We can deduce with certainty that they exist.
You know … the globalist insider elite, also known as, the New World Order. Some also refer to them as the shadow government, or the deep state, but such terms are misleading — for they are global.
The astute reader will already be saying. "I don't care how good you're argument is, I simply can't imagine any way it could be possible for one cabal to become globally dominant and to keep that kind of thing a secret."
Even given the most compelling proof, such a response is the rational and correct level of skepticism; therefore, after I present the proof, I will explain how one cabal could become dominant and keep itself sufficiently secret.
The proof is very simple and direct, so we no longer need to rely on the mountain of circumstantial evidence, such as proving the use of mechanisms by which one cabal could become dominant and keep itself sufficiently secret. In fact, the proof is now reversed. We can now use the proof that the cabal exists to prove that if we can merely imagine effective mechanisms for achieving dominance and secrecy, then those mechanisms MUST have been employed to create and protect the cabal — because the cabal exists.
Proof The Cabal Exists
First, I will expose the self-evident proof that the official story of 9/11 cannot be true, which is a necessary prerequisite, but which is insufficient by itself to prove the cabal exists. It only proves that if they exist, they messed up, but fortunately for us, the cabal has messed up again in a more incriminating way because the act of silencing 100% of mainstream sources around the world ... to cover up such simple, direct, self-evident, easily available, and earth shattering proofs ... for more than 15 years ... has itself created a new kind of proof — that someone has the ability perpetrate such a global cover up. The 9/11 cover up itself has now reached a point (as of Nov 24, 2016) where it is a simple and direct proof that a single cabal dominates every mainstream source around the world.
Let's quickly consider just three of the self-evident proofs the global mainstream refuse to mention, but which prove the official story cannot be true. The first proof (WTC 7) is ubiquitous, and once one discovers it, continued to investigation would soon uncover the other two included here.
First, it is self-evident, when watching the video, that the third World Trade Center tower (the 48-story WTC 7), which was never hit by a plane, but which fell on 9/11, was a controlled demolition; whereas, the official story is that it fell as a result of the material in the building burning in an ordinary and modest fire, and thus, the official story cannot be true.
Second, at the crash in Pennsylvania, first note that multiple eyewitnesses said there was not one scrap of crash debris at the site. Now consider that the official story is that the terrorists flew the plane in Pennsylvania straight down into a landfill in which it was instantly and completely submerged, and that there were 3 piles of crash debris (e.g. an engine core) that supposedly bounced to points 3 miles ahead, 9 miles ahead, and a half-mile to the right, and thus, it is self-evident that the official story is physically impossible.
Third, it is self-evident in this video that much of the core of one of the twin towers, which contained the continuous steel columns that were holding up the weight of the building, was still standing after the collapse, and thus no longer had to support the weight of the building. Then that whole remaining core structure, which rose from the bedrock below, and which was surrounded by debris at the bottom, suddenly fell straight down as if a hole had opened beneath it—impossible and self-evident. (Note that it also appears to turn to dust as it falls—almost impossible).
What is self-evident to everyone else is just as self-evident to those in the media, and yet, not one mainstream media organization or political leader around the world has talked about these self-evident and earth shattering facts for over 15 years now. (There have been maybe two or three people who started to mention it and quickly shut up.) Not even America's enemies will use this evidence against American leaders. Not even the most rabid mainstream enemies of the neocons will use these facts against the neocons, who were in power at the time. We thus have the most damning proof of all — someone has the power to keep the world's mainstream media, experts, and governments quiet.
When I say "self-evident", I mean that just about everyone is competent to judge with certainty. An example would be if every expert said that the sky is now green and the grass is now blue. Everyone is competent to go outside and say, "NO, the grass is still green and the sky is still blue".
Again ... it is not these facts that prove the cabal exists, it is the power to totally cover up these facts in the global mainstream for over 15 years that proves they exist. The cabal messed up by perpetrating this cover up, but I suspect some of them recommended the smarter strategy that I am about to outline.
Although the official story cannot be true, I was previously reluctant to declare the existence of the cabal because the US government could have then simply claimed that it had been perpetrating a series of lies to hide state secrets. That would have been a smarter strategy.
