Blatant Contradiction is Contradictory

Facts, Truth, Logic, Principles, Morality, Conscience, Honesty, Common Sense all dictate that Blatant Contradiction is Contradictory. Act accordingly to your character and either see it for what it is or turn away from reality like a coward. Which if these choices you make will "trigger" your Eternal Destiny as an immediate fact in your very being. If you are evil and like lying and tormenting people "because you can and it is fun", they at least recognize reality for what seems to be... a playpark for evil pieces of shit with strangely-besieged real heroes being dragged through the mud by people with their heads on backwards, by essentially evil people who've been built from the outside in by carrots of bribery and sticks of threat, whose very lives are framed upon the scaffolding of extortion in some proportion between those who extort and those who submit to it, not as those robbed, but as those SUCKERED. The only people dragged down against the very great of what they deserve are the only people with moral high ground under their feet IN SUBSTANCE, an the only one everyone loves to scapegoat by making them VILLIFIED IN NAME. If you are not among those, count yourselves blessed, because for having grant to Real Life, you alone will endure past this false world's final end. But just as evil beings must consciously live BY MEANS OF this trickery, so must GOOD Beings dispel it and defeat it by means of the same careful attention to the TRUTH of matters revealed by any contradiction between its IMAGE and ITS SUBSTANCE. That, therefore, is what they attack most truly, the capacity to exercise such judgement. It is not a political battle waged with flesh and blood, but one waged with one's Mind and Spirit against a weaponized culture which seeks to destroy that REAL BASIS FOR AUTHORITY, Best Wisdom and Good Faith, which the said "establishment" CLAIMS to have by their appearances and use of imagery and ritual, but which is exactly what they seek to destroy in FACT.

Alex Jones brings up an excellent discussion. But as soon as I saw a picture of the issue as portrayed by the media of mass destruction, I saw the entire issue.



So, the supposed motive for the dreaded 9-11 attacks is that "they", "the turrurrists" (and supposedly not crypto-technocrats and Plutonian "archons" entrenched in the entire "upper crust" of society and all its institutions of organized criminality with a fraudulent claim to authority to protect any public trust...), they hate our free-dumbs. That's premise one. So, we must curtail our freed-uhms in order to protect them... (another spurious premise, call it premise two) It is also pretended that the keepers of the public tRUST, our tRUSTED "betters", they would not prefer to accomplish premise one's objectives with a minimum of premise two's "necessary actions". Because they value free-dumb. But finally it turns out that we are warned that if we exercise those freedoms in their SUBSTANCE (which should undergird the two premises' supposed merit to our attentive concern), we supposedly run the risk of going past some arbitrary line above which that minimum curtailment of freedom in order to protect free-dumb (there is a difference other than just spelling) is no longer sufficient to "protect" those we'll here just call "us" from those we'll here just call "them". In this result, they have declared that Donald Trump represents such an excess when he says we should have strong, well-defended borders, immigrants who are at minimum legal entered and ideally thoroughly vetted for "clearance" (at least as much as we would with visas for already legitimate visitors, as would ANY country with any sense). They've said that he is wrong to criticize a foreign policy that is an utter failure AT BEST, and is instrumental to fomenting the motives of the TURRURRISTS (real and contrived) AT MINIMUM. In that he would have us with a strong and prosperous socioeconomic condition which has put him out of favor with corrupt politicians and those for whom they serve as colossal prostitutes of power to conduct evil under righteous pretenses. In that he is willing to speak frankly and yet inclusively without being a cutout who robotically (or cheesily) reads from a teleprompter. In that the CIA-controlled media hates him the same way that Edward Bernays and Big Brother would hate him. In all those respects he simply obliterates the competition among those running for office as being someone who stands FOR what "the turrurists hate" and also as being someone who stands AGAINST what "the turrurists" want. WHICH MEANS that he is the most appropriate person for the office of "The Decider" of arbitrary lines which are to be drawn past which the exercise of freedom might just need to be monitored to ensure that "the turrurists" don't get a likely jump on us which would be difficult to defend against without at least some recognition, preparation, and constant/consistent risk management which is simply a part of everyone's due diligence anyway. All this demands a capacity to demonstrate the proper sense and sensibility, the proper rationality and good faith which are to be the proper precursors for the proper judgement needed to render such a duty feasible for a single person to perform on behalf of an entire nation. So we can already see that the fauxny media has claimed that it is better to have a piece of horse manure for president rather than someone who can actually put forth THE CORRECT AND SANE promises that at least promise the right things! So do we even really need to listen to their bullshit when they arbitrarily declare that we should believe that they (and their illustrious sources) don't have a special motive for claiming that: Electing Donald Trump for President = Voting FOR a terrorist act to occur.... Just think about the those miscreants and those behind them who pull their strings like Pinocchio, who put forth  such a simple and obviously errant logic to justify their "stand on terror" in the form of REAL HARMS TO YOUR RIGHTS, the very substance of concern with terrorists in the first place (supposedly), the protection of which hinges upon policies that sound a lot more like what Trump is promising and nothing like what is in place now, which would be continued or worsened by the other candidates (and that's THEIR promise!). Do that, and look at the MEDIA, which promotes brain death and an illogical and wrong stance on matters of public health, safety, culture, and the truth in ANYTHING, in other words a CRAPSACK-WORLD LEVEL OF PHONY-ASSED, LYING-ASSED, COUNTERFEIT MONEY-TAKING, PROPAGANDA MINISTRY, DEVIL'S ASS-KISSING FAKE MEDIA, and see how the two cooperate against one man because of his policies which are MUCH more in line with the public trust and interest than those who oppose him, and decide which world you'd prefer:
1) A WORLD OF HYPOCRISY AND DEBASEMENT which is supposedly made more stable by not triggering evil people by electing a good president 2) A WORLD OF LOGICAL GOOD SENSE AND ETHICAL DECENCY which is utterly defeated by the people suggesting the crapsack world in 1)

And in closing, given that it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Based upon the harm "turrurists" do and the harm that those do who claim to wish to protect us from said harms, given the motives in both cases (control), and given the networking between them and the many aspects of criminality and corruption and debasement of character they also share in those who occupy their management and actors in the field, it is very hard to distinguish these two groups of people the more that we see nonsense like what Graham suggested and fail to recognize it for what it is.

We already live in a lame-duck crapscak dystopia. Why add to that the WILLING CHOICE not to see it for what it is?