ADAM CURTIS AND HYPERABNORMALIZATION: THEY KNOW WE KNOW THEY LIE

Adam Curtis and HyperAbnormalization 

by Miles Mathis 

First published March 16, 2018 

My guest writer mentioned the 2016 BBC documentary HyperNormalisation in his recent update to the N.R.O.2 paper. I hadn't seen it or even heard of it, so I decided to watch it. My guest writer claimed that it was admitted in the documentary that the alien project was just that—a project. This is correct. That is one of the truths the documentary slips in among two and a half hours of spinning. 

Surprised? You shouldn't be. After all, this is the BBC and one of its in-house people. Did you really expect to be told the truth? No, you will be told a few things that are partially true to hook you and then be viciously spun on the rest. We see that first in the title HyperNormalisation. My title HyperAbnormalization is more accurate, isn't it? Have things gotten more normal in the past 50 years? No, they have gotten ever more abnormal. So why would Curtis lead with an upside-down title? Because you are going to be hung by your heels for two hours and forty-six minutes and he needs you to have the proper orientation from the start. 

One of the keys to the film comes in the second half, when Curtis introduces us to Vladislav Surkov, Putin's primary ideologist. At minute 2:22:30 Curtis admits Surkov was from the theater world, and tells us that what he did “was take avant garde ideas from the theater and bring them into the heart of politics”. In other words, everything could be manipulated. Reality could be created to suit any purpose. True enough, but remember, we can say the same of Curtis. Everything Curtis accuses Surkov of in this section, we can turn around and accuse him of. This entire documentary is a Surkovian magic show of flashing lights and fast hands under the table. 

But before I show you some of those magic tricks, we should pause for a moment on Surkov. Even here, Curtis isn't telling you the whole truth. Yes, Surkov came out of the theater, but he also came out of. . . Intelligence. He was in the theater direction program at Moscow Institute of Culture for three years, but before that he was in the Main Intelligence Directorate. And after dropping out of MIC early in 1989, he didn't go into theater. He went to work in advertising for Khodorkovsky's Menatep Bank. He also worked for the oil industry giant Transneft. We have seen both those companies before, in recent papers. See  my paper on Yuri Milner for more on Menatep.

What about Curtis? A similar story, though more scrubbed. His Wiki bio lists his father but conspicuously forgets to list his mother. His father is given as a well known cinematographer, but all you have to do is take a link to discover he was a collaborator with Humphrey Jennings—and Jennings was co-founder of Experiment magazine with Jacob Bronowski. Experiment was an “avant garde” spook rag started in 1928, which appeared to be Socialist but which was actually a front for the fascist/industrialist Jewish interests we have been following. Bronowski was Jewish, of course, and he also came out of Intelligence. In WWII he worked for the Ministry of Home Security. He was a close friend of the Jewish Leo Szilard, which surname is possibly not just accidentally an anagram of lizard. Both were scumbags involved in many fakes, including the nuclear fakes.

But back to Curtis. We already see a problem, because Humphrey Jennings was born in 1907 and died in 1950. Bronowski was born in 1908. Curtis was born in 1955, so his father would have been born in about 1930. Are we sure it wasn't Curtis' grandfather who worked with these guys? We seem to have skipped a generation here. 

Because his bios won't tell us anything, we have to go the genealogies and peerages, as usual. There are about 500 Curtises listed in the peerage. Although we find no Kevin Adam Curtis, we do find an Adam Curtis whose dates match. He is married to writer Henrietta Heald. I have no way to confirm whether this is the same Adam Curtis, but the peerage Curtises are the Baronets of Cullands Grove. Henrietta Heald's husband Adam Curtis is definitely related to these Baronets, since her latest book is on Lord Armstrong. The 8th Baronet, Sir Edward Curtis, married Catherine Armstrong in 1978. These Curtises are also related to the Loftus Earls, the Ponsonby Earls, the Moore Viscounts, the Brabazon Earls, the Grey Earls, the Phillipps, the Careys, the Egertons, the Tennants, the Barlows, the Hamiltons, the Russells, the Bacons, and the Usshers. My guess is our Adam Curtis here is related to these peers. I predict he will soon be knighted, say OBE? 

Curtis claims he is inspired by Max Weber, which is another red flag. The common bios scrub it, but Weber was Jewish. His mother was a Fallenstein, sold as Huguenot, but more likely Sephardic or Marrano. Another clue is that these Webers were wealthy merchants from Westphalia, specializing in textiles. His uncle Carl David Weber was head of the huge textile firm Weber, Laer, and Niermann. They were also prominent in Spain, confirming my Marrano guess. But being from Westphalia they may be Ashkenazi. More indication in the same line is that despite being wealthy, Carl was denied reentry into Prussia around 1850, having to settle in Lippe. This was because Lippe was friendly to Jews all along. Why? Because its rulers were from many Jewish lines going way back, including the SolmsSonnewaldes, the von Sachsens (think Goldman-Sachs), and of course the Jagiellons. Wikipedia (German) also admits Carl Weber built the synagogue in Oerlinghausen in 1890. 

Curtis claims to admire John Dos Passos, another clue in the same direction. Like Hemingway and the rest that we have already unwound, Dos Passos was a crypto-Jew in the misnamed and faked Lost Generation. His father was  a powerful attorney representing the huge American Sugar Refining Company of H. O. Havermeyer (who was of course Jewish). In fact, the elder Dos Passos wrote the book on modern trusts, the Treatise on the Law of Stockbrokers and Stock Exchanges, still taught today. The Dos Passos were also Marranos from Portugal, related to the peers there. Dos Passos' mother was a Madison from Virginia, linking him to President Madison. Dos Passos is sold as the opposite of his father, but of course that is all a sham. He went to Choate and Harvard, and was friends with E. E. Cummings and Robert Hillyer. Note that last name,  which is a variant of Hiller. Like Hemingway, Dos Passos was a fake ambulance driver in Italy during WWI. Early on, Dos Passos wrote glowingly about the I.W.W, indicating he was part of the sale of Socialism in the US. He wrote about the Sacco and Vanzetti trials, which of course were faked. 

Don't believe me? I can prove it to you in 30 seconds. Here is the picture of the two men posted right now at Wiki:[Miles is on it here,go to google images of these 2 and in every single picture in which they are together,the heads are tilted in the exact same way D.C] 

Notice anything odd? Why are the two guys' heads tilted at exactly the same strange angle? I'll tell you why: because this was a very lazy fake. They used the same photo for both guys, just manipulating various features. Look how similar the face shapes, chins, necks, shoulders and suits are. Even the lighting and background is the same. Both backgrounds are dark on the right side and light on the left, and blurred to the same extent. So nice of these two fellows to go to the same photographer on the same day in the same suit and sit on the same chair at the same angle. The only difference is the hats. Plus, the hat on the first guy has been pasted on. The hat of the second guy casts a dim shadow, but the hat of the first guy casts none. 

The trials were staged to create fear, just like now. Now it is terrorists; back then it was revolutionary anarchists. The governors want you to hate and fear leftists and revolutionaries, since it is the best way to keep you from becoming one. So they control the opposition by creating these fake revolutionary thugs, whom no one could respect or follow. 

Still don't believe me? Go to the Wiki page for the judge, Webster Thayer, who they admit was giving speeches before the alleged crime took place, “decrying Bolshevism and anarchism's threat to American institutions”. Hmmm. That's peculiar. He was decrying Bolshevism in February, and by April two Bolshevists conveniently showed up in his court for a major show trial? What are the odds? He is from the Webster and Thayer families, who are closely related to all the same people. 

'In 1936, Dos Passos was on the Dewey Commission with other fake Marxists, supposedly defending Leon Trotsky. Let's see, who else was on that Commission? Oh yeah, Sidney Hook, one of the biggest literary spooks of all time. Frances Stonor Saunders  outed him so thoroughly in her book The Cultural Cold War his ghost will never be able to stand on its feet again. Also the scumbag Edward Wilson, who was married to the scumbagette Mary McCarthy. They admit her maternal grandmother was Jewish, which makes her Jewish—a Morganstern. She was also an atheist and Trotskyite, and a writer for the CIA-front Partisan Review. She was a close friend of Hannah Arendt, who pushed fake Nazi narratives all her life. As for Wilson, his mother was Helen Mather. I suppose  you recognize that name. Wilson promoted all the biggest spook writers of the 20th century, including Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulker, Nabokov and Dos Passos. Fitzgerald's continuing legacy owes much to the efforts of Wilson. Wilson allegedly paid no income tax from 1946 to 1955 and bragged about it. He received no jail time, proving he was a spook. The IRS wanted $69,000 in taxes and penalties, which still seems low, but he allegedly paid only $25,000. I would bet he paid nothing, since the whole thing was another fraud. I won't have time to hit them, but just so you can add them to your “compromised” list, other members of the Dewey Commission were John Dewey, Carleton Beals, Otto Ruhle, Benjamin Stolberg, Suzanne la Follette, Alfred Rosmer, Wendelin Thomas, Edward Ross, John Chamberlain, Carlo Tresca, Francisco Zamora, Rienhold Niebuhr, and Norman Thomas. 

While Dos Passos wrote for the spook front New Republic in the 30's, pretending to be a Marxist, he soon began trashing the Marxists (as Marx had done before). In this, he was just following the script: set up a controlled opposition and then destroy it with internal feuding. Soon he tired of the pose completely, and by the 50's he was writing for the openly fascist National Review. As a historian, Dos Passos wrote lots of fiction about Jefferson, Burr, and many others, somehow overlooking all the things I have discovered without much effort. 

Adam Curtis also cites artist Robert Rauschenberg as a great influence. 

Do I need to say more? Well, maybe one other thing: Rauschenberg was Jewish. Curtis seems to have no mentors who weren't Jewish. 

One of Curtis' previous documentaries was on Nick Leeson and the collapse of Barings Bank. He resells the mainstream story, but I have shown it is a complete fabrication to cover some sort of takeover or transfer. 

Another is called Paranoia and Moral Panics, which uses the paranoia of Richard Nixon as a touchstone for a culture-wide paranoia. Great, except that he misses one thing there: Nixon wasn't paranoid. The CIA did pull Watergate and they were out to get him. Oh, and Curtis also misses one other important thing: you aren't paranoid either. All those things you suspect may be happening really are happening. Your governors really have faked all of recent history and they really do want you to be miserable. 

Basically, all of Curtis' documentaries are complete and utter misdirection, but the best way to show that is to fully deconstruct one of them, which is what I am about to do. 

By minute :50, Curtis is already misdirecting. His narrator says that the world is in chaos, but “those in control seem unable to deal with it”. Since Curtis has just asked the wrong question, he cannot find the right answer. Those in control are creating the chaos, so there is no need for them to deal with it. Things are going precisely as planned, a possibility Curtis never considers. “No one has a vision for a different or a better kind of future”, he tells us. Well, why should those in control want anything different? From their perspective, everything is going as planned (almost). The very wealthy are doubling their portfolios every other year, and they run the world. They are buying bigger beachfront houses and more Roll Royce's and more polo ponies and filling more offshore accounts. What problems do they have to solve? And it is not true that no one has any ideas of how to create a better future. Lots of people have a lot of good ideas, including me. Here is one: prevent these assholes from raking more money into their pockets, and force them to give back most of what they have stolen. Get their paws out of the national treasuries and keep them out. We can then spend that money on useful things. What useful things? Bringing back real art. Bringing back real science. Bringing back real history and other scholarship. Cleaning up the environment. And a thousand other very obvious things. It really isn't that hard to come up with good ideas, and it wouldn't be that hard to make them happen. Except that they are actively being prevented from happening by those running the world. They profit hugely from a fake world but would not prosper in a real one. 

At minute 1:20, we are told the rulers have created an oversimplified world, because the simplification was reassuring. But again, that is the opposite of the truth. The opening scenes of the documentary were all about chaos, and chaos is not simple. Much of the rest of the film is about a manufactured complexity as well, including the complexity of Surkov in Russia—which Curtis admits was manufactured to create confusion. The film itself is manufactured confusion, so this early claim about simplification is just another turn of the screw. It is putting the name simplification over scenes of manufactured confusion. In other words, it is a purposeful contradiction. 

At minute 1:50, we are told the radicals and the opposition have also retreated into this simplified dream world, which is why their counterculture has become ineffective and “nothing ever changes”. But that is also false. The counterculture is ineffective because it was created to be ineffective. As we have seen in my research, all these people we thought were radicals were actually CIA and MI6 agents. They were all set up to fail. 

At minute 2:10, we get some real in-your-face misdirection, as Curtis tells us the world is fake while showing us film of blood on the walls in Libya or somewhere. We aren't supposed to notice it is fake blood I guess, though it is. Throughout the film, Curtis does the same thing, admitting the world is faked and manufactured, while reselling us 911, Syria, Hussein, Hamas, Hezbollah, and suicide bombings as real. He devotes an entire segment to admitting Gaddafi was a created stooge of the US, but then expects us to believe Gaddafi was really killed by us in the final act. What you aren't supposed to ask is this: “Wait, if Gaddafi was just a silly actor in all those previous scenes, why isn't he just a silly actor in that final scene, where he is supposed to be dead on the side of the road?” You see how Curtis is trying to break your mind even while he is claiming to clear it. 

It is right at that moment, minute 2:30, that Curtis decides to finally overlay his title HyperNormalisation. You see the blood splattered on the walls and then mopped out the door in a long arc, and only then do you get that title. That was no accident. It is a hypnosis by blood. Or a hypnosis by fake blood. Then an immediate cut to a black woman supposed to be dead on some American big-city stoop. Is she really dead? No, she is an actress, and we know that because she looks different before and after the cut. She is in a completely different position before and after the cut, with different things in her hands. So are we supposed to believe a dead body moved itself? Or are we supposed to think the first image is a reenactment, and the second old footage? Neither, I think. The cut from one body to the other is meant to further disorient you the viewer, since some part of your mind may notice the discontinuity. Your brain is being stirred, on purpose. 

