Source: GizaDeathStar.com Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 9, 2018
As you might have noticed, I’ve been largely focused on the apparently emerging geopolitical and financial memes for 2018. This story fits right in, though it may not be immediately apparent how it does so. Our friends at the Diabolically Apocalyptic Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA, a busy not only planning super-soldiers,warp drives, and subterranean operational capabilities, but now, according to this article shared by Mr. H.B., they’re also planning flying aircraft carriers:
Needless to say, the “flying aircraft carrier” is a bit different from those super-hero movies Hollyweird has been pumping out lately, for rather than actual aircraft carrier flying around implausibly, these will be aircraft equipped to launch several drones:
The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency – more commonly known as DARPA – is moving ahead with a project to create a flying aircraft carrier.According to the Navy Times, the so-called “Gremlins” program involves building a transport and bomber-style aircraft capable of launching swarms of fighter drones mid-flight.
The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency plans to demonstrate the ability to launch and recover swarms of drones from a C-130 sometime in 2019, according to statements by the agency and by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, one of two companies contracted to design prototype of the drones. The other is Dynetics.
The test would serve as a major leap into the next phase of testing for DARPA’s Gremlins program.
The new platform is designed to carry drones equipped for a variety of operational missions:
Once dispatched, the drones would be outfitted with different payloads in order to accomplish an assortment of missions, to include ISR, electronic warfare, signals intelligence and even kinetic effects. (Emphasis added)
As one might conclude from my emphasis on the “kinetic effects” aspect of these platforms, this raised my suspicion meter into the red zone, for what is being suggested is a “small version” of the “rod of God” technologies I’ve blogged about before on this website, particularly a few years ago in conjunction with the mysterious explosions at Chinese chemical plants and the anomalously deep craters these left. At the time, many were speculating precisely on the use of some sort of massive space-based and launched “rod of God” kinetic weapon. More recently, readers here will recall that a hint of such weaponry was made by US authorities in conjunction with North Korea, when an American reporter asked general Mattis about the possible use of such weapons, to which the answer was a curt, but revealing, “yes.” That response, I concluded, was an indication of the existence of such weapons at the strategic level.
Which puts a unique context to this “flying aircraft carrier” project. I’ve occasionally pointed out in previous blogs about the subject of China’s silk road project that the building of rail and road infrastructure to connect Asia and Europe fulfilled the prophecy of British geopolitician, Halford Makinder, who prophesied at the turn of the last century that railroads and air transport would eventually tie the Eurasian land mass together, making it invulnerable to the conventional interdictions of (British) sea power. One hundred years later, and we’re watching it come to fruition. So how would one interdict such communications infrastructure. One solution is obviously the space-based kinetic energy weapon, whose destructive power theoretically could be equivalent to very large nuclear weapons.
Another obvious platform would be something like… a flying aircraft carrier, capable of deploying a multitude of smaller drones with small “tactical” level kinetic weapons capable of punching craters in road and rail networks and taking out hardened facilities. Tie that concept to other platforms such as an orbital aircraft, and you get the idea: redundancy of interdictive capability is the name of the game.
In short, this is a response – ultimately – to the growth of the Silk Road initiative in my opinion.
And that means the geopolitical-financial game most definitely is afoot.
Source: TheCorbettReport
James Corbett
August 8, 2017
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=23653 [NOTE: This video was produced for BoilingFrogsPost.com on October 31, 2012. It is being made available in its entirety here for the first time.] Military deception is an ancient and time-honoured art. Throughout recorded history, military commanders have attempted to spread false news and seed false information as part of psychological warfare operations to deceive, confuse, and demoralize the enemy…
If terrorist incidents are always tied back to shadowy groups linked to Al Qaeda or ISIS, an online, independent media might connect those dots to show how Al Qaeda and ISIS were literally created, fostered, funded, trained and equipped by the UK government, the US government and their allies across the world as a tool in their quest of dominance of the Middle East and control of their domestic population. But such a story can only be told on a free and open internet, where independent voices continue to reach the masses and inform them of the truth about these terror groups.
