On Hegel, Commies, Fascists, Terror, Liberty, Bigotry, The Left-Right Paradigm, Globalists, Populists, And TPTB* Who Brought It All To Us In Order To Take Over The World

It’s working, and why wouldn’t it? It always has.

I often wonder how it is that liberty-minded people end up supporting fascists. It’s not so hard to see, really; when presented with two choices, people have to pick, even if neither choice is optimal. This notion is the key to understanding the world as it is.

This notion is not foreign to many of us. Many governments and their elections are based on this system. It is often said that a bird needs both its wings to fly, both the left-wing, and the right-wing. Divide and conquer is the applicable cliché here. If you dislike both the liberal and the conservative candidate, what is there left for you to do but stay home? Doing that, while symbolically relevant, will not change the outcome – an outcome which will determine the course of your life despite your lack of participation in it. After all, even if only ten percent of eligible voters vote, winning six percent of the nation’s voices is enough to rule them all. That’s democracy; well not really, but that’s what democracy has come to represent to most of us these days.

Taken to another level, this dichotomy can be implemented towards much more nefarious objectives.

Take the Bolsheviks, for example. They overthrew the ruling elite, killed the Czar and his family, and decided they would share the wealth. (In reality, it didn’t have the desired effect, but I’m trying to keep this article under a million words.) What’s important here is the spirit in which the revolution was undertaken: taking the power out of the hands of the elite, and dropping it into the laps of the people. They did not know what to do with this power, and so were subverted, but we are more sophisticated than they were; or at least, we have a chance to be.

World War II and the construct of Nazism, which was almost entirely an Anglo-American creation, had at their roots many causes, but had only one aim, to stem the tide of Communism. The ruling elite did not want to see the revolutionary mind-set grow and spill over into their own countries, lest they receive the same treatment as the Czar.

[More specifically, there was open support and admiration for Hitler himself (despite the fact that National Socialist party was a party for the workers, and one which promised revolution – most knew this to be a political ploy) from such notable individuals and families as: Lord Randolph Hearst; Prescott Bush (son of the original merchant of death, Remington’s Samuel Bush, and father of George HW Bush #41, and grandfather to George W Bush #43;) the Harrimans; the Dulles’; JP Morgan; JD Rockefeller; WA Harriman; the Carnegies; the Rothschilds; the entire British royal family; and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

coke-nazis-640x657

The list of large American businesses which dealt openly with Nazi Germany is long and staggering and includes: MGM; Coca-Cola; GM; IBM; AT&T; Nestle; Ford; Pratt and Whitney; Douglas; Bendix Corp.; Woolworth; Dow; Du Pont; Union Carbide; Westinghouse; General Electric; Gilette; Goodrich; Alcoa; Singer; Eastman Kodak; ITT; Standard Oil; Sullivan & Cromwell; Dillon Read & Co.; Chase Bank; Union Bank of New York… etc – more details here. Not to mention the large number of British, Swedish, and Swiss companies and banks which did the same.]

Therein, we have the foundation of the dichotomy which is still in play to this day, namely communism vs. fascism.

Now, one would be hard-pressed to find very many people in America (or in most of the Anglo-world) who would openly claim to be either communists or fascists, but that has not always been the case. Both movements, at certain times, had found large numbers of Americans in support. (Ironically, both the left and right movements accuse each other of fascism.)

Given the choice, and knowing what you now know about the roots of communism (don’t forget that Karl Marx was German,) would you choose to be a fascist or a commie?

There is currently a movement in the United States for the protection of constitutional rights which have been whittled down by both the Bush and Obama administrations since 9/11 and the passing of the so-called Patriot Act. The right of free speech, the right to bear arms and many other tenets of the constitution are seemingly under attack by proponents of the security state and the far-left. The people fighting to keep these rights have been labelled as the alt-right movement, or extreme conservatives. For the most part, they believe that the US is and should remain a republic instead of being a representational democracy. Many take offense at the term ‘democracy’ as it is applied to their country, as I myself learned the hard way. These people are certainly not commies in the true or the traditional sense, and they consider that an offensive term as well. Neither do they consider themselves fascists, even if others tend to label them as such, for some strange and incomprehensible reason.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, one would be hard-pressed, outside of China, to find very many communists left. There are certainly a great deal of fascists, and Europe is considered by most to be socialistic, but the communist bogey-man has faded into the night, as it were. New terminology had to be devised, since people cannot be expected to contribute tax money to a military industry if there is nothing to defend against. Hence was the threat of terrorism born. But terrorists were not a big threat to the western world, despite demonstrations like 9/11, as lightning and five-year olds were statistically both responsible for more death and mayhem than were terrorists. More terror was needed to fuel the consumption of military-grade weapons systems by local governments to be used against their own citizens in order to keep them safe. Borders needed loosening and immigration needed to be accelerated, but not because people fleeing war zones such as Syria and Libya are terrorists, but because terrorists needed to be inserted into this population of migrants. Hence terrorism by Muslims and Sharia law could be the reason behind all the surveillance state’s new toys. [Cyber warfare is also closely related and should be quickly mentioned, but it deserves its own separate article.]

