eggmunkee

I just wanted to say I appreciate your response and just haven't had the chance to give it due time and consideration. Hope to respond soon.

Programming experience here too, but I would ask how does Google censor the word which is its own brand? How do they separate the "bad" googles from the "good" googles? An exception to not censor "google" essentially makes the technique succeed at preventing censorship. If they do censor "googles" as a code word, they must at least in some cases end up censoring their own brand name. I think this is a clever strategy without a simple "exception" fix from how it looks to me. Maybe you could set me straight on what an exception for "google" would do against this campaign.

I think maybe a better question is how many more ISIS's will be created before the globalist/NATO power group is unseated from power (non-elected government power). I doubt the notion that ISIS arose just from a power vacuum and organic belief system clashes or riled up from Western-led bombing and war campaigns. Does the reader doubt the US/NATO hand in the creation of al-Qaeda? If not, I suspect he believes this was a strategic error. He may also believe a subsequent strategic error led to an accidental creation of ISIS. I think this is incorrect. The history of both show intention to fund and create these groups as proxy armies. First of all, there is evidence the US military foresaw and worked towards what they knew would form something like ISIS: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html I believe one consequence of the existence of Intelligence-related supra-national military organizations like NATO, is that intelligence ops have an even wider scope and can cut even further against any national interests, let alone the interest of individuals in a given area of the world, yet they are always thoroughly camouflaged and divided up into various nation's parts played. When an organization, working always through murder, theft, deception, and other black ops methods, is planning in multiple decades, is targeting a goal such as Global Hegemony or perhaps a permanent war-state globally, the results can't be well analyzed from the false worldview of individual nations working on national priorities and national interests, nor can it be well analyzed from an individual power ambition lens. The state of the world today is neither the result of individual nations' struggle for dominance, nor the struggle of powerful people for individual power and control. The people at the level of NATO command or steering committee for the Bilderberg group are not playing 2d chess, or petty personal power quests, the surface level narrative of their conflicts is not reflective of the reality. They work together on things which consolidate and concentrate power globally, they may conflict pettily over smaller points on the board, but never actually endangering a common goal. They protect their core of consolidated corruption to a man or woman, no matter what other philosophy or rhetoric they may be using for deception. The rise of ISIS required a lot of investment in radicalized education from countries like Saudi Arabia, it probably was involved in the Gulen schools movement where Islamic schools are being set up all around the world. There are almost undoubtedly Muslim Imams working directly for Western intelligence working on brainwashing future soldiers for the whims of NATO commanders. We see how the West is using its own terrorist forces to get closer to war with Russia, along side installing missile sites near Russia's borders, assisting the overthrow of Ukraine covertly, etc. etc. Hillary is calling for war with Russia if deceptive US intellegence agencies claim Russia committed cyber-attacks (which can be fabricated easily). Put simply, one cannot pretend that every action the West takes causes blowback, and at the same time think no one in the very complex and nuanced intellegence planning field has recognized or accounted for it. Foresight, correct analysis, and desire for an outcome kind of preclude the conclusion of ignorant mistake by stupid but well-meaning people that comes back to bite them. I don't think stupidity is a good explanation for trillions of unaccountable dollars in the US defense and intellegence agencies. So I propose we stop making the mistake of thinking our enemies (of freedom, morality, peace, trade) are stupid and blind. They put out different levels of narrative to provide something for different groups, not because they can't get a story straight. I wouldn't doubt that there are extensive documents about distruptive talking points by the sub-community intending to affect. We must try to match them on that type of analysis and psychological awareness.

Usually when someone answers singularly to a either-or they are indicating that both are true or false, so his decision would be both based on principles and on consequences.