The Best Enemies Money Can Buy - Wall Street Manipulation of Humanity Through Fake Wars & Fake Ideologues

It gets a harder and harder to ignore the hypothesis that mankind is a social experiment for the global oligarchy when we understand how contrived the wars and ideologies are. This is a classic interview by Professor Antony Sutton, who taught economics at California State University, and was a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

In this talk, Prof. Sutton delves into his impeccable research on how a close-knit group of Western financiers and industrialists (centred around Morgan and Rockefeller in the US, and around Milner and the City financiers, in the UK) created and sustained their three supposed enemies right from the very beginning: Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and FDR's Fabian socialism.

Particularly, he goes into how Wall Street/City of London financiers used their banking institutions and their industrial enterprises to:

1. Help finance and sustain the Bolshevik Revolution. Build up Soviet industry during Lenin's Five-Year Plans, both through finance, technology/industrial transfers and technical assistance. Continue to build the Soviets throughout the entire Cold War, through the same kinds of deals. This included the Korea and the Vietnam eras, during which American troops were being killed by... Western-made Soviet equipment.

2. Build up Nazi Germany, both financially and industrially;

3. Get FDR into power in America as their man, and even draw up the New Deal policies, especially FDR's National Recovery Act -- designed by Gerard Swopes of General Electric and deeply welcomed by Wall Streeters Morgan, Warburg and Rockefeller.

Sutton was not a wild speculator. He was a distinguished academic researcher who documented his conclusions impeccably in his several works. Not being able to counter his research, the establishment (including academia) first tried to shut him up and now simply attempts to ignore it, and pretend it isn't there.

The purpose for these Wall Street policies was very simple: to create, and globalize, what Sutton calls Corporate Socialism. A system under which everything in society is ruled by the state, and the state is, in its stead, controlled by financiers who, hence, get to rule and manage society, to their liking. In other words, to get society to work for the financiers, using a socialist state as an intermediary.

This is what we now know as the globalization economic model. As a result of all the clashes of the 20th century, most notably WWII and the Cold War (fought between powers that were manipulated and controlled by these banker cliques), the world has been 'globalized'. Meaning that it has been entirely taken over by these financiers, and is ever closer to being completely ruled by them, through not only the national states and national central banking systems, but mainly through supranational agencies and institutions.

Go into Professor Sutton's books, most notably the Hoover Institute's series on Western technological/industrial transfers to the Soviets and the 'Wall Street' trilogy. If you have a difficulty in purchasing the original books, you'll find most of them are easily available online, on pdf form.

John Kerry's Secret Society At Yale - The Order by Professor Antony Sutton

It wasn't until the daughter of a Yale, Skull & Bones member Charlotte Iserbyt gave Professor Antony Sutton the membership book of The Order (as it's known to insiders) when her father died that Prof. Sutton understood the magnitude and influence of this secret society. 

The usual suspects are to be found mentioned in this excellent interview but it's the level of academic respectability that he and Charlotte below give to the research that made me wake up and realise this group is real, it is pernicious and is, in the final analysis a crime syndicate with fingers in every significant transgression against humanity.

If the notion of a secret society controlling the world is too far fetched for you, then these interviews are the most cogent and documented arguments I know. There are other groups but its rare we can peer into the inner workings of a secret society so thoroughly. If you think Hillary Clinton was a nightmare you're going to love John Kerry who belonged to Skull and Bones with George W. Bush

An Intellectual Review of Trump | Victor Davis Hanson

I've no affiliation to the left or the right. 

Both are crusty and bankrupt ideas in a world that requires a bit of both and much more flexible and adaptive policy.

I am however enjoying Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

This is the idea that DJT is a cretin and the average critic on the left has greater intellectual prowess than a billionaire who was voted POTUS on his first attempt. I find the left incapable of knowing how well he trolls them day in and day out. Each day is the gift that keeps on giving.

That said I'm not so keen on most of the Trump worshippers. They're often equally shallow and unable to process ideas that have a temporal application of left/right ideology as well many fresher ideas in between and beyond.

Earlier today I stumbled across Victor Davis Hanson and I've probably done about 6 or 7 hours of his talks now. 

He's calm, intelligent, lucid, compelling and subtle in drawing out the reasons why Trump is far superior than his enemies can ever admit.

Regrettably Victor is, apart from his superior analysis of Trump, totally steeped in a doctrinaire version of history which strips away some of the more interesting dimensions of Trumps rise to power despite the toxic corporate media, the deep state and Hollywood scum.

If only Victor would study his fellow Hoover Institute alumnus Anthony Sutton, he'd soon learn that Skull & Bones are a far more important dimension to history than say WWII being a border skirmish that lurched out of control. He'd also learn that the Cold War was completely synthetic because it was Sutton's research on technology transfer to the Soviet Union that he was forced to shut up about and eventually may have paid for it with his life.

Any academic who is confronted by reality backs down as they lose tenure pretty damn quick. It's best to recline with an aura of respectability than get involved with the study of what's really going on when it comes to the strings of power. Only the superficial think the front men are the real face.

James Perloff. The Shadows of Power; the CFR and decline of America

James Perloff drops a lot of knowledge in this presentation that I was not aware of and I like to consider myself well informed on this subject. The only bullet point he doesn't make is the Soviets and the US elite were in bed together as Professor Antony Sutton outlined in his books, before his premature demise.

The CFR is a documented conspiracy but alas consumers are too wrapped up in the trivial to spend time with the evidence.

Carroll Quigley was Bill Clinton's professor. He wrote Tragedy & Hope which is the quintessential academic book documenting the sophisticated and global conspiracy to enslave humans, usually under the auspices of peace, surface-socialism and trade.

Watch this presentation.

The White Album

Here's one I wrote earlier while running around Chennai, New Delhi and Mumbai last year during the World Cup. It's about football and yet it has nothing to do with football. I originally wanted to leave it as a post hoping to win the world record for a comment. But it will do just fine for the first post on Punk Planning, as it has nothing to do with planning, and yet that's all it's about.

---------------------------------------------

England’s strongest side since 1966 they said. The newspapers did, mates who actually watch football and know a thing or two constantly reminded me in the run up to the tournament. It was all over the interweb, the TV pundits sang victory in unison, and even the Go-Go dancers at Long Gun on Soi Cowboy knew that England had a chance of raising the cup and for a fleeting second, wink at the world and say, ‘see, told you we’re the best’.

Well anyway, we’ve still got our sense of humour. I mean its official, now that we lost on penalties again. We can just come out of the closet and say it with pride. So here goes: “We haven’t come close to raising the world cup for 40 years have we?” But anyway, it doesn’t matter because we’ve got the most expensive players in the world, easily the most loved teams on the planet and Becks is soooo good looking.

Once every four years whether I like it or not, I take football quite seriously. The world cup neatly synchs with me on this one, and I really love the opportunity to call up my mates, who think I’m a bit gay anyway, and say ‘did you watch the footy last night?’ I really enjoy the banter but now it’ll probably be 2010 before you catch me being a real lad again. I’ll be over 40 too.

Anyway it’s a real opportunity to bond because most of the time I’m either waffling on about geo-politics or psycho-babble nonsense such as how football enables lots of men to get together and talk to each other with passion, without anyone getting suspicious or a bit nervous as to intent. Apparently we used to get well revved up on politics and religion in the olden days, but just you try getting a conversation going about those things and people will think you’re plain weird. Honest they really do.

Where was I? Oh yes; our strongest team since LBJ arranged for Kennedy to be shot in Texas. Well I kept quiet in the build up to the tournament about England’s form, because I hadn’t watched a game for four years and frankly, for just a little while, after that first goal in the first seconds, of our first match of the world cup, by David Beckham (he’s so handsome) I thought we might be up for it. The goal was awesome and felt a bit like an early omen, a taste of things to come. Maybe we had what it takes to go all the way. This could be our time, and even if football wasn’t coming home, at least the cup was and that’s what counts.

