“Right now there are two mainstream ideas as to what is really going on with Washington DC’s military control. The mainstream narrative is that it’s a natural reaction to the violence that occurred on the Capitol Building on January 6th. The problem with this theory is that there have been no credible calls for an armed protest on Inauguration Day. In fact, Conservative voices have been telling people to stay home and to NOT come to DC. The only credible report that I could find of ANYONE planning on showing up was the Boogaloo Boys, but they are so few in number, that would not warrant the 35,000+ troops on the ground.
On the Conservative side, there’s the claim that this is Donald Trump playing 5D chess, and that the military is there to arrest all of the Deep State who are traitors to the United States of America. They cite the fact that there are fences facing inward, which appear to be designed to keep people IN as opposed to OUT. Now, if that happens, that would be epic and a total Trump move. But is that the game plan, or is there something more sinister going on?
Could this be yet another setup by the Deep State to take out conservatives once and for all. Just as much of the Capitol Riots were designed as a setup to discredit the Conservative Movement, this could be yet another one. They are setting the stage that the Right is extremely violent, and the visual cue for that is the thousands of troops protecting our nation’s capitol. But what happens if there’s an attempt of violence that they thwart or actually allow to occur? This could justify the outright targeting and persecution of all conservatives, treated as an enemy of the state.”
Well, this is was always one of my great fears and the reason I didn’t vote for PDJT the first time around. I thought his whole presidency might be a Trojan horse to discredit conservatives.
I don’t think that now, having watched him for 4 years. And right now, I don’t think this is a set up. The other side is absolutely desperate and the infiltration of the Jan 6 rally, like the hacking of the election software, is a Hail Satan pass born out of sheer desperation at the persisting support for PDJT.
H/T to JayLib, who posted this link in comments on this blog a day ago.
I only watched it an hour ago, b/c I didn’t have the time to sit down and watch uninterrupted. What with an old computer and erratic current and signals, watching YouTube is not something I do regularly, unless I really want to. I get so many overuse complaints from my host, I’ve stopped posting content that might take up more resources and stick to text.
That out of the way, I’ll quickly summarize what she says, which is very interesting and big picture.
First, I’m happy to see someone with such a deep background in intelligence confirm what I’ve been saying here – this is a coup – a Kabbalist coup, using a ginned-up public health crisis as a front. Kabbalist here is a pun – meaning a small coterie or cabal of globalists, power-elite cabal, whatever you call them as the main actors…and then also, Kabbalist in the sense of the ideology – which is straight Masonic, and you know that Masonry is nothing but Kabbalism.
Second, she breaks down the process into 3 phases and puts us in the third phase.
First stage – destroy the economy, so you have a mass of desperate, starving or near-starving people.
Second stage – create a crisis. This is the pandemic. And she sees it as a drill getting us acclimated to martial law or the full-blown police state we’ve all been fearing for a while now. For decades, really. But this is it. This is the real thing.
Third stage – co-opt the military. She says the Kabal will always have roped in a portion of the military so they can at the critical juncture go in and take over places, like media buildings. In the US, of course, and she does admit this, the media is already taken over. In fact, they have always been the prime instigators of revolution and coups. You can go back and read the US press in the time of the Russian Revolution and there’s the same drum-beat, the same hysterical denunciations of anything the Kabal doesn’t want, the same slanders of those it hates.
The Kabal brings in its own people – all blackmailed, and therefore controlled and compliant. And sometimes, they aren’t brought in, they are already there as infiltrators to undermine and sabotage at the right time. She identifies General Mattis as one of those.
Mattis made a very unexpected frontal attack on the President for suggesting using troops inside the country.
And that actually goes back to what I blogged before on the George Floyd riots. The whole incident is full of the synchronicities and coincidences that by now I’ve come to see accompany these orchestrated crises. And no, orchestrated doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or the place is filled with crisis actors. I think some of those theories are meant to poison the well, as they say, and make all alternative bloggers and sites look crazy.
Orchestrated means something is taken and given a shape and direction that is not happenstance but directed. Not naturally evolving, but planned.
These crises are orchestrated both to test us and monitor our reactions and to bait people. And unfortunately, President Trump fell into the trap. So because of all the violence and looting, conservatives, who should know better, were applauding the President when he said he might use the military within the country. That was Trump, sounding off as usual, without thinking, or maybe someone at his elbow pushed him into the trap. But it was absolutely the wrong message.
And then came the photo-op with the Bible. That was a bad idea too, although conservatives loved it.
But, again, it was bait. And conservatives seem to be very bad at recognizing when they are being played.
They were played like a violin. The media played them immediately, by at once highlighting peaceful demonstrations everywhere, Justin Trudeau taking a knee, large peaceful marches, so Trump and the conservatives suddenly are on the wrong side of the constitution, the wrong side of what it means to be an American.
Because, in theory at least, it’s one of those sacred American principles, like never using the CIA inside the country (although they do); you never use the military on the people. That’s what you have the National Guard for or the local police or troopers.
