While we are distracted by deep fake videos and photographs, the 2019 interview with the CIA Director of Disguise brings up more prominent concerns regarding the upcoming debate between Biden and Trump. Jonna Mendez returns to the forefront with her intriguing story about the CIA disguise evolution that surpassed – Hollywood expectations. The CIA showed us their capabilities in Mrs. Doubtfire – 1993. Twenty years ago. Progress has been extraordinary!
Instead of being concerned about Biden passing a drug test for the debate, it is more likely they will be inserting a double wearing one of the CIA’s finest masks. Someone prepped enough to make a few blunders, but not enough to disgrace Biden. Someone the media will portray as a ‘fine specimen’. KEY: Turning up the heat, brightening the lights, could become quite uncomfortable with a silicon shield over one’s face – while showing no perspiration.
Hillary Clinton recently made an appearance for Hollywood sporting a full Mumu, her face aglow, and simply coveting the applause as she absorbs her fame and laments she coulda been Queen. Yet her purple and blue crippled hands were a very visible dichotomy. Exposing some serious condition reminiscent of King Charles. The only two visible archives of flesh. Was she wearing a mask? Her eyes were blue. Was she wearing contacts or was she the double?
Who will show up for the Debate?
Does a debate ever actually change someone’s mind?
The first debate was in 1858 between Lincoln and Senator Douglas. Each candidate spoke for 1 ½ hours, the other candidate had an 1 ½ to rebut with his arguments – and then the other candidate did the same. A six hour static event. No moderators. In 1948 republicans would debate each other via the radio. It wasn’t until 1956 that the democrats followed suit but televised the interactions. The first televised and moderated debate was between Kennedy and Nixon. Kennedy won on ‘charm’.
Most people that watch debates are securely fixed to their candidate and simply want to see how the dominoes fall. I don’t watch debates because they typically revert to screaming matches, I become agitated and start pacing before shutting the annoyance off. Anymore, ratings and viewership are another meaningless algorithm based on a box connected to their TV that records what time they turn on the tube and what channel. From this, the world of science extrapolates reams of false data that might as well be a tall tale of fantasy after fantasy. Much like how historians write history.
Only 24 countries bother with the Western debate fabrication. It is costly, a waste of time, and moderators are hugely biased, as in CNN the representative this time despite their ratings in twallette water.
Kennedy is furious he wasn’t able to qualify – He reached 15% in 3 ‘approved polls’ but needed a fourth in order to qualify. One such poll is Gallup, a benchmark since the 1930’s. But the methodology has changed significantly. Today, Gallup uses ‘surveys’ via telephone calls weights the responses of 1,000 people based on age, education, gender, ethnicity, and region. Jon Clifton is the current CEO, whose interest include the UAE and Mohamed Younis Editor in Chief, a democrat. Gallup has contracts with the State Department and Department of Justice. In 2013, Gallup was sued by the Department of Justice under the “False Claims Act”. Gallup settled and paid $10.5 million. Gallop made no predictions of the 2016 election. Gallops accuracy is now ranked 17th.
The use of surveys to determine anything seems no different than a Ouija Board. It isn’t a factoid, it isn’t expert analysis, it is a crystal ball and a lot of bribery. Last I heard, Kennedy was trailing with 4+% – no idea how he suddenly managed 15%, but money will buy most anything. A look into these ‘unbiased’ polls reveals what and who:
YouGov/Economist: The Economist is a far left Rothschild rag magazine which runs the Zionist show.
Beacon Research and Shaw Company = Fox News: Their claim to fame is that these use ‘live interviewers who call from a predetermined file of national voters. However, their website states their respondents are from ‘online’ surveys. Beacon research Founder = Chris Anderson, a Democrat. Co-Founder = Matthew Shelter, a Democrat. Shaw and Company is D. E. Shaw an Obama appointee in 2009 as a Science and Tech Advisor…
BIAS.
ActiVote: Which does not publish its methodology. ActiVote’s co-founder in 2019 is from the Netherlands and relocated to Philadelphia 2010. It is unclear if he has dual citizenship or just Dutch, which could be considered election interference and/or a foreign agent requiring registration. Their app is used to ‘educate voters on the issues’ before having them respond to the survey. Their website nauseatingly talks about their fight for ‘Democracy’.
These are the three main survey companies used today and they all show Trump and Biden neck-in-neck. The THREE main polling companies that don’t even bother polling, but instead due their due diligence via mediocre surveys that they can scrub and manipulate owned and operated by liberals and democrats. They make millions selling their propaganda to our US Government and governments around the world. The idea is to sway those voters who vote for whoever appears to be winning so they can claim to be on the winning team. A behavioral pattern of mass hysteria.
But the purpose is clear. When counting the Biden votes they will use these polls as their guiding star to uphold Biden’s Leap to victory. Supplemented by shopped AI – the latest of which shows Biden at a massive Pennsylvania rally with midgets and fake people as the backdrop. Sloppy. But what they cannot afford is for Biden to LOSE. And a fake masked Biden seems a plausible solution.
