Thierry Meyssan On The Revolution Against Political Islam

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 17, 2017

Regular readers here know two things about my  attitude toward Islam: (1) I am definitely not friendly to its doctrine, and (2) I definitely do not believe every last Muslim of the world’s billion-plus Muslims are out to “get” everyone else. From my viewpoint, the history of that ideology, especially in the twentieth century, has been one long frustration – usually by the imperial powers of the West, and particularly by Great Britain and Imperial (and later, Nazi) Germany – of the indigenous attempts of those within Islam to reform the religion and the culture. Indeed, for the German contribution to this sad story, one can read my The Third Way.

Which makes the following article by Thierry Meyssan, notwithstanding its glaring inaccuracies concerning early Christian history, all the more important, for as I mentioned in the previous week’s News and Views, Meyssan’s hypothesis is that Mr. Trump’s recent visit and arms deal with Saudi Arabia is about more than just continuing the same old pattern of support of a royal-clerical state. The deal, Meyssan contends, could not have been made without commitments from the Middle Eastern nations involved, and particularly Saudi Arabia, to move away from “political Islam” and support of radical groups like the Brotherhood:

A wind of secularism blows over the Muslim world

Behind the hypothesis, however, Meyssan is also implying that there is a fundamental break between London – which in his view continues to support “political Islam” – and the Trump Administration, which he contends is trying to lead an initiative to break from prior policy of tacit support and funding of such groups and the states that support them:

We know today that the « Arab Springs » were a British initiative aimed at putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power and thus reinforcing Anglo-Saxon domination over the « Greater Middle East ».

For 16 years, the Western powers have been rightfully accusing the Muslims of not cleaning up their own house, and of tolerating terrorists. However, it is clear today that these terrorists are supported by the same Western powers in order to enslave Muslims by means of « political Islam ». London, Washington and Paris have no problems with terrorism until it spills over from the « Greater Middle East », and they never criticise « political Islam », at least as far as the Sunnis are concerned.

By giving his speech in Riyadhh, on 21 May 2017, President Trump intended to put an end to the terrorism which is consuming the region, and is now spreading to the West. The words he spoke did indeed act as an electroshock. His speech was interpreted as an authorisation to finish with the system.

What resulted, according to Meyssan, was something akin to uncorking a bottle that had been living under pressure for centuries, and now, with the bottle uncorked, the result cannot be undone:

What had seemed unthinkable over the last few centuries suddenly took shape. Saudi Arabia agreed to cut off all contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, and raged against those who continue to pursue their collaboration with the British, and particularly against Qatar. Riyadh gave the signal for a cleansing which will sweep much frustration along with it. In a spirit of Bedouin vengeance, diplomatic relations have been interrupted, and an economic blockade was organised against the Qatari population – while in the Emirates, a sentence of 15 years of imprisonment was established by law for any individual who showed as much as a little compassion for the inhabitants of accursed Qatar.

A gigantic displacement of forces and alliances has begun. If this movement is to continue, the region will organise itself around a new fissure. The question of the struggle against imperialism will wither and give way to the struggle against clericalism.

And this has led to a corrresponding “outburst” of editorials:

In two weeks, the Arab Press, which until now had viewed the Muslim Brotherhood in a favourable light, as a powerful secret organisation, and jihadism as a legitimate engagement, has suddenly made an about-turn. Everywhere, everyone is publishing denunciations of the pretension of the Muslim Brotherhood who want to regulate people’s lives, and the cruel folly of jihadism.

This flood of commentaries, the centuries of frustration that they express, coupled with their violence, makes any back-pedalling impossible – which does not, however, mean that the alliance Iran-Qatar-Turkey-Hamas will go all the way. This revolutionary tsunami is happening in the middle of the month of Ramadan. Meetings between friends and families, which should be consensual celebrations, sometimes turn into arguments about what until now had been perceived as the basic truths of Islam.

As Meyssan goes on to observe, even Iran’s Revolutionary Guard harbors simmering resentments against the ayatollahs governing the country.

We then get a bit of complete nonsense regarding Christian history, which Meyssan assumes – like so many – was completely “clergy-less” in its early years:

Like original Christianity, which had no ministers (these only arrived in the 3rd century), original Islam and current Sunnism have none. Only Chiism has been structured like Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As a result, political Islam today is incarnated by the Muslim Brotherhood and the government of Sheikh Rohani (the title of Shiekh indicates that President Rohani is a member of the Chiite clergy).

