George Orwell declared: "Who controls the past controls the future."
The erasing of the past is a powerful weapon of control -- and one which is not restricted to fiction such as Nineteen Eighty Four or The Planet of the Apes (original 1967 film adaptation).
It is going on all around us, all the time. We are deliberately kept ignorant of critical truths regarding our ancient past, and of the events in the intervening centuries which have brought us to the point where we stand at this moment.
Deprivation of the knowledge of their own history renders populations unable to perceive what is actually going on in the present, and renders men and women unable to influence their future, or change its direction.
In his 2017 book J is for Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception, historian and economist Michael P. Hudson explains that history has been deliberately suppressed, and that vocabulary has been deliberately inverted in order to prevent the majority of the people from understanding what is going on.
To sketch out the thesis using extremely broad brush-strokes, Professor Hudson explains that the classical economists of the eighteenth century -- including Francois Quesnay in France and Adam Smith in Scotland -- sought "to free society from the rentier legacy of feudalism: a landlord class, predatory banking and the monopolies that bondholders convinced governments to create as means of paying off national war debts" (58 - 59).
Feudalism in Europe was characterized by the receipt of wealth based on the labor of others, yielded up as ground rent from those who worked the land to those who owned the land, because their ancestors had conquered it (although instead of saying that this was the reason, literalist Christianity was invoked to argue that this arrangement was divinely ordained). Literalist Christianity was an essential component to the European feudal system, and in my 2014 book The Undying Stars I examine the abundant evidence that a new and virulent form of literalist Christianity was deliberately employed during the third century forward as a means of imposing such a system, in conjunction with the equally deliberate destruction of knowledge of the ancient gods and the ancient wisdom.
As Professor Hudson explains, this eighteenth- and nineteenth-century project of freeing society from the rentier legacy of feudalism gathered so much steam that by the close of the 1800s, the rentier interests, perceiving the threat, mounted a counteroffensive to contain it by teaching that there is no distinction between earned income and unearned income (rentier income), and by fraudulently co-opting the legacy of classical economists such as Adam Smith by claiming that the classical economists were seeking freedom forrentier interests (feudalism and its legacy), instead of freedom from those same feudalistic drains on the economy.
Professor Hudson writes: "Turning the tables on classical political economy, rentier interests act as plaintiffs against public regulation and taxation of their economic rents in contrast to Adam Smith and other classical liberals [ . . . ]" (167). While the classical economists (including Adam Smith) wanted an economy to be as free from rent-seeking as possible, those overturning classical economics preach "free markets" and "deregulation" in order to create markets that are free rent-seeking, monopolies, and the privatization of that which the classical economists perceived to be the gifts of nature which belong to all men and women ("the commons").
Neoliberalism, the paradigm embraced with very minor deviations by both major political parties in the united states (since at least 1980), is thus revealed by Professor Hudson to be a form of neo-feudalism, and should actually be called "anti-liberalism" or "anti-classical" economics (it is also associated with imperialism, colonialism, and neocolonialism), and its most odious and oppressive characteristics actually have nothing to do with socialism (despite what many people have been led to believe, who have never been taught about what the classical economic project of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was all about) and can in many cases be accurately described as fascistic.
Because this history has been obscured and suppressed, it is difficult for the majority of people to perceive the pattern in the momentous events which are taking place around us right now, and which continue to unfold as this is written.
However, because Professor Hudson has such a clear grasp of history, including the suppressed history of economic thought, he is uniquely able to provide insights into recent events, such as in the above interview published on April 6th entitled "The Economics behind the Skripal Poisoning" -- the written transcript of which can also be found in its entirety online here.
In that interview, Professor Hudson argues that the motivation behind the extremely suspicious Skripal incident, which was immediately blamed on Russia without any of the provisions which would be expected if "the rule of law" were actually honored the way those who like to claim that "the west" operates under the rule of law in contrast to the rest of the world, and which led to the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats by western nations including the united states, should be understood in light of the pattern of neo-feudalism described above.
Prominent British politicians declared that scientists had conclusively proven that Skripal and his daughter had been poisoned by a nerve agent more potent than the most potent nerve agent that I remember learning about during my eleven years as a regular army officer during the 1990s and early 2000s. Later, however, those politicians were embarrassed when no scientist would publicly back those definitive claims. See for example the arguments and linked evidence provided in this analysis by Professor Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research.
As that article (and the articles it cites) points out, the official story of the details of the poisoning have changed significantly, with the nerve agent being said to have been in the daughter's luggage, then in the father's BMW, and then on the doorknob and in the vicinity of the front door to Skripal's residence -- despite the fact that the Skripals were supposedly discovered in a mall, suffering from the effects of the nerve agent.
As some of those analysts and articles point out, if the nerve agent was on the door handle and in the vicinity of the front door of their residence, there is simply no way that the Skripals could have walked (or driven) to the mall before passing out. I was in the regular army of the united states during the 1990s, and I received formal training about the effects of various chemical weapons. As anyone else who was in the united states military during those years knows, we trained extensively to be able to put on a protective chemical mask within nine seconds from the moment of receiving any type of chemical alarm (immediately closing the eyes and mouth and not breathing until the mask was on and firmly sealed), because a nerve agent acts so quickly to disrupt the signals sent by the nervous system which control the vital functions on which our body depends for life.
