Skip to content

Alien UFOs as False Flag operation – Emerging from the Shadow of the Military Industrial Complex and into the World State

January 24, 2011

For a hundred years the stagecraft of alien invaders has been a phenomena of, at least, popular culture. The global unification of humanity against alien invaders has been the fantasy of globalists for generations. Since the time of H.G. Wells, who wrote both War of the Worlds and The New World Order, ET alien invasion and world government propaganda have always intersected.

The radio broadcast of War of the Worlds was a big psychological warfare experiment, but it wasn’t happening in a cultural vacuum: That radio audience had listened in as real news men reported from the frontlines of the First World War. While science fiction worked to provide a theoretical reason to form a world government, the power elite of the world worked towards world government by contriving two World Wars and acted them out.

UFOs emerge from shadows of the military industrial complex. The cognitive disruption is crucial: UFOs are weapons tests, but aliens are much more than that: They are Hegelian problem-reaction-solution dialectic of an “outside threat coming to get us” expanded to the entire world and applied to a psychological war.

In the 80s Ronald Reagan said at the United Nations that he wished there were alien invaders so that we could set aside our differences and unite against them.

Hollywood has acted this out dozens of times.  This year there is Cowboys and Aliens (a steampunkish western where the town has to unite against a new enemy),  and Battle: Los Angeles (a gritty War of the Worlds type movie with promos that say 2011 is the year everything changes) and the new Transformers movie trailers starts with a NASA cover-up of an alien space base on the dark side of the moon, something which has been a part of conspiracy lore for many years.

The fictional world of extra terrestrials has slowly been making its way into the realm of officialdom.  In 2001 a group of “former” military began Project Disclosure to argue that UFOs are real Extra Terrestrial, that denial is the official policy, and that the US Governments UFO files should be released. When they repeated this call for a new president in 2010, CNN carried it Live and Larry King interviewed them. Somehow, the secret society of alien invasion liars has become a part of the mainstream misinformation matrix.

And reasonable people have a lot of evidence to consider. Recall the spiral over Sweden, which are also reported in other places, and the surge of “floating objects in the sky” over London, New York, Moscow.

The program to convince us of alien visitors includes a light and sound show. Could holograms explain anything? What is Project Bluebeam? One shouldn’t have to state the obvious, but even witnessing strange flying vehicles does not prove an off-worldly source. All signs point to psy op. Consider that one such UFO event was predicted by a Canadian ex military guy, Stanley Fulham,who said there’d be UFOs over major cities on Oct 13 – then there was news reports that day of people pointing at something in the sky. According to Fulham, the aliens are acclimatizing humanity to their presence, then they will save us from carbon in the atmosphere (Ya, they will save us from climate change and nuclear war, just like world government will.). Then, two months and six days after his Oct-13 prediction came true, he (reportedly) died.

Exit one operative.

And enter another:

Many weirdos e-mail us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-Christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. It is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the ‘Cable Gate’ archive there are indeed references to UFOs

— Julian Assange.

Advertisements “Global Hostile Takeover”

January 23, 2011

The third film is powerful, informative, thorough, and a call to action for Free Humanity to stand up and resist the micromanaged Global Tyranny that pervades our lives.

Under Occupation: Global Hostile Takeover is an educational documentary that examines the move towards the formation of a North American Union, controlled by a powerful world government that regulates the global financial system on behalf of a global central bank. This new world order will likely emerge out of the complete collapse of the global financial system resulting from western governments hyperinflating their currencies before ultimately going bankrupt.

Also, Music by Max Axiom.

Full 2-hour film here:

Interview with the film maker:

Menacing Music Mash Up on

January 23, 2011

Last year I released a 2 hour playlist which had none of my own vocals, called “MUTE” at because if you haven’t anything nice to say…don’t say anything at all. I still haven’t touched a microphone in ages, but, if you listen to the new tracks I’ve posted on, you can see that I don’t have to say anything to say a whole lot.

As I learn the arts and sciences of electronic music production, I’ve gone down a familiar path of Quote sampling. With the precedent established long ago by the Industrial  music genre, electronic samples nevertheless provide a way for some essential ideas to be carried along. Whats new for me is the grooviness of some of the stuff. This music gently pries its way in. Then it splits your head open.

As soon as the words “Order out of Chaos”  (the English name of my first album “Ordo Ab Chao”) came out of Obama’s mouth, I downloaded and sampled it to reveal his true meaning. The Illuminist will provide the clues – seducing some – threatening others – but always leaving their finger print, or calling card. A musician journalist needs only set the stage. Let the subject do the talking, and even though it’s taken out of context of the sentence, it is the context of the event itself: a speech made to the nation after a shooting. Click to hear how Max Axiom heard that a speech.