If so, Christianity would be almost unique among world religions, especially from that part of the world, in not having any clergy; after all, it was an offspring of Judaism, and Judaism certainly had a clergy, and the rabbinate could be taken to be a kind of ministry in lieu of the ancient Hebrew priesthood. In any case, the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch would certainly stand as a pre-third century witness to the fact that early Christianity was not the  clergy-less paradise that so many think it was; it was, on the contrary, very hierarchical and very sacramental.  Additionally, Meyssan makes more of Pope Paul VI’s dropping the use of the papal tiara – symbol of papal claims and authority – than should be: for while the symbol was dropped, the claims were not. Indeed, when one reads the documents of the Second Vatican Council, amid all the modern-sounding verbiage, those sections dealing with the papacy itself read very much like the “old fashioned” language of Innocent III, of Pius IX and Vatican One: there was no diminution of claims whatsoever. In short: the tiara could return tomorrow, because what it symbolizes – the claims themselves – are still there.

But enough of that, for beyond this, Meyssan’s view is worth pondering, for it carries some implications, some of which, Meyssan contends, are already happening:

Meanwhile, the whole region is buzzing – in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood have left Tripoli, leaving a militia to liberate Saif el-Islam Kadhafi, and General Haftar to expand his influence. In Egypt, the General-President al-Sissi has asked his opposite numbers in the Gulf to draw up a list of terrorists. In Palestine, the political directors of Hamas have fled to Iran. In Syria, the jihadists have stopped fighting against the Republic and are awaiting orders. In Iraq, the army has redoubled its efforts against the Muslim Brotherhood and the Order of the Naqshbandis. In Saudi Arabia, the Muslim World League has excluded from its administrative council the Brotherhood’s star preacher, Sheikh Qaradawi. And Turkey and Pakistan have begun the transfer of tens of thousands of soldiers towards Qatar -which can now only feed itself with the help of Iran.

A new dawn seems to be rising over the region.

But assuming he is correct in his diagnosis, there are also some implications for the west, not the least is the cleavage between Washington and London, and this is where it could get interesting, for one implication of his analysis is that the Trump Administration has broken with prior British and American policy in a major way, and in so breaking, has broken with those factions within the American deep state that have been cooperating and to a certain extent leading and orchestrating the prior policy, including the tacit and very covert financial support of the same radical groups. We call them “neo-cons” or “neo-libs”, and they have been running American foreign policy since at least the Clinton Administration, with roots in that of the G.H.W. Bush administration. On this view, Mr. Trump has set the fox loose in the henhouse, and if it portends major changes in the Middle East, and a renewed commitment to American allies there such as Saudi Arabia, it also portends a major shuffling in the “deep state”. Time will tell if this effort will bear fruit.

And that means a long term effort will have to be sustained, for the nature of the change Mr. Meyssan is suggesting will be long term in nature, with bumps and fits along the way. What to look for? I suggest that if Mr. Meyssan’s analysis is correct, then the response of such nations like Indonesia, a predominantly secular Muslim state, will be crucial to watch, for that nation is undergoing its own internal struggles against “political Islam”. How such nations respond to this, how the Saudis respond to this, will be crucial in order for Mr. Trump’s initiative to work.

See you on the flip side…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. 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”.

Harvard & Yale Open Sharia Law Studies

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 12, 2017

Just when you think the assault on Western civilization by the crazed universities of America cannot possibly get any stupider or more insane, they step boldly on to the stage once again to demonstrate their sheer irrelevance and cultural treason:

Harvard University Launches Fellowships in Islamic Law to Influence U.S. Policy

Yale Establishes Islamic Law Center Thanks to $10M from Saudi Sharia-Banker, Alleged Bin Laden Financier

What I found intriguing here is that while the progressivist controlled corporate media of the left is still hollering to the heights about Russian attempts to influence the last election, I haven’t heard a peep about the foreign influence to manipulate the culture that the funding of a Sharia center at Yale by a Saudi banker might portend. Note in the second article the following:

Saleh Abdullah Kamel, a Saudi banker who is now worth billions of dollars thanks to his success with Sharia-compliant financing, has donated $10 million to Yale University as part of a successful effort to build an Islamic Law Center at the Ivy League school.

