Vladimir Putin (2010-2013)

[Mark]

President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize

As the media interprets recent events as Obama’s march to war, America and the world falls for it hook, line and sinker. Say what you want about Obama but he is a very smart man. He would never ask permission he did not need from Congress to launch a strike on Syria unless he knew beyond a doubt he could get it. That is if his real intentions were to actually carry out military operations. But why on earth does it appear he wants this war?

After agonizing over this question over and over I began to realize there is only one logical explanation. He does not. Only a month ago the GOP was accusing Obama of being weak for not acting when the “red line” was crossed. There was pressure for him not only from the US but from the world as well. The reputation of the great American defender was on the line. Still it was obvious at the time Obama did not want to rush into another quagmire, bogging down the rest of his tenure as our nation’s leader. But the evidence kept rolling in. He had to do something not only for his reputation as a world leader but for the United States as well.

Cue the British Parliament to provide Obama with the perfect out. Just days after Britain’s governing body eliminated any joint action with the US to participate in a coalition to strike the Assad regime, Obama made a surprising and decisive move. Against the advice of all his advisors, he put any US participation in the hands of our do-nothing Congress with no chance they would give him the approval he needed. Not because it isn’t the right thing to do but because Obama was asking for it. The outcome is a given if you just take a step back and look at the situation rationally. And there is no way Obama is going to launch this attack once Congress says no. It would be political suicide. Bush may have gotten away with it but America is not going to let it happen again. The fallout would signal the end of any and all effectiveness the Obama administration for the remaining years of his presidency. And history would place him with the likes of war criminals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Let me repeat this. Obama is not that stupid!

So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.

If this sounds like an improbable scenario I ask that you to ponder for a moment the potential outcome:
No war
Obama and America look strong and world leaders should not doubt Obama’s willingness to take action
Congress was made to do their job
Congress will take the responsibility of inaction
Republicans have to pretend they are anti-war
Americans comes out against any further wars thereby providing the beginning of the end to our perpetual war
Puts pressure on the UN to take other action
Suddenly the UN is eager to accept other harsh non-military actions against Syria

And there is even the added bonus that the GOP weakening the push to shut down the government over the debt ceiling will not proceed with the intense battle anticipated. Next week Congress returns for only nine days. Nine days to act on the Syrian War, the debt ceiling, immigration, the Voting Rights Acts and many other important issues.

Seeing they can barely rename a post office, Congress will not have the ability to once again play games with by demanding cuts and further tax cuts for corporations. It will have to accept a reasonable offer or be blamed for damage to our nation’s credit rating. Republicans are very aware they will face blame and backlash should this happen.

Tell me this isn’t the best outcome ever. And I honestly think this was Obama’s intention from the beginning. You know damn well if he didn’t do anything, Republicans would be calling him weak because of the corner he had painted himself in when he talked about the red line.

Granted, Obama made a mistake with his “red line” comment, but by acting in a calm savvy manner, he can come out looking the part of the tough guy without even taking a swing. And he smiles as Congress does for him what he wanted in the first place.

If America could just set down their pitchforks and torches for a moment, they would be able to see what brilliant strategy this is.

[turiya]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)
President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize

If America could just set down their pitchforks and torches for a moment, they would be able to see what brilliant strategy this is.

Sorry my friend, but the moment he sent drones into Pakistan was the moment he showed his true colors. Nobody special - just like the other idiots that have been in the position before him - nobody special. And, I do believe, that was within a month of him first taking office. And, oh yeah, don't forget that brilliant kinetic action he took against Gaddafi and the innocent people of Lybia, yeah... ask me how stunned I am at his brilliance there... Sorry, but he is just sick man, as the rest. There needs to be an Amendment to Constitution... it should require those in political office to be drug tested. Everyone that tests positive should have to step down & leave office. Their medical records can be looked at by the FBI. That should give them some real honest work to do. That is in my opinion.

America has not yet picked up their pitchforks and torches... but that day is coming... the day is not that far away.


turiya

[Mark]

Oh yes. Presidents are nobody special indeed. They luck into their positions. It's all about genetics. Who they know. Right.

I rarely enter these threads but this one was too good to pass up. Obama, stupid? No. Not even Dubya was stupid.