wOp1Nn1

In come the squirrels. Many issues have been raised which further divide the globs from the pops, and it seems that the most prevalent is that of religious bigotry and racism. Nothing seems to divide as well as do race and religion. Nothing seems to distract as well, either. If TPTB could use race and religion as effectively as they have used communism and fascism in the past, this globalism thing would be a cake-walk. Bush #41 started to set this up in a speech he gave on March 6th, 2001, a speech largely dedicated to promoting the success of Operation Desert Storm.

But there was inevitably going to be resistance, resistance to the influx of immigrants in these difficult economic times, to the build-up of civilian police force armaments, and to modern surveillance tactics. This resistance had to be countered, and so a new Hegelian concept needed to be introduced.

The new terms-du-jour which have emerged are globalists and populists. It is the populists who have taken up the ancient role of the communists, as the new threat to global stability, and are seen as ‘the last great problem,’ at least as far as the globalists are concerned. The globalists, of course, are the new fascists. They deny this association of course, but as we say, “If the shoe fits…” Populists fight for national sovereignty while globalists fight for a global UN parliament and a new world order (a term first used by Bush #41 ten years to the day before 9/11,) which Barack Obama referred to as an international order. Obama, Bush #43, Clinton, Bush #41, Reagan, and Carter are all globalists, and Trump is a populist. The UNPA (about which I have written much) is pushing for a global parliament to be run by non-elected political representatives and NGOs in order to better represent the voice of the people at the UN. This is disingenuous, at best. The claim is that since ordinary people have no voice at the UN in its present configuration, the people should be represented by lobbyists and corporations. This claim, despite already having been implemented in the European parliament,  is both laughable and transparent.

So where am I going with this? Well, considering that the world has, since WWII at least, been mostly split between communists and fascists (democracies being a weak compromise between the two,) and given that the new paradigm is Christianity vs. Islam, we need to take a step back and gain some perspective on this. Muslims are not the enemy, Iran or North Korea are not the enemy, Russia is most certainly not the enemy, nor is China, the left and the right are not enemies, and populists are not only not the enemy, but are the only ones who have even a slight chance of standing against the true enemy. The enemy is the same as it ever was. The enemy of liberty, the enemy of sovereignty, the enemy of financial independence is and has always been TPTB. Tyranny, plain and simple. And as long as they have us fighting each other, they can quietly go about their business, as they always have, to take it all for themselves.

When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order; an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peace-keeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.

-George H.W. Bush #41

n.b. The founders of the UN just happened to be those who ‘rid’ the world of fascism: FDR, Winston Churchill, and Stalin. Fascism did not go away. The fascists won WWII, and went underground. Fascism took over Europe from Brussels. Fascism is more rampant now than it has ever been.


*TPTB = The Powers That Be

Advertisements

Ingushetia Where?

The dark green-striped republic in the above image.

Caught between Russia to the north and Georgia to the south, North Ossetia to the west and Chechnya to the east, lies a small Caucasus republic called Ingushetia. The president of Ingushetia is Yunus-Bek Yevkurov. He’s the bad-ass’s bad-ass. He’s like Bond’s Jaws.

Some background on Yunus-Bek Yevkurov.

Yevkurov was recently (October 11, 2015) invited to sit in on a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud. Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud is the deputy crown prince of Saudi Arabia, second deputy prime minister and the youngest minister of defense in the world. Also included in the meeting were foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, industry and trade minister Denis Manturov, energy minister Alexander Novak, and defence minister Sergei Shoigu.