Noticeably left out of the press release is the fact that Mr. Kamel’s Dallah Al Baraka Group, for which he is the Chief Executive, has been investigated by U.S. officials for bankrolling al-Qaeda’s operations worldwide.

Moreover, the bank was founded by former al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden along with a group of Sudanese jihadists, the State Department has alleged, according to the Wall Street Journal.

And in the 1998 New York City trials of al-Qaeda members, witnesses testified that Mr. Kamel’s bank had previously transferred hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to al-Qaeda to help them buy an airplane, the report stated.

Additionally, Kamel’s father’s name appears on the “Golden Chain,” a list of alleged al-Qaeda funders that was confiscated by Bosnian authorities after raiding an al-Qaeda front group in 2002.

The new Yale Islamic Center becomes the latest of many Saudi-funded influence operations on American university campuses throughout the continental United States.

Is it any wonder that our universities no longer reflect American legal and cultural virtues, let alone western ones, or have anything good to say about the influence of Christianity or Renaissance humanism, or anything else that makes the West the “West”, when money from one of the most backward, corrupt, and inhuman and inhumane barbaric regimes on the planet are funding such nonsense?

Of course, the Yale article has the usual banal and cotton-mouthed pronouncements from scions of American quackademia justifying this “glorious generosity”:

“Mr. Kamel’s extraordinary generosity will open up exciting new opportunities for Yale Law School and for the entire university, said Yale President Peter Salovey. “The Abdullah S. Kamel Center for the Study of Islamic Law and Civilization will enhance research opportunities for our students and other scholars and enable us to disseminate knowledge and insights for the benefit of scholars and leaders all over the world.”

Professor Anthony Kronman, a new co-director of the Islamic Law Center, said of the school’s new addition:

“The contemporary challenges of Islamic law are broadly relevant to political events throughout the entire Islamic world and those are developments that are watched by a much larger audience of people who in many cases have not much knowledge at all of the history and traditions of Islamic law.”

“It’s the responsibility of universities to teach and instruct and that obligation applies with particular force where an issue or a subject tends to be viewed in an incomplete or inadequate or even caricatured way. There the responsibility to teach and enlighten is even stronger,” he added.

Let there be no mistake: with Saudi funding behind this latest nonsense, there will be no academic freedom to question the “glories” of Sharia, there will be no attempt to invite former Muslims, and scholars, such as Christian Luxemburg, or Muslims who recognize and advocate a non-political Islam, or scholars whose critical scholarship questions the whole narrative of Islamic orthodoxy, such as Christian Luxemburg, who has to write under a pseudonym to avoid the fatwahs of death sentences because of the radical and sweeping conclusions he (or she) came to. That genuine academic freedom and critique will have to continue to be done where it is being done now, in the free and independent media; the corporate controlled propaganda organs – with but a few exceptions – will not do it. And the big name institutions of American quackademia will continue to slide further into the morass of irrelevance.

In short, this move is a discredit to moderate voices within the Muslim world itself, to disenfranchise them from having any voice or forum whatsoever, and its a disgrace to…

Continue Reading 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”.

…And In The Netherlands: Geert Wilders Convicted Of…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 12, 2016

In the Netherlands, a blow may have been struck against the rising tide of “populism” as a Dutch court convicted Geert Wilders, popular opposition leader who has been challenging the rising tide of Islamic immigration to Europe. Here’s the story as reported by Reuters:

Dutch politician Wilders convicted of discrimination against Moroccans

I want to concentrate on the following lines:

Judges on Friday convicted Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders of discrimination against Moroccans but levied no punishment in a ruling that could influence elections just three months away.

It was the first time that Wilders, whose anti-Islam comments have forced him to live under 24-hour protection for a decade, has been convicted for his outspoken views.

Wilders, who is leading in some polls before national parliamentary elections on March 15, said he would appeal the “totally insane” verdict and accused the court of bias.

The charges against Wilders stem from a 2014 campaign rally, when he led a group of supporters to chant they wanted “Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!” Moroccans in the Netherlands. A smiling Wilders concluded: “we’re going to take care of that.”

Reading the decision of a three-judge panel, Presiding Judge Hendrik Steenhuis said “no one is above the law”, including politicians. Wilder had planned the inflammatory remarks beforehand and insulted the entire group of people of Moroccan origin in the Netherlands, he said.

“If a politician crosses the line, that doesn’t mean free speech is being restricted,” he said. “A crime cannot be protected by the right to free speech.”

