It can be argued that authoritarianism in Germany by 1934 was the inevitable result of the Military’s influence and the dominant Military culture of Germany more widely and that Hitler’s rise to power was the result of an intentful exploitation of this.

The ‘Sonderweg’ theory states that Germany had an intrinsic and historic Military culture that permeated it’s society and mode of politics. Particularly before the Weimar constitution, Military decisions such as the Army budget took priority in the Reichstag, and laws like the Septennial Law 1874 proved the significant influence and power politics that the Military had. Preference of Militarism over democracy in Germany can be shown as early as 1913 during the Zabern Affair, which showcased how the Military was above the Law and exempt from the democratic structure. This can also be seen at the secret Military meeting held in December 1912, in which all non-military persons were not invited to attend. It is clear that even before the establishment of a constitutional democracy in Germany, that people supported the dominance of the Military over the constitutional process.

It has also been argued by historians that the German Military culture resulted in a dominance of authoritarian views in individuals. Most men in Germany would have completed the minimum term of Military service before 1918, exposing them to the authoritarian structure and philosophy of the Military, thus instilling these attitudes. By 1918, 13.5 million Germans (⅕ of the population) was enrolled in Military service, meaning an entire generation of Germans would inevitably be more likely to support the authoritarian campaign of Hitler by the late 20’s and early 30’s.

Hitler certainly exploited this facet of German culture to take power. He was perhaps the only politician representing the hard-right against leftist politics and the compliance of other politicians with the Treaty of Versailles and continued reparations. Certainly many Germans were dissatisfied with the status quo and the large ex-service population of Germany were resentful of the neutering of the Military by foreign intervention, whereas Hitler promised to rebuild Germany’s military power to a level stronger than ever before.

Indeed, after the Munich Putsch 1923, at which Hitler attempted to take power through chaotic revolutionary means, he realised this method would be ineffective toward his target base of supporters. Instead, Hitler would take the route of incremental gain through the apparatus of the existing constitution. This was significant as this process appealed to the orderly character trait of Militaristic individuals and of Conservative Germans in general, unlike the chaotic method of social revolution associated with left-wing radicalism. Hitler also increased his propaganda campaign with his Propaganda Minister Jospeh Goebbels, which was anti semitic and often Militarily oriented.

However, Hitler’s utilization of his own SA (of which had around 4 million members by 1934) had the genuine Military officials in Germany unsympathetic to his campaign. Hitler purged himself of hundreds of his own party members that he feared disloyalty from in the future and many of his SA generals during the Night of the Long Knives in June 1934. The victims included high officials such as Ernst Rohm, Von Schleicher and Gregor Strasser. This act by Hitler secured him support from the Military Generals and businessmen in Germany, as by eliminating the SA leadership he would remove the possibility of protest for his plans to suppress workers right in order to rapidly rebuild the German Military.

In conclusion, it is possible to say that from the very beginning of democracy in Germany that it was doomed for failure, as it would forever be immediately associated with the loss of the war and the economic and social disparity that followed. The German culture was evidently not prepared to accept democracy, and that a rapid transition from a monarchical military structure to a totally modernized democracy would never succeed. For just under the first decade of the Weimar constitution, the Government was unable to rely on it’s official military and thus resorted to the use of the right-wing militia group (the Freikorps) to quell widespread revolutions and coupes from both the left and right of Germany. The new Government was opposed in the Spartacist revolution and in the Kapp and Munich Putsch, both of which saw no participation from the Military to help calm them, rather famously, General Siekt said “soldiers don’t shoot soldiers”.

The end of democracy by 1934 was more widely accepted than democracy itself, though it had partly been achieved through deception and exploitation. After the Reichstag fire in 1933 Hitler was able to pass the ‘Law for the Protection of People and State’ allowing Hitler to suppress his political opponents indiscriminately. Despite Hitler’s overt authoritarianism, the German public still gave him a mandate to make himself supreme leader of Germany, passing the Enabling Act, thus allowing him to establish a one party state through the ‘Law against the Establishment of Parties’, and by August, after the death of Hindenburg, Hitler was able to assume both the Presidential mantle and that of the Chancellorship, thus becoming the Fuhrer, with many still as fervent supporters to his regime.

- an essay by FabiusSideman

Some introductory food for thought...

"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted"

  - Vladimir Lenin

"Marxist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism... Most of the people who graduated in the 60's are now occupying positions of power in the Government, civil service, business, mass media, and education system. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind, even if you expose them to authentic information."

  - Yuri Bezmenov

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them"

  - George Orwell

The 'Conglomerate of Liberalism' as a result of the ideological state apparatus?

To use a Marxist idiom, the ideological state apparatus encompasses the power of the State in matters concerning perspective control, i.e. how people think intergenerationally and their views toward certain topics; the apparatus being the Educational system, Media texts, licensing etc. These apparatus make up the State's power to influence the overall judgement of its citizens, particularly in a way that subverts the threshold of scepticism toward the general person, and applied correctly to the scrutinised control of educational curriculum, exploits the somewhat tribal and innate trust of youth in their surrounding elders. The employment, too, of the various psychologies, more distinctly, the behavioural psychologies, throughout a child's life in State education until late adolescence, indisputably has a tremendous effect in moulding the perspectives of every individual, more so on those who continue up until their early adulthood. Then, it is by no accident, that after an evident phase of conditioning and socialisation, the prerequisite to the life of this society, that almost every household, street corner and vehicle is bombarded with devices of media. It is true, is it not, that the the development and widespread proliferation of the Television, just as the radio had done, had every household open their door for the State to lull them with ideology for hours each day, masked of course by entertainment and emotional drama, but, of course, still enforcing ideology.

How exactly then, does any of this relate to the 'Conglomerate of Liberalism'. Well, what I call the Conglomerate of Liberalism broadly refers to a kind of informal coalition of Liberal and progressive ideologies, prevalent to the new Western political sphere that appears, by my estimates, to have resulted from an elaborate, yet conceivable process of indoctrination within the educational system, and secondarily, (Corporate) Media institutions and the technological era. What I mean by this is that the ideological state apparatus in Education and Media has manipulated the youth into ideologies, that unwittingly to them are totalitarian in nature, whilst in a deceptive duality, are Utopian and idealistic in appearance, which draws the naivety of youth, especially when nudged, close to them.

Not only am I speaking from a first hand experience of this process of ideological subversion, but now, becoming more aware of it, and its intentions, this also comes from first hand witnessing of the process as a 17 year old student at a college (UK). For, you see, there had been a period of time when I was around the age of 13-15 perhaps, that I had fallen prey to the idealism of Socialism, Communism and internationalism. I had seemed to go through a phase of 'awakening' if you will, where my mind, almost arbitrarily, appeared to become intellectually stimulated (this was when I began writing poetry) and through that process, my 'awakening' was hijacked by the previous subversion of my intellect and thus I seemed to shift to the radical ideologies that I mentioned, of Liberalism and proggressivism, that also, and by no coincidence, align with the intentions of Globalists, prominent NGO's and multinational corporations, who've already established the institutional foundations for internationalism (EU, UN, etc) and Socialism (Welfare State, Interventionism, Globalisation, outsourcing, etc) and the process now relies upon preparing the ideological foundations, which begins with children. Is it any coincidence, I ask, that we have been taught books of Socialist and Feminist authors, lectured to about race relations and 'toxic masculinity', shown only the negative depictions of our history, and the brutality of so called Capitalism? I wonder why the State would manipulate the curriculum in or order that generations grow up into ideologies that favour the increased power of the State?

When I speak of the Conglomerate of Liberalism, this means that most, if not all Liberal groups and ideologies are linked in some way by similar aims, activity or tenets. For example, a women who adheres to Feminism will also likely come into contact with the various other groups surrounding that, i.e. Race relations or Socialist groups, by numerous matching or similar tenets of ideology (gender pay gap - wealth/class disparity, patriarchy - racism). They have similar tenets, which means that when in schools, where children are subversively exposed to Liberal ideologies, they will likely then become exposed to many more, and the genius of this (from first hand experience) is that they will think they have to come to their conclusions about the world and formed their opinions ON THEIR OWN. I have noticed that there is a proportion of girls I know that are now self proclaimed Feminists, and through that gateway, from those of which I've spoken to, they have also fallen to the ideological snares of Socialism, Communism and internationalism, as I had done. This 'theory' if that's the right word to use, I have mused on for a great length of time and has broadly been constructed from experience and observation primarily, rather than hypotheses.

Duality and Pluralism within Marxist Doctrine...

How does one trick, on such a large scale, people down rabbit holes whose pits are bare, and when the cage is sealed above their heads, have them cheer in droves as the key is tossed firmly away into the mud? Well, by the genius of a pluralistic manner of words whose face holds smiling principles that fool those by it's simplicity; 'equality'. And who might share such values as longing for days where men are equal? All do. And it is by this that it is the broadest bear trap of all ideological snares, for on the face of it's words, who can refute it's principles?

