According to a group of theologians, Pope Francis is a heretic. You can read their accusations here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html
These accusations are consistent with the claim he is the "final pope". You can read about that issue here:
https://sainthoward.blogspot.com/2014/12/is-this-papacy-of-petrus-romanus.html
Don't make light of this. Considering everything now happening in the world, we may very well be approaching "the end of the age".
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Snowden, COG, and 9/11
Edward Snowden recently made a few comments about the so-called deep state and 9/11. It would be instructive to assess what he said in the context of the "continuity of government (COG)" system.
What is COG? It appears to be a standalone system or systems designed to keep the US security state running after a nuclear strike. You can read about it here:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/state-of-emergency-and-continuity-of-government-what-is-the-real-reason-the-government-is-spying-on-americans/5338508
Additional background can be found on Peter Dale Scott's website:
https://www.peterdalescott.net/q/
During an interview, Snowden claimed that on 9/11 a vast portion of the US intelligence community was sent home instead of being tasked to assess the attacks:
https://www.wakingtimes.com/2019/10/23/edward-snowden-on-the-joe-rogan-podcast-says-us-government-could-have-prevented-9-11/
His basic claim appears to be that 9/11 could have been prevented but wasn't, and this failure had nothing to do with US complicity in the attacks but was instead an institutional failure of some sort.
He also appears to imply that he was aware of no facts which would support a finding of government complicity in the attacks. What should we make of this?
Here's what I think:
1. If Ed Snowden really were a threat to US national security he would have been assassinated by now. Hiding in Russia isn't enough to keep him (or anyone) safe.
2. The COG communication and data storage systems are completely separate from the rest of the world. As far as I know, Snowden has never claimed to have access to them, so if they DO contain evidence of complicity in 9/11 he can't have known.
3. I find it strange that he (and people like Noam Chomsky) belittles the "conspiracy theorists" who point out that the 9/11 official narrative is completely impossible. Of course there is no hard evidence, because the COG system(s) may be the only place it exists.
I would not be surprised to learn that Ed Snowden was and is part of a limited hangout operation. After all, even though he seems to have spilled the beans on myriad government misdeeds, what has come of it? Nothing consequential that I'm aware of. The spying continues, and none of the wrongdoers have been (or ever will be) punished.
There is absolutely no way those two airliners caused the damage we witnessed on 9/11. If Ed Snowden in fact has seen nothing which would contradict the official version of what happened that day, then I would argue he is not a very convincing analyst on the subject.
What is COG? It appears to be a standalone system or systems designed to keep the US security state running after a nuclear strike. You can read about it here:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/state-of-emergency-and-continuity-of-government-what-is-the-real-reason-the-government-is-spying-on-americans/5338508
Additional background can be found on Peter Dale Scott's website:
https://www.peterdalescott.net/q/
During an interview, Snowden claimed that on 9/11 a vast portion of the US intelligence community was sent home instead of being tasked to assess the attacks:
https://www.wakingtimes.com/2019/10/23/edward-snowden-on-the-joe-rogan-podcast-says-us-government-could-have-prevented-9-11/
His basic claim appears to be that 9/11 could have been prevented but wasn't, and this failure had nothing to do with US complicity in the attacks but was instead an institutional failure of some sort.
He also appears to imply that he was aware of no facts which would support a finding of government complicity in the attacks. What should we make of this?
Here's what I think:
1. If Ed Snowden really were a threat to US national security he would have been assassinated by now. Hiding in Russia isn't enough to keep him (or anyone) safe.
2. The COG communication and data storage systems are completely separate from the rest of the world. As far as I know, Snowden has never claimed to have access to them, so if they DO contain evidence of complicity in 9/11 he can't have known.
3. I find it strange that he (and people like Noam Chomsky) belittles the "conspiracy theorists" who point out that the 9/11 official narrative is completely impossible. Of course there is no hard evidence, because the COG system(s) may be the only place it exists.
I would not be surprised to learn that Ed Snowden was and is part of a limited hangout operation. After all, even though he seems to have spilled the beans on myriad government misdeeds, what has come of it? Nothing consequential that I'm aware of. The spying continues, and none of the wrongdoers have been (or ever will be) punished.
There is absolutely no way those two airliners caused the damage we witnessed on 9/11. If Ed Snowden in fact has seen nothing which would contradict the official version of what happened that day, then I would argue he is not a very convincing analyst on the subject.
Who Controls Our Nuclear Weapons ???
"Our" military intends to revamp the control systems for US nuclear missiles:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/10/19/us-military-to-replace-1970s-floppy-disks-controlling-nuclear-missiles/#2bb6af13d81b
At first glance this appears to be a good idea. After all, who still uses floppy disks?
