ONE: Susan Rosenberg is a key figure who has been involved in the administration and funding of Black Lives Matter.
TWO: She has quite a life story. A long chapter would describe her work with a very active terrorist group.
THREE: In 1983, that group exploded a bomb in the Capitol Building.
FOUR: The bomb makes the January 6, 2021, break-in look like a picnic in the park.
This is not fiction. If a studio made a Lifetime movie of the events, the plot line sketch would state: terrorist; her group exploded a powerful bomb just outside the Senate chamber in the Capitol Building; she was sentenced to 58 years on other explosives charges; sentence commuted by Bill Clinton; flash forward—she’s helping fund and administer Black Lives Matter.
The Smithsonian Magazine describes the Senate bombing: “Just before 11 p.m. on November 7, 1983, they [M19, an all-female terrorist group, in which Susan Rosenberg was an important member] called the U.S. Capitol switchboard and warned them to evacuate the building. Ten minutes later, a bomb detonated in the building’s north wing, harming no one but blasting a 15-foot gash in a wall and causing $1 million in damage.”
The US Senate archive of history: “The Senate had planned to work late into the evening of Monday, November 7, 1983. Deliberations proceeded more smoothly than expected, however, so the body adjourned at 7:02 p.m. A crowded reception, held near the Senate Chamber, broke up two hours later. Consequently, at 10:58 p.m., when a thunderous explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol’s north wing, the adjacent halls were virtually deserted. Many lives had been spared.”
“The force of the device, hidden under a bench at the eastern end of the corridor outside the chamber, blew off the door to the office of Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd. The blast also punched a potentially lethal hole in a wall partition sending a shower of pulverized brick, plaster, and glass into the Republican cloakroom. Although the explosion caused no structural damage to the Capitol, it shattered mirrors, chandeliers, and furniture. Officials calculated damages of $250,000.”
“A stately portrait of Daniel Webster, located across from the concealed bomb, received the explosion’s full force. The blast tore away Webster’s face and left it scattered across the Minton tiles in one-inch canvas shards.”
Eventually, the M19 terrorist women were busted by local police, who discovered their storage locker in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
NY Daily News: “Inside the unit, they [the police] found sawed-off shotguns, an Uzi, a .357 Magnum, hundreds of rounds of ammo, and more than 10,000 blank Social Security cards. They also discovered over 700 pounds of poorly stored explosives, some of it leaking lethal nitroglycerin.”
Who is Susan Rosenberg?
Influencewatch.org: “Susan Rosenberg is a convicted domestic terrorist and radical left activist whose youth was spent protesting the Vietnam War and racism in America. A member of the Weather Underground and other radical organizations which used violence as a tool for political change, Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years in federal prison after being arrested for possession of explosives and weapons during the planning of a number of bombing operations. She was also a suspect in a 1981 armored car robbery which left one guard and two officers dead. She was released in 2001 when then-President Bill Clinton commuted her sentence.”
“The commutation led to bipartisan criticism from Republican New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as well as police officials…” [Rosenberg has been serving as] the Vice-Chair of the fiscal sponsor group Thousand Currents…”
“From 2016 to 2020, Thousand Currents became one of America’s most influential racial and social change organizations because it is Black Lives Matter Global Network’s fiscal sponsor. As the group’s fiscal sponsor, Thousand Currents handles Black Lives Matter’s administrative and back-end work so the racial group can focus on its activism, protests, and riots. As of June 24, 2020 [a month after the death of George Floyd, and during the ensuing riots], Thousand Currents had deleted from its website the Board of Directors information listing Rosenberg’s biography.”
“Rosenberg’s terrorism reached a peak when she and other radicals led the May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO). The nation’s only female-led Communist terror group, it helped break a convicted cop killer out of prison in 1979 and organized a number of bombings around the country. The group also participated in a Rockland County, New York, armored car robbery which left a guard and two police officers dead. Rosenberg’s 1984 arrest was one of several arrests over a six-month period which led to the Organization’s collapse.”
“On October 20, 1981, Rosenberg’s May 19th Communist Organization and members of the Black Liberation Army carried out a robbery attack against a Brink’s armored car in Nanuet, New York…”
“While Rosenberg maintained her innocence in the Brink’s robbery, a report by the New York State Criminal Justice Institute placed Rosenberg at the Mount Vernon safe-house that served as a staging location for the assault. The $1.6 million stolen in the raid was intended to be used to fund the ‘New Afrika Movement’.”
“Rosenberg managed to evade arrest for three years following the Brink’s robbery. During this time, MC19CO orchestrated a series of bombings against federal government targets, including a blast detonated outside the Senate Chamber of the United States Capitol Building.”
“Law enforcement caught up to her in November 1984 after she used stolen identification to rent a storage unit to stash away guns and bomb-making materials. The suspicious facility manager called police who noticed Rosenberg was wearing a disguise as she and an accomplice were unloading the supplies. They were both arrested and investigators found more than 700 pounds of explosives, along with multiple firearms and thousands of false ID cards.”
“Rosenberg was convicted on federal explosives and firearms charges and sentenced to 58 years in prison, the longest conviction for such charges in American history.”
“Future New York City mayor and President Donald Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, at the time a U.S. District Attorney, led Rosenberg’s prosecution. Though she was indicted for planning and driving in the Rockland County case, Giuliani declined to purse prosecution because of the long sentence Rosenberg received on the other charges.”
“After Rosenberg’s parole request was denied, President Bill Clinton commuted her sentence on his last day in office. She was one of 176 people protected by Clinton that day, including indicted fugitive March Rich and former Clinton Whitewater associate Susan McDougal…Clinton also commuted the 40-year sentence of Rosenberg co-conspirator Linda Sue Evans. Evans was imprisoned for 11 counts of false identification used to purchase firearms and for harboring a fugitive related to the armored car murders. She was also convicted in 1990 for participating in a number of terrorist bombings, including at the U.S. Capitol Building.”
“Rosenberg’s commutation brought bipartisan condemnation from Giuliani, [Chuck] Schumer, and at least two police officials…”
“The New York Times published an editorial criticizing Clinton’s pardons on his last day in office, including the ones for Rosenberg and Evans.”
“During a 2008 Democratic presidential primary debate, then-candidate Barack Obama criticized President Clinton’s decision to grant Rosenberg clemency.”
“Formerly known as the International Development Exchange (IDEX), Thousand Currents is a left-of-center grantmaking organization. As of June 16, 2020, Rosenberg sat on the Thousand Currents Board of Directors serving as Vice Chair. However, the organization subsequently deleted the Board of Directors information listing Rosenberg’s biography from its website.”
“While still known as IDEX in 2016, Thousand Currents began a sponsorship of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. In 2019, financial documents showed the group held over $3.3 million in assets earmarked for BLM. As of June 24, 2020, access to financial information had been deleted from the organization’s website.”
“…Thousand Currents claims support for BLM’s mission ‘to eradicate White supremacy and build power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes through its educational and charitable activities’.”
“As of June 2020, the vice chair of Thousand Currents board of directors was Susan Rosenberg…”
“Thousand Currents reported $3,354,654 and $2,622,017 in donor-restricted assets for…Black Lives Matter…in audits covering fiscal year 2019 and 2018, respectively.”
Where is Thousand Currents getting the money it then donates to Black Lives Matter? Influence Watch mentions several elite sources. Among them: the NoVo Foundation, which is run by Warren Buffet’s son, Peter, and his wife; the WK Kellogg Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
As I’ve detailed in a number of articles, the so-called radical Left has been bankrolled by the very elites these radicals claim to be intent on destroying.
That’s a book. That’s 20 books. That’s a library full of books.
These elites want to destroy the village in order to save it. Meaning they aim to build their Brave New World on the ashes of the old one.
For this operation—the burning and ashes—they need true believers, dupes, and the clueless in the streets, where specially chosen psychopathic hard cases lead and motivate and manipulate these sheep into violence and destruction.
Today I am speaking with Isa Blumi, historian, academic and Yemen expert.
We will be covering a lot of hidden ground in the Yemen conflict – effectively a genocidal war waged by the US and UK and Israel by their Saudi, Qatari and UAE proxies. Isa delves into the realities that are obfuscated by the Legacy Media and Academic embeds, think tanks and narrative managers.
Please follow this link to Isa’s most recent academic paper entitled:
Speaking above Yemenis: a reading beyond the tyranny of experts, Global Intellectual History
Excerpt from the introduction
“How will historians a generation or two from now write about this war on Yemen? Will there be any interest in inspecting more deeply what happened, why, and under whose watch such a crime was committed? Or will future historians resort to repeating the dominant frames used to characterize (or ignore) this war on Yemen used today?”
No doubt those considering a deeper look will first consult the media’s archives. What they will be surprised to see, perhaps, is how much this disaster in Yemen has been kept out of the daily news. By all accounts, those committing hundreds of billions of dollars to a war on Yemenis would prefer that little to no attention be spent on its atrocities. Corporate media have been happy to oblige.3
Trying to answer why the images of emaciated children and the upwards of 18 million civilians threatened by starvation are not making headlines across the world could itself become the heart of any future study on Yemen’s war. Such a task will require, however, moving beyond the security-centered, international relations’ frames of analysis prevalent in the available scholarly literature today. Present-day scholars and experts whose salaries are paid by the very regimes imposing this war may prove unhelpful in explaining the journalistic Omerta future historians will wish to study.4
The conventional narrative about the war unleashed by ‘coalition’ forces positions the US-led ‘global community’ as a benevolent agent simply aiming to reinstate the ‘legitimate’ presidency of one Abd-Rabbu Mansur Hadi for the sake of regional stability. Rarely highlighted any longer, this politically meek former vice president was the anointed partner to interests that, in reaction to uprisings in 2010–2011 against globalization, sought to suppress what is known as ‘the Arab Spring’ by imposing a reliable ‘interim government.’5Appointed in 2012 as an alternative to the no longer useful Ali Abdullah Saleh (president since 1978) and a barrier to ‘radical’ populist groups pushing for the reversal of austerity policies, the Obama and May administrations gave Hadi the task of continuing Yemen’s highly unpopular integration into the global economy that had been interrupted by those 2010–2011 ‘change’ uprisings.
Mischaracterized as ‘support’ for America’s imposed counter-revolutionary solution, most of those protesting in 2011 were willing to give the US-directed process a chance considering they faced treats of perpetual violence from various factions vulnerable to populist demands for radical change.
The trouble proved to be that Hadi’s actual mandate was to push even more aggressively the very ‘structural adjustments’ against which Yemen’s people protested in the first place. The violence and economic destitution this interim 2012–2014 period produced is all but forgotten in 2019. Such amnesia is critical as it makes it possible today for think tank employees to insinuate that there was no justification for Hadi’s removal from the seat of the Yemeni government after his interim two-year
period ended in mid-2014″
During the past week, the world has looked on as the now two-year long COVID-19 mainstream media narrative collapsed almost instantaneously.
In timing that cannot be described as anything less than suspect, in the same week that the World Economic Forum held its virtual Davos Agenda event, Ireland and Britain announced the sudden and immediate ending of virtually all Covid measures and the World Health Organisation called for the end of Covid-related travel restrictions, with the organisation also stating that the end of the ‘Pandemic’ may be in sight, in stark contrast to a recent announcement that such a prediction was premature.
With the theme of the World Economic Forum’s 2022 annual summit meeting, due to be held in May and the first in-person meeting of the forum since 2019, being ‘Working Together, Restoring Trust’ the optimistic among us may say that there has been an acceptance amongst the global elite that the growing awareness worldwide of the corporate power-grab over public life that the past two years has entailed, as well as the steady march towards a digital ID system as envisaged in Klaus Schwab’s concept of the fourth industrial revolution via the use of vaccine passports, has become so widespread that it is no longer feasible to continue the current COVID-19 media narrative.
However, the sudden dropping of COVID-19 by the corporate media also presents the opportune moment to immediately switch its focus to something else – a possibly imminent false flag attack in Ukraine, used as a pretext for the Western-backed Kiev government to launch an attack on the breakaway pro-Russian republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in the east of the country, thus triggering an armed conflict between Ukraine and Moscow, one that has the strong possibility for worldwide ramifications.
Since the end of November, the Western media, in lockstep, has promoted the narrative that Russia is planning an ‘imminent’ military invasion of its smaller Western neighbour – with Kiev having come under control of the US and EU backed governments of Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky since the 2014 CIA and MI6-orchestrated Euromaidan colour revolution was launched in response to then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s November 2013 to suspend an EU trade deal in favour of pursuing closer ties with Moscow.
Despite the only ‘evidence’ offered so far over the past two months of such an incursion being the legitimate movement of Russian troops within Russia’s own borders, the Neocon-influenced Western media still determinedly vows that a Russian invasion of Ukraine is only a matter of days away from taking place – in a manner not dissimilar to their previous assertions that Saddam Hussein had the capability to launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes in the run-up to the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
The claims of a Russian invasion of Ukraine also come at a time of wider tensions in Eastern Europe with Russian President Vladimir Putin, alongside his Belarusian counterpart and sole European ally Alexander Lukashenko, being accused of attempting to destabilise the European Union via a build-up of African and Middle Eastern migrants on the Belarus-Poland border. The fact that many of said migrants are fleeing the wars and colour revolutions imposed on both regions by the US-NATO hegemony being conveniently ignored by the Western media.
Should a false flag attack be launched soon in order to trigger a conflict between Moscow and Kiev however, it would be a tactic with recent previous usage by the regime change lobby which, like a theoretical war between Russia and Ukraine, also almost resulted in a wider armed confrontation between Moscow and NATO.
In 2017 and 2018, two chemical attacks where launched against the Syrian town and Khan Shaykhun and the city of Douma respectively, both attacks being blamed by the West on the Moscow-allied government of Bashar al-Assad and both resulting in the US launching cruise missile and air strikes against Syrian government targets – just stopping short of a full-scale military intervention.
Indeed the use of a chemical weapons provocation was outlined as such by Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu only last month – a false flag attack that the Western mainstream media, with its sudden dropping of the COVID-19 narrative, may soon be focusing its attention on instead.
Gavin O’Reilly is an Irish Republican activist from Dublin, Ireland, with a strong interest in the effects of British and US Imperialism; he was a writer for the American Herald Tribune from January 2018 up until their seizure by the FBI in 2021, with his work also appearing on The Duran, Al-Masdar, MintPress News, Global Research and SouthFront. He can be reached through Twitter and Facebook.
“20 Years of US Torture and Counting”: Report Details Post-9/11 Abuse at Gitmo and Beyond
“20 Years of US Torture and Counting”: Report Details Post-9/11 Abuse at Gitmo and Beyond
“Biden should take bold steps to repair the damage from abusive U.S. interrogations and detentions, starting with the closure of the U.S. prison at Guantánamo.”
A report released Sunday, nearly 20 years after the first prisoners arrived at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, details “systematic abuses carried out by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and U.S. military” since the 2001 terrorist attacks.
“This report lays out a comprehensive assessment of the many unconscionable costs of U.S. torture and illegal detentions and renditions of Muslims over the past 20 years since 9/11,” said Stephanie Savell, co-director of the Costs of War Project, in a statement. “This is a moral failure of epic proportions, a stain on the nation’s human rights record, a strategic blunder, and an abhorrent perpetuation of Islamophobia and racism.”
The authors assess the “massive costs of U.S. extraordinary renditions, unlawful detentions, and torture after September 11—including to the victims and suspects, to U.S. taxpayers, and to U.S. moral authority and counterterrorism efforts worldwide, ultimately jeopardizing universal human rights protections for everyone.”
They argue that “significant counterterrorism reforms, including closing the prison at Guantánamo, strengthening measures to protect civilians from death and harm, increasing transparency and accountability for the crimes the U.S. has committed, and addressing religious and racial biases, are critical steps toward mitigating the damage.”
Grim anniversary of Guantanamo Bay detention operations – Jan 11 marks 20 years of US torture & counting.
The assessment comes ahead of Tuesday, which will mark two decades since “the first 20 men to be imprisoned at Guantánamo were flown to the base aboard a U.S. military plane.” There are now 39 men detained there; 27 of them have not been charged with a crime.
“Many lack adequate medical care and even access to their medical records, making the prison a living legacy of the rights violations spawned by 9/11,” the report explains. “The military commission system created to prosecute suspects at Guantánamo is fundamentally flawed. As a result, the five prisoners accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks have yet to be brought to trial, depriving them of due process and the survivors and the families of the nearly 3,000 people who died in the attacks of their right to justice.”
As Common Dreamsreported late last month, the Pentagon is supposedly building a new $4 million courtroom, to be assembled at Guantánamo by next year, that will enable prosecutors to hold two simultaneous trials.
At least 780 men and boys have been held at the prison since it opened in 2002, after then-President George W. Bush declared a “war on terrorism,” and at least 119 people were subjected to the CIA’s rendition, detention, and interrogation (RDI) program, the HRW and Costs of War report notes. No U.S. officials have been held accountable for that torture.
The military prison has remained open—costing U.S. taxpayers $540 million per year—under former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, and now President Joe Biden, who has signaled that he intends to close Guantánamo.
1/ What abused 780 foreign Muslim men&boys, still holds 27 w/out charge, & has failed to convict anyone for 9/11 despite years of effort & $? Guantanamo prison, which US opened 20 years ago Tuesday. @POTUS close #Gitmo now. My @hrw report with @CostsOfWar. https://t.co/LboekNX1bRpic.twitter.com/7No1EMxDlP
“Around the world, Guantánamo remains one of the most enduring symbols of the injustice, abuse, and disregard for the rule of law that the U.S. unleashed in response to the 9/11 attacks,” report co-author Letta Tayler, an associate director in HRW’s Crisis and Conflict Division, said in a statement.
Tayler and co-author Elisa Epstein, a University of Chicago Law School student who was previously an advocacy officer at HRW, pressure Biden to finally shut down the prison, and more.
“Biden should take bold steps to repair the damage from abusive U.S. interrogations and detentions, starting with the closure of the U.S. prison at Guantánamo,” Tayler and Epstein write. They also urge him to release the 2014 “torture report” from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, noting all but a heavily redacted summary remains classified.
The authors point out that Biden, like Obama and Trump, “has shown no appetite for releasing the torture report, much less criminally investigating the architects” of the RDI program, and that the president “also opposes allowing the International Criminal Court to include abuses by U.S. nationals in its investigation on grave human rights crimes in Afghanistan.”
As the paper details:
The Taliban’s return to power and the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 will test the U.S. government’s legal rationale for indefinite law-of-war detentions at Guantánamo, as well as the Biden administration’s commitment to adopting a more rights-respecting approach to counterterrorism. Thus far, Biden administration actions raise sobering questions about its commitment to ending the so-called “War on Terror.” Measures of concern… include the Justice Department’s willingness to side-step critical legal questions on habeas rights for the men held at Guantánamo and to block certain testimony related to CIA torture, and Biden’s apparent intent to continue using lethal force outside recognized war zones with drone strikes and special forces raids euphemistically rebranded as “over the horizon” operations.
The authors highlight that “abroad, the U.S. has continued abusive practices against terrorism suspects including transferring them to countries that torture, and, in at least some cases, unlawfully detaining them at U.S.-run sites abroad or at sea.”
“Although such U.S. detention-related counterterrorism violations have dramatically decreased, Washington has replaced capture with kill, conducting airstrikes—often with armed drones that have killed thousands of civilians, including outside recognized battlefields,” they note. “Its counterterrorism campaign has spread to 85 countries with scant transparency or oversight.”
Tayler and Epstein recommend that Biden “increase transparency and accountability for other crimes and violations perpetrated in the name of countering terrorism, including unlawful airstrikes and raids that kill and injure civilians both in and out of recognized war zones.”
The president “should officially apologize and provide redress to victims,” they add, asserting that “anything less not only inadequately addresses the suffering and death wrought by the U.S., but also risks perpetuating cycles of violence by fueling the narrative of groups like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda that the West is at war with Islam.”
I was born in 1950. Mom moved back to New York City with my two brothers and me in 1955, and we became New Yorkers.
I watched the South Tower “top off” in ’71. Mom had worked close to the Empire State Building during the War and would mention when we were growing up how, on a foggy July day in 1945, a B-25 had flown right into it. In ’78, I was watching the antenna being attached to the North Tower and remarked to my first-grade buddy that somebody “sure could run into those big things.”
Many veteran New Yorkers were rubbed the wrong way by their design. Manhattan is actually a small piece of real estate. Interwoven neighborhoods. People walk there. Shoulder to shoulder. I tended to stay far away from them even though I worked in a little theatre only 15 or so blocks away for 12 years.
At age 51, I permanently moved away with my younger sons two weeks before September 11, 2001. The towers were indelible reference points to me by then. To all of us.
On the day of the attack, I was in Boston with my eldest in a café having breakfast, with the pickup parked and packed, ready to go to Montreal for a gig. There was a little TV hung to the molding of a wall. Someone said, “Look.”
Being a general aviation pilot, my first thought was, “That’s no small plane. And no accident.” My next thought was of family and close friends. We called and, thank goodness, they were all okay. My third thought was about the borders. I assumed the borders would be closed immediately. I had a contract in Montreal to get to that day. I prayed that they would stay closed so that my contract wouldn’t force me to go to Canada only for the borders to be closed again, leaving me stranded from my kids.
Then the second plane hit. I started thinking about those lost. The massiveness. A completely new kind of shock entered my life. I hoped with all my heart that the first responders would be okay. Then the towers fell. And the world changed.
Unbelievably, the border did open up again the very next day. I was floored. The contract said I had to go. I hugged my kid and drove, shattered.
In my case, the journey toward understanding started with an unusual emotional experience. Ten days later, on the film set in Montreal, it seemed a nightmare that no one was stopping, even on their own, let alone as a group, to absorb this paradigm shift. Where was the ritual of mutual care when something massively terrible happens? I felt alone. A catastrophe of infinite meaning had taken place, and we were routinely going about our professional duties, saying nothing about it. Maybe it was just too big. Moviemaking is myopic like that. But it seemed wrong. Deep emotional turmoil filled me. Worry for my children.
It was a busy scene involving over a hundred people. As I returned to what they call “start marks” for another “master shot” (of the whole scene before tighter “coverage” setups begin), I stopped. And I suddenly couldn’t remember where I was. What city was I in?
Then my body just “went” to New York. It was “there,” floating high up inside one of the imploding towers. I was trying to catch the falling bodies in my arms. Trying to pick them from out of everything and grab them to my chest to save them, but everything was passing through me — the immense pieces of concrete and superstructure mingled with the bodies of my fellows. I couldn’t catch them. They went through my arms. Everything did. I was what they call “losing it.”
A crew member came up and said, “Mr. Hurt, we’re ready.” I had no idea what he meant. The man asked, “Are you okay?” I heard his voice and said, “I don’t think so.”
They led me to a trailer outside. Some caring people came to talk to me for a little while. The administration wanted to get the set back to work. One person, a fellow actor, seemed to understand. She recognized that I was going into deep shock.
I left the set and they sent a doctor. Someone wrote “possible TIA” (transient ischemic attack) on a piece of paper. But months later, after scans, that was completely ruled out. What happened was not a physical problem.
For me, the overriding fact was supremely simple. It was that, to my knowledge, big buildings just couldn’t fall down that way, under any circumstances. It had never happened because, well, it couldn’t happen. I kept finding myself saying to others, “But, look, buildings like that can’t pulverize to dust in mid-air and just fall down smack straight into their own socks.” No building constructed anything like them in the history of the whole world had ever fallen down like those buildings fell, except for one cause. In earlier days, I’d done some light construction work. I’d seen a couple of smaller things (like big silos) brought down. It was a kick. I asked how it was done. The answer? “Very, very carefully.”
A day later I was back at work. Another week later, and by sheer coincidence, there we were, filming on location in NYC. Prior to 9/11, a reservation had been made for us to stay at a hotel 12 blocks north of Ground Zero. I asked the young elevator man as we first went up to the room if he’d lost anyone close. Surprised and instantly in tears, he said, “My uncle. He was the window-washing machines overseer. Never missed a day.” Off my room, there was a patio. I could look down the avenue and see the site, smoldering in the night lights. In horror, I knew what it was partly made of. We all did. What I didn’t know at that time: Thermite keeps burning a long time. At night, I’d go down. They let me through the barriers because I was recognized. I’d talk to and hug the first responders.
It never left me.
The discrepancy.
The difference between the story we were told to believe and its impossibility.
I felt alone until 2013. Then I couldn’t stand it anymore, and I started digging. Digging for truth in the rubble of the official lie, then in another heavier layer of rubble that lay in my own mind, installed there by our mass media.
It took a while but, finally, I found pieces of evidence online. Mixed in among all the nonsense, there was sane and reasoned evidence. One of the sources, the strongest one by far, a source supported by thousands of responsible, honest, honorable, grounded, normal, respectful people — professional architects and engineers all around the world — was Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. An amazing act of courage and compassion meets us there when we can bring ourselves to seek the answers.
Why did I wait so long, like so many others, to start digging? It astonishes me, until I look at the size of what happened and also at my inability to believe that my government could have betrayed the families of those killed that day by not giving them the first thing they were owed: the truth.
It relieves me immensely to have given my name and my artistic advice as an executive producer of the new film The Unspeakable. I also deeply respect the definitive film SEVEN about the “other” building so few know of that also, somehow, fell neatly, “smack straight into its own socks” that day. An impossibility in any way but one.
The Unspeakable is about a horror that was committed upon innocent people and about their friends and loved ones struggling to heal while the truth is suppressed by those we are supposed to be able to trust. It’s also about the attempt to break the individual human heart and spirit — but how it cannot be broken in some.
The meaning of such evil acts can’t really be measured in numbers. The measure is taken one mother or father or sister or friend at a time. The question is not how could anyone do this to so many, but how could anyone do this to anyone.
The human heart has been the focus of my life’s study, so it is to the cause of these families and friends and this humbly heartfelt film that I add my name. I’m grateful and, again, very relieved to join with them in profound sorrow for their loss and to be a part of speaking their unspeakable truth.
I don’t suppose or pretend to know who or how or why this thing was done. But I feel it must begin with one step. NIST, our National Institute of Standards and Technology, must be brought to account for lying to all of us.
On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security and the Metro Transit Authority began a drill in which government agents will release a gas at over 100 locations to simulate a biological attack on the city. Authorities say the gas is “non-toxic” but will be released in closed spaces underground in the city’s subways system as well as outdoors.
