Bracing for cyber 9/11

Just like 9/11 it will be a false flag

I'm posting this piece from James Corbett in it's entirety because it is important.

The internet clampdown is coming. Its only a matter of time.

As James says at the end:

" The only people who have any chance of figuring out what actually happened during a cyberattack are the ones with direct access to the server logs, and even those logs can be corrupted, faked or manipulated in various ways. In the end, it amounts to: “Trust the intelligence agencies! Have they ever lied to you?”

If I really have to answer that question for you, you’re probably not a true Corbett Reporteer. If you do know that the intelligence agencies have lied to you, that they have created and spread cyberweapons in the past, that false flag attacks are used to blame political enemies, and that Russia is being set up to take the fall for the upcoming “Cyber 9/11,” then you’ll know what to think when you see the big New Pearl Harbor 2.0 unfolding before you.

But your friends and neighbors probably won’t. Perhaps you can share some of this information with them before events unfold, so they’ll be forewarned about what’s coming."

https://steemit.com/news/@corbettreport/bracing-for-cyber-9-11

As Al-CIA-da become the “good guys” (again), and I-CIA-SIS starts to crumble, and the latest boogeymen fail to strike a chord of panic in a boogeyman-weary public (remember the fearsome Khorasan Group, anyone?), it is safe to say that the old Global War on Terror (GWoT) paradigm is falling by the wayside. Lucky for the multi-trillion-dollar global terror-industrial complex, then, that the spiffy new cyberterror paradigm is waiting in the wings to take its place!

But just as the fading GWoT paradigm requires a steady stream of (perceived) threats in order to justify the bloated budgets of the US intelligence and security apparatus, so, too, does this new cyberterror paradigm require a constant flow of (perceived) online threats to justify the bloated budgets of the US cybersecurity forces. And just as in the GWoT, every “failure” of cyber-intelligence and every “inadvertent” proliferation of cyber-weaponry gives the newly-created US Cyber Command an excuse to expand its role and take even bolder action in its quest to “fight the net.”

The GWoT and all of its attendant ills have been built on the back of that “catalyzing event”— our “new Pearl Harbor,” 9/11. So, naturally, the new cybersecurity establishment is waiting breathlessly for the “cyber 9/11” that will justify the complete crackdown and government takeover of the internet.

Unsurprisingly, the “cyber 9/11” meme stretches back almost to 9/11 itself. Back in 2003, even as the Pentagon was feverishly drafting its plans to “fight the net” as if it were “an enemy weapons system,” Mike McConnell, the ex-director of the National Security Agency (NSA), was fearmongering over the possibility of a cyber attack “equivalent to the attack on the World Trade Center” if a new institution were not created to oversee cybersecurity. Since then, report after report has continued to use the horror of 9/11 as a way of fueling public hysteria over cyberterrorism.

Of course, many of you reading this editorial will already know the reason for the cyberterror frenzy: There is a pre-planned solution waiting in the wings to be revealed to the public after they have been prompted to respond to the next (virtual) false flag provocation. We don’t have to speculate on this point. In 2008, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig told a technology conference that a cyber equivalent of the Constitution-destroying Patriot Act is on the shelf, ready to be rubber stamped into law. All it requires is a “cyber 9/11” to make such legislation politically viable.

In effect, the advisors, agents and experts in the cybersecurity industry are waiting for a spectacular cyberterror attack to justify a crackdown on the internet. Their plans include “identity management” schemes like fingerprinting for internet access, which would put an end to the free internet.

So if we know the psychopaths in power need a cyber 9/11 to spring their iPatriot Act on the internet, the obvious questions are: Would the US and its cronies really do something like this? And who would be blamed?

The first question is easy enough to answer: Yes. Yes, they would do this. Case in point: Stuxnet.

Stuxnet was a computer worm that the US and Israel jointly created to target Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz. And as we have since learned, Stuxnet was only one part of a much larger cyberattack against Iran, jointly launched by the US and Israel and dubbed “NITRO ZEUS.” Although Stuxnet was intended to be the cyber equivalent of a precision-guided bomb, only capable of damaging the specific computer systems it was intended to target, it quickly escaped the computer systems at Natanz and spread across the internet. Oops. Hope that kind of cyberweaponry doesn’t end up in the hands of one of our “enemies.” That might lead to a cyber 9/11!

And wouldn’t you know it? Other attempts to contain the tools in the Pentagon’s cyber-armory have been similarly unsuccessful.

