Deep Conspiracy Thoughts on the Election
Wouldn't the ultimate, evil PTB hide themselves and lie about who the enemy was?
A LOT of conspiracy types really tended to go for Trump, and to hate Hillary Clinton. Alex Jones was a prime example of someone driven seriously insane by Hillary. But I hope everyone knows that Alex Jones cannot be trusted, and hasn't been trusted for a long time in the hard-core, serious conspiracy world. Jones is a disinformation artist, a conspiracy sell out and has turned into a joke and partisan right-wing hack. At the same time, I have to say that much of the conspiracy world is crap, especially the types that orbit around Jones: they are shills that put out bad analysis, use biased thinking, use bad source material, and prey on people who fall far too easily into confirmation bias.
One reason I haven't done much conspiracy research anymore is because when you do this for a long time, you can see how much shit there is in the field. I even admit that a significant amount of stuff I've written here over the 12 years I've had this blog is shitty analysis or just wrong. Anonymous Physicist wrote some really good essays and had some unique, well-reasoned ideas. But his theories even though they were very interesting and often important findings, were basically speculation without any proof.
I really like conspiracy IDEAS, and often they do have good explanatory power for important things in our weird world. But it's very rare to be able to have solid proof of a conspiracy theory. Personally, I also think that it's also important to not base real world politics on unproven conspiracy theories.
Out on the world wide web, there are hundreds of bad conspiracy sites-- sites that often masquerade as some sort of alternative news site. There's so much that is poorly reported, poorly research, presented in a very sensational way, and stuff that is just plain wrong. And of course there are sites that are blatant misinformation or disinformation put out by intelligence agencies from the US or other countries. And as I have written before, the worst of the worst are the endless youtube channels that trumpet false flag fakery every time some shooting occurs.
So back to Hillary Clinton-- isn't it *possible* that she was NOT the real enemy, and she was actually *basically* good?
There have been an incredible number of lies about her, over her whole political life. She is perhaps the most lied about person in politics, ever. There are hundreds of outrageous lies about her, bought and pushed by the right-wing. But, in reality her politics as a senator and presidential candidate, policy-wise, has been pretty centrist, reasonable and fair. Nonetheless, in this recent presidential campaign, she was fucked over HARD by the GOP, by Trump, by wikileaks, by the news media. Painted unfairly as a criminal by a bunch of professional lying fucks.
Does the news media and the GOP ever stand for truth and decency? Not really.
I'm not here to defend everything Hillary Clinton ever did. But I'm saying that there is no way she's as bad as the right-wing said.
The vast majority of the complaints about Hillary were for her vote for the Iraq war, and for some of her foreign policy decisions as Secretary of State.
First, let's talk about her vote "for the Iraq war". Looking at her statement at the time, it's clear she wasn't really voting for a war per se, and certainly she was not casting a vote for Bush's Iraq war as it played out:
Let's remember the vast majority of Republican Senators voted for force authorization and a good number of Democrats. But for some reason, only Democrats running for President (Kerry, Clinton) got really picked on for that. Odd, isn't it?
Keep in mind, Hillary represented NY city, really the epicenter of the attacks, and there was incredible pressure on her to go hard on terrorism. So I think it is fair to give her a break on this vote.
Regarding her time as Secretary of State, the fact is US foreign policy is very complicated and messy. And after the Bush administration, international relations were in a shambles. Moreover, everything she did was misrepresented to some extent by her political opponents, and/or ridiculously politicized (such as Benghazi). Things like supporting regime change in Syria, though it obviously led to a horrible civil war, in theory, the regime change was to depose a bad dictator; the same for Libya, or to counter Russia in Ukraine. These were common bi-partisan views on foreign policy, not unique to Hillary, and there were Republicans that were more hawkish than her.
I know there's the alternative conspiracy view that all these foreign policy decisions were deep state actions to help the NWO and/or the international banking system and/or to keep the military-industrial complex going and/or to start a broader world war. I'm not defending these military actions per se, but I am saying that these situations were far more complicated than is often portrayed, and Hillary herself could have acted out of relatively nobel, humane intentions. We should keep that as a possibility, since that was the stated intention-- to help people being persecuted in Syria and Libya. Even Iraq and Afghanistan.
So let's go deeper.
Remember the deep ultimate conspiracy postulated here by Anonymous Physicist -- that there are evil aliens controlling us, and they are quarantined here on planet earth by other aliens. The evil aliens really want to break out of quarantine and get off earth, and to do this, they need nuclear weapons.
While this probably sounds sort of crazy, it is still a fascinating idea that can explain a number of other conspiracy issues such as Apollo moon landing fakery, UFO's, and why things are so fucked up here on earth.
I'm not saying the evil alien-quarantine theory is an absolute fact, but it's a useful model to work with.
But I have some additional ideas on this model.
The evil PTB would need most of the nukes on earth for their purpose of breaking out of quarantine. But the problem is, right now, most of the nukes are controlled by two countries: US and Russia. The nukes are pointed to earth, but really what is need is to point the nukes at the atmosphere of the planet, to the outer edge where the quarantine ships are, to disable them. That would mean total control of all the US-Russian nukes, and to be able to re-direct them.
With different governments in opposition to each other this would be impossible.
But if US and Russia became friendly, and allied militarily, their nukes could be tied to one controller.
Who favors closer relations with Russia and the US? Trump and Putin, of course.
Who would block such a union? Hillary, of course.
So Hillary could be saving us from the ultimate horror scenario of the atmosphere getting nuked, essentially destroying life on the planet.
Keep in mind that Hillary wanted UFO disclosure as president, which had some real possibility of uncovering the ultimate evil PTB. That didn't happen, and now we have a president-elect, who has ties with and is making nice with Russia.
Conspiracy types typically portray Hillary as the one hell-bent on starting a nuclear war with Russia, but to me, that isn't plausible. I don't buy that she is that evil, in willing to kill almost everyone on the planet.
You know who seems like a true psychopath to me?
Donald J. Trump
A LOT of conspiracy types really tended to go for Trump, and to hate Hillary Clinton. Alex Jones was a prime example of someone driven seriously insane by Hillary. But I hope everyone knows that Alex Jones cannot be trusted, and hasn't been trusted for a long time in the hard-core, serious conspiracy world. Jones is a disinformation artist, a conspiracy sell out and has turned into a joke and partisan right-wing hack. At the same time, I have to say that much of the conspiracy world is crap, especially the types that orbit around Jones: they are shills that put out bad analysis, use biased thinking, use bad source material, and prey on people who fall far too easily into confirmation bias.
One reason I haven't done much conspiracy research anymore is because when you do this for a long time, you can see how much shit there is in the field. I even admit that a significant amount of stuff I've written here over the 12 years I've had this blog is shitty analysis or just wrong. Anonymous Physicist wrote some really good essays and had some unique, well-reasoned ideas. But his theories even though they were very interesting and often important findings, were basically speculation without any proof.
I really like conspiracy IDEAS, and often they do have good explanatory power for important things in our weird world. But it's very rare to be able to have solid proof of a conspiracy theory. Personally, I also think that it's also important to not base real world politics on unproven conspiracy theories.
Out on the world wide web, there are hundreds of bad conspiracy sites-- sites that often masquerade as some sort of alternative news site. There's so much that is poorly reported, poorly research, presented in a very sensational way, and stuff that is just plain wrong. And of course there are sites that are blatant misinformation or disinformation put out by intelligence agencies from the US or other countries. And as I have written before, the worst of the worst are the endless youtube channels that trumpet false flag fakery every time some shooting occurs.
So back to Hillary Clinton-- isn't it *possible* that she was NOT the real enemy, and she was actually *basically* good?
There have been an incredible number of lies about her, over her whole political life. She is perhaps the most lied about person in politics, ever. There are hundreds of outrageous lies about her, bought and pushed by the right-wing. But, in reality her politics as a senator and presidential candidate, policy-wise, has been pretty centrist, reasonable and fair. Nonetheless, in this recent presidential campaign, she was fucked over HARD by the GOP, by Trump, by wikileaks, by the news media. Painted unfairly as a criminal by a bunch of professional lying fucks.
Does the news media and the GOP ever stand for truth and decency? Not really.
I'm not here to defend everything Hillary Clinton ever did. But I'm saying that there is no way she's as bad as the right-wing said.
The vast majority of the complaints about Hillary were for her vote for the Iraq war, and for some of her foreign policy decisions as Secretary of State.
