- (With apologies to John Kaminski, this is either directly
or indirectly related to his article "American Sunset". I'm
not sure which.)
-
- I've been thinking again, and the fumes are noxious.
-
- I'd like to pose a question in response to John Kaminski's
article "American Sunset", and to all those who feel (or felt
all along) that their vote never mattered whether the election was rigged
or not, because both candidates had the same agenda -- and I pose this
question with purely acedemic curiosity...
-
- If there were truly no difference between the two candidates
and their intentions for the future, then why would those in control feel
it was necessary to rig the election, assuming the overwhelming statistical
evidence is well-founded? This is an intellectual alarm bell that would
wake up even the dead Sherlock Holmes. So let's take it to the elementary
level...
-
- If both Kerry and Bush are part of the same death machine,
working toward the same evil goal, then why risk orchestrating an election
fraud so big, so transparent and so anti-Constitutional that it might fully
expose them and their intentions, risking a social backlash...
-
- ...in exchange for absolutely no advantage?
-
- Kerry would have been happily accepted by nearly the
entire world, lending their plans and actions an instant veil of "integrity",
for at least the short term, possibly advancing their agenda by several
leaps before he was globally tarnished as well.
-
- Now with a transparently bogus election (with the same
resulting shock in Australia's re-election for their own fearless leader,
John Howard, by the way!), they have to deal with an already strong global
resistance that will only strengthen its resolve against their plans, because
the rest of the world already knows what Bush is all about, or at least
that he's no good for the planet.
-
- So is it possible they knew that Kerry wasn't going to
play their game?
-
- OR... Was that not the point?
-
- Is this what they want? The clued-in liberals and libertarians
and greens and independents and the true traditional conservatives who
understand much of what's really going on, set up against the "clueless
religious zealots" and everyone else running on Zombie Autopilot?
Is this supposed to be a thumb on the scale of social stability? Is their
ultimate goal an American Civil War II?
-
- The potential for profit and power would be enormous
over the course of such a war. The resulting depopulation would be a boon
to those in control of the world, a global relief when the one selfish
nation sucking up the vast majority of available resources, but can't pay
much more for it than they already do, suddenly doesn't need as much. They'd
be free to sell more of everything around the globe for higher prices...
be it oil, lumber, chemicals, whatever. The global political trade clout
of the current America that has been keeping prices down would be removed.
-
- But that's just the icing on the cake. The actual triple-layer
cake itself would be a newly weak and internally bleeding third-world United
States (with a more appropriate name by that point). The term "Superpower"
then becomes relative. The Global Power Balance would shift and the next
Superpowers would be the EU and China. And from that point they can play
the game in any direction they like.
-
- OR... Is it something even worse?
-
- Is it their intention to destroy American integrity in
the eyes of the entire world, for an even greater, darker plan?
-
- Are we ultimately being set up as Nazi Amerika for the
final act of the already begun WWIII? Are we being clumsily smeared in
our intellectually dumbed-down state, our reputation willfully and fraudulently
destroyed, so that we'll attract the wrath of the entire planet to our
doorstep? Again, the resulting attack would re-set the balance of power
on Earth and reap huge war profits for those in control. One or two nukes
would be all it takes to wreck us beyond salvation, destroying our economy,
our social stability, and every single comfort in our lives, along with
wiping out several family members, friends and acquaintances for every
individual left outside the nuke zones.
-
- "But Rennie," you ask, "wouldn't that
destory the whole planet when the retaliatory nukes head on out?"
-
- Hell no. There'd be an odd lack of nuclear response
from the U.S., just as there was no response on September 11th. Why?
Because the nukes would be set off by "terr'ists", so there'd
be no national target to retalliate against. Decentralized "Terrorism"
completely solves the dilemma of how to avoid Global Thermonuclear War,
and saves the rest of the planet for the Controllers to dominate.
-
- With the old U.S. in total irradiated anarchy, looking
more like Iraq every day, again the EU becomes the next Superpower, along
with China.
-
- Then in the decades to come, I suppose they might set
up the EU and China against each other for WWIV. Then decades later the
newly re-gilded Superpower of Russia goes up against the winner for yet
another round in WWV...
-
- The grand chess game of power, profit and blood continuing
on, long after we're all dust.
-
- Don't forget, the current U.S. was very much socially,
economically and politically the near-duplicate of Germany in the ewarly
1930's. They were being set up then. We KNOW this. Why is it hard to
believe it could happen again? Everyone alive back then is dead, or too
old and weak to make much of a fuss.
-
- So maybe John is right. Maybe it didn't make any difference
either way.
-
- And maybe I just answered my own question.
-
- -- Renegade Patriot -- "The Revolution Has Begun..."
|