But we should assess this "upgrade" in light of what it means for the security of those weapons. Who will be doing the upgrade ... and can they be trusted?
I bring this up because of what happened when the DOE upgraded its nuclear materials inventory system several years ago. Auditors noted that project security appeared lax, and they recommended the old system be operated in parallel with the new one until it could be proven the new one was accurate and reliable. The DOE refused to do such a thing. No explanation was given for the refusal, just fuck off.
Can we POSSIBLY be certain our nuclear missiles will not be hijacked after this upgrade? I doubt it. It's extremely likely someone will install a backdoor in the system, and then control of our nukes may belong to the Israelis, the Chinese, or even (OMG) the Russians.
What then?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/10/19/us-military-to-replace-1970s-floppy-disks-controlling-nuclear-missiles/#2bb6af13d81b
At first glance this appears to be a good idea. After all, who still uses floppy disks?
But we should assess this "upgrade" in light of what it means for the security of those weapons. Who will be doing the upgrade ... and can they be trusted?
I bring this up because of what happened when the DOE upgraded its nuclear materials inventory system several years ago. Auditors noted that project security appeared lax, and they recommended the old system be operated in parallel with the new one until it could be proven the new one was accurate and reliable. The DOE refused to do such a thing. No explanation was given for the refusal, just fuck off.
Can we POSSIBLY be certain our nuclear missiles will not be hijacked after this upgrade? I doubt it. It's extremely likely someone will install a backdoor in the system, and then control of our nukes may belong to the Israelis, the Chinese, or even (OMG) the Russians.
What then?
Monday, October 21, 2019
Starving The Beast
Here is some good advice on ways to achieve independence from our wicked corporate overlords:
https://www.theorganicprepper.com/50-ways-to-starve-the-beast/
h/t to Daisy Luther
https://www.theorganicprepper.com/50-ways-to-starve-the-beast/
h/t to Daisy Luther
Space Fireballs
Have you seen this one yet?
https://www.rt.com/news/470690-mysterious-unexplained-fireballs-chile/
It reminds me of the 2005 War of the Worlds movie starring Tom Cruise, in which aliens rode bolts of lightning down into the ground.
But on a deeper level, it could be something else:
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Don't expect the powers that be to tell you the truth about heavenly events. Why would they, seeing as how most of them are Satan's minions? Aren't they the ones who are telling us right is wrong and wrong is right?
https://www.rt.com/news/470690-mysterious-unexplained-fireballs-chile/
It reminds me of the 2005 War of the Worlds movie starring Tom Cruise, in which aliens rode bolts of lightning down into the ground.
But on a deeper level, it could be something else:
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Revelation 12:9 KJV
Don't expect the powers that be to tell you the truth about heavenly events. Why would they, seeing as how most of them are Satan's minions? Aren't they the ones who are telling us right is wrong and wrong is right?
Robot Judges ???
Would you want a robot to judge you?
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/robot-judges-will-pass-sentence-20648849
This is a terrible idea. In my view, the whole rationale behind the right to be judged by a jury of your peers is TO INTRODUCE HUMAN BIAS into the process. Your peers should be assessing whether you're being treated fairly and compassionately, not merely deciding whether you violated some law or other.
Juries don't know crap about the law in the first place. If they're not empowered to assess whether justice is being served (i.e., so-called "jury nullification"), then they really serve no purpose at all.
Don't let the tech weenies turn you over to robot judges. You'll regret it if you do.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/robot-judges-will-pass-sentence-20648849
This is a terrible idea. In my view, the whole rationale behind the right to be judged by a jury of your peers is TO INTRODUCE HUMAN BIAS into the process. Your peers should be assessing whether you're being treated fairly and compassionately, not merely deciding whether you violated some law or other.
Juries don't know crap about the law in the first place. If they're not empowered to assess whether justice is being served (i.e., so-called "jury nullification"), then they really serve no purpose at all.
Don't let the tech weenies turn you over to robot judges. You'll regret it if you do.
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
What Enemies ???
While re-watching Apocalypse Now last night, I was reminded of something.
The US funded Adolf Hitler.
The US helped create the Viet Minh.
The US helped Mao Zedong.
The US armed Saddam Hussein.
The US created al Qaeda.
The US created ISIS.
Former President John Quincy Adams once said the USA "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy". He was right - we CREATE them, and then destroy them when they're no longer needed to do our dirty work.
The US funded Adolf Hitler.
The US helped create the Viet Minh.
The US helped Mao Zedong.
The US armed Saddam Hussein.
The US created al Qaeda.
The US created ISIS.
Former President John Quincy Adams once said the USA "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy". He was right - we CREATE them, and then destroy them when they're no longer needed to do our dirty work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)