Observer Vs regular perspective regarding Russia’s alleged hacking of US elections

Observer Vs regular perspective regarding Russia’s alleged hacking of US elections-it comes down to perception

Are the CIA’s Claims that Russia Intervened valid or are they just another form of Fake News

We will answer this from the observer point of view and then from the regular perspective. Moreover, even when looking at it from the regular viewpoint, our prime goal is to focus on the financial aspect of the information. The Gossip factor is of no value to us.

The Observer perspective

Who cares? To which most will respond what, how can you say that? To which the observer will respond, remember the point is to polarise the crowd. The objective here is not to provide real revelations to the masses but to agitate them. When the crowd is agitated, you can fleece them, and they will not even notice what is going on. On a separate note, there is no conclusive evidence to support these allegations. These charges fall along the lines of “we know there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so we need to attack them before they use them”; the Bush administration used to justify the stupid and bloody war in Iraq. What the government failed to state was that we provided Saddam Hussein with these weapons in the 1^st place.

However, in this rare instance, there are two angles of observance; was the information revealed valid or invalid. If the data is real which appears to be the case, then does it matter who leaked the information. What the mass media in effect is stating is that Clinton could have won if this data was not revealed and because it was revealed she lost. This is faulty logic at best and provides clear evidence that government education is nothing but a massive brain-washing program. If the data is valid, then regardless of the source, the people have a right to know. The primary focus now should be on punishment and to validate how many of the claims laid out in the emails are true.

As we stated in the interim update, there is no thinking out of or in the box here; this concept was created to limit your vision. There is no box; there is just you, your mind and the data that the shadow players are trying to manipulate. A trend is in motion, and those on the opposite side of the trend seek to fight the trend with everything they have, but it is not enough. A trend in motion is unstoppable; those that stand in its way will be run down mercilessly. Remember the equation must balance, and the pendulum always swings in both directions. The left side had its day in the sun for a long time, and those on the right took a massive beating. A bottom took shape in 2012 and then base started to form, in 2014 it slowly inched up (a stealth bull) and in 2015 it broke through resistance. In 2016, it finally took off and now it will not stop till it has run its course. This is why from an observers perspective, we gave the answers who cares; you cannot stop a trend in motion.

Some other things to keep in mind

We stated that there was going to be a culling period and that there was a war going on between the top and middle players. The top players are seeking a rebalance the playing field as the “cow is at risk of being killed”. They do not love the masses, but they want a relationship that is more symbiotic in nature than parasitic in nature. They want the masses to be happy while they milk them; a happy produces more milk, something the Middle Players don’t fully understand. Thus no matter what is done; ten George Soros’s combined cannot stop this trend, but they will try and ultimately fail.

Regular perspective

As stated above the agenda is to polarise the crowd.

Trump has dismissed the conclusions outright, and the FBI has suggested that the assessment — while possibly accurate — so far lacks definitive evidence necessary, said two U.S. officials who are not authorized to comment publicly.

In October, U.S. officials formally identified the Russian government as the source of intrusions into Democratic Party systems. Those hacks— which produced a trove of embarrassing internal communications for public distribution on the websites DCLeaks and WikiLeaks — led to the resignation of Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the eve of the national convention. The leaks also led supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders to loudly protest that the Democratic primaries were rigged against him. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/cia-fbi-russian-election-hacking-trump-clinton/95329212/

The data revealed among many things that the DNC colluded with Hillary to get rid of Bernie. Again the question that should come to everyone’s mind is: are these revelations valid? If indeed they are; then whoever hacked the systems should be thanked for providing the American people with information they had a right to know before going to the polls.

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as “ridiculous” in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E

The top US spy agency has not embraced the findings of the CIA, and neither has the FBI. Furthermore, CIA veterans have stated that the agenda here is to politicise things and not find a solution. Now if you perform a search, you can find data to support whatever position you seek to side with and that is the whole point of this game. Provide both sides with enough fodder and let the battle it out; while these fools are fighting, the real action is taking place right in front of their eyes.

But National Security Agency (NSA) Director Mike Rogers dashed those conspiracy theories this past weekend:“I don’t think in the end it had the effect that [the hackers] had hoped it might,” Rogers said during a panel at the Halifax International Security Forum.

Last week, Rogers told the audience at a Wall Street Journal event that a nation state tried to influence the election with the hacks:

“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s minds,” he told attendees. “This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”

Rogers refused to name the exact nation he thought performed the hacks. Despite these thoughts, he and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) insists the hack did not cause Hillary to lose:

Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Az.) expressed a similar sentiment on Saturday, stating that, “I do not think that the outcome of the election was impacted by Russian hacking.”

“I would agree with that assessment,” Rogers said Sunday, although he did not specifically name Russia. Last week, he had said there was no doubt “a nation state” intentionally tried to interfere in the U.S. election. http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/11/nsa-chief-doesnt-believe-dnc-hack-influenced-election/

Just look at the different data one is presented with; do you see the point we have been making all along; the idea is to get your emotions to do the talking. Remember the saying divide and conquer. There is a silent war going, and it is the real war that everyone should be paying attention to, but no one is; it is called the war on freedom, but they are not going after the right to express yourself, they are going after your right to think. If they can get you to latch on to the altered data they are providing (changing your perspective), it is far better than trying to control your voice. Now you are nothing but an amplifier that broadcasts incorrect data and at that point “freedom of speech” becomes moot.

Some other things to keep in mind

Other Articles of Interest