In 2016 it was revealed that the NSA had not only found security vulnerabilities in numerous software and hardware products but, in direct contradiction to its earlier assurances, had failed to inform the vendors of these problems so they could properly secure their product. Instead, the NSA has been hoarding those exploits so it can gain backdoor access to the computer systems of targeted governments and individuals. As cybersecurity researchers warned at the time, this practice ultimately increases the likelihood that these vulnerabilities will be discovered by criminals, hackers and terrorists somewhere down the line. With the spread of the WannaCry ransomware of 2017, itself made possible by an exploit stolen from the NSA, these fears were realized.

Boy, sure hope this technology doesn’t end up in the hands of the enemies! They might use it to inflict a Cyber Pearl Harbor attack on us!

And who are the enemies, exactly?

Why, the Russians, of course! It’s the Russians! It’s always the Russians! Did you stub your toe on a chair this morning? The Russians rearranged your furniture while you were sleeping! Only mismatched socks left in your sock drawer? That’s because the Russians were rummaging through there last night! And if you get hacked? Well you better believe that’s the Russians!

In fact, even if you don’t get hacked, you can just say it was Russian hackers, and millions will believe you unquestioningly. Just ask Hillary and the DNC.

As we’ve already seen, the “intelligence reports” that have been released so far detailing Russian “election hacking” have been completely evidence-free exercises in political mendacity (but I repeat myself). In fact, we’re not even taking the intelligence agencies’ word for it, because they are taking the DNC’s word for it. Never forget: The DNC refused to hand over its servers to the FBI for examination.

Now, to be fair, it is possible to imagine a universe without contradiction in which the Russians hacked into the DNC to expose their emails to the world. I mean, there’s no evidence whatsoever that that’s what happened, but it’s not impossible to imagine it happening. However, as the meme-sphere has rightly pointed out, even if that did happen, it only means that the Russians rigged the election by exposing how the DNC rigged the election. Hmmm…seems the “I’m Still With Her” crowd haven’t quite thought this one through.

Of course, this isn’t about only the DNC hack or the Podesta spearphishing. Rather, this is a now-familiar cycle in which the #fakenews MSM identifies a hack, worm or cyberattack, immediately blames the Russians in ALL CAPS headlines on the front page, and buries the inevitable retraction in small print at the bottom of page B27 (or the internet equivalent thereof). If you think I’m joking, read MoonOfAlabama’s excellent summary of how this has happened over and over and over and over and over again in the past year.

But as ludicrous as the neo-McCarthyite hysteria has become in recent months, perhaps it reached peak pitch last month in the Qatar crisis. Readers of my column about that crisis will remember how this latest spat in the Gulf (ostensibly) started: The Qatari Emir threw shade at the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and the Saudis, accusing them of smearing the Qataris and their Muslim Brotherhood/Iranian/Hamas/Hezbollah allies and friends. Or at least that’s what was reported in a curious little piece on the Qatari News Agency website—a piece that was yanked down within half an hour.

The Qataris’ immediate explanation for this swiftly-retracted report? Hackers had broken in and planted the story on their site. Things being what they are, the FBI immediately turned around and blamed those dastardly Russian hackers, and the government’s lapdog MSM dutifully regurgitated this unproven assertion without challenge.

The Russians? The Russians planted a fake news story on the QNA website in order to get the Saudis mad at the Qataris? Really?

No, not really. I know you’re not going to believe this, but the self-same FBI that so confidently pointed the finger at Russia now believes with absolute confidence that it was in fact the UAE that hacked the QNA site. I mean, let’s be clear: The feds are probably wrong about this assertion, too, but it just goes to show how seriously we should take their finger-pointing.

All this flipflopping raises the question of how the FBI—or the CIA, for that matter—determines culpability for a cyber attack in the first place. There are a number of methods for doing this, of course, from the ridiculously circular (“We attributed this type of attack to Group X in the past, so it must be Group X this time!”) to the just plain ridiculous (“Look! Russian language and references to old KGB chiefs! Clearly those sneaky Russkies forgetting to hide their tracks!”). But then the CIA’s secret tool for disguising their own hacks to look like it came from another country’s government gets exposed, and we’re back to credulously taking the word of the spooks as gospel when they say they never have and never would use such a deceptive tactic (pinky swear!).

In part, the unreliable intel points to the fundamental problem of attribution in the age of cyberterror. It’s one thing to attribute a physical attack to an enemy. In the wake of a bombing or hijacking or other physical attack, there is at least some forensic evidence left behind, some money trail for investigators to follow. I mean, those records can be faked, too, of course, but at least there’s something for outside investigators to scrutinize. But in the cyber sphere, there’s nothing at all for anyone to examine. The only people who have any chance of figuring out what actually happened during a cyberattack are the ones with direct access to the server logs, and even those logs can be corrupted, faked or manipulated in various ways. In the end, it amounts to: “Trust the intelligence agencies! Have they ever lied to you?”