For those seeking additional information that show holes in the official narrative large enough to ferry the Titanic through, please read Jon Rappoport’s piece below [NoMoreFakeNews.com & JonRappoport.wordpress.com]:
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the Syria Strikes from the truth-telling truth-tellers in the truthful government and true mainstream news!…in under 5 minutes!!
The sarin-gas attack story prompted the US missile strike on a Syrian runway. Here are the top ten reasons for doubting that story, and instead calling it a convenient pretext:
ONE: Photos show rescue workers treating/decontaminating people injured or killed in the gas attack. The workers aren’t wearing gloves or protective gear. Only the clueless or crazy would expose themselves to sarin residue, which can be fatal.
TWO: MIT professor Thomas Postol told RT, “I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the [US intelligence] document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun…Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real. No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.” How would a canister purportedly dropped from an Assad-ordered plane incur “crushing from above?”
THREE: Why would President Assad, supported by Russia, scoring victory after victory against ISIS, moving closer to peace negotiations, suddenly risk all his gains by dropping sarin gas on his own people?
FOUR: In an interview with Scott Horton, ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi states that his intelligence and military sources indicate Assad didn’t attack his own people with poison gas.
FIVE: Ex-CIA officer Ray McGovern states that his military sources report an Assad air strike did hit a chemical plant, and the fallout killed people, but the attack was not planned for that purpose. There was no knowledge the chemicals were lethal.
SIX: At consortiumnews.com, journalist Robert Parry writes, “There is a dark mystery behind the White House-released photo showing President Trump and more than a dozen advisers meeting at his estate in Mar-a-Lago after his decision to strike Syria with Tomahawk missiles: Where are CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top intelligence officials?”
“Before the photo was released on Friday, a source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA’s belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier — and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision.”
“After the attack, Secretary of State Tillerson, who is not an institutional intelligence official and has little experience with the subtleties of intelligence, was the one to claim that the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a ‘high degree of confidence’ that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.”
“While Tillerson’s comment meshed with Official Washington’s hastily formed groupthink of Assad’s guilt, it is hard to believe that CIA analysts would have settled on such a firm conclusion so quickly, especially given the remote location of the incident and the fact that the initial information was coming from pro-rebel (or Al Qaeda) sources.”
“Thus, a serious question arises whether President Trump did receive that ‘high degree of confidence’ assessment from the intelligence community or whether he shunted Pompeo aside to eliminate an obstacle to his desire to launch the April 6 rocket attack.”
SEVEN: As soon as the Assad gas attack was reported, the stage was set for a US missile strike. No comprehensive investigation of the purported gas attack was undertaken.
EIGHT: There are, of course, precedents for US wars based on false evidence—the missing WMDs in Iraq, the claims of babies being pushed out of incubators in Kuwait, to name just two.
NINE: Who benefits from the sarin gas story? Assad? Or US neocons; the US military-industrial complex; Pentagon generals who want a huge increase in their military budget; Trump and his team, who are suddenly praised in the press, after a year of being pilloried at every turn; and ISIS?
TEN: For those who doubt that ISIS has ever used poison gas, see the NY Times (11/21/2016). While claiming that Assad has deployed chemical attacks, the article also states that ISIS has deployed chemical weapons 52 times since 2014.
I’m not claiming these ten reasons definitely and absolutely rule out the possibility of an Assad-ordered chemical attack. But they do add up to a far more believable conclusion than the quickly assembled “Assad-did-it” story.
These ten reasons starkly point to the lack of a rational and complete investigation of the “gas attack.”
And this lack throws a monkey wrench into Trump’s claim that he was ordering the missile strike based on “a high degree of confidence.”