In a videotaped response to the verdict, which he did not attend in person, Wilders said: “I will never be silenced”.

He said the ruling was an attempt to “neutralize the leader of the largest and most popular opposition party in the Netherlands.”

Moroccan-Dutch organizations welcomed the verdict for drawing a clear line about the limits of free speech.

“This ruling protects minorities in our country from the racist poison that is seeping into our society,” said anti-discriminatiin platform NBK, which previously filed a failed lawsuit against Wilder in 2007.

Once again, the establishment and corporate controlled media is completely blind to what Mr. Wilders has been saying: questioning the core concepts of Islam is not “racism”, especially when Mr. Wilders has taken especial care to make clear he is not opposing Islamic immigration, but rather, Islamicization of European culture by a refusal to acknowledge secular law. For example…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

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”.

The Left|Right Paradigm & How It Serves To Fracture The Populace

LeftRightParadigm

By: Zy Marquiez
January 25, 2016

Readers of this blog will be familiar with the constant allusion of the left/right paradigm. However, there are quite many folks out there whose eyes glaze over when in conversation about this topic. Let’s shed some light into this abstruse topic shall we?

To simplify, the left-right paradigm is a concept from political sciences and anthropology which proposes that societies have a tendency to divide themselves into ideological opposites.

That’s certainly one way to look at it. Another way would be proposing the establishment carries out this division on purpose to make it seem like there is only two sides to every debate. Rarely are things ever that simple.

First things first, let’s take a cursory glance at some of the permutations that the left/right paradigm is often bandied about in. Being cognizant of these will make it easier to harpoon onto particular agendas that are taking place within the establishment/media.

The Left/Right paradigm includes, but is not limited to:

– Back people vs. White people
– Muslim vs. Christians
– Republicans vs. Democrats
– East vs. West
– US vs. Russia/China
– US vs. Middle East
– Poor vs. Rich
– Liberals vs. Conservatives [could dovetail into politics, but it need not]
– Religions vs. Atheism
– Gay vs. Straight
– Women vs. Men
– Young vs. Old

There are many more derivatives, but those examples are some of the ones used the most.

In any case, take a good minute or two to ponder at that list again. What don’t you notice anywhere?

The individual.

That is quite notable, because not only is the individual the foundation of society, but at the most essential/practical levels, the individual is the engine of society.

This fact is not overlooked by the comptrollers. They realize the individual is the one who truly holds all the power.

In our reverse reality world, there are many reasons why the individual is often thrown under the bus. One oft-parroted one is “for the greater good” which in true translation just means is anything that serves the establishment.

Let’s take a gander at what some of the most incisive minds had to say about the individual:

“To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.”
―Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Insist on yourself; never imitate. Your own gift you can offer with the cumulative force of a whole life’s cultivation, but of the adopted talent of another, you have only an extemporaneous, half possession.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
―Mark Twain

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
―Friedrich Nietzsche

Individuality is a beautiful aspect of life. It truly makes me wonder, what makes people want to mirror others, when they are so unique themselves? Mirroring others in it of itself would limit someone because they’re already putting themselves within a box/system without realizing it.

Its quite fascinating in many ways to see what people will do in the many aspects life takes.

The self-cognizant individual will never be part of the group. They will always be a person within a group, there’s a difference.

In many ways, groups assimilate people and stamp out individuality at every turn. It’s rare to have a collection of individuals.  Instead, the collective group functions as one hive mind, and limits itself because it operates as just one mind, rather than as many different/unique intellectual engines.

How does this all dovetail with the left/right paradigm?

It is of utmost importance to realize when the media/establishment/people is using labels on you, or handpicking your placement within a particular paradigm [whether they know it or not].  This is highly deleterious because not only are you being put into a collective box, which could be highly detrimental given certain people’s limited point of view, but the establishment conveniently also surreptitiously ends up serving you up to whatever derivative of the left/right paradigm is most beneficial for them, rather than you.

If it was all about you, you would be seen as a person – an individual.

An individual’s power is limitless. Your dreams and imagination can build something greater.

However, the lot of society has been brainwashed into believing we are all just cogs in the machine, rather than independent minds operating by themselves.

The collective/label is not your identity.

Your identity is your consciousness, your own subjective power over your domain, which is your reality.

Those that give that power away shackle themselves daily. Subsequently, entire countries/cultures/regions become mere pawns in the global game of control.

