Just a Girl Lost 2

Just a girl lost~ Here I share bits & pieces of me, in poetry, prose, music & posts from writers who inspire me.


Leave a comment

George Soros is a part of The New World Order

I first posted this in November 2016, during the U.S. presidential elections.
Soros was gunning for a Hillary win, but by the grace of God, she lost and now things are in motion to bring down a worldwide cartel of sex traffickers and criminals beyond even his evil control.
Unfortunately, evil never sleeps and neither can those of us fighting for good.
I’m reposting this and hope that it enlightens and informs.
 
Have a blessed day!
Niki 💕
~
 

The Media Has Scrubbed The Internet Of This Video Exposing Soros

This old video exposing the real George Soros has been virtually scrubbed from the internet. Until now.

Spread this everywhere.

Soros is directly funding the anti-Trump protests happening right now across the country. This treasonous bastard needs to be arrested. Let the people know who is really pulling the strings behind the left’s relentless attack on this country.

“I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.”

George Soros

 

cxk1ltvuqaaxzup

*CLICK link below and read

George Soros Can Be Charged With Treason and Sedition

 

Advertisements


Leave a comment

When Tolerance of Evil becomes a Virtue it is Time for Intolerance

 

quote-unlimited-tolerance-must-lead-to-the-disappearance-of-tolerance-if-we-extend-unlimited-karl-popper-35-9-0923

~

A PLEA FOR INTOLERANCE

by Venerable Fulton J. Sheen

46161f6425e4875f340aac94267bf987

 

America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance.  It is not.  It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.

The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broadminded.

A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broadminded man is one who will accept anything for a reason—providing it is not a good reason. It is true that there is a demand for precision, exactness, and definiteness, but it is only for precision in scientific measurement, not in logic.

The breakdown that has produced this unnatural broadmindedness is mental, not moral.

The evidence for this statement is threefold:

the tendency to settle issues not by arguments but by words,

the unqualified willingness to accept the authority of anyone on the subject of religion, and,

lastly, the love of novelty.  

Voltaire boasted that if he could find but ten wicked words a day he could crush the “infamy” of Christianity. He found the ten words daily, and even a daily dozen, but he never found an argument, and so the words went the way of all words and the thing, Christianity, survived. Today, no one advances even a poor argument to prove that there is no God, but they are legion who think they have sealed up the heavens when they used the word “anthropomorphism.” This word is just a sample of the catalogue of names which serve as the excuse for those who are too lazy to think. One moment’s reflection would tell them that one can no more get rid of God by calling Him “anthropomorphic” than he can get rid of a sore throat by calling it “streptococci.” As regards the use of the term “anthropomorphism,” I cannot see that its use in theology is less justified than the use in physics of the term “organism,” which the new physicists are so fond of employing.

Not only does the substitution of words for argument betray the existence of this false tolerance, but also the readiness of many minds to accept as an authority in any field an individual who becomes a famous authority in one particular field.

Another evidence of the breakdown of reason that has produced this weird fungus of broad‐mindedness is the passion for novelty, as opposed to the love of truth.

Belief in the moral law are considered passing fashions. The latest thing in this new tolerance is considered the true thing, as if truth were a fashion, like the hat, instead of an institution, like a head.

At the present moment, in psychology the fashion runs towards Behaviorism, as in philosophy it runs towards Temporalism. And that it is not objective validity which dictates the success of a modern philosophical theory, is borne out by the statement a celebrated space‐time philosopher of England made to the writer a few years ago, when he was asked where he got his system. ʺFrom my imagination,ʺ he answered. Upon being challenged that the imagination was not the proper faculty for a philosopher to use, he retorted:  ʺIt is, if the success of your philosophical system depends not on the truth that is in it, but on its novelty.ʺ

In that statement is the final argument for modern broad‐mindedness: truth is novelty, and hence  ʺtruthʺ  changes with the passing fancies of the moment.

Truth does grow, but it grows homogeneously, like an acorn into an oak; it does not swing in the breeze, like a weathercock.

The nature of certain things is fixed, and none more so than the nature of truth. Truth maybe contradicted a thousand times, but that only proves that it is strong enough to survive a thousand assaults.