To imply that Obama is making all of these decisions of his own volition is revealing an ignorance of the true source of power in this world. Obama's source of agency in these world events is in deciding the exact course insofar as he can and within the constraints of the already-decided-upon path and in representing as middling a viewpoint as possible between Left and Right.

And he has accomplished that superbly, even as the ptb that pull his strings pull harder in some directions rather than others.

[GCS1103]

I never for a moment thought that Obama, nor George Bush, was stupid. No one who sits in the Oval Office should ever be accused of that. One might be more charismatic and a better speaker than the other, but they both represent what is so wrong with this country. We have allowed corrupted megalomaniacs to run our lives and chip away at our liberties. As I have said before...Obama is dressed in a different package than Bush, but the contents of the package are the same....garbage. Sorry, Rahkyt, my friend, but I have no respect for either one of them.

[Czarek]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)
[URL="http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=171376"][SIZE="3"]

... And there is no way Obama is going to launch this attack once Congress says no. It would be political suicide.

I don't believe for a second that this has any importance to Obama. i.e. his presidency. The objective is a start of a conflict in the middle East. The rest of the pieces will fall very fast under the state of war. Time will tell but from the reports of US army receiving orders to deploy to Syria, the war may be still on.

[deridan]

I find the title foolish, and the assumptions of the OPed ridicules.

what is clear is that one country is following a schedule of involvements, and if the peoples are lacking in will, it just shows the danger of another false flag being appropriated to get that will in line.

Putin is extremely competent as a politician. America wants its dignity back?//who said demo-crazy was the exclusive property of those who made it famous first,
obviously money grabbing plays an important part, if you are able to grab, obviously any cake would seem too tempting.

we can call the world history experiments in time, and realize that NOW is the opportunity to do well for ourselves as a collective, as mankind SINGULARLY.
we can call boo's on whatever seems short-sighted. Like maybe america needs to find another financial way except war to fund its new working population

[T Smith]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)
President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize

As the media interprets recent events as Obama’s march to war, America and the world falls for it hook, line and sinker. Say what you want about Obama but he is a very smart man. He would never ask permission he did not need from Congress to launch a strike on Syria unless he knew beyond a doubt he could get it. That is if his real intentions were to actually carry out military operations. But why on earth does it appear he wants this war?

After agonizing over this question over and over I began to realize there is only one logical explanation. He does not. Only a month ago the GOP was accusing Obama of being weak for not acting when the “red line” was crossed. There was pressure for him not only from the US but from the world as well. The reputation of the great American defender was on the line. Still it was obvious at the time Obama did not want to rush into another quagmire, bogging down the rest of his tenure as our nation’s leader. But the evidence kept rolling in. He had to do something not only for his reputation as a world leader but for the United States as well.

Cue the British Parliament to provide Obama with the perfect out. Just days after Britain’s governing body eliminated any joint action with the US to participate in a coalition to strike the Assad regime, Obama made a surprising and decisive move. Against the advice of all his advisors, he put any US participation in the hands of our do-nothing Congress with no chance they would give him the approval he needed. Not because it isn’t the right thing to do but because Obama was asking for it. The outcome is a given if you just take a step back and look at the situation rationally. And there is no way Obama is going to launch this attack once Congress says no. It would be political suicide. Bush may have gotten away with it but America is not going to let it happen again. The fallout would signal the end of any and all effectiveness the Obama administration for the remaining years of his presidency. And history would place him with the likes of war criminals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Let me repeat this. Obama is not that stupid!

So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.

If this sounds like an improbable scenario I ask that you to ponder for a moment the potential outcome:
No war
Obama and America look strong and world leaders should not doubt Obama’s willingness to take action
Congress was made to do their job
Congress will take the responsibility of inaction
Republicans have to pretend they are anti-war
Americans comes out against any further wars thereby providing the beginning of the end to our perpetual war
Puts pressure on the UN to take other action
Suddenly the UN is eager to accept other harsh non-military actions against Syria

And there is even the added bonus that the GOP weakening the push to shut down the government over the debt ceiling will not proceed with the intense battle anticipated. Next week Congress returns for only nine days. Nine days to act on the Syrian War, the debt ceiling, immigration, the Voting Rights Acts and many other important issues.

Seeing they can barely rename a post office, Congress will not have the ability to once again play games with by demanding cuts and further tax cuts for corporations. It will have to accept a reasonable offer or be blamed for damage to our nation’s credit rating. Republicans are very aware they will face blame and backlash should this happen.