The essence of redistribution of wealth (by wealth is meant power and by redistribution is meant divergence) is a process that involves the destruction of any kind of meritocratic society that may or may not have existed hitherto the point of a Communist State, which in principle means the abolition of the possibility for individual economic mobility or even freedom as one's ownership is not only collective, but through State intervention, is fixed, and by who should this be determined? Likely the one pointing the guns as demonstrated historically. Equality of opportunity, in it's literal and pure form means that all can attain the level of prosperity they choose, which therefor makes inequality an inevitable factor. The ever growing critique on Capitalistic society that it is a rigged system that deliberately favours the rich is both a right and wrong assertion. It would seem by my observations that many are confused, as today's western, even global economic system I do not believe is one of free market Capitalism, but of cronyism and a near quasi-feudal Oligarchy of corporatism that is able to manipulate the world economy through international organisations and think tanks like that of the EU, UN, IMF, ECB, CFR, etc, that in fact stifles any individual achievement or economic competition, but through a symbiosis of State and Business has completely reversed that. Instead increasing government power has entangled corporatism into the mix, allowing for the establishment of greater monopolies than ever before. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the local national economies of today's globalised society are more socialist than Capitalist. For example, in Britain, after the successive Fabianism of the last century we have more programmes resembling socialism than otherwise, as our industry (like most of Europe/North America) has been outsourced through free trade deals to the East with little protection on national produce, thus our industry becomes nationalised or is scrapped, leading to unemployment and reliance on a mostly service economy or the welfare state that is often abused. So, in the principle of equality of outcome, one's material and social value is ascribed for you on behalf of the state/now ruling class. There are many parallels to be drawn between direct slavery and communist society, a form of indirect slavery, and

this pluralistic principle is one, as the fruit of labour is collective and therefor anything you do in excess will not be your own. And with the ever depleting use of tangible currency and the shift to the technological age of computerised money, there is even more the plausibility for the disabling of personal savings, instead any disposable income could be removed algorithmically (this is hypothesis of course). That's if you are payed, or live out your days in the gulags as the Russians did. The money system can easily be substituted for another method of trade/wealth and have equal circumstance. The equality of outcome may appear on the surface a great ideal, however, that would be the cunning duality of Marxist doctrine, that unlike, for instance, Nazism that is well and publicly understood to be tyrannical in nature by it's clear rhetoric. Communism on the other hand, that has slaughtered as many, in fact more people, is fluffy, pluralistic and idealistic in it's rhetoric, and ideologically appeals to the now rebellious intellectuals (particularly youth) who've access to the technological age of ideas and increasing global cosmopolitanism. An education system that has taught us all from a young age that we are all together in the social body, getting medals for taking part, etc. Surely has had an influence on the level of Marxist discourse apparent today.

The primary claim of Communist doctrine is to create an equal, classless society. However, where such ideals have manifested themselves, it appears more an elimination of the middle classes. Rather than bringing everyone up, instead it tears everyone down, which then of course leaves a more clear cut division of society into a ruling and working class, or more simply known as totalitarianism. Whether it the Stalinist Bureaucracy or the modern day Dictatorship of Northern Korea, this is the ultimate reality of the establishment of a communist state, which is why it baffles me as to why such a format remains to have such a relatively large basis of adherents, despite the lessons of history. I simply quote George Orwell's interpretation of Communist principality contained in Animal Farm, that is "all animals are born equal, but some animals are born more equal than others". As a person who has grown up in state schooling I fear what will be the long term ramifications of a subversive curriculum I and many others have been exposed to that seems to push my generation, particularly of the more intellectual sort, further and further left. Books of socialist authors, Marxist sociological teachings and other subversive tricks placed into the curriculum, whilst those who fall for these tricks believe they have come to their own conclusions, and instead say that society teaches us to refute Communism and love Capitalism. The same people who would benefit from state control are the same people who choose the curriculum and control media outlets. Think, why would state education want children to support an ideal that gives ultimate power to the state? Strange. The biggest winners in communism are the Capitalists themselves, for to remove Capitalism is to remove their competition and thus solidify their monopoly making them the Oligarchs. The combination of a state where the liberty of individual attainment has been stripped, society is but a flat landscape of absolutist equality and where likely a network of oppression through state assets of control has been established and a system of loose, discriminatory law can target any groups or individuals that perhaps pose a threat is instituted, then you may have something that looks like Communism, because when you give absolute authority to a group, that's what happens (I would have thought people would've come to this logical conclusion by now anyway). Equality seems to be the word on people's tongues today, yet I must wonder if many have truly contemplated the depth of the word and it's variety of shapes. Völkisch equality, I do not believe many today would admire.

Privacy; ownership. What is the single commodity we own from the day we are born? Our labour. Now, if our one true ownership is that of our own labour and bodies then what happens to that under the circumstances that private ownership is abolished? That depends on the degree of tyranny, but more than likely a state of serfdom, enslavement to the collective. This was the plurality of language I am trying to communicate. Whilst many only see the principles of Marxism as consequences against the rich I feel people often miss the broad implications of a 'collective' society. African slaves also were not permitted private ownership for they themselves were owned. Among each other they were also equal and they were all provided for with equal resource and outcome, no opportunity though. Perhaps this is a better model for society than our so called Capitalism. In essence what Karl Marx created was a system of enslavement hidden behind high ideals, one so sickly ingenious that it would rally the people willingly into their own demise. And he was totally aware of this, being a psychopath himself, keeping his own housemaid as an unpayed, house bound slave, and not once did he step food in a working man's factory. Of course, when the time comes that it is wanted for a revolution by those who would have it so, we will be given our leaders to follow into despotism, as we are now. Some will attempt to redeem Communism by saying that it hasn't been tried properly yet. So how many more millions need to die before we truly establish how much it doesn't work? Though, I would say it works very well for what is was intended to achieve, which is a state of totalitarianism, tested in the Soviet system and the Nazi (National Socialist) experiment. And as Professor Jordan Peterson rightly points out, that for someone to make a statement like that, that the Soviet system wasn't "real communism" is the most arrogant statement someone can make, because that would entail that that person believes themselves to be the most upstanding archetype of moral virtue and that they would never be corrupted, even with absolute power.

To be barred from private ownership is the ultimate authoritarian ideal, the rule of law to overpower any ability to self-determination via possession. People have a great misconception of the workers taking back the factories, only to miss the owners take their liberties. In fact, I would say that it is quite a materialistic ideal, to prefer the means of production over the means of freedom.

- an essay by FabiusSideman 

Some introductory food for thought...

"Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen"

  - George Orwell 

"There is only three states of being. There is slavery, tyranny, those are both forms of conflict, or negotiation. Negotiation depends on freedom of speech and you have to be able to talk to people if you are not going to fight with them or capitulate to them."

  - Jordan Peterson

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” 

  - George Orwell 

The key proponents of the Bill and it's context...

On the 18th October 2016, Bill C-16 received Royal assent in Canada, despite having a small, but thorough opposition, even from those within the LGBT community who felt that the proponents of the Bill did not represent their desires, but that of the most extreme and ideological spectrum of their community. A prominent figure in the opposition to the Bill was Jordan Peterson, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, who has dedicated a great length of time in study into the Nazi and Soviet regimes of the past, paying particular attention to the ideological and psychological elements of those periods, which has built his principles as strongly opposed to ideological thought, Postmodernism and Marxism, all of which were instrumental or played roles in the mass genocidal regimes of the early 20th century that began with the subjugation of ideas and speech. 

The Bill's implementation is an amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code that makes the refusal by an individual to refer to someone by their preferred gender pronouns a hate crime. It also brands discrimination by 'gender expression' with the same impunity. To those who do not understand what these concepts mean, essentially what the gender pronoun debate is, is how a minority of the LGBT community demand they be refereed to by different pronouns, and have their gender expression (fashion choice) protected by law. For instance, those who claim not to fit into the binary gender pronouns (he/she) and therefor don't identify as either a man or a woman, wish to be refereed to with artificial neologisms such as ve, they and them. 

These demands, however, are not being made by the majority of LGBT people, but a small minority of people, mostly younger students who've been indoctrinated into postmodern and social Marxist ideology. This means that the Canadian government is taking the most extreme representation of a group as the representatives of the entire group, which would be like taking the Nazi Party as a valid representation of Germans, or the British Olympic squad as representatives of the standard fitness of the entire British public. This is a key focus of opponents to the Bill, like Prof. Peterson who recognises (being an employee of a University himself) that Bills like these are the result of borderline indoctrination in the Universities, and not the demands of LGBT people in general.  

The innate authoritarianism of the bill and it's Marxist/Postmodern motives...