But for any one to say, ʺSome say this, some say that, therefore there is no truth,ʺ is about as logical as it would have been for Columbus, who heard some say, ʺThe earth is round,ʺ  and other say, ʺThe earth is flat,ʺ to conclude: ʺTherefore there is no earth at all.ʺ

The giggling giddiness of novelty, the sentimental restlessness of a mind unhinged, and the unnatural fear of a good dose of hard thinking, all conjoin to produce a group of sophomoric latitudinarians who think there is no difference between God as Cause and God as a ʺmental projectionʺ; who equate Christ and Buddha, St. Paul and John Dewey, and then enlarge their broad‐mindedness into a sweeping synthesis that says not only that one Christian sect is just as good as another, but even that one world‐religion is just as good as another.

The great god  ʺProgressʺ is then enthroned on the altars of fashion, and as the hectic worshipers are asked,  ʺProgress towards what?ʺ The tolerant answer comes back,  ʺMore progress.ʺ

All the while sane men are wondering how there can be progress without direction and how there can be direction without a fixed point. And because they speak of a ʺfixed point,ʺ they are said to be behind the times, when really they are beyond the times mentally and spiritually.

In the face of this false broad‐mindedness, what the world needs is intolerance. The mass of people have kept up hard and fast distinctions between dollars and cents, battleships and cruisers,  ʺYou owe meʺ and  ʺI owe you,ʺ but they seem to have lost entirely the faculty of distinguishing between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong.

The best indication of this is the frequent misuse of the terms ʺtoleranceʺ and ʺintolerance.ʺ

There are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make  ʺintoleranceʺ  mean hate, narrow‐ mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broad‐mindedness, American good nature. ‐‐‐

What is tolerance?

Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience towards evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application.

The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error.

What has just been said here will clarify that which was said at the beginning of this chapter, namely, that America is suffering not so much from intolerance, which is bigotry, as it is from tolerance, which is indifference to truth and error, and a philosophical nonchalance that has been interpreted as broad‐mindedness.

Greater tolerance, of course, is desirable, for there can never be too much charity shown to persons who differ with us.

Charity, then, must be shown to persons, and particularly to those outside the fold who by charity must be led back, that there may be one fold and one Shepherd. Thus far tolerance, but no farther. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush,

I make a plea.

Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability. The government must be intolerant about malicious propaganda, and during the World War it made an index of forbidden books to defend national stability, as the Church, who is in constant warfare with error, made her index of forbidden books to defend the permanency of Christʹs life in the souls of men.

The government during the war was intolerant about the national heretics who refused to accept her principles concerning the necessity of democratic institutions, and took physical means to enforce such principles.

The soldiers who went to war were intolerant about the principles they were fighting for, in the same way that a gardener must be intolerant about the weeds that grow in his garden.

The Supreme Court of the United States is intolerant about any private interpretation of the first principle of the Constitution that every man is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the particular citizen who would interpret ʺlibertyʺ in even such a small way as meaning the privilege to ʺgoʺ on a red traffic‐light, would find himself very soon in a cell where there were no lights, not even the yellow — the color of the timid souls who know not whether to stop or go.

And if we admit intolerance about the foundations of a government that at best looks after manʹs body, why not admit intolerance about the foundations of a government that looks after the eternal destiny of the spirit of man?

On all sides we hear it said today,  ʺThe modern world wants a religion without dogmas,ʺ which betrays how little thinking goes with that label, for he who says he wants a religion without dogmas is stating a dogma, and a dogma that is harder to justify than many dogmas of faith.

A dogma is a true thought, and a religion without dogmas is a religion without thought, or a back without a backbone.

All sciences have dogmas. ʺWashington is the capital of the United Statesʺ is a dogma of geography. ʺWater is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygenʺ is a dogma of chemistry. Should we be broad‐minded and say that Washington is a sea in Switzerland? Should we be broad‐minded and say that H2O is a symbol for sulfuric acid?

We cannot verify all the dogmas of science, history, and literature, and therefore we are to take many of them on the testimony of others. I believe Professor Eddington, for example, when he tells me that ʺEinsteinʹs law of gravitation asserts that ten principal coefficients of curvature are zero in empty space,ʺ just as I do not believe Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes when he tells me that ʺthe cockroach has lived substantially unchanged on the earth for fifty million years.ʺ  I accept Dr. Eddingtonʹs testimony because, by his learning and his published works, he has proved that he knows something about Einstein. I do not accept Dr. Barnesʹs testimony about cockroaches because he has never qualified in the eyes of the modern world as a cockroach specialist. In other words, I sift testimony and accept it on reason.