If I really have to answer that question for you, you’re probably not a true Corbett Reporteer. If you do know that the intelligence agencies have lied to you, that they have created and spread cyberweapons in the past, that false flag attacks are used to blame political enemies, and that Russia is being set up to take the fall for the upcoming “Cyber 9/11,” then you’ll know what to think when you see the big New Pearl Harbor 2.0 unfolding before you.

But your friends and neighbors probably won’t. Perhaps you can share some of this information with them before events unfold, so they’ll be forewarned about what’s coming.

https://steemit.com/news/@corbettreport/bracing-for-cyber-9-11

The Beats - Beaten down outsiders or spooky rich kids?

How the CIA created and promoted Modernism

Kerouac, a Beat writer of "On the Road" fame, attended Horace Mann Preparatory school, the "ritziest prep school in the nation". Tuition there cost $40,000 in 2013. He also went to Columbia, the notorious spook Uni in Manhattan, New York. So hardly a beaten down outsider, more a privileged little rich kid.

Ginsberg also went to Columbia Uni in rich mans Manhattan. His father was a published poet. Allen was a famous Beat "poet". The worst thing that Allen had to put up with at home was his fathers recitation of Longfellow. A beaten down outsider? Really?

Burroughs, another Beat writer, came from a very wealthy family whose fortune was based on adding machines. ie. the Burroughs Corporation, a large US multinational. He graduated from Harvard university and attended medical school in Vienna. His uncle was an advertising guru who worked as a publicist for the Rockefellers. Millionaire family, Harvard, Vienna and the Rockefellers then - not the bio of a beaten down outsider, that's for sure.

So what is the real story?

It was all propaganda. They were draft dodging, privileged, elite connected, rich kids.

They were probably government intelligence operatives too, ie.spooks. Part of the bad guys relentless drive to manipulate and control the culture.

Could you believe that?

Well you might if you read this carefully.

From 2013, by the rabbit hole maestro, Miles Mathis.

The paper in fact covers a lot more than just the Beats. 

http://mileswmathis.com/beat.pdf

Sample quotations:

On the Beats promotion by the moneybags:

"In the 60-odd years since the Beat writers emerged from Columbia University, they have been the beneficiaries of extravagant praise and the recipients of almost no serious analysis. Not everyone has liked them, of course, but even those who disliked the most have never thought to analyze them closely. About the worst they have been accused of is Modernism or anti-Americanism......

Again, none of this takes much research, since anyone with a good eye can see it hiding it plain sight. The first red flag is Columbia University, which has been a prime playground for military intelligence since the Second World War. Real subversives come from the margins, not from wealthy universities in uptown Manhattan. The second red flag is the timing: the CIA was formed in 1947, and the intelligence community began its great expansion at that time, moving strongly into the media, the universities, and everywhere else. It is therefore no coincidence to see these major manufactured events erupting in the early 1950s. The third red flag is the promoters of these supposedly subversive writers: the New York Times, Viking Press, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and the other mouthpieces and moneybags of Intelligence. The fourth red flag is the works themselves, which despite being devoid of all art and being amateurishly crammed with every piece of bald propaganda imaginable have still been sold as progressive if not revolutionary."

So covert fascists posing as progressives then. A familiar theme that continues right up to the present day. Our fascist owners always create their own "opposition". To divert, sideline and/or control real opposition. We will see more of the same when we look at Modernism later in the piece.

On Kerouac

"That is Kerouac's enlistment photo for the Navy, 1943. We are told he was honorably discharged after two days on psychiatric grounds for requesting an aspirin. Right. (Compare that to Burroughs' enlistment story below). That is curious considering that he was sane enough to be in the Merchant Marine. Are we to believe that the Navy thinks aspirin are grounds for dismissal while the Merchant Marine doesn't?

The other tasty morsel is the Horace Mann Preparatory School, which Kerouac attended for a year before Columbia. Although we only get a link there—and they pray you won't take that link—if you take it you will find that the Horace Mann school is the ritziest prep school in the nation. Tuition for 2013 is $40,000, if you want to attend. If Kerouac were the semi-literate football running back who could only afford to attend Columbia on a sports scholarship, how did he get into Horace Mann, much less pay for it? I guess we are supposed to believe he was brought in as a senior ringer for the football team."

Aside: Columbia is also the place that Barry Soetoro [aka Barak Hussein Obama] was talent spotted by Zbigniew Brezezinski in the 1980's. The psychopathic Brezezinski recruited the young, ethically challenged, ambitious, opportunistic, Obummer at Columbia it seems. Obummer has sealed all the records of his time there, they are not available to any current researchers. He must have something interesting to hide, wouldn't you say?

