Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > OPEN FORUM: Information share

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-08-2017, 07:47 AM   #61
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

False flags and fake revolutions

__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2017, 08:01 AM   #62
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

Orchestrated overthrows of governments

quotes from the following article:
Neocons Have Been Destroying Sovereign Nations for 20 Years
Mon, Jul 17, 2017, by Neil Clark

The first step of the imperial predators was the imposition of draconian economic sanctions used to cripple their economies, weaken their governments (always referred to as ‘a/the regime’) and create political unrest.

The second step was the backing of armed militias/terrorist proxies to destabilise the countries and help overthrow these "regimes". The strategy was relatively simple. Terrorist attacks and the killing of state officials and soldiers would provoke a military response from ‘the regime, whose leader would then be condemned for ‘killing his own people’ (or in the case of Milosevic, other ethnic groups), and used to ramp up the case for a ‘humanitarian intervention' by the US and its allies.

The third step carried out at the same time as one and two involved the relentless demonisation of the leadership of the target states. This involved the leaders being regularly compared to Hitler, and accused of carrying out or planning genocide and multiple war crimes.

The fourth step in the imperial strategy was the deployment of gatekeepers - or ‘Imperial Truth Enforcers’ - to smear or defame anyone who dared to come to the defence of the target states, or who said that they should be left alone.

The pro-war, finance-capital-friendly, faux-left was at the forefront of the media campaigns against the countries concerned. This was to give the regime change/destruction project a 'progressive’ veneer, and to persuade or intimidate genuine ’old school’ leftists not to challenge the dominant narrative.

The fifth step was direct US/NATO-led military intervention against 'the regime' triggered by alleged atrocities/planned atrocities of the target state. At this stage, the US works particularly hard to sabotage any peaceful solution to the conflicts they and their regional allies have ignited.

Stage Six of the project involves the US continuing to sabotage moves towards a negotiated peace once the bombing started. This happened during the bombing of Yugoslavia and the NATO assault on Libya. A favoured tactic used to prevent a peaceful resolution is to get the leader of the target state indicted for war crimes.

Stage Seven is ‘Mission Accomplished’. It’s when the target country has been ‘regime-changed’ and either broken up or transformed into a failed state with strategically important areas/resources under US/Western control. Yugoslavia was dismantled and its socially-owned economy privatised. Montenegro, the great prize on the Adriatic, recently joined NATO.

The ‘New Hitlers’ - Milosevic, Hussein and Gaddafi - who we were told were the ‘biggest threats’ to world peace, are dead and buried. But guess what? The killing goes on.
http://russia-insider.com/en/politic...-years/ri20366
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2017, 12:45 PM   #63
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

Financialisation and the destruction of production

Not All Capital Is Equal; Some Is Destructive
by Tyler Durden
Aug 7, 2017 2:46 PM
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,
Financialization incentivizes hot money capital flooding into speculative credit-asset bubbles.

When we speak of capital investments and capital flows, it's presumed all the capital being referenced is equal: a dollar is a dollar, wherever and whenever it's put to use.

But not all capital is equal, and that is one reason why the global financial system is far more fragile than the mainstream media lets on. Metrics such GDP (gross domestic product) don't reflect the differences in the capital sloshing around the global economy.

In the "happy story" of classical capitalism, capital flows to productive investments: the construction of needed homes, assembly of new factories, etc.--activity that returns a profit to the owners of capital and generates value and employment by filling scarcities or by increasing productivity and thus wealth.

In this "happy story" of classical capitalism, banks (and those with savings) distribute credit and saved capital to those with the most attractive creditworthiness for the lowest-risk, highest-return ventures--ventures that are presumed to be productive for end users and society at large.

Compare that "happy story" of capital seamlessly distributed to productive uses to "hot money" capital flooding into real estate in desirable cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Paris, etc. This hot-money capital isn't seeking productive investments; it's seeking a safe place to park capital and a speculative gain from participating in a credit-asset bubble.

When the owner of capital buys a luxury flat in Paris, NYC, San Francisco, etc., the deployment of capital has no productive result; not one unemployed person is hired, not one new good or service is produced.

Rather, the deployment of global capital pushes the price of homes beyond what wage-earning residents (i.e. the bottom 95%) can afford. This bubble distorts and disrupts the housing market, transforming shelter into a speculative bubble.

Much of this capital may well be borrowed. If someone lays down $1 million cash for a house in North America, who's to say the money wasn't borrowed overseas?

As I have often explained, when financiers and corporations can borrow enormous sums at near-zero rates of interest, they gain access to capital and can effectively outbid savers and everyone who does not have access to the central bank credit spigot.

Borrowed capital is intrinsically prone to being hot money: capital that flits around the world, seeking a quick return or a safe haven. The "happy story" of classical capitalism fails to recognize that in terms of risk and return, long-term productive investments that generate value, jobs and address scarcities are unattractive to hot money capital.

Why put capital at risk for long-term modest rates of return when short-term trades in speculative bubbles offer much higher returns and the promise of a quick exit?

Central bank-funded speculative credit-asset bubbles undermine the "happy story" of classical capitalism's productive investing of capital. It's no mystery why productivity has plummeted-- investment in productivity-increasing assets and training has plummeted.

Rather than create new wealth for society at large, speculative credit-asset bubbles distort and disrupt markets for essentials such as shelter, price out the bottom 95% and concentrate wealth in the hands of the few with unlimited access to central bank-generated credit.

Financialization incentivizes hot money capital flooding into speculative credit-asset bubbles. It does not incentivize productive investments that generate jobs or address scarcities. In a fully financialized global economy, the only scarcities recognized by hot money capital are opportunities for bubblicious gains and quick exits, and safe-havens for speculative or ill-gotten gains skimmed by the few at the expense of the many.

Hot money capital is not productive; it is destructive. The naive belief that all capital is a priori productive blinds us to the havoc wreaked by the financialization monster that has the global economy by the throat.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...me-destructive
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2017, 10:49 AM   #64
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

Financialisation has taken control of the real economy

The REAL economy is the economy of production and consumption where real and tangible things are made which house people, feed people and clothe people. The fiancial economy is where people trade in intangible and abstract instruments like derivatives

The central bankers do not create anything real they simply extract interest off the real economy in the same way that a PARASITE sucks blood from a host. this then causes the economy to recede ie a 'recession'

In the clip below max keiser speaks to constantin gurdgiev who speaks from about 3 mins about how the central bankers have taken control of the real economy and that is why everyone is suffering. After 6 mins max asks constantin who grew up in the soviet union if we are living in a new form of 'command and control' economy and constantin says 'yes' as the central bankers are running things form a new politburo in the bank for international settlements (BIS) in switzerland which acts as a central bank of central banks

In the second clip the economist michael hudson speaks about how the real constituency of the corrupt politicians is the central bankers and that's why they bailed out the banks after 2008 leaving the real economy to pay for that and to then suffer 'austerity' and to then recede

Keiser Report: Kilkenomics - Where Comedy Meets Economics (E834)


Fred Harrison & Michael Hudson Discuss Debt and its Relationship to the Economic Crash
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2017, 01:56 PM   #65
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

The 'unipolar world' v's the 'multi-polar world'

'Mr Global doesn't want us to do our algebra' catherine austin fitts tells us as she explains how the [jewish] neocons want war abroad especially against russia and to expand the central banking empire around the world to build a unipolar NWO

However other countries want a multi-polar world so the question is raised over what will happen to digital currencies if a single centralised unipolar digital currency is shunned by the countries who want a multi-polar world

Catherine Austin Fitts – We Need Our $40 Trillion In Stolen Cash Back
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act

Last edited by iamawaveofthesea; 14-08-2017 at 01:56 PM.
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2017, 08:15 PM   #66
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

As the necons try and rag the US into world war 3 against russia, china and north korea its worth reveiwing some history about the role of the central bankers in past wars (going to post all text after i couldn't find the article on a website recently possibly due to the purge of info going on across the internet at the moment. I found this version with accompanying images here: http://12160.info/page/all-wars-are-...lyhappened-com

Part 1

All wars are bankers wars
By Michael Riverro

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." -- Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain

I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest.

"The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." -- William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694

After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes.

"The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution." -- Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

Following the revolution, the US Government actually took steps to keep the bankers out of the new government!

"Any person holding any office or any stock in any institution in the nature of a bank for issuing or discounting bills or notes payable to bearer or order, cannot be a member of the House whilst he holds such office or stock." -- Third Congress of the United States Senate, 23rd of December, 1793, signed by the President, George Washington

But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders. Just one year after Mayer Amschel Rothschild had uttered his infamous "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws", the bankers succeeded in setting up a new Private Central Bank called the First Bank of the United States, largely through the efforts of the Rothschild's chief US supporter, Alexander Hamilton. Founded in 1791, by the end of its twenty year charter the First Bank of the United States had almost ruined the nation's economy, while enriching the bankers. Congress refused to renew the charter and signaled their intention to go back to a state issued value based currency on which the people paid no interest at all to any banker. This resulted in a threat from Nathan Mayer Rothschild against the US Government, "Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war." Congress still refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States, whereupon Nathan Mayer Rothschild railed, "Teach those impudent Americans a lesson! Bring them back to colonial status!" The British Prime Minister at the time, Spencer Perceval was adamently opposed to war with the United States, primarily because the majority of England's military might was occupied with the ongoing Napoleonic wars. Spencer Perceval was concerned that Britain might not prevail in a new American war, a concern shared by many in the British government. Then, Spencer Perceval was assassinated (the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated in office) and replaced by Robert Banks Jenkinson, the 2nd Earl of Liverpool, who was fully supportive of a war to recapture the colonies.