Tell me this isn’t the best outcome ever. And I honestly think this was Obama’s intention from the beginning. You know damn well if he didn’t do anything, Republicans would be calling him weak because of the corner he had painted himself in when he talked about the red line.

Granted, Obama made a mistake with his “red line” comment, but by acting in a calm savvy manner, he can come out looking the part of the tough guy without even taking a swing. And he smiles as Congress does for him what he wanted in the first place.

If America could just set down their pitchforks and torches for a moment, they would be able to see what brilliant strategy this is.

This is an interesting take, Rahkyt. I would be more open to the notion that Barack Obama, the person, came up with this strategy as a human being, in which case he would be covertly assuming some type of Manchurian-candidate role for the People... a sort of "reverse" Manchurian, or a double-agent Manchurian... His presidency, like those before him, clearly serves the NWO agenda. They scripted this war and they have tasked President Obama, as commander-in-chief, to execute the script. Perhaps his sanity, as a human being, trumped his political duties?

President Obama has been following the NWO script brilliantly (and loyally) since his election in 2008 (this is the impetus for pitchforks and torches), so it is much harder for me to get on board with the notion that this ploy is some kind of legitimate foreign policy strategy on behalf of world peace and on behalf of the interests of We the People. To subscribe to that notion would be nothing less than acknowledging the President has gone rogue. But if your theory is correct President Obama has acted heroically and in this instance We the People should be extremely thankful. By deliberately maneuvering himself into "checkmate" (in essence outwitting his handlers) he appears loyal to his hawkish overlords yet has managed to sabotage the veneer of his own foreign policy. This puts the onus of success of the nefarious neocon program (all roads of which lead to WWIII) on the establishment's ever-feckless propaganda instead of on his own specific decisions as President.

If you are even remotely correct about this, President Obama has put himself in an extremely dangerous and vulnerable position. He has essentially double-crossed those who have put him in the White House. At the very least he is using his position of power to sabotage the program in very subtle way. The last President that thought along those lines, and who acted in the interests of We the People instead of by the will of TPTB ended up on a fifty-cent piece.

[Mark]

Posted by GCS1103 (here)
Sorry, Rahkyt, my friend, but I have no respect for either one of them.

There's no reason to apologize to me, dearest Goldie.

I'm not a fan either.

BUT, I prefer a clear record that takes into account a more accurate assessment of how the world runs than one burdened by potentially culturally-driven viewpoints that don't take a sober view of the history of the past 5 years, in the context of what went on during the previous 230+ years.

And I do realize that's a lot to ask, which is why I generally don't enter these threads.

Excuse me for breaking up the flow of Obama-hate, y'all. All best.

[Mark]

Posted by T Smith (here)
If you are even remotely correct about this, President Obama has put himself in an extremely dangerous and vulnerable position. He has essentially double-crossed those who have put him in the White House. At the very least he is using his position of power to sabotage the program in very subtle way. The last President that thought along those lines, and who acted in the interests of We the People instead of by the will of TPTB ended up on a fifty-cent piece.

You are correct. This perspective is indeed turning the game on its head, IF it is so. I share your curiosity about his motives.

But then, I look at what he has actually done as POTUS in the context of the Presidents before him. How he has dealt and NOT dealt with Wall Street, how he has NOT dealt with, but what his rhetoric states about Guantanamo Bay, how he has implemented "Obama-care" despite the heavy opposition of the monied interests and the clear benefit that it will indeed have for the masses in a socialist kind of way, how he is trying to return the Courts of the US back to some semblance of middle-ground, how he has chosen those drones over 'boots on the ground' and more American troops in harms way. Those who will argue the primacy of individual interest over that of the collective have their merit, but that merit is dependent upon a worldview that is no longer viable as we move inexorably toward becoming a global society.

Obama's choices from a non-American viewpoint are another matter altogether and brings into the equation questions of nationalism as opposed to a more humanistic and universalist perspective. Those coming from that perspective are entering into a subjective realm and arguments based upon that universalism do not include the status of nation-states and the 'divine right of Kings' as arbiter of human destiny upon the earth. An interesting discussion to have, but in no way a reflection of life as lived or the historical record.