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 10, 2017
It’s difficult for me to write this blog, not because I came late, and reluctantly, to support the Trump candidacy, but rather because in the cloud of bitterness, sadness, and outrage over the missile attacks on Syria, it’s difficult for me to articulate the full spectrum of my reasons, let alone my anger and sense of complete betrayal. In a nutshell, it appears to me that Mr. Trump is within a few decimal points of full-scale, Hillary Clinton type megalomania and insanity, and has succumbed to the same evil spirit that seems to infest all of Washington and America’s national political class. Those are strong words, and I mean every one of them in full measure (and particularly that part about the evil spirit infesting and investing Washington). And I’m just getting started.
Consider, for a moment, the chemical weapons allegations from the Assad regime’s point of view. Its military campaign, thanks to Russian intervention, was going well. Syria was winning. It thus makes no sense whatsoever for the Assad regime to risk the entire campaign by the use of chemical weapons, exposing his regime to the renewal of American and Western aggression in that country by opening it to reprisals. He had no viable nor plausible military, nor political, nor geopolitical reason to do so, even if he re-equipped himself, or bought, chemical weapons from elsewhere. I’m not alone in this view. Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul has articulated much the same view, as have countless American talk show hosts and commentators, and even the former British ambassador to that blighted nation has weighed in, doubting the whole narrative.
In this, Mr. Trump appears to have drunk the Hillary Clinton brand of Koolaid, and gallons of it at that. I cannot help but notice, as have many others, that this action was taken on April 6th, fully a century to the day that another political outsider, and unquestionably one of America’s worst presidents, the disaster named Woodrow Wilson, took this country into World War One. I’m not here to debate the merits or demerits of Mr. Wilson’s decision for war, only to point out how he, too campaigned on the slogan “He kept us out of war,” a nice way of saying “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.” Wilson, too, seemed to have a predilection for gallons of Koolaid brewed up in Colonel House’s kitchen. Lest we forget, Mr. Trump in 2013 had some very strong words about plans for American intervention in Syria:
Oh, and let us not forget the plan that was exposed in 2013 in the British press about using a chemical weapons attack and blaming it on the Assad regime…
… and that Mr. Putin headed off that attempt by talking Syria into giving up its chemical weapons and that the UN confirmed that it had (but who trusts them?)…
…and that Mr. Obama’s Administration apparently accepted that conclusion and that the original chemical weapons attacks back then were subsequently shown to have evidence that they, too, had been planned and conducted by the West and its sponsored “Rebel forces”…
… and that there is evidence that chemical weapons were supplied to the “rebels”(i.e., radical jihadists) by the West, even implicating the aforementioned insane Hillary Clinton and our “ally”, the Ottomaniac Erdogan…
Naturally, the whole thing is already calling forth a variety of “theories”, one of the most popular being that this was really a message to the visiting leader of China, Mr. Xi Jinping to “do something about North Korea”. In support of this fanciful notion, we’re told that many of the Tomahawk cruise missiles didn’t even reach their target, that some are unaccounted for, and that there was heavy damage (the West’s story), or minimal damage (Russia’s story), or that there were no casualties (the West’s early story), or that four children died in the attack (Syria’s story). On top of all that, we’re also told that the Russians were warned of the attack, and that they in turn probably warned the Syrians, who both naturally moved their forces away from the operational target (and hence the minimal damage done, according to the Russians), which is a very strange way of “being tough” on “aggression” (What aggression? Syria did not attack America). Stop and ponder that one: “Hey, we’re going to attack you at such and such a time and place with this number of missiles.” Here’s one purveyor of that Chinese theory, on, of course, Alex Jones’ Infowars:
This all occurred, of course, within the context of massive staff reshuffling within the Trump Administration, with an increase of neocon influence within it, and the corresponding loss of sanity, and more importantly, the complete about-face, within a matter of mere days (by some estimates, two days) from not ousting Assad to missile strikes and the “regime change agenda” being “on” again.
In response, Russia of course has (1) lifted its rules of engagement procedures and protocols that were put into place to avoid accidental conflicts between Russian and American forces, (2) stated, through “pro-Atlanticist” Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, that this action has “ruined” (Mr. Medvedev’s word, not mine) Russo-American relations, and (3) ordered a Russian missile cruiser to the eastern Mediterranean. (Oh, and let us not forget that all this comes within days of a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, at a time when Mr. Putin was actually visiting that city. But I digress.) Here’s the links for those points.