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." -- Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and mother of his five sons

Financed at virtually no interest by the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Britain then provoked the war of 1812 to recolonize the United States and force them back into the slavery of the Bank of England, or to plunge the United States into so much debt they would be forced to accept a new private central bank. And the plan worked. Even though the War of 1812 was won by the United States, Congress was forced to grant a new charter for yet another private bank issuing the public currency as loans at interest, the Second Bank of the United States. Once again, private bankers were in control of the nation's money supply and cared not who made the laws or how many British and American soldiers had to die for it.

Once again the nation was plunged into debt, unemployment, and poverty by the predations of the private central bank, and in 1832 Andrew Jackson successfully campaigned for his second term as President under the slogan, "Jackson And No Bank!" True to his word, Jackson succeeds in blocking the renewal of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States.

"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!" -- Andrew Jackson, shortly before ending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. From the original minutes of the Philadelphia committee of citizens sent to meet with President Jackson (February 1834), according to Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels

Shortly after President Jackson (the only American President to actually pay off the National Debt) ended the Second Bank of the United States, there was an attempted assassination which failed when both pistols used by the assassin, Richard Lawrence, failed to fire. Lawrence later said that with Jackson dead, "Money would be more plenty."

President Zachary Taylor opposed the creation of a new Private Central Bank, owing to the historical abuses of the First and Second Banks of the United States.

"The idea of a national bank is dead, and will not be revived in my time." -- Zachary Taylor

Taylor died on July 9, 1850 after eating a bowl of cherries and milk rumored to have been poisoned. The symptoms h displayed are consistent with acute arsenic poisoning.

President James Buchanan also opposed a private central bank. During the panic of 1857 he attempted to set limits on banks issuing more loans than they had actual funds, and to require all issued bank notes to be backed by Federal Government assets. He was poisoned with arsenic and survived, although 38 other people at the dinner died.

Of course, the public school system is as subservient to the bankers' wishes to keep certain history from you, just as the corporate media is subservient to Monsanto's wishes to keep the dangers of GMOs from you, and the global warming cult's wishes to conceal from you that the Earth has actually been cooling for the last 16 years. Thus is should come as little surprise that much of the real reasons for the events of the Civil War are not well known to the average American.

"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." -- The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863

When the Confederacy seceded from the United States, the bankers once again saw the opportunity for a rich harvest of debt, and offered to fund Lincoln's efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest. Lincoln remarked that he would not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers and using his authority as President, issued a new government currency, thegreenback. This was a direct threat to the wealth and power of the central bankers, who quickly responded.

"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." -- The London Times responding to Lincoln's decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War, rather than agree to private banker's loans at 30% interest.

In 1872 New York bankers sent a letter to every bank in the United States, urging them to fund newspapers that opposed government-issued money (Lincoln's greenbacks).

"Dear Sir: It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers... as will oppose the issuing of greenback paper money, and that you also withhold patronage or favors from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the Government issue of money. Let the Government issue the coin and the banks issue the paper money of the country... [T]o restore to circulation the Government issue of money, will be to provide the people with money, and will therefore seriously affect your individual profit as bankers and lenders." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

"It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages. THIS CAN BE DONE BY CONTROLLING THE MONEY." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

Goaded by the private bankers, much of Europe supported the Confederacy against the Union, with the expectation that victory over Lincoln would mean the end of the Greenback. France and Britain considered an outright attack on the United States to aid the confederacy, but were held at bay by Russia, which had just ended the serfdom system and had a state central bank similar to the system the United States had been founded on. Left free of European intervention, the Union won the war, and Lincoln announced his intention to go on issuing greenbacks. Following Lincoln's assassination, the Greenbacks were pulled from circulation and the American people forced to go back to an economy based on bank notes borrowed at interest from the private bankers. Tsar Alexander II, who authorized Russian militarey assistance to Lincoln, was subsequently the victim of multiple attempts on his life in 1866, 1879, and 1880, until his assassination in 1881.

James A. Garfield was elected President in 1880 on a platform of government control of the money supply.

"The chief duty of the National Government in connection with the currency of the country is to coin money and declare its value. Grave doubts have been entertained whether Congress is authorized by the Constitution to make any form of paper money legal tender. The present issue of United States notes has been sustained by the necessities of war; but such paper should depend for its value and currency upon its convenience in use and its prompt redemption in coin at the will of the holder, and not upon its compulsory circulation. These notes are not money, but promises to pay money. If the holders demand it, the promise should be kept. -- James Garfield

"By the experience of commercial nations in all ages it has been found that gold and silver afford the only safe foundation for a monetary system. Confusion has recently been created by variations in the relative value of the two metals, but I confidently believe that arrangements can be made between the leading commercial nations which will secure the general use of both metals. Congress should provide that the compulsory coinage of silver now required by law may not disturb our monetary system by driving either metal out of circulation. If possible, such an adjustment should be made that the purchasing power of every coined dollar will be exactly equal to its debt-paying power in all the markets of the world. --James Garfield

"He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation. -- James Garfield

Garfield was shot on July 2, 1881 and died of his wounds several weeks later. Chester A. Arthur succeeded Garfield as President.

In 1896, William McKinley was elected President in the middle of a depression-driven debate over gold-backed government currency versus bank notes borrowed at interest from private banks. McKinley favored gold-backed currencies and a balanced government budget which would free the public from accumulating debt.

"Our financial system needs some revision; our money is all good now, but its value must not further be threatened. It should all be put upon an enduring basis, not subject to easy attack, nor its stability to doubt or dispute. Our currency should continue under the supervision of the Government. The several forms of our paper money offer, in my judgment, a constant embarrassment to the Government and a safe balance in the Treasury." -- William McKinley

McKinley was shot by an out-of-work anarchist on September 14, 1901, in Buffalo, NY, succumbing to his wounds a few days later. He was suceeded in office by Theodore Roosevelt.

Finally, in 1913, the Private Central Bankers of Europe, in particular the Rothschilds of Great Britain and the Warburgs of Germany, met with their American financial collaborators on Jekyll Island, Georgia to form a new banking cartel with the express purpose of forming the Third Bank of the United States, with the aim of placing complete control of the United States money supply once again under the control of private bankers. Owing to hostility over the previous banks, the name was changed to "The Federal Reserve" system in order to grant the new bank a quasi-governmental image, but in fact it is a privately owned bank, no more "Federal" than Federal Express. Indeed, in 2012, the Federal Reserve attempted to rebuff a Freedom of Information Lawsuit by Bloomberg News on the grounds that as a private banking corporation and not actually a part of the government, the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to the "trade secret" operations of the Federal Reserve.

"When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check; but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." -- From the Boston Federal Reserve Bank pamphlet, "Putting it Simply."

"Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a 'dollar' bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries." -- "Modern Money Mechanics Workbook" ? Federal Reserve of Chicago, 1975

"I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people." -- Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924

"States, most especially the large hegemonic ones, such as the United States and Great Britain, are controlled by the international central banking system, working through secret agreements at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and operating through national central banks (such as the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve)... The same international banking cartel that controls the United States today previously controlled Great Britain and held it up as the international hegemon. When the British order faded, and was replaced by the United States, the US ran the global economy. However, the same interests are served. States will be used and discarded at will by the international banking cartel; they are simply tools." -- Andrew Gavin Marshall

1913 proved to be a transformative year for the nation's economy, first with the passage of the 16th "income tax" Amendment and the false claim that it had been ratified.

"I think if you were to go back and and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, the income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." - U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, Sullivan Vs. United States, 2003.

Later that same year, and apparently unwilling to risk another questionable amendment, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act over Christmas holiday 1913, while members of Congress opposed to the measure were at home. This was a very underhanded deal, as the Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to issue the public currency, does not authorize its delegation, and thus should have required a new Amendment to transfer that authority to a private bank. But pass it Congress did, and President Woodrow Wilson signed it as he promised the bankers he would in exchange for generous campaign contributions. Wilson later regretted that decision.
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act

Last edited by iamawaveofthesea; 18-08-2017 at 08:17 PM.
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2017, 08:19 PM   #67
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

Part 2

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson 1919

The next year, World War One started, and it is important to remember that prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, there was no such thing as a world war.

World War One started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, but quickly shifted to focus on Germany, whose industrial capacity was seen as an economic threat to Great Britain, who saw the decline of the British Pound as a result of too much emphasis on financial activity to the neglect of agriculture, industrial development, and infrastructure (not unlike the present day United States). Although pre-war Germany had a private central bank, it was heavily restricted and inflation kept to reasonable levels. Under government control, investment was guaranteed to internal economic development, and Germany was seen as a major power. So, in the media of the day, Germany was portrayed as the prime opponent of World War One, and not just defeated, but its industrial base flattened. Following the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was ordered to pay the war costs of all the participating nations, even though Germany had not actually started the war. This amounted to three times the value of all of Germany itself. Germany's private central bank, to whom Germany had gone deeply into debt to pay the costs of the war, broke free of government control, and massive inflation followed (mostly triggered by currency speculators) , permanently trapping the German people in endless debt.

