Slightly edited, from here:
AUG 27, 2019 10:00 AM BY HUGH FITZGERALD
There was never any historical European “colonialism” in the Middle East to have retroactively influenced islam to become "defensively" repressive.
No Islamic countries were "economically and politically exploited by Europeans for centuries, killing democratization and progress” as the modern victim-blaming islamic myths go.
For more than four hundred years it was the Ottoman Turks — Muslims — who ruled over most of the Middle East and North Africa.
Europeans did not arrive in the area until Napoleon entered Egypt in 1798. There were no European “colonies” in the accepted sense of that word; that is, a place both with a large influx of settlers from the colonial metropolis and economic exploitation of that colony, anywhere in the Middle East. North Africa has a slightly different history.
We need only go down the list of countries in the Middle East and North Africa, to see how little they suffered from what Western liberals describe as “colonialism.” Iran never suffered from European colonialism; it has been a unified and independent state since the rise of the Safavids in the 15th century. As for Iraq, the modern state was created by the British, who remained there for little more than ten years, from 1921 to 1932, as the Mandatory authority, not to colonize, but in order to help shepherd the country that had been created from the three Ottoman vilayets of Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul, to full independence. In Lebanon/Syria, the French played the same role, that of the Mandatory authority, helping guide the local Arabs to independence in two nation-states, Lebanon and Syria.
In Egypt, the British did not come as colonialists, there to exploit the country’s (non-existent) riches, and to settle in large numbers; they arrived in order to put the country’s finances on a firmer footing and to end the inefficiency and corruption in the civil service. This was, of course, partly to assure the smooth workings of the Suez Canal. Lord Cromer appeared in 1877 to assume both tasks and had remarkable success. By 1922 Egypt, which had since December 1914 been a British protectorate, was declared by Great Britain to be fully independent. For the British, Egypt had not been a source of revenue (revenues from ships using the Suez Canal accrued to the Suez Canal Company), but a drain on resources. The British were happy to pull out, though because they wanted to ensure the continued security of the Suez Canal, they left a small contingent of army officers and civilian officials, who remained as advisers to the Egyptian government for several decades. The closest thing to true “colonialism” that Egypt endured was that which began in 1517, when the Ottoman Turks defeated the Mamelukes, who in 1250 had themselves defeated the Ayyubid dynasty founded by the Kurd Saladin. Under the nearly 400 years of Ottoman rule Egypt remained immobile; it was the British who helped to reform the civil service along modern lines and install a semblance of efficient government.
As for the Arabian peninsula, there were no European colonies in what became Saudi Arabia; infidels were not permitted, on religious grounds, in Arabia. That rule was strictly observed, for a long time, in Saudi Arabia. Nor were there European colonies in the places that were, or later became, known as Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Yemen.
Only in the entrepôt of Aden was there a British crown colony from 1937 to 1963; before that it had been administered by the Government of India. Aden was important as a refueling and re-provisioning stop for ships on the England-to-India route. Even in Aden, there were only a handful of British military and civilian officials; Aden had no colonists and no resources to exploit.
For many hundreds of years the Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa had been subject to imperial rule, varying in the degree of its immediacy and severity, of the Ottoman Turks. It was the Europeans who freed them from their subjugation to the Ottomans. This does not the liberals' version of history. They want us to believe that all the ills of the Muslim and Arab world have come from Europeans, the self-appointed “white saviors” whom they describe as “carcinogens;” the “cancer” is “colonialism.”
The vast interior peninsula of Arabia (renamed after the Al-Saud family in 1932), as noted above, was never subject to European colonial rule. The British did, however, intervene in the Gulf in two ways, both praiseworthy. First, they used their naval power to end the Arab slave trade in black Africans; second, they established a modicum of peace between the constantly warring Arab tribes on the Gulf coast, including stamping out their piracy, for this threatened the sea route to India and the East.
And that was about it. There were a few small British garrisons established at Aden and in the “Trucial States” (so named because they had signed truce treaties with the British); they were there only to maintain the peace. The British treated the Trucial States collectively as a protectorate, not a colony; these included the six emirates of Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain, and Fujairah, which joined in the Act of Union to form the United Arab Emirates in December 1971; the seventh emirate, Ras Al Khaimah, feeling threatened by Iran, joined the U.A.E. in February 1972. The British never settled in the Emirates as “colonists,” nor did they economically exploit the U.A.E. British troops were completely withdrawn, in fact, in 1971, because of their expense; Her Majesty’s Government could no longer afford to keep the peace in the upper Gulf.
There was no large-scale settlement by Europeans in these Middle Eastern countries (always excepting the special case of Israel, which was hardly a case of “colonialism”), nor were there riches to exploit. Oil was discovered in the region, and produced, only much later, when the European presence in the Middle East, always small, was already much diminished, and the oil-producing states were independent. In Lebanon and Syria, where the French Mandate lasted from 1923 to 1946, the French did two things which helped them project soft power for decades to come. First, during the mandatory period, they protected the local Christians from Muslim mistreatment; the Lebanese Christians have felt a bond with France ever since; second, the French spread the use of the French language by both subsidizing,and supplying French teachers to, French-language schools and universities; by supporting French-language newspapers and publishing houses. The Christians of Lebanon still use French, often preferring it to Arabic. One suspects the liberals would manage to find something sinister about this cultural mission of the French, just one more aspect of “European colonialism.” The Lebanese Christian beneficiaries of France’s mission civilisatrice would doubtless disagree.
In Iraq, as the Mandatory authority, the British not only managed to create a country out of those three Ottoman vilayets, but during the Mandatory period, they protected the Christians; before leaving the country, they extracted a promise from the Iraqis that they would not harm the Assyrians. However, within a year of the British officially leaving, Muslim Arabs and Kurds carried out a pogrom against the Assyrians at Simele, and several thousands were killed. Can the liberals a way to blame the European “colonialists” and American “neocolonialists” for that attempt, by Arab and Kurdish Muslims, at genocide?
What do they make of the attacks on Lebanese Christians during the Lebanese civil war? Or the attacks on Copts in Egypt that began after the British withdrew in 1922, and that have continued up to the present? Or don’t they think the mass murder of Christians by Muslims is important enough to mention?
North Africa presents a slightly different picture from the Middle East. In Libya, after the Italian conquest of the country that began in 1911, there was an effort to colonize the vast, underpopulated country. About 100,000 Italians eventually moved to Libya. The Italians were there to farm, and to build. They introduced modern systems of agriculture — crop rotation, irrigation, new kinds of fertilizers — that allowed what had become desert to again flourish; knowledge of these methods were freely shared with the Arabs.
The Italians built 4000 kilometers of roads, 400 kilometers of railroad lines, bridges, ports. They built a modern highway all the way from Tripoli to Tobruk. They plowed large sums into these projects; they wanted Libya to flourish and it did so, as it had not done since the days of the Roman Empire. These projects (roads, railroads, ports), and the improvements to agriculture, were for the benefit of all the people in Libya, not just Italians. Most of what one now sees of lasting worth in Libya’s infrastructure was built either by the Romans two thousand years ago, or by their descendants, the Italian builders and craftsmen who came to Libya during the period 1911 to 1939.
Liberals might visit Libya and take a good look, before they conclude that “European colonialism” is everywhere A Bad Thing.
Huge improvements to agriculture and infrastructure were not the only benefits of Italian rule.
The Italians also introduced their own legal code to replace the rudimentary Sharia of the Arabs. Comparing how Libyans fared under the Italians with how they fared during the rule of King Idris, or Muammar Qaddafi, or most recently, during the period of the half-dozen warring militias still fighting for power since the fall of Qaddafi, it is hard not to see the Italian rulers as the best of the lot. This was “colonialism,” but it was not the resource-draining sort, and it provided a better life for the Libyans than any they had experienced before.
France effectively ruled Morocco from 1912 to 1956, and Tunisia, from 1881 to 1956, both considered administratively not as colonies but as protectorates. Were the French ruthless colonialists as the Turks had been? Did the French government move hundreds of thousands of its own citizens into Morocco and Tunisia as colons, colonists? No, they did not have such a policy; they did not prevent French people, as individuals, from moving to those two countries, which is a different thing. The French who settled in Morocco and Tunisia did so only by the tens of thousands.
Did the French “colonialists,” ruthlessly exploit these soi-disant “colonies”? No. The French built the first modern hospitals and universities in North Africa, built school systems where before there had mainly been madrasas, supplied a constant stream of teachers from France to the schools and lycées of the Maghreb. They introduced modern methods of agriculture which increased crop yields, including those of olive trees, and introduced vineyards, too. Despite Islam’s ban on alcohol, Morocco and Algeria are now major producers of wine. Most significant, perhaps, was that these supposedly exploitative “colonialists” offered the maghrebins the gift of the French language, which made the advanced West — its culture, art, politics, science, medicine, higher education — all now accessible to the Tunisian and Moroccan elites.
Only in Algeria was there a deliberate large-scale transfer of French citizens into the region. Like Morocco and Tunisia, Algeria had been under the suzerainty of the Ottomans; unlike Morocco and Tunisia, when under French control Algeria was administratively ruled from Paris; it was treated as part of metropolitan France. Hundreds of thousands of French colonists moved into Algeria. By independence, in 1962, Algeria had more than a million people of European descent.
Clearly Muslim Arabs and Western liberals wish to blame the ills of the Arab and Muslim world on European “colonialism and neocolonialism that economically and politically exploited Islamic countries for centuries, killing democratization and progress.” But when we look closely at the recent history of the Middle East and North Africa, we see both what little actual effect European “colonialism” had on the region, and when it did have an effect, the benefits to the Arabs always outweighed the burdens. A mandate is not “colonialism.” A protectorate is not “colonialism.” Only in Algeria and Libya were there real “colonies” with substantial numbers of “colonists.” But instead of being “economically and politically exploited” by the Europeans, these Arab territories were the recipients of large investments. We saw how in Libya the Italians built the infrastructure of the country and modernized methods of agriculture. The French did the same in Algeria, but also built hospitals, universities, and a secular school system with many teachers sent from France.
They also claim that the Arabs endured “centuries” of Europe colonial rule. Their history is wrong. Only one Arab country, Algeria, was under European rule for more than a century, from 1830 to 1962. The Arabs endured a harsh imperialism for centuries, it’s true, but the imperialists in question were not Europeans, but their fellow Muslims, the Ottoman Turks.
The Europeans never colonized Iran, which maintained its independence throughout the centuries. Britain held the League of Nations mandate in Iraq, and France held that for Lebanon/Syria. These were examples not of colonialism, but of its very opposite; the holders of the mandates were responsible for guiding these inchoate countries to full independence. The interior of the Arabian peninsula was never penetrated by the Europeans. Britain did describe Aden as a “crown colony,” but it was hardly that; only officials and soldiers, not ordinary Britons, lived there. It was important only as a base for refueling ships going to and from India.
Egypt had its civil service revamped by the British, and put on a sound footing; that does not constitute “colonialism.” Libya became a colony of Italy, in the sense that large numbers of Italians, by the hundreds of thousands, settled there. But instead of being exploited by Italy, the Libyan economy was greatly improved by the Italians, through their massive investments in infrastructure (roads, highways, railroads, ports) and in improvements to agriculture.
Arab Muslims suffered far less from European colonialism than did any other people in the soi-disant Third World — far less than those in sub-Saharan Africa, in Central and South America, and in southeast Asia. Indeed, it might be argued, and has been, by such non-Arab ex-Muslims as Anwar Shaikh (in his Islam: The Arab Imperialism) that the most successful imperialism in history has been that of the Arabs, who exploited Islam as a vehicle for arabization, especially of the cultural and linguistic kind.