Separately there are a few tracks on my MySpace which are more playful. A woman and a man interviewed in 1954 about LSD is remixed into a catchy yet simple tune I Can See All The Molecules, while pop culture is harvested in my oldest sample-based track The Line Must Be Drawn Here ft. Capt. Picard and Lt. Worf. You’l also recognize Obi Wan Kenobi in More Machine Now, which is a goofy track but although begins to poke some fun at the transhuman topic, while my newest track Who the – Who the – the Fuck Are you? is basically pure manic nonsense.

Off-topic tracks are part of the learning process, but they are unlike the crucially important Spit Upon Your Fire, which features audio captured by Alex Jones’ infiltration of Bohemian Grove “Cremation of Care” mock human sacrifice, or the previously mentioned Obama remix Scripture Tells Us.

Max Axiom remixes the meme. This is the journey that information takes in post modern media. It goes from guarded secret to dance mix.

The Abolition of Distance and trending towards a new world order

December 14, 2010

The trend that technology makes fewer actors more powerful was identified and elaborated upon more than 80 years ago by H. G. Wells in the essay “The Open Conspiracy” (1928). Wells describes how modern technology has banished the Foot-and-Horse era of war replacing it with a situation where one Nation could bomb another with scarcely 20 minutes notice. He termed this trend the “Abolition of Distance”, and declared Nationalism itself to be the bane of Peace on Earth. The Open Conspiracy asks members of elite society — intellectuals, academics, writers, actors, scientists, and politicians — from all nations to quietly but openly denounce patriotic Nationalism and work to create a World Government.

Wells received a great deal of criticism and skepticism for his view that World Government would bring about Peace on Earth, not Tyranny Over Mankind. Thus he laboured to define what a moral World Government would be in The New World Order (1934), offering a Universal Rights of Man, which is extremely similar to the United Nations Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In whole, The New World Order described by Wells has very little resemblance to the global crime syndicate that we know today. His New World Order consists of individuals using technology and information to countermand the oppressive forces of the world. It is ironic, then, that those very forces,whom you could call the Old World Order, have seemingly appropriated the term in an effort to cover their elitist final revolution.

The New World Order, described by Wells, was a flattening of authority structures through the medium of technology. Although idealistic, even utopian, Wells envisions an era of mass awareness, mass participation, where the entire mass of humanity forms the World Government. Wells imagined information becoming so transportable that vast libraries could be available to everyone on earth. In essays titled “The World Brain,” (1936-38) Wells extrapolated upon the implications of microfiche film and described how “any student, in any part of the world, will be able to sit with his projector in his own study at his or her convenience to examine any book, any document, in an exact replica.” Wells reasoned that ease of access to information will have world-wide transformational effect: “With a common understanding and the conception of a common purpose, and of a commonwealth such as now we hardly dream of.”

It is quite obvious that any mass shift in world affairs is “a new world order,” but what Wells talks about is the final destination of modern technology’s “Abolition of Distance.” He describes the geopolitical consequence of shrinking technology becoming more widespread. The New World Order was what would come after we see how just how dangerous Nationalism is. This was demonstrated  when Germany marshaled media propaganda, industry and technology against the world, and America – then Russia – developed the ultimate international trump card with the Atom bomb.

This, however, is a fallacious understanding of the history of the rise of the Third Reich considering the international support Adolf Hitler received. Although H.G. Wells had identified Nationalism as the threat, it was was actually the collusion of a tiny group of transnational elite that promulgated the circumstance. As always.

Hence, we begin to understand how H.G. Wells was merely authoring the context while nefarious geopolitical actors would manifest the circumstances to prove the point. If Nationalism is a barrier to establishment of World Government then Nations must be made to appear dangerous, savage, and archaic.  Just as psychological operations were conducted far before the term existed against the ideals and political movements of Anarchism, so too was Nationalism targeted as the danger to World Peace. Any ideological threat to World Government is linked together with acts of violence to spoil the ideal’s appeal in the mind of the people.

We’re supposed to believe that World Government means World Peace because it will mitigate the increasingly dangerous influence of smaller and smaller groups. Of course it is highly dubious to expect H.G. Wells was sincerely expecting to bring about World Peace with World Government. But, as with any scam, the salesman is required to offer a tangible benefit to the customer. He offers a moral shopping list of reasons to abandon Nationalism. The traitorous national elite in various nations have been trying to prove him right for the better part of the last century by sabotaging their own governments in the hope of discrediting the very nature of National institutions.

As time has gone on the Abolition of Distance has increased to the point where the World Wide Web is  integral to Western culture and society. In this moment ability for world changing events to be manifest overnight had shifted from Nation-states down to the individual. Technology was finally delivering on the promise of The World Brain, and Individuality suddenly became extremely dangerous to the elite, so the threat was transformed and redirected back to the population when a couple of dudes with box-cutters managed to best the U.S. defense and intelligence apparatus and complete destroy the World Trade Center. 9/11 demonstrated exactly how dangerous Individual Freedom is. This false contextualization is an intense exaggeration of the power of an individual: this is the very purpose of using controlled demolition and denying it. To make individuals appear much more dangerous than they are so they can be controlled much more than they need to. The reality is that it takes more than mere will-power and box-cutters to topple skyscrapers: It takes thermate, stand down orders, coincidental training operations, media complicity, and a command-and-control coordinated conspiracy.

This was a pre-emptive strike against Individual Freedom, using a false flag event to stem the influence of Individual Freedom from threatening the global elite’s plans on totalitarian control. The enemies of the global elite are the ideas and institutions that prevent people from buying into globalist scams. As ideas threaten the elite psychological operations are contrived to disrupt them. This is why we see a degradation of the national sovereignty, conservatism, liberalism,  institution of the family, or farming, and individual civil liberties, such as privacy and free speech. These ideas and institutions have suffered many defeats. A short list of events over the last 80 years shows the trend:

Starting with Wells’ assertion that a single nations (eg. Nazi Germany) can be is a threat to all nations, the trend continues: As time goes on and technology continues to abolish distance, just a small a group (eg. Al Qaeda) can be seen as is a threat to all people. Then, a single individual (eg. Bradley Manning, or Julian Assange) becomes powerful enough to pose a threat to all. Each contrived crisis serves a particular dimension of combating all barriers to World Government.

Thus, we must always be aware how current events are part of multi-dimensional stage-managed dialectics:  Provide the problems, embellish the reactions, and provide the solution.

While 9/11 provided a pretext for war and to attack civil rights and individual freedom, the WikiLeaks scandal helps authorities convince us that the “World Brain” needs a lobotomy – which betrays the what Wells outlined when he envisioned The New World Order in 1934 and a world wide encyclopedia in 1937. I’m not sure if Wells would mind, but it certainly runs counter to his rhetoric. The fact is the idealistic, utopian New World Order described by H.G. Wells shall not be manifest by the governments, corporations, religions or institutions, but can only appear when the people stand up and demand their inalienable and natural rights, and continue to do so for the rest of time.

Rejecting the mainstream media and government lies: is a new world order. Being impervious to deception or corruption: is a new world order. A mass rejection of surveillance society and fraudulent economic crises and debts: is a new world order. Anything short of that, to quote Woodrow Wilson, “is not new, and it is not order.”

We look at H.G. Wells’ writings to understand the intellectual justifications used to establish the global system, but to understand the true implications, we look to George Orwell, who better understood (or was more honest) about what this trend implies: What happens when distance is abolished to the point where a single thought can be a threat to all? The United Nations ostensibly polices dangerous, rogue nations, yet Orwell envisioned a Big Brother totalitarian government which polices dangerous, rouge thoughts. That is the dystopic inversion of Wells’ New World Order utopia, yet it is the natural conclusion when you abolish distance to the smallest possible unit.

Cablegate: Information Immunization Program

December 13, 2010

Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule’s 2008 paper, simply titled, “Conspiracy Theories,” is a startling read for its intellectual dishonesty and implications because Sunstein is now Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for President Obama. This document may be “the Operation Northwoods of ‘Cablegate’.”

Where Northwoods was classified and written in plain military English suggesting specific false-flag tactics for sparking an invasion of Cuba, this document is written publicly in quasi-academic terms such that the plainly stated goals are dressed up in deceptive rationalizations. Nevertheless it amounts to the classic three step plan: Ignore everything. Deny everything. Infiltrate everything.

It is this infiltration that is of interest to Axiom Today in the context of understanding current events regarding WikiLeaks. The question is not, so much, if Assange is an “Agent” of any type, but how and why this scandal is taking place in the mainstream media. As I argued yesterday, the “Houdini’s of Politics” have been hiding the elephant in the room: 9/11 truth. This topic, according to Sunstein and Vermeule, is actually dangerous, and could lead to terrorism.

“Consider the Oklahoma City bombing, whose perpetrators shared a complex of conspiratorial beliefs about the federal government,” the authors claim with no evidence available in the public domain to support it. What perpetrator(s)? The patsy Tim McVeigh? Who else? And who read their minds? That Oklahoma City bombing should be mentioned as the byproduct of “conspiracy theory” shows the deranged and absurd nature of this paper considering that bombing was, itself, a government conspiracy.

