO2 is already at a high saturation such that more added has less and less effect on warming?

      The idea that warming increases atmospheric CO2 seems to make sense on the basis that the warmer the planet in general the more plant biomass can be supported. Great plant biomass can support greater animal life and the both of them contribute to higher circulating CO2 and oxygen levels, rather than being stuck in more inert states, in soil or in the oceans, etc. This is speculation, and I was hoping someone had some information about that.

  17. Adam Syed: I have tremendous respect for you and for DRG (both his work on 9/11 and his theological work), but I think you both have it wrong on “climate change”. I think Adam Ruff has it right. You might want to take a look at Foster Gamble’s recent blog post on the subject; it is thoughtful and well-annotated. Here is a point I don’t see being made in this debate: I think we can all agree that the MSM is constantly lying to us about the big issues of the day as they advance the NWO agenda. Obviously they are continually cramming this AGW meme down our throats. Don’t you think it would be odd if they were telling the truth about AGW when they are lying about everything else? Finally, another question: while I admit that I have not read DRG’s book on climate change, does he even mention chemtrails and geoengineering? Many well-informed people believe that IF global warming is caused by human activity, it is being caused by geoengineering, not by carbon emissions. If DRG does not discuss this subject, I think that severely impairs his thesis.

    1. Bauer,

      He does not mention geo-engineering or chemtrails.

      I get it, DRG, Barrie and myself clearly hold the minority view on this comment thread, and likely within the T/S community.

      In my view, this convo started off on shaky footing when the “31, 487 climate scientists” petition was cited. This petition does not have a lick of credibility the way the AE petition does. There is no verification team to vet credentials. One of the Spice Girls and several crew members of the show M*A*S*H are listed among these “climate scientists.” If software engineer Jim Hoffman signed, he’d be counted as a “climate scientist.”

      A typical “hoax” (I’ll use that word since people get in a tizzy over “denialist”) argument is that the global warming in recent decades is due to the sun. However, in the introduction to David’s book, it informs us that the increase in solar radiation leveled off after 1950, and that since the 1970s, “the sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions: While the sun has had a slight cooling trend, the climate has been getting warmer and warmer” (p. 12).

      Another argument is that one of the “warm periods” in the past 2,000 years was “arguably warmer than today.” However, as Skeptical Science pointed out, the warming was limited to certain regions and that overall, there was no global warming comparable to that of today.
      https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

      This will be my last exchange on this topic in this thread, because, frankly, I don’t want to discuss DRG’s book with people who haven’t read it and most likely will refuse to read it.

      Merry Christmas everyone.

      1. Adam,

        It makes no difference if you and DRG and Barrie are in the minority or not. That is my point that consensus is not a scientific measure. If it were just you on the one side and everyone else against you it would make no difference as to which position was right and which was wrong. That was the point I was trying to make above when I said:

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/is-trump-a-fascist-its-much-worse/#comment-38289
        “First of all when has science ever been about consensus anyway? Isn’t consensus actually flagrantly unscientific to begin with? Should not the scientific experimentation results themselves decide what is true and not true scientifically rather than a popularity contest?

        At any rate even the idea that there is an actual consensus among scientists is a blatant lie as illustrated in the following survey.”

        And there I posted the survey you take exception with. Well I did not post the survey as any sort of validation for my position but rather I posted it to show that the “consensus” itself was not true. If you recall I also said:

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/is-trump-a-fascist-its-much-worse/#comment-38288
        “Myth #1: There is a consensus among scientists that man made global warming is happening,

        The ‘97% consensus’ of scientists on climate change is complete bunk… fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD”

        And I went on to show how the 97% consensus is a lie in the first place. My main point however is that the problem with this whole issue is:

        “One of the big problems with the AGW debate is that each side of the debate thinks their “scientists” are the only legitimate “scientists” and the enemy camp “scientists” are all paid shills from either big oil or receive huge grants to come to predetermined conclusions. So it comes down to my “scientists” are better and more pure than your “scientists” so I am right and you are wrong argument.

        In order to avoid that argument I am going to suggest to everyone what I think is the truth of this issue.

        “Science” has been corrupted from many sides and much of what science says today is simply false. In other words we just don’t know how the climate works because it is so complex that we can not possibly account for all the factors involved. Even though we don’t know the truth we are going to say that we do know the truth about the climate because we are getting paid to promote an agenda.

        “Science” has become to some almost a religion where people calling themselves “scientists” are pure as the driven snow and beyond all reproach. They are essentially priests who always use the “scientific method” and are never ever corrupted by money or personal bias. In the simplistic view of the world “scientist” are the all knowing priests of our time, they are moral, they are incorruptible, and of course they are never ever wrong. Of course that is WRONG. “Scientists” are frequently wrong and their theories are proved to be bunk all the time by “scientists” who are themselves later proved wrong by other “scientists” who in turn are proved wrong. Science is an ongoing evolving process and the truth is their are some things we just don’t know enough about to make valid scientific arguments one way or the other. Climate is one of those things.”

        So Adam I am not making the argument that those 31,000+ signatures mean something about who is right and who is wrong I am simply saying that there is no actual consensus at all. Even if only 1% of those signatures are valid it still completely shatters the idea that there is consensus. Thus my post called Myth #1: There is a consensus among scientists that man made global warming is happening.

          1. Thanks, Adam. And, to be fair to you, I will check out the videos you posted and review the arguments more thoroughly.

            I, also, am interested in the actual arguments themselves, and not have this or any topic be subjected to “my side has more experts supporting it than your side.” After all, the incident a few months ago when the AIA took that vote at the Convention, on the issue of WTC7. A naysayer came to the podium and declared that diesel fuel fires brought down the building, that this has been investigated already and that they solved the mystery, and that it was 14 years ago and we all need to move on. The entire place applauded. Almost 4,000 voted no with 160+ voting yes.

            So agreed. Reality and consensus opinion don’t always match.

            It has been almost a year since I read in full DRG’s book on his subject in full. I was not quite sure where to stand on this issue but I knew his intellect was one I could trust. To my satisfaction, I felt he addressed and refuted the actual arguments used by your side of the argument. He himself didn’t spend pages and pages on each argument, but rather, summed it up and provided references.

            Since it has been a year since I’ve looked at this subject up close, perhaps a refresher is in order.

            And I appreciate your tone and your agreement to disagree. The way I see it, the 9/11 perps and those tasked with slowing the truth movement love nothing more than to see people united on that subject, like ourselves, become divided and less effective as activists thanks to the AGW (or any other) issue.

            As I said, I’ll check out the videos you posted.

        1. CONSENSUS is a myth contingent on one single moment in time that will morph instantly by the next moment. It is a false concept philosophically and practically. In a word, it is, BULLSHIT.
          \\][//

    2. David that is a very valid point you make. I use the MSM as a guide to what is right and what is wrong now days but the way I do that is I look at the general agenda the MSM are trying to push toward and I regard that agenda as probably nefarious and probably false. I then investigate and find out if it actually is false and nefarious. It usually turns out to be completely false and even more nefarious than I suspected. The MSM is so completely corrupt at this point that you can almost literally take everything they say and invert it to find the truth.

      The media and the government are 100% behind the AGW scam and are pushing it with all their dwindling might. Since both the media and the government are proven pathological liars I suspected that the AGW meme might be false so I started investigating. I did extensive research into the subject and have participated in many very long discussions about it. I have read many many “scientific” papers on the subject and participated in many discussions about those papers. I can say in all honesty that I have probably done more research and more digging into the subject than DRG has at this point.

      My research differs from DRG’s in one important way though. I do not listen to the MSM as any sort of credible source of information while he apparently does. Thus DRG believes AGW is true until proven wrong while I believe it is false until proved true. So I went about trying to find out why AGW isn’t true and DRG went about trying to prove it is true. The scientific method if I am not mistaken involves making a hypothesis and then testing it to see if it holds up. So being skeptical is actually the much more scientific approach.