When the Weimar Republic collapsed economically, it opened the door for the National Socialists to take power. Their first financial move was to issue their own state currency which was not borrowed from private central bankers. Freed from having to pay interest on the money in circulation, Germany blossomed and quickly began to rebuild its industry. The media called it "The German Miracle". TIME magazine lionized Hitler for the amazing improvement in life for the German people and the explosion of German industry, and even named him TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938.

Once again, Germany's industrial output became a threat to Great Britain.

"Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain." - Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)

"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

"Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill(November 1936 speaking to US - General Robert E. Wood)

"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Winston Churchill (- Autumn 1939 broadcast)

Germany's state-issued value based currency was also a direct threat to the wealth and power of the private central banks, and as early as 1933 they started to organize a global boycott against Germany to strangle this upstart ruler who thought he could break free of private central bankers!

As had been the case in World War One, Great Britain and other nations threatened by Germany's economic power looked for an excuse to go to war, and as public anger in Germany grew over the boycott, Hitler foolishly gave them that excuse. Years later, in a spirit of candor, the real reasons for that war were made clear.

"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to."- Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)

"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." -Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960)

As a side note, we need to step back before WW2 and recall Marine Major General Smedley Butler. In 1933, Wall Street bankers and financiers had bankrolled the successful coups by both Hitler and Mussolini. Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was financing Hitler right up to the day war was declared with Germany. And they decided that a fascist dictatorship in the United States based on the one on Italy would be far better for their business interests than Roosevelt's "New Deal" which threatened massive wealth re-distribution to recapitalize the working and middle class of America. So the Wall Street tycoons recruited General Butler to lead the overthrow of the US Government and install a "Secretary of General Affairs" who would be answerable to Wall Street and not the people, would crush social unrest and shut down all labor unions. General Butler pretended to go along with the scheme but then exposed the plot to Congress. Congress, then as now in the pocket of the Wall Street bankers, refused to act. When Roosevelt learned of the planned coup he demanded the arrest of the plotters, but the plotters simply reminded Roosevelt that if any one of them were sent to prison, their friends on Wall Street would deliberatly collapse the still-fragile economy and blame Roosevelt for it. Roosevelt was thus unable to act until the start of WW2, at which time he prosecuted many of the plotters under the Trading With The Enemy act. The Congressional minutes into the coup were finally released in 1967 and became the inspiration for the movie, "Seven Days in May" but with the true financial villains erased from the script.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of our country's most agile military force -- the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent more of my time being a high--class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. "I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that the Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on three continents." -- General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant,1935

As President, John F. Kennedy understood the predatory nature of private central banking. He understood why Andrew Jackson fought so hard to end the Second Bank of the United States. So Kennedy wrote and signed Executive Order 11110 which ordered the US Treasury to issue a new public currency, the United States Note.

Kennedy's United States Notes were not borrowed form the Federal Reserve but created by the US Government and backed by the silver stockpiles held by the US Government. It represented a return to the system of economics the United States had been founded on, and was perfectly legal for Kennedy to do. All told, some four and one half billion dollars went into public circulation, eroding interest payments to the Federal Reserve and loosening their control over the nation. Five months later John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas, and the United States Notes pulled from circulation and destroyed (except for samples held by collectors). John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named to the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain the banking dimensions behind the assassination were concealed from the public.

As we enter the eleventh year of what future history will most certainly describe as World War Three, we need to examine the financial dimensions behind the wars.

Towards the end of World War Two, when it became obvious that the allies were going to win and dictate the post war environment, the major world economic powers met at Bretton Woods, a luxury resort in New Hampshire in July of 1944, and hammered out the Bretton Woods agreement for international finance. The British Pound lost its position as the global trade and reserve currency to the US dollar (part of the price demanded by Roosevelt in exchange for the US entry into the war). Absent the economic advantages of being the world's "go-to" currency, Britain was forced to nationalize the Bank of England in 1946. The Bretton Woods agreement, ratified in 1945, in addition to making the dollar the global reserve and trade currency, obligated the signatory nations to tie their currencies to the dollar. The nations that ratified Bretton Woods did so on two conditions. The first was that the Federal Reserve would refrain from over-printing the dollar as a means to loot real products and produce from other nations in exchange for ink and paper; basically an imperial tax. That assurance was backed up by the second requirement, which was that the US dollar would always be convertible to gold at $35 per ounce.

Of course, the Federal Reserve, being a private bank and not answerable to the US Government, did start overprinting paper dollars, and much of the perceived prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s was the result of foreign nations' obligations to accept the paper notes as being worth gold at the rate of $35 an ounce. Then in 1970, France looked at the huge pile of paper notes sitting in their vaults, for which real French products like wine and cheese had been traded, and notified the United States government that they would exercise their option under Bretton Woods to return the paper notes for gold at the $35 per ounce exchange rate. Of course, the United States had nowhere near the gold to redeem the paper notes, so on August 15th, 1971, Richard Nixon "temporarily" suspended the gold convertibility of the US Federal Reserve Notes. This "Nixon shock" effectively ended Bretton Woods and many global currencies started to delink from the US dollar. Worse, since the United States had collateralized their loans with the nation's gold reserves, it quickly became apparent that the US Government did not in fact have enough gold to cover the outstanding debts. Foreign nations began to get very nervous about their loans to the US and understandably were reluctant to loan any additional money to the United States without some form of collateral. So Richard Nixon started the environmental movement, with the EPA and its various programs such as "wilderness zones", Roadless areas", Heritage rivers", "Wetlands", all of which took vast areas of public lands and made them off limits to the American people who were technically the owners of those lands. But Nixon had little concern for the environment and the real purpose of this land grab under the guise of the environment was to pledge those pristine lands and their vast mineral resources as collateral on the national debt. The plethora of different programs was simply to conceal the true scale of how much American land was being pledged to foreign lenders as collateral on the government's debts; eventually almost 25% of the nation itself.

With open lands for collateral already in short supply, the US Government embarked on a new program to shore up sagging international demand for the dollar. The United States approached the world's oil producing nations, mostly in the Middle East, and offered them a deal. In exchange for only selling their oil for dollars, the United States would guarantee the military safety of those oil-rich nations. The oil rich nations would agree to spend and invest their US paper dollars inside the United States, in particular in US Treasury Bonds, redeemable through future generations of US taxpayers. The concept was labeled the "petrodollar". In effect, the US, no longer able to back the dollar with gold, was now backing it with oil. Other peoples' oil. And that necessity to keep control over those oil nations to prop up the dollar has shaped America's foreign policy in the region ever since.

But as America's manufacturing and agriculture has declined, the oil producing nations faced a dilemma. Those piles of US Federal Reserve notes were not able to purchase much from the United States because the United States had little (other than real estate) anyone wanted to buy. Europe's cars and aircraft were superior and less costly, while experiments with GMO food crops led to nations refusing to buy US food exports. Israel's constant belligerence against its neighbors caused them to wonder if the US could actually keep their end of the petrodollar arrangement. Oil producing nations started to talk of selling their oil for whatever currency the purchasers chose to use. Iraq, already hostile to the United States following Desert Storm, demanded the right to sell their oil for Euros in 2000 and in 2002, the United Nations agreed to allow it under the "Oil for food" program instituted following Desert Storm. One year later the United States re-invaded Iraq, lynched Saddam Hussein, and placed Iraq's oil back on the world market only for US dollars.

The clear US policy shift following 9-11, away from being an impartial broker of peace in the Mideast to one of unquestioned support for Israel's aggressions only further eroded confidence in the Petrodollar deal and even more oil producing nations started openly talking of oil trade for other global currencies.

Over in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had instituted a state-owned central bank and a value based trade currency, the Gold Dinar. Gaddafi announced that Libya's oil was for sale, but only for the Gold Dinar. Other African nations, seeing the rise of the Gold Dinar and the Euro, even as the US dollar continued its inflation-driven decline, flocked to the new Libyan currency for trade. This move had the potential to seriously undermine the global hegemony of the dollar. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. So, the United States invaded Libya, brutally murdered Qaddafi ( the object lesson of Saddam's lynching not being enough of a message, apparently), imposed a private central bank, and returned Libya's oil output to dollars only. The gold that was to have been made into the Gold Dinars is, as of last report, unaccounted for.

According to General Wesley Clark, the master plan for the "dollarification" of the world's oil nations included seven targets, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran (Venezuela, which dared to sell their oil to China for the Yuan, is a late addition). What is notable about the original seven nations originally targeted by the US is that none of them are members of the Bank for International Settlements, the private central bankers private central bank, located in Switzerland. This meant that these nations were deciding for themselves how to run their nations' economies, rather than submit to the international private banks.

Now the bankers' gun sights are on Iran, which dares to have a government central bank and sell their oil for whatever currency they choose. The war agenda is, as always, to force Iran's oil to be sold only for dollars and to force them to accept a privately owned central bank. Malaysia, one of the new nations without a Rothschild central bank, is now being invaded by a force claimed to be "Al Qaeda", and with the death of President Hugo Chavez, plans to impose a US and banker friendly regime on Venezuela are clearly being implemented.