After the Obamacare “repeal and replace” fiasco (I seem to recall that “replace” was not part of the equation for most Trump supporters although Mr. Trump mentioned “replace” during the campaign), and the signing of the bill to allow corporations to sell private individuals’ browsing history (so much for putting the people first), a disastrous federal budget (disastrous because the question of all the missing money didn’t even enter the picture!), we have this.
So… am I feeling bitter? saddened? outraged? betrayed? You bet I am. For years I didn’t vote at all, because I could not stand nor stomach the fetid reek coming from the serpentine tar pit of the Bush-Clinton-Obama nexus. It took much for me to think that possibly, just possibly, there was a chance to reverse course. But once again the Republithugs have proven they are a fake opposition party, incapable of doing anything to roll back the federal colossus or rein in the welfare-warfare state that Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson et al. ( and yes, Nixon) bequeathed to us, not even when they control all three branches of government. My opposition to Darth Hillary was in large part because of the ruin and wreck of her foreign policy of confrontation with Russia(while, incidentally, selling it lots of uranium), of her support for “regime change” in Muslim nations like “we-came-we-saw-he-died”-(insert-cackle-here)-and-“what-difference-does-it-make” Libya, and Syria, and the whole covert agenda of funding and equipping the most radicalized, barbaric, and inhuman monsters on the planet and calling them “rebels” and even, on a few occasions, “freedom fighters”, and in general the cackling stench of death that followed her everywhere she went on her slither from Little Rock to Washington.
For the very same reasons, my patience, and support, of the Trump administration is at an absolute, and utter, end…
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 30, 2017
I have to apologize for devoting much of this weeks blogs to the remarks of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, but as I indicated in part one, so many people sent the transcription of his remarks to the Military Academy of the Russian General Staff, reported on The Sakers website, that I had to comment. And certainly his remarks warrant the extended treatment, for they outline the salient feature of the Russian states political worldview and mentality in a way that few remarks from Russian leaders have. They deserve careful consideration and reflection, for the implications of Mr. Lavrovs remarks are both broad and deep, and very long-term oriented. (I hope, eventually, to do a webinar in the members area on the Russian cosmist philosophers as part of the culture webinars series, for it is in that body of work from the Russian intelligentsia that one sees clearly how closely allied culture and politics are in contemporary Russian thinking.)
In part one, I reviewed the implications of Mr. Lavrovs extended references to the Peace of Westphalia, implications that spell out certain long term objectives of Russian foreign policy. Yesterday in part two, I reviewed the soft power/culture power connection of Russia’s foreign policy to that first Westphalian emphasis. Today I would like to focus on the third area: nuclear weapons and new non-nuclear strategic weapons. Here’s the link to the article once again:
I want to direct your attention today toward the end of Mr. Lavrovs remarks, and to some truly astonishing implications contained in them:
Recently, there has been a push towards forcing the nuclear states to abandon their nuclear arsenals and banning nuclear weapons altogether. It is crystal clear that this is premature. Let me remind you that it wasn’t for nothing that the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty wrote into it that the nuclear arsenals had to be fully scrapped but only in the context of general and complete disarmament. We are prepared to discuss the possibility of further gradual reductions in nuclear capabilities but only if we take all the factors influencing strategic stability into account and not just the quantity of strategic offensive weapons.
Another reason why we’re prepared to discuss this issue is the growing sense of urgency about making this process multilateral. The restrictions on nuclear capabilities which Russia and the United States have repeatedly accepted for many years have led them to a situation where, essentially, they cannot proceed doing this on the bilateral basis. (Emphasis added)
A little further on, Mr. Lavrov adds this:
The formation of a polycentric international order is an objective process. It is in our common interest to make it more stable and predictable. In these conditions, the role of diplomacy as a tool to coordinate balanced solutions in politics, economics, finance, the environment, and the innovation and technology sectors has increased significantly. Simultaneously, the role of the armed forces as the guarantor of peace has increased too.