The event, which is being referred to as an “airflow and dispersion study,” runs from October 18 through the 29th. It will simulate the aerosol release of a biological agent in a densely populated urban environment.
The project includes the release of “low concentrations of safe particle and gas tracer materials” as part of two programs, the Urban Threat Dispersion (UTD) program and the Chemical and Bio-defense Testbed (CBT) program, according to the DHS.
“The study will track movement of non-toxic material and the results from these tests will be used to learn more about the relationship between airflow in street level and underground environments,” the MTA said.
While a full list of locations was not made available to residents, a DHS document lists Times Square, Grand Central, Penn Station, Union Square, and the World Trade Center transit hub as sites for tests, with testing both indoors and outdoors.
The DHS claims the particle gas tracers are non-toxic and pose no health risks. The non-toxic substances include salt, glycerol, maltodextrin (sweetener), a fluorescent brightener, non-coding DNA oligos, amorphous silica among others. Sounds real healthy.
Naturally, the idea of government agents spraying the public with “safe gas” has many folks worried. Since these plans have been available for over a week, many folks are worried that they may be used as cover for an actual biological weapons attack. After all, many of the world’s recent attacks have taken place simultaneously with drills or exercises of a similar nature.
Many New Yorkers have taken to social media to voice their concerns with such an ill planned move during the middle of a pandemic.
“If you want to test Non-Toxic gas then you can do it in WASHINGTON DC not in NYC during a PANDEMIC in a subway that has 6 million commuters per day,” tweeted one New York resident.
Feds to Deploy Non-Toxic Gas in NYC Subways in Test of Biological Attack Readiness https://t.co/YM0sY1neuo
“One day this won’t be a drill… Homeland security releasing “non-toxic gas” in the subway systems for what reason? This doesn’t sit right with me, It’s time to really move out of NYC. We are basically lab rats and homeland security is running tests on us. Move out of NYC asap!” tweeted another.
This is not the first time the federal government has conducted such experiments and while it is a good idea to be prepared for possible future attacks, the United States has a less than stellar past when it comes to these types of tests.
In fact, as TFTP has reported, some of them have turned deadly.
In 1950, the U.S. government carried out this attack by spraying the city of San Francisco with the microbe Serratia marcescens in an attack that targeted thousands of innocent civilians. Discover Magazine reported that the experiment was conducted as a “vulnerability test to identify susceptible regions in the event of a biological terrorist attack.”
The attack was called “Operation Sea-Spray” and San Francisco was chosen as the target because it is close to the ocean and because it has a unique geography, tall buildings, and dense population.
For six days in September 1950, the United States Navy used giant hoses to spray clouds of Serratia along the San Francisco coastline, which resulted in the city’s 800,000 residents receiving heavy doses of the chemical. It is also estimated that residents in the neighboring communities of Albany, Berkeley, Daly City, Colma, Oakland, San Leandro, and Sausalito, were exposed to it.
While the military insisted that Serratia marcescens is “rarely a cause of illness,” Discover noted that there were a number of serious illnesses and even one tragic death reported as a result of the government’s chemical attack:
“A week after the spraying, 11 patients were admitted to the now defunct Stanford University Hospital in San Francisco with severe urinary tract infections, resistant to the limited antibiotics available in that era. One gentleman, recovering from prostate surgery, developed complications of heart infection as Serratia colonized his heart valves. His would be the only death during the aftermath of the experiment … Stanford published a report on the outbreak, noting that ‘the isolation of a red pigment-producing [bacterium] from the urine of human beings was of interest, at first, as a curious clinical observation. Later, the repeated occurrence of urinary-tract infection by this organism, with bacteremia in two patients and death in one, indicated the potential clinical importance of this group of bacteria.’”
While this experiment was one of the largest, it was not the only time the U.S. government intentionally poisoned its own citizens. Three congressmen began speaking out in October 2017 and calling for the government to be held accountable for conducting secret experiments across the country that involved testing radioactive material on vulnerable and poor populations in the 1950s.
The revelations were recently brought to light by author and professor Lisa Martino-Taylor in her book, “Behind the Fog: How the US Cold War Radiological Weapons Program Exposed Innocent Americans.”
She said she discovered that a small group of researchers “worked to develop radiological weapons and later ‘combination weapons’ using radioactive materials along with chemical or biological weapons.”
“They targeted the most vulnerable in society in most cases,” Martino-Taylor said. “They targeted children. They targeted pregnant women in Nashville. People who were ill in hospitals. They targeted wards of the state. And they targeted minority populations.”
A number of victims were poor, pregnant women in Nashville, Chicago, and San Francisco, who were unknowingly given a mixture that included radioactive iron on their first prenatal visit, to thousands of students who were subjected to “radiation fields” that were created at various high schools and universities in California.
When fields in St. Louis were sprayed with chemicals that included radioactive materials in the 1950s, Mary Helen Brindell, who is now 73, told the AP that she was aware of a squadron of green planes flying low overhead while she was playing a baseball game with friends, and covering them all in “a fine powdery substance that stuck to skin.”
Since then, Brindell said she has suffered from “breast, thyroid, skin and uterine cancers,” and her sister died of a rare form of esophageal cancer. “I just want an explanation from the government. Why would you do that to people?” she said.
The fact is that while some will call it just another “crazy conspiracy theory,” there is legitimate evidence to show that the federal government has been caught intentionally poisoning its citizens on numerous occasions, and the officials who are responsible have never been held accountable for the attacks that caused a lifetime of health problems for thousands of Americans.
Today, there’s an entire generation who have grown up in the shadow of the towers. Who have never known a world that was not haunted by the hobgoblin of terrorism. Who have never thought twice about giving up the freedoms they barely knew they had in the name of fighting the “invisible enemy.” How can we blame them for not understanding the gravity of this moment, today, giving up those few freedoms that remain in the name of fighting the new phantom menace?
Half my life have I spent in the smoldering ruins of those exploded towers.
Picked my way through the eight mile-long debris field in Shanksville.
Huddled in the blast hole of the Army’s accounting offices in the E-ring of the Pentagon.
“Take off your shoes and belt, suspect! Single file! Digital fingerprints and photograph, please. Don’t worry. We’re just looking for the terrorists.”
“Speak up, prisoner! The NSA is recording this phone call for posterity. Machines of loving grace are scanning your emails and monitoring your social media posts. All in the name of Homeland Security, you understand.”
“How much cash do you want to withdraw? What for? Why don’t you just use a card like everybody else? We’re going to have to run a background check on you for this. After all, you might be one of them.”
And yet, I’m one of the lucky ones. At least I got to live half my life in the old world. The “see your friend off at their airport gate” world. The “government wouldn’t spy on us” world. The “‘Papers, please’ is a sign of tyranny!” world. That world, too, was a lie. But at the least they need to tell that lie to the public because people still believed in it.
Now there’s an entire generation who have grown up in the shadow of the towers. Who have never known a world that was not haunted by the hobgoblin of terrorism. Who have never thought twice about giving up the freedoms they barely knew they had in the name of fighting the “invisible enemy.”
How can we blame them for not understanding the gravity of this moment, today, giving up those few freedoms that remain in the name of fighting the new phantom menace?
Me? I came to the party five years late. The rallies. The C-SPAN broadcasts.
“Investigate 9/11!”
“Impeach Cheney first!”
“Remember Building 7!”
How innocent that all seems today, twenty years later. How naive.
But why not? We had the t-shirts, we had the slogans, we had the spindles of DVDs and we had the momentum on our side. By the sixth anniversary it was undeniable: a majority of Americans wanted an investigation of Bush and Cheney’s actions on 9/11. A full 32% wanted immediate impeachment. 67% believed that the 9/11 Commission had failed by not investigating the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7.
So, what happened?
Well, hope and change happened, of course. Never underestimate the sedative effect that a pure, unadulterated hit of hopium spiked directly into the veins of the body politic can have in quelling public dissent. It works every time.
But it was more than that. 9/11 Truth was not derailed by the Obamessiah; at least, not completely. No. 9/11 Truth was derailed by 9/11 Truth.
You see, the truth about 9/11 is as remarkably simple as it is incredibly powerful. We were lied to about 9/11. Period. End of debate. No one who knows anything about 9/11 could possibly deny that. I’d like to see them try.
That is the basis for a movement. With that one truth we could demolish an entire edifice of lies. They lied about 9/11. They didn’t just cover up the truth, they actively suppressed it. Everyone who is guilty of keeping the truth about 9/11 from the public is thereby an accessory to those crimes.
Every one of the actions that followed on from those lies—the PATRIOT ACT, the war of terror, the deaths of millions of Afghans and Iraqis and Libyans and Syrians, the construction of the police state, even the blowing of the post-9/11 housing bubble that led to the Global Financial Crisis—are as criminal as the events of 9/11 themselves. And those who have justified their criminal actions by recourse to the lies of 9/11 are thereby guilty of terrorism.
Those who committed their signatures to the PATRIOT ACT are the terrorists.
Those who invoked the doctrine of “pre-emptive self-defense” to justify their wars of aggression around the world are the terrorists.
Those who paraded on the corpses at Ground Zero in order to justify their own political agenda are by definition the terrorists.
This isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even controlled demolition science. It’s just plain, simple truth.
But somewhere along the way that plain truth about 9/11 got complicated. As the years turned into decades, the movement lost sight of that simple truth. Speculations became hypotheses. Hypotheses became theories. Theories became doctrines. Doctrines became dogma.
Soon, there was no movement. There were only egos proffering their own totalizing explanation of 9/11 right down to the minutia of operational details that they could not possibly have access to . . . unless they were in on the plot, that is. As if the very intelligence agencies they were accusing of perpetrating the attacks didn’t have (documentably!) a half century of experience derailing citizen investigations of deep state operations with false leads and cookie crumb trails that lead to nowhere.
Now there are no rallies, no C-SPAN broadcasts, no street activism. Just the remaining 9/11 Truther in the shrinking 9/11 Truth tent denouncing each other as loudly as possible for deviating from the catechism of their preferred dogma.
But, in retrospect, perhaps it was inevitable. After all, a movement that focuses on the events of a single day is destined to lose sight of the forest of the 20-year conspiracy that brought those events about for the trees of the events themselves. And a movement that focuses on one day in the increasingly distant past will find it increasingly difficult to stay relevant to the political present.
The 9/11 liars have human psychology on their side. The lies are seared into the public consciousness. The retractions and debunkings of those lies pass largely unnoticed. And in the end the pyrotechnics of 9/11 have had their intended effect: they have traumatized much of the public and hypnotized those who know they are being lied to. Blinded by the fireworks, 9/11 Truth could never turn away from the explosions and take the movement to the next level.
9/11 is not a series of dusty facts about demolition physics and airplane turning radiuses. As the 9/11 liars know all too well, it is a talisman that can be wielded to scare the public into submission.
But, like all talismans, this one, too, has begun to lose its power. Whereas once the very invocation of terrorism was enough to justify an entire political platform, now not even the specter of Al Qaeda (the bad Al Qaeda, not the good Al Qaeda in Syria) or ISIS (ISIS-K, that is, the new, scarier version of ISIS) is enough to catch the public’s attention. No. The terrorists needed a new talisman. A new 9/11.
And here it is, right on schedule! A new terror has been unleashed upon the world to traumatize the public once again. But this time the phantom menace is not a bearded Muslim boogeyman. No. It’s a virus.
At least in the good ol’ Homeland Security state erected to “keep us safe from the terrorists” you could protest, “But I’m not a terrorist.” It might not have saved you, but at least you could raise the point.
But in the new biosecurity state, your cries of innocence will not be permitted.
“I’m sorry, ma’am, but the test says you’re an asymptomatic spreader. We’re going to have to quarantine you. It’s for your own good.”
There is resistance, of course, just as there was resistance to the 9/11 lies. But is it a movement? Already it’s devolving into egos and dogma and bickering.
“Ivermectin is our only hope.”
“What are you talking about? The vaccines are the bioweapon.”
“What? You believe viruses exist?”
. . . Wait. What’s that? I swear I can hear Cass Sunstein laughing in the background.
Of course the terrorists are laughing. Why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got us scrutinizing the trees again while they’re busy encircling the forest.
This isn’t about COVID-19. This has nothing to do with a virus. This is about finishing the job that the terrorists started on 9/11; the job of locking down the planet.
Oh, sure. Examine the details. Put the pieces together on the health passports and the digital ID. The mandatory injections and government permission to leave your home. The central bank digital currencies and the Great Reset and the fourth industrial revolution. We do need to know these things.
But don’t get stuck marveling at the pyrotechnics. Don’t get stuck fighting your allies because they won’t subscribe to your dogma. Don’t get stuck focusing on what happened in 2019 so hard that you miss what’s happening in 2021. Or, some 20-year-old who’s just joining the party today will blink and he’ll find himself in 2039 wondering how he spent half his life in the shadow of a scamdemic.
The terrorists know all of this, of course. It’s how they stay in power. We don’t need to speculate about this, we just have to take them at face value when they tell it to us.
Like when Karl Rove admonished Ron Suskind for being part of the “reality-based community” who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. But,” he insisted, “that’s not the way the world really works anymore.
We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
And here we are. “History’s actors” have created “other new realities” and the same 9/11 Truth movement that spent the last 20 years judiciously studying the last set of lies will spend the next 20 years judiciously studying these ones . . . assuming we have 20 years left to spend in idle study, that is.
Or we could become history’s actors. Stop waiting for events to happen so we can judiciously study them and start creating events, structures, institutions of our own.
Can you imagine if the 9/11 Truth movement had devoted 1/10th of the time and energy and resources that it spent arguing over pyroclastic dust clouds and measuring entry and exit holes to something actually productive?
Growing the free market and expanding the use of alternative currencies?
Creating our own businesses and institutions and building out alternative communication infrastructure and building up our own media?
I don’t have “the” answer. No one person does. But I can tell you this: We cannot afford to spend the next two decades judiciously studying the way our most basic rights—the right to refuse medical experimentation, the right to interact and transact with our friends and neighbours as we see fit, the right to leave our own home—are being stripped from us, one by one.
If we don’t resist the biosecurity state with all our might—refuse to comply with its dictates, refuse to shut ourselves in and lay down when the government tells us to—then we are the terrorists, terrorizing our own children and grandchildren and consigning those generations yet unborn to the maws of a technocratic tyranny beyond any sci-fi dystopia.
In the meantime, we look back yet again at that September day 20 years ago, not as a single day when “the world changed forever,” but as a signpost along the path. Yet another in a chain of events and decisions and choices made by history’s actors: us.
I may never quite escape the shadows of those towers. But in that shadow, we can build towers of our own.
Episode Seven of Narratives Intertwined features Catherine Austin Fitts, investment banker and former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing in the first Bush administration.
Catherine has written extensively on the misappropriation of public funds, and potential massive corruption in funneling tax payer money into private hands. In 2017 she was a co-author of a report which found that, since the year 2000, the US Department of Defense had over 21 TRILLION dollars in unauthorised spending.
In her interview she discusses witnessing warning signs pre-9/11, how the attacks distracted from – and destroyed evidence of – the Pentagon “losing” almost 4 trillion dollars, and just what the powers that be could do with all that stolen money.
You can read more of Catherine’s work through her publication The Solari Report: https://home.solari.com
Episode Four of Narratives Intertwined features Niels Harrit, retired professor of chemistry from the University of Copenhagen.
Professor Harrit is a well-known voice in the alternate media and has published important academic papers on the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. He has also authored articles outlining serious potential flaws in the RT-PCR tests used to diagnose Sars-Cov-2 infection.
In his interview, Prof Harrit discusses how he woke up to the truth of 9/11, the problems with Covid19 narrative, how both are battles in the same psychological war…and what we can do, together, to resist it.
Video available at The Conscious Resistance Odysee and BitChute channels.
Journalist and filmmaker Derrick Broze sits down with author, researcher, poet, and former diplomat Peter Dale Scott. Mr. Scott is the author of several books, including The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy.
Prominent political analyst Peter Dale Scott begins by tracing America’s increasing militarization, restrictions on constitutional rights, and income disparity since World War II. With the start of the Cold War, he argues, the U.S. government changed immensely in both function and scope, from protecting and nurturing a relatively isolated country to assuming ever-greater responsibility for controlling world politics in the name of freedom and democracy. This has resulted in both secretive new institutions and a slow but radical change in the American state itself. He argues that central to this historic reversal were seismic national events, ranging from the assassination of President Kennedy to 9/11.
Scott marshals compelling evidence that the deep state is now partly institutionalized in non-accountable intelligence agencies like the CIA and NSA, but it also extends its reach to private corporations like Booz Allen Hamilton and SAIC, to which 70 percent of intelligence budgets are outsourced. Behind these public and private institutions is the influence of Wall Street bankers and lawyers, allied with international oil companies beyond the reach of domestic law.
Peter Dale Scott examines the many ways in which war policy has been driven by “accidents” and other events in the field, in some cases despite moves toward peace that were directed by presidents. This book explores the “deep politics” that exerts a profound but too-little-understood effect on national policy outside the control of traditional democratic processes.
An important analysis into the causes of war and the long-lasting effects that major events in American history can have on foreign and military policies, The War Conspiracy is a must-read book for students of American history and foreign policy, and anyone interested in the ways that domestic tragedies can be used to manipulate the country’s direction.
This is an ambitious, meticulous examination of how U.S. foreign policy since the 1960s has led to partial or total cover-ups of past domestic criminal acts, including, perhaps, the catastrophe of 9/11. Peter Dale Scott, whose previous books have investigated CIA involvement in southeast Asia, the drug wars, and the Kennedy assassination, here probes how the policies of presidents since Nixon have augmented the tangled bases for the 2001 terrorist attack. Scott shows how America’s expansion into the world since World War II has led to momentous secret decision making at high levels. He demonstrates how these decisions by small cliques are responsive to the agendas of private wealth at the expense of the public, of the democratic state, and of civil society. He shows how, in implementing these agendas, U.S. intelligence agencies have become involved with terrorist groups they once backed and helped create, including al Qaeda.
Peter Dale Scott’s brilliantly researched tour de force illuminates the underlying forces that drive U.S. global policy from Vietnam to Colombia and now to Afghanistan and Iraq. He brings to light the intertwined patterns of drugs, oil politics, and intelligence networks that have been so central to the larger workings of U.S. intervention and escalation in Third World countries through alliances with drug-trafficking proxies. The result has been a staggering increase in global drug traffic. Thus, the author argues, the exercise of power by cover t means, or para-politics, often metastasizes into deep politics – the interplay of unacknowledged forces that spin out of the control of the original policy initiators. Scott contends that we must recognize that U.S. influence is grounded not just in military and economic superiority but also in so-called soft power. W e need a soft politics of persuasion and nonviolence, especially as America is embroiled in yet another disastrous intervention, this time in Iraq.
We all know the story of bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the story that was repeated ad nauseam in the days, weeks and months after the catastrophic, catalyzing events of 9/11. So often was that story repeated that the hypnotized public forgot that it was, at base, just that: a story. . . .
John Miller, an ABC News correspondent who would go on to become the FBI’s chief spokesman, ends an 11-day journey through the wilds of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The first thing he notices is the rumbling of the generators providing the camp with power and the smell of gasoline. The second thing he notices is a hail of bullets. Bin Laden’s convoy is arriving.
Osama bin Laden is flanked by seven bodyguards, who—as Miller immediately recognizes—are simply there to put on a show. “Their eyes darted in every direction for any attacker,” he later recounted. “This was either merely theatrical or entirely pointless, because with hundreds of rounds being fired into the air, it would have been impossible to pinpoint an assassin.”
Following the security detail into the hut, there Miller became one of the handful of western journalists to interview the elusive Osama bin Laden.
OSAMA BIN LADEN (VIA INTERPRETER): We believe that the biggest thieves in the world are Americans and the biggest terrorists on earth are the Americans. The only way for us to fend off these assaults is by using similar means. We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they’re all targets in this fatwa.
Miller has traveled halfway around the world to interview bin Laden, the reclusive terrorist leader who has just issued a religious fatwa requiring Muslims to kill Americans. But this interview, too, is just for show. Forced to submit his questions in writing ahead of time, Miller is informed that the answers will not be translated for him. There will be no follow-up questions.
It is spectacle. Theater and little else. As such, it is a fitting introduction to the man who would become the bogeyman of the 21st century. The interview was followed in short order by a more explosive drama.
PETER BERGEN: What are your future plans?
OSAMA BIN LADEN: You’ll see them and hear about them in the media . . . God willing.
Osama bin Laden got his wish. Around the world, a frightened and confused public received their introduction to the age of terror on the morning of September 11, 2001, through the media. It was there, in the flickering images of their TV screens, that the masses began to learn about the world of Islamic terrorism and of the cave-dwelling Saudi exile in Afghanistan who was bringing that terror to their doorstep.
ANCHOR: Tell us a bit about Osama bin Laden, what sort of resources in manpower and money he’s got and what he’s trying to achieve.
KATIE COURIC: Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is a name that we have been hearing all day long as an individual who may—and we emphasize may—be responsible for these terrorist acts.
We all know the story of bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the story that was repeated ad nauseam in the days, weeks and months after the catastrophic, catalyzing events of 9/11. So often was that story repeated that the hypnotized public forgot that it was, at base, just that: a story.
In the ahistorical fable of tv soundbites, terrorism is a modern invention—created out of whole cloth by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. And, at the same time, Islamic fundamentalism is a force of nature, something that has always existed in the Middle East—the product, perhaps, of some sandstorm on the Arabian peninsula in the distant past.
But this is a lie. In truth, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the modern era and the rise of terrorism as a political tool cannot be understood without confronting some very well-documented but long-repressed history.
Ever since the mid-18th century—when the British East India Company gained dominion over the Indian subcontinent—the history of Islam as a political and cultural force has been intimately tied to the fortunes of Empire and the aims of the Western powers. The British Empire in particular did much to shape the map of the modern day Middle East and to influence the course of its religious and political forces.
This influence can be seen throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.
Britain’s gradual takeover of the Indian subcontinent led to the British Empire becoming, in the estimation of Winston Churchill, “[T]he greatest Mohammedan power in the world.”
The 19th century “Great Game” between Victorian England and Tsarist Russia for control of Central Asia saw the British propping up unpopular Islamic rulers throughout the region as a buffer between Russia and the “crown jewel” of the British Empire, India.
Britain’s desire to maintain its access to India led to the British conquest of Egypt in 1882, resulting in 40 years of British rule and a military presence in the country that was not removed until the Suez Crisis of 1956.
From Khartoum to Constantinople, Jerusalem to Jakarta, no part of the Muslim world could escape the influence of the British crown. Sometimes that influence was used to strengthen the rule of Islamic hardliners. Sometimes, as with the Mahdist rebellion in Sudan, that influence was used to put down Islamic uprisings. But in each case, the British Empire’s goal was clear: to use whatever means at its disposal to undermine movements and governments unfavourable to its rule, and to install and encourage those forces that were willing to cooperate with the crown.
This was evident in India, where George Francis Hamilton, secretary of state for India, wrote in 1886 of the British strategy of using Muslim and Hindu divisions in the country to their advantage along the lines of the old Roman imperial strategy of divide and rule:
I think the real danger to our rule, not now, but say 50 years hence is the gradual adoption and extension of Western ideas of agitation organisation and if we could break educated Indians into two sections holding widely different views, we should, by such a division, strengthen our position against the subtle and continuous attack which the spread of education must make upon our system of government. We should so plan educational text-books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened.
But perhaps no clearer example of the British Empire’s role in shaping the modern Muslim world can be found than the story of the ascendance of the House of Saud and the formation of the modern-day Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Once again, British fingerprints can be found on every aspect of the story.
When Britain began contemplating a shift from its centuries-long policy of supporting the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East, it was Captain William Shakespear—a British civil servant and explorer—who made the first official contact with Ibn Saud, the progenitor of the Saudi dynasty who would go on to found the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In addition to taking the first photographs of the future Saudi king, Shakespear became Ibn Saud’s friend and military advisor, helping to steer the rising Arab leader away from alliance with the Ottomans and into a treaty with the British. Shakespear died on the battlefield at Jarab in 1915, where the British-backed Ibn Saud was battling his Turkish-backed rival, Ibn Rashid.
After Shakespear’s death, another British agent, Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence, gained international fame as “Lawrence of Arabia” for his role in the Arab Revolt against Ottoman rule in the Middle East. Although his own self-serving autobiography and the Hollywoodization of his story cemented in the popular imagination the idea that Lawrence was motivated solely by his concern for the Arabs and their independence . . .
PETER O’TOOLE (AS T. E. LAWRENCE): We do not work this thing for Faisal.
ANTHONY QUINN (AS AUDA ABU TAYI): No? For the English then?
. . .the documented history of Lawrence’s actions and motivations tells a very different story. A memo on “The Politics of Mecca” penned by Lawrence for his intelligence handlers in 1916, reveals a more duplicitous British calculus for supporting certain factions of the Arab Revolt:
The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If properly handled they would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of small jealous principalities, incapable of cohesion, and yet always ready to combine against an outside force. The alternative to this seems to be control and colonization by a European power other than ourselves, which would inevitably come into conflict with the interests we already possess in the Near East.
Later, in a report on the “Reconstruction of Arabia” Lawrence penned for the British Cabinet at the end of the war, he was even more explicit about the cynical divide-and-rule tactics at play in British support for the Arab Revolt: “When war broke out an urgent need to divide Islam was added, and we became reconciled to seek for allies rather than subjects. [. . .] We hoped by the creation of a ring of client states, themselves insisting on our patronage, to turn the present and future flank of any foreign power with designs on the three rivers.”
ALEC GUINNESS (AS PRINCE FAISAL): Lawrence! . . . Or is it Major Lawrence?
LAWRENCE: Sir!
FAISAL: Ah. Well, General, I will leave you. Major Lawrence doubtless has reports to make. About my people; and their weakness. And the need to keep them weak. In the British interest.
Lawrence and the military and diplomatic personnel of the British empire were indeed busy in the wake of WWI. In many ways, the aftermath of the war represented the zenith of that empire, and the culmination of centuries of British manipulation in the Middle East. Driven by a mixture of political necessity and imperial hubris, the imperial planners had entered into secret agreements that redrew the map of the Middle East and once again affirmed the centuries-old accusation that Perfidious Albion was not to be trusted.