The German government recently asked for the return of some of their gold bullion from the Bank of France and the New York Federal Reserve. France has said it will take 5 years to return Germany's gold. The United States has said they will need 8 years to return Germany's gold. This suggests strongly that the Bank of France and the NY Federal Reserve have used the deposited gold for other purposes, most likely to cover gold futures contracts used to artificially suppress the price of gold to keep investors in the equities markets, and the Central Banks are scrambling to find new gold to cover the shortfall and prevent a gold run. So it is inevitable that suddenly France invades Mali, ostensibly to combat Al Qaeda, with the US joining in. Mali just happens to be one of the world's largest gold producers with gold accounting for 80% of Mali exports. War for the bankers does not get more obvious than that!

Mexico has demanded a physical audit of their gold bullion stored at the Bank of England, and along with Venezuela's vast oil reserves (larger than Saudi Arabia), Venezuela's gold mines are a prize lusted after by all the Central Banks that played fast and loose with other peoples' gold bullion. So we can expect regime change if not outright invasion soon.

You have been raised by a public school system and media that constantly assures you that the reasons for all these wars and assassinations are many and varied. The US claims to bring democracy to the conquered lands (they haven't; the usual result of a US overthrow is the imposition of a dictatorship, such as the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government ofMohammad Mosaddegh and the imposition of the Shah, or the 1973 CIA overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende, and the imposition of Augusto Pinochet), or to save a people from a cruel oppressor, revenge for 9-11, or that tired worn-out catch all excuse for invasion, weapons of mass destruction. Assassinations are always passed off as "crazed lone nuts" to obscure the real agenda.

The real agenda is simple. It is enslavement of the people by creation of a false sense of obligation. That obligation is false because the Private Central Banking system, by design, always creates more debt than money with which to pay that debt. Private Central Banking is not science, it is a religion; a set of arbitrary rules created to benefit the priesthood, meaning the owners of the Private Central Bank. The fraud persists, with often lethal results, because the people are tricked into believing that this is the way life is suppoed to be and no alternative exists or should be dreamt of. The same was true of two earlier systems of enslavement, Rule by Divine Right and Slavery, both systems built to trick people into obedience, and both now recognized by modern civilizatyion as illegitimate. Now we are entering a time in human history where we will recognize that rule by debt, or rule by Private Central Bankers issuing the public currency as a loan at interest, is equally illegitimate. It only works as long as people allow themselves to believe that this is the way life is supposed to be.
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
Likes: (1)
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2017, 08:21 PM   #68
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

Part 3

But understand this above all; Private Central Banks do not exist to serve the people, the community, or the nation. Private Central Banks exist to serve their owners, to make them rich beyond the dreams of Midas and all for the cost of ink, paper, and the right bribe to the right official.

Behind all these wars, all these assassinations, the hundred million horrible deaths from all the wars lies a single policy of dictatorship. The private central bankers allow rulers to rule only on the condition that the people of a nation be enslaved to the private central banks. Failing that, said ruler will be killed, and their nation invaded by those other nations enslaved to private central banks.

The so-called "clash of civilizations" we read about on the corporate media is really a war between banking systems, with the private central bankers forcing themselves onto the rest of the world, no matter how many millions must die for it. Indeed the constant hatemongering against Muslims lies in a simple fact. Like the ancient Christians (prior to the Knights Templars private banking system) , Muslims forbid usury, or the lending of money at interest. And that is the reason our government and media insist they must be killed or converted. They refuse to submit to currencies issued at interest. They refuse to be debt slaves.

So off to war your children must go, to spill their blood for the money-junkies' gold. We barely survived the last two world wars. In the nuclear/bioweapon age, are the private central bankers willing to risk incinerating the whole planet just to feed their greed?

Apparently so.

This brings us to the current situation in the Ukraine.

The European Union had been courting the government of the Ukraine to merge with the EU, and more to the point, entangle their economy with the private-owned European Central Bank. The government of the Ukraine was considering the move, but had made no commitments. Part of their concern lay with the conditions in other EU nations enslaved to the ECB, notably Cyprus, Greece, Spain, and Italy. So they were properly cautious. Then Russia stepped in with a better deal and the Ukraine, exercising the basic choice all consumers have to choose the best product at the best price, dropped the EU and announced they were going to go with Russia's offer. It was at that point that agents provocateurs flooded into the Ukraine, covertly funded by intelligence agency fronts like CANVAS and USAID, stirring up trouble, while the western media proclaimed this was a popular revolution. Snipers shot at people and this violence was blamed on then-President Yanukovich. However a leaked recording of a phone call between the EU's Catherine Ashton and Estonia's Foreign Minister Urmas Paet confirmed the snipers were working for the overthrow plotters, not the Ukrainian government. Urmas Paet has confirmed the authenticity of that phone call.

This is a classic pattern of covert overthrow we have seen many times before. Since the end of WW2, the US has covertly tried to overthrow the governments of 56 nations, succeeding 25 times. Examples include the 1953 overthrow of Iran's elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and the imposition of the Shah, the 1973 overthrow of Chile's elected government of Salvador Allende and the imposition of the Pinochet dictatorship, and of course, the current overthrow of Ukraine's elected government of Yanukovich and the imposition of the current unelected government, which is already gutting the Ukraine's wealth to hand to the western bankers.

Flag waving and propaganda aside, all modern wars are wars by and for the private bankers, fought and bled for by third parties unaware of the true reason they are expected to gracefully be killed and croppled for. The process is quite simple. As soon as the Private Central Bank issues its currency as a loan at interest, the public is forced deeper and deeper into debt. When the people are reluctant to borrow any more, that is when the Keynesian economists demand the government borrow more to keep the pyramid scheme working. When both the people and government refuse to borrow any more, that is when wars are started, to plunge everyone even deeper into debt to pay for the war, then after the war to borrow more to rebuild. When the war is over, the people have about the same as they did before the war, except the graveyards are far larger and everyone is in debt to the private bankers for the next century. This is why Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was funding the rise of Adolf Hitler.

As long as Private Central Banks are allowed to exist, inevitably as the night follows day there will be poverty, hopelessness, and millions of deaths in endless World Wars, until the Earth itself is sacrificed in flames to Mammon.

The path to true peace on Earth lies in the abolishment of all private central banking everywhere, and a return to the state-issued value-based currencies that allow nations and people to become prosperous.

"Banks do not have an obligation to promote the public good." -- Alexander Dielius, CEO, Germany, Austrian, Eastern Europe Goldman Sachs, 2010

"I am just a banker doing God's work." -- Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs, 2009

__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
Likes: (1)
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2017, 09:32 PM   #69
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

The Bernie Factor

I've discussed many so called 'conspiracy' issues with countless people over the years and i have observed a phenomenon I'm going to call the 'bernie factor' after richard linklaters latest film 'Bernie'.

I don't want to give away too much about the film in case anyone hasn't seen it and wants to but it involves a true story where people are presented with an uncomfortable reality.

What i've found with many people is that when they hear something that challenges their pre-held views their ego defences come up and if they don't like what they hear they reject it or deny it

So instead of asking themself ''is this true?'' when they hear something new, they instead have an emotive reaction as to whether they like what they are hearing or not and if they don't like it they reject it

We are seeing the bernie factor a lot due to identity politics where people are encouraged to side with people who they identify with along various grounds for example ethnicity or religion or gender preference or gender and so on. But by always siding with their identity group they will choose to reject the truth if they hear it coming from someone they perceive to be of a different identarian group

So what we end up with is a 'post truth' world where people don't care about facts and instead simply grasp and weave narratives that support the perceived interests of their identity group

Such behaviours are anti-truth and a spiritual dead end
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act

Last edited by iamawaveofthesea; 18-08-2017 at 10:03 PM.
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2017, 09:18 AM   #70
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

Poisoning the Well

this is a post-truth world where many people don't care about what's factually right; they only care if something supports the perceived interests of their identarian group even if its not true; so this is why if you challenge someones ideological ideas they then slam you with PC smears instead of debating with you on the level of ideas. It is simply to try and shut you down so that you cannot challenge their ideology. It's called 'poisoning the well' and some posters here do it RELENTLESSLY because they don't want you discussing the ideology behind their narratives; they simply want to provoke kneejerk emotional reactions and that is why they endlessly try to make everything about race....its an appeal to race instead of an appeal to truth

''Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength.
If Adam tells Bob, "Chris is a fascist so do not listen to him", then Adam has committed the fallacy of poisoning the well, as fascism is seen as a "bad" ideology in modern Western civilization; if Bob takes Adam's advice then he is a victim of the fallacy of poisoning the well. Assuming that Chris is not merely going to tell Bob that he is not a fascist then there is a fallacy because it is irrelevant to the cogency of Chris' argument(s) whether he is or is not a fascist. It is possible to be a fascist and also to have cogent arguments on some arbitrary matter, e.g. Chris may wish to persuade Bob that the Earth is not flat; being a fascist does not preclude the possibility of having a cogent argument that the Earth is not flat.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2017, 09:50 AM   #71
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

The jewish neocons are not conservatives; they are democrats and 'liberals' and the most war mongering faction in the US. From wikipedia:

The jewish neocons

''Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among conservative-leaning Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's foreign policy.

Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer.
-Paul Wolfowitz was born in Brooklyn, New York, into a Polish Jewish immigrant family
-Abrams was born into a Jewish family[7] in New York in 1948. His father was an immigration lawyer. Abrams attended the Little Red School House in New York City, a private high school whose students at the time included the children of many of the city's notable left-wing activists and artists.[8] Abrams' parents too were Democrats.
-Perle was born in New York City, New York, the son of Jewish parents,

The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee.[5][6] They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement.[7][8] C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss
-Strauss "was raised as an Orthodox Jew," but the family does not appear to have completely embraced Orthodox practice.[4] Strauss himself noted that he came from a "conservative, even orthodox Jewish home," but one which knew little about Judaism except strict adherence to ceremonial laws

The term "neoconservative" was popularized in the United States during 1973 by the socialist leader Michael Harrington, who used the term to define Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol, whose ideologies differed from Harrington's
-Daniel Bell was born in 1919 in the Lower East Side of Manhattan in New York City. His parents, Benjamin and Anna Bolotsky, were Jewish[4][5] immigrants originally from Eastern Europe.
-Kristol was born in Brooklyn, New York, the son of non-observant Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, Bessie (Mailman) and Joseph Kristol

A substantial number of neoconservatives were originally moderate socialists associated with the right-wing of the Socialist Party of America (SP), and its successor, Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA). Max Shachtman, a former Trotskyist theorist who developed a strong antipathy towards the New Left, had numerous devotees among SDUSA with strong links to George Meany's AFL-CIO.

Many neoconservatives had been Jewish intellectuals in New York City during the 1930s. They were on the political left but strongly opposed Stalinism; some were Trotskyists. During the Cold War they continued to oppose Stalinism and to endorse democracy. The great majority became liberal Democrats.

, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke (a libertarian based at Cato), in their 2004 book on neoconservatism, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order,[95] characterized the neoconservatives, at that time, as uniting:

… around three common themes:

1. A belief deriving from religious conviction that the human condition is defined as a choice between good and evil and that the true measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the former (themselves) to confront the latter.
2. An assertion that the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it.
3. A primary focus on the Middle East and global Islam as the principal theater for American overseas interests.

In putting these themes into practice, neo-conservatives:

1. Analyze international issues in black-and-white, absolute moral categories. They are fortified by a conviction that they alone hold the moral high ground and argue that disagreement is tantamount to defeatism.
2. Focus on the "unipolar" power of the United States, seeing the use of military force as the first, not the last, option of foreign policy. They repudiate the "lessons of Vietnam," which they interpret as undermining American will toward the use of force, and embrace the "lessons of Munich," interpreted as establishing the virtues of preemptive military action.
3. Disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the State Department and conventional country-specific, realist, and pragmatic, analysis. They are hostile toward nonmilitary multilateral institutions and instinctively antagonistic toward international treaties and agreements. "Global unilateralism" is their watchword. They are fortified by international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue.
4. Look to the Reagan administration as the exemplar of all these virtues and seek to establish their version of Reagan's legacy as the Republican and national orthodoxy.[95]:10–11

Pat Buchanan terms neoconservatism "a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology."[96] Paul Gottfried has written that the neocons' call for "permanent revolution" exists independently of their beliefs about Israel,[97] characterizing the neos as ranters out of a Dostoyevskian novel, who are out to practice permanent revolution courtesy of the U.S. government and questioning how anyone could mistake them for conservatives.[98]

What make neocons most dangerous are not their... and calling everyone and his cousin an anti-Semite, but the leftist revolutionary fury they express

Critics from both the left and right have assailed neoconservatives for the role Israel plays in their policies on the Middle East

John McGowan, professor of humanities at the University of North Carolina, states, after an extensive review of neoconservative literature and theory, that neoconservatives are attempting to build an American Empire, seen as successor to the British Empire, its goal being to perpetuate a Pax Americana. As imperialism is largely considered unacceptable by the American media, neoconservatives do not articulate their ideas and goals in a frank manner in public discourse. McGowan states,[78]

Frank neoconservatives like Robert Kaplan and Niall Ferguson recognize that they are proposing imperialism as the alternative to liberal internationalism. Yet both Kaplan and Ferguson also understand that imperialism runs so counter to American's liberal tradition that it must... remain a foreign policy that dare not speak its name... While Ferguson, the Brit, laments that Americans cannot just openly shoulder the white man's burden, Kaplan the American, tells us that "only through stealth and anxious foresight" can the United States continue to pursue the "imperial reality [that] already dominates our foreign policy", but must be disavowed in light of "our anti-imperial traditions, and... the fact that imperialism is delegitimized in public discourse"... The Bush administration, justifying all of its actions by an appeal to "national security", has kept as many of those actions as it can secret and has scorned all limitations to executive power by other branches of government or international law.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2017, 10:35 AM   #72
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea View Post
The jewish neocons are not conservatives; they are democrats and 'liberals' and the most war mongering faction in the US. From wikipedia:
The jewish neocons are allied with the old jewish templar families like the bushes who are so embedded in the intelligence community, pentagon and secret society network; in fact the pentagon symbol is always used in qabalah as the altar of warlike mars/geburrah energies

9/11 was planned in Tel Aviv and Washington, not in Kabul: Scholar
Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:2PM

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were not planned and directed from Afghanistan, as US President Donald Trump has claimed; rather, they were orchestrated by certain elements in Washington, DC and Tel Aviv, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003.

“[The] Zionist coup d'etat of 9/11 was done by the combination of Israelis and neo-conservative Americans along with hard-line right-wingers in the American military and the intelligence establishment who pulled off this coup d'etat in America,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Barrett, a founding member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Tuesday while commenting on a statement Trump made on Monday during his policy speech about Afghanistan.

Speaking from Fort Myer, Virginia, Trump unveiled his much-anticipated agenda for Afghanistan.

During his speech, Trump said, “The consequences of a rapid exit [from Afghanistan] are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11th.”

‘Trump sending US to graveyard of empires’

“Donald Trump has just committed the United States to an endless quagmire in Afghanistan -- the graveyard of empires. And Trump’s rationale is the same one that has been in force for the past sixteen years which is that Afghanistan was somehow responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001,” Dr. Barrett said.
read full article here http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/08/22...ngton-Tel-Aviv
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act

Last edited by iamawaveofthesea; 23-08-2017 at 11:32 AM.
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2017, 11:33 AM   #73
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

FBI Creating Right Wing False Flags Uncovered?

__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2017, 08:37 PM   #74
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

The point scoring system

“Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”-Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

You Are Being Gamed

__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2017, 10:41 AM   #75
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

The sabotage of the male/female dynamic

This is a difficult topic area because it is easy for people to get the wrong end of the stick and see discussions in this area as calls for a return to an older time or as a one size fits all dogma when my views are more nuanced then that.

The first minister of scotland Nicola Sturgeon says that there are no boy or girl jobs, but is that true? Men as a rule of thumb tend to have a 'thinking' personality type while women tend to have a 'feeling' personality type which relates to things like logic v's abstract or technical v's artistic. So in most households the man is likely the person in a couple who fixes things while the women is perhaps the person who decorates or makes artistic things eg knitting.

Modern PC militant marxist, third wave feminism would say that all of this is culturally engrained and is therefore a 'social construct' from which society can be re-educated to behave in more gender neutral ways. But what if these gender roles have a purpose in bringing balance to a household and to society itself? What if those gender roles have a purpose in raising children in a balanced way?

If we look at gay relationships there is often a more masculine and a more feminine partner within each relationship. So what if masculinity and femininity each have a role to play in a partnership?

As transgenderism is 'normalised' within society by socially conditioning children to not identify with their biological gender we could ask if there are implications for society of the constant demonisation of masculinity in men and the celebration of it in women. For example in TV programmes men and particularly white men are constantly portrayed as macho assholes who are itching to rape women while macho women are portrayed as cool and edgy. Women are portrayed more and more as violent within movies and TV programmes which is inviting women to act more aggressively.

The arguments behind all of this are of course emotive arguments which seek to claim the moral high ground, for example they will claim to be motivated by desire for 'equality' or 'diversity' but what if the people who have initiated and are funding and masterminding all these changes in society don't actually care about those things at all? What if those people actually have an agenda to sabotage society and its culture and its economy in order to see the current paradigm fail and fall flat on its face so that they can say ''look this way of doing things clearly doesn't work so now you have to try our way, which will be a centralised command and control economy run by us through a central politburo and administered and policed by technology controlled by us the technocratic el-ite?''

So what i'm asking is if all this stuff is really about emancipating women or gay or transgender people or if it is really just a front for another agenda of the enslavement of the entire population? This is of course a very challenging proposition for some people to deal with because these issues are highly emotive for a lot of people who feel that they have some 'skin in the game' so to speak. So what result does it have to make women more aggressive and men more cowed and timid?

Well for a start masculinity in men is needed to procreate. The sex act itself requires a bit of....shall we say 'grunt' from the man who needs some 'lead in his pencil' to achieve copulation. Also the man needs a desire for sex while a woman also needs desire and a receptive willingness to have sex. So there is a physical dynamic as well as a mental and emotional dynamic to the procreation business. As we see the birth rates drop across the west and fertility drop we have to begin to ask some serious questions about what is going on here and what implications it is going to have for us as demographics and as a society.

Then there is the issue of what different roles masculinity and femininity play in the household and in relationships and in parenthood. So in a household the more masculine person might do the heavy lifting while the more feminine person might handle some more fiddly jobs. Men might tackle more technical issues like repairing something electrical while a women might be involved in beautifying the home. Men tend to make houses while women tend to furnish them and decorate them and both of these impulses are needed to create a useable end result. So masculinity and femininity complement each other and achieve things the other cannot.

