Joie de vivre

By the way, I get accused of cynicism now and then, and do not buy it. I am not at all down on people, but life choices and circumstances dictate that some people behave badly. Those who must perform acts of deceit in public (business people, advertisers and politicians) do not deserve respect, and those who are paid to honor them (journalists and some bloggers) as well are not worthy of respect. And those are the people I write about mostly, along with spooks. They are our underclasses, our wretched waste, our pointless people.

But this moment I am about to share is more like the real life I live, my little life, and after I do so you’ll see that it is not something important to write about. It is like we all live our lives in close quarters with one another. Most people are nice and friendly and well-intentioned. Most people are not politicians, business people, advertisers, journalists, bloggers or spooks.

We have a long driveway at our house, and plowing is a major task, and we get a lot of snow. Along about March, especially after just returning from Costa Rica, snow was not welcome, but we got seven inches. I am plowing the driveway, not at all enthused, ready for spring. A neighbor is out walking her three dogs, and one of them, a bigger old lab mix, sees me and bolts from her towards me. I instantly recognize a friendly dog, and show no fear, and as he runs up to me I smile. He comes up behind me and I pet him and he nuzzles my leg. He is used to good attention. I smile at the lady, and she is just beaming ear to ear.

When a dog approaches a stranger in that manner, it often ends differently. But this dog is a nice dog, meaning it has a nice owner, and everyone enjoyed the moment. It was a little special.

That’s more like I live, like everyone lives. We are all mostly good and nice. But our leadership dance to a different drum. They are not nice, good, or well-intentioned.

Ergo what is called cynicism. I was called a cynic on Facebook for suggesting the Steve Bullock “moment” was faked (that’s where I saw the photo). But I have to ask, if you are so trusting of politicians, who are paid to deceive us, what is the opposite of a cynic? A damned fool?

It looks like the US wants to use the Brussels incident to invade Syria. Get ready for another bloodbath. And does that not make one suspicious that the US was behind the Brussels incident? (Cui bono?) And if so, would not a normal and intelligent person suspect the incident might be faked? Again?

About Mark Tokarski

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

9 Responses to Joie de vivre

    • Bullock: I am stuck on the absence of a neck … He has one. I have 3,600 head shots in my photos (Picasa does that for us), and so I scanned them today to see how people look with their heads turned – do their necks disappear as Bullock’s does in that photo? No. We all have necks, but when we are being PhotoShopped, necks are a problem. If you don’t believe me, pick a name of a famous woman you find attractive and Google for a nude shot. Try, for instance, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who has never done anything nude. You will find incredibly disgusting shots of her, and with each one you will quickly be able to tell it is fake by the placement of the head on the neck. Not that I have ever done that.

      Brussels and Paris and Boston and San Bernardino too … Be patient. Usually, if these events are fake, we will learn that they were running training drills of medical and law enforcement and military personnel. They are told that they will be responding to a staged event, and that they have to respond as if it were real. They do. The news media then reports it as if it were real. That is the key to these events – corrupt news media and drills. Eventually with Paris we learned that drills were being run everywhere that day. Boston too.

      A larger point, countries do not self-destruct, do not ask to be attacked by more powerful countries. The premise behind Paris, 9/11 and now Brussels is that weak people are deliberately antagonizing strong ones. They don’t do that. They are not suicidal. But strong countries have a problem – they need a reason to attack. Absent one, the have to supply it themselves. Hence throughout recorded history we have the false flag attack.

      Enjoyed your post, like the short sentences and paragraphs. I don’t do that well.

      Like

      • Greg Strandberg says:

        Good stuff here on Brussels. I like the NATO aspect:
        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/03/22/322/

        Like

        • I avoid that website as two of its proprietors, Fetzer and Barrett are, in my view, disinformation agents. Complicated world.

          Like

          • Greg Strandberg says:

            Who do you trust?

            Like

          • Not sure I want to give you my answer, as I had to ferret out things for myself, grasping the concept of fake opposition, common throughout history. One one hand I feel like to have to go through it yourself, stumbling from rock to rock as I did, and on the other I am never certain that someone is trustworthy, as I know I can be and have been fooled. But I will pass in some names.

            Fetzer is a big fake, always placing himself in the lead, trying to route all dissidents through him. He will embrace them set them up and then piss down their leg. He will also promote other false leaders. He’s a spook, in my view, military background, pensioned, health care benefits, never pays a price for his activities. I regard him as the worst of the lot.

            Further, the “911 Truth Movement”is, in my view, run by spooks. It is designed to catch people smart enough to see through the original official story of that day and feed them new and better lies. They are protecting technology used that day, and offering substitutes, bombs and controlled demolition, nukes, mini nukes, nanothermites, all dead ends. If you see the words “for 911 Truth” in a group’s name, avoid it.

            People I trust, conditionally: Dr. Judy Wood, Peter Dale Scott, Webster Tarpley, Andrew Johnson, Richard C. Hall, Miles w. Mathis, Thierry Meysson, and lately toying with Jon Rappaport. You’ll find some others in the links on my page, not the Montana ones, but the smaller list above.

            That’s all I know, you might try reading Where Did the Towers Go by Dr. Wood. She’s quite good.

            Like

  1. Reading your words brings a smile to my face and a closeness of shared understanding. 😉 ♥

    Fetzer and Barrett are, in my view, disinformation agents…They are our underclasses, our wretched waste, our pointless people… What is the opposite of a cynic? A damned fool?

    Like

    • I liked the phrase “shared understanding.” You’ve been a highly positive source of understanding.

      Like

      • ANATOMY OF A COVERUP

        Dr. James Fetzer never destroys Dr. Steven Jones.

        Dr. James Fetzer never destroys Mr. Richard Gage.

        Mr. Richard Gage never destroys Dr. James Fetzer.

        Dr. Steven Jones never destroys Dr. James Fetzer.

        Mr. Richard Gage never destroys Dr. Steven Jones, but actually covers up for him.

        None of the above characters destroy Mr. Bill Deagle, and Mr. Deagle never destroys them.

        None of the above characters destroy Mr. Dimitri Khalezov, and Khalezov never destroys them.

        There are many other names that go into the above category as well and NONE of them destroy each other, but ALL of them attempt to destroy Dr. Judy Wood…

        It is widely known that the last time Dr. Judy Wood voluntarily spoke with Dr. James Fetzer or exchanged emails was February 2008. That is, it has been over eight years since Dr. Wood HAS NOT voluntarily spoken with Dr. Fetzer or emailed him. So why is Dr. Fetzer still so obsessed with Dr. Wood???

        Dr. Wood has never spoken with Mr. Gage, yet Mr. Gage promotes disinformation about Dr. Wood at nearly every interview he does – if not every interview. Dr. Fetzer also promotes disinformation about Dr. Wood in nearly every interview he does. Yet none of them have ever refuted anything Dr. Wood has presented.

        Yes, if you don’t like the lie behind door#1, they show you the lie behind door#2. Then, if you don’t like the lie behind door#2, they show you the lie behind door#3. Any lie is ok with them as long as it keeps people from looking at the evidence Dr. Wood presents. This is why “thermite” is ok with those promoting “mini-nukes,” and why “mini-nukes” is ok with those promoting “thermite,” etc. Even Dimitri Khalezov’s maxi-nukes or megga-nukes are ok with Mr. Gage and Dr. Fetzer.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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