Why are the proponents of this Bill innately authoritarian in nature? Well, as Professor Jordan Peterson makes the clear distinction, that unlike other forms of what is deemed hate speech in law, that enforces what you CAN NOT say, this Bill enforces WHAT YOU MUST SAY. As an example, Holocaust denial is considered hate speech, and so you can not express such a position, however, here you are now forced to speak words that you might not want to say, something far more Orwellian that one might be able to conceive when concerning a seemingly trivial enforcement, and having often spoken of gradualism, this is certainly not the end of the issue.

What is also concerning is that the supporters of the Bill are evidently ideologically motivated, in terms that their ideology (Marxist/Postmodern) is in itself authoritarian in nature, and as they fail to gain support by ideas, they suppress them. Law like this should not be able to slide through the apparatus of the State this easily, for it conveys on many levels a lack of respect for the generations of people who suffered under despotic rule for centuries until finally the rule of law gave them rights (and now we throw them away). It also shows to those more nefarious groups, that the public will not blink, even when you chip away at their right to speak as they choose, which I don't believe is a habit that should be maintained. 

- a short essay by FabiusSideman

Some introductory food for thought...

"Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will."

  - Jawaharlal Nehru

"History does not teach fatalism. There are moments when the will of a handful of free men breaks through determinism and opens up new roads. People get the history they deserve."

  - Charles de Gaulle 

"A man may be a pessimistic determinist before lunch and an optimistic believer in the will's freedom after it.

  - Aldous Huxley

The perpetual origins of the Nations State as a cumulative result? 

Since the dawn of even the earliest of human tribes, it is fair to say that the nature of man has been a perpetual state of partition between groups of often different cultures, methods and identities, and as the development, inter alia, of the human mind has progressed, therefor, so did tribalism into larger, more hierarchically structures of civilisation. Borders, for the most part, have arrived from a long and uncertain culmination of events that has created the present state of them, not from an arbitrary will, or an isolated event of a random drawing up of lines, but by a slow and endless process that will never be grounded eternally. And, though evidently the concept of borders and territory has plagued the minds of tyrants into wars, despotism and empires, I do not believe this is something innately characteristic of the concept of borders itself, but a manifestation from the extremity of ignorance and egotism. Rather, I believe in the idea that all things have numerous possible manifestations when applied by man, along a form of spectrum, say, of positive to negative or good to evil. As an example, take the knife or the blade; it can be a tool utilised by man for the chopping of food, the ploughing of fields or the carving of other tools, or even art. By that same token, it can be used in malevolent ways, for killing, to threaten or to wage wars. This idea applies to all things that come into contact with man, and concerning the concept of borders, their negative manifestation being frontiers, colonies, and empires. These are manifestations of ignorance, egotism and power, whereas, their positive manifestations would be that of the Nation State, citizenship, culture and pride. These are of an environment to free people from ignorance, away from war and monarchy, however, of course, the Nation State is still liable to corruption and other ills as all things are, but that is for a separate essay. Simply, my introductory point is that few things are innately good or evil, but many, like borders, lie along a spectrum of manifestations. 

The end of contingency at the beginning of hierarchical civilisation? 

My purpose in this essay is to explore the concept of free will as it applies to the argument surrounding borders and to whether their nature is truly arbitrary or not. In reality, in my opinion at least, I believe there can only be two extremes in this, that being the fundamental theoretical divide between a belief the human capability for free will, or a disbelief in it, characteristic of determinism. This divide will be fundamental in exploring the nature of borders as they are a product of human activity, of which can be viewed with the lenses of these two perspectives, and all depending upon which you choose to give credence to, will give what is and what can only be your subjective answer to whether the concept of borders are truly random and arbitrary (not necessarily unnecessary) or whether they are a product of the human free will and therefor not random (but not necessarily necessary). To make the argument that borders are truly a product of the human free will and are therefor not a completely random product of fatalistic events throughout history, I will use the development of hierarchical civilisations corresponding to the growth of the human mind for deeper intellect and understanding. It is true to state that in man's development there reached a stage where factions of humanity emerged from a state of tribalism and into more complex organisations of society, which, in turn, required more complex behaviour and a capacity for thought, especially if one was to rise amongst these hierarchical forms. In the application of this historical understanding towards borders it is also not untrue to state that those in the authority to direct the course of frontiers and empires in early civilisation where among the higher strata of society, and to a degree would require a greater capacity to act out their free will in this often more complex strata, either to attain such a position (if not inherited) or to maintain it. Therefor, those directing the creation and expansion of borders where acting out their free will, thus, whether their motives where immoral or not, still had cause and rationale, and where then inherently not arbitrary. 

Determinism in human activity meaning borders are truly arbitrary? 

As I previously stated, that in this argument I believe there can only be two extremes of thought, i.e. a capacity for human free will translating to a refute of randomness in borders, and here I will explore the opposite theoretical explanation concerning borders. If human activity is truly deterministic, meaning there is no free will involved, but only an illusion of it, where activity is merely a reactionary process to immediate or cumulative stimuli, then that therefor entails that those who have acted out a fatalistic will in empires and frontiers have simply done so on a basis of random events to which all men are passive in reception to, thus meaning the state of borders as they have ever existed are truly arbitrary. Though I do place credence in the idea that people can live their lives in a deterministic way, especially if kept in a state of 'meta-sleep' if you will, I do not believe that those who have had the ability to rise to the highest strata of society in which they are able to direct the course frontiers, were or are driven by fatalistic and deterministic impulses, but ones of a more calculated kind, which as I have explored, then infers that the nature of borders are not at all random, but then again, I could just be talking a bunch of theoretical gibberish...

 - an essay by FabiusSideman

Some introductory food for thought...

"The war was not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance... The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia of East Asia, but to keep the very structure intact" 

  - George Orwell

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas"

  - Joseph Stalin

"A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy"

  - Aldous Huxley

Terrorism as an ideology amplified by Western intervention?

As is well known, Western nations in the NATO alliance, particularly North America and Western Europe, have had a steady and extensive involvement in the Middle East since the beginning of the Century and even before. This intervention by such nations has been widely criticised for its dubious motives in the region and for the unnecessary damage inflicted upon them, in human life and in infrastructure. Once whatever goal(s) by the occupying nations have been reached, often involving an obliteration of any normality in the region, then they deescalate, leaving a power vacuum and a state of extended warfare, particularly by Militia groups, still active, often the most prominent of which are extremist religious groups. 

However, it is necessary to pay attention to the circumstances of the region prior to escalated conflict, i.e. the origins of extremist religious groups, their motives, and who shares their motives elsewhere. There has been a trend symptomatic of the last dozen countries to have had western intervention, and that has been, a majority democratically elected secular government has been voted into power, who are often elected by the majority for their stance of independence toward global centralisation and control over their country, often making reforms such as private to public banking, currency reform, improved secular education and gender equality. What is most import to notice here is the secular aspect of the Governance and also the non-Globalist stance. This means that Terrorists and and Globalists have something in common, that is that they both oppose the Government of the nation in question, and wish to see regime change. 

It is not a radical thing to assert that Transnationals who have vested interests in these nations, such as Banking, natural resources and ultimately political power, would help mobilise already established anti-government forces in the such regions, and in fact, this does and has happened, quite blatantly. Such as in the Soviet-Afghan war in the late 1970's and early 80's, the US Government funded the Mujaheddin (that would later become Al-Qaeda) against the Soviets, despite them being an extremists Islamist group. A similar situation has manifested currently in Syria, which the origins of ISIS being in Western funding of anti-Government Militia groups. Simple logic would also infer that various weapons like advanced hand-held surface to air rocket launchers and truck mounted high calibre turrets do not appear from prayer, but have quite clearly been provided by some outside source. 

Ultimately, it means that Western intervention not only expedites Terrorist activities in these regions, as shared motives hastens toward that, but in the wake of escalated involvement, leave behind an environment that allows such groups to thrive in the chaos. And as their ideology dictates, their radicalised activity of terrorism and extremism manifests in other secular regions of the world. 

Why policing of the internet is innately a breach of freedom and will not be successful in tackling terrorism...

There has been a quip circling the internet recently surrounding May's response to the spurt of terrorist incidences in London, along the lines of, "May didn't get the memo; 1984 wasn't an instruction manual".  Amusing. However, this is not too far from the truth, with policies coming forth of amending the deceleration of human rights, which would legally give the Government a backdoor method to suspend the citizenship and rights of an individual. Clearly this is a dangerous power to willingly hand over to the State, almost resembling a form of quasi-Martial law, and as the international threat of terrorism expands, the West has seemed to motion into a perpetual state of wartime governance.