So great was the prestige of the Arabs within Islam that non-Arab converts often took Arab names and assumed false Arab lineages. It’s not surprising. The message of Allah was transmitted to a 7th century Arab, and in his language, Arabic. Muslims when they prostrate themselves in prayer five times a day turn toward Mecca, in Arabia, and recite their prayers in Arabic. It is also to Mecca that Muslims make the hajj, if able, at least once in their life. Believers ideally read the Qur’an in Arabic and memorize its verses in the original. No wonder many non-Arab Muslims adopted Arabic names and even false Arab lineages.
Arab imperialism in the newly-islamized Middle East and North Africa was followed by the imperialism of the Ottoman Turks, who for four hundred years ruled the Middle East and North Africa. Unlike the Europeans later on, the Ottomans did not invest in the lands they ruled over, and instead squeezed what they could out of their subjects. It made no difference to them if those subjects were Arabs, and thus fellow Muslims. Liberals fail to mention the four hundred years of Ottoman rule. Have they forgotten about it, or does it get in the way of their anti-European (“white men are the carcinogens”) narrative?
Whenever the word “colonialism” is flung at the West, there is an immediate impulse to apologize. There is no need. We should be ready to recognize the benefits that colonialism could, and often did, bring to many peoples.
The Arabs, in particular, benefited economically in North Africa from the modernization of agriculture and the massive investments made in infrastructure, education, and hospitals. They benefited politically, too, from the Mandatory authorities, France and Great Britain, who created the conditions that allowed Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria, formerly lands under Ottoman rule, to independence.
In Egypt, the British so improved the civil service that after eight years (1914-1922) of being a “protectorate” Egypt was deemed ready for full independence, and received it in 1922.
Our enemies lie by claiming that “colonialism” managed to “kill democratization and progress” in Muslim states. The opposite is true. Democracy is alien to Islam; for Muslims the legitimacy of a ruler depends on whether his rule follows the will of Allah, as expressed in the Qur’an. He may be a despot, as long as he is a good Muslim. The idea of democracy was brought to the Arabs by the very West that liberals blame for “killing” it. The elections held in Iraq have been reasonably fair, thanks to the Americans; elections have at various times been held, and their results sometimes honored, in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Turkey, Syria, “Palestine.” Even the family despotism in Saudi Arabia now allows elections at the local level. The very notion of elections was an alien import from the Europeans. The West did what it could to promote, not “kill,” the idea of democracy in the Middle East and North Africa.
As for their charges that “colonialism” killed “progress,” this is the very opposite of the truth. The Europeans, unlike the Ottomans, tried to promote, not stifle, economic progress in the Arab lands. In Libya, the country which conformed most closely to being a “colony,” the country was transformed by the Italian colonists. Roads, highways, railroads, and ports built by the Italians served Libyans as well as Italians. The modern methods of agriculture the Italians introduced were also shared with the Libyan Arabs. In Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia the French, similarly, built the first hospitals, universities, and school systems. They modernized agricultural methods, built networks of roads, the first railroads, and ports — all of these being needs the Ottoman rulers had ignored.
Progress had long been limited in Muslim lands because of Islam itself. First, the hostility in Islam to bid’a, innovation, which was originally aimed at suspect “innovation” in matters of faith, became a wider hostility to any new way of doing things. Thus did Muslim peoples prove naturally refractory to the idea of progress; it was the Europeans who imposed what progress there was. Second, the fatalism of Muslims, expressed in the one word “inshallah” or “God willing,” naturally diminished the Muslim will to strive. Why bother if, in the end, Allah will decide who succeeds and who fails? Europeans brought with them the idea of progress, and demonstrated in all that they created the obvious benefits of active effort over Inshallah-fatalism and passivity. The European presence in the Middle East and North Africa was, by any fair-minded standard, a godsend, politically and economically.
If there is to be any apologizing for colonialism, it should be not to, but by, the Arabs. For they have been the most successful colonizers in history, who managed to convince those they conquered to forget or despise their own pre-Islamic histories, as representing the Time of Ignorance, or Jahiliyya, before the arrival of Islam, and to identify instead with their Arab conquerors. Every aspect of Islam reinforces the prestige of the Arabs. The Qur’an, the Word of Allah, was delivered to a 7th century Arab, and in his language, Arabic. Muslims turn prostrate in prayer toward Mecca, in Arabia. They must make the hajj, if financially able, at least once in their life to that same Mecca. Even if they are non-Arabs they recite the daily prayers in Arabic and, ideally, should read the Qur’an in Arabic. That is why so many non-Arab Muslims take Arab names, and assume false Arab lineages. Islam has always been a vehicle for Arab imperialism.
The next time Muslim Arabs or Western liberals snarlingly attack the malignant “white saviors” of the West for a “colonialism” that, it is claimed, over the “centuries” was responsible for “killing democratization and progress” in the Islamic world, have ready a series of questions for them:
First, for how long were the Arabs ruled by the Ottoman Turks, their fellow Muslims, and what benefits, and burdens, resulted from that rule?
Second, exactly where, and for how long, were the Arabs ruled by Europeans? Which Arab states did the Europeans help bring to independence under the League of Nations mandate system? Which states were “protectorates,” whom the Europeans guarded from possible outside aggressors, and from internecine strife? Which states were “colonies” in the generally accepted sense of that word?
Third, which Arab states were exploited economically by the Europeans, and in what way? in which states did the Europeans invest far more than they received in benefits?
Fourth, what was the effect in North Africa of the massive European effort to build transportation infrastructure (roads, highways, railroads, ports), to set up schools, hospitals, universities? What was the effect on the local Arabs of the French government disseminating the French language in both Lebanon and in the Maghreb, by sending French teachers and supporting French-language schools and media?
Fifth, in what ways did Europeans bring modern methods of agriculture to Libya and Algeria?
Sixth, what political changes did the Europeans help bring about in the Middle East and North Africa? In what countries did they encourage democracy, and in which countries did they manage to “kill” democracy?
But as for their deigning to answer them — well, don’t hold your breath.
Vlad's Your Uncle, So Who's Your Vladdi?
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Conservatives Are Being Targeted By Simple Reverse Psychology After All
By Brandon Smith, for Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Alerts
The reason why con games are often so effective is because victims of a con always believe themselves "far too smart" to fall for such a scheme. A con game uses people's intelligence (or assumption of intelligence) against them. Even after they find out they have been lied to and tricked, these same people sometimes never report the crime; their egos simply won't allow them to admit they were played.
Another powerful element of a con game is that it almost always offers people something they desperately want. An effective grifter or conman will identify the target's weak point; the thing they desire more than anything else, and then uses a fake version of that thing to get the mark to trade a treasure that is legitimately valuable. The conman finds something the victim want so bad the person would be willing to ignore all facts and logic just for the chance of obtaining it. The victim does half the conman's work for him.
I mention the concept of con games because this is the best way of describing what 4th Generation Warfare is. Many people wrongly assume that 4th Gen warfare is merely the use of false flag attacks or propaganda. That's not quite accurate. The goal of an enemy using 4th Gen warfare is to take a target group or population and then con them into destroying themselves so that the enemy doesn't have to go through the messy and perhaps very dangerous process of fighting that population directly.
The tactic is not just about "divide and conquer;" that's only one small part of 4th Gen. It's not only about causing internal strife or civil wars. It's also about tricking a group into tarnishing their own public image, tricking them into taking hypocritical actions, tricking them into abandoning their defining principles, and tricking them into following leadership that is owned and controlled so he/she can lead them to ruin.
The globalists, a group of people with extensive influence in politics, the banking sector and the corporate underbelly, are hellbent on creating a single world economic system, a single world currency and a one world government. The most important key to the globalist agenda is that they no only want a one world system (a "new world order"), but they want the population to eventually accept that system as necessary — the globalists want people to actually demand that system, instead of having to force it on them and risk rebellion.
They use 4th Gen warfare on a regular basis to pursue these goals and target almost every group of people in one way or another. That said, they surely realize that there are some groups that are never going to go along with global centralization and that those groups will inevitably resist. These are the groups that the globalists will try to eliminate, first by undermining their public image and making them into monsters in the eyes of the rest of the world, then through combat if necessary.
Liberty minded conservatives (as opposed to statist Republicans) and sovereignty activists represent the largest single threat on Earth to the globalist agenda. In the U.S., they have the resources and enough social influence to mount a resistance, and using proper asymmetric tactics, they could even remove globalists from power once and for all. And while conservatives might be viewed as the hardest target for a 4th Gen con game, in some ways they are unfortunately very easy to attack.
I witnessed this firsthand after the 9/11 attacks, when many conservatives, fed a well-crafted but fabricated CIA narrative of Taliban and Iraqi collusion with Al-Qaeda, immediately flocked to support elitist controlled president George W. Bush. They abandoned their principles of small government and limited foreign intervention and joined the fervor and madness of a war fever, and the consequences have not subsided in well over 18 years. They were expertly conned and did not realize their mistake for a decade. By then it was too late.
This time around, I see a massive effort on multiple levels to attack conservatives with 4th Gen warfare. The goal is clear: Get conservatives to attach themselves to the economic crisis that is currently developing and allow them to destroy themselves in the process. Let's take a look at the most prominent lies conservatives are being fed today and why they are dangerous...
Before the 2016 election I
was uncertain if Trump was controlled opposition, but I knew that he
would be allowed into office based on the dynamic he provided for the
globalists. The Everything Bubble was starting to falter, and the
globalists intended to crash it, but they needed a scapegoat to take the
fall and that scapegoat would have to be conservative, or he had to at
least pretend to be conservative. What I wasn't sure of at the time was
if Trump was a willing puppet of the elites, or an unwitting target.
After three years of Trump's administration I'm now certain he is a puppet.
I've outlined and evidenced this conclusion in numerous articles including 'Trump Is A Pied Piper For The New World Order Agenda'. Trump's longstanding relationship with Rothchild banking agents like Wilber Ross cannot be ignored. Needless to say, Trump never followed through on his campaign promise to "drain the swamp" and has saturated his cabinet with globalist and banking elites.
He has also recently introduced the threat of Red Flag Gun laws, which represent back door confiscation and pre-crime denial of 2nd Amendment rights. I have also heard through the grapevine that once the U.S. Senate returns from summer recess on Monday, Sept. 9 that they plan to fast track such laws, and that Senate Republicans are supporting the effort. We shall see...
Not only does this tell me that Trump is not a constitutional president on the side of conservatives, it also tells me that Trump is likely not slated to be president after 2020. Trump's job is to play the role of the bumbling villain, to give Democrats and leftists something to rage about, to make the Federal Reserve and the banking elites look like the "good guys," and to lure conservatives into denying reality on the economic crisis until it is too late.
This is a very aggressive
psy-op which I have seen being implemented all over the alternative
media and in liberty movement forums lately. Consider this — The
mainstream media denied the economy was in dire straits for years and
ignored declining fundamentals and all evidence that there was not
recovery. Liberty groups have been warning the public about the disaster
that was boiling under the surface while the media called us
"conspiracy theorists."
Now, suddenly, the media agrees with us, at least in that a recession and economic crisis is imminent. But because the media is pushing the narrative that it's all Trump's fault, many conservatives are stupidly falling for the reverse psychology con game and refusing to admit that a crash is happening at all. Let's be clear, just because the mainstream media says a recession is coming does not mean it's not true.
The evidence is overwhelming, from the collapsing yield curve to plunging housing sales to faltering auto sales to crumbling manufacturing PMI to declines in freight and shipping as well as thousands upon thousands of retail store closures, etc. There is no sector of the U.S. economy that is not in decline. The only indicators that show strength are rigged indicators, including GDP, unemployment and the stock market. These are the same indicators that fooled the public into thinking all was well right before the crash of 2008.