Furthermore, in the early part of 20thC, Columbia was the US university most friendly to the fascist ideas of Benito Mussolini. So here is perhaps another clue to Obama's evident fascist proclivities.
[Hat tip: Servando Gonzalez book "Psychological Warfare and the NWO, page 69]

On Ginsberg:

"Let's look at only the first 15 lines of Howl.

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving
hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry
fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the
starry dynamo in the machinery of night,
who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the
supernatural darkness of cold-water flats floating across the tops of
cities contemplating jazz,
who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels
staggering on tenement roofs illuminated,
who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkan- 
sas and Blake-light tragedy among the scholars of war,
who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene odes
on the windows of the skull,

Leaving aside for the moment that this isn't poetry—being just text cut indiscriminately into lines—I must admit I can't suspend disbelief enough to get past the first line. Why were these rich boys from Columbia in such bad shape? Do you honestly believe that “the best minds of my generation” were destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, etc.? If they were in fact dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, why were they doing it, who was to blame, and how could they be considered the best minds of the generation if they were doing it?

Remember, although the time period we are talking about was the early 1940s, these “best minds” had apparently been rewarded deferments for some reason. In other words, they weren't fighting in Normandy or the Pacific. In 1943 and 1945, Kerouac and Ginsberg are said to be in the Merchant Marine, and even then they apparently only stayed in it for a few months, “to earn money.” In other words, they weren't drafted. They didn't experience the horrors of combat, which might have explained the passages above. They also don't talk about losing friends in the war, and that is because their friends were other privileged boys who stayed home and went to Columbia, or at worst found themselves in the Merchant Marine. So Howl should be suspect from the first word."

I always thought that he was a twat, without realising why. I do realise why now.

ps. Ginsberg was a paedophile and a pornographer too. See here for copious detail:

http://fourhorsesasses.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/ginsberg-punker.html

On Modernism:

"We also find the Rockefellers behind Modernism, and the Independent admits it.

Pre-eminent among these was Nelson Rockefeller, whose mother had co-founded the Museum of Modern Art [MOMA] in New York. As president of what he called "Mummy's museum", Rockefeller was one of the biggest backers of Abstract Expressionism (which he called "free enterprise painting"). His museum was contracted to the Congress for Cultural Freedom to organise and curate most of its important art shows.

There you have it. Remember, the Congress of Cultural Freedom is the CIA (see two quotes above). So we have published proof from a mainstream London newspaper that Rockefeller conspired with the CIA to promote Modernism, and he did it prior to the Cold War. If Abstract Expressionism were only being promoted as part of the Cold War, then why were the Rockefellers supporting Modernism as far back as 1929? MOMA was founded in 1929, and there was no Cold War in 1929. Russia wasn't even an enemy in 1929. Russia was an ally up until the end of WW2. The Independent contradicts itself in its own article, which is indication it is trying to spin the story even as it “leaks” it.

Also notice that Rockefeller calls Abstract Expressionism “free enterprise painting.” This is classic Newspeak. Since Abstract Expressionism is being promoted by the CIA, it is the opposite of free enterprise painting. It is contracted propaganda. Abstract Expressionism is CIA painting, and there is nothing “free enterprise” about the CIA. The CIA is and always has been about control.

And we get more astonishing information, poorly spun:

William Paley, the president of CBS broadcasting and a founding father of the CIA, sat on the members' board of the museum's [MOMA's] International Programme. John Hay Whitney, who had served in the agency's wartime predecessor, the OSS, was its chairman. And Tom Braden, first chief of the CIA's International Organisations Division, was executive secretary of the museum in 1949.

Wow, so MOMA is really the CIA's museum. We are never told that over here in the States, are we?"

The Museum of Modern Art is a CIA museum! Wow indeed. That explains a lot to me.

There is more:

"It is also worth looking at Tom Braden's quote in this article:

We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do, and what you must paint, which was what was going on in the Soviet Union. I think it was the most important division that the agency had, and I think that it played an enormous role in the Cold War.