      In my opinion DRG and AGW advocates in general are still somewhat naive to just how corrupt and evil all our institutions have become. In DRG’s mind and perhaps in all AGW advocates minds the possibility that our scientific and academic institutions have all been corrupted does not even occur. I on the other hand know for a fact that they have been corrupted to an extreme degree. To DRG the possibility that “scientists” would perpetrate a giant fraud upon us all is out of the question. To me it is a very real possibility that my research has unfortunately born out.

      “Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – David Icke

      1. I’m in agreement with you on the utter corruption of all of “our” institutions.

        I’m also in agreement with you on AGW, but I noticed one slight flaw in your approach:

        “So I went about trying to find out why AGW isn’t true and DRG went about trying to prove it is true. The scientific method if I am not mistaken involves making a hypothesis and then testing it to see if it holds up. So being skeptical is actually the much more scientific approach”

        The scientific method assumes neither the truth or falsity of a claim.
        We shouldn’t only be skeptical of AGW, but anti-AGW also when we begin our research.

        Your observation that the mainstream media and the “government” are pushing it is a legitimate reason to doubt it, but we should still not take a stance until we have looked at the evidence.

        “The MSM is so completely corrupt at this point that you can almost literally take everything they say and invert it to find the truth”

        That’s right, Adam…..especially history.

        Almost ALL of “our” so-called history is like a photographic negative of reality.

        “Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – David Icke

        That was actually Michael Ellner who said that. not David Icke.

        http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/266184-just-look-at-us-everything-is-backwards-everything-is-upside

        1. Your point is well taken Sockpuppet and you are right to say that I am guilty of my own bias. I try not to be biased but I admit that I have been in some instances. In the case of AGW however I started out as a firm believer in it and over time and after challenges to my position I changed to the position I have today. Today I believe that AGW is a giant fraud aimed at bilking the whole world and railroading us into a one world governmental control system which would literally be hell on Earth for us all.

          AGW is the cornerstone of the Technocracy which is trying to establish it’s dominance on planet Earth. Scientists and technocrats are the priests of this new world order and if they gain control we are quite literally screwed.

        2. Icke lifted the quote from Ellner is my guess because Icke said that in one of his talks. Ellner said it first I am sure but Icke is saying it now too if not verbatim very close to it.

  18. Adam R: “‘Science’ has been corrupted from many sides and much of what science says today is simply false.” I believe this is correct. For proof, spend some time reading Miles Mathis’s papers on physics and astronomy, posted to his website (milesmathis.com).

    1. “Miles Mathis’s papers on physics and astronomy”~David Bauer

      Thanks for the lead David, this looks very interesting. Being a fan of nonlinearism, I began reading here:

      [PHYSICS]
      ELEVEN BIG QUESTIONS YOU SHOULD HAVE FOR THE STANDARD MODEL
      by Miles Mathis

      We get a constant line of bald propaganda from physics now, claiming a near-complete knowledge of the universe. This propaganda is not new: it has been building for over a century. Lord Kelvin claimed (around 1900) that there was nothing new to be learned in physics. Relativity and quantum mechanics shushed the Lord Kelvins for a few decades, but soon they were at it again. The Big Brag hit what one might call a new crescendo in 1988 with the release of Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time. There Hawking claimed that we would achieve physical omniscience within a decade, and physics would be finished. Now, over two decades later, we are no nearer omniscience; we are only nearer a perfect hubris. As I showed in my analysis of a recent NASA video on Hulu.com, most science releases meant for public consumption still lead with this claim of near-omniscience. We are told that we are close to complete understanding of physics, and that we need only a couple of small pieces to complete the puzzle.
      http://milesmathis.com/quest.html
      \\][//

    2. Awesome, I didn’t expect someone to bring Miles Mathis up.. I too have to vouch for the originality and mechanistic/realist approach Miles brings to his physics papers. I have read many, many of them and I think his ideas may have some merit. I would recommend a place to start in reading his papers: http://milesmathis.com/uft.html

      This paper breaks down Newton’s gravity equation, even deriving what he believes is the basis for the constant G, and separating that equation into an electromagnetic and gravity components with opposite signs. I constructed a computer simulation based on this and have been playing around with it, making objects orbit and repel each other. I hope to have it up on GitHub soon. (I’m a programmer by trade, with some math background)

      He particularly takes exception to the virtualization of physics, such that many interactions are claimed to have no physical basis. An example is particle spin – standard theory calls the spin “integral” meaning it is not physically spinning, but it is an innate numeric property. This is supposed to be physics, yet it seems to have ventured into the world of pure information and mathematical manipulation.

  19. I also agree with Mr. Whitten that generally speaking, “consensus” has little if any relevance when it comes to determining the truth of a proposition.

  20. Washington (CNN) Donald Trump seems set to end 2015 as the dominant force in the race for next year’s Republican nomination for president, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz now a clear — yet distant — second after a strong debate performance, a new CNN/ORC poll released on Wednesday has found.

    Trump tops the field with 39%, according to the poll of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters. That’s more than double the share backing Cruz, who, at 18%, has inched up 2 points since the last CNN/ORC poll, which was taken in late November.

    Trump has been a constant atop the polls since his ascent to the lead in July, and this new poll marks the first time Cruz stands significantly apart from the other candidates vying for the nomination. Behind those two, Ben Carson and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio have each slipped a few points and now stand tied at 10%.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/23/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-cnn-orc-poll/
    \\][//

  21. Episode 310 – How Big Oil Conquered The World

    From farm to pharmaceutical, diesel truck to dinner plate, pipeline to plastic product, it is impossible to think of an area of our modern-day lives that is not effected by the oil industry. The story of oil is the story of the modern world. And this is the story of those who helped shape that world, and how the oil-igarchy they created is on the verge of monopolizing life itself.

    \\][//

  22. Although I could post a plethora more about the AGW issue I will let this be my last post for now on the issue. The following testimony before congress I will let stand as my final comment on the issue and I strongly recommend that anyone who genuinely believes man is causing catastrophic global warming watch this to the end.

  23. Now on to the main topical question of whether or not Trump is a fascist. I will say this about Trump he is a big supporter (or at least he says he is) of the right to keep and bear arms. That philosophy (if he truly believes it) is very much anti fascist. Fascists are the biggest gun grabbers of all, from the worst of the worst Mao, to the second worst Stalin, to Hitler they were all gun grabbers and in fact insisted on disarming the population. Attempted gun control (code language for gun confiscation) is therefore a strong indicator of a fascist regime trying to gain complete control over it’s own population. Following successful gun confiscation efforts by a fascist regime the population (or part of it) usually gets massacred.

    Trumps first position paper was on the second amendment and he expressed strong support in that paper for the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms in particular.

    If in fact his support for the Constitution is true then not only is Trump NOT a fascist but I would say he is extremely anti-fascist.

    I do not dispute the fact that Trump could just be using propaganda to win over the Libertarians and patriots and may actually turn out to be a fascist pig later. What I am saying is that if he proves through his own action to be a protector of the Constitution and of the right to keep and bear arms then he cannot be called a fascist.

    I know this much though, some of the other candidates are openly advocating for gun control in direct opposition to the Constitution and because of that they are provably closer to fascists than Trump is at this point. At least for now Trump is saying (yes talk is cheap) he believes in the Constitution which is better than those openly trying to destroy it.

  24. HAPPY FUCKIN’ NEW YEAR…

    6,000 COPS, CHECKPOINTS, SNIPERS, K-9S – WHAT CELEBRATING THE NEW YEAR IN A POLICE STATE LOOKS LIKE

    New York City, NY — Like an Orwellian wet dream come to life, the NYPD has announced that more than 6,000 cops will be herding Times Square attendees into spectator pens this New Year’s Eve while violating their Fourth Amendment right prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. Instead of deterring further acts of violence, the excessive show of force merely reinforces the notion that the terrorists have already won by utilizing fear to turn the state against its own people.

    Armed with rifles, radiation detectors, and bomb-sniffing dogs, over 6,000 uniformed NYPD officers will descend upon the one million spectators expected to attend New Year’s this evening in Times Square. Roughly 1,200 probationary cops and plainclothes police will also be assigned to either watch the perimeter or infiltrate the crowds while working undercover.