I believe there is well organized and directed propaganda push designed to trick conservatives into denying that a recession is happening. Trump has incessantly attached himself and his administration to the market bubble, making him an obvious scapegoat when it all comes crashing down. But the globalists also need his conservative supporters to take the blame as well. The more conservatives deny the reality of the crash, the more culpable they appear as the crash progresses.
I see it all the time — the
lie that Trump is a secret agent for the liberty movement and that he's
going to take down the banking control grid and the Federal Reserve. Not
only this, but once he takes it all down, a new and beautiful sound
money Utopia will be instituted. To anyone with any sense of reality,
this all sounds insane, but I would say from my observations around 25
percent of the liberty movement actually believes it.
First, to believe this requires people to ignore certain facts. For example, the Trump cult often argues that because he has publicly attacked the Fed, this means he is exposing them to taking the blame for the crash they have created. So, there are people within the movement who claim the recession threat is fake, while there are others who claim that the crash is happening and it's a good thing. Both of these groups are wrong.
If Trump was trying to expose the Fed as the perpetrator of the crash, then why would he consistently take credit for the market bubble, as well as the fraudulent GDP and unemployment numbers? These are the same stats Trump argued were fake during his election campaign. Instead of setting the Fed up for a fall, he has only set himself up for a fall. And remember, more than half the U.S. and most of the world sits on the left end of the political spectrum. Many of them are ardent socialists. The only people that will be blaming the Federal Reserve and central banks after the crash will be a minority of conservatives. And if we continue to defend Trump, a controlled puppet who is intent on attaching himself to the bubble, then who will listen to us in the end?
I am also seeing a shift in Trump's behavior lately which borders on the insane or senile. I think this is merely an act; part of his role in the globalist screenplay as an increasingly unstable and dangerous populist. His weird "chosen one" comment, which he now claims was sarcasm, his proclamation "ordering" U.S. corporations out of China which would require the declaration of a state of emergency or a declaration of war, or his recent claims of reopened trade talks with China which there is no evidence so far to support. Trump is acting more and more erratic, and this only serves the globalist agenda, not the liberty movement.
Set aside the fact that both
America's elites and China's elites are globalist in rhetoric and policy
and work toward the same goal of a one world monetary system and one
world government. The trade war is not at all what it seems. Many
conservatives have been so bamboozled by trade war hype and "patriotic"
fervor that it's as if they have forgotten all about the primary threat:
The Globalists.
The trade war has achieved absolutely nothing in terms of forwarding U.S. interests or America's economy. Even the main argument for the trade war, shrinking the trade deficit, has failed as the deficit continues to expand. The only thing the trade war has achieved is a perfect distraction for the public as central banks like the Fed maintain tight liquidity conditions in an effort to deliberately deflate the Everything Bubble. If Trump was trying to bring down the banking syndicate and expose the Fed, then he would not have pursued a trade war at this time.
I would note once again that every time the Fed makes a policy announcement that goes against what the investment world wants and causes a market downturn, Trump makes a trade war announcement which take all attention away from the central bank. Lately, Trump barely waits an hour before taking these actions. How exactly does this hurt the central bankers and the globalists? The answer is that it doesn't.
Whether or not trade conditions with China are unfair is irrelevant. The conflict is taking all attention away from central banks and international banks and the economic crisis they have been fostering for over 10 years. If Trump was actually anti-globalist then he would have targeted globalist institutions first and set aside the China issue for later. As it stands, even if Trump ended the trade war tomorrow it doesn't matter. He would still be blamed for the ongoing crash in fundamentals.
And, for those that argue that Trump's trade war moves are meant to force the Fed to start issuing more QE and save stocks, I can only point out that the Fed has no intention of doing this and they made that clear in July and at Jackson Hole. And, if it were actually the case that Trump is trying to "force the Fed into a corner," then the strategy is a poor one. All the Fed has to do is sit and wait, allowing markets to tank until Trump is out of office after 2020 elections. The same goes for China and the trade war.
There is no incentive for them to capitulate to Trump for the next year. But this is all an academic discussion because Trump is not working against the globalists, he's working for them.
The key here is conservatives and the liberty movement. If we remain skeptical of Trump's policies and critical when he takes actions which are irrational or unconstitutional, then we can more easily argue that we had nothing to do with the economic crash as it escalates. We can maintain momentum for the liberty movement and gather more people to our side, instead of losing people due to a tarnished image.
The people who fanatically fantasize that Trump is a secret agent fighting a Game of Thrones war against the banking elites are only hurting the movement. The more cognitive dissonance they promote in the name of defending Trump, the crazier they will all seem when the fantasy falls apart. This is exactly what the elites want.
To truth and knowledge,
Brandon Smith
The reason why con games are often so effective is because victims of a con always believe themselves "far too smart" to fall for such a scheme. A con game uses people's intelligence (or assumption of intelligence) against them. Even after they find out they have been lied to and tricked, these same people sometimes never report the crime; their egos simply won't allow them to admit they were played.
Another powerful element of a con game is that it almost always offers people something they desperately want. An effective grifter or conman will identify the target's weak point; the thing they desire more than anything else, and then uses a fake version of that thing to get the mark to trade a treasure that is legitimately valuable. The conman finds something the victim want so bad the person would be willing to ignore all facts and logic just for the chance of obtaining it. The victim does half the conman's work for him.
I mention the concept of con games because this is the best way of describing what 4th Generation Warfare is. Many people wrongly assume that 4th Gen warfare is merely the use of false flag attacks or propaganda. That's not quite accurate. The goal of an enemy using 4th Gen warfare is to take a target group or population and then con them into destroying themselves so that the enemy doesn't have to go through the messy and perhaps very dangerous process of fighting that population directly.
The tactic is not just about "divide and conquer;" that's only one small part of 4th Gen. It's not only about causing internal strife or civil wars. It's also about tricking a group into tarnishing their own public image, tricking them into taking hypocritical actions, tricking them into abandoning their defining principles, and tricking them into following leadership that is owned and controlled so he/she can lead them to ruin.
The globalists, a group of people with extensive influence in politics, the banking sector and the corporate underbelly, are hellbent on creating a single world economic system, a single world currency and a one world government. The most important key to the globalist agenda is that they no only want a one world system (a "new world order"), but they want the population to eventually accept that system as necessary — the globalists want people to actually demand that system, instead of having to force it on them and risk rebellion.
They use 4th Gen warfare on a regular basis to pursue these goals and target almost every group of people in one way or another. That said, they surely realize that there are some groups that are never going to go along with global centralization and that those groups will inevitably resist. These are the groups that the globalists will try to eliminate, first by undermining their public image and making them into monsters in the eyes of the rest of the world, then through combat if necessary.
Liberty minded conservatives (as opposed to statist Republicans) and sovereignty activists represent the largest single threat on Earth to the globalist agenda. In the U.S., they have the resources and enough social influence to mount a resistance, and using proper asymmetric tactics, they could even remove globalists from power once and for all. And while conservatives might be viewed as the hardest target for a 4th Gen con game, in some ways they are unfortunately very easy to attack.
I witnessed this firsthand after the 9/11 attacks, when many conservatives, fed a well-crafted but fabricated CIA narrative of Taliban and Iraqi collusion with Al-Qaeda, immediately flocked to support elitist controlled president George W. Bush. They abandoned their principles of small government and limited foreign intervention and joined the fervor and madness of a war fever, and the consequences have not subsided in well over 18 years. They were expertly conned and did not realize their mistake for a decade. By then it was too late.
This time around, I see a massive effort on multiple levels to attack conservatives with 4th Gen warfare. The goal is clear: Get conservatives to attach themselves to the economic crisis that is currently developing and allow them to destroy themselves in the process. Let's take a look at the most prominent lies conservatives are being fed today and why they are dangerous...
Lie #1: Donald Trump is on our side and is fighting the globalists
I've outlined and evidenced this conclusion in numerous articles including 'Trump Is A Pied Piper For The New World Order Agenda'. Trump's longstanding relationship with Rothchild banking agents like Wilber Ross cannot be ignored. Needless to say, Trump never followed through on his campaign promise to "drain the swamp" and has saturated his cabinet with globalist and banking elites.
He has also recently introduced the threat of Red Flag Gun laws, which represent back door confiscation and pre-crime denial of 2nd Amendment rights. I have also heard through the grapevine that once the U.S. Senate returns from summer recess on Monday, Sept. 9 that they plan to fast track such laws, and that Senate Republicans are supporting the effort. We shall see...
Not only does this tell me that Trump is not a constitutional president on the side of conservatives, it also tells me that Trump is likely not slated to be president after 2020. Trump's job is to play the role of the bumbling villain, to give Democrats and leftists something to rage about, to make the Federal Reserve and the banking elites look like the "good guys," and to lure conservatives into denying reality on the economic crisis until it is too late.
Lie #2: The recession is media propaganda and the economy is in good shape
Now, suddenly, the media agrees with us, at least in that a recession and economic crisis is imminent. But because the media is pushing the narrative that it's all Trump's fault, many conservatives are stupidly falling for the reverse psychology con game and refusing to admit that a crash is happening at all. Let's be clear, just because the mainstream media says a recession is coming does not mean it's not true.
The evidence is overwhelming, from the collapsing yield curve to plunging housing sales to faltering auto sales to crumbling manufacturing PMI to declines in freight and shipping as well as thousands upon thousands of retail store closures, etc. There is no sector of the U.S. economy that is not in decline. The only indicators that show strength are rigged indicators, including GDP, unemployment and the stock market. These are the same indicators that fooled the public into thinking all was well right before the crash of 2008.
I believe there is well organized and directed propaganda push designed to trick conservatives into denying that a recession is happening. Trump has incessantly attached himself and his administration to the market bubble, making him an obvious scapegoat when it all comes crashing down. But the globalists also need his conservative supporters to take the blame as well. The more conservatives deny the reality of the crash, the more culpable they appear as the crash progresses.
Lie #3: Trump is secretly battling the bankers and bringing down their system from within
First, to believe this requires people to ignore certain facts. For example, the Trump cult often argues that because he has publicly attacked the Fed, this means he is exposing them to taking the blame for the crash they have created. So, there are people within the movement who claim the recession threat is fake, while there are others who claim that the crash is happening and it's a good thing. Both of these groups are wrong.
If Trump was trying to expose the Fed as the perpetrator of the crash, then why would he consistently take credit for the market bubble, as well as the fraudulent GDP and unemployment numbers? These are the same stats Trump argued were fake during his election campaign. Instead of setting the Fed up for a fall, he has only set himself up for a fall. And remember, more than half the U.S. and most of the world sits on the left end of the political spectrum. Many of them are ardent socialists. The only people that will be blaming the Federal Reserve and central banks after the crash will be a minority of conservatives. And if we continue to defend Trump, a controlled puppet who is intent on attaching himself to the bubble, then who will listen to us in the end?
I am also seeing a shift in Trump's behavior lately which borders on the insane or senile. I think this is merely an act; part of his role in the globalist screenplay as an increasingly unstable and dangerous populist. His weird "chosen one" comment, which he now claims was sarcasm, his proclamation "ordering" U.S. corporations out of China which would require the declaration of a state of emergency or a declaration of war, or his recent claims of reopened trade talks with China which there is no evidence so far to support. Trump is acting more and more erratic, and this only serves the globalist agenda, not the liberty movement.
Lie #4: China is the enemy we should be focused on
The trade war has achieved absolutely nothing in terms of forwarding U.S. interests or America's economy. Even the main argument for the trade war, shrinking the trade deficit, has failed as the deficit continues to expand. The only thing the trade war has achieved is a perfect distraction for the public as central banks like the Fed maintain tight liquidity conditions in an effort to deliberately deflate the Everything Bubble. If Trump was trying to bring down the banking syndicate and expose the Fed, then he would not have pursued a trade war at this time.