Again, very poorly spun. Let me unwind it for you. Braden wants you to think that his promotion of Modernism was really a promotion of artistic freedom. But what if you were an artist in 1950 who didn't fit the CIA mold, either as agent or artist, do you think you would be a beneficiary of this “freedom”? No, you would probably see the CIA's co-option of the arts as a rigid barrier, wouldn't you? And you would be right. The contradiction lurking here is that Braden is defining the Soviet Union's artistic rules as fascism, and the CIA's artistic rules as freedom. Braden is pretending that the CIA didn't create Modern dogma in its promotion of Modernism, but of course it did. The Theory surrounding Modernism has been the most dogmatic, vicious, proselytizing, and propagandized that has ever existed in the history of the arts. Because the CIA had almost infinite wealth from the beginning (both from the treasury and from private wealth like the Rockefellers), it could hire a vast army of academics, historians, and critics to inundate and control the field. Anyone who disagreed with any pronouncement handed down from high could be denounced as a philistine and permanently drummed from the field. This was the state of the arts in 1950 and it is still the state of the arts. It is an artistic fascism far beyond anything the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany ever dreamed of."

So, Mathis demonstrates that the CIA have admitted that they created, funded and promoted Modernism!

According to the CIA's Braden, the Soviet art projects were hard nosed propaganda. But the CIA's Modernism projects were not propaganda at all, they were all about freedom!

Just like the CIA always was......... Ha ha ha ha ha. Pull the other one.

Who would have guessed it? Many did of course but most just were not interested enough to think much about it.

At root the "free market" in art is like all the other "free" markets in the West. In reality they are monopolies controlled by the rich oligarchs and their place-men/women. There is nothing "free" about them at all.

http://mileswmathis.com/beat.pdf


Flowing from the above paper Mathis then delivered a further series of papers on similar, and linked, themes, viz:


Hemingway the spook. Plus more detailed analysis on how the spooks created Modernism for their elite masters:
http://mileswmathis.com/papa.pdf


More source material about the spooks creation and promotion of modern art. Including lots of detail from a 1999 book, "Who Paid the Piper/The Cultural Cold War". This book provides masses of detail about the CIA's creation of its Modernism project:
http://mileswmathis.com/stoner.pdf


Even more source material about the CIA and it's modern art projects. Plus more covert fascists posing as progressives, Chomsky and chums. You guessed it - yet more spooks. Chomsky was outed ages ago in the alternative media, as a fraudulent left wing gatekeeper. Essentially he was exposed by 9/11 for which he had an entirely inadequate response. Mathis confirms the Chomsky outing:
http://mileswmathis.com/ramp.pdf


Of course all of these pieces are just informed opinion, with plenty of "connecting the dots". Well what do you expect? That is realistically the best that you can expect. You've just got to use your common sense because nobody in their controlled media, or their on-the-payroll academia, is going to lay any of this out for you definitively.

If you do read to the end of that lot then, I expect that you will reach the same conclusion that I did.


Also from 2013, a decoding of Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry. It indirectly sets the scene for the later pieces that I have linked above. It is very interesting in its own right too:
http://mileswmathis.com/rosi.pdf

If nothing else then you should read the conclusions starting on page 10 [of 12]. If you do then you will receive a very different perspective on "science".

If you have any interest at all in the history of "science", both overt and esoteric, then you should read the whole paper.


Finally, from Mathis's science site, here is his overview of the deeply flawed physics science of the 20th Century.

Bohr and his famous Copenhagen Interpretation which has effectively hamstrung physics since the 1920's.

Heisenberg with his famous Uncertainty Principle which introduced woo woo into physics. Heisenberg became so untouchable that they even whitewashed his role as a nazi atomic bomb scientist!

http://milesmathis.com/20c.pdf

Jeremy's New World Order

Hope and Change? Or was that some other political puppet?

Extract from Jeremy's pre-election speech at Chatham House:

"I am often asked if as prime minister I would order the use of nuclear weapons. It’s an extraordinary question when you think about it – would you order the indiscriminate killing of millions of people? Would you risk such extensive contamination of the planet that no life could exist across large parts of the world? If circumstances arose where that was a real option, it would represent complete and cataclysmic failure. It would mean world leaders had already triggered a spiral of catastrophe for humankind.

Labour is committed actively to pursue disarmament under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and we are committed to no first use of nuclear weapons. But let me make this absolutely clear. If elected prime minister, I will do everything necessary to protect the safety and security of our people and our country. That would be my first duty." Bold is my emphasis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rhMKu9F9xw

The full text of Jeremy's speech at Chatham House is in the notes underneath the vid. You should watch the vid first, it is quite short.

In case you are not aware then, Chatham House is the public face of the Royal Institute for International Affairs. [It's sister in the US is the Council on Foreign Relations]. Both of these "think tanks" are important parts of the current "Western" power structure. ie. the Anglo/US/Zionist apparatus that subverts democracy on behalf of the oligarchs who rule over us.

