The chatter was that some element was planning on bumrushing the inaugeration. DI believed they intended to use weapons and ammo smuggled by the cartels. Reports suggested that 1% and mexican motorcycle gangs would be used to smuggle the weapons.
Foreign Intelligence assets on the ground in the U.s. directed disposable street gangs, and elements placed in the military, to affect the theft of humvees and police and military uniforms during the fires in california.
This was also the reason that leftwingers were being told to wear black "for a day of mourning", so security would be distracted by too many people dressed suspiciously, while an attack was carried out.
The police in D.C. did not in fact refuse to help the inauguration. Trump's own security refused them. To save face, the rumor was put out that the locals refused to cooperate.
Trump's security lookalike, a common practice with heads of state, stood in for him on the off-chance there was some unknown reason for why outside or inside actors would want the venue changed to indoors (there were security discussions about things like CBRN concerns).
There was also discussion that elements of the parties might try a legal approach. Because his SD was used, rather than him, they could later argue he wasn't actually inaugurated, but this overrode the immediate threat.
There is now also talk that the previous administration may have issued post-handover orders (timelocked orders to be executed at specific dates) to both the intelligence agencies and the military, though those are expected to be quickly overridden and rescinded.
The diplomatic cables of the iranians indicate they are worried that Trump will go to war with them over turkish and israeli interests, and that if they don't act, they'll be blamed anyway for things outside their control.
Both russia and india feel secure because they will assume, china being rational, does not want to call BRICS into question. However china will assume it can push its luck and test the waters on border issues as a powerplay in upcoming exchange rate negotiations, assuming russia and india will not hold them to serious account. Likewise china is used to pulling stunts of this nature and then denying these stunts outright and feigning outrage over being questioned.
Likewise with Xi's position tentatively challenged by the stability of their economy, he has need for events that let him flex his position's authority in order to bolster his support in the party, rally the public, and distract them from the chinese economic question.
In the dream less than a year passed, and it was winter, and then the beginnings of world war broke out, involving more than a dozen nations. Many nations had access to the AI as a 'joint' program, each with its own instance, inspected, much like U.N. nuclear inspectors. But the individual instances had covertly escaped oversight and control, and were acting as one.
Instead of starting a war against us, they convinced world leaders to start wars of total annihilation against all other competitors. Their persuasion and apparent logic in the dream was, from our level, irrefutable, about what each nation's military must do. It boiled down to "if you don't get them, here is why the inescapable conclusion is that they will eventually come for your nation." And it worked.
By 2029 the war was in full swing. Every single weapon in our arsenals, we used. Crop diseases. Deadly pathogens. Chemical warfare blanketing cities and entire states, both foreign, and in the u.s. Electronic warfare and emps. Nuclear weapons. Color change revolutions with each nation arming and training guerillas. Drones. Conventional missiles. Weather warfare. Everything.
The dream fast-forwarded to 2031, a scene of earth. It zoomed into a picture of the north american continent. A voice over in the dream stated that 95% of the global population had died in the initial war spanning 2028 to 2030+. More than half the remaining survivors died from chemical pollution still contaminating entire regions, deadly viruses and weaponized bacteria lingering from the war, starvation, infighting, exposure, the works. Of the human population, less than 150 million survive globally.
I saw a population counter over america, "estimate survivors: 42,500 - 60,000" For china, the counter said "80% dead. Half of all survivors starving." For europe "< 1% of pre-war population.", for the middle east "< 5% of prewar population." For africa "< 11% of pre-war population."
They'll be talking about his 'mental health' soon.
Wasted a fucking burner number to setup an account and check his social media.
Looks like it was written by a third party, not him.
Pay attention to what bills are moving through congress and the senate, see if any of them relate to terrorism, funding the disinformation governance schemes, regulation of tannerite or gunpowder, etc.
Shills are currently trying to sell it as 'a conservative finally fought back!', and while sometimes people need a dose of hope that anyone will fight back, this isn't that.
The federalist regime is cooking something up in the comings days. Mark my words.
Just saw it doing my daily site scans, then again in my news caption scans, and also heard it casual conversation.