In 1916, the British and French entered into a pact to divide up the territory of the Ottoman empire between themselves should they win the war. This treaty—known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement after the diplomats who negotiated the document—was a direct negation of the web of promises that the British had already made on the land, including the territorial promises they had made to Ali Ibn Husain, the Sherif of Mecca who led the Arab Revolt against the Turks, the Treaty of Darin that had promised Ibn Saud British protection for his conquests in the Arabian peninsula in return for his support in the war, and the Balfour Declaration promising the Zionists a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Although the revelation of the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement by the Bolsheviks in 1917 proved a considerable embarrassment for the British and French, it did little to hinder their plans. The agreement provided a basis for the ultimate partitioning of the Ottoman empire after the war and the national borders that it helped to create have gone on to shape a century of strife and political conflict in the region.
But it was not enough merely to draw the lines on the maps that would define the post-war Middle East; the British had to shape the development of the region in its own interest, creating entire nations in the process. In the Arabian peninsula, they came to pin their hopes on Ibn Saud, whose sole focus on the conquest of Arabia, they calculated, would counteract the rise of a broader pan-Islamic movement that could challenge Britain’s supremacy in the region. As historian Mark Curtis writes in his book, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam:
[T]he British government of India had feared British sponsorship of an Arab caliph who would lead the entire Muslim world, and the effects this might have on Muslims in India, and had therefore favoured Ibn Saud, whose pretensions were limited to Arabia.
The subsidy from the British upon which Ibn Saud relied in his quest to unite the peninsula, which stood at £5,000 a month at the end of the war, was raised to £100,000 a year in 1922 by then-Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill. Churchill recognized that Saud’s fighters—the “Ikhwan,” or brotherhood of hardliners and adherents to the strict Wahabbi sect of Islam—were “austere, intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty” and “hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children.” So why, then, did the British support Saud and his men? “My admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep,” Churchill later confessed, “because of his unfailing loyalty to us.”
That loyalty paid off well. The British were the first to formally recognize Ibn Saud’s sovereignty over his newly-conquered territory on the peninsula, and in return Ibn Saud signed a treaty agreeing to stop his forces from attacking Britain’s neighbouring protectorates. In 1932, Ibn Saud became King Saud of the newly-formed “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” But even the nation’s new name was British. It was George Rendel, head of the British Foreign Office’s Eastern Department, who suggested it.
The British played similar games throughout the region; arming, funding and encouraging those who would work with them—including violent Islamic radicals—and undermining any potential challengers to British dominance.
In Palestine, the British pardoned Amin al-Husseini—who had been sentenced to 10 years in prison for his involvement in the 1920 Jerusalem riots—and appointed him the Grand Mufti of Palestine (a title invented by the British) on condition that he cooperate with the British authorities.
In Egypt, which became a British protectorate after WWI, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood—an Islamist mass movement founded by Hassan al-Banna—was at times an explicit threat to the British military presence in the country. Nevertheless, its position as an alternative to both secular nationalism and communism—which Britain regarded as growing threats to its influence in the region—meant that the British were prepared to work with the Brotherhood against their common enemies, even covertly financing the group in 1942.
The extent of British influence over the region during the post-war period was, in retrospect, staggering. But the number of machinations, manipulations and shifting alliances that were required to keep this system of mandates, protectorates and puppet governments going was a sign that the British were not all-powerful. On the contrary. Their influence, and indeed their empire itself, was waning, soon to be replaced by the new rising world superpower, the United States.
The US did not even wait till the end of the Second World War and the dawn of Pax Americana to begin its own “diplomacy” with the Muslims in the region.
NEWSREADER: An American destroyer comes alongside a cruiser at Great Bitter Lake on the Suez Canal in Egypt. It brings Ibn Saud, king of the five million people of Saudi Arabia, to a conference with President Roosevelt, stopping off here on his return from the Crimea conference. The destroyer has been decked out with red carpets for the monarch. This 800-mile trip marks the first time that King Ibn Saud has ever left his native land.
President Franklin Roosevelt’s meeting with King Ibn Saud aboard the USS Quincy on Egypt’s Great Bitter Lake in February 1945 was no ordinary exchange of diplomatic pleasantries. King Saud’s first foreign trip involved a number of unusual requests and special arrangements. The Saudis insisted on bringing a contingent of 48 men even though the Americans had said they could accommodate only 10. They insisted on sleeping in tents pitched on the ship’s deck rather than in the cabins provided. They insisted on bringing their own sheep, as the king believed that good Muslims eat only freshly slaughtered animals.
But, irregularities aside, the meeting was momentous.
Firstly, it demonstrated the importance of the Saudi-US relationship at a time when much of the world knew little and cared less about the happenings on the Arabian peninsula.
Secondly, it established the terms of that relationship: namely, a US guarantee of military defense of Saudi Arabia (including Roosevelt’s promise to “do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs”) in return for Saudi concessions, including allowance for US airfields and flyover routes across the kingdom and access to Dharhan, where the California Arabian Standard Oil Corporation (which later became ARAMCO) had drilled the first commercially viable oil well in the country just seven years earlier.
And thirdly, it signaled the dawn of a new era. No longer was the British Empire the primary foreign power driving events in the region. From now on, one of the key foreign policy considerations of the Muslim world was the US and its enormous military and financial resources.
This changeover in world order was not instantaneous. For some time after the end of WWII, the US and British collaborated on operations that furthered their mutual interests in the region. These “interests” included opposing the rising threat of secular nationalist governments that—unlike the House of Saud and other Western-backed monarchies in the Middle East—were less pliable to bribes and more interested in nationalizing their countries’ resources.
In March 1951, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company—the British oil giant that struck oil near the Persian Gulf in 1908—and offered the premiership of the government to Mohammed Mossadegh, an outspoken secular nationalist. Immediately after taking office, Mossadegh effected the nationalization, stating:
Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries [. . .] have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.
The nationalization put Tehran on a collision course with London. But Britain knew that a military intervention was not possible without American approval and, despite harsh economic sanctions on the country and a boycott of the newly nationalized oil industry that was joined by much of the Western world, they could not overthrow the Iranian government themselves. Instead, they had to turn to the US.
Although the Truman administration was initially hesitant to become involved, that changed with the election of Dwight D. Eisenhower and the installation of the Dulles brothers, Allen and John Foster, as Director of Central Intelligence and Secretary of State respectively. By June of 1953, the CIA was already adapting the British coup proposal into their own covert operation, dubbed Operation TPAJAX.
An open secret in the world of intelligence, the CIA/MI6 role in the overthrow of Mossadegh was officially denied by the US government for over half a century and is still unacknowledged by the British government to this day. Nevertheless, the CIA’s own internal history of the operation, first revealed to the public in the year 2000, confirms the extent of the American and British role in the coup. They convinced the Shah of Iran to agree to the plan. They hand-picked General Fazlollah Zahedi as Mossadegh’s successor. They rolled out a propaganda campaign to portray Mossadegh—a devout adherent to democratic nationalism who rigorously excluded the nation’s communist party from his government—as a communist sympathizer who would steer Iran into the arms of the Soviets; they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars bribing journalists, clerics, and even Iranian parliament members themselves to go along with the plot; and they used a network of agents and suitcases full of money to incite riots and protests across the country.
In the end, the operation was a success. Mossadegh was driven from power, General Zahedi took his place, the Western-backed Shah ruled the country with the iron fist of his feared secret police for the next 25 years, and a new agreement on sales of Iranian oil was reached. This time, though, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now rebranded as British Petroleum, would not have a monopoly on the country’s lucrative oil reserves; an international consortium was put together to share in the profits, with American companies Chevron and Standard Oil cut into the deal.
But the eclipse of the old British Empire by the new American superpower became most obvious in Egypt during the Suez Crisis of 1956.
Lying on the key spice and trade routes linking Europe and Asia, the importance of Egypt to the British Empire went back centuries. It was the British Navy under Nelson and the British Army under General Ralph Abercromby that drove Napoleon out of the country during the French campaign there at the turn of the 19th century. But it was the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 that cemented Egypt’s geopolitical importance for the British Empire.
The Suez Canal—linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea and drastically reducing sailing distances from Asia to Europe—was technically the property of the Egyptians, but the project had been spearheaded by the French and the concessionary company that operated the canal had been largely financed by French shareholders. An economic crisis in 1875, however, forced the Egyptian governor to sell his own shares to the British. As parliament was not in session at the time of the sale, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli had to turn to his close personal friend, Lionel de Rothschild, for the £4,000,000 required to purchase the shares. After the British conquest of Egypt in 1882, an international agreement was signed declaring the Canal a neutral zone under the protection of the British, whose troops were now installed in the country.
This precarious balance of power lasted in various permutations for over 70 years, first under Britain’s so-called “Veiled Protectorate” of Egypt in the decades leading up to WWI, then in a formal British occupation of the country during WWI and its aftermath, and then under Britain’s unilateral declaration of Egyptian independence in 1922, which stipulated that the British would retain power over Egypt’s defence and foreign policy. Britain’s de facto control over the country was one of the grievances that gave rise to the Free Officers Movement, a cadre of Egyptian nationalists in the ranks of the Egyptian Armed Forces who toppled King Farouk and took over the government in the Egyptian revolution of 1952.
One of the movement’s leaders, Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein, became President of Egypt in 1954 and began to implement a series of nationalist, anti-imperialist measures that, like Mossadegh, put him at odds with the British forces in his country. These measures culminated with Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956.
The Suez Crisis led to a joint British-French-Israeli invasion of the country, but in this case, the US under Eisenhower declined to back the invasion. Instead, Eisenhower—still believing that diplomacy and pressure could turn Nasser from the Soviet orbit and help America leverage its influence over the Arab world—joined the USSR in forcing an end to the invasion.
The crisis marked a definitive turning point. The age of the British Empire were over. The age of the American superpower had begun. From now on, American military and financial power would be the determining factor in the Muslim world, and indeed the world in general.
But the Americans had learned well from their British predecessors. The same tactics of strategic and shifting alliances, double dealings and covert operations that the British had used to maintain their influence for centuries would now be employed by the Americans to leverage their own power.
They applied these lessons in Iran, where they supported the Shah’s brutal dictatorship even as they maintained a secret communication channel with exiled religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini.
They applied these lessons in Indonesia, where the US at various times supported the Islamic factions in their rebellion against the Sukarno government, the Sukarno government itself, and, eventually, Suharto, who slaughtered over half a million people on his US-backed rise to power.
They applied these lessons in the Sinai Peninsula, where, as declassified documents now show, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger helped engineer the Yom Kippur War so that “the Arabs would conclude the only way to peace was through us” and the Israelis would conclude that “they had to depend on us to win and couldn’t win if we were too recalcitrant.”
And they applied these lessons in Saudi Arabia, where Treasury Secretary William Simon helped enshrine the US dollar’s central role in global geopolitics and saved the US from the 1973 oil crisis by negotiating the petrodollar system, a covert deal with the House of Saud to purchase Saudi oil and sell them weapons and equipment in return for a Saudi pledge to finance American debt by investing their oil revenue in US Treasuries.
This era of American-led intrigue and double dealing would culminate in one of the most important years for the Muslim world in the modern era: 1979.
That was the year of the Iranian revolution, when the American and British overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953 would come home to roost in the overthrow of the Western-backed Shah and the first major victory for the forces of political Islam in the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That was the year of the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, when Islamic hardliners shocked the Muslim world by storming the holiest mosque in Islam and, during a dramatic two-week stand off, calling for the overthrow of the House of Saud and the end of its attempts at Westernization.
That was the year Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel, normalizing relations between the two countries and leading to Sadat’s assassination by members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad just two years later.
And that was also the year that developments in Afghanistan put in motion a chain of events that would lead to the creation of the group we now know as “Al Qaeda.”
On Christmas Eve, 1979, Soviet troops began an invasion of Afghanistan. Initially, this was portrayed to the American people as a spontaneous act of aggression, the opening salvo in a new campaign by the Russians to conquer the region and upset the world order.
JIMMY CARTER: Fifty thousand heavily armed Soviet troops have crossed the border and are now dispersed throughout Afghanistan, attempting to conquer the fiercely independent Muslim people of that country.
[. . .]
If the Soviets are encouraged in this invasion by eventual success, and if they maintain their dominance over Afghanistan and then extend their control to adjacent countries, the stable, strategic, and peaceful balance of the entire world will be changed.
But this was a lie. As historians with access to USSR document archives now know, the Soviet leadership was extremely reluctant to become entangled in Afghanistan. Well aware of the country’s reputation as a “graveyard of empires,” Soviet politicians and military leaders knew that any attempt to bring Afghanistan under military and political control would be extremely difficult.
Instead, the invasion was the end result of a series of events that threatened to plunge Afghanistan and the surrounding region into chaos.
Starting in the wake of WWII, the urban, cosmopolitan political elite of the rural and agrarian nation of Afghanistan began a series of reforms and development projects that, they hoped, would bring their country into the modern era. Seeking assistance in this task, these leaders turned to the USSR, who, in addition to providing $100 million in low-interest credit to finance the projects, also welcomed members of the country’s political and military elite for training at Soviet institutions. In turn, these young Afghan elites brought communism back to their country.
The Afhgan communists supported a bloodless coup in Kabul in 1973, overthrowing the king and instituting a one-party state whose government included representation by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), a pro-Soviet, Marxist-Leninist party that boasted ties to the Afghan National Army. But the PDPA, frustrated by a perceived lack of progress toward communist goals on the part of this new government, precipitated another coup in 1978. This new communist government, led by Nur Muhammed Taraki, presided over a period of dramatic reform: Land reforms sought to limit how much land a family could own; social reforms abolished Shariah Law, began education of women and sought to end forced marriage and other traditional practices; and political dissidents were rounded up and resistant villagers massacred.
Violently opposed both by the Islamic fundamentalists and conservatives in the country as well as opposing factions within his own party, Taraki was overthrown in September of 1979 and killed the following month. Taraki’s sucessor and one-time protege, Hafizullah Amin, led an even shorter and more turbulent government. Taking over the presidency in September, Amin—who, the Russians feared, was seeking to improve Afghanistan’s relations with the United States—was deposed when Soviet forces entered the country and assassinated him on December 27th, 1979.
The official history—written by the CIA, echoed by the US State Department and propounded in Hollywood productions—maintains that the US response to the events in Afghanistan—a response that would go on to include billions of dollars in arms, funds and training for the Islamic resistance to the Soviet forces—began after the Soviet invasion in 1979.
TERRY BOZEMAN (AS “CIA AWARD PRESENTER”): The defeat and breakup of the Soviet empire, culminating in the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, is one of the great events of world history. There were many heroes in this battle, but to Charlie Wilson must go this special recognition.
Just 13 years ago, the Soviet Army appeared to be invincible. But Charlie, undeterred, engineered a lethal body blow that weakened the Communist empire. Without Charlie, history would be hugely and sadly different.
And so, for the first time, a civilian is being given our highest recognition, that of Honored Colleague. Ladies and gentlemen of the Clandestine Services, Congressman Charles Wilson.
But this, too, is a lie. In reality, the covert operation to aid the mujahideen “freedom fighters” did not begin after the Soviets invaded, and it was not the work of Charlie Wilson.
As former CIA director Robert Gates revealed in his 1996 autobiography, assistance to the Afghan mujahideen did not start after the Soviet invasion, but six months before, in July, 1979, with President Jimmy Carter signing off on a covert operation to assist and fund the resistance forces in Afghanistan. This was done in the full knowledge that these forces might antagonize and draw the Soviets into the country, which is precisely what a certain faction of the Carter White House—known as “the bleeders” for their propensity to “bleed” the Soviet Union through an engaged guerrilla conflict like the US had experienced in Vietnam—wanted to achieve.
This was confirmed two years later by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Advisor, in a 1998 interview.
According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
The program that Carter signed off on—dubbed Operation Cyclone and billed as “the largest covert operation in history“—continued and expanded throughout the 1980s, leading to the rise of the Taliban and the encouragement of what Brzezinski called in that same interview “some agitated Muslims.”
KENNETH BRANNAGH: US National Security Advisor Brzezinski flew to Pakistan and set about rallying the resistance. He wanted to arm the mujahideen without revealing America’s role. On the Afghan border near the Khyber Pass, he urged the “Soldiers of God” to redouble their efforts.
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI (in Pakistan): We know of their deep belief in God and we are confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours, you’ll go back to it one day because your fight will prevail. You’ll have your homes and your mosques back again because your cause is right and God is on your side.
BRZEZINSKI (interview): The purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible.
News of the struggle began to spread throughout the Arab world and soon the stories of the brave mujahideen fighting the communist infidels became a rallying cry for jihad. The Afghan resistance had made Peshawar, just over the border in Pakistan, their headquarters, and it was there that visitors from around the Muslim world heard first-hand the tales from the battles against the Soviets and saw for themselves the squalor of the refugees who had been forced from their homes by the Russian invaders.
One such visitor was Abdullah Azzam, a passionate young Palestinian whose militant activism had cost him his job as a lecturer at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah and had prompted him to take a position in Islamabad so he could be closer to the Afghan jihad. But this was still not close enough, and he resigned his position to dedicate himself full time to the Afghan cause. He spent time in the refugee camps and mujahideen base at Peshawar, issued a fatwa arguing that Muslims had a duty to wage jihad in Afhganistan, and made frequent trips to Jeddah, where he recruited young Muslims for the cause. While in Jeddah, he stayed at the guest flat of a rich young Saudi named Osama bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden was the 17th of 54 children of Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, an itinerant laborer from Yemen who had worked his way up in the Saudi construction industry to become one of the wealthiest non-royals in the Saudi kingdom. Mohammed bin Laden’s business— today known as the Binladin Group Global Holding Company and comprising a sprawling, multibillion dollar multinational conglomerate involved in some of the largest construction projects in the world—started from humble beginnings.
After arriving in Jeddah from his native Yemen in 1930, Mohammed bin Laden took a job as a dockworker, then as a bricklayer for Aramco during the country’s first oil boom. When Aramco sought to subcontract some of the construction work it had undertaken for the Saudi government, bin Laden used the opportunity to grow his own construction firm. His exacting building standards, combined with his energy, his honesty and his willingness to work shoulder-to-shoulder with his men earned Mohammed bin Laden a reputation as a craftsman and a teacher and brought him to the attention of King Ibn Saud’s finance minister.
The aging King Saud, by now largely confined to a wheelchair, gave bin Laden the chance to renovate his palace in Jeddah so that his car could be driven by ramp directly to his second-floor bedroom. Impressed with bin Laden’s work (and bin Laden’s gesture of personally driving the king’s car up the newly installed ramp to make sure it would hold the weight), the king awarded him with a number of increasingly important projects and even appointed him as an honorary minister of public works. Bin Laden’s business, later rebranded as the Saudi Binladin Group, would go on to construct most of the kingdom’s roads, renovate the Prophet’s Mosque at Medina and even renovate the Grand Mosque in Mecca itself.
Although Mohammed bin Laden’s fortune was split between dozens of heirs, and although Osama’s father divorced his mother shortly after he was born, the younger bin Laden was still born into a life of luxury that few in the kingdom outside the royal family would ever know. Osama bin Laden’s share of the family fortune has been estimated at $30 million and it was expected that he would, like many of his brothers, take up the family business. He studied economics and business administration at King Abdulaziz University, where he met and was influenced by Abdullah Azzam, who was by then was already known for his credo “jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences, and no dialogues.”
Accounts of when and how Osama bin Laden first ended up in Afghanistan differ. According to Osama himself, speaking to Robert Fisk in his first interview for the Western press in 1993: “When the invasion of Afghanistan started, I was enraged and went there at once – I arrived within days, before the end of 1979.” Others contend that Osama had never heard of Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion and that he didn’t set foot in the country itself until 1984.
Whatever the case, by the mid-1980s bin Laden was well-known as one of the key fundraisers for the Afghan cause in the Arab world, using his family connection to gather donations from rich Saudis and delivering them to Pakistan to assist the fighters in the field. In 1984, Osama and Azzam co-founded Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), or the “Office of Services,” which the US government would later identify as “the precursor organization to Al Qaeda.” The group aimed to recruit the foreign fighters that were taking up Azzam’s call to join the jihad in Afghanistan, with bin Laden providing money through his fundraising connections and with direct contributions.
Initially little more than a guest house in Peshawar where foreign recruits for the Afghan war could stop on their way to the front, the operation quickly expanded as money poured in and more fighters began to arrive. Soon it caught the attention of other figures in the Afghan war, including Gulbuddin Hekmatyar—a brutal Afghan warlord supported by the US to the tune of $600 million who was known for killling more Afghans than Soviets—and Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad who would go on to become Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
The New Yorker has called Zawahiri “The Man Behind Bin Laden.” Syed Saleem Shahzad, a Pakistani journalist with access to senior al-Qaeda commanders, has argued it was Zawahiri, not the “figurehead” bin Laden, who “formulated the organization’s ideological line and devised operational plans.”
Born in a suburb of Cairo in 1951 to a distinguished middle-class family, Zawahiri went on to study medicine at Cairo University, eventually earning a Master’s degree in surgery and serving three years as a surgeon in the Egyptian Army before establishing his own clinic. He wore Western dress, avoided the radical Islamist activism sweeping campus in his university days, and, according to one Westerner who met him in the mid-1970s, didn’t talk or act like “a traditional Muslim.”
But, we are asked to believe, this was all a front. In fact, according to the authors of the officially-sanctioned history of Al Qaeda, Zawahiri was a lifelong radical who had joined the Muslim Brotherhood in 1965 at the tender young age of 14 and was set on his path toward violent jihad the next year, after the execution of the Brotherhood’s then-leader, Sayyid Qutb.
Qutb was famous for his role in inspiring a generation of radical Muslims—including Azzam, Osama and Zawahiri—to take up violent jihad against the West and the forces of modernity in the creation of a new caliphate. Less remembered is Qutb’s assertion that —during the 1960s, when Saudi King Faisal was openly conspiring with the CIA and ARAMCO to stir up anti-socialist Muslim groups and undermine pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism—”America made Islam.”
The then 15-year-old Zawahiri, we are told, responded to Qutb’s execution by helping to “form an underground militant cell dedicated to replacing the secular Egyptian government with an Islamic one.” By the late 1970s, a number of these cells had merged into a larger militant organization, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which, incensed by President Anwar Sadat’s signing of a peace treaty with Israel, assassinated him during a military parade on October 6, 1981.
Zawahiri was one of over 300 militants rounded up in the wake of the assassination and—having the best command of English among the defendants—became their spokesman for the international press.
PRISONER: For the whole world, this is our word by Dr. Ayman Zawahiri.
AYMAN AL-ZAWAHIRI: Now we want to speak to the whole world. Who are we? Who are we? Why did they bring us here? And what we want to say? About the first question: We are Muslims. We are Muslims who believe in their religion. [inaudible] We believe in our religion, both in ideology and practice, and hence we tried our best to establish an Islamic state and an Islamic society!
Before being arrested, Zawahiri had already spent some time in Peshawar, seeing first-hand the squalor of the refugee camps and even crossing the border into Afghanistan to witness the fighting itself. After his release from prison in Egypt in 1984, Zawahiri made his way to Jeddah and then back to Peshawar.
Thus, by the mid-1980s, all of the main characters that were associated with the rise of modern Islamic terror and the founding of Al Qaeda—Azzam, Osama, Zawahiri and their early associates—were now directly involved in the war in Afghanistan. They were not a single, cohesive group—Azzam and Zawahiri were rivals for Osama’s funds and attention, with Zawahiri even spreading rumours among the mujahideen that Azzam worked for the Americans. But together, they formed the backbone of what would come to be called the “Afghan Arabs,” an inaccurate term for all of the foreign jihadis who came to fight in Afghanistan, both Arab (including Saudis recruited by Osama and Egyptian members of Zawahiri’s Islamic Jihad group) and non-Arab (Turks, Malays and others from across the Muslim world).
The Afghan Arabs were not the main fighting force in Afghanistan. In fact, some argue they were almost totally irrelevant to the fight; making up only a small percentage of the total mujahideen, they often got into quarrels with the Afghan fighters and were responsible for almost no significant victories in the struggle against the Soviets. But the story of these “holy warriors” who had answered the call of jihad spread throughout the Muslim world, helped in no small part by their own propensity for self-promotion. Azzam launched Al-Jihad Magazineto help publicize the Afghan Arabs’ exploits and, with Osama’s funding behind him, was able to make it an international concern. Distributed in America by the Islamic Centre in Tucson, Arizona, the magazine sold thousands of copies per month in the US alone.
But for some time there has been debate about the nature of the US role in fostering and funding the Afghan Arabs. While historians, scholars and journalists agree that CIA funding for the Afghan jihad—estimated to be well over $3 billion—did find its way to the Arab fighters, it has long been debated whether there was any direct contact between American intelligence and Osama bin Laden.
In the officially sanctioned history of the Afghan-Soviet War, the Americans were aiding the people of Afghanistan, brave “freedom fighters” who were engaged in a heroic struggle against the evil Soviet Empire.
RONALD REAGAN: The fact that freedom is the strongest force in the world is daily demonstrated by the people of Afghan. Accordingly, I am dedicating on behalf of the American people the March 22nd launch of the Columbia to the people of Afghanistan.
REAGAN: The support that the United States has been providing the resistance will be strengthened, rather than diminished, so that it can continue to fight effectively for freedom. A just struggle against foreign tyranny can count upon worldwide support, both political and material. t
[cut to]
On behalf of the American people, I salute chairman Kalis, his delegation and the people of Afghanistan themselves.
This is the story propounded by the final report of the 9/11 Commission, which holds that the covert aid supplied for the operation by the United States went to Pakistan, who then distributed the funds and supplies directly to the Afghan fighters, not the Afghan Arabs. “Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation,” the 9/11 Commission explained in the section of its report dedicated to “The Rise of bin Laden and Al Qaeda.” “This assistance was funneled through Pakistan: the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But bin Laden and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.”
Here the 9/11 Commission is in agreement with Zawahiri himself, who insisted in his 2001 book, Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner, “that the United States did not give one penny in aid to the mujahideen.” After all, he adds: “If the Arab Afghans are the mercenaries of the United States who have now rebelled against it, why is the United States unable to buy them back now?”
