The Clock Is Striking Zero

Do you think Donald Trump (and Theresa May, Vladimir Putin, Netanyahu, China, Japan, etc) could be using Gina Haspel, through Mike Pompeo, as pretext to establish basis for disbanding the CIA — and Pompeo, through Haspel, as pretext to begin the possible rendition of those members of the U.S. Congress already indicted to e.g. Guantánamo (so they can’t know the manner of execution of their sentencing, also by military tribunal (as .@realDonaldTrump may be using .@BarackObama’s having used Gina Haspel himself to prevent them from knowing) and stay uncertain because of it) — or both (in hapless Trumpesque attempt to find a way out of being blamed for the effective (and narcissistically inequitable) reclamation of 90% of the world’s actual wealth held on deposit in trust) — or worse: Neither — as all complicit in something darker, deeper and Jesuit/Templar/Khazarian, an unanticipated attempt to still pull off WWIII, cannot identify a leader, an excuse, or a way out — because there isn’t one?

What if now, critically, such a global #Khazarian attempt could only move forward in one of two ways: #Incitement ultimately to global #nuclear conflict, or the sweeping and independent interception and prevention of it, by the beginning of an inevitability necessary transition beyond all human systems of finance, law, mediation, compromise, conflict, politics, trade and war — throughout the world — that are those failed systems that have brought all people (without a clue) to such a very final brink?

Or, one equally sweeping #psyop in process at time of posting? If such a psyop then who are the individuals and parties that don’t know what they don’t know, or are just reluctant to positively act, for such a transition, being inevitable ‘yesterday’ as it is.

Who would they be? And what would result from the ignorance of such practical reluctance? What could remain for such an independent entity too hesitant to act, once it would be too late to?

One conclusion: Leadership is both inherently equitable and equitably shared; not decentralisation, just the maturity of recognising the responsibility one must proactively assume, or themselves be at self–imposed risk of losing the protections of?

The only progress is acceptance. The only answer is action. The only survival, is through wise action, in peace — and/or to ensure it.‬ ‪ If men of honour cannot step up to assume a responsibility that is theirs when they are needed most, why do they even exist — if indeed they do?

They are not to be found in any people being discussed, by any people discussing them at time of this post.

by Richard A. Doyle, Wed 14 Mar 2018, 02:45 AM AEDT

Richard Doyle