Heaven forbid anyone actually think outside the box and attempts to come up with some grassroots solutions – true grassroots solutions and not what is known as astroturfing, which is a duplicitous way of corporations make it seem like true change is taking place from the bottom up, whey they are not. When astroturfing takes place, it only supports the institutions/corporations behind them.

Why does astroturfing take place? Because the establishment/comptrollers knows the power of the individual. If there were no power from the grassroots individual level, it wouldn’t be co-opted, downplayed, eviscerated, and ameliorated at every turn.

And again, those institutions/corporations engaging in such activities are attempting to orchestrate a reality by controlling the left/right paradigm themselves. In this case, that manipulation is very subtle.

One can play the part within the grand chessboard, or one can opt-out of the game and breakaway as an individual.

The choice is y/ours.

————————————-

References:

https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/the-individual-the-foundation-of-society/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/analyzing-human-action-in-america-everything-is-backwards/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/05/what-is-dream-building/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/sharyl-attkisson-astroturf-manipulation-of-media-messages/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/what-does-it-mean-to-breakaway/

JAPAN’S INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM UNIT TO BE LAUNCHED AHEAD OF …

Geopolitics
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
By: Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

A few days ago you’ll recall I posted a “tidbit” article about Japan’s apparent lack of a “Muslim terrorist problem,” and the reasons for that lack, namely, a policy that makes it all but impossible for Muslim’s to gain entry to that country, and a policy on the part of the Japanese government that essentially deems Islam as fundamentally incompatible with Japanese culture, institutions, and democracy. This in itself would seem to point out the politically hypocrisy that reigns int some places in the West, and particularly its political left, for I don’t recall hearing anyone in the United Kindgom recently suggesting that no Japanese should ever be allowed to visit that country. At the time I posted that tidbit blog, I didn’t comment about it, but there was method to my madness, for I also suggested in yesterday’s blog about China’s call for a new global security policy, that Japan’s rearmament under Mr. Abe’s government might have as much to do about terrorism, as anything else, and the need to be able to intervene should any threat emerge to Japan’s energy supplies.

I have also suggested, in past articles and blogs, that Mr. Abe’s rearmament policy, while it might be publicly sold and spun as compliance to Washington’s wishes, and to contribute to its “Pacific pivot,” was also covertly about Japan’s probable, though never voiced, hesitancy over its relationship to Washington, its current reliance on American power for its own national defense, and America’s growing “craziness” on the international stage. In short, it’s a case of “with friends like this, who needs enemies,” and “can we really trust them for our defense?” I suspect Mr. Abe’s government and the quiet circles of Japanese power have answered that last question with a no, in which case, Japan needs to be able to defend itself against all potential threats. And let’s face it, a larger Japanese military will give it greater leverage and maneuverability on the geopolitical stage, transforming the Pacific from a one or at best two-power show between China and America, into a three-power show.

But I also suggested in yesterday’s blog that Mr. Abe’s rearmament might also have to do with something else, and that is, Japan’s ability to interdict any potential terrorist threat, and to respond accordingly.

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com

Paris – Unfettered Emotions


By: Zy Marquiez
November 15, 2015

“If you controlled the meaning of The Good, and you had unlimited propaganda resources and access to the press, and if you also had control over the Armed Forces and the police, you could build a new society in short order. You could wreck centuries of tradition in a few decades. And if you had the education system in your back pocket, you could wipe out the memory of what formerly existed. No one would remember. No one would care. This is happening now, in Europe. Ignorance is enlightenment.”
Jon Rappoport, The Underground

The events in Paris has brought about a veritable constellation of emotions, and rightly so. When the unfortunate loss of life takes place, it brings about much heart rendering sorrow.

However, with much raw unencumbered emotion flying about there have been countless illogical statements bandied about.

Some of these statements have been: “If we don’t close our borders they will take our jobs and lives”, “the Muslims carried out the attack! We need to kill them all” or “We need to go to war to prevent this from happening again”. And these are just barely scratch the surface.

Let us sift through these and see what we can discern.

First one being: “If we don’t close our borders they will take our jobs and lives.”

On its face, it seems like a reasonable presumption that people from elsewhere might take your job. But how many of these people that are displaced, or are refugees, are moving because they want to move, and not because they have been forced to move? If war has plagued your country, due to Western Intervention that has gone nowhere in nigh 10+ years [or even if its “only” a few years, as if that in it of itself is okay] in your country, wherever that may be, and has left you and your family destitute, what would you do? Gamble with your lives by staying? Would you not do everything possible to aid your family? Let’s hope so.