Observe that these two statements are the logical implications of the whole soft power culture power Westphalian emphasis; in effect, Mr. Lavrov has stated that the old Cold War conceptions of armaments reduction talks – with their emphasis on bean counting the number of tanks, warheads, missiles, aircraft – is simply no longer viable, for the other components of stability are cultural in nature, and lest one misunderstands his statements, he spells out what culture in this context means: it means the whole constellation of domestic and international political institutions, historical memory and traditions, finance and economics, technological innovation and so on.
Mr. Lavrov is correct here, for it is that constellation of factors that leads to the development of armaments and more importantly, the circumstances in which they are used. This brings us to remarks that Mr. Lavrov made in response to a question, and these are worth pondering long and hard:
To a very large extent, President Trump’s position on the majority of key issues on the foreign policy agenda, including further steps to limit strategic nuclear weapons as you’ve mentioned, has yet to be finalised. By the way, if I remember right, Donald Trump mentioned the issue of cooperation with us in this field as an example. He was asked whether he would be prepared to lift sanctions on Russia. I believe that was the way the question was formulated. He responded by saying they should see if there were issues on which they could cooperate with Russia on a mutually beneficial basis in US interests, in particular, mentioning nuclear arms control. At the same time, as you know, the US president said the Americans should modernise and build up their nuclear triad. We need to wait until the military budget is finally approved under the new administration and see what its priorities and objectives are and how these funds will be spent. As for our further conversation, I briefly mentioned in my address that we are ready for such a conversation but it should be conducted with acknowledgment of all strategic stability factors without exception. Today, those who propose implementing the so-called nuclear zero initiative as soon as possible, banning and destroying nuclear weapons and generally outlawing them absolutely, ignore the fact that since the nuclear bomb was made and this new kind of weapon began to be produced on a large scale in the USSR, the US, China, France and the UK, colossal changes have taken place in military science and technology. What is being developed in the US under the codename Prompt Global Strike are non-nuclear strategic weapons. If they are developed (and this work is moving forward very actively, with the objective of reaching any point in the world within an hour), of course, they will be more humane than nuclear weapons, because there will be no radiation, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki effect. However, in terms of military superiority, my friends at the Defence Ministry tell me the effect will be more devastating than from a modern nuclear bomb. (Emphasis added)
Note again that Mr. Lavrov has stated the Cold War Bean counting method of armaments limitations talks is not workable without a discussion and agreement on all factors – again the culture factor – are had. Note also that in his remarks Lavrov has ruled out nuclear disarmament, even on a bilateral US-Russia basis, since (1) there are other nuclear powers, but more importantly because (2) there is a whole class of non-nuclear strategic weapons, equally destructive as nuclear weapons for bombardment purposes.
For those familiar with it, this is similar to the position that former US Army Lt. Col Tom Bearden maintains was a negotiating position of the former Soviet Union in arms negotiations, namely, that they wanted to ban weapons even more destructive than nuclear weapons, because of their sheer destructive power. The American negotiators, Bearden maintains, did not have a clue what the Russians were then talking about.
This is a crucial factor, for what it indicates is that Russia is well aware of a whole class of secret weaponizable technologies -again, alluded to by Lavrov in his previous remarks – that have to be taken into consideration. In this specific instance, Mr. Lavrov is possibly referring to the rod of God kinetic space-based orbital bombardment technologies which literally propel an inert projectile at such extreme velocities to a surface target that the impact yields a colossal thermonuclear-sized explosion, but without any radioactive aftereffects. In short, think of a nuclear war, without radioactivity.
Wars are thinkable again, and this is a de-stabilizing factor. This could also indicate that, at present, Russia is not involved in the development of a similar capability, but that if such weapons are not up for negotiation with western powers, then it will perforce have to develop them. (And there is an important side issue here, for two powers – Germany and Japan – have undertaken not to develop thermonuclear or nuclear strategic weapons, which they could easily and very quickly do. Such technologies afford an end-run around their treaty obligations, and since both are space-faring powers as well, this potentiality exists, and is yet another de-stablizing factor in Russias strategic calculations).