The next section is about the banks taking over New York City in 1975. Here is where Curtis tells his first partial truth: the banks now run everything, and they achieved that via these loans. However, it didn't start in 1975. Some small corner may have been turned in 1975 in the management of NYC, but the bankers and industrialists have been running everything from the start. The only question then is, why weren't they as predatory in the past? The apparent answer is: only because they didn't think they could get away with it. They once feared a backlash, but they no longer do. Thanks to the media, they have far greater control over society than they had in the past. Now they can manipulate people in ways they never dreamed of then. This film is part of that control. Via such projects, they think they have infiltrated all opposition and utterly detoothed it. Which means they can now do whatever they wish. With no fear of the smallest uprising. There is no real counterculture, no real opposition, no real anything. Everyone has been hired as an extra. 

At minute 6:30, Curtis makes us think this is something to do with the market, which is inexorable. In other words, the bankers had to enforce austerity in New York City, firing many people, because the bureaucracies were bloated or something. But that is false. The markets actually have nothing to do with it. The bankers don't care a fig for efficiency or necessity. They only care about profit for themselves. The markets very efficiently (and illegally) move money to the already rich, which is very inefficient for everyone else. But since everyone else isn't in the accounting, this doesn't matter. 

In fact, Curtis somewhat admits that, since he shows Trump coming in and gentrifying Manhattan with his towers for the plutocrats. The decisions made in the 1970's and 80's in New York had nothing to do with markets or efficiency, they had to do with taking the city for the very rich and moving everyone else out. Since the 70s, only the extremely wealthy have mattered: everyone else is collateral damage. At minute 6:50, Victor Gotbaum, the Municipal Workers Leader in the City in 1975, gets worked up enough to call the rich bankers “slobs”. So although what he says is true, it isn't really a proportional response, is it? I suspect he was also in on it, being a Gotbaum. If he had really been a leader, he wouldn't just call the bankers slobs, he would have called for a general strike to shut the city down. I don't remember that he did that. This is what I mean by controlling the opposition: the bankers have their people everywhere, even heading the unions. That is not an idle claim. I have demonstrated it with Eugene Debs and many others over the decades, who we have seen were actually working for the man. The union leaders are and always have been Jewish moles. 

Curtis then admits, “No one opposed the bankers. The radicals and leftwingers who ten years earlier had dreamt of changing America through revolution did nothing.” That's because those “radicals” were fake radicals, planted by the bankers. Curtis proves that by using Patti Smith as an example. When was she born? 1946, year one of the CIA. We even get her birth year stamped on the wall in the film, to remind us of this. She comes off as a moron in the film, which is the point: these people weren't disillusioned in the 1970's—They were paid to stand down. Their “cool detachment” and “individualism” was part of the script. She and Bob Dylan and Joan Baez and all the other fake leftists were more Jewish moles, child actors from the families trained to lead us all astray. So it isn't that no one did anything in the 1970s. Many tried to do something, but the media only reported what Patti Smith and these other phonies were doing. The industrialists have planted all these fake leaders, and the real revolutionaries can't see how to get around them, to this day. The governors have very successfully marginalized all opposition, by control of the media, mass drugging, constant psyops, increasing levels of fear, and widespread buy-offs. They don't need to kill or threaten anyone anymore, since they can hire or buy off most revolutionaries. The rest they can just ignore. 

At 10:30, Curtis tells us “while we were dozing, the money crept in”. You have to be kidding me. The money just crept in recently, did it? Before 1975, the US was run by nuns and philosophers, I guess. 

Next, Curtis manufactures a battle between Kissinger and al-Assad of Syria. Or re-manufactures what was manufactured in the 70's. Both are painted with a slightly black brush in the film, but not nearly black enough. Kissinger comes off as both a jerk and political genius, which would not displease him. Of course he was much worse than that, and al-Assad was always an ally in the theater being produced. We are told they were enemies, but it was another manufactured opposition. All the leaders of the Middle East had been installed by the West many decades ago, including the leaders of Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Many or perhaps all of them were and are of Jewish heritage themselves. 

See the appointments of T. E. Lawrence almost a hundred years ago, which determined everything since. Lawrence was actually a Chapman, of the Chapman Baronets.** They were related to the Webb's, which linked them to the Crown. Also related to the Billings, the Gibson's, the Edens, the Hamilton's, the Murray's, the Crofton's, the Palmer's, the Stewart's, the Boyd-Rochfort's, the Raleigh's and the Moore's. After Lawrence of Arabia installed Faisal as King of Syria in 1920, pretty much everything else has been manufactured there by the West to benefit themselves, including all the phony wars and suicide bombings. Orwell told us how it was done in 1948: create fake wars and fake enemies to keep military spending high and control the populace. But for some reason people keep thinking 1984 is in the future. 

The film tells you Gaddafi was fake, but sells al-Assad as real. In the section on Lockerbie, we are told the plane was downed by Syria, but the blame was pinned on Libya. We are told the experts knew it was Syria. No, that is just more spinning, because it was determined by a court that neither Syria nor Libya had anything to do with it. And it was actually reported later that in-house investigators at PanAm had come to the conclusion the plane was downed by. . . US Intelligence. In other words, it was another false flag. Curtis forgets to mention that, doesn't he? However, even that story was spun to make us think it was CIA offing its own rogue agents. No possibility that is true. It has better ways to do that. Following what we discovered from later similar projects, including 911, best guess is this was an old Pan Am plane they were ready to retire, and they simply crashed it empty in a remote field, making up the casualties later. US/British Intel then made up a lot of competing stories as misdirection and cover. This is how it is done.[I do not agree here with Miles on Lockerbie,lots of drugs and CIA cover up in their part of the drug running out of Lebanon involved in that crash DC]

In the section on Kissinger, we are told he was interested in a “balance of power”. False. He was always interested in unilateral world domination by one sector, which is the opposite of a balance of power. Ask yourself who balanced the power of the US/Israel. The Russians, the Chinese, the Arabs? No, all are now owned/managed by the same few families that own/manage the rest of the world, so there is no balance of power like they are talking about. The only talk of a balance of power might be among these families. Do they share power, and if so how? But we know almost nothing of that, and the film never addresses it, of course. Curtis wishes to keep you in the old paradigm, where countries were important. But countries have been immaterial for a long time. Country outlines are only kept as useful fictions, but countries don't decide anything. The national governments of the world are just Punch and Judy shows, meant to keep your eyes off the real players. 

After talking about the importance of balance of power, Curtis then sells us the idea that Kissinger purposely screwed over al-Assad, never foreseeing that this might upset things in the Middle East. But with hindsight, we can see that Kissinger pursued neither war nor any kind of meaningful diplomacy. What was pursued is what is still pursued: continuous manufactured controversy, via a Hollywood-style delivery of propaganda to all sides. Why? Because fake war is very profitable. With the rise of cinema, these guys finally figured out they didn't have to manufacture real wars. Fictional wars paid just as well, with fewer side effects for all involved. They now have the upside—draining the treasuries—without the downside—real murders that might cause bad karma for someone. Again, Orwell told us how it was done in 1948. Curtis admits that with Gaddafi, to a large extent. It is admitted that Gaddafi came out of England and was our created enemy. But you could say the same thing about Syria, Jordan, China, Russia, Iran,  Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. They are all created enemies, actors propped up by us. If you can't see that, you just aren't paying attention. 

