What is the point of this blog?
Conspiracy is neither my obsession, nor my guilty pleasure. My interest lies in the multifarious ways in which we are, as a society and as a culture, being manipulated from behind the curtain. I became aware of social conditioning/culture manipulation whilst quite young and yet I still somehow failed to see how it had affected my own thinking until well into middle age.
Conditioning is everywhere in our culture and those who practice it in order to advance certain agendas are past masters at its many forms. I therefore offer the information presented within this blog as an overview of the many methods that the manipulators of our society can and do use, to their advantage and our cost.
I’m aware that many who read these posts will be coming to much of what is covered here cold. And so, I have compiled this brief glossary of terms as an aid to understanding the concepts here covered.
Disinformation: The dissemination of false data or the deliberate omission of part or all of the facts pertaining to important information.
Straw man argument: Focusing debate or attention on selected – cherry picked – points of the opponent’s thesis to give a false interpretation of their meaning, or bring their motives into question.
Cognitive dissonance: Mental conflict occurring when assumptions or beliefs are contradicted by new information.
Group think: A lazy form of thinking where the individual prefers to adopt the opinions of their peers rather than make the effort to figure things out for themself. Once an individual has made a commitment to group think, it can be difficult and even dangerous to challenge their paradigm.
Hegelian dialectic: The dialectic, put simply, involves taking two opposing ideas; Thesis and Antithesis (eg. Capitalism and Communism, Left wing and Right wing, Theism and atheism) and putting them into conflict. After a time the two arguments begin to take on aspects of their opposite, in effect creating a third way, known as Synthesis. The blending of Capitalism and Communism creates a kind of collectivist fascism. The blending of Theism and Atheism creates New Age type quasi religions.
Agenda 21: Not what it appears to be, but rather the very epitome of the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
New World Order: This is not, I believe, the name of an organisation as is commonly claimed, but rather, a scheme that has been running beneath the surface of our society for well over one hundred years. It is the planned take down of the Nation State by a cabal of elitist Oligarchs. They have been working tirelessly for a world (radically reduced in population) collectivised and controlled by a global police state apparatus.
Illuminati: This name, which you will rarely find used on this blog, should be considered a general term intended to describe the more occult (hidden) aspects of New World Order conspiracy. I feel that it is generally used inappropriately and most often (though not always) by COINTELPRO operatives trying to discredit those who question.
Operation Gladio: Though the code name is only really relevant in Italy, it has come to refer to the top secret ‘stay behind armies’ which NATO put in place, in almost every European country, to act as a sort of behind the lines guerrilla force should the West be overrun by Soviet conventional forces. These largely right wing or Fascist groups had members reaching right up into governments, Police, Military and other Establishment organizations. When WWIII failed to materialise, these CIA backed fanatics began to use their resources and networks against Leftist groups, even going so far as to commit terrorist atrocities and blaming them on the Red brigade. These atrocities are even said to have included the bombing of the Bologna railway station and the kidnapping and murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro.
Tavistock: The Tavistock Institute pretends to be a benign charitable NGO, but is actually a key component in the creation of social manipulation and mind control techniques.
What they claim to be.
What they are accused of being.
Skull and Bones: A fraternal secret society operating out of Yale University. Included in its list of members are many notables of the power elite including Presidents. This group is, by definition, occult.
I will add more to this section as time permits.
Bibliography of essential texts
I would further wish to direct the reader’s attention to the following essential readings. If you have not had access to any of these books then you have little chance of understanding the world you find yourself living in.
John A Stormer: None dare call it Treason
Gary Allen: None dare call it Conspiracy
Dr Anthony Sutton: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
Carroll Quigley: Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time
Edward Bernays: Propaganda
Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives
John Coleman: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
David Ray Griffin: The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé
Michael C Ruppert: Crossing the Rubicon
Webster Griffin Tarpley: 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA
Eustace Mullins: The Secrets of the Federal Reserve
Niki Raapana, Nordica Friedrich: 2020: Our Common Destiny and The Anti Communitarian Manifesto
Cathy O’Brien, Mark Phillips: Trance: Formation of America
David McGowan: Weird scenes inside the canyon
Other books of note: Confessions of an economic hit man by John Perkins, The shock doctrine by Naomi Klein, Debunking 9/11 debunking by David Ray Griffin, Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy by David Ray Griffin.
