[them] out of the closet

Two emails arrived in the past week, one from Anon, he of the long, linked comments in the comments sections and another from a blogfriend of mine, asking who ‘Them’ is and what they do. The email subject line was ‘Conspiracy Theory’ which pretty well set the tone for any ensuing ‘discussion’.

This blog suggests that there is no conspiracy.

I don’t believe there are people working for their own ends, except in the context of working for a higher boss. Them, [third person plural], are simply sheep themselves, as we all are.

The last Bond film raises some good questions in a fictional setting. Who was behind Le Chiffre? Mr. White. Who was behind Mr. White? People like Dominic Greene. Who was behind Greene? Mathieu Amalric. Who was behind him? The film doesn’t say because it’s getting closer to the great houses and the franchise can’t afford to step on the real toes.

Who’s behind the great houses?

To me, conspiracy suggests some sort of joint action for their own goals. I suggest that these people, the Sutherlands and Mandelsons of the world, are just as much sheep in the hands of a different shepherd. So yes, they collude, just as Common Purpose graduates collude … but for a higher purpose.

People who suggest there is no collusion going on in the world make me smile. If there was no collusion, then what were the Roosevelt anti-trust acts? What is insider trading legislation for?

‘Them’ themselves, if they could be bothered with me at all, might be intrigued what explanation I could give to the sceptical reader as to who They are. Even usage of the third person plural pronoun, They know full well, is a bit of subterfuge.

I’d like to put an analogy here.

If you look at the situation in Darfur, you might be led to believe that there was evil going on there – babies’ eyes gouged out, people tied back to back and burned, villages razed and so on. If you look at Gary Brecher’s article on Algeria, you might be forgiven for thinking that some sort of evil was riding unchecked there.

Playing devil’s advocate, I could say no, it’s just classic psy-ops. After all, Machiavelli wrote, in 1513:

Men should be either treated generously or destroyed because they take revenge for slight injuries – for heavy ones they cannot.

John Arbuthnot Fisher, around 1902, wrote:

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility.

Apologists for violence abound. Ian Hay wrote, in 1915:

War is hell and all that but it has a good deal to recommend it. It wipes out all the small nuisances of peacetime.

Yep, like providing a comfortable lifestyle for your family and yourself, not having your home broken into, family members tied back to back, burned and babies’ eyes gouged out. Real nuisances, those.

What’s to recommend war? Profit, of course plus one other rarely defined and obnoxious element present in its implementers.

The government in Sudan maintains that the villagers were rebels and therefore fair game. The average Brit would look at this and Mugabe’s atrocities and really wonder about the overkill. If you had to raze whole villages for psy-ops, then why not just shoot the villagers and be done? Scorch the earth, yes but why the fiendish little embellishments? From where do they spring?

Similarly, if you have to have land clearances to rid your land of the pesky Scot, then why not just clear the land, why indulge in atrocities?

George Kennan touched on it in his first memoirs [1967], writing that he was:

… never pleased that the policy he influenced was associated with the arms build-up of the Cold War. In his memoirs, Kennan argued that containment did not demand a militarized U.S. foreign policy. Instead, "counterforce" implied the political and economic defense of Western Europe against the disruptive effect of the war on European society. Exhausted by war, the Soviet Union was no serious military threat to the United States or its allies at the beginning of the Cold War but rather a strong ideological and political rival.

Militarization was no strategic necessity but there were those, from Oppenheimer to Dulles [a known advocate of ascendant man] to the hawks of today who allude to patriotism and make a great show of it in visits to the troops, dropping into the earthy rhetoric and simplistic political analysis which is light years from the truth, to achieve the real goal, the goal of Them.

We come down to the same old argument we always have – is it the evil in men’s hearts at work or is there an actual evil, utilizing the evil in men’s hearts? When man is left unchecked – see Golding’s Lord of the Flies – he descends to evil, not the other way round.

Ephesians 6:12 is a good start as to who Them is.

The worldwide legion of corrupt people are not bound in any conspiracy – they’re just the front few lines of people lost to the seven deadly sins but their bosses are something a bit worse.

‘Business is business’ is a wonderful cover for the world’s atrocities.

Girls from the Ukraine and other eastern European nations are prostituted for your delectation, kept in slavery and fear for their lives and that’s just business, isn’t it? Hey, many of them want the chance to get out, you might say. People with nothing will do anything.

I suggest that this is no more nor less than the bestialization of both the victim and the punter. Men and women, unbound by any code except ‘do as thou will’ and ‘business is business’, as indifferent to the plight of the pensioner and common man as any RBS, Northern Rock or Freddie and Fanny big wig, are acting in the interests of evil, whether wittingly or unwittingly.

Buchan [The Thirty-Nine Steps, 1915] touched on it but didn’t go far enough:

Everything would be in the melting-pot, and they looked to see a new world emerge. The capitalists would rake in the shekels, and make fortunes by buying up wreckage. Capital, he said, had no conscience and no fatherland. Take any big Teutonic business concern. If you have dealings with it, the first man you meet is Prince von und zu Something, an elegant young man who talks Eton-and-Harrow English. But he cuts no ice. If your business is big, you get behind him and find a prognathous Westphalian with a retreating brow and the manners of a hog. He is the German business man that gives your English papers the shakes. But if you're on the biggest kind of job and are bound to get to the real boss, ten to one you are brought up against a little white-faced Jew in a bath-chair with an eye like a rattlesnake.

I suggest that Buchan was wrong. When we get down to who the people behind the Morgans are, even behind the ‘rat faced men’, then we’re getting into a shaky area where many ideas abound.