At minute 17:50, the narrator admits that the Palestinians and Syrians were ignored by Kissinger. They were irrelevant to the structure of the larger system. Yes. But do you know who else are irrelevant to the structure of the current system? The Africans, the Iranians, the Egyptians, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Europeans, the Israelis, and the Americans. All the citizens of the world are irrelevant to the current structure of the world, except for the very wealthiest families. The system was created to benefit them and them alone, since only they count. Everyone else is as relevant to the system as a gorilla in Tanzania. That is your true balance of power. 

Which makes listening to DoD spokesperson Leslie Gelb talk about human dignity and freedom at minute 18:00 especially disgusting. All these people like Gelb should be outlawed from ever mentioning the word dignity, since they have no conception of its meaning. Their entire lives have been the definition of undignified. They are shallow, greedy, pitiful predators, whose very existence is difficult to witness without revulsion. Every word from their mouths is some sort of unctuous lie. 

At minute 20:00, we are told the original dream of the Soviet Union had been to create a glorious new world, where the society and people would be transformed. Really? And when was that, exactly? Are they talking about Marx, or Lenin, or Stalin, or what? In any case, none of those guys ever gave a damn about Russia. No one ever wished to create a glorious new world, there or anywhere else. What they wished to create is the world we are in now, and they have done that. As far as Russia goes, what these Jewish moles like Marx and Lenin wanted was to drain Russia of all its tangible resources, making their families even more fabulously wealthy than they already were. Which they have done and continue to do. So Curtis is doing what we just saw Gelb doing—lying right to our faces. He is simplifying history for his stupid audience of children, boiling it down into a sugar-coated lie they can understand. We are then told that the Soviet Union had soon devolved into a hopeless state, where no one had any hope for the future. We are supposed to believe that had something to do with the failure of Communism, but of course it had nothing to do with that. The Russians felt hopeless because they had just been raped by the bankers and industrialists for many decades, and they couldn't figure out what to do about it. And the reason they couldn't figure out what to do is that they didn't understand what had happened, or who had done it. Most Russians still think the Communists did it, but there never were any Communists. The Communists were just a papermache front hiding the bankers. Which is why the problem continues: they have gotten rid of most of the Communist actors, but they still have the bankers and other capitalists raping them daily. So nothing has changed but the sets and the backdrops. We in the West are supposed to think it can only happen to those stupid Russians, or those stupid Chinese, while we witness it happening here as well. Under Trump, do we have more hope for the future? Not much. A large percentage of our population is on anti-depressants, just like in Russia or Eastern Europe. We are the same type of stupid children, watching people like Gelb and Curtis lie to on TV day by day, and tuning in tomorrow for the next lies. 

This is where the term HyperNormalisation comes into the film. We are told it was coined by a Soviet writer to indicate this inability to see an alternative to the current system, because you were trapped inside it. But again, that is false, both here and in Russia. People can easily imagine a better world. It isn't hard to do. What they can't see is how to start the revolution. They can't, because they have been so thoroughly mis-educated about who the rulers are. When they talk about such things, they mention the President, or Congress, which is what they have been hypnotized to do. But the President and Congress are just actors. You might as well attack Hollywood. Even if 100 million people marched on DC, the real rulers could ignore it, because they aren't there. There is no fortress to attack. Even the Pentagon generals are false targets: you could arrest all of them and it wouldn't make any difference. The old methods of warfare are useless, you see. 

At minute 24:40 we are introduced to the Strugatsky brothers, most famous for their 1971 book Roadside Picnic. In their created world, everything is skewed: “shadows go the wrong way. . . reality had become shifting and unstable.” Interesting, since we just caught Curtis doing that in this film. Go back to the dead black lady on the stoop at 2:30, who is in one position before the cut, and in another after the cut. Does Curtis bother to tell you the scene before the cut was a dramatization, matched to earlier footage? No. He sells you the scene as a simple cut. So he is manufacturing HyperNormalisation, while selling it to you as a natural outcome of history. And there is another thing you should know: the Strugatskys are Jewish. Like Curtis, they weren't reporting on a feeling of unease, they were creating it. 

Also note the “shadows going the wrong way”. Like in the Moon landing photos of two years earlier, maybe? Not a coincidence. The Strugatskys were also Intel agents, and their project was trying to explain your questions away via misdirection. It wasn't that NASA was simply lying right to your stupid face, it was that the world had become mysterious and disjointed by decades of confused politics, by eons of confused history, or by meddling aliens. This project continues, since it is the same thing we see from the mainstream science magazines to this day, with their monthly reports of “time is an illusion”, or “reality is a hologram”, etc. 

Tarkovsky then made a film adaptation of Roadside Picnic called Stalker. So he was continuing the propaganda. Why? Because he was from the same families. On his father's side he was from Polish nobility, and on his mother's side he descended from the Dubasovs and Vishnyakovs, including Vice Admiral Fyodor Dubasov, who had been Governor General of Moscow just before the Revolution. He was Order of St. George, which ties him to British royalty, which also give out medals of St. Michael and St. George. The Vishnyakovs were top industrialists at the same time. From all this we may assume Tarkovsky was also Jewish. You will say Dubasov couldn't have been Jewish, since he was a Tsarist and reactionary. But I have already proved the Romanov's themselves were of Jewish lines going back many centuries. In fact, the Dubasovs were related to the Romanov's, being high-ranking nobles themselves, of the same lines. Remember, all the royal houses of Europe are and were closely related: Nicholas II of Russian and George V of England were first cousins. 

Yes, Tarkovsky had a great eye, and I am not here to deny it, but from this we can tell he was also a spook. 

At minute 27:30, we are told that Reagan's Presidency was “a simple moral crusade, where America had a special destiny to fight evil”. Or, that was the script, at any rate, read by a doddering B-actor nincompoop who is even harder to watch now than he was then. By professional standards, he wouldn't even be considered a good pitchman for dog food, since his voice is high and nasal, his mannerisms are ridiculous, and his ability to read cue cards is poor. Only compared to George Bush or Donald Trump could he now appear to be the most charming thing imaginable. 

Next we are told Israel sent “a massive army to encircle the Palestinian camps in the Lebanon”. The reporter on camera is asking the armed Palestinian youths if they know how strong the Israelis are. I suggest you study this scene closely. Obviously, you are being sold the idea to this day that the Israeli army is formidable. We may assume this is a bluff, since if it were true, neither we nor these little boys would need to be told it. A large army isn't invisible. If it were really surrounding these kids, they would know it, and be properly frightened. Because they aren't, we must assume they are either 1) blind, 2) retarded, 3) actors. Notice we aren't shown any footage of this “massive army”. Just a couple of fake bombs going off and then an interview with child actors, all of them under 20 and under five feet tall. Then we cut to some fat British pooftah reporter skipping around in rubble while other fake bombs go off, and this is supposed to be proof the Israeli army is massive and strong. But ask yourself this: if the Israelis are so strong, why shell this enclave of boys armed with plastic rifles from a distance? Why not march through on foot, round up every last rebel, and throw them all in a gulag? I will tell you why: 1) the Israeli army is mostly a phantom, 2) these conflicts are staged by both sides. In other words, Israel hires its opposition, and Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS are all fakes. So were and are their leaders, including the disguised Jew Yasser Arafat. There is a reason, you know, that he always looked like Ringo Starr in a checkered turban.