However, toward the notion that the policing of the internet, which is simply the instantaneous free flow of ideas, transcending distance, is the answer to security from terrorism, is an absurd one. Practically, this would in fact only serve to hinder the monitoring of radicalisation over the internet, for, like all things that are suppressed, it would simply be driven underground, rather than being out in the open, like it is for the most part currently. Take the period of prohibition in the United States during the 1920's as a perfect example of this process, as, after outlawing of the sale, transport, distribution and production of alcoholic drinks, the entire industry was simply driven underground and into the hands of organised crime, whilst the maintenance of enforcing prohibition was completely unsustainable and ineffective. By outlawing the transmission of ideas, it will simply drive that process underground too, i.e. into the dark net, or elsewhere. This, as during the prohibition era, will only entail an even more extensive effort to enforce the law, which whether it will be successful or not is not the question, simply, it is far easier to monitor the promotion of violence when it is said aloud, rather than in secret. 

In a less practical sense however, this proposition should be opposed by all who claim to value freedom, particularly the most important of freedoms, which is that to freely express ones thoughts and ideas. There is always much talk in the wake of these devastating attacks, of not allowing their actions to injure our spirit, and particularly with the most recent in London being so close to an election, to inhibit our democracy or our freedom. Yet this talk is rather blatantly juxtaposed to the action taken by the State in response, which is a direct assault on the freedom to express ideas (though only a toe in the water) which is the total prerequisite for a democratic society. What concerns me mostly however, having discussed the concept of gradualism applied to governance frequently, is that propositions of this nature are never the end of the matter, but make up the first step of many that are inevitable if we allow the first to be taken. If you open the door to a salesman, he will not leave your home without the sale, however, if you keep it shut, he will leave. The key is to not be fooled by the rhetoric of salesmen. In reality though, it is where the line will be drawn, for there are many factors to such a criminalisation of ideas, and that is:

 • To what extent is the term 'radicalisation to be applied?

 • To what extent is the term 'terrorist' to be applied? 

 • And; who will be determining these factors?

Taking the US as an example, they define a terrorist as anyone who opposes the interests of the United States. It is then necessary to ask, what are these 'interests' and who is the 'United States', for these terms are very loose and rather indiscernible. Is the United States simply the Government of the United States, or is it the people? Though, it is a democratic Republic and so, theoretically, the Government is the representative of the people. But then, to what extent can the State be representative of its people if slowly the very ideas of the people become suppressed by the very power of the State itself? Sure, you could say it is a leap to correlate this seemingly small adjustment to a future State of totalitarianism, but is it really so wild? 

 - an essay by FabiusSideman

Some introductory 'food' for thought...

"When people say they prefer organic food, what they often seem to mean is they don't want their food tainted with pesticides and their meat shot full of hormones or antibiotics. Many object to the way a few companies - Monsanto is the most famous of them - control so many of the seeds we grow."

  - Michael Specter 

"My grandfather used to say that once in your life you need a doctor, a lawyer, a policeman and a preacher but every day, three times a day, you need a farmer"

  - Brenda Schoepp 

"Economically, many folks don't feel they can afford organic. While this may be true in some cases, I think more often than not it's a question of priority. I feel it's one of the most important areas of concern ecologically, because the petrochemical giants - DuPont, Monsanto - make huge money by poisoning us."

  - Woody Harrelson 

Who is Monsanto? 

Monsanto is a Chemicals/Pharmaceutical/Agriculture company that was established in 1901 in the United States, and over the last century has occupied a particularly interesting and questionable history that has within recent times took to the global scale, growing into a multinational corporation, well nigh on the complete monopolisation of the Agriculture industry whilst having established connections to the chemical and pharmaceutical industry. They are less well known for their creation of Agent Orange, of which they claimed had no harmful effects on the human body, which was utilised very predominantly during the Vietnam War by the U.S. military as a defoliant, however, caused hundreds of thousands of deaths by poisoning, and has now led to an epidemic of birth deformities in the regions of use. Monsanto experienced more involvement in war through their involvement in the Manhattan Project, which resulted in the creation of the first nuclear bombs to be tested on Japanese civilian populations. They also have a background in their production of PCB's (Polychlorinated biphenyls) which once again, had the negative human and environmental effects ignored and misrepresented hitherto 1977 when they were banned, however, was not before many fresh water supplies and the air had been contaminated and was a known carcinogen in humans, along with other health damages. There was then of course their production of DDT's in the post war period that was advertised as a 'wonder-chemical' to be used in agricultural pesticides. However, it was later uncovered that its spraying caused a high percentage of food breakdown in crop and in humans caused breast cancer, male infertility, miscarriage, developmental delay and nervous system/liver damage. They even tested the effects of radioactive Iron on 829 pregnant women in a bizarre experiment. Having no shortage of scandalous and often at times frequenting blatantly corrupt behaviour on their dubious track record, with an abundance of data and study arising in protest of the company's use of dangerous chemicals and genetic modifications in food, it is surely best to question the activity and history of this company. 

What chemical poisons are being used?

Some of you are probably aware as to the fact that within many food products today there are various chemicals being used in modification, cultivation and in processing, many of which are harmful, often deadly to the human body and to the ecosystem. So harmful in fact that in cultivation workers are required to wear bio-hazard suits and due to the toxicity of the area in farming these GM crops, are required to erect signs in the surrounding area warning of the danger. 

So one chemical that has been pushed into foods and drink by Monsanto since the early 20th Century is Saccharin, an artificial sweetener made from coal tar which is used predominantly in Soda, Coke and processed foods, and is 700 times sweeter than sugar. In 1907 when Saccharin was first investigated by the USDA it was quoted as,"a coal tar product totally devoid of food value and extremely injurious to health" , and by the 1970's, when the chemical began to garner greater use, the FDA attempted to ban its use in products after discovering it causes cancers (particularly bladder cancer) in animals and humans, however, today is still used as an artificial sweetener, and between 1973-1994 the National Cancer Institute saw a 10% increase in bladder cancers. 

Monsanto are also responsible for the pushing of another artificial sweetener onto the market to be consumed by humans, that being Aspartame, even more harmful than Saccharin, and since being used in Coke, particularly Diet Coke, since 1983, the rest of industry followed suit. When melted down at 30°C into its liquid form in use for soft drinks, it become far deadlier than in its powdered state. It was found that it caused tumours and holes in the brains of rats and is more addictive than crack cocaine. After a multitude of independent scientific studies arose in protest of the use of Aspartame, Monsanto bribed the National Cancer Institute to produce fabricated data. Here are some of the know side effects of Aspartame consumption in humans according to the US Food and Drug Administration:

 • mania   

 • blindness

 • joint-pain

 • fatigue

 • weight-gain

 • chest-pain

 • coma

 • insomnia

 • numbness

 • depression

 • tinnitus

 • weakness

 • spasms

 • irritability

 • nausea

 • deafness

 • memory-loss

 • rashes

 • dizziness

 • headaches

 • seizures

 • anxiety

 • palpitations

 • fainting

 • cramps

 • diarrhoea

 • panic

 • burning in the mouth

 • diabetes

 • MS

 • lupus

 • epilepsy

 • Parkinson’s

 • tumours

 • miscarriage

 • infertility

 • fibromyalgia

 • infant death

 • Alzheimer’s

As is quite evident, Aspartame not only lacks any nutritional value, it also can have grave effects on humans when consumed. In fact, over 80% of complaints made to the FDA concern Aspartame and is now used in over 5000 products, yet facts are still being misrepresented and as primary producers of Aspartame such as Monsanto produce false data to cover their tracks. 

How is their monopoly being secured?

Monsanto within recent decades has somewhat become the archetype of corruption and corporatism, devoting many millions to Government lobbying in order to maintain its hegemony over agriculture, its use of harmful chemicals and to maintain restrictions of food labelling of GM products. In fact, the company seems to have a revolving door between itself and Government now, one example being the FDAs Arthur Hull resigning due to controversy and going straight to an employee at Monsanto as a Public Relations representative. This means that the FDA, the central official force against the use and proliferation of harmful products is in bed with Monsanto, the main proliferator.

Another creation Monsanto have pushed into pastoral agriculture is their Synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone which is a genetic modification of the E-coli virus to be used in dairy products and cows. And in order to make sure this product is pushed onto farmers, Monsanto sues any that do not use it with teams of lawyers. They also, in a far more cunning and destructive method, are able to and have destroyed other, natural crop cultivation by the use of their Genetically Modified crops themselves. What they have done is modified their crops in order that they self pollinate, and that bees that come into contact with their crops are killed, causing mass hive collapses, which then means any natural crop in surrounding farms die off due to a lack of bees to pollinate them, forcing them to join the monopoly of Monsanto's GM supply. 

