The Man From U.N.C.L.E.’s Deep State Parallels

jay008 /http://jaysanalysis.com/2015/08/20/the-man-from-u-n-c-l-e-s-deep-state-parallels/

Smoking hot femme fatale…

By: Jay Dyer
Guy Ritchie films are often full of esoteric and conspiratorial themes, and The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is no exception. If we recall the first Sherlock Holmes film Ritchie directed, we discover the villainous Lord Blackwood to be modelled on the infamous figure of Crowley. In the sequel, we learned Moriarty was in fact behind the many false flag attacks that involved anarchist groups from France, as well as the infamous murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and as must be noted, Professor Moriarty was a member of the British elite intent upon sparking a World War and profit from that machine. Indeed, it has long been whispered that British Intelligence was behind the Black Hand’s assassination of the Archduke, and a figure no less than Dr. Carroll Quigley that defended these World Wars of the Atlanticist establishment as necessary for “global democratic principles” (see his final chapters).
With UNCLE, our setting is a very 007-esque Cold War pastiche, with Napoleon Solo (henry Cavill) tracking down an East German hottie by the name of Gabby Teller (Alicia Vikander) seeking escape. Solo, a former thief recruited into the CIA to avoid a prison sentence, arranges an extraction with the intention of using Gabby in a plot to locate her father who had been coaxed into aiding a shadowy Fascist International into helping to develop an atomic bomb. Early on, mention is made of Gabby’s father being Dr. Edward Teller, a pioneer in the atomic experiments and the Manhattan Project (as well as one of the fathers of weather modification and atmospheric aerosol geoengineering) in relation to Operation Paperclip. Paperclip, as most now know, was the secret plan to co-opt former German scientists such as Werner Von Braun and many others, into working on projects in the post war allied nations.
JFK speeches are shown, hyping the East/West divide as Gabby and Solo find safety in the West, only to be informed they will be working with their KGB enemy counterpart Illya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer) to seek out the shadowy SPECTRE-Syndicate-like group that is working on supposed nuclear bombs. As the spies scurry about Rome and Europe, their respective handlers in the CIA and KGB discuss the absolute necessity for this contest, to “save the human race from extinction.” In other words, the myth of the great nuclear threat and its imminent terrorism component began taking shape during the Cold War.

Note the VinciGuerra racing symbol to the left, the square and compass. A reference to P2?

Thus, Ritchie seems to be conveying the message that the psychological warfare attack on mass populations concerning the so-called “war on global terror” actually has its origins in the Cold War and the nuclear threat. Never mind the irrational and incoherent nature of what a global nuclear war would actually mean, in terms of how unworkable it would be in praxis, the film subtly hints at the contrived nature of the nuclear proliferation crisis (and thus at the phony nature of the war on terror). Interesting side note, the actor that played Moriarty (Sylvester Groth) is Napoleon Solo’s handler, Uncle Rudy.
Thus, the joining of the intelligence establishments of the East and West, under the guise of the threat of international fascist terror, is the motivating impetus for UNCLE’s existence, and hints of Operation Gladio are even referenced, with the source of the organization being Italian fascists. VinciGuerra may have reference to old Venetian nobility, whose banking system would later be adopted by the Rothschilds and UK establishments. It is also worth noting the VinciGuerra logo for their race team is quite clearly a masonic square and compass, bringing to mind P2 and the Grand Orient connections of that secret society. The Italian fascists are thus allied with former Nazi doctor Udo, a kind of Josef Mengele who intends to extract information through torture and mind control from Solo.

Underground bases, Blofeld style.

VinciGuerra also owns an aerospace company, as well as shipping which hearkens to Diamonds Are Forever, and the breakdown Basil Valentine and I gave of that film. Fleming’s Diamonds seemed to have coded reference to possibly the Onassis and/or Niarchos shipping, and Ritchie could be conveying the same idea with this Italian shipping and aerospace empire. In fact, the 007 associations are made clear by the film’s reference to Count Lippe, whom Illya kills. Count Lippe is a SPECTRE operative who appears in Fleming’s Thunderball. The reference supports both theses that Ritchie is connecting both Fleming’s works and ancient black nobility. Indeed, the room the UNCLE spies inhabit in Rome is 707, very similar to 007.
Several months back I typed a piece arguing SPECTRE is real. In it, I commented:

Diamonds Are Forever might be more appropriate, but in Fleming’s 1958 novel Dr. No, No makes an equally prescient and insightful statement about black market operations and their fierce master, shadow government:

“Mr. Bond, power is sovereignty.  Clausewitz’s first principle was to have a secure base.  From there one proceeds to freedom of action. Together, that is sovereignty.  I have secured these things and much beside.  No one else in the world possess them to the same degree.  They cannot have them.  The world is too public.  These things can only be secured in privacy. You talk of kings and presidents.  How much power do they possess?  As much as their people will allow them.  Who in the world has the power of life and death over his people?  Now that Stalin is dead, can you name any man except myself?  And how do I possess that power, that sovereignty? Through privacy.  Through the fact that nobody knows. ” (pg. 161)

Classic Cold War ground for spy activities, Rome

My thesis seems to be confirmed, at least in the trajectory popular spy fiction is taking, with the shadowy international organization continually manipulating dialectical tensions and rivalries. We have seen this displayed in the strategy of tension between the US and Russia during the Cold War, and again in our day over the Ukraine, as well as the invocation of the evangelical America’s “crusade” against them durn jihadis. The irony is that fiction and film are more accurate than the mainstream news propaganda, inasmuch as there really is an international criminal organization that plays nation-states off against each other.
While in our day that organization is not made up of Italian fascists, it is instead a corporate fascism of McDonald’s, Monsanto, Apple and Pepsi, atop a sugar cube pyramid mirroring the one Udo builds in UNCLE. The pyramid scene is intentional, and atop the real world’s SPECTRE we don’t find fascists, but international banksters. Indeed, we discover in the end Gabby was not a refugee coaxed into aiding UNCLE, but rather an operative for MI6.
Just like Mission Impossible 5: Rogue Nation, it is British Intelligence that is sneaking around the background of the dialectical rivalry of East versus West, manipulating both sides. It’s as if Guy Ritchie and company read JaysAnalysis, too! I jest, but the parallels are striking, just as they are in Quantum of Solace, Skyfall and Rogue Nation, where yet again it is MI6 pulling strings, through Waverly (Hugh Grant). Is Ritchie suggesting the East-West convergence plan of the CFR is actually a plot of the Royal Society? The fact of the matter is, it was and is. Ritchie’s homage to one of my favorite film genre’s was well done, and worth viewing. On the esoteric level, it is worth paying attention to, since once again (as I noted, stating “G.I. Joe runs Cobra”), we must face the fact that it is the Fascist International that actually runs U.N.C.L.E. Did you catch that stunning femme fatale Victoria was British?

OPIATES FOR THE MASSES

• Posted on August 18, 2015
• by Ron Patton
• in Articles

OPIATES FOR THE MASSES

One of the most talked about conspiracies is the conspiracy to cull the population in order to maintain global sustainability. There are often many villains fingered in this conspiracy.
Villains who wish to use plausible deniability while they are slowly killing you and dealing you poison little by little until you finally realize that you are sick and in need of maintenance medications and supplements to keep you from dying a slow death.
We have known that the United States government has now created laws where citizens have no recourse if they are poisoned by certain medications and certain vaccines.
Many politicians of course receive money from drug companies and some of them even sit on the committees of major drug companies and so the drug lobby is a very powerful group because they know that what they provide are the various cures for what makes us sick.

Until recently medicine attempted to enhance what occurs in nature. It fostered the tendency of healing wounds, the thinning or the clotting of blood, and it eliminated bacteria that could not be eradicated by natural immunity.
We’ve known for a long time that children are being overly medicated, we also know that the entire nation has been overmedicated and that a lot of what we are prescribed becomes an iatrogenic artifact meaning that what is prescribed to cure us may kill us.
There are drugs that are given to people in order to make them feel better, but have side effects. So a doctor will prescribe them another drug to counter act the effects of the first drug. This creates a way for doctors and drug companies to make money off of keeping you sick.
It is simple, put a patient on a drug that continually requires re-examination, testing and prescription renewal. This is where the cure becomes worse than the initial treatment. It is common and in some cases deadly.

While doctors can accidentally prescribe a drug that may harm you, iatrogenic artifacts may also bend to social pressure, coercion and the act of providing drugs and cures to the populace given my their consent and demands.
Social iatrogenesis occurs when the state or the drug companies “sponsor” a sickness or a need for a certain drug. Doctors and big pharmaceutical companies create what is known as a morbid society where the propaganda creates a mass hysteria over new diseases and demands new drugs or new controversial treatments that have serious side effects.
It occurs when medical bureaucracy creates ill health by increasing stress, by multiplying disabling dependence, by generating new painful needs, by lowering the levels of tolerance of discomfort or pain and discourages the right to self-care.
The conspiracy of social iatrogenesis also occurs when medical damage to individual health is produced by a sociopolitical decree.
Social iatrogenesis is at work when health care is turned into a standardized item, a staple; when all suffering is “hospitalized” when certain drugs are required or when certain vaccines are mandatory.
Social iatrogenesis is often confused with the diagnostic authority of doctors, the food and drug administration, the pharmaceutical companies and even political pundits who issue opinions and even make laws concerning medical care.
This often leads to disease mongering where pharmaceutical companies invent diseases, or market cures for benign conditions, in order to sell more drugs.
We are beginning to see that minor problems that are a normal part of life, becoming increasingly “medicalised” and we are being bombarded with drugs that are created to control or otherwise “cure” things that were never heard of in the past.
We are also seeing that opiate drugs are being prescribed to younger patients.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved limited use of the powerful and frequently abused painkiller OxyContin for children as young as 11 years old.
OxyContin is a long-release version of oxycodone, an opioid that acts on the brain like heroin and is intended for only the most severe and chronic pain cases. Because oxycodone and other opioids are extremely powerful and highly addictive, they’re very tightly regulated.

Many people suffering from pain are told when prescribed these medications that they are highly addictive and should be used responsibly. What is worrisome is whether or not the approval of such a powerful drug is opening up the possibility of misuse and creates an iatrogenic artifact for kids. Oxycontin is a schedule II drug.
Just last year the DEA had cracked down hard on opiate drugs that were once schedule III dugs and made them Schedule II dugs. The DEA is puts them on par with powerful illegal narcotics including heroin and methamphetamine, as well as commonly abused medications Adderall and Ritalin.
OxyContin, and methadone account for far more overdose deaths than Hydrocodone.
OxyContin was reformulated five years ago to make it harder for patients to crush the pills for a fast high. But the new use is still likely to be highly controversial, owing to the staggering death and illness figures attributed to opioids, which include Vicodin and Percocet in addition to OxyContin and other versions of Oxycodone.
An average of 44 people dies in the U.S. from opioids every day, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The question is, should this drug be approved for children?
Opioids are responsible for almost 37 percent of all U.S. overdose deaths; however some of the death certificates do not list the drug responsible for a fatal drug overdose.
Usually the drug becomes and iatrogenic artifact when it is combined with other over the counter medicines and alcohol. If combined with acetaminophen, there is also a danger of an overdose of the pain killer and liver failure is the result.
The FDA says that they will be putting strict limits on the use of OxyContin in children. Unlike adults, children have to demonstrate that they can handle the drug by tolerating a minimum dose equal to 20 milligrams of oxycodone for five consecutive days.
Another question in now that the FDA has approved Oxycodone for kids, why is it then so controversial when a child is actually given medical marijuana? Should the restrictions be lifted on the use of Marijuana and should age restrictions be changed as well?
A new multi-institutional study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine and led by researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, examined the rate of deaths caused by opioid overdoses between 1999 and 2010. Results reveal that on average, the 13 states allowing the use of medical marijuana had a 24.8 percent lower annual opioid overdose mortality rate after the laws were enacted than states without the laws, indicating that the alternative treatment may be safer for patients suffering from chronic pain related to cancer and other conditions.
Approximately 60 percent of all deaths resulting from opioid analgesic overdoses occur in patients who have legitimate prescriptions. Additionally, the proportion of patients in the United States who are prescribed opioids for non-cancer pain has almost doubled over the past decade, indicating the need to do a more focused examination on the safety and efficacy of these and other treatment options. In states allowing the use of medical cannabis, the drugs may be prescribed as an alternative to opioids.
Additional results of the study show that the relationship between lower opioid overdose deaths and medical marijuana laws strengthened over time; deaths were nearly 20 percent lower in the first year after a state’s law was implemented, and 33.7 percent lower five years after implementation.
While safer treatment of chronic pain may help to explain lower rates of overdose deaths, medical marijuana laws may also change the way people misuse or abuse opioid painkillers, as marijuana and opioids stimulate similar areas in the brain’s pathways.
What doesn’t make sense is that a year after learning that federal medical marijuana legalization could save almost a dozen American lives daily; the FDA now decides to expand its population of legal OxyContin users to children.
Meanwhile, the federal marijuana laws are strict and some politicians demonize medical marijuana. We also see corrupt law enforcement officials who prefer to ruin people’s lives over marijuana possession.

