Korean War Part II: Why It's Probably Going To Happen

China is the key - it is controlled by the globalists

The globalists may use a nuke in the near future. If they do then don't be fooled into believing that it is from a "rogue" state like North Korea. There are no "rogue" states. Nothing ever happens on the geopolitical stage by accident. Nothing. Ever.

Another thoughtful analysis from Brandon which I am posting here in full:

"Though a lot of people in my line of work (alternative economic and geopolitical analysis) tend to be accused of "doom mongering," I have to say personally I am not a big believer in "doom." At least, not in the way that the accusation insinuates. I don't believe in apocalypse, Armageddon or the end of the world, nor do I even believe, according to the evidence, that a global nuclear conflict is upon us. In fact, it annoys me that so many people seem desperate to imagine those conclusions whenever a crisis event takes shape.

I think the concept of "apocalypse" is rather lazy — unless we are talking about a fantastical movie scenario, like a meteor the size of Kentucky or Michelle Obama's Adam's apple hurtling towards the Earth. Human civilization is more likely to change in the face of crisis rather than end completely.

I do believe in massive sea changes in societies and political dynamics. I believe in the fall of nations and empires. I believe in this because I have seen it perpetually through history. What I see constant evidence of is that many of these sea changes are engineered by establishment elitists in government and finance. What I see is evidence of organized psychopathy and an agenda for total centralization of power. When I stumble upon the potential for economic disaster or war, I always ask myself "what is the narrative being sold to the public, what truth is it distracting us from and who REALLY benefits from the calamity."

The saying "all wars are banker wars" is not an unfair generalization — it is a safe bet.

First, let's clear up some misconceptions about public attitudes towards the North Korean situation. According to "polls" (I'll remind readers my ample distrust of polls), a majority of Americans now actually support U.S. troop deployment to North Korea, but only on the condition that North Korea attacks first.

I want you to remember that exception — North Korea must attack first. It will be important for later in this analysis.

Despite a wide assumption that the mainstream media is beating the war drums on this issue, I find it is in most cases doing the opposite. The mainstream media has instead been going out of its way to downplay any chance that the current inflamed rhetoric on both sides of the Pacific is anything other than bluster that will end with a whimper rather than bomb blasts. This is one of the reasons why I think war is imminent; the media is a notorious contrarian indicator. Whatever they predict is usually the opposite of what comes true (just look at Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, for starters).  Another generalization that is a sure bet is that the mainstream media usually lies, or at the very least, they are mostly wrong.

That said, if we are to believe the latest polls, unfortunately, one thing is clear: The American people, on both sides of the political spectrum, are becoming more galvanized around supporting a potential conflict with North Korea. For the establishment, war is a winning sell, at least for now.

Of course, I am aware that we have heard all this before. Back in 2013 tensions were relatively high with North Korea just like they are today. North Korea threatened a preemptive nuclear strike on the U.S. back then, too, and in the end it was all hot air. However, besides wider public support than ever before in terms of troop deployment to North Korea, something else is very different from 2013. Primarily, China's stance on the issue of regime change.

In the past, China has been consistent in supporting UN sanctions against North Korea's nuclear program while remaining immovable on war and regime change in the region. In 2013, it was clear that China was hostile to the notion of a U.S. invasion.

In 2017, though, something has changed. China's deep ties to the global banking establishment, their open statements on their affection for the IMF, and their recent induction as the flagship nation for the IMF's Special Drawing Rights system make it clear that they are working for the globalist agenda, not against it. This is not necessarily a new thing behind the curtain; China has done the bidding of globalist institutions for decades. Today though, the relationship is displayed far more publicly.

In 2015, it was China, not the U.S., that sounded the alarm over North Korea's nuclear program, indicating that Pyongyang might have technology well beyond American estimates. It was this warning that triggered the slow buildup to today's fear over a fully capable intercontinental ballistic missile package in the hands of North Korea. It seems obvious to me that China plays the role of North Korea's friend as long as it serves the interests of the globalist agenda, and then China turns on North Korea when the narrative calls for a shift in the script. It is China that opens and closes the door to war with North Korea; a China that is very cooperative with the IMF and the push towards total globalization.

In 2013, China presented the narrative of stalwart opposition to U.S. invasion. In 2017, China has left the door wide open.

Both alternative and mainstream media outlets latched onto recent statements made by Beijing proclaiming that China "would not allow regime change in North Korea." What many of them forgot to mention or buried in their own articles, though, was that this was NOT China's entire statement. China also asserted that they would REMAIN NEUTRAL if North Korea attacked first. I cannot find any previous instance in the past when China has made such a statement; a statement that amounts to a note of permission.