Also, before the aerial spraying aluminium and barium into the skies began in 1998, that has seen a rise in the content of aluminium particles per/cm from near 0 to 30,000 in many areas, Monsanto patented crops that are resistant to soil with such high concentrations, meaning they now have legal ownership over crops, whereas the natural produce may be ungrowable in a number of places where the spraying concentration is high. On a side not, the spraying of aluminium into the sky since 1998 has also caused a massive spike in Alzheimer disease and lung cancers, rising from the tens of thousands to the millions of cases per year. 

To Conclude, Monsanto has recently made a very big merger deal with the Pharmaceutical company Bayer, the ones who produced Zyklon-B for the Nazi extermination chambers. Sure sounds like some safe operations. 

 - a short essay by FabiusSideman 

Some introductory food for thought...

"A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them"

  - George Bernand Shaw 

"The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of the clearest reason and if systematically executed represents the most humane act of mankind"

  - Adolf Hitler

"Instead of baby we say fetus; instead of killing we say aborting; instead of dissect we say research; instead of extermination chambers we say abortion clinics"

  - Chuck Norris 

An introduction to early pre-war eugenics...

Before the true picture and full story of what had been happening in Central Europe during the second world war had reached the United States, for a period of time eugenics had been considered a credible science and was respected publicly in that way. Eugenics is the study of genetic human traits, and until being discredited by it's use in the systematic mass human slaughter under the Nazi regime, heavily influenced by eugenics in it's hatred towards Jews, Romani people and the disabled, it had influenced the general public of the US in the eugenics movement of the early Twentieth century.

Gradualism and eugenics as leading to public acceptance of euthanasia? 

Gradualism, as a method utilised to influence the political, social and economic spheres is among the most powerful techniques harnessed toward achieving ends without large change all at once, rather, small and seemingly sporadic adjustments made over lengthier periods of time proves to avoid public quarrel. It is by it's exploitation of the wider human tendency for a general sense of social cryptomnesia, that it achieves what would be a large change, made unnoticed by having been brought about one small step at a time. The concept derives from the ancient Roman General and Politician, Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, whose employment of gradualism in military tactics toward enemy morale meant he had won all his battles before any blood was shed. Gradualism in modern times is employed by any and all smart enough to acknowledge it's effectiveness, and who would plan in advance of ultimate goals to achieve their ends.  

How does Gradualism in modern times apply to current movements in eugenics and euthanasia? Well, I am but a person who likes to theorise plausible possibility based on historic and psychological evidence of human nature (a vague understanding at that), but here I would like to assess the future of euthanasia starting from the current political topic of abortion rights. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a rather outspoken eugenicist and at times expressed some racist views:

             "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its 

              infant members is to kill it"

              - Margaret Sanger

But getting to the point, how can abortion rights have a plausible possibility of leading to wider euthanasia in society? As previously discussed gradualism is very effective when applied to the social/political sphere, and to look how western society has transformed over such a seemingly short period of time from almost complete moral refusal of the idea of infanticide, to today, where a large proportion of society now upholds it as a moral ideal to allow it. What has influenced society toward such a radical change in views? Certainly the influence of progressivism and postmodernism injected into society, in media and educational institutions. So surely it is not a radical question to ask, what next? Is it radical, when society has seen such a polar shift in what is considered moral, to suggest the possibility of postnatal abortion as a possibility to manifest in society? Abortion rights were achieved by attacking the moral conscience of the public through guilt, making it seem immoral to refute the concept of liberal abortion. Perhaps the same method could be applied to the encouragement of another step, and even further. Here's a possible chronology of the steps toward extensive euthanasia through gradualism:

 • Abortion rights for women makes infanticide a societal norm

 • Abortion rights were granted and accepted on the basis that to do otherwise would        cause harm 

 • Postnatal abortion rights are granted and become a societal norm on the same basis

 • Euthanasia is recommended to the growing elderly population, particularly the ill on      the basis that thier continued existence causes harm

 • Euthanasia then becomes recommended for ill, disabled, and mentally damaged            children on the basis that it is moral to do so

 • Euthanasia becomes recommended to the ill and disabled generally for the same            reasons

This would be a possible chronology of the gradual devaluing of human life into a medical-moral symbiosis in which the continuance of life is discouraged on a new moral basis. Euthanasia then becomes a societal norm through gradual means, to which the end is a society that values moral utilitarianism over the individual. The primary facet of gradualism is that one technique can be applied to anything in that field of attainment, i.e. using the above chronology, when approaching the legality of abortion rights for women (step one) from a moral basis, one can then also approach the legality of postnatal abortion (step two) from a moral basis once the previous step has been achieved. This can even be simplified to a mathematics style equation:

                      Clause + Rationale = Institutionalisation/Normalisation 

This method can be applied to various other aspects of the social, economic and political sphere, such as the gradual increase of the police state for example. The clause being increased police and militarism; the rationale being increased crime or the threat of terrorism, etc; and the inevitable institutionalisation and normalisation is that of a militarised domestic police force, especially when created gradually. Perhaps some time in the future, if it isn't too radical a notion, rather than have people treated for illness, it will be seen as better, maybe even ones moral duty, to instead take their euthanasia tablet over being a burden to society or to themselves. Similarly, today it is better that people have their babies killed than be a burden to society, or the child a burden to them. 

Nazi Germany as an example of eugenics and euthanasia with public consent/apathy? 

It was not too long ago in the history of man, that a seemingly civilised society manifested within it one of the most monstrous genocidal regimes to have existed. However, before the systematic rounding up and extermination of mass populations took pace at the latter end of the Nazi regime, society in Germany had undergone a process of gradualism and propaganda that swept aside the value of human life toward certain areas of the population; Völkisch equality, cultivating among many a degree of apathy and social crytomnesia in the face of a new society. The story of eugenics and mass extermination by the Nazi regime did not start when the first gas chamber was built, nor did it end when those camps where liberated in 1945. Much had gone on in preparation for such a colossal regime.

The early, Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, 1934 began the Nazi sterilisation programme that specifically targeted the disabled, and what was termed the 'hereditarily diseased', which is subjective by Nazi standards and there were at least 400,000 know cases of forced sterilisation in Germany during their rule. There was also of course the Nuremberg Laws, 1935 that placed the ideologically degenerate as second class citizens. Nazi euthanasia would later progress into Aktion T4 that would allow German physicians to euthanize patients deemed incurably sick, something also vague and indiscriminatory, and at least 70,000 people were killed by this method from 1939 to 1941. This of course later transitioned into Action 14f13 that allowed the systematic slaughter of concentration camp prisoners by the Nazis. Along side the gradual legal process of the inevitable systematic extermination, there was the societal and cultural aspects that coincided. For many decades Germany had cultivated a culture of antisemitism and growing ideologies of racial purity, with organisations such as the Pan-German League and the German Society for Racial Hygiene, coupled with the extensive Nazi propaganda that had existed before and during power. It is therefor quite conceivable that society could and can manifest a culture of euthanasia and eugenics by gradual means, and if it can be done in part by force under the Nazis it can certainly be done by consent under new influences. 

 - a short essay by FabiusSideman

Some introductory food for thought...

"There is a procedure that you follow when you are presenting evidence. There is a way that you structure evidence to avoid speculation. … Let’s take an approach to September the 11th along the lines of an investigator presenting a case to a grand jury. Or along the lines of a detective presenting a case to a district attorney.”

  - Michael Ruppert 

"I fear that if the underlying issues of 9-11 truth are not demanded, that Iraq may be but a flame on an ocean of gasoline that may be used to ignite war after war after war. We cannot, as a peace & justice movement only address the flames. We must look at the fuel being used to justify the flames of war and repression at home and abroad. We must look deeply at the events leading up to, on and since 9-11. We must demand full 9-11 truth.”

  - Ed Asner

"It seems that the so-called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: “To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.”

  - Micheal Meacher 

The narrative provided by the Official Commission...

Having read through the narrative provided by the Official report, I found that it was simply that; a narrative. I found it lacking in anything other than the events of the day itself and besides quite thoroughly covering the chronology, having constructed the narrative from various documents and sources such as Airport footage (which is quite harrowing to have watched) and flight cockpit recordings. It seemed to be lacking context or facts concerning the precise relationship between Bin Laden/Al Qaeda and the attacks on the World Trade centre, rather it provides a political history of Afghanistan (fragmentary at that) and the ideology of radical Islam inferred from Bin Laden, making their assertions based more on ad hominems and deduction over tangible hard evidence. That being said, the sceptical analysis and the assertions it makes is also based on deduction, however, is largely deduced from facts of strange coincidence and plausible incentives compared to the events that followed. Therefor, neither explanations are totally veritable and it would be unreasonable to place full conviction in one over the other. 

An introduction to the sceptics view... 

The culture of rejection towards those who would postulate a narrative that attempts to explain events or circumstances, perhaps controversially and certainly different to the general consensus, of which is generally accepted by the public in most cases not on the premise of facts or of their own attempts to make a logical analysis of events, but by a particular repetition in media prescribed to them, on faith in official commissions they themselves have likely never read but would agree with second hand synopses by virtue that everyone else believes the same thing for the same reason at the same time.

It is a sound assertion to make that history, even as conventionally understood, is littered with conspiracy, coups and other acts by groups or individuals done in a clandestine manner to attain financial or political gain. There is even a plurality within ourselves as individuals to maintain often simultaneously both a public and private facing aspect to our lives, and to deny the course of history as a tail plumply comprising of secrecy and conspiracy is plain ignorance or a particular degree of cognitive dissonance on one's behalf. It was not too long ago that the United States performed what is now agreed upon in almost all accounts to have been a false flag operation in the Gulf of Tonkin involving US ship USS Maddox, that preceded the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, allowing the United States to escalate military involvement in Vietnam. Simply by analysing the facts one can deduce for themselves a certain suspicion, for the USS Maddox was allegedly attacked by three Vietnamese submarines yet sustained no casualties and the only damages done to the vessel were some bullet indentations. This was just 53 years ago, half a lifetime. The sceptic would ask, has much truly changed?

It is simply my introductory point that even just the words 'conspiracy theory' have somehow today become words to scoff at or simply close off to any reasoning someone may have. Rather, I think people should become alert at the words, but they do not, which is perhaps an avenue of exploration in and of itself as to why culture has manifested in such a way. When people hear those words they have become accustomed to immediately connote to the same crowd as those who wear tin hats, believe in aliens and spend their time trying to spot UFO's. Perhaps now I shall attempt to explain the perspective conducive to the strong possibility that governmental institutions, backed and infiltrated by forces who would gain from the implications of such an event would bring down the World Trade Centre and simultaneously construct a narrative to encourage an imperialistic regime to last the next two decades.

Scientific factors: Architecture and Demolition...

Firstly, it is probably best to begin by relaying the outcry from various sectors of the scientific, architectural and demolition community who have spoken out on the truly bizarre way in which those buildings fell. What is also quite surprising is that when asked, how many buildings fell on September 11th? Even many of those who were alive to see it say two, which is incorrect. Three actually fell, which I will return to later as 'Building 7' as it is known is of some importance.

Numerous independent scientific reports have calculate the speed at which the towers fell at near free fall speeds (approx. 200km/h). This is important as in order for an object to get near free fall it must, according to the laws of physics, have only the force of gravity acting upon it, which therefor means that as the roof of the building collapsed in on itself there needed to be little acting against it, i.e. the buildings structure, and therefor raises alarms as to it being a controlled demolition (resembles implosion demolition). The idea that the entry of a jet into the face of the building would take the entire structure down, let alone in such a perfect manner, is seen by some as ludicrous. In fact, the Head Structural Engineer of the World Trade Centre, John Skilling, said himself in 1993 that "the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire", not explicitly saying that it would destroy the building, but that "a lot of people would be killed", and as I will discuss later, never before has any steel frame structure experienced a total collapse due to fires in history. Though Skilling did add, "I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work (demolition) and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it". I might also add that in 1945 a B-25 bomber crashed into the side of the Empire State building due to low fog, yet, the entire structure of the building did not collapse, despite it being a far older construction than the twin towers and remained ablaze for nearly an hour before being put out.

There's the idea that the burning fuel that leaked from the crashed jets would have spilled into the structure alight and weakened the building's frame. Considering that they were the first steel and concrete structure buildings in recorded history to have experienced a total collapse due to fire related damages, it is truly, then, quite a remarkable phenomena to some. According to a report by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) only 22 steel structure buildings have experienced some form of collapse due to fire related damages, all of which, excluding the WTC, were only partial collapses and some of which where experienced whilst under construction or renovation whilst regular fire safety standards were disrupted. The assertion is that jet fuel burns at 800°C - 1500°C, steel beams however require a temperature of 2500°C to melt, this is without all of the fire-retardant lacquers that coated the integral structure of the building, however, it would've allegedly weakened the structure (though it would not have weakened it to the point of collapse), lest it be ignore that traces of nano-thermites were found in the remains which are primary components of modern controlled demolitions, able to be formed into precise cutter charges that produce orange sparks and molten steel, similar to what was captured in numerous images from the World Trade Centre. If, however, it were due to fire damages that the buildings collapsed, then it would certainly have sporadically affected the building's structure (though the building was designed to withstand and compensate for sporadic damages) resulting in an equally sporadic collapse, yet, as before mentioned, they fell in a fashion resembling that of a controlled demolition. They did not topple over or just a part of the building break away. Studies by researchers Bažant and Zhou claimed that the falling of the upper half of the building down onto the lower would've amplified the impact causing the bottom half to cave in, however, this thesis has been disproved for the upper half experienced no speed fluctuations implying no jolt/amplification.

In some footage, like that of Building 7 there can be seen chunks of debris that seems to shoot rapidly from the windows before the building fully begins to fall, shattering the glass, almost as if some sort of explosion had occurred from within. The 47 storey building fell completely in around 6 seconds (2.25 seconds of total free fall) in again what looks very similar to that of a controlled decent especially as it fell with such sheer speed. The cause of it's total collapse was blamed on the falling debris from the Twin Towers, however, it has been asked as to why this building was completely demolished and not others also in close proximity to the towers? This building was a base for various CIA, Defence and financial sectors, however, what is most interesting is that on News broadcasts such as the BBC, the tower was reported to have fallen nearly an hour before it actually did and can actually be seen in the background of the reporter. This has lead some from the sceptical perspective to the suspicion that Media institutions where on some sort of schedule (just speculation) and had the stories prepared to push the terrorist narrative early whilst emotions were high and decisions to invade countries and strip civil liberties from the individual will be accepted in the course of safety over liberty. However, what is more accurate is that many if not all mainstream news outlets have had agents working among them under Operation Mockingbird for a long time, and have been known in the past to fabricate and/or spread lies about other nations and their leadership (WMD's in Iraq, gas attacks in Syria).

The point is also made of simple logical analysis. People have been led to believe that the single largest attack on US soil was committed by cave dwelling extremists and farmers who live on the other side of the world, yet were able to, without any detection from the most modern and interconnected security network on earth, to hijack and fly not one, but two jets into the World Trade Centre... let that sink in for a moment. With masterminds of that calibre you would have thought the Taliban would've won the war (even though the attackers were allegedly from Saudi Arabia). It is also worth mentioning, that Marvin P. Bush (brother to President. Bush) was the owner of the security organisation (Securacom) that operated for United Airlines, Dulles International Airport (the airport from which a jet took off) and that of the WTC itself, bearing in mind that the 9/11 Official Commission sites the security network in operation (CAPPS) as resulting in the perpetrates gaining access to the Airliners, whilst the security staff on duty at the time allowed them to pass despite repeatedly setting off the metal detecting doors and being wanded, which would normally result in further search under standard procedures. Perhaps just a very unusual coincidence. In addition, maybe you were not aware of this but the WTC was closed down for a sum of days in the weeks prior to the attacks and the small number of staff still on duty at the time report a number of what seemed to be construction crew working on the building throughout the week and when opening again a number of floors were off limits to staff, which is another odd event in the chronology for sceptics.

The influence of the Military Industrial Complex...

One way in which some attempt to refute the idea that governmental institutions, backed and infiltrated by outspoken globalists and corporatists orchestrated the attacks and were not committed by acts of terrorism (as the news media owned and controlled by the same globalists and corporations) reported and continue to convey, is by making the argument that why would the Government do it, because wars are expensive and it would cost them more money? This is no straw man. It is a question consistently asked by the 'debunkers'  of the suspicious perspective.

There are some things that must be understood before examining as to why this question, to sceptics, in fact only goes to bolster the argument that it was a financial and power driven orchestration:

1) Well, yes, it is completely true to assert that it would cost the government an extreme volume of money to fund such a hefty investment as a full scale invasion of a country, but where does a government get it's money from? Taxation of the public, which can add up to about 50% on average of each person's earnings when including all the hidden taxation which is all funnelled straight into the pockets of bankers or subsidising various already wealthy and powerful groups.