Given the nature of American foreign and domestic policy, change is in the air. It is inevitable, as the limits of the current economic insanity have been reached and the body politic is ripe for a different way of living. Irregardless of what the media puts forth, fundamental shifts in economics and politics is inevitable. The back-room bargaining and repositioning is under way in a very real and mundane manner, even if the prognostications of the gurus of the alt conspiratorial community are way off base.

IF this article is true, then Obama's safety and that of his family is indeed in question. IF he has reached a point of ethical saturation and is now contemplating even deeper departures from the script than this, perhaps his martyrdom may also become a part of the script.

I don't know what is true or not, but this possibility is one generally not considered by the alt community. His ethical co-optation is assumed complete. One thing is certain, though. IF he is rocking the boat, in these days of electronic communication, his betrayal of those controller interests will not be able to be hidden under a rock for decades. The world will know about it as it occurs.

[rgray222]

Posted by wolf_rt (here)

Putin's recent op-ed piece in the NYT is an incredibly ballsy move, and seems to have delivered a mortal blow to the Obama Administration, and possibly even to American imperialism in general!

America has been a lot of things but it has never been into imperialism. At least not in the truest sense of the word. Not like the Russians, British, Germans or the Romans. (no offense to any of our European friends). Now if Putin wanted to substitute the word capitalism in place of imperialism then he might be onto something. I believe his choice of words is very much intentional because the people in the middle east always use this word when talking about the United States, there is little doubt that the word imperialism has extremely negative connotations and Putin knows that most Americans will buy into it without ever really understanding it.

President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize
If this sounds like an improbable scenario I ask that you to ponder for a moment the potential outcome:
No war
Obama and America look strong and world leaders should not doubt Obama’s willingness to take action
Congress was made to do their job
Congress will take the responsibility of inaction
Republicans have to pretend they are anti-war
Americans comes out against any further wars thereby providing the beginning of the end to our perpetual war
Puts pressure on the UN to take other action
Suddenly the UN is eager to accept other harsh non-military actions against Syria

This article from the San Francisco Sentinel is written by a very liberal mainstream media type that is attempting to justify Obama's request for war. There is little doubt that the mainstream media does all in it's power to make Obama look good or keep him out of harms way. They do this for two reasons, Obama is liberal and the mainstream media is liberal, they like each other and they want their party to succeed. This is expected as long as the media remains liberal, it is not right it is just the way it is. Also (it is talked about but not much) Obama is the first black/minority President the country has ever had. The media wants him to succeed because they honestly feel that it is good for the country and good for their party which is the party of the "minorities". This is not only wrong it is racism. All people should be judged on their actions and not on skin color, religion or ethnic background.

So, it is not surprising to see such an article. This type of convoluted thinking to justify the actions of a politician are a reach to say the least. Telling the world you want to go to war to avoid war is a new one on me! This article makes Obama look downright messiah like. Ten steps ahead of all of us in the trenches. In one fell swoop he has redeemed himself, the democratic party and snookered the opposition in to looking foolish and weak all the while allowing the blame to fall on Congress and at the same time shifting the problem to the United Nations. Wow!

This reporters head must have been ready to explode before his/her mind reached the end of the astonishing maze of Obama redemption!

Bottom line here is that Bush and Obama have done as they dam well please and they both have not taken the will of the people into consideration. Presidents are suppose to be uniting forces and these two men have been dividing forces, both unwilling to negotiate with the opposition. These two men have been the major cause of political gridlock.

The idea that we are being lectured to by the former head of the KGB is appalling. Obama's need to go to war in Syria is misguided, we have no clear objective, our actions would not change the regime, would not stop the civil war or even guarantee that chemical weapons would no longer be used. It seems to be a pretty even toss up of who the bad guys are. Murder by chemical weapons or murder by conventional weapons is still murder. Dropping bombs indiscriminately on a country that poses no threat to the U.S. is murder as well.

Going to war with Syria would not accomplish one positive thing that I can identify.

It is time for the people of the United States and the world to tell American Presidents (all presidents no matter the party) to stay the hell out of things unless they can identify a way to make life better for those suffering.

[Mark]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
This article from the San Francisco Sentinel is written by a very liberal media type that is attempting to justify Obama's request for war. There is little doubt that the mainstream media does all in it's power to make Obama look good or keep him out of harms way. They do this for two reasons, Obama is liberal and the mainstream media is liberal, they like each other and they want their party to succeed. This is expected as long as the media remains liberal, it is not right it is just the way it is.

