Questions and answers on the lynching

March 9 2010

What is the latest?

The “Drudge Report” is volleying back-and-forth with the Democrats about my lyncher. It’s important to point out that I have not received any explanation directly from my lyncher to this day, only a general insinuation no where near as specific as what was recently admitted in Aesopian terms.

The reason for that is that the point was to create a scandal, not communicate with me, even in the “relationship.”

I heard that you tried to reconcile with your ex-. Is that true?

Yes, I did make great efforts to reconcile with my ex-/lyncher in the 2006-2007 time period. I have already explained the context of death threats several times.

If I had succeeded in reconciling in 2006-7, it would have eliminated the whole aspect of trading the lynching for power, the presidency. Then the matter would have been a very bad story between two individuals.

However, in these scandal set-up situations, the attackers usually attack more than one persyn, in order to have a choice of targets in reserve. That was one reason to have her drop the card in the open in the 2006-7 timeframe, beyond just my own life.

Reconciliation also became more difficult because of the example set for people in the future. I asked my lyncher to drop the Cold War era card in 2008, but instead it ended up played. At that point, reconciliation became absolutely impossible. I now have to visualize all the racist lynching going forward from here inspired by this spectacular trade of lynching for the presidency.

It is the reward for lynching that spurs future lynching. Barack Obama smokes as an individual, which is a bad example for the public. However, we can imagine that if he obtained the presidency only because he smoked a particular cigarette, there would be a rush to go smoke that brand of cigarette. People would see that power comes from it.

Why do you say the recently created rumors 20 years later do not matter?

A lynching is a lack of process. I asked for one repeatedly and did not get one at the time. I am asking now to have to answer to one story, not as many variations on a story as the fascist movement wants to try out to see which will work 20 years later.

Whether my lyncher “left something behind to remember her by” and applied a salt or whatever agent is irrelevant except for a legal point of whether there is a criminal action involved. Others have argued that with other connected circumstances people should just get a clue.

But haven’t you changed your story?

As I said above, I tried to reconcile with my lyncher in the 2006-7 period. I knew the whole thing was headed for a third party infiltration gambit showdown.

There is not really a way to “change your story” for the essentials of this sort of gambit. What matters is merely that there be two or more scandals interlinked many years apart such as that they at least create the appearance of a scandal for the government. I have yet to see anyone deny that there was a scandal in the 1989-1991 period or that various connected scandal appearances happened in the George W. Bush administration. I have only seen people vary the details of the scandals to provoke various knee-jerk responses.

In other words, the question is not tracking down every rumor that has percolated over 20 years, but a much simpler thing: were there two interlocking scandals created? And the answer is yes. From there, it is just tracing who benefits.

The public had easy access to several websites created to make me believe in the second scandal. Many others have gone further and said it was not just an appearance, but the scandal involved the real people behind it, an uncle in the government. Others have pointed out the vigilante aid from the scandal-mongers against me during the Bush administration and how that connects to 9/11.

My lyncher and the media changed their story day-to-day and week-to-week over the past few years instead of taking one accountable stand. My lyncher and an academic supervisor were responsible for spreading a false rumor against me on the publication of a racist cartoon that I fought. They’ve also spread other false rumors that could not have been made without their spying on me to begin with. When they get caught in the Aesopian world, they simply change their stories and make up another rumor.

Wouldn’t it be better to just make a deal for political power yourself?

In the first place, the point is to put the scandal-monger in power. So I am averse to that deal. Secondly, people may not realize that the scandal-monger would indeed feel rewarded not just that Obama got into power, but even if *I* got into power. That’s what’s so vexing about being lynched out of a career and then being lynched into a Republicratic career. The whole thing about a third party infiltration is that you don’t get your mirror image into power quickly, but you get someone who would not otherwise make it, perhaps 20 years later.

For me to be in office, it works best if the scandal is exposed and not rewarded. Even then, getting office just because I had the goods on Republicans and Democrats would still be a reward for lynching. I would have to wait for existing political parties to pass from the scene and that political capital to disappear for office not to be a reward for lynching. I was only willing to consider it for the Mideast peace process and I have made that clear repeatedly. At this point I have further detailed that I won’t be appointed or running for office, and rather hope for revolution in 2017.

Advertisements

One Response to “Questions and answers on the lynching”

  1. International united front update « Mimdefense's Weblog Says:

    […] have figured out through Climategate references, that my explanation regarding why I had to defend my lyncher #1 at a certain point makes most sense. The other explanations end up trying to have […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: