by Paul Joseph Watson
Back in the heady days of the last century, the composition of government was a fine balance between decent individuals and outright criminals. Terrorism existed but any notion of a ‘war on terrorism’ was scoffed at because reasonable people didn’t see how a war on an abstract term could ever be won. Even if you wiped out every terrorist organisation on the planet, new ones would eventually emerge.
The criminal element of the state realized that in order to overthrow the genuine sector of government they had to create enemies and then play them off against these good-natured representatives. The typical scenario would be that a terrorist group attacks a country. The good-natured portion of government, thinking that the threat was independent, immediate and real, would react by imposing restrictions on the personal liberties of its citizens in a desperate attempt to prevent further attacks. Those citizens would then rise up in anger against these draconian measures and the so-called do-gooders would be kicked out of office. This would leave the criminals with a monopoly on government all as a result of the terrorist threat, which they had created in the first place. They would then be able to choose their own ‘do-gooders’ who would take the blame for the next manufactured terrorist attack. All the while the liberties of the citizens slip further into the abyss and the overall agenda of the criminals, to erect a society in their image, is advanced.
Of course nowadays the criminals are in complete control and recklessly fund every terrorist group worth the name, sometimes even directly participating in the actual terrorist attacks. However, it is useful to trace back over history and uncover how this strategy materialized.