    Instead of being allowed to walk freely, the crowd must enter Times Square at one of the 14 checkpoints and submit to body inspections with magnetometers and hand wands as counterterrorism officers armed with long guns stand by. After enduring a secondary screening, people will be allowed to watch the ball drop from one of the 65 massive spectator pens while surrounded by snipers and K-9 units.

    “We’ll have over 5,000 officers assigned to Times Square,” NYPD Chief James O’Neill stated. “There will be hundreds of traffic agents, plus additional mobile cameras, chemical and radiation detectors, specially-trained police dogs sniffing for traces of explosives, cops on horseback, helicopters, and police boats.”

    Although the NYPD and FBI claim that there are currently no threats against Times Square, the additional security measures are clearly a knee-jerk reaction to recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. With police militarization and mass surveillance both having failed to prevent a single terrorist attack, the state continues to justify using these vile weapons at home and abroad in the name of fighting terrorism.

    On December 20, Lakeisha Holloway intentionally drove onto a sidewalk in Las Vegas, killing one and wounding 30 other pedestrians. On April 15, 2013, security at the Boston Marathon failed to stop two brothers from setting off bombs that resulted in 3 people killed and an estimated 264 wounded. Throughout 2015, several videos recorded Israeli soldiers failing to prevent multiple knife attacks throughout Jerusalem.

    Even with Big Brother having access to over 1,000 surveillance cameras covering Times Square, the police cannot stop a psychopath armed with a gun, a car, acid, a homemade explosive device, a kitchen knife, or a Molotov cocktail from suddenly attacking the crowd. This excessive show of force is merely an illusion of safety that actually diverts resources from other parts of the city, leaving many neighborhoods virtually unprotected in areas with high crime rates. When asked about these vulnerable neighborhoods, NYPD Commission Bill Bratton replied, “The ability to protect everything all the time is not possible anywhere.”

    Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-state-effect-6000-cops-descend-times-square-years-eve/#EtVzoTFuO6U20xsu.99
    \\][//

    1. Truly sickening… I have to laugh at the idiot mercenary pointing his gun at his fellow gang members. Or maybe it’s not an accident. Isn’t that sort of against gun use best practices? Don’t point it at someone unless you plan to shoot?

  25. WHAT THEY HAVEN’T TOLD YOU ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
    Presented by PATRICK MOORE
    Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.

    \\][//

    1. To me it is totally obvious that “Climate Change” is a political football being used by the status quo to rip the people off with their “Carbon Tax” bullshit. Why anyone sophisticated enough to figure out 9/11 cannot see this is beyond me.
      \\][//

  26. Barrie,

    I do not often use the word “fascist”, but hearing Trump at the New Hampshire debate Saturday night made him clear to me. When I heard him say that he will bring back “waterboarding and much worse” and he expressed his total love for police, then that is enough for me.

    After Cruz said waterboarding is not torture and he could also use it, even Bush disavowed returning to waterboarding (which doesn’t mean I believe him, but, hell, Trump is totally open about doing evil).

    So I’m with you.

    Adam Ruff,

    I cannot accept your December 21 message: “First of all let me say from the outset that I think trump is an asshole. I also think Clinton is an asshole and so is Jeb Bush but on the scale of measuring how big an asshole each candidate is I have to say that Trump is the smallest of the three assholes.”

    1. Paul I can appreciate what you are saying here and I agree with you that Trump saying he supports torture is the last straw for me too. I do want to point out though that Clinton and Bush are no better and they would use torture and murder and everything else too. ALL the offered candidates are rotten to the core. In any case as far as Trump goes he is still the best of the ones who might win even though he is clearly a vicious monster who supports torture. Keep in mind they are all vicious monsters though, Trump is just more out in the open about it. Clinton is a lying snake and she betrayed her countryman in Benghazi and has had a hand in all sorts of nefarious dealings. Top it off with her gun grabbing mentality and you have her checking in as the worst of the terrible three. Bush, just like his brother, father, and grand father is REALLY a fascist scumbag. Prescott Bush even funded the Nazi’s through Union Bank so that is Jeb’s pedigree.

      So yes Trump is a pig, a torturing pig lowlife but the others are still worse. So in the words of Jack Nicholson from The Two Jake’s: “In this race Trump is the leper with the most fingers.” I will NOT vote for him though. I will vote Libertarian.

      1. I don’t get how some torturing pigs are better than others. The difference with Trump is we don’t know if he’ll actually do what he says. If he does then he’s not better than anyone. Building a wall on the Mexican border and shutting down part of the Internet are not things to give him even the slightest bit of credit for. I also would not give him any credit for being a more open fascist.

        1. I don’t give him credit at all I am just making the point that people are fooling themselves if they think Clinton or Bush are somehow better choices. They aren’t.

          1. The the information about the German National Socialists is mostly false..understanding communist subversion is far more important. You won’t understand National Socialism without understanding communism…and the Talmud. There wouldn’t be ‘fascism’without the others…

  27. Your statement about Nazism rather than Jesus enjoying a “second coming” …
    Are you a professed agnostic, atheist, or did you ever study the Bible?
    The U.N. is a precursor to a one world government. That was 1945. You can’t have a free country, and a one world government:

    Welcome to the USSA [United Socialist States of America]. No thanks to Bush’s UNpatriot act, and a Legislative branch which permitted it. Then it was expanded by Obama; NDAA made us a de-facto police state. We are not free.

    Bible prophecy shows us the endgame, and it isn’t pretty. If you think the times are horrid now, fasten your seatbelt. It will be worse than Hitler’s regime.

    You want to portray Trump as the next “Fuhrer”? We already HAVE a tyrannical rogue government, which doesn’t give a !!!! about the Constitution, and has a laundry list of egregious actions they have perpetrated; and continue to perpetrate. Trump speaks truth to power; Islam not Trump, is a real, not an Imagined threat.

    Nor was I thrilled with “The larger question is to what extent the USA and Europe are going down a Nazi path, arguably risking World War III, exactly when the world instead should be mobilizing for a just war—if ever there was one—the war to save the planet from destruction caused by global warming.
    Right; Global warming, one of the biggest hoaxes the left has to offer. Give me a break, Barrie

    1. djeminy said:

      “‘PERSONS WHO DESPISE OR HATE OTHER NATIONS OR OTHER RACES WILL IN THE NEXT SUCCEEDING INCARNATIONS INVARIABLY BE BORN AMONG THEM, SO THAT THEY MAY LEARN TO LOVE THOSE WHOM THEY PREVIOUSLY HATED.’”

      Hello, djeminy!

      Can you give an example of how this would work in real life?

      How does Karma fit into this?

        1. No, djeminy…..nothing in that post on Pilots answers my question.

          Why can’t you simply give an example of how your statement fits into the world of observed reality?

          How did you come across that “knowledge”?

          What part of history or demographics can you point to that proves your thesis?

  28. Actually dear sockpuppet, if you carefully read the OP linked to, you’ll find that it perfectly answer your questions.

    All i can do further, is to refer you to a few more posts in the same thread:

    Concerning ‘killings and murders’ in relation to the laws of Karma (the laws of cause and retribution), can be found in post #869 and #870 on page 44.

    Concerning ‘The Golden Rule’, this can be found in post #930 on page 47.

    In posts #966 to post #974 on page 49, i give a recapitulation of some of the more important drawings that was shown in previous pages. (Hope you’ll take a look!)

    Concerning “The first shall be the last, and the last shall be the first”, is touched upon in posts #979 and #987 on pages 49 and 50. (Last post so far).

    This thread has to date attracted close to 128.000 visitor counts, but since its beginning nearly 6 years ago, has never experienced one single dissenting voice nor any contrary argument.

    Trust you won’t be the first!

    Cheers

    1. As I said before, djeminy:

      “NOTHING in that post answers my question”

      The only possible way to answer my question, is to simply give an example of how your statement fits into the world of observed reality?

