Blue light special

tv-everywhere-e1335185661387I ran for the Montana state house in 1996, and lost. I could have done better, but I lack the necessary guile to be a good politician. I simply stated what I believed in a take-or-leave fashion. For a politician, every clear position statement invigorates both opponents and supporters. It is best to say as little as possible. Once elected, the public mind is off in la-la land, and the public servant can do as he pleases.

Two important issues at that time were voter initiatives, one to raise the minimum wage and the other the “Clean Water Act,” which would have set standards for pollutants in rivers and streams. I decided that each would be valuable as a campaign tool, and so during the primary carried petitions get the issues on the ballot. Reception was positive, and people easily signed them. Things were going well. I was about to be handed a lesson by the pros, however. I did not easily understand at the time. It was about the power of TV.

All the while I had been using the petitions to bring support aboard for me and the issues, ad agencies had been devising campaigns to defeat the initiatives, which did indeed qualify for the ballot. It was professional manipulation. For the Clean Water Initiative, they had a Montana Mining Association executive crouch down and scoop water out of a stream near the New World Mine in the Beartooth mountains, and take a sip. Words accompanied that shot, but who the hell remembers them. For the minimum wage, if memory serves, they turned victim into aggressor. Passage of that law would put people out of work. That’s a mantra, never shown to be true, but it too worked. It was on TV. It was true.

In the general election I continued with my campaign as before, now using the petitions as a prop, since they were on the ballot. But “the doors,” as they say in the business, turned ugly. People were no longer receptive to the message of clean water and higher minimum wage. At a candidates’ meeting I relayed my experience and suggested that the issues were dead. I caught hell from the environmental side, but it was true. That blue light that glowed in windows after sunset owned the public mind. If it is on TV, it is true.

That was 1996, and the Internet is now part of the blue light as well. Nothing else has changed. In the post below, “Implications,” I offered up strong evidence of fakery in the Boston Marathon bombing, but now know that TV and the Internet own the public mind. Images rule. Those manufactured in Boston that day were bogus, but just as a mining executive pretending to drink polluted water, if it is on TV, it is true.

70550-aurora-co-shooting-case-has-at-least-3-500-potential-witnesses-listed-Far more troubling is the purpose of Boston and apparently of Aurora, where James Holmes has all of the markings of a Sirhan-type Manchurian candidate. Traumatized witnesses are confused in their recollections, but there is testimony of more than one shooter. Holmes is a mess, blank stare, befuddled and confused, so that they are offering up an insanity defense. That will preclude the introduction of any other evidence. Sirhan had no legal representation looking out for him either. His own lawyers asked for a guilty verdict. I can only wonder if Holmes is all aboard on the same railroad.

Other venues, Milwaukee, Tuscon, Sandy Hook, have drawn as much skepticism from the non-hypnotized sector, but I’ve only paid scant attention. Boston is enough for me. It’s so plainly fraudulent that it only serves to highlight the power of thought control. I need know no more.

What is the purpose? Boston and the other events in the post-Osama era are obviously designed to create heightened tensions. With Boston I projected a straight line, there to Syria. Historically, we have had straight-line false flag events, as prior to the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars. But our enemy de jour is diffuse now, merely “terrorism.” Any “terrorist” serves any purpose, Saudis for the Iraq attack, and Chechens for whatever will follow. Rather than a straight line, we are witnessing a general strategy of tension. Sadly, more events await, and even if Boston was bogus, our shadows and spooks behind these events have no scruples about real harm and real victims. The blood in Aurora was real.

Real victims, real bombs, but the good ones.

Real victims, but “good” bombs.

It is not for nothing that these events are choreographed. A war awaits. Syria seems logical, but it is really the Cold War revisited, the US intent on removing its arch-rival, the Russian bear. It just happens to be Syria in play, but could as easily be Chechnya, where CIA has long fueled a terrorist campaign. FBI-Tsarnaev connections implicate US intelligence in that arena.

At the same time, Obama, merely a mouthpiece, laid out the framework for the attack by Western powers on Syria. In August of 2012 he spoke of a “red line,” or use of chemical weapons. Such weapons, as used in propaganda, are “bad” weapons, as opposed to our good ones. Bunker-busters, cluster bombs, white phosphorous, cruise missiles and anything dropped from a B52 are good. Those goddamned fighter pilots trained in mayhem create marvelous orgasmic spasms as they fly over our ball games. This is all for “good.” Only demons use chemicals.

