Libya/Ghadaffi: free electricity, free great medical care, interest free loans, govt. paid 50% for purchase of a car, govt gave newly married couples $50,000 to buy a house, the lists goes on and on in how well the Libyan people have/had it. The problem was Libya had an independent state bank, not part of BIS (Rothschild's banks) and wanted to switch trading oil from dollars to gold:
"Gaddafi supplied to Libyans free college education, healthcare, housing assistance and other social benefits. NATO wants it privatized to make it costly or unaffordable henceforth, along with charging for everything formerly gotten free. Plus the 'rebels' already set-up a Rothschild-owned central bank."
~ Carla Elaine
Lies, War, and Empire: NATO's "Humanitarian" Imperialism in Libya
Now let me pick one of the evening news liars, CBS, but they're all the same propaganda, and show you how they are reporting Ghadaffi & Libya. Watch how they will not report on OUR filthy rich because that's "class warfare", but watch how they report on Ghadaffi's "lavish lifestyle" with no mention of Libya's free health care, free education, etc... Ghadaffi's "jet skis & hot tubs & he even has a piano & liquor", and he has a private jet! you know, like ALL of OUR POLITICIANS & CEO's and rich here! Watch how the "news guy" holds up a plate at the end and says "the end of Ghadaffi's gilded age"...yeah, and the beginning of OURS! I wish CBS (and the rest of the evening news liars) would report like this on OUR rich & wealthy! But that's "class warfare" if they reported on OUR rich & wealthy like this, and watch for CBS reporting on Libya's FREE health care, FREE education (NOT!) and keep in mind they're all the same - ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN - they only want you to "think" they're different, but they have all the same stories in the same order every night. In the following CBS "new" on Ghadaffi, just replace Ghadaffi with the Bush family, the Rockefeller family, the Koch brothers, the CEO of Exxon, the CEO of Bank of America, etc...but subtract free health care, free education, etc...:
America's #1 enemy: the mainstream media -
BREAKING NEWS: NATO Destroyed Libya - Hugo Chavez
The Libyan crisis: spontaneous revolution or coup in progress?
Libya all about oil, or central banking?
Rebel Assassins Terrorizing Libyans
The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya EXPOSED
Can you handle the TRUTH about Libya & the UN bombing?
Media Manipulation: 'NATO in a hurry to wrap up war in Libya'
WikiLeaks cables expose Washington’s close ties to Gaddafi
The West Wants to take Control of Libya's Oil Wealth
When you contemplate the impending collapse of the dollar (indeed all paper "money"), and the need to replace fiat with real money - backed by something other than empty promises and debt, and you note that the banksters don't want that something to be gold or silver - you can picture a scenario whereby they select oil as the commodity that backs all "currency." The US actually has abundant oil reserves - including newly drilled and capped wells across west-Texas and huge discoveries (Alaska) that the oil/banking cartel simply refuse to allow to come onto the market. They limit refining capacity for one reason only - to constrain supply and keep prices high.
If you assume that the plan is to back a one-world currency with oil, then it makes perfect sense that the empire with the dying "petro-dollar" go out and acquire (at the tip of a spear), all of the oil it can - regardless of cost. It also explains why this same oil/banking cartel has kept every alternative to the internal combustion engine and alternative fuel sources out of automobiles - despite innovations that can replace gasoline to power cars. They simply require that oil remain "precious." Just like gold - OIL IS MONEY.
The end of the US fiat "currency" has been planned for thirty years. If they are replacing it with a form of money said to be backed by oil, that would explain why they chose to implement 9/11 as the pretext and the cover story for acquiring the majority of the world's oil supply. Those with the inside knowledge (and a copy of the script) are behaving just as you would expect them to, when insider trading is free to occur on a global scale without restriction or penalty.
What else explains it? - plunger
If there's a "HUMANITARIAN CRISIS", then WE caused it by an unprovoked attack on Libya:
Libya: on brink of humanitarian disaster
General Wesley Clark on 9/11 n Libya, Libya was already planned, Iran next..
Gaddafi's Stolen Billions: Max Keiser Explains 'Financial Terrorism'
How FASCISM is sold to the American public (especially people on the RIGHT who listen to RUSH LIMBAUGH) as "shrinking the government".
Open proposal for US revolution
Open proposal for US revolution: end unlawful wars, parasitic economics. 1 of 4
Open proposal for US revolution: end unlawful wars, all from known lies. 2 of 4
Open proposal for US revolution: end parasitic and criminal economics. 3 of 4
The Police State Road Map: Three Hundred Trillion Dollars and Counting
CFAP Report: $42 Million From Seven Foundations Helped Fuel The Rise Of Islamophobia In America
Obama once again, like Bush, sides with the elites & banksters against us with the foreclosure scandal:
Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal
Wikileaks: Obama Administration Secretly Worked To Prevent Prosecution of War Crimes By The Bush Administration
Bush AND Obama LIE about 9/11 and tell you not to dig too deep (or what? you'll find out the truth?):
The Election March of the Trolls, The only commodity the troll state offers is fear.