I then accept these truths — truths which I cannot prove, as was Professor Eddingtonʹs statement about Einstein — and these truths become dogmas. There can thus be dogmas of religion as well as dogmas of science, and both of them can be revealed, the one by God, the other by man. Not only that — these fundamental dogmas, like the first principles [elements] of Euclid, can be used as raw material for thinking, and just as one scientific fact can be used as the basis of another, so one dogma can be used as the basis for another. But in order to begin thinking on a first dogma, one must be identified with it either in time or in principle.

The truth is divine; the heretic is human.

Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong.

~

  • Entire article here:  http://www.northamericanmartyrs.org/pdf/Plea-for-

Intolerance.pdf

~

quote-the-further-a-society-drifts-from-truth-the-more-it-will-hate-those-who-speak-it-george-orwell-49-88-64

 

smart-quotes-46884-statusmind-com

~

©justagirllost2


Leave a comment

Obama’s Poetry

Although Barack Obama is one of my least favorite humans on this planet, I found this article about his poetry quite fascinating.  His two poems are very different in style.  The poem ‘Pop’ definitely seems autobiographical and I felt it to be a bit disturbing also, some people may not see it that way.

I hope you enjoy this post of an article by Dr. Eowyn of The D. C. Clothesline and that you find it as interesting as I did.

@justagirllost2

~

Obama’s disturbing poem on man-boy relationship

When Barack Obama was a 19-year-old student at Occidental College, he published two poems in the Spring 1982 issue of Occidental’s literary magazine, Feast. One is the cringe-worthy “Underground” about “apes that eat figs.” The other poem, “Pop,” is much more interesting, biographical, and disturbing.

“Pop”

Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken
In, sprinkled with ashes,
Pop switches channels, takes another
Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks

What to do with me, a green young man
Who fails to consider the
Flim and flam of the world, since
Things have been easy for me;
I stare hard at his face, a stare
That deflects off his brow;
I’m sure he’s unaware of his
Dark, watery eyes, that
Glance in different directions,
And his slow, unwelcome twitches,
Fail to pass.
I listen, nod,
Listen, open, till I cling to his pale,
Beige T-shirt, yelling,
Yelling in his ears, that hang
With heavy lobes, but he’s still telling
His joke, so I ask why
He’s so unhappy, to which he replies…
But I don’t care anymore, cause
He took too damn long, and from
Under my seat, I pull out the
Mirror I’ve been saving; I’m laughing,
Laughing loud, the blood rushing from his face
To mine, as he grows small,
A spot in my brain, something
That may be squeezed out, like a
Watermelon seed between
Two fingers.
Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and
Makes me smell his smell, coming
From me; he switches channels, recites an old poem
He wrote before his mother died,
Stands, shouts, and asks
For a hug, as I shrink, my
Arms barely reaching around
His thick, oily neck, and his broad back; ‘cause
I see my face, framed within
Pop’s black-framed glasses
And know he’s laughing too.

The poem reads autobiographical — about a young Obama’s relationship with a much older man whom he calls Pop. In his article for WND on March 7, 2012, Dr. Jack Cashill singles out this passage from the poem:

“Pop takes another shot, neat/ Points out the same amber/ Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and/ Makes me smell his smell, coming/ From me;”

Cashill writes that the most innocent explanation for the “amber stain” on the shorts of Pop and young Obama or “his smell, coming/ From me” is that Pop got the teenaged Obama drunk, and they both spilled whiskey (Seagrams) on themselves. But that interpretation does not explain why the spill is specifically on their shorts and not on their shirts or how Pop’s smell is also on (“from”) Obama.

 

Obama_Occidental

A marriage and family therapist who blogs under the tag “Neo-Neocon” senses a darker relationship. She writes:

“The lines that begin ‘points out the same amber stain…Makes me smell his smell, coming/From me’ may be describing outright sexual abuse. But perhaps not; we don’t know, and we’ll never know. But there is no question that the poem is describing a boundary violation on several levels: this child feels invaded—perhaps even taken over—by this man, and is fighting against that sensation.

