lol

I was reading up on CIA's black sites where they torture people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_black_sites

Now, I am not saying CIA also secretly tortures Americans. Although, the reality is that nobody really knows one way or the other. And the same is true of the FBI. In fact, none of these alphabet soup, federal-level agencies has transparency to any appreciable degree. And if we the people ask them questions or try to hold them accountable, they just hide behind "we cannot tell you more because this is a national security concern".

Let me ask you. If the feds hack into your computer, watch what you do day and night, what can you do? If the feds illegally tap your phone line and monitor all you calls, what can you do? If the feds intercept your letters, read them, then seal them back up to pretend they haven't been tampered with, what can you do? If the feds secretly follow you in real life, what can you do? If the feds that watch you try to harass you in real life and generally make life a living hell for you (this is known as gang-stalking, the aim of which is to get you to commit suicide), what can you do? If the feds open up a dossier on you, go and dig up your past, talk to anybody that you have ever known to find info on you, what can you do? If the feds send some mole to you to earn your trust, to get close to you and learn more about you, what can you do? If the feds try to set up a sting operation against you using their considerable manpower, what can you do? If they put you on a black list even though you have never committed any crimes, what can you do? The answer is that there is not a damn thing you can do about any of it. But that's not the worst part. What's worst is that feds operate from the shadow. They don't reveal their identity. They conceal themselves. And good luck getting them to admit to doing anything shady. You will know that you are being fucked with, but you have no legal recourse because you can't prove who is behind it. You will just get an inkling, a hunch, but the feds remain safe from legal censure and they can and will continue doing whatever they want to you. Not only that, feds know that you will appear like a paranoid schizophrenic if you dare come forward. They know that your experience at their hands will be seen as paranoid delusions, because most people don't know what gang-stalking is. The feds really use this to their advantage. They will gang-stalk people into either suicide or a mental institution. And they know that the average person has no defense against it. Either he doesn't even know what it is, or if he does, he is powerless because feds have manpower, resources, and secrecy behind them.


I believe it's time that we start thinking about our relationship with the intelligence community. These agencies, we literally pay for their livelihood. They are supposed to be working for us. But instead, they rule over us. They spy on us. They treat some of us as if they were criminals. And most importantly, a lot of what they do is shrouded in secrecy and not subject to public scrutiny. Very often we cannot hold them accountable to the things they do. We really should be asking both ourselves and the feds what they are really up to in their offices and little headquarters, but we all know the evasive answer we will get. Why is reality like this? Shouldn't we the people, who pay these feds their salaries, have any say over what they do? Or if that's asking too much, can we at least be reasonably assured that the they won't spy on us? We are literally paying these feds money so they can watch us. If you don't believe me, if you still think feds will only watch you if you are a criminal, send me a private message and I will give you a list of lawful things to talk about that will get the feds to descend on your butt in less than one day. Why is our tax money being used against us like this? Why do we allow this? Another thing. Why do so many of us assume that the feds are motivated by catching criminals and keeping the average person safe? And the ones who are the most sure of this are often the ones who are the most clueless about what these agencies really do. Seriously, I bet these people can't even name one single federal agent that they personally know yet they are absolutely sure and that feds work tirelessly to protect the public. And they will not hesitate to say so loudly, despite having no proof. And they will shout down anyone who expresses doubts. I am sure you have met people like this.

Things need to change. Who's with me?

Im not crazy youre crazy

I was reading up on the Hunter Biden laptop thing. The laptop repairman (John Paul Mac Isaac) who turned in the laptop claimed that an FBI agent threatened him to stay silent.

Some details: Mac Isaac said he was threatened by the agents after he cracked a joke. He said, "Hey, lads, I'll remember to change your names when I write the book". He told the New York Post that one FBI agent, by the name of DeMeo, responded to him and said: "It is our experience that nothing ever happens to people that don t talk about these things."

See link for more details: https://nypost.com/2022/08/11/hunter-biden-laptop-repairman-says-fbi-threatened-him-to-stay-silent/

Of course, I realize that Mac Isaac could have made this up. But assuming he was telling the truth, then I would say the FBI certainly did threaten him. Maybe not directly, but in a veiled, round-about way. DeMeo was essentially saying stuff might happen to him if he didn't keep his mouth shut.

Assuming this exchange did happen, what does it say about US' top-level law enforcement agency? And why didn't the FBI challenge the repairman's accusation? If he made this up, they could sue for defamation. And it's stupid to argue that the agent did not make a direct threat. Everybody can tell the agent threatened the repairman in an indirect way. It just cannot be proven in court. Which makes it even worse, because it means that the FBI has a lot of practice in how to threaten people without breaking the law.

I bet the FBI probably considers itself very intelligent for being able to threaten people without breaking the law. However, this is clever in the short-term but incredibly stupid in the long-term. People who they have threatened will continue to believe they have been threatened by the FBI, despite that there is no legal grounds to sue them. They know deep down in their hearts what happened. They know that they have been threatened by the FBI. And some of them come forward, much like the repairman did, and this really damages the FBI's reputation and it severely diminishes their image in people's eyes. In fact, someone who hates the FBI could in theory reach out to this repairman and recruit him.