I wasn’t impressed though when I watched the strongest side since the Second World War struggle to convincingly demolish a team that allegedly are a dab hand at playing the pan pipes when chilling out after a hot and sweaty game of footy in Ecuador (is that near the equator? Nobody seemed quite sure). I said it then and it didn’t go down well in the semi-quasi hostess bar we piled into to watch the match but my early observation was, I thought the England team looked a bit crap!

Anyway, give ‘em a chance I thought. Let the team coalesce naturally instead of the forced structuring of the national squad mash-up. And anyway Grubby’s new Elvis quiff-with-highlights was looking good, Ads was yelling at Sven on the telly we crowded around, for doing the wrong four-four-whatever formation while Rez lapped up having a really good reason to sink a few cleansing ales because he’s usually a Starbucks kind of guy. Oh, and I almost red-carded myself for losing it with Saggy who snagged my seat at half time unaware we’d tipped up two hours early to get the good ones. Cheeky Indians.

Which reminds me! I started to think about this piece in the Austin Healy style taxi I’d jumped into this morning from one of those painfully hip hotels on the way to Delhi airport where I was going to catch a sexy air India flight to Bombay or Mumbai as it’s officially known. The hotel was one of those Soviet architectural affairs that the Indians had a major fling with a few decades ago. Actually I loved the interior; all Indian baubles and modernist design but way overstaffed by folks in faux Issey Miyake uniforms and way under serviced in a how-long-does-it-take-to-get-the-attention-of 8 employees standing around doing nothing. But that’s got nothing to do with footy, and yet everything, when I get onto it, which is why I’m writing this.

It’s the evening and I’d better crack on or I’ll never get round to the point, but as I was writing this by pen on the plane, I felt embarrassed by my handwriting, as it is so awful these days because I rarely write. It feels all disjointed and clumsy and takes loads of effort. I predict that handwriting will go out of fashion one day. Voice to text seems the obvious way and I feel kind of sentimental for those who have really beautiful handwriting and write charming notes on lovingly selected stationary, but I bet no one is going to miss my awful handwriting. Particularly me while I’m trying to type them up.

Where was I? Ah yes the most formidable England squad since Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, partition of India and Pakistan and The Coronation. Enough of that, our first match was just awful, a real turkey of a game but the second was sheer torture because practically none of the questionable gang of assembled chums could say absolutely certainly where Costa Rica was. I’d had a few tasty Chang beers but that was no excuse for not really knowing so I was plumping for The Americas somewhere between Nicaragua and Puerto Rico. I had to play it cagey because planners have a rep to keep up and I thought it was a better pick than the Africa option that was being floated at one point. It’s tricky when taking into account skin colour, the slave trade and surely the best thing about globalisation; all sorts of ethnic groups, in the England squad. Not many Indians but more on that later.

Well, looking at our football group, I had to say that England were well-lucky. We were by far the easiest group to be in, apart from the game with Sweden that was lined up. I was semi relaxed about that one as Sven Goran Eriksson is our manager and as luck would have it (or design) we drew that match and nobody's feelings got hurt. That plus Erik didn’t take his work home or vice versa.

Anyway, after that dismal first match, I’d become a really good football pundit with loads of experience. I started to defend Peter Crouch. From what I had seen he worked harder, covered the whole pitch, was good in a tight corner, created opportunities and put the other lot on the back foot most of the time. Just because he looks a bit spastic doesn’t mean he isn’t a great football player. The boys as I’d started calling them since the start of Germany 2006 completely ignored me and kept going on about some robot dance that all real fans knew about. All I could think was we used to do that that dance when Kraftwerk unleashed Das Model on the world, and that was a very long time after The Beatles and the Swinging Sixties or say 1966.

Incidentally I once worked in 1995 as a kitchen helper at a very expensive Hollywood restaurant on Melrose with a bunch of illegal alien Mexicans who spoke no English except for two words when they found out that I was; “The Beatles" and "Hooligans”. Amazingly hard workers, they earned less dollars than me because I was a white boy, even though I’d never had any more experience than peeling onions at a Pizza Hut in Sutton in the very late 80’s and landed the job for preparing the Hollywood Bowl take-away set-dinners at 80 Bucks a pop. I learned as much Mexican as I could to show them they could pick up English too if they tried, but these days I only remember them saying ‘Mucho trabajo poco de nero’ which means lots of work and little money or something close.

To keep on top of things, all top chefs in Hollywood speak fluent Mexican if they want to run a tight ship. Which reminds me, weren’t Mexico looking a bit dangerous at one point in the World Cup? Anyway, back to England. “The finest side to be fielded since Sexy Sadie (what have you done?), made a fool of everyone on the White Album. That was a long time before robot dancing for the record.

So it’s not really a nice thing to say, and even though Beckham is really dishy and I don’t want to hurt his feelings, I thought England were really shit in the second game where the average monthly wage of our opponents was I think about 150 Bucks. This was the price of a couple of Hollywood takeaway lunch sets in the mid 90’s when I was doing my degree. Well maybe everyone has forgotten but Sven was definitely losing the plot, pulling at his hair from the sidelines, frantic even, and then the first sign of how England moves in mysterious ways kind of came to me.

Wayne, who loads of people say is the best player for England since George Best, was taken off the substitute bench in a sure sign of desperation, because he had a broken meta thingy, that had now suddenly miraculously healed! He came on after a few minutes of prowling on the sidelines and looking quite menacing. All of a sudden a few minutes into his game, Crouchy headed an awkward number in and even though it wasn’t a classically beautiful goal, I’m sure every English fan around the world collectively kissed him for putting us out of the misery of being pinned down to a draw in the second half, by a poor country with a population of possibly 83 people.

Quickly after this goal, I picked up the name Gerrard, who had suddenly poked a stunner in the back of the net from what looked like not to far away from the half way line. Apparently they all do these types of goals, week in and week out in the league but to me it looked like every reason to love the world cup every four years. A night or so later I was thinking about this in bed and reflecting much more than I ever usually do or even ever did about football and England in 1966, about things that we’re good at, stuff we’re not good at and about Wayne. The really nice Asian chap on BBC World News who was World Cup fever mad, and was my most trusted and convincing media pundit said something about Wayne showing all the early signs of a "legend". It was a probably said in a moment of rational(sic) exuberance but as my most trusted footy expert I had to square the circle, and figure out what he meant.

Incidentally this flight has been circling Mumbai airport for ages now and the pilot who definitely sounded like he was having a pulmonary over the PA said the weather had been too dangerous to land earlier. It’s the first time I’ve ever heard that, and we’re three hours late on a two hour delayed flight so I took a look out the window as we descended, which is usually worth doing in any new destination, and something equally terrifying caught my eye. I’ve seen the most hardcore slums, but as we dropped into the view of Bombay, something out of the Silmarillion emerged in my line of sight. Really scary and growing like black fractal trippy growths on hill after hill, and even poking out in ways that huts can only do after years and years of organic but filthy accumulation and temporary fixes of wood, metal and plastic, there’s not much concrete in real slums funny enough. Anyway, really black, really scary they were; easily beating Ethiopia’s and Burma’s worst housing. I have to get out there some day. I need to take a closer look. Yes, really scary; I quite like it when something feels so new it’s frightening. It’s like a legal high I guess.

Sorry, I’m really off on one, so back on topic. To me, Wayne, our best striker since the transistor was invented, hardly touched the ball when he came on, and when he did, it wasn’t that special. Okay so at least two players were closely marking him at any one point, but didn’t Maradona always do his stuff at least once a game? Then it occurred to me (because after all, it’s all about me) that both those goals in the second match happened when Rooney came on. Rooney the fans chanted, Sven sent Rooney on, not Wayne, and it was Rooney that the England squad got all psyched up about. Enough to score two goals within minutes, of what had up until then been an awful match with a country we couldn’t pinpoint on a map. Then a possible solution came up. Maybe a football legend was just as much about psychology as reality. At this point Costa Rica faltered and yet it was only later that it felt like Wayne was on the pitch and not Rooney. I hatched a theory that even if Rooney was not that good, or Wayne was much better than average; as long as we poked goals into the back of the net who cares if it was Wayne Rooney or not? Maybe England is more inspiration than perspiration. I mean apart from the industrial revolution and that whole feudal society gig. But we didn’t play great international football back then either. Even that notable game between the trenches in the First World War seems more poetic than tragic penalty shoot outs.

