It is just too easy to simply place blame for all this
warmongering violence at the feet of Bush and Blair. Far too
simplistic. Their motivations generally identified are no more than a subtext of
the prevalent rhetoric; given to us in one form and another, drip, drip,
drip.
The first level of propaganda was assembled from the so called ‘war
on terrorism’, rogue states, axis of evil, the supposed legitimacy of
taking a pre-emptive strike against growing threats. Call this the
‘knee-jerk’ rhetoric.
For those who quickly saw past this false justification, the second
level included war for oil, or more broadly ‘economic advantages’
including usurping water resources, controlling central banks, enjoying
military contracts, building oil pipelines and so on. All true of
cause.
The third level includes: building the mechanisms of a police state,
strategic advantages and comfort for Israel, weakening the potential of
Arab and Islamic nations (especially in unification), consolidating the
current power and authority of the US/Dollar hegemony, polarising global
politics into UN and NATO led paradigms and drawing the world economy
into the control of long established international corporate and banking
interests.
To bang on simply about Bush and Blair is to evade the prospect that
they are no less than puppets; functionaries of an agenda far broader
than these two weak men or any other public figures we can name. What
difference would it make if Blair shot himself in the head leaving a
note admitting his and Bush’s guilt. We already know what they did.
Anyone with a brain knew before war on Iraq – there were over a million
in the street who knew. We all knew Bush was an android
remote-controlled by his NeoCon PNAC administration (junta).
It is enticing to think of Blair, driven by ego, thinking he was
‘making it’ onto the world stage; feeling the hand of history giving a
little squeeze where it is most rewarding. But if that is all it took I
do believe he would have been stopped. The fact is more probably the
converse; that the agenda was in place long before these two entered the
stage.
It is possible that Blair saw America would proceed with these wars
regardless of Britain’s inclusion but that with the UK it allowed for at
least a call of moderation, a fig-leaf of legitimacy. What would the
world look like today if America had undertaken these escapades in
isolation. They would have crossed the Rubicon and I think the world
would be a more dangerous place still.
What if Blair had stood-up in Parliament and announced that the
British Government were not satisfied that the supposed conspirators of
the 9/11 event were as we have been told. And that the three buildings
of the WTC that fell that day could not have collapsed in the way they
did as a result of aircraft impacts and fire. That America was in the
hands of a deception of historic magnitude. I do not think he would
have lived a week. He would be dead in the woods.
Anyway would Blair really have been selected for the role if he was
going to ‘out’ the true means by which the world has been run since
before history was recorded.
These men’s crimes were knowing what was expected of them and doing
it. To just identify them as culprit of this changes nothing, does
nothing to protect us from the same scenario repeating into the future.
I do agree that all of those who abuse or negligently fail in their
position must be fully accountable for their actions. There should be
no forms of indemnity.
If every leader, political and corporate, was totally accountable for
their each-and-every action the world would be a different and better
place. For one thing: no sane person would leave themselves open to
such liabilities. For another: nobody could legitimately rise to such a
position because the potential liabilities would exceed anybody’s
ability to atone.
Why is it that the vast majority think we need a world where the few
are expected to operate in such capacities; roles which clearly far
exceed any person’s ability to atone. It is madness, it is the false
paradigm within which the world is currently lost. It surely is one
clear reason why people in such positions of power do, so frequently,
abuse their office in so many ways; they know they never can be really
called upon to atone for their actions.
A fellow who truly accepted full liability for every aspect of their
tenure would have to act with great caution; but I fear persons of such
qualities do not often rise to any such position.
By an almost inverted process of exclusion, those who manage to make
it to be our leaders are most likely to be the least suitable. Indeed
if one imagines how leaders would match against the
Hare Psychopathy
Check-list, for example, the conclusion is striking:
Factor 1: Personality “Aggressive narcissism”
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callousness; lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Factor 2: Case history “Socially deviant lifestyle”
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioural control
Lack of realistic long-term goals
Impulsiveness
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behaviour problems
Revocation of conditional release
Traits not correlated with either factor
Promiscuous sexual behaviour
Many short-term marital relationships
Criminal versatility
Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning
The mechanisms by which those who function within the state can be
called upon to atone are the very mechanisms of that selfsame entity.
That is why there is minimal opportunity for traction in such an
endeavour; its their game which they need only play with their stacked
deck and loaded dice.
All the while we accept the state we will be subjected to a system
that can only inflict psychopaths onto the people. The system is
inherently psychopathic.
To want to employ the state’s systems, to correct the inevitably
undesirable actions of the state and its agents, only acts to endorses
the very system that is erroneous by it nature, by its every dynamic.
People like Bush and Blair are not the problem, they are a symptom.
The disease is the state and such failed leaders are but one clearly
evident pustule manifestation of the wretchedness it only creates.
Are we alone in realising these truths and our political masters all
blind and foolish. I think not, not at all. If we can work it out the
state’s police and security apparatus surely can too; let alone the
various official enquiries.
Since I awoke, following 9/11, to the endless lies fed to the people,
I have undergone a metamorphic transformation; a slow but complete
reformation.
I believe I now can see our enemy, formed as Trompe-l’œil, shifting; one moment visible and the next the illusion.
My conclusion is not that the concept of the state is just broken and needs
to be fixed. It is that the illusion of the state, including the
notion of democracy, is nothing but a hollow sham to hold mankind
stupefied into slavery. The state works fine at what it truly intended for.
Take for poignant example whosoever it really is that has such vast
financial resources sufficient to to lend so copiously to governments to
break them, then yet more to bail them out and more still to break them
even harder yet again. How will these people fare without their
multi-layered control apparatus, woven into and including the state, to do their bidding?
How will they do when control of the means of exchange is no longer in
the hands of their false edifice called state?
The first battle is within ourselves. It is to cast-off the belief,
the belief that the state is a necessary enterprise at all. Every
function of normal decent human existence and progress can be enacted
without its central control; more effectively I will argue. The authority of the state
will always be usurped by the few at the expense of the many.
The mirror is the story that DSK raped a chamber maid; a mirror because his sexual habits are clearly his known, predisposed, weakness. (No doubt all those in such positions of power have dark secrets, known before their appointments, which then can be used to control and ruin them should they start to trample upon the labyrinth).
The smoke is, once the likelihood of a set-up looked probable, a diversion must be presented for why. Certainly Sarkozy would be happy to kiss DSK adieu and even help to put him down for reasons of his own political motivation. But it goes deeper than that. After all the French knows well that Sarkozy is more pro-Americal than the Statue of Liberty.
DSK did not ‘forget’ his phone. He left his phone because he was told intelligence services were planning to arrest him and were tracking him via this phone. He subsequently called the hotel from the aircraft to ask for the phone to be sent-on and was so then found and arrested.
DSK’s sins may be many but that for which he is paying the price is more likely to do with the threat to the hegemony of US dollar he posed than spoiling Sarkozy’s election prospects.
DSK was a strong advocate of launching an IMF issued Special Drawing Rights (SDR) based currency to replace the US Dollar as the primary global means of exchange. And DSK was highly critical of US economic policy and deeply questions of the resilience behind the Dollar; especially demanding an audit of the Federal Reserve and questioning if indeed any gold actually remains in Fort Knox.
The globalist’s agenda may well include the formation of a single world currency but that does not mean that those who are enjoying the control of the US Dollar are ready for that yet or were sufficiently in control of a new global SDR based currency to be prepared to yield to that just yet.
Conjecture? Yes. But then so is the alleged assault and so is the notion this was politicly motivate by French national political adversaries. So take the pieces and decide for yourself which way do they look to fit together best?