Both the American public and the Chinese government have given support for regime change in North Korea given the stipulation that there is an attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests and allies. So, I ask you, what is most likely to happen here?

Much of the world and most importantly the U.S. is on the verge of a new phase of severe economic decline according to all fundamental data trends. The U.S. is set to enter into yet another debate on the debt ceiling issue with many on the conservative side demanding that Trump and Republicans not roll over this time. And, as I discussed in my article 'Geopolitical Tensions Are Designed To Distract The Public From Economic Decline', a North Korean conflict stands as the best possible distraction.

How does the establishment rationalize a contested debt ceiling increase while also diverting blame away from themselves on the continued decline in U.S. and global fiscal data? War! Not necessarily a "world war" as so many are quick to imagine, but a regional war; a quagmire war that will put the final nail in the U.S. debt coffin and act as the perfect scapegoat for the inevitable implosion of the current stock market bubble. The international banks have much to gain and little to lose in a war scenario with North Korea.

I predict that there will be an attack blamed on North Korea. Either North Korea will be prodded into a violent reaction, or, a false flag event will be engineered and tied to Pyongyang. Remember, for the first time ever, China has essentially backed off of its opposition to invasion of North Korea as long as North Korea "attacks preemptively." Why? Why didn't they make this exception back in 2013? Because now the international banks want a distraction and China is giving them the opening they require.

Will this war culminate in global nuclear conflagration? No. The establishment has spent decades and untold trillions building it's biometric control grids and staging the new global monetary framework under the SDR system. They are not going to vaporize all of this in an instant through a nuclear exchange. What they will do, though, is launch regional wars and also economic wars. Those people expecting apocalypse in the Hollywood sense are going to find something different, but in my opinion much worse — a steady but slower decline into economic ruin and global centralization.

Eventually, China and the U.S. will enter hostilities, but these hostilities will lean more towards the financial than the kinetic. The establishment cabal works in stages, not in absolute events. Another Korean war would be a disaster for America, just not in the way many people think.

Will there be a nuclear event? Yes. If war takes place in North Korea then it is likely they will use a nuclear device somewhere in retaliation. We may even see a nuclear event as a false flag catalyst for starting the war in the first place. This will not be a global threat, but a mushroom cloud over any American city or outpost is enough to scare the hell out of most people. It is all that will be needed.

Does this mean "doom" for the American people? It depends on how we react. Will we continue to hold the banking establishment responsible for all of their sabotage previous to a high profile war in the pacific? Or, will we get caught up in the tides of war fever? Will we question the source of future attacks on the U.S., or will we immediately point fingers at whoever the media or government tells us is the enemy? Our response really is the greatest determining factor in whether or not the American ideal of liberty stands or falls. This time, I do not see bluster, but a dark fog very common in the moments preceding conflict. This time, I believe we are indeed facing war, but war is always a means to an end. War is an establishment tool for social engineering on a massive scale."

Source:
http://alt-market.com/articles/3254-korean-war-part-ii-why-its-probably-going-to-happen

The collapse has already happened

But most people are too distracted to notice

My emphasis in italics:

"Tracking geopolitical and fiscal developments over the past several years is a bit like watching a slow motion train wreck; you know exactly what the consequences of the events will be, you try to warn people as much as possible, but, ultimately, you cannot reverse the disaster. The disaster has for all intents and purposes already happened. What we are witnessing is the aftermath as a forgone conclusion.

This is why whenever someone asks me as an economic and political analyst "when the collapse is going to happen," I have to shake my head in bewilderment. The "collapse" is here now. It is done. It is a historical fact. It's just that not many people have the eyes to see it yet, primarily because they are hyper-focused on all the wrong things."

and

"For many centuries now, elitists in power have understood the value of geopolitical distraction as a tool for controlling the masses. If you examine the underlying motivations behind the majority of wars between nations regardless of the era, you will in most cases discover that the power brokers on both sides tend to be rather friendly with each other. In fact, monarchies and oligarchies are historically notorious for fabricating diplomatic tensions and conflicts in order to force populations back under their control.  That is to say, wars and other man-made conflicts give the citizenry something to react to, instead of hunting down the establishment cabal like they should.

One of the greatest illusions of human progress is the notion that most conflicts happen at random; that there are two sides and that those sides are fighting over ideological differences. In truth, most conflicts have nothing to do with ideological differences between governments and financial oligarchs. The REAL target of these conflicts is the people — or, to be more precise, the psychology of the people. Conflicts are often engineered in order to affect a particular change within the minds of the masses or to distract them from other dangers or solutions"

and

"First, let's be clear, the ongoing destabilization of our economy should be the primary concern of every person on the planet, most particularly those in the West. We are living within the husk of a dead fiscal system, reanimated with the voodoo of central bank stimulus, but only for a limited time. Economic decline is the greatest threat to cultural longevity as well as to human freedom. Even nuclear war could not hold a candle to the terror of financial disaster, because at least in a nuclear war the slate is wiped clean for establishment elites as well as the normal population. At least, in the event of nuclear war, the elites face anarchy just like we do.

