WW3 Or State Terror - You Decide

Are governments still shooting the people?

Feb 02, 2024

∙ Paid

Are we heading for WW3 or are governments already at war with the population?
It depends how you define war; the answer is key to survival
Billionaires convinced of their moral virtue echo Jacobins and Bolsheviks
Clausewitz says policy or ‘reason’ must identify with the interests of the people
Yet righteous policy makers committed to ‘justice’ have no need of the masses
Once divorced from the people, reason takes flight - where we find us today
Even war with partisans did not extend to civilians in Clausewitz moderate view
So policy makers created ‘hybrid war’ defining all civilians as suspect…
from the ruins of Gaza to the Western jabbing fields
No ideological handbook or ‘theory’ can overturn reason
If governments can’t be at war with the people, democide must be state terror
Policy is unhinged and can be contained only by mass action

You want it darker?

Excess death is carrying off 50 to 60 year-olds at an accelerating pace in Americas, the Crown colonies and Western Europe. Among the next generation, aged one-14, it is running at 22 per cent according to British data, which is the most open and available.

That's not enough death for our leaders, it seems.

Phwoar, it's war. Mighty mouse Grant Shapps, internet buccaneer and UK defence secretary, says the country is moving from a “post war to a pre-war world.” Gonna fight to the last Ukrainian and throw Brits and Americans into the grinder.

Victoria Nuland is handing out cookies again in Ukraine, at least metaphorically.

Mighty mouse is not alone. Head of the British Army and a Dutch military chief in NATO say to prepare for a major conflict on European soil that could happen at any time. Sweden's civil defence minister says join Dad's Army and do it now.

International law is... meh... old school. The Genocide Convention, the Nuremberg Code are honoured in the breach. Sydney lawyer Peter Fam says they've been broken blatantly, multiple times, through medical experimentation without consent. In Australia even domestic laws were shunted aside — the Human Rights Act and the Privacy Act — as politicians traded in personal data, sometimes for their own profit.

Now we're getting war without consent. They're talking about mandating the draft.

This is the tripod of medical tyranny, rationing because Climate Change, and finally war, which is the poisonous cup proffered to a people worn down by the media's incantation of “cascading crises.”

In each crisis you can trace origins to the oil and banking interests or, to use their names as placeholders for the syndicate, R, R & R: Rockefeller, Rothschild and Rex.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is all you need to know about the links between big tech, social media and war. He is talking up the “war of the future” to promote his White Stork kamikaze drone company.

A stork is a symbol of peace that brings mama a baby, but Schmidt wants the young one to survive just long enough to die fighting for bankers.

Planned misery is what they're up to: making life hell for migrants (admitting them with nothing to give but winter streets), hell for Ukrainians (blocking peace deals, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg says Ukraine must have war to frighten China and profit America), and threatening hell for the next generation of Western youth.

It is the first conflict in which the head of NATO openly talks about war as profit. [1]

U.S. politicians are brazen about fighting to the last Ukrainian, while Germany throws its weight behind Israel, deflecting its own role in the holocaust by projecting its crimes upon Palestinians.

The World Court after its genocide hearing ruled that food and relief must be let into Gaza. The West did the opposite and withdrew funding from the United Nations agency that provides relief to Palestinians (UNRWA).

Amputate them! Without anaesthesia! No clean drinking water! Shoot if they approach food trucks!

Sadly, there is not a single word of exaggeration.

Palestinians have been dehumanised just like Russians, over a period of decades. It started with Muslims the moment the West no longer needed the mujahideen to fight Russians in Afghanistan. Western media now conflates Palestinians with the West's own creation, ISIS. Russians were conflated with the Soviet Union, culminating in the hoax of Russiagate, and manoeuvred into conflict with the Ukraine.

“And So This Is Witless,” sang Lennon, “And What Shall Be Done” — or was that Lenin?

Enough levity in the face of depravity. Let's analyse it. If children are to be fed into the meat grinder of war, let us at least try to define it. By agreeing on war's parameters, we can at decide who is at war with whom, and if it is justified.

Mr War

Distilled to its essence, “pure war” or absoluter Krieg — as an impulse or primordial force — does not exist in the real world.

Western politicians like to say that it does: the isolated act, not caused by previous events, merely sudden and intemperate.

They would have us believe that that the spirit of pure evil suddenly occupies the body of a particular leader somewhere — usually in a state they want to destroy, like Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Russia or Iran — who becomes the ogre or witch worthy of the grimmest book of cautionary tales for children.

