Crisis Update – Public Identifies Cabal; Cabal Bans David Icke

Totalitarian tyrannies always shared ideas and people – today is no different

Nov 08, 2022

Almost half of all voters say the U.S. federal government is controlled by secret cabal.
Pandemic made it obvious – you don’t get lockstep by happenstance.
Humanity is never solved by a “final solution” – except in the mind of a maniac.

Personnel slid between the 20th century’s totalitarian projects, sharing ideas.
How much of the clash of civilisations is a myth; a narrative; a tragedy?
A cabal needs scriptwriters, and we might have identified some of them.

(3,000 words or about 13 minutes of your time.)

Don't waste your money to see conspiracy theorist David Icke - says Sydney Morning Herald in 1992

Nov, 8, 2022

No less than 44 per cent of registered voters agreed with the statement that “The federal government is controlled by a secret cabal.” [1]

The people recognise this now because the pandemic exposed it. Timing, as we shall see, is crucial. A truth that must be suppressed at one moment — like before an election — can be admitted once the urgency has passed.

Timing exposed the syndicate or cabal — whatever name you give to the network that operated in lockstep around the world, for three years, to common purpose, behind and above the governments.

The proposition this was driven by one fact or truth — The Science — a single, universal prescription to a medical crisis — the Covid injection — is ludicrous on the face of it.

The complexity of humanity’s problems present more than one challenge and thus must always require more than one solution. Not least because we are diverse. Our cultural, social and economic conditions are not the same.

Only the mind of a monomaniac like Bill Gates could reduce humanity to his CO2=PSEC formula, including population, and say “one of these numbers is gonna need to get pretty near to zero.” [2]

Or declare, “the Final Solution is the vaccine.” [3]

There have in the past been similar attempts to impose a one-size-fits-all, total system. As today, these were imposed in the name of efficiency or emergency — by suspending parliaments or simply ignoring legislators — and issuing diktats by executive order or passing provisions little different to the Enabling Act of 1933.

The fact is, the majority of politicians and bureaucrats vie for wealth and power that they could never acquire by their own talents — in exchange for doing the bidding of the rich and powerful. They are easily bought by those who own the resources, or control access to them by the creation of artificial scarcity. Today, through food and fuel shortage, they are laying siege to Europe.

The bulk of the press still denies this, their technique being to announce the plan, while calling people who discuss it, conspiracy theorists. This seeks to neuter opposition by shutting down debate.

So Klaus Schwab and Charles Saxe-Coburg and Gotha announce a new order/ normal/ great reset/ global governance; The Economist magazine will promote a single world currency, decades ahead of time [4]; The New York Times will attack critical thinking skills [5] as the media calls for the censors to strike down anyone who criticizes government.

As if proof were needed the Dutch government has managed to get 26 European nations to bar David Icke from visiting the continent because he “poses a threat to public order.” He’d been due to address a group Samen Voor Nederland — Together for the Netherlands.

Their excuse? Those shape-shifting creatures that Icke bangs on about.

In a five-page letter, Dutch border authorities said “According to critics, the reptiles are a metaphor for a (partly Jewish) elite that forms an all-powerful secret world government and is active in all ranks of society.”

Vice, part of the controlled “lad's magazine” sector, comments:

“Not all of the elites named by Icke as supposed reptilians are Jewish, such as members of the British royal family, but many are. He has repeatedly insisted he is not anti-Semitic, and claims he is not campaigning against any particular human group, but instead a class of alien-descended reptilians merely posing as humans. But experts who monitor conspiracy movements say Icke’s ideology strongly echoes centuries-old libels against Jewish people."

This is guilt by association. Anyone who’s paid a moment’s attention to Icke knows that his reptilian theme is the more abstruse part of his commentary — which many people think discredits the many points on which he has proved prescient. [6]

Icke speaks of shape-shifting aliens from the constellation, Draco. King Charles himself boasts of being descended from Vlad the Impaler, also known as Draco. I'd call that match a tie.

Search for “anti-semitic remarks by David Icke” and you’d expect the ADL would top Google’s search results but it does not. Instead you get this: “The Pulitzer Prize-winner Alice Walker says Icke's not anti-Semitic”... but then the article’s standfirst tells you that Walker “defends reading the antisemitic conspiracy theorist.” [7]

Thus it's a game of circular logic: you’d be an “anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist” if you even interrogated the ideas of a man condemned as such.

As I’ve written before, the rich and powerful — of all backgrounds — are using this trope to silence attempts to hold them accountable. There is barely a power in the land that does not fall under its Politically Correct abjurance.

The Vatican bank?
Hush, don't speak ill of bankers.

Secret societies?
There you go again - that's both anti-Semitic and a conspiracy theory.

The flower seller?
At whom would you be casting nasturtiums — at our Dutch tulpen?

The Hague’s announcement “that you have been flagged immediately in the Schengen Information System for two years and you are not allowed to enter the Schengen area,” is a perfect example of the unaccountable power hiding behind the accusation of anti-Semitism.

