The other day I came across an article that was published last month after the Brussels terror attack. The original was published in Russian on the Komsomolskay Pravda site. Below is the translated version featured on the Russia Insider site.
At first, the article appeared to me to be unremarkable enough then I saw two glaring problems that the article pointed to. Or, rather, the same problem manifesting in two different ways. It was unremarkable to begin with because of its familiarity. I seem to read articles like this every day. The problem is that of uncritical thinking; the inability to identify what is in front of one's nose. It is not limited to Russian citizens, either. It is wide-spread throughout the Western world.
Indeed, if people everywhere could think critically and were able to identify the reality that is in front of them all day, every day, then we would not find ourselves reading about wars from Africa to the Middle East to the Caucasus.
Below is the article in question and I have highlighted the statements that stood out for me and which I will write about at the foot of the article.
|On the Day of the Brussels Bombing - as Maria Zakharova Saw It:|
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman shares her frustration with western coverage of terrorism
Translated by Julia Rakhmetova and Rhod Mackenzie
This day, 22 March, should have been different, not the one we all had. There should have been meetings, documents – a calm day, with time to get ready for a big ‘week of negotiations’.
We received the first news of the terror attacks in Belgium at 10 a.m.. An hour and a half later we became aware of the scale of the tragedy. Telephones “exploded”.
“Are there any Russians involved in the Brussels tragedy?”
“How does Foreign Ministry evaluate what is happening in Brussels?”
“Is there any plan to counteract the terrorist threat in Europe?”
There were dozens of questions. I must have given ten interviews: Russia-24, Channel One, Dozhd, Ren-TV, Life-news, RSN, agencies, newspapers, online media… I don’t remember them all.
Someone asked: “Why did you work so hard? It wasn’t us who suffered from the explosions!”
“I mean how long are you going to sympathize with ‘them’ since they don’t care about ‘us’ when we have terror attacks in our country. Usually they just make fun of us…Aren’t you fed up with that?”
I was shocked, and started to say publicly and with increasing emphasis: “We extend our sincere condolences… Words of encouragement to those…It’s our common tragedy… We need to join forces… It’s important to understand the root causes…” (indeed, ed)
Of course, it’s my job to answer questions from the media. But that’s not the point. It was hard for me to accept that people were beginning to sidestep the issue, but also, tired of the world ignoring our Russian tragedies and catastrophes. Waiting for my turn on air, I read various comments, some desperate: “They never sympathize with ‘US’, so why should we sympathize with ‘THEM”.
The below video (in four parts) lays out the psychopathic program(me) to dominate the minds of the ordinary people through public education. That this is designed to take away peoples ability to think critically and their free will is bad enough, but when it is clear that the goal of it all is the waging of modern warfare, it can be seen as truly diabolical.
Who would have thought that accepting compulsory state education for our children would lead directly to the murder of countless millions of people? Such are the outcomes when we suffer psychopaths in 'authority' and do not widely promote the skills of critical thinking and the ability to understand and identify psychopathy.
Mark Passio is interviewed by Richard Grove from Tragedy and Hope on The Psychology of Control. It is an outstanding interview. One topic builds upon another but given that it is an interview and not a presentation, the topics aren't always in the most easily absorbable order to take it in as a whole. Below is my summary of the interview which places the topics in an order that best suits me and hopefully will be of benefit to you, the reader, and allow you to get the most out of this excellent interview.
Mark Passio says some things at times that I don't agree with but it is hard to find anything in this particular interview to quibble with. To the interview-
This world is set up to mirror back to us our behaviour so that we might learn as we go. The 'set up' is described as Natural Law. “Law”, in this sense, is something that is universally binding on all and is immutable; that is, it is unchanging. So the “Law” applies to all people and circumstances throughout all time and there are no exceptions – gravity is a common everyday example of this.
We have free will to follow the dictates of Natural Law or not. Either way, consequences will follow over which we have no control but we do know they are constant and unchanging. In that, the consequences, Natural Law, gives us feedback and allows us to learn.