The origins of both the RIIA, and the CFR, were within the Rhodes/Milner group of the start of the 20th C. You know, those "British" guys who were instrumental in arranging WW1. British my arse, they were international monopoly capitalists. The RIIA and CFR were both formed in the early 1920's in preparation for Act 2.

Jeremy must surely know all of this. But his fealty to them is essential if he is to be allowed by them to become PM. It's the oligarchical brown nosing equivalent to joining the Queens Privy Council.

The QPC is another, democracy subverting, UK Establishment cabal made up of politicians from both major parties, judges and other bigwigs. It's affairs are totally secret, which all members take a solemn oath to maintain, so there are no public minutes. It is chaired by the Queen herself and all members must also swear an oath to their fealty to the Queen as well. An oath which places their loyalty to her above their loyalty to the British people. The same British people who "elected" all those politicians to "represent" them. So much for democracy then.

Apologists for the QPC will tell you that it is purely ceremonial, that it's meetings are inconsequential and insignificant. If you believe that then you will believe that I played center forward for Everton when we won the league in 1970. And that I scored 45 goals that season including 7 hat-tricks! Do I really need to spell it out? If the QPC is so inconsequential then why are its affairs totally secret?

Jeremy had already joined the QPC when he made his Chatham House speech. In his first week as Labour leader in fact.

Of course all politicians want to have their cake and eat it don't they. But us plebs are not obliged to accept that are we. So we shouldn't let them get away with that. It is quite simply really:

Either the senior pols that are putting themselves forward for holding power really will have the ability to make the changes that they claim that they will.

Or they are beholden to a hidden power structure, the oligarchs and their Doge, her majesty.

Jeremy's knowtowing to them is a very good indicator which it is.

I expect that the blinkered die-hard Corbynites will ignore all this, that their old fashioned tribal politics will trump their principles as usual.

Final thoughts:

It is widely known that the US now has "boots on the ground", in al-Tanf, in southern Syria; they have set up a base there it seems. So they have invaded a sovereign country without any UN sanction, quelle surprise. And, given that it is widely assumed that the UK also has troops there, or just over the border in Jordan, ready to join the action, is it not incumbent upon Her Majesties Opposition to actually oppose and ask questions in Parliament? But we don't hear a peep do we? Nothing from the "opposition" and nothing from the mainstream media.

The subject is off limits it appears. Almost certainly because the invasion is illegal and so the Deep State oligarchs have decreed a blanket silence. Chatham House, Queens Privy Council, or some other anti democratic decision making body? We will never know because it is all done in secret.

Update 3rd August 2017

The al-Tanf invasion was a failure.

Quoting The Saker:

"The best illustration of this reality is the latest American debacle in the al-Tanf region near the Jordanian border. The Americans, backed by the Jordanians, quietly invaded this mostly empty part of the Syrian desert with the hope of cutting off the lines of communications between the Syrians and the Iraqis. Instead, what happened was that the Syrians cut the Americans off and reached the border first, thereby making the American presence simply useless (see here and here for details). It appears that the Americans have now given up, at least temporarily, on al-Tanf, and that US forces will be withdrawn and redeployed elsewhere in Syria."

No mention of the Brits. Maybe they saw the lie of the land and stayed away. My point in the main blog is no less valid now that the invasion failed.

See this link. The quotation is the last para under the section headed "Good terrorists, aka “FSA”, Syria 2017" :

http://thesaker.is/the-end-of-the-wars-on-the-cheap-for-the-united-states/


Update 4th September 2017

Seems that the Brits were in al-Tanf after all:

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/british-troops-withdraw-south-syria-end-training-militants/

This is not democracy

Worse, by voting then, you give them your consent

When both major parties are bankrolled by private vested interests then,
this is not democracy

When over 50% of the votes cast in the UK's " First Past The Post" electoral  system are in "safe" constituencies, where there is no possibility whatsoever of turning out the incumbent individual, or party, then,
this is not democracy

When mainstream media can, and does, fake any "news" it wants to and is never held to account by any politician, or any law, then,
this is not democracy

When the Westminster  bubble political class of all parties is united in self interest and often against the people's interest then.
this is not democracy

When the electorate is, in the main, supine, indifferent, ill informed and distracted by trivia then,
this is not democracy

Over 2000 years ago Plato said that a democracy is only possible when it has a
powerful, discerning, informed and undistracted electorate.

In 2017 Cruel Brittania we have none of these, so:

This is not democracy


What is even worse?

By voting then, you consent to the "winner" having "power"

This "power", regardless of who it is actually exercised by, is now always used against ordinary people's interest.