The document appears written for a parallel universe where government is “well-motivated” and “aims to eliminate ‘conspiracy theories,’ or draw their poison, if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so.” Not, you know, as techniques for cover ups. Nevertheless, the paper does concede that some “conspiracy theories” (which I again note would otherwise be known as a “scandals”) are actually true. Page 5:

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect). In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones.

I find this paragraph to demonstrate the intellectual fallacy of this entire paper. The scandals mentioned would each have been treated with the same recipe Sunstein and Vermeule advocate as the thesis of their paper, however the focus on “false conspiracy theories” intends to distance the authors from cover ups. For the record “Operation Northwoods” did go into effect on Sept 11, 2001.

However the inclusion of aliens shows the authors speak with disregard to their own credibility. This was likely was summoned as comedic relief to the shocking list of real government conspiracies. There is also a long history of government collusion in fostering UFO conspiracy as a distraction tactic from weapons testing and experiments involving human lab rats.  I don’t appreciate their sense of humour given the gravity of their policy considerations.

Sunstein and Vermuele define “conspiracy theory” as:

…An effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.

What they fail to mention is that the term is a widely-acknowledged as a derisive term having the connotation of being paranoid, dubious, and not to be trusted. Of course, that is because a telling of the history of the term “conspiracy theory” would show it used to negate claims of journalists and whistleblowers by the media and government.

Sunstein claims this sort of logic is a “self-sealing quality, which tends to fold government’s denials into the theory itself as further evidence of the conspiracy.”

Naturally what he cannot concede to is the fact his entire paradigm is a manifest travesty, fallacy, and atrocity.

With all the terrorist-preventing rationalizations out of the way, Sunstein and Vermuele outline how to counter “conspiracy theory”. Page 15:

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).


Here we suggest two concrete ideas for government officials attempting to fashion a response to such theories. First, responding to more rather than fewer conspiracy theories has a kind of synergy benefit: it reduces the legitimating effect of responding to any one of them, because it dilutes the contrast with unrebutted theories. Second, we suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.

These terms “More, rather than fewer” and “cognitive diversity” should be considered in the context of document dumps and WikiLeaks. Simply silencing the “extremist groups” is not the way as it will only embolden their cause. So the strategy is: bullshit baffles brains. Cripple their epistemology. Continuing:

(page 16) …We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their
allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories.

(Page 19) [Government must] address the supply side of conspiracy theorizing by attempting to debias or disable its purveyors, to address the demand side by attempting to immunize third-party audiences from the theory’s effects, or to do both (if resource constraints permit).

(page 22) Many officials dismiss direct responses to the suppliers of conspiracy theorists as an exercise in futility. Rather, they implicitly frame their responses to the third-party mass audience, hoping to stem the spread of conspiracy theories by dampening the demand rather than by reducing the supply.

Sunstein and Vermeule prefer a information immunization program, termed “countermisinformation” or “counterspeech” in newspeak. In this context we can see how 9/11 truth (false flag awareness campaigns) has once again been overwhelmed by noisy, time consuming, and distracting current events. It appears that Cablegate is a sophisticated implementation of everything Sunstein and Vermeule hoped for.

Finally, the authors engage in conspiratorial behavior according to their own definition. They have outlined something that could be well  described as, “the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role”:

(page 21) Although government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes, too close a connection will prove self-defeating if it is exposed.

Here’s a side note: Not all false conspiracy theories are bad: Consider the (conspiracy theory?) of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and the Toothfairy. Page 6:

Within the set of false conspiracy theories, we also limit our focus to potentially harmful theories. Not all false conspiracy theories are harmful; consider the false conspiracy theory, held by many of the younger members of our society, that a secret group of elves, working in a remote location under the leadership of the mysterious “Santa Claus,” make and distribute presents on Christmas Eve. This theory is false, but is itself instilled through a widespread conspiracy of the powerful – parents – who conceal their role in the whole affair.

WikiLeaks And The Houdini’s Of Politics

December 12, 2010

I want to believe Julian Assange is a hero. I want to believe that Anonymous is a vanguard.
I want to believe we could have a revolution. I want to believe, this time, it’s for real.

However, it’s worth noting: Populist movements are continuously being co-opted and misdirected. Legitimate environmentalism is betrayed by Al Gore and climate change swindlers. Obama’s mantra of “Change” came after “We Are Change” shook up the public’s perception of authority. The Establishment Right such as Sarah Palin or Glen Beck jumped on board the “Tea Party” to offer yet another fake alternative.