Like I said, the FBI is actually incredibly stupid. Creating enemies out of people like that and they don't even realize it. Not only that, we can actually learn from this encounter that the highest law enforcement agency in the land, is morally bankrupt. Instead of investigating whether Hunter Biden really did anything bad like they should, they are trying to cover it up by threatening a whistleblower. This, is the FBI, everybody.

While we are on the FBI: I was talking to someone about Jan 6th. I said that people who stormed the capitol were found to be FBI agents according to certain sources. And then she asked for proof. She asked what were the sources that say that? It's a fair question. I can see why she would ask it; I mean, we want our news and information to come from reliable sources and we cannot accuse people without having real proof. But I wish to point something out, something that I am sure many people already have an inkling about, and that is this: the intelligence communities (the FBI, CIA, or the CSIS in my country) engage in a lot of covert operations. They hide any trails that might lead back to them. They cover their tracks. They engage in false flag attacks. They put sleeper agents in various spaces. They stage sting operations that are almost indistinguishable from entrapment. They employ nefarious, asymmetrical tactics. And you can bet that they are smart enough to scrub the place clean once they have done their deed. In other words, just because there is no proof, it doesn't mean they didn't do it. I know this is a very unsatisfactory basis to go on, but such is the nature of the subject we are dealing with. I am not trying to prove any wrongdoing. I simply do not have any proof. But I want to tell the regular Americans that they need to do something that is very alien to their nature, and that is they need to be a little on guard, a little suspicious, with respect to their government. Especially when it comes to the feds.

About 911 and any other similar event, here’s the thought process that I use: basically, I look at all the improbabilities that have been pointed out. By itself, any one such improbability does not constitute proof that the thing was staged. However, when you have many improbabilities, then, the possibility of them all being accidental becomes low. In short, I look at the cumulative effect. In the 911 attack, someone apparently captured footage of people jumping out of the burning tower. It was very strange that anyone would just happen to have his camera out to record the trade towers, on a random day, where, at the time, nothing was happening. If you use this as proof that 911 was staged, people will argue with you, and you will likely back down yourself because there is a technical possibility that someone would really just happen to have his camera out on a random day. So you chalk this up to “improbable, but possible”. However, when there are multiple such improbable but possible events that also took place, then the chances of all of them being complete random, chance events are much lower. This is why I personally believe 911 was staged, not because I have concrete proof of any single thing, but because there were too many improbabilities.

Another thing: Nobody is saying that they have absolute proof that 9-11 was an inside job, or that it was deliberately allowed to happen by the feds. But some people have this tendency to violently reject anything that smells like a "conspiracy theory" to them. They have this overwhelming urge to explain things away. To them, everything has a benign explanation. They think that conspiracies can never happen. These people are almost always white, who grew up among and spend all of their time with white people. They are shielded from reality. They only know people who are good and non-evil. They cannot comprehend that there are people out there who are extremely evil and who not only intend for but actually do carry out extreme harm.

Crazy? I was crazy once. They put me in a padded room. I died there. Rats ate my body. Rats, they drive me crazy.

Crazy? I was crazy once. They put me in a padded room. I died there. Rats ate my body. Rats, they drive me crazy.

Crazy? I was crazy once. They put me in a padded room. I died there. Rats ate my body. Rats, they drive me crazy.

So much spam and pard

Make no mistake--we are constantly being watched by the feds on online forums. However, we can and should use this to our advantage. Craft all our comments and tweets very carefully, with the aim in mind to sway the agent that is watching. Maybe we can get them to think about the immorality of what they are doing. Maybe we can get them to silently question whether the federal agency they work for is truly a force for good like they thought, or if it's actually a force for evil. Make them think about why they are spying on their fellow citizens like this, and if they should trust the moral character of a boss who would order them to do such a thing. My point is, think of it as an opportunity to influence a federal agent. Normally we don't get such an opportunity, they are sequestered in their offices and we live our ordinary lives. Our paths rarely cross. But now, their fed handlers inadvertently expose their agents to us, our thoughts, our ideas, and what we say. It's like, we don't even to work for it and we just get a free chance to influence the minds of countless feds. Seize on this, my fellow Gabbers. Don't squander this opportunity. Don't just mindlessly curse out Jews and non-whites. Really take the care to craft your messages. Show these agents that we are truly a force for good and that they are fighting on the wrong side.

We have to keep in mind the kinds of things top brass Jew handlers at federal agencies do. They ask their agents to infiltrate online spaces, to spread lies, to sow fear and division, to subvert and spy. These things are very sketchy and immoral, and it takes a certain amount of work to convince regular people to do these things to their fellow citizens. Of course, federal agents are probably not regular people. They have to go through intense psychological screening to get to where they are, so maybe their moral compass is bit broken, I really don't know. But we should capitalize on the fact that their Jew bosses ask them to do unethical things. This gives us an opening to sway the mind of an agent, and drive a wedge between agents and their Jew handlers . It won't be easy, but it's do-able.