To get to the sorest point — “The Conspiracy Theory to Rule Them All,” in the words of The Atlantic — let the man in the dock speak for himself:

“My use of extracts from the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ was too much for political purity to take. It didn't matter that I had emphasised, as I do in this book, that this is not a plot by Jewish people; it didn't matter that I renamed them the "Illuminati Protocols" for the specific reason of getting away from their association with Jewish people; it didn't matter that these Protocols, which came to light in the late-1800s, contain details of the very plan of manipulation which has provably unfolded through the twentieth century.” [8]

Past statements aside, there is the question of timing, for Icke wrote the above almost 30 years ago. What has changed? What causes the rich and powerful to feel more tender or vulnerable to his arguments — whichever of them causes their discomfort — at precisely this time?

The words for which Icke has been banned are those he intended to deliver in Amsterdam: that you must think for yourself, and refuse to be instructed how to think by a tyrannical government. That includes being told to whom you may or may not listen. [9]

Bolshevik and Nazi cross-pollination

The relationship between Bolshevism and Nazism is often described as a counterpoint of one against the other; the mutual suspicion of the factory worker and the bourgeois, weaponised by the poison of collective guilt.

Racial suppression is often contrasted with class suppression but muddied by the supposed spontaneous and unplanned nature of Bolshevik violence as opposed to Nazi planning, buttressed by the trope of the clinical, organized German versus the emotional Russian.

The lie deepens by ignoring the fact that many of the Bolsheviks did not view themselves as Russians, and certainly not orthodox Christians, unlike the population they ruled. They comprised multiple ethnicities from across Central Europe and the Baltics, along with the followers of Trotsky who arrived by the boatload from New York.

Lastly, there is a reticence to be seen to minimize what happened in Germany or to offset it against the Bolshevik record.

The historian Ernst Nolte said we should focus instead on freeing our minds from the “tyranny of collectivist thought”.

There are objective impulses for history in Germany’s “crisis of the nation state.” Germany found her growing economic might constrained by lack of land, especially after the loss of 13 per cent of territories in the Versailles Treaty that followed WW1. Britain and France had their colonies; the U.S. possessed a huge expanse as well as overseas territories.

Russia like the U.S. was both huge and endowed with a sphere of influence. It was the fastest-industrializing nation at the start of the 20th century, and in 1901 even outproduced the U.S. in oil.

Whatever pushed Germany in the totalitarian direction, the case was different in Russia. But there was an interplay of force; there were features and individuals in common.

German industry drove the logic of seeking land and resources, so its motives during WW1 of financing the Bolsheviks may have gone beyond merely supporting the anti-War communists; just as its non-aggression pact with Stalin masked the plan to take Soviet territory and the Caspian oilfields.

Were the Kaiser’s spies, the Abteilung, so blind to the possibility that promoting Bolshevism in the neighbourhood might embolden Germany’s own Spartacus League?

Or are we looking in the wrong place for the origins of totalitarianism in Germany and Russia, and missing some of the shared origins?

Of Nazis, Fascists and Bolsheviks

It was quite some scriptwriter that wrote the 20th century; it is the sharp point of Mel Brooks’ pencil and nous that he called the show, The Producers. Today we see the power of narrative in Ukraine’s war that rages as much in the ether as on the ground — those who recount the tale seek to convince us we are in a psychic battle of mankind. So it was a century ago.

It is almost fatuous to talk of narrative in the National Socialist context: so many aspects were built on mythos and symbolic narrative, from the Aryan, the co-option of Norse mythology, even the attempt to replace religion with Thelema — though rather than chest beating one could view this as catharsis, a way to mediate and interrogate national pain. The Bolsheviks seem naked by comparison with no culture to offer but negation of the wealth of Russian tradition. That is not in any way to justify the Nazis — nor to traduce the Russians — but to negotiate difference in ideologies that in other respects shared much.

It is a topic for another time but the Austrian Sigmund Freud’s development of phychoanalysis did not address Germany’s needs but created a new crisis of sexual obsession, introspection and social division.

Symbology and narrative, and political technology are different things, and we are concerned here with the latter.

Two prominent Nazis are worth examining: Alfred Rosenberg and Roland Freisler. Both spent considerable time in Russia before they returned to Germany. Both were promoted by Hitler to senior positions. Both had roles at the heart of the ideology as the scriptwriters.

Alfred Rosenberg

He hailed from the Baltics and studied in Russia, attending the Moscow Imperial Higher Technical School, on Baumanskaya, just round the corner from the headquarters to which Russia Today moved from its original office in Zubovsky Bulvar. Rosenberg got his PhD in 1917 and was teaching back in Estonia when Germany invaded in 1918.

Rosenberg was the architect of the Nazis’ race policies, describing Slavs, in the same words as Marx, as abfall or trash. He was the author of the Nazi edition of the Protocols and “Jewish World Politics.” Nominally a Lutheran, Rosenberg rejected Christianity instead conjouring a destiny for the German people assigned by “Providence.”