The US did not use chemical weapons in Vietnam. Never happened. And when Churchill gassed Kurds in 1920 Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds in 1988, even as the US supported him and ignored the event at the time, it later became casus belli. It opened the door for hundreds of thousands of corpses and amputees, courtesy of our “good” weapons, the arsenal for peace.

Oh honey, oh honey ... oh god! Oh god!

Oh honey, oh honey … oh god! Oh god! I love you, America! I love you so much!

So The US was laying a trap in Syria. There would, by definition, be a chemical event, and an American public, in a state of high tension due to domestic terrorism, would support the ensuing war. As surely as the little lamb followed Mary, the event happened, and since I am no longer the naive candidate working the doors, I immediately understood it to be false-flag. It was blamed on the Syrians, the “red line” was crossed. Blast off.

But wait! Never forget, Russians play chess, and somehow, behind the scenes, managed to exonerate the Syrians. The perpetrators, UN investigators learned, were likely the terrorists rebel forces.

The US is said to be embarrassed on the world stage by the obvious fakery of the Syrian event. The only American news source I follow is National Pentagon Radio, and I’ve sensed no embarrassment, no fraud, and only confusion about the origin of the weapons.

But the important fallout at this time is that the monstrous weapons that the US is holding in reserve – the bunker-busters, cluster bombs, white phosphorous, cruise missiles, and goddamned fighter pilots trained in mayhem – are for the time sidelined.

It is only a matter of time, and worse, more false-flaggery is in store.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in Agitprop, American "journalism", American terror, American wilderness, False flaggery. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Blue light special

  1. steve kelly says:

    How many remember the Gulf of Tonkin lie that got 50,000 American and millions in S.E. Asia killed? We are always desperate, it seems, to believe that this time our government is not lying to us. What cirresistable need is this, the need to “believe?”


  2. Steve W says:

    I find it far more likely that the whole confusion, debate, accusations of crises actors, backlash against the accusations of crises actors is a psy-opts operation than it represents the great sleuthing of internet detectives uncovering a botched operation.

    in fact, i’m becoming far more suspicious that the true aim of Boston is to attempt to put real clamps on the internet under the guise that ‘it causes people to become radicalized.’ You know, like the two brothers, who seemed to be regular kids until somehow they became bombers. They are calling them ‘self radicalized.’ What the hell does that mean?

    Here a mystery for you.

    Nick Vogt is missing his left pinky finger. Jeff Bauman has a left pinky finger. At least he does in the video from the hockey game he attended and from video in the hospital. and also from the photo of being visited by some famous actor i never heard of before. (that’s not surprising that I never heard of him, by the way)

    Perhaps Jeff Vogt and Jeff Bauman aren’t the same people? Or is the pinky finger just a fake to throw us off the truth?

    Far more important, in my humble opinion, are the questions raised by Russ Baker. Far more important are the stories published by Daniel Hopsicker.

    The Nick or Jeff show is just an extension of the Find Waldo-the-Bomber show started by the FBI (and now presumably the CIA) right after the event. It’s ripe for years of meaningless debate that just increases the tension. It’s ripe for a zillion stupid jumping to conclusions. It’s perfect for psy-opts because it’s guaranteeing to lead nowhere productive and in fact will end up obscuring the true motives of the event.

    Here’s a bet for you. I bet you a dollar that within the year we will have a joint appearance of Nick and Jeff, and they will both call for relief from the insanity through legislation. Are you game?

    By the way, i agree with you about the “Red Line,” and “good” weapons and “bad” weapons.

    And I do believe that Boston is fishy and has a lot of unanswered questions. Yet I also believe that fake planes, like fake Bauman’s, are likely more part of the cover-up and not part of the key to understanding.

    Did you hear that Rios Montt was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity? That’s a huge story.


    • Tomato Guy says:

      We’re so far behind the eight ball that it is a victory when crimes of 30 years ago are finally punished. It falls under the heading of a standard procedure in our media, to ignore events when exposure might save lives, but to come back decades later and report on it. It’s called “NICBT”, or “now it can be told.”

      Regarding Vogt/Bauman: I have examined the facial features in detail and find them to be identical. The fact that they are “both” double amputees seals it, as the odds of nearly identical facial features in two double amputees are impossibly high. Add some circumstantial evidence, that “Bauman” would have bled out and died in the time he was left laying in the street, and should have at the very least .been unconscious, not have been sitting up, and I think the case that Bauman = Vogt is supported by overwhelming evidence. I don’t think your pinky finger is enough, and of course, I take your bet with full knowledge that a year from now, this is all forgotten anyway, as more events are surely on the way.