      The reason you can’t give an example is because this:

      “PERSONS WHO DESPISE OR HATE OTHER NATIONS OR OTHER RACES WILL IN THE NEXT SUCCEEDING INCARNATIONS INVARIABLY BE BORN AMONG THEM, SO THAT THEY MAY LEARN TO LOVE THOSE WHOM THEY PREVIOUSLY HATED”

      …..is 100% provable claptrap…..IT DOESN’T FIT OBSERVABLE REALITY!

      It doesn’t fit history…..it doesn’t fit demographics.

      It is nothing but the wishful thinking of a person who feels inadequate and inferior.

      1. “It is nothing but the wishful thinking of a person who feels inadequate and inferior.”

        Why do you say that?

        Karma seems a very unfair superstition. It blames the unfortunate for their actions in (a past?) life while implying Trump and his ilk were previously saints and deserve their ill gotten gains. However my impression was that most believers are upset at the unfairness in the world and actually think they are improving the situation.

        1. Captivescientist said:

          “Why do you say that?”

          Because it is not only provably false, but OBVIOUSLY false.

          Therefore, it couldn’t have been written by a wise, “enlightened” or “inspired” person.

          It “seems” to me that it was written by someone who does not have a great deal of critical thinking ability to see the obvious contradictions it would entail.

          “Karma seems a very unfair superstition. It blames the unfortunate for their actions in (a past?) life while implying Trump and his ilk were previously saints and deserve their ill gotten gains. However my impression was that most believers are upset at the unfairness in the world and actually think they are improving the situation”

          That’s exactly what I’m driving at, captivescientist.

          It “seems” to me that it was probably written by someone who sees “life”, and Mother Nature as cruel, unjust and “unfair”, and wants to “get back” at the people who s/he projects his/her “hatred” onto, and since s/he is obviously not going to “get back” at “them” in this life, s/he says:

          “You just wait…..yeah…..you just wait…..after you die, you’re gonna get it!”

          Having said that…..I do believe in “karma”; but it doesn’t apply to “you”, or my “brother”, or my “neighbor”, or those “haters” or those “warmongers”…..it ONLY applies to ME!

          Political correctness is based on hatred of Mother Nature.

            1. djeminy said:

              “‘As YOU sow, so YOU shall reap!’

              It’s that simple”

              No, djeminy, it’s NOT “that simple”…..that’s the cry-baby way of seeing life.

              The proper way, or at least the more mature way of looking at life is:

              “As I sow, so shall I reap”

              As I said in my previous comment:

              “Karma doesn’t apply to YOU…..it only applies to ME”

              The only way to properly say:

              “As YOU sow, so shall YOU reap”

              …..is when I am looking in a mirror.

              xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

              And you are STILL unable to give an example of how this hare-brained nonsense:

              “PERSONS WHO DESPISE OR HATE OTHER NATIONS OR OTHER RACES WILL IN THE NEXT SUCCEEDING INCARNATIONS INVARIABLY BE BORN AMONG THEM, SO THAT THEY MAY LEARN TO LOVE THOSE WHOM THEY PREVIOUSLY HATED”

              …..fits in with history and demographics.

              1. How can this sowing/reaping rule apply to you, and me, but not me if you’re talking about me, or you if I’m talking about you?

                “As YOU sow, so shall OTHERS reap”

                Is probably as true, no? At least let us pray the GOP reaps the whirlwind of Trump.

                1. creative scientist said:

                  “At least let us pray the GOP reaps the whirlwind of Trump”

                  It doesn’t matter what puppet is in the White House; it wouldn’t change anything at all if a talking Teddy Bear was placed in the Oval Office.

                  The only thing it might change would be the timeline; and if it changed the timeline, then it was MEANT to change the timeline by the REAL powers that be.

                  That’s why I’ve refrained from commenting on this thread.

                  Watching the Quadrennial Freak Show is like being in Plato’s cave and commenting on the shadows going by:

                2. Captivescientist, you’re being rather silly!

                  Ás you sow, so you shall reap’, is an age old saying directed to all human beings on Earth – past present and future.

                  Cheers

                3. Amazing how simple things can be made to become so complicated!

                  ‘AS you sow, so shall you reap’, is an age old saying addressed to all of mankind – past, present and future.

                  Cheers

                  1. Re. these double posts above. The first one was done on my old DELL pc. in another room. I didn’t see it appearing on the blog, so a few hours later decided to send it again using my trusty imac. Must have forgotten my little remark to Cs in the meantime!!

                    Cheers

  29. Some reader might gain some further understanding by reading the following answer; also found in the thread above – in post #881 on page 45:

    (Question asked by human beings, and answered by intelligences from the transcendental world):

    “…….
    Are we, in the opinion of the higher intelligences, justified in asking why we and the world exist?
    If so, is it conceivable that primal Thought during its struggle against Darkness also questioned
    the purpose and value of existence?

    This question is of course justified, both in the opinion of the higher intelligences and from the human point of view. When primal Thought was confronted with the possibility of a struggle against Darkness, it asked itself over and over again:

    1) Whether the purpose, the object, of its existence was a union with primal Will, a personal existence—an embodiment within a surrounding world of Light, an eternal life in wisdom, omnipotence, love,72 beauty, peace and harmony; or

    2) a continued existence as Thought without Will and without embodiment; or

    3) an absolute extinction called forth through a life lived in a cosmos of Darkness, in which the powers of Darkness would ultimately cause disintegration and annihilation of primal Thought and of primal Will.

    Primal Thought weighed the opposing possibilities in these questions, seeking to clarify for itself whether a struggle against Darkness was worthwhile in order to achieve eternal life in a sublime and eternal world of Light. It pondered deeply and to the full on the value of eternal life, and when it had considered all the arguments, for and against, it resolved to take up the struggle against Darkness. And from its inner conviction that the goal of eternal life in wisdom, omnipotence, beauty, peace and harmony was truly worth the struggle, it continued to strive against Darkness until it was victorious.

    Since the spiritual human being has its origin in God’s own Being, it is natural that human beings should likewise question he purpose and value of existence. The purpose of the existence of the human spirit in a “world of Darkness” is fully explained in Toward the Light. It was because of His fallen children, the Eldest, that God did not create beings of Light on
    the globe He had chosen—the Earth—as had been His thought and purpose. Toward the Light also explains why God gave human beings—the imperfect creatures of the Eldest—a spark of His own Being, gave them thought and will, clothed thought and will in a spiritual body, and thus gifted the human spirit with eternal life. God did all this to help His beloved fallen children gain victory over the Darkness that they had drawn forth, in their pride and willfulness, from encapsulation in the Light. God did all this in the hope that each human spirit would, by its own thought and will, contribute toward overcoming a part of the Darkness of earthly life and thereby eliminating it. And He gave the human spirit the gift of eternal life that it should have a goal at which to aim, a goal for which to strive, a goal for whose attainment to yearn. But whether this gift is of value to the individual human spirit must each alone decide. Every human spirit is therefore confronted—when mature enough to draw its own conclusions—with the choice:
    an eternal life in God’s Kingdom, or eternal extinction. The human spirit must then itself decide if eternal life in God’s Kingdom can outweigh the struggle against Darkness, against the temptations and the sin and the evil of Darkness. The decision must be the spirit’s own, whether to continue in numerous earthly lives—interrupted by physical death—to strive against Darkness, to overcome it and to journey victoriously onward to God’s Kingdom, or choose non-existence for eternity.

    Human spirits during their sojourn in the spheres have again and again been confronted with this choice, and will again and again in future be given the same choice. For the choice is not made once and for all; the possibility always remains open to human spirits—when they have chosen to continue—that after a completed life on Earth they may choose complete extinction.

    God compels none to continue the journey; each spirit can always decide for itself, therefore, if the cup of suffering has become so full that eternal life in God’s Kingdom can no longer compensate for the suffering and misery of earthly life. But God always extends His help to those spirits who are in doubt regarding this decision, who are weighed down by the burden of their struggle, weighed down by the temptations, the evil, the sin and the suffering of Darkness.
    He calls forth before them images of the splendor of His Kingdom. He shows them the life and existence of His first children in the Paternal Home before the great schism between the Eldest and the Youngest began. He explains to them what they will gain by striving through Darkness to the Light, and what they will give up if they cease the struggle.

    And no human spirit has yet chosen eternal extinction, all preferring to continue their journey until victory over Darkness can be gained.
    …….”

    Cheers

    1. Well, I’m glad that’s all been cleared up. So basically, in the future, some poor Mexican woman may be plagued by flashbacks of her previous life as a fascist hotelier. On the plus side, she will be able console herself and her family with the certain knowledge that darkness itself has been thwarted once again. And so the great cycle repeats.

      1. Now you’re catching on, captive!

        You see how you just needed someone to explain the workings of the Universe and the Mind of God to you.

        Why don’t you buy what’s-his-name’s book: “Toward the Bank”…..oops!…..I mean “Toward the Light”?

        I’m thinking of buying the book, but first I have a few questions.

      2. Captivescientist, here you’re being rather silly!

        Under normal circumstances, and as a rule, humans would have no recollection about their previous incarnations (for obvious reasons), but in rare cases conditions can arise where persons actually can experience great suffering from such ‘mental abnormality’.

        The ‘establishment’ call this “Schizophrenia”.

        I shall leave it at that.

        Cheers

    2. djeminy said:

      “Question asked by human beings, and answered by intelligences from the transcendental world)”

      What “human beings” asked the questions?…..what are their names?

      Where did you have this séance or “channeling session” and when?

      How many “human beings” were present?

      How were the questions “answered”?

      Did you hear an audible voice of a “spirit”?

      Did the “higher intelligence” answer by using the voice of a “human being”?

      How were the “answers” recorded?…..by audio?…..automatic writing?

      “Are we, in the opinion of the higher intelligences, justified in asking why we and the world exist?”

      What makes you think you were “justified” in asking if you were “justified” in asking the second question?

      “If so, is it conceivable that primal Thought during its struggle against Darkness also questioned
      the purpose and value of existence?”

      If you were in doubt about being “justified” in asking the second question…..it would be the height of audacity to ask the third question before you got an answer to the first question about the second question.

      A “higher intelligence”…..that is, a non-dumbed-down “higher intelligence” would have answered that question by saying something like:

      “Of course it’s conceivable…..just like “Humpty Dumpty had a great fall” is conceivable”

      “This question is of course justified, both in the opinion of the higher intelligences and from the human point of view”

      Why do “human beings” and “higher intelligences” have to go through this rigamarole?…..why can’t they just ask a simple question and get an immediate and clear straightforward answer?

      “When primal Thought was confronted with the possibility of a struggle against Darkness, it asked itself over and over again”

      Why did “primal Thought” have to ask itself “over and over again”?
      Isn’t doing something over and over again and expecting different results one definition of insanity?

      …..and WHERE did “it” expect to get an answer from???

      Who or what “confronted” “primal Thought” with bla bla bla?

      “1) Whether the purpose, the object, of its existence was a union with primal Will, a personal existence—an embodiment within a surrounding world of Light, an eternal life in wisdom, omnipotence, love,72 beauty, peace and harmony; or

      2) a continued existence as Thought without Will and without embodiment; or

      3) an absolute extinction called forth through a life lived in a cosmos of Darkness, in which the powers of Darkness would ultimately cause disintegration and annihilation of primal Thought and of primal Will”

      This is seriously some laughable horseshit, Tamborine Man!

      “Since the spiritual human being has its origin in God’s own Being, it is natural that human beings should likewise question the purpose and value of existence”

      Of course it’s natural; so, why did you question whether you were “justified” in questioning it earlier?

      You see the contradiction, Tambo?

      This is nothing but quackery, flim-flam and Charlatanism on the level of Peter Popoff, Uri Geller, and Sylvia Browne.

      The name of the book you’re peddling should be “Toward the Bank”

        1. Djeminy:

          I have been trying to follow your posts in an effort to understand where you are coming from with all the light and darkness and all that… I feel that I understand now in a general sense.

          But, I still need to ask… Because I got lost within all of the disjointed stream of comments.

          Would you please summarize your point and tell me (or us) in what way all this effects what is currently happening with Trump, his being a fascist or not, and why we should rely on some karmic justice to take care of our worldly problems.

          • Do you have any evidence at all for reincarnation?

          • Do you have any evidence showing that souls of the past are being punished or rewarded with such a scheme?

          • Where do you place yourself in this philosophical hierarchy? Do you feel you have reincarnated up? Or down?

          • And lastly, why do you feel or ‘believe’ that the universe gives a rat’s ass how a microorganism like a human being, on a microplanet like the earth acts in this life or another?

          Thanks in advance.

  30. Hi David Hazan.

    As you obviously know, this blog is called truth and shadows, but analogically it could as well be called ‘Light and Darkness’, in as much as Truth (together with f.ex. Love and Wisdom) is a product of the Light, and Shadows are more related to the various shades and powers of Darkness.

    Through the years, this blog has seen participants from both ‘camps’ participate vigorously in many debates.

    Contrary to the genuine honest Truth-seekers,The ‘shadowy figures’ stood out (unbeknown to themselves, mainly by the lack of self-awareness) like a sore thumb, in the sense that they all had in common the annoying habit of never checking out the sources or the links they were provided with, or misrepresented what had been said previously. This was undoubtedly done for nefarious reasons!

    Before I address your questions and in the light of the above, I must therefore ask you kindly to let me know if you by now have familiarized yourself with the content of the links I provided in the above posts on Feb. 13 at 6:59 and Feb. 14 at 10:33?

    And if not, why not – what was the honest reason?

    Cheers

    1. “…ask you kindly to let me know if you by now have familiarized yourself with the content of the links I provided in the above posts…?” – djeminy

      If the operative word there is ‘familiarized’, then yes.

      But, I certainly did not read through the delusional Towards The Light Saga, and did not read through the long post and all of the comments on the thread you were kind enough to offer as a way to convince Sockpuppet that there is life after death. I have a feeling he’s going to need a little more convincing…

      You ask what the ‘honest’ reason is for not reading… These words of yours could have been a good enough reason all by themselves

      THE INTERSECTION OF 2 CURVES CAN NEVER CREATE A POINT.
      ONLY WHEN 2 STRAIGHT LINES INTERSECT WILL A POINT OCCUR.

      The fastest speed existing between 2 points is ZERO.

      Djemny

      But here is the real reason:

      The concepts you are bringing forth here (for some yet to be explained reason) are not really new. Any mildly curious and/or mildly intellectual person who is interested in human spirituality would be well familiar with them even if they do not subscribe to it.

      Like all other philosophical concepts attempting to satisfy man’s desperate desire to give some meaning and purpose to his existence, what you are professing is yet another ‘belief’ system. A way to convince oneself of the significance of human existence, human actions… But, more importantly, it is yet another belief system that imposes an imaginary moral code onto its believers, where one would need to behave a certain way to secure a spot in their preferred after-life scenario, whether the goal is to go to heaven, or to reincarnate into a ‘better’ version of oneself.

      These philosophies, irrespective of which specific one, are all imaginary interpretations of the world around us. They serve a purpose for the human pack, both at philosophical and practical levels, and they are absolutely essential for any group of humans larger than two. But, the fact that they are so essential to our existence does not make them true. (And, no, I did not find Toward the Light convincing either)

      But here is the catch22… When one picks one of these belief systems (or concepts, or philosophies) it comes with the heavy burden of having to denounce all other explanations. This requires commitment.. This needs determination, needs non-critical thinking, delusions, illusions, cognitive dissonance, and a million other psychological phenomenon to take place in order to be successful. And, this is exactly where I start having a problem with your comments here.

      Because, the inexplainable conviction you seem to project in your comments, and the tone of certainty you seem to apply to your preaching are telling me that you have not only succeeded on all fronts to convince yourself to the extent that ‘belief’ has replaced ‘knowledge’ for you, but also have settled into a delusional “I know” mode… Now, that, I consider to be a dangerous state to be in, as it is a sure sign that the person is capable of believing in things simply by persuasion.

