Could the Deep State deep-six Hillary?

[Capstone]

Neocon has nothing to do with patriotism or humanitarianism. It has to do with picking governments we like. ...

Oh, I would certainly agree that the true motivations behind the Neo/Demo-con agenda have had little or nothing to do with the partisan-based propaganda that's been foisted on the unwashed masses over the years.

As for "picking the governements [they've] like(d)", I think the question we should be asking ourselves is: WHY have they liked the governments they've picked?! Looking at the results in the region of the world most effected by their policies, it stands to reason that the sort of destablization spoken of 30-odd years ago by Oded Yinon may have been the primary goal all along. After all, hindsight being 20/20, the so-called Yinon Plan now reads more like an overused playbook than anything else. Yes, the agenda has been underpinned by militant Zionism all along.

...Slick and W were pretty similar. Obama likes Muslim extremist governments. But their methods are shades of gray different at most

They've all been controlled by the same Western deep state string-pullers in the interest of a common 'globalist agenda'. There's really no question about that. Moreover, as previously pointed out by someone else in this thread, the differences between the manner in which their respective Administrations danced at the end of those strings were by and large distinctions of partisan form over shared substance.

We, the voters, have been reduced for voting for the stories we'll be given to justify a series of 'untouchables', meaning the sort of policies, goals, and agendas that have continued unabated throughout multiple Administrations. More succinctly, We the People have been divided and conquered.

 

[kaz]

Neocon has nothing to do with patriotism or humanitarianism. It has to do with picking governments we like. ...

Oh, I would certainly agree that the true motivations behind the Neo/Demo-con agenda have had little or nothing to do with the partisan-based propaganda that's been foisted on the unwashed masses over the years.

As for "picking the governements [they've] like(d)", I think the question we should be asking ourselves is: WHY have they liked the governments they've picked?! Looking at the results in the region of the world most effected by their policies, it stands to reason that the sort of destablization spoken of 30-odd years ago by Oded Yinon may have been the primary goal all along. After all, hindsight being 20/20, the so-called Yinon Plan now reads more like an overused playbook than anything else. Yes, the agenda has been underpinned by militant Zionism all along.

...Slick and W were pretty similar. Obama likes Muslim extremist governments. But their methods are shades of gray different at most

They've all been controlled by the same Western deep state string-pullers in the interest of a common 'globalist agenda'. There's really no question about that. Moreover, as previously pointed out by someone else in this thread, the differences between the manner in which their respective Administrations danced at the end of those strings were by and large distinctions of partisan form over shared substance.

We, the voters, have been reduced for voting for the stories we'll be given to justify a series of 'untouchables', meaning the sort of policies, goals, and agendas that have continued unabated throughout multiple Administrations. More succinctly, We the People have been divided and conquered.

You're mixing issues. Globalism really has nothing to do with neocons and our middle east policy. That would be more our policy with European and Asian governments. These words have meanings.

Note that doesn't mean neocon can't overlap with globalism. You can be a bridge player as well as love cooking. Just one doesn't imply the other either

 

[Capstone]

Neocon has nothing to do with patriotism or humanitarianism. It has to do with picking governments we like. ...

Oh, I would certainly agree that the true motivations behind the Neo/Demo-con agenda have had little or nothing to do with the partisan-based propaganda that's been foisted on the unwashed masses over the years.

As for "picking the governements [they've] like(d)", I think the question we should be asking ourselves is: WHY have they liked the governments they've picked?! Looking at the results in the region of the world most effected by their policies, it stands to reason that the sort of destablization spoken of 30-odd years ago by Oded Yinon may have been the primary goal all along. After all, hindsight being 20/20, the so-called Yinon Plan now reads more like an overused playbook than anything else. Yes, the agenda has been underpinned by militant Zionism all along.

...Slick and W were pretty similar. Obama likes Muslim extremist governments. But their methods are shades of gray different at most

They've all been controlled by the same Western deep state string-pullers in the interest of a common 'globalist agenda'. There's really no question about that. Moreover, as previously pointed out by someone else in this thread, the differences between the manner in which their respective Administrations danced at the end of those strings were by and large distinctions of partisan form over shared substance.

