September 18, 2021

Ukraine Breaking News

Ukraine Breaking News | The Latest News In Ukraine

Covid, 11 September and war forever

From the war on terror to the “pandemic,” the elite are constructing false threats to start wars that must never end.

Our coverage of this year’s September 11, the 20th anniversary, focused on viewing the 2001 attacks through the lens of the launch of the Covid “pandemic.”

The point is not that both Covid19 and 9/11 are necessarily part of the same grand plan, were carried out by the same people or were in some way directly connected. Rather, they are thematically linked, at the meta level.

They arise from the same collective impulse that all rulers and governments nurture and are employed for the same purpose.

They are different tools designed to achieve the same goal. Different approaches to the same problem. Different evolutionary stages of the same animal: the ten-year change in the fundamental objectives of the war and even the very meaning of “war”.

War has always been vital to the preservation of the state. Wars make rulers and frightened people rich. They unite the nations behind the leaders and distract from domestic political issues.

But, as nations become more powerful, weapons technology more advanced and global power is centered in giant corporations rather than nations, warfare – in the traditional sense – becomes more expensive, more dangerous, and largely devoid of any. meaning.

In essence, the antiquated motivations for war no longer apply, but the ancillary ones home benefits of war policy remain. While the state, and its corporate supporters, no longer need to take part in pitched battles for the best farmland, they still need their subjects to believe they are under attack.

In short, by necessity, the “war” has gradually shifted from genuine interstate conflicts over resource control to a top-down tool of psychological manipulation.

And the first stage of that evolution was 9/11.


Bulk ammunition for sale at Lucky Gunner

9/11 was an inside job. Any objective examination of the evidence can only lead to such a conclusion. (I won’t be exposing it here, we have dozens of articles detailing it. That’s not what I’m writing about today.)

The US government blew up its buildings, killed its civilians, terrorized its people. The ruling class engaged in what Orwell called “War against their subjects”, in a very literal sense.

Just like the Reichstag fire in Nazi Germany, this organized “attack” was done to create a war mentality. To make people believe they are being threatened and serve as the basis for new “temporary emergency powers” for the government.

But 9/11 went further, acting as a the light is clear for a war: “The war on terror”.

The War on Terror was a new type of warfare, yes, it was used as a starting point for the more traditional wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then for proxy wars in Syria, Libya and Yemen, but its main focus was actually internal. A nationwide psy-op war designed to keep 350 million people in a semi-permanent state of fear.

It was the natural next step in the Orwellian redefinition of the concept of “war”.

If the main objectives of your war are a) to maintain internal control of your population and b) to funnel taxpayers’ money into inflated contracts with the private sector, then do you really need to declare war on a foreign country?

In fact, do you really need a real physical “war”? is not the? idea of an equally good war?

And if all you need is the idea of ​​a war, what better way to wage war? On an idea. Why not make your enemy an abstract concept?

Because the beauty of going to war on an abstract concept is that you can never lose and you must never win. The war can continue forever.

This idea was first experimented with “the war on drugs”. But it didn’t work because a) people actually love drugs very much and b) drugs are a vital income stream for the deep state. So it vanished.

The war on terror is better. Since “terror” is an abstract name with no solid reality, it can mean anything you want it to mean. The “war on terror” can be national or foreign, political or military, open or hidden, or both. It cannot be won, it cannot be lost and it only ends when you say so.

It’s perfect.

Good, almost Perfect.

There are still some problems.

For example, it is actually quite difficult to keep people afraid of an abstract concept. You need real-world reminders. In essence, for the war on terror to continue, it is necessary to keep reminding people that terror is out there. Which means terrorism has to happen. Which means letting it happen or making it happen (the vast majority of the time it’s the latter).

If you are organizing terrorist attacks, either they have to be real, resulting in real victims and real bereaved families asking real questions … or they are fake, that is, paying actors. Either way it is logistically complicated, difficult to control and potentially embarrassing.

There is also the problem of the terrorists themselves. You have publicly declared war on them … but they are also very useful. There’s a reason you’ve been funding them for decades. The inevitable result is that you end up with “good terrorists” in country A and “bad terrorists” in country B. And when it turns out they are essentially exactly the same, well, it looks bad.

But the biggest problem, actually, is that it limits your ambition.

You may have chosen an abstract concept as the focus of your war, but that concept has to take human form somehow. And any human enemy can only be so scary and can only do so much damage. There is no way to scare everyone at once like that.

Furthermore, choosing a human enemy – along racial, national, ethnic or ideological lines – inevitably creates divisions. You can never join all behind that flag

In short, a war on terror and terrorists is fine if you want to rule a country, but what if you want to rule a planet?

Well then what you need is a new enemy. An enemy who can be anywhere and anywhere, and who is certainly not human.

Read the entire article