You have to add in the campaign before, plus a year and a half after when he's supposedly only a "private citizen". If this is all an Establishment pantomime because "he's in on it", they're doing a hell of a job.
If you take the alternative view that he's for real and they're scared shitless of him, well, the pieces fall into place far more neatly.
This, to me, is politics/human psychology in action. Tulsi surely knows that this is about much more than a "political settlement when prospects for total victory seem unfavorable".
I'm certain she is aware that the Neo-Imperialists tried to use Ukraine as a hammer against Russia and it ended up being the anvil, and that the more dead Ukrainians there are, the better to portray Putin and Russia as the villains. And we can all fantasize about her or someone else saying that aloud on the mainstream media, but really, what would be the reaction among the viewing public?
Would it be productive? Or would it provoke the Neo-Imperialists into even more insanely violent actions? And we can all believe that we would shout the truth at every camera, but there's no blood on our hands as we type words on the Internet.
It's weird they're dredging this up after so long. It's even weirder because the assassination was faked, so you'd think that after everyone bought it they'd just let it slip into "history". The iconic photos with the busboy are phony, and upon close inspection, quite bizarre.
Goes to show what They can get away with just because no one is really looking.
I don't necessarily doubt the sentiment, but since it's from the SPLC you have to suspect that they're making it up for purposes of fear-mongering. But analyzing that just makes it all the more puzzling.
If the message is to Leftists to "tool up", they're so indoctrinated they won't do it. None of those stupid initiatives like NFAC ever caught any fire, and "Rittenhouse is gonna kill us all!" never even moved the needle on their attitudes.
Any conservative just sees this and thinks, "Oh, I was right all along. What a great excuse to get even more hardware!" It can't be advantageous for TPTB that conservatives are more sick and more tired of this shit than they've ever been, and that many are looking forward to getting it over with.
And for those that think that TPTB are trying to spark some sort of violence to justify a reaction, they'll give us fake violence before they ever provoke real violence. From the looks of their standards at Uvalde and the J6 hearings, they won't even trouble themselves to fake it. They'll just announce that it happened.
My only conclusion is that they're desperate and disorganized, and not carefully executing plans. It's like if you were in the cockpit of a plane on fire and going down, at some point you're going to start pushing every button and pulling every lever hoping that something is going to magically save your ass.
I think some of the (smart) Europeans are trying to get this hell over with quicker--while not openly defying the Imperialists--by shipping the Ukrainians variously non-functional ordnance: blanks, broken equipment, dead batteries, rusty munitions, etc.
And the same is probably going on among Ukrainians themselves. When those 50 officers got blown up a couple of weeks ago, rumor had it that it was other Ukrainian officers that dropped dime on them to the Russians. A variant of fragging, I suppose.
I've never heard that but I find it very interesting, because it brings up the texture of understanding events in the real 3D world. The vast majority of people are just at the level of "good guys" and "bad guys" and their analysis reflects that.
You can put that Cheney factoid together with the story we all know of his buddy Rumsfeld being the guy that brought up the missing $2.3 trillion. He looks sincere to me and I don't think that disclosure was part of some grander plan.
People just want to think of those two as a couple of evil Darths (and don't get get me wrong because I think they're very bad people) but these incidents highlight that they had their own problems with the Deep State.
So I conclude that even these high-level players over many decades are just "hired hands", and that no matter how twisted it is, they probably think they're "patriotic" and "doing the right thing". I suspect they even believe a lot of their own lies.
And this would be the way that the more powerful at the next level up manipulate them.
I don't put it outside the realm of possibility that one day soon, some desperate Democrat is going to jump on top of a desk and shout, "Any one of you fucking pricks move, and I'll execute every one of you motherfuckers!"
Well you know, I consider dealing with disinfo agents like picking up gold nuggets in a minefield. It can be very safe and quite profitable as long as you stay alert, and 80% of success is just being aware you're in a minefield.
Here's a perfect example: take a look at these papers by a researcher named Miles Mathis:
Martin Luther King (21-page PDF)
The ASSASSINATION of MALCOLM X WAS STAGED (12-page PDF)
Incredibly eye-opening, but here's the thing: Mathis is a disinfo agent (which is too long a story to go into).
On the flip side, here's his paper on JFK (one of his earliest): THE HIDDEN KING(S) (87-page PDF).
He ends up concluding that the assassination was faked. Tons of solid info in it, but that conclusion is wrong. How would I know?
I studied the thesis that Jackie did it and concluded that was correct. Then when I was reading Mathis' paper, I was able to examine it very closely and see where he was subtly steering the reader away from Jackie. I thought he was simply mistaken.
Later when I figured out that Mathis was disinfo, I thought back to the JFK paper and said to myself, "Well, now it makes sense that an extremely astute researcher didn't just happen to make a big mistake."