For example, suppose the government claimed it didn't want the world to know that it has a team of demolition experts with the skills and technology to secretly wire up and demolish WTC7 in just a few hours from the time it was first alerted. That would be a miraculous capability, and probably a lie, but it would sound plausible because we know governments want to hide their most advanced capabilities.
Likewise, suppose the government claimed it didn't want the tops of the buildings falling off, and in order to clean up the mess quickly, it had used a directed energy weapon. That would have almost certainly been a lie, but nearly everyone would have believed such technology existed and that the only lie had been the attempt to cover up the existence of such technology.
Similarly, maybe the buildings were already pre-wired for demolition for any of several possible reasons, which would be very alarming to the people if it became known. As for the plane in Pennsylvania, the Air Force may simply have shot it down and doesn't want to admit it. Maybe the terrorists performed their impossible flying feats by remote control, and the government simply doesn't want anyone to know that such a thing is possible because it doesn't want us worry that anyone might do it to other planes.
If the perpetrators had followed this smarter strategy (instead of perpetrating a cover up that proved their existence), there would still have been a mountain of additional evidence that the US government was among the perpetrators and that the cabal exists, but even given a 99% probability that the cabal exists, I would still have needed these stronger, simpler, and more direct proofs before I would have openly asserted its existence. In fact, even proof that the US government was among the perpetrators is not sufficient to prove that the cabal exists.
Of course, it is now too late for the government to claim that it lied (to cover up advanced technology and reduce fear) because that would in no way undo the fact that a cabal had the power to perpetrate the global cover up for all those years, and it is the cover up itself that finally proved in a simple and direct manor that the cabal exists. We wouldn't be able to say this today if they had played it differently. They messed up by maintaining such a powerful and yet easily penetrated cover up for so long. Thanks, cabal!
Suppose the cabal had foreseen that too powerful of a cover up would reveal them, and so they had ordered multiple mainstream media outlets to start demanding answers before 2003, and by 2005 had supposedly forced the US government to say: "Look, we covered up that we shot down the plane in Pennsylvania, that WTC 7 was an elite demolition team with miraculous capabilities, that we used a satellite beam weapon on the twin towers, and that the terrorists used remote control to perform those impossible aerial maneuvers ... because we didn't want to reveal our capabilities or worry people." In other words, what if they had used these different and smarter lies instead?
If they had followed this smarter narrative, then just about everyone would have been fooled into believing that the media are free and independent. I would still call bullshit, but my argument would be compelling—not ironclad, and it would be complex—not simple; whereas, now we have a simple and ironclad proof.
Once one knows the cabal exists, one must spread that knowledge and must learn their identity and their agenda. For example, when the cabal tries to start a war, it is paramount that as many as possible know the truth. BTW, it is looking to me as if just about every war has been started by the cabal. Also, once one can see them, one can see how they are using their control of the mainstream to make every individual dislike, distrust, and distance each other, so that we are looking at each other instead of looking at them, and so that we cannot unite against them. We are being played, poisoned, and purged.
How Conspiracies Stay Secret
The purpose of this section is to prevent the reader from ever again saying, "I can't imagine how a large conspiracy could be kept secret."
Are the building blocks there? Well … we know that people having no conscience exist, and we know that people who value power above all else exist. We know that hate, greed, intelligence, hierarchy, and secrecy exist. Threats, bribes, blackmail and extortion exist. Deceit, bias, and superstition exist. True believers and zealots exist. Spies, surveillance, informants, infiltrators, and agents provocateur exist. Propaganda, false flags, and cover ups exist. Patience and delayed gratification exist. Secret societies and conspiracies exist … so … all of the basic building blocks are there, but what about more concrete mechanisms that we know exist?
Intelligence agencies and national security exist. Torture, redaction, and secret courts (FISA) exist. The power of the President to assassinate or indefinitely detain a citizen (NDAA) exists. The ability to secretly create trillions of dollars out of thin air (Federal Reserve, money as electronic bits, and fractional reserve banking) exists. Constitutional violations exist. Propaganda budgets exist. People above the law exist, like Hillary Clinton, and we all saw how the entire media and crony corporations (the Internet gatekeepers) conspired to elect Hillary.