Freakoutnation.com is very far from a mainstream venue. The author, Wayen Bomgaars, is indeed a Liberal. Rather than attacking the person who wrote the article for his political affiliations, why not do something different and address the points he made:

1) Republican obstructionism in the House and Senate have resulted in the appellation, "Do-nothing" Congress. Is that true or not?

2) Obama has dragged his heels for months now despite the hawkish cries of senators such as McCain to take the side of the Rebel forces and support them with arms and air strikes.

3) The British public and parliament's refusal to rubber-stamp Cameron's attempts to side with the United States in going forward with air strikes.

4) Obama went to the Congress knowing full well he would not get approval for a strike on Syria.

Why would he do that? What logical reason would support this when it is not necessary? He is the POTUS, if he chooses to go that route, he is well within the pre-established pattern of Presidential action in the modern era to do so.

If the House votes no on this action, is it conceivable that Obama would strike anyway? And, if he did, what would that mean for democratic chances in the next elections? For democrats to hold the White House and make gains in the House or Senate?

All politicians are aware of the polling. They all know that the American public do not want it. They all know that to go to war without the backing of the American public will harm the chances of their party to gain or retain majorities in the House and Senate in the following election cycle.

Obama also knows that if he does strike, if the vote does turn out to be no, that the chances of it getting uglier will increase and the affiliation with Al-Queda cells in Syria is going to gain even more mainstream attention and and that the Republicans will jump all over that to the detriment of the Democrats for years to come.

The logic of this article is sound and not at all convoluted in political-think. It is quite Machiavellian, which is the model that they, the corporations and psychopaths in general work off of. Sports teams do it as well. In chess it is done as well. In poker it is done as well. I would venture to say that in all games, it is done. You feint in one direction, when your true aim is in another. It makes total sense. More sense than to seek a vote for an action you can accomplish without one. Unless you don't really want to accomplish that action and you need an excuse to justify your failure to act. An excuse that will include future elections, the will of the American people, the greater good of stopping loss of life when your controllers are pushing you directly toward it.

Posted by rgray222 (here)
Also (it is talked about but not much) Obama is the first black/minority President the country has ever had. The media wants him to succeed because they honestly feel that it is good for the country and good for their party which is the party of the "minorities". This is not only wrong it is racism. All people should be judged on their actions and not on skin color, religion or ethnic background.

His race has nothing to do with this. The Democrats are not the party of the minorities, as you put it. The minorities don't have a party. They have interests, really basic ones, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which are served by one party or another at different points in time. Blacks, for instance, all used to be Republicans, the party of Lincoln, at one point. They have alliances that serve their aims. Your use of the word racism is quite ill-advised on this topic and speaks more to your own beliefs than any form of reality. The Liberal media is generally not supporting Obama in this action. They are supporting the polls, which state the American public does not want war.

Posted by rgray222 (here)
So, it is not surprising to see such an article. This type of convoluted thinking to justify the actions of a politician are a reach to say the least. Telling the world you want to go to war to avoid war is a new one on me!

Not new at all. In fact, bellicose behavior at the international level is quite the norm. See N. Korea for a recent example.

[161803398]

I am quite confused about Obama. Take Cambodia, for instance, which America bombed secretly thereby allowing the Khmer rouge to take control. That was Nixon and Kissinger both of whom are criminals. If I was in Obama's spot and didn't want to get my head blown off I could see myself making everything public, talking the talk and dragging my heels.

Obama always has that sick look when he's in a sticky spot...such as when he had to come out and say he killed Osama....(that so reminds me of Edgar Allen Poe: Obama/Osama).

But I even have my doubts about George Bush. There are those who say we should thank him because his apparent idiocy tipped everyone off.

Who ever knows?

[Violet]

Yes whoever knows anything these days anymore?

It might very well be that Obama actually realised the risk of waging a war with barely any support and decided to take the long road. Why not this be an alternative manoeuvre in which Assad is given "a chance" be it with infeasibly rigid stipulations (now being written out in UN-gatherings) which Assad will - of course (dito Kerry) - fail to meet, after which it will be much easier to gain better support for a war that was scheduled either way.