The Law of Consequences covers the deterministic portion of existence and the Law of 'Do no harm' covers the free will aspect. If we act so as to do no harm to others, we can expect a life of order and peace. If we transgress this injunction, we can expect to have a world of chaos just as we can experience around us every day. The state of the world leads us to the inescapable conclusion is that we, as a species, are transgressing Natural Law in some major ways.
And, indeed, we are. Leading us in this journey into chaos are the psychopaths amongst us who are intent on exploitation and destruction.
The world today is the result of our behaviour.
Our behaviour is the result of our decision making processes.
Our decision making processes are dependent on our thought processes and the quality and quantity or information available to us.
So if the psychopaths can influence our thinking and the information that is available to us, they can control our behaviour and therefore the state of the world. And they do. They do this through religion, through schooling and through the media. The psychopaths' power comes from withholding information and corrupting what information that we do get.
We are taught a “stimulus/response” model. This model completely leaves out the logical thinking that should be in between stimulus and response. This omission takes away our personal control and we become a nation of 'order followers'.
Following orders seems to remove personal responsibility but it never does. We are treated as children in a dysfunctional family and we never grow up. Just as children in a dysfunctional family, we accept that we are powerless and learn to make the best of it. Children are indeed powerless but as adults we are not. Learning to question what we are taught and to think for ourselves together with taking full responsibility for our behaviour is the way to adulthood, order and a measure of peace. To the extent that we endeavour to do no harm to others, we experience freedom.
We become order followers because we accept the notion of authority over us by others (usually the psychopaths). This authority over others does not exist in reality, in Natural Law. And to believe in something that does not exist is a sign of mental illness or delusion. Harm to all will result. So it can be seen that those that would rule us are mentally ill and the last people that should be 'driving the bus'!
Violence is used to enforce this delusional authority and this results in more harm as violence is also against Natural Law. Natural Law embodies the law of self defence whereby one is entitled to ward off violence by using force of one's own. Force is self defence so long as it is needed to protect oneself. If more force than this is used, then it becomes violence itself. To subdue an attacker is self defence. To then proceed to maim or kill the attacker becomes violence as it is not necessary to protect oneself.
The Law of Self Defence is the Masculine Principle. The Law of Non-aggression is the Feminine Principle and they work together to make up the whole of the Law as it applies to human relationships. Natural Law is objective, that is, it can be observed in objective reality and is not determined by opinions which are subjective. Natural Law can be seen as a science.
Society's laws (governments and legal societies) are very subjective and arbitrary and serve one section of the society (the psychopathic rulers) at the expense of everyone else. Being out of sympathy with Natural Law (which ensures order) this man-made law will inevitably bring chaos. And it does. This chaos can be further exploited by the psychopaths so long as they can keep its origin hidden from us. This is best done through fear. Chaos engenders confusion and therefore fear for us. Further increasing fear for us through terror attacks and stress through tough economic conditions makes sure we stay disoriented.
Promoting Solipsism also leads to fear because its reasoning inevitably leads to the conclusion that we know nothing and there is no order to the world. Solipsism teaches that we are the centre of our universe and that all we can know is our own perceptions but not what our perceptions are based on. It is an egoic madness.
The madness, the chaos, the harm that is all around us is the result of transgressing Natural Law. The answer is to learn Natural Law and apply it in our daily lives. We can learn it for ourselves by learning critical thinking i.e. The Trivium and by responding with compassion towards our fellow man. Our 'fellow man' does not include the psychopaths and we would do well to learn to identify them, as well.
So there we are! I hope this proves to be a useful, albeit skeletal, framework to follow and absorb the wisdom from both Mark Passio and Richard Grove.
I found the cartoon below on Signs of the Times website. The author of the cartoon is not noted at SOTT or on the cartoon itself. Which is a pity because it is an excellent depiction of what is really going on with all these 'terrorist attacks'.