I would note once again that every time the Fed makes a policy announcement that goes against what the investment world wants and causes a market downturn, Trump makes a trade war announcement which take all attention away from the central bank. Lately, Trump barely waits an hour before taking these actions. How exactly does this hurt the central bankers and the globalists? The answer is that it doesn't.
Whether or not trade conditions with China are unfair is irrelevant. The conflict is taking all attention away from central banks and international banks and the economic crisis they have been fostering for over 10 years. If Trump was actually anti-globalist then he would have targeted globalist institutions first and set aside the China issue for later. As it stands, even if Trump ended the trade war tomorrow it doesn't matter. He would still be blamed for the ongoing crash in fundamentals.
And, for those that argue that Trump's trade war moves are meant to force the Fed to start issuing more QE and save stocks, I can only point out that the Fed has no intention of doing this and they made that clear in July and at Jackson Hole. And, if it were actually the case that Trump is trying to "force the Fed into a corner," then the strategy is a poor one. All the Fed has to do is sit and wait, allowing markets to tank until Trump is out of office after 2020 elections. The same goes for China and the trade war.
There is no incentive for them to capitulate to Trump for the next year. But this is all an academic discussion because Trump is not working against the globalists, he's working for them.
The key here is conservatives and the liberty movement. If we remain skeptical of Trump's policies and critical when he takes actions which are irrational or unconstitutional, then we can more easily argue that we had nothing to do with the economic crash as it escalates. We can maintain momentum for the liberty movement and gather more people to our side, instead of losing people due to a tarnished image.
The people who fanatically fantasize that Trump is a secret agent fighting a Game of Thrones war against the banking elites are only hurting the movement. The more cognitive dissonance they promote in the name of defending Trump, the crazier they will all seem when the fantasy falls apart. This is exactly what the elites want.
To truth and knowledge,
Brandon Smith
Monday, August 26, 2019
THE ENEMY'S PLAN, EXPLAINED
THE ENEMY'S PLAN, EXPLAINED:
Sunday, August 25, 2019
HOW NOT TO BE A "VICTIM" LIKE MUHAMMAD
From here:
According to Craig Winn, in "The Prophet Of Doom", Moe was screwed out of his father's Kaaba concession by his uncle and never got over it.
He was attacked by Jibril in the cave of Hira and further victimized by deniers & scoffers so that 5.33 declares Allah & Moe to be victims of disbelievers. "Those who fight you" in 2.190 includes those who resist Islamic aggression as in Sahih Muslim 19.4294.
- Dajjal -
Muhammad held him self to be a proudly Submissive slave of mysteriously unknowably unknown (yet also mysteriously, knowably known to be) almighty Allah.
But in trying to make up and use mysteriously unknowably unknown (yet also mysteriously knowably known to be) "inevitable force" alibis to excuse their own self-reliantly free-will chosen crimes, criminals (muslims and liberals) declare them selves to be mentally incompetent and even "mentally ill" (under liberals' diseased victim model of humanity's place in the universe).
Their intention is to declare and get everyone else to vote for and agree to this notion in order to be able to assert that there are no real crimes because there are no real intentional criminals; only equally helpless fellow victims to be pitied, and never condemned for any allegedly bad free-will choices. Thus the only real crime is accusing a victim of being a crIminal.
Therefore any law rule &/or regulation they invent must "logically" rely only upon end-results; never on anyone's intentions.
Which is more powerful, nature (genetics) or nurture (unconscious "cultural" social indoctrination and/or conscious education)?
Are all people just naturally stupid, (as libertine criminals would have us believe) always fated to be ruled by our emotions?
Or are emotions never causes of our actions, but merely effects, which can and so should be monitored, edited, and controlled?
Well, the steam-powered Victorian-era led people like Freud to invent the so-called "pneumatic theory of the emotions," where angry stresses just "built up" and had to be "vented" lest we "blow a gasket." But simple distration proved this theory untrue.
Binary behavioural conditioning can certainly induce an almost automatic aversion to anger, (as most violently demonstrated in A ClockWork Orange) and lesser traditional rituals such as Christianity habituate us to feeling debilitating guilt and shame, in order to further enslave our minds and stymie our emotions. But until now, these hidebound traditional methods of thought and emotion control have been, because they have never been adequately explained, relying instead on the critical thinking logical fallacy of the "Argument from Authority" eroding under the binary stresses engendered by the promises of th elibertine "liberal" criminals' Enlightenment ("Yay! Free Stuff!") and the opposing threat of criminal islam (where "Fun is disallowed")!
Our brains simply can't take the hypocrisy (split-skull/"schizo-phrene" thought-killing/"psycho-pathic" "cognitive dissonance") any more!
Having been led to expect an entirely impossible outcome, where our hopeful wants trump our painful needs, we have become too reliant on criminally hypocritical idolaters and their lying promises of a damage, pain, fear, greedy, and hope (consciousness) free eternal "Heaven" to end that unendingly "karmic" cycle of "dharma" forever - but only in the magical mythical Afterlife.
So it's no big surprise that people break down and commit either fast or slow suicide - the latter being criminal greed, based on paranoid masochism, where hysterical people strive to induce others to cause them those very same pain-causing damages they fears the most, in order to be able to pretend to be able to thus control their own fears of it by ending them with the pain.
People simply need to be educated about what their emotions really are and always were, without the false need for any promises which can never be delivered to waylay their thoughts into proudly enduring these emotional cycles as if pain and the useless static pity of it are holy virtues to be endured, and usefully dynamic anger at the criminal liars encouraging is the only sin.
Who cares about "depression!"? That's only the emotion of fear. And "Faith!" (mere hope) isn't the answer to fear, either. Leftopathic libocrites have "Faith!" (hope) that their stupid ideas about "Progressing" away from doing the obvious and predictably boring right things, will enable them to be exciting and different ad infinitum - but they won't.
Everyone is trying to escape from being bedeviled and controlled by their emotions - and the criminals of the left and islam are still always trying to blame their internally-generated, helpfully warning fears on others as externally-inflicted threats.
But our emotions aren't even thoughts, much less are they spiritual guides or morals.
Emotions are always effects, never causes. They are mere reflections of the three basic states of space-time (the static past, the fluid present, and the nebulous future, respectively): static fear, fluid greed, nebulous hope. Not exactly worth defending, much less going to war over!
Only once people have been educated in this way, can we truly determine if they have been merely stupid, or deliberately evil.
And once it is correctly alalyzed defined and described to everyone they will have no excuse to indulge in "hateful" behaviour:
"Jealousy" is a false "emotion:" a chosen effect & symptom of one's hypocrisy, and never a real cause of one's bad behaviours.
"Jealousy" IS hypocrisy: where one chooses to purposefully become so outraged by everything in general for it's "always being against me all the time!" that one forgets what particular specific incident may have set off the outrage in the first place; in stead, one then justifies one's irrationally slanderous, flailing victim-blaming initial attacks of perpetual criticism with "So what; screw you - I MEANT to do that; and besides: you all always do it, too anyways!" and one can even pretend to justify one's such perpetual agitating extortions and, ultimately, slavery attempts, as a superior and even pseudo-intellectual choice, by, for instance to use a modern example, calling it "Critical Theory;" but when others do it call it "Hate!" and "Hate-crime!"
Being angry all the time ("Hateful!") without remembering why, (because it WAS a choice and NOT a valid reaction to an attack) because one had also chosen to regard one's own helpful internally-generated fears, not as useful warnings to enable one to fix mistakes and solve problems to avoid pain-causing damages, but as externally-generated attacks and so pains in them selves, and thus to also feel all of one's emotions AS pains them selvs; and, ultimately, AS Pain "itself," was and remains a choice which although it can become a very bad (if lucrative, because "there's no money in solutions") habit, and can be falsely described, under the static and idolatrous "diseased victim" inevitable force alibi, as "psychosis" to excuse one's said chosen criminal desires and actions (to attack first BY slandering one's chosen "opponents," to keep them unsafe and unhappy on the defensive) was in reality always a choice which one has "nurtured," and was not "naturally" inflicted on one by outside inevitable forces.
There was some quote in Isaiah about how the Truth could metaphorically make or reveal people's blood-stained garments become of have always been entirely white again, removing all "sins," not through blind obedience to doctrinal "Faith!" traditions, but through Reasoning with God. "Sin" is a criminal choice, not a mysterious "spiritual stain" which only a god can remove!
;-)
HERE'S HOW NOT TO BE A "VICTIM" LIKE MUHAMMAD!
MUHAMMAD AS VICTIM:
According to Craig Winn, in "The Prophet Of Doom", Moe was screwed out of his father's Kaaba concession by his uncle and never got over it.
He was attacked by Jibril in the cave of Hira and further victimized by deniers & scoffers so that 5.33 declares Allah & Moe to be victims of disbelievers. "Those who fight you" in 2.190 includes those who resist Islamic aggression as in Sahih Muslim 19.4294.
- Dajjal -
Muhammad held him self to be a proudly Submissive slave of mysteriously unknowably unknown (yet also mysteriously, knowably known to be) almighty Allah.
But in trying to make up and use mysteriously unknowably unknown (yet also mysteriously knowably known to be) "inevitable force" alibis to excuse their own self-reliantly free-will chosen crimes, criminals (muslims and liberals) declare them selves to be mentally incompetent and even "mentally ill" (under liberals' diseased victim model of humanity's place in the universe).
Their intention is to declare and get everyone else to vote for and agree to this notion in order to be able to assert that there are no real crimes because there are no real intentional criminals; only equally helpless fellow victims to be pitied, and never condemned for any allegedly bad free-will choices. Thus the only real crime is accusing a victim of being a crIminal.
Therefore any law rule &/or regulation they invent must "logically" rely only upon end-results; never on anyone's intentions.
So, Here's How to Free One's Self from Being or
Ever Having to Become a Victim Like Muhammad:
NURTURE VS NATURE: "JEALOUSY" *IS* HYPOCRISY!
Which is more powerful, nature (genetics) or nurture (unconscious "cultural" social indoctrination and/or conscious education)?
Are all people just naturally stupid, (as libertine criminals would have us believe) always fated to be ruled by our emotions?
Or are emotions never causes of our actions, but merely effects, which can and so should be monitored, edited, and controlled?
Well, the steam-powered Victorian-era led people like Freud to invent the so-called "pneumatic theory of the emotions," where angry stresses just "built up" and had to be "vented" lest we "blow a gasket." But simple distration proved this theory untrue.
Binary behavioural conditioning can certainly induce an almost automatic aversion to anger, (as most violently demonstrated in A ClockWork Orange) and lesser traditional rituals such as Christianity habituate us to feeling debilitating guilt and shame, in order to further enslave our minds and stymie our emotions. But until now, these hidebound traditional methods of thought and emotion control have been, because they have never been adequately explained, relying instead on the critical thinking logical fallacy of the "Argument from Authority" eroding under the binary stresses engendered by the promises of th elibertine "liberal" criminals' Enlightenment ("Yay! Free Stuff!") and the opposing threat of criminal islam (where "Fun is disallowed")!
Our brains simply can't take the hypocrisy (split-skull/"schizo-phrene" thought-killing/"psycho-pathic" "cognitive dissonance") any more!
Having been led to expect an entirely impossible outcome, where our hopeful wants trump our painful needs, we have become too reliant on criminally hypocritical idolaters and their lying promises of a damage, pain, fear, greedy, and hope (consciousness) free eternal "Heaven" to end that unendingly "karmic" cycle of "dharma" forever - but only in the magical mythical Afterlife.
So it's no big surprise that people break down and commit either fast or slow suicide - the latter being criminal greed, based on paranoid masochism, where hysterical people strive to induce others to cause them those very same pain-causing damages they fears the most, in order to be able to pretend to be able to thus control their own fears of it by ending them with the pain.
People simply need to be educated about what their emotions really are and always were, without the false need for any promises which can never be delivered to waylay their thoughts into proudly enduring these emotional cycles as if pain and the useless static pity of it are holy virtues to be endured, and usefully dynamic anger at the criminal liars encouraging is the only sin.
Who cares about "depression!"? That's only the emotion of fear. And "Faith!" (mere hope) isn't the answer to fear, either. Leftopathic libocrites have "Faith!" (hope) that their stupid ideas about "Progressing" away from doing the obvious and predictably boring right things, will enable them to be exciting and different ad infinitum - but they won't.
Everyone is trying to escape from being bedeviled and controlled by their emotions - and the criminals of the left and islam are still always trying to blame their internally-generated, helpfully warning fears on others as externally-inflicted threats.
But our emotions aren't even thoughts, much less are they spiritual guides or morals.
Emotions are always effects, never causes. They are mere reflections of the three basic states of space-time (the static past, the fluid present, and the nebulous future, respectively): static fear, fluid greed, nebulous hope. Not exactly worth defending, much less going to war over!
Only once people have been educated in this way, can we truly determine if they have been merely stupid, or deliberately evil.
And once it is correctly alalyzed defined and described to everyone they will have no excuse to indulge in "hateful" behaviour:
"Jealousy" is a false "emotion:" a chosen effect & symptom of one's hypocrisy, and never a real cause of one's bad behaviours.
"Jealousy" IS hypocrisy: where one chooses to purposefully become so outraged by everything in general for it's "always being against me all the time!" that one forgets what particular specific incident may have set off the outrage in the first place; in stead, one then justifies one's irrationally slanderous, flailing victim-blaming initial attacks of perpetual criticism with "So what; screw you - I MEANT to do that; and besides: you all always do it, too anyways!" and one can even pretend to justify one's such perpetual agitating extortions and, ultimately, slavery attempts, as a superior and even pseudo-intellectual choice, by, for instance to use a modern example, calling it "Critical Theory;" but when others do it call it "Hate!" and "Hate-crime!"
Being angry all the time ("Hateful!") without remembering why, (because it WAS a choice and NOT a valid reaction to an attack) because one had also chosen to regard one's own helpful internally-generated fears, not as useful warnings to enable one to fix mistakes and solve problems to avoid pain-causing damages, but as externally-generated attacks and so pains in them selves, and thus to also feel all of one's emotions AS pains them selvs; and, ultimately, AS Pain "itself," was and remains a choice which although it can become a very bad (if lucrative, because "there's no money in solutions") habit, and can be falsely described, under the static and idolatrous "diseased victim" inevitable force alibi, as "psychosis" to excuse one's said chosen criminal desires and actions (to attack first BY slandering one's chosen "opponents," to keep them unsafe and unhappy on the defensive) was in reality always a choice which one has "nurtured," and was not "naturally" inflicted on one by outside inevitable forces.
There was some quote in Isaiah about how the Truth could metaphorically make or reveal people's blood-stained garments become of have always been entirely white again, removing all "sins," not through blind obedience to doctrinal "Faith!" traditions, but through Reasoning with God. "Sin" is a criminal choice, not a mysterious "spiritual stain" which only a god can remove!
;-)
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Why is the mainstream media suddenly admitting to the recession threat?
From Brandon Smith via Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Alerts:
One thing that is important to understand about the mainstream media is that they do tell the truth on occasion. However, the truths they admit to are almost always wrapped in lies or told to the public far too late to make the information useful. In the case of the sudden flood of recession and economic crash talk in the media the past couple of weeks, I would say it is both an attempt to hide the truth among lies, and to absolve themselves for not warning people ahead of time.
The fact is, the pattern the media is following today matches almost exactly with the pattern they followed leading up to the credit crash of 2008, with one large exception — this time the agenda is to place blame on a particular target.
Multiple mainstream outlets ignored all the crash signals in 2005 and 2006 despite ample warnings from alternative economists. In fact, they mostly laughed at the prospect of the biggest bull market in the history of stocks and housing (at that time) actually collapsing. Then abruptly the media and the globalist institutions that dictate how the news is disseminated shifted position and started talking about "recession" and "crash potential." From The New York Times to The Telegraph to Reuters and others, as well as the IMF, BIS and Federal Reserve officials — everyone suddenly started agreeing with alternative economists without actually deferring to them or giving them any credit for making the correct financial calls.
In 2007/2008, the discussion revolved around derivatives, a subject just complicated enough to confuse the majority of people and cause them to be disinterested in the root trigger for the economic crisis. Instead, the public just wanted to know how the crash was going to be fixed. Yes, some blame went to the banking system, but almost no one at the top was punished (only one banker in the U.S. actually faced fraud charges). Ultimately, the crisis was pinned on a "perfect storm" of coincidences, and the central banks were applauded for the "swift action" in using stimulus and QE to save us all from a depression level event. The bankers were being referred to as "heroes."
Of course, central bank culpability was later explored, and Alan Greenspan even admitted partial responsibility, saying the Fed knew there was a bubble, but was not aware of how dangerous it really was. This was a lie. According to Fed minutes from 2004, Greenspan sought to silence any dissent on the housing bubble issue, saying that it would stir up debate on a process that "only the Fed understood." Meaning, there was indeed discussion on housing and credit warning signs, but Greenspan snuffed it out to prevent the public from hearing about it.
Today we have a very similar dynamic. Use of the "R word" in the mainstream media and among central banks has been strictly contained for the past several years. Only in the past year has talk of recession begun to break out, and only in the past couple of weeks have outlets become aggressive in pushing the notion that a financial crash is just around the corner. Yet, signals of sharp decline in economic fundamentals have been visible since before the 2016 elections, and alarms have been blaring on housing, auto markets, manufacturing, freight and shipping, historic debt levels, the yield curve, etc. since at least October of last year.
So, what changed?
I can only theorize on why the media and the banking elites choose the timing they do to admit to the public what is about to happen. First, it is clear from their efforts to stifle free discussion that they do not want to let the populace know too far ahead of time that a crash is imminent. According to the evidence, which I have outlined in-depth in previous articles, central banks and international banks sometimes engineer crash events in order to consolidate wealth and centralize their political power even further. Is it a conspiracy? Yes, it is, and it's a provable one.
When they do finally release the facts, it seems that they allow for around six months of warning time before economic shock events occur. In the case of the current crash in fundamentals (and eventually stocks), the time may be shorter. Why? Because this time the banks and the media have a scapegoat in the form of Donald Trump, and by extension, they have a scapegoat in the form of conservatives, populists and sovereignty activists.
The vast majority of articles flowing through mainstream feeds on economic recession refer directly to Trump, his supporters and the trade war as the primary villains behind the downturn. The warnings from the Fed, the BIS and the IMF insinuate the same accusation.
Anyone who has read my work for the past few years knows I have been warning about Trump as a false prophet for the liberty movement and conservatives in general. And everyone knows my primary concern has been that the globalists will crash the Everything Bubble, a bubble which has been inflated by central banks for the past decade, on Trump's watch, and then blame all conservatives for the consequences.
To be clear, Trump is not the cause of the Everything Bubble, nor is he the cause of its current implosion. No president has the power to trigger a collapse of this magnitude, only central banks have that power. When Trump argues that the Fed is causing a downturn, he is telling the truth. What he is not telling the public, though, is that his job is to help the Fed in this process.
Admissions of crisis in the media are coinciding directly with Trump's policy actions. In other words, Trump is providing perfect cover for the central banks to crash the economy without receiving any of the blame. Trump's insistence on taking full credit for the bubble in stock markets as well as fraudulent GDP and employment numbers, after specifically warning about all of these things during his election campaign, has now tied the economy like a noose around the necks of conservatives. The tone of warning in the media indicates to me that the banking elites are about to tighten that noose.
The pace of the narrative is quickening, and I would suggest that a collapse of the bubble will move very fast, perhaps in the next four to six months. If it does, then it is likely that Trump is not slated for a second term as president in 2020. Trump's highly divisive support for "Red Flag" gun laws, a move that will lose him considerable support among pro-gun conservatives also indicates to me that it is likely he is not meant to be president in 2020. I don't think that it's a coincidence the situation is accelerating in the months leading up to the Brexit in October. Yet another event that will be used to blame sovereignty activists and nationalists for a crash the globalists created.
As events are unfolding right now, it appears that Trump has served his purpose for the globalists and is slated to be replaced next year; probably by an extreme far-left Democrat. The media saturation of recession talk also suggests that this is the case. As in 2007/2008, it is unlikely that the mainstream would admit to a downturn that is not coming soon. Using the behavior of the media and of banking institutions as a guide, we can predict crisis within the economy. Clearly, a major breakdown is slated to take place before the election of 2020, if not much sooner.
To truth and knowledge,
Brandon Smith
One thing that is important to understand about the mainstream media is that they do tell the truth on occasion. However, the truths they admit to are almost always wrapped in lies or told to the public far too late to make the information useful. In the case of the sudden flood of recession and economic crash talk in the media the past couple of weeks, I would say it is both an attempt to hide the truth among lies, and to absolve themselves for not warning people ahead of time.
The fact is, the pattern the media is following today matches almost exactly with the pattern they followed leading up to the credit crash of 2008, with one large exception — this time the agenda is to place blame on a particular target.
Multiple mainstream outlets ignored all the crash signals in 2005 and 2006 despite ample warnings from alternative economists. In fact, they mostly laughed at the prospect of the biggest bull market in the history of stocks and housing (at that time) actually collapsing. Then abruptly the media and the globalist institutions that dictate how the news is disseminated shifted position and started talking about "recession" and "crash potential." From The New York Times to The Telegraph to Reuters and others, as well as the IMF, BIS and Federal Reserve officials — everyone suddenly started agreeing with alternative economists without actually deferring to them or giving them any credit for making the correct financial calls.
In 2007/2008, the discussion revolved around derivatives, a subject just complicated enough to confuse the majority of people and cause them to be disinterested in the root trigger for the economic crisis. Instead, the public just wanted to know how the crash was going to be fixed. Yes, some blame went to the banking system, but almost no one at the top was punished (only one banker in the U.S. actually faced fraud charges). Ultimately, the crisis was pinned on a "perfect storm" of coincidences, and the central banks were applauded for the "swift action" in using stimulus and QE to save us all from a depression level event. The bankers were being referred to as "heroes."
Of course, central bank culpability was later explored, and Alan Greenspan even admitted partial responsibility, saying the Fed knew there was a bubble, but was not aware of how dangerous it really was. This was a lie. According to Fed minutes from 2004, Greenspan sought to silence any dissent on the housing bubble issue, saying that it would stir up debate on a process that "only the Fed understood." Meaning, there was indeed discussion on housing and credit warning signs, but Greenspan snuffed it out to prevent the public from hearing about it.
Today we have a very similar dynamic. Use of the "R word" in the mainstream media and among central banks has been strictly contained for the past several years. Only in the past year has talk of recession begun to break out, and only in the past couple of weeks have outlets become aggressive in pushing the notion that a financial crash is just around the corner. Yet, signals of sharp decline in economic fundamentals have been visible since before the 2016 elections, and alarms have been blaring on housing, auto markets, manufacturing, freight and shipping, historic debt levels, the yield curve, etc. since at least October of last year.
So, what changed?