2) Private fractional reserve banking is the primary component of almost all countries' national budget and really, one cannot begin to understand understand international, or even national politics without understanding the fundamental basis and origin of money, after all, money makes the world go round. Let me take the Federal Reserve for instance, created in 1913 under the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, whose campaign manager, Edward Mandell House was a key member of the Round Table movement and Milner Group, later to become the Council on Foreign Relations, all of which are Globalist organisations. The Federal Reserve to which the United States issues it's bonds is neither a federal institution nor does it have any reserve of some kind. Instead it operates in the District of Columbia in Washington which in fact is it's own sovereign state not governed by US jurisdiction, similar to the Crown of London where the Bank of England (controlled by the same people) and other financial institutions reside. It also has no reserve, as of the Federal Reserve Act 1913 when the gold standard was reduced in value to 25% of the currency and later under Nixon in 1971 when the gold standard was completely removed and the Glass-steagall Act dissolved, which therefor meant the dollar was backed by no tangible value (now only held up by petroleum trade), meaning it can be subject to any extremes of inflation or deflation (it is the same virtually all over the world now and is in the process of consolidated banking through economic and political unions such as the EU and UN). This is important right up to today as this system of private banking exists in every country on Earth (bar three: North Korea, Cuba and Iran) and when the United States created the Federal Reserve it essentially handed over it's right to control monetary policy and is today in virtually unplayable debts exceeding the tens of trillions, which is why the Euro zone is a dangerous thing to have when a cluster of economies all run on the same unsteady currency controlled by a centralised power under the EU and United Nations institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank who are arguably the worlds biggest loan sharks. The importance of this in relation to the September 11th attacks is that it does cost the Government a lot of money, however, it is borrowed from banks who add interest which is payed for and burdened onto the people through taxation, meaning it costs us a lot of money, whilst keeping bankers very, very wealthy. Many of these prominent bankers are in Government positions, like today under Trump, bankers like Steve Mnuchin and Rex Tillerson, or they are members of non-governmental counsels and think-tanks that have equal if not more influence on international policy (consolidated through 1998 UN 'Agenda21' programme), which means these people would have an incentive not only to reap the hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending in war, but also that Afghanistan at the time did not run on this private banking system and held no IMF debt, however, it now does. In fact, I believe at the start of the Century about eleven countries where still free from this system of racketeering (all of which where on the list created by the PNAC group in 1997), mostly in Africa and the Middle East, however, since the September 11th attacks that has stuck firmly in the minds of the public when bombing and invading various countries allegedly in the pursuit of 'freedom and democracy', that number has come down to just three.

3) The sceptical perspective looks at the institutions already in existence and analyses  their benefit from war. The way in which very lucrative profits are to be made off the back of the single largest attack on US soil in history is from those corporations in the Military Industrial Complex, essentially a symbiotic and direct relationship between Government Foreign and War policy and the corporations that provide military equipment and the necessary means of war. It's said that this concept has it's origins in the second World War, as it did, you could likely lift the hood of a Nazi military vehicle and find a Ford motor engine. However, I believe it's origins go further back to the beginning of the 20th century and perhaps further back when in the first world war, industries such as coal, shipbuilding, agriculture, munitions and arms companies all experienced huge booms during war time due to the enormous volume of demand (Private Banks also profited by funding both sides: £5 Billion loan to Britain in 1915 from J.P. Morgan, loans valuing $26 Billion during Dawes Plan to Germany). Then, when war is over, and you find yourself in economic stagnancy, what as a now extraordinarily wealthy businessman do you learn? That war is good for business. The Afghanistan War, under the title of Operation 'Enduring Freedom' was and still remains the longest war in US history, lasting a period of thirteen years (still thousands of NATO troops on the ground), and began it's invasion just 26 days after the attacks, which in itself is suspicious as full scale wars are not impulse actions, but take many months even years to plan, which is why allied forces did not enter Europe a few weeks after Hitler invaded Poland, but in 1944 as the logistical and strategic planning of such a movement takes great time, which leads some to believe that the plans had already been made for Afghanistan. The thirteen years of war have had varying estimates of costs running from $1,000,000,000,000 to $6,000,000,000,000, whilst the US national debt has more than tripled since the start of the century, having began it's self-appointed policing of the middle east since that time. I counted over twenty types of missiles and bombs listed as being in use by the US Air Force manufactured by 'Defence' contractors such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Boeing with each weapon ranging in costs of the tens to hundreds of thousands to the millions each, forgoing the costs of fuelling aircraft and transporting. Taking the first on the list, the AGM-65 Maverick is said to cost between $17,000 and $110,000 each. Imagine the costs and logistics of supplying an average of 140,000 soldiers with weapons, ammunition, food and water daily for thirteen years of warfare, paying for the vast logistical scheme of running the operation with around 1.5 million people in US military employment and orchestrating various other geopolitical commitments with organisations such as the UN, NATO and the reportedly unprofessional ANA (Afghan National Army) of which tens of billions have been spend providing weapons, military vehicles, training and even a new national military command centre.

Another factor of the Afgan war that sceptics draw attention to is the poppy production that is very particular to Afghanistan and it's geography. Poppies (poppy resin being the primary component of heroin) require a certain salt concentration in the water and of course the heat to have the most efficient growth, both of which the Afghan climate caters to. According to UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) poppy cultivation in Afghanistan increased by 18% between 2011-12 to 154,000 hectares and reached record high production in 2014, which seems surprising as one might think that US occupation in the region would act as a deterrent against the source of the mass heroin epidemic that has since worsened in the US. I do not believe that sceptics would suggest American soldiers would operate a global drug trade under direction of the US military, however, it is quite conceivable that private contractors, like that of the infamous Blackwater (now Academi, previously XE Services: name change to avoid controversy after war crimes) would be employed by the US government and governmental bodies such as the CIA ($250 million dollar contract with Academi in 2003) who've been known to conduct drugs operations in the past (Contra cocaine drug trafficking, etc) and plausibly would operate similarly in Afghanistan as it produces 90% of world poppy production. The lowest quality heroin in the United States retails at $172 per gram, also according to UNODC, whilst thousands of tonnes are produced annually making it a highly lucrative trade, especially if centralised. The fact that poppy cultivation actually increased to record levels whilst under US occupation gives some the impression that someone in alliance with Western/American authorities where establishing control of the industry rather than eradicating it.

The terrible irony of all this however, is that all of the now ever present instability in the region of the middle east can be traced right back to Western roots anyway. Weapons of war do not just simply appear by magic in abundance; farmers do not procure machine guns and hand-held rocket launchers, along with plentiful ammunition all growing on trees, yet in places like Afghanistan and other middle eastern countries this would seem to be the case. However, it was in the 1970's and 80's when Russia had been at war with the same Al-Quada (Mujahideen) that the US and other western bodies funded and supplied their terrorist, then 'freedom fighting' organisations against the Soviets during the Soviet-Afghan War, and three decades later, they have the audacity to send American, British and other NATO forces to die fighting what they had created. It is no wild assertion, one that even I would give credence to, that these people in positions of authority in Government bodies and the United Nations make up a nest of lies. I've read these people's publications and you'll find first hand for yourselves they are no short of psychopaths who break with excess the rules they make. They are war criminals, payed off by those who would have their ways, like Tony Blair, British Labour Prime Minister who dragged our country into the Iraq war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, rising to this day from starvation and instability into the millions, whilst many suffer mutated births due to the use of depleted uranium weaponry. It also resulted in hundreds of British casualties. He's now being payed off quite abundantly by doing little talks around the country and releasing his books. He's just one example of the great corruption that has manifested like a cancer in global governance, it's likely that every ambassador who voted in favour of UN resolution 661 was to corrupt in a way, or ignorant that it would clearly result in starvation and suffering.

Centralisation and hegemonic governance: The United Nations

As the body of society, we have but one vote to cast every half decade or so, with the range of political debate handily narrowed down for us in media to a bilateral choice: leave/stay, more/less, etc. It would seem these elections are placed neatly apart with length enough for us to forget how the promises they make are not fulfilled, whilst gradualist policy coupled with media creates an atmosphere of social cryptomnesia. This concept of narrowing and prescribing public opinion and drawing the lines of debate was established long ago by founders of modern propaganda such as Edward Bernays, whilst political elitists such as Brzezinski even noted in the 1970's that before long people will not have to reason for themselves for with technology they will have their opinions made for them. In the UK it would seem, from what I hear, a particular sense of apathy and idleness surrounds this year's election and politics in general, people simply do not care all that much. The idea of 'learned helplessness' as Martin Seligman found, cruelly studying dogs, (which was done to be applied to human nature) that helplessness can be learned and accepted, though our constant repetition and participation show signs more of mass insanity. In reality, through a complex of various and numerous trade agreements, treaties, mass financial debts and other commitments, the Governments of nations have been corralled into the growing centralisation of a global power structure, called the United Nations, as if global amalgamation is politically wise and sounds nothing at all like the dystopian worlds portrayed by Orwell and Huxley. This centralisation is currently in the process of consolidating continents through institutions such as the EU, NAFTA/North American Union, Eurasian Economic Union, Central Asian Union, African Union and Arab League/(proposed Arab Union), with non-governmental think tanks such as the Trilateral Commission, of which many political and corporate figures are member to (David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, various other political leaders/ministers, transnational business and banking leaders, etc) encourage a trilateral continental world. Which requires all systems of Government around the world be given the western style 'democracy', over whatever system they had before that may have been outside the closely regulated system.