"You were supposed to attack civilians, women, children, innocent people from outside the political arena. For one simple reason: to force the public to turn to the State, turn to the regime, and ask for greater security. This was precisely the role of the Right in Italy. It placed itself at the service of the State under an aptly termed 'Strategy of Tension'. They had to get ordinary people to accept that at any moment over a period of 30 years, from 1960 to the mid-80s, a state of emergency could be declared. So, people would willingly trade part of their freedom for the security of being able to walk the streets, go on trains or enter a bank. This is the political logic behind all the bombings. They remain unpunished because the State cannot condemn itself."
~ Italian neo-fascist whose prosecution led to the discovery of NATO's 'Gladio' networks across Western Europe
- Vincenzo Vinciguerra
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Psychopaths (the 5%) cause 95% of all the trouble on earth and 100% of the wars. If we see that wars are perpetrated by psychopaths and ordinary people are always the victims, we can see that the history of civilisation has been one long war by the psychopaths (governments and those that control them) against ordinary human beings. Know your enemy.
Marcus Papadopoulos explains how the Western governments (psychopaths) have been the ultimate cause behind the Brussels attack on innocent people-
There are two types of authority. There is authority a person may have over a subject or skill. This is positive and can be creative. Traditionally, we sought out authorities of this manner to aid us in our survival as individuals and as tribes and this lead to our survival as a species. A Kahuna in Hawaiian culture is an example of this.
There is another type of authority which came into being within hierarchical societies such as we have today. This is authority a person may have (or claim) over other people. It is an extension of parental authority over children into adulthood. It is dysfunctional and always has negative consequences. It is no coincidence that our hierarchical societies led by people who claim authority over others are visibly heading for destruction.
Throughout history, those that have claimed authority over others point to two sources for this power. The first claimed source is God and this is dealt with below. The second source is ourselves, 'the governed'. This is the basis for Democracy.
Governments, having been voted into office by a majority of voters then claim the right to compel people who did not vote for them into complying with a particular measure. The problem here is that not one person on earth has authority over another and so cannot delegate an authority, that they do not have, to a government to use to coerce other people.
As adults, we all have free will. This simple but profound fact says that we are in charge of our decisions. If we are in charge of decisions, we are in charge of ourselves and then it follows that no one else is in charge of us and our decisions. It also follows that we are not in charge of others' decisions or their lives. That is the way God designed us or the way Nature has evolved us; take your pick. We as a species have spent 99% of our time on earth in co-operative, non-coercive, non-hierarchical, self-organising tribal societies.
If God designed us, as the Catholic Church maintains, then it makes no sense at all for them to say that God has given popes (and therefore kings) authority over us; that they know what's best for us. In effect, the Church is saying is that God made us as we are with two legs, two arms and free will but doesn't want us to use our free will and wants the people in funny hats instead to use their free will for us. That is a contradiction and there are no contradictions in nature. So one of the propositions, at least, must be wrong. The obviously wrong proposition is that God gave men in pointy hats authority over us. What is it with all these funny hats, anyway? Hats on, hats off!
If we take the tack that our natures (which includes free will) have evolved over perhaps a million years, then it follows that we are perfectly honed through evolution to survive and thrive. In other words, we need individual free will to survive as an individual and as a species. If that free will and our self authority is inhibited or taken away from us, it follows that our survival will be compromised. And, indeed, it has been. All the abuse in our society results from people taking authority over others that those people do not have.
They are going against Natural Law and, in particular, the design of the human mind. Gravity is part of Natural Law, too. It is part of the design of this world. If you were to jump off the roof of your house, you are exercising your free will. But you have no free will as to whether you float off in the air or fall straight to the ground at an accelerating rate. We don't have power over the consequences of our choices once they have been made.
Natural Law can be said to be the Law of Consequences. And there are inevitable consequences to child abuse and every other form of abuse and exploitation that is rife in our society. The design of our consciousness, our psychology, has been transgressed and Natural Law says there will be harmful effects. The harmful consequences are there to tell everyone paying attention not to do it again – this is the wrong road; the road to ruin.