And that ties in with the theme of the riots, if I might put it that way. The theme was “police brutality” which, if you read up on it, you will know is a result of systematic militarization of the police, a result of our imperial adventurism. So that theme explains why they baited Trump into calling for the military. Because militarization is exactly the problem, not the solution, and by proposing it, he demonstrates that conservatives are wrong and abdicate their principles when their side is in power and thus their criticism on anything else is invalid. That’s the way the elite convey that message.
The right answer to the problem presented by the riots would be to call for a change in police tactics. To ban certain police holds, which I think Minnesota has now done.
But because the elites don’t want conservatives to give the right answer, they always disguise the theme with a narrative that is always something sensational, like white racism.
And conservatives get baited immediately. They look at the story and they see a George Floyd, and read about his criminal history, and they forget that the right answer to the riots is not that Floyd was a criminal but that the police are out of control.
And the real reason is not because the police are racist, but because we have too many of them, too militarized, and it’s because we are an imperial state and being at war for decades has poisoned the body-politic at home.
But they can’t let you think that. That would bring up the issue of what an empire is and whom it benefits and the state would never want you to start thinking along those lines. They would rather work everyone up with one of these visceral gore movies, with arson, fire-bombing, sirens, masked antifa goons, looting, broken glass, and dead bodies….
So I contacted the lead author, Marc Wilson, a New Zealand psychologist at Victoria University of Wellington, to ask him about his research.
First, a bit of background. Psychopathy — once thought to be an all-or-nothing condition — is now understood in a dimensional fashion (more or less) and is measured by instruments such as The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. While our understanding of psychopathy first developed largely from studying criminal populations, Hare himself has said, “I always said that if I wasn’t studying psychopaths in prison, I’d do it at the stock exchange,” so it’s fairly straightforward to measure and compare psychopathic tendencies and SDO. And that’s just what Wilson has done.
“The research shows that SDO and psychopathy have a reciprocal causal relationship over time — as people become more social dominant, they become more psychopathic, and vice versa,” Wilson told me. “This is based on longitudinal research that shows that, for example, increased SDO (or psychopathy) at time 1 predicts greater psychopathy (or SDO) at time 2. I’ve done this for both convenience samples (university students) and thousands of general population.”
University students get tested a lot — as Wilson indicated, they’re quite convenient. But sooner or later it’s bound to raise questions of just how well the results hold up in a larger population. So it’s significant that he’s already taken that step, and found confirmation as well.
“When SDO was originally proposed, it was argued that group dominance (as measured by SDO) is not the same thing as individual level dominance, and indeed that’s what the original research appeared to show,” he explained. “More recently there have been a few studies that have suggested SDO and psychopathy are related, and I’ve collected a lot of data now that leads me to believe they’re flip sides of the same coin — interpersonal dominance (psychopathy) on one side and group dominance (SDO) on the other.”
This is just what one might informally conclude from listening to the Donald Sterling tape. His personal abusiveness and unwarranted accusations against V. Stiviano is on one side of the coin; flip it over, and his contempt for black people is on the other. Jerk on one side, racist on the other.
Never mind that she either pre-texted or unlawfully surveilled someone in their house.
Never mind that that is a form of moral and mental rape several orders of magnitude worse than saying rude things in your own home for your own private audience.]
“Therefore, it makes sense that environments that promote social hierarchies will also be fertile breeding grounds for individual dominance, and vice versa,” he continued. Digging down a bit into specifics was quite illuminating.
“By ‘environments’ I can imagine a few that are good candidates — financial markets for example,” Wilson said. “Indeed, some of my other work shows that people who work in commerce focused on hierarchy-enhancing wealth consolidation also tend to be more social dominant (an old finding) but also more psychopathic — indeed, people who study commerce at university are not only more psychopathic than people in other fields of study but less psychopathic commerce students are more likely to switch majors to more hierarchy-attenuating disciplines, while more psychopathic arts students (for example) are more likely to switch to commerce degrees.”
Lila: This is the state of moral and logical confusion in public debate in the West, which, unfortunately, sets the tone for the whole world.
She chooses to be routinely spit on, hit in the face, verbally abused, and gang-raped in the derriere, all on camera.
But, of course, there’s no “evil hierarchy” in any of that, nor “dominance,” nor “subordination”; no psychiatric problem there.
No, that”s all feminist empowerment and an honest day’s work, all the way.
And you dare not so much as roll your eyes at her.
On the other hand, if a young man, a conservative, signs up for a degree in commerce and enjoys the rough-and-tumble of the business world, watch out – you have Hitler or Mao on your hands. Call the FBI… the shrinks… the NY Times…. Get Paul Rosenberg on the case.
In Rosenberg’s tendentious, dishonest, simple-minded essay, good, decent ideas with which any conservative could agree – the dignity of manual work and the value of every individual – putrefy and turn into so much slime to fling against political opponents, albeit so clumsily, the effort says more about him than about them.