The argument over whether or not marijuana will destroy little minds is now mute because if their pain dictates it, they will be given a more dangerous drug that has higher risks and worse side effects.
The Obama administration is clearly more distressed by a potential and debatable eight point drop in the IQ in later life among adolescence after long term marijuana-use than guaranteed deaths from prescription opioid drugs.
Now, can we all see that the idea of social iatrogenisis at work here?
Drug studies sponsored by corporations are invariably skewed to favor the study sponsors—the demonizing of self care and the use of medical marijuana has been demonized as a social problem—when it could be used as an answer.
More and more we are seeing evidence to show that you can’t trust the pharmaceutical industry, because whenever they have to choose between profits and quality health care, they always seem to favor profits.

NASA-ROSCOSMOS COOPERATION, AND A STRANGE STATEMENT… 
"In fact, we've never left the moon and we" ~ we (the 'rest' of the World r/have been ...'played' )

Posted on August 20, 2015 by Joseph P. Farrell • http://gizadeathstar.com/2015/08/nasa-roscosmos-cooperation-and-a-strange-statement/

Mr. P.H. sent us this one, and I have to share it, since it fits the pattern of space stories we've been watching lately, and because it contains a rather astonishing statement, as we shall see, one which gives fuel to our high octane speculation of the day:
Russian-American space cooperation not affected by sanctions
Notably, while the article concentrates on the NASA-Roscosmos cooperation and the lack of current terrestrial geopolitics having much of an effect on the current relationship, there is this suggestion of something looming on the horizon, that Russia might just decide to leave the USA in the space lurch:

RD: Let's come back to Russia. Some Russian pro-government experts, not necessarily affiliated with Roscosmos, suggest that Russia stop working with the U.S. and build its own international space station with the support of the BRICS. This would be totally separate from NASA. Do you think that it's technically possible? 
B.J.: Technically, there is nothing to [prevent] Roscosmos from building a space station. But it's a decision by Roscosmos. They've been great partners as well as other nations. On the ISS, Roscosmos have been our major partner and we are going to continue this collaboration at least up to 2024.

Indeed, as we've reported on this website, there are those in Roscosmos, including its head, that have suggested that Russia should do just that. And if you'll recall years ago in the aftermath of the Phobos-Grunt probe, some Russian generals actually suggested, none too subtley, that the probe had been sabotaged by faulty computer chips and "radar interference", leaving little to the imagination as to who they thought may have been behind it.
But then comes this, and with it, our high octane speculation:

RD: How would you see the odds of the Russian space program and, particularly, its plans to go to the moon amidst the lack of funding, the country’s tight budget and, more importantly, the sanctions? 
B.J.: I don't see any reasons why Russia couldn't do that. In fact, we can provide our assistance to Russia and a couple of other nations who are interested in exploring the moon. We know that the moon is a great target for exploration. We've had our Apollo program in the 1960s.
In fact, we've never left the moon and we have been looking for water and other materials that can be found on the lunar surface. We are prepared to help not just all nations but also Roscosmos and commercial providers to get to the moon when they are ready. 
But at the same time, we are focused on getting beyond the moon. We want to send our astronauts further in space than ever before. We are getting all the information that we can to send our astronauts to Mars. So, other nations are excited about the moon, we are excited for them but we are focused on Mars.
RD: It may seem that you've already negotiated the spheres of the influence in space with Russia. You're going to Mars, you're working very closely with the European Space Agency while Russia, China and India are going to the moon. 
B.J.: All depends on the individual nation, its desires and its space program. Roscosmos is cooperating with the European Space Agency on the Mars lander. We are in the process of building the Mars 2020 robot. (All italicized emphasis added)

First, note the reference to having negotiated "sphere of influence" with Russia, a statement to which no direct response is really given. But the really intriguing statement is that "we've never left the moon and we have been looking for water and other materials that can be found on the lunar surface." One way to read this, is the rather obvious one, namely, that "not leaving the moon" simply is a rhetorical expression to emphasize the fact that NASA continues to be interested in the Moon.
But this - and here comes my high octane speculation - would seem to be contraindicated by the fact that, at least publicly, only the Clementine probe to map the Moon was sent by the USA to the Moon, and even that was a Pentagon mission. So the statement implies something else, for if the only post-Apollo moon probe sent to the moon was a mapping mission for the Pentagon, and this is the only publicly known probe, then the statements really imply that there has been an ongoing secret project involving the moon, one moreover involving the development of its resources.
And once again, this is being aired in a Russian-related media source.