Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

565

It's working exactly as planned.

  1. People are drawn to ottawa.

  2. Police attempt to stop them, resulting in bridge blockages

  3. This escalates into protests on the bridges

  4. Woke american corporations dependent on those bridges lose hundreds of millions of dollars.

It was never about the protest in ottawa.

This was revenge for 2008 and 2020.

And we can do ten times worse, ten times as much economic and political damage if fools want to keep playing with fire.

Next stop DC. The goal? Like Ottawa, you see what we want you to see.

And after that.

Purdue Pharmaceuticals.

And then?

Blackrock.

Don't believe me?

Oh you thought Virginia dropped them for no reason?

Virginia, and Ottawa were the warning. Heed it.

There will be financial reforms, and resignations, and anti-monopoly bills passed in the u.s., the u.k, australia, canada, and new zealand, or we will bankrupt you, crush you, and scatter your agencies and spies to the wind.

Sincerely

A messenger.

Addendum: And now, how it was done, for anyone who still has doubts.

It is also why the canadian government and intelligence were mislead to believe this was a u.s. color revolution against them.

Specifically so they would escalate.

And what happened? They responded exactly as if they believed they were under a color revolution.

Game. Set. Match.

For those in intelligence, you know the reports and chatter I'm talking about.

HOW IT WAS FUNDED:

Funds coming from u.s. shell accounts were mixed with legitimate donations with the explicit intent that mid level analysts would see this signal as corroborating the rumors of a u.s. backed coup, leading the canadian government to escalate, rather than deescalate.

These secondary funds were in turn acquired through put options on the very companies impacted and anticipated to be harmed by the bridge blockades.

Go look at the record of options against GM, Ford, and Toyota. Go check it. Do it now.

It's working exactly as planned. 1. People are drawn to ottawa. 2. Police attempt to stop them, resulting in bridge blockages 3. This escalates into protests *on* the bridges 4. Woke american corporations dependent on those bridges lose hundreds of millions of dollars. It was never about the protest in ottawa. This was revenge for 2008 and 2020. And we can do ten times worse, ten times as much economic and political damage if fools want to keep playing with fire. Next stop DC. The goal? Like Ottawa, you see what we want you to see. And after that. Purdue Pharmaceuticals. And then? Blackrock. Don't believe me? Oh you thought Virginia dropped them for no reason? Virginia, and Ottawa were the warning. Heed it. There will be financial reforms, and resignations, and anti-monopoly bills passed in the u.s., the u.k, australia, canada, and new zealand, or we will bankrupt you, crush you, and scatter your agencies and spies to the wind. Sincerely A messenger. Addendum: And now, how it was done, for anyone who still has doubts. It is also why the canadian government and intelligence were mislead to believe this was a u.s. color revolution against them. Specifically so they would escalate. And what happened? They responded exactly as if they believed they were under a color revolution. Game. Set. Match. For those in intelligence, you know the reports and chatter I'm talking about. HOW IT WAS FUNDED: Funds coming from u.s. shell accounts were mixed with legitimate donations with the explicit intent that mid level analysts would see this signal as corroborating the rumors of a u.s. backed coup, leading the canadian government to escalate, rather than deescalate. These secondary funds were in turn acquired through put options on the very companies impacted and anticipated to be harmed by the bridge blockades. Go look at the record of options against GM, Ford, and Toyota. Go check it. Do it now.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (6).
[–] • 0 pt

The USA wants a big distraction and keeps poking a stick at Russia to goad them into Ukraine.

I've actually changed my outlook on this scenario. I think whats happening is the same as the domestic narrative used here in the u.s: don't fight back, thats what they want!

The u.s. wants that message to spread to russia, because the u.s. basically knows it would be a losing fight (just from looking at the logistics of such a war). And the greatest indicator of that is that we pulled up stakes in afghanistan, and repositioned assets in poland. Why?

Because we don't think we can take the russians as-is. The military doesn't believe that anyway. And our forces in poland are meant to be a backstop so if or when fighting kicks off, and e get our asses kicked, russia doesn't take "more than its been given" so to speak.

This seems contradictory though, doesn't it? Why would the u.s. simultenously want a war, but try to discourage russia from interfering?