[…] The poem describes a boundary violation that is both physical and mental.The physical is obvious: he is forced to hug the man who repels him, and as he does so he feels himself shrinking. But the violation is mental, too; earlier in the poem, Obama has described “Pop” as a person who has actually gotten into his brain, and whom he wishes to eliminate from it:

as he grows small,
A spot in my brain, something
That may be squeezed out, like a 
Watermelon seed between
Two fingers.

This mental and emotional usurpation of the young Obama is echoed in the last image of the poem, in which the boy sees his own tiny image framed in ‘Pop’s’ eyeglasses.
 The poem describes a struggle against an attempt at identity takeover, a rejection of being reduced to a reflection in the eyes of the stronger, older, more experienced mentor, who has tried to make Obama over in his own image:

I see my face, framed within
Pop’s black-framed glasses…

The sight is chilling to Obama, who is trying to break free. One wonders if he ever fully succeeded.”

So who was Pop?

There were two older men in teen Obama’s life:

  1. His maternal grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, with whom Obama had lived from age 10 to 18 in Honolulu. When Obama was ten years old, his mom, Stanley Ann Dunham, had sent him back to Hawaii to live with her parents while she remained in Indonesia.

2. Frank Marshall Davis, a black long-time friend of Stanley Armour Dunham, whom Dunham had introduced to young Obama to be the latter’s African-American mentor. Davis was a member of the American Communist Party, a writer of poetry and books, including the pornographic novel, Sex Rebel: Black, using the pseudonym “Bob Greene.” Cashill states that there is no doubt Davis wrote Sex Rebel because Davis admitted as much in his memoir, Livin’ the Blues: “I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.”

During the presidential campaign season in 2008, I read Sex Rebel, which is out of print, by borrowing the book from the library of the University of California, Berkeley. I therefore can testify from having read the book that Sex Rebel is an account of the unorthodox sexual exploits of a black man “Bob Greene”. Those sexual exploits included marrying a white woman (just as Davis himself did, which was uncommon in the 1960s); “swinging” or wife-swapping with other couples; picking up prospective couples in public parks; sexual orgies; voyeurism; exhibitionism; bisexualism (Greene wrote that “under certain circumstances I am bisexual”); and the seduction by “Greene” and his white wife of a 13-year-old girl named Anne.

(It is the pedophilia that has prompted increasing speculation on the net that “Anne” was actually Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother; and that Frank Marshall Davis had sired Obama. That’s the reason why Obama conceals his birth certificate. This is the subject of a documentary movie that will come out this summer. For more information, go here.)

Joel Gilbert, the maker of the documentary “Dreams From My Real Father,” has uncovered handwritten letters by Davis to Margaret Burroughs, the well-known African-American artist, in which Davis refers to his book “Sex Rebel: Black” as his “thoroughly erotic autobiography.” Davis had a sexual affair with Burroughs which, Davis explains, was included in the novel autobiography. [Read more,here.]

In the introduction to Sex Rebel, an alleged Ph.D. named Dale Gordon goes further. He describes the pseudonymous author, Bob Greene, as having “strong homosexual tendencies in his personality.”

There are those, like Rebecca Mead of The New Yorker, who say “Pop” is a “loving if slightly jaded portrait of Obama’s maternal grandfather.”

But both Jack Cashill and Neo-Neocon point out that Obama, in his memoirDreams From My Father, called Stanley Armour Dunham not “Pop” but “Gramps.”

There are other reasons pointing to Frank Marshall Davis as “Pop”:

1. “Pop” wrote poetry: Dunham was a life-long furniture salesman whose literary efforts, if any, were confined to making up dirty limericks. In contrast, Davis had written several books of poetry — Black Man’s Verse (1935), I Am the American Negro (1937), Through Sepia Eyes (1938), 47th Street (1948), Awakening and Other Poems (1978).

2. A line in Obama’s poem “he switches channels, recites an old poem/ He wrote before his mother died” also points to Davis as “Pop”. Dunham’s mother died when he was 8 years old, whereas Davis’ mother died when he was 20 and already established as a poet of promise.

READ MORE  Patriots Protest Obama’s Nevada Land Grab near Bundy Ranch

3. In his memoir Dreams From My FatherObama’s description of a seedy and dissipated older man named Frank is strikingly similar to “Pop” in his poem:

“…by the time I met Frank [Obama was around nine years old] he must have been pushing eighty, with a big dewlapped face and an ill-kempt gray Afro that made him look like an old, shaggy-maned lion. He would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with gramps out of an emptied jelly jar. As the night wore on, the two of them would solicit my help in composing dirty limericks. Eventually, the conservation would turn to laments about women.