In many undemocratic ways, certainly including the following:

1. To wage evil war on weaker countries
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria most recently.
At the human level then we are all Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians.
These are just the wars that their mainstream media told you about, there are others.
2 Labour wars. 2 Tory wars. All part of the false "War on Terror".
No UK politician has ever disowned this falsehood, other than Robin Cook.

2. To maintain a 2 tier legal system
One law for us, another for them.
They never go to prison. They are above the law. Even for war crimes. 
An example: Tony Blair was convicted of war crimes, in 2011 in Malaysia.
But of course he is fully protected in the West and will never go to court, never mind prison.
Another example: All those senior Banksters who cheated us out of millions £; they skated too.

3. To steal the wealth of the people
Via the privately owned  "fractional reserve" money system.
Which steals your money via interest on everything that you buy. It equates to over 40%!
And increasingly centralised government, which is controlled by the same private owners.
Controlled central government which steals your money via unnecessarily excessive taxation.
And then there is all the privatisation. We live in a kleptocracy

There is far more; consider the 3 above as examples.


This corrupt, private, money system is in fact at the root of the mad requirement for permanent "economic growth". Mad because we live on a finite planet, so permanent growth is ultimately impossible.

This economic madness in turn drives the ever increasing consumption that is destroying the planet. [Environmentalists: Wake up! Follow the money......]

The corrupt money system truly is the "root of all evil" as the old saying goes.

Don't believe me? Then wake up and smell the coffee. Do some research.

Start by asking yourself this:

Given that the government of all sovereign nations has the ability to create money in exactly the same way that the private banks do, ie. at the touch of a keyboard, then,
Why do they never do this for their own expenditure?
Why do they always pay interest to private banks?
And then tax us to pay that interest?

It is because most of the worlds governments have been captured by the International Banksters. Who effectively own the government by owning the establishment and political class.[See Appendix 1].

So these politicians always choose the expensive option that we the people are obliged to pay for, via that excessive taxation. We pay every which way round.

How are these politicians controlled then?

There are many ways, the elite owned main media and the resulting groupthink are crucial.

Along with the corporate and private "donations" that fund all the political parties in the West. And delayed individual payment for services rendered.  All the well known politicians receive their pay off after they leave the government. The revolving door between politics and business & finance works at all political levels too, not just for the bigwigs.

Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, all made a fortune after they left number 10.
3 Tory, 2 Labour. It is alleged that Thatcher made over £50 million. Blair certainly made tens of £millions, probably far more. We will never know because they hide all their dosh from public view via the usual methods; tax havens and the like.

Most of the others, the less well known ones stick their snouts in the trough too. Many of them when they are still in Parliament. It's all perfectly "legal".

There are plenty of other carrots too. I will mention one of the sticks later on.


Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron - all were most definitely subservient to International Finance. None of them ever stood up to the Banksters.

Do you think that May, or Corbyn, will be any different?

That they will not be subservient to International Finance?

More fool you if you do.

He who pays the piper always calls the tune

So I deny them my consent

How about you?



They ran another one of their facilitated, probably even staged, ISIS terror events recently.
Here is one view of the real political pecking order:

Clearly whoever will be British PM would be higher up this list than the US President. ie. lower in the pecking order

The relevant information is freely and easily available today so, anyone, if they care to look that is, can see that ISIS is a convenient proxy to serve the needs of the Western power structure. Denying this reality is ignorance by choice.

This is of course yet another satisfactory scenario for the US ziofascist criminals who did 9/11 and their friends in the UK and elsewhere. They are still laughing at all the idiots who still believe that the CIA's creation, "al Qaeda", were responsible.

Do you think that there are any senior UK politicians who do not know all of everything that I've written? In any party? I doubt it and, if there are, then they must be idiots too.

Will any of them ever tell us ordinary people? Of course they won't, that would be political suicide.

Such is the cancerous political world that we live in today.



For those who are not wide awake then here are 2 links to moderate alt-media. There are many, many, more.

How the dead terrorist/patsy ID is always found at the scene:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/manchester-berlin-paris-nice-london-new-york-passports-and-ids-mysteriously-discovered-in-the-wake-of-terror-attacks/5592063
A consistent theme. Dead perp whose ID is found immediately.

The terrible truth about the Manchester attack:
https://theburningbloggerofbedlam.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/the-terrible-truth-about-the-manchester-attack-the-british-government-salman-abedi/#more-28594

When you read this link then you will surely wonder to yourself: if this one guy can uncover so much then wtf are the "professional" journalists doing? The answer is very clear too. The "professional" journalists job is not to uncover the truth. It is to cover it up so the plebs cannot see the systemic corruption in the body politic and the fourth estate.