In addition, due to our white-washed history most do not realize that decades ago [if not centuries] it was the same song, and it hasn’t changed since. In the US, it was the Irish, Italians, Cubans, and on and on and on. And would bet anything that a similar threat has been promulgated through time, in most nation’s histories.

Our planetary history is littered with human interaction. This has spawned countless issues that has been publicized and might as well be called ’21st Century Migration Issues V10.0’. That doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of problem-reaction-solution tool, otherwise known as the Hegelian Dialect.

Finally, regarding the above, most people only give a cursory view, which is mostly supplied by the mainstream and do not realize who really is spawning the chaos. Blaming refugees, people migrating/moving is like blaming a symptom for a disease.

Moving onto the next statement: “The Muslims did it!”

Once again, taking the media’s version of the truth at face value helps who? Those wishing to control the official narrative. Disseminating a particular version of the latest story, that hadn’t even had the time to be investigated fully, just because the media says so-and-so did it, only helps to further fracture the already-nervous populace that’s been taught for over a decade to be scared of the latest boogeyman, formerly Al-Qaida, and now in this case “ISIS”. Also, going after an entire race or religion, just because a select few has allegedly carried out an attack, is at worst ludicrous, especially given the penchant for false flag by many nations, and at best outright insanity given what is known of this current situation.

Recall, that the media is a pro – the favorite go-to tool of the establishment – at the divide & conquer game, and all of the myriad permutations that entails: black-white, left/right, muslim/christian, gay/straight, male/female, us/them; always a catalyst to stifle true discourse and guide global populations to more war. “Trust us, we are the media”, their unofficial dictum.

Thence we have: “We [Western nations] need to go to war [as if we haven’t been at war for nigh a century, and aren’t at war now] so we can ‘prevent’ this from happening.”

This type of statement is said without pondering that perhaps that is exactly what the comptrollers want, and expect. The idea of a righteous moral compass is bandied about quite often nowadays, but many folks fly off the handle once war, politics & religion are involved at warp speed. Emotion leads the charge, with any semblance of logic left in the background. Again, forgoing any independent/incisive thought.

Let us digress.

Thus, we are witnessing the rousing of emotions of entire nations, those of which have been molded to believe in the latest scare tactics by the media and topped off with propaganda that would make Edward Bernays proud. And all of the above led most fearful folks into demanding for more senseless death, which is incredibly unfortunate.

There is a reason logic is not mandatory in schooling, and it is because it makes people independent in nature, in mind, and be able to carry out holistic and precise thinking that allows the individual to eviscerate anything that is baseless and based in the matrix world of smoke and mirrors.

This mind-squashing manufacturing facility of a matrix makes countless people more malleable and, towing the party line. What tyrannical empire wouldn’t love that?

Distancing ourselves of emotion and applying targeted trenchant thinking in this world based on fallacies is not only prudent, but necessary.

Taking a great course in logic, or reading logic-based novels such as The Complete Sherlock Holmes volumes are a great addendum if you can manage it.

Those works were recommended by some friends, and of course, not taught in school or college. Not that the public indoctrination school system is to be trusted, especially with Common Core on its heels. Still, those novels/short stories have aided me incredibly in my attempted understanding of the current system that we live in by the way in which the author uses logic in myriad of ways.

Those are just some suggestions, besides educating yourself. It’s your job and only yours, to make sure that you are not as ill-equipped in mind/body/soul as they want you to be during these trying times. Those who wish to tap you dry for all that you are worth psychically/emotionally/spiritually will do so at all costs, and this can be seen in our daily lives. Most don’t notice it because they live such automatic lives and question not a thing when paying a huge portion of your livelihood in taxes, health, and in lost quality time to a rotten system that only gets worse and worse.

In any case, before folks continue clamoring for an iron fist, they should make sure they are not being ruled by a velvet one first. Because that one, my friends, is a vastly more insidious way in which the comptrollers rule today, and the most efficient way to get a populace to walk in lockstep, in support of additional war.

With that let’s take heed of the following.

Globalist mouthpiece Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is widely known for his presentations at Bilderberg meetings, and foresees no middle class in the future said the following in a Chatham House speech:

“…in earlier times, it was easier to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people, than physically to kill a million people. Today, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill, than to control…”