Hey man, what’s with all the wiki quotes?
I have occasionally been criticised for relying too much on a certain online encyclopedia. I am only too aware that Wikipedia is, in general, an unreliable source. Many of the moderators on there are in the employ of the Intelligence community and it has long been a vehicle for the dissemination of disinformation. That said, I made an editorial decision at the very beginning that I would make it as easy as possible for people to check any facts I use to back up my ‘opinions’ (after all, I’m not writing academic papers here, I’m trying to help speed the day that ‘hundredth monkey’ makes the connection).
This should in no way be taken to mean that I use Wikipedia as my primary research tool. I quote it when I know it is correct on a particular point simply because I’m only too aware that many people do use it and, in many cases, simply won’t bother to read anything that isn’t easy to access online. I fact check everything I print, to the best of my ability. And I have a large personal collection of well-thumbed books on history, science and politics to hand. This may only be a blog, but I take what I do here very seriously.
I would also ask that if, whilst using this site, you come across a dead or broken link, please let me know so that I can fix it promptly.
– Winston Smith
I have a friend who often laments that, although the women he meets always claim they are looking for a ‘good man’, they invariably go off and fall for complete arseholes. It’s a familiar story; playing out pretty much everywhere you care to look.
Now make no mistake, my friend is indeed that good man women claim to prize and yet, as of writing, said friend remains single. And there are millions of good men just like him.
It does rather beg the question, what the hell is wrong with you people?
OK, maybe that’s not the question. Seriously, though, what is going on?
The only answer I’ve been able to come up with is that women are being conned by their biology (I can already hear the knives coming out in feminist land, but I’ll forge ahead regardless).
Biology compels women to find a strong, fit male of good breeding stock with whom to mate. This is natural enough since a woman’s sexual biology is basically all about conceiving healthy offspring – men’s too for that matter. I’m not claiming that the only reason people have sex is to produce children, I’m saying that their biological urges lead them to seek out a certain type.
Essentially, although women often claim to despise alpha males, there is generally a strong physical attraction none the less. Here’s the thing, though, most alpha males are thorough going bastards. They are the male analogue of the high school ‘mean girls’ who have had so much attention and adoration (without ever really having to work for it) that they’ve spoiled and tipped over into arsehole territory.
Now, there are of course, exceptions to every rule. Some alpha males are also good men; sensitive, empathetic, kind to small furry animals. These men are the absolute pinnacle of male excellence. And they are rarer than blue eyes in India. Perhaps one man in one hundred thousand is the whole package, but it seems like every woman wants one. And this in a world where women slightly outnumber men (actually since China’s disastrous one child policy took effect, it’s possible that this is no longer the global situation – but it most definitely still holds true in the West).
I’m sure what I’ve written above has raised the ire of some of you and I’m also aware that I’m generalising, but I believe my thesis is sound so I’ll continue. It isn’t that there’s anything wrong with having high expectations. It’s natural to be drawn to the best, but given that a man who has both the strength and confidence of an alpha and is at the same time empathetic and nurturing is so rare (And I’m seriously not kidding here – rare barely begins to cover it) perhaps choosing the red blooded alpha over the less assertive, but more gentle soul doesn’t make as much sense as your ovaries think it does.
I sympathise completely with men like my friend, who get told constantly that they are ‘just so nice’ by women who then go off with cocky, swaggering narcissists who, predictably enough, proceed to demolish both their self-confidence and their trust in our entire gender – cheers for that by the way.