Who Runs the Government?
What are the potential humanitarian consequences of the intense Israeli bombardment in Gaza City?
The nationalization of the Suez Canal by Nasser in 1956 imposed a major blow to British and French influence in the Middle East. The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War further weakened the influence of England and France in the region, as Israel’s decisive victory drastically changed the regional balance of power.
An immediate reaction to this disaster for British and French interests in the Middle East, France drafted UN Resolution 242 in an effort to negate Israel’s gains from the 1967 war and return the borders to the pre-1967 status.
Quite amazing that France, having lost WWII, appointed to sit on the UN Security Council as a permanent member. Neither Germany nor Japan to this day sits as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Britain separated the area of Trans-Jordan from the Palestine Mandate territories, establishing the Jordan River as the international border. In 1950, the UN condemned Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank as illegal. Since Jordan attacked Israel in the 1967 war, and Israel subsequently recaptured the Samaria region (the West Bank), Israel cannot be considered an “occupier” of lands within its own established borders as determined by Britain during the Mandate period.
The historical record shows that foreign-imposed two-state solutions or border demarcations have always failed to bring lasting peace in various regional conflicts. Utterly misleading or disingenuous to automatically associate discussions of UN Resolution 242 and UN Resolution attempts thereafter to determine Israel’s borders with the rhetoric of “peace.” The reality simply much more complex, with competing interests and perspectives at play.
Examples of India-Pakistan, North-South Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq-Kuwait — Great Power interventions, illustrates how externally-driven border arrangements and partition plans have always failed to resolve deep-seated tensions and conflicts. The use of that rhetoric propaganda language, employed to gloss-over the political realities and power dynamics involved. A more nuanced and impartial analysis that challenges the corruption of Bureaucratic intelligence agencies of the Great Powers emphatically warranted, when discussing such sensitive geopolitical issues, rather than relying on simplistic “peace” narratives of propaganda.
Addressing the complex issues surrounding UN Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 242 on the Arab-Israeli conflict, requires examining the role and influences of foreign state intelligence agencies and bureaucracies. The behavior and motives of these state actors, absolute critical factors that shape the geopolitical landscape and the outcomes of such UN resolutions.
Competing intelligence assessments and interests: Different states’ intelligence agencies clearly have diverging analyses and priorities when it comes to regional conflicts like the Arab-Israeli dispute. This can lead to inconsistent or self-serving policy positions.
Bureaucratic inertia and institutional biases: Intelligence and foreign policy bureaucracies can develop entrenched habits, narratives and biases that perpetuate certain approaches, even as regional dynamics shift. Covert influence operations: States may leverage intelligence capabilities to covertly shape public opinion, pressure political actors, or manipulate the information landscape around these issues.
Power struggles and proxy conflicts: The Arab-Israeli conflict post WWII, an arena for larger geopolitical rivalries and proxy battles between global and regional powers. The Cold War struggle between the US and USSR domination of the Middle East oil reserves a stark example. Nixon’s establishment of the petro$ monopoly over OPEC States.
Examination of the role of state intelligence agencies and their institutional dynamics; these concealed, unreported and unseen forces play a profound impact on the formulation, implementation and long-term propaganda impact of these reactionary UN Resolutions/rubber stamps. Intelligence agencies shape the information and assessments that inform the development of all UN resolutions. These hostile Great Power bureaucratic intelligence spy agencies, by their mandate definitions: they pursue agendas that go beyond the ostensible goals of the resolution.
Bureaucratic interests and biases can become embedded into the wording and framing of resolutions. Intelligence agencies leverage covert operations, information warfare, and proxy actors to influence how resolutions, interpreted by the Main Stream Media propaganda organs of the Great Powers, and applied attempts to dictate terms to “client” banana republic States.
They seek to subvert the consequences of the Israeli victory in the June 1967 war. UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334, through selective enforcement or undermining compliance, seek to carve Israel into two hostile States like the post WWII Allies divided Germany into 2-State solution and Berlin into a 2-Capital Solution.
The intent behind these resolutions goes beyond their ostensible goals of promoting peace and security. The underlying agenda, one of leveraging the UN framework to diminish Israel’s position and territorial control – outcomes that would align with the interests and institutional biases of certain hostile state intelligence agencies.
Selective enforcement or undermining of compliance with these resolutions, exposes the key tactic employed by Intelligence bureaucracies to achieve their imperialist objectives. Rather than facilitating a genuine conflict resolution. State propaganda rhetoric deceives by means of Peace lies. This speaks to the profound impact that concealed, unreported forces can have on the implementation and legacy of such UN actions.