      I have more questions…

      Why is there a conversation about afterlife on the Pilotsfor911truth website? Has the discourse come down to philosophical chit chat? Are the pilots done with the whole truth thing?

      I answered… Honestly… Now, your turn.

      1. David replied:
        “But, I certainly did not read through the delusional Towards The Light Saga, and did not read through the long post and all of the comments on the thread you were kind enough to offer as a way to convince Sockpuppet that there is life after death. I have a feeling he’s going to need a little more convincing…”

        So the fact is, you didn’t read the OP which sets out what will be proven in the following pages. You didn’t read posts #869 and #870 on page 44. You didn’t read post #930 on page 47. But more importantly, neither did you read or watch posts #966 to #974 on page 49, where I do a recapitulation of the drawings that in a highly significant way, and very convincingly it seems, helped to show why I must have been given some ‘guidance’ in order to draw them to such perfection. And what about my 6 amazing and totally unique collaborators!!

        David replied further:
        “You ask what the ‘honest’ reason is for not reading… ”

        Naturally I would have anticipated that this could be the most likely outcome, and which obviously turned out to be the Truth, of course.

        And further:
        “These words of yours could have been a good enough reason all by themselves …..”

        THE INTERSECTION OF 2 CURVES CAN NEVER CREATE A POINT.
        ONLY WHEN 2 STRAIGHT LINES INTERSECT WILL A POINT OCCUR.

        The fastest speed existing between 2 points is ZERO.”

        The new Maxim above was used as proof to the fact that the man-made ‘pi’ we find in our calculators is incorrect. A circle is simply a representation of any wavelength, vibration, frequency, oscillation, pulsation and the like, and to any particle whatsoever. If any reader need more ‘pointers’ to understand the importance of this new maxim, I shall be happy to oblige!

        The fastest speed etc. is an allusion to CERN’s LHC, or large hadron collider; and to ‘funny’ man Brian Greene, who ‘predicted’ it will take another 5 to 10 years before they will be able to make a collision between 2 particles. The maxim above will prove that this can never happen!

        David,
        The simple reason i’m bringing the preceding out now, is the following:

        Would a young man follow orders that tells him to cross his own borders and go to other countries killing and maiming men women and children, if he knew with certainty that these people would survive the ordeal, and that he would have to meet up with them again explaining to them the motivation for his actions? Hardly!

        Would a prime minister or president give orders to engage in wars of aggression resulting in the death of thousands upon thousands, if they also knew with certainty? Hardly!

        Would Trump adopt his current attitude regarding Muslims, if he knew that in his next incarnation he would end up a very poor man in a Muslim country? Hardly!

        some of your further writing is pure projection on you part, and the rest is just idle talk and of no
        relevance to anything here.

        By the way – why did you adopt the dirty tricks of the “shadowy figures”?

        Is that what you would like to be known as?

        Cheers

        1. Villagers in a distant land have a burning question for which they are seeking an answer. They gather and go up the mountain to see the wise man. They ask him “O wise one… We want to know where the center of the universe is.” The old man strokes his beard three times and says “it is right here, right under my left foot.” The villagers, in utter disbelief, say “But, how can that be?” The wise one replies “Well, if you don’t believe me, go measure it for yourselves!”

          So, you’d better check under your foot, djeminy… You might be stepping on it.

          I was trying to be gentle with you. But I did read enough of your links to understand that you have a very naive view of things, because all of the links you provided are full of utter gibberish, superstition, and are not well thought out at all! They also lack any depth whatsoever. Which is nothing extraordinary, because, like most people who ‘believe’ in things, you seem to have found a hammer, and you treat every issue as if it were a nail. But the unquestioning cockiness in your banter is the part I find extremely annoying.

          You keep demanding that I and others read your links. But, have you, yourself read up enough about these concepts that you seem to hold so dear?.. Have you read enough philosophy, history, psychology, social sciences etc. before you bring the so called meaning of life down to a few tidbits line like zero speed and all that? If I had a penny for every time someone claimed to have figured it all out and that they “know with certainty”, I would have had a huge jar of useless pennies by now.

          “some of your further writing is pure projection on you part, and the rest is just idle talk and of no relevance to anything here.” – Djeminy

          This comment of yours takes the cake in showing how self-UNaware you are about what you are preaching and why you are preaching it here on this site.

          And you are gonna have to explain these questions you pose:

          “By the way – why did you adopt the dirty tricks of the “shadowy figures”?

          Is that what you would like to be known as?” – djeminy

          What shadowy figures? What dirty tricks? What did I do? Am I coming back as a sewer rat in my next life? Please tell me, o wise one.

          1. The last first …..there you write:

            “What shadowy figures? What dirty tricks? What did I do? Please tell me, o wise one.”

            That’s a reference to my post a couple of days ago, Feb. 16 at 9.39 pm., where this is explained, and actually the same post from which you have already quoted!!

            “Am I coming back as a sewer rat in my next life?”

            No, nothing will change, provided you’ll come back with the same mind-set you got now of course. (Being a “shadowy figure”)!
            Yes, you will naturally be given a new name and a new physical appearance ‘clothing’ your ‘spiritual’ body, but that’s all!

            “You keep demanding that I and others read your links.”

            No, totally false. I have never demanded anything from anybody. On the contrary, I asked you ‘kindly’ if you had familiarized yourself with the content of the links?

            Again I must remind you of the same post mentioned above, wherein I point out that the ‘shadowy figures’ can (also) be “recognized” by the way they continuously “misrepresent” what others have written.

            And this here is especially a truly bad example of such inane conduct:

            “I was trying to be gentle with you. But I did read enough of your links to understand that you have a very naive view of things, because all of the links you provided are full of utter gibberish, superstition, and are not well thought out at all! They also lack any depth whatsoever. Which is nothing extraordinary, because, like most people who ‘believe’ in things, you seem to have found a hammer, and you treat every issue as if it were a nail. But the unquestioning cockiness in your banter is the part I find extremely annoying.”

            How can you form an opinion on anything in the links, without having read them or watched them first?
            And why does your so-called ‘opinions’, here based on utter ignorance, have to contain such extremely negative bias, when the subject itself is of such an extremely positive nature, i.e., ‘no human being can in fact die’!

            Cheers

            1. Ups, forgot!

              The Danish Philosopher Søren Kierkegård (Father of existentialism) wrote:

              ‘The only thing that has never been created is “the necessary”.’

              Hope you’ll chew on this for a little while!

              Cheers

              1. Uh… You really got me there, Djeminy, with this quote. (But, unless you are from Scandinavia, I may have to take off some points for copying-pasting Kierkegaard’s name ;-}]

                You assume ignorance on your readers’ part… My opinion is not based on ignorance. Quite the contrary, as a major area of interest of mine, I have had these discussions many times over.

                Enough to know that you can not demonstrate any evidence of the ideas you are propagating (like karma, reincarnation) any more than I can demonstrate they are illusionary, self aggrandizing concepts created in human mind in an effort to explain the world around them, their own existence, and their feelings of helplessness, insignificance and randomness… (or am I projecting again?)

                Yours is a belief! An interpretation of selective facts. You have no evidence of it. You just believe it! It just makes you feel good… The only thing I expect from people in this regard is that they treat their beliefs as just that, and not confuse it with ‘knowledge’, let alone knowledge with ‘certainty’. You know NOTHING with that kind of certainty. (projecting?)