The article also undeniably demonstrates that this specific UK State involvement in Islamic terrorism, in Libya, "started in the early 1990's". So it was carried out under both Tory and Labour governments then ie. both of the main UK political parties. Lots of the existing MP's were MP's at the time. This continuity is consistent and gives the lie to the "we will change things" that the politicians always spout at election time.

I'm 67 in August and I've heard the same politicians "we will change things" lie too many times to mention. They never, ever, deliver.

The Burning Bloggers book "The Libya Conspiracy" is linked in his article and is free to download. If you want to know the real Libya story, as opposed to the main media bullshit story, then read his book. You will learn a heck of a lot more about the real ways of British politicians too if you do. Lies, lies and more lies. Well what did you expect? Lying is their main attribute. They all need to be expert liars. It never ceases to amaze me that people believe them at election time. The triumph of hope over reality I suppose.


Back to the main theme. One of their control sticks is paedophilia:

Why do you think that all the political and establishment paedophilia is always covered up?

It is because if a politician's paedophilia is exposed then, his or her career is over. It is much better from the controllers point of view to to cover up the crime. That way the politician can be blackmailed into compliance if necessary.

The carrot of riches and the stick of disgrace. It's an old trick and it works most of the time.

But it certainly isn't democracy.

In fact the fascists took charge and killed any real democracy many decades ago. See my earlier post:

http://petefairhurst.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/the-real-matrix.html


In this weirdly connected, and at the same time disconnected, cyber society that we now find ourselves then, voting for political puppets will not change any of these numerous fundamental problems that I have briefly touched upon.

The only possible way of reforming this fake, constipated and corrupt western culture is from completely outside the current system.

A mass reform movement needs to come from somewhere beyond the current legislature. It will certainly never come from within it.

Anyone who thinks that it will is simply deluded


Finally, some very broad thoughts about how reforms are essential:

We need to develop a Citizen First policy that gives the people more real power. A real proportional and representative system. Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about?

We need a Citizen First policy that rejects the dead ideologies that are based on Adam Smith and Karl Marx too. [Free market capitalism and socialism]. Both have failed dramatically and at massive human cost too. Small is beautiful. Local is beautiful. Community is beautiful.

We need to focus on human beings, not Big State systemics. The overweening Big Brother/Nanny State is a massive part of our current problem. It is not part of any viable solution. We need a small, sovereign, State. And free, sovereign, people. A focus on humans not big systems. We already have the necessary technology. We don't need the Big State telling us what we can do or think or say.

We desperately need reform of public Education too. This is absolutely essential to create an informed electorate. Kick out all the useless, politically correct, measurement dogma. The league tables, the SATs, the end of school certification etc etc. Return to the classical methods that teach children how to think for themselves. Rather than parrot "knowledge" via multiple choice testing.

Reform of all of our other corrupt Establishment institutions will be essential too: Finance, Media, Law, Intelligence, Military, Corporations and more. Finance and Media are the priorities as I've already outlined. Everything else depends on these 2. It's a herculean task.


We certainly need to develop a new system, the old one is irreparably broken.

We haven't got a choice really. If we don't institute massive change then disaster is just round the corner.

The new methods need to be based on the creative power of human communities, collective human consciousness if you like.

Not the censorious bullying of failed dogmatic systems, run by corrupt and massively over privileged gobshites.


Pigs might fly......

But hope springs eternal


Appendix

Here is a quote from the 19th century:



The quote is widely believed to be accurate but there is no source verification that I can find. No matter, the principle is certainly accurate. This principle still holds good today.

The Banksters are a now a diverse crew that includes Wall Street and the City of London, the Intelligence Agencies, the Pentagon, the military and the arms companies, the oil companies, the multinational corporations, including both information and entertainment media, and more. With dishonourable mentions for the Vatican and Israel. Together they make up the various factions of the global Deep State.

So it is now far more complex than the 19th century, but the principle is unchanged.

The Banksters still rule and the politicians still dance to their tune.

The politicians job is to represent the people; to put the peoples view to the "power".
But under the current system they do the exact opposite.
The represent the "power"; they put the "powers" decisions to the people.

Addendum

Morris put this out a few days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpdej6O1OPg

A very similar theme to my post.

Addendum 2

And this one too:
https://gizadeathstar.com/2017/06/news-views-nefarium-june-1-2017/

Manchester, May, Trump and the Saudis. Geopolitics and Britain's role in Islamic terrorism.

Addendum 3

False flag creations by CrISIS Solutions:
http://tapnewswire.com/2017/06/crisis-solutions-inc-is-running-all-terror-false-flags-worldwide-check-out-their-website/

False flags are us.