Just to be clear, I am not saying he was played by Ringo Starr. I am saying they are from the same families. Notice that Wikipedia tells us Arafat's mother was a Saud from Jerusalem. His father was a textile merchant in Cairo. His paternal grandmother was Egyptian, though we aren't given a name. Also a clue is his full name: Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa alHusseini. That looks mostly manufactured, but the manufacture is itself a clue. See the 3 rd Baron Henry Stanley, who died in 1903. He was the uncle of Bertrand Russell. In 1862 Stanley converted to Islam and changed his name to. . . Abdul Rahman, allegedly becoming the first Muslim member of the House of Lords. Although this whole conversion was a fake and a project, what you should notice is the name he chose. Despite allegedly being a Muslim, Stanley nonetheless restored four Christian churches after his conversion on his home island of. . . Anglesey. 

Also notice that this gives us a link between Ringo Starr and Yasser Arafat. Ringo Starr's bandmate was John Lennon, whose mother was Julia Stanley. I looked for more easy links between Arafat and the Stanleys, but didn't immediately find them. You may. 

What I did find is that the mainstream has dropped the al-Husseini from Arafat's name since 2002. In that year, The Atlantic published an article on him, and included that last name. Wiki has since dropped it. Why? Maybe because Barack Hussein Obama allegedly* became President in 2008? It was bad enough that there was a possible link to Saddam Hussein of Iraq, but a link to the President had to be scrubbed.

These Husseini of Jerusalem are also suspicious. The mainstream admits Arafat is related to them, but the rest is in the dark. To throw some light on this question, we can look at Amin al-Husseini, who was supposed to be an Arab anti-Zionist back to 1920, but who was actually a very wealthy landowner. Although sentenced to ten years for leading the Nebi Rusa riots, he was immediately pardoned by the British. Even ten years sounds lenient for leading riots in which five Jews were killed and several hundred people wounded. According to local laws, he should have been given the death penalty. A few months later the British appointed him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Why would the British appoint the leader of riots to such a position? Although appointed by the British, we are told in the next sentence at Wiki that he opposed the British. What? As usual, we find no continuity in these manufactured stories. In 1937 he moved to Nazi Germany, where he made many radio broadcasts, allegedly to help the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims. He personally met with Hitler, allegedly asking him not to support a Jewish homeland. However, now that we know Hitler and the Nazis were actually cloaked Jews, we understand why this rich landowner from Jerusalem was taking personal meetings with Hitler. After the war he returned to Israel, where he allegedly led a militia called the Arab Rescue Army. I hope you see that like the others after him, he was an obvious mole. He looks to me like a crypto-Jew, and even his pictures confirm that.

 

Doesn't look like an Arab to me. He looks like Mark Wahlberg in a turban. Once again, he has Ringo Starr's eyes and mostly Jewish features. Just another amazing coincidence, right? 

Other things are strange about Yasser Arafat Husseini. We know he applied to the University of Texas, though we don't know if he was accepted. We know he applied to emigrate to Canada, although we don't know if he was accepted. Neither of those things fit the overall story of his life. 

While we are on this, we might as well hit Gaddafi as well. You may remember that his name used to be Khaddafi. So why did they change the spelling? I suggest because they didn't wish us to link him to someone else with a similar name. Who could that be? Possibly Abdel Aziz Khadr of the British peerage, who married the daughter of Zogu, the Prince of Albania. This links us to King Zog, Ahmet Zogolli, who was descended from George Castriot, aka Skanderbeg. 

Hmmm. Let's see, does he look Arab, or maybe. . . Jewish? How about that nose? Although most scholars assert this family is Serbian, a few maintain they were Greek. I suggest they were Jewish. Another clue in that direction is that Skanderbeg worked for the Republic of Venice, which was run by Jewish shipping interests. But even if the name is Serbian, that links us to Eastern Orthodoxy, not Islam. Although captured by Turks, Skanderbeg later threw the Turks out of Albania, which is why he is the national hero to this day. So it is not clear how the Zogs later became Muslim, if in fact they did. I suspect they simply pretended to assimilate, as they have done elsewhere. In fact, despite his name, Zog had no ties to the Arabs, having fought in the Austrian Army in WWI and being set up in Albania by the British. They admit he was a protégé of Aubrey Herbert, of the Earls of Carnarvon and the Howards, Dukes of Norfolk. 

Khaddafi may also be linked somehow to the Dukes of Cadaval in Portugal, closely related to the Braganza Dukes. This links us to the Braganca  Saxe-Coburgo-Gothas, which of course links us to the Windsors and the current Queen of England. This also links us to the Herbert's and Howard's, who both were connected to the Braganzas. This indicates a possible connection between Khadr and Cadaval, doubling the probability Khaddafi ties in here somehow. 

But why am I trying so hard to connect Gaddafi to the British peerage? Because it would explain the so far inexplicable: how this kid from a family of North African goatherders ended up with the British Army Signal Corp in Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, in 1966. What I can't figure out is “why Beaconsfield?” Wasn't there any other place he could have learned English? They didn't teach English in Dorset, where his army camp allegedly was? Beaconsfield is famous for being the home town of Disraeli, you know, the admittedly Jewish Prime Minister. If you don't think that is a clue, I don't know what to say. The poet Edmund Waller is also from there, and he was a cousin of Cromwell—indicating the same thing. Also probably a clue is the fact that the National Film and Television School is there, although it apparently postdated Gaddafi by a couple of years. We aren't told why Beaconsfield was chosen for that, and it may be that the army had some kind of film school there in the 1960's, which spun out later into the N.F.T.S. Gaddafi was obviously groomed for his role from an early age—chosen for his looks and for his connections to the families—then set up by the British in Libya. The rest has just been a rather lengthy stage play, with a bad script and truly awful acting. 

At minute 55:00, we are told terrorists attacked Rome and Vienna airports simultaneously in 1985, killing 19 people. Hmmm. 19 people, you say? Like the 19 hijackers? Like the 19 hanged in Salem?

Like the 19 guerrillas with Castro, and so on and so on? In other words, another fake. Somehow they knew immediately that Gaddafi was behind it, despite doing no investigation. Reminds us of 911, doesn't it, where they knew it was Bin Laden within hours, without doing any investigation and with no prior warning? Then we get film of the aftermath in Rome, with one of the wounded wheeled by on a stretcher. Look closely at the wounded person, who just happens to look exactly like Gaddafi. This, my friends, is just another example of shock and awe. Your mind is being purposely tumbled by these filmmakers, then and now. 

Here again, we are told the experts believed it was Syria behind the attacks, not Libya. But the truth is, neither were behind the attacks, since they were staged. Hollywood was behind the attacks, as usual. The events were staged only to prepare us for what came next: Gaddafi was piped into the American Muslim Brotherhood meetings (of Farrakhan and others), promising to liberate blacks in the US from their white oppressors. In other words, Intel was trying to foment race wars, to take the focus off the bankers. Same thing they are doing today with Trayvon Martin, the fake Charleston Church murders, and so on. Watching Gaddafi claim to the ally of American blacks is truly mind blowing in its rampant absurdity, and maybe you can see that now with hindsight. Back then it was sold as normal. Or hyper normal, I don't know. Compare it to what you are being told now by the media, which is just as mindbogglingly stupid. Back then, it was that Gaddafi was going to supply arms for a black army in the US of 400,000 men. The question should have been, if Gaddafi was capable of arming half a million men, why didn't he do that in Libya? If he had, he could have taken over all of Africa. Now, it is that Elon Musk is launching Tesla cars into space just for fun, and that the reality of that event can be judged by how fake it looks. “The faker it looks, the more real it is.” Same project as that of Surkov, you see, but now they tell you to your face what they are doing as they do it. That creates one more level of confusion. 

