Home › Monthly archive

April 2013

Those Whom The Gods Would Destroy, They First Make Mad

Sun, 04/28/2013 - 00:34 — james

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. This is an ancient saying credited to Euripides, the Greek dramatist who lived in the fifth century BC. Why would the gods, and I will take that to mean the demonic realm (and their agents here) for our purposes, want to or need to drive us mad first? People who become mad become, to varying degrees, unthinking and unable to act in their own best interests.

If we are driven mad by the powers that be, our authorities, then we could then become complicit in our own destruction. Something that wouldn't happen otherwise. And that point is of supreme importance. They can only destroy us (en masse) with our co-operation one way or another. Otherwise there would be no need for all this crazy-making stuff. Therefore, it is those amongst us that have the ability to understand what is happening that have the chance to foil the plan of the 'gods' for us all. But we need to stay sane for this to happen. We should not lose our heads or we will lose our heads, so to speak. An article that I'll link to below is well worth reading as it speaks a lot about what is happening to us psychologically. OK, I'll link to it here as well!

We've had the Boston bombing and there has been a lot of emotional fallout. So many unanswered questions and so much division has been sewn. There are those who take their thinking and perspective from the authorities and those who take their thinking from themselves, friends and alternative news sites amongst others. The major division has been over whether the bombs were fake or real; whether the injuries were fake or real. And more fundamentally, is the government involved as a perpetrator or not?

Is it possible that there was a fake bomb and fake injuries as well as a real bomb and real injuries? What if both sides of the argument are right? Each side being fed evidence to support their case? Divide and Conquer? Divide and conquer as a strategy is equally ancient as the saying that is the title of this article and has been used successfully by tyrants since at least the Roman Times.

Below are some short videos that show clearly that there has been actors involved. After all, it was announced to the crowd at the finish line that there would be a bomb drill which requires people to be acting one way or another.

Here is a video about bomb drills using actors who are amputees -

More after the jump

The Wheel Chair Guy - this IS a drill

Fri, 04/26/2013 - 18:36 — james

Well, this part of the Boston bombing fiasco is a drill. I came across this must see video courtesy of McJ. There's a whole lot more to this but I'm putting this up now before it disappears.

James Steele

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 05:24 — james
James Steele

James Steele

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 04:38 — james
James Steele

Retired Colonel James Steele

James Steele - The Making of Mayhem

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 03:08 — james


Retired US Colonel James Steele

Below is a link to a BBC film about retired Colonel James Steele who was employed by the US to foment civil war in Iraq after the invasion in 2003. Colonel Steele is a veteran of the bloody terror campaigns in Central America. No doubt, it was that experience in bringing terror and destruction upon whole civilian populations that made him the candidate of choice for a similar program in Iraq.

The Americans, of course, would have had a very difficult time in occupying and remaining in Iraq if the Iraqi factions were united against them. Hence the need for what amounted to civil war. It's an old strategy. English governments at the behest of their masters, the merchant bankers, have used it for centuries to further their commercial interests. Nothing changes. 'Divide and conquer' goes back to at least the Romans.

The film is remarkably candid. So what is the BBC doing backing the making of it?

Well, it is more about what is not in the film. There is no mention of the benefits for Israel of this invasion and the subsequent destruction of civil life in Iraq. There is no mention of the israeli assassination squads that roamed Iraq murdering doctors, academics and other middle class professionals together with any capable local leaders.

So the fact is that this mayhem is entirely deliberate and all the consequences were planned. Against this larger scenario, it could be reasonably said that the film amounts to a 'limited hangout'

It could be argued that the film crew were focussing on one character, James Steele, and that was the point of the film. All true and reasonable. A film cannot be about everything. However, there is one point that pervades the film that is obviously there but the salient truth about it is not. And that is torture.

The perpetrators are interviewed, one in particular. The torture is justified on the usual, 'we needed the information and the situation was desperate', type of thing. But I cannot believe that anyone seriously researching this topic, (which would have been done for the film) would not have come across the widely known truth that 'truth' is more often than not, the last thing you hear from those who are tortured. They want, above all, to stop the pain and terror. So they will say whatever they think the torturers want to hear; whatever will fit with torturers' psychotic view of the situation.

So what do the torturers want if it is not the truth? They want to terrorise the whole community into cowering submission or violent reprisals which escalates the violence and helps those intent on destruction. This is why mutilated bodies are dumped in public places for everyone to see.

That information should have been central to the film and its absence is inexcusable. The result is that it misrepresents the uses and purposes of torture and so goes some way towards legitimising it.

The purpose of torture is to destroy the victim and the society that the victim is connected to and part of. How many times does this destruction have to play out wherever the US (and now NATO) go before the world recognises that this is the primary objective? "By their deeds, you shall know them"

So we start to see why the BBC might finance this film and why the Guardian publicises it. Both are often cited as being under Zionist banker control who also control the direction of US and NATO forces. We have yet again the 'scapegoat ritual' whereby we have two goats; a sacrificial goat, Iraq, and a scapegoat, the US administration and military, to carry the blame. At first it was the Sunnis and Shia militants and civilians who were both sacrificial and scapegoats. Now, through this lens, we see that the Sunnis and Shia militants as largely (though not blameless) victims and the US military (hardly blameless, either) as the perps and scapegoats.

Will the camera pan out far enough to take in the involvement of the israelis and their masters, the bankers, behind the scenes? Somehow, I think not.

This scapegoating reminds me of the Palestinian camp massacres (Shabra and Shatila) of the defenceless Palestinians by the Maronite Christian forces (sacrificial goat and scapegoat) in Lebanon and, again, all orchestrated by israel.

However, after criticising the film, it is well worth watching from the point of view of what is there while being mindful of what is not there. It shows well the psychopathy that surrounds war and violence. It shows that psychopaths are so far away from the consciousness of ordinary human beings. It shows evil talking and almost sounding reasonable.

You can watch it at youtube

Or at The Guardian (but you'll get an advertisement first).

There is also a link on the Guardian page to a short 5minute edited version