“They’ll drive you to drink, boy,” Frank would tell me soberly. “And if you let ‘em, they’ll drive you into your grave.”

I was intrigued by the old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes. The visits to his house always left me feeling vaguely uncomfortable, though, as if I were witnessing some complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men, a transaction I couldn’t fully understand….”

4. Davis fits the “seedy old man” description more than Dunham:Born in 1905, Davis was 56 years older than Obama and would be 66 years old when Obama was ten. Born in 1918, Dunham was 43 years older than Obama and would be a youngish 53 years old when Obama was ten.

Here are some photos I’ve found of Stanley Armour Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis. Decide for yourself which man better fits the physical description of Pop in Obama’s poem: “dark watery eyes”; “ears that hang with heavy lobes”; “thick, oily neck”; “broad back”; “black-framed glasses”.

Stanley Armour Dunham with child Obama (l); Dunham with 19-year-old Obama (r)

Frank Marshall Davis as a young man (l); as an old man (r)

Whether Pop was Davis or Dunham, this much is certain: His relationship with young Obama, as the latter described it in the poem “Pop,” was creepy and disturbingly suggestive of pederasty.

~Eowyn

Dr. Eowyn is a regular contributor to The D.C. Clothesline and the Editor of Fellowship of the Minds.

*Links below to more articles about Obama’s poetry.

The first is from PBS.org., the second from The New Yorker and the third from the Huffington Post.

I always try to present other sources when one source leans more left or right politically.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/choice-2012/artifact-one-barack-obamas-pop/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/07/02/obama-poet

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-barrieanthony/obamas-poetry_b_44271.html


Leave a comment

Fascinating Food For Thought ~ 🐰

An article that sums up quite nicely what has been taking up my spare time…

Enjoy  

(more to come if you’re fascinated by rabbit holes…)

❤  Niki

“you see, so many out-of-the-way things had happened lately, that Alice had begun to think that very few things indeed were really impossible.” 
Lewis CarrollAlice’s Adventures in Wonderland

🐰

“Have I gone mad? I’m afraid so. 
You’re entirely Bonkers. 
But I will tell you a secret, 
All the best people are.” 

Lewis CarrollAlice in Wonderland

🐰

It was much pleasanter at home,” thought poor Alice, “when one wasn’t always growing larger and smaller, and being ordered about by mice and rabbits. I almost wish I hadn’t gone down the rabbit-hole–and yet–and yet–…” 

Lewis CarrollAlice in Wonderland

🐰

“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. “One word of truth outweighs the world.” 
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

🐰        🐰   🐰        🐰          🐰         🐰        🐰       🐰       🐰       🐰       🐰       🐰

QQQQ

It is the fantasy, dare I say wet dream, of all Hillary-haters and all Trumpsters everywhere.
Donald Trump is going to take down the deep state.  A stunning military coup. Truth.  Straight down.  As you read these very words there are over 1,000 sealed indictments for Hillary Clinton and other deep state operatives.  Further, the US courts cannot be trusted as they are riddled with bought and corrupt jurists, so military tribunals will be used to try these enemies of the state.  It’s going down… 

So says Q.

Q is an anonymous poster on 4chan.  Q began posting in late October.  His posts are in the form of questions, short statements, long lists of connected important people/things, obscure acronyms, and occasionally random series of characters and symbols.  Q refers to these clues as “breadcrumbs” and claims they are releasing the “biggest insider drop in the history of the world”.
Here‘s a pastebin that supposedly has collected Q’s various postings

Depending on what side of the political minefield you are standing on Q is either a raving lunatic of the conspiratorial bend, or Q is sheer genius, an insider telling the world that the deep state is coming down.

“Puppet masters”, Rothschilds, Soros, “bloodlines”, Putin, New World Order, International Banks, popular political party members, POTUS, random codenames, every US government agency with a 3 letter acronym, Merkel, Clinton, JFK, are all found in Q’s breadcrumbs.

Now, in this wide world of cyber, why would Q rise to the top of the truther/Trump/conspiracy world? There have been a number of international & national happenings in the past several weeks that seem to draw some vague correlations between “Q’s” claims and recent news. Things that get the troops all riled up and are really of some consequence.

