Finally I get it.
I was pondering communism and Karl Marx's complete and impossible failure to address central banking. And a light bulb went off. Al Qaeda, exactly like communism, has impossibly, unbelievably never mentioned central banking.
Think about it. Al Qaeda, we are told, is an expression of Muslim fanaticism. They hate infidels occupying Muslim lands and they hate the state of Israel. And yet they've never attacked Israel. Further, in Islam, usury is a sin. How is it possible that the ultimate expression of Islamic fanaticism has nothing to say on the ultimate expression of usury, which is to say international banking? Surely if one thought usury was a sin, the twelve families that control international banking and central banks the world over would comprise an unparalleled ultimate in sinfulness? Surely central banking would be infinitely more deserving of the epithet 'Great Satan' than its American proxy?
Does anything about Al Qaeda make any sense? Bin Laden was precisely a CIA asset who died seven years ago. Al Qaeda's number three is Adam Pearlman, a previously Muslim-hating Jewish boy from Orange County. Their number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri impossibly tells us to listen to number three. All of them jabber on about everybody but international banking. When they attack, they attack everybody but international banking. Were Al Qaeda for real it would have put a 757 into the US Federal Reserve.
Communism was all about improving the lot of the poor and yet anyone living under communism lived a life of perfect misery. The only people allowed to escape communism were, inexplicably, Jews who went to Israel.
Al Qaeda is all about advancing the interests of Islam and yet no one has suffered more from its actions than Muslims. They're dying and suffering in staggering numbers. Al Qaeda advances the interests of Muslims in no way whatsoever. And Jews, whom Al Qaeda ostensibly hates, seem to dance between the raindrops. The number of Jewish casualties at the hands of Al Qaeda is what, exactly? You may view this as a rhetorical question. Or you may answer it. I'm good either way. Have you thought of any yet? There was that guy on the plane, um...
Let's not forget monetarism, which is the philosophy that explains why everyone needs a central bank. Monetarism as a mechanism for controlling wages and prices is a clunky model of inefficiency. But as a means for impoverishing the population and delivering the maximum amount of money into the hands of the central banks it's a streamlined speed-machine. Likewise communism. As a mechanism of improving the lot of the workers of the world it was a shitfight and a demonstrable failure. However, as a means of reducing the world to chaos and having everyone fighting each other (with central banking untouched on the sidelines) it couldn't have been better designed. And sure enough, was I to apply this description of communism to Al Qaeda I would only need to substitute 'Muslims' for 'workers of the world'.
So choose. Choose between: the media's relentless idiotic blather about an Al Qaeda that makes no sense; and an infinitely more likely Al Qaeda as a couldn't-be-bettered model of chaos-creation that seems to suit none but the untouchable families who control international banking.