I can only theorize on why the media and the banking elites choose the timing they do to admit to the public what is about to happen. First, it is clear from their efforts to stifle free discussion that they do not want to let the populace know too far ahead of time that a crash is imminent. According to the evidence, which I have outlined in-depth in previous articles, central banks and international banks sometimes engineer crash events in order to consolidate wealth and centralize their political power even further. Is it a conspiracy? Yes, it is, and it's a provable one.
When they do finally release the facts, it seems that they allow for around six months of warning time before economic shock events occur. In the case of the current crash in fundamentals (and eventually stocks), the time may be shorter. Why? Because this time the banks and the media have a scapegoat in the form of Donald Trump, and by extension, they have a scapegoat in the form of conservatives, populists and sovereignty activists.
The vast majority of articles flowing through mainstream feeds on economic recession refer directly to Trump, his supporters and the trade war as the primary villains behind the downturn. The warnings from the Fed, the BIS and the IMF insinuate the same accusation.
Anyone who has read my work for the past few years knows I have been warning about Trump as a false prophet for the liberty movement and conservatives in general. And everyone knows my primary concern has been that the globalists will crash the Everything Bubble, a bubble which has been inflated by central banks for the past decade, on Trump's watch, and then blame all conservatives for the consequences.
To be clear, Trump is not the cause of the Everything Bubble, nor is he the cause of its current implosion. No president has the power to trigger a collapse of this magnitude, only central banks have that power. When Trump argues that the Fed is causing a downturn, he is telling the truth. What he is not telling the public, though, is that his job is to help the Fed in this process.
Admissions of crisis in the media are coinciding directly with Trump's policy actions. In other words, Trump is providing perfect cover for the central banks to crash the economy without receiving any of the blame. Trump's insistence on taking full credit for the bubble in stock markets as well as fraudulent GDP and employment numbers, after specifically warning about all of these things during his election campaign, has now tied the economy like a noose around the necks of conservatives. The tone of warning in the media indicates to me that the banking elites are about to tighten that noose.
The pace of the narrative is quickening, and I would suggest that a collapse of the bubble will move very fast, perhaps in the next four to six months. If it does, then it is likely that Trump is not slated for a second term as president in 2020. Trump's highly divisive support for "Red Flag" gun laws, a move that will lose him considerable support among pro-gun conservatives also indicates to me that it is likely he is not meant to be president in 2020. I don't think that it's a coincidence the situation is accelerating in the months leading up to the Brexit in October. Yet another event that will be used to blame sovereignty activists and nationalists for a crash the globalists created.
As events are unfolding right now, it appears that Trump has served his purpose for the globalists and is slated to be replaced next year; probably by an extreme far-left Democrat. The media saturation of recession talk also suggests that this is the case. As in 2007/2008, it is unlikely that the mainstream would admit to a downturn that is not coming soon. Using the behavior of the media and of banking institutions as a guide, we can predict crisis within the economy. Clearly, a major breakdown is slated to take place before the election of 2020, if not much sooner.
To truth and knowledge,
Brandon Smith
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Globalism has officially failed -- why did no one tell us?
From here:
The trade war is morphing into a currency war as Europe and China devalue their currencies to make their exports less expensive.
How do countries devalue their currencies? They print more money – lots of money – which causes inflation. Can you say Venezuela? Can you say socialism? Do you remember when AOC was asked how to pay for the Green New Deal? She answered, just print more money. That was also Bernie’s response as how to pay for his programs. Socialism. Just print more money. The euro, yuan, dollar are all fiat, so just print more!
What American companies get hurt in the trade war between the U.S. and China? Those companies that invested $250 billion in operations in China, as stated by Bloomberg BusinessWeek for Aug 12, 2019. They bet against the United States. They are the ones who sponsor all the misinformation about how the trade war hurts Americans. They are wrong. They lie. And they know it. In your wildest dreams, did you imagine Democrats and Wall Street and U.S.-based global corporations being partners in politics? Well, they are/were – with Obama, with Clinton and with Schumer/Pelosi, to the detriment of average working Americans.
China exports close to $500 billion more in goods per year to the U.S. than the U.S. exports to China – including agriculture products. So if the U.S. and China stop doing all business with each other, then China loses almost $500 billion per year to its GDP and the U.S. gains $500 billion as American manufacturers replace products made in China with products made here (competitive product substitution).
In time, any product can be replaced. Just ask Detroit about what happened to the car business after 1970, which was the most capital intensive industry in its day. Any product can be replaced in time. Ask Intel. Ask U.S. Steel. Ask American textile companies.
Bloomberg also states that current Price-to-Earnings ratios are at an average of 30 when the normal average is 20. Why are stock P to E ratios so high? Because bond interest rates are so low. So why are bond interest rates so low? Because foreigners are buying up lots of U.S. bonds/Treasuries, which drives down interest rates – $6.5 trillion worth. It’s the same as what Quantitative Easing did when the Fed purchased $3 trillion of bonds when Obama was president. $3 trillion. The Fed cannot stop this. Foreigners are buying up lots of U.S. Treasuries/bonds because the interest rates in their home countries are negative or at zero. It has been that way for more than two years. Two dozen countries in Europe and Asia have been hiding their recessions (negative or zero interest rates) for more than two years. And now they are affecting the United States.
Trump is doing his best to isolate the U.S. from the impact of those foreign countries just as a doctor separates healthy people from sick people. This includes tariffs, new trade deals, canceling bad deals, separating U.S. currency from foreign currencies and nationalism (putting the interests of Americans first). Will it work? Hopefully … Otherwise, this will be a rough ride.
So far, so good. U.S. wages are increasing at 3.2 percent per year while inflation is averaging under 1.8 percent. Obama never had wages increase faster than inflation. The unemployment rates for blacks and Hispanics and women are at historic lows. Over 6 million jobs are unfilled. And all this is happening while the stock market signals a problem. But that problem is clearly because of Europe, interest rates and the FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google), just as it has been for the last two years.
Globalism certainly will not work as the rest of the world has been hiding the fact that it has been in a recession for more than two years. Do we really want to be like the rest of the world? The economic downward spiral in Europe and Asia started more than 10 years ago. Even countries that are touted by liberals as positive examples of socialism like Denmark and Sweden now have negative interest rates. Europe tried to use immigration to augment decreasing internal demand for products and found that to be a losing strategy – just like it is in the USA.
So now what do Europe, China, Japan and Mexico do if they cannot keep milking the U.S. market teat? Now what do they do since they lost their self-sufficient independence?
The failure of globalism is the reason why nationalism is increasing all over the Western world. Nationalism, a focus inward, will save Europe just as it is saving America. Go Boris!
Don’t let the liberal mainstream media confuse you. Nationalism is not the same as supremacism. Those are not interchangeable terms as the media try to claim.
Let me ask: Who hid all of this from us for so long? Why do establishment politicians bet so much on globalism and sell out their home countries? What did those establishment politicians and U.S. globalist companies get out of it? And why is Trump the first to do anything about it?
- Michael Master -
The trade war is morphing into a currency war as Europe and China devalue their currencies to make their exports less expensive.
How do countries devalue their currencies? They print more money – lots of money – which causes inflation. Can you say Venezuela? Can you say socialism? Do you remember when AOC was asked how to pay for the Green New Deal? She answered, just print more money. That was also Bernie’s response as how to pay for his programs. Socialism. Just print more money. The euro, yuan, dollar are all fiat, so just print more!
What American companies get hurt in the trade war between the U.S. and China? Those companies that invested $250 billion in operations in China, as stated by Bloomberg BusinessWeek for Aug 12, 2019. They bet against the United States. They are the ones who sponsor all the misinformation about how the trade war hurts Americans. They are wrong. They lie. And they know it. In your wildest dreams, did you imagine Democrats and Wall Street and U.S.-based global corporations being partners in politics? Well, they are/were – with Obama, with Clinton and with Schumer/Pelosi, to the detriment of average working Americans.
China exports close to $500 billion more in goods per year to the U.S. than the U.S. exports to China – including agriculture products. So if the U.S. and China stop doing all business with each other, then China loses almost $500 billion per year to its GDP and the U.S. gains $500 billion as American manufacturers replace products made in China with products made here (competitive product substitution).
In time, any product can be replaced. Just ask Detroit about what happened to the car business after 1970, which was the most capital intensive industry in its day. Any product can be replaced in time. Ask Intel. Ask U.S. Steel. Ask American textile companies.
Bloomberg also states that current Price-to-Earnings ratios are at an average of 30 when the normal average is 20. Why are stock P to E ratios so high? Because bond interest rates are so low. So why are bond interest rates so low? Because foreigners are buying up lots of U.S. bonds/Treasuries, which drives down interest rates – $6.5 trillion worth. It’s the same as what Quantitative Easing did when the Fed purchased $3 trillion of bonds when Obama was president. $3 trillion. The Fed cannot stop this. Foreigners are buying up lots of U.S. Treasuries/bonds because the interest rates in their home countries are negative or at zero. It has been that way for more than two years. Two dozen countries in Europe and Asia have been hiding their recessions (negative or zero interest rates) for more than two years. And now they are affecting the United States.
Trump is doing his best to isolate the U.S. from the impact of those foreign countries just as a doctor separates healthy people from sick people. This includes tariffs, new trade deals, canceling bad deals, separating U.S. currency from foreign currencies and nationalism (putting the interests of Americans first). Will it work? Hopefully … Otherwise, this will be a rough ride.
So far, so good. U.S. wages are increasing at 3.2 percent per year while inflation is averaging under 1.8 percent. Obama never had wages increase faster than inflation. The unemployment rates for blacks and Hispanics and women are at historic lows. Over 6 million jobs are unfilled. And all this is happening while the stock market signals a problem. But that problem is clearly because of Europe, interest rates and the FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google), just as it has been for the last two years.
Globalism certainly will not work as the rest of the world has been hiding the fact that it has been in a recession for more than two years. Do we really want to be like the rest of the world? The economic downward spiral in Europe and Asia started more than 10 years ago. Even countries that are touted by liberals as positive examples of socialism like Denmark and Sweden now have negative interest rates. Europe tried to use immigration to augment decreasing internal demand for products and found that to be a losing strategy – just like it is in the USA.
So now what do Europe, China, Japan and Mexico do if they cannot keep milking the U.S. market teat? Now what do they do since they lost their self-sufficient independence?
The failure of globalism is the reason why nationalism is increasing all over the Western world. Nationalism, a focus inward, will save Europe just as it is saving America. Go Boris!
Don’t let the liberal mainstream media confuse you. Nationalism is not the same as supremacism. Those are not interchangeable terms as the media try to claim.
Let me ask: Who hid all of this from us for so long? Why do establishment politicians bet so much on globalism and sell out their home countries? What did those establishment politicians and U.S. globalist companies get out of it? And why is Trump the first to do anything about it?
- Michael Master -
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Self-Defense Isn't "Racist!"
From Dajjal:
"Racism is the conceit that your race is superior and others are inferior.* Trump supporters are intelligent enough to know that there is a bell curve that applies to all races. Individuals of all races can excel over Morons such as AOC.
As the founders declared, "All men are created equal"... . Some of them denigrate themselves by worshiping a deity who requires them to conquer the world and licenses them to kill us and plunder our goods. Condemning them is not racism, it is common sense.
Others denigrate themselves by eschewing honest labor in favor of a life of crime. Condemning them is not racism, it is common sense. Still others drive after consuming sumptuary substances resulting in the death of innocents. Yet others assault & rape. Condemning them is common sense, not racism."
------------------------------------------------------
However, there's nothing wrong with "racism" (aka pattern-recognition and one's free-association rights) either! Without "racism," (preference for people one finds compatible and similar to one's self) there would exist no "races" on Earth - not even the poor swarthy pets liberals love so much!
*Further, "it ain't bragging if ya done it!" Whites deserve the "privilege" of being generally more intelligent, via millennia of natural selection, than others who were born in other environments!