To add insult to injury, it’s then left to the ‘nice’ guy to provide the tear infused shoulder after the oh-so-inevitable train wreck a few weeks/months later. And the icing on that particular bonfire cake is the inescapable moment when she looks at him through blasted eyes and utters that unforgivably cruel question, ‘why can’t more men be like you?’
How the murder rate remains this low is a complete mystery to me.
I’m aware that this post has strayed into unfamiliar territory for this blog….I’m just gonna go with it.
I’m also aware, upon rereading this, that ‘friend’ is often a euphemism for self. In this instance that’s not actually the case, though, I have done my time in the friend zone in bygone days.
It should have escaped no one’s notice that journalists have lately become little more than attack dogs for their corporate and political masters. Where once the press were seen as arbiters of balance and accountability – a bulwark against abuse of power and influence – now they are unashamedly partisan and almost fanatical in their vitriolic defense of the establishment.
Investigative reporters in the vein of Woodward and Bernstein or Seymour Hersh have virtually vanished from the journalistic landscape. A slim few – Pilger, Hedges, Greenwald perhaps – hold out, but are marginalized and forced to operate on the fringes, whilst lesser journalists sneer and snipe at them from the protected high towers of the compromised mainstream.
In fact, any good journalist practicing true reportage is a prime target for the hacks that infest the scorched-earth landscape of our modern media.
If you are wondering how this sad situation came to pass, it’s not difficult to divine. It began decades ago with Operation Mockingbird, a CIA op aimed at controlling the public discourse via infiltration of the media and the entertainment industry.
Assets were placed in key positions at every important newspaper, every TV and radio station and at all the major movie studios. In this way the intelligence agencies were, and are still to this day, able to manage the perceptions of the general public. This is an incredibly effective tool for controlling the narrative. With a remarkably small, but well placed, group of assets, it is possible to shape public opinion to an enormous degree without anyone, including, apparently, most journalists really being aware that it is being done. For example; after his death, it was revealed that news anchor Walter Cronkite, once called the most trusted man in America, was in fact a CIA asset. Very few of the hundreds of people who worked with him over a long career were aware of this fact.
The only serious threat to such an operation would be exposure by legitimate and dedicated investigative reporters. However, that threat has dwindled significantly over the years as the policy at most media agencies has been to move away from funding real investigative journalism and towards a blander, more infotainment style of pap.
This has not been done by accident.
Any reporter wishing to maintain journalistic integrity is therefore forced to act independently and, without the resources and backing of a big news agency, there is a limit to how effective they can be.
For the average hack, it’s safest to simply play the corporate game. This generally involves regurgitating press releases from government and corporate PR departments and pretending said releases are hard news stories. Once reporters have been reduced by habit to the level of mere repeaters, they very quickly become servants of the status quo. The establishment likes this.
The resultant toothless former 4th estate is now nothing more than a propaganda organ of the corporate state. In effect a weapon of said state to be unleashed upon whatever target it see’s fit.
The temptation, whenever we are exposed to information that challenges our consensus reality is to think, ‘that can’t be so, I would have heard about it through the media’. And perhaps that may once have been true.
However, with the flow of information now so tightly controlled, can we ever be certain that what we are being told by the media is actually true? Especially since, whenever an individual stands up to question the received wisdom, they invariably bring the full, vindictive might of ‘The Press’ down upon their heads.
Question the efficacy of vaccines, the war on terror, Obamacare, climate change or any one of a thousand other contentious issues and the media’s response is inevitably the same; attack, attack, attack. Reasoned debate is no longer allowed. A ‘you’re either with us or agin’ us’ attitude prevails, with no clear indication of exactly to whom ‘us’ actually refers.
When the press become propagandists, it is surely a sign that society is moving closer to totalitarianism. I cannot possibly be alone in my strong revulsion towards such an outcome.
Establishment Journalists Pride Themselves on Staying on the Official Rails
This is the now famous resignation letter, written in 2010, from a principled man to a man of questionable allegiances.
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science. ~ Anthony Watts
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
- About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
- The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
- In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
- So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
- To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
- As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Harold Lewis; Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
– Winston Smith
‘I love you’ is the inscription on Pandora’s box. ~ Mason Cooley
Many people see political correctness as a set of behavioural guidelines designed to make our society a better and fairer place for all. In general, the Left-leaners see their adherence to these guidelines as a kind of proof that they are more socially responsible than the Right, who tend to see political correctness as an attack on traditional values and mores.
After a lifetime of living sympathetically with the above Leftist perspective, I’ve more recently come to the sad conclusion that the Right-wingers were probably closer to being on the money. It has become very apparent to me that political correctness and its cold cousin, moral relativism, are weapons pointed squarely at the heart of humanity.
Does that sound overly dramatic?
In past posts, I’ve written many words on the subject of cultural Marxism. Any regular reader of this blog cannot fail to be aware of how very dangerous I believe this quasi religion to be.
I’ve cited academic fanatic Dr Eric Pianka, who has stated that a virulent plague is needed to bring about the end of the human race, and Dr John Holdren (Obama’s science czar) and his mentor Paul Ehrlich who want the Government to do the culling. I’ve railed against the predations of bureaucratic psychopaths like Maurice Strong and Gro Harlem Brundtland who together have gifted us the UN’s nightmarish Agenda 21. Then there are the show ponies like Al Gore, who took the world’s most unsexy notional apocalypse and turned it into twenty-four carat disaster porn for a restive intellectual class.
An astonishing number of arguably crazy ideologues have, with terrifying ease, risen to the upper echelons of power. This has often been achieved with the financial backing of some of the ‘usual suspect’ globalist super villains. Is there really any need to mention the name Rockefeller at this point?
These fanatics have a simple dream. And that dream is a world where people like them are the acknowledged authority with the power to decide who lives and who gets sacrificed to the new ecology gods. Such power requires complete control over every human soul on the planet.
There are two ways you can achieve such a goal.
Firstly, there is conquest. This is a costly proposition and is difficult to pull off. As the US have discovered in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is relatively easy to take over a country, all that that requires is a strong enough army. It is far more difficult to control the people of the country you’ve conquered.
The other method – the one favoured by cultural Marxists everywhere – is to change the beliefs and attitudes of a population, so gradually, so subtly that they fail to even realize that they have not come to your desired position organically. If people believe that a certain proposition was their own conclusion, they can be convinced to do virtually anything, no matter how detrimental to their personal wellbeing it might be.
Which brings us back to political correctness and moral relativism; these are both tools and weapons used to manipulate the population. It begins in the education system. Education was one of the first institutions targeted by cultural Marxism. It infiltrated the great universities and slowly worked its way down to the youngest pre-schoolers. Few children now emerge from the school system without first having experienced total indoctrination into the dogma of political correctness. And few students escape university without the taint of moral relativism.
Once these questionable values have been instilled in a population, there is no limit to how it can be manipulated. The fear of sanction by our peers for some perceived social transgression is a powerful disincentive to think for oneself. It is safest to run with the herd, rather than question and risk condemnation, or worse; ridicule. Individuals will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid negative judgements being passed upon them by the group.
For our controllers, such an aversion can be exceedingly useful. By creating a complex, often unintuitive web of social obligations, it becomes a simple thing to shame or intimidate people into acting contrary to their true natures.
It is time now to invoke the M word, yes that’s right, I’m afraid I’m going to talk about minorities.
That word once referred to any group who represented a small percentage of the overall population. Under the dictatorship of political correctness, that has been twisted to mean basically anyone who is not a white male. Women (51% of the population), according to this definition, become a minority.
Under such conditions, language, duplicitously applied, can lead people to do the very worst things for the very best of reasons. Indeed it would appear that, in these enlightened times, the merest hint of a disparaging comment uttered in the general vicinity of someone deemed to be part of a minority, can lead to the utter destruction of the hapless utterer.
Seemingly, one of the worst crimes that can be perpetrated by a white middle class male in our society is to hurt the feelings of someone who isn’t white, male or middle class. That was once merely the behaviour of a jerk, now it is apparently indicative of the white privileged patriarchal complex oppressing a helpless minority.
And what if you are a woman or a person of colour acting in a politically incorrect manner? Well, for the most part, that’s rarely ever considered an issue. However, when exceptions do arise, such as in the case of blogger and men’s rights activist Karen Straughan of girl writes what the level of condemnation and poisonous vitriol is frightening. Straughan has been roundly condemned by the radical feminist community as a gender traitor for her articulate appeals to reason in defence of men.
Terms like gender traitor, self-hating Jew and climate denier are hurled around these days like unguided missiles launched in the general direction of anybody who refuses to think-along. Orwell certainly knew what he was talking about when he invented the word crimestop for his book 1984. A society where people have to guard even their thoughts for fear they will betray themselves to others as dysfunctional or dissident is the worst of all possible dystopias.
At the core of most cultural Marxist’s beliefs lies moral relativism. This is ironic to my mind as they appear to be among the most judgemental and dictatorial people I have ever personally encountered. The contradictions and hypocrisies of political correctness seem entirely lost upon the majority of them. It is completely fine, as they see it, to castigate someone for a perceived racist or sexist slur, but their own motives can never be questioned in any way, as they operate in a relativistic paradigm that simply cannot be judged on moral precepts.
Let me here posit a small example by way of illustrating my point.
When the contraceptive pill was devised, it was hailed as the great liberator of women’s bodies. Cultural Marxists exhorted women everywhere to take control of their own sexuality. This was couched as the great sexual revolution that would free women from the prison of marriage and the servitude of child bearing.
Fast forward to our present day; the rhetoric has not changed, the liberation of women’s bodies is still celebrated, however, there is one looming and potentially disastrous side effect of all this freedom. Ethynyl-estradiol, or EE2, a synthetic estrogen has been leaching out into our waterways via human waste. Of course, women on the pill are not the only, or even the biggest, source of these endocrine-disruptors, however, it cannot be denied that they are a contributing factor.
Research is increasingly showing us that this is having an adverse effect on the fertility and health of both fish and humans, but do we see the politically correct, environmentally conscious supporters of the planet call for a halt to the distribution of the pill? No, instead we get articles like this one, where the role of the pill in this potential environmental disaster is downplayed to the point that, to the casual reader, it appears to play no significant part at all.
I am not, with this example, trying to make an argument for the banning of the contraceptive pill. Rather, I am attempting to point out the contradictions with which political correctness is replete. However, the average cultural Marxist seems largely oblivious to these contradictions.
I’m referring here to the intellectual class rather than the wider population. The vast majority of people, having received their educational indoctrination, exist in a state of Doublethink (Orwell to the rescue once again). Tradition and natural socialization tend to clash with the ideas that we have been conditioned to accept. This creates cognitive dissonance and leads to confusion, anger and depression. And all the while, we are being told that this is all for our own good. Little wonder then that such a high percentage of the population require anti-depressants simply to function.
Western society has changed so much in a very short space of time. Certainly the world I live in now bears little resemblance to the one into which I was born. Some of that change has been organic, but much has been driven by disingenuous forces. It is perhaps time we started questioning more. Just because something sounds good on its face or is presented by a credible seeming talking head, is no reason to abandon critical thinking when considering its benefits or potential harms.
I’d like to believe that’s possible, but I fear perhaps the last evil to emerge from Pandora’s pithos was gullibility.
‘I can’t be racist because I’m an ethnic minority woman’
Classical Mythology Too Triggering for Columbia Students
– Winston Smith
Over the past few weeks, as I’ve travelled to and from my place of work, I’ve been observing an event which has indirectly confirmed in me my strong belief that we have been extensively lied to about the events of 9/11.
A building in the Melbourne CBD (ironically once known as the World Trade Centre) is currently under partial demolition. Huge machines with enormous jackhammer picks have been punching away at its steel reinforced concrete walls for days. To this observer’s eye, it appears to be a very slow process indeed.
And why would this not be the case? Concrete and steel buildings are designed to last. Multiple redundancies are included because, to pass code, they are required to stand against gale force winds, fire, explosion and even quakes. They build them tough to survive even the most unlikely of scenarios. No architect or engineer ever wants to be held responsible for the building that didn’t stand.
Seeing the effort required to take this building – a fraction of the size of the twin towers or building seven – apart, I was reminded that we have been asked to believe that on 9/11 – and on no other day in history – three buildings of immense size and strength simply disintegrated before our eyes due to fire and gravitational collapse.
This is the part where the official apologists usually jump in with ‘well they did have jets slamming into them’ which, in the case of two of those three buildings, is perfectly true. The fact that Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management specifically said in an interview that the buildings had been built to withstand exactly such impacts makes little dent in the certainty of the hardened apologist, however. These same apologists usually then shift gears, claiming something to the effect that ‘jet fuel burns so hot that it weakens steel.’
Jet fuel is kerosene. Those weren’t fighter jets we saw slamming into those buildings they were flying buses and what made them fly was aviation grade kerosene.
In no earthly scenario is it possible for simple kerosene and office materials to burn at a temperature hot enough to weaken the entire steel structure of a one hundred and ten story building (even in a month with an ‘r ’ in it).
The South Tower collapsed just fifty three minutes after impact. I’m not sure what sort of mental gymnastics you would need to put your mind through to convince yourself that a building of such massive proportions could achieve total failure and collapse from ordinary fires in so short a time, but I am certainly not that nimble.
Again, you want to remind me about the plane impacts (I can almost feel you twitching), but instead let me remind you about building seven. Seven was small compared to the towers, but still a forty seven story steel framed skyscraper that would have been the tallest structure on the skyline in most US cities. No plane came close to hitting seven (which housed a good many government agencies – several, including the CIA, of the spook variety). There were some sporadic fires on several floors that should have been fairly easy to deal with, but at 5.20pm it mysteriously suffered a complete, symmetrical, near free-fall collapse through its own mass. If you have any training as an engineer (or even basic high school physics) that fact should have given you pause.
A favourite argument of those in denial at this point goes something like ‘well I don’t have the training to know if that’s true or not’.
And if you don’t do even a modicum of research, you never will.
Whatever you may believe, as I’ve watched the laborious process of this local demolition, carried out without the aid of explosives, I’ve become more and more confirmed in my own conviction that there is an elephant in the room, that – despite what the apologists say – only explosives, detonated in timed sequence down the buildings and ahead of the collapses, can possibly explain the rapid descent and total disintegration of such massive edifices in the way we all saw on that infamous day.
Cue the trolls.
Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world. ~ Malthus T.R. An essay on the principle of population. Chapter VII, p61
I have friends that count themselves among the ‘awake’ who never the less subscribe to the notion that there are too many people.
I have actually seen one of my online friends post something to the effect that we need to reduce total world population by five billion for the sake of the planet. He didn’t venture to say whether or not he himself would volunteer to be amongst that number, but any way you dice it, that’s an awful lot of people that would have to die to prove one person’s compassion for mother Gaia.
What makes otherwise intelligent, caring individuals express such virulently anti-human views? It feels very much as though the consciousness of the intellectual middle has been hijacked by some outside group or agency.
And it feels that way because that is precisely what has occurred.
The New World Order is a scheme, devised by the power elite, to create a one world technocratic system administered by experts but ruled by oligarchs. It would, by necessity be totalitarian; a veritable panopticon of police state surveillance. Under this system there would be no countries. Instead the world would be divided into administrative regions. The current EU is the model for this coming global system.
If everything I’ve just written seems strange or unlikely to you, you simply haven’t been paying attention. They have been openly preparing since their false flag coup on 9/11/01.
The origin of this plan goes back centuries. The first modern* philosophical exploration of technocracy for instance, dates back to the time of the French revolution, with the thinkers Henri Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte.
The novelist and essayist H G Wells who, for a time at least, was a card carrying Fabian, wrote the book Shape of things to come, which imagined a world run by a scientific technocracy that comes to power after a disastrous world war. This apocalyptic war, which sends civilization back to barbarism, is brought about by incompetent politicians and, according to Wells, it is only the scientific elites who have the means or ability to bring mankind back from the brink. The book was clearly meant as a piece of political propaganda presenting the preferred system of the Fabian Society.
In the 1930’s technocracy as a political theory came to the United States. It received a great deal of interest, but ultimately failed to gain a foothold in that freedom loving country at that time. None the less, some thirty years later, Neo technocratic groups began to surface. These were the direct descendants of the Fabians and cultural Marxists who had, over many decades, infiltrated academia, the media, local and national government and especially, the bureaucracy of the state.
Men like Kissinger and Brzezinski achieved positions at the elbows of presidents. In the case of Brzezinski it would appear he actually groomed at least two presidents (Carter and Obama) for their roles and both presidents along with Clinton have been notable for steering the nation away from traditional democracy towards a more Marxist alignment.
“So started this big operation whose results we still see every day,” the witness continued.”While reading reports of the Soviet Embassy in Washington, more than once I met the name of the Carnegie Endowment and of the Rockefeller Foundation . . . I read about these foundations mostly in the reports of the Soviet ambassador in Washington, when he said what kind of people he and his officials met from these foundations in this period of time, what kind of assignments they gave to these people, or through other people, to these foundations, or to these foundations through American universities or publishing houses . . . He gave the names of the people whom he met, and the people his agents met . . . I just registered in my memory the fact that with every year the number of mentions of these foundations became more and more numerous, and the people involved in this machination of the Soviet Embassy in this country became also greater and greater.” (Cox hearings, pp.677-78)
The other important institutions that have been heavily infiltrated by cultural Marxists are the big Tax-Exempt Foundations. Actually, it’s not quite correct to use the word infiltrated as most of these foundations were in fact created by those to whom dedicated cultural Marxists answer.
The Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment and the Rockefeller Foundation to name but three have all historically been deeply involved in culture manipulation. All were to a greater or lesser extent involved with founding and furthering the eugenics movement, for example. In more recent times, another powerful actor has emerged; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
All of these Foundations present a caring, socially conscientious public face. And due to their manipulations of a largely compliant and toothless media, have been able to couch their frankly dubious activities in such terms for most of the past hundred years. It is said that John D Rockefeller created philanthropy as a public relations exercise to placate an angry America after the event known as the Ludlow massacre. In this cynical move lies the true genesis of the Tax Exempt Foundations, duplicitously formed to present their founders in a far better light than their true natures deserved.
And all of these Foundations have, for decades, pushed the notion of overpopulation. Their money has been behind almost every organization that has been active in spreading the idea that there are just too many people for the earth to sustain.
They finance movies and back books on the subject. They fund studies and papers and, most effective of all, create and direct so called environmental activist groups which they then unleash at will on very specific targets.
An example of this technique in action (or inaction, depending upon your perspective) is easy to cite. All of the major environmental groups constantly push the idea of co2 as a driver for anthropogenic climate change. This is an ‘acceptable’ target to the Foundations because it nudges us towards the deindustrialization of the first world. However, none of the groups protest the very real danger of planet wide contamination due to the military’s constant use of depleted uranium on the battlefield. This is because the Foundations (or at least, those who sit on their boards) are both profiting from the weapons and ideologically in favour of the devastating effects they are having on the populations of the affected countries.
If this seems like a cynical statement to you, again, you obviously haven’t been paying attention.
All of the major environmental groups receive support from the foundations, often quite openly. And all of these groups have at their cores a fundamentalist zeal for population reduction. This is entirely by design.
Overpopulation and Eugenics
Thomas Malthus wrote his error ridden essay on the effects of overpopulation on the food supply in 1830. His theory that mankind would run out of food proved entirely spurious and yet as late as 1960 it was included in a collection of writings on overpopulation which also featured Julian Huxley pushing a very similar barrow (Huxley even quoted Malthus in his own essay, going so far as to imply that the math challenged vicar hadn’t gotten it entirely wrong).
The fact is Malthus and Huxley for that matter, were dead wrong. In Malthus’ case, the error was genuine – he was a bit of a twit, but Huxley, who was at the time head of UNESCO, was likely working an agenda.
The Huxleys had always been enamoured of the pseudo-science of eugenics Julian’s grandfather was Thomas Huxley known as Darwin’s Bulldog. The Huxleys, Darwins, Galtons and Wedgewoods famously devised a scheme to breed only amongst themselves. Their goal was a superior calibre of humans going forward. What they got were imbeciles and defectives. They clearly clung to their eugenic notions none the less. Author Aldous Huxley reputedly wrote Brave new world as a cautionary parable of the dangers of eugenics, but it is interesting to note that it is notionally very close to the philosophy his grandfather espoused.
This elitist perspective is what drives the New World Order. It is not aimed towards the good of all mankind, but rather to the benefit of a tiny section of humanity who see themselves as something more than human.
In the future they envision, we (the great unwashed) are tolerated only in so far as we are useful to them. And in an era of rapidly advancing technology, there is actually less and less need for most of us at all. That really does appear to be how they think and that’s all well and good, there have always been such attitudes among the ruling class, they are frankly entitled to believe whatever garbage they like. That said, what really disturbs this writer is most people’s complete willingness to go along with the opinions of obvious psychopaths.
Through decades of anti-human propaganda the people have been conditioned to the belief that the Earth is collapsing under the weight of all this humanity. Images of the most crowded places on the planet are constantly beamed into our living rooms along with equally graphic scenes of environmental degradation. Now don’t get me wrong, there are some very real environmental issues that need to be urgently addressed and not everyone who claims to care about the planet takes a pay check from the Rockefeller Foundation, but most of the problems we currently face have solutions and none of those involve culling the human race.
This planet can probably sustain eleven billion souls and all indications are that we will hit nine billion within twenty or thirty years and that at that point the population tide will begin to recede due to declining fertility.
That’s not something ‘they’ want you to know.
The easiest way to spot a foundation puppet is when they open their mouths on TV (usually with pictures of the overcrowding in Mexico City flashing behind them) and try to tell you that the Earth is already over carrying capacity. There are obviously places on this finite but enormous planet where too many are crammed into too small an area. This is usually due to extreme poverty forcing the desperate to seek work in urban centres. And the cause of that poverty is the same tiny minority who are telling us these lies whilst taking too much of the wealth for themselves. If you really want to ration our diminishing resources, the place to start, I would suggest, is with the one percent of one percent who have voraciously accrued more wealth than all the rest of us combined.
People (excluding the psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists who have lied, cheated and stolen their way to the top of the pyramid) are generally well meaning and responsible when left to their own devices. Only about five percent of any society would be classified as criminal, the vast majority are basically decent. You need only look around your own social circle to see evidence of this.
However, after centuries of conditioning by the church telling us what dreadful sinners we all are, a certain amount of cultural guilt has been instilled in the group psyche. This is the very guilt that the cultural Marxists have mined so effectively for their own ends.
Here’s the thing, though, we don’t have to play along. We don’t have to accept ‘their’ disparaging assessment of our worth. We are not chattel and we are not a cancer. We are humanity; imbued with infinite complexity and unceasing potential. They want us to forget that.
I, for one, refuse.
Finally, I’m including this Paper by Theresa Okafor, Director, Foundation for African Cultural Heritage, presented for the 10th Rhodes Forum. It represents a perspective from the black community who are one of the groups who have been hit hardest by the depopulation agenda.
* For an even earlier exploration of Technocracy, we need look no further than Plato’s ‘Republic’.