(simplified version)
The belief that the masses of people are devoid of influence on the course of past and that their attitude, their behaviour, is meaningless, due to the fact that they control all the "machines from the back" (i.e. "mafie, service and lodges" as Mr. Grzegorz Braun calls it) is rather common. They are shared in the first place by representatives of these masses – as well as by "machinemakers from the back".
Ordinary people with even somewhat awakened awareness – and so erstwhile they wake up from a dream called "the state takes care of me and politicians want me well", erstwhile they realize the deception of democracy, they are aware of their own defencelessness against the apparatus of force that the state has. So it seems to them that all manifestations of rebellion must be strangled in the bud, that rebellion makes no sense at all. These even more aware and technological experts are besides aware of the power of the surveillance and profiling systems of modern power.
From the railways, the “background machers”, or real “group holding power” is the more assured of its full control over society the longer this control takes – and the more insolent plays are accepted by society without objection. They believe in the strength of the apparatus of espionage and extortion controlled by them, from service to office, due to the fact that for years – sometimes decades – they have obediently performed increasingly idiotic and evil commands. So what could go wrong?
At the same time, the “backroom machers” realize that there is no chance in numbers that if they were adequate to incite the masses, the number of them would be adequate not only to deprive the “machiners” of power, but to kill them, regardless of their protection. This is why they attach specified importance to the propaganda apparatus, whose task is to minimize the number of awakenings.
That is why it is besides so crucial in its finesse and effectiveness to cheat called democracy. By giving people an illusion of influence through a magic procedure with cards in the urns, they are channeled into their discontent with the idle excitement of disputes between puppets playing the function of terrible fighting parties. It is worth noting that in many countries 2 teams are adequate for this, which is understandable – why introduce an excessive complication. In the USA, these are Democrats and Republicans, in the United Kingdom Tories and Labour Party, and in Poland they are presently PiS and PO. Millions of fools are excited about the struggles on the political phase (a large name for this staging) which have specified an impact on the course of events as the consequence of league matches – cheering for PO or PiS has the same dimension as cheering for Legion or Widzew. However, as a result, the political kiboles are "careful", excited about the fake game they do not even effort to analyse the real state of affairs and their energy alternatively of possible rebellion against the strategy is channelled into... the fight against the political kibols of the opposing (declaredly) team.
(In general organized athletics or excitement of the results of another people's efforts is simply a beautiful way of distracting people from crucial matters and sewering their energy in fact barren, completely meaningless – but this is simply a subject for a separate article.)
So everything looks large from the point of view of the “gentlemen of the world” and from the point of view of ours completely hopelessly (what 1 of my fewer readers has late expressed erstwhile writing that there will be no rebellion). The strategy is sealed, and whoever doesn't get the propaganda, they'll get the offices. And for the political stage, individual who is uncontrollable, who can't be tolerated as a harmless clown like Janusz Korwin-Mikke, who doesn't have a video from a Podkarpackie public house, and who can't be corrupted by any position for his wife in a state-owned company, will end up like a late MP. Rafał Wójcikowski.
And yet sometimes the wind of past can blow so that abruptly the strategy gets short of breath, becomes more or little radical.
In the last 2 100 years, we have had at least a twelve cases of specified events [1], someway specified a unusual coincidence ending in the most frequently dictatorship (i.e. any distorted but yet form of monarchy power [2]):
- the French Revolution and Napoleon,
- revolution in Russia and Stalin,
- the fascist revolution and Mussolini,
- the creeping revolution of the NSDAP in Germany and Hitler,
- Spanish counter-revolutionary and Franco.
Without going into details (because this simplified version) the common feature of all these events was the coincidence of respective circumstances:
- extreme state failure, economical collapse, e.g. as a consequence of war or another problems, which deprives a large proportion of people of their livelihoods and thus leads to a finality,
- The emergence of leaders and folk stands who are able to order these people and translate their rage into organized action,
- the support of these chiefs by any group of “backroom machers” who, for any reason or other, decided that it was time for a change at the summit.
The first element, so any larger or smaller crisis, but the crisis System is very crucial due to the fact that the destabilisation of the strategy introduces an component of unpredictability, and thus creates a situation where the strategy ceases to be tight and full controlled.
