Terrorism Defined. What We’ve Learned from Brzezinski, Tavistock, and Gladio

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

How foolish we are to keep on letting the bad guys foist a word upon us, when that very word is capable of serving THEIR purposes against us.

There are times when I almost wish we had an English Language Academy to reject new terms, the way the French Academy reportedly proscribed ‘le weekend.’

What is terror? It is first of all a human emotion. It’s a type of fear. You may be in a state of terror if you think someone is about to harm you.  The word also gets magnified into something more abstract.

Hence, a grammatically correct sentence might say “The Such-and-Such party is organizing a terror campaign.”

An important aspect of terror is that you aren’t sure if, or when, the bad thing will happen. Indeed if someone wants you to be terrorized they ought to be sporadic in their commission of the harmful acts. That way you are ALWAYS expecting something to happen.

Lack of Calming Advice

I will argue in this essay that it is our own Western governments that are producing terrorism as a way of controlling us. A simple proof of this is that we don’t see any TV shows or newspaper articles that advise on how to deal with the emotion of terror.

If there were a real threat from outside (let’s say from Muslims), wouldn’t one of our best defenses be calmness? Instead, we hear the voice over the loud speaker at the airport (and, lately, in city buses!) saying “If you see a suspicious package, report it immediately.”

Haven’t there always been packages left lying on a seat, occasionally? And hasn’t it always been true that it could contain a bomb? I think there’s no protection against an explosive device. There will never be protection against someone poisoning the water supply. That is just a fact of life.

Anyway, explosive devices and water poison are unlikely to be left in full view. Put yourself in the bomber’s shoes. If you really intend to have the device go off, are you going to put where it will be seen and defused?  Unlikely!

Thus a reasonable motive for the emphasis on reporting suspicious objects is TO ENHANCE YOUR FEAR.

Your Basic Vax (or Anti-vax) Terrorism

This article, at Gumshoe today, came about because some Commenters to my Dr Tenpenny article of February 2, 2015 want to talk about the ‘terrorist’ named Dolmio “Frankie” Vazquez.

Sherri Tenpenny, an osteopath in the US, who is nothing if not reasonable and well-informed, has taken a position against some childhood vaccines. She claims (and I believe her) that she had planned an ordinary vacation to Oz. Then she was asked to speak at several cities.

I know nothing of the particulars. I read on the Internet that her trip was cancelled. The hotel venues are said to have pulled out. Why? Well, who knows? Here are 4 possibilities:

1. They heard there was trouble and did not want to risk injury to people attending their hotel.
2. They got direct threats from anti-vax campaigners (e.g., Vazquez).
3. Some powerful persons (such as in medicine or pharma) told them to cancel the talks.
4. The whole thing was a game to begin with, the aim being to have a platform to publicize, yet again, the fact that vaccinations are valuable and we shouldn’t listen to alternative views. Thus the hotels simply took instructions from government or the medical establishment: “Cancel the tour.”

It is the first item that wants discussion. No controversial health issue should bring out, on either side, any threats of bombing or other violence. I do not think they ever do bring out such violence. I assume it is always a public relations game of some sort. That’s how I feel about violence reportedly committed at abortion clinic.  All well planned from the top!

In this case, the Adelaide man named Vazquez is said to have made threats against THOSE WHO WOULD CANCEL DR TENPANNY’S TOUR! Well, that’s a new twist. I can’t recall so far seeing anyone who advocated freedom of speech saying he or she would do physical harm if the speaker were silenced.

It’s a clever twist. Vazquez’s intervention supposedly caused a hotel to cancel the event – the exact opposite of what he allegedly wanted. At the same time, in the eyes of the public who won’t closely follow the deal, it makes the anti-vax side of the fight look like baddies.

Indeed “Frankie” Vazquez is pictured on one of the websites with a “mentally disturbed” look. (You will know, if you are a regular reader of Gumshoe, that I take his “mental disturbance” to be part of the costume provided to him by his handlers. I’ll bet that was Sydney-siege Monis’s fate, also.)

Tavistock

I simply ask the reader to think it through, and view the vaccine-tour “terrorism” as having come straight from “Tavistock.” That’s the group, in UK, that has had a great deal of knowledge of how to condition the mind.

