Will You Become A Terrorist?

Will You Become A Terrorist? Mass Media Setting Early Stage For Global Police Pre-Crime Challenge

The question posed recently by NY Times writer Matt Apuzzo is, “Who will become a terrorist?” The answer is, there is no answer. There is no way to predict who will say yes to the call to partake in state-sponsored terror. Let’s not confuse genuine reality with the artificial reality delivered on TV and mainstream media for the masses. Therefore, let’s be absolutely clear. In the 2-dimensional reality that the mainstream media exists in, the question is posed on the assumption that there are entities out there that choose entirely on their own to become “terrorists”. In this reality the mass media is posing the question of – how can we predict who will become (by choice) the next “terrorists”?

The question is intended to facilitate the artificial reality pushed by mainstream media. A look behind the scenes in this fake reality we see massive long-term plans which involve the creation, funding and arming of “opposition” groups who are the same groups later involved in synthetic terror, then offering a preliminary “solution”. In this case the solution is admittedly not available, but the article implies that if we could first somehow identify who the terrorists will be then that would be a start in the right direction in terms of “defeating terrorism”.

One thing to observe about this recent article posed by the NY Times is that the controllers are donning the role of underdog. What am I talking about? Here are some examples of the strategic preliminary underdog role:

When ISIS was first rolled out to the general public in the summer of 2014 the media glorified ISIS, built up their name, gave them credit for beheadings and a lot more. Then by the end of 2014 Obama was on TV posing as the defeated underdog telling us he had no plan yet for ISIS. This was used particularly by the Republicans and critics of Obama as an excuse to say Obama is “soft on terrorism” (think Hegelian Dialectic). Then after playing the underdog “soft on terrorism” defeated role, of course by early 2015 Obama comes firing out of the gate with the “solution” – How about an Authorization of Unlimited Military Force (AUMF) resolution? Thus, by playing the early underdog role posing as someone without an answer, this provided the political-emotional momentum and future justification for acting in a grand manner.

We saw a similar dialectic with Ebola in 2014. The weak and powerless initial reaction to the synthetic mainstream media Ebola hysteria was criticized later by the U.N. as weak and an example of inaction. As we’ve seen, in 2016 that has led to a call for a global medical command center as the U.N. cites previous Ebola inaction.

In this recent mainstream media story about identifying terrorists, not only are the US and other NATO nations portrayed as weak and inadequate at identifying terrorists due to mixed study results and unreliable factors, but the more important and subtle message being conveyed is that we SHOULD be able to and perhaps NEED to figure out a way to identify terrorists before they strike, for our own good. In this sense the article quietly sells the idea that a Minority Report pre-crime technique or tool would be a good thing that we still don’t have. The preliminary strategic underdog position highlighted in bold.

What turns people toward violence — and whether they can be steered away from it — are questions that have bedeviled governments around the world for generations. Those questions have taken on fresh urgency with the rise of the Islamic State and the string of attacks in Europe and the United States. Despite millions of dollars of government-sponsored research, and a much-publicized White House pledge to find answers, there is still nothing close to a consensus on why someone becomes a terrorist.

“After all this funding and this flurry of publications, with each new terrorist incident we realize thatwe are no closer to answering our original question about what leads people to turn to political violence,” Marc Sageman, a psychologist and a longtime government consultant, wrote in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence in 2014. “The same worn-out questions are raised over and over again, and we still have no compelling answers.”

With a wide brush they then point out that perhaps anyone can be a terrorist and perhaps a better civilian snitching program may cut into this problem.

“It’s going to be communities that recognize abnormal behavior,” Denis McDonough, the deputy national security adviser at the time, said. As an example, he cited truancy, which he said was an indicator of possible gang activity. “Truancy is also going to be an early warning sign for violent extremism,” he said.

But the years that followed have done little to narrow the list of likely precursors. Rather, the murky science seems to imply that nearly anyone is a potential terrorist. Some studies suggest that terrorists are likely to be educated or extroverted; others say uneducated recluses are at risk. Many studies seem to warn of the adolescent condition, singling out young, impatient men with a sense of adventure who are “struggling to achieve a sense of selfhood.”

Young impatient men, truancy, educated people, anyone might be a terrorist. You may be wondering what’s the point of the article and here it is.

This is the first round of a long road of social engineering. The masses will slowly be engineered into believing that literally anyone around you might be a terrorist; and education, social class, trade, employment, nationality and religion doesn’t matter when it comes to ruling out a potential terrorist, therefore we should be suspicious and afraid of each other. The bogeyman is out there only you don’t know who it is. We’re being told without them actually saying it that we should expect a pre-terrorism task force who will provide the much needed terrorism-identifying “solution” of the future.

Vague nonchalant articles like the one pointed out here are just the very early phase of a new mass conditioning, the ground zero in a long term plan for the rolling out of the global police state which will feature Minority Report-style pre-crime prevention. Actually, this is all part of Agenda 2030, the Strong Cities Network and the stated goal for global “peace and prosperity”.

That’s what propaganda articles like these are all about. They are posing the need for pre-crime technology in an article by first focusing on the failures we are dealing with now because we lack this technology. The failures thus always precede a future over-the-top solution (think AUMF).

The sooner we recognize their tactics the sooner we can disrupt their plans. All of this terrorism pre-crime talk ignores that terrorism is state sponsored and used as a tool to destabilize other nations and strip away individual rights. Let’s all join in 2016 to expose state-sponsored synthetic terrorism worldwide before they move too quickly on the new “solutions” which will guarantee their new global order.

If you agree please share this message.

Bernie is a revolutionary writer with a background in medicine, psychology, and information technology.