It is not necessary that their plans always succeed in order for their agenda to advance. It is only necessary that not too many people see the conspiracy. For example, if they needed a terrorist incident to manipulate the public into supporting more of a police state (e.g. The Patriot Act), then they could fail repeatedly until they succeeded — as long as not too many people knew the truth about any of those efforts.
It is not necessary that they successfully hide all of a conspiracy in order for their agenda to advance. It is only necessary that not too many see how high the conspiracy really goes. For example, in the case of the 2016 election, too many people now know that just about all of the media and crony corporations (the Internet gatekeepers) conspired to elect Hillary, but what if Trump were also working for them? In that case, they were not defeated in the election, and their agenda would still move forward.
Nevertheless, for a single cabal to exist at the top for decades (or centuries), we know it would need another level of motivation, power, and tools beyond what we have discussed thus far in order to carry out a plan and keep it sufficiently secret for as long as necessary. For example, there might be as much as one hundred layers of hierarchy from the top down to the informant on the street, and thus they certainly couldn’t pass orders down through a chain of command that deep because that would leave too much evidence and there would be too many whistleblowers to keep it secret.
Players don't need to give orders. They don't need a chain of command. For example, it is easy for players to create factions and then play them against each other. This is one of the reasons it is also easy for players to create the conditions that will result in physical conflict. Given that cops are now trained as warriors and sociopaths ... atrocities ... followed by riots ... were inevitable ... sooner or later ... somewhere — like in Ferguson, and all physical conflict can be used as a pretext to justify more of a police state or for regime change. The Apex Players can always use physical conflict as a pretext to further the NWO agenda.
Orders can be rare. An asset/agent could simply be given a general long term mission and use his own judgement and skills to carry out that mission. For example, a spy behind enemy lines could simply be tasked with using his own judgement to cause as much paranoia as possible to make the host society waste resources and oppress their own people looking for subversives who don't exist when they should have been focusing those resources on the very real external enemy. A more common example is a paid shill on the Internet whose mission is to derail any productive discussion.
When orders have to be given, one of the simplest but most effective tools used to maintain secrecy is compartmentalization, which is where an agent is only given the minimum information and motivation needed to carry out a specific task. It is not necessary that each player in a conspiracy knows the whole plan, or even that he is part of a conspiracy. Such an agent doesn’t know the motives or identities of those at the top, and doesn’t even have any way to verify from where the top originates.
If an agent could be working for a foreign entity … or even extraterrestrials … he wouldn’t really know. He only knows that he trusts the guy directly above him, beside him, and under him. All the rest is a narrative he has been sold. If he has a conscience, then the narrative convinces him he is working for the good guys. If he has no conscience, then he doesn’t need a narrative. He is just doing it for the reward and because he likes doing the task itself. Both types of agents provide value. One is willing to do things prohibited by a normal conscience, and the other is more motivated and may even be willing to die for his cause.
Now consider that, just like in any secret society, a different narrative can be given to members at each level. For example, one can easily imagine a narrative that would persuade certain members of the CIA to perpetrate 9/11. After all, only 3000 people died, the important people were warned ahead of time, the buildings were going to be demolished anyway, and without 9/11, we couldn’t have enacted laws like the Patriot Act, which we needed to protect us from terrorists who might have used a nuke and killed three million instead of three thousand. An agent who perpetrated 9/11 thus helped to save millions of lives. He is a hero … at least ... that is the narrative he has bought, and of course, if he has no conscience, then he doesn’t need a narrative. Those below this level might not be told that the most important people were warned ahead of time; whereas, those above this level might be told that the Patriot Act is a necessary step toward achieving global government.
Now suppose an agent had begun to doubt whether he were working for the good guys. He would not go from true believer to whistleblower all at once. He would give off signs that warned his handlers, and thus before he betrayed them, they would neutralize him. Consider that pretty much the entire business of the CIA can be described as ways to detect who needs to be neutralized, and then to neutralize them — and keep it secret.
What are some ways in which a secret organization could neutralize people? It could gather embarrassing private information about individuals, ideally years before needed, and then either release it, or threaten to release it. It could set up an individual with an underage sex partner and secretly film it. It could also afflict the individual with disease, poison, or radiation. It could arrange what appears to be a random robbery. It could initiate lawsuits and tax audits. It could use sabotage in countless ways. It could harm the target's spouse instead, which would then cause hardship for the target too. It could always just kill the target suddenly and make it look as if it were accidental or natural. Also, it might not have to do any of these. It might not have to do anything more than merely threaten one of these actions. Of course, it may not have to harm the target at all in order to neutralize it. For example, it may simply use a bribe.
If I can quickly and effortlessly imagine all of these ways to maintain secrecy and control people, then imagine how many others have been thought of by millions of powerful perpetrators.
Given all of these methods of control, any conspiracy would be possible, if only it were also possible to prevent the media (and the CIA) from exposing it because most people believe whatever is promoted as fact on TV (or on news sites, or in the newspapers). Conspirators would therefore be very vulnerable to a free and independent media. Likewise, if the media were controlled, and the people didn't know that, then the media could be used to maintain just about any false narrative, and thus could even be used to hide conspiracy or to perpetrate conspiracy. Of course, that would require control over all major domestic media and most major foreign media. That would require — one globally dominant cabal.
How One Cabal Could Become Dominant
The purpose of this section is to prevent the reader from saying, "I can't imagine how one cabal could become dominant."
It should now be clear how a cabal could maintain secrecy and control people in relation to any one conspiracy, but in order to maintain such secrecy for more than a couple of years, it must also prevent its competitors, such as the media and other cabals from outing it. It must therefore become dominant over its competitors—so that they are no longer true competitors.
Control over all major media would also require preventing new and independent media from arising and competing with the controlled media, and thus, such control would also require control of the regulatory apparatus, the courts. and law enforcement. Also, it would be impossible to hide such conspiracy from the CIA indefinitely, so the CIA would have to be compromised too, unless those who created it were already compromised or were top level players, which appears to be the case. Clearly, such control would take a long time to build, but it could be done by using the techniques we have already discussed. Let's consider how.
Only the heads of compromised organizations would themselves have to be compromised, and they would then institute the culture and hiring practices that attracted, retained, and promoted the most compatible people, who would thus include many perverts, psychopaths, and sociopaths. The heads could always block any subordinates who started to go down a path that leads to the truth.
One cabal could have become dominant by compromising a few powerful people, then using them to compromise a few more, and so on. One way it would do this is with pedo parties, which is where attendees perform acts that each one knows would get them hung from the nearest lamp post if the video ever became public. Each attendee would thus know that continued loyalty is the only option. This is what the movie Eyes Wide Shut was really about, but the movie is a scrubbed version. (It's creator died before it was released.)
Naturally, the cabal would recruit the most compatible people, which would often be those who actually enjoyed the pedo parties, and who thus would exert extreme peer pressure to ensnare others and who would have no problems with their conscience. We know that pedo rings exist and go to the top all around the world. Look it up. Start with the Franklin Scandal.
But wait ... we said the cabal would also have to control major foreign media too, which would therefore necessitate control of foreign governments, which would necessitate control of central banks and national leaders around the world. Of course, the fact that central banks even exist is a giveaway. Consider that we are not allowed to know the identity of the owners of the Federal Reserve, and we are not allowed to do a true audit of it either — even though it creates our money ... out of thin air.
Such far reaching control would obviously take at least a century for any cabal to acquire, and thus, in spite of the mountain of compelling circumstantial evidence available to anyone who digs, it would still be rational to doubt there is a cabal capable of pulling off certain kinds of conspiracies, such as 9/11, that would require the existence of such a cabal — unless one had ironclad proof that such a cabal existed.
Proof the cabal exists is not dependent on these explanations of how to keep conspiracies secret or how one cabal could become dominant. In fact, it is the proof that the cabal exists that proves something like this must have a happened. Such explanations are thus presented here, not to support the proof the cabal exists, but to make the argument that a large scale conspiracy is much more feasible than it may seem, and that one cabal becoming dominant is much more feasible than it may seem. It should now be easy to understand how it could happen.