How does this relate to the September 11th attacks according to sceptics? Well, because the streak of countries bombed into submission by the United States, who took over from Britain after WW2 as the world military power and became the primary war tool of the UN, where not in the system and still retained a degree of national sovereignty. They were all free from IMF debt, which is a wing of the United Nations, and as debt is a method of control it uses this to give nations worthless fiat currency, indebting them to control their economy under the guise of stability. Some, such as Iraq and Libya denied OPEC standards and refused to trade oil on the global market by the dollar or implemented genuine money such as the Gold Dinar. Assad and Syria had been going down a similar road by refusing the construction of the Qutar-Turkey pipeline through their country (which under NATO's “Strategic Concept For the Defence and Security of The Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”, published 2010, makes that an act against NATO members) and also have no IMF debt until their country just some how happened to become flooded with weapons handed out to Islamic extremists who would ardently fight the secular Assad government. And now western involvement is being escalated by alleged Gas attacks by the Assad 'regime', though there is yet to be any proof of this, and logic would dictate that Assad is no idiot and would not commit the single act that was sure to escalate international involvement by breaking the Geneva Convention, especially as the alleged location targeted was of no strategic importance and if did occur was more likely a chemical weapons storage facility (not against Geneva convention) that was hit by explosives. It can be seen as the same story repeated again to coax us all into accepting an escalated war against another middle eastern nation, for if you flash some images, real or not, of children suffering, people will allow action.

Sceptics also point out the less cared for or noticed attack on the liberty and privacy of the individual. Order out of chaos is the most effective method to create massive change within an overall structure of gradualism, as whilst scared, uncertain and angry people quite easily will let freedom slip through their fingers in return for security. The Patriot Act passed 2001 can be seen as another step in the wrong direction towards the increasing surveillance state, condoning by law, wire tapping, individual data collection and profiling, property searches, cyber-centralisation under NATO and infringement on other civil liberties, all in defence against international terrorism, a much more effective guise than that of the cold war as, under the terrorist narrative, anyone could be a terrorist and therefor everyone can be surveilled.

My point is that who does not recollect the tragedy of September 11th when governments speak of the so called national threat of terrorism, which has served diligently as the excuse for western imperialism in the middle east ever since? One might ask how could some one or a group do such a thing to their own people, but they must simply look to the history books to find these 'leaders' seem, by their actions, to have little care for human life. In the Vietnam war when picture after picture of the atrocities of war where being sent back home, images of the My Lai massacre, Agent Orange and children being hit with napalm, where were they to stop it all? They had the authority to do so, and the American people wanted an end (a 1968 Gallup poll showed 50% disproved of the war, whilst only 35% approved), yet it continued. So I am not going to be fooled, because we are dealing with people who want war.

True power requires that everyone be in their system in order that they can be manipulated. That means every institution of every nation can be controlled, from education to media like the Bologna Process and increasingly tighter ownership of News outlets. Who remains outside the system of centralisation? Cuba, Iran and North Korea, two of which seem to get particularly bad press, perhaps with good reason, however, there is another agenda behind all that. In conclusion I'll simply say this, something that the sceptical view would boldly state: the same man who was the primary funding body and spearhead of the construction of the World Trade Centre, also founded the Trilateral Commission, the Counsil on Foreign Relations, was a major Oil mogul, was a close associate of the CIA, was executive employee of J.P. Morgan, member of Bilderburg Group and major UN adviser. His name was David Rockefeller.

 - an essay by FabiusSideman

Publications of interest related or otherwise:

The 9/11 Commission - 9/11 Commission

15 years later: the physics of high rise buildings 

Memorandum 200 - by Henry Kissinger

Education for International understanding - by UNESCO

1998 Rio Declaration/Agenda 21 - UN Commission

The Anglo-American establishment - Carroll Quigley 

Some introductory food for thought...

"Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilised society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilised world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success."

  - Mark Scousen 

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."

 - Vladamir Lenin

"The road to recovery is to stimulate small business and innovation by reducing taxation, regulation, and litigation."

  - Sandy Adams

The premise of Government taxation on the individual in practicality.

Taxation is of course, the levying of wealth from the citizen to the State. However, before I delve into two key theoretical positions on the premise of taxation, it is best surely, to understand the practical administration of taxation in the modern world; where it is spent and for what reasons. Amongst western nations, the tally of taxation can often be high, averaging nearly 50% when including secondary taxes placed on goods. When people are born in the west, their Birth Certificate is signed by their parents, which is a legal document ensuring your legal person to be the guarantor to any debts incurred by your Government, or to the debts of any other nation incapable of paying their debts to your Government. Though, many often broach discussion of the huge deficits of their nations and its unplayable debts, many stray from asking to who these debts are owed. Most central banks are actually privately ran and control the monetary policy of the State and its quotas, whilst all debts and loans are centrally controlled from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World bank. This is one facet of taxation, as one major reason for its seemingly excessive proportions is because the State acts as a middle man between citizen and bank:

 • Government borrows money from Central Bank and owes debt at interest

 • Central bank uses quantitative easing to reduce value of the currency compared 

    to the original loan. 

 • Taxation is collected from the public

 • Government uses tax money to pay it's debts

or:

 • Government loans money to developing nation

 • Developing nation is unable to sufficiently repay its debts

 • Taxation is collected from public as guarantors  

This is one major factor to consider how taxation is administrated practically in the current economy. However, as banks have private and centralised authority over monetary policy, they also control inflation quotas by way of fiat currency which gradually devalues the currency and thus diminishes the stored wealth of people, especially if these quotas exceed the rate of interest, however, even if not, there are many fixed forms of income and expenditure, such as pensions (which are also taxed). 

Another factor of government expenditure is to corporatism, the development of Globalisation and the welfare state. Corporatism and Globalisation virtually coincide as through various free trade deals, the outsourcing of industry is encouraged, for any loss of profit incurred during outsourcing or the period afterwards is reimbursed by the Government, increasing in an ever globalised world with the symbiosis of state and economy at the international level seeing larger monopolies than ever before. In the United States particularly, the military industrial complex accounts for colossal transactions of wealth between Government and Military industry backed by the public purse, whilst under NATO, a minimum 3% of national GDP must be pledged to military spending. Then there is of course the ever encroaching welfare state, particularly criticised in Europe on account of it's generosity that often encourages laziness. With many jobs lost to Globalisation and the mass exodus of immigration coming from Middle eastern nations, many simple can't find work, whilst others avoid it, knowing they can rely on the Government to provide for them. This is useful to consider when discussing perspectives on taxation.

The Libertarian or Classical Liberal perspective...

From this angle high taxation by big Government is seen more as a form of theft. The reasoning for this is that an individuals wealth is the fruit of their labour, and to forcibly levy someone's wealth in order to use it elsewhere or be given to someone else is almost a form of quasi-slavery for your labour is being used both for the subsistence of yourself and that of others. It is also seen as a form of theft because it fits the literal definition of theft, which is to extract property from someone without consent, which is taxation. Libertarianism is of the persuasion that a small government with minimal impediment on a free market society is the most effective economy. Today's Governments are rather socialistic, and have large intrusion into the economy. Because of the influence big Government can have on business, it creates an environment where big business and State must cooperate for mutual benefit, which is more commonly and otherwise known as corruption. This is the reason why Libertarians oppose the idea that a large and overbearing Government should be supported by high taxation on the people. High taxation, along with various State set restrictions, also hinders free market enterprise as people are dragged down by these restrictions, meanwhile, those businesses that are already large, monopolise their industry. Libertarians see Monopolies, class disparity and the inequalities of Capitalism only amplified by large State intervention and high taxation as it results in stagnating the free market and stifling enterprise.  

The Marxist or Proggressive perspective...

The progressive perspective towards taxation is one that sees it as a necessarily effort to balance the scales of class disparity through sliding scale taxes, i.e. High on the rich and low on the poor. They see it fit that the rich should pay a larger share into the pool as they of course have more disposable income, and that these taxes should be used in Government projects and to support the poor. Generally progressivism ignores the major ills within an interventionist system itself and instead uses the bandage of taxation in an often vain attempt to close the gap between rich and poor. I must admit, I am more of the Libertarian persuasion, for rather than dragging the top down in an unsustainable effort to raise bottom up, it is far more economical and prosperous simply to allow business to flourish without the burden of taxation, which should stimulate a high wage economy and more abundance of jobs. George Orwell got it right when he said that Socialists/Progressives don't want to help the poor, it's just that they hate the rich, which seems to be the common parlance of progressive idealism, is that it speaks more with contempt for the rich than it does with sympathy for the poor. Most western economies currently run, and have for some time ran on a system of progressive taxation and has only briefly seen a Libertarian Capitalist style economy, for instance, the period of 1950's-60's America was quite a Libertarian era.  

 - a short essay by FabiusSideman