They may have been the overseers of Ivan Pavlov’s dog experiments. No doubt they also had to do with Nazi experiments and MK-Ultra. (They are an equal opportunity employer: see my Prosecution for Treason, 2011.)

Today, I speculate, they furnish the majority of the Internet comments that appear to come from “the public.” In general when you see two members of the public having a fight, it’s a good bet that both sides are written by the same person. Yep.

Much of our current understanding about “what are neighbor is thinking” come to us by Tavistock telling us what our neighbor is thinking.

The Importance of Having a Credible Enemy

When I was growing up in America, the main fear instilled in us was of a Communist takeover.  Sure, there was a Third World with many inhabitants, but they lacked weapons to threaten us. We needed a credible enemy. We called ourselves The First World, and all the Commie countries were the Second World.

Those terms were seldom used; it was “the free world” versus “the Soviet bloc, but it was drummed into us as explaining every move we made on the globe. For example, the US might say it should give aid to Guatemala to counteract offers by the USSR. Or it might say it could not be generous with homeless Americans as that would smack of socialism. (Seriously.)

At some later point, World Government chose Muslims for the role of ideological enemy. It looks to me that persons of the Arab race are as non-confrontational as any other. I think we are all milquetoasts, as I have said in numerous articles. Any derring-do attributed to Arabs is a fiction.

H sapiens is a sheeple species. Sad, but true. Wait! Am I saying there have never been wars in which the warriors sallied forth bravely and angrily? No. I agree there are wars. Most likely they start with a conqueror feeling his oats, and the other side has to engage.  But I don’t think there are rebel groups going at it.

Never mind my amateur opinions. All I want to claim here is that in the case of the famous Islamic terrorist movements we should be very circumspect. It is unlikely that individuals would try to bring down a technologically advanced nation. All they could reasonably expect as their reward is defeat and death. (I don’t credit the story that they do it for God.)

The Brzezinski Confession re Islamic Terrorism

So, do I say that “Arabs” or “Muslims” were set up by the West to fulfill the role of terrorists? Yes, and there is no need to prove it, as one of our own leaders already put it on record. US National Security Adviser to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave a candid interview to a French journal. (See “Les Révélations d’un Ancien Conseilleur de Carter: ‘Oui, la CIA est Entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes…’” Le Nouvel Observateur [Paris], January 15-21, 1998.

I print the translation by William Blum and David Gibbs:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the [1979] Soviet intervention. …You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. …

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into the war and looked for a way to provoke it?

B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would….

Q : When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan, nobody believed them . However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? …

Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B : What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q : “Some agitated Moslems”? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today…

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West has a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid: There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner, without demagoguery or emotionalism. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militarist Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt, or secularist Central Asia? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries….

Our Poor Dear Little Brains

Unfortunately, Brzezinski’s confession, now 17 years old, is not well-known. Thus, it is still possible for the media (i.e., World Government’s mouthpiece) to keep harping on the idea of Islamic terrorists.

Tavistock’s experts surely knows that the human brain works mainly in a subconscious way.  They know that we evolved in such a way as to have direct instinctive reactions to perceived realities. When we are told there are terrorists out there we oblige by doing the following:

1. We hate that group for its rudeness and its cruelty. [Well, what do you expect from ragheads?]
2. We see them as having omnipotent powers to harm us.

[They knock down World Trade Centers, don’t they?]

3. We feel that we must close ranks with our own kind to protect against such ‘animals.’ [“Boston strong” tee shirt, anyone?]
4. We know that in these times of crises we must look to our leaders and to experts in “security.” [Talking heads on the nightly news.]

The Definition from the Academy of the Heuristics

So how should we define “terrorism” — by which I now mean the phenomenon of World Government using that terminology  as a weapon over all of us? Terrorism; qu’est-ce que c’est? Here is my suggested wording, meant as a heuristic device to move us out of the current trap we are in:

Terrorism is the weapon that has been prominently used by World Government as part of NATO’s openly acknowledged “strategy of tension” to keep people in fear, to justify wars, and to enable the police state.

— Mary W Maxwell fancies herself an authority on fake terrorism and the excesses of Tavistock.