But what’s most important is that while I watched us lose in that funky Delhi Hotel, the thing I was most struck by were the Indians wildly cheering on Portugal with a vengeance. Never mind that the railways or say the civil service are two decent legacies that the awful empire slinked away from. It was England that was up for a bashing that night and I don’t know why but I feel it’s related to our multi-culti football team that has never had any Indians, ever! But one thing I know about Indians. They sure do kick English ass on the cricket pitch.

Have you read my 11:11 11/11 post?

In The Shadow of Hermes - Jewish Bolshevism - 20 Million Dead

It's punishing to watch these documentaries but because it's forbidden history that is completely whitewashed by the corporate media and academia, I feel obliged to do the work, no matter how obnoxious and sickening it is. 

In The Shadow Of Hermes is a Finnish documentary by Jura Lina. It is a must watch to understand the past properly.

It's evident to me that you simply don't get to an influential position if these larger holocausts and genocides are brought up for education of the  masses. 

Far better to keep the little people in the dark and defending the indefensible.

It's clear from this information that collectivisation was never anything other than slave labour death camps. There's a five minute section in this documentary where the horrors dished out by divided peoples is beyond anything I've ever seen or heard of in Europe. 

The descriptions are stomach churning.

These tortured and bloodied peoples are manipulated by relatively small groups such as the Freemasons, who in this documentary are disproportionately represented by Jewish Freemason ideologues such as Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Yagoda and the list goes on and on till the evidence leaves you with a nose bleed.

The documentary above is the most authoritative since I learned of Professor Antony Sutton's work a sample of which I've posted below.

Update: Slowly but surely the information of the correct history is emerging, and in this case from a Jewish scholar.

Long Play

ChinadoII

Late in the afternoon last week for no apparent reason the phone started ringing off the hook with work things. So I dragged my sorry rear into the West End mainly to get off my well honed reclining-position as earlier I'd been sucked into responding to Robs post to cover my partially exposed butt on brand values. Frankly I was close to bailing out Stateside for an overdue meetup, but a combination of a delayed reply that I've been waiting on, filed in 'the dog ate my emails' folder, and a sudden offer to get stuck into some charity rebranding tipped me over to taking on a gig on that meant a 4am start the next day up in Glasgow doing groups. These included in the afternoon, some young men who don't necessarily think too much about being electronically tagged while keeping a curfew - yeah Punk Planning my friends.

So far its been an exhausting but eyeopening experience and since the kickoff I've also covered Cardiff, a small mining village in the county borough of Caerphilly as well as Sutton Coldfield near Birmingham and Gloucester today. I should wrap up in a few days time but until then I've started to ask myself if the idea of an open source C.I development methodology might be an effective way to meet the objectives of keeping a very disparate bunch of people that range from local government, charity workers and young folk in need of a helping hand onboard and 'buying into' a process which one guy memorably articulated as 'reeking of insincerity' when referring to the the way 'brand' talks.

Here's the deal; most of the people that I've spoken to are really sceptical of anything that relates to marketing and the reason for that is they actually do stuff rather than waffle on about it like a lot of us ad tossers do. Its also increasingly evident that as with any change management a shiny new badge can be a reasonably useful point to coalesce around for a new direction. The reality is that unlike that rare and mythical beast called a proper brand (people getting mugged for Levis in 80's Moscow and ditto for iPods in the 3rd millennium) they probably will never be more famous than say top of mind prompted-recall within a specific charity segment, even if as I have discovered time and again since last Thursday they are off-the-richter-scale for complexity in stakeholders and financial solutions. Not to mention diversity of projects and doing a lot of hands on work.