In parenthood the father has traditionally provided discipline to a child which is not about being an oppressive asshole but rather teaching a child what is morally not acceptable to do. Also the father challenges children by as a rule using more complex language which helps a child develop their brain and by encouraging them to challenge themselves physically for example by climbing a tree, riding a bike, making things or kicking a ball etc. When the child falls and skins their knee they run to the soft and reassuring embrace of their mother but even in failure children still learn their limits under the careful and watchful eyes of their parents who are ready to step in if there is a real danger of harm. The father also shares knowledge and skills with the child.

But through being challenged and by learning knowledge and skills as well as through gaining experience of doing things a child learns what they are capable of and develops abilities and the confidence to apply those abilities and that is empowering.

Corporations have long known from the child psychologists they employ that single mothers can be easily manipulated by marketting so they have what they call the 'nag factor' where they target children with adverts so that they nag the mother who then goes out and buys the child the material object to satisfy their wants.

But if the demands of children are constantly given into then there is a danger they can become conceited, entitled and spoiled or what we used to call 'brats' but what today we call 'social justice warriors'. Disneys princess movies also help to push that sense of entitlement and special little snowflakeness in children who will then grow up not believing that they should learn skills and knowledge which enable them to contribute something tangible and useful to society but rather that society owes them something. If children are molly-coddled through excessive female influence they grow up to be emotionally weak and unable to cope with the realities of the world creating a rage within them at all the perceived injustices of the world which doesn't comply to their disney like reality that exists only in their heads. In effect they become dissempowered emotional cripples who then take out their impotent rage on society.

As women are encouraged to be increasingly aggressive and masculine under the guise of 'empowerment' they increasingly tread on the toes of men who they become antagonistic with. Those men then leave the relationship to avoid having to deal with an aggressive and controlling 'empowered' harpy and then the child is then denied the male side of the parenting dynamic which then leads to more spoiled and entitled youth who in turn choose courses at further and higher education along lines of victimhood like 'gender studies' or 'gay studies' or 'womens studies' and so on which don't teach those people useable skills but rather teach them narratives of victimhood and entitlement so that those people go out and spread anger at wider society. As they realise more and more that they lack the ability to contribute meaningfully to society they then become more and more angry at society which they then blame for their own shortcomings.

This is a negative feedback loop of societal self-destruction that cultivates and encourages narcissistic personality traits all masquerading as some sort of moral crusade when in fact it's orchestrated and fuelled by very manipulative people who have a very malicious and manevolent agenda of control that requires a dissunited and dissempowered (no real power only a mental sense of entitlement which is not real power as real power is the ability actually do real things) society that lacks any sense of community bonds

All this moves us closer to a societal breakdown and collapse which like humpty dumpty is going to be very hard to put back together again and its all enabled by individual pettiness and a selfish inability or unwillingness to contemplate the bigger picture or the implications for society of peoples actions (the 'externalities')

Where Do SJWs Come From?



Stephanie "How Can We Ask Children To Choose Their Gender? Children Can Meltdown Choosing A Snack!"

__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act

Last edited by iamawaveofthesea; 26-08-2017 at 03:05 PM.
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2017, 02:59 PM   #76
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

Adulting and the Dumbing Down of the American Grown Up
August 25, 2017
Sigmund Fraud, Staff Writer
Waking Times

The term ‘arrested development’ comes to mind when pondering the all too often ludicrous behavior of modern adults. It is used to describe people who are stuck in a childlike level of psychological development, unable to grow beyond the behaviors, attitudes and dependencies that mark the pre-adulthood stage of life. Something is holding them back, or something is preventing them from moving forward.

The esteemed author and scholar of mythology, Joseph Campbell, reminds us that in cultures from around the world, the journey from adolescence to adulthood is a big deal, historically marked with ceremony and rites of passage. In this, a young person must confront their greatest fears, overcome them, then integrate themselves into the world as a newly established co-creator, abandoning the roles of dependent and victim.

“The boys are brought up to be in fear of the masks that the men wear in their rituals. These are the gods. These are re the personification of the power and the structure of society. The boy, when he gets to be more than his mother can handle, the men come in with their masks, and they grab the kid, and he thinks he’s been taken by the Gods.

The mask represents the power that is shaping the society and that has shaped our world, and now you are a representative of that power.” – Joseph Campbell

But there is nothing to speak of in contemporary life that serves this purpose, and it is quite evident, when observing the behavior of many modern adults, that people just don’t seem to have grown up beyond adolescence. What passes for adult behavior these days is all to often comical, embarrassing, even frightening. Like a theatre of the absurd, bubbling just below the surface in America is a collective temper tantrum. It could be generational, but one must account for the effect that each generation has on the development of the next to come.

Avoidance of responsibility has become en vogue, and there is now an actual thing called ‘adulting.’ Essentially it is a cultural meme where grown people complain about having to deal with the day-to-day responsibilities of life after childhood.

“And so this jokey way of describing one’s engagement in adult behaviors—whether that is doing your own taxes, buying your first lawn mower, staying in on a Friday, being someone’s boss or getting super pumped about home appliances—can help those millennials acknowledge and/ormake fun of and/or come to grips with that transition (or how late they are to it).

This is, after all, a transition their friends may not be going through yet or one that might seem to herald that certain end to their fading youth. To say you are “adulting” is to, on some level, create distance between you and what are implied to be actual adults who are adulting 100% of the time and therefore have little reason to acknowledge it. Or if they do, they might instead use phrases like “going about my normal day.” [Source]

Basic life skills such as changing a tire, boiling an egg, or cooking a meal, are being forgotten, somehow lost in a consumer’s paradise of instant gratification among infinite options. Adulting celebrates the idea that handling life’s basic responsibilities is praiseworthy, which is a tremendous lowering of standards, a dumbing down of our potential.

Incredibly, this is so real there’s already a counter-movement. Have a look…

The systematic dumbing down of the American student is well documented by whistleblowers and insiders of the education system, and now more than ever, we see the results of training children for tests and conformity, as opposed to training them for life and individuation. Because of this a greater crisis is looming in the hidden parts of the psyche, some kind of emotional fallout, where people are encouraged to beat the isolation of modern existence by indulging in foolishness and making examples of themselves.

“We seem to have lost our identity. Children and old people are penned up and locked away from the business of the world to a degree without precedent – nobody talks to them anymore and without children and old people mixing in daily life a community has no future and no past, only a continuous present. In fact, the name “community” hardly applies to the way we interact with each other.

We live in networks, not communities, and everyone I know is lonely because of that. In some strange way school is a major actor in this tragedy just as it is a major actor in the widening guilt among social classes. Using school as a sorting mechanism we appear to be on the way to creating a caste system, complete with untouchables who wander through subway trains begging and sleep on the streets.” – John Taylor Gatto

It is no secret that political control of many millions of people is much easier when the quality of the individual is reduced. The reason for this being the desire to produce dependents and workers for the corporate state. People who acquiesce to anything and are too thoughtless or afraid to resist systemic tyranny. Conformity in helplessness and dependency seems to be the aim.

Beyond developing a general lack of life skills, growing up means developing a proper attitude and relationship towards life and oneself. It includes a reckoning with fear, and an understanding of one’s role as a creator in the world in which they live. This type of personal evolution is only possible when we encourage youth to move beyond childhood, and as Joseph Campbell pointed out, we evolve once we take on the journey of life.

Independence is impossible without personal responsibility, and without knowledge we are powerless to influence our lives. Has growing up has really become the struggle of our times?
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/08/2...ecoming-adult/
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2017, 03:14 PM   #77
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

The Perfect Robbery, The Cashless Society
Samantha King
August 25, 2017

What seemed almost like science fiction to our parents is coming scarily close to the realm of feasibility: more and more countries are talking about stopping the production and use of cash in their economies. The message is carried by the most prominent link of the monetary chain: States. But the push is coming from somewhere else. Powerful lobbies are pushing ever stronger, in order to achieve total and absolute control of our economies.

In 1998, four guys started an Internet banking company, Confinity, in the early years of online services. Business was slow, as people either didn’t know about such services or distrusted the idea of immaterial money, until a now-world-famous Elon Musk joined Confinity, re-shaped it, and renamed it PayPal. Four years later, the business was sold to eBay for 1.5 billion dollars. In other words, not only was PayPal there from the start, but it had the perfect position to observe the very tight relationship between the share of the population using online monetary services and the cashflow a business could expect to make (close to 10 billion dollars today for PayPal alone).

Of course, it wasn’t long before the PayPal enterprise gave other businessmen some ideas and, today, hundreds of online payment solutions exist. The dwindling share of cash-based transactions in the world has made online payment a profitable market, on which the operating companies (online payment solutions and banks) are keen to pursue the expansion, all around the world.

Cash is problematic to banks. It is expensive to manage, hard to take from customers and, worst of all, it is a possible gaping wound, if a bank run occurs. In a world without cash, customers would be forced to remain within the banking system, where all sorts of fees can be discretely and quietly shaven off millions of accounts. But banks and online payment solutions can hardly present those arguments in their race to kill cash. Instead, they invoke online financial performance, digital innovation, fighting tax evasion, fighting crime and corruption and all the other woes attributable to physical currency.