UN Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334, part of a broader effort to divide Israel into two hostile states, akin to the post-WWII partitioning of Germany. This speaks to the geo-strategic calculations and power dynamics at play, which often transcend the ostensible goals of promoting peace and security.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been a proxy battleground for competing regional and global powers. Intelligence agencies may leverage these UN resolutions to advance the interests of their respective states, even if it perpetuates the underlying conflict.
Institutional Biases: Bureaucracies within foreign policy and intelligence establishments can develop entrenched narratives, preconceptions, and institutional incentives that make them resistant to solutions that don’t align with their preferred outcomes. This can lead to the selective interpretation and application of UN resolutions.
Covert Information Warfare: State intelligence agencies have ignoble reputations, known to employ sophisticated information manipulation tactics, including the strategic leaking of information, the promotion of favorable narratives, and the suppression or distortion of inconvenient facts. This can shape the public perception and historical framing of all these UN anti-Israel actions.
Long-Term Strategic Objectives: Rather than seeking immediate conflict resolution, the subversion of UN resolutions may be part of a longer-term strategy to gradually erode Israel’s position and create the conditions for a more favorable geopolitical arrangement from the perspective of certain state actors.
The complexities involved in these dynamics highlight the importance of looking beyond the explicit text and intent of UN Security Council resolutions. Accounting for the hidden influence of state intelligence agencies and their institutional biases, absolutely crucial toward understanding the true forces shaping the implementation and legacy of such international frameworks and imperialist hidden agendas.,
Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334, part of a broader effort to gradually erode Israel’s territorial control and position, with the ultimate objective of carving the country into two hostile states. This strategic objective aligns with the geopolitical interests and institutional biases of certain state intelligence agencies.
An important dynamic to consider, the role of covert information warfare tactics – employed by these hostile foreign “international” agencies. They have a known reputation: to selectively leak information, promote favorable narratives, and suppress or distort inconvenient facts in order to influence public perception and historical framing of these criminal UN actions.
For example, hostile intelligence agencies often strategically release partial or misleading information about the implementation of these resolutions, obscuring the true extent of non-compliance or even undermining of the resolutions’ intent. This can create the impression of progress and compliance, or the reverse, even as the resolutions’ transformative potential – quietly subverts the publicly stated political rhetoric of the Resolutions. UN Resolution 181, serves as an excellent example. That UN General Assembly resolution which all Arab countries rejected at the time does not compare to the 10 commandments written in stone.
Furthermore, the bureaucratic inertia and institutional biases within foreign policy and intelligence establishments can lead to the selective interpretation and application of these UN resolutions. Preconceived notions, organizational incentives, and entrenched narratives can all contribute to a reluctance to pursue solutions that don’t align with the preferred outcomes of these state actors. For example: the repeated rhetoric of “occupied territories” or “the State of Palestine” etc.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long served as a proxy battleground for competing regional and global powers. Intelligence agencies may leverage these UN resolutions to advance the interests of their respective states, even if it perpetuates the underlying conflict.
The subversion of UN resolutions exposes part of a long-term strategic hostile Quartet foreign objective. Rather than a sincere effort at immediate conflict resolution. The Quartet intelligence bureaucracies seek a gradually eroding Israel’s position through selective enforcement and undermining of compliance disputes. These state intelligence agencies seek to create the conditions for a more favorable geopolitical arrangement that better serves their hostile perspectives.
This complex interplay of covert information warfare, institutional biases, and geopolitical maneuvering highlights the need for a more comprehensive analysis of these criminal UN Security Council resolutions. Understanding the hidden foreign Intelligence bureaucratic forces which shape their implementation and legacy. Simply crucial to unveiling the true dynamics at play.
Very interesting…. until I read your post, I was not aware of this photo of Hillary wearing a mumu https://gnews.org/m/2475978. Hillary does look strange. Possibly a mask or maybe a doppelganger – a biologically unrelated look-alike or double, of a living person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelg%C3%A4nger Thank you for your interesting posts.
I will not watch any junk show on leftist CNN. I will follow the event the next day. It will be hard for the media to cast any good light on Biden, unless it is a different person. But, if a better/different Biden is going to be there tomorrow night, then why isn’t he always used for public events?
When you look at the person on stage called Biden, you see a clear difference between the persons before and after the 2020 election. Of course Trump won’t call that out. He’s part of the circus act.
On that note, get a look at the two Putins. Old school narrow face versus new round face. Two different people. It’s not weight gain.
We live in a world of body doubles. Bin Laden, Hussein, on and on.
What a cheap way to attack Trump. Why would Trump bring that up, even if he feels that way?
Trump’s role is not to right all wrongs and solve all mysteries.
Of course, your post is part of YOUR circus act.
debate??? Looks a lot more like a badly scripted freak show. I don’t wast time with that bullock.
But I look forward to read your posts!
I did not think about a deep fake debate. You brought up good points to ponder. I am not voting for “ the lesser of two evils.” The election is a joke on us. No thanks. America is a train wreck. Let it crash.