From: Gary S

From: Gary S. Gevisser
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 5:23 PM PT
To: Ron Metzker
Cc: rest; Marie Dion Gevisser
Subject: RE: ..CHEAP....tri.....U.s.

Ron,

Have you noticed in your answer the number of times you used the word “money”?

For the record, China is the engine that is fueling the world economy including Vietnam, Korea, etc etc while propping up our worthless-fictitious Dollar not with “cheap” but rather “inexpensive” imports as they, the Chinese and their partners have already overcome our “mischief”, today more than “well on their way” to perfecting both their industry and military mite.

Not mention how in so much better physical shape are both the Chinese men and women.

To mention little of the only way we would have won the Vietnam War was to send Vietnam back to the Stone Age with our 24/7 blanket bombing that did in fact send the hard working Vietnamese farmers that much further underground where they learned to be even more inventive.

To mention in passing the poor judgment of those responsible for agent orange that even with the blanket bombing of poorly armed Vietnamese farmers still had the Vietnamese winning the war against our drug-crazed soldiers which should have you now singularly focused on the awesome opium production coming out of Afghanistan ever since us Allies have attempted a repeat of Vietnam?

Let me know if I have missed anything while you think a little more about your words, “They may eventually be so rich that they start acting the way that the US does”, G-d forbid!

In a matter of moments I will be sending an email to my 3 siblings and then “sum” [sic] that might be viewed as somewhat of an introduction to my forthcoming book, THOFMCAIF.

Let me know what you think.

Gary

[Word count 276]

From: Ron Metzker
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 8:56 AM
To: Gary S. Gevisser
Cc: Ron Metzker; Marie Dion Gevisser
Subject: Re: ...TRIED TO WIN?...U.s.

Gary,

Generally when the US whens a war, they spend billions of dollars setting up the economy and the government to closely mimic ours. They then become an important trading partner for the USA. Like Japan and Germany. None of the money is ever paid back of course.

If the USA loses a war, then they don't give any money to the country they lost too. They try to ostracize them in the world community for as long as possible. Eventually they will make up and then US money will start to flow to them again. What they didn't due militarily they will try to do economically. Vietnam is a case in point. They had no relations with them at all for more than 20 years. They are just now starting to have normal relations with them and they are becoming a more important trading partner. The US will try to change their government policies by spending money.

With China they have taken the wrong approach for years. Eventually as you say, China will dominate the worlds economy because they have so many people and the government makes all of the decisions. The governments decisions are being used to position China as their leaders want and not as any outside influences want at the moment. They may eventually be so rich that they start acting the way that the US does.

Regards,

Ron

From: Gary S. Gevisser
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 3:11 PM PT
To: Ron Metzker
Cc: rest; Marie Dion Gevisser
Subject: RE: ...TRIED TO WIN?...U.s.

We are getting closer.

Lets take it very slow as I now try and “coax” my wife, MDG, who you have not met, to at least view this very important dialogue, not to mention MDG has, however, heard of you, possibly the one and only individual who has held very senior positions in public corporations who when willing to “speak out” and “tell it the way it is” ends up because you are so honest and so credible being dumped by the likes of Mr. Jeffrery R. Krinsk of Finkelstein & Krinsk as it would have made his job not only “too easy” as we nailed your former employers, Peerless Systems International but what it would have done to get increasing numbers of executives to come forward, willing to risk everything, to “tell it the way it is” much like our great Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

What would “winning” the war in Vietnam have meant to the United States?

[Word count 16]

From: Ron Metzker
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:53 AM
To: Gary S. Gevisser
Cc: Ron Metzker
Subject: Re: ...TRIED TO WIN?...U.s.

Gary,

We did not try to win the Vietnam war. I know I spent 3 years in Vietnam from 1966-1969. We could have easily won that war but there were no efforts made to win it. I believe they kept the war going so long because it was good for the economy.

I don't know the reason for the Korean war either. It may have been for oil.

I am not aware that the Vietnam war had anything to do with oil, though I suppose it could have.

I doubt that any of the wars before world war 1 were about oil. We didn't use enough of it at that time to make it profitable to have a war over.

I always thought that wars were generally used to prop up the economy. Make people willing to take less.

I think that the USA is the biggest arms broker in the world. We give countries that don't have the money to buy our arms, grants that can only be used for arms purchases from the USA. Then when they need spare parts or modernization of their equipment, they come back to the USA for them. I believe we spend about 4 billion a year on these kinds of grants.

Personally I would like some candidate to be fielded that would actually represent the interests of the people of the USA instead of special interests. I don't care what political party they are from. As I said before, I have not been impressed by any of the presidential candidates from either of the major political parties for many years.

From: Gary S. Gevisser
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 9:44 AM PT
To: Ron Metzker
Subject: RE: ...TRIED TO WIN?...U.s.

Which wars have we not “tried to win”?
Which wars have not been all about oil ever since Word War One that began the year after the formation of the DAAC controlled United States Federal Reserve?
Which wars prior to Word War I were about oil?
Why do you think no one apart from me has ever “tried to tie the diamond cartel to wars” when we all know that in war, “money becomes no object”?
Think very carefully before answering this next very important question.