But people in power want to keeping doing it again and much else that is harmful. So to guard against the knowledge and spread of Natural Law (and our own commonsense) and to shore up its own power, the Church developed Canon Law as a substitute law. Instead of learning God's law that is very evident in the design of the world around us including our own psychology, we are now told to learn it from a book written by men. Man's Law in place of God's Law or Nature's Law. What could possibly go wrong?
Canon Law spawned Maritime Law (sometimes called Law of the Sea or Mercantile Law) which, in turn spawned modern Commercial Law, Administrative Law and our whole legal system. The other branch of our law, the Criminal Code, which is supposed to be based on Common Law which, in turn, is supposed to be based on Natural Law (but isn't) is no better because Criminal Law is based on the concept of punishment (Canon Law again) and not on Restitution which is demanded by Natural Law.
Restitution undoes some of the initial harm and puts a stop to the ongoing harm to the individual and society. Punishment is just more violence and does not improve the situation for the victim. It just creates more violence and violence begets more violence making the situation for society worse. This suits some people. Of course, these legal codes spawned a rash of lawyers and a rash of work for them.
So we have a legal system that proposes to combat violence with more violence and just makes matters worse in the process. Has all the money spent on lawyers and the legal system seriously inhibited crime? No, it clearly doesn't work as advertised. Again, we have Man's Law (punishment and violence) substituted for God's Law or Nature's Law (restitution). And what hasn't gone wrong?
There are two videos below that deal with some of these problems. The first is an excellent documentary, “Frequently Unanswered Questions” that lays out graphically, simply and very effectively how government authority in Australia today is simply presumed and maintained through lying and trickery. Scott Bartle, the author and presenter, shows how today's government and government departments do not follow their own legal system and are, in fact, commercial corporations. Commercial corporations are accountable to their shareholders not their 'customers'. But it is worse than that. Let Scott Bartle describe just how bad it is together with a method that has proved somewhat successful.
The second is an interview with Frank O'Collins, an Australian researcher and presenter on the historical basis of our legal system. He shows how the very basis of our legal system is corrupt and is not simply a matter of a government not following its own laws. The Law is invalid whether it is followed or not. The interview is conducted by Lisa M Harrison who asks good questions and allows Frank O'Collins the space to answer them.
Both videos are 'eye-openers' in my view.
It has been a week since I predicted that the Russian and Syrian governments would formally declare a 'No-Fly Zone' over all of Syrian territory and thus making it crystal clear that any flight that does not have the permission of the Syrian government will be declared an act of war against the Syrian people. It didn't happen. At least not in the form I predicted (and hoped for). True, al-Assad has said in interviews that over flights without consent of the Syrian government are a breach of Syria's sovereignty.
We have also had a few days ago a spokesman from the military co-ordination centre in Damascus that any NATO flights that are not co-ordinated with the Syrian/Russian coalition will be considered as a potential threat and will be countered one way or another.
|A high-ranking officer within the joint operation room in Damascus (consisting of Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah) said “Damascus received sets of S -300 advanced Russian missiles, ready to enter active service. Soon, Syria will announce that any country using the airspace without coordinating with Damascus will be viewed as hostile and will shoot the jet/s without warning. Those willing to fight terrorism and coordinate with the military leadership will be granted safe corridors”.|
And more recently from Finian Cunningham quoting a senior Syrian officer from the same Co-ordination Centre in Damascus-
|Translated from Arabic language Alrai Media (thanks to the reliable Fort Russ Russian news site), the senior Syrian officer at the operations room is quoted as saying: “Soon Syria will announce that any country using the airspace without coordinating with Damascus will be viewed as hostile and [we] will shoot the jet down without warning. Those willing to fight terrorism and coordinate with the military leadership will be granted safe corridors.”
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20151206/1031325664/syria-nato-planes-cunningham.html#ixzz3tc0HqkCP
President Putin has said similar things as has Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Perhaps Russia has been waiting till all their S 400 and S 300 air defence systems are in place and the air port at Sha’ayrat airport is ready to accept the extra 100 fighter jets needed to ensure complete lock-down of Syrian air space. But time is a wasting.