I dunno that Canada has a lot to worry about.  Lots of these Leftists probably have a pretty strong affinity for their parent's basement I would suspect.

Short and sweet:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9_jp2Uwqts

Oh ya!  Here's what I'd like Trump to say to the House of Saud:

I fully expected to come to that conclusion when I buckled down and start looking into things after super Tuesday.  IMO, observations do not fit that narrative mainly due to the breadth and depth of the resistance to Trump.

My opinion is that this is about Globalism vs. Nationalism, and there seems to be a fair bit of circumstantial evidence that Trump is indeed the Nationalist that he claims to be.  I certainly do not rule out the possibility that he is doing a con-job on me, but I see two strikes against this.  1) As I mentioned above, the antagonism to the guy from across the political and social spectra is palpable.  2) I am in a fairly small and insignificant demographic who is very paranoid about 'the new world order' and has researched it significantly so there is no need cater to my class.

Sorry to keep coming around to Trump, but it is relevant to the world at large just on the basis of the U.S. remaining the primary and most aggressive power in the world at this point.  And if there really is a NWO, their success and operations necessarily will touch the globe by definition.  Of course some people agree but think that the rest of the world will be better off for the erection of such a system and degradation of the US in the process of forming it.  I strongly disagree that this would be the likely outcome.

When I ran across this clip of Bezmenov some months ago I had just got done recognizing that the neo-environmentalist were in significant danger once they had done the bidding of those who empower them.  Not necessarily in physical danger...though that is not outside the realm of possibility.  Bezmenov's statements about the fate of the indigenous 'communists' once the Soviet's took over was strikingly similar to what I had hypothesized might be that of those who had genuine care for the environment.

So, yes, what Bezmenov (and Alinsky and Machiavelli and Marx and Kissinger and Brzezinski, etc, etc) have to say about politics and power extend well beyond the here and now of the US and Trump.  OTOH, I would say that the Trump phenomenon genuinely is one of the most interesting and meaningful political events of the last few decades.  Probably even on the world stage.  I would say since the fall of the Soviet Union.

To answer your last question, Trump has definitely stirred in me a vestigial bit of optimism which I had not expected when I finally dove into the subject of trying to figure things out.  Also a not insignificant dose of trepidation.  As always though, I was strongly of the opinion that we (and the rest of the world) are on the fast train to something awful with the establishment-approved candidates (and even with Sanders who is weak and stupid) so I'm happy to take a chance on Trump.

Trump named a few more today.  I did a bit of looking into Bert Mizusawa, and from the first thing I found, he seems to my liking so far.  This offsets somewhat the discouragement I feel in Trump's attitude toward Snowden.

I was going to post this exact vid in my response to the discussion of Trump/Alinsky on the other thread.


That makes me think back to the 'demoralization' that I feel at having to choose between 'Obama/Romney', 'Obama/McCain', 'Obama/Hillary', 'Bush/Kerry', etc, etc all the way back about as far as I can remember.  When some possibly hopeful candidate is in the running, they are squashed like a bug by the media+establishment before it matters.  This 'demoralization' has caused me not to even bother to vote at all over the last number of years.  I see it as a theme in the alternate media, and it is one that resonates.  I would guess that this is akin to what Bezmenov is alluding to.

I've always considered myself fairly left-wing.  To this day I've no love lost for the Republicans although in a practical sense they are more useful to me politically in my current situation insofar as they are less inclined to empower some of the scams that hit me the hardest.  Specifically, the eco-fascism which I feel as a person who owns property and a person who would rather do shit than sit on my ass and wait for a welfare check.

I've always been 'anti-American' to some extent as a hold-over to my youth when the memories of Vietnam were fresh in the public consciousness.  That sentiment continues to be animated by things such as our regime-change campaigns which turn otherwise relatively function nations into failed states and our drone strikes which end up killing 90% innocent civilians.  All of a sudden (e.g., 1/2 an hour before I write this) I wonder if that is not a huge part of the actual goal.  That is, to create and maintain a sense of 'demoralization' within the United States itself!

Holyfuckinshit!  I'll bet that when 'the tapes' of Trump are released (probably after his death...which could be near at hand...) we'll find that his most treasured and productive books will in fact be Saul Alinsky's pamphlet 'Rules for Radicals.'

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyu2iaqrC_c

Conversely, when I get around to actually reading Machiavelli's work, I'm fully expecting to see a nearly exact match for 'the Left' of 2016.

To my American brothers and sisters who have heard the term 'color revolution' but never really quite understood what it was, stick around because we'll likely see it employed right here in the good old USofA.  Or at least as significant an attempt at doing so as the Globalist can muster.  We probably won't have to wait much longer, and if one keeps their eyes open, one can see the little fingers of flame and some smoke already.

Why does this sound like something one would read from a fortune cookie?  Something about the cadence and/or the punctuation I suppose.

It's true that Dore seems to hold on to principle a little longer than the rest.  He also does not seem quite as petrified about holding non-consensus opinion as most of the others.

I have to say that Dore gives that right-winger dude a run for his money at being the most un-funny comedian ever.  Um...Dennis Miller.

