Making a (Red) List and Checking it Twice - Is This What Jade Helm is Really About?

a reply to: PublicOpinion


That is interesting but now I'm thoroughly confused. What's it really saying? My mind is fuzzy this morning; I haven't had my coffee yet.

Thanks for the articles, PublicOpinion. Can you give me your take on it?

BTW... The Patriot Act extension was blocked on the Senate floor! (But they're going to try and push it through again Sunday)

a reply to: texasgirl

That is interesting but now I'm thoroughly confused. What's it really saying? My mind is fuzzy this morning; I haven't had my coffee yet.

Thanks for the articles, PublicOpinion. Can you give me your take on it?

You are welcome!

The human domain implies the “social” realm: a dominion of non-visible abstractions that, although mostly falling outside of “the scientific” are nonetheless real, if real means to have an effect on others. Yet SOF, following the Army’s lead, is attempting to apply the physical domains’ constructs to this social domain.

smallwarsjournal.com...

I hope that clears it up for you. 'Human Domain' is the social & psychological realm of societies and SOF try to master this 'terrain'. Not the 'human terrain' between soldiers, as you suggested, that might be part of the story. But the main focus seems to lie on human societies and their influence on SOF operations as a whole. In my other post I pointed out which kind of operations & applied tactics they have in mind to achieve their goal (Operationalising the CONUS base).
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm pretty fed up with the implicitness of a military branch, that now even suggest to go into open information-warfare to keep their warmachines always up and running, even with intentions to sway the public opinion. This is a war-industry with no regards to any human decency after all. And we already did see all the rat-tails of militarisation in history, I can't see anything good coming out of this. Humans are humans, no domain or terrain whatsoever. This strategy seems to be deeply flawed due to some basic errors:

The trends within SOF, however, seem to be a growing reliance on process, bureaucracy, and metrics, all obstacles to breaking away from any institutionally-approved ways of thinking.

smallwarsjournal.com...

It goes even further away from the usual assignment of a decent military: to protect it's people/ the constitution. But if they start instumentalizing the public to infuence decisions of war and peace, we might even see them replacing police pretty soon. And we all know where this road ends.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Putting yourself in the globalist's seat what would you need to do to ensure an easy transition (aside from gun confiscation) from a Democratic Republic to an Oligarchical system? First you need to identify who the opposition is.

They also need to get both fighting factions into place before the war starts.

The Walmart closures are the soon to be battle front spanning from Pico Rivera, CA to Brandon, FL.

Look at the patriotic US military hardware moving away north from the battle line at Oroville, California.
Look at the UN hardware moving to the battle line Georgia Coast showing UN Ambulance's or APC's Vehicles.

Once all the hardware is in place, then the war will begin.

Maybe this Google Earth Map will help show where all the hardware is moving to at jadehelm.ueuo.com...

a reply to: texasgirl

I'm thinking that we should at least Keep an EYE on the East Coast while this is all going on.
At least One Eye in that Direction.
Who Knows ?

a reply to: bluesman462002

That is what I was thinking also.
Every other time a false flag occurred it was during a military 'exercise

They are going to stage one during Jade Helm too.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: DAVID64
I think Jade Helm is what they claim it to be, a training exercise. But training against who? Sadly, distrust of my government has got to the point that some of the stories concerning this ring all too true.

As I understand it, cross-branch communication and logistics is a major problem in such a large military, and it seems to me that this is focusing on that in the same way Russia has done in recent times.

There's no denying that this training will have to incorporate scenarios for various threats, and yes that includes domestic issues.

They probably wouldn't want to say that outright, but it's a reality sensible people have to deal with. If there was a revolutionary group in your country planning to act wouldn't you WANT your government to be prepared for it? If there were to be a war and invasion was plausible, wouldn't you DEMAND that your government be prepared to fight against that? If there was massive unrest due to a collapse of the banking system, wouldn't you EXPECT your government to be able to step in and restore some semblance of calm?

It seems that too many people here want to redefine things depending on what they personally feel at any given moment. There are a lot of "constitution wavers", "bible thumpers" and "gun-toters" who seem to think a violent revolution is needed - which really is nothing more than a terrorist act against the democratic system of government. Like it or not, the people have voted for those who are running your country, you don't get to just decide that you don't like it (usually based on nothing consequential) and attempt to overthrow that system to install something that suits you personally and the "ideals" you cling to.

These people would rightly be described as being similar to Islamic State. It's the same thing; it's about political, religious or societal ideology, and something these people want to force onto the rest of the population even when it's clear that the population is not inclined to accept it.

For those who think a revolution in the US is "needed", why do you think that? Is it because the rest of your society (for good or bad) is not in agreement with you? Is it because you think things need to be "fixed"? And why is your notion of "fixing" things any better than Islamic State wanting to "fix" things to suit what they want their society to be?

A lot of people want to call themselves "Patriots", when in reality they're only patriotic to their own notions of what they want to force on their democratic nation. If they were truly Patriotic, they would understand that the population elects people to represent them and operate their nation on their behalf, and they would understand that any attempt to usurp this democratic system (for all its faults) is terrorism against their society, not patriotism.

Wow. Send me your address and I'll get you a copy of the Constituion. The right to alter or abolish is covered and rests squarely with the people.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Add a good history book to your packet, please. Therein one might find an answer to the question, how the founding fathers of the Constitution were called back then. I bet it was a silly nobrainer, like 'terrorist'. Imagine the confusion:

"It was? Really? Oh my..."

And now guess who your gov. considers to be far more dangerous than Al-Qaida/ ISIS and co. Couldn't be Constitution- loving citizens, especially if they are considered to be heavily armed and organised, could they? I think inspiring and well connected artists of various kinds might be the next thread. You know... as they are all commies after all that free thinking thingy and all that.
Me? No Sir, I'm no Unperson. Really!

Obey your old new Masters of the Univer... ähm... Human Domain.

Wait!
Human Domain? Human?? WTF??? Alien-doctrine Starwars, seriously?


May the force be with us (on the Red-list) then.

a reply to: Rocker2013
You said: 'It seems that too many people here want to redefine things depending on what they personally feel at any given moment. There are a lot of "constitution wavers", "bible thumpers" and "gun-toters" who seem to think a violent revolution is needed - which really is nothing more than a terrorist act against the democratic system of government. Like it or not, the people have voted for those who are running your country, you don't get to just decide that you don't like it (usually based on nothing consequential) and attempt to overthrow that system to install something that suits you personally and the "ideals" you cling to. '
Actually, we do have that right. It was a primary concern of the Founding Fathers, that we have the right and the ability to revolt if and/or when the government gets too big for it's britches. Its why they worked so hard on the Checks and Balances system. It's why we have first and second amendments. For goodness sake, reread the very first paragraph of the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.