Turkey has ties to the Ukraine just as it has ties to Georgia. Turkey also has ties to IS which is seen from Syria to Chechnya. Georgia is known for many things, some of which involve smuggling. People, drugs, weapons, and now viruses have become black market currency in and through Georgia. This is why picking Sochi for the winter olympics in 2014 was such a brave move (despite being somewhat shielded by Abkhazia.) It was a move of great strength and one of great defiance. If the terrorists could be contained, Russia was impenetrable – a claim America could not make.

Ingushetia has always been used to cushion against/contain Chechen rebels. It’s a rough neighbourhood. It is, in essence, nothing but a military outpost, as it needs to be. It acts as a buffer zone between Russia and Chechyn ‘terrorists.’ It is also a passage from Russia to Turkey and Greece (Europe) through Georgia. Ingushetia is the Gibraltor of the Caucasus. If Russia ever secures South Ossetia, the focus may then shift away from Ingushetia, to a certain degree. Either that or a block will be formed of the two.

Why was Ingushetia included in this meeting? What do Saud and Caucasus terror have in common? What is Israel’s role?


This article may shed some light on the subject.

Ingushetia Proposes Measures To Crack Down On IS Recruitment, Blowback

“Local militants have shifted their allegiance from the local Islamist insurgent group, the Caucasus Emirate, to IS. In June, IS’s leadership accepted pledges of allegiance from militants in the North Caucasus, including in Ingushetia, and declared an IS “province” in the region called Wilayat al-Qawqaz.”


This article may provide some context. (Ignore the title and the call for funding at the top of the page and scroll down for the main article.)

“Washington continues to force its European vassals to impose sanctions on Russia based on the false claim that the conflict in Ukraine was caused by a Russian invasion of Ukraine, not by Washington’s coup in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a puppet answering to Washington.”


Finally, this article explains much.

The president of Ingushetia, who is recovering from an attempt on his life, accused on Monday the United States, Britain and Israel of seeking to destabilize the situation in the North Caucasus.

“I am miles from believing that Arabs are behind this. There are other, more serious forces there… We understand whose interests these are: the United States, Britain, and Israel too,” President Yunus-Bek Yevkurov said in an interview with the Russian News Service (RSN) radio.


Size means nothing in the world of geo-politics; what really counts is location, location, location.


 

Ottoman Insulation

Turkey’s recent (and seemingly inexplicable) foray into the spotlight of middle-eastern affairs has baffled many international observers. Turkey’s provocations against Syria, Russia, and now Iraq, and their alleged support of terror groups in support of their energy industry appear to have angered Washington (and NATO,) have puzzled Kazakhstan, irked China, and have put Europe in a difficult situation. Nobody seems to know what Erdogan is up to.

Resources are the default excuse, but cultural ties to the region’s other local actors play an important part. Is Turkey creating a buffer zone between Russia and the middle-east in order to inflate its importance? How many of the ‘-stans’ are on his side?

“In concrete terms, the only achievement was the announced agreement to launch the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP). «Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline – TANAP can be launched sooner than it was initially scheduled», said Mr Ahmet Davutoglu at a joint press conference with Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev.

Some 6 billion cubic meters of gas of 16 billion cubic meters will go to Turkey, while some 10 billion cubic meters of gas will go to Europe. TANAP will connect the giant Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan to Europe through the South Caucasus Pipeline (SCP), TANAP and the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP).”

Is Turkey using Azerbaijan to further its goal of regional dominance or is Turcic concern for its neighbours genuine? The move north and east puts several other states, especially Georgia, into harm’s way. No wonder Putin included Yunus-Bek Yevkurov in its meeting with the Saudi defense minister Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud. This aggrandization of the empire would serve as a bonding agent solidifying Turkey’s plan for regional dominance. Turkey already controls all the land-based pipelines into Europe from the middle-east and seems to have no qualms about using less legitimate groups to help further its agenda. The term ‘deep-state’ was coined in reference to Turkey, after all. (Note the black Turkish flag in the above image.)

“The rulers of re-emerged Ottoman Empire are trying to rekindle the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces has escalated recently. The Paris Armenia-Azerbaijan summit slated for December 1 was indefinitely postponed.”