Who knows?

[wolf_rt]

I had not intended this thread to be about 'Obama hate', and putin never mentioned imperialism, those were my words.

The fact that the former head of the KGB can lecture the US on foreign policy is indeed appalling. But mostly for the fact that it is so richly deserved.

I have disliked all the American presidents since i can remember. Obama is nothing special there, but he has presented a golden opportunity for the rest of the world to throw off the shackles of American imperialism (my words... Perhaps meddling would be more accurate, however it it seems inadequate to describe the horror the US has inflicted on the world for the last 50 years.)


Also, how do we know that the NWO agenda does not move forward with the dissolution of US empire USSR style?

It would likely strengthen the UN and possibly increase NATO influence.


I would love to hear some potential positive outcomes from everyone here. you can get bitching about politicians and party politics anywhere, Avalon is something special.


Rahkyt, i'm not sure if i fully understand your position, you are saying that Obama has engineered this very scenario in order to defy his controllers?

The man is not THAT smart... Putin hasn't performed any miraculous feat of statesmanship here, he simply moved swiftly on a good opportunity.

Putins Op-Ed really only rubs salt in the wounds.

[miqeel]

There are layers upon layers upon layers in this situation and nothing is ever as it seems at first glance. Putin did great with this op ed, but what are his real motivations? Oil money, Nabbuco pipeline come to mind. The actual outcome of this situation, in terms of geopolitical gains will be known in a little while yet.

Short term, the increase in the awareness of the mass population about the corruption of their government, seems the excellent outcome. Of course, mass genocide and WWIII not happening is a bonus.
In other part of the gameboard, things such as NSA spying, Verizon vs FCC lawsuit are all v important, but perhaps somewhat overlooked events?

[161803398]

America has gone down the road of Nazi Germany. Its just a rule that taking the path of fear marks you as a loser however much "success" you had on the way down when nobody was looking. Its classic. The danger is clear now to the world as a result of the internet and we all know what happens to losers. Putin's remarks about international law are a warning.

[Ultima Thule]

Well, taking a breath before the plunge... I'm hesitant to open other cans of worms to accompany the main act about Obama. I absolutely mean no distraction off topic, but there are really interesting things going on in this thread.

What if what Rahkyt paints out as a possible scenario has some truth in it, wouldn't it carry an eerie resemblance to what David Wilcock and Benjamin Fulford have (appproximately) been saying?
I'm not saying it is so, but there is the possibility of it being so.

UT

[T Smith]

Posted by wolf_rt (here)

Also, how do we know that the NWO agenda does not move forward with the dissolution of US empire USSR style?

Actually, we do know that. We know that the NWO endgame includes the dismantling of the US Empire.

If the NWO has their way, America, the super power, will simply dissolve into a formally-recognized global empire, controlled by a cabal of international corporations and banks, but only after the total collapse of the U.S. Dollar or after some other economic or other calamity on the American homeland. This is all planned. The American Republic was commandeered long ago by this agenda, and the majority of Americans have no idea this has even taken place. Upper echelon orchestrators of the plan, i.e. those above the typical method of compartmentalization control who indeed maintain a vantage to see the larger picture (and who could therefore "resist" in good conscience, i.e. generals, military brass, etc.,), still do not fully grasp what is going on. They believe they are advancing a global empire in the name of "American Hegemony". You can read all about this in various neocon white papers, e.g. The Project for a New American Century, etc. But this has nothing to do with America, or America's supposed ideology vs. Marxist ideology, etc., save for exploiting America's human resources, i.e. America's military, its wealth, and its reserve currency status to advance the agenda. America is the but the engine, the might, the vacuum, if you will, sucking the vitality and wealth from the rest of the world and concentrating power into fewer and fewer hands. Once the transfer is complete they will simply shut off the vacuum and toss it in the junk pile.

[Anchor]

Posted by Ultima Thule (here)
What if what Rahkyt paints out as a possible scenario has some truth in it, wouldn't it carry an eerie resemblance to what David Wilcock and Benjamin Fulford have (appproximately) been saying?

And me said similar, but I when I said that I used to get so verbally whipped over it I stopped fueling the agro and just decided to wait.

[KiwiElf]

Just my opinion, but I think we could all be forced to do some pretty terrible things against our will if the situation arose.?