First Federal Reserve Audit Reveals Trillions in Secret Bailouts
Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans
Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald on Thursday blasted President Barack Obama’s mantra that the nation should “look forward, not backward” regarding alleged crimes committed by the Bush administration.
“Imagine if, for example, we decided to announce tomorrow that we were no longer going to prosecute murder or rape or child abductions because we didn’t want to ‘keep looking backwards,’” he said on MSNBC’s The Last Word. “What do you think would happen? Obviously there would be a lot more people engaging in murder, rape, and child abduction.”
Greenwald added that American political culture had “decided our highest political officials are free to break the law without consequences” and Obama had continued the “evisceration of the rule of law for political elites.”
You're watching our government and their "news" trick you about Libya in real time, now go back and take a look at how they tricked you on 9/11:
NOTE: The term 'National Security" does not mean what you think it means. As in Orwell's 1984 - the term has been hijacked. It now means: "protect the guilty Shadow Government co-conspirators"Whenever you hear the term "national security" - just think "Cover-Up"...Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today’s American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"]. As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome." "There will be phone calls going out to the media saying ‘don’t even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,’" he told us.
* * *
"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to ‘How do we deal with Sibel?’" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn’t get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told ‘don’t touch this . . . .‘"
The TRUTH is "anti-American": Pentagon Papers Whistleblower Ellsberg Says Government Has ORDERED the Media Not to Cover 9/11(Article)
There was no "Underwear Bomber" - as there was never any "Bomb."
There was no "Portland Bomber" - as there was no "Bomb."
There was no "Shoe Bomber" - as there was no Bomb."
These are total FBI/CIA/Media inventions - psyops.
Watch this video of eyewitnesses to "the underwear bomber":
Truly a Bizarre Passenger list for Flight 77 that Crashed into the Pentagon (Article)
Shanksville Resident Speaks Out About 9-11
Recent developments among supporters of the US government’s version of events indicate that they plan to begin blaming Saudi Arabia for the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Big Dan's famous 9/11 post
The first of many 9/11 propaganda pieces pushing the official government 9/11 LIE: National Geographic -
News Corp. owned National Geographic’s 9/11 documentary more interested in feelings than facts
THE ENEMY OF THE "AGENDA"
TRUTH
THIS MUSHY DEFINITION IS WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE ABOUT THE CONCEPT FORMERLY KNOWN AS TRUTH:
Language and words are essentially "tools" by which humans convey information to one another. As such, "truth" must have a beneficial use in order to be retained within language. Defining this potency and applicability can be looked upon as "criteria", and the method used to recognize a "truth" is termed a criterion of truth. Since there is no single accepted criterion, they can all be considered "theories".
WITH NO ABSOLUTE, DISCERNIBLE TRUTH - ANY LIE MAY BE CALLED "TRUTH"
INDEED, THE LAST REFUGE OF THE SCOUNDREL, IS THE LIE, SWORN TO BE TRUTHFUL.
THE DEATH OF THE AMERICAN IDEAL OCCURS WHEN EACH SINGLE INDIVIDUAL THE MEDIA, KNOWING THE LIE TO BE ONE - PRESENTS IT AS THE TRUTH, NONETHELESS.
WITH THOSE IN THE MEDIA BEHOLDEN TO LIARS TO PAY THEIR BILLS, THE CONCEPT OF THE FREE PRESS HAS ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED...YET IS CALLED THAT NONETHELESS - BY THE LIARS WHO PAY, THEIR LIARS TO SAY - THAT WHICH YOU WISH WERE
TRUTH.
The coherence theory of TRUTH
The main contender to the semantic theory of Tarski is the coherence theory. In general terms, the theory says that a proposition is true if it coheres (or agrees) with other propositions we already hold to be true.
The easiest way to appreciate what this means is to consider an example: suppose a person drops an expensive vase when browsing in an antique shop and is asked to pay for it. Instead, the person offers the explanation or proposition "I dropped it because an African elephant knocked it from my grasp, since we were arguing over who should buy it".
Why might we not accept this story?
African elephants are not known to talk.African elephants are not known to be patrons of antique shops. African elephants are not found in this part of the world.No elephant was known to be within a certain number of kilometres of the shop.No-one else in the shop saw the elephant. And so on. Each item in the list is some other proposition we already hold to be true, or approximately so. Given, then, that the person's claim conflicts (or fails to cohere) with the set of propositions we have previously accepted, we reject it and call it false.
