Spooks Are Constantly Manipulating You
While democracy is sometimes sold as a means of changing the political balance of class forces, the intelligence apparatus is busy ensuring there is only the appearance of change. If people believe they have power then that is enough. For the great majority of people don’t think, they believe. So the feelings, desires and instincts of the masses are central forces that can let them happily consent to the delegation of their power, and so the manipulation of such forces are key to maintaining the illusion of personal power while binding the nation together. And this is quite easy as Man has evolved to fit into the organizational structure of Religion.
The advent of Reason eclipsed faith in heavenly bodies, and so the modern secular state was fashioned after a likeness to the religious government which preceded it. The secular designers used their religious hierarchy of power as a template. Western nation states were inspired by Rome. Islamic peoples have sympathy for dictatorship as Mohammed ruled by diktat. Today, we see religious peasants in Turkey celebrating the return of dictatorship.
The transition from religious to secular government is hard to pull off because the people may lose faith. Essentially any group of people coalesces on the basis of faith. You take away the faith and the edifice crumbles. This faith is essentially the belief that there is a benefit to being in the group that outweighs the cost. Also, there is an instinctual element to it: humans are social animals. As people get wiser with age, they make the calculation rather than relying on instincts to inform their behavior.
So even at the micro-foundational level, a family break up can reveal how the mind operates: The child grows up and leaves the house, and then parents get a divorce. But the same principle applies to larger groupings, such as nations. Elaborate myths, rituals and symbols are erected that indulge our instinctual tendency towards belonging but our intelligence demands that we make a calculation.
The intelligence community knows this. For example, the C.I.A. in the U.S.A. as well her Majesty’s secret services knew that the KGB was using operatives in Hollywood to interject subversive messages into the content of popular media. When the congress found out, there were hearings and blacklists.
So now we know that one way to destroy a rival power is to destroy the nation. This is done with propaganda designed to rip apart the calculation that the benefits of being in a nation is worth the costs (following the rules, paying taxes etc.) But at the same time that your intelligence apparatus is busy Balkanizing the rest of world, it must also bolster the belief in the host nation that the people belong together. Clearly, Mossad would encourage the belief among Israelis and Jews the world over that they need a homeland. But at the same time, they want their neighboring nations to disintegrate. This is because they fear that these neighbors are adversaries so it makes sense to weaken them by subverting their raison d’être.
Of course, the ruling group of Great Britain has accumulated vast knowledge and institutional means to curtail the ambition and hubris of her Majesty’s secret services and neutralise blowback. The security apparatus of younger nation states often fall prey to opportunism and myopic policies. Pakistan’s unholy decision, decades ago, to play host for factories of jihadis has destroyed faith in the nation. For children are now massacred which is one of the few acts of violence admonished in the Koran. By 2011, one in five Pakistanis reported they would flee if they had the means to do so. A more nuanced analysis is necessary to appreciate how civil society in Israel has become malignant. Israeli society lacked the institutional means to constrain expansionist impulses which has resulted in a conflict without any prospect of ultimate resolution. The seizure of land and capture of 4-5 million hostile foreigners requires military governors, secret police, propaganda and a perpetual siege. Democracy and civil liberty, when draped in ‘empire’ produces an unstable set of ideas and conditions.
As such, it’s presently difficult, to transition from one form of governance to another because foreign powers will take advantage of the uncertainty. This is why China cannot afford to entertain the idea of democracy because rival powers will subvert the transition to cause chaos, e.g. as was done in Russia in 1992, whereby the U.S. reneged on her promise to fund Russia’s transition to a capitalistic economy. That betrayal caused Russia’s economy to disintegrate and severely weakened her military power. Her natural resources were bought for a pittance and plundered.
Modern history is replete with such power struggles though there is no better player than the most sophisticated Nation State in world history. For more than 100 years, Great Britain has colluded with radical Islam, highlighting its long-standing preference for Islamist regimes over secular nationalist, communist, or democrat groups. Today is just another node in that long history.
The British government promised Arab Islamists led by Hussein a new Caliphate based in Mecca and Medina in 1914, in return for help against the Ottomans. Fortunes were spent aiding the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to combat the threat of secular nationalism there. Millions were spent educating and arming the ‘Taliban’ (which literally means ‘students’) in Madrassas in Pakistan, to ensure a steady supply of zealots who were sent into Afghanistan to fight the USSR.
