…by Jonas E. Alexis
As Jim W. Dean usually says, some ideas are so stupid and crazy that a person with an ounce of common sense simply can’t make them up. They have to be the inventions of psychopaths or people who are completely out of touch with the real world.
Things have certainly been a little crazier than usual in the political landscape over the past few days. The so-called think tank known as the Atlantic Council has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that New World Order agents and political Satanists have and will continue to use terrorism and black operations to pursue their diabolical plan.
The organization has recently cranked out a paper which explicitly demanded that Poland “reserve the right to attack Russian infrastructure including Moscow’s public transportation system and the offices of RT and Sputnik via electronic warfare.”
When I first read this at Sputnik News, I quickly gave it the benefit of a doubt because it was too outrageous. But as I read the actual paper, it turns out that Sputnik News was right. The Council Atlantic paper is entitled “Arming for Deterrence: How Poland and NATO Should Counter a Resurgent Russia,” written by Gen. Sir Richard Shirreff and Maciej Olex-Szczytowski. It states:
“Poland should announce that it reserves the right to deploy offensive cyber operations (and not necessarily in response just to cyberattacks). The authorities could also suggest potential targets, which could include the Moscow metro, the St. Petersburg power network, and Russian state-funded media outlets such as RT.”
What usually happens when an underground railway system abruptly stops? Well, sometimes civilians die or get hurt. And when words such as “offensive cyber operations” are used, then you know that covert or terrorist activities are taking place. We are told that the Moscow metro usually carries 10 million people on a daily basis. So, if “offensive cyber operations” ever take place, you know that civilians will die.
According to the Geneva Conventions Article 51(2), such “offensive cyber operations” are crimes and are in complete violation of international law:
“The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.”
In other words, the Atlantic Council is intentionally plotting false flags in Russia. Keep in mind that the Atlantic Council is not some kind of conspiracy organization out there. As previously suggested, this is a widely known think tank in Washington.
But this is not the first that time Maciej Olex-Szczytowski, one of the authors of the paper, marshaled an attack on Russia. Back in 2007, he and a number of other talking heads wrote in the Financial Times that “Russian gas pipeline would be geopolitical disaster for EU.”
Richard Shirreff, the other author of the Atlantic Council paper, wrote an article in the Daily Mail last May entitled, “Why we could be at war with Russia next year: The apocalyptic vision of the British general and Nato chief threatened with the sack for blasting Tory defence cuts.”
The fundamental questions are simply these: why would a “respected” organization like the Atlantic Council be involved in terrorist activities and psychological warfare? Why would they use civilians as a distraction?
Well, one reason is that the New World Order agents and Satanists are desperate. They also have abandoned reason and embraced something else. In fact, they have inexorably gone mad. We are told in the same paper:
“There can be no credible defense, and therefore deterrence, without an effective joint defense plan that unifies military capabilities from across the maritime, land, air, cyber, and space domains. NATO is clearly best placed to conduct and, if necessary, implement such a plan at the operational level under strategic direction from NATO’s military headquarters, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE).”
The paper also states:
“Russia has thus become the most serious geopolitical and military threat to NATO. Paradoxically, Moscow accuses the Alliance of encircling Russia and preparing for a military aggression against it, even though NATO’s military footprint in the areas covered by the NATO/Russia Founding Act has been extremely modest, particularly in comparison with the military assets Russia has directed toward Europe.”
Did you catch the implicit contradiction? We are told that Russia is “the most serious geopolitical and military threat to NATO.” Yet in the very same breath it is stated that “NATO’s military footprint” around the Baltic area “has been extremely modest.” Who are those people really fooling here?
As we have repeatedly argued elsewhere, when you have excluded reason from your political worldview, then soon or later you are going to look silly.
Obviously NATO and other New World Order organizations want to use a distraction that will upset Russia. If Russia happens to attack first, then NATO will use that excuse to wage a frontal and bloody war on Russia. Are we repeating history here?
George W. Bush intended to use the same strategy in Iraq. When he was told that there was no WMDs in the country before the invasion, Bush told his associates (including Tony Blair) that one possible way to invade Iraq was to provoke Saddam Hussein. How?
If the United States deliberately flied a U2 aircraft over Iraq, and if Hussein fired on that aircraft, then the United States would have “sufficient” reason to invade the country. Obviously this plan was inexorably evil. Lawyer Vincent Bugliosi wrote:
“Can you imagine that? Bush is telling the American people that this nation is in imminent danger of a deadly attack from Hussein so we have to strike first; that we are being forced into war. But behind closed doors, this morally small and characterless man was talking about how to provoke Hussein into war…
“If Bush actually felt America was in imminent danger of a great harm from Hussein or those he was associated with, the thought of provoking Hussein into doing something that would justify going to war against him would never enter Bush’s mind. Bush’s argument of self-defense would easily fail in any murder prosecution against him.”
This is what we call a diabolical ideology. It is satanic because it deliberately ignores reason and the moral order and substitutes lies, fabrications, hoaxes, and covert operations instead. Once again, the Ayatollah Khomeini was right on target when he coined the term “The Great Satan” back in 1979 to describe the covert activities that the US was conducting by the Middle of the twentieth century, most specifically in the Middle East. “America,” Khomeini said, “the most powerful country in the world, will spare no effort.”