Zawahiri’s rhetorical question has not always been answered in the way he intended it. In fact, numerous sources over the years have pointed to just such direct contact between the US and the Afghan Arabs, and even between the CIA and Osama bin Laden himself.
There was Ted Gunderson, for example, a 27-year veteran of the FBI who claimed to have met bin Laden at the Hilton Hotel in Sherman Oaks, California, in 1986. Osama, Gunderson says, was introduced under the name “Tim Osman” and was in the midst of a US tour with a State Department handler, looking to procure weapons and support for the Afghan jihad. The only document that ever emerged to back this story up, however, was a crude, self-typed, single-page memo of unknown origin that only serves to throw an already dubious story into even further doubt.
Or there was journalist Joseph Trento’s claim in his 2006 book, Prelude to Terror: The Rogue CIA and the Legacy of America’s Private Intelligence Network, that “CIA money was actually funneled to MAK, since it was recruiting young Muslim men to come join the jihad in Afghanistan.” That claim, however, comes from a “former CIA officer” who couldn’t be identified because “at the time of the writing of this book, he was back in Afghanistan as a private contractor.”
Or there was Simon Reeve, who wrote The New Jackals—the first book on Al Qaeda—in 1998. In it, he states that US agents “armed [bin Laden’s] men by letting him pay rock-bottom prices for basic weapons.” This claim, too, sources to an anonymous former CIA official.
In 2000, The Guardian reported on “Bin Laden: the question facing the next US president,” stating flatly: “In 1986 the CIA even helped him [bin Laden] build an underground camp at Khost, where he was to train recruits from across the Islamic world in the business of guerrilla warfare.” No source is provided for the claim, however.
In 2003, MSNBC Senior Correspondent Michael Moran wrote that: “Bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the ‘reliable’ partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.” However, he conceded that “It should be pointed out that the evidence of bin Laden’s connection to these activities is mostly classified.”
Supporters of the official story, however, make a valid point: of all the things that the multimillionaire heir to the bin Laden family fortune needed on his rise to international infamy, money was not one of them. No, what bin Laden needed for his burgeoning terror group to thrive was not more money; it was protection.
As he turned from “Anti-Soviet warrior” to international terror mastermind, bin Laden needed officials to look the other way as his people moved across borders. He needed routine security procedures to be abandoned at key moments. He needed intelligence agencies to disconnect the dots and fail to act on information at their disposal. When members of his organization got caught, he needed strings to be pulled so his associates could continue their operation.
And, as we shall see, this is precisely the type of protection that Osama bin Laden and his associates were to receive time and again in the coming decades.
Regardless of direct western intelligence involvement in the arming, funding or training of Maktab al-Khidamat, the question soon became a moot point. As the Afghan war was drawing to its inevitable conclusion and the Soviets prepared to march back to Moscow, Osama bin Laden was already planning a new group to consolidate his international network of mujahideen and to take the jihad global.
According to documents obtained from a March 2002 raid of the Sarajevo offices of Benevolence International Foundation—a not-for-profit humanitarian relief organization that was declared a financier of terrorism in the wake of 9/11—the original idea for the founding of Al Qaeda was discussed in a meeting on August 11, 1988. In attendance at the meeting: Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohamed Atef—an Egyptian engineer and member of Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad who would go on to become Al Qaeda’s military commander—Jamal al-Fadl, a Sudanese militant recruited for the Afghan war from the MAK’s US headquarters in Brooklyn, and a dozen others.
There are conflicting stories about the origin of the name “Al Qaeda,” which means “the base” in Arabic. Bin Laden claims that “Al Qaeda” was simply the name used for the mujahideen training camps and “the name stayed.” Others attribute it to Abdullah Azzam, who published a brief article in al-Jihad Magazine in April, 1988, entitled “al-Qa’ida al-Subah,” or, “The Solid Base,” in which he wrote:
For every invention there must be a vanguard (tali’a) to carry it forward and, while forcing its way into society, endure enormous expenses and costly sacrifices. There is no ideology, neither earthly nor heavenly, that does not require such a vanguard that gives everything it possesses in order to achieve victory for this ideology. It carries the flag all along the sheer endless and difficult path until it reaches its destination in the reality of life, since Allah has destined that it should make it and manifest itself.
This vanguard constitutes the solid base (al-Qa’ida al-Subah) for the expected society.
In 2005, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook claimed that Al Qaeda was literally “the database,” that is, “the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” He did not, however, provide proof for this claim, evidence of the existence of such a database itself, or an explanation of how he knew this information.
The founding document itself mentions “Al Qaeda Al Askariya” (“the Military Base”), explaining that: “The mentioned Al Qaeda is basically an organized Islamic faction, its goal will be to lift the word of God, to make his religion victorious.”
It lists the “Requirements to enter Al Qaeda”:
Members of the open duration.
Listening and obedient.
Good-manners.
Referred from a trusted side.
Obeying statutes and instructions of Al Qaida. These are from the rules of the work.
It gives the pledge for new members:
The pledge of God and his covenant is upon me, to listen and obey the superiors, who are doing this work, in energy, early-rising, difficulty, and easiness, and for his superiority upon us, so that the word of God will be the highest, and His religion victorious.
And it ends by noting that there were “thirty brothers in Al Qaeda, meeting the requirements, and thank God.”
The meeting was noted by no one. In the larger scheme of things, it meant nothing. A ragtag band of thirty fighters, even if that ragtag band was led and financed by a Saudi millionaire, could accomplish very little on their own, and in the wake of the seismic forces taking place in Afghanistan at the time, it did not even register as a blip on the radar of anyone in the region. But the assistance and protection that would help steward this group of jihadi miscreants into a brand name for international terror was already in effect.
The early glimmers of this protection could be seen in Maktab al-Khidamat’s efforts to recruit and train mujahideen for the Afghan jihad in the US. Starting in Tucson, Arizona, MAK would go on to open 30 branches in cities across the US, including their most important location, the Al Kifah Refugee Center based out of Brooklyn’s Faruq Mosque. The CIA’s role in aiding MAK and Al Kifah in their recruitment efforts has been an acknowledged fact for decades.
In 2001, Newsweekcalled the center “a dreary inner-city building that doubled as a recruiting post for the CIA seeking to steer fresh troops to the mujahideen.”
In 1995, New York Magazineexplained: “the highlight for the centre’s regulars were the inspirational jihad lecture series, featuring CIA-sponsored speakers. One week on Atlantic Avenue, it might be a CIA-trained Afghan rebel travelling on a CIA-issued visa; the next, it might be a clean-cut Arabic-speaking Green Beret, who would lecture about the importance of being part of the mujahideen.”
J. Michael Springmann, a visa officer at the US Consulate in Jeddah from 1987 to 1989, testified how his decisions to deny visas to enter the United States to clearly unqualified applicants were routinely overridden by CIA officers at the consulate as part of their effort to “help Osama bin Laden’s mujahideen in Afghanistan.”
J. MICHAEL SPRINGMANN: I was being pressured by the Consul, General Jay Philip Freres, by a consular officer—I’m sorry, not a consular officer, a commercial officer—and various other people throughout the consulate: “We need a visa for this guy.”
It wasn’t a visa for a friend, it wasn’t a visa for a prospective business contact. It was for somebody like the two Pakistanis who were going to a trade show in the United States: they couldn’t name the trade show, they couldn’t name the city in which it was being held, but a CIA case officer concealed in the commercial section demanded a visa for these people within the hour of my refusing them.
And I said, “No. They can’t tell me where they’re going, they can’t tell me why they’re going. The law is very clear: these are intending immigrants unless and until they can prove otherwise, and they haven’t done it. Do you have some information that was not available to me when they applied?” He said, “No.” I said, “They’re not going.” He went to justice Stevens, the chief of the consular section, and got a visa for these guys.
[cut to]
And it wasn’t until I was out of the Foreign Service (when my appointment had been terminated for unspecified reasons) that I learned from three good sources—Joe Trento, the journalist; a fellow attached to a university in Washington, DC; and a guy with expert knowledge on the Middle East who had worked for a government agency—they said, “It’s very simple. The CIA and its asset, Osama bin Laden, were recruiting terrorists for the Afghan war.”
They were sending them to the United States for training, for rewards, for whatever purpose and then sending them on to Afghanistan. And most likely the problems they had with the liquor at the consulate large amounts be disappearing and being sold at very high markups and so forth was being used to fund this.
In a 1994 debriefing of his experience at Jeddah, Springmann cited Sheikh Abdel-Rahman as one of the “CIA operatives” with “terrorist ties” who were being aided by this program.
Omar Abdel-Rahman, better known as “the Blind Sheikh,” was born in Egypt in 1938 and lost his eyesight at just 10 months old. Studying a braille version of the Qur’an, Rahman was sent to an Islamic boarding school, and, inspired by the writings of Sayyid Qutb, earned a doctorate in quranic interpretation from Al-Azhar University in Cairo. He made a name for himself among Islamic fundamentalists for his forceful denunciations of the secular government of Nasser, who imprisoned Rahman without charge for several months. It was Rahman who issued the fatwa that was used to justify the assassination of Sadat, and it was in prison, on trial for his part in the assassination, that Rahman met Zawahiri.
After his release from prison, the Blind Sheikh made his way to join the jihad in Afghanistan, where, as even mainstream sources note, he “is said to have established links with the Central Intelligence Agency.” The CIA, it was later reported, had paid for Rahman to travel to Peshawar and “preach to the Afghans about the necessity of unity to overthrow the Kabul regime.”
These CIA “links” served the Blind Sheikh well. As one of the most notorious Islamic radicals in the Middle East, the Blind Sheikh was on a US State Department terrorist watch list that should have barred him entry to America. Nevertheless, in May, 1990, he obtained a tourist visa to enter the United States from a consul in the US Embassy in Khartoum. When the visa was first reported to the public in December of that year, a spokesperson for the State Department insisted that the consul had “made a mistake,” explaining that they “didn’t follow the procedures” and failed to check Rahman’s name against the State Department watchlist.
It wasn’t until July of 1993, five months after the bombing of the World Trade Center directed by Rahman and aided by an FBI informant, that the truth was revealed: “Central Intelligence Agency officers reviewed all seven applications made by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman to enter the United States between 1986 and 1990 and only once turned him down because of his connections to terrorism” reported The New York Times, adding that, “while the practice is somewhat sensitive and not widely known, it is not unusual for a low-level CIA officer to be assigned a post as a consular official, as they had been in each of the seven cases.” It was later reported that the visas had been “a reward for [Rahman’s] services” to the CIA in Afghanistan.
Incredibly, this was not the end of the string of “lucky breaks” that allowed Rahman, the leader of the first Islamic terror cell to operate on US soil, to continue his operations unmolested.
In November of 1990, his CIA-approved tourist visa was revoked, “but because of a procedural error [immigration officials] were not aware that he was in the country” and had to begin an investigation before he could be deported. Despite all of this, Rahman was still able to obtain a green card for permanent residence in the United States in April of 1991. After leaving the country and returning in August of that year, immigration officials identified that he was on a watch list and “began proceedings to rescind his residency status,” but “they allowed him to re-enter the United States anyway.” His green card was revoked in March of 1992 but he was still allowed to remain in the country while he applied for political asylum and plotted the World Trade Center bombing out of the MAK-founded, CIA-connected, Al Qaeda stronghold in Brooklyn, the Al Kifah Refugee Center.
But as remarkable as the Blind Sheik’s story is, it is not unique. Rahman was not the only person associated with Al Qaeda’s Al Kifah Center who proved able to freely enter the US despite being on a watchlist.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the future leader of Al Qaeda, made at least three visits to the United States. Despite having been imprisoned in Egypt for three years after the assassination of Sadat and despite his known role as the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Zawahiri was able to enter the US and, using an alias and posing as a representative of the Kuwaiti Red Crescent society, engage in fundraising for his terror group. His trip was made possible by one of his most important operatives, Ali Mohamed, who had arranged the trip and provided him with the fake passport he used to enter the country.
It is in the story of Ali Mohamed, dubbed “Al Qaeda’s triple agent,” that the incredible ties between US intelligence and Al Qaeda are revealed. Indeed, the tale of Mohamed’s unlikely career—described as “the most tantalizing and complex story in the history of al Qaeda’s war against America”—is so utterly unbelievable that a Hollywood scriptwriter would reject it for being too implausible.
The son of a career soldier in the Egyptian Army, Mohamed attended the Cairo Military Academy and obtained two bachelor’s degrees and a master’s degree in psychology from the University of Alexandria. Mohamed followed in his father’s footsteps, joining the Egyptian Army and quickly rising to the rank of major. An intelligence officer in the Egyptian Special Forces, Mohamed was a member of the same unit that carried out the assassination of Sadat in 1981. But he was not in Egypt when it happened. He was training with the US Green Berets at Fort Bragg on a foreign officer exchange program.
The FBI would later allege that it was during this training course that Mohamed was first approached by the CIA, who sought to recruit him as a foreign asset. That same year, Mohamed joined Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad and raised the suspicions of the Egyptian Army not just for his ties to the Sadat assassination unit, but his conspicuous acts of Islamic fundamentalism, including taking time for the five daily prayers and loudly proclaiming his Islamic beliefs to anyone who would listen.
Discharged from the Egyptian Army in 1984, Mohamed—at the behest of Zawahiri—landed a job as a counterterrorism security advisor for Egypt Air. Impressed by Mohamed’s abilities, Zawahiri tasked him with a seemingly impossible challenge: infiltrate an intelligence service of the US government. Remarkably, according to the official history of Al Qaeda propounded by the very intelligence services Mohamed was tasked with infiltrating, that was exactly what he did.
According to that official story, in 1984 Mohamed turned up at the CIA station in Cairo, offering his services. The CIA took him up on the offer, sending him to Hamburg, Germany, to infiltrate a Hezbollah-linked mosque there. Upon arrival in Hamburg, Mohamed immediately announced that he had been sent by the CIA. The agency, learning of the betrayal, officially cut their ties with him, putting Mohamed on a State Department watchlist that should have prevented him from entering the US. But, as government sources later told The Boston Globe, he was able to enter the country in 1985 anyway with the help of “clandestine CIA sponsorship.” According to the report, Mohamed “benefitted from a little known visa-waiver program that allows the CIA and other security agencies to bring valuable agents into the country, bypassing the usual immigration formalities.”
What happened next defies all credulity. On his flight from Athens to New York, Mohamed sat next to Linda Lee Sanchez, a single medical technician from Santa Clara, California 10 years his senior. After spending the flight in conversation, the two agreed to meet again and six weeks later they were married at the Chapel of the Bells in Reno, Nevada. Now applying for US citizenship, Mohamed enlisted in the US Army in August 1986, completing basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and receiving an Army Achievement Medal for his exemplary performance. Completing jump school and qualifying as an expert marksman on the M-16, Mohamed quickly reached the rank of E-4 and was then inexplicably posted to the Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, where he had earlier trained as a foreign exchange officer. Working as a supply sergeant for a Green Beret unit, he was soon lecturing on the Middle East to students at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center, the training center for US special forces.
ALI MOHAMED: Islam cannot survive in an area without political domination. Islam itself, as a religion, cannot survive. If I live in one area, we have to establish an Islamic state, because Islam without political domination cannot survive.
Even his commanding officer, Lt. Col. Robert Anderson, was stunned by the incredibly unlikely rise through the ranks of this watchlisted Muslim radical.
“I think you or I would have a better chance of winning Powerball (a lottery), than an Egyptian major in the unit that assassinated Sadat would have getting a visa, getting to California . . . getting into the Army and getting assigned to a Special Forces unit,” Anderson later told The San Francisco Chronicle. “That just doesn’t happen. ”
But it did. And the unbelievable story of Ali Mohamed did not stop there; in fact, it was only just beginning.
In 1987, Mustafa Shalabi, the emir of the Al Qaeda-linked Al Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn, transmitted a request from the mujahideen in Afghanistan for Ali Mohamed to come and train rebel troops in the camps there. Mohamed requested a 30-day leave from the Army and made his preparations to travel to Paris, and from there on to Afghanistan using forged documents provided to him by mujahideen agents.
Mohamed made no attempt to hide his plan and Lt. Colonel Steve Neely, the JFK Special Warfare Center instructor who hired Mohamed as a lecturer, was so upset at the idea—a US soldier heading to a war zone to engage in training and, inevitably, combat, without the permission of the Army—that he sent a report up the chain of command informing his superior officers about Mohamed’s plan. But he never heard back.
Ali Mohamed went to Afghanistan where he not only provided training to the mujahideen, but, according to his own story, even fought and killed two Soviet special forces officers. When he returned to his duties at Fort Bragg after his 30 day leave, he even presented one of his mementos—a belt from one of the Soviet soldiers he had killed—to his commanding officer.
NARRATOR: Fort Bragg, North Carolina. A month after he left for Afghanistan, Ali Mohammed returns here 25 pounds lighter and brandishing a war trophy.
LT. COL. ROBERT ANDERSON: Then he came back and gave us a debriefing with maps and even bought back this Russian Special Forces belt. He said that he’d killed the Russian Special Forces soldier.
NARRATOR: Colonel Anderson says he sent two separate reports to his superiors criticizing Ali Mohamed for his Afghan adventure. He receives no response. Anderson says he did not have enough evidence to bring charges against Mohamed.
So outrageous was Mohamed’s behaviour that his commanding officer came to believe that he was being “sponsored” by a US intelligence agency. “I assumed the CIA,” he told The San Francisco Chronicle. Anderson was not alone in this belief. Back in California, Mohamed’s friends also assumed his CIA ties. “Everyone in the community knew he was working as a liaison between the CIA and the Afghan cause,” Ali Zaki, a San Jose obstetrician who was close to Mohamed, told The Washington Post.
CIA sponsorship would explain Mohamed’s incredible ability to break Army regulations at will with complete impunity. While serving in the US Armed Forces, Mohamed spent his weekends traveling from Fort Bragg to Brooklyn, where he lectured at the Al Kifah Refugee Center and began providing military training and stolen US Special Forces documents to a cell of Islamic militants based there.
Despite all of this, Mohamed received an honourable discharge from active duty in November, 1989. Among the commendations he received: one for “patriotism, valor, fidelity and professional excellence.” He remained a member of the US Army Reserve as he returned to his wife in California and began the next leg of his career.
As we shall see, this increasingly implausible story involved Mohamed becoming an FBI informant while simultaneously training and steering the terror cells that would be linked to the World Trade Center bombing, the US Embassy bombings and the other spectacular attacks in the 1990s that would make Al Qaeda synonymous with international terrorism, evading the justice system for years and then disappearing off the face of the planet.
By the time Mohamed left active duty at the end of 1989, the world order was beginning to shift. The Soviets had retreated from Afghanistan and within two short years the Soviet Union itself had ceased to exist. The Cold War was over and the public was promised a new world of peace and tranquility.
GEORGE H. W. BUSH: We stand tonight before a new world of hope and possibilities for our children, a world we could not have contemplated a few years ago. The challenge for us now is to engage these new states in sustaining the peace and building a more prosperous future.
But this promised “new world of hope” never arrived. Instead, the world was about to be thrust into a new age of terror. And the public face of that terror, a young Saudi millionaire who was still being touted as an “Anti-Soviet Warrior,” had just cobbled together his band of Islamic militants, his Al Qaeda “base,” in the training camps of Afghanistan.
And, as we will see, as the world plunged into this new era of violence, the planners of the American Empire—like the planners of the British Empire before them—were more than willing to aid, protect and use these radical Muslims to attain their own ends.
The attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) left nearly 3,000 dead in NYC, Washington D.C. and over Pennsylvania. The attacks transformed America into a deepening police state at home and a nation perpetually at war abroad.
The official narrative claims that 19 hijackers representing Al Qaeda took over 4 commercial aircraft to carry out attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.
The event served as impetus for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan which continues to present day. It also led directly to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Attempts to cite the attack to precipitate a war with Iran and other members of the so-called “Axis of Evil” (Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba) have also been made.
And if this is the version of reality one subscribes to, several questions remain worth asking.
1. Can the similarities between 9/11 and plans drawn up by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1962 under the code name “Operation Northwoods” be easily dismissed?
The US DoD and JCS wrote a detailed plan almost identical to the 9/11 attacks as early as 1962 called “Operation Northwoods” where the US proposed hijacking commercial airliners, committing terrorist attacks, and blaming Cuba to justify a US military intervention.
Far from a fringe conspiracy theory, mainstream media outlets including ABC News would cover the document in articles like, “U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba,” which would report:
In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
The document also cites the USS Maine in describing the sort of event the DoD-JCS sought to stage, a US warship whose destruction was used to maliciously provoke the Spanish-American War. It should be noted, that unlike the DoD-JCS document’s suggestion that airliner-related casualties be staged, the USS Maine explosion killed 260 sailors. It is likely that DoD and JCS would not risk engineering a provocation that leads to major war but allow low-level operators left alive with the knowledge of what they had participated in.
Considering that the US sought to deceive the public in order to provoke an unjustifiable war that would undoubtedly kill thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people, and that other proposals did include killing innocent people, it is worth considering that US policymakers would also be just as willing to extinguish innocent lives when staging the hijacking of aircraft to provoke such a war.
2. Why did US policymakers draw up extensive plans to reassert US global hegemony – including regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – without any conceivable pretext until 9/11 conveniently unfolded?
In 2000, US policymakers from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) sought a sweeping plan to reassert America as a global hegemon. In a 90-page document titled, “Rebuilding America’s Defense: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century” (PDF), a strategy for maintaining what it called “American military preeminence” would be laid out in detail.
It involved global moves the United States – in 2000 – could never justify, including placing US troops in Southeast Asia, building a global missile defense network prohibited by treaties signed during the Cold War, and the containment of developing nations that would eventually end up rolling back US global hegemony in the near future, including Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea, Libya, and Syria.
The report noted the difficulties of proposing and executing the transformations necessary to achieve the objectives laid out in the document. It would be explicitly stated that:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
In fact, the entire body of the document is an uncanny description of the post-9/11 “international order,” an order unimaginable had the events of 9/11 not transpired.
It should also be remembered that wars predicated on 9/11 like the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, were admittedly planned before 9/11 took place.
The day before the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a report by a bipartisan commission of inquiry. The report pointed out that agreement on the plan, which involved a steady escalation of pressure over three years, had been repeatedly put off by the Clinton and Bush administrations, despite the repeated failure of attempts to use diplomatic and economic pressure.
While it seems inconceivable that the American or global public would tolerate the multi-trillion dollar 16 year war that the invasion of Afghanistan has become without the attacks on 9/11, such a war was admittedly in the making – in fact – years before 9/11 unfolded.
Similarly, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was strongly linked to the aftermath of 9/11, but was likewise decided upon long before 9/11 unfolded.
The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill told CBS News’ 60 Minutes.
This echos similar statements made by US Army General Wesley Clark who repeatedly warned that the US sought global-spanning war post-Cold War to assert its hegemony over the planet, and fully sought to use 9/11 as a pretext to do it.
General Clark would list seven nations slated for regime change post 9/11, including Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – all nations now either at war or facing war with the United States and its proxies – or in the case of Libya – entirely divided and destroyed in the wake of US military operations.
3. If primarily Saudi hijackers with Saudi money and Saudi organization perpetrated the attacks of 9/11, why has the United States waged war or threatened war with every nation in the Middle East except Saudi Arabia and its allies?
Not only has the United States made no moves against Saudi Arabia for its apparent role in the 9/11 attacks – spanning the administrations of US President George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump – the United States has sold Saudi Arabia billions in arms, provided military support and protection to Saudi Arabia’s military and government, partnered with Saudi Arabia in its ongoing conflict with Yemen – all while US government documents and leaked e-mails between US politicians reveal Saudi Arabia is still a state sponsor of Al Qaeda – the organization officially blamed for the 9/11 attacks.
If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).
The DIA memo then explains exactly who this “Salafist principality’s” supporters are:
The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.
This “Salafist principality” is now known as the “Islamic State,” an affiliate of Al Qaeda still operating with significant state sponsorship everywhere from Syria, Iraq, and Libya, to the Philippines and beyond.
Coincidentally, Saudi-armed and funded terrorists in the Philippines has served as a pretext for US military assets to begin expanding their presence in Southeast Asia, just as the aforementioned 2000 PNAC document had sought.
Additionally, in a 2014 e-mail between US Counselor to the President John Podesta and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it would be admitted that two of America’s closest regional allies – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – were providing financial and logistical support to the Islamic State.
…we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to [the Islamic State] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
While the e-mail portrays the US in a fight against the very “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) it sought to create and use as a strategic asset in 2012, the fact that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both acknowledged as state sponsors of the terrorist organization – and are both still enjoying immense military, economic, and political support from the United States and its European allies – indicates just how disingenuous America’s “war on terror” really is.
If the US truly believed Al Qaeda carried out the deadly attacks of 9/11, why does it count among its closest allies two of Al Qaeda’s largest and most prolific state sponsors?
Together – by honestly answering these three questions – we are left considering the very real possibility that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack carried out by foreign terrorists, but rather an attack engineered by special interests within the United States itself.
If we reject that conclusion, we must ask ourselves why the US DoD and JCS would take the time to draft plans for false flag attacks if they did not believe they were viable options US policymakers might seriously consider. At the very least we must ask why those at the DoD and JCS could be caught signing and dating a conspiracy to commit unspeakable terrorism to justify an unjust war and not only avoid criminal charges, but remain employed within the US government.
We must also ask ourselves why US policymakers would draft long-term plans for reasserting American global hegemony without any conceivable pretext to justify such plans. Even in the wake of 9/11, the US government found it difficult to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American public and its allies. Without 9/11, such salesmanship would have been impossible. In Syria – with 9/11 disappearing into the distant past – US regime change efforts have all but stalled.
Finally, we must find adequate explanations as to why those sponsoring the supposed perpetrators of 9/11 have remained recipients of unwavering American support, weapon sales, and both political and military protection. We must attempt to answer why militants fighting in Syria under the banner of Al Qaeda have been able to openly operate out of NATO-member Turkey’s territory for the past 6 years, side-by-side US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) personnel who are admittedly fueling the conflict with weapons, money, and training “accidentally” ending up in Al Qaeda’s hands.
It is clear – that at the very least – the official narrative in no shape, form, or way adds up. If the official narrative doesn’t add up, what does?