The dark unutterable truth is that there is a sort of white privilege. This came as a result of creating a superior civilization, and being children of that race; it is earned every day by paying almost all the taxes, committing relatively very little of the crime, creating basically all of the technology that gives us the highest standard of living humans have ever seen, and committing basically all of the fucking charity and do-gooding in the world.
It is whites who created 90% of all the technology that brought the greatest standard of living humans have ever seen, and then brought it around the world. Yes, whites took their spoils--because it's the human game to take spoils.
Not that they had to, but whites gave back. Literally no other race gives back to the world, to everyone not like us. Not only inventing the technology that brought modern civilization, but continuing to give. Whites must account for 90% of all the world's charity and do-goodism. And much of that goes to non-whites, and that's often <i>at the expense of lesser whites.
Moreover, all Islamic charity goes to Moslems only. They add it to the white charity they get.
White people are the Medicins Sans Frontiers of humanity.
They invented everything great and then they went around sharing it with everyone else. Again: They took spoils because everyone takes spoils. But whites gave back, which is what makes them superior, which is why whites have earned white privilege.
Literally no other race gives back--and so very much, at the cost of our own people--to the world, to those not like us. Only whites.
Well now that superior civilization and do-goodism means whites are being forced to absorb the poor world's exploding hordes and this story will end.
Why can't rich nations like Japan, S Korea, Saudi Arabia/Gulf States take in some of the hordes?
Why must only white societies become diversified?
Friday, August 16, 2019
The Western Suicidal Dilemma IS The Curse Called "Christianity!"
Why is "The West" so Hell-bent on committing suicide, and virtue-signaling their SUBMISSION all the way there?! Why do "modern secular atheist liberals" so very closely resemble their muslim brethren?
Leftopaths use "You're a RACIST!" as their knee-jerk response and to provide a place-holder "answer" to everything, no matter what the topic of discussion is - sort of exactly like muslims do when they use "Allahu-Akhbar!"
And of course as you already know, their screams of denial of reality, "ALLAHU-AKHBAR!" simply mean "Allah is Greater!" (than whatever is opposing and confusing them).
In the case of liberals, it would be:
"Allah is Greater than your silly 'facts and logic'!"
To leftopaths, it's certainly unjust to jail anyone for any "crime" ever, since we're all too stupid and life's too "complex" for anyone to ever really be able to understand cause-and-effect (if such things even exist!) so without any *mens rea* criminal intent, there's no such thing as a "criminal" anyway - because after all, we're all really ever only a bunch of equally helpless fellow victims, at the mercy of mysterious, unknowably unknown (yet also mysteriously known to be) inevitable forces beyond our comprehension or control, so we're helpless victims of "society" (or, as their prophit, Karl Marx put it, of "historical predeterminism") mere products of our environments, and of course proud slaves of almighty Allah! And as we all know, all such victims must always be pitied and never censured by feewings-hurting anger (aka "hate!") just for being the kind of victim who always seems to choose to attack thereby innocent other people (er, I meant "victims") first, as opposed to the allegedly "law"-abiding kind who seem to always choose not to. In fact, hating "crimes" and the "criminals" who seem to commit them, is the only real, hateful "hate crime" in itself! (CAPISCE?)!
And so, 'SINCE' all so-called facts are therefore really only opinions, the leftists' entirely fact-free subjective opinions are also the diversely opposite EQUALS to those silly Conservatives' so-called objective facts! Whee!
Our opinions are always facts, and your silly facts are really always only opinions!
Now that's real hypocrisy in action!
Just as Muhammad himself was really only a con-man and bandit-king, an arch-criminal who always blamed “god” for his own penchant for committing crimes. If Moe got away with committing a crime (and he tried them all, enthusiastically, more than once, but instead of ever showing contrition, bragged about how much fun it was to commit them, and advised everyone else to join in the fun, too), then it was held to be “obvious” that “god” wanted him to get away with having committed those crimes!
Conclusion? "Cognitively" and I use that term very loosely! all muslims are also libertine "liberal" criminals, and vice-versa!
BUT - "WHY!"? we must ask our selves, before it's too late!
I blame Christianity, TBH.
I blame basic Christianity for inducing virtue-signalling guilt and masochism in the populace as a form of mind-control. In fact, given Jesus' own example, suicidal masochism is Christianity's highest virtue. Paul openly endorsed government slavery for us.
If the denial of white superiority, self-liquidation of their own race and nations and suffering about guilt were merely a part of the "misery of the human condition" (or in Biblical terms, as payment for some distant "Original Sin" and resulting "Fallen" condition), then WHY AREN'T MUSLIM ARABS, WHO ARE NOT BORN INTO A RELIGION WHICH BELIEVES IN ANY "ORIGINAL SIN," ALSO AFFECTED IN THE EXACT SAME WAYS?! After all, Arabs are technically, according to geneticists, Caucasians!
The Qur'an and ahadith are full of white supremacist statements!
Muhammad was allegedly "the Whitest of men" and proud of it!
And even the Christian majority (which at this time is blacks in Africa!) are equally destructive towards their own cultures, too!
Islam seems to be winning across the globe, not because of its inherent superiority, but because it's a creed of offensive violence demanding OTHERS' Submission, while ours is a creed of inherently pacifistic submission, where pity* for all criminals and enemies is held to be the highest moral virtue, and useful constructive criticism and dynamic crime-discouraging anger (aka "Hate!") is seen as the most vile "sin" or crime! Muslims see hate as a holy virtue, and useless pity is regarded as the weakest and dumbest of mistakes and even as a crime itself.
And I also think the whole premise of literally thought-killing, "psychotic" demands for people to at least pretend to endorse this false "FAITH!" over what they really know, is thought-control: a mind-corrupting denial of reality.
I'd have to say pretending to "believe" something I don't have enough information on to assess, just because I'm threatened with hypothetical Hell-fire not to, would be the bigger crime or "sin!" Any god who would condemn me to Hell just for being honest, isn't a god worth even pretending to follow or obey, much less one who also demands my unearned "love!" as its allegedly highest commandment.
Even little kids already know that neither respect nor admiration (much less "love") can be demanded or commanded - they must always be earned, and in the case of demands for faith over facts, that can never happen!
So we should ask our selves this: Which of the two main religious fantasy characters is more likely to invent and use logic facts and reality: God or the Devil? Who's more likely to use fact-free fantasies (aka lies) and demand unthinking submission to them?
The only real difference between the binary carrot-and-stick, greed-and-fear islamic warnings and promises and the christian versions of same, is the violence; and even that isn't much of a difference, as Christians say "Do this and that, obey and Submit to silly nonsense rituals, or GOD will get you!" while the muslims say "Do this and that, obey and Submit to silly nonsense rituals, or WE will get you ('for God')!" Not really all that much difference after all, is it? And I've even heard devout Christians claim that God uses the muslims to punish us, too! Just like OT Jews used to claim, right in the Bible, that God used their enemies to punish them for being disobedient! So how is that any different from those same enemy muslims claiming the same?! "We are punishing you infidels for disobeying God!" That's islam's basic message to us.
;-/
But as a basic evasion tactic, liberal (and even Conservative) Westerners will try to pretend that islam isn't a "real" religion; it's only a crime-gang pretending to be one, so it's not a problem of religions in general. But not all religions have to be (or, obviously, are) good, by anyone's definition of them! Worse:
HERE'S LOGICAL PROOF THAT *ALL* RELIGIONS ARE ALWAYS LIES:
Here's the simple differences between philosophy, science, and religion:
1). Philosophy is speculation, presented AS speculation.
2). Science is tested speculation, presented AS tested speculation.
3). Religion is speculation, presented AS fact.
So ALL religions are lies, because they present unprovable speculations AS FACT.
And lying is the most basic form of theft - it's the (at least, attempted) theft of the Truth.
All crimes are forms of theft, and all criminal thefts are forms of slavery, because when a criminal takes what you earned and/or simply that to which they are not entitled by dint of not having earned or otherwise paid for them selves, by attacking you first without getting your permission, (including the theft of your time and so life itself) they have also then retroactively forced you to have worked for them for free. That's slavery.
All religions are idolatry - static images models and templates re-presenting and trying to replace the cause-and-effect dynamics of life presented to us, in order for the criminal hypocrites who create the lies to be able to enslave their intended victims to themselves, through their victims' unwitting belief in those same lies.
And as one might expect of hypocrites, religions always foster double-standards using emotions, because no amount of logic rationality facts and truth will ever be able to justify those double standards, where they are always right, and victims, while everyone who disagrees with them is always wrong, and an oppressor. This self-inflicted paranoid masochism ("You're always all out to get me, SO I'm always your victim! I'm always a victim! Waaaah!") is at the root of all so-called "mental illness" which itself is nothing more than a pitiful excuse to avoid responsibility: "I didn't do it! My brain made me do it! And in fact, I didn't do it at all! Only my brain did it! Whee!" Just substitute the words "God;" "The System;" and "my procedures" for "my brain" in the above sentence, to see exactly how prevalent this hypocrisy still is.
In this way, all religions ARE "theodicies" (excuses for what to say if and when things go wrong, and reality tries to prove you're not always the victim, but trying to be is a choice you made which confirms you as the predatory criminal aggressor, and them who your victim-blaming slanders implicate as your 'oppressors,' as your innocent victims)!
In Christianity, when something goes wrong, it's always the fallible "fallen" humans' fault, but when it goes right, it's all praise to 'God' alone.
While this at least fosters a meager sense of guilty free-will choice if not actual self-reliance, islam goes one step further - and even worse, specifically claims that unknowable, unknown 'Allah' is responsible for both the good and the bad, and all humans are nothing but his helpless slaves anyways - but at least it gives muslims the perfectly wrong might-makes-right excuse to be delinquent towards their own responsibilities to not attack thereby innocent other people first - because guilt and innocence are achieved by results alone, so that if and when a criminal like their founder, Muhammad, tries to commit some crimes (and he tried them all, frequently, and, in stead of feeling guilt or remorse, invited others to join him in the fun) and gets away with them, then they get to retroactively claim that, since they did get away with them, then 'Allah' must have wanted them to, and so they were never really crimes in the first place, but actually retroactively valid, 'god-inspired "holy" punishments for their thereby 'guilty' victims!
Every instance of people using idolatry (fraudulent lies to avoid responsibility) is to excuse their chosen delinquency towards their only Golden Rule principle of responsibility - to not attack thereby innocent other people first.
IDOLATRY IS ALWAYS AN EXCUSE FOR CRIMINAL INTENT!
People only create ALL such "inevitable force" idols (including cognitive idols such as "religions") as alibis to excuse their own criminal desires and actions!
People should focus on how and why ALL religions are the same, in that even if such gods existed, with all the powers their followers claim they have, they still aren't worthy of anyone's worship, and especially never worthy of worship based on blind faith! No version of gods or "the god" are anything more than might-makes-right powers behind the usual fear-and-greed, warnings, threats and promises behavioral conditioning binary! Human morality is most simply defined by The Golden Rule of Law as "Do Not Attack First!" yet one cannot "not attack first" one's way into an eternally pain, fear and greed (and therefore also hope and, ultimately consciousness)-free heaven - because such a place logically can never truly exist, no matter how much raw power a superior being might have to use for it!
So we can completely deconstruct and so cognitively destroy all religions, starting with "Judeo"-Christianity and islam (because they are the most beguiling and dangerous) followed by Christianity's real main root (Buddhism) and then all pagan superstitions.