America, he continued, “exploits the oppressed people of the world by means of the large-scale propaganda campaigns that are coordinated for it by international Zionism. By means of its hidden and treacherous agents, it sucks the blood of the defenseless people as if it alone, together with its satellites, had the right to live in this world.”
From a strictly scholarly point of view, this claim is undisputable. We know that the United States and England have used psychological warfare from time immemorial. In fact, scholar Christopher Simpson argued back in the 1990s that
“At heart modern psychological warfare has been a tool for managing empire, not for settling conflicts in any fundamental sense…In practice modern psychological warfare and propaganda have only rarely offered ‘alternatives’ to violence over the medium-to-long term. Instead, they have been an integral part of a strategy and culture whose premise is the rule of the strong at the expense of the weak, where coercion and manipulation pose as ‘communication’ and close off opportunity for other, more genuine, forms of understanding.”
As we all know, psychological warfare is not only able to strike fear among the enemy and “deprive him of the support of his allies and neutrals,” but it also has the potential to “increase in our troops and allies the will to victory.”
Moreover, in a psychological war, any weapon, including lies and fabrications, can be employed in order to influence the mass media. To put it in Christopher Simpson’s words, “In this light, overt (white), covert (black), and gray propaganda” is possible.
Moreover, “sabotage,” “special operations,” “guerilla warfare,” “espionage,” “political, cultural, economic, and racial pressure are all effective weapons. They are effective because they produce dissension, distrust, fear and hopelessness in the minds of the enemy.”
White propaganda has a heavy emphasis on “repetition,” and “it is designed to be perceived by its audience as truthful, balanced, and factual.” Black propaganda, however, “stresses trouble, confusion…and terror. A variation of black propaganda tactics involves forging enemy documents and distributing them to target audiences as a means of discrediting rival powers.”
This theory was postulated long before war in Iraq. It is interesting to observe that this was exactly what happened when the Neoconservative machine mobilized the nation to go to war with Iraq. They spread fear among decent Americans—fear that Saddam was coming, that Iraq had WMDs, that Iraq was the greatest threat to the security of the United States, that terrorism was all across the world and must be fought—and those precious folks had no choice but to support Bush to go to war.
The power of this form of psychological warfare had not abated even in 2012, as warmongers in the Wall Street Journal were claiming that allowing a nuclear Iran would be far more costly in the long run than attacking it.
New World Order agents and Satanists will never learn. They are still propounding the same diabolical plan in Russia. Going back to the paper, it states:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime does not disguise its hostility toward the West and its main institutions—NATO and the European Union (EU). Western values such as democracy, pluralism, transparency, human rights, freedoms, and the rule of law are antithetical to a kleptocratic, authoritarian regime.”
That statement again is so crazy that you simply can’t make it up. Russia is against Western values such as “democracy, human rights, freedoms, and the rule of law”? How insane can it get? Who is destroying one country after another in the Middle East? Did the authors of the statement pay any attention to Vladimir Putin’s speech back in 2011? In that speech, Putin argued that whenever entities or organizations ignore the rule of law, then
“The world will be dominated by selfishness rather than collective effort, by dictate rather than equality and liberty, and instead of truly independent states we will have protectorates controlled from outside…
“We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn’t be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one…
“It seems, however, that instead of learning from other people’s mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are ‘democratic’ revolutions. Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa…
“I’m urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you’ve done? But I’m afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity.”
Obviously Putin upset the status quo when he brought reason back on the political table. Obviously NATO and the Atlantic Council have never been able to forgive him because he is still standing against their essentially diabolical plan.
One should continue to salute Putin for getting the job done in places like Syria and Ukraine. One should continue to give him two thumbs up for scaring the crap out of New World Order agents and Satanists. If they think that Putin is going to stand by and let them annihilate Russia, they’ve got another thing coming. Perhaps Putin would tell them: “To forgive terrorists is up to God, and my job is to arrange the meeting.”
 “NATO-Linked Think Tank Calls for Poland to Attack Moscow Metro, RT and Sputnik,” Sputnik News, August 7, 2016.
 Maciej Olex-Szczytowski, Jacek Rostowski and Radek Sikorski, “Russian gas pipeline would be geopolitical disaster for EU,” Financial Times, May 28, 2007.
 Richard Shirreff, “Why we could be at war with Russia next year: The apocalyptic vision of the British general and Nato chief threatened with the sack for blasting Tory defence cuts,” Daily Mail, May 18, 2016.
 For detailed evidence of this, see Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (New York: Vanguard Press, 2008), 149-150.
 Ibid., 150.
 Quoted in E. Michael Jones, “The Great Satan and Me: Reflections on Iran and Postmodernism’s Faustian Pact,” Culture Wars, July/August, 2015.
 Christopher Simpson, The Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 8.
 Ibid., 12.
 Robert Fisk, “A Word of Advice About the Middle East—We’ve Reached the ‘Tipping Point’ with Cliches,” Independent, December 24, 2012.
 John Allen Gray, “Should We Bomb Iran to Save Money?,” National Interest, December 27, 2012.
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on August 8, 2016, With 8341 Reads Filed under History, Investigations, Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.