Note that this is much the same way as we usually come by knowledge,especially on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, this has nothing at all todo with Ockham's Razor or the likelihood of different explanations; indeed, it seems that when people appeal to Ockham they are usually employing a coherence theory instead.
http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43788
SEE WHERE YOU CAN SPOT DONALD RUMFELD IN THIS MORASS:
Ockham’s Razor is a principle; that is, it does not tell us that the simplest explanation is true (or what there is); but instead that we ought to prefer it on methodological grounds. We are counseled to adopt theories which are minimallyefficient, insofar as they can do the same with less. Note that there is apparently no reason why we should do so: a direct route to a destination is neither better nor worse than a diversion unless we include the criterion that we wish to get there by the most direct route (and even then it may not be, so we will return to this analogy later.) Nevertheless, it seems plain enough that we are inclined to favor the simpler explanation, other things being equal. It is this assumption that we shall now examine.
http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php?/page/index.html/_/essays/philosophyofscience/ockhams-razor-r55
So you see, as long as the likes of Rumsfeld and Rove can blind us to the true meaning of the word TRUTH itself - they need never fear that it will come to been widely accepted and agreed upon. In truth - for all you know - fully 80% of Americans may already believe that 9/11 was an inside job. As Rove is fully aware - and counts on - unless and until the media informs the citizens of a truth - it never exists - as without the media to confirm its truthfulness - we are all left to look at our neighbors, friends and loved ones - and wonder what they consider to be true...all while having been brainwashed and programmed not to ask them directly.
Behold the individuals, awaiting development of the herd - while the essential rallying cry - the truth - is left unsaid - by the only medium capable of broadcasting it with credibility - the formerly free press.
I hold this truth to be self-evident.
BILL MOYERS: Let me get to the blunt conclusion you reach in your book. You say that two years after the devastating financial crisis of '08 our country is still at the mercy of an oligarchy that is bigger, more profitable, and more resistant to regulation than ever. Correct?
SIMON JOHNSON: Absolutely correct, Bill. The big banks became stronger as a result of the bailout. That may seem extraordinary, but it's really true. They're turning that increased economic clout into more political power. And they're using that political power to go out and take the same sort of risks that got us into disaster in September 2008.
BILL MOYERS: And your definition of oligarchy is?
SIMON JOHNSON: Oligarchy is just- it's a very simple, straightforward idea from Aristotle. It's political power based on economic power. And it's the rise of the banks in economic terms, which we document at length, that it'd turn into political power. And they then feed that back into more deregulation, more opportunities to go out and take reckless risks and-- and capture huge amounts of money….The American democracy was not given to us on a platter. It is not ours for all time, irrespective of our efforts. Either people organize and they find political leadership to take this on, or we are going to be in big trouble, okay?... That's absolutely the heart of the problem. I would also say and tell you, and emphasize, these people will not come out and debate with us. The heads of these companies or their representatives, they will not come out. They're afraid. They don't have the substance. They don't have the arguments. We have the evidence. They have the lobbyists. And that's all they have.
BILL MOYERS: They've got the power, the muscle, the money.
SIMON JOHNSON: They have money.
BILL MOYERS: You just have the arguments. You just have the facts. On your side.
SIMON JOHNSON: Absolutely. That's exactly what it comes down to.
ALL WE HAVE IS THE TRUTH TAKE BACK CONTROL OF THE AIRWAVES TAKE BACK THE FCC
FOR AS LONG AS THE MEDIA CAN BE CONTROLLED - PREVENTED FROM REVEALING THE TRUTH - THE LIARS WILL REMAIN IN CHARGE OF DISCERNIBLE REALITY - THE UNTRUTH - WHICH YOU HAVE COME TO BELIEVE AS TRUTH. THE GREATEST TRAITORS IN AMERICA ARE THE TALKING HEADS IN THE MEDIA - WILLING WHORES, KNOWINGLY LYING IN RETURN FOR A PAYCHECK.
EVEN RACHEL MADDOW KNOWS SHE IS PROHIBITED FROM REVEALING THE TRUTH. SHE IS ASTUTE ENOUGH TO KNOW THE RICHARD ENGEL IS A CIA MOUTHPIECE. HOW DO YOU PRODUCE AN ENTIRE SPECIAL ON THE DECADE AFTER 9/11 - WITHOUT REVEALING THE TRUTH OF 9/11? IS SHE ONE TOO?
Reality-based community is an informal term in the United States. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community" was first used to suggest the commentator's opinions are based more on observation than on faith, assumption, or ideology. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from judicious study of discernible reality." Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing.
The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
-- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981)
Hey Rachel:
What is the truth of 9/11?
Imagine that question going viral across the internet - everywhere - every day.
- plunger