First, let's talk about her vote "for the Iraq war". Looking at her statement at the time, it's clear she wasn't really voting for a war per se, and certainly she was not casting a vote for Bush's Iraq war as it played out:
Let's remember the vast majority of Republican Senators voted for force authorization and a good number of Democrats. But for some reason, only Democrats running for President (Kerry, Clinton) got really picked on for that. Odd, isn't it?
Keep in mind, Hillary represented NY city, really the epicenter of the attacks, and there was incredible pressure on her to go hard on terrorism. So I think it is fair to give her a break on this vote.
Regarding her time as Secretary of State, the fact is US foreign policy is very complicated and messy. And after the Bush administration, international relations were in a shambles. Moreover, everything she did was misrepresented to some extent by her political opponents, and/or ridiculously politicized (such as Benghazi). Things like supporting regime change in Syria, though it obviously led to a horrible civil war, in theory, the regime change was to depose a bad dictator; the same for Libya, or to counter Russia in Ukraine. These were common bi-partisan views on foreign policy, not unique to Hillary, and there were Republicans that were more hawkish than her.
I know there's the alternative conspiracy view that all these foreign policy decisions were deep state actions to help the NWO and/or the international banking system and/or to keep the military-industrial complex going and/or to start a broader world war. I'm not defending these military actions per se, but I am saying that these situations were far more complicated than is often portrayed, and Hillary herself could have acted out of relatively nobel, humane intentions. We should keep that as a possibility, since that was the stated intention-- to help people being persecuted in Syria and Libya. Even Iraq and Afghanistan.
So let's go deeper.
Remember the deep ultimate conspiracy postulated here by Anonymous Physicist -- that there are evil aliens controlling us, and they are quarantined here on planet earth by other aliens. The evil aliens really want to break out of quarantine and get off earth, and to do this, they need nuclear weapons.
While this probably sounds sort of crazy, it is still a fascinating idea that can explain a number of other conspiracy issues such as Apollo moon landing fakery, UFO's, and why things are so fucked up here on earth.
I'm not saying the evil alien-quarantine theory is an absolute fact, but it's a useful model to work with.
But I have some additional ideas on this model.
The evil PTB would need most of the nukes on earth for their purpose of breaking out of quarantine. But the problem is, right now, most of the nukes are controlled by two countries: US and Russia. The nukes are pointed to earth, but really what is need is to point the nukes at the atmosphere of the planet, to the outer edge where the quarantine ships are, to disable them. That would mean total control of all the US-Russian nukes, and to be able to re-direct them.
With different governments in opposition to each other this would be impossible.
But if US and Russia became friendly, and allied militarily, their nukes could be tied to one controller.
Who favors closer relations with Russia and the US? Trump and Putin, of course.
Who would block such a union? Hillary, of course.
So Hillary could be saving us from the ultimate horror scenario of the atmosphere getting nuked, essentially destroying life on the planet.
Keep in mind that Hillary wanted UFO disclosure as president, which had some real possibility of uncovering the ultimate evil PTB. That didn't happen, and now we have a president-elect, who has ties with and is making nice with Russia.
Conspiracy types typically portray Hillary as the one hell-bent on starting a nuclear war with Russia, but to me, that isn't plausible. I don't buy that she is that evil, in willing to kill almost everyone on the planet.
You know who seems like a true psychopath to me?
Donald J. Trump
posted by spooked at 8:29 PM
2 Comments:
With only 2 days remaining until the election, an epic Trump ad was released which pulled no punches on the internationalist global elite and directly set out to the American voter what was at stake.
http://tinyurl.com/z2wlp9g
A couple highlights:
This movement is about replacing a failed, and corrupt, political establishment with a "new government" controlled by you, the American people.
American political discourse never makes use of the term "new government" to refer to a democratic change of power - unlike in parliamentary systems for example. It uses the term "new administration." To Americans, "new government" means an entirely new political system. It means revolution. This choice of words by Trump cannot be accidental.
It's a global power structure, that is responsible for the economic decisions, that have robbed the working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.
some of these entities:
the Federal Reserve System, Wall Street, Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, billionaire social engineer George Soros, Chairman of Goldman Sachs Lloyd Blankfein and other powerful elites.
hillary is fully in the pockets of these "elites" that rule most of the world.
a vote for her was a vote for more of the same, including more wars.
I really doubt that he's going to change anything. I understand the appeal of that message, but he's just a scam artist, who will be led by rapacious conservatives in congress who will fuck us over, because Trump has no idea what being a president entails or how the government works.
Post a Comment
<< Home