However, it is the second component that is crucial, and at the same time most frequently overlooked in the past books. If the “backroom machers” are a group that is compact and jointly defending their interests, then any random reaction from the population is without any chance. However, erstwhile a group of "machers" – usually those from the "second" or "third" series – decides that it is time to change "at the rudder", then it supports and even stimulates the mass opposition movement accordingly, in order to bring about changes utilizing its strength. usually if the thing succeeds, then there is consolidation and order under fresh leadership so that the state acquires control and the economy begins to function normally.
What could be the reason for specified action by a group of “machiners”? It may be a sense of patriotism, but more frequently a well understood self-interest. “If you drown, what will we live with?” the “machers” ask. And not wanting to sink with him, they choose a different way than obeying the orders of their erstwhile bosses. Because, of course, all the “machers”, even the smaller ones have any resources located somewhere abroad, etc., but even the wealthy will no longer have power or new, equally good sources of income.
Another motivation is to see an chance to blow up existing bosses from the saddle or even weaken them by jumping to a higher level, expanding their authorities and influences. Let us remember that the image of the global conspiracy as an efficient, closely coordinated and compatible group is false. The temptation for individual in the second line – so already knowing everything (that is, what we do not know) – to go to the first by eliminating or weakening individual from there is surely huge. In history, specified things have happened many times at the heights of power, there is no reason to believe that they are not happening and cannot happen.
The change in this motivation is the simple fact that it's better to be a boss at home in a tiny company than a mercenary in a large corporation. Better to be an independent satrap in a tiny area than a puppet in a larger strategy (no 1 can uncertainty that Kim Jong Un stands higher than Duda). The motive to support rebellion in their own country may not be “patriotism” understood altruistically, idealistically but entirely practically, due to the fact that it is better to host than a puppet (it may besides be the motive for Putin's squad breaking out of the NWO's plans, about which I wrote earlier.).
A good analogy of the mechanics that prompts a group of "machiners" to support the "human uprising" or "library movement" is the relations of mafia families known to us from literature and films.
Returning to the above mentioned events, a Russian historian investigating the period 1917-1920 found with amazement the biographies of a group of high-ranking military officials of Czarski, who were not disturbed by the NKVD calmly passed through this period, but died of old age in comfortable apartments and cottages in the late 1930s. In examining the matter, he said that any elements of the celebrated revolution of 1914 were already controlled by Russian services, which any sect felt that only by placing on the Bolsheviks could the state be brought straight. First there was the decomposition of the czarski system, and then there was the ground on which the Bolsheviks could appear. [3]
Similarly, the utmost economical crisis, coupled with the degrading conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, caused instability in which the Nazi movement could be created and its "pressed" by the under-sealed democratic strategy to power. This is what we all know from the textbooks of history, but there is simply a second subject – rich industrialists and military representatives who, comparatively early on, supported this movement by seeing in it a chance to rebuild the power of the German state, and thus to improve their fate. In their case, things went so incorrect that Hitler ‘breaks off his leash’ and playing ‘va banque’ exaggerated and yet lost Germany. This, however, happened later when, after the coup, he had already established himself and strengthened the fresh Nazi system.
What's it gonna be now? I don't know that, of course. However, a major crisis in Europe would make susceptible ground for any “machers” (also called “the elites”) to animate and exploit the rebellion that may flourish on that ground to effort to make changes – thus introducing an additional level of unpredictability into the system. The folk leader chosen by the breaking “machiners” can, like Hitler, “get off the leash”. Or destabilization will let individual else to abruptly happen unexpectedly and for 1 and the another “machers.” In any case, specified rebellion, even if it seems to the “machers” is controlled like a spin of a historical roulette. You don't know what's gonna come up.
Something affirmative may come up sometimes. affirmative for us.
[1] There were more specified events, for example in Asia. But I focused on our cultural circle.
[2] actual monarchs will, of course, point out that this is simply a dense abuse and will be right (although in Napoleon's case 1 could argue). However, closer to the King than to the Prime Minister.
[3] This should be the source. Of course, in 1 of his lectures, Andrei Fursow, a well-known Russian historian and analyst, gave the author and the title of the book, unfortunately I did not compose it down and now it would be hard for me to find it among hundreds of hours of Fursov's appearances available online.