Let me ask you a question.

During the rise and age of usury, enormous profits were made and then they just disappeared. Where to? Into the monarch’s coffers? Then why were the monarchs always near-impecunious? It doesn’t take that much research and almost no speculation to come up with the answer.

Let me change the topic completely.

How did the great houses get to be great in the first place, providing the ongoing leadership of Europe and the New World and the captains of industry? Who lent them the dosh in the first place and on what terms?

Leaving them aside and speaking completely hypothetically – if you wanted to be so filthy rich that you made Bill Gates look like a pauper, what would be the most lucrative areas? Surely land rentals, the war industry, prostitution, pornography [and by the way, which are the two most viewed categories of freely available internet porn?] drugs, oil, gas and the car industry, water and food monopolies and the hijacking of the green movement.

That’s whence it’s derived.

Now, if you’re a johnny-come-lately to these money spinners, how do you buy in? You don’t. The people with their hands on the wheel are not going to lightly relinquish that unless you come in with a lot of firepower, work for Them or pay your dues.

But how could you buy in, if you felt compelled to?

Well, you’d need a duplicitous, powerful person, used to funding both sides in a conflict, to provide you with sufficient resources to destabilize the powers that be. Why would he do this? Because he believes that only through constant conflict [Orwell’s 1984], by passing through the fire, will you achieve a higher consciousness. It’s the supremacy of the strong [Nietzsche, 1883]:

I teach you the superman. Man is something to be surpassed.

From the Tower of Babel until the present, this perverse philosophy has ruled in the corridors of power. Look at the currently disabled Particle Collider or go back to Oppenheimer’s 1945:

I am the destroyer of worlds.

Who is Them? It’s too dangerous to name, even for people like myself who couldn’t care less any more. But the manifestations of Them, the visible arms, can be spoken of, e.g. by Woodrow Wilson [The New Freedom, 1913]:

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

Wilson again [1916]:

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

He should know. Lieutenants Warburg and House stood awfully close to the President throughout those dark years.

Churchill was referring specifically to communism and in reading his whole text, the following must be taken in context and yet the words are still powerful in a general sense [1920]:

From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century, and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

I suggest that the people behind all major movements are many and varied but they’re bound by a common boss whom many of them don’t even recognize.

My personal interest has been in the area of mind-control and this plays a role in the plot of my three books. It is amusing in a way that the existence of MK Ultra, now mainstream knowledge, was both denied by the CIA and seen as fantasy by the general populace when they did get to hear parts of it.

I’ve known of it for years, as you only need to do the most cursory research to come up with DID and SRA. Occasionally, the real roots of this hell on earth surface briefly and only the perceptive will see them before they sink back below the surface again. Do a bit of research on Michael Aquino, heavily involved in this business in a minor role for the U.S. military and look at his night time business – the Temple of Set.

Here are some descriptions of Them:

… organized, secretive, and extremely wealthy at its upper levels. They are not stupid … … These are NOT nice people and they use and manipulate others viciously. They cut their eye teeth on status, power, and money ... … these are the most cautionary people on earth. They try to leave absolutely NO tracks … … They have infiltrated our government, and the governments of every country in the world, and well as the judicial and legal systems, the media and our financial institutions. They are ruthless, ambitious, and will not stop at killing those they oppose ... … They are arrogant, and this could be their downfall. They view the common man as "sheep" with no intelligence. They are full of pride, believe they are invulnerable and that any press about them is the equivalent of a gnat to be swatted. Arrogant people make mistakes, and they are becoming more blatant and open in recent years ... … Stopping pornography and child prostitution and drug smuggling and gun running would take a huge chunk out of their profits …

Let’s throw in Jenner’s comment [Feb. 23, 1954]:

The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway. This secret revolutionary corps understands well the power to influence the people by an elegant form of brainwashing.

That was 1954. Now look at the state of Brown’s Britain today. ’Nuff said.

How do they succeed? George Kennan wrote [George Urban, "From Containment to Self-Containment: A conversation with George Kennan," Encounter, September 1976, p17], that:

The source of the problem is the force of public opinion, a force that is inevitably unstable, unserious, subjective, emotional, and simplistic. As a result, the U.S. public [and we can include Britain in Kennan’s analysis] can only be united behind a foreign policy goal on the "primitive level of slogans and jingoistic ideological inspiration."

People just do not analyse or look for the ulterior motive, preferring simplistic explanations reinforced by the so-called rational sceptics. The average person, beset by his own worries, induced by Them in the first place, manipulates him something awful.

How many people think there’ll be a revolution and anarchy in the streets, where pollies, pakis and the MCB are all summarily executed? How many people would welcome Brown and company being tried and executed for what they’ve done to Britain?

‘Them’ want nothing better. Then they can remove the final freedoms and create the martial state, the whole idea all along. The martyrdom of Brown will have served its purpose.

People are sheep and always have been. Any time they’ve tried to raise the state of humankind, it’s been hijacked by agents of Them. Returning to Bond, the finale, where he stands over the fallen Mr. White is a lovely moment, showing they can’t have it all Their own way but in the final analysis, it is a temporary, Pyrrhic victory and where is the James Bond who’s going to serve your best interests anyway?

Coming back to Anon, he’ll be posting a series of articles at this blog which will be linked in the sidebar. I’d ask you to also have a look at the series of articles at Pro-Liberi, especially the one on civilization. I'll link when it's up.

This blog is in pursuit of truth. I’ve tried to answer the question of Them but have no monopoly on truth. The truth is discovered through looking at all points of view and that’s my motivation for recommending those series of articles.