Turkey has many battle-fronts now; they look to start conflict with everybody it would seem. A war forces states to take sides, and with Turkey controlling a great deal of European energy, as well as the water from the Euphrates river, perhaps Erdogan is trying to force his ally’s hands. He thought he had NATO support, but that is as yet uncertain; Turkey did fight a war against Poland in the 17th century. He seems to have Washington’s, in any case. But will Russia and the US both fall for the ploy, or will the two super-powers turn against him? He may well take Assad’s place as the next Gadaffi. Turkey’s role is at least as important as Ukraine’s, and they just got about the same amount of money from Europe as the IMF gave the Ukraine. Will we see increased terror attacks across the Caucasus as Putin has feared since the Sochi games? Time will tell.

*Update*

Just to push the point of Caucasus-ISIS young men with no better options than to make war with each other… The trickle-down is military, minute, and manipulative. War is a job; it comes with training, decent pay, glory and valour, and it leaves more women for the surviving (or conquering) men. The nomadic mercenaries are the Highlanders of the middle-east.

Russia says rebel killed in Caucasus was trained in Syria

“Turkey, the US, Russia, Syria – all these countries, the Kurds are all involved in the struggle against ISIS in Syria and in Iraq.

Yes, yes they are – and maybe that’s part of the reason why Erdogan despises them more now than ever.”

– Tyler Durden

Does Terrorism Even Exist?

Terrorism itself has had many uses and gone through many transformations throughout the ages. Terrorism has been used in order to subvert, manipulate, silence, coerce, influence, persuade, and otherwise intervene in both the operations of nation-states and the interruption of such operations. Terrorism has been used by both sides, small and large, weak and strong, defender and aggressor, antagonist and protagonist, over many issues, and in many theatres. Terrorism is a relative term.

Consider, for a moment, its definition, roughly: the act of instilling fear in order to serve a specific purpose. Thus terrorism has been used in advertising (buy this before we run out,) in child-rearing (do you want to be punished?,)  in religion (avoid this or you will go to hell,) in politics (they will hurt the economy,) and in environmentalism (the consequences would be disastrous.) Truly, terrorism has been used in all aspects of all of our lives. The degree to which it has is simply a matter of scale.

However, when we speak of or hear the term in our daily lives, we understand it to mean something more sinister, more dire, and more violent.

Terrorism is always used to describe the tactics of an opponent no matter which side of a conflict they find themselves on. One would never describe one’s allies as terrorists. Al-Qaeda would not describe members of ISIS as terrorists, just as NATO would not describe the Turkish government as such (even though some Kurds might.)

Terrorism is also a tool. Just as a hammer can be used to build a house or to tear one down, terror can be used for the purpose of (perceived) good or (perceived) evil. It all depends on whether the terrorists themselves use terror tactics or they are used by proxy. Terrorists refer to themselves as rebels or freedom fighters whereas their opponents who use those same acts by proxy refer to them as mercenaries. When acts of terror are used against one’s self, they are called false flag attacks.

Although terror has been used against populations for millenia, the nineteen-seventies saw terror take on new and different forms. For one thing, the television played a big part in bringing attention to many unknown causes, opinions, and state actors. Terrorism would fizzle out very quickly were it not for the mass media making its case. For another thing, the terrorists in the seventies knew who to target (they often went after pertinent individuals,) but the governments did not. Now the tables have been turned. The government (supposedly) knows about plots before they happen (when it is to their benefit,) governments target individuals, and the terrorists attack helpless civilians instead of those in positions of power.

One must ask the question, why do the terrorists never attack the wealthy, the elite? Why are F1 races and polo matches and horse races and film festivals not attacked? Why has Monaco never been attacked (the worse that can be said of Monaco is that there is an underlying threat from terrorism? ) Why are certain buildings never targeted, buildings in which decisions concerning global policy are struck? They must be much easier to hit than buildings like the Pentagon, the Murrah, and the big three in New York. With ISIS destroying ancient art, why are museums and art galleries never hit? Buildings like bank headquarters and world trade associations are not targeted… nobody ever hits an NGO, just civilians.

It is said that terrorists hate our freedom, but it can’t be just that (if it is at all) because there are many groups, each with their own issues. They can’t all be against freedom and only against freedom. Don’t they have other demands like sovereignty, food, peace, freedom from resource-driven oppression, water, education… ? They seek freedom too, after all, freedom from western intervention.

