patrick.net

But why? Surely no-one would WANT to start a war?

First you have to appreciate that there are and were people who want war. It’s not only that certain people make vast sums of money from it. If you still haven't watched both the interviews with Norman Dodd, chief investigator for the Reece Commission, on YouTube, Rumble or Bitchute etc., you should do that!

If you have seen the interviews with Norman Dodd, you don't need telling: there are those who recognise that war (and conflict in general) is the fastest method if you want to change society. Such people recorded the result of their research into how to change society in the minutes of their meetings!

After covid, many more people are familiar with the notion that a crisis is also an opportunity.

These people have recognised something which we all learn by the age of 2, when doing things like stacking bricks:

it is much easier to destroy things than to create them.

So when they want to change society, they first destroy the existing one, and the easiest way to create mass societal destruction is warfare.

The events of 1914-1919 destroyed the Russian empire, the German empire and the Ottoman empire.

After the intermission, part II was created exploiting tension between Germany and Russia. Germany had first to be built up to be capable of taking on Russia, hence the "miraculous" financial and morale recovery usually (reluctantly) credited to Hitler, rather than mention the Wall Street investment.

In WW2 the destruction took place of Germany (again) and the British empire (the largest the World had seen), the Japanese empire and the French empire. The power base was moved from Britain (where it had been since Cromwell) to the US. Britain finished paying off its war debt to the USA in 2006!

Large-scale wars were needed to bring down the old empires. Smaller conflicts were appropriate for the next changes to society. ...

In the wake of covid more people are sensitive to the presence of lies. James Perloff does an excellent run through the lies told to the US in order to get them into every war that they have been in since the nineteenth century, that you have probably seen by now. There are a couple of different versions of talks by him on YouTube, Rumble, Bitchute etc.

Before the twentieth century (or certainly the nineteenth century) it was easier to just tell your army where they were to go. With the increasing importance of (the illusion of) democracy in the twentieth century, it was more important to persuade the masses that it was worth spending a lot of their money on war, by way of the conviction that your target was in fact a dastardly enemy, and it was one's moral duty to sacrifice oneself for one's country. Hence lies became essential. ...

Once united, Germany started to outcompete the British Empire. They were building a railroad from Berlin to Baghdad in the Middle East. There was a danger they would be getting “our oil under your country”! They were doing outrageous things like making things of a higher quality goods for lower prices; and providing instructions … in the language of the purchaser! ...

Reading the Wikipedia article on the "Anschluss" - the combining of Austria with Germany - contrasts somewhat with the “man-in-the-street” narrative, which is that “Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia1 and Austria; but finally, invading Poland is going too far, clearly he intends to invade everywhere”. A more accurate version, seems to be that Austria was somewhat keen to amalgamate with Germany, given the economic boom going on in Germany, in start contrast to the grimmer situations in Austria and Czechoslovakia. ...

For sure, Hitler's Germany had ambitions to create more lebensraum to the East (of which I disapprove)! It was hypocritical of Britain to criticise this on moral grounds, who had colonised more than any other power at that time. Germany was feeling very vulnerable after suffering starvation and shortage of resources in and after WW1, and was eyeing the fertile land and oilfields around Ukraine. (People normally think of WW1 finishing in 1918: not for Germany it didn't. "We" kept up the starvation blockade through 1919).

"Hitler wanted to conquer the World" seems to be a version of history with some traction; but it seems more likely to me that there's quite a large element of WW2 propaganda there, from MI5, and the version with more modest German ambitions is closer to the truth. ...

For most of my life I have imagined that the treaty that Britain had with Poland was some long-standing moral obligation, but recently learned in fact it was in just a few months prior to declaring war on Germany that Britain set up a flurry of such agreements with countries around Germany, so as to have the means to start the war.

How to provoke a war? You attack an exclave.

You can imagine that after WW1’s propaganda and fighting, Germany was not popular with Poland. It wasn't hard to provoke terrorism against East Prussia - surrounded by Poland, and the enemy in the recent war. I've read that 58,000 Germans had been killed in E. Prussia by the time that Germany responded, after many attempts at negotiation, with the invasion of Poland. ...

To be sure the situation outlined above may be disputed somewhat, or aspects de-emphasised by some "establishment" proponents. It doesn't accord well with the whole "Hitler - lone gunman; inexplicably evil; hypnotised a whole nation" version of history, which avoids any suspicion of some blame elsewhere, doesn’t mention the Wall Street funding, or any hint that Germans might have been behaving explicably.

2 US entry to WW2
What was Honolulu, where Pearl Harbour was situated, if not a kind of exclave which was attacked (after various kinds of provocation against Japan)? Was the "outrageous", "unforeseeable" (and completely manipulated) attack on Pearl Harbour effective in getting the US population to about-face and want war?

3 Ukraine
Now compare the E Prussia exclave situation to Ukraine. The Eastern part of Ukraine is culturally largely Russian. The entire region had all recently been part of the Soviet Union. It is not a literal exclave, part of Russia, but close. People in Russia can drive to visit close relatives in Eastern Ukraine; people who have been visiting their relatives all their lives in a place which had been the same country.