If you turn on your TV — even if you are watching subscription services — you cannot escape the mainstream media’s incessant harping on the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. The blood-hungry pundits from both the left and right have been crying for a month that their beloved war is finally coming to an end. Yet not a single outlet covers the reasons, or lack thereof, for why we invaded Afghanistan, killed thousands of their children, maimed countless American troops, and then gave the country over to the Taliban along with billions in weapons.
That reason was 9/11.
Since that fateful day, thousands of well-meaning people have worked tirelessly to uncover the details behind the events of 9/11 which set off decades of horrific wars and killed thousands of people. Many of those working on finding this information are not even from America. Few people realize that 67 citizens of the United Kingdom perished in the fiery inferno on that foreboding day, one of whom was Geoff Campbell.
For the last several years, Campbell’s family has been working to expose evidence, which they say shows the towers were blown up from the inside. Campbell’s family, supported by a team of scientists who have been studying the collapse of the buildings, claim the towers were laced with explosives which is what brought them down — not the airplanes.
“I believe there has been a cover-up. We have scientifically and forensically backed evidence that the official narrative surrounding the Twin Towers collapse on 9/11 is wrong,” Geoff’s older brother Matt Campbell said.
Last week, according to the Mirror, a 3,000-page dossier was handed to the Government’s top legal adviser, acting Attorney General Michael Ellis, detailing their case.
The Mirror reports, according to the family’s research, seismographic recordings picked up ground movement 12 miles from the North Tower, 15 seconds earlier than 8.46am, when a hijacked American Airlines jet struck the building.
“I believe that my brother and thousands of others were murdered on 9/11 and there has been a cover-up,” Matt Campbell said. “We are still overcoming this tragedy, but we will never stop seeking the truth.”
According to the report, the family is using the UK Coroners Act 1988 to present their case. According to the act, they must demonstrate that evidence not considered at the first inquest in 2014 may lead to a different verdict.
“Asking for this inquest is an important step,” said Maureen Campbell, Campbell’s mother. “We need the truth in order to heal.”
The Campbell family’s application includes letters of support from five other family members who lost loved ones in the destruction of the Twin Towers: Drew DePalma, son of Jean DePalma; Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of firefighter William Krukowski; Bob McIlvaine, father of Bobby McIlvaine; Kacee Papa, daughter of Edward Papa; and Iryna Upham, daughter of Iouri Mouchinski.
The application also includes witness statements from six scientific experts and from five eyewitnesses to the World Trade Center’s destruction, four of whom were first responders that day. All of the experts and eyewitness have offered to give testimony at the new inquest. Altogether, the application contains around 2,500 pages of evidence as well as select volumes of the official reports issued by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
While the results of Campbell’s evidence have yet to be revealed, back in America, there has been a slew of evidence released.
At the end of March 2020, researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks issued the final report of a four-year computer modeling study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Its results are nothing short of paradigm shifting.
On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m., World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly collapsed into its own footprint, falling at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second complete destruction. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. After it collapsed, Americans were told that office fires caused a unique — never before seen — complete architectural failure leading to the building collapsing into its own footprint at the rate of gravity.
Despite calls for the evidence to be preserved, New York City officials had the building’s debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place. Seven years later, federal investigators concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.
Naturally, skeptics like the Campbell family have been questioning the official story for some time and after moving from the realm of conspiracy theory into the realm of science, this extensive university study has found that the official story of fire causing the collapse is simply not true.
Last year, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth announced the completed partnership with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in their final report of an in depth four-year study on what they say actually brought down WTC 7. According to the press release, contrary to the conclusions of NIST, the UAF research team finds that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was not caused by fires but instead was caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the observed collapse,” said Professor Leroy Hulsey, the study’s principal investigator. “The only way it could have fallen in the observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column.”
After conducting comprehensive modeling and studying countless scenarios, the study’s authors, J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., UAF, Zhili Quan, Ph.D., Bridge Engineer South Carolina Department of Transportation, and Feng Xiao, Ph.D., Associate Professor Nanjing University of Science and Technology Department of Civil Engineering, concluded the following:
Fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
The results of this study cannot be dismissed. It completely destroys the narrative that has been shoved down the throats of Americans for nearly two decades. What’s more, this study backs up thousands of other researchers, scientists, and engineers who have been pointing this out for years.
Finally, after nearly two decades of ridicule, dismissal, and outright intolerance of information contrary to the “official story” of what happened on 9/11, the public may finally learn the whole truth of what happened and who was behind it.
What does it mean when intelligence services start describing the next terror attack . . . despite having no intelligence about it? And what does it mean when former cabinet officials start comparing bodily autonomy advocates to suicide bombers? There’s a false flag coming. And don’t you believe it when they pull it off.
By now, most of you have probably heard that Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s convicted assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, has finally been granted parole, and, as the following article indicates, it’s caused a bit of a split within the Kennedy family, understandably:
Granted, a recommendation of parole does not necessarily mean that Sirhan will be paroled. And in Sirhan’s case, there were witnesses that saw him in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles after Senator Kennedy had just won the Democratic state primary in California. And Sirhan was holding a gun, and according to some of the witnesses who wrestled him to the pantry table, he was still trying to squeeze the trigger.
In other words, Sirhan was attempting to assassinate the senator.
He was clearly implicated.
But there’s a few teensy weensy problems…
… the fatal wound in Senator Kennedy apparently came from behind his right ear… by most witness accounts Sirhan was standing in front of the Senator.
There’s another problem: Senator Kennedy’s autopsy showed the shot came from a gun very close to his head. Sirhan’s pistol was, according to many witnesses, at least three feet away.
As I detailed in my book Microcosm and Medium, there’s a great deal of persuasive evidence to argue that Sirhan was a creature – and victim – of mind control, a literal Manchurian Candidate.
That brings me to my point: Sirhan’s eventual potential release, or lack thereof, will hardly resolve the RFK assassination, any more than the Warren Report put the country at ease after the assassination of his brother, or than the apprehension of James Earl Ray put to rest the many frayed and questionable threads surrounding the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King. If anything, his potential release will focus a spotlight on the RFK assassination and the real murderers who used sophisticated mind manipulation techniques to create a Manchurian Candidate. And yes, for the record, I do think that Sirhan was a victim and creature of mind manipulation technology, and that the real assassins of Senator Kennedy roamed free, while a patsy took the fall. Sirhan is a living reminder that the people who pulled off the three great assassinations of the 1960s were never brought to justice, and is a living reminder that behind the veneer of a republic, America is really in the hands of an unelected deep state, its very own Venetian Council of Ten, that will stoop to anything – including mind manipulation and murder – to retain its power and agenda. That power has grown exponentially since the 1960s, since they no longer need Manchurian Candidates to assassinate people. They now have drones for that, and they have successfully installed – through dubious means – an easily manipulable mental basket case in the White-Out House.
It remains to be seen if Sirhan will actually be paroled, and if so, how he will spend his time. Will he seek to resolve his role in the RFK assassination? Will he write a book? Will he do interviews? Will he seek psychiatric help to try to find – through regressive hypnosis or some other means – whomever it was that programed him?
Or will he simply try to put it all behind him?
I don’t know the answers to those questions.
I do strongly suspect that the national nightmare, that is to say the people behind those assassinations, is probably still there for the simple reason that the JFK assassination represented a coup d’etat, and that the subsequent events and scandals up to our day represented the consequence: a government by false flags, contrived crises, fraudulent elections, fuzzy and secretive finance, deals with drug-dealing and human trafficking devils, Communists in Beijing… you name it.
by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
August 19, 2021
*NOTE: Unfortunately, my external mic was not plugged in for this conversation. Luckily, the audio is still understandable. Apologies for the inconvenience.
Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:
Story #1: “Graveyard of Empires” Claims Another Victim
DHS: “Potential Terror Threats – Opposition To Covid Measures, Claims Of Election Fraud, Belief Trump Can Be Reinstated, 9/11 Anniversary and Religious Holidays”
The story of the “end” of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan isn’t just about the end of the conflict there, it’s also about where it’s headed next. The Pentagon didn’t spend $2 trillion over 20 years to just walk away from one of the most valuable squares on the geopolitical chessboard empty handed. The possibility for full scale re-entry into the country is always there but in the meantime, there are plenty of lessons the Pentagon learned there that they’ll be employing stateside.
In the time since we published last week’s story on Biden’s wars, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated rapidly. American troops have already been redeployed as the Taliban stormed across the country to recapture the capital, the U.S.-back president has fled the country, and tragic scenes like those from the airport in Kabul are once again being broadcast to the world. Soon, the U.S.-created Al-Qaida may even be making a comeback.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. For millennia, Afghanistan has been a coveted piece of land which many have attempted to conquer but none have been able to subdue entirely. The Mongols, Persians, and Greeks all briefly absorbed Afghanistan into their ancient empires before ultimately withdrawing. In more recent history the British, Soviets, and now, Americans, have also been forced to make hasty retreats from the unconquerable nation, leaving rival factions to vie for power in their absence.
Knowing this, it’s reasonable to ask why the US and NATO would try yet again. Why lie about there being a connection between Osama bin Laden and the events of 9/11 in order to fight yet another battle for control over the graveyard of empires? A battle, history has proven, one is sure to lose.
One simple answer is that invasion of foreign lands usually enriches a select few of the invaders. Afghanistan sits on a reported $1 trillion worth of rare earth minerals ripe for exploitation by Western corporations. The lucrative opium trade has been helped along by the CIA throughout the U.S. occupation (but who needs opium and heroin when you have fentanyl). Military contractors and weapons manufacturers have handsomely racked in windfall profits at the expense of the Afghan people.
Then there’s the geopolitical power that comes with controlling Afghanistan. “Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power,” globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski reminded the world in his 1998 book, The Grand Chessboard. One of America’s grand ambitions in the country is to run a natural gas pipeline through it which would bypass Iran and Russia, breaking their co-monopoly on regional energy supplies. U.S. occupation of Afghanistan has also put a damper on China’s Belt-and-Road Initiative, but with a potential departure of American troops China’s ambitions in the country are quickly on the rise. The encirclement of Iran is made possible by continued occupation as well.
Another major reason to be in Afghanistan all this time has been made explicitly clear in the past few days. The military is going to take all the lessons it learned there and use them at home.
Again, this isn’t anything new. The U.S. military and their cohorts in the intelligence agencies have a thorough track records of testing things out on foreign populations before turning their eyes back on the domestic population. Chemical weapons used on the battlefield of Europe during World War I were eventually used at home on unknowing Americans. Intelligence spooks who’d spent years disrupting, infiltrating, sabotaging, and ultimately destroying Communist groups abroad deployed those same tactics against Americans who were opposed to “the Vietnam War, segregation, and other injustices.” During the Vietnam War, there were frightening parallels between the horrors being carried out by CIA-created assassins as part of the Phoenix Program and the serial killers stalking America, many of whom had deep military and intelligence ties. Then of course during the so-called War on Terror, Americans and the people in the counties being occupied had their civil liberties eroded greatly in the name of stopping the terrorist boogeymen.
This brings us to today. While Trump made sure that the might of the military-industrial-complex never faltered abroad, other social engineers were busy conditioning a domestic audience that the dangers posed by domestic extremists had never been greater. In Trump’s America, the rise of right wing “white supremacists” and “extremists” were once again touted as threatening to undo everything the great American experiment had worked so hard to create.
With the stage set it was easy for the powers that shouldn’t be to find an easy scapegoat to blame the failures of masking and lockdowns on during the COVID-19 pandemic that wasn’t. These selfish anti-science cretins were more concerning than the virus itself and their red state leaders like Ron DeSantis, and Kristie Noem were only egging them on by not locking them indoors and shutting down the local economy. When these “extremists” weren’t protesting against draconian government mandates they were committing non-stop hate crimes at a time against Black Lives Matters and Stop Asian Hate supports were having their fiery but mostly peaceful gatherings.
This narrative has only grown stronger under the Biden administration as lack of “vaccinations” and subsequent COVID “variants” are being blamed on these domestic threats. Couple this with the renewal of anti-American sentiment abroad on the eve of the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and you get the Department of Homeland Security issuing a new terror threat alert which warns of “racially- or ethnically-motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) and anti-government/anti-authority violent extremists” who “view the potential re-establishment of public health restrictions across the United States as a rationale to conduct attacks.” The DHS also notes their concern over “conspiracy theories on perceived election fraud and alleged reinstatement, and responses to anticipated restrictions relating to the increasing COVID cases” which are perpetuated by “Russian, Chinese and Iranian government-linked media outlets.”
If you have take any issue with the government reinstating lockdowns, bringing back mask mandates, or requiring experimental injections for participating in society then you are morally on par with the Taliban. If you doubt that Joe Biden received more votes than any other president in history then you are a white supremacist. If you have any questions about the official narrative surrounding the so-called pandemic you may be a dastardly Russian-Chinese-Iranian operative. Whatever the case, if any of this applies to you, the U.S. government now considers you a domestic terrorist threat.
What we can ultimately glean from this newly issued alert is that dark days lie ahead. We can be almost certain that totalitarian restrictions will remerge across the country and we should expect violent retaliation against such measures from both state actors and well-meaning, but fed up people. In the fallout from this, even more mandates, restrictions, and lockdowns (maybe worse) will be instated to deal with these terrorist threats. Problem, reaction, solution.
In these dark times however, we can still work towards growing and building a better future. Groups across the country work towards intervening in their local political scene to prevent or outlaw COVID-19 restrictions from ever coming back. Freedom cells and mutual aid societies continue to spring up and provide alternative for those of us tired of living in a society that would rather see us destroyed or dead. Millions are voting with their feet and relocating to areas with more freedom-oriented communities. None of these are silver bullet solutions but the one sure way to bring about this apocalypse is to do nothing about it.
The US Army just conducted a three-day exercise in collaboration with the New York City Police and Fire Department. The exercise simulated a nuclear and biological event on the NYC subway system and Yankee Stadium.
Similar drills are scheduled for Philadelphia and Los Angeles in the coming months of September and October.
This raises concerns because the US Military has a track record for conducting experiments on the population using deadly pathogens without the population’s knowledge or consent.
Right now there is no proof that anything nefarious is taking place. But if history has taught us anything, it’s that government exercises and drills provide the perfect the cover to conduct covert and illegal operations. The same sort of cover a declared pandemic provides.
Following the (completely contrived) Capitol Hill “riot” on January 6th, Joe Biden made it clear – or rather, the people that control Joe Biden made it clear – “domestic terrorism” was going to be a defining issue of his presidency.
Indeed, in an act of startling prescience, the incoming administration had been talking about a new “Domestic Terrorism Bill” for well over three months before the “riot” happened. The media had been calling for one for at least six. Major universities were writing papers about it.
It’s funny how often that happens, isn’t it?
I wrote at the time that the Capitol Hill “riot” could prove to be America’s Reichstag Fire – a fake attack, blamed on an invisible enemy and used to rush through restrictive legislation and emergency powers. A 9/11 sequel, extending the Patriot Act franchise.
The first thing to say about the “strategy”…is that it’s not really a strategy. It’s more of a mission statement or even a press release. It hits talking points, but not real policies. Its watchword is “vague” – in both definition of the problem and proposed solutions (with a couple of noteworthy exceptions, but we’ll get to that.)
For starters – who or what IS a “domestic terrorist”?
Well, their answer to that is, essentially, potentially anybody. They’re not identifying any particular ideology or cause or group – but rather EVERY ideology cause or group. I wrote, back in January, that any definition would be kept intentionally loose, and the strategy does not disappoint.
The cause of “domestic terrorism” can be racism, religious intolerance, environmental protest, anti-government feeling, animal rights, anti-abortion campaigners, “perceived government overeach”, “incel ideology”, “anti-corporate globalization feeling” or a mixture of any of the above.
“Domestic terrorists” may espouse violence or they may not espouse violence. They may work in groups, or be loners, or be loose associations with no organizational structure. They can be left wing or right wing, religious or secular.
They can be anybody who thinks anything.
There is a lot of entirely intentional vagueness here. Again and again, we are told that “the domestic terrorism threat is complex, multifaceted, and evolving”. They are keeping their options open.
Don’t expect ANY specifics on who is a “domestic terrorist” until AFTER any legislation is passed. That way, the great American public can insert their own personal bugbear into the ellipsis (and then be taken completely by surprise when it turns out the new laws apply to everyone).
That said, there have been some clues as to the kind of person that might be the target of any new anti-terror legislation.
In the Washington Post, in February this year, California State Senator Richard Pam wrote:
Anti-vaccine extremism is akin to domestic terrorism
Even this document makes insinuations on that front.
In a startling contradiction, after spending five or six pages talking up the “complex” and “unpredictable” nature of “domestic terrorism”, they then make an incredibly specific prediction about a future “domestic terrorist attack”:
Taken from the “Assessment of the Domestic Violent Extremism Threat” (p. 10):
Newer sociopolitical developments–such as narratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol, conditions related to the COVID–19 pandemic, and conspiracy theories promoting violence–will almost certainly spur some DVEs to try to engage in violence this year.
Apparently, the official position of the FBI, CIA, NSA and DHS is that domestic terrorism is a vast cloud of mystery, swirling with unknown and conflicting motivations….but they definitely know when the next attack will happen, and why it will take place..
SO WHAT’S TO BLAME?
The evil “domestic terrorists” and “violent extremists” might be widely diverse in their ideologies, social structures, motives and political leanings…but nevertheless, they ALL use the same exact methods of communication, and the same platforms to host their “misinformation”.
It turns out, according to this strategy, there’s really only one thing at the root of all “domestic terrorism”: The internet.
Yes, the vast majority of this “strategy” is focused on the digital world. In only 28 pages of text the words “online”, “social media”, “internet”, “platform”, “encryption”, and “site” occur well over 60 times combined. Here’s some examples:
…social media, file–upload sites, and end–to–end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety…
*
DVEs exploit a variety of popular social media platforms, smaller websites with targeted audiences, and encrypted chat applications to recruit new adherents, plan and rally support for in-person actions, and disseminate materials that contribute to radicalization and mobilization to violence
*
Recruiting and mobilizing individuals to domestic terrorism [is] increasingly happening on Internet–based communications platforms, including social media, online gaming platforms, file–upload sites, and end–to–end encrypted chat platforms
*
…extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.
*
DVE attackers often radicalize independently by consuming violent extremist material online.
It goes on, and on and on in that fashion.
As much as the Deep State talks up the supposedly unknowable nature of “domestic terrorism” early on, they are equally sure that every single one of them is on the net. Which, fortunately from the state’s point of view, means they can all be tackled with the same solution.
WHAT THEY’RE GONNA DO ABOUT IT
You probably don’t need me to tell you what the supposed “solution” to this entirely created “problem” is. It’s the same grab-bag of solutions that a power-hungry state will always seek, given the opportunity. Yes, there’s a token reference to guns and “high-capacity” magazines, but really it’s all about controlling the internet.
Specifically – it’s about surveillance, censorship, and propaganda. The big three.
Of course, the document never ever uses those words. Surveillance is “information gathering”. Propaganda is “messaging” or “education”. Censorship is “countering propaganda” or “working with media partners to remove incitement of violence”.
They use the shifting, indirect language of government, but the meaning is clear if you know how to read it:
…the Department of Homeland Security and others are either currently funding and implementing or planning evidence–based digital programming, including enhancing media literacy and critical thinking skills, as a mechanism for strengthening user resilience to disinformation and misinformation online for domestic audiences. The Department of State and United States Agency for International Development are doing similar work globally.
Translation: The DHS is funding massive propaganda campaigns designed to both brainwash the public, and discourage them from reading any sources which disagree with the official line.
The Department of Homeland Security has expanded its efforts to provide financial, educational, and technical assistance to those well placed to recognize and address possible domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence and will ensure that its counter–domestic terrorism prevention efforts are driven by data and informed by community–based partners.
Translation: DHS is working with social media monopolies to censor certain people, and paying them to pass citizens’ private information to the government and/or intelligence agencies.
Enhancing faith in American democracy demands accelerating work to contend with an information environment that challenges healthy democratic discourse. We will work toward finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories that can provide a gateway to terrorist violence.
Translation: “Enhancing faith in democracy” means censoring anybody who posts evidence that elections are fixed, that the political class is corrupt or that the media are servants of the state who peddle lies for cash.
And then there are some phrases that need no translation at all:
the Department of Justice is examining carefully what new authorities might be necessary and appropriate.
…seems pretty clear.
The obvious end goal here is new legislation granting greater powers to the state.
THE NATURE OF “VIOLENCE”
Time to address the elephant in the room: “violence”. The word is used a lot in the report. One-hundred and eleven times in 28 pages. It’s never just “extremism” when it can be “violent extremism”. But what does that word really mean in this context?
The answer to that is “absolutely nothing”. It is a phrase robbed of meaning. Applied on an ad hoc basis, based on political convenience rather than physical reality.
A reminder that this is described as “violent extremism”:
And this as “mostly peaceful”:
And this is “inciting violence”:
If the President of the United States can be deleted from the internet, impeached and tried before the Senate because “go home in peace and love” and “stay peaceful” are “inciting violence”, then the word is totally meaningless and we should simply ignore it.
Essentially, they have demonstrated they will classify anything they want as violent, and ignore any actual violence if they need to.
THE ROLE OF IDENTITY POLITICS
I doubt any White House policy announcement has ever leaned so heavily into the politics of identity before now. “Hatred”, “bigotry”, “LGBTQI+” “racism”…and so on. They all get a lot of mentions. But why?
Well, the simple answer is camouflage. Generally, by draping the inevitable Patriot Act 2.0 in the language of identity, they can trick “liberals” into believing it’s some kind of progressive policy.
More specifically, they can align “anti-government” with “white-supremacy”, as if they are always the same. In this sentence for example:
Today’s domestic terrorists espouse a range of violent ideological motivations, including racial or ethnic bigotry and hatred as well as anti–government or anti–authority sentiment…
Look at the other causes listed alongside “White supremacy” in this document: “perceived government overreach”, “anti-corporate globalization”, “opposing government institutions”, “anti-authority sentiment”. Rational, reasonable anti-government positions, bracketed alongside bigotry and racism.
General Mark Miley recently testified in front of the senate about how the need to “understand white rage”.
As Glen Greenwald wrote, this is not about racism, but about aligning the “progressive left” with the military. Turning militaristic, totalitarian Imperialism into a progressive cause, whilst smearing all those who oppose it as bigots and potential “domestic terrorists”.
THE WAY AHEAD
This strategy is just the latest domino put in place. It’s a long con, with multiple moving pieces, but the end is clear. Though this document is deliberaletely cagy about the possibility of new legislation, that is all part of the dance.
The manipulation of the public has been government practice since the dawn of time. The contrived public reticence to act, concealing intrigues behind the scenes which create an apparent need for action. Eventually, the public will beg the state to “do something”, and they’ll unveil the something they were planning the whole time. Tale as old as time. True as it can be.
This is no different.
Only last night, the US Senate voted to create a “select committee” investigating the Capitol Hill riot. This political pantomime will roll on for a few weeks with “shocking testimony” from FBI agents and military intelligence operatives.
They will detail how “misinformation radicalised people online”, alongside admitting they “had knowledge, but lacked the power to act” or that “counter-terrorism forces were focused on foreign groups” and/or lacked “legal authority” to surveil domestic threats. There will be a couple of throwaway admissions, something akin to a “failure of imagination”.
Senators from liberal states will make speeches about how the military/CIA/FBI are institutionally racist because they assumed white people can’t be terrorists, and a few willing uniformed fall guys will look appropriately shame-faced behind their medals.
There will be no real inquest, and no new information. It will be an exercise in reinforcing an entirely fake reality. And the final findings will be that the FBI/CIA/NSA…or whoever…needs more money and power. A new bill (likely already written) will be pushed into the hands of some hip “liberal” politician, who will do a decent job pretending they wrote it.
If there is any noteworthy public objection to the new powers, well then we’ll see another “domestic terrorist” attack. Maybe there’ll be one anyway, just to underline how vital the new bill is. (They’re prepping us already, with the DHS warning about attacks on July 4th and a possible “summer of violence”).
And then, stirring itself to act only at the insistence of the Democrat-controlled Senate, the White House will sign-off on its Patriot Act 2.0.
The final paragraph of the strategy document reads:
This document represents that Strategy – a Strategy whose implementation is, already, well underway.
Our friends in the alternative media have rejected the official mainstream and government narrative on every major topic of the last 100 years. They’ve refused to believe the rubber-stamped accounts of the 9/11 World Trade Centre attacks, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the war in Syria, the Oklahoma bombing, the Sandy Hook school shooting, the Jewish Holocaust, the Moon Landings and the death of Jeffrey Epstein, among other subjects. In most cases, their repudiation of the official story has been justified and they have been bravely unwavering in their disavowal of the corporate media rhetoric, sometimes to the detriment of their reputations and careers. Vociferously and consistently, they have challenged the official story.
So why now are many of them doing an about-face, going along with the government-backed, MSM-pushed Wuhan Lab Leak theory? Don’t they know that the most far-fetched conspiracy theories are those that are promoted by the Deep State? Don’t they know that the most baseless and ludicrous of fabricated disinformation campaigns are born of government and disseminated by the mainstream media? QAnon is one example – a movement shown to have ties to US military intelligence and Big Tech. The lab leak tale is the latest.
Who would have thought that we would see We Are Change’s Luke Rudkowski, for example, on the same page as Mockingbird characters like Jon Stewart, who now appears regularly on prime time TV shows in the US, propagandizing the fictitious lab leak myth?! Who would have thought that the journalists of the Guardian newspaper would find common ground with the editors of Summit News, as both outlets promote the latest psychological manipulation of the masses?
It is all simply an effort to convince the population that SARS-COV-2 and COVID-19 exist.
They don’t.
Almost a year ago, I wrote a book called The COVID-19 Illusion; A Cacophony of Lies. Even back then, in the very early stages of the pandemic hoax, there was a dearth of evidence to show that the SARS-COV-2 virus, far from been made in a lab, was instead made up in someone’s mind. Why bother to go to all the trouble and hard work of engineering a virus, when you can create the illusion of one? Why the necessity of releasing a wayward virus among the nations of the world, when you can just create the perception of one, leaving you in complete control of it?! The idea that there is a deadly virus raging rampant throughout our planet has proven to be enough to convince billions of people that they should line up for an emergency use, unapproved, experimental, gene therapy, which of course, has always been the end goal. No lab leak necessary. Incessant propaganda and government lies get the job done in a more efficient and timely manner than any manufactured infectious agent ever could.