One is The NY Times released an article on November 12, titled “Security Breach and Spilled Secrets Have Shaken the N.S.A. to Its Core”, in which is written the following paragraph:
Fifteen months into a wide-ranging investigation by the agency’s counterintelligence arm, known as Q Group, and the F.B.I., officials still do not know whether the N.S.A. is the victim of a brilliantly executed hack, with Russia as the most likely perpetrator, an insider’s leak, or both.
Until now “Q” had been just another conspiracy theorist, but with this article “Q” is claiming the NY Times is attempting to directly attack their credibility by claiming they are part of the NSA.  Conspiracy theorists (or people who see through the propaganda of the corporate controlled MSM) are putting together the pieces of the puzzle and finding a lot to hang their (tinfoil ?) hats on.

There is the matter of the +++ that Q signed off with, he wrote on November 6, “Nothing is random.  Everything has meaning. +++”

Seven minutes later Trump wrote a tweet and ended it with +++.  Now, even for those who know for a fact that Q is a larper, this is a pretty weird “coincidence”.

Then there was the airplane.  Q keeps posting these little weird breadcrumbs that tend to be kind of true.  There was the photo from an airplane posted by Q, and someone figured out the angle from the photograph matched the coordinates and exact piece of land Air Force One was flying over, at pretty much the exact time the photo was posted.  Leading one to believe Q was on Air Force One.

Then there have been breadcrumbs about Saudi Arabia and indictments that have proven to have  some veracity.

The MSM has been utterly silent about Q.  Pravda may be the biggest news source to break the story other than “Metro” with a poorly written story debunking Q, however, it did put it out there.

So, who is Q?  Anyone’s guess.  Could be a larper.  4chan are anonymous forums. You can hide behind a username. LARPing is Live Action Role-Playing, where you pretend to be someone else in real life. A LARPer in this context is someone who claims “I am a high level official in the Department of Justice” without providing evidence and then say something like, “The DoJ will announce charges against the CEO of Comcast tomorrow.” Because no proof is provided, some people will say that the poster is role-playing as the person they claim to be.  However, there is just too much insider stuff for Q to be a total zero.

These are names that have been thrown out as possible Q authors: Trump himself,  Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Dan Scavino Jr., Anthony Scaramucci, Michael Flynn, and many think it is the ex-CTO, Nash Borges, of the Global Engagement Center who resigned this September.

“The Obama administration established the Global Engagement Center in 2016 to counter ISIS’ various online messaging efforts, directing the new office to use data and to work with international partners in a bid to undermine extremist propaganda more effectively than State’s previous such unit, the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications. GEC’s toolbox included various outreach efforts, including highly targeted ad buys on Facebook.

Last year, the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act gave the GEC an additional mission: fighting “foreign propaganda and disinformation directed against United States national security interests and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support United States allies and interests.” The Act, which became law in December, allowed the Global Engagement Center to ask the Pentagon for $40 million, bringing its total 2017 spending to about $80 million. About $60 million of that was to be used to counter Russian influence operations; about $19 million was aimed at ISIS.– Defense One September 2017

This little baby can manipulate the MSM anyway it wants, and perhaps Borges no longer wanted in on that game.

However, it’s probably someone on the inside playing.  Even if it is all fantasy, there is a certain seeding of consciousness that is occurring with those who “believe”.   There is a visceral yearning for the take down of the deep state.  Greg Grandin writes in The Nation:

The deep state may be …”an almost hereditary covert caste, running from the men who in the early days of the Cold War set up the modern national security state to the elite who make up today’s “intelligence community.” In 1964, Random House published the bestselling The Invisible Government, by journalists David Wise and Thomas Ross (here’s the CIA’s declassified review of the book, which takes exception to its thesis). More recently, Michael Glennon’s National Security and Double Government updated the argument.

Peter Dale Scott was the first, as far as I know, to use the phrase “parapolitics” and “deep politics” to discuss what is now described as the deep state, and he’s the author of numerous books on the dense connections between illegal drugs, covert action, and finance… I remember that Iran-Contra really did happen. As Michael Parenti likes to point out, conspiracies do in fact exist, both in legal theory and in politics: Watergate, Iran-Contra, the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s/90s, “described by the Justice Department as ‘a thousand conspiracies of fraud, theft, and bribery,’ the greatest financial crime in history” (that we know of).”