I'm probing some architecture, platform and proposition dimensions that are not far removed from interrogation of (deep breath) third party projection of the meaning-of-meaning for say deprived young'uns with low attention spans - you get my drift? OK I'm exaggerating a tad, but that whole brand personality malarkey isn't moving mountains for me if people have to think about it. I mean personality is surely something people can spontaneously remark on and unwittingly have, acquire and possibly nurture. Surely its not something that can be scored from the nearest council estate corner gathering, and falls neatly between say a "chav" brand and one that "tells you what to do" as one group earlier today outlined when discussing those "Just do it" people. I guess I'm taking shots at some of the FMCG navel-gazing research gigs I've had to oversea in my time. But there is some overlap with whats going on here.

So in the interests of suggesting a kick-ass methodology for a participatory media process that embraces uncertainty and welcomes the digitalocracy of the web I thought I'd run the idea past you folk in case anyone else has thought about the idea of opening up the development of identity architecture real-time on the web. The immediate pluses for this method are that everyone gets a say and feels that they have been part of the consultation process, one or two egos/agendas don't hijack the process as invariably happens when settling on a least contentious communication platforms. Any thoughts? Is this taking 2.0 a bit far? Could it all go peaches up or as I really suspect, the P.R from the process could be worth considerably more than a years communication budget, given that nobody has ever done it before and that somebody will surely be extremely upset about the loss of control - which is a good thing in my book.

Other than that there are a quite a few other things kicking off and I'll leave you with the best post for ages. If any of you wannabes want to know what planning is about then check out this slice of action that absorbs people of our stargazing ilk who can't ever help stop thinking - albeit in my case pretty uselessly. It also gives me a chance to use that picture of ChinaD0II that has been lurking on my desktop before I dig out some of the great podcasts I'm still gagging to tip y'all off about.

Southampton Warriors

Act One:

It's that time of year when we honour and remember the bravery, courage and sacrifice that our boys (and girls) gave to defend the British people's right to determine their own destiny, free from the rule of external ideological threats to our way of life, and that we celebrate this coming Armistice day to remind us of the horrors of WWI trench warfare and mechanized killing through tanks.

The carnage and bloodshed of the Great War were perfectly choreographed to end at precisely 11:11 on the 11th day of the 11th month. This is a wink by the scriptwriters who celebrated their victory by locking the Allies into the next world war, through the Treaty of Versailles.

Act Two:

The second act can usually be darkest and so after a phoney start, Allied forces (minus the Yanks) found themselves staring into the abyss of defeat, with the Axis Powers surrounding us at Dunkirk. A retreat was the only option. The show was nearly over, but the super weirdo Adolf Hitler, sensing a premature ending, allowed us to slip through his fingers and instructed his Panzer divisions to pause for some German sausage and beer instead. Fortunately, Churchill and FDR had a cunning plan. The people of the U.S. had no desire to get involved and so a New Pearl Harbour was guaranteed to secure the consent of the Americans. Oh wait a minute, a New Pearl Harbour was how the Neocons kicked off the 9/11 drama 57 years later. What I meant to say was the old Pearl Harbour happened as Japan had no oil and just like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria the best way to start a war is to choke a country economically, then kick their ass, and when they surrender, drop a nuke for a curtain call.

Act Three:

After the war, at our world-famous Southampton University, Dr Anthony Sutton earned his D.Sc (Doctorate of Science) in recognition of his research and a proven record of internationally recognised scholarship. By 1957 he had been snapped up by The Hoover Institution at Stanford University, a public policy think tank promoting the principles of individual, economic, and political freedom.

With his planet-sized brain, Tony (as he preferred to be called) devoured his way through many of the nearly one million volumes and more than six thousand archival collections from 171 countries dedicated to documenting war, revolution, and peace in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Just one problem.

