As the majority of you are most likely aware, Osama bin Laden is "officially dead," and there have been repeated reports and warnings that there are
to be likely reprisals by Al-Qaida terror cells throughout Europe and North America. Now this was but the initial posturing by the government
Then there was suddenly a finding from a message board, detailing how there were hundreds of "dirty bomb" nukes scattered around the civilized
world, waiting to be detonated and bring about true global jihad.
But wait, this isn't a recent revelation...Al-Qaida has "had nukes" for many years now. The specter of domestic irradiation has loomed for almost
SIX YEARS now, since the Bush redux presidency.
Looks like the nuclear boogie-man is back. But wait (again), why didn't "Al-Qaida" launch their "American Hiroshima" years ago, when it was
evident they were "losing" in Iraq and Afghanistan (more so their foothold in Iraq). Why not in 2007-9, when the surge had taken place and the
enemy was supposedly on the run? That's when you think they would hit America (especially) hard. With their manpower and resources dwindling,
Al-Qaida should have unleashed their final attack on Western society, but (and most of you know this because you are reading this posting), THEY
DIDN'T. Is Osama really THAT important? Their quarrel didn't hinge on him, he was supposedly but a mouthpiece for the jihad.
Aha, but now it's 2011, and the previous emplacement of heightened security and restrictions on civil rights (whether in effect or tenuously penned
via executive order ready to be announced at the smallest squeak of trouble) are still here, and growing. But the leader is dead! huzzah?! Al Qaida
is on the run, and troops are finally being pulled out of war zones in greater numbers. But wait, what about some Joe Everyman that might simply
sympathize with Al Qaida's ideology, and commit some homegrown effort of destruction?!
Enter the next phase in the Greatest Masquerade.
It used to be, "Watch out for the brown skinned Al-Qaida boogie men, they are everywhere." Then it became, "Anyone can be Al-Qaida (after some
backlash of racial stereotyping), keep a look out!" Now it's "Watch out, that guy or girl might have sympathetic views (anything anti-federal, yeah
really), and be a terrorist."
So perhaps you believe that the wars are illegitimate, and voice your concerns. Wait a minute, you're sympathizing with Al Qaida. You may not be
engaging in the legitimate definition of terrorist activity, but under the most recent bulletin, you ARE a potential threat. This isn't new though.
DHS has been building this up for years now, off of the second phase of "anybody could be Al-Qaida."
The next phase, should another false flag not occur before it, will inevitably be "Anyone that voices blatantly anti-agenda propaganda will be
criticized under terrorism." And in my opinion, this is where the FEMA camps come into play. No, there are not lists, and most likely will not be
filled anywhere near capacity. They are there as conspicuous bastions to remind the citizens of the consequence of derision. This is the final lock
down. At first, people will test the policy, and THEY WILL be thrown into the "camps." Perhaps there will be a few "patriots" that go in and
come out of the camps, changed people that now "accept the Government's viewpoint" and renounce their previous indiscretions.
The general public will see this (as it will be widely publicized and hyped up with lies and the such), and cower away, putting any thought of protest
or non-compliance out of their mind. Perhaps there will be a small minority that persists, but their influence will be infinitesimal compared to the
requisite voice to change the course of this nation. And thus it ends, not with a bang but a whimper. Hegeilian Dialectic and Fabian Socialism at its
There will be most likely be no nuclear attacks, because there doesn't NEED to be another false flag. This show is almost over.