February 21, 2013 4 Comments
Here is a general speaking at Cornell on the New World Order, which many of you still have no clue about. The general speaks to the idiot audience that also has no clue.
Serious Analysis of Cultural Trends and Geo-politics
October 22, 2012 12 Comments
Or, Total Systemic Collapse – By Design, Pt. 2
Part 1 here.
I wrote in my last post about the background to the coming collapse, including several links to espionage, false flags and economic issues. This article will pick up with the economics issues. As mentioned, the plan for collapse arises out the British model of divide and conquer, concomitant with economic warfare. One can in fact see a connection between the “7 nations”/Middle Eastern attack plan of the Pentagon and the World Bank/IMF attack on the Eurozone, which formerly occurred in Russia in the 90s under the Yeltsin administration. As many writers have noted, the Yeltsin era was one of mafiaocracy, where bankers and mafiosos looted the economy of Russia, leading to currency devaluation and rapid inflation, while the megabanks funnelled the real wealth offshore.
While I am not advocating a Pro-Russian stance, this is an objectively true analysis (the only kind of relevant analysis). One then sees that same two-pronged attack in terms of military tactics and currency warfare on the part of the Anglo-establishment, ultimately for the control of Central Asia. Putin thus represents a contrarian mafia stance in opposition to the West, which is the reason, for example, for the western intelligence apparatchiks staging and supporting the “pussy riot” and “anti-Putin protests.” This is quite obvious to any cognizant observer, and Alexander Dugin, Putin’s chief geo-strategist, explains this in a recent interview.
It’s crucial to recognize as well that economic warfare can be accomplished with regulation or deregulation, depending on the need of the situation at hand. Deregulation might function in a situation where a sovereign state has a law that impedes the IMF or some international corporation’s design to privatize a nation’s resources. Regulation might function for the Anglo-establishment in a case where lobbying can buy off regulators to pass laws that favor one corporation, while in turn levying heavy taxes and fines on a competitor, which pushes the competition out of business. The need at hand dictates the politics of the scam. Read more of this post
January 25, 2012 1 Comment
I had a lengthy argument with one of my professors the other day. I was told there is no Bildergerg Group, nor is there a Trilateral Commission, and they do not plan for a world government and single world currency. Not only is this obvious to anyone who watches even the mainstream news, for someone in academia, it’s embarrassing, inasmuch as the library I work in has an entire row of works dedicated to globalism, globalization and globalist policy. In this exchange I happened to have Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope on me, so I took it out and promptly read the famous quote from the well-known section:
“There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Group has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, of any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960′s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, but in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wished to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” - pg. 950, Tragedy and Hope (1966)
He had not heard of Dr. Quigley, though this is a classic work of geo-politics. I then pointed out that the Trilateral Commission’s own website discusses yearly meetings about “global economic governance.” The reply was that I should leave the class if I am going to argue about it. Ironically, the entire discussion started over whether education was tightly controlled from the top down, by the foundations and bureaucracies. “Of course they are not,” he said, as I was asked to hush, and leave. Yet Quigley’s book describes just such a control mechanism in place in all major spheres of influence. In regard to education, R.J. Rushdoony’s The Messianic Character of American Education, as well as the work of Charlotte Iserbyte show very clearly the subversion and co-opting of education for the purpose of mass control. In fact, Tragedy and Hope discusses Lord Milner’s Round Table Groups, upon which the RIIA and Council on Foreign Relations are based. Quigley writes:
“The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole… Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world’s money…” -Ibid., pg. 324 Read more of this post
January 20, 2012 9 Comments
I am frustrated. For years, I have dedicated a large portion of my time to research, and am constantly lectured by the clueless on topics of which they are clueless. This is especially true if you are in academic circles. However, I understand that this is part of learning the world and how it works. Nevertheless, though I spent years studying theology and religion, which was then supplemented with philosophy and history, I have branched out into espionage and tradecraft, geo-politics, race and economics. The last few years have been spent immersing myself in those last four, and to be perfectly honest, I am particularly adept at gaining mastery of subjects very quickly. I would in no way claim to have mastered these last four, as they are immense subjects. Within three years, though, I have already read several key works in all four, and so I’m comfortable discussing them openly.
The point of this post is not to brag: I don’t have to. The point here is to mention that, as a remedy to frustration and as a means of growing in knowledge and interaction on more pertinent subject matter than merely films (though the film analyses will continue), I’ll be discussing new issues. I am going to write more freely on my thoughts on a variety of issues, expanding that title “analysis.” I do not at all profess mastery of these subjects, but I am becoming fluent in them. On top of that, I am sick of being lectured by those who haven’t even branched out of their own narrow field of study. All things are related, and all these subjects, as well as life experience, are interrelated. Modern education is fragmented and no longer teaches a “worldview,” which was the whole meaning behind the word “university,” as Newman wrote. Because all things are related, analysis should therefore include as much as one can fluent write about.
As I dove into geo-politics and race, I began with standard libertarian and conservative works back as far as 12 years ago, but in the last three years branched out into much more technical and numerous classical works on statecraft and civilization studies. Aldous Huxley was instructive, insofar as The Perennial Philosophy makes lucid the kind of globalist philosophy he envisions. Also relevant was Hegel’s work on the state, which point to a monolithic positive theory of absolutism wherein the individual is an atom of the whole to such a degree that personhood is not accorded to those outside the state. Philosopher Charles Taylor has some good assessments of Hegel’s political theory, which can be seen as the precursor to modern absolutist fascism, as well as Marx’s statist stage of communism. Marx was, of course, a Young Hegelian. Collectivism seems ingrained in the mass man. Indeed, Mussolini wrote defining “fascism” in regard to this “positive” action on the part of the state (as opposed to the Enlightenment liberal idea of the state’s existence being “negative,” merely restraining forces): Read more of this post