After that, Reagan used the manufactured threat from Libya to justify unprecedented levels of defense spending. Much of it was allegedly to counter Libya's new rocket systems, now trained on Europe, just across the Mediterranean. But Curtis admits none of that was true: Libya had no rocket systems and was no danger to Europe. Gaddafi had been set up by us to act as a foil. So the trillions of dollars your parents and grandparents were taxed were for nothing. All the fear was for nothing. 

Honestly, in watching these old films of Gaddafi, he doesn't come across as mad at all. A bad actor, yes; mad, no. Madness only enters the equation when we realize the whole thing is theater, and that Gaddafi is just having a laugh. It only enters the equation when we realize our own governors are spending our tax dollars to create these massive fictions, lying to us so that they can spend more tax dollars: for nothing. All of us are going to work everyday and paying enormous taxes, to subsidize worldwide theater and a military industrial complex that is nothing but a mirage. A very large part of our economy is a fetid mist. 

It took a second viewing for me to realize something else. Gaddafi had a book and a new theory of politics called the Third Universal Way, as an alternative to Communism and Capitalism. So Gaddafi was another Anti. He was propped up as a madman to blackwash any alternatives to Communism and Capitalism. Those running the world don't want you to realize there are any alternatives. They want to keep you corralled in this little pen, where Communism and Capitalism are the only choices. This makes it easier for them, because they can then keep the dialog limited and bilateral.

At minute 1:15:00, Curtis tells us that after the fall of the Soviet Union, governance came to be seen not as changing the world, but managing a “post-political” world. He introduces us to German political philosopher Ulrich Beck, who wrote that anyone who wanted to make the world a better place was now seen as dangerous. Hmmm. That's a convenient philosophy for the current rulers, isn't it? Change for the better is now seen as dangerous, eh? What surer way to legislate stasis than to define change as dangerous. By this thought alone, we can out Beck as a spook, hired to by the status quo to keep it in power. As further indication of that, we find that Beck's Wiki page has been scrubbed of all useful biographical information. His parents are not listed, even on his longer German Wiki page. But we do find he held an appointment at the London School of Economics, and was on the Board of Trustees at the Jewish Center in Munich. What a surprise, hunh? Here is a gloss of his most famous theory: 

The theory of reflexive modernization works from the basic idea that the rise of the modern industrial age produces side-effects across the globe that provide the institutional basis and coordinates that modern nation-states question, modify, and open for political action.[4] 

Reminds me of the theory of Anne Elk (Mrs.), whose theory on Brontosauruses that was hers and which belonged to her was the following and I quote: They are small on one end, get very large in the middle, and then are small again on the other end.

However, by Beck's own words, the “political action” of any modern nation state cannot include actually solving any of those problems, since that might make the world a better place. And suggesting political action in a post-political world is a contradiction in itself. Notice that Beck dodges that bullet by never suggesting any possible solutions to problems. According to his theory, the state does not solve any problems, it only brings them up for discussion, where they may be modified or extended. In other words, we have discovered another money pit. Beck was one of the most cited “scientists” in his lifetime, and since neither he nor any of these people citing him did anything but create sentences like the one above—which say nothing—we see the worldwide funding of another circle jerk. When your tax dollars aren't going for Intelligence Theater or Military Theater, they are going for Academic Theater like this. 

At minute 1:16:00, still following Beck, we are told it is now impossible to predict the outcome of anything we do. The world is just too complex. “The catalog of environmental disasters proves this”. What? So we are supposed to believe that the outcomes of environmental disasters couldn't have been foreseen or prevented? The various oil spills couldn't have been predicted? Mudslides caused by clearcutting couldn't have been predicted? Earth collapses caused by mining couldn't have been predicted? Rivers and oceans polluted by using them as dumps couldn't have been predicted? Air polluted by smokestacks and other emissions couldn't have been predicted? Food poisoned by Roundup couldn't have been predicted? You see what is happening here? It looks to me like Monsanto and BP and Exxon and others paid Beck and Curtis to insert this section, to make you think no one is to blame. We are going to get more and more environmental disasters, and no one will be to blame. The world is just too complex. Big companies have to make obscene profits, and it is impossible to expect them to act with reasonable care or consideration in pursuit of that.

Curtis then tells us Beck came from the political left. Cue laugh-track. 

At 1:16:45, we are told the ruling class has been reduced to steering society into a dark and frightening future, their only aims being to avoid risks and keep society stable. That is true to an extent, if you read it right. Their only risks are being held accountable for their crimes, and they must keep society stable (read asleep) to make sure they never are held accountable. That is how they see their roles as governors—which means their future really is dark and frightening, despite all their yachts and polo ponies. They can never sleep well, since they have to sleep surrounded by a constant guard. They can never look in the mirror with any sense of ease, since a liar will always be peering back at them. And they must live in a constant fear of death, because the one judge they cannot bribe or drug is waiting for them. You and I (supposing you are honest) don't have those problems. We don't fear the mirror or the future or even death, because we know we have done our best. Yes, we have made mistakes, but we have not screwed over the entire world for personal profit. 

At minute 1:17:00, Curtis contradicts his previous statements of a few moments earlier, by telling us that supercomputers can predict the future where humans couldn't [note the dissonance created by that contradiction]. This, apparently, is the future of governance. We are taken to East Wenatchee, the home of a giant computer created by Larry Fink. . . a banker. Hmmm. A banker you say? We didn't see that coming, did we? Anyway, we are told that earlier in his career Fink had lost 100 million in a deal and had been sacked. But wait, bankers don't get sacked for losing 100 million in a deal. Traders do. So there is something we aren't being told. First, let's get our ducks in row: is Fink Jewish? Of course. The money he lost wasn't his own. It was lost in investments by his bank at the time, First Boston, which made a gamble about where interest rates were going and lost. Anyway, Fink is now the head of Blackrock, a subsidiary of Blackstone. We are told they have now split, but that isn't really true, as we have seen in previous papers. They split them only so that they didn't have to list their assets together. If they did that, they would be the largest investment firm in the world by a huge margin, and the Rockefeller's don't want that kind of attention. Together, Blackrock/Blackstone admit to around seven trillion in assets, but I suspect it is much more than that. Anyway, it helps to know that while watching this section of the documentary. It also helps to know that Merrill Lynch and Barclays investments were both swallowed by Blackrock in the past decade. 

Since Fink is a Democrat, I guess we could say that he, like Beck, is from the political left. Again, cue laugh-track. 

So, the supercomputer called Aladdin in the apple orchards of Wenatchee is run by these folks. Which should give you a feeling of great comfort. If you are a billionaire, your investments are secure. The computer monitors current events plus the past 50 years (chuckle: computers apparently don't need to know what happened before 1966, since everything before that was ancient history—and therefore irrelevant). I wonder if the computer is told which events are real and which are fake. From this, the computer is supposed to be able to predict possible disasters. Right. So just by being fed information by humans of the past 50 years, taken from books and newspapers and TV, no doubt, this computer is supposed to have developed some sort of intelligence? That is pretty hard to believe, since the humans brought up on the same diet have proved to be nothing but imbeciles. 

