BOXES WITHIN BOXES: THE PLANETARY CONTROL OPERATION
April 17, 2003. Most people view events at ground-level, or even worse, see them through the eyes of the major media.
Others step back a foot or so and observe that events may be happening for reasons that are not so obvious.
The question is, how far back do you have to get before the big picture becomes fairly clear?
Here is a brief example. If you search online for information about the disposition of Rockefeller money in the medical arena, you encounter two large themes. Much money is spent on developing vaccine programs in the Third World; and much money is spent on "population control" research.
So you have to ask yourself, if the Rockefeller engine is moving in the direction of lowering the number of people on the planet, why is money also traveling in the direction of these vaccines programs?
I mean, one would presume that Rockefeller interests believe vaccines are a basic strategy for avoiding disease and death.
So, an impasse of sorts is reached here. At which point, you can take another step back and say, "Suppose, at the highest secret levels, that Rockefeller vaccine money is actually being directed for the purpose of injuring and debilitating and killing people?"
You would be bolstered in your supposition by the fact that, when you give vaccines to people who are already immune suppressed in a serious way, you are, in effect, pushing their immune systems further toward the brink of no return.
Also, the "humanitarian solution" of vaccine programs masks the fact that what these people really need is food, nutrition, clean water supplies, fertile land on which grow crops.
And then you will discover, with a little patience, that some Rockefeller money has gone into the development of overt anti-fertility vaccines, which contain a hormone vital to the sustaining of pregnancy. It's called HCG. The theory is that the body, injected with HCG as part of a vaccine like tetanus, will produce antibodies against HCG, so that when pregnancy occurs later, the woman's body will attack its own HCG as if it is an enemy, and the pregnancy will collapse, miscarry.
So perhaps the contradiction in the use of Rockefeller medical money is not a contradiction at all.
There is a 3000-year-old Chinese game called Go. It was taken up and refined in Japan. Some say it is more complex than chess. The object is the capture of territories on the game board. Multiple campaigns are carried out simultaneously to surround the pieces of the opponent. While a player may be losing on one front, he may be winning on another. The strategies are very, very sophisticated, and champions study and learn the game from an early age.
Using Go as a loose metaphor, I want to suggest that the current war in Iraq is merely one front in a complex and devious strategy for global control.
Except in this case, the most powerful players are, in a real sense, using and factoring in the natural inclinations of lesser players.
The lesser players would be Bush and his advisors, Israel, Saddam, the UN, the European Union (EU), the Pentagon, and others.
Stepping back far enough, a "Go player" would be able to predict how these players would react to, say, 9/11.
Bush would want to attack Iraq. He would be egged on and advised by, among others, men who are acting on behalf of Israel's nationalistic interests. Israel would want to push a conquest of Islamic countries as far as it could. The EU - part of the EU - would oppose the war, because war could upset and derail very lucrative business in contracts already in place with Saddam. The UN would seek to assert its position and demand no war without a Security Council seal of approval.
And so on and so forth.
A "champion Go player" would be able to predict, with surprising accuracy, how these lesser players would clash and cooperate, join together and secede.
And given that prediction, the Go player could draft a plan that would ultimately satisfy his own final ambition: control of the whole board (the planet).
Note that the Go player does not put into place stupid moves to influence the lesser players in the direction of a complete change of character. No, the idea is to USE the natural inclinations of the lesser players to arrive at the largest goal.
For example, if there is going to be a war in Iraq, let it be a war that moves things along toward global domination by the few over the many. The Go player is, of course, one of the few.
And it turns out that this war sets an escalating precedent for a naked grab of natural resources (oil) on a scale we have not seen in quite awhile.
It turns out that this war is an experiment in how to deal with a large defeated population that lives in a land rich in resources (oil).
It turns out that this war will provoke more acts of international terrorism, thus producing destabilization of governments and, in response, tighter versions of political fascism.
It turns out that this war is a reminder that all efforts at industrial modernization undertaken from within a "colony" are unacceptable.
It turns out that this war will make it easier to gain acceptance for future wars that crush colonies who are trying to raise their heads above the surface of despair.
And so on.
At this point, you might say the Go player hardly had to do anything at all to secure the outcomes he is looking for.
And, in a sense, you would be right. The least action, if it brings the desired result, is always the best (see Sun Tzu).
And in this case, working back in time, that least action would have been the planning and the green light for 9/11.
Of course, some of the lesser players could have been brought, secretly, into the tactical ops for 9/11. Those lesser players would have seen how 9/11 could assist their own ambitions - not realizing that there were bigger pictures out there.
And one might ask, as I have, whose original dream was the building of the WTC towers in the first place? Who has issued no public statements since their destruction? Who has committed himself, through the creation of the Trilateral Commission and other groups, to the goal of global management? The rule of the few over the many.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com