Further, religions, in attempting to refute reality, can only and therefore must try to reverse causes and effects, in a vague hope to be able to break the obviously eternal,"karmic" cycle of specific pain-causing damages, the generalized memories of those painful universe/god-inflicted attacks called one's 'fears,' and idolized as if such conceptions could be aggregated as a Real Thing called "Fear!" - the "Greed/y" still -fear-focused hope for a way to bargain one's way into less pain and fear, and the ultimately-useless hope for no more damage, pain, or fear at all, ever - in other words, the ultimately desired non-existence of true nihilism. The Jains, Buddhists, and Christians hope and pretend to "believe" that one can avoid the karmic dharma cycle by refusing to act or be - to refuse to defend one's self; as in: "Ignore reality, and YOU'LL go away!" while the pagan religions proffer all kinds of solutions, ranging from that extreme, to the islamic one: "This life is a test of blind obedience - to kill one's god's enemies for him, even though he could easily have done so himself, in order to earn one's way into his paradise - which, if it is to be truly 'eternal" can once again only be achieved through total unconscious non-existence: "Give up conscious conscience, act like a dumb animal, and die stupid!"
Here's how Christianity attempts to reverse all causes and effects to do so:
Damage causes pain and then a fight/flight emotional response of fear/anger towards it; and later, a greed for less and a hope for no more pain-causing damage.
Religion (well, at least the Christian version) pretends that perpetual anger (aka "Hate!") causes pain and damage, while perpetual hope (aka "Belief!" and/or "Faith!") actually heals it!
And, worse, through the example of Jesus, it even asserts that the one and only real way to break the karmic cycle of dharma, is to "hope one's way out of it all," as Jesus allegedly did!
I blame Christianity for always invoking useless pity for all criminals ("sinners") as equally helpless fellow victims, while designating useful, crime-discouraging anger as evil "hate."
So, I find I have to constantly try to remind Christians that, "Your own emotions aren't even thoughts, much less morals!" Ditto for the perpetually-offended butthurt masochist liberals and muslims:
"Dear Snowflakes: Don't feel offended, but your hurt feelings really don't matter. Our emotions aren't even thoughts, much less morals or a sense of "spirituality." Emotions are always effects, never causes. They are mere reflections of the three basic states of space-time (the solid past, the fluid present, and the nebulous future, respectively): solid fear, fluid greed, nebulous hope. Not exactly worth defending, much less going to war over!"
So in the end, Christianity became nothing but an aid to government thought-control - it's really only the usual masochistic paranoid hypocrisy: Be nice to your enemies, or God will smite you! And this "God" is also a hypocrite - only he is allowed to smite his enemies; if and when you smite your enemies, or even those you might presume are also "God's enemies," you become God's enemies, too!
Thus, so-called "Judeo"-Christianity went from fear of god's anger to the despairing hope of ultimate non-existential nihilism; here's the real "alpha and omega" bracketing the two Biblical Testaments:
The Old Testament began with God making some stuff then condemning all of future mankind for making one bad free-will choice.
The New Testament ended with Jesus-as-God cancelling the whole thing by claiming man was too stupid to make free-will choices.
In the end, by far, the greatest danger to the West isn't the primitive muslim savages who have been raised in the death-cult as holy-mobster members of the world's oldest and largest ongoing global crime-gang (islam's "muslims") it's the paranoid masochist criminal hypocrites - the self-hating, guilty white libertine "liberal" criminals who, despite being born and raised here with all the freedoms in the world, and enough free education to understand how it was all achieved, and at what cost - want to throw it all away simply because they KNOW islam is the greatest threat outside of them selves, but, as victim-blaming cowardly hypocrites, want to pretend to be able to control their fears, BY causing (and inducing others to help them cause) those very same, worst-case scenario problems which cause the pain-causing damages they fear the most - because that way, they cancel their own internal secondary fears' "pains" BY inflicting the real ones!
But, while it's still an obvious fact that islam IS the worst "religion," - because it openly endorses offensive, not defensive (although there was a bit of a pretense towards that at it's beginning) violence, which began with Muhammad's retaliatory threat to having been insulted and spat on for demanding the pagan Quraiysh destroy their idols, was "I will bring you slaughter!" however, it's still even worse for us, and just as true, that, because we in the West HAVE been "culturally" (socially educated) indoctrinated in suicidal masochism by at least second-hand Christianity, even "secular liberals" who profess them selves to be shrewdly realistic atheists, still react in an automatically self-effacing way towards all perceived threats, internalizing the guilt, which is why they automatically feel there's something wrong (or "RACIST!") with them selves for fearing islam and its "muslims!"
Our sick societies are still enslaved to Christianity's underlying suicidally masochistic "Judge not - ever!" "Love your enemies!" "Forgive them for they know not what they do!" "ALWAYS turn the other cheek!" "Vengeance is The Lord's alone!" "thou Shalt Not Kill! (ever; even in self-defense!)" and, worst of all: "Resist ye not evil men!" memes (themes).
Seriously?!
At best, Christianity is nothing more than the existentialist nihilism of Buddhism grafted onto the Judaic god.
But not even the Jews are that suicidally masochistic - they realize that the Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Murder" (as in: specifically not kill *unjustly*) and NOT "Thou Shalt Not Kill!" (generally) as Christians corrupt it!
Which is why the Israelis built a wall between them selves and the Falestinians and Western secular liberals refuse to do so - because "Jesus died for their sins," so they wouldn't EVER have to defend them selves from evil!
They still live in the exact same fantasy-world as their duped ancestors did - it's our Judeo-Christian heritage which is still holding us back from defending our selves, because it orders us to (irresponsibly!) defer our rightful responsibility to think and act for our selves to a "higher" authority!
"Resist Ye Not Evil Men" = "Let Evil Win! Do Nothing! Trust Me - it's all for the best, and I'm on your side!"
- Jesus -
Sorry, but that makes no sense except as an attempt to enslave us all!
Monday, August 12, 2019
How we know gun control is not about the guns
WHO WOULD SPEND MILLIONS TO SECURE A JOB THAT ONLY PAYS A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND,
IF THEY DIDN'T INTEND TO STEAL IT ALL BACK, AND MORE?!
IF THEY DIDN'T INTEND TO STEAL IT ALL BACK, AND MORE?!
Q: who always wants to keep others dummied-down, enslaved, low-info and stupider than they are?
A: Cowardly criminals! Some people are so scared of everyone else, that they go into politics in order to become "an Authority" (aka a slaver, as all "Authorities" automatically get to only have rights over others, and no responsibilities to them; while everyone else agrees to have no right to defend them selves from said "Authorities," and accepts that they only have the responsibility to become and remain their slaves) and so the political wannabes expend massive amounts of their personal energies on the campaign trail hustings, meeting and greeting the peons, and exhaustively pounding the pavement, all to virtue-signal how extra-hard they can go along (with criminal lies, that there are no real crimes or criminals because life's too complex for anyone to be able to understand causes and effects, if such things even exist, so there's no free will choice or criminal intent) to get along (with all the other scary lying criminals) and their false intent to become the very bestest, most magnanimous and altruistic public "servants" they can be, giving away the Makers' stuff to all the Takers - and all just to cover up becoming the biggest Taker of them all!
From Personal Liberty's Bob Livingston Alerts
How we know gun control is not about the guns
In the wake of three mass shootings over the course of a few days recently, all the political and anti-gun media class began their predictable calls for more gun laws and equally predictable blame-ascribing tactics.As usual, 2020 Democrat presidential hopefuls called for the passage of more laws like universal background checks, a ban on so-called assault weapons (a meaningless and amorphous code word term), so-called red flag laws and outright confiscation. Even Republican politicians advocated for more gun laws, as did President Donald Trump — who while campaigning in 2016 called himself the biggest friend to gun owners in history; a hollow promise, at best.
Never mind that none of the laws proposed — save outright confiscation — would have had any influence whatever on the most recent shootings. The shooters all obtained their legal weapons legally from licensed gun dealers after undergoing the standard background check.
Besides, if gun grabbers were really interested in stopping murder or saving lives they’d go after handguns, which are used in the overwhelming majority of shootings and mass murders.
But even restricting the sale of handguns would be ineffective. According to a study by Department of Justice released in January, a survey of 283,000 prison inmates found that 90 percent of the guns used in crimes did not come from a retail source. And less than 1 percent were purchased at a gun show; which reveals that the so-called “gun show loophole” as just another gun-grabber lie.
This is prima facie evidence that gun control is not about the guns or about saving lives. It’s about control.
All national states have one thing in common. They want all uncontrolled arms of the people confiscated.
Why do all governments want to confiscate arms of their people? It is quite simple. The government political system fears an armed citizenry. Organized crime, no matter how legitimate it may appear, wants no risk of being overthrown and no personal risk of the politicians and bureaucrats. It wants no threat to the state that it cannot calculate and control.
New York Democrat Representative Jerrold Nadler stated the aim of all politicians when he said in a 2012 interview:
One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.The state is therefore the enemy of the people. Otherwise it would not fear the people and want to disarm them. We can clearly understand disarmament because we recognize that the state and its bureaucrats and politicians are on one side and the people are on the other.
If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that’s insane.
The frivolous debate of public safety against crime and criminals is laughable except media hype actually persuades more and more people of this pacifist nonsense.
The bold and insane issue of gun control is that the cause of gun violence is guns. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is creating violence with weapons of death all over the world.
The strategy of public persuasion with propaganda is far less risky to the state than physical force. Although, keep in mind that propaganda is force and leads as certain to conclusions in favor of the government.
Disarmament propaganda has been going on in the U.S. for a number of years along with stepped-up requirements of gun registration and piecemeal and continuous legislation.
Let’s look at some history and get the correct order of things. The German people had nothing to fear from the SS until the propaganda of the Third Reich prepared their minds for so-called National Socialism. When they “bought” National Socialism, they also accepted the SS and suppression of human liberty. In other words, psychological warfare conquered the Germans before the Nazi SS and their eventual military defeat. This is the order of events to keep in mind.
Authoritarianism or criminal government can never feel secure from fear as long as millions of people own guns. Likewise, when the people have no arms, they have no security and no hope of security.
Disarmament first comes by words and psychological warfare. The wide use of the word democracy is proof that people don’t know freedom from a house cat. The word democracy neutralizes and disarms the mind to the reality of authoritarianism and the danger to personal freedom. Hitler called his Nazi Germany “a great democracy,” and he disarmed the German citizens.
As long as the word democracy means freedom in the minds of the people, the long attrition of personal liberty will continue with or without gun ownership. The word democracy by and of itself has disarmed us. Yet, I hear people express great fear of loss of their firearms and at the same time use the word democracy like it was cotton candy.
Disarmament comes via democracy. As long as we defend democracy, we are for gun control whether we are conscious of it or not.
What, pray-tell, caused the great loss of freedom of the American people? Democracy, of course. Democracy is the American version of National Socialism.
Passive words like democracy disarm the mind, and then it is only a matter of time before you volunteer to hand over your guns. “To keep and bear arms” is the opposite of democracy.
The word democracy is an agenda quite different from its innocent sound. It is a euphemism for despotic government. Democracy is a term that conceals a system of manipulating people by manipulating their thought processes. The word democracy is the most politically correct word in America and in the entire world. Every politician uses the word democracy repeatedly to numb the people and disguise authoritarianism.
Democracy means disarmament of the mass mind into a state of apathy, resembling deep sleep. Change agents cleverly transferred the word republic into democracy for the purpose of the numbing of the senses. The word democracy and all that it implies destroys in our minds the relationship of cause and effect so that our own thoughts betray us. It has made us a pablum society wherein we unknowingly love evil and hate good.
To attempt to defend democracy and gun ownership at the same time is a masterpiece of cynicism and an illusion of the possible. It can’t be done. We have to love one and hate the other. But we must first know the difference. God help us!
Yours for the truth,
|
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)