      Are we being gamed? Teased? Tantalized? It may seem that way, but I think not. It’s just that so few people can see what is hidden in plain sight. The fact that they took the trouble to “debunk” Vogt/Bauman means they were threatened by the exposure. “Debunking” is thought control too, as people who might have doubts rush to debunking sites for reassurance, and so never confront the evidence.

      “Heather Abbott”/Jamie is equally exposed now. She’s not so open-and-shut, as she is nowhere to be found in the footage from that day, but her absence doesn’t prove anything. Only the startling resemblance of her to Jamie, and the fact that they are both left BK amputees is compelling evidence. But by herself, they might get away with it. Coupled with Vogt/Bauman, and now some sloppy Photoshopping with Adrianne Haslet-Davis, and it is exposed.

      Remember, only one actor is enough, as if all of the other injuries are real, there is no need for actors. The presence of one actor is enough.

      Meaningless debate? Do you want to buy into the official framework, that this was a real event and accept all of the fallout? If you let them frame it and hang it, you lose. This event is reason now for heavy police presence with cameras and drones at every public event. It’s justification for throwing out the Bill of Rights as Middleton was held at gunpoint. There is too much at stake just to accept it as told.

      I think it important to stay out of that framework, and accept this for what it is – false flaggery coupled with a psyop, and assault on reason, senses, rights. I choose to attack it for what it is – fakery. Maybe a few people will climb the prison wall. It’s all we can hope for.

      [By the way, what if there is no Vogt, and no Bauman? There is that possibility. Vogt appeared as a photo, Bauman is surely fake. What if they are both some third person? That would be a good one.]


  3. Steve W says:

    Here’s a video of Nick Vogt doing modified push ups posted last year. Count the fingers on his left hand. There are 4.

    Here’s a video of Jeff Bauman at the Bruins game in early May 2013. Count the finger on Jeff’s left hand . (around :52 seconds) there are 5.

    No, the debate isn’t about the bill of rights, it’s about whether Jeff is really Nick. Or not. AND, if Jeff is Nick, then there are also the actors playing Jeff’s dad and step mom. And his brothers, and the actors playing Nick’s army pals and his family. that would be a lot of actors. it’s of course possible. But I don’t think it’s probable.

    Also, both Jeff and Nick raise money for charities. (Nick for wounded warriors, and Jeff for the Boston fund.) So there would be economic fraud involved that someone could sue them for in a civil action as well as possible criminal charges. How do they manage that? if they are fake, I mean?

    i haven’t spent any time at all on Jamie/Heather. Maybe i’ll look around.

    Rios Montt is huge because it’s the first time a president/leader of a country in the Americas has been convicted and sentenced on crimes against humanity/genocide. He’s tied straight into the Reagan Admin. and he was trained at the School of the Americas. The judge even mentioned that Reagan was a co-conspirator.

    It’s a huge victory although time is the enemy of truth. It’s of course too little too late, but it’s a warning to the rest of the sociopaths that it could happen here.


    • Steve W says:


      Here is the facebook page of a friend of Heather Abbott. her name is Jessica Guerin

      if you enlarge this picture, you will see Heather Abbott with both legs, in a picture posted on April 1st, 2013 according to facebook. She is sitting next to one of her friends (a guy) who was in the picture in her hospital room with Michelle Obama.

      While none of this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Heather had legs before April 15th, i’d say the preponderance of evidence level has been met, though.

      So what does it mean if both Heather and Jeff lost limbs at the Bombing? I still think the questions Russ put forth need answers. And I’m wondering why the Uncle of the alleged bombers worked for the CIA. That’s just fishy.

      Meanwhile, the media and the military are pushing that Boston isn’t an anomaly. What does that mean?


      • Tomato Guy says:

        Look closely at Heather’s left leg. The lines go from blurry to sharp focus. It’s been Photoshopped. You are the one who picked up in the Photoshopped van in the pumpkin video. Again, they are sweeping up behind the parade now, in my opinion.

        This all has to do with management of public opinion, in my own opinion. We are being prepped, or kept in a state on tension. What the future holds I don’t know.

        There isn’t enough time in the day to write about all of this stuff, and it feels so pointless, as the TV owns public opinion. Images rule, and the Boston images, sold that day in a trauma/shock situation, rule. It’s nice to low what really happened, but academic. We are in a brutal agitprop environment, and minds are being destroyed by the state of high tension it produces. Calamity awaits.