The UK encouraged Islamist clerics to base themselves in London (including Bin Laden, whose office was in Wembley) in the 1980s, while Thatcher praised the execution of democrat leaders such as Bhutto in Pakistan. The UK sent Bin Laden’s jihadis into South Yemen, then a communist republic, and provided training centers and weapons to them there. This being the sole reason why Yemen is now a factory for jihadis, something still used to UK advantage.
The UK has waged a successful campaign against Arab secularism which has brought down Ghaddafi, Saddam, and they’ve had their eyes fixed on Assad, the last of them for quite some time. Meanwhile, the UK fauns over conservative Islamists in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. Why? Because religious governments are not constrained by a political constitution that is reasonable to the majority of the people, rulers of proto-governments may be happy to serve foreign interests rather than the well-being of their own people.
Is ISIS a case of blowback? It was not even 3 years ago that the UK was assisting the incubus that became ISIS with training and aid, another node in UK policy of supporting Islamist insurgencies against secular groups in the Middle East. Syria went from 10,000 dead to nearly 200,000 dead, three million displaced, Iraq collapsed, and ISIS emerged. Isis is rather more than blowback, it was clearly more opportunism and divide-and-conquer politics.
Like Secretary of State for India, Wood, wrote to Lord Elgin in 1862: “we have maintained our power in India by playing one part against the other and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore, to prevent all from having a common feeling.” Divide et impera, the stratagem of ancient times, was also applied by Britain and France to divide Middle Eastern tribes and sects after World War One. Today, the hordes of refugees and terrorists herded to mainland Europe are counter-measures by adversarial powers that understand how this game is played. They are designed to destroy faith in the European nation.
The concept of nation and national identity may be constructed by shared race, language, religious belief, values and historical experiences. Groups with different and strongly held belief systems concerning existential issues do not readily cohere. Western Europe has managed to deliver relatively coherent societies mostly due to indifference (tolerance). When groups enter the country holding belief systems that are at odds with the prevailing rationalist indifference, that coherence will start to break apart. We are already seeing this, particularly in Scandinavia, Germany and France. Religious governments, such as Saudi Arabia, send monies and radicalized clerics to extend their sphere of military and political power with the added advantage of undermining faith in potential enemy nation states.
Why has the UK’s strategy been so successful? The weakness in the Middle East and North Africa is precisely the fact that these states (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, (Trans) Jordan) are artificial. They do not reflect national identities because such identities have never existed. Before World War One the Middle East was part of the Turkish Empire for hundreds of years. Before the Turks they were part of the Arab empire. Before the Arabs these territories were held by the Byzantines and the Persians. Before that it was the Romans, who took them over from the Greeks who had conquered them from the Persians. And that already takes us back about 2,500 years. And if we go back to the Assyrians and Babylonians i.e. over 3,000 years, we should remember that those were also empires in their own right.
During these imperial millennia people moved around all these lands, settling and re-settling all over the Fertile Crescent. There are therefore no national peoples or national identities. After WW2 the dictators who controlled these artificial states sought to legitimize them by propagating an Arab and pan-Arab identity. This attempt failed badly and now we are witnessing an attempt to create a pan-Islamic identity. This is also doomed to failure, wrecked on the shoals of sectarianism, economic and ecological collapse.
Thus, the Middle East is falling back on the traditional sources of identity and protection — tribe, clan and religious sect. Though while that is well for them, the individual citizen of the West must ask what is the best way to navigate and survive in this new dangerous world?
As the CEOs that have written The Philosophy of Capitalism make clear, the West is presently in the midst of a civilizational crisis. Some nations shall not survive. If personal conditions permit, it is perhaps best that the reader migrate toward those islands of stability built upon coherent and uniform ideas attached to traditional Western culture.
So the question of where best to live becomes crucial. You may wish to reflect on these insights:
First, one should understand that a nation without borders is not a country.
Second, one should appreciate that a nation disrobed of power to issue its own money, to make drafts on its own central bank, is not independent. If a country relinquishes or loses this power, it acquires the status of local authority or economic colony e.g. Ireland or Greece.
