An Op within an Op within an Op

Per request, I am expanding my thoughts on the previous post.   I am not a “9-11 truther.”  Of course, it goes without saying that their case is exponentially stronger than the non-arguments given by the court prophets government media.  I think to say that 9-11 was an “inside job” is a bit much.  Was the government aware of it?  Probably.   Did it further the State’s agenda in the middle east?  Certainly*

But there is one major flaw in this argument:  The Federal Government is the most incompetent bureaucratic apparatus in the world.    9-11 was an intricate plan.  Could the government have pulled that off?  I doubt it.  Israel’s Mossad certainly could have, and the Talmud’s nihilistic teaching makes plain its clear hatred of humanity, but I don’t think Israel did it, either.

So what do I mean by an “op within an op within an op?”  I am fleshing out something Farrell said.  I am only offering conclusions, nor do I think this is necessarily correct.  It explains a lot of data and explains it better than other alternatives.

Point 1:  It is true that a bunch of Muslims flew airplanes into the buildings.

Point 2:  I think the US was aware of their intentions and implicitly furthered it so the US could have an excuse to invade the Middle East.  However, and here is where I differ with the “truthers,” I don’t think the US expected the towers to fall, and with good reason.   One of the strengths that of the “truther” case is that the govt story defies physics laws.   But the towers did fall.

Point 3:  There was another group at play, and this group had access to weapons representing an advanced physics technology that brought the towers down.   While speculation, it addresses a problem with the truther argument:  do you realize how much C-4 you would have to pack into the buildings to pull this off?  Wouldn’t someone have noticed?

Farrell suggests that this group represents one of the ancient groups that have been at war since long ago.   We’ll call them The Nazi International for short.  (again, I am just advancing speculative conclusions at the moment).  This group would have been opposed to the equally evil Anglo-American banking cabal.  Therefore, this attack on the twin towers was not only an attack on the Anglo-American economy, it was an attack on the religion and symbolism behind it:  occultic freemasony.  (Again, we must stress that the true evil is that many innocents died as a result).

Conclusion

Far-fetched?  Yes, but consider: it has the strengths of all the theories that reject the discredited government account.  It avoids the pit-falls of the “truther” movement.   It takes into account the occultic symbolism at play.  It also takes into account the compounding advancement of technology and physics in the last fifty years.

The only problem, or at least unanswered question I see, is that the Nazi movement, too, drew off the same occultic roots as the Anglo movement, with some exceptions (the Anglos went more to freemasonry and the Nazis to the Thule and Illuminati ala Joseph Weishaupt).  Therefore, it seems that attacking the occultic symbolism behind the towers might have been counter-productive in the long run.

*9-11 was a wet dream for neocons and neolibs around the world.   The existence of the Soviet Union gave the US a justifiable excuse to have a large military in other parts of the world.  With the fall of the USSR, the US no longer had an excuse.  You can imagine what 9-11 and the “war on terror” did.

Bin Laden versus Jachin and Boaz

I am not going to belabor the point that “bin Laden” was a bad guy.   No doubt he will soon surpass Hitler as the “worse than __________” argument goes.    Among theological blogs the argument is whether it is right to rejoice in his death.  And as usual, the Protestants go “bible verse shopping” to marshal their arguments.

As to rejoicing over his death, I don’t really care either way.   As to the legality of the American mission in Pakistan, it’s a moot point.  Very few things our government has done have ever been legal.

Before I advance the following consideration, I need to make clear that what happened on 9-11 was a deep tragedy.   That is the context for the following remarks.  And while I do not believe the “official guvmint story” on 9-11–I mean, everything the government tells us is a lie and we already know that–I am not so sure that the US government pulled it off.  Were they aware of it?  Probably.

Joseph Farrell has suggested that 9-11 was an “op within an op within an op.”   More on what that could mean later.   Contrary to the rednecks and neocons, I doubt bin Laden attacked us “because he hate our freedoms.”  If you think about it, that is probably the stupidest line I have ever heard.  I think he, or more likely the Nazi international elite, attacked us–or more precisely attacked the symbolism–of American power.    Consider the “Twin Towers.”   Given that the American system is deeply Masonic and deist at core, and that its current economic foundation rests on the manipulation of raw matter, whoever attacked us knew the symbolism.

In short, this “op within an op within an op” was an attack on the religious foundations of the Anglo-American occultic elite.  The true evil is that innocents died in it.

