ISIS is Israeli Secret Intelligence Service

Thursday, July 27, 2017

End The Fed

End The Fed

By Expotera
July 27, 2017

"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the
world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This
evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States
and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this
through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control
it." -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden

"History records that the money changers have used every form of
abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain
their control over governments by controlling money and it's
issuance." -- President James Madison

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a
monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance.
The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the
banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
-- President Thomas Jefferson

"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most
completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--
no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government
by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the
opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
-- President Woodrow Wilson

"The Federal Reserve System in nothing more than legalized
counterfeiting." -- Congressman Ron Paul

"We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone
has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If
the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not,
we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system...
It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate
and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization
may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects
remedied very soon." -- Robert H. Hamphill

"To expose a $15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by
the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last
100 years will be a tall order of business." -- Buckminster Fuller

"I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their
jobs....I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts,
we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and
unforgivable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart,
we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy.
We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected."
-- Senator John Danforth

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand
our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe
there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
-- Henry Ford

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Inside Job

Inside Job

By Expotera
July 25, 2017

On September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference
to state that the Pentagon was missing more than, "$2.3 Trillion
Dollars" but the next day something happened and everybody
forgot all about this.

"September 11, 2001 seems destined to be the watershed event of
our lives and the greatest test for our democracy in our lifetimes.
The evidence of government complicity in the lead-up to the events
the failure to respond during the event, and the astounding lack of
any meaningful investigation afterwards, as well as the ignoring of
evidence turned up by others that renders the official explanation
impossible, may signal the end of the American experiment. It has
been used to justify all manners of measures to legalize repression
at home and as a pretext for behaving as an aggressive empire
abroad. Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough
investigation and accountability for those whose action and inaction
led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our
Constitution remain in the gravest danger." - Lieutenant Colonel
Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps

"I am not a conspiracy theorist. I'm an Air Force Pilot. And based on
my experience the story we have been told about 9/11 doesn't add
up." - Lieutenant Colonel David Gapp, US Air Force

"I look at the hole in the Pentagon, and when I look at the size of
an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon, I said,
the plane does not fit in that hole. So what did hit the Pentagon?
9/11 was a fraud." - Major General Albert Newton Stubblebine III,
United States Army

"I had long conversation with contacts at The Army War College
and the headquarters of the Marine Corps and I've made it absolutely
clear in both cases that it is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad
operation, period. The Zionist are playing this as an all-or-nothing
exercise. If they lose this one they're done." - Dr. Alan Sabrosky,
US Army War College

"The US government made a decision not to tell the truth about
9/11." - John Framer Jr., Senior Counsel 9/11 Commision

Inclosing on September 11, 2001 two very, very, sad things

3000 Americans died and 1.8 billion Muslims were labeled as

9/11 was an, "Inside Job".....

Sunday, July 23, 2017

The Synagogue of Satan

The Synagogue of Satan

By Expotera
July 23, 2017

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich)
and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and
are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan. ~ Revelation 2:9

Friday, July 21, 2017

A Thousand Words

A Thousand Words

By Expotera
July 21, 2017

"A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words".....

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

The Paradox of Tolerance

The Paradox of Tolerance

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant,
if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the
onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed,
and tolerance with them. ~ Karl R. Popper

By Michael Mendis
July 19, 2017

Tolerance is a self-contradictory principle.

It is self-contradictory because it is reflexive.

That is, as a principle it acts upon itself, or it includes itself
in its scope.

As a principle, tolerance dictates that we must be tolerant
of everything.

We cannot pick and choose what we will tolerate and what
we will not.

If this is so, then tolerance requires us to tolerate even intolerance.

Thus, if somebody is preaching or practising intolerance,
the tolerant person cannot, in principle, speak out against
what the intolerant person is doing, since speaking out against
intolerance would itself be an act of intolerance.

In other words, the principle of tolerance requires us to grant
intolerant people the right to be intolerant.

This is clearly self-contradictory, since tolerance cannot condone
what it specifically sets out to be against (i.e., intolerance), but
it nevertheless requires itself, logically, to do just that.

Tolerance as a principle, then, is clearly illogical, and therefore

It is much more logical and rational to espouse intolerance, for then
one does not get entangled in any contradictions—self or otherwise.

Intolerance as a principle does not require us to be consistently and
universally intolerant: it affords us the option of being tolerant if
we so choose, and intolerant whenever it pleases us to be so.

This is straightforward and clear-cut, and one has no difficulty
following this principle in living one's life.

The intolerant person's simple motto is: "I like the things I like and I
hate the things I hate, and I will hate the people who like the things
I hate, and I will make that hate known to them in no uncertain

What could be easier?

It's black and white, like the world George W. Bush inhabits. "If you
are not with me, you are against me, and so you are my enemy, and
I will treat you as such."