And thats kind of what clued me into it. The only way it makes sense is if two separate factions in the u.s. have two opposing goals here.

One (the polituburo, all the institutions, and officials and their lobbyists) want a war, and doesn't care about the outcome, the other (the pentagon probably) doesn't because it believes it can't win and if a hotwar takes place it will disrupt the existing gravy train. They've rightly estimated a coldwar would be more profitable and expansive to their authority than anything else, and that the other options aren't new opportunities, but really just undue risks versus the profit potential comparatively speaking.

Disregarding the factions issue, let me repeat myself:

This seems contradictory though, doesn't it? Why would the u.s. simultenously want a war, but try to discourage russia from interfering?

Is that the sort of strategy employed by a regime that thinks it can win?

No. So the conclusion must be it doesn't think it can win. So those who want to keep russia out, want to scare it with the international equivalent of the known domestic playbook "don't fight back! It's what they want!"

It's a bluff and I feel stupid for not having seen it sooner.

Worse, the russins, because they have bought the bluff, or an element of them have, will wait until the u.s. itself decides when the war is to start. The u.s. will then get to decide 1. how the event is framed, 2. "why" the russians did it, 3. what kind of event, 4. the demographics and number of casualties (in order to demonize the russians), 5. will lead the charge to turn others against russia. It gets its internal distraction, and a new renewed push against an external ally.

yes, I've changed my determination of this scenario, and now think it is probably foolish for the russians not to act to start the war themselves: If they act, they get to decide 1. where, 2. when, 3. how, 4. who gets hurt and who doesn't, 5. can minimize causalities in order to appeal to the international stage, 6. and control in what light they will be framed. They'll control what journalists are on the ground, what imagery is shown, and thus be first in the critical "golden hours" after the war starts--first to decide the very first impression everyone has of their actions--instead of doing nothing and waiting for us americans to decide "how the russians started the war."

Yes, it is a bad position to be, damned if you don't, damned if you do. But the russians will be worse off if they allow us americans to start the war in russia's name, because how ever us americans decide to start the war, will be pinned on them, e.s.p atrocity propaganda.

I am certain of these conclusions.

On the domestic front, what is happening, is that the regime, lead in this case by the kabuki american left, has every reason to start a losing war.

Heres why:

  1. as we lose, more and more, it justifies ever-greater expansion of the state back home to "provision every man and women, every resource for the expanding war effort"

  2. an illicit sale of contentious control over ukraine or any territory, can be effectively papered over as a "loss of territory" in a war. And this is not outside the u.s. regime's M.O. Not at all. In fact, "gaining ground by losing" is one of the number one tactics used domestically on policy issues, between the so-called parties (regime fronts).

  3. Loss of ukraine and other territories pull double duty, because if the regime expect to lose control to decentralization trends over the next 5, 10, or 20 years, then the loss of these territories allows them to have an illicit operations (drug manufacturing, weapons, bioweapons, human trafficking, money laundering, spy hubs), covered up and destroyed. At minimum if it comes to light, they can claim plausible deniability back in the u.s, e.x. "its obviously propaganda by the enemy who only discovered these operations after they took over, how convenient!"

The trend of the pentagon losing control to the economic bloc of the united states (WEF et al) is accelerating, and we can reasonably conclude in ten years time, if not in three, the pentagon will be neutered not only by replacement of its officials, but by identification and replacement of its 'shadow' or private officials, those internal policy and decision makers not duly electing, except by the pentagon's own internal interests and concerns.

And then, one way or another, we will have a war, either domestically, or on russias doorstep, and we will lose.

[–] • 1 pt

>This whole game of bluff vs fluff is bizarre in and of itself. I see neither side wanting a physical confrontation. Someone wants to stir up one side or the other. Since both sides are not budging, it makes me wonder whats next. I wonder who is playing this 3D chess game in the background. When we left the bulk of military gear behind in Afghanistan, we were supposed to destroy it. That is part of the military protocol instead of letting it fall into enemy hands. This was most likely done on purpose in hopes of it escalating and giving us a reason to go back in. Since that never happened Russia became our renewed bogeyman. We will see what unfolds by June, until then we will have one bumpy ride with our economy. Pray. Prepare. Watch.