                I will not get pulled into philosophical discussions, especially here at T&S, especially on a page about trump. From the get go, I asked you many times, in a much nicer tone at that, how strongly you believed what you are saying… But you sent me on a merry-go-round to various fractured, and idiotic comments on pilotsfor911 forum as your reply… And yes, I am well capable of classifying them as idiotic without reading them in their entirety) What happened there? You couldn’t have given a straight answer? It’s easy… I’ll make it multiple choice:

                Reincarnation:
                A. I don’t believe
                B. I somewhat believe
                C. I strongly believe
                D. I know without doubt and with complete certainty
                E. All of the above

                You are correct in saying that scientific discoveries and observations do change our view of life, as well as the universe around us. But the flip side of it is, since the dawn of humans and their ability to think of abstractions, this view of “things’ have been constantly altered as knowledge accumulated, changed, evolved… And not a single philosophy, spiritual or otherwise, has survived the test of time. Today’s cutting edge philosophical thoughts, tomorrow’s bullcrap…

                In other words, ideas like the one you claim would prevent Trump from being a fascist, or presidents sending armies to kill people, have a historical success rate and accuracy of ABSOLUTE ZERO!!!! So please excuse me for my cynicism when someone like you takes the tone of “certainty” and try to preach it with not-so-well thought out tidbits, which also include a story of a kid who felt someone pull her nose when she was sleeping in bed, but when she opened her eyes, all her sisters were sleeping in their beds…. Alrighty then… Where do I sign up for this cosmic power?

                Was it not one of Soren Kierkegaard’s reincarnations (he son of existentialism) who wrote “Wherever you turn, your ass is always behind you”? ;-}]

                This will be my last exchange with you. Have many many nice lives, Djeminy.

                1. David, your dishonesty is so thick that one could carve in it with a dull knife!

                  By all means, let’s get ‘Philosophy’ out of the way with these last comments;

                  Søren Kierkegård wrote:

                  “Beliefs and opinions are but Phantoms and abstractions ,indefinably flouting ‘somewhere’ between knowing and not knowing.”

                  In post #12 on first page in the ‘Life after Death!’ thread, i mention the schism that took place between on the one hand, Hegel and Descartes, and on the other, Socrates and Kierkegård.

                  To the True blue, dinkydi, fair dinkum honest Truth-seeker, i’m sure you’ll give it a nice approving ‘nod’ if you read it!

                  In post #11 I wrote this extract:

                  “……Another reason for this thread about ‘Life after death’ is the age old
                  question about whether this can be proved or not.

                  I have been working on this question for the last 28 years, and finally
                  think I will be able to do just that.

                  Not yet to everyone of course, but certainly to any person with above
                  average intelligence, who are honest, free, unbiased and able to think for her- or himself.

                  Naturally Life after death, by its very nature, cannot be proven by any scientific or
                  physical means because it will have to transcend the borders of the 3rd dimension.

                  Therefore the proof will have to be done through the Arts, which means that the
                  person or persons who receives the proof positively, will have to experience the
                  transition from ‘belief’ or ‘opinion’ into the (for some people) ‘frightening’ realm of
                  “certainty”. ……”

                  Copying da Vinci, I list 10 discoveries in same post, about the Great Pyramid in Giza, that I will use in the following pages to prove ‘Life after Death’.

                  It was the recapitulation of these drawings on page 49 that I dearly would have liked f.ex. David to have a look at, but ‘fear and dread’ overtook the poor man; nothing would be allowed to ‘tamper’ with his preconceived ‘ideas’!

                  David wrote:

                  “….which also include a story of a kid who felt someone pull her nose when she was sleeping in bed, but when she opened her eyes, all her sisters were sleeping in their beds…. Alrighty then… Where do I sign up for this cosmic power? ….”

                  So he read a ‘snippet’ in the first chapter – thought: “hey, I can use that to mock and denigrate”, and just left it at that! No further reading to find out the context, no further reading to find out whether these people could be found sincere, honest and trustworthy, or not!

                  This is deceit, hypocricy, duplicity, fraud and guile of the highest order, and where else do we see this on a daily basis? That’s right – within the ‘establishment’, including the MSM.

                  Thank you David for letting me have the last word between us, in this brief little ‘intermezzo’ of ours.

                  Cheers

  31. As a last post to end this topic (unless further questions arise because of it),
    please let me link to this reincarnation account which I think is rather persuasive
    and hopefully will awaken a greater interest in some readers mind about this
    all important subject:

    Cheers

  32. I am surprised by this. The truth of the matter is that the Republican Party has become globalist, and Trump is not a globalist. John Dean said that the Republican Party is not the same Republican Party it once was – that the corruption of the past Republican administrations (Bush) is far worse than Watergate. He calls them “high crimes.” In their desperation to rid themselves of the non-globalist Trump who will most definitely stop the flow of money to these people in themercantile system they have set up, the Republican Party, with the help of themedia, have pulled out all stops in their conjuring up the devil “Hitler.” This is a name that we hear daily in the last 70 years. It has been drummed into all of us that Hitler is the Devil – that he is a mass murderer. To call Trump by this name is as irresponsible as it is outrageous. It even sets up Trump for an assassination. Trump is not a racist. He wishes to stop “illegal immigration”, not legal immigration. How is it that a person who wishes to stop the law from being violated is “Hitler” and a “racist”. Trump said that 59 percent of the blacks in this country are unemployed, and by stopping “illegal” immigration, he is bringing jobs back to this group.
    I have never seen a candidate get this kind of negative press. The press is not acting unbiased. It is neither a free press, nor an equal press. it is a controlled press.

    1. I am also see this similarly. The question I’m struggling with is that the overreaction and backlash against Trump is so over-the-top and is apparently global and bi-partisan, that I have trouble with whether this is on purpose to push some people toward Trump while making most people hate them. I feel like this may be a part of a plan but I can’t see what the end goal is.

      I don’t think the media is very smart generally, but they should know that their efforts to ignore Ron Paul’s runs did a pretty good job at keeping him marginalized. Why would they switch tactics to full-court-press constant bashing from all angles. It’s too obvious and I think even the media whores should be able to see it’s having the opposite effect from what you’d think they want if they are against him. So I must question if that is the intention, to create a very polarized election dividing people into ineffective groups that hate each other. Then what will happen?

    2. The only way all this makes sense is to snap out of the conditioning and brainwashing we have been subjected to all our lives about how our “democracy” works.

      The media has never been impartial. When private, it was always under the mercy of big money, and when gov’t operated, it was always a channel for propaganda and social engineering. And, there were many many periods when the two were indistinguishable… Like right now!

      To add to that, when we talk about campaign financing, the money collected by hook and by crook is not for the candidate’s transportation, lunches, accommodation, etc. but to pay the media channels to propagate news that serve the endgame. This has become all the more apparent in a recent statement when CBS head Les Moonves declared this year as “most profitable” because of the elections. (link available if anyone fails to find by searching) So, it is always in the media’s interest to project a “too close to call” atmosphere to boost earnings by pushing the politicians to spend more and more. The same goes for polling agencies, which are owned and operated by the same crooks.

      That said, the game is a lot more sinister than just some greedy corporate media heads cleaning out, and filling their coffers.

      In the current election cycle, we are made to believe that Donald Trump is running a campaign geared for the big win against Hillary Clinton. However, once we remove ourselves from the two party paradigm, not give in to the limitations of our personal political views that they know well how to abuse, and once we see what they are doing for what it is, the con can become quite obvious.

      Let’s have a look at what Donald Trump, whose main foray into politics was his very loud challenge in the Barack Obama birth certificate controversy, has accomplished in his campaign for the presidency. By the way, even back then, his position on the birth certificate had actually served to help the issue die down and go away, as most well reasoned people started to dismiss it as a ridiculous claim because it was coming from a superficial and shady businessman with orange squirrel hair. It always works.. If you wanna kill an issue, send in he clowns… Similar to how Alex Jones embarrasses real truthers with his outrageous behavior, like his lunatic appearance on CNN about gun control, or his be-megaphoned screams during 9/11 protests, in front of Bilderberg meetings, etc. when most of the zombified and politically correct public goes “Uh!! What a nut job”

      Although he has played his relationship with Hillary down by saying “she did come to my daughter’s wedding”, his involvement with the Clinton’s go back at least to Hillary’s run for the Senate in New York.

      I feel his actions strongly indicate a back door deal with the Clintons, and probably with top Democrat brass, on multiple different fronts, with multiple end goals.