Third, the territory and financial systems of a country are stabilized by an arsenal of thermonuclear weapons with long-range delivery systems.
Fourth, humans have not evolved beyond the tribe and policies pertaining to redistribution gain little sympathy in multi-racial environs.
And lastly, you may remain sadly confident that Islamic terrorism shall only intensify and so areas prone to such should be avoided. Those that advocate peace and inclusion by way of ‘education, jobs, skills and contact with non-muslims’ are confusing fantasy with what’s possible. Liberals assume everything can be learnt — but sadly — some things are just instinct. There is no antidote to extremism when authority figures are advocating sadistic violence. Sunni Islam now has a recognized leader – Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – and those muslims with a natural instinct to worship authority shall obey blindly.
See Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority figures, 1961, whereby participants were pressured by an authority figure to electrocute an unseen person if they answered a question incorrectly. 65% of participants were willing to progress to the maximum voltage of 450 voltages. In another variation, participants were instructed to apply whatever voltage they desired to incorrect answers. Voltage averaged at 83 volts, but 2.5 percent of participants used the full 450 volts available.
In general, more submission was elicited from participants when (1) the authority figure was in close proximity; (2) participants felt they could pass on responsibility to others; and (3) experiments took place under the auspices of a respected organization.
You should be amused by the ‘moral debate’ which now rages between forces of inclusion and exclusion which merely serve to rationalize and mirror underlying personality attributes rooted in biology i.e. xenophobia and xenophilia. Inclusive people will want their ideas to have the most power so reality can confirm the fantasy their brain produces.
While the brain is naturally optimistic; Reality is not. Per the above and below, you can anticipate a long lasting low intensity civil war with no hope of ultimate resolution. A successful way to survive and flourish in such is to war-game the future. It’s what spooks do and you should too. And please recall that the primary function of your nation’s intelligence apparatus is to manipulate foreign and domestic populations. Its primary purpose is to protect the existing power structure and preserve its authority. Ethics are for the children; Power is for the adults in society. You are being constantly manipulated.
The rate of death by terrorism will largely be determined by the number of combatants, for long lasting wars have a tendency to become wars of attrition. For your benefit we can try to extrapolate from a survey of Turkish immigrants recently commissioned by The University of Münster. Turks are generally seen as a fairly moderate and well-integrated group in Germany, so extremism among the 1 million recent migrants shall be much higher. But let’s go with the lowest bar for now. From the survey and doing the math for 1 million refugees:
Almost half of those surveyed agreed with the following statement: “It is more important to obey religious laws than state laws.”
“Some 36 percent said that only Islam is in a position to resolve the current problems facing society.”
“And 7 percent said violence is justified if the aim is the expansion of Islam.”
Per these objective measurements you should anticipate that at least 70,000 of the newcomers, invited by Chancellor Merkel, shall be easily moved by al-Baghdadi’s call to kill you.
Though if we speculate philosophically then the greatest danger may lie elsewhere: In any civilized society the elite are necessary to produce the conditions whereby conforming to societal expectations, via working and consuming, is rewarded with sex, food and shelter — This reinforces and justifies the continuity of dominance of the rational mind. Though with a large influx of violent refugees, irrational fear of foreigners driven by xenophobia becomes justified terror. The intelligence apparatus may find it impossible to marginalize the forces of xenophobia by painting them as racist (via their propaganda channels.)
Most people can’t even define what war is, that is, they’ll most likely talk about bombs and battlefields if the topic is discussed. That is because they don’t think, the believe whatever they see on TV.
War is rape and robbery. The violence and killing is a tool to pacify and disarm those that are going to be raped and robbed. And so, you see, if the German people begin to think and believe they’re already at war they’ll agitate and elect for a different kind of leader and social order.
This is where you need to war game the future – it is now critical for the dominant class of Germany to use the EU to dilute the violence – by getting other European nations to accept their fair share of rape and robbery. All in the name of ‘solidarity’ or ‘strength in diversity’, or some such nonsense.
The above is an extract from Vol 2 of The Philosophy of Capitalism, by all means share and reproduce.