Random political thoughts:

Politicians love helping themselves to the taxpayers' money.

My country's prime minister, Trudeau, went on a six-day trip, accompanied by his son, to “strengthen ties” in the Indo-Pacific region in September. The trip cost taxpayers nearly $ 2 million, with nearly $ 200,000 spent on in-flight catering. And Mary Simon, another official of a very high rank, racked up an $ 80K in-flight catering bill on a trip to the Middle East. MLAs (which stands for members of the legislative assembly, a type of lawmaker in my country) are entitled to claim $ 61 per day to cover the cost of meals when working. To me this is bull. When I am working, I bring my own lunch. I don't get to expense my meal. In fact there is nobody to expense it to. And if I try to get someone to pay for my lunch, they will say to me, "what kind of fool do you take me for?" Yet, we pay for MLAs' lunches. We've been fools for far too long. It needs to stop. MLAs should pack their own lunch. They already get paid a salary, they can use that money to make their own lunch to bring to work, just like everybody else. This isn't unreasonable at all. And the same principle extends to politicians in other countries, too, such as the USA. I am sure Americans also have a problem with politicians spending the public funds on themselves.

I say that we should severely restrict expenses associated with trips to foreign countries, and meetings with foreign leaders. Yeah, I get it, top officials are technically working as they dine with these foreign politicians. But I don't see why the food has to cost a lot of money. Why can't we restrict the food items to coffee and cookies, or something equally low-cost? Presidents and prime ministers shouldn't be able to have banquets just because they are working. And if foreign leaders feel slighted when they see that they are served with just coffee and cookies, no problem, just explain to them that this is the will of the people. If they are our allies, they will understand. We should also drastically reduce trips to foreign countries, as these cost a lot of money too. They are the perfect way for politicians to enjoy themselves on the public dime. We now have teleconference technology, we should put it to good use. If the president needs to hold a meeting with another country's officials, do it on a computer screen. I don't see any reason that they must meet the latter in person. Whatever they need to discuss, it can be done remotely. The details can be worked out, but the key is to prevent politicians from spending the public money on themselves.

Another thing:

I remember reading about my country's federal budget of 2024. There is an item in there that allocates money to me and similar people, who have a particular need. It is a good amount of money, however, since there are many of us, when that money is equally divided among us, we each don't get too much. I can't help but think that if we limited the number of people receiving the money, I would get more. The fewer the people, the more I could get. And if there were nobody else, then in theory I would get all of it. But of course, two things stop me from realizing this. Number 1, I would feel bad. I can not in good conscience deny other people of this benefit, because I know that they need it just as much as I do. Secondly, and more importantly, I do not have the means to make this a reality. I don't have access to the ears of lawmakers. I can not influence them to pass laws that benefit me personally. In other words, I have nobody to lobby for me, I have no mechanism to shape and influence things to my advantage. However, there are people who do. They not only have a fleet of lobbyists working on their behalf, who persuade lawmakers to pass laws and enact policies to their advantage, they also don't have any compunction about hoarding money to themselves. They don't care that by diverting money to themselves, they are harming other people with genuine needs. These people are known as special interest groups. And they need to go.

We have the right to have protests. But, I just want to ask, what good do these protests do? Even if we were to mobilize the entire country's population in a protest, if the prime minister or president still chose to not do what we want, is there anything we could do about it? No, there isn't. There is absolutely nothing we can do if the government does not respond to our demands or address our grievances. Yes, in theory, the government should respond. They should carry out our will. They should care. But they don't. They should be our servants but they are not. We are given the illusion of having power over our elected officials, when in fact, we have very little. And these supposed servants are, in actuality, our rulers. They rule over us, and compel us to obey them through the laws that they pass. We can in theory vote out bad politicians, but the problem is, the new batch we elect will be no different than the ones kicked out. They will simply continue to not do what it is that we want them to do, and nothing changes. We grit our teeth and stew in anger as business goes on as usual.

But we the people are sometimes in the wrong, too. Often, I see that whenever something goes wrong in people's lives, they blame it on the government. For example, there is a natural disaster. A hurricane, perhaps, and some people lose their homes or get stranded. Some people will immediately blame the government for it, even though the government has no control over the weather. People just want to take their anger out on something, someone, and they often choose the government. I am not trying to find excuses for politicians. Maybe they indeed did not evacuate the victims promptly enough, maybe they have been incompetent in their rescue efforts, I don't know. But I just want to point out that a lot of times, the government really did not do anything wrong. I feel that we the people, should be more reasonable. There are times when government did wrong, and there are times when it didn't. Another example I can think of, is the French government pushing back their retirement age by a few years. The French public was outraged. But, when you think about it, this really isn't the French government's fault. It is not their fault that people are now living so much longer that social security becomes overburdened. This is the result of medical sciences making so much progress and being able to increase people's lifespan so much. The government has no control over what science does. Yet, when they inevitably have to do something about the pension age, people act like the government is screwing them over. I feel that this is incredibly unfair to the government, and it shows that the masses can sometimes be very unreasonable. I feel that we shouldn't just reflexively blame the government anytime life doesn't turn out exactly how we want.