The Democrats have been in “command and control” of all 3 branches of the U.S. Government in every single situation following the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 when there has been either the start of a major conflict ALL ABOUT OIL or the extraordinary escalation of “civil wars” that have “required” the United States’ Armed Forces to “intervene” in what we term “civil wars” to stop the “spread” of something we fear the most apart from having to be “productive” and compete in the real world without us having to point a loaded gun to the head of our tyrants who went along with the Bretton Woods Conference of July 1944 that “fixed currency”, i.e. productivity no longer a “virtue” as we “insisted” on being “in the middle”, supplying all sides with sufficient munitions to disrupt their economies that detract away from the United States beginning again in 1913, becoming the world’s largest welfare state.

Consequently, when it comes to the President of the United States who also carries the title, Commander In Chief of all United States Armed Forces, “tasked”, IN ADDITION to collecting taxes and declaring war on our trading partners fed up with worthless currency that our tyrants cannot distribute to their masses for fear of a “run” on our worthless-fictitious currency that has “no backing”, WITH THE AWESOME but really not all that difficult job of simply “printing money,” NO DIFFERENT TO THE DAAC who have remained now FOR VERY GREEDY REASONS “on the loose”, neither paper, electronic or diamond currency AS YOU ALSO KNOW is backed by gold OR productivity, JUST an increasing “welfare dependant state”, it is therefore CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that those fighting it out in “our civil wars” on foreign lands, rich in natural resources such as oil, timber and the such, notice I didn’t mention diamonds, REMAIN IMMERSED in their “killing fields” LONG ENOUGH for our “second-in-commands” to “take over” while our politicians and TV and radio talking heads have us “shell-shocked” as they go about their task of distracting us with all their nonsense screaming, of course not offering “concrete solutions” apart from it “taking time to spread our democracy” OR WITHDRAWING which in the next instant would cause a “run” on the worthless-fictitious anything but “Almighty Dollar”?

So who do you want as Knowledge-Information-Light travels at Light-G-d-Speed to all our “killing fields” to have as the next President, Commander In Chief of All United States Armed Forces, Hilary Clinton or us passing a Constitutional Amendment that would allow GWB to be re-elected or something a whole lot more practical, getting behind the great Donald Rumsfeld OR simply having the Peoples Republic of Communist China be generous with us in their victory and impose their system of government that now has the PROCC fueling the world’s economy WHILE consuming some 1/3^rd of the fossil fuels us Americans require that now produces “FLAT PRODUCTIVITY”.

[Word count 575]

From: Ron Metzker
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 12:02 AM
To: Gary S. Gevisser
Cc: Ronny Metzker
Subject: Re: Let me know when you are next online. I want to run by you Part III of my email to the Attorney General of the U.s.

Gary,

1. No, I do not vote along party lines. I have not voted for either of the major parties for President in years. They have not fielded any candidates that I thought were worth voting for.

2. Yes

3. All of the ones that we tried to win.

4. Look back an further than the world war 1? I don't think anyone has ever tried to tie the diamond cartel to the wars before.

5. No.

Regards,

Ron

On Nov 11, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Gary S. Gevisser wrote:

From: Gary S. Gevisser
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 5:29 AM
To: Ron Metzker
Subject: RE: Let me know when you are next online. I want to run by you Part III of my email to the Attorney General of the U.s.

Now I must ask you the following:

Do you vote along “party lines” and if so did you vote for GWB?
Would you agree that the war in Iraq was all about oil?
Would you agree that all wars beginning with world war I have all been about paying for oil with increasingly worthless currency?
Would you agree that we don’t want to look back any further where it takes us closer to the truth that our military muscle is the EXCLUSIVE factor behind the DAAC being able to engineer-manufacture-distribute their own unlimited supply of untraceable, lightweight, and never inventoried diamond currency?
Does it really make a difference if there was GWB or Hilary Clinton in charge of printing worthless currency to be used in exchange for highly precious oil that is not only critical in fighting wars but keeping our cars moving on the freeways albeit our productivity here in the U.S. a “flat zero”?

From: Ron Metzker
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:59 PM
To: Gary S. Gevisser
Cc: Ron Metzker
Subject: Re: Let me know when you are next online. I want to run by you Part III of my email to the Attorney General of the U.s.

Gary,

Yes, I understood it.

Regards.

Ron

From: Gary S. Gevisser
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:40 PM
To: 'Ron Metzker'
Subject: RE: Let me know when you are next online. I want to run by you Part III of my email to the Attorney General of the U.s.

Again, for me to answer “yes” or “no” begs more questions that don’t mean as much as having you understand why it is that people like this attorney Melanie Gurvitz “out of the blue” decide to contact me.

Did you understand the response I sent Melanie earlier today?

From: Ron Metzker
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:35 PM
To: Gary S. Gevisser
Cc: Ronny Metzker
Subject: Re: Let me know when you are next online. I want to run by you Part III of my email to the Attorney General of the U.s.

Gary,

You know so much more about these things than I do. I don't really know enough to comment on them. They do make fascinating reading though. Do they respond to you at all?

Regards,

Ron

From: Gary S. Gevisser
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:06 PM
To: 'Ron Metzker'
Subject: RE: Let me know when you are next online. I want to run by you Part III of my email to the Attorney General of the U.s.

Below is a draft. Tell me what you think.

Dear Mr. Gonzales…,