      He has singlehandedly destroyed the little bit of unity left in the Republican part by amplifying the average republican views to the max with his statements. (I am guessing I don’t need to give examples to his outrageous comments in his speeches and interviews) To the point that the Republican party is now almost permanently divided between those who support him because they want the white house at any cost, and those who are too proud to accept a lowlife like Trump as their candidate even if it meant a Republican White House. The divide and conquer tactic is not limited to countries or nations.. It worked perfectly with the RP.

      Since, as I claim, he had nothing to lose during this campaign, he could afford to speak a lot of truth. A true limited hangout operation. He insulted the MSM every step of the way, while, according to some estimates, he benefited from 2 billion dollars worth of airtime given to him under the guise of opposing this person who “is not worthy of the office he is running for.”

      The limited truth he spoke resonated with the disenchanted and outright angry masses. Coupled with MSM’s great help, and critically placed and manipulated scripted news pieces, he took the frontrunner position in the race, and he annihilated every Republican candidate that might have had a genuine chance to come out on top to challenge Hillary. Not that the republicans had great candidates, but still… It had to be done.

      A little note here: This country has seen many precious minds and promising politicians having to quit and wither away after it came out that they had cheated on their wives, sent a photo of their genitals via SMS, or any other ridiculously irrelevant reasons. Had the MSM (or any of the intelligence agencies) really wanted to bring him down, all they have to do was to scratch the surface of Donald’s public persona to find a skeleton he is hiding (perhaps under the hair). Having operated multibillion dollar businesses all his life in NYC, as well as places like Atlantic City, Las Vegas, and Miami, his dealings with the super-crime world can not be “unknown” to even a mildly talented investigative reporter (if they still have any of those employed of course)

      So… What is his mission????

      I strongly believe his larger mission, after having eliminated all genuine opposition in the Rep Party, is to lose to Hillary. He has dominated the airwaves and the public psyche for long months now, and will do so with even more outrageous comments and render himself unelectable, with no one else in the RP with enough traction (or enough time) to take HillBill out. But, in the meantime, as he dominates the public discourse, Hillary’s benghazi, and related emailgate skeletons have been nicely tucked back into her closet. And, we can rest assured that, although Trump will pretend to ask tough questions about both of these issues during the race, he will also make outrageous claims that will be shown to be untrue, therefore shielding the real dirt, and preventing it from seeing the light of day. It’s a very very clever set up actually. In fact, it could be said that this is a perfect manifestation of the phenomenon we all call “smoke and mirrors”. Those who have followed Hillary’s campaign, can see that her pitch has now been reduced to “We can NOT have Trump as president,so vote for Hillary!”…

      I feel his reward for this mega reality show he is staging will be being accepted to the major league of powers that be, start getting invited to the CFRs and Bilderbergs and all the exclusive drinking clubs… And all his financial and legal troubles will simply go away. A poor little second generation millionaire from NY will be admitted to the Big Boys League.

      Having said all that, here is what I feel the saddest part of this con game… Even if, by some miracle, Don and Melania plop themselves in the White house, no chip off the shoulders of the powers that be, really… They can use him just as well as they would use Hillary. And it will not make an iota of difference as far as the preplanned wars, market crashes and all the rest that billions of lives literally depend on.

      (Anastasia… Trump may not have been a globalist, but he is dying to get on that gravy train)

      1. I agree. Trump is playing a role to allow Hillary to take the throne – consciously or unconsciously.

        Obama rode the marketing of the first black President and Hillary is being touted as the first woman scheduled for the Whitehouse. Same marketing tools. Why change a formula when it works so well?

        She is wholly inside the lower echelons of the Establishment and therefore easy to pull her strings once she’s there. This woman is text book psychopath willing to flip-flop her views in the most blatant fashion to achieve power. She can also be relied on to tow the Zionist line.

        I think more importantly however, what better person to preside over the ensuing chaos that is about to increase in the United States? A ruthless, power hungry “Iron Lady” yet completely compliant to the insiders.

        I find Trump a comic book character and fairly repellent. But Hillary is in a different league of maleficence altogether.

  33. The Fourth Reich you say? Trump is a Nazi? Let me get this straight, your argument is that if someone stands up for their own, they’re Nazis? Someone who stands up for ME is a Nazi? Why is it that if someone stands up for me they’re Nazis? How the hell does that work? I and my kind must be hindered and marginalized for generations on end? Is this what you propose? Is this what you support/promote? Why can’t I have someone in power to stand up for me. Why not? I’m not a murderer, I’m not a racist, I’m not a pervert, I’m not a thief, I’m not a philanderer, and I don’t want to take over the world, nor do I want an elected official that I’ve voted for to do. I want the rule of law. I want all criminals taken out of society and placed in their proper environment. I don’t care what color you are, what language you speak, what religion you follow, if you’re a criminal, I want you out of my society. A nation is defined by its borders. A strong nation has strong borders. “Good neighbors build strong fences”. If I have to build a wall to prevent my nation from being invaded by criminals, then hell I’ll do it. I don’t want Mexican invaders anymore than I want Australian Aboriginals or Martians for that matter. I don’t even want “my own kind” from Canada being in my nation ILLEGALLY. Trump is not a part of these worthless criminals who have ruled this great nation since the murder of JFK. Each and everyone of our leaders since those days in Dallas Texas are complicit in his murder. All of them are criminals No exception. Why? Because they’re all of the same money. ALL of them. That’s why policy NEVER changes, no matter Democratic or Republican. The people that committed the “crime of the century” (911) are not Republican or Democrats, they’re criminals, and they span both parties. That’s why the crime is NOT SOLVED! They’re ALL in on it together. Because the foundation of their thinking has a common ground, THE MONEY. It was the money that orchestrated 911. And this money is world wide with only a few hold outs. This money demands a one world government. This money demands that the capital of this one world government will be in Jerusalem. And this money will stop at NOTHING to achieve this goal. “If I control a nation’s money, I care not who rules”. Those who control the money, control the nation. Ask Omar Qaddafi (dead), ask Saddam Husein, dead, ask Iran (government controlled central bank), ask North Korea, (government controlled central bank), ask Syria (government controlled central bank). Most nations of the earth banks are centrally controlled by private interests. YOU CAN COUNT THESE PEOPLE ON ONE HAND. Your buddy Clinton is just as dangerous as your so called fascists. Just as dangerous as “Mr. Nobel Peace Prize” winner Barack Obama. How many wars is he involved in? Clinton’s money, Obama’s money, and all the other clowns that ran for their party’s leadership are the same. Trump’s is his own money. That’s why he says what he says. Cause he answers to HIS money. Trump is apart from the “usual suspects”.
    And your “global warming”? The articles presented on this webpage on 911, the moon hoax, baby Bush, Oklahoma bombing, Orlando, the Boston fiasco are bang on. But this fascism connection to Trump and this “global warming” hoax is a serous flaw in this author’s thinking. I’m sure you find flaws in mine.
    Even so Mr. Zwicker I do respect your side of things and you and everyone else should always have the right to say what they want to say. For the money despises independent thought and criticism.

    1. R Jenkins,

      I agree with most of what you say. I think Trump is an arrogant asshole BUT for the reasons you highlighted he is still far and away better than the other candidates. I do not think Trump is a fascist at all or a racist but he is dangerously loyal to Israel which I regard as a very serious issue. That having been said the other candidates are completely beholden to Israel and their money. Trump is at the top of the heap but that heap is composed of garbage. Trump promotes the myth of 9/11 and the Muslims did it crappola however the other candidates promote the official story to the letter and are deeply invested in the agenda behind 9/11 while I think Trump is not so much.

      All in all Trump is the best candidate, with a chance to win, that is in the race for the presidency. His policy on immigration is prudent and wise not racist at all. His stance on the Constitution is far superior to the other candidates who are little more than outright traitors. The fact that the corporate whore media and the establishment hacks even in his own party hate him is a real feather in his cap. I think Trump is smart and he is potentially going to be a great president IF he is not just playing games to get elected and will turncoat on us all once he is in office like Obummer did and Bush did and Clinton did etc.

      You are also right in my opinion about the global warming scam which according to my extensive research is nothing but an attempt to install a massive global taxation system based upon a completely bogus pseudo scientific claim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s