If one parses Mr. Lavrovs concerns here closely, it is almost as if he is stating, as openly as he can, that negotiations on nuclear weapons is almost a moot point, since technological developments is quickly rendering them obsolescent if not obsolete. Its the secret stuff that Russia is (rightly) concerned about, and it’s the secret stuff that also is a de-stablizing factor and needs to be put on the table. If one now takes the concerns of all three parts of this blog together, then what at first might appear to be a kind of random grab bag of unrelated concerns is really a well-thought out connected policy. And that policy is one which, at its central core, is uniquely based in cultural concerns. And in this, in my opinion, its light years ahead of the create a crisis and then solve it approach of the West.
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
Source: GizaDeathStarCommunity
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 30, 2017
Remember those North Korean missile tests over Japan just a few days ago? Good… but you may not have heard about Japan’s response. It was short, and to the point…
Source: NoMoreFakenews.com Jon Rappoport
January 23, 2017
That clue is embedded in a statement Trump made in his inaugural address:
“We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world… We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.”
Is Trump absolutely serious?
Does he intend, in this respect, to follow in the footsteps of Ron Paul, who helped pave the way for Trump’s success by impacting millions of Americans on the subject (among others) of American Empire and foreign conquest?
Does Trump intend to “stay at home” and abandon the long-standing policy of making war and policing the planet and toppling regimes and using the CIA to create frontiers for US corporations?
Does he intend to go up against the military-industrial complex?
Will he try to sideline slimy neocons?
In his inaugural address, Trump also said this: “We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones — and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.”
Warning: Depending on how he prosecutes that campaign, wiping out terrorism could continue to function as a cover for foreign wars launched with more traditional goals: destabilize governments and install leaders who will bend to America’s will; extend American Empire; assume the role of international policeman.
In other words, the eradication of terrorism could reinstall every motive and intent Trump says he wants to take away.
Will he dare to keep America’s overall war machine at home?
Trump should understand that, if he does indeed intend to keep this promise, untold numbers of people all over the world will rally to his cause.
And if he doesn’t, the enormous blowback won’t merely affect him; it will keep America in the same horrific bind it’s been in for a long, long time: war is money; war floats a basically bereft economy; war destroys lives; war kills hope; war keeps putting the lie to “America, the bastion of freedom for every person on Earth”; war serves the Globalist operation to invent a need for one planetary management system; war makes the rich richer and the poor poorer; war harnesses the worst impulses of soul, mind, and body, when it is launched on false pretenses.
After all, look at Hillary Clinton, warmonger par excellence. Look at what it has done to her and her followers. They can’t tell up from down.
Many times during the campaign, and since his election, Trump has said he’ll stop the insane wars of American Empire. No American president, going back as least as far as Kennedy, has made such a statement with any emphasis.
I’m not sure the American people understand what Trump is claiming he’ll accomplish here.
Given our government and its domestic partners, given the military-industrial complex, this claim is astonishing.
Does he really mean it?
Because, if he does, this is a revolution.
And therefore, we should be paying close attention. Very close attention.
Yes, we should looking at some of Trump’s appointments with a jaundiced eye. Of course. But beyond those men and their potential hidden motives, we have to look at Trump himself and what he does.
In particular, I urge the supporters of Ron Paul, who made his critique of American Empire and foreign wars crystal clear, to keep their eyes open. Those supporters, many of them, were fully aware of what Paul was saying and how revolutionary it was. For that reason, among others, they came to his side. Now they need to be watchdogs on the Trump presidency.
As I’ve written before, the movement that formed around Trump is more important than the man. I’m talking about the people who stand for both freedom and honor.
Is it possible these people have made a grave mistake? In politics, that’s always a risk. But it is no crime to want the right thing and judge that there might be a candidate who wants the right thing, too. In other words…
TheBreakAway 