We were required to memorize the effects and symptoms of a nerve agent, and they are not pleasant to contemplate. They involve the loss of control by the nervous system over the beating of the heart, the activity of the lungs, the control of the bladder and bowels, and this loss of control over heart and lungs will result in rapid death unless an antidote is administered immediately. We carried auto-injectors containing such antidotes, as well as the antidote to the antidotes (because the antidotes themselves are so toxic), and learned how to administer them to ourselves and to others if necessary.
Other symptoms include vomiting and inability to control the muscles.
If the Skripals were in fact exposed to an extremely advanced nerve agent at their front door, they would not have been found slumped over on a bench in the mall.
As Professor Hudson explains in his interview:
The United States when it wants to isolate a country traditionally accuses them of chemical warfare. This goes back to George Bush's accusation that Iraq had chemical weapons of mass destruction. We know that was a lie. It goes back to Obama's claim that Russia and Assad were using chemical weapons in Syria. So I think when they say that Russia or Assad or Iraq is using weapons that's part of to generate a fear that is supposed to be met by military preparedness and defense.
He also suggests that part of the purpose is to counter resistance to calls for European countries to give more of their GDP to fund NATO -- the history of which itself deserves very close scrutiny. I would argue that in order to see the "very big picture," we must understand the ancient origins of the tyrannical feudal system in Europe, against which the classical economists were trying to struggle during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The proponents and beneficiaries of that feudal system fought back against the project of the classical economists, most especially beginning during the second half of the nineteenth century, and the descendants of the beneficiaries of feudalism continue to do so in the neoliberalism (or neo-feudalism) we see today.
Russia, as a country which actually threw off the yoke of that feudal system with its revolution in 1917 (only to fall under the sway of an even worse system, after no other European state followed their example or made a move to help them), continues to be a special target of those western feudal (and imperialist, colonialist) powers. It might be suggested that the united states also fell into that category, although the united states must now be acknowledged to be a leader among the neoliberal imperialist western states and to be a proponent of neo-feudalism rather than an opponent of it.
In the interview above, Professor Hudson suggests that the looting of the former Soviet Union, and the privatization of its public infrastructure and its abundant natural resources, was an important goal of the neoliberal west after 1989 and in the decades following.
In his definition of "imperialism" found in J is for Junk Economics (which was published long before the Skripal affair and the other events of the past days and weeks), Professor Hudson argues that because "Wars drain gold, and force mother-country governments into debt to bondholders," use of other methods is usually preferred rather than open military conflict:
Modern imperialism is largely financial. Armies are no longer needed to appropriate foreign real estate, natural resources or public infrastructure. Financial dependency makes debtor countries subject to IMF and World Bank "conditionalities" imposing austerity that forces them to pay creditors by selling off their public domain. This transfers assets to the United States and other creditor powers, while avoiding overt colonialism's expensive military overhead. US diplomats seek to consolidate American financial power by sharing gains with local client oligarchies that remain in the dollarized financial system and adopt neoliberal Washington Consensus policies. 123.
However, he goes on to say:
Pinochet-style "regime change" is mounted against countries that try to protect their political and financial independence by creating or joining rival currency blocs and banking systems (e.g., Libya and Syria). But like militarized colonialism, monetary imperialism tends to overplay its hand. When US strategists imposed trade and financial sanctions against Russia and Iran to block their steps toward monetary autonomy, the effect was to drive them together with China and other BRICS countries to break free by creating their own trading and currency clearing area. 123-124.
Obviously, the same "Pinochet-style regime change" that was being attempted against Syria when Professor Hudson was writing that previous book is still going on to this day, and last night someone carried out a chemical attack with obvious parallels to the suspicious Skripal poisoning, parallels such as an immediate rush to judgment by the western neoliberal powers, nonstop and uncritical coverage by the controlled media outlets in a full-court press, a similar refusal to provide evidence or to pause to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation, not to mention a complete lack of rational motive by the alleged perpetrators, combined with an all-too-clear motive on the part of western powers in inflaming public opinion and justifying continued steps to gain access to the real estate, natural resources, and public infrastructure of the targeted country -- including military strikes or even invasion, if necessary.
What should be understood, but what is very difficult to understand when history has been deliberately suppressed, obscured, and altered, is that these latest developments are part of an extremely large and centuries-long pattern of imperialism and exploitation, stretching back at least to the adoption of literalist Christianity in the Roman Empire during the time of Constantine and his successors.
Literalist Christianity, which inverts the esoteric message of the ancient scriptures by externalizing and "physicalizing" that message, has played an absolutely vital role (particularly in previous centuries, but continuing to play an important role to this day) in providing false justification for imperialism, feudalism, military conquest, and oppression. Now, however, its influence diminished, literalist interpretation of ancient scripture is not enough to automatically guarantee support for military conquest abroad and austerity and neo-feudalism at home -- necessitating new mechanisms of manufacturing consensus or at least consent, including lies about chemical weapons.
All of these deceptions, however, are now wearing thin. The empire of deception is losing its ability to veil its crimes behind lies and platitudes, even with the full support of a complicit media.
As in the first film adaptation of the Planet of the Apes, at some point the evidence becomes so obvious that even Cornelius and Zira can see its implications, try as they might to "look the other way" and ignore those implications for as long as they can.
As we come to understand the past that has been hidden from us, this centuries-old Empire of Lies will be exposed. Those conspiring with that empire against the ancient wisdom given to all cultures of humanity should turn from collaborating against the gods and instead choose the course that lifts up and elevates mankind -- every individual man, woman and child -- instead of trying to put them down to benefit just a few.