I used to watch them fairly regularly.  Their shtick is to play anti-establishment to pick up uninformed mouth-breathers who are incapable of independent critical analysis, but when the chips are down they are pro-establishment.  100%

http://prepareforchange.net/2016/03/05/putin-exposes-vaccines/#content


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h3DCj1PwuE

"Brawndo by the assload!"

If Trump has some respect for Putin and wishes to import some of his leadership ideas into the US, that's perfectly fine with me.

Not sure about TYT.  It is possible to be a lap-dog for the establishment just because one is brainwashed.  Probably some combination of this applies here.

They had to wait until it was a certainty that he would play his choke artist roll and not fuck up and actually win over Hillary.  Now it's safe.  Maybe.  There is some danger that TYT could suck his dick so hard that it could actually detach from the rest of his body.

OTOH, it is possible that TYT could be resigned to Hillary and turn from being at least thoughtfully critical on real problems to being full on cheerleaders.  Just like that did with Obamacare.  These people are as phony as they come.  And I used to pay some attention to them a number of years ago.  Silly me.

Mexican Ex-Employee tells SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT DONALD TRUMP!

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dahqHQ8qkjw

----

If the Left is smart, they'll start putting out shills and actors to go viral then exploit the situation later when the story falls apart.  I always keep an eye out for such things, and I wouldn't rule out this person or 'B. Tatum' from a few days ago as an element of such an operation.  If the Left are dumb, they'll continue to fund goon squads to violently interfere with other people's organizations.

Easy:  Spray the customer with a mist of tranquilizers.  Mike Judge's documentary 'Idiocracy' covered that one already.

"The number you have reached has been disconnected or is no longer in service due to bomb damage.  Your call has been monitored, recorded and logged by the one-world police force operating under the name 'Strong Cities Network.'"

If neither side were on an expansionist trajectory, working together on projects where it made sense would probably happen without effort.  I'm not holding my breath for a situation where we are all holding hands and singing kumbaya (and don't even wish to see it), but I do hope for a situation where there is a 'competition of ideas' where larger nations win over smaller nations by being decent to them and making 'good deals' rather than by sending in mercenary armies to shatter them and turn them into hell-holes.

My problem with NATO, and especially as it absorbs an increasing number of unstable countries, is that you get degenerate freaks like Turkey invading other nations when they see some oil they can seize then run back to NATO mommy if/when they get resistance.  If we actually wished to get rid of ISIS, WE should be bombing Turkey since that's where most of ISIS is living at the moment.  Certainly we should not be protecting ISIS from attack with our nuclear arsenal and making a very credible threat to bring on WW-III in doing so.

One is tempted to write off your 9/11 fail as being attributable to some sort of Zionist leanings or something, especially since you (alone) seem to keep coming back again and again to the 'Jewish' aspect of it, but you don't seem to be trying to torpedo the Trump campaign like most Zionists.  So that doesn't really fit.  

Again, BADecker seems to have the most plausible hypothesis about your behavior.  That is, you just want people pointing out the multitude of super obvious proof positives that the 'official conspiracy theory' promulgated by the establishment is a sham.

As someone who is hopeful about Trump, I'm not terribly excited about this either.

OTOH, it could be read as an indication that Trump is serious about dealing with some of the upcoming problems that will almost certainly be put up.  I've noticed that he takes every opportunity to enlist the support of the military and the police.  A person with Schmitz experience will have a lot of understanding and connections into the private mercenary elements that the U.S. establishment uses to project force.  It's only a matter of time before this force projection is directed inwardly.  To me, it's only a matter of whether these forces will be controlled by Globalists or by a Nationalist.  The latter is the lesser of two evils as I see things.

My sober assessment of things is that we are in so much trouble and so deep in the hole at this point that we may never get out, and if we do manage the feat, it won't be pretty.

In a slightly more hopeful scenario, I do have some hope that Trump is serious about addressing the crony nature of our quasi-capitalist political structure.  I don't think he would talk about it as much as he does unless he were serious.  Sure, he played inside that system and played well, but it is possible stand up from the table and leave.  (A situation which I have some experience with.)  This makes his threats to change the game somewhat credible to me.  Back to Schmitz (and the various other apparent scumbags Trump has fingered), it is possible that he knows that he needs people who 'know where the bodies are buried' in fields beyond his expertise in order to have a chance at making some corrections.

Trump remains a 'hail Mary' play to me, but still much better odds than any other candidate I've seen in probably forever.  Certainly anyone who has made it to the level Trump has achieved today.  I'm still with Webb on his statement that a Trump presidency could go 'either very good or very bad.' ...with the shared caveat that a Hillary one would go very bad.

I'm more than ready to see Trump align with some people I find more to my liking, but am willing to give him a pass until he stomps the rest of the Repubicans into the dirt.  Carson dealing with the education system is to my liking at least.  And, though it probably was not the goal of the article, I find it hopeful that the media noted that the names Trump named vis-a-vis foreign policy were relative unknowns and 'were not inside either of the two mainstream establishment camps.'

I'll also add that I was shocked and delighted to see Trump be interested in diminishing NATO.  I consider this structure to be outdated and one of the most palpable threats of triggering a hot WW-III.