Thursday, February 16, 2017

move aside, Chet. this is more important.

Back in the run-up to the 2016 POTUS election, we had a little jibber-jabber in the comments regarding a hypothesis that our current President, who then was merely the GOP nominee, was an agent of Seis Puntas.

Specifically, I observed the following, in response to a question posed by Hy Lohmann, which is shown below in italics.  The "she" referenced by Hy was/is the YouTube video commentator "Goyim Goddess" a/k/a Sinead McCarthy.

The video I watched today said that she predicts Trump will be elected and after taking the White House will be revealed as a stooge of Seis Puntas. You guys have any thoughts on that?

It would be a very roundabout way to achieve that end. Trump's the least likely of all the POTUS candidate, D or R, to be owned by Volkihar Clan. His independent wealth, even if largely inherited from his father, means he can run a campaign without AIPAC loot dominating the message and agenda. Some say Adelson gave $$ to Trump but Adelson plays every angle with $$ and probably has given $$ to every POTUS candidate in the past 5 POTUS elections. Someone of that wealth level can give directly or not, so you never really know where $$ originates even if the donor lists can be found & published.

On the D side every candidate is owned by AIPAC, including nominal non-D Jill Stein.

But whether McCarthy's prediction rings true? I'm guessing you watched for other reasons. What candidate would McCarthy not say is owned by Seis Puntas? Isn't that sorta her angle? Pretty or not? It's a fair reflection/inverse image of AIPAC and Seis Puntas insisting that every candidate must be a Friend of Israel.

Honeytrap? Not if you just want to be entertained and aren't treating it as verified factual reality.

That's my take on it, Hy.
During the months passed between election day 2016 and the present, Trump's choices of advisors, cabinet heads, etc. have suggested that Ms McCarthy was correct.

The question Hy posed to me recently was this:

"So she was correct, but were you wrong, Karl?  You only talked about McCarthy's angle, and didn't say whether you thought it possible that the GOP nominee was actually working for the neoCons."

In fairness to Hy and to Ms McCarthy, I have to say that I don't often make pointed, blunt political predictions as a matter of serious discourse.

Sometimes I may offer a position that seems completely earnest, when in truth I type it and post it just because, in Pixberg-ese, it needs said.

Needs said -- to make a point, to shine a wee light into a dark corner, blah blah blah... whatever metaphor/simile you prefer should work here I'm sure.

Seriously:  the nearest thing to religion I have is the occasional inspiration of nihil es est floating into my field of view/thought.

Since that's true, how could I ever be so naive as to think any POTUS candidate would not be cattle for Team Volkihar?

I'm not 11 years old.

So, in answer to Hy's recent question:  no, I wasn't wrong.  I didn't believe His Whimsical Tweeting POTUSness, if he actually became POTUS, would be free of the vampire clan's influences.

It was and still is a bit difficult to overlook the fact that vampires are within the First Family already.

*   *   *

This might be a good time for a reminder of what Chet was saying:  this blog always has been about values.


--K.F. Ochstradt, who is sure the nation's path continues to be the ever-shrinking, coiling-while-descending path of a bit of flotsam in a whirlpool.  The Oroville Dam ought to suggest at least that much.

Yeah, history is bullshit, look to the future, "technology" will save us from this neglect.

No comments: