Book Review: UFOs For The 21st Century Mind by Richard Dolan

UFOs21CM
TheBreakaway | BreakawayConciousness
Zy Marquiez
April 4, 2017

In UFOs & The National Security State: Chronology Of A Cover-up – Volume 1, Richard Dolan carried out his opening salvo into the field of UFOlogy.  Seeking a veritable encyclopedia  of verifiable UFO sightings and never finding one, Dolan wrote a book based upon all data he collated from all the previous research he had undertaken.  In essence, he wrote the book he was looking for in UFOlogy, but wasn’t available.

In UFO’s & The National Security State – Volume 2, Dolan further cemented himself as a genuine historian by buttressing his previous work with another landmark piece.  Like his other books, this book is sourced to the hilt, which is appreciated for those seeking to venture further into the abstruse.  Moreover, this book is also the book in which the term “Breakaway Civilization” was coined.  A notable point to be sure, because that idea has been used by others seeking truth within this field and others, and it’s helped shed light into darker areas in this field.  What’s more, the ‘encyclopedia’ that Dolan began in volume one continued.

Thence, in A.D. After Disclosure, Dolan and his author Bryce Zabel sought to examine how the day after “the Others” are announced might play out, and they carry out the examination in salient fashion.  This book features a very sober analysis to many of the probable scenarios that will play out in a post-disclosure worked.  Anyone seeking to understand the possibilities such a sobering day will bring should ruminate upon getting this book.

Now, in UFOs For The 21st Century Mind, Dolan wrote a book to grapple the mind of newer generations and readers, the unexposed minds, the interested minds that have long sought to dive into “the phenomenon” but didn’t know where to start.

Along this stream of thought, this book strikingly brings about a fresh new look at UFOs, with modern eyes, employing a much broader perspective and dataset than the average UFO book.  Dolan doesn’t simply stick to classic sightings, abductions and declassified documents, but goes beyond to ruminate upon the realm of consciousness, quantum entanglement and more.  This book really is an up-to-date assessment of the situation from a multiplicity of angles.

Dolan begins the book by examining what UFOs could be by guiding the reader closer to the subject thoughtful and yet trenchant manner.  This helps the reader familiarize themselves with the subject and come to realize that there are a variety of explanations for UFO phenomena, many of which do not get considered   at length, if at all.  Additionally, this is also crucial because many individuals still continue to experience the phenomena in a variety of ways, and yet there aren’t any official channels to seek help from.

In Dolan’s own words:

“Whether or not you consider UFOs to be nonsense or of great importance, people are seeing things that are affecting them deeply.  Because there are no institutional structures for them to report or discuss what they see, they often keep silent, and try to forget or only secretly cherish one of the most incredible experiences of their lives.”[1]

Dolan, however, doesn’t shy away from the fact that this is a very serious issue.  While ruminating deeply upon it, he ponders reasons both pro and con that will help bring lucidity to a situation often bathed in shadows.  In fact, implications in the fields of economy, politics, religion, culture and science are given a cursory overview early on, and then are covered at length later in the book.  Dolan doesn’t merely stop there, though.

Journeying back in time, Dolan goes on to explore this phenomenon all the way back into ancient times and attempts to separate the wheat from the chaff.  This is important because it shows UFOs aren’t merely a modern phenomena.   In addition, salient subjects such as pyramids, lost civilizations, and ancient images goes to show that there probably is more than meets the eye within this field.

Interestingly, we know that some pyramids contain astronomical data.  This is particularly interesting because when this information is taken in conjunction with much of the lore and myths that abound those structures, and the fact that there’s hundreds of pyramids around the globe, and the fact that many of the core of the myths echoes nigh carbon copy traditions,  it should bring one pause.  Granted, it’s not proof, but very suggestive evidence nonetheless.

What’s more, some ancient writings seem to have what could be descriptions of ancient technology, such as the passage from Ezekiel, from the Bible, which Josef Blumrich, former NASA employee, sought to debunk.

Ironically, in the book The Spaceships of Ezekiel:

“Blumrich presented technical specifications of the spacecraft that he argued, fit Ezekiel’s description perfectly.  Of course, we should remember that Ezekiel presumably was describing something well beyond his experience for his time 2,500 years ago.  If he did see a descending spacecraft, he would have lacked the language or technological understanding to describe it in any way other than he did.”[2]

Later in the book, Dolan brings the reader up to more modern times when he examines a distinct array of sightings  and issues from the time.  These include ghost rockets, the Airship mysteries, which are rather fascinating in fact, the Minot case, the Malmstrom case, airspace violations and more.  Subsequent to that that, Dolan grapples with the issue of pervasive secrecy which he ruminates upon at length, and all that that entailed.  Many of the classics – Kecksburg, Aztec, Roswell – are also given a cursory glance.

But it doesn’t stop there.  Other significant incidents of “High Strangeness” get examined, such as some famous sightings around the globe, encounters with these beings, abductions [i.e. Travis Walton & Betty & Barney Hill] and even some crash retrievals.  All of this coalesces to allow the reader to note that there’s more than ample evidence to show that the phenomena not only existed for many decades, but was taken extremely seriously by those in the upper echelons of society.

Dolan also makes sure to hone in on quite of few aspects of the early period within UFOlogy’s history.  Here he covers everything from the blatant cover that took place behind the scenes, FOIA requests, the penetration of UFO groups by intelligence agencies and even touches upon the need for more people to get involved in a more serious manner.

This call to arms isn’t to be taken lightly because, as Dolan intimates:

“…a proper study of UFOs is a revolutionary experience.  It shatters old belief systems and forces us to look at our world in a completely new way.  Everything is affected: history, politics, economics, science, religion, culture, and our ultimate vision of who and what we are as human beings.”[3]

This subject seeps into all aspects of life, which is why it should be taken seriously.  When all collated information Dolan has amassed is pondered at length and given a fair shot, it is impossible not see something is going on.  Deeper truths lie locked-up within the rabbit holes of the field.  Undoubtedly, whenever some of these truths arise they will change the face of the world over night.  Those that are researching this field will be ahead of the pack in understanding the phenomenon and much of the disinformation that will also come regarding it, in the future.  That is another point to consider why this book should be read.

This subject is too important to overlook, and if humanity is ever going to prepare itself to live in a post-disclosure era, it is important to know the history of this subject and its implications.  If you’ve never read a book on this subject in your life, make this your first one.  You will not regret it.  As someone whose read over three dozen books on the subject, nothing else comes close to be this comprehensive while also being sober and realistic. Simply stated, if you want a book that is accessible to lay person, but also stimulating enough to get your brain cells churning, get this book.

___________________________________________________________
Footnotes:

[1] Richard Dolan, UFOs For The 21st Century Mind, p. 9
[2] Ibid., p. 55.
[3] Ibid., p. 2.

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You are encouraged and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________
About The Author:

Zy Marquiez is an avid book reviewer, researcher, an open-minded skeptic, yogi, humanitarian, and freelance writer who studies and mirrors regularly subjects like Consciousness, Education, Creativity, The Individual, Ancient History & Ancient Civilizations, Forbidden Archaeology, Big Pharma, Alternative Health, Space, Geoengineering, Social Engineering, Propaganda, and much more.

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Selling A Culture Of Ignorance To The Young

IgnoranceQuote2
Selling a culture of ignorance to the young: key moments

Sam Cooke: Don’t know much about anything, what a wonderful world

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 3, 2017

As my readers know, I’ve been documenting the downfall of education in America for a long time. My basic logic course, contained in my collection, The Matrix Revealed, is one antidote.

Aside from what happens and what doesn’t happen in the classroom, the promotion of a popular culture devoted to glorifying ignorance certainly erodes children’s ambition to learn.

Let’s return to a “more innocent time” to pick up a clue, and a turning point.

Wonderful World, composed by Sam Cooke, Herb Alpert, and Lou Adler, broke on to the scene in 1960. It had legs. Later covers of the tune climbed the charts in 1965 and 1978, and then Cooke’s original performance was resurrected as a hit in 1985 and 1986:

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

Just another sentimental popular tune; who cares? No one; except the lyric awoke a vast underlying YES in many hearts.

I don’t know nothin’, but love will carry the day, and the world will be wonderful then.

The obvious message: there is a shortcut to happiness. Learning is beside the point. It’s irrelevant. Just listen, the singer has found the key. He’s basically ignorant, but it doesn’t matter. If he can convince Her to love him, he has the answer the world has been waiting for.

He’s the hero. He’s the example.

Knowledge is just a con. It gets in the way. It creates adults. That’s a horrible fate. Remaining a child wins the prize. Children don’t have to worry. All they need is love. Let’s somehow reduce EVERYTHING to THAT.

As for Sam Cooke himself, well, he began singing with a group when he was six, he later composed a number of hit tunes, he launched his own record label (SAR), he put together his own music publishing company and a talent-management outfit. I don’t know what he knew and didn’t know, but he knew something. He worked tirelessly for years. (At the age of 33, in 1964, he was shot and killed in a Los Angeles motel. The circumstances surrounding his death are in dispute.) Point is, the Cooke who was singing about being ignorant was far from ignorant—as is the case with many performers who convincingly launch childlike sentiments to audiences for mass consumption. But these audiences, enveloped in the “feelings,” rarely bother to consider the source and the intelligence of the source.

Popular culture is a back-and-forth affair. The artist relays a quick dream, and the public buys it, because the dream arouses some latent idea that proposes a shortcut to happiness. An out.

The artist and his handlers are always looking for the fabled hook; the phrase that will pull in the crowd and galvanize their reaction.

Eventually, after years of swimming in pop culture, the tuned-up audience is conditioned to the notion that life’s secret has to be one hook or another. Little else is important.

Certainly, work is not important. Striving is not important. Ambition is not important. One’s own creative impulse is not important. Learning is not important. Those are all dead ends. Instead, something much simpler and easier (and vaguer) has to be the key.

In the realm of politics, there is a carryover. The answer in that arena would be simple, too. Greatest good. Love everybody right now. Kinder, gentler. I feel your pain. It takes a village. No child left behind. Hope and change. Yes we can.

Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

If you just took the last three lines of that lyric and eliminated the rest, you’d have…nothing. No hook, no impact. But add the “don’t know” piece, and you’re striking gold. Because the audience of mostly young people wants the “don’t know.” That’s what they’re looking for. A boil-down into the effortless item that allows them to win what they yearn for, by pleading ignorance. Perfect.

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be
Don’t know much about geography,
Don’t know much trigonometry
Don’t know much about algebra,
Don’t know what a slide rule is for
But I do know that one and one is two,
And if this one could be with you,
What a wonderful world this would be
Now, I don’t claim to be an “A” student,
But I’m tryin’ to be
For maybe by being an “A” student, baby,
I can win your love for me
Don’t know much about history,
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be
History
Biology
Science book
French I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

I can’t resist tossing off a salute to the Beatles, because if you think Sam Cooke was scraping the bottom of the barrel, his lyric was Shakespearean laid alongside the 1963 Lennon/McCartney offering, I Want to Hold Your Hand. This was not the Beatles of Eleanor Rigby or even Hello, Goodbye. It was the early rocket that set off the first US explosion of Beatlemania.

Get a load of this lyric:

Oh yeah I tell you somethin’
I think you’ll understand
When I say that somethin’
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
Oh please say to me
You’ll let me be your man
And please say to me
You’ll let me hold your hand
Now, let me hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
And when I touch you
I feel happy inside
It’s such a feelin’ that my love
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
Yeah, you got that somethin’
I think you’ll understand
When I say that somethin’
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
And when I touch you
I feel happy inside
It’s such a feelin’ that my love
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
Yeah, you got that somethin’
I think you’ll understand
When I feel that somethin’
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand

The single of the song sold five million copies in the US. It was folded into an album, Meet the Beatles!, which soon piled on another 3.5 million sales. The 1960s were off and running.

Nothing would ever be the same.

I’m told the real hook in I Want to Hold Your Hand is the opening phrase: “Oh yeah.” The kids loved it right away.

And if you want culture, you’ve got to go to the kids. They know what’s happening. They’re on the cutting edge…

Of the cliff.

It quickly became apparent to ad agencies, and corporations, and politicians, and media barons, and even the medical cartel, that targeting children was the new Thing. Don’t raise them. No. Bring the adults down to the child’s level.

That was the breakthrough.

The kiddies want what they want when they want it.

Convert society into a diaper-dream.

Hawk that dream from Norway to the southern tip of Argentina.

Buttress it with psychological clap-trap.

Call it, I don’t know, something like…

Utopia.

Yes, that’ll work.

As long as no one THINKS.

Oh yeah.

If you reduce the English language to the level of the two songs I’ve presented here, why would children in school want anything more?

They already believe they know the secret of life.

And if the “secret” doesn’t deliver the goods, it’s an easy step for the children to then consider themselves victims.

After that, the trip downhill happens quickly.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

It All Started With Barbara Streisand: People Who Need People

breakaway3
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 3, 2017

A cultural turning point.

The 1964 song, People Who Need People, composed by Jule Styne and Bob Merrill, made Barbra Streisand a star.

I remember radio stations playing the tune day after day. The sentiment of the lyric had people saying YES as they wiped their tears away. It was as if a repressed universal idea had suddenly emerged out of the subconscious of America, forming a new national anthem:

People who need people.

I couldn’t make head or tail of it. I felt like I’d suddenly moved to Mars.

But there it was: “People who need people are the luckiest people in the world.”

What?

Of course, the song moved on to talk about love and finding one very special person—sure, everybody was on board with love and romance—but even then we were told: “first be a person who needs people.” As if that were the pre-requisite for love.

People who NEED people. The stunner. The need was suddenly a marvelous plus. It wasn’t a problem. No, it was good.

Need is something that eats away at you. But don’t worry. Give in to the need. Be the need.

There is the implication that people who don’t need people are very unlucky. They might WANT the friendship and love of others, but that’s not enough. No, they have to need.

Need means “can’t do without.” If you thought that was a negative, you were wrong. Need is compulsion. But the “compulsion for other people” makes you exceedingly lucky. You just won the jackpot.

And how about this line from the song: “We’re children, needing other children.”

That’s the dead giveaway. Adults are trapped. You can’t be an adult and live your life with happiness. No. You’re really a child, and you have to admit it.

We’re all children, we’re needy children. Let’s all regress. Let’s have a society of needy children. Let’s be “dependent on our needs.”

Years later, we were given other messages that flowed from the song: It takes a village. Inner child.

People who want people, or people who love people—those lines wouldn’t have worked in the song. To hit the sweet spot, it had to be people who need people. That would create a sense of victimhood.

A new revelation. We’re victims. And that’s good. It leads us to love. That’s how we get there.

And since we’re all children needing other children, we need…parents. Isn’t that the implication? Doesn’t that follow? Who will be our parents? Certainly not the adults who raised us. That’s boring. That’s old hat. No, the parents will be some other Gentle Force.

The State.

As long as it’s a good State. And the only way we can guarantee that is by giving our consent to a government who does, in fact, see us as children, who knows we’re children (victims) with needs, and who will satisfy those needs.

Individual self-reliance, independence, determination, will power, creative force, accountability? Those are illusions. Old illusions. We use them to cover up our true condition as yearning children who need and must have other children. We’re “letting our grown-up pride hide all the need inside,” as the song goes. Aha. See a therapist today. Unload all that pride and bring out the inner child.

Of course, self-reliance, independence, determination, will power, and accountability, plus a boatload of talent, is how Barbra Streisand made it, how she became a smashing success. But with that song, she turned around and became the prophet of need for everyone else.

The 1964 tune that made her famous was a tremor in the culture. From that point on, it became fashionable and correct and even “psychologically accurate” for people to conceive of themselves as victorious victims.

Recall the key statement Karl Marx made popular (1875): “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” What could be clearer? I doubt Marx had a sense of humor, but had he been alive in 1964 and witnessed the reaction to Streisand’s People Who Need People, he surely would have cracked a smile, realizing…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: Westphalia, Soft Power, And New…[Part 3]

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 30, 2017

I have to apologize for devoting much of this weeks blogs to the remarks of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, but as I indicated in part one, so many people sent the transcription of his remarks to the Military Academy of the Russian General Staff, reported on The Sakers website, that I had to comment. And certainly his remarks warrant the extended treatment, for they outline the salient feature of the Russian states political worldview and mentality in a way that few remarks from Russian leaders have. They deserve careful consideration and reflection, for the implications of Mr. Lavrovs remarks are both broad and deep, and very long-term oriented. (I hope, eventually, to do a webinar in the members area on the Russian cosmist philosophers as part of the culture webinars series, for it is in that body of work from the Russian intelligentsia that one sees clearly how closely allied culture and politics are in contemporary Russian thinking.)

In part one, I reviewed the implications of Mr. Lavrovs extended references to the Peace of Westphalia, implications that spell out certain long term objectives of Russian foreign policy. Yesterday in part two, I reviewed the soft power/culture power connection of Russia’s foreign policy to that first Westphalian emphasis. Today I would like to focus on the third area: nuclear weapons and new non-nuclear strategic weapons. Here’s the link to the article once again:

Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

I want to direct your attention today toward the end of Mr. Lavrovs remarks, and to some truly astonishing implications contained in them:

Recently, there has been a push towards forcing the nuclear states to abandon their nuclear arsenals and banning nuclear weapons altogether. It is crystal clear that this is premature. Let me remind you that it wasn’t for nothing that the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty wrote into it that the nuclear arsenals had to be fully scrapped but only in the context of general and complete disarmament. We are prepared to discuss the possibility of further gradual reductions in nuclear capabilities but only if we take all the factors influencing strategic stability into account and not just the quantity of strategic offensive weapons.

Another reason why we’re prepared to discuss this issue is the growing sense of urgency about making this process multilateral. The restrictions on nuclear capabilities which Russia and the United States have repeatedly accepted for many years have led them to a situation where, essentially, they cannot proceed doing this on the bilateral basis. (Emphasis added)

A little further on, Mr. Lavrov adds this:

The formation of a polycentric international order is an objective process. It is in our common interest to make it more stable and predictable. In these conditions, the role of diplomacy as a tool to coordinate balanced solutions in politics, economics, finance, the environment, and the innovation and technology sectors has increased significantly. Simultaneously, the role of the armed forces as the guarantor of peace has increased too.

Observe that these two statements are the logical implications of the whole soft power culture power Westphalian emphasis; in effect, Mr. Lavrov has stated that the old Cold War conceptions of armaments reduction talks – with their emphasis on bean counting the number of tanks, warheads, missiles, aircraft  – is simply no longer viable, for the other components of stability are cultural in nature, and lest one misunderstands his statements, he spells out what culture in this context means: it means the whole constellation of domestic and international political institutions, historical memory and traditions, finance and economics, technological innovation and so on.

Mr. Lavrov is correct here, for it is that constellation of factors that leads to the development of armaments and more importantly, the circumstances in which they are used. This brings us to remarks that Mr. Lavrov made in response to a question, and these are worth pondering long and hard:

To a very large extent, President Trump’s position on the majority of key issues on the foreign policy agenda, including further steps to limit strategic nuclear weapons as you’ve mentioned, has yet to be finalised. By the way, if I remember right, Donald Trump mentioned the issue of cooperation with us in this field as an example. He was asked whether he would be prepared to lift sanctions on Russia. I believe that was the way the question was formulated. He responded by saying they should see if there were issues on which they could cooperate with Russia on a mutually beneficial basis in US interests, in particular, mentioning nuclear arms control. At the same time, as you know, the US president said the Americans should modernise and build up their nuclear triad. We need to wait until the military budget is finally approved under the new administration and see what its priorities and objectives are and how these funds will be spent. As for our further conversation, I briefly mentioned in my address that we are ready for such a conversation but it should be conducted with acknowledgment of all strategic stability factors without exception. Today, those who propose implementing the so-called nuclear zero initiative as soon as possible, banning and destroying nuclear weapons and generally outlawing them absolutely, ignore the fact that since the nuclear bomb was made and this new kind of weapon began to be produced on a large scale in the USSR, the US, China, France and the UK, colossal changes have taken place in military science and technology. What is being developed in the US under the codename Prompt Global Strike are non-nuclear strategic weapons. If they are developed (and this work is moving forward very actively, with the objective of reaching any point in the world within an hour), of course, they will be more humane than nuclear weapons, because there will be no radiation, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki effect. However, in terms of military superiority, my friends at the Defence Ministry tell me the effect will be more devastating than from a modern nuclear bomb. (Emphasis added)

Note again that Mr. Lavrov has stated the Cold War Bean counting method of armaments limitations talks is not workable without a discussion and agreement on all factors – again the culture factor – are had.  Note also that in his remarks Lavrov has ruled out nuclear disarmament, even on a bilateral US-Russia basis, since (1) there are other nuclear powers, but more importantly because (2) there is a whole class of non-nuclear strategic weapons, equally destructive as nuclear weapons for bombardment purposes.

For those familiar with it, this is similar to the position that former US Army Lt. Col Tom Bearden maintains was a negotiating position of the former Soviet Union in arms negotiations, namely, that they wanted to ban weapons even more destructive than nuclear weapons, because of their sheer destructive power. The American negotiators, Bearden maintains, did not have a clue what the Russians were then talking about.

This is a crucial factor, for what it indicates is that Russia is well aware of a whole class of secret weaponizable technologies -again, alluded to by Lavrov in his previous remarks – that have to be taken into consideration. In this specific instance, Mr. Lavrov is possibly referring to the rod of God kinetic space-based orbital bombardment technologies which literally propel an inert projectile at such extreme velocities to a surface target that the impact yields a colossal thermonuclear-sized explosion, but without any radioactive aftereffects. In short, think of a nuclear war, without radioactivity.

Wars are thinkable again, and this is a de-stabilizing factor. This could also indicate that, at present, Russia is not involved in the development of a similar capability, but that if such weapons are not up for negotiation with western powers, then it will perforce have to develop them. (And there is an important side issue here, for two powers – Germany and Japan – have undertaken not to develop thermonuclear or nuclear strategic weapons, which they could easily and very quickly do. Such technologies afford an end-run around their treaty obligations, and since both are space-faring powers as well, this potentiality exists, and is yet another de-stablizing factor in Russias strategic calculations).

If one parses Mr. Lavrovs concerns here closely, it is almost as if he is stating, as openly as he can, that negotiations on nuclear weapons is almost a moot point, since technological developments is quickly rendering them obsolescent if not obsolete. Its the secret stuff that Russia is (rightly) concerned about, and it’s the secret stuff that also is a de-stablizing factor and needs to be put on the table. If one now takes the concerns of all three parts of this blog together, then what at first might appear to be a kind of random grab bag of unrelated concerns is really a well-thought out connected policy. And that policy is one which, at its central core, is uniquely based in cultural concerns. And in this, in my opinion, its light years ahead of the create a crisis and then solve it approach of the West.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: Westphalia, Soft Power, And New…[Part 2]

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 29, 2017

Yesterday I began this two part blog on the following important article that many here sent me: the speech of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the military academy of the Russian General Staff:

Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

As I noted yesterday, Mr. Lavrov placed his remarks about the Peace of Westphalia  ‘front and center ‘, toward the very beginning of his speech to the academy, and this, I argued, was a strong clue about Russia ‘s  long term  agenda. One might summarize that agenda in the form of two propositions:

(1) if there is to be a  ‘global world order’ then to ensure it does not become a tyranny, it must be based on some  ‘congress ‘ system or mutual recognition of the sovereignty of states, coupled with (2) the notion that such states are to be wholly secular, with no one religion dominating, or conversely, excluded. From the standpoint of domestic policy, this is a logical road for Russia to pursue, for though its religious-cultural heritage is Eastern Orthodox, it has significant populations of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and so on. And this  ‘Westphalian’ approach has been stressed by Mr. Putin repeatedly in his remarks.

But Mr. Lavrov goes on to mention, in this context, something else quite important: the  ‘soft power ‘ or  ‘culture power ‘ card, and he does so, notably, immediately  after  mentioning the Peace of Westphalia: Of course, it takes more than just the size of a country’s territory for it to be considered “big and strong” in today’s world.  There is also the economy, culture, traditions, public ethics and, of course, the ability to ensure one’s own security and the security of the citizens under any circumstances.

Recently, the term “soft power” has gained currency.  However, this is power as well. In other words, the power factor in its broad sense is still important in international relations. Its role has even increased amid aggravated political, social, and economic contradictions and greater instability in the international political and economic system.  We take full account of this fact in our foreign policy planning. (Emphasis added)

What does this mean, or rather, how does this translate into action and policy? A couple of years ago I had a private discussion with a friend who is in the  ‘financial and investment counseling ‘ profession. I told him that one would have to watch future Russian foreign policy statements very carefully, because all the signals I was seeing at that time pointed to a massive increase of Russian use of the  ‘soft power/culture power ‘ card. At the time, I was basing this observation on the way Russia was handling the GMO issue by calling (and later implementing) a complete ban, while calling for genuine long-term studies on its cost-to-benefit aspects, environmental and human health risks and benefits, and so on. At the same time, Mr. Putin was openly speaking against the GMO issue, and from time to time was commenting on the health risks of western vaccine products. In other words,  he was not responding to the issues but rather, aligning Russia with the domestic opposition within the West . Or, to be even more blunt about it: he was playing to the growing sense of many in the West that their concerns were simply not being allowed in the media, in the halls of power, or even being allowed a level playing field and representation. That was just a few years ago.

Now  that program has expanded to represent the cultural concerns across the board: the collapse of morality, the assaults on the Christian basis of western culture, the so-called  ‘war on terrorism ‘ and the covert support by western intelligence agencies of terrorist groups… all of it has come under review by Mr. Putin in recent remarks; consider only his Christmas Eve message. In a certain sense, he was speaking for what many in the west have been calling  ‘populism ‘, but I believe a more accurate term or phrase might be  ‘traditional culturism ‘.  And he  does  raise a valid point: many in the west, this author among them, have grown tired of the shell game being played out in the so-called political parties: there are parties of the  ‘hard ‘ left, the Dummycrooks, Labour, the Social Democrats, and there are parties of the  ‘right ‘ – the  ‘fake opposition ‘ parties – that are really  ‘soft ‘ left: the Republithugs, the Tories, the Christian Democrats, and so on. Both  ‘sides ‘ are infested with globalists, that is to say, with crony crapitalism and with corporate socialists. And that has produced the frustration that, if one pays close attention, Mr. Putin has been addressing in some of his recent remarks.

To put this as plainly as possible: in playing the soft power/culture power card, Mr. Putin has been positioning Russia as  ‘the voice of the opposition ‘, unique among the powers that can be considered  ‘western ‘. It ‘s a decidedly clever strategy, for it accounts for the growing popularity of Russian media among the West, particularly from the disenfranchised  ‘populists ‘ or  ‘traditional culturists ‘, and the response of the oligarchs of the West is very  ‘non-western ‘: to attempt to shut down that media and continue to demonize Russia and anyone paying attention to it or its media. And this too has occasionally brought forth a comment or two from Mr. Putin. It is this strategy of becoming  ‘the voice of the opposition ‘ that I submit might be the  real  motivation for all the  ‘Russian interference in the election ‘ stories one sees in the USA, and even a few trial balloons on that score in Germany. It ‘s an attempt, and a very weak one at that, to break and combat this Russian strategy. Inevitably, matters in the article turn towards defense and security matters, as Russia is, of course, with the USA, one of the world ‘s two premier thermonuclear powers, and by some lights, the premier one, with modern updated delivery systems and by some counts, just slightly more deliverable warheads. But that will have to wait part three, tomorrow…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Brexit & Revitalization The Common Wealth: The USA As Associate Member?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
February 27, 2017

In the aftermath of the BREXIT vote, I began to argue in blogs and in various interviews, that the next step geopolitically for Great Britain would be to play the soft power card, in the form of revivifying the British Commonwealth of nations. My reasons for thinking this was in the cards were various, and spread out over several  blogs and interviews. Here were some of those reasons: (1) elements of the British deep state, including apparently the Queen herself, were increasingly disappointed not only with the EU and the loss of national sovereignty, but with the unipolar and multicultural (read, Gramscian Marxist) direction things were going; (2) a significant segment of the British population was fed up with the growing Islamicization of Britain; and (3) Britain was pursuing, independently of the EU, it’s own relationship and trading policy with China, hosting the state visit of Mr. Xi Jinping to that country, and joining, as a member of the board, China’s Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank. Finally, (4) Britain continued to be alarmed at the growing power and influence of Russia, in particular Russia speaking openly about the West abandoning its core cultural principles and appealing directly to those elements in the West with decidedly traditional cultural sympathies. Russia was playing the soft power card, and playing it well.

In this context, I was arguing that the United Kingdom had certain unique advantages – all of them cultural – that the European Union, firmly under Germany’s thumb, did not: Britain had dramatically influenced the expansion of an English-speaking culture, with English institutions, concepts of jurisprudence, and so on, over a vast area of the globe. Britain could, I argued, if it played its cards right, play that soft power card and create an immense bloc of economic and cultural interests. But this would be impossible under the aegis of the globaloney-multicultural-unipolar philosophy. The way to do this would be to stress the cultural heritage and institutions, and the British Commonwealth was ready-to-hand.

This last week, a number of regular readers of this website, particularly in the United Kingdom, shared an article which appears to confirm this analysis and prediction, and moreover, to do so in a very astonishing way:

USA could be ‘associate member’ of Commonwealth to reap rewards from forgotten ‘treasure

While this article is fairly short, the first four paragraphs contain a number of bombshells that appear to support my arguments from months ago, rather substantially:

The United States could eventually become an “associate member” of the Commonwealth, according to plans being drawn up by the Royal Commonwealth Society.

The move, which is said to have the backing of the Queen, is believed to have come about because of US President Donald Trump’s love of Britain and the Royal Family.

With the UK making plans to leave the European Union (EU) officials are keen to build up international relations through the Commonwealth in an number of areas, including trade.

Director of the Royal Commonwealth Society Michael Lake told The Telegraph: “The UK rather left this treasure in the attic, and forgot about it because people were so glued to Brussels.” (Emphasis added)

I cannot help but think that since this plan “is said to have the backing of the Queen”, that it may have been in the works for some time, since we all recall the story from last year, prior to the BREXIT referendum, that the Queen had invited Mr. Cameron’s vice-premier to the palace for tea and dinner, during which the Queen allegedly asked him is he could name three incontestable benefits Britain was reaping from the EU. The message was clear: the Queen was casting a skeptical eye on the whole business.

There was another wrinkle that seldom…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.