In an economic crisis, the establishment maintains a certain level of control and thus its arsenal of toys - Including biometric surveillance grids, standing military support in the form of martial law, as well as the delusion among the populace that things "might go back to the way they were before" given enough time and patience."

and

"I could go on and on — it is simply undeniable that nearly every sector of the U.S. economy is in steady decline compared to pre-2008 levels. This instability in the fundamentals will eventually weigh down and crash stock markets, bond markets, currency markets, etc. Such markets are the last vestige of the U.S. economy still giving the appearance of health.

So, there will come a time, probably sooner rather than later, when the piper will have to be paid and someone will have to take the blame for our fiscal non-recovery. The international banks and central banks are certainly not going to volunteer for this even though they are the real perpetrators behind our incessant financial rot. But how do they avoid accepting responsibility?"

and

"My readers know well that according to the evidence I view the East/West conflict to be farcical and theatrical, but this does not mean there will not be real-world consequences to the "little people" caught in the engineered crossfire. I believe this will culminate not in a shooting war, but in an economic war. While the international financiers constructed our bubble economy and will benefit from its failure, it will be eastern nations (and Trump) that receive much of the blame for the destruction of these bubbles."

Source of the above quotations:

http://alt-market.com/articles/3243-geopolitical-tensions-are-designed-to-distract-the-public-from-economic-decline

Is he correct? Let's hope not hey. But I suspect that he probably is and that it is only a matter of time now. The system is broken and it cannot be fixed by any normal means.

Whichever way it goes then, this is a "must read" piece. Brandon is a thoughtful analyst who realised a long time ago that the old right/left political paradigm is a false dialectic. That left/right politics is a distraction and will never address our fundamental, systemic, problems.

In the US then Republican v Democrat is a manufactured and controlled psyop that diverts the peoples energy away from addressing the real problems. Here in the UK we have another very similar false political dialectic, Conservative v Labour. Slightly more sophisticated than the US version but equally distracting and diverting.

The key is not to focus on the differences between the 2 sides but to focus on what they agree on. They never discuss that of course and for very good reasons. Because what they agree upon lies at the heart of humanity's current problems.

Here are 2 key examples, there are plenty of others:

1. The banksters.

All of them but particularly the "Central Banks" like the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank etc. And even more particularly the central banksters central banks. Like the Bank for International Settlements [BIS] and the International Monetary Fund [IMF] and the World Bank.

Russia and China both support the BIS, the IMF and the World Bank. And their own versions too.

The elites on both sides of the false East/West dialectic are globalists.

They control all the banksters and all the political puppets that you read about in their media, which they also control.

None of the elites are on the ordinary peoples side. None of them. They are mainly friends who pretend to be enemies to fuck with your head.

2. The lawyers

All of them but particularly the main nest in the City of London. They set up, and they still run, the worlds legal systems. Don't believe anyone who tells you different. They created some of the most destructive legal concepts in history, including:

* The person legal fiction. ie. your slave status

* The corporate person legal fiction. Which assigns the same "person" status to corporations, and national states, as to you as an individual. A patently ridiculous and unfair notion if you really think about it.

This corporate "person" legalism is at the root of the current corporate domination of the world.

Government by corporations is fascism. By Mussolini's definition. And he surely knew!

If you research the legal meaning of "person" then you will understand this better.

A "person" is NOT a human being.

A "person" is a legal fiction, a strawman.

Read this for starters. It is not for the faint hearted, or those with a short attention span, but it is very, very, revealing:

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-human-rights-act-deception/

Earthling may not have the politics, or the attitude, that turns you on. But no matter, put aside your petty sensitivities and think about the info that he reveals. Take your time. Think deeply. And do more research for yourself. His info is absolutely devastating.

The Emperor has no clothes! Who would have guessed........

This is something that you will never be told at school. Many lawyers don't even understand the point. It is some of the most important info that you will ever receive. When you understand it then you will understand the breadth and the depth of the con.

If you want to know even more then read this much longer piece of his:

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/columbia-law-review-supports-earthling-re-human-rights-and-persons/

If you can refute any of the concepts that Earthling discusses in either of these 2 links, or in any of his many other blogs on the same subject then, please alert me in the comments. Facts only please, not opinions. But I doubt that you can.

Source of the quotations at the start:

http://alt-market.com/articles/3243-geopolitical-tensions-are-designed-to-distract-the-public-from-economic-decline

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/