Några egna Tweets från de senaste dagarna. Individuellt daterade.
Tweet 2016-07-18 15:46
En ny berättelse kommer att utkristalliseras
Alltför många människor argumenterar fortfarande utifrån standardberättelsen, trots att vi nu vet att detta är en falsk berättelse.
De som skapat denna berättelse styr alltså fortfarande den allmänna diskursen.
Visst, ett stort — och avsiktligt skapat problem — är att de alternativa berättelserna ännu är mer splittrade än standardberättelsen.
Men köp inte standardberättelsen för det, utan försök istället själv skapa din egen bild. När tillräckligt många gör så, kommer en ny berättelse att utkristalliseras som vi kan samlas runt.
— LegeNet Holistisk detektivbyrå, 2016-07-18
Tweet 2016-07-18 16:24
Hur långt kan "vi visste inget" argumentet föras? #samhället #mänskligarättigheter #rättsstaten #svpol #säkpol
Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed & adored him & rejoiced in their loss of freedom. ~Cicero
CIA bestämde 1967 att avslöjanden och spekulationer om olika hemliga planer skulle benämnas konspirationsteorier, och förlöjligas[
En stor majoritet tycks instämma i detta beslut i och med att de instämmer i kören av förlöjligande då sådana avslöjanden och spekulationer dryftas. En människorättslig fråga blir därför: Har sådan majoritet rätt att i kraft av majoritetsmakt påtvinga den minoritet som inte accepterar detta beslut att förlöjliga snarare än att undersöka misstankar och avslöjanden angående diverse skändliga planer och handlingar, såsom diverse kemikaliedumpningar etc.. Hur långt kan "vi visste inget" argumentet föras i ljuset av alla de som "visselblåste", men ignorerades eller förlöjligades?
Det är här relevant att studera den grundläggande filosofiska konflikten mellan kollektivisterna och de som tror på frihet, självständighet och oförytterlig rättighet att försvara sig och sin självständighet.
: Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch Which COINED the term "conspiracy theories" ... and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked "psych" - short for "psychological operations" or disinformation - and "CS" for the CIA's "Clandestine Services" unit. The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976. See e.g. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge
— LegeNet Holistic Detective Agency, 2016-07-11, -15 & -16.
Tweet 2016-07-17 02:22
So, what's the geopolitical situation, in a few lines?
Courts don't dare go after gov. war criminals, courts don't dare go against Deep State interests.
Gov. war criminals are exposed as war criminals, but since courts don't dare go after them, obviously the war criminals are hired guns for Deep State interests.
What is above the law? We know that there are various security agreements between gov's, and we know that most of what's done through security services have no real gov. oversight. Even some law professors are so naive that they actually believe that it's safer if politicians have no oversight. This is because politicians might leak secrets, but the far greater danger is that the security services become secret societies with no responsibility to the populations.
There is a network of global corporate control*. What else can control Deep State?
So corporations ravage the Earth using hired mercenaries, including hired gov's.
What are corporations? They are hierarchical dictatorships. What are very powerful and big corporations? They are very powerful and big dictatorships.
And now the hired guns, i.e. gov's, are exposed as totally corrupt. Court's are exposed as not able to go against the criminals. Time to cut out the cut-outs? Will the U.N. now roll over local gov's? However, globalist control is as far from the answer as we can get. The globalists created the problem. They can't solve it.
*: Since S. Vitali, J.B. Glattfelder, and S. Battiston: The network of global corporate control
, 19 September 2011, the fact of a tight knit network is scientific fact. "We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions.
When John F. Kennedy was president, he characterized the network in this way: "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence-on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system that has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
" JFK realized that this Criminal Cabal was responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Soviet Russia, Nazi and Axis Fascism including Italy and Japan, and Maoism after WW2. JFK was certain that this massive criminal conspiracy was centered in the private central banking system.
Tweet 2016-07-16 01:05
Some thoughts on when it becomes imperative for aware and awake affected parties to secede
If a state has made deals ('security agreements', et al) with other states to not divulge various nefarious plans and acts, and if all the consequences of such deals haven't been agreed upon by all affected parties — and every human being is a potential affected party —, and even worse, if deals have been made to legally prevent anyone from divulging or speculating about various nefarious plans and acts, then it becomes imperative for aware and awake affected parties to secede from such a state. I.e. to withdraw formally from membership of such a political organization or in other words such a state. If a whole nation would secede from a state that has made such deals, then the consequence would be the same as when the deals a king had made died with him. This may have been the very reason that bankers wanted kings to organize states, so that the contracts they had wouldn't die with the king. Now that states and bankers have made a lot of deals behind closed doors, why not withdraw consent?
If you withdraw consent you may however be viewed as unworthy of living by the collectivists. Many collectivists seem to think that states have a right to bomb and massacre cities and peoples who formally withdraw from membership of a state. We see this for example with Ukraine and the many who seem to support the mass murderers there. It may help to ask the collectivists the difficult questions whether they by virtue majority power believe themselves to be entitled, through military or police and a so called justice systems, to impose murder and mayhem on the minority's who don't agree with their views?
"The very core of globalism and the NWO is the position that sovereignty and individualism must be sacrificed for the "good of the group"; in other words, they promote collectivism. Of course, groups by their very nature are abstractions; they only exist as long as the individuals within them recognize them as viable. Unfortunately, collectivists do not accept this fact because it would mean that the group, not matter how utopian, is not the pinnacle of human existence
— rather, the individual is and always will be the pinnacle of human existence." (The Reasons Why The Globalists Are Destined To Lose
| Zero Hedge, by Tyler Durden Jul 14, 2016 9:30 PM, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-14/reasons-why-globalists-are-destined-lose
— LegeNet Holistic Detective Agency, 2016-07-16.