Q’s opus magnum is about the war between the deep state and the people of the United States.  It is about the corruption that has rotted the core of our politics.  It is about the pedophiles that get away with unspeakable crimes due to the elite status.  It is about the intrigue that surrounds the connections of Saudi Arabia with the Clinton Foundation.  It is about voter fraud.  It is about draining the swamp.  It is about the rogue, evil nature of the CIA.  If nothing else it is a fascinating read.

And, a rallying cry for those of this conspiratorial persuasion.  A place to go to learn, to puzzle, to ruminate and to dream.
Random Q questions
1.    What is money flow disruption?
2.    List the Billionaires.
3.    What family history goes back pre_WW1/2?
4.    Why is this relevant?
5.    Why did the Bush family recently break silence and attack POTUS?
6.    Coincidence pre SA arrests?
7.    Who audits the billions paid for war?
8.    Who audits the billions paid for environment policy (side note)?
9.    Where do the funds go?
10.    Offshore?
11.    To who / which entity and/or org?
12.    What slush fund was recently terminated by AG Sessions?
13.    What is Fast & Furious?
14.    What is the underlying theme?
15.    MONEY.
16.    Who controls the FED?
17.    How did political leaders/talking heads accum assets in excess of $5mm+?
18.    What was the net worth for each prior to taking office?
19.    Reconcile.
Nancy O’Brien Simpson

Ms. Simpson was a radio personality in New York.  She was a staff writer for The Liberty Report.  A PBS documentary was done on her activism for human rights.  She is a psychotherapist and political commentator.

http://nancyobriensimpson.com/
~

http://www.pravdareport.com/amp/world/americas/23-11-2017/139239-military_q-0/

*THIS is IMPORTANT TO READ:


3 Comments

Be a lotus flower…

0fad76ca0ffa3105d147e416a750b695

“As a lotus flower is born in water, grows in water and rises out of water to stand above it unsoiled, so I, born in the world, raised in the world having overcome the world, live unsoiled by the world”

 

~ Buddha

 

665382cb46c7502b93dd42e1e575411f

 

©justagirllost2


Leave a comment

Quotes about Poetry

In poetry and in eloquence the beautiful and grand must spring from the commonplace…. All that remains for us is to be new while repeating the old, and to be ourselves in becoming the echo of the whole world.

~Alexandre Vinet (1797–1847)

 

Poetry,—the language of the Imagination and the Passions,—the oldest and most beauteous offspring of Literature.

~Frederick Hinde, Poetry, a lecture delivered in London on the evening of April 8, 1858

 

The courage of the poet is to keep ajar the door that leads to madness.

~Christopher Morley, Inward Ho!

🍃

It is vain for the sober man to knock at poesy’s door.

~Plato

 

No poems can please for long or live that are written by water-drinkers.

~Horace, Satires

🍃

The true poet is all the time a visionary and whether with friends or not, as much alone as a man on his death bed.

~W.B. Yeats

A poet is an unhappy being whose heart is torn by secret sufferings, but whose lips are so strangely formed that when the sighs and the cries escape them, they sound like beautiful music… and then people crowd about the poet and say to him: “Sing for us soon again;” that is as much as to say, “May new sufferings torment your soul.”

~ Søren Kierkegaard

 

Poetry is the revelation of a feeling that the poet believes to be interior and personal which the reader recognizes as his own.

~Salvatore Quasimodo

🍃

To have great poets there must be great audiences too.

~Walt Whitman

 

The sublimity of poetry, you see, lies in the fact that it does not take an educated person to understand it and to love it. On the contrary. The educated do not understand it, and generally they despise it, because they have too much pride. To love poetry it is enough to have a soul,—a little soul, naked, like a flower. Poets speak to the souls of the simple, of the sad, of the sick. And that is why they are eternal. Do you know that, when one has sensibility, one is always something of a poet?

~Octave Mirbeau, A Chambermaid’s Diary / Le Journal d’une Femme de Chambre, 1900, translated from the French by Benjamin R. Tucker

🍃

No man was ever yet a great poet, without being at the same time a profound philosopher. For poetry is the blossom and the fragrancy of all human knowledge, human thoughts, human passions, emotions, language.

~S.T. Coleridge (1772–1834), Biographia Literaria, 1817

~