In 2014 Victoria Nuland and other Neocons engineer a government takeover in Ukraine, and almost immediately the new government attacks Eastern Ukraine. It is shelled by central Ukraine from 2014, escalating over the years until eventually Russia steps in. I'm shocked ... shocked! Russia invaded Ukraine! ( I'm shocked ... shocked! Germany invaded Poland)! ...

The Israeli citizens may be convinced by the message that they have been force-fed from birth, that everyone irrationally hates them, and representatives of Gaza are attacking them continuously, sufficiently for the Israeli government to be able to get away with bombing Gaza; but obviously that will not be how most of the rest of the World sees it.

The "Hamas is just Mossad in Gasa" narrative seems at least as likely as the version wherein Hamas thought they would do their constituents a favour by attacking Israel, when the consistent record of such actions is that Israel kills about 20 times as many in retaliation. ...

As well as outright war, change can be achieved through lower-grade conflict. That is why so much conflict has been evident for the last 120 years.

1 Divide and rule with Immigration
It's only about a century since passports were introduced. Before that people were free to travel if a country would let them in. Immigrants were not normally a problem: they were often the most resourceful and energetic representatives, and therefore welcome. Passports are intended to be viewed as permissive - they allow you to access other countries; but the reverse is the truth. Passports are permission from your state. You should not need permission from your state if you live in a free country. More people are waking up to the fact that they do not live in a free country, that the state feels that it owns them, and can grant or with-hold permission to travel, to work, to a bank account, to leave your house, to look after your health as you would like ...

I would maintain that - despite the increase in mobility -

immigration if it happens naturally is not a threat:

It is the rate of immigration that causes problems.

If you want to provoke a war, you increase artificially the rate of immigration by making life increasingly unpleasant in nearby countries. I'm sure you can think of your own examples: the US exploits and subverts Mexico and meso-America.; China has Cambodia, Vietnam etc., Europe has Africa.

The Vietnam war was started using immigration.

When I was a child I was puzzled by the narrative in which South Vietnam was being invaded by North Vietnam, when what was reported on the TV was fighting taking place in the South of South Vietnam, not at the Northern border.

Read Blum’s - "Killing Hope; U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" (2004). Listen to Fletcher Prouty tell how (after moving the redundant arms from WW2 to Vietnam in 1945 (!), ready for the next enterprise) the US terrorised 1.1 million Northern Vietnamese, and then shipped them to the South of South Vietnam and dumped them, with no jobs or means of growing food. (And it's worth pondering how bad that terrorism had to be to provoke people whose families had lived in the same village for uncountable generations, to want to move).

That sudden influx of people who have of necessity to turn to crime to survive, creates a conflict between the two peoples, the indigenous and the immigrants.

Remember - it is not immigration per se that is the problem: it is the excessive rate. If we want that to cease, we have only to stop subverting and exploiting other people's countries. ...

For sowing division, politics may come to mind first - with the Left/Right lie. I’ve explained in some detail why the whole left-right concept is flawed in “Why You Should Stop Using the Concepts Left- and Right-wing”.

3 Divide and rule with borders
A physical division helps create conflict. Look at how countries have been divided into two groups - usually with the excuse of reducing conflict - and the conflict between them exacerbated.

Ireland was divided into Northern Ireland and Eire. That's most familiar to me, a citizen of the UK. A lot of dirty tricks like false flag attacks were employed. That is a mainstream view. ...

These were largely done with the ostensible justification of reducing conflict.

To find an equally absurd notion you have to go to the introduction of the Federal Reserve - for the purpose of controlling inflation!!




We are constantly told lies. When you recognise that, and stop paying attention to what you are told but instead to what you see, it is easier to understand what is going on in the World.

4 Divide and Rule with Terrorism
Consider the "years of lead" in Italy. If you are unfamiliar with this period of endemic terrorism, a congenial way to apprise yourself is to read The Don Camillo Omnibus, which deals - in an amusing and human way - with the societal divide in Italy (created by the CIA) between the Communists and Catholics, employing “The Strategy of Tension”. The purpose of terrorism is to keep the population in a state of low(ish)-grade fear. This stops people thinking rationally, as we witnessed most recently with the covid débâcle.

Normally when people in power want to keep something secret, there is little to stop them doing so, but occasionally they get found out, like when a messenger is struck by lightning, or there is a revealing car-crash. The Tension in the "Years of Lead" was brought about by Operation Gladio. Inform yourself about it, and learn how

that terrorism was (almost certainly) the work of the establishment,

not free-lancers with a chip on their shoulder. ...

It's an interesting world we find ourselves in, if commonly an unpleasant one due to the continuous massive destruction effected by those who want to change the World to their liking. It may be unpleasant to focus on the destructive aspects of reality, but if you do so occasionally, you are much less likely to fall for stunts like "covid" and get those dubious injections.