Even if we were to suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine that there was a conspiracy to discharge a lethal microorganism into the world, with the aim of depopulating the planet, killing off huge swathes of the population – wouldn’t you, if it was you had funded the dastardly plan, be asking for a refund now? I know, if I had purchased a made-to-order pathogen and it turned out to have a 99.97% survival rate among those who were infected and was only efficacious when it came to killing octogenarians in nursing homes, I sure would. I’d be pretty pissed to think that I’d paid to have a virus created that is less deadly than regular influenza. Damn right, I’d want my money back.
We’re expected to believe that Dr. Anthony Fauci is responsible for the lab leak. We’re told that this man, who was outed via FOIA requests made by Buzzfeed – an organisation that has been closely involved with a government-funded information warfare group called Open Technology Fund – and the Washington Post – owned by Jeff Bezos, who has profited immensely from the pandemic hoax – is culpable for the 3.9 million deaths that have supposedly occurred worldwide since the beginning of the pandemic. That’s 1300 times more people than Osama Bin Laden was accused of killing on 9/11. With Bin Laden, we bombed entire nations in oblivion, killed him and threw his body into the sea. But with Fauci, we’re going to pass the Fire Fauci Act, and he’ll be handed a pink slip, forcing him into retirement. What a horrible, cruel punishment for an 80-year-old multi-millionaire, who supposedly helped kill millions of people.
Who writes this stuff? And how do some people who are supposedly investigative journalists fall for it?
As well as the crew at Buzzfeed and the Washington Post, there are others in the media industry pushing this scam. One, in particular, is Michael R. Gordon. of the Wall Street Journal. Gordon has been lying on behalf of his handlers for decades. He holds the distinction of being one of the very first journalists in the world to allege the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In a September 8th 2002 article titled ‘US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest For A-Bomb Parts’, Gordon cited anonymous sources. Today he is citing undisclosed intelligence reports as proof of the Wuhan hoax. We all know how reliable his WMD sources were 19 years ago, yet still, there are those in the independent media who advance his pseudo-journalism today, buying into the latest psyop.
With all this in mind, and in the knowledge that the mainstream media, and seemingly some within the alternative media, want us distracted, believing that COVID-19 does indeed exist, it’s important to remember a few points – most of which are covered in greater detail in my book.
–By the admission of the CDC, SARS-COV-2 has never been isolated. It has never ever been proven to exist. Koch’s postulates have not been performed, as they should be to identify any new virus.
-Despite (allegedly) hundreds of millions of cases of COVID-19, there does not exist any electron microscope (EM) photograph of the SARS-COV-2 virus. What we have seen so far, are a handful of digitally simulated images and artists renderings.
-The diagnosis of COVID-19 is based on a PCR test. Hundreds of millions of cases have been ‘confirmed’ using this method. The PCR test is not reliable, should not be used to diagnose illness (according to its inventor, Kary Mullis) and has even been called into question by the World Health Organization. Therefore, the hundreds of millions of diagnosed cases, which have sparked mass vaccinations and unconstitutional lockdowns, are based on lies.
-Death rates in nations worldwide have remained the same, or in some cases, decreased since the WHOs declaration of a pandemic in March 2020. In the UK, for example, age-standardised mortality rates have been at the lowest level ever recorded. So what has the engineered virus been doing all this time?
– It’s not a new concept. Pandemics have been manufactured before. The 2009 Swine Flu was deliberately designed to foment panic and sell vaccines. This was even acknowledged by Forbes magazine, before they pulled their article in October 2020.
-The vast majority of reported deaths from COVID-19 were of elderly patients who had been moved out of hospitals and transferred into care homes, where they would no longer receive the treatment that was required for the illnesses they were initially hospitalised for. On top of that, it is reported that a huge number of those who died had been on ventilators, which evidently damaged and then blew out their lungs. This has been confirmed by numerous whistleblowers in destinations worldwide such as Italy, the UK and the US, proving that any major wave of death that did occur was due to the genocide of the elderly by government-backed eugenicists, as opposed to the contraction of a deadly contagion.
– Health officials worldwide have instructed hospital staff to label everybody who dies after testing positive for COVID-19 as a COVID-19 death, even if they were sick from other illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes. In some cases, car crash victims and people who had been terminally ill for months have been certified as COVID-19 deaths. This is a deliberate scam, aided by a faulty PCR test, in an effort to boost numbers, turning up the level of fear that little bit more.
Ignoring facts such as these, in favour of an MSM-sponsored conspiracy theory citing the dubious claims of dubious groups and dubious individuals, the so-called independent journalists are doing a disservice to themselves and to their audience.
Until we can develop immunity to the powerful propaganda and the psychological attacks that have been waged upon us, and finally, see what is very plain to be seen – that COVID-19 is a hoax – we will not progress and we will remain in the nightmarish dystopia that has been thrust upon us.
“They’re in a hurry because people are waking up. And they’re waking up to the fact that what they want to put into place is not only inhuman, it’s anti-human…
“Ultimately, Daniel, I think they’re going to fail — and fail big time — because when you’re in a hurry you make mistakes…
“They may think they’ve snookered the world with this covid thing but I don’t see it. That narrative is falling apart really fast…
“And the other problem they have is they want to centralize things when, I think, the trend made possible by all this technology is exactly the opposite direction.”
~ Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
,,,
“This government has lied about the Kennedy assassination. It has lied about Watergate. It has lied about Ruby Ridge. It has lied about Waco. It has lied, lied, lied, lied. And now all of a sudden we’re going to believe it with UFOs? Count me out.”
“It will be interesting to see what ‘enemy’ develops in the years ahead. It appears that ‘UFOs and Aliens’ are being primed to fulfill that role for the future.”
~ Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty – Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff
UFOs and Global Control
Join Dark Journalist for this fascinating interview with Dr. Joseph Farrell on the origin of the Alien Invasion Op and the involvement of Nazi Rocket Scientists.
Dr. Farrell goes deep on the NASA Rocket Scientist Wernher von Braun and his prescient Prediction of a False Alien Invasion Op that would be created by the National Security State as a pretext to weaponize space.
Topics include:
Paperclip Nazi scientists
Global control from space
Von Braun prediction
False flag UFO threat
Secret finance
X-Technology
Genuine UFO file research
Book mentioned by Daniel Liszt: We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle by Bill Kaysing
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
“As a result of the big marketing op, Daniel, I’ve become increasingly skeptical of the ET narrative. Because they’re up to something and it doesn’t have our best interest at heart.
Whether they trot out the Christ ET or whether they trot out the alien invaders, they’re up to something.
So, I don’t trust anything that this government says. And they’re doing this, I think, as a result of the COVID planscamdemic kind of blowing up in their faces.
And I’ve always suspected that there was some sort of genetic tagging and marking thing going on with this operation that may or may not be directly related to this whole UFO thing.”
~ Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
“It reads like a deep state alien invasion op and it comes on the heels of the COVID op. That’s one hell of a timing.”
~ Daniel Liszt
Topics include:
War game exercises under the ocean
US Navy exotic technology experiments
Ties to The Great Reset
Global control from space
Strange things going on in Antarctica
Admiral Byrd’s Operation HIGHJUMP
Wernher von Braun’s prediction, via Carol Rosin, regarding weaponization of space
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Today, politics and fear are the driving force continuing the most extreme and severe restrictions on freedoms and individual liberties in Canadian history. The question is, are all these based on science, and, can we trust the politicians in this country to ever let things return to normal? For the first time in history, Canadians are being conditioned to believe that living under a medical dictatorship is normal, that freedom is selfish, and that suffering is for the good of all.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Drills as Covers for Real Operations: A Cyber-Demic?
One would have to look far and wide in alternative researchdom, I suppose, to find anyone who wasn’t a bit suspicious about “drills” being used as cover for real operations. Anyone familiar with the deep background story of 9/11 is aware of a raft of military and civilian drills occurring on that day, many of which conveniently mimicked aspects of the real happenings that day, including injecting “false returns” on radar for jets that weren’t really there, hijackings, and so on. Similarly, many are aware of the Event 201 “pandemic drill” of 2020 that, again, mimicked almost perfectly the covid planscamdemic. Indeed, some people argue that “they” simply took the Event 201 “drill” live with the planscamdemic.
So in the spirit of forewarned is forearmed, this article shared by E.G. should be carefully pondered, for the subject is a massive “drill” to game out a large scale cyber-attack, and the resulting collapse of supply chains:
The WEF, Russia’s Sberbank, and its cybersecurity subsidiary BIZONE announced in February that a new cyberattack simulation would occur July 9, 2021. The event will simulate a supply-chain cyberattack similar to the SolarWinds attack that would “assess the cyber resilience” of the exercise participants.
The exercise comes several months after the WEF, the “international organization for public-private cooperation” that counts the world’s richest elite among its members, formally announced its movement for a Great Reset, which would involve the coordinated transition to a Fourth Industrial Revolution global economy in which human workers become increasingly irrelevant. This revolution, including its biggest proponent, WEF founder Klaus Schwab, has previously presented a major problem for WEF members and member organizations in terms of what will happen to the masses of people left unemployed by the increasing automation and digitalization in the workplace.
New economic systems that are digitally based and either partnered with or run by central banks are a key part of the WEF’s Great Reset, and such systems would be part of the answer to controlling the masses of the recently unemployed. As others have noted, these digital monopolies, not just financial services, would allow those who control them to “turn off” a person’s money and access to services if that individual does not comply with certain laws, mandates and regulations.
Now as regular readers of this website are well aware, I have little use and almost nothing but scorn for Ernst Stavro Klaus Blohschwab and the World Economic Fleecing (which is what we call the World Economic Forum on this website). So I would put nothing bast them but to stage another drill, and then attempt to “turn it live”.
But what really intrigues me here is that the World Economic Fleecing is actually admitting something that I and others have been trying to warn about for some time: an all-digital world with digital “currencies” and digital “trades” in digital “securities” and “equities” is just asking for trouble… beaucoups trouble, and that for a very simple reason: it’s a single point of failure that could be brought down by any number of methods: cyber-attacks (or hacking as we used to say), massive power failure, electro-magnetic pulse, or as simple a thing as coordinated special teams attacks on the actual hardware choke points holding it all together (think of those attacks on California electrical sub-stations in Sillycon Valley or the cable-cutting in San Franfreakshow a few years ago). Here’s their admission in all its cold, stark, reality:
The newly updated event website, Cyber Polygon 2021, ominously warns as the world is more interconnected and global digitalization accelerates “a single vulnerable link is enough to bring down the entire system, just like the domino effect. A secure approach to digital development today will determine the future of humanity for decades to come.”
So has Mr. Globaloney learned his lesson?
Hardly, for as the article goes on to note, such pre-fab crises often pop up when Mr. Globaloney wants to institute some sort of major change. As the above quotation also suggests, however, that change is still predicated on digital systems: “A secure approach to digital development today will determine the future of humanity for decades to come.”
Uh huh…
To put that point a bit differently, the world’s current system is sort of like a digital version of a Rube Goldberg machine, or a digital version of the old children’s game Mouse Trap: a hopelessly overly complex contraption designed to do a simple thing: in this case, catch a mouse (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrXjo9saurg). So the solution that Mr. Globaloney wants is apparently to add more digital versions of rubber bands, cranks, cogs, gears, winches, pulleys, strings, and other contraptions to it. All those things, like the game, are I suspect to keep us all busy and occupied marveling at how it all works and missing it when it doesn’t…
…except there’s a question being dodged, and it’s a significant one, and we can cast it in two forms: (1) What will Mr. Globaloney be using? and (2) how did we ever survive handling supply chains, running railroads, truck companies, ships, and airplanes for all those years without computers? How did all those countries at the beginning of World War One move all those millions of men into the exact position to the square yard for the start of military operations without computers and do so in a matter of a mere three to four weeks? How did we ever manage to buy and sell stocks, go to the grocery store? In short, transact? How will we run all those freight trains and trucks and supplies without computers?
Lessee… well, there were things called invoices, bills of exchange, bills of lading, semaphores, checks, cash, telephones, telegraphs, Pony Expresses, stage coaches, and steam engines (all highly secure from cyber attacks and electro-magnetic pulse, though vulnerable to things like Comanches and robbers and pirates). We navigated the oceans without GPS, by using old fashioned things like astrolabes and compasses and sextants (and with our digital reliance, could we navigate using such things now? Would we even remember how?) We designed and built those ships and steam engines and airplanes using slide rules and drafting tables…not CAD (Computer Aided Design).
In short, we did it. And to put it country simple: analogue worked… and worked well…
Don’t forget it, because Mr. Globaloney would like us all to think he has, and that we should…
See you on the flip side…
The Opening Act of the New “War On Domestic Terror”
Whitney Webb is joining me today to discuss what appears to be the “opening act” of the new US war, the “War on YOU.”
As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant.
The media are already spinning a narrative around the events in Washington DC. One that bears no resemblance to reality, does not hold up to any kind of scrutiny and will have massive, far-reaching consequences for all of us.
They’re calling it “one of the darkest days in our nations history”, a day that will “live in infamy”. It will likely be memed into a shorthand date – 1/6/21, like 9/11 and 7/7. It will be the day “American democracy was attacked and prevailed”, the day the nation nearly fell to “fascists”.
It will become just one more grand sweeping illusion upon which the teetering structures of US Imperial power are built.
The story we are being told goes as follows:
Yesterday, as congress was preparing to pass the vote endorsing Joe Biden’s election victory, thousands of violent right-wing thugs stormed the Capitol building.
Acting according to Trump’s wishes, and with his endorsement, these domestic terrorists overran the police barricades in an attempt to overthrow the senate and preserve Trump’s presidency.
Fortunately the police were able to secure the situation, drive the violent rioters out and the democratic process was able to continue.
Not one single part of this story is true:
There was no “storming”
There was no “incitement”
There was no “violence”
And the riot effectively ended Trump’s presidency.
2. There was no “incitement”. All of Trump’s social media posts on the subject instructed people to “go home” “with peace and love”.
Is that inciting violence?
Twitter and facebook took the totally unprecedented step of completely removing those posts, and blocked him posting any further. They claimed to be preventing further violence, but it looks more like they concealed Trump’s denunciations of violence.
3. There was no violence. Indeed whether or not Trump “incited” anything is moot, because there was no violence. Disregard the reports of chemical weapons, pipe bombs or IEDs – none of which ever appeared. None of the “rioters” are as yet shown to have hurt anyone.
The only person reportedly killed or injured was a protester allegedly shot by the police. Compare and contrast the attitude of the media to this “violence”, vs the “fiery but mostly peaceful” protests all last summer.
4. The riot ended Trump’s presidency. Although the Congressional session was widely described in the press as the “confirmation vote” for Joe Biden’s election victory, it was actually rather more than that.
VP Mike Pence was chairing a joint-session which intended to allow full speeches from those opposing the election and maintaining there had been fraud.
The violence brought this session to an end prematurely, totally undermined Trump’s legal and procedural challenges and killed any chance he had of overturning the electrical college vote. No sooner was the “attack” over, than many of the Republicans in both houses who were planning to oppose Biden’s election backed-down
So, who has really benefitted from the “chaos at the Capitol”? Because it surely isn’t Donald Trump.
One should always be wary of any event which “accidentally” achieves the exact opposite of its stated or apparent intent.
* * *
In the title, I refer to this as America’s Reichstag fire, and that’s not just emotive language, the parallels are pretty clear: A staged attack on a political building, deliberately misattributed to political enemies and used to consolidate the power of a freshly installed leader.
Even the media coverage is similar, the Nazi government and their tools in the press talked about it in the same exact terms as the US establishment is describing this farcical “coup attempt”. Aiming to terrify people into thinking they were on the verge of an all-out civil war.
Read this quote, and ask yourself if it couldn’t be lifted almost completely from the front page of the Washington Post or New York Times today:
The burning of the Reichstag was intended to be the signal for a bloody uprising and civil war. Large-scale pillaging in Berlin was planned for as early as four o’clock in the morning on Tuesday. It has been determined that starting today throughout Germany acts of terrorism were to begin against prominent individuals, against private property, against the lives and safety of the peaceful population, and general civil war was to be unleashed…
Within 24 hours of the Reichstag burning, the German President had passed the Reichstag Fire Decree, which declared a state of emergency that totally reversed every civil right the Weimar Republic had guaranteed its citizens:
Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications.
While these freedoms have already been severely undermined in the US by the Patriot Act and its successors, those few rights left to American citizens will definitely be under threat once Trump is finally removed and Biden (or Harris) is put in his place.
Although there is not yet any talk of legislation, it’s certainly true there are whispers of purges and other measures to “protect the constitution”.
As Twitter and Facebook limit discussion, alternative platforms will be shutdown. Enforcing a corporate monopoly the cooperates with the state…the very definition of fascism.
All this in the name of protecting the nation from “neo-nazi thugs” or “white supremacists” or other phantom threats. In the name of “protecting the constitution”, they are tearing it to pieces. In the name of “preventing a coup”, they are carrying one out in front of our eyes.
It puts in mind Huey Long’s famous quote when asked if fascism would ever come to America:
“Sure, we’ll have Fascism in this country and we’ll call it anti-Fascism.”
“The House Cat Flu” Pandemic is Coming. The Meow Apocalypse…
he following episode of the Simpsons was released in 2010.
It is a satire. But at the same time it reveals the unspoken truth. The writer of the script is an award winning author and political analyst. Michael Price
This episode was not “taken out of the blue”? In 2010 when The House Cat Flu episode was broadcast on TV in November 2010, the World was recovering from the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic which turned out to be “fake”.
In the Meow Apocalypse, it was a campaign against the house cat.
In the REAL LIFE 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic, it was a worldwide campaign against the pig. Hundreds of thousands of pigs were slaughtered.
The WHO was and remains controlled by Big Pharma. In 2009, WHO Director General Margaret Chan ordered 4.9 billion doses of an H1N1 vaccine from the pharmaceutical industry. It was a multibillion dollar scam.
And there lessons to be drawn in regards to the ongoing 2020-2021 corona crisis.
scroll down for details on the H1N1 Swine flu pandemic scam.
In 2009, hundreds of thousands of pigs were executed Worldwide, despite the fact that the WHO had confirmed that there was no danger of transmission from pigs to humans.
Based on incomplete and scanty data, the WHO Director General nonetheless predicted with authority that: “as many as 2 billion people could become infected over the next two years — nearly one-third of the world population.” (World Health Organization as reported by the Western media, July 2009).
It was a multibillion bonanza for Big Pharma supported by the WHO’s Director-General Margaret Chan.
In June 2009, Margaret Chan made the following statement:
“On the basis of … expert assessments of the evidence, the scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met. I have therefore decided to raise the level of influenza pandemic alert from Phase 5 to Phase 6. The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic. … Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), Press Briefing 11 June 2009)
A financial windfall for Big Pharma Vaccine Producers including GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck & Co., Sanofi, Pfizer. et al.
The same Big Pharma companies are also behind the coronavirus pandemic.
Fake News, Fake Statistics, Lies at the Highest Levels of Government
The media went immediately into high gear (without a shred of evidence). Fear and Uncertainty. Public opinion was deliberately misled
“Swine flu could strike up to 40 percent of Americans over the next two years and as many as several hundred thousand could die if a vaccine campaign and other measures aren’t successful.” (Official Statement of Obama Administration, Associated Press, 24 July 2009).
“The U.S. expects to have 160 million doses of swine flu vaccine available sometime in October”, (Associated Press, 23 July 2009)
Wealthier countries such as the U.S. and Britain will pay just under $10 per dose [of the H1N1 flu vaccine]. … Developing countries will pay a lower price.” [circa $40 billion for Big Pharma?] (Business Week, July 2009)
But the pandemic never happened.
There was no pandemic affecting 2 billion people…
Millions of doses of swine flu vaccine had been ordered by national governments from Big Pharma. Millions of vaccine doses were subsequently destroyed: a financial bonanza for Big Pharma, an expenditure crisis for national governments.
There was no investigation into who was behind this multibillion fraud.
Several critics said that the H1N1 Pandemic was “Fake”
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.” (Forbes, February 10, 2010)
The Western media which provided daily coverage of the pandemic, remained mum (with some exceptions) on the issue of financial fraud and disinformation.
I should emphasize that the present Public Health Crisis concerning China’s novel coronavirus is of an entirely different nature to that of H1N1.
But there important lessons to be learnt from the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic:
The fundamental issue we must address pertaining to both present as well as previous public health emergencies:
Can we trust the Western media?
Can we trust the World Health Organization (WHO)?
Can we trust the US government including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), all of which are serving the interests of Big Pharma (at tax payers’ expense)?
NY SB416: Quarantine Camps & Forced Vaccinations — This Has Got to End Now. Do You Love Freedom Enough?
New York Senate Bill 416 authorizes quarantine of individuals or groups who “potentially pose a threat to public health,” including forced testing and vaccinations. This must stop now. This Ice Age Farmer broadcast is NOT available on youtube due to the subject matter.
This is an Orange: A Reminder of Deadly Lies Told to Us by Our Government
This is an Orange: A Reminder of Deadly Lies Told to Us by Our Government
This Is an Orange. Now Take a Look at World Trade Tower 7 as It Collapses.
by Anthony Lawson
published on YouTube 13 years ag with 1.3 million views video sourced from Mark Taliano
Original video is available at Anthony Lawson YouTube channel.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Transcript:
This is an orange. If you were told it was something else, you wouldn’t believe it, would you?
This is called visual identification, based on experience.
This building is about to be destroyed in what is called a controlled demolition. Buildings do not do this spontaneously.
Here is another example of a controlled demolition. The initial charges are spaced about one second apart. And you can see that each section begins falling separately. Successful demolitions require that all structural support columns collapse at virtually the same time. If they don’t, or if something else goes wrong, the result will look something like this.
This is World Trade Center 7 just before it collapsed on September the 11th 2001. It had not been hit by an aircraft. It had been damaged by falling debris and fire. But by 5 20 pm, most of the fires have been extinguished.
Although the building was 47 stories high, it doesn’t fall sideways nor collapse unevenly. For this to have happened, all of the buildings vertical supports must have given way at almost exactly the same time.
Yet the Federal Emergency Management Agency reported that the collapse was due primarily to fire.
But what does it look like to you?
As of July 2007 there is no final report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, but the National Institute of Standards and Technology still rules out a controlled demolition.
So the question is, do you believe what you can see with your own eyes or do you believe what you are told.
Video was dedicated to the victims of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq… and to those who may be next.
Join members of the World Freedom Alliance as Dr. Heiko Schöning discusses his research into the alarming history of the current media buzz phrase ‘Dark Winter’, its close relevance to the Coronavirus outbreak, the 2020 US elections and even the 2001 Amerithrax attacks.
Heiko Schöning, vice president of World Freedom Alliance
[Original video available at Oracle Films BrandNewTube channel. As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Why Do Hypocritical Officials Violate Their Own COVID Rules? | The Open Secret
Why Do Hypocritical Officials Violate Their Own COVID Rules? The Open Secret
The latest example of hypocrisy is Dr. Deborah Birx, White House coronavirus advisor. It turns out she traveled to meet her family for Thanksgiving after telling Americans not to travel, not to gather with family outside their immediate households.
Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, told the public they should celebrate Thanksgiving outdoors. Then he was caught having dinner, indoors, at a restaurant, unmasked, with 12 people.
There are other examples.
The usual explanation: these officials are arrogant and believe they’re above the law. They want to thumb their noses at the little people.
Yes, no doubt. But a more direct reason is staring us in the face.
The hypocritical officials know the whole COVID pandemic is a fraud.
They know there is no danger.
They know the lockdowns are unnecessary.
That’s why these officials break their own rules.
Why would they expose themselves to “the virus,” unless they knew they were safe?
Some of them believe they’re trapped in a political apparatus that offers no exit. They must go along with the show. They must participate in the fraud because, for example, federal dollars flow into their states, and those dollars are contingent on “playing the COVID game.”
Other officials have been bribed, blackmailed, threatened.
Regardless, they know they can flout their own rules because there is no health risk, no danger.
The risk is on the level of betting on a boxing match, when the bout is fixed, and you know who will win.
People will say, “These officials aren’t smart enough to figure out COVID is a fraud.”
You don’t have to be smart, you don’t have to understand all the intricate details of the fake test, the fake case and death numbers based on the test. You just need to understand enough.
You just need to be clued in.
This would suggest the COVID fraud is an open secret, shared by many in power. I believe that is exactly the case.
For purposes of comparison, consider a level of “secret understanding” slightly above that of politicians. Government scientists.
These scientists are fully aware that the PCR test for COVID is a complete hoax—for reasons I’ve detailed over the past nine months. Therefore, the scientists also know the case numbers based on those tests are fraudulent. And they know the case numbers are used as the rationale for the lockdowns.
That’s a lot of knowing. That’s a lot of “open secret.”
Here’s another comparison. PCR techs in labs all over the world, who are running the test, are fully cognizant of the crimes they’re committing every day—by utilizing “too many cycles” and therefore destroying any shred of validity when diagnosing ANYTHING.
Sharing this open secret among themselves, they otherwise remain silent.
Getting the picture?
The open secret of the COVID fraud isn’t confined to a dozen people in a sealed room. It’s high and wide. It’s understood by many in positions of power and responsibility, all over the world.
You can add your own lists of “secret sharers.” Mainstream physicians, for example. Physicians who are in charge of administering the COVID vaccines they know are unnecessary and dangerous. They also remain silent. So do certain news media people.
And since there are so many people who know the real score, we can begin to see the degree and extent of complicity that is driving the whole pandemic hoax.
This isn’t only a small conspiracy of movers and shakers who planned it and launched it.
This is a very wide-ranging conspiracy of silence.
“Don’t blame me. I’m just following orders.”
“But you know COVID is a total fraud.”
“Of course I know.”
“And you know others who know.”
“Many others.”
“Case closed.”
Which is to say, case WIDE OPEN.
The COVID situation is directly analogous to the Nazi, USSR, and Chinese bureaucracies; faceless workers passing on and obeying orders.
Many of the workers know those orders, no matter how they are dressed up, are arbitrary and evil.
The orders are initiated to destroy lives and freedom, and are transferred through the human machinery of The Complicit Silent Ones.