It seems most unlikely that living through the Bolshevik revolution had left him unmoved, much less uninformed. What did he take from Bolshevism? The journalist Gareth Jones, who was a titan compared with the New York Times’ Bolsheivst apologist Walter Duranty, wrote of the similarities of the three projects – Nazism, Fascism and Bolshevism. [10]

It was Rosenberg, according to Wikipedia, who moved Hitler onto the topic of race, for the latter originally was motivated by revenge against the British and the French. Rosenberg had given his first lecture on “Jewish Marxism” in 1918 at the Brotherhood of Blackheads, a professional shipping and merchants association in Tallinn. [11]

Student of the purge

Roland Freisler arrivived in Russia at the same time as Rosenberg by a different path. Friesler was captured in 1915, interned in a camp and learned Russian. He studied Marx and Engels and, when German POWs drifted home in 2018, decided to stay on.

Friesler joined the Bolsheviks and became a food commissar. One historical account has it that he joined the Cheka secret police. If so that is possibly where he learned to become, according American historian William L. Shirer, “perhaps the most sinister and bloodthirsty Nazi in the Third Reich after Heydrich.”

Little is known of his connections but he left Russia in 1920, became a jurist in Germany and joined the Nazis in 1925. [12]

The head of the Cheka or NKVD, Genrikh Yagoda, one of the greatest murderers of the 20th century, would work closely with Andrei Vyshinsky, chief prosecutor of the first Moscow Show Trial in 1936, which launched Stalin’s purges. Friesler would become Vyshinsky’s opposite number as head of the People’s Court of the Third Reich.

Freisler visited Moscow in 1938 specifically to attend the Show Trials and study Vyshinsky’s technique. On becoming chief prosecutor in the Reich in 1942, Freisler would berate defendants in a similar style. The death rate under Freisler increased sharply — 90 per cent of cases before him led to a guilty verdict.

In Feb 1943, the sister and brother Sophie and Hans Scholl were arrested for distributing leaflets as part of the White Rose resistance. Freisler flew to Munich to preside over their trial. On handing down a death sentence he decided against a public hanging, which might draw attention to their martydom. He had them Guillotined instead.

Common thread of depopulation

It was Freisler who met with Adolf Eichmann in Jan 1942 at the Wannsee Conference, which decided on the deportations from German-occupied Europe to Poland.

One aspect of the Wannsee Conference that has resonance today is depopulation. Just as the Bolsheviks had depopulated large areas of the countryside through famine, the Hunger Plan devised by Herbert Backe, aimed to reduce the Eastern European population by 30 million people through starvation.

In conclusion it may be that the legal standards of the 1930s were more brutal, and the attitude towards population and human life was suddenly debased — or perhaps there was a shared view, something in common between these jurists and bureaucrats, that led them to pursue such similar policies.

UN SDGs embedded in Twitter

Who knew that the United Nations has its own unit inside Twitter? Sure it’s called “human rights” but that is the bedrock of the UN agenda.

Shannon Raj Singh, head of the unit, tweeted:

“I am enormously proud of the work we did to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights, to protect those at-risk in global conflicts & crises including Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, and to defend the needs of those particularly at risk of human rights abuse by virtue of their social media presence, such as journalists & human rights defenders.”

She says “business” which would be SDGs: social, development and governance goals. What about Covid — We know they were censoring like crazy: what did the Twitter team cooordinate?

Orwell has the last word

“Why is it worthwhile to point out anything so obvious? Because the bulk of the British and American intelligentsia were manifestly unaware of it then, and are now. Our memories are short nowadays, but look back a bit, dig out the files of New Masses or the Daily Worker, and just have a look at the romantic warmongering muck that our left-wingers were spilling at that time. All the stale old phrases! And the unimaginative callousness of it! The sang-froid with which London faced the bombing of Madrid!...

Well, the same people who in 1933 sniggered pityingly if you said that in certain circumstances you would fight for your country, in 1937 were denouncing you as a Trotsky-Fascist if you suggested that the stories in New Masses about freshly wounded men clamouring to get back into the fighting might be exaggerated. And the Left intelligentsia made their swing-over from ‘War is hell’ to ‘War is glorious’ not only with no sense of incongruity but almost without any intervening stage…

As far as the mass of the people go, the extraordinary swings of opinion which occur nowadays, the emotions which can be turned on and off like a tap, are the result of newspaper and radio hypnosis. In the intelligentsia I should say they result rather from money and mere physical safety.

At a given moment they may be ‘pro-war’ or ‘anti-war’, but in either case they have no realistic picture of war in their minds. When they enthused over the Spanish war they knew, of course, that people were being killed and that to be killed is unpleasant, but they did feel that for a soldier in the Spanish Republican army the experience of war was somehow not degrading. Somehow the latrines stank less, discipline was less irksome. You have only to glance at the New Statesman to see that they believed that; exactly similar blah is being written about the Red Army at this moment.

We have become too civilized to grasp the obvious. For the truth is very simple. To survive you often have to fight, and to fight you have to dirty yourself. War is evil, and it is often the lesser evil. Those who take the sword perish by the sword, and those who don't take the sword perish by smelly diseases. The fact that such a platitude is worth writing down shows what the years of rentier capitalism have done to us.”

Moneycircus

Discussion about this post