A guest on the Dave Hodges show illustrated the point the article made about the distinction between political appointees and the bureaucracies they supposedly run.
The guest was a personal friend of Trump's new Secretary of the Interior. That friend was very excited about his new job and even before he started, he made all sorts of notes about the incredible things he thought he could accomplish.
When he got to DC, he called a meeting with about a dozen of the top staffers at Interior. He was telling them about all the great ideas he had, all the projects he wanted to implement, when after about 10 or 15 minutes he noticed that no one had taken a single note. He wound up the meeting shortly thereafter.
That told him all he needed to know about this aspect of the Deep State.
Here's a spicy nugget about the guy. I have not personally validated it, but I trust no one reading this is taken by surprise at the nature of the claim:
Fascist William Buckley Put Joe Lieberman in the Senate
As EIR first documented in its 1977 report, "The Buckley Family: Wall Street Fabians in the Conservative Movement," at the founding of National Review in 1954, former deep-cover CIA officer Bill Buckley brought together both the extreme right-wing and converted left-wing backers of McCarthyism, to launch a fascist conservative movement in the United States.
American intelligence sources reported then, for example, that Buckley had launched former Naval Intelligence officer George Lincoln Rockwell in the founding of the American Nazi Party, for gang-countergang warfare with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The gangster-linked ADL profited from Rockwell (until his assassination) by using the ANP to terrorize and blackmail Jews into large contributions.
I feel like a crisis is approaching. Not to be a doomsayer, and maybe it's years away, but can there be any compromise, political or social or otherwise, with people that live in an artificial reality, and believe this absurd event and so many other things are real? And it's not just that they believe it, which is their right, they demand utterly that you do the same.
How long can this really go on?
I submit a suggested framework for interested persons to use as they observe developments in this situation going forward.
You see, the West could very simply say, "Well, you have your sphere and we have ours, and we'll live more or less separately. It wasn't ideal, but that's just what we already did for many decades during the Cold War. And this time, no threats or violence need take place."
You can see that already forming with BRICS+ and various other multi-polar organizations, already with well over half the world's population, and they seem satisfied with that direction. The Western system is hegemony, of course. Okay then, we'll just see a US hegemon of a smaller Western sphere, right?
I say we will not, and the West will keep pressing for a global hegemony at all costs. Now, could any rational global imperialists possibly believe that this is the best way to dominance over well-armed, alerted, and increasingly more organized and cooperative prospective provinces? No way. So what impels this irrational drive for a universal hegemony?
I suggest that this seeming irrationality is proof that the New World Order is quite literally and physically Satanic, and Satan demands to rule the world, not just parts of it. All powers centers in the West and subverted one elsewhere ultimately serve him.
We see proof of this over and over in the current Ukraine situation. Western leaders act against the interests of their nations and the will of their people, even destroying them. Do they wish to rule over smoking wreckage?
You can make a tortured case about how those leaders would ultimately benefit, but it seems to me far simpler just to conclude that the pyramid is in place as it always was, and the Big Guy at the top is calling the shots.
Even if you honestly thought this, and felt that you had legitimate reason to believe it, how detached from reality would you have to be to think it's okay just to casually toss it out publicly? Who would think it was going to show the moral superiority of your cause and win people to it?
It's a stark demonstration of how many psychotics walk undetected among us.
RvW was a dodge from the get go, a low-profile end around to get abortion legalized. They are extremely reluctant to do anything about it above board because that would unavoidably draw attention to just how unpopular it really is, probably less popular than 50 years ago.
It's like seeing some guy yelling across the bar at a 6'5" biker that he's going to kick his ass. You know for a fact that if he wanted to do it and thought he could do it, then he would just do it, not yell about it. The Democrats will never get off their barstool.
I agree with this analysis, and I believe it extends to all other areas of life where "normies" reject evidence out of hand. What I liken it to is the way many of us were teased as children: being told we were adopted. Sound silly? Let me explain.
As a child, if another child told you that were told you were adopted, it would certainly be quite a significant revelation and alteration to your worldview. Rationally, you should have asked them for all the information they had on the matter, discussed with them the context and reliability of it, etc.
But that's not what happened, was it? You immediately rejected the claim, never asked for proof, perhaps even attacked the claimant. In hindsight, that is quite a perverse reaction, is it not? Well, not really, not if you look deeper for the true context.
You see, your subconscious evaluated the claim and found that it could plausibly be true. And here is the key: it also found that you had absolutely no ability to deal effectively with this alteration to your world and you place in it. None.
This is an extreme form of cognitive dissonance and demanded immediate action. Since nothing was to be done about the effects of the claim, the claim itself had to go. In what is really an act of psychic self-defense, the claim is violently rejected.
So reasoning with people in such a state is fruitless. It'll work about as well as soothing a child with, "For most practical and legal purposes, adopted children are treated identically with natural children." See how well that goes over.