This is all just more propaganda, and that computer is another fake. It may not even be plugged in, but if it is, it is nothing more than a glorified heat trap. Since the markets are rigged, they don't need computers to foresee any problems. Yes, they use computers to rig the markets, but prediction has nothing to do with it. The markets do whatever the wealthy want them to do, and the computers don't have to make any decisions. The computers store and analyze information, but they don't control anything beyond the thermostat and the clocks (thank God). Blackrock wants you to think they do— hence the annoying commercials about the great Aladdin—but don't fear the Genie in the bottle. AI is no threat to you. The real threat is the same as it has always been: the wealthy robbing you blind with these fake projects. The computers are just a way for them to redirect your gaze in one more way. They want you talking about aliens or computers or the President or Congress or Russia or Libya or Syria or North Korea. Anything to keep you off the truth. 

Plus, the computers are also expensive, and they can bill you for that expense on top of everything else —whether they are plugged in or not. 

But don't fear computers. Fear the people behind and in front of the computers. Watch the Aladdin commercial within the documentary and study the humans fronting this machine. They are scarier than any robot. Watch as they say “I am Aladdin” with empty, unblinking eyes. One says, “I am 25 million lines of code”. Another says, “I'll find the numbers behind the numbers”. Wait. There are numbers behind the numbers? Wouldn't that indicate cooked books? These people are far more disturbing than any machines. They have been paid to work for these evil companies, either as hirelings or actors, and they seem to have no problem with that. 

In the next section, we move on to Prozac. Curtis admits that Wenatchee also has more Prozac junkies than any other town in America. So I guess they aren't billionaires, and aren't comforted to have Aladdin helping them with their investments. We expect Curtis to comment on how eerie all that is, but instead he hits us with a couple of earnest Prozac endorsements—which is even eerier. The people endorsing are creepy, but I am not at all certain he sees that, or that most viewers of this documentary see that. Maybe they are rushing out to buy Prozac. Indeed, they must be, because Prozac sales continue to rise. People want what these creepy people have. And I have to believe that is why these endorsements are here: Curtis and his sponsors knows they will help sell more Prozac. A couple of oddballs like you and me will see how creepy all this is, but the majority of people will rush out and spend money to get even creepier than they already are. 

“Everybody is brainwashing each other into being happy”. Minute 1:22:00. Intentional or unintentional irony? Or. . . scripted to create dissonance? 

Immediately after that, we segue back into artificial intelligence. Notice that Curtis admits scientists were not able to get computers to think like humans, or to think at all. But he glosses over that, and most people will miss it. The computer program described in this section was a “parody of the hopeless attempts” to create AI. It was an interactive psychotherapy program called Eliza, that mirrored the user back to herself. Of course it became wildly popular with limited and self-absorbed people, i.e. most people. But the thing to circle here is what is admitted at minute 1:24:50: Eliza comprehended absolutely nothing that was being said to it. In other words, it had no intelligence. It is artificial non-intelligence. 

So, of course the bankers went wild over this technology. It gave them another way to misdirect people, this time by misdirecting them into a new sort of navel-gazing. People could be diverted into thousands of hours of talking to themselves, while never getting anything done, never learning anything, and never having to question their previous attitudes. This appealed to people who felt that even monitored and policed chat rooms and forums weren't safe enough. They needed a constant validation, the kind of validation that only a mirror could give them.

At minute 1:28:00, we are told the new post-political, post-democratic world order began “causing resentment in the margins”. Purposefully sloppy language once again, since the resentment wasn't in the margins, it was from everyone that wasn't a millionaire. That isn't the margins. Or, it is in the banker's margins, which they can ignore, but it isn't what we would normally mean by “in the margins”. 

Next, we fast forward to minute 1:35:30, back in the Middle East, 1992. A Palestinian has allegedly stabbed an Israeli soldier, and in retaliation the Israelis have kidnapped 450 Hamas regulars and transported them to a mountaintop. There is no camp there, and no food or shelter, but somehow and for some reason the Hamas guys remained there for six months, where they were taken in by Hezbollah. That's convenient, isn't it? But I guess the Israelis didn't know that was Hezbollah's mountain. The Israelis don't have an Aladdin that can tell them everything. Anyway, later these Hamas guys marched back toward the Israeli border dressed as martyrs. So Hollywood. We are told the Israelis were shelling them, and we see bombs exploding in the distance. The Israelis have bad aim, as we know. 

However, the funny thing is the next line: “But it soon became more than just theater”. More cognitive dissonance. So, Curtis is admitting up to that time it was just theater? He tells us Hamas then began a wave of suicide attacks in Israel. But wait, if it was theater up to that time, what evidence do we have it wasn't just theater after that? None. Or, we have film of an exploded bus, and a lady being taken off it. However, since the steel and metal bus was blown completely to shreds, and this woman is whole, intact, and apparently completely unharmed—without a mark on her—the evidence is not very convincing. They then interview a Jewish woman in sunglasses, and we know by now that Jewish women never lie. As usual, she talks about crying without crying, and has a slight smile the whole time. 

Curtis then admits the problem with all this suicide bombing stuff: the Koran forbids suicide, and Sunni Islam has no rituals of self-sacrifice. When I lived in Europe, I talked to a few nice Arabs, and they told me they didn't believe in these suicide bombings for this reason. The stories contradict themselves. Seeming to realize this was a problem, the theater directors back then rushed to hire their own Sheikhs, like Sheikh Qaradawi. He immediately issued a fatwa in support of the suicide bombings. Several problems with that: 1) Qaradawi is the principle shareholder of Al Taqwa Bank, based out of the Bahamas, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein. That bank was set up in 1988 by Albert Huber and Francois Genoud. Although Huber was allegedly born a Protestant and converted to Islam, he looks like another crypto-Jew. He was a member of the Swiss Socialist Party and admired Hitler. His alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood look like a sham, and it is admitted that since 2010 the UN Security Council has taken the bank off its (fake) list of Al Qaeda associates. Francois Genoud is even more obvious. He is admitted to have been the Swiss financier of the Nazis. He was born in 1915, so he was old enough to have done that. This means he was also Jewish, since both the Nazis and their financiers were Jews. If you don't believe me, you may like to know that Genoud travelled to Jerusalem in 1936 specifically to meet the Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini, whom we studied above. It is also admitted at Wiki that Genoud worked for both the Swiss and German Intelligence agencies. Any questions? Genoud and al-Husseini were close friends, and Genoud managed the huge finances of the Mufti. In 1940, Genoud set up the Oasis nightclub in Lausanne as a covert front for the Abwehr—the Intelligence Service of the Reichswehr. Genoud was also a close friend of Karl Wolff, supreme Nazi SS leader in Italy. After the War, Genoud was presented the Swiss Red Cross in Brussels. Wait, why would a Nazi Intel officer be awarded a Swiss Red Cross after the War? One of the questions they hope you don't ask. Genoud was also the principal manager of Nazi assets after the war, and later became a close friend and ally of George Habash, who we have looked at in previous papers. 2) Qaradawi is also a trustee of the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies. 3) He finished 3rd in a 2008 poll on who was the world's leading public intellectual. The poll was managed by two western magazines, the UK's Prospect and the US's Foreign Policy—both spook rags. 4) He has his own show on Al Jazeera, which is also a CIA front, sort of like Radio Free Europe, but Radio Free Middle East. 5) A film on the prophet Mohammed is in the works, with a budget of one billion dollars. Qaradawi is supervising the film, and Barrie Osborne is producing. Osborne was also the producer of The Matrix, The Great Gatsy, and Apocalypse Now. So obviously Qaradawi is another Western creation, set up as a foil to Israel. He is gigantic fake. 