We, the voters, have been reduced for voting for the stories we'll be given to justify a series of 'untouchables', meaning the sort of policies, goals, and agendas that have continued unabated throughout multiple Administrations. More succinctly, We the People have been divided and conquered.

You're mixing issues. Globalism really has nothing to do with neocons and our middle east policy. That would be more our policy with European and Asian governments. These words have meanings.

Note that doesn't mean neocon can't overlap with globalism. You can be a bridge player as well as love cooking. Just one doesn't imply the other either

In my view, the true power brokers of the world are using a multipronged method to carry out the end game. The Neo/Democon coin, Globalism, Zionism, ETC. are simply the tentacles of the octopus.

 

[kaz]

Neocon has nothing to do with patriotism or humanitarianism. It has to do with picking governments we like. ...

Oh, I would certainly agree that the true motivations behind the Neo/Demo-con agenda have had little or nothing to do with the partisan-based propaganda that's been foisted on the unwashed masses over the years.

As for "picking the governements [they've] like(d)", I think the question we should be asking ourselves is: WHY have they liked the governments they've picked?! Looking at the results in the region of the world most effected by their policies, it stands to reason that the sort of destablization spoken of 30-odd years ago by Oded Yinon may have been the primary goal all along. After all, hindsight being 20/20, the so-called Yinon Plan now reads more like an overused playbook than anything else. Yes, the agenda has been underpinned by militant Zionism all along.

...Slick and W were pretty similar. Obama likes Muslim extremist governments. But their methods are shades of gray different at most

They've all been controlled by the same Western deep state string-pullers in the interest of a common 'globalist agenda'. There's really no question about that. Moreover, as previously pointed out by someone else in this thread, the differences between the manner in which their respective Administrations danced at the end of those strings were by and large distinctions of partisan form over shared substance.

We, the voters, have been reduced for voting for the stories we'll be given to justify a series of 'untouchables', meaning the sort of policies, goals, and agendas that have continued unabated throughout multiple Administrations. More succinctly, We the People have been divided and conquered.

You're mixing issues. Globalism really has nothing to do with neocons and our middle east policy. That would be more our policy with European and Asian governments. These words have meanings.

Note that doesn't mean neocon can't overlap with globalism. You can be a bridge player as well as love cooking. Just one doesn't imply the other either

In my view, the true power brokers of the world are using a multipronged method to carry out the end game. The Neo/Democon coin, Globalism, Zionism, ETC. are simply the tentacles of the octopus.

It's a theory

 

[Capstone]

^Seems to validate the theory in the OP...

 

[Capstone]

...all of which makes me feel a little better about having voted for Hillary. Whatever the prevailing powers in the Western deep state want, I want to be on record as having opposed it, ... however symbolic the gesture.

 

[kaz]

...all of which makes me feel a little better about having voted for Hillary. Whatever the prevailing powers in the Western deep state want, I want to be on record as having opposed it, ... however symbolic the gesture.

Voting for Hillary says one word. Gimme...

 

[Capstone]

...all of which makes me feel a little better about having voted for Hillary. Whatever the prevailing powers in the Western deep state want, I want to be on record as having opposed it, ... however symbolic the gesture.

Voting for Hillary says one word. Gimme...

Meanwhile, voting for Trump says two words: give them (meaning the corporate welfare state).

 

[kaz]

...all of which makes me feel a little better about having voted for Hillary. Whatever the prevailing powers in the Western deep state want, I want to be on record as having opposed it, ... however symbolic the gesture.

Voting for Hillary says one word. Gimme...

Meanwhile, voting for Trump says two words: give them (meaning the corporate welfare state).

How so?

 

[Capstone]

...and at the end of the day, where US foreign policy is concerned, a vote for either side of the 2-party coin says the same four words: same shit, different justification.