Something happened which the Ring did not expect (Vladimir Putin)

One has to be careful with “conspiritorial” views of history.  It’s not that they are wrong-headed, but that given the nature of the case there is so much information that “just can’t be known.”   Theologians who stand in traditionalist schools of thought (some Catholics, some Orthodox, maybe one or two Evangelicals) usually have a better angle on conspiracy history than the average “pop news” watcher.   These theologians have some training in writing, have read and interacted with numerous footnoted and scholarly peer-reviewed books, and given the nature of their reading, and reading in general, they don’t have time to watch TV (which means they miss out or ignore what Fox News says).

Yes, the above title is a reference to the Lord of the Rings, particularly the movie version of the Fellowship…The Ring didn’t expect to be found by a Hobbit, or something.    The title represents another problem with conspiracy views–the unexpected often happens, and when this does, it shatters paradigms.

While it’s a controversial thesis, it seriously cannot be gainsaid that the Anglo-American bankers, particularly the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, have orchestrated European politics for over 100 years.  The Rothschilds–with their Jewish agents in Thessaloniki– were behind the Armenian genocide of 1915.  Some scholarship has been done on the connection between London/New York bankers and the rise of the Bolshevieks.   Unfortunately, when the Bolsheviks became too powerful, the Regime needed a counter-weight, and they found one in the person of Adolf Hitler.

Unfortunately…well, the rest is history.    The West became entangled in one huge dialectic–it was social engineering at its finest.   When the Nazis were able to place key individuals in the “freedom-loving West,” essentially turning America into a military-industrial complex, the only entity powerful enough to stop them was Soviet Russia.  Not really a happy array of choices.  This is social dialectic at its starkest.

The bankers themselves weren’t too bothered.   They were able to heavily invest in Soviet infrastructure.

I suppose even the most ardent socialist saw the coming demise of the USSR.  However, given that Marxism and capitalism share the same root presuppositions, and that these economic forces control the Western countries (if you doubt that, google which entity contributed both to McCain and Obama’s campaign.  When you are done, get back to me…), the fall of socialism presented no real problem to these elites.   In fact, given there was no strong leadership in Russia, it was now possible to siphon trillions of dollars of Russian capital back to the West via Harvard university, the Carnegie Institutes, and others.   Given that Yeltsin was a dying alcoholic, and that the Russo-Jewish mafia controlled Russia, the game went on as before.

But something happened which the ring did not expect.   One of Yeltsin’s last moves to was appoint Vladimir Putin as his successor.   Putin was not Yeltsin.  Putin had his training in the security services.   Long story short, Putin marginalized the Jewish Mafia in Russia, rebuilt the military, and was able to capitalize on Russia’s nigh-infinite oil reserves.  In short, he brought Russia from a Third World Country to a First World Country in fewer than ten years.

Unfortunately for the Regime, Putin is a nationalist.  While his Orthodoxy is not always perfect, and he has compromised on some issues, Russia has began a slow revival under Putin (and the Moscow Patriarchate).  Putin’s moves have blocked the Regime in countless ways.  The most obvious is when Putin prevented an Israeli-trained Georgian army from ethnically cleansing Russian citizens in South Ossetia.

Few realize just how major this was.   For the first time in ten years, NATO-inspired military interests were stopped cold.   America was clearly not in a position to react.   Secondly, after the debacle in Kosovo in 1999 the Russian army demonstrated it could respond to highly sophisticated threats.    For Americans, this meant that the Regime would wait a little longer before sending American boys to die in Iran (some suggest that Putin’s moves in Ossetia delayed a Zionist war against Iran).

I know there are some in the extreme “white nationalist” camp who think that Putin is a Zionist stooge and Putin supporters like Daniel Estulin are simply Zionists front-men.   Besides questioning their IQ, I don’t know really what to say.  If Putin were really a Zionist front-man, why has he been consistently thwarting Zionist designs?  Further, for those who still think Putin is a front-man for the New World Order, why did the Bilderbergers try to kill him?

Rise of the Fourth Reich

One should retitle this book “A popular version of some of Joseph Farrell’s conclusions without the rigor and discipline of Joseph Farrell’s scholarship.”   Jim Marrs’ thesis is sound and not new:  an elite group has controlled Western politics and economics for the past 100 years.   This group is connected to or synonymous with the Anglo-American banking establishment.   Their modus operandi consists in playing different political and national factions against one another.
(note:  These are not all my thoughts on this book.  There are a lot of other musings about Marrs I have, but I won’t say them here because I am tired and the book isn’t that good and you should read Joseph Farrell instead.)
Strengths of the Book

