Ukraine and Iran are, from what I can see, the same experiment with different (so far) results.
In Ukraine, Western interests were behind the color revolution regime change, for which V. Nuland is famous.
Nuland never denied the tape, in which she is recorded picking out the new guy, just commented that the sound quality was excellent.
In Iran, the US conducted regime change and installed the Shaw but it didn’t work out so good. The people didn’t like our puppet leader and they rebelled. Dissent was quashed with harsher and harsher measures. We made the Shaw into a dictator. Then, when the people had enough, Kissinger and Rockefeller pressured and maybe blackmailed Carter into accepting him back into the states even though doing so risked American lives in Iran as well as our relationship with Iran.
The West did not like the people’s choice of leader, so we picked a new leader and called it supporting democracy. We always call regime change supporting democracy; a complete inversion of the actual democratic process. Inversion is the mark of the beast. Live backward is evil.
May everyone who has been confused into condoning evil have that inversion popped out like a bad dent in a car!
55,000 or more people have been killed in Palestine so far, according to Middle East Eye. Netanyahu is accused of genocide by everyone reasonable. Yet we are considering going to war with a nation that stands up to Israel and to Saudi Arabia - both countries that commit far larger human rights abuses in my view than Iran. There was a funny a meme type thing I found about the Ayatolla saying of his childhood that he made up for uncomfortable robes by being playful and naughty. A commenter said that women in Iran want to be playful and naughty but they’re not allowed to take off their head scarves or they’re killed. It’s a fair point for some Iranian women, but not all. Many appreciate the modesty a hjab affords and are highly educated empowered women who don’t want to be objectified as women so often are in the west. A young girl used to live across the street from me and we got on well. One day she told me that she had been raped when she was quite young and would rather wear modest clothing but she felt way too peer pressured to wear body conforming things. She felt it wasn’t worth the peer disapproval to wear modest clothing even though she would prefer it. Liberation and safety are often in the eye of the beholder. One known for being a hero of anarchy was held in highest regard by Eugenicists, such as H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw.
Unesco’s first director was also the first one to link eugenics with transhumanism overtly: one Mr. Huxley, J, brother of Aldous. Organizations such as “Edge,” associated with Epstein, Jeffrey are the “long game” of original thinkers like Huxley and H.G. Wells, Hubbard and Henri Breuil, a Catholic priest, archaeologist, anthropologist, ethnologist and geologist, along with French Jesuit Darwindian Tiellhard De Chardin, whose work J. Huxley helped get into translation.
Why is there such shame in being human that these beings wanted to transcend it by becoming merged with machines? Huxley endured a breakdown and I have come to see as I have read more is that many of the elites most supporting eugenics had mental illness in their families (Jung, Bair, Dierdre.)
Yet what can be discerned if we turn out attention to the technophiles concentrated in California, where essential infrastructure of the internet itself lives and was developed in coordination with intelligence, is that even environmentalism was either white male elite entitlement (Julian Huxley also founded the World Wild Life Fund, not to mention the role of the Rockefellers in the Audobon or John Muir, Sierra and Yosemite, which was created on the ashes of a government sanctioned genocide led by John Savage,) - or it was annihilationism in disguise, perhaps - probably unbeknownst to those entitled men who sought control and superiority yet felt some comfort in nature.
Mary Louise Swett, written to Muir’s fiancé four days before their marriage on April 8, 1880, Mrs. Swett impressed upon the young woman her future husband’s intensity.
“I hope you are good at a hair splitting argument,” she wrote. “You will need to be to hold your own with him. . . He told Colonel Boyce the other night that his position was that of champion for a mean, brutal policy. It was in regard to Indian extermination.”
In contrast to Muir’s advocacy of exclusion and suppression, Yosemite Park officials praised the logic of regular controlled burns “when the Indians were Commissioners” and stated that “absolute prevention of fires in these mountains will eventually lead to disastrous results.” But, for Muir, “the best service in forest protection—almost the only efficient service—is that rendered by the military.
But as it turned out, the militaristic approach brought about the degradation rather than preservation of species diversity and the serene, garden like qualities Muir himself spotted at the place of the Ahwanee peoples.
~ wendyscience.blogspot
https://www.iccaconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/How-John-Muir-damaged-Yosemite-2014.pdf
When we look at all the alliances that got more and more people involved in WW1 based on a single assassination (and many other underlying factors) - and how that set up WW2 - and how the trauma of everyday Jewish people makes them vulnerable to fear based agreement that it is necessary to pre-emptively eliminate all potential threats, its easy to have compassion for the Jewish people without justifying the Luciferian agendas operating in Israel’s policy or in Hitler’s or at the heart of many versions of communism and anarchy. Annihilations consciousness seeks to destroy and in the meantime silence, co-opt or at least sideline that which is unavoidably divine from our conscious, full, sacred way of living in harmony and sovereignty.
Share this post