        Meanwhile, here is a link to photo fakery for yet another victim, Haslet-Davis. I don’t much care for the site as they make references to “Zionism” and such, no concern of mine. But for tearing photo fakery apart, they have been very good.


        See the line on her left leg where the below-knee leg is inserted?


        • Steve W says:

          if you are referring to Dr Stanley Monteith, I remember him from when i grew up in Sta Cruz. He was a nut back then. He never talked about the Kennedy assassinations or MLK, but he did have a particular fixation with the CFR. I always thought he a John Bircher.


          • Tomato Guy says:

            Yeah, I found him. “Dr. Stan.” Religious nut too. Forget I mentioned it. Frustrating.

            You’d think that someone would take the trouble to check admissions – not just for Vogt/Bauman, but all of them. There were apparently 25-30 casualties at the outset, all of them accountable for by the actors, and then the numbers swelled to 170. They are running around Photoshopping the obvious frauds now, I really think you might want to examine Bruins Bauman and 4/15 Bauman, as the 4/15 guy was BK and missing a digit, and the Bruins guy has no legs at all and ten fingers.

            Like I said, one fraud is enough to infer all fraud.


          • Steve W says:

            By the way, how do you know that was an un-photo-shopped picture in your link? Here’s more from “Ken Adachi.” Is that his real name? He seems a little bit out there. For instance, I’m not sold on the soon to be China russian invasion of the US.


            I don’t see the sure signs of photoshoppedness that you see. But it is of course possible. In the altered video posted by your son (“pumpkins”) the black line around the van was very clear when you looked.

            I will say this. In looking for pictures via facebook for Heather, the vast majority of what I found were posted after 4/15. Even obviously older pictures. Again, more murkyness.

            Which is the point, IMHO. The psy-opts isn’t using or not using actors. The psy-opts is in insuring that everyone never really knows who or what to trust, no matter what side of the socio/political divide one finds themselves on.

            for instance, say you are a person who thinks it’s ridicules that the Gov would stage a bombing. Yet you are left wondering if the college kid next to you at the parade might be intending to bomb you.

            On the other side of the socio-political divide, you are wondering if the college kid is a government plant.

            it’s really all the same. It’s the sense of never being sure of yourself. of not being able to trust your own lying eyes, so to speak.


          • Tomato Guy says:

            I do not know that it is an un-Photoshopped photo, and only went looking for the photo. But this is what you are down to on Bauman/Vogt – either that photo is Photoshopped and all of the others are real, or he is Vogt.

            it’s not just a couple of photos – the whole of the bombing and framing of the patsies stinks. The one guy who supposedly lost his legs is unique i the photos, everyone around him sustaining minor wounds. They let him lay there six minutes, even ignoring him. Blood bags abound. A compressor is seen, along with a car battery. A hooded man is seen crouching, appearing to hold what look like stumps for Vogt. There is not enough residual damage – tables and table cloths and centerpieces are still in place. One of the victims is seen walking towards the blast site as others run away. Supposed wounded victims are seen healthy and upright after the blast and before being carted away for the cameras.

            With 9/11 I focused on the video of the airliner being absorbed by the building, as it is not possible. If one thing is not possible, it all fails. If Bauman is Vogt, it all fails.


          • Tomato Guy says:

            By the way, how can I ever convince anyone? After all, it was on TV. It’s true. Sometime, if you haven’t seen it, rent Wag the Dog. Very funny movie. Even Willie Nelson, who plays a burned out country singer, is good.


          • Steve W says:

            It’s not a matter of convincing anyone. it’s a matter of spurring people to question. And if the answers they arrive at are different that the ones you arrived at, so what?


          • Jack Ruby says:

            Mark is not going to give up on the fake victims thing he is emotionally invested in it now. I think your analysis above steve w is spot on as far as this being a distraction (if you were to assume the bombing thing was an inside job) and was pretty much what I told tokarski a week or two back when he first went off on this tangent. Im starting to suspect that Mark himself is a paid govt disinfo agent. I noticed some strange lines around his man purse in the photos of himself he supposedly took in Europe last year…doesn’t quite add up. To take a line of his own reasoning here….I cant come up with any logical reason for tokarski to photo shop that picture of himself but the fact that i notice some funny lines in it means the photo is a fake which means his whole trip and everything ever written on this blog was a farce meant to distract us from the truth.