War cannot be waged on a people. Again, politicians like to say that it can: “They hate us for our freedoms,” to quote president George W. Bush.

The state corporate media wants you to know, from the attacks in Gaza, that states can indeed declare war on a people. Any head of state can become “Hitler,” just as women and children can become Hamas.

But is this war? Couples go to battle, human beings kill each other, without it being war. And what is the distinction between war and terror?

A leading authority on war is Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) a Prussian general who studied the interplay of social psychology and politics to draw up the rules of war. This was supposed to protect civilians, and gave rise to the Geneva Conventions.

He lived at a time when the modern state, then 300 years old, was approaching its pinnacle, when governments could raise large armies through internal order and taxes, and when politicians still cared about honour and reputation.

Finance capital was a rising force but the state had not yet capitulated to commercial corporations. It was, however, already challenged by other types of corporation. See Guildsmen Trap Us in the Middle Ages - Rivals for Power, Part I (Jul 6, 2021). See Also Pirates, Privateers And Merchant Adventurers (Aug 14, 2023).

Today’s disputes over Clausewitz have a theological quality but his insights into human conduct endure, writes M.L.R. Smith of King's College, London. This is despite attempts to refashion war into a struggle between a morally righteous elite and the fearful thoughts of sectarians driven by identity politics (Mary Kaldor, London School of Economics). [2]

He is still quoted not because he opines on military strategy but because he knew something of the political mind, and that of policy makers.

Clausewitz contradicted himself occasionally as he wrestled with a definition, such as whether bloodshed was required. At one point he states that war need not involve shedding blood in the field or even the use of weaponry, so long as one party can disarm the other or persuade it to submit.

Our interest here is whether a state can wage war on a people. He lived before the era of bombing from the air and nuclear weapons — though some contend that biological warfare, mass infection and poisoning, already existed.

In short he recognised war as state versus state. A state may find itself challenged by partisans or irregulars, and tribes may clash in a pre-state civilisation. This does not extend, however, to civilians becoming the primary target, as in nuclear war or with the bombing of Dresden, or in Gaza.

“Where he would draw the line is where the current law of armed conflict also stops,” argues Hugh Smith, of the Australian Defence Force Academy.

“Fighting cannot be recognised as war when fighters rely on tactics and choose targets that are essentially civilian rather than military; when their attacks are small-scale and not part of a wider campaign; when they lack central control; and when there is no prospect of success.
In such cases governments will likely treat them as criminals rather than enemies with whom some resolution of the conflict might be achieved, whether by force, negotiation or a combination of both.” [3]

Lack of consent

Working back from the essence of pure war, the impetus is not elemental but human; not eternal but temporal, and time is related to information: “for me to know; for you to find out.”

This imbalance in time and information was evident in the Covid response: big pharma, regulators, bureaucrats and the military knew of the risks of the mRNA shot; the bulk of the public did not, at least until much later.

It was a military operation according to researchers Katherine Watt, Sasha Latypova, David Martin and prof Michel Chossudovsky who have traced the planning and development of the Covid shots to the Pentagon. NSSM-200 or the Kissinger report remains the foundational document of U.S. population control. Though originally directed at developing countries it is another tool of foreign policy that came home. [4]

Clausewitz said war emerged from a “remarkable trinity” of passion, reason and chance — or hatred, calculation and hazard — of which reason is key.

He is famous for his statement that policy, which stems from passion and reason, does not stop with the outbreak of war but continues throughout — war being the continuation of politics (or rather, policy) by other means.

This means that war can't be separated from the policy that gave rise to it, “but must be shaped in accordance with the primary political purposes for which it is undertaken” (M.L.R. Smith).

That policy (the reasoning) must be rooted in public consent or at least its interest. What does that tell us about the Covid response?

Temper of the people

The key phrase in Hugh Smith's quote is that when bands of citizens engage in conflict “governments will likely treat them as criminals.” This is not a concession, as if to be a criminal makes you less than a military target.

With the passage of the U.S. PATRIOT Act in 2001, attorney general John Ashcroft said preventing terrorist acts had become more important than punishing crimes after the event. This made all citizens suspects in an endless War on Terror. The Covid laws would make all citizens suspects in an endless war on an elusive bug.

See: Any 'Emergency’ Would Be Step Closer To Dictatorship (Sep 21, 2023)

Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Moneycircus to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.