It was reported in the news that a major police operation took place over a synagogue in Sydney, Australia:
A police operation has been in progress around the Central Synagogue in Sydney’s Bondi Junction with a police helicopter overhead.
Officers have closed off Bon Accord Avenue between Old South Head Road and Flood Street.
The Central Synagogue, which is the largest Jewish place of worship in the Southern Hemisphere, lies on Bon Accord Avenue around halfway between the other two streets.
A police spokeswoman told news.com.au on Sunday evening she was unable to confirm anything other than a police operation had been underway and it was likely to be wound up soon.
The Great Synagogue has the largest Jewish congregation in Australia and New Zealand.
The police operation comes after a synagogue shooting near San Diego, California left one dead and three wounded.
A 19-year-old man opened fire on Friday, the last day of the Jewish Passover, at Congregation Chabad.
Few further details were given in the story. However, it appears that the threat was made in response to a post on 8Chan, which alluded to the possibility of a similar style shooting to that which happened in California:
Now this has not yet been confirmed, but based on the times of the posting and the story, it would seem to be possible. The fact that the “drum” which he showed was from an airsoft gun ad only adds further proof to this being false.
If the posting earlier really is connected to the story, then it clearly is somebody making threats “as a joke” on the Internet because nothing happened. While it is good that nothing happened, the fact that the governments would react this way is interesting because of a possible trend it indicates.
In response to the California synagogue shooter, I noted that there will be “false flag” attacks, but there will also be real individuals who will do things. I noted that the shooting appears to be organic as opposed to a manufactured incident.
It is a known fact that governments promote terrorism. However, one of the dangers of this is “losing control” over a story or idea. Governments historically use terrorism to help advance certain ideas so long as it benefits them, but they do not want said ideas to spread to people in a way that they cannot directly control the outcome of. It is trying to play with fire and not get burned.
But burns happen. If one plays with fire, one always gets burned at some point. While most burns can heal, if it is bad enough, some may not, and some burns can kill a man.
This is the situation with Islam throughout history. As I have noted before, Islam is a religion that is grossly evil and darkens the senses of a man. Because of this reason, Islam is loved by governments because it makes for easily deceived foot soldiers for a cause. However, the problem is that eventually the Muslims will realize what is happening to them, and they will rebel and overthrow or sometimes, take over those who are exploiting them. It is a recurring theme throughout history, and one which I have noted it reference to the “refugee crisis,” for while the crisis is indeed manufactured, there is a distinct possibility that the governments of the West could lose control over the Muslims in the future so to enable their own Islamization or fragmentation.
The same is with the rise of nationalism, which is another idea that has been advanced by military intelligence for decades as a part of a geopolitical game with the USSR. It has been effective in realizing its objectives, but with the cost of millions of innocent lives destroyed or permanently altered for the selfish gain of a few. The governments are using this to advance militarism with the goal of preparing for a third major global conflict. Part of this has been as many have noted, the use of what seems to be “crisis actors” as well as pre-planned attacks against select targets in order to generate public outrage.
But man is simply not an animal who is driven by impulse. Even the most foolish of men can still make individual choices for the good or bad. Much research in the military and industrial complexes focuses on how to manipulate or reduce the effect of free will, but it cannot be abolished.
While the governments of the West want and have supported terrorism, they want the type which they can control and guide for their ends, not the type which they did not create. Certainly when “unexpected” attacks such as this previous one happen they can attempt and usually are able to co-opt whatever conclusions are realized for the most part to their own ends, but they cannot do so absolutely and all the time.
This is the danger of “losing control over the narrative,” which can grossly backfire and have long-term, unforeseen negative consequences.
Consider the Australian threat. Who knows who this threat came from? It could have been a “false flag,” and it may not have been. As noted before, the latter seems to be the case. If this is so, what it accomplished was to drain not a small amount of financial and manpower resources from the government, and it was all done by a guy typing from his computer.
It’s the equivalent of calling in a bomb threat, but now instead of a phone, one writes a message online.
When people realize that either they can (a) take terrorist activities into their own hands, or (b) interrupt the gears of society while indirectly terrorizing people they don’t like, it is going to force a restructuring of how policing takes place. It will necessarily require, in order to weed out such people, a further loss of liberties and rights, as well as a more “heavy handed” approach to even perceived violations of law. See for example the following post on 4Chan discussing this:
I’m not saying that any of this is good at all. Rather, it is a consequence of such behavior. While it is true that the governments want disorder, if they cannot believe they are able to control it well or at least seize it for their use, they will have to shut down the sources of it as much as they can, a process which will be expensive and socially corrosive, which then furthers the already declining social conditions.
This is why there must be such an emphasis on morality and moral truth in society, because once it is gone or one believes that it can be sacrificed for political expediency by the government, it is a matter of time before the people realize they can do this too. If the people of society do not want to live in a civil way with each other, then society falls apart because a society can only function with a common understanding of acceptable behavior. When this is gone, society dissolves into tribalism, of which the problems are numerous.
But this future of tribalism is what sodomites like Jack Donovan and many in the “nationalist” movement want. They are advocating for this, and in a way, they are getting what they want.
Tribalism ultimately leads to war, for if there is a strong nation and a tribe that is rebellious within it, that strong government will use force to “pacify” said tribe. Tribes do not have to be men with feathers in their cap living on the Dakota plains, but can be political parties or other groups. As noted, the governments want this in so far that they can direct its conclusions to their ends, not in a way that is outside of those.
Watching “copycat” types of such attacks and the government response will be very interesting, as it is likely more will appear.