He found out through his exhaustive research who those 11:11 jokers are *winky*, and he didn't think it was funny. He discovered that the US was transferring its manufacturing technology to the USSR at the height of the Cold War and that US Infantry, Cavalry and Marines fighting the Viet Cong and dying in the tropical rice paddies of Vietnam, were facing the same Ford trucks they knew inside out from back home.

The Hoover Institution called a meeting and Tony's bosses said "now look Anthony, you've become a naturalised American, you have a top job at one of the most prestigious think tanks in the world and we need you to pull back on your research focus. Why don't you head a new department, dedicated to anything you like but not technology transfer to our enemies?

Maybe it's a Southampton thing but he told them to go fuck themselves, and he set up shop on his own. His later work is even more gobsmacking, but don't take my word for it. 

Make your own mind up if you've got an attention span longer than a poppy pin.

His interviews are quicker than reading his books. How can you "Never Forget" if you don't remember in the first place?

Tell me. Do you really support the troops?

Wall St Connections to the Bolshevik Revolution

Tom Secker undermines Professor Antony Sutton's claim that Wall St. funded the Bolshevik revolution. I think it's an analysis that is welcome but it doesn't really take into account that we are often referring to Zionist banking bloodlines when we discuss the sponsorship of centuries of war, carnage and toxic ideologies including Communism, Nazism and Zionism.

I don't think Tom's got the bottle to go down that route but if he has I recommend In the Shadow of Hermes as a starting point on Zionist Masonic Bolshevism.

Update: Tom deleted his analysis as you can see above.

NATO

NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a military alliance between North American and European countries that was established in 1949 to ensure Russia and Germany never fought on the same side. The alliance was formed spuriously in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies during the Cold War, even though all those years of posturing and propaganda were synthetic as the Hoover archives demonstrated once Tony Sutton D.Phil collated the evidence and published it. People realised the Germans lost WWII but the Nazis won it in part through Operation Paperclip and other less documented channels.

While NATO has been praised for promoting peace and stability in Europe, it has also faced criticism for its disastrous reputation for military interventions and aggressive posturing. Some argue that NATO has acted as a tool for Western imperialism indistinguishable from a New World Order military, intervening in the affairs of sovereign nations and destabilizing regions, with torture, depleted Uranium missiles and all in the name of its member countries furnishing ever present oligarchies and plutocrats.

Critics also point to the aggressive Eastward expansion of NATO as a threat to world peace. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has expanded its membership to include countries in Eastern Europe, which has caused tensions with Russia and fuelled divisions in the region though outlawed international behaviour such as training Nazi militias, providing equipment and lately unlimited funds requiring more austerity and belt tightening.

Additionally, NATO's commitment to collective defence has been criticized for leading to a lack of accountability. The alliance operates on the principle that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all members. This has led to military interventions without proper debate or consideration of the long-term consequences. The gravity of this is not missed despite no country ever declaring war on a NATO member. Trigger happy doesn't quite encapsulate the visceral inversion that only the memory wipes are incapable of recalling.

Furthermore, NATO's focus on military power as a means of achieving security has been singled out by historically prominent states people for neglecting diplomatic solutions, and addressing the 2014 root causes of conflict, for example, in The Ukraine. Some argue that NATO should prioritize diplomacy and conflict resolution, rather than relying on military force, fictitious claims of weapons of mass destruction and invading the wrong country for possible opportunism and then high tailing it, and leaving billions behind in military hardware as was the case in Afghanistan.

In conclusion, while NATO has been praised by the Lugenpresse for promoting peace and stability in Europe, it has also faced criticism for its interventions, aggressive posturing, expansion, lack of accountability, and focus on military power. A counternarrative to NATO would emphasize the need for diplomacy and conflict resolution, as well as the importance of respecting the sovereignty of longstanding nations and avoiding destabilizing interventions including training up Nazi militias and integrating them in the Ukraine military.

In this counterfactual scenario, NATO and the Azov Battalion did not cooperate in the last nine years. The Azov Battalion, which is a Ukrainian paramilitary organization, has been accused of promoting ultra-nationalist and far-right ideologies engaging in the most degenerate human rights abuses.