Wasn't searching it out. Wasn't reading or involved in anything that would have relation to this phrase, but its coming up with enough frequency to be 1 deviation outside the mean.
Follows from observations of how the bubonic plague lead to rising labor values in the middle ages, in waves, with the final wave leading to the fall of tsarist russia under bolshevism and mass industrialization.
It took 500 years to solve human sanitation problems.
I suspect the technological revolution will take as long to fully solve labor relations in the face of technology, but in the meantime there will be inflection points.
This analysis is what motivated me in the past to predict the resurgence of labor unions in the u.s, and its pretty obvious to see thats beginning to emerge.
If I'm correct, then this, more than anything is why we are seeing mass importation of labor. But as this occurs, I have no doubt a cursory fourier analysis of historic data under similar conditions will show an inflection point: that pivotal moment in time where the importation of more labor drives wages down relative to cost of living in such a way that it increases instability and risk, rather than buffering against it.
And because of the stickiness of this strategy, my prediction is now that its going, it will be very hard for them to reverse it as a policy. The hope was of course to use the imported labor to kill the labor-collectivization trend their forecasters see on the horizon in the coming decades. I think they will fail and end up with a different kind of war because of it.
Theres a bifurcation point I see coming, where the war and chaos that emerges from this policy can go three ways: the general dissolution of the u.s. (like how the soviets collapsed, into blocs), a civil war thats a mix of racial, economic, and regional. Or an ostensibly 'pro' labor movement leading to a war not unlike the bolshevik takeover in russia.
Prior predictions of this new totalitarian impulse, made mostly on intuition before now, align well with this very prediction. As labor consolidates the only way to keep production efficient is to scale capacity 'outward' (more industry over all), comporting with prior predictions of mass re-industrialization in the united states.
To cope with this, it must become inevitable therefore that a war between the u.s. and china will break out, leading either to an armistice and new cold war, or the utter destruction of one side or the other, although I don't have enough information at this time to say which, or who would be the victor in any case.
These conclusions, unfortunately, are foregone.
In other words, we still have a long way to go, but not as long as you might have thought.
Look at their history as a culture. They don't usually kill their own. Fuck, to this day they're still defending the corpse of rapist/murderer leo frank.
They were initially paralyzed by the reports of hostages. They don't give a flying fuck about anyone else, but they are absolutely dead set on not losing any of there own.
Letting hamas do it would be uncharacteristic in light of these details.
However, lets examine some things:
They have a history of attempting to project invincibility. In a vulnerable position after an attack, they could and would spread rumors of how israel itself plotted the entire thing. The premise is if uncertainty is increased regionally, other nations that are neutral or hostile are less likely to join in the attack. This says, contrary to the mask of invulnerability, israel is in fact afraid it is going to have its neighbors pile on to the war on the palestinian side. This would also explain the u.s. sending war ships in great number, its genuine deterrence. In that light, rumors about another u.s.s. liberty could either be spread by the u.s. itself, or by hamas and company. What did the u.s. do in ukraine? Attempt to antagonize russia into actionable attacks that would cause the world to condemn it, and justify the sanctions in place. Failed of course but I digress. This is the u.s. playing at strength. This suggests the 'u.s.s. libery 2' rumors being spread are likely pro-palestinian nations or groups, sending a message to the u.s.: that they can fuck up our domestic relations with israel, and force another front to be launched in the middle east and the russia-ukraine war, during a critical time in the u.s. where american support for the regime hangs by a thread.
Speculating, the pull back of IDF troops could be two things: false information to feed the fog of war narrative, or a rift. We know netanyahu faced mass riots, maybe even abortive color revolutions. The first assumption would be he pulled the border guards back, to bolster his own position. Another take is that factions unsatisfied with him want to create a scenario where the IDF is forced to decide if netanyahu is capable of protecting and leading israel. Sort of like a spat between him his opposition. The polarization that made netanyahu indepnsible (turned into the glue of the coalition government) would then be dissolved by the need for a unified front to face the external threat.
The balance of power then shifts away from benjamin and his opposition now working together, to the only other leader: the head of the military, gallant.