Terrorists used to want to get the general public on their side. They wanted sympathy towards their cause. Attacking a population is what you do when you want minorities to leave your town, or when you want to start a race war. When you have a political message to send, you target those involved, like they knew to do way back in the seventies – the ‘golden age’ of terror.

If government wanted us NOT to be afraid, state-run news agencies would ignore the attacks, not produce free advertising for the terrorists (like when they withhold a name so as not to fan the popularity fire.)

So what do we make of terror perpetrated ON the masses while being shown ad infinitum TO the masses and never injuring ANY of the elite? Conditioning? Advertising? But what are they selling? Dominance, perhaps.

We must therefore assume that terrorism, these days, is not the work of terrorists, but of ‘other’ groups that want us scared, obedient, and docile. <sarc>Who could that possibly be? And why? Why? </sarc> Of course we all know the answers to the questions posed in New York, Madrid, London, Boston, Newtown, Paris, San Bernadino, et al.; it is high time we started admitting that to ourselves. There may never have been a legitimate act of terror perpetrated in the west outside of the IRA, ever (actually, the IRA WAS involved in talks with the British government… hmmm?!)

Besides, don’t ISIS have websites? Couldn’t their ISPs shut them down or, at least, identify them? It’s not like ISIS has its own satellites.


*Update*

More truly excellent articles by George Washington from Washington’s Blog:

False Flags Are Just a Conspiracy Theory … Admitted Fact

71 Examples of false flag terrorism throughout the world:  False Flag Terrorism Isn’t a “Theory” … It’s ADMITTED and Widespread

“The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by the CIA and FBI as false flags.”


*Update*

Arjun Walia,
Waking Times Media

“The latest whistleblower is David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps intelligence officer, and the second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence. He is a former CIA clandestine services case officer, and this is what he had to say:”

Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.

Harper, the Niqab, and the Concept of Hijab

There has been much talk about the niqab as it relates to the swearing-in portion of citizenship ceremonies. Everyone seems to be missing the point on this subject, especially Stephen Harper.

First, let’s get the facts straight; identification is done through paperwork, not facial recognition. Yes, there is an aspect of facial recognition to the identification process, but ultimately, it comes down to documentation. This is very simply demonstrated with the example of triplets at the border; they don’t all use the same passport simply because they look alike.

Second, the swearing-in ceremony is a chance for people who are new to the country to present themselves as they are. It is an opportunity to introduce themselves to their peers, and if the goal is to be recognizable, then their appearance must reflect who they are even moreso than what they look like. They will not be forced to go through the procedure for a second time should they fall victim to a disfiguring injury, for example. They must, therefore, present their public face. Whether that face is veiled or not, it is their own personal choice and it reflects their own personal identity.

Third, the niqab is not a disguise. Wearing a mask at a protest march is a change in one’s public face in order to hide one’s identity. Wearing a niqab (or a burqa, chador, dupatta, tichel, snood, babushka, or veil) is a celebration of one’s cultural identity, not a duplicitous attempt to conceal it.

Fourth, there are some who would say that because some women are forced to wear such coverings by the males in their social groups, this behaviour should not be encouraged. However, this is not the issue at hand. Surely women who are oppressed by men have avenues available to them in order to help them break free from these bonds. Replacing such bondage by governmental oppression is not an acceptable option.

Fifth, a person should have the right to personal freedom of expression. Furthermore, a person should have the right to adorn one’s body as one sees fit, and to practice the religion of their choice, if this is the case. Be it cultural garb, mandated medical procedures, abortion, prostitution, or euthanasia, a person should have exclusive rights over their bodies and the way these are portrayed, displayed, treated, and cared for. If wearing something cannot be forced upon us, not wearing something should not either.

Sixth, the right to determine one’s own lifestyle should never rest with the state.

A final thought – when a government equates a form of dress with a certain pattern of behaviour, be it overtly or not, that is a form of discrimination and has no place in a modern society. Whether it is stated directly or not, equating the idea of a niqab with a sense of fear from terrorism is no different than identifying a religious group with a special ‘brand’ in the hopes of generating the same feelings of uneasiness. We should all be disgusted that some feel this debate is necessary or even appropriate.

Update – Zunera Ishaq just took the oath of citizenship while displaying her niqab-adorned ‘public face.’ This represents a victory for human rights in Canada, although, the court decision risks being overturned when a new government is elected.