Ideally, NATO would have taken a strong stance against a plethora of Nazi idolizing Battalions and their actions, condemning any form of extremism, racism, and torture. NATO would have also provided support to the Ukrainian government in its efforts to address these issues and promote the rule of law and respect for human rights in the country. Instead of instigating a textbook CIA colour revolution and the bombing of their own people in Donbass by Kiev.

NATO would have worked closely with a democratically elected Ukrainian government and other international organizations to monitor the activities of the Swastika Battalions and other similar organizations, in order to support efforts to dismantle them and bring those responsible for crimes against humanity to pursue justice. NATO members would also have supported the Ukrainian government's efforts to promote national unity and reconciliation, and to address the root causes of extremism and conflict in the country.

Overall, in this counterfactual scenario, NATO and the Azov Battalions et al would have been opposed to each other, with NATO taking a strong stance against extremism and promoting the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and respect for human rights.

Revisionism, also known as historical revisionism, refers to the reinterpretation of historical events, facts, and narratives, often with the intention of promoting a specific political or ideological agenda. While it is not uncommon for historical perspectives to evolve over time as new information becomes available, revisionism can be dangerous when it is used to deliberately distort or manipulate the truth for political or ideological purposes including maintaining a stable income instead of telling the truth and getting fired.

The dangers of revisionism are numerous. It can undermine public trust in historical knowledge and institutions, such as museums, archives, and universities, which are responsible for preserving and disseminating accurate historical information. Revisionism can also contribute to the spread of misinformation and propaganda, leading to a lack of critical thinking and a distorted understanding of the past.

Revisionism can also have serious political and social consequences, as it can be used to justify or legitimize harmful policies and deadly punitive actions. For example, revisionist interpretations of history have been used to justify wars, human rights abuses, and discrimination, and to promote divisive and harmful ideologies.

It is important to resist revisionism and to promote responsible and accurate historical narratives. This requires a commitment to the principles of historical inquiry and to judicious use of reliable sources and methods. It also requires an ongoing effort to educate the public and promote critical thinking, so that people can recognize and reject revisionist interpretations of history and protect against the dangers they pose.

The use of quantitative inflation by the international community to conceal economic weakness and excruciating embarrassment through unwanted attention is a problematic and unethical practice that can have serious consequences vis a vis a natural instinct to protect the vulnerable. It's the catalyst for ultra far right Nationalism.

Inflating numbers erodes trust and can create a false sense of militaristic strength and stability, misleading policy makers, avaricious men, and an under informed public. This can result in a growing sense of kinetic prowess in critical areas, misdirected economic policies, and delayed interventions to address underlying weaknesses and challenges such as blanket censorship on the most pressing issues of the day.

In addition, the use of inflated numbers can undermine the credibility and legitimacy of government and financial institutions, eroding public trust and creating doubts about the validity of other economic indices like unemployment, excess mortality and declining birth rates. This can have a cascading effect, impacting confidence in monetary stability of markets and contributing to once in a lifetime, yet inevitable collapse.

The ubiquitous use of inflated numbers eventually destroys what is left of individual dignity and community resilience. It can lead to emergency fiscal policies and measures that perpetuate even greater inequality and harm those who are already vulnerable, such as low-income individuals and stagnant communities and an increasing sense of isolation in a multipolar world.

It goes without saying that a breach of ethical standards will eventually decimate the insincerely touted international community. It sends a message that accuracy and transparency are not valued, and that political and ideological considerations take precedence over the responsible and ethical use of accurate sources.

In conclusion, the use of quantitative inflation is necessary to conceal weakness and unwanted attention thereby promulgating reckless and unethical practices that can have serious consequences for any desire to return to business as a whole. It is important for the toxic legacy media, governments, NGO and financial institutions to prioritize transparency, accuracy, and ethics in their use of quantitative data to ensure that policy decisions are based on credible data if any desire to regain public trust remains in the memory of mankind.

NB: chatGPT AI client wrote this.