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fourth-Reich-ebook/dp/B0018QUCWQ/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2
Marrs has a very good section on the rise of Hitler and what happened behind the scenes in WWII.  Marrs relies heavily on Joseph Farrell’s research, and this part of the book is strong because of that (the second half is notoriously weak).  Marrs makes the interesting suggestion that the Nazis actually detonated an atomic bomb in Russia (and he gives the reasons why the Allies and Stalin would have covered this up.  I agree with him ).  Marrs highlights the various banking clans that funded and aided the Nazis both before the war and after the war.  Marrs has an intriguing chapter on Otto Scorzeny and the lost Cathar treasure.
Criticisms of the Book

Did Marrs’ thesis shift?   (I am open to correction on this one.)  Marrs’ main thesis is that the Nazi elite weren’t eradicated in WWII and/or Nuremberg, but rather made it to South America via the Vatican “ratline” (and Marrs is to be commended for pointing that out).  Further, he points out that these same elites eventually influenced American society and policy, and I suppose there is some truth in that.   On the other hand, it seemed that his earlier thesis is that an international cabal in London/New York financed first Lenin, and then when the Russians got too dangerous, financed Hitler to fight the Commies off.   Fair enough; I buy that.   What I don’t get is the connection between the international elite who created Hitler and the international elite’s relationship to present-day America.   Hitler’s crew is bad, to be sure, but it seems the more nefarious power is the group that made Hitler possible.  Marrs seems to forget about that.
The scholarship and research methods are about as bad as one can get.  Note:  I am not contesting the majority of Marrs’ facts.   I think for the most part he is correct on what he reports.  The problem is he does not cite his sources!  At all.   Yes, he does have a “sources” page at the back, including page numbers of books, but I don’t know to which arguments in what chapter he is referring.   True, I could double-check and make some intuitions, but the burden should not be on the reader for that.  That’s just simple clicking “insert endnote” in MS Word.    This is a half-assed junior high bibliography.  Even the joke of a research method known as APA is more respectable than this.
His New Age Conspiracies Get the Best of him.

While I am intrigued by the possibility that the Cathar’ treasure was taken from the Temple of Solomon, and that this treasure represented in some way an advanced form of “paleo-physics” (again, I am fairly open-minded here), Marrs did not elaborate on what was probably the most interesting point of his book.   Had he used real scholarship and evaluated the sources in a detailed, logical fashion, he could have shed much light on a fairly unresearched topic.  Instead, he mentioned it in passing and the book he “referenced” in the back was one of the New Age Gnostic pamphlets on Jesus being one of the dragon children ala David Icke!     I officially stopped taking Marrs seriously at this point.
He offers no real plan of action.  Towards the end of the book Marrs (rightly) points out that all political candidates are funded by the same people and eventually advance some form of the same cause.    There is really no way to stop them.  He makes vague appeals to the Constitution and has an interesting idea to “vote with your shopping cart” (buy local), but no detailed plan of action on how to stop the Fourth Reich.   To be fair, I won’t fault him too much on this point because given the structure of today’s republican government, there is no way to stop the moneyed elite.  America is down for the count (though resurrections are certainly possible).
The Second half of the book doesn’t say anything new.  I enjoyed the first part of the book.   The second part, unfortunately, felt like a collation of all the various rightwing and leftwing blogs attacking the government.   I agreed with most of the points, but it did not tell me anything new.
Marrs’ Logical Fallacies.  Marrs seemed to make the argument:  The Nazis did x.  George W. Bush’s administration does x.  Ergo, Bush is a Nazi.  He may well be a Nazi, and his grandfather certainly funded the Nazi party, but the above argument is an example of the fallacy “correlation equals causation.”
Misses other possible conclusions.  On one hand, it is not fair to criticize an author for not saying one’s own personal conclusion or hobby-horse, so this really is not a fault of Marrs’.  It is fairly obvious that Jews own most of the media, the lobbies, and the banks.   (Btw, that is not anti-semitic.  That is simply looking at the last names of the CEOs!).     Since that is the case, how does that square with Marrs’ claim (which I also believe to be correct) that the Nazis also control much of the media and banks?   Both claims are fairly true, but most people don’t accuse Nazis and Jews of being on the same side!
Conclusion

Don’t get the book.   Marrs has several radio interviews where he explains this in better detail (and the radio interviews are worth downloading.  Marrs is a gifted and enjoyable speaker.  He has a unique way of connecting to his audience).  If one wants to pursue further research in this area, read Joseph Farrell’s The Nazi International, Daniel Estulin’s The Story of the Bilderbergers, and Farrell’s Babylon’s Banksters.   Farrell is a gifted writer and employs easily-followable footnotes and is an actual scholar.  Estulin has a more focused look on the Bilderbergers and doesn’t get distracted from his thesis.