This fact alone destroys Curtis' entire section in his documentary on suicide bombers. You will say we have film of bodies on the streets covered in blood. Yes, bodies can be bought from from the morgue, and blood can also be bought. This is indication of nothing. Hollywood fakes massacres every week in a very convincing fashion. Just because John Wick killed 100 people doesn't mean I believe in massacres. Plus, we have seen incontrovertible evidence Intel has been faking events like these for centuries. In some cases, they have later admitted it. Curtis admits the entire Gaddafi project was manufactured. So why would anyone believe the rest of this stuff? 

At minute 1:38:40, we are told Netanyahoo turned against the peace process, “which was exactly what Hamas wanted”. With such transparent rhetoric, do you still doubt Curtis is Jewish? Do you still doubt that the BBC is controlled by Zionists? Do you really believe the Palestinians don't want peace? No, they want Israel to continue to shell them, bomb them, and steal their lands. Who wouldn't want that? None of the Arabs want peace. They want the US and UK to continue to invade like they did in Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The greatest wish of all Arab countries is to be bombed into powder, looted, and lorded over by a puppet dictator. The Arabs are used to that, and they grow lonely without US troops to keep them company. How would the third world get along without our representatives there to steal from them at gunpoint every other week? They might go into painful withdrawal without our constant attentions. 

Yes, we are supposed to believe the peace process in the Middle East was destroyed by suicide bombers. Not by the US, UK, and Israel dominating the region for decades or centuries, destroying all local autonomy and stealing most natural resources. No, it was a few fake people blowing themselves up for the Western cameras that did it. 

For another good laugh, watch the screaming old guy at 1:39:20, and notice exactly what he says: 

“This is impossible! This moment will be the end! It must be the end of this bloody peace process”. 

He supposedly just watched a suicide bombing, and yet he calls it a bloody peace process? Would you call a suicide bombing a peace process? No, he is a better actor than his American counterparts, but he is obviously reading from a script. No real person would talk about a peace process after watching a suicide bombing. 

At 1:43:00, Curtis sells 911 as a suicide bombing on a grand scale. I guess he hasn't heard that about 90% of the world now believes 911 was a false flag. And I don't mean 90% of the third world. I mean 90% of the Western World. Very few real people in the US, UK, France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Italy, or Australia believe the mainstream story of 911. The only people still selling it are media hacks like Curtis. The journalists have circled the wagons, supporting eachother, but no one else is buying it. Note the poster from the film under title above, where Curtis himself admits that we know they are lying. That's right Curtis, They Know We Know They Lie, and we know they know we know.

But Curtis, You are They. As part of the BBC, you are they. We know you are one of the liars. The BBC was caught lying about 911. Remember the building 7 fracas, where the BBC reported the collapse before it happened? And who was that reporter? Jane Standley. Standley=Stanley. What is more, a lot of us caught on due to 911. We Know They Lie because of 911. So you aren't going to fool us here 15 years later. Why are you even trying? 

This just shows how desperate and out-of-touch the ruling class still was in 2016, when this documentary was made. It was still trying to hammer home the old nails of 911, but those nails were on the floor and out the door long again. There is no wood to hold them. Yes, Curtis tries to bring in some new nails, gluing them in by surrounding them with a bunch of yapping about Surkov and Tarkovsky and AI and Prozac and aliens and a lot of other noise, but in doing so he only confirms what we already knew: the mainstream is beaten on this topic and all others. The worldwide psychological operations units are completely out of ideas and over matched. In the 1970's, a film like that of Curtis would have been a propaganda coup, fooling almost everyone. Now, it will fool almost no one. Those who have seen through 911 can see through this crap much more easily, and as I said, that is 90% of the world population. Not even teenagers buy this mood-music harum-scarum anymore. They aren't spooked by a little fake blood or a Jaws soundtrack. You brought them up on Marilyn Manson and Nirvana and John Wick and The Matrix, so don't expect to fool them with some fake blood on the streets of Jerusalem or Rome. 

It looks to me like the rulers are in a real jam, since it is hard to see how they will continue to sell their fake projects in the future. Without belief in the military projects, the art projects, and the science projects, how do they justify continuing to tax us for them? I have said before that CIA should not have loaned DHS their media tools, since DHS has broken the tools inexorably. DHS has flubbed so many major projects, all belief in the governors is gone. People aren't watching the news, aren't reading newspapers, aren't buying magazines, and aren't biting on the propaganda. They simply aren't believing the lies. Curtis admits that last part, but it is clear he hasn't figured out what to do about it. Dressing up the propaganda in a newish Blair Witch Project look didn't do the trick, did it? 

They thought that turning up the heat would work, but that has backfired as well. They thought if we didn't buy one big fake per year, maybe we would buy fifty smaller fakes, but that hasn't turned out to be true. They thought if we didn't buy one turn of the screw, maybe we would buy two turns, or three turns, but that hasn't worked either. We aren't buying the hologram gambit and we won't buy the life as an illusion gambit. I expect them to try a big alien gambit, but I can save them the time: this won't work either. This isn't 1938 and people are no longer that naive. They are still just as stupid in many ways, but they are too technically savvy to fall for another War of the Worlds trick. 

I humbly suggest the plutocrats' only hope is to back slowly out of this corner they have painted themselves into. The rulers can avoid a revolution and avoid the dark future they see for themselves, but only by reversing the gears. If, like the Grinch, they turn the sled around and bring the toys and roast beast back to Whoville, I daresay the gormless Whos may forget to hang them for it, especially if they do it silently and with no fanfare. None of that wicked “philanthropy”, mind. Just quit stealing and hoarding and start giving back. Stop lying and start telling the truth. Stop destroying and start cleaning up. Stop buying fake art and science and start buying real art and science. Stop producing fake food and start producing real food. Stop making us miserable on purpose and then selling us dangerous drugs for our miseries. If you do this, you may be able to stop sleeping on a pile of coins surrounded by bodyguards and start sleeping in a real bed. And someday you may be able to meet your maker without him spitting in your face. You may avoid him returning you to the Earth for a hundred lifetimes as a field mouse, in field of hungry and sharp-clawed cats and hawks. 

*He never legally took the oath of office. . It was flubbed in front of the cameras in both 2008 and 2012, and was on the wrong day in 2012. It was redone privately in 2008, but Obama later admitted no Bible was used in the redo, making it also non-legally binding according to US law. 

**Also see the Chapman Brothers, current modern “artists”. I never suspected of being linked to this family, until now. 

http://mileswmathis.com/hyper.pdf