George W. Bush practised this philosophy to perfection during his
presidency, rewarding those who supported him and, "punishing"
those who didn't.

No moral dilemmas for him and for others like him who like their
world in black and white rather than in shades of grey.

And yet, …

We have the intuitive sense (beyond what the rational mind tells
us) that there is something wrong with this reasoning, logical and
rational though it is.

Intolerance, we have learned from experience, does not work very
well in practice.

Religious wars, witch hunts (ancient and modern), persecution
(political, religious, and social)—these are all the luscious fruits of
intolerance, fruits whose flavours we would rather not have tasted.

Mahatma Gandhi put it perfectly when he said: "An eye for an eye
ends up making the whole world blind."

We might say: Intolerance breeds intolerance in a downward spiral.

One has only to look at George W. Bush's failed presidency to see
the truth of this.

Oddly enough, tolerance does not always breed tolerance, but it
often does, and this is what recommends it to us as the superior
of the two principles.

Game theory tells us that antagonism towards one's opponents
is not usually a winning strategy.

John Nash (the real-life mathematician on whom the movie
A Beautiful Mind was based) has shown that being aware of and
accepting (we could say "tolerating") the play strategies of one's
opponents is essential to winning.

A "Nash equilibrium" is a situation in which each player's strategy
is an optimal response to the play strategies of the other players.

There is no room for "selfishness" or George-Bush-style "go-it-alone"
bravado here.

While tolerance and intolerance are not a exact, "game" the
principles of Game Theory can be applied in a broad way to
understanding why tolerance is the superior of the two principles.

If you tolerate the opinions of those you disagree with,
the chances are greater that they will tolerate your opinions.

And if everyone held to the principle of tolerance, then we wouldn't
even need to worry about chances being greater or less: we would
know right off the bat that others will indeed tolerate our opinions.

In this climate of tolerance, there would be a lower risk of conflict,
and instead of expending our energy fighting each other, we could
put it to more productive ends.

What the paradox of tolerance teaches us is that rationality is not
always in lock step with practicality.

The rational thing to do is not always the best thing to do,
the most practical thing to do, the right thing to do.

I am not speaking here of the morally right thing to do, but rather,
the right thing in terms of common sense.

It should be noted that common sense is not always rational.

Philosophers often dismiss common sense precisely because of this.

But if common sense had prevailed, world history might have run
a very different course.

So what shall we say of tolerance?

Should we be rational and reject it as a guiding principle because
it is self-contradictory and therefore illogical?

Or should we yield to the irrational side of our natures and embrace
tolerance despite the fact that it is self-contradictory and illogical?

I think most people would agree that the latter is the more, "sane"
of the two options.

Monday, July 17, 2017



By Carl Sandburg
July 17, 2017

Arithmetic is where numbers fly like pigeons in and out of your

Arithmetic tells you how many you lose or win if you know how
many you had before you lost or won.

Arithmetic is seven eleven all good children go to heaven or five
six bundle of sticks.

Arithmetic is numbers you squeeze from your head to your hand
to your pencil to your paper till you get the answer.

Arithmetic is where the answer is right and everything is nice and
you can look out of the window and see the blue sky or the answer
is wrong and you have to start all over and try again and see how it
comes out this time.

If you take a number and double it and double it again and then
double it a few more times, the number gets bigger and bigger
and goes higher and higher and only arithmetic can tell you what
the number is when you decide to quit doubling.

Arithmetic is where you have to multiply and you carry the
multiplication table in your head and hope you won't lose it.

If you have two animal crackers, one good and one bad, and you
eat one and a striped zebra with streaks all over him eats the other
how many animal crackers will you have if somebody offers you
five, six, seven and you say No, no, no and you say Nay, nay, nay
and you say Nix, nix, nix?

If you ask your mother for one fried egg for breakfast and she gives
you two fried eggs and you eat both of them, who is better in
arithmetic, you or your mother?

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Insurrectionary Imagination

Insurrectionary Imagination

By Adbusters
July 15, 2017

On the western edge of France, 4000 acres of wetlands, fields
and forests have become a liberated zone; a vast laboratory of
autonomy where 200 people in 60 different collectives live together
without the state, occupying the land against a new airport project
for the city of Nantes.

Politicians call it, “a territory lost to the republic.”

The local farmers and villagers, activists and naturalists, squatters
and trade unionists, who are part of the growing movement against
the airport and its world, call it the ZAD – The zone to defend.

With its bakeries, pirate radio station, tractor repair workshop,
brewery, banqueting hall, medicinal herb gardens, a rap studio,
dairy, vegetable plots, weekly newspaper, flour mill, library and
even a surrealist lighthouse, the ZAD has become a concrete
experiment in taking back control of everyday life.

In 2012 the French state’s attempt to evict the zone was fiercely
resisted and the police have not set foot there since.

Every time the threats of eviction resurface, over 40,000 people
take part in creative acts of disobedience to defend the zone.