Dark Journalist Special Report LiveStream: Continuity of Government (COG) Vs. The Constitution Newsweek “Anonymous” COG NORTHCOM General Controversy!
Excerpts from Introduction:
“…This is our special update now and it pertains to the Trump administration and the battle that’s going on there, in a attempt by some continuity of government officials from Northcom who are trying to spread massive fear through a Newsweek article by one of Newsweek’s top writers…”
“…as I’ve discovered in talking with Professor Peter Dale Scott, who knows — really has brought forward the continuity of government program — we’ve had him on this show discussing it — we really have brought that fact through, that the continuity of government program’s a complete usurpation of the constitution of the United States. And it’s still in full effect and, in fact, was invoked on September 11th by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
“This is very serious because we’ve never actually gotten out of that state of emergency that we were put into as a result of the September 11th attacks. And it was September 14th 2001 when they put us in that position. So this underground government, Continuity of Government people, who exist as a counterpart to the regular government in the case of massive emergency, you know, originally were brought on board because of nuclear reasons, because they thought in the 50s ‘hey we’re gonna get nuked potentially and we need a whole underground set up in order to run things after the fact in case it’s a surprise attack’.
“So, in fact, it was again set up with kind of lofty ambitions but got taken over as time went along. And one of the things I want to point out is when we talk about the set up of the continuity of government , it’s gone through these phases. That, you know, something Professor Scott has pointed out that every deep event that has happened in American history, whether it was Watergate or the JFK assasination…”
“…What I see is that when you go through time — September 11 event, Iran Contra — all these various aspects have some Co of G players embedded…”
“…and it involves a communication network which you can not track and it’s outside of the reach of the NSA or any of these things because of the nature of its ultra secrecy. The problem is, when someone gets their hands on that and abuses it, what do we do on the surface here? And that’s the challenge that we’re facing.
“…So this thing is so ultra secret that we, as citizens, have no idea what’s going on…”
[As a service to protect truth from censorship & to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Catherine Austin Fitts: The “Pandemic” as Cover for a Coup D’Etat Aimed at Taking Over the Planet — Converting Democratic Process to Technocracy, Imposing Complete Economic & Political Control
“If you look at what needs to be done, the problem — we don’t have the power to stop the central bankers from doing what they’re doing, but my prediction is they will fail. It’s too hard. It’s too complicated. And it’s too outside the laws of nature or the laws of divine intelligence.” ~ Catherine Austin Fitts
This sit down interview with Catherine covers the spectrum of the current situation we find ourselves in.
It was conducted as apart of the full length documentary. We are releasing the full interview for the betterment of public understanding of the situation.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship & to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
[As a service to protect truth from censorship & to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Transcript:
“I used to say — I used to have a pastor who would say “If we can face it, God can fix it”. And I believe that many things are possible if we can face it.
So again, transparency is very important.
If you look at what needs to be done, the problem — we don’t have the power to stop the central bankers from doing what they’re doing, but my prediction is they will fail.
It’s too hard. It’s too complicated. And it’s too outside the laws of nature or the laws of divine intelligence. And the issue then becomes, how do we as a people, pick up and build a human civilization? So, you know, they decided they couldn’t do a human civilization. They’re doing something I think will fail. And the question for all of us is, how can we make sure we can take things right if, and when, they fail.
So everybody knows my favorite bible story is the story of Gideon. And that’s my prediction for what’s going to happen…”
___
“The story of Gideon is a long story. I won’t tell the whole thing. But, essentially an angel of the Lord comes and asks Gideon to throw the Midianites out of Israel and Gideon insists he’s too unimportant, and too helpless to do it. And the angel of the Lord says, ‘Well, that’s okay we’re gonna do it. You’re perfect because everybody will know it was us, not you.’
So, in fact, Gideon calls for an army and the angel of the Lord… makes him go through very many tests to make him realize that he doesn’t need a big army, he just needs people who are faithful and competent. And, in fact, in this environment my advice to everybody after they come clean is strip your life down to the people who are, you know, faithful and competent. And then, so Gideon comes down the side of the mountains. The Midianites are sleeping in the valley below. And he comes down with Gideon’s army, banging pitchers and lanterns. And the Midianites are so hateful and suspicious of each other, they jump up at the dark and kill each other.
And, in fact, every time I’ve seen someone bring tremendous transparency to what’s happening, that’s what happens. The Midianites — fight breaks out and the Midianites start killing each other. And if you look at what these guys are trying to do, it’s so hard and complicated, I think the Midianite thing is going to happen par excellence.
And the question for all of us is, okay, what’s our plan, if and when that happens…”
___
“My plan is to build a human civilization. And, again, first you bring transparency, then you rebuild the economy, bottom up…
We are now integrating very powerful technology and that means we have to be — we have to grow spiritually. You can’t have this kind of advanced technology managed by cavemen. And, to a certain extent, that’s what we’re watching. We’re giving very powerful weaponry and very powerful surveillance technology to people who are using it, behaving like cavemen.”
___
“…I think, first and foremost, what we’re dealing with is spiritual. You know, this is part of a ten thousand year old war and the outcome depends on our our ability to spiritually evolve and grow up.
So, you know, I tell everybody death is not the worst thing that can happen… What can happen is, you can lose your immortal soul. That’s your danger. So stop worrying about death and start worrying about, you know, whether you’re going to be free or not.”
One of the most bizarre features of the alleged COVID-19 ‘global pandemic’ has been the mysterious disappearance of the seasonal flu in medical and public health record keeping. It’s as if the Flu just vanished into thin air after being the most common perennial seasonal respiratory virus.
As it turns out, recorded seasonal influenza cases have literally nosedived by 98% across the globe.
This improbable phenomenon has led a number of experts to ask, “Has Covid killed off the flu?”
“The disappearing act began as Covid-19 rolled in towards the end of our flu season in March. And just how swiftly rates have plummeted can be observed in ‘surveillance’ data collected by the World Health Organisation (WHO),” reported the UK’s Daily Mail.
WHO spokesperson, Dr Sylvie Briand, recently claimed during a press briefing that “literally there was nearly no flu in the Southern hemisphere” of the planet Earth in 2020, but gave no real explanation as to why. She then went on to extend this magical thinking saying that, “We hope that the situation will be the same in the Northern Hemisphere.”
Truly extraordinary science by the health experts at the WHO.
Earlier in December, Southern California news outlet KUSI raised the alarm which prompted an audit of COVID statistics in their region…
SAN DIEGO (KUSI) – COVID-19 cases continue to increase across California, and here in San Diego County, but flu cases remain extremely low in comparison to this time in previous years.
We are well into flu season, but San Diego County’s data for flu infections only shows 36 reported cases so far this year. Carl DeMaio tweeted out this shocking revelation, comparing it to this time in other years saying, “In a typical year we get over 17,073 on average!”
DeMaio explained, “if you are going to use a set of numbers like COVID stats to shut down the economy, to take people’s livelihoods away, then we have to really look closely at what those numbers really mean, and whether those numbers are giving us the right picture.” Continuing, “my concern has been from the get go, that we are relying on numbers from government agencies, that may have a different agenda at stake. We would benefit from having a different set of eyes looking at them, such as an auditor or a citizens review committee. Because again, the decisions being made on these data sets are sweeping, the lockdowns are far reaching in terms of their impact.”
DeMaio then said San Diego County has refused to have any look over or vet our local COVID-19 numbers.
Chairman of Reform California, Carl DeMaio, joined KUSI’s Jason Austell on Good Morning San Diego to explain why he is calling for a “full audit of the COVID-19 data we are seeing reported from our public health system.”
BREAKING – San Diego County data for FLU infections shows **only 36 cases** so far this year. In a typical year we get over 17,073 on average!
Once again, I’m calling for a full audit of the Covid-19 data we are seeing reported from our public health system.
As different pressure groups and journalists begin to demand answers from the various health authorities, it’s becoming clear now that there has likely been some degree of widespread, systemic administrative fraud designed to over-inflate COVID-19 numbers to the detriment of every other normal seasonal illness or disease.
As we approach the final days of 2020, Spiro is joined by author, journalist and recently retired registered nurse, James Perloff, to reflect on what is widely considered to be the wildest and worst year perhaps in our lifetimes.
The media and the governments around the world would like us to believe this is all by chance and we must blindly follow their mandates and restrictions in order to mitigate this crisis.
Spiro and Perloff delve beyond the surface of this crisis to explore potential motives behind what appears to be a pre-planned agenda attached to the current crisis in order to facilitate the most significant transition in human history.
James Perloff shares information from his new book titled COVID-19 and the Agendas to Come, Red-Pilled which reveals what the social engineers have in store for the future of humanity.
Let me boil this down for you. Claiming a new “mutant strain” of SARS-CoV-2 is 70% more deadly than the original, computer modelers in the UK have advised Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, to lock down the country at a much stricter level.
The computer model was concocted at the Imperial College of London. The accompanying text actually admits it’s too early to tell whether the mutant strain is a major threat.
Nevertheless, Boris Johnson has issued the new vast lockdown order. [1] [2]
Who is on television promoting the need for the lockdown? None other than Neil Ferguson, the disgraced and failed computer modeler. [3] [4]
He didn’t author the new model/study at the Imperial College, but he’s now the face of the “science.”
Ferguson’s prior model predicted 500,000 COVID deaths in the UK and 2 million in the US would occur by last summer. This absurd and criminal estimate directly influenced Boris Johnson and Donald Trump to declare states of emergency, and abandon plans to keep their national economies open.
Then Ferguson violated his own lockdown recommendations by carrying on an affair with his mistress, who lived in her separate home with her husband.
And now he’s back, on television, warning citizens about the new “mutant strain” of the virus and the need for a higher level of lockdown.
Other scientists are outraged at the latest computer model; they are demanding to see the actual evidence of the increased threat. They’re saying they don’t even understand what “70% more deadly than the original strain” means.
How much more economic devastation can the people of the UK take?
Here is my original piece on Neil Ferguson, written as his prior computer model was being trashed—but followed by political leaders in the US, UK, France, and Germany. Buckle up:
Neil Ferguson: the ghost in the machine [5]
Why do governments salute when he predicts a pandemic and tells them to lock down their countries?
Does anyone care about his past?
Why does he still have a prestigious job?
Who is he connected to?
by Jon Rappoport
Neil Ferguson, through his institute at London’s Imperial College, can call the shots on a major percentage of the global population.
He’s Mr. Genius, when it comes to projecting computer models of epidemics.
Fellow experts puff up his reputation.
According to the Business Insider (4/25) [6], “Ferguson’s team warned Boris Johnson that the quest for ‘herd immunity’ [letting people live their lives out in the open in the UK] could cost 510,000 lives, prompting an abrupt U-turn [massive national lockdown in the UK]…His simulations have been influential in other countries as well, cited by authorities in the US, Germany, and France.”
Not only cited, not only influential, but swallowed whole.
Business insider continues: “On March 23, the UK scrapped ‘herd immunity’ in favor of a suppression strategy, and the country made preparations for weeks of lockdown. Ferguson’s study was responsible.”
There’s more. A lot more.
Same BI article: “Dr Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration, told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [Ferguson’s computer projection] prompted the CDC’s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.”
Ferguson, instigator of LOCKDOWN. Stripping away of basic liberties. Economic devastation.
So let’s look at Ferguson’s track record, spelled out in the BI piece:
“Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, based at Imperial, in 2008. It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen outbreaks.”
“It gets tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and works with the UK National Health Service, the US Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), and is tasked with supplying the World Health Organization with ‘rapid analysis of urgent infectious disease problems’.”
Getting the picture?
Gates money goes to Ferguson.
Ferguson predicts dire threat from COVID, necessitating lockdowns—thus preparing people to accept a vaccine. The vaccine Gates wants.
Ferguson supplies a frightening computer projection of COVID deaths—to the CDC and WHO. Ferguson thus communicates a rationale for the Gates vaccine plan.
National governments surrender to WHO and CDC. LOCKDOWNS.
Business Insider: “Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the [Ferguson] Imperial paper [on COVID], saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth [mad cow] outbreak.”
“Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”
“Similarly, he [Ferguson] was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird Flu outbreak. Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds.” HELLO?
“In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.”
So you have to ask yourself, why would anyone believe what Ferguson has been predicting in this COVID hustle?
Are his fellow experts that stupid?
Are presidents and prime ministers that stupid?
And the answer is: This is a monumental covert op; some people are that stupid; some are caught up in the op and are afraid to say the emperor has no clothes; some are aware of what is going on, and they want to destroy national economies and lead us into, yes, a new world order.
Gates knows he has his man: Ferguson. As the recipient of tens of millions of dollars a year from the Gates Foundation, Ferguson isn’t about to issue a model that states: COVID is nothing to worry about, let people live their lives and we’ll be all right. The chance of that happening is on a par with researchers admitting they never properly identified a new virus as the cause of illness in 2019, in Wuhan. [7]
In order to justify injecting every man, woman, and child in the world with heavy metals, synthetic genes that alter genetic makeup, a host of germs, and who knows what else, Gates needs A STORY ABOUT A DEADLY VIRUS THAT NECESSITATES SHUTTING DOWN AND IMPRISONING THE PLANET, ACHIEVING A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE.
He’s got the story, all dressed up in a computer model, composed by a man with a past record of abject and devastating failures.
Neil Ferguson is the ghost in the machine. The machine is the World Health Organization and the CDC. The man behind the ghost is Bill Gates.
Welcome to the year-end wrap up! You know, the annual end-of-year stock-taking editorial I write before we all go off to enjoy our Christmas and ring in the New Year?
Now, if this were any other year, I’d make some light-hearted joke about all of this. You know, “Oh, nothing much happened this year, there’s really nothing to write about.” Or: “It’s like the opening of A Tale of Two Cities except without the ‘best of times’ bit.”
But this is not any other year. This is 2020. So I’m resorting to quoting Queen Elizardbeast. Remember what she said about 1992?
“In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an annus horribilis.”
Queeny was whining about all the scandals and “tragedies” that befell her poor family that year, of course, like her childrens’ philandering being exposed to the world and Her Majesty herself being pelted with eggs by angry Germans and her multi-million pound castle catching fire.
I’ll cue the world’s smallest violin as you wipe the tears from your eyes.
But here we are nearly 30 years later and this is our “annus horribilis.” As we gather here electronically, millions of people have had their lives thrown into chaos by a scamdemic long in the making. Families have been torn apart. Mom-and-pop business owners have had their life’s work taken away from them. The poorest of the poor have been thrown into even further grinding poverty. Suicides and deaths of despair are on the rise as we enter the biosecurity paradigm and prepare for a new normal of social distancing and mask wearing and lockdowns and misery. And all of this in the name of a disease that even the lying public health officials acknowledge as being harmless to almost the entirety of the population.
This is what a real annus horribilis looks like. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t feel particularly jokey this year.
Yes, 2020 is just about over and, barring the opening of the portal to Hades or whatever is supposed to happen during the coming Grand Conjunction, we’ve made it through to the other side. But what lies there? What event are we living through, and where do we go from here?
To answer that, let’s step back for a bit.
I started The Corbett Report in 2007. As you might imagine, I’ve had cause over the years to wonder how I would have responded if I had been “on air” during 9/11. Well, now I know. And I am pleased to say that I can not only stand behind the work I’ve done this year, but I am confident that I have contributed reports that will be even more relevant years from now than they are today.
Don’t get me wrong: all of that work is important and is destined to become even more important as we are ushered further into the era of Biosecurity and I stand by it 100%. But in the end, I think that all of the work debunking the statistics and numbers and lies of the COVID hysteria miss the most fundamental point about this new era we have entered, a point that I articulated in one of my earliest pieces on the hysteria.
We have been asked to accept that “public health” is not just everyone’s responsibility in some abstract way, but their actual legal obligation. And who gets to decide what “public health” is? Why, the technocrats of the public health industry who just happen to sit on the boards of the Big Pharma companies and receive copious funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, Gavi, and their fellow travelers in the field of “philanthropy.”
And remember: We’re All In This Together so let’s Stay Together Apart so we can Build Back Better toward the Great Reset. And if you mouth those platitudes and believe them then you’re a good citizen, and if you hesitate for a moment to bleat those phrases along with the herd you will be singled out as a crazed conspiracy theorist and censored from the internet.
And suddenly this “conspiracy theorizing” and documenting that I’ve been engaged in for the past 13 years isn’t so abstract anymore. It’s hard to separate yourself from the machinations of the Bilderberg jetset when they have half the human population under lockdown and are rolling out an experimental vaccine on more or less the whole globe.
If you’re not in mourning for human freedom after the events of this year, then you never really knew what this was about. This is what motivated me to write one of the most powerful epistles of my life this year, my Letter to the Future:
Yes, it’s hard to think of 2020 as anything but an annus horribilis for free humanity.
But, as crazy as it may seem, there is something I’m grateful for this year. At least the power-hungry psychopath eugenicists have stated their intentions openly. Take good old Technofascist Overlord Klaus Schwab himself: “At the end, what the Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity.” No pussyfooting around anymore; they’re outright telling us that they’re pushing for the full-on transhuman nightmare future. A future which (in case you didn’t get the memo) doesn’t need us.
In a sense, none of what has occurred this year should be surprising. I’ve been documenting the eugenicists’ plans to implement martial law, erect the ID control grid, transition us into a cashless society, and, ultimately, cull the human population, for a very long time.
No, it is not surprising that they decided to pull the trigger in 2020. It’s only surprising that so many have gone along with the charade.
It would be so easy to give in to the hate. To become cynical. To deride our fellow men as sheeple. To throw up our hands and say the fight isn’t worth it.
But if we do that, the psychopaths have won without even having to fight. Their ultimate victory lies in demoralizing us. They win by making us forfeit our humanity of our own free will.
I refuse.
It may not be trendy, it may not capture the zeitgeist, it may not earn me any street cred or “cool” points, but let me reaffirm that age-old Yuletide declaration: δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.
Peace on earth and good will toward men, indeed. We’re going to need it.
Merry Christmas, everyone. Get ready for 2021.
This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.
To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.
We know that the PCR tests being used are not “fit for purpose”, that they are for Research Use Only. They are not meant to be used as diagnostic tools, and the late inventor of the RT-PCR instruments was very clear about this. According to the late Dr. Kary Mullis,
“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “ (1)
We also know that Coding changes to Death Certificates have fabricated false perceptions about COVID lethality. CDC coding changes blurred the important distinction between dying OF COVID and dying WITH COVID. Consequently co-morbidities such as heart disease, cancer, etc. have been largely negated and COVID has been relegated an artificially high importance in terms of Cause of Death reporting.
Dr. Ngozi Ezike explained the “death count” in a May 2020 press conference with these words:
“I just want to be clear in terms of the definition of ‘people dying of COVID’.
So, the case definition is very simplistic. It means, at the time of death, it was a COVID positive diagnosis.
So, that means that if you were in hospice and had already been given, you know, a few weeks to live, and then you were also to have found to have COVID, that would have counted as a COVID death.
It means that if technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death.
So, everyone who is listed as a COVID death, doesn’t mean that that was the cause of death, but they had COVID at the time of death.
I hope that’s helpful.” (2)
According to H. Ealy, M. McEvoy et al in “Covid-19: Questionable Policies, Manipulated Rules of Data Collection and Reporting. Is It Safe for Students to Return to School?”:
“The 2003 guidelines for establishing death certificates had been cancelled. “Had the CDC used its industry standard, Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003, as it has for all other causes of death for the last 17 years, the COVID-19 fatality count would be approximately 90.2% lower than it currently is.” (3)
To summarize then, the tests that are widely used to test for COVID are not fit for diagnostic purposes. Additionally, prior to the announced pandemic, coding changes made to Death Certificates falsely and very significantly increase COVID Death Statistics.
These two factors alone create substantial misperceptions about the danger and lethality of COVID-19.
Nearly 20 years later and many are still unaware that World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition on the fateful day of September 11th, 2001.
Join John Bush and Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth for a discussion of the facts surrounding what took place on 9/11 plus an update from the front lines of the 9/11 truth movement.
They will also talk about the release of the new documentary “Seven” which explores the mysterious collapse of WTC Building 7 and they’ll cover new research regarding WTC 7 coming out of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
An article by Children’s Health Defense on how the pandemic facilitated a financial, tech, biopharmaceutical and military-intelligence push for centralized, technocratic control has been accepted by the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research.
“Planned Surveillance and Control by Global Technocrats: A Big-Picture Look at the Current Pandemic Beneficiaries,” a peer-reviewed article by Children’s Health Defense, has been accepted for publication in the journal, International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research. The journal was launched in 2020 by John W. Oller, Jr., Ph.D. (editor-in-chief) and Christopher A. Shaw, Ph.D. (senior editor) “to make independent research, free from constraints of monetary, political, or any other undisclosed influence, about vaccine theory and practice freely accessible.”
The Children’s Health Defense article, which will appear in the journal by year’s end, assesses how the pandemic has facilitated a financial, tech, biopharmaceutical and military-intelligence push for centralized, technocratic control.
Here’s the article:
Abstract
Global financial patterns and pronouncements point to a seismic overhaul of governance and financial systems that is playing out beneath the surface of the Covid-19 pandemic, reaching far beyond the health domain. Increased centralized control has the potential to create an unbridgeable chasm between a tiny handful of winners and a majority of losers. To foster an integrated analysis of the technocratic and financial forces and agendas at play, this rapid review identifies some of the pandemic’s principal beneficiaries across the interwoven financial, tech, biopharmaceutical, and military-intelligence sectors, assessing developments in the context of the accelerating global push for technocratic consolidation and control. The evidence suggests that Trojan horse coronavirus vaccines may challenge bodily integrity and informed consent in entirely new ways, transporting invasive technologies into people’s brains and bodies. Technologies such as brain-machine interfaces, digital identity tracking devices, and cryptocurrency-compatible chips would contribute to the central banking goal of replacing currencies with digital transaction and identification systems and creating a global control grid that connects the world population to the military-pharma-intelligence cloud of the global technocrats. Moreover, using vaccines as a delivery vehicle for surveillance technologies cancels any legal liability.
Keywords: Biopharmaceuticals; central banks; Covid-19 pandemic; digital identity; Operation Warp Speed; technocracy; vaccines
Introduction
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) upgraded a reportedly novel coronavirus from a global health emergency (as of January 30) to a global pandemic, having given the name “Covid-19” to the newly minted disease associated with the virus (Forster, 2020; World Health Organization, 2020a). If one examines actions taken both before and since the WHO’s March decree, it seems evident that many highly placed individuals and sectors were able to strategically position themselves to benefit from the declared crisis (Children’s Health Defense, 2020b). At the same time, with a “new form of economic shock” being imposed worldwide under cover of Covid-19 (Lagarde, 2020), it has become apparent that old-fashioned corporate profiteering is far from the whole story.
In fact, global financial patterns and pronouncements point to a seismic overhaul of governance and financial systems that is playing out beneath the surface of the pandemic, reaching far beyond the health domain. These developments highlight a disturbing push for global technocracy — a form of centralized, expert-led control over resource production and consumption that the Wall Street Journal has characterized as “anti-democratic rule by elites who think they know better” (Wood, 2018, 2020; Fitts, 2020a; Schinder, 2020; Schumacher, 2020; White, 2020). In the U.S., many of the actions unfolding behind the scenes are also benefiting from a climate of institutionalized secrecy enabled by the October 2018 adoption of a game-changing policy statement (FASAB Statement 56), which turned financial disclosure rules upside-down to allow the U.S. government and its contractors to maintain secret books (Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, 2018; Ferri & Lurie, 2018).
As 2020’s rapid-fire events suggest, substantially increased centralized control and secrecy have the potential to create an unbridgeable chasm between a tiny handful of elite winners and a majority of upper and lower middle class losers. In early June, CNBC’s Wall Street analyst Jim Cramer heatedly pointed out the fact that the pandemic had already produced “one of the greatest wealth transfers in history” (Clifford, 2020). Others have echoed these observations, describing the “monumental transfer of wealth from the bottom of the economic ladder to the top” (Barnett, 2020; Kampf-Lassin, 2020). In comparison to the benefits flowing to large corporations and billionaires, Cramer bluntly observed that pandemic-related restrictions have had a “horrible effect” on America’s small-business economy, with a similar pattern on display outside the U.S. (Clifford, 2020). Even the World Economic Forum — which has promoted many of the structural changes now underway at its annual Davos meetings — acknowledges the “asymmetric nature” of Covid-19-related hardships and the “greater ferocity and velocity” of the pandemic’s impact on populations already under stress before 2020 (World Economic Forum, 2020).
By early fall, fifty million Americans (many with already high burdens of debt) had lost jobs; financial forecasters were issuing warnings about further layoffs; and millions of the still-employed were earning less than pre-pandemic (Andriotis, 2020). In addition, the bulk of the trillions in federal stimulus (which by early May exceeded the gross domestic product of all but six nations worldwide) had made its way to large corporations; Forbes reported that roughly 70 percent of the initial $350 billion intended for struggling small businesses went to large companies (Simon, 2020). Observers suggest that by channeling taxpayer bailouts to the companies that already had the greatest ability to withstand the shutdowns, the largest players have been able to gain even more of a “stranglehold” over the economy (Kampf-Lassin, 2020).
As U.S. billionaires’ wealth increased by almost a trillion dollars (a weekly average of $42 billion), weekly jobless claims, requests for food bank assistance, and reports of addiction, overdoses, depression, and suicide began “shatter[ing] all historical records” (Feeding America, n.d.; Alcorn, 2020; Americans for Tax Fairness, 2020; Baldor & Burns, 2020; Community FoodBank of New Jersey, 2020; Dubey et al., 2020; Ettman et al., 2020; Hollyfield, 2020; Lerma, 2020; Prestigiacomo, 2020; Schwarz, 2020; Sergent et al., 2020; Thorbecke, 2020; Wan & Long, 2020). Outside the U.S., the situation is similar (Bueno-Notivol et al., 2020). As a marker of the global surge in hunger, the Nobel Committee awarded its 2020 Peace Prize to the World Food Programme, prompting the agency’s head to warn that the world is “on the brink of a hunger pandemic” that could result in “famines of biblical proportions” in the coming year (Lederer, 2020).