False populist movements are always built on what would otherwise be legitimate and noble moral causes. It’s for your family; for your prosperity; for world peace; to save your soul; to keep you safe; for your own security; for your own protection; for the environment; for the fate of the planet; etc. When any of these legitimate moral causes spark populist interest, the Establishment finds a way to spin it into their overall scheme. Social movements become nothing but marketing operations and moral outrages are reduced to options of social participation. Not a threat to the system, an incorporated part of it.

No social movement will matter if people don’t wake up to the glaring problem with the entire political landscape. The Houdinis of politics are always hiding the elephant in the room. An entire decade of distracting 9/11 reality from the public mind. An entire decade of letting the newest outrage get us angry or the newest hope get us excited. A decade of passively letting heroes and villains play games with our heads.

As Axiom Today continues coverage of the WikiLeaks scandals, it is becoming evident that a sophisticated psychological operation is playing out. WikiLeaks, instead of leading the truth revolution, has thwarted it with hundreds of thousands of useless documents. Cablegate represents an over-saturation of low-grade information while the true issues of our day are still taboo. Furthermore, the New York Times is well known vessel of misinformation. Why is WikiLeaks partnered with the liars that enabled the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction myth?

Given the buzz that has been circling around, I’ve begun to truly question the motives of WikiLeaks. A problem-reaction-solution scenario is clearly unfolding, however it is unclear which solution shall manifest: Assange’s vision of transparency, or the global crime syndicate’s vision of tyranny.

We should stand up for Assange’s rights as an individual.
We should stand up for WikiLeaks’ rights as a media organization..

But those things are completely meaningless unless we stand up for the victims of 9/11, for ourselves, and for future generations.

Anon Pledges Infowar with “Operation Leakspin”

December 10, 2010

It would seem that the hive mind of Anonymous does listen to good advice, but not after engaging in a week-long campaign of Distributed Denial of Service attacks against perceived enemies of WikiLeaks. These DDoS attacks against Amazon, PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard, in addition to some other sites, were largely coordinated through Twitter messages. Using software called Low-Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC), participants would select a web target and “Fire!” by flooding the server with packet requests. However, this assault on corporate websites was largely ineffectual, and possibly counter productive, and Anonymous came to realize it.

But not before the rush of power caused them to misinterpret their role. Following a few days of DDoS attacks on various sites, Twitter finally shut down the user Operation_Payback. Members of Anonymous were incensed and declared that their free speech had been assailed, and pledged to launch DDoS against Twitter itself. I already felt that punitive DDoS attacks were not beneficial, however I felt this was a huge affront to the very principals of free speech.

Anonops Tweeted, “If we can’t have freedom of speech, no one can!”

I sent a series of tweets from my MAX AXIOM Twitter account:

@anonops Don’t attack twitter, that’s OUR free speech!!!!! #wikileaks

@anonops #wikileaks You weren’t censored! you were caught engaging in DDOS attacks. Don’t use Free Speech as a bullet proof vest!

@anonops !!!!! don’t be so foolish .. stop punitive strikes! Twitter is how we share info in INFO WAR. #wikileaks

Within a few minutes Anon withdrew Twitter from the target list, however I was still concerned that DDoS attacks would be misconstrued. It is, after all, being called “cyberwar,” and the paticipants of DDoS attacks are being called “hackers.”

What concerned me is that DDoS attacks, while an attention-getting form of digital protest, make everyone look bad. Anoymous acted predictibly, and proved the Establishment’s point: Anoymous internet is dangerous for business. This will only be added to the rhetoric of politicians who seek to dismantle the free and open Internet.

There is also the inherent betrayal of principal. “If we can’t have free speech, no one can” type ideology is quite troubling, and there seems to be a lack of respect for what Free Speech means – inclusiveness. Even liars, cheats, crooks, and corporations get their own websites.

Anonymous’ contempt for average Internet users was most visible in the move to DDoS attack Twitter. I was left to wonder what the collateral damage is to the Internet or business community that relies on PayPal, Visa, MasterCard? Is this collateral damage meant to wake up the masses? Or will it just make “Hackers” look like bad guys?

Thankfully, Operation Payback came to the epiphany, and declared DDoS to be little more than an annoyance. Yesterday Anonymous announced the only way to win is through information, pledging themselves to the infowar with what they call Operation Leakspin. The objective is to raise awareness about the information revealed in “Cablegate” which is a much, much more productive use of online time than packet flooding webservers.

Operation Leakspin’s “Press Release” declares:

They Don’t Fear LOIC.

They Fear Exposure.

I certainly welcome Anonymous into the Information War. I look forward to seeing how their unique skillset contributes to the fight.