posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:52 AM
I apologize for a fastidious response here as I don't have much time to explain certain things to the posters, though I will try to answer questions
when I return. First, someone asked about the legitimacy behind the individual's unit: I don't personally know, but I will find out. He told me
that, unfortunately, it's hush-hush. If things really weren't hush-hush, you would hear more in several stories about the future invasions of
There was a video posted by a user that I'm surprised people overlooked or just didn't seem to watch due to general apathy, but there you go.
Mainstream media stories, independent soldier-side leaking, and just general retirees with their own personal agenda (Wesley Clark is NO different,
and I think it's key people are more critical of this point instead of worrying about the other issues I raised; he may be disinformation agent
himself due to his standing with the army, but read up on his bio and go by your own personal judgment about his wording and story of our future
invasions) have predominantly exposed this very bare truth.
This leads me to explain that two - you can't get definite or credible sources, because no matter how legitimately the source is accepted - few,
some, or many important factors are dependent on the judgment on the sources themselves. Reference credibility seems to be a major problem in the
conspiracy theorist circle, which is, for the most part, sort of incidental since conspiracy theories are just hypothetical in every sense of
questionable though and effort.
Third: this source I have talked to has told me that he is to head to Iran. He said he was not able to answer the exact date, because look at the
reason for invading Libya; he left on 2-weeks notice instead of four months. I am still under the assumption the collapse of the dollar has
been offset too soon, which may likely indicate invasion of any country on Wesley Clark's list requires tremendous exploration of the factors and
incentives. Reference crosschecking in situations like this are important and I like the critical feedback the users here are making instead of the
atypical "OH MY GOD ILLUMINATI SCUM" approach (but we personally like saying that, right? I do, anyway, lol).
Fourth; someone did correct me about the USD's fiat currency workings and I thought I had that one right. Still, my judgment is that the USD does
rely on war; it's hard to gauge the factor that decides this ultimately. Production of weapons, especially here in Maine (in Bath Iron Works) means
we overproduce weapons for a standing army that already has a giant array of weapons. Higher technological advances make our tanks, frigates/air
carriers, and guns generally more expensive. Production cost raises along with the flow of money - it would make more sense that we have surplus of
profit in the country, because production is raising dramatically for a static market.
From this static market, you have the poor that get involved with the military. When they get suckered into actually joining the army (an unfortunate
and almost undesirable instance when you're hungry), major problems occur here, along with general corruption. The idea that our poor join the army
isn't anything new, because look at other countries (typically opponents, non-humanitarians with their own special interests). We do hide this hidden
level of poverty, and as such does not qualify our country as TOTALITARIANISM; the point is just simply that they are instilling control through fear
and deception, but we do it with high level of deceit (like the understanding of how our fiat currency is able to stay afloat mysteriously).
This basic level of shadow contracting is shadow government and qualifies us as an INVERTED totalitarianism, because the sense of the word isn't
simply that we are the reverse meaning of totalitarianism. It's the same picture, just rotated so that the picture looks pretty and some may even
view it as a work of art when it simply was never designed in that way and it only looks this way because the ideal government heads this way.
Remember: govern means "control," ment (or mente, in this case) means "mind."
If people are personally interested in this particular soldier's source and operative unit, I will try to explore this option. Until then, finding
out the truth will be extremely difficult to close to completely impossible, but I personally have the judgment that what I've discussed have some
points that need to be explored, and probably investigated or corrected. I've been doing independent research for awhile and I've only talked about
the military and the USD. That just doesn't even scrape the surface of our 'ideal' government that hides under democracy but really is appreciative
of the title totalitarianism.