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released data identifying over 100,000 excess U.S. deaths “indirectly” associated with the pandemic (Rossen et al., 2020), including a “stunning 26.5% jump” in excess deaths in young adults in their mid-twenties through mid-forties (Prestigiacomo, 2020). Commenting on these mortality data — which reflect “a death count well beyond what [researchers] would normally expect” (Preidt, 2020) — the former U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb voiced his suspicion that “a good portion of the deaths in that younger cohort were deaths due to despair,” including drug overdoses (Squawk Box, 2020). University researchers writing about mortality in JAMA concurred that “Excess deaths attributed to causes other than COVID-19 could reflect deaths . . . resulting from disruptions produced by the pandemic” (Woolf et al., 2020), including “spillover effects . . . such as delayed medical care, economic hardship or emotional distress” (Preidt, 2020). Multilateral entities like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) emphasize that it will be essential to assess the long-term impact of “confinement and deteriorating financial conditions” on mortality and warn that the social and economic fallout is likely to be “significant” (Morgan et al., 2020).
As an ideology, technocracy is recognized for exalting knowledge and expertise as the principal sources of legitimate power and authority and for asserting that there is “one best way” that only “the experts” (e.g., engineers, scientists, and doctors) can determine (Burris, 1989). However, critics of technocracy have long pointed out that, particularly in crisis situations, the know-how, “discretionary interventions” and seemingly “elastic” power claimed by technocrats can end up blurring the line between useful expertise and “arbitrary rule” (White, 2020). Moreover, technocrats typically resist attempts to make explicit “the non-rational attributes of technocratic decision-making” (Burris, 1989).
With the noticeable absence of any cost-benefit analysis and the increasingly “non-rational” justifications being put forth for Covid-19 restrictions (Handley, 2020; Kristen, 2020; Kulldorff et al., 2020; The Reaction Team, 2020) — as well as the economic, political, social, and cultural changes rolling out at dizzying speed — it is important to try to understand the technocratic and financial agendas at play. Three increasingly interwoven sectors (Big Finance, Big Tech, and Big Pharma) are reaping rewards from Covid-19, benefiting from close relationships with the military-intelligence apparatus (Glaser, 2020; Usdin, 2020). This rapid review seeks to (1) identify some of the pandemic’s principal beneficiaries (financial and otherwise) across these sectors, and (2) assess these parties’ actions in the context of the accelerating global push for technocratic consolidation and control through invasive surveillance.
Methods
Rapid reviews are used to synthesize evidence in a streamlined manner, abbreviating the timeline and requirements of more involved systematic reviews (Ganann et al., 2010). A rapid review is particularly well suited to emerging current event sequences, and the dynamic Covid-19-related situation certainly qualifies. Though not exhaustive, rapid reviews make it possible to quickly summarize available evidence across multiple disciplines, whether for the purpose of informing policy-making and decision-making or to identify patterns and take stock of the bigger picture.
For the purposes of this broad overview of current events, we relied primarily on the so-called grey literature as well as media accounts (from both the legacy media and independent journalists) and various online sources. We also consulted relevant peer-reviewed literature. Notably, while the peer-review process is ordinarily slow-moving, Covid-19-related studies have been making their way through the pipeline at breakneck speed (Packer, 2020).
Examples of sources consulted for this review include conventional and alternative financial commentary; webpages and communications from public health agencies, international organizations, and universities; individual blogs and commentary; and peer-reviewed studies cataloguing the impact of Covid-19 restrictions.
Big Finance
Assisted by the media, commentators have had an easy time framing the events of 2020 principally as a health crisis. With each passing month, however, those claims wear thinner (Barnett, 2020). In a comprehensive analysis titled The State of Our Currencies, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts (2020a) offers a broader and more instructive interpretation. Informed by close attention to financial patterns, Fitts asserts that the “shock doctrine” measures being imposed under cover of Covid-19 are helping lay the train tracks for a new global central banking machine and a technocratic “regulatory and economic model that permits far greater central control.”
Fitts calls attention to G7 central bankers’ August 2019 approval in Jackson Hole, Wyoming of a plan called “Going Direct” (Bartsch et al., 2019) that makes the case for a novel “blurring [of] the lines between government fiscal policy and central bank monetary policy” (Martens & Martens, 2020). Drafted months before Covid-19, the plan — co-branded by the World Economic Forum (n.d.) as “the Great Reset” — evokes the prospect of a serious economic downturn and “unusual circumstances” that could be used to justify “unprecedented” global measures (Bartsch et al., 2019).
Fitts (2020a) postulates that central bankers have both a short-term aim (to extend the existing dollar-based reserve currency system) and an ambitious longer-term goal: to implement a “new global governance and financial transaction system, and gather the power necessary to herd all parties into the new system”. Characterizing these aspirations as nothing short of ending currency as we know it, Fitts suggests that the top-down digital-currency-based model being promoted as a replacement could end up sidelining traditional intermediaries and instead directly furnish populations with something akin to a “credit at the company store”. Spelling out the implications of such a model, Fitts notes that with the help of digital surveillance and a social credit system, the central-bank-controlled “credit” could easily be “adjusted or turned off on an individual basis”. General Manager Agustín Carstens of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) — the central bank of central banks — recently acknowledged as much, stating that in stark contrast to cash, a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) would give central banks “absolute control” over CBDC use “and the technology to enforce” CBDC rules and regulations (International Monetary Fund, 2020). With a vaccine-injected digital surveillance program in individuals, the CBDC would have dictatorial power at the level of individual buying and selling.
Fitts’ analysis suggests that central bankers began laying the groundwork for the desired global transition well in advance of the coronavirus mayhem. In 2019 alone, G7 finance ministers endorsed a cryptocurrency action plan in July; in August, the G7 central bankers approved “Going Direct”; in September, the U.S. Federal Reserve (“the Fed”) started making hundreds of billions of dollars in loans “direct” to Wall Street trading houses; and in October, the BIS issued a major report on global cryptocurrencies (Bank for International Settlements, 2019; Helms, 2019; Fitts, 2020a; Martens & Martens, 2020). In the middle of the frenzy of central bank activity in October, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (along with the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security) held the well-publicized “pandemic tabletop exercise” called Event 201, which played out a global coronavirus outbreak scenario strikingly similar to 2020’s actual events (Center for Health Security, n.d.).
In January 2020, U.S. corporations witnessed a record number of CEO departures (Ausick, 2020; Marinova, 2020) — a mass exodus that strategically allowed over 200 departing executives to sell their stock at or near the market high (see Table 1). Other wealthy and influential insiders also engaged in surprisingly well-timed stock market transactions. For example, following a late-January, behind-closed-doors briefing about the virus (which had yet to affect a single American), certain U.S. senators sold hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock, “unloading shares that plummeted in value a month later” (Lane, 2020). The world’s wealthiest person, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, sold nearly $4.1 billion over an 11-day period in early February after having also sold $2.8 billion in shares in August 2019 (Palmer, 2020).
Table 1. U.S. CEO Departures in January 2020
Sources: Ausick, 2020; ChallengerGray, 2020
As the U.S. government turned on the stimulus spigot in March, the Fed sustained its irregular intervention in the U.S. economy. By the summer of 2020, the Fed had expanded its balance sheet by $2.9 trillion — much of it unaccounted for, according to Fed-watcher John Titus (2020) — and financial observers were warning that “the market is no longer the biggest factor in selecting [economic] winners and losers” (Whalen, 2020). Titus (2020) concurs with this assessment, baldly characterizing 2020’s events as a Fed-led “coup d’état”. Titus (2014) has been chronicling major financial forces and legal changes since the 2008 financial crisis, describing how central banks are not only able to “loot” the American people “in broad daylight” but can do so without fear of prosecution — probably because, as Titus and Fitts (2020a) both point out, the Department of Justice depends on Fed member banks for its financial operations.
The coronavirus stimulus has provided abundant financial opportunities advantageous to Fed member banks. Over a two-week period in April, for example, large banks earned $10 billion in fees (ranging from 1 to 5 percent) simply for processing the government’s loans to businesses (Sullivan et al., 2020). Class-action lawsuits subsequently alleged that the banks prioritized larger loans (and larger companies) in order to garner the largest fees, while shutting out “tens of thousands” of eligible but smaller businesses (Sullivan et al., 2020). Serving as lender to the parent company of a national restaurant chain, Fed member bank JPMorgan Chase (the largest and most profitable bank in the U.S.) earned a $100,000 fee for a single “one-time transaction for which it assumed no risk and could pass through with fewer requirements than for a regular loan” (Sullivan et al., 2020).
In September, Senator Marco Rubio (Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship) wrote to the JPMorgan Chase CEO expressing “alarm” about allegations that JPMorgan employees “may have been involved in potentially illegal conduct” in the distribution of Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loan funds (Rubio, 2020). Bloomberg later confirmed the possibility of Covid-19-related banking abuse on a wide scale (David, 2020). Importantly, this is not a new pattern of behavior for the U.S. banking behemoth. Since 2002 (and primarily since the 2008 financial crisis), JPMorgan Chase has paid out at least $42 billion in settlements for questionable, unethical, or illegal behavior (Fitts, 2019); its public-facing Wikipedia page lists involvement in 22 different “controversies,” including the economically shattering Enron and Madoff scandals (“JPMorgan Chase”, n.d.). Nevertheless, JPMorgan continues to earn glowing accolades from the financial community. In June 2020, Forbes urged investors to “bank on the best” in the uncertain Covid-19 environment (Trainer, 2020), citing JPMorgan’s post-2009 “industry-leading profitability” and asserting that the bank is exceptionally well positioned to expand its market share both during and post-pandemic. In October, JPMorgan rolled out a new smartphone credit card reader designed to compete with Square and PayPal (Son, 2020).
Big Tech
By July 2020, global billionaires’ wealth had surged to an all-time high of $10.2 trillion — an increase of 27.5 percent since April, and a 41.3 percent increase for tech billionaires (Phillipps, 2020). U.S. billionaires accrued a significant share of this pandemic wealth bonus, increasing their worth by $845 billion from mid-March to mid-September and prompting the observation that “for American billionaires specifically, things have never looked better” (Lerma, 2020). As a whole, U.S. billionaires’ wealth reached the equivalent of almost one-fifth of the U.S. gross domestic product, with four tech billionaires (Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg) plus Warren Buffett seeing their total wealth climb by 59 percent (da Costa, 2020). Calling attention to Bezos, in particular, the Institute for Policy Studies described his surge in wealth as “unprecedented in modern financial history”, requiring “a real-time hour-by-hour tracker” to keep up (Collins et al., 2020).
The companies with which top-tier billionaires are affiliated include Amazon and Amazon Web Services (Bezos), Apple (Tim Cook), Facebook (Zuckerberg), Google/Alphabet (Larry Page and Sergey Brin), Microsoft (Steve Ballmer and Gates), Oracle (Larry Ellison), Zoom (Eric Yuan), and the variety of companies (including Neuralink, SpaceX, and Tesla) spearheaded by Musk (Alcorn, 2020; Collins et al., 2020; Toh, 2020). In July, as Bloomberg described these companies’ “outsized influence on U.S. markets”, it noted that they are as well-situated to profit from the U.S. shutdown as they are to take advantage of a recovering Europe and Asia — a “one-two punch” that has already increased FAANG companies’ market (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google, plus Microsoft) by 62 percent (Ritholtz, 2020). Suggesting that Silicon Valley will go down in history as “the standout sector” (Divine, 2020a), a U.S. News analyst unabashedly recommended Facebook as a 2020 “best buy” because “it’s gobbling up the world, and reasonable people could argue that if privacy is dying, individual investors may as well profit alongside Silicon Valley” (Divine, 2020b).
Covid-19 has provided Big Tech (and Big Telecom) with an opportunity to bring a range of controversial technologies further out into the open, despite many unresolved concerns about safety and ethics (Boteler, 2017; Gohd, 2017; Ross, 2018; Boyle, 2019; Feiner, 2019; Markman, 2019; Plautz, 2019; Zhang et al., 2019; Bajpai, 2020; Goodwin, 2020; Gyarmathy, 2020; McGovern, 2020; Novet, 2020; Reuters, 2020; Tucker, 2020; U.S. Department of Defense, 2020). Singly and in combination, the technologies (some of which are listed in Table 2) have the potential to usher in unprecedented societal changes, strengthening technocrats’ ability to control many facets of daily life. Artificial intelligence (AI), 5G, “smart” utility meters, and the Internet of Things (IoT), for example, are rapidly and fundamentally changing the nature of cities, businesses, and homes — what Fitts (2020a) calls the “final mile” — forming an essential part of the strategy to convert the economic model to a technocratic model that uses AI and software to achieve centrally controlled resource allocation.
Table 2. Covid-19 and the Rollout of Control Technologies
In October 2020, the World Economic Forum — the Great Reset’s front-row marketer — released a report on the future of jobs, describing the significant displacement of workers resulting from the pandemic and the related global restructuring that the organization has been taking the opportunity to promote (Petzinger, 2020). With automation and Covid-19 causing a “double-disruption” that is not only accelerating job destruction in the short term but “shrinking opportunities” in the longer term, the report solemnly pronounced a “new division of labour between humans, machines and algorithms” (World Economic Forum, 2020). Well before the pandemic, Amazon had established a robot-centric system at its fulfillment centers, with a process focused on “limit[ing] movement of people [and] let[ting] robots move everything” (Masud, 2019). This downsizing of humans has apparently served Amazon well; by May 2020, Amazon’s e-commerce business had shot up by 93 percent compared to the previous May (Klebnikov, 2020).
A September 2020 survey showed that many other companies plan to substantially boost their spending on AI and machine learning, citing Covid-19 as their rationale for prioritizing “the adoption of new technologies that enhance and enable automation” (Shein, 2020). Observers also predict, however, that the AI gold rush will lead to even more market consolidation and control by Amazon and three other big Covid-19 winners — Alphabet, Facebook, and Microsoft. These four companies, according to Forbes, have the “scale to push the envelope”, the “talent and the technology to perfect [AI]”, and the computing power to dominate the field (Markman, 2019). Amazon already controls nearly 46 percent of the worldwide public cloud-computing infrastructure that is a key backstop for AI functions such as parallel processing and the digestion of Big Data (Atlantic.Net, 2018; Nix, 2019).
Before Covid-19, consumer rejection of 5G wireless technology had been growing (Castor, 2020). However, the imposition of social distancing measures, remote learning, and online work requirements has provided the telecommunications industry with a ready-made pretext to fast-forward 5G’s deployment while attempting to burnish the industry’s unfavorable public image. Taking advantage of virus fears, Big Tech and Big Telecom are claiming that 5G can help enable “a future in which business, health care and human interaction must be at more than an arm’s length” (Wasserman, 2020). Forbes has praised communication service providers for responding to the coronavirus lockdowns “with a sense of urgency, purpose and empathy” (Wilson, 2020). Describing areas requiring more “advanced connectivity”, a technology expert at Deloitte Consulting cited the example of “cameralytics” (video surveillance) “to help worker safety and social distancing” (Howell, 2020). Whatever the rationale, the reality on the ground has been a massive increase in U.S. telecom companies’ capital spending on 5G and a “full steam ahead” rollout of spectrum and infrastructure that has placed the U.S. “ahead of schedule” (Knight, 2020; Ludlum, 2020). The European Commission is now attempting to follow the U.S.’s lead by pushing for the removal of “regulatory hurdles” and making the case that 5G will aid the region’s post-coronavirus economic recovery (McCaskill, 2020).
Covid-19 has also brought another of Big Tech’s interests into sharper focus: food. Billionaires such as Bill Gates and Peter Thiel have, for some time, been investing in biotech start-ups that aim to produce, in a lab, stem-cell-based “meat”, “fish”, “dairy”, and “breastmilk” (Kerr, 2016; Kosoff, 2017; Beres, 2020; Wuench, 2020). These start-ups and their investors have been only too happy to position the burgeoning industry as a partial solution to pandemic-related food insecurity and supply chain interruptions (Galanakis, 2020; Pereira & Oliveira, 2020; Yeung, 2020), welcoming Covid-19 as an “accelerator” as well as an opportunity to overcome consumer skepticism (Siegner, 2019; Morrison, 2020). In addition, as the coronavirus breathes new life into the term “sustainability” — long used by technocrats as a cover term for more centralized control (Wood, 2018) — global partners like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum are making the improbable claim that the complex, high-dollar, lab-created food substitutes (which require genetically stable cell lines, bioreactors, “edible scaffolds”, and cell culture media) are a “sustainable” option (Whiting, 2020). The biopharma giant Merck is also getting in on the “cultured meat” action, offering to make its “extensive knowledge of the relevant science and biotechnology” available to companies seeking to overcome “critical technological challenges” (Whiting, 2020). Merck frequently collaborates with the Gates Foundation, including in the development of Covid-19 vaccines (Lardieri, 2020).
Big Pharma
In September 2019, an annual Gallup poll reported that the restaurant industry was America’s top-ranked and most-liked among the 25 industries regularly assessed by the polling group (McCarthy, 2019). Sadly, less than a year later the Independent Restaurant Coalition predicted the permanent demise of up to 85 percent of independent restaurants (Jiang, 2020). In contrast, the pharmaceutical industry came in “dead last” in the 2019 poll, despite $9.6 billion spent annually on direct-to-consumer advertising and another $20 billion on marketing to health professionals (McCarthy, 2019; Schwartz & Woloshin, 2019). The U.S. is one of only two countries in the world that allows drug companies to market directly to consumers and, in non-election years, roughly 70 percent of news outlets’ advertising revenues come from pharma (Solis, 2019).
The pharmaceutical industry’s history of “fraud, bribery, lawsuits and scandals” is well known (Compton, n.d.), and no less a figure than Bill Gates has suggested that the public perceives Big Pharma as “kind of selfish and uncooperative”; however, Mr. Gates and Fortune magazine propose that Covid-19 may offer the industry an opportunity for “redemption” (Leaf, 2020). The stage may have been set for Big Pharma’s year of opportunity in January, when JPMorgan Chase held its 38th annual invitation-only health care conference. The business press describes the yearly conference as “one of the biggest biotech dealmaking events, often setting the tone for funding rounds, partnerships and mergers and acquisitions” (Leuty, 2020). Thus, just when the coronavirus ball was getting rolling, the conference brought an estimated 20,000 venture capitalists, investment bankers, and drug development executives and entrepreneurs to San Francisco to hear keynote addresses by JPMorgan’s and GlaxoSmithKline’s CEOs and to stoke expectations of a strong year for the biotech-plus-pharma chimera known as “biopharma” (JPMorgan, n.d.; Leuty, 2020; Lipschultz, 2020). In 2014, McKinsey & Company described the investment opportunities in biopharmaceuticals as “big and growing too rapidly to ignore”, with an annual growth rate more than double that of conventional pharma and a 20 percent share of global pharmaceutical revenues (Otto et al., 2014).
A few weeks after the JPMorgan conference — and well before any Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. — the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) helped ensure that significant pandemic benefits would flow into the biopharma and medical space. HHS did so by issuing a declaration (on February 4) making vaccines and all Covid-19-related medical countermeasures immune from legal liability (HHS, 2020a). On March 6, roughly a week after the first reported coronavirus death, President Trump sweetened the pot by signing into law the first in a series of emergency stimulus packages, earmarking 40 percent of the $8.3-billion bill for vaccines and drugs under terms the pharmaceutical industry openly dictated (Karlin-Smith, 2020).
Following the February 4 HHS declaration eliminating legal liability, Bill and Melinda Gates instantly pledged $100 million in funding for coronavirus vaccine research and treatments, followed by another $150 million in mid-April (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2020; Voytko, 2020). When Operation Warp Speed followed, making untold billions available for research and development of therapeutics and vaccines at taxpayer expense (see Table 3), dozens of biopharma companies jumped into the fray (HHS, n.d.). Catherine Austin Fitts notes that a system that exempts from liability anything labeled as a “vaccine” amounts to “an open invitation to make billions . . . particularly where government regulations and laws can be used to create a guaranteed market through mandates” (Fitts, 2020b). Moreover, each time the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) adds a given vaccine to the CDC schedule, it is not only the equivalent of a “golden ticket” for the vaccine manufacturer but also directly benefits the CDC, which owns dozens of vaccine-related patents and routinely shares licensing agreements with manufacturers (Taylor, 2017; Children’s Health Defense, 2019).
Currently, there is one injury for every 39 vaccinations administered (2.6%), often resulting in a “disastrous outcome of life-altering iatrogenic illnesses” (Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, n.d.; Kennedy Jr., 2019; Kristen, 2019). A CDC study published in JAMA in 2016 reported that one in five young children (19.5%) under age five who were admitted to emergency rooms for drug reactions were suffering from vaccine injuries (Shehab et al., 2016). Early clinical trial results and Covid-19 vaccines’ use of an array of experimental, never-before-approved technologies suggest that comparable (or worse) levels of injury could follow the rollout of coronavirus vaccines (Children’s Health Defense, 2020a, 2020c, 2020d, 2020e). The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, for example, feature mRNA molecules that are known to be “intrinsically unstable and prone to degradation”, with an inflammatory component that risks dangerous immune reactions (Feuerstein, Garde, & Joseph, 2020; Jackson et al., 2020; Wadhwa et al., 2020). Assuming the same vaccine injury rate of 2.6 percent, Operation Warp Speed’s projected vaccination of roughly 25 million Americans per month (Owermohle, 2020b) could conceivably result in 3.9 million injuries over just the first six months. (Given that the leading vaccines will require two initial doses and probable boosters thereafter, this figure could even be an underestimate.) If Bill Gates and other technocrats succeed in their declared aspiration to manufacture billions of doses of coronavirus vaccine and “get them out to every part of the world” (Gates, 2020), the scale of injury would not only be unprecedented but could open a lucrative, long-term gateway to the wider drug market to manage the injuries (Kristen, 2019).
*HHS note on Operation Warp Speed funding: “Congress has directed almost $10 billion to this effort through supplemental funding, including the CARES Act. Congress has also appropriated other flexible funding. The almost $10 billion specifically directed includes more than $6.5 billion designated for countermeasure development through BARDA and $3 billion for NIH research.”
By mid-October, 44 candidate vaccines were in clinical evaluation worldwide, with another two hundred or so in the pipeline (Agrawal et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2020b). Furnishing predictably uncritical coverage ensured by the pharmaceutical industry’s strategic entanglements with the media, scientists, and medical journals, the press has been telling the public that the vaccines will play “an important role in most response scenarios”, including “‘sav[ing] the world’ in worse scenarios” and serving as an “insurance policy against continued health and economic shocks” (Agrawal et al., 2020). Only a handful of journalists have called attention to Big Pharma’s pandemic profiteering, pointing out that “insiders at companies developing experimental vaccines and treatments . . . aren’t waiting until they finish the job to collect their reward” (Wallack, 2020).
An October piece in the Boston Globe cited the example of Moderna (Wallack, 2020). It took Moderna a mere three weeks after Bill Gates’ initial funding installment to send its first batch of experimental vaccine to research and patent partner, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), leading to an immediate surge in share price of 28 percent (Lee, 2020; Loftus, 2020). By early April, Moderna’s CEO had become an overnight billionaire; by October, he had sold nearly $58 million in stock, followed by another $2 million in mid-November, just ahead of the company’s intended filing for vaccine Emergency Use Authorization (Nagarajan, 2020; Tognini, 2020; Wallack, 2020). Meanwhile, Moderna’s chief medical officer has been “systematically liquidating all of his company stock” — about $70 million — “in a series of pre-planned trades that have made him roughly $1 million richer each week” (Wallack, 2020). Thus far this year, company insiders have sold $309 million in stock versus under $2 million in 2019, fueling suspicion that they may be “downplaying possible obstacles to goose stock prices — and increase their personal profits” (Wallack, 2020). Also among those selling Moderna stock options is Moncef Slaoui, the former Moderna board member and former GlaxoSmithKline executive who now heads up Operation Warp Speed (Rozsa & Spencer, 2020).
From Moderna’s perspective, the Covid-19 vaccine represents a lifeline, rescuing the company from a shaky bottom line due to its prior inability to bring any products to market (Garde, 2017; Nathan-Kazis, 2020). Other biopharma companies formerly on the skids are likewise poised to make record profits from the coronavirus (Webb & Diego, 2020). Characterizing the business model for Covid-19 (and other) vaccines as a “great scheme” — particularly given the HHS-guaranteed, risk-free environment — a watchdog group spokesman told the Boston Globe, “Taxpayers cover the upfront investment costs and shoulder any downside, while their [biopharma’s] executives and shareholders can capture the upside if their drugs pan out and are shoveling obscene amounts of money into their pockets throughout the process” (Wallack, 2020). In the words of a business school professor, “You announce a sliver of positive hope about a product and your stock price goes up,” even though “the chances of that product panning out might be relatively low” (Wallack, 2020). In 2020, the company Vaxart saw its per-share stock price rise from 27 cents to a high of $17.49 (Wallack, 2020).
Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi (2020) describes Covid-19 as “the ultimate cash cow,” a “subsidy-laden scam,” and a legal opportunity for “giant-scale gouging”, quoting a legislator who admits that while the public is paying for the research and manufacturing, “the profits will be privatized”. Writing in August about how the government-subsidized business model played out for Gilead’s drug remdesivir, Taibbi (2020) recounted: “Gilead, a company with a market capitalization of more than $90 billion, making it bigger than Goldman Sachs, develops an antiviral drug with the help of $99 million in American government grant money. Though the drug may cost as little as $10 per dose to make, and is being produced generically in Bangladesh at about a fifth of the list price, and costs about a third less in Europe than it does in the U.S., Gilead ended up selling hundreds of thousands of doses at the maximum conceivable level, i.e., the American private-insurance price — which, incidentally, might be about 10 times what it’s worth, given its actual medical impact.”
Always a major lobbying presence on Capitol Hill, the pharmaceutical industry has been more lavish than usual with its political spending in 2020, donating over $11 million to individual candidates involved with health care policy and related political action committees (Facher, 2020a). Although the overall amounts represent a pittance for companies earning tens of billions a year, pharma and its lobbying groups recognize that “small chunks of corporate change”, when strategically allocated, “can have a significant impact” (Facher, 2020b). Coronavirus vaccine frontrunner Pfizer, the second-largest drug and biotech company in the world and the fourth-highest earner of vaccine revenues (Statista, n.d.; Hansen, 2020), has been the top political spender, likely laying the groundwork for its November 20 filing for Emergency Use Authorization for its coronavirus vaccine (Chander, 2020; Children’s Health Defense, 2020d). Pfizer has also