But the intent is quite clear: getting rid of currency. In February of 2017, PayPal forged an alliance with Philippines telecom operator Globe, to push cash aside, in favor of online solutions. Globe President and CEO Ernest L. Cu said “the company wants to bring a wholistic payment solution here in the Philippines for cashless solutions. Our joint fight is against cash… It helps the economy hugely if people go cashless”. So much for not putting all eggs in one basket. But banks and online payment solutions can’t do this on their own, they need a powerful ally to push their plans through.

Such arguments are music to governmental ears: the cash share of economies has always been the part to elude their control. Once money becomes virtual, the government has control and can access the data. Which means a great increase in the taxation base, as well as in the surveillance capacities of the State. Therefore, many government agencies have been working hand in hand with private businesses to promote the disappearance of cash. Anti-cash lobbies have formed in virtually every country in the world, and some governments have started singing their tune.
For the first time ever, a private taxation system is about to see the light. A cashless society would enable banks and online businesses to walk right in the steps of the greatest money-lawnmower (the State) for a second cut. If the anti-cash movement succeeds, customers (citizens, that is) will have nowhere to go, as the proceeds of their work and their daily transactions will be completely under the control of banks and monetary payment companies. The only thing this powerful alliance of bankers, businesses and government agencies needs to do now is to convince their citizens it is a good idea.
http://www.activistpost.com/2017/08/...s-society.html
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2017, 10:58 AM   #78
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

Industrial farming is driving the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth, says leading academic
'Re-imagining a world with less stuff but more joy is probably the way forward,' says Professor Raj Patel
Ian Johnston Environment [email protected]
16 hours ago

Industrial agriculture is bringing about the mass extinction of life on Earth, according to a leading academic.

Professor Raj Patel said mass deforestation to clear the ground for single crops like palm oil and soy, the creation of vast dead zones in the sea by fertiliser and other chemicals, and the pillaging of fishing grounds to make feed for livestock show giant corporations can not be trusted to produce food for the world.

The author of bestselling book The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy will be one of the keynote speakers at the Extinction and Livestock Conference in London in October.

Organised by campaign groups Compassion in World Farming and WWF, it is being held amid rising concern that the rapid rate of species loss could ultimately result in the sixth mass extinction of life. This is just one reason why geologists are considering declaring a new epoch of the Earth, called the Anthropocene, as the fossils of soon-to-be extinct animals will form a line in the rocks of the future.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7914616.html
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2017, 11:19 AM   #79
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

The derailment of brexit by the political class

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea View Post
The tories are currently keeping up a public pretext of supporting brexit so in order to derail brexit they have to lose their position in government so that another section of the political class can step in and derail brexit; this is why the tories announced so many unpopular policies right before the snap election that they called unnecessarily. Then they U turned on all those policies once they won the snap election. So now they are setting out to destroy their core support:
Here we go....labour are now showing their hand over brexit as they set themselves forward to eb the party to derail brexit which will draw them the 'remain' vote which will win them the next election as the tories set out to destroy their own core support. The tories have declared a 'transitional period' to buy time for the political class to take us upto the next general election by which they will have worked overtime with the corporate media to turn public opinion against not only brexit but also against the tory party who are the only main party paying lip service to brexit

Labour will attempt to win the election so that the political class can derail brexit while claiming that the british public has endorsed it by voting labour. The groundwork to the big betrayal of the british people is being laid

Labour sets out its stall as party of 'soft Brexit' in single market policy shift
'Remaining in a form of customs union with the EU is a possible end destination for Labour, but that must be subject to negotiations'
Rachel Roberts
12 hours ago

Labour is to announce it supports continued membership of the single market when the UK leaves the EU in a major policy shift over Brexit. Tomorrow will see the party set out its stall as the party of “soft Brexit” in a move that will clearly differentiate Labour’s approach from the Government’s. The new policy – likely to please many of the party’s supporters but certain to anger others – was revealed by shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer in an interview with the Observer.
Prime Minister Theresa May has said there will be a “transition period” lasting at last two years after the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 during which time the government aims to negotiate an interim arrangement with the customs union and the single market in order to avoid an economic “cliff edge” for businesses.

But Jeremy Corbyn’s party is to say it hopes permanent membership of the single market and the customs union might be possible through negotiations with the EU, which will be reduced to a 27 nation block once the UK takes its leave.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7914761.html
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act

Last edited by iamawaveofthesea; 27-08-2017 at 11:19 AM.
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2017, 11:26 AM   #80
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 26,740
Likes: 13,667 (7,885 Posts)
Default

Colour Revolutions: The purple revolution in the US

Violent “Color Revolution” in America? Attempted Overthrow of Trump? Threatens to Shred Fabric of American Society
Manufactured Civil War, Guided Anarchy
By Larry Chin
Global Research, August 26, 2017

A race war and a civil war are being incited by the US political establishment and Deep State opponents of Donald Trump, in order to foment violence towards Trump’s removal from the White House. The events in Charlottesville, together with “Russia-Gate” are being used as a “defining moment of crisis” and a pretext to justify Trump’s overthrow.

Turning American streets into war zones

America has never faced chaos of this nature in modern times: manufactured domestic political terrorism disguised as civil unrest, masking a coup. The stated goal of the agitators is “mass insurrection”and “all forms of violence” to make the country “ungovernable”

Just as the global “war on terrorism” is a criminality and treason disguised as “freedom fighting” and “the defense of liberty”, this war against Trump, labelled as the “new Hitler”, is part of an unfolding domestic terror operation, which ironically utilizes the propaganda techniques of Hitler and the Third Reich (Goebbels), not to mention the anarchist playbook of Saul Alinsky (and, by extension, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom are Alinsky disciples). (See also Ben Carson quoted in the Washington Post, “Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky and Lucifer, explained”, July 20, 2015)

From the violence and propaganda brainwashing to the manipulation and destruction of culture and history (statues and monuments, etc.). what is unfolding is a repeat of familiar institutional terror.

Goals are achieved through the weaponization and mobilization of indoctrinated and deceived masses as well grassroots activists, coupled with mind-controlled authoritarian thugs.

The larger “resistance” features a toxic combination of professional paid anarchists, brainwashed “social justice warriors”, and deluded protestors who are misinformed and invariably ignorant as to who is supporting and funding the “protest movements”. There is no rational conversation to be had, no reasoning, in such an atmosphere of ginned-up hysteria.

This large-scale extortion aims to devastate the United States from within, forcing Trump out of office. An already deeply divided and confused nation with an already shredded social fabric will be torn apart.

The mainstream corporate media, the engineers of delusion and mob-manipulating propaganda, is ginning it up, creating mass hysteria and mental affliction.

What is taking place is not simple protests from supporters of a losing political faction, but a domestic terrorism operation planned and executed by the establishment majority—supported by neoliberals as well as neoconservative Republicans—in defense of their system against perceived existential threat from anti-establishment movements. Mob violence has always been a weapon of the oligarchy. It was inaccurate and tactically stupid for Trump to call this insurrection “Alt-Left”. It is in fact a mainstream establishment operation, which uses “left”, “progressive” and antifa symbols to pursue its political objectives.

The ultimate objective is to create social divisions which prevent the development of a real and independent mass protest movement against the seats of corporate power.

This “chaos agenda”is a “color revolution”. The elites and Deep State figures behind today’s American anarchy are the same ones that funded and orchestrated “color revolutions” around the world, the toppling of Ukraine and the installation of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Svoboda regime, unrest in Turkey, the destabilization of Syria, the European refugee crisis, and the Arab Spring. What worked overseas is now being applied within US borders.

The Purple Revolution began the night Trump won the presidential election that foiled the installation of Hillary Clinton. This warfare has escalated and intensified in the months ever since, culminating with Charlottesville.

The increasingly failing Trump/Russian hack narrative is being replaced by a variation on an old theme: Nazis. “Trump is a Nazi”. Nazis must die.

Trump’s repeated denials and long history of standing against Nazis, the KKK and white supremacists, and having nothing to do with them, are to no avail.

Antifa

The mainstream media predictably fails to report the fact that Antifa anarchist groups are responsible for the majority of the continuing political violence, including Charlottesville, Boston, and the Battle of Berkeley, enabled by police stand-downs and incompetence. Local police forces, university police, and local mainstream media in heavily liberal cities (such as Berkeley) openly back the Democratic Party’s anti-Trump agenda and act in support of the anarchists.

Masked, armed authoritarian anarchists, provocateurs and terrorists are referred to blandly in mainstream media accounts as “counter-protestors”,when in fact they are the instigators and shock troops of the larger national coup, and vastly outnumber Trump supporters (not all of whom are “right-wing). These violent groups, operating under the banners of “peace and justice” in fact embody the opposite.

Antifa: a violent movement rises

Antifa: seeking peace through violence (CNN)

These supposedly leaderless domestic front groups, including Antifa, Black Bloc, Black Lives Matter, Occupy, Disrupt J20, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) and others can all be traced to the Democracy Alliance, elite “civil society” foundations, establishment politicians, Democrats and Republicans, and assets of the Deep State. The connections between the Washington establishment and the myriad anarchist groups are well known. Moreover, these domestic front organizations –many of which include within their ranks grassroots progressive activists– are invariably funded (directly or indirectly) by corporate establishment foundations.

These various groups whose instigators mobilize “a progressive grassroots” have been combined and mobilized into one coordinated anti-Trump agitation apparatus. Like the terrorist networks that they are, they function like any other CIA covert operation, each cell inculcated from the others, with plausible denial in place for the organizers and leadership.

