See this article also.

I use the Rule [...] which is when “They” (being cyptocracy) say ‘look over here’ i ask “why there?” and “what’s happening where i am not supposed to look?” or the “Magicians Bluff” for short.

Sun Tzu in the Art of War: “When you are near appear far away, when you are far away appear to be near.” and “Always try when in Protracted War to use the enemy’s resources as your own”

and yes we are in “Protracted War” so jimmy watch your resources…

Well, there are many directions I could go with your question, but let me start with this.

I am not the least concerned about a Iran with nuclear weapons. I have no fear for my own safety, the safety of my family, my friends, my church, or residents of the US in general. That is, if you mean by the “US”, those who reside in the US, I have no concern at all for their safety.

If you mean by the “US” as the policies and goals (“interests” is, I think, the politician’s term) as defined by this or any other administration, I think a nuclear Iran may be a threat. But this does not concern me in the least.

The only concern I would have IF Iran had nukes (or was soon to have nukes) and IF they threatened to use them would be to members of the US military who are stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In your follow-up comment you imply that Iran has threatened to destroy the US. Please document this.

The only statements by Iranian authorities that come anywhere near a threat, that I am aware of, is that they said that a US military assault on Iran would be catastrophic (or something to this effect). If this is what you are thinking about, what of it?

(1) This assumes a retaliatory stance. You attack us, we will attack you. The flip side is, you don’t attack us, we won’t attack you. Who could disparage them for that?

(2) This is the type of bravado we expect from anybody who is being threatened, whether they can make good on the threat or not. I did not learn much in government school, but I learned how to stand up to a bully. Iran is merely doing what anybody with honor would do.

(3) The threat (if real) would be empty. Even if Iran had nukes and intended to destroy the US, how are they supposed to accomplish this feat? How will they deliver the weapons? How could they get past US defenses? As the Godfather said, “ridiculous.” For Iran to threaten to destroy the US would be like me threatening to beat up Fedor Emelianenko. Only worse. The appropriate response is laughter.

Many readers of FW seem to be getting past some of the Cryptocracy’s wiles. But I see that we still have a lot of work to do.

Here is Butler’s Rule about mainstream propaganda. Don’t worry about the “threats” and “crises” and “problems” that are feed to the goyim on the evening news. Worry about the “responses” or “solutions” that the experts offer as their solutions.

Here is your homework. Over the last twenty or so years, name a half dozen examples of “problems” that we were told we must confront, give their “solutions” and explain how they (the “solutions”) have made things much worse. (Think of the “war on poverty,” the “war on drugs,” the civil rights movement, the UN and so on.)

For extra credit, show that the Cryptocracy invented the problems, that they had pre-packaged solutions, and that the solutions would benefit them, but harm everyone else.

Not putting words in his mouth, Steve, I think, is just pointing out that the Iranian nuke threat is empty propaganda since we could easily apply the same standards to more dangerous nations, i.e. our own, Israel, N. Korea, India, and Pakistan. The “concern” over Iraq is simply that they have something we want in the short term. If we’re left unchecked, I’m sure we’ll get around to being “concerned” about the others.

You stated, “So we must sort out “who” we are speaking of when we ask if “we” are safe??”. I thought I stated really clearly that my question was about the US specifically and Iran and not some vague “we” or “who”.

I do not in general favor any threats or manipulation that the US would taunt to others, or empire building by the US. I don’t think my question somehow protray that I support the above?
So I guess I also extend my question to you also as well Steve,

Do you have concerns about a Nuclear Iran for the US own safety?
Curious.

it does seem interesting that when we speak of nukes Iran comes up and our “safety” soon follows.

How about Pakistan or India?  I recall not too long ago they each wanted a piece of land and were going to nuke each other; yet we back both it seems. Or even now with the stability of Pakistan in question, what about the nuke or nukes? We could also defer to the old USSR — and who owns them and the tech that goes along with…?

In the end who is safe with us??? just because we are just and true …yea and i have some wonderful land in Florida to sell ya…

So we must sort out “who” we are speaking of when we ask if “we” are safe?? The curious thing is that it needs be a small yeild bomb, or the land it’s used on is useless… Also, in the Japan usage we bombed an island, what happens when the radiation fallout blows into another nation near by and its people die, what then? These are weapons of last resort. That does not mean that some stupid won’t, but in my knowledge of tactical nukes i wonder just how they can accomplish the ends when everything hit is radioactive for X years…..

Next we must also ask the question who are we to say that country A can not have a nuke. Again how different are “we” the USA, when we may not be visibly manipulating a fellow country,or threatening a country, but covert wise we are all about empire building. In the end i support anyone seeing a threat to arm themsleves in like manner,the problem is that “we” are in this group of having the “Nuke” and so we throw our weight around….if everyone else has one then things get a little more equal and less bully tactics may follow..

well thats my take for the minute.

steve hoffmeister