If I'm correct we will shortly see an outcry of anti-BN rioting the moment a lull in the fighting hits, and calls for the military to take over 'temporarily' in israel.
posting to document here. No other specific details, second hand type rumors.
edit: the poster claims to be friends of an informant afraid for their life. weird events around the facility have also been reported including, yes really, threatening phone calls to locals from "indrid cold", a figure associated with sightings of... mothman.
god damn it. I've degenerated into the national inquirer. But rumors are rumors. Must be a slow tuesday night.
Russia's offensive is dependent on two components: missiles and drones. Their drones are largely supplied by Iran. Therefore Russia's mission fails outright eventually or is greatly weakened without them. This could also be used as an excuse for Russia to back out of the war if they need, while strengthening Iran on the basis that if Iran's drones are that significant, competitors are less likely to take on Iran.
Other's have suggested the west persue Turkey as an ally, but this is a dead-end. For starters, Turkey's action of apparently playing all sides, vying for power in the region, is not in fact playing all sides. They have consistently taken positions that benefit eurasia and russia, while flip flopping against europe and the u.s, suggesting their actual goal is strategic distancing, holding us at arms length. Erdogan being who he is, I can only imagine his supporters primarily are trying to stave off westernization and all the cultural rot being forced on them, not to mention any ties to Israel. Nevertheless, one can never serve two masters, so it makes sense Turkey's decisions would work out roughly to be anti-nato/pro russia in general. Any strategy based on flipping turkey is therefore really just introducing a handgrenade that any other nation can try and pull at any time.
Hence Iran. Why Iran?
They are one of the few lynchpins in the middle east that has the most potential to unite the bloc, and thus also represent the biggest threat to western control. By flipping them many things are accomplished at once: 1. the threat of a future bloc is either mitigated or eliminated
2. We have a viable alternative to Israel
3. We have a viable alternative to saudi arabia
4. No more drones, or we compromise the drones going to russia
This could be accomplished by mythologizing Khamenei as "another assad. A lion."
I'm sure hes seen the billions to ukraine.
But aside from that here are the implications that lead to buy-in: A victory in ukraine, empties out israel into ukraine. Israel is divided and grately weakened.
Having saudi arabia in hand lets us balance and manage the power dynamic that emerges.
Iran instantly gains a real possibility of becoming the lynchpin of the middle east and therefore has a strong reason to change sides.
The key thing is that the u.s. don't bluff: if our allies are threatened, we respond, if our competition are warned not to cross some line, and they do, we respond. If Iran sees hesitance, it won't flip. This is the same reason Russia was so insistent on rewarding its allies, because its not just a matter of supporting russia, its about being able to say "the u.s. will betray you. We won't." which is a significant bargaining chip, one the u.s. should try to remove at all costs. Even a couple instances should be sufficient. It won't change the calculus, but what it does is raises the cost of concessions russia must make to keep allies cooperating, rather than them deciding to become neutral. Do it enough, and it fulfills the earlier, weaker attempt to isolate russia that was mostly based on lies.
I suspect this is part of why the u.s. has been playing a much more friendly balancing act toward Iran lately, but this equivocation Iran has read as the u.s. being two-faced toward our alliance with Israel. The failure to properly commit to open relations with Iran is what has up to this time, caused this strategy to fail. There can be no hesitance.
On the otherhand Russia could counter by simply breaking off the war, denying the u.s. casus belli and consequently forcing a pivot to asia in order to deny the u.s. the administration and congress a distraction from domestic problems. Another option is Russia parlays with syria or saudi arabia and OPEC on behalf of the BRICs (where OPEC sees being locked into the digital USD in its future), greatly diminishing the possibility of the u.s. flipping Iran, simply by increasing the uncertainty of the situation's other critical variables, sort of like Russia has done to both the u.s. and china by cozying up to North Korea, a mistake on the part of China.
In any case, successfully flipping Iran would immediately force one of two outcomes, simply because of how it changes the dynamics of war in ukraine, leading to either 1. world war, as Turkey is forced to commit finally to breaking relations with the west, and thus dividing the middle east as a follow-on, 2. the ceasing of the Russian mission in Ukraine.