The Justice Department has done virtually nothing about these groups, while CIA-connected media such as CNN devote puff pieces to puff pieces in support of Antifa’s “peace through violence” agenda, and then scrubbing the (accurate) title post-facto for more favorable publicity.

Charlottesville

Charlottesville was not a spontaneous eruption of violence but the new stage of civil war.

The Charlottesville Clash: Protest and Counter-Protest, Politicized Media Propaganda

The white nationalist events were long planned. The removal of Confederate statues led to the incitement. While this was the largest gathering of various white nationalist groups in recent history, these relatively small, fringe, politically insignificant groups are routinely monitored and/or infiltrated by the FBI. The idea that US domestic intelligence and law enforcement, and Virginia and Charlottesville authorities were not fully aware of, and ready for, any possibility of violence is preposterous. Permits were granted.

There is compelling evidence that the police stood down. (Also see here) The venue was turned into trap, a kill zone, with alt-right nationalist participants crammed inside barricades, surrounded at chokepoints by Antifa.

It is no coincidence that Charlottesville was set up in virtually the same fashion as the spring 2017 Battle of Berkeley, where outnumbered Trump supporters gathering for an event were also trapped behind barricades and surrounded by Antifa, and forced to fight off attacking mobs. In Charlottesville as well as Berkeley, hours of open street warfare were allowed to take place unabated by the police.

(see also the following related report White nationalist fires gun into crowd, police do not move (New York Times)

While chaos in Charlottesville erupted on all sides, many accounts strongly suggest that the Antifa forces instigated the violence. Also demanding investigation is evidence of orchestration and staging and other highly suspicious anomalies.

The presence of the FBI and other intelligence agencies must be noted. Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe is a notorious long-time Democratic operative and Clinton surrogate. Unite the Right Rally organizer Jason Kessler was a member of Occupy and an Obama supporter. Crisis actors were hired for the event.

The man who drove a car into a crowd, killing Heather Heyer, committed an act of terrorism and murder by any definition. But this act of murder occurred after hours of street warfare that was stopped, and allowed to escalate.

It is also not clear who the driver actually was. Was it James Fields, the man who was arrested, or was it someone else? Whoever it was had the skills of a stunt driver. Adding to the confusion are questions about the identity and behavior of those who were attacking the vehicle with baseball bats.

Was Charlottesville a staged false flag operation? Why was this melee allowed to explode? Who gave the orders, and who financed the fighters on both sides?

What is crystal clear is that the entire Washington political establishment, Deep State and mainstream media are benefitting. Trump’s opponents have their pretext and potent new propaganda weapons. They have Heather Heyer as a martyr and symbol of “resistance”.

Charlottesville is shamelessly being used as a fundraising tool. Heather Heyer becomes a symbol and martyr.

Ukraine connection to Charlottesville

As detailed by Lee Stranahan (and on Twitter) there are disturbing connections to Ukraine. These same connections were also noted by Julian Assange.

James Fields, the alleged driver, connected to Ukraine is spotted on videotape chanting “Blood and Soil” and torch-marching, the slogan of Nazi Ukraine Svoboda Party. The Charlottesville torch march was identical to the torch marches in Ukraine. In fact, Ukrainian flags were flown in Charlottesville.

Is it merely a coincidence that elements of the CIA/Obama/Clinton Ukraine coup show up here? The Washington politicians now spewing outrage about racism and Nazis at Trump today, including John McCain are active collaborators with the Ukrainian Nazis.

Is it also coincidental that these Ukrainian Nazis, working in conjunction with US establishment DNC and Republicans alike, also happen to be the central figures behind the completely false Trump/Russia hack narrative that never seems to die?

Intimidation of thought and ideas

Staged mob violence and authoritarian threats are not limited to the streets. Thought itself is under attack.

Not only Trump supporters, but all opponents and critics of the political establishment cannot express themselves without threat of reprisal, censorship, and violence.

A full-scale assault is being carried out against alternative media.

The campaign against “hate speech” and “hate content” labels any anti-establishment media as “hate”. The attack is so broad-brush that entire networks are branded right-wing or “alt-right”, when in fact, many are not right-wing, and many are non-partisan. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, among others, are engaged in campaigns of censorship and control, including the policing of content, the demonetization and suspension of sites, control of political content, and outright censorship through deletion.

Hypocrisy

While Trump is no “Role Model” of political and moral behavior, he has been branded a Nazi and white racist, despite his disavowal and criticism of white supremacists, Nazis, David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan. According to Israel Shamir:

President Trump condemned both sides participating in the brawl‚ both white nationalists and Antifa. It is exactly what his opponents were waiting for. His attempt to stay above the brawl was doomed to defeat: liberal hegemonists immediately branded him a racist and neo-Nazi. Trump reminded them that not all defenders of the monument were white racists, but this argument didn’t work. (Global Research, August 26, 2017

Despite the fact that he spoke out forcefully, many times. (Trump spent much of a recent rally in Phoenix detailing his many responses. See here.) The mainstream media offers no quarter.

Screenshot: Trump quoted in Vox, August 15, 2017

Similarly, the majority of Trump supporters have no association with extremist groups of any kind, and have long opposed white nationalists and the “Alt-Right”. Violence has been aggressively disavowed by most of Trump’s base, including Mike Cernovich, who has forcefully denounced violence, and Jack Posobiec, who organized anti-violence rallies weeks prior to Charlottesville. The mainstream media refused to report on these events, while continuing to label him a right-wing extremist and Nazi.

Meanwhile, the establishment “Left” has persistently engaged in violence, without disavowing violence. Project Veritas has exposed and proven the fact that violence is a routine method utilized by Democratic Party operatives. Former president Barack Obama openly encouraged the mobs, pushing them to continue “expressing themselves”. Former Attorney G Loretta Lynch called for blood in the streets. Democratic members of Congress openly call for Trump’s assassination.The Alexandria mass shooting was the work of a Bernie Sanders supporter. The mainstream media ignores or refuses to accurately report these stories.

Staged anarchist agitation and violence—“protest culture”—is not only being normalized, but popularized. The masses are being successfully indoctrinated. Witness the pervasiveness and viciousness of Hollywood and sports celebrities, who have not refrained from calling for violence against Trump.

Orwellian madness on steroids

Even as establishment-guided mobs intimidate and commit violence, their victims are blamed for violence and hate crimes.

Trump is vilified as a world-ending Nazi/fascist/racist/misogynist, the symbol of tyranny, while the true tyrants and criminals continue to walk free.

Peace is achieved through violence.

Mob violence is noble and heroic.

Attacked from all sides

Trump is under attack and increasingly isolated.

Glen Greenwald beg’s the question: What’s worse: Trump’s agenda or empowering generals and CIA operatives to subvert it?

In addition to being assaulted from outside (Purple Revolution, Russia/hack, Robert Mueller, impeachment threats, etc.), he is being sabotaged and subverted from inside the White House, and from inside his innermost circle, by the likes of National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Dina Habib Powell and the West Wing globalists including Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Gary Cohn, and Steve Mnuchin.

McMaster has purged the administration of Trump loyalists and populists, and replaced with Bush/Obama/Clinton/Deep State operatives, and runs foreign policy with vice president Mike Pence. Pence routinely issues statements contradictory to Trump’s own ideas. He has not been the focus of any mainstream media criticism. This Bush loyalist is in perfect position to become president in the event of Trump’s removal (by whatever means that occurs).

The neocon generals—Mattis, McMaster, Kelly—“oversee” and control Trump on all matters, treating him like a child. Kelly controls all information to and from Trump.

Trump often seems not to understand what is happening. On the day Charlottesville occurred, Trump applauded the Virginia authorities and Terry McAuliffe, who were more likely involved in causing the disaster. Trump also congratulated the anarchists in Boston—on Ivanka Trump’s urging. Was he oblivious to the fact that the 4,000 Boston protestors were protesting him?

For Trump’s Afghanistan strategy address to the nation, Kelly insisted that Trump walk back the controversy of his remarks on Charlottesville. McMaster and Mattis also insisted, and Trump agreed.

The swamp is not being drained. It is being filled to overflowing. With all of this damage, some of it self-inflicted (why has Trump allowed it?), how will this president hope to deal with a manufactured civil war?

No end in sight

The Summer of Rage is in full swing, but the rage is far from over.

There continue to be anti-Trump events in all major cities in the country, seemingly every weekend. Ginned-up Antifa mobs are being mobilized in response to small pro-Trump “Freedom of Speech” events scheduled to take place in San Francisco and Berkeley on the weekend of August 26. The upcoming clash is already being called the Battle of Berkeley 3.

With the fervent and unanimous support of the San Francisco Bay Area political establishment—all of whom are Democratic Party faithful who (including Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Nancy Pelosi, etc.) are openly calling for Trump’s ouster—it is expected that yet another comparatively small gathering for “prayer, patriotism and free speech”—Trump supporters—will be swarmed and viciously shut down by mobs of Trump-hating Antifa and “social justice warriors”.

The media ignores the fact that the organizers of the pro-Trump rally condemn Nazis and white supremacists, and prohibit them from attending. Headlines continue to brand the event “far right” and“Nazi”, in order to incite.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/violent...ociety/5605774
__________________
when the people in power want you dead, just existing is a revolutionary act
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:01 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.