          • Tomato Guy says:

            It was not a man purse, goddammit.

            I know, you think I am imagining stuff, and worse yet, when I say it is true because you saw it on TV, you think you are exempt from that statement. But you’re not. You saw it on TV, and so believe it. You have no evidence other than pictures on TV and words of authority figures. But it’s enough. There was nothing about Tsarnaev’s that made them guilty except repetition and suggestion. But they are guilty in your eyes. Right?

            Photoshopping is easy to spot once your eyes are accustomed to it. Just relax and see what looks out of place. Sharp lines in an otherwise blurred photo usually indicate an insertion, and when you notice that also look for the seam, or a place where they decided to insert the overlay. They usually try to blend edges when they can, so nearby items in the photo are distorted too. If you look at the photo of Adrianne Haslet-Davis somewhere in this thread, you can easily see where her amputated leg was Photoshopped back on for the photo.

            And, there are inconsistencies and anomalies. I’ll bet you don’t remember a photo I put up here of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, obviously Photoshopped into the crowd, and there below him in the foreground was a guy’s leg, shoe and pant leg, and no body attached to it. Someone had been cut out of the photo to overlay Dzhokhar. Once you see it you realize that it is unattached to anyone, and that someone screwed up in the Photoshopping.

            The reason I think you don’t remember that photo is that even though you might have looked at it, you did not see it. You don’t see and then define what you see. You define, and then see. Since an obviously fake photo of Dzhokhar in the crowd would upset your apple cart, you honestly did not see it.

            That is how it works.


    • Tomato Guy says:

      The spooks are at it again, misinformation, disinformation, a thousand leads. No point in going further, because it will be a hall of mirrors. They win again.

      Here is a link to a picture of Jeff Bauman on that day, enlarged and non-Photoshopped, as this is something they overlooked:

      No pinky finger. Who that guy is at the Bruin game … Prosthetic finger? I don’t know. the fixers are at work, correcting errors.

      I’ll get a name later today, but an orthopedic surgeon who thought it odd that “Bauman” was alive after losing his legs, was sitting up and conscious, called around all Boston Hospitals to find out where he was admitted. None.

      I agree that justice served cold is still justice.


    • Tomato Guy says:

      BTW, and here I am wasting time, but Bauman supposedly lost both legs below the knees. The guy at the Bruins game looks like a stump, no legs at all. Something weird going on.


  4. Tomato Guy says:

    Photoshop much, do they?



    • Steve W says:

      Why do you say it’s photshopped? I sure can’t tell.


      • Tomato Guy says:

        With Haslet-Davis you can clearly see the shoddy work, a leg out of line at the Photoshop line. This one is done with more finesse, but is clearly her head placed on another body. The neck is at the wrong angle, so that her head as she walked would be over her left shoulder. It appears to big for her torso. Skin tone between body and neck differ. The cut line is obviously the chin. The hair is well done, however, but since it is straight, could easily be shopped. The hair that falls over the dress strap is very long, perhaps six inches loner than the air around her face. It could perhaps be form the original person in the photo. (Could also be hers, as it might be styled that way.)

        All in all, it’s an awkward-looking mount of a head on that body. I have seen that exact face in another photo, perhaps reversed, but haven’t seriously looked for it yet. This is the photo that appears on the facebook page, with the one of her among friends, which might also be a superimposed head on another body. This all looks like rush work, as if they did not expect to be challenged on the fake victims.


        • Steve W says:

          One thing I did just notice is that her black hair roots are growing out. Or maybe it’s a lighting thing?

          Why would they not expect to be challenged on the fake victims? Did they think Sandy Hook and Aurora were all in the past? I think they love being challenged on the fake victims. It’s part of the intended narrative.

          ‘I buried Paul” Remember that?


          • Tomato Guy says:

            I do remember that, one of the great PR stunts of all time.

            A woman’s hair can be any color in any photo. Don’t go there.

            I don’t know that “they” love it, but I do know that only a small percentage of the population sees through this stuff, so that keeping us on the margins is a serious game.


          • Tomato Guy says:

            By the way, guys, not that I’ve ever done this, but I’ve heard that other guys have. Think of your favorite movie actress, and the Google her name “nude” and turn your filters off. What you get back will be a lesson in Photoshopping. You’ll fin that no matter how dignified she might seem to you, that she has posed for money shots and sucked men off for cameras.


  5. steve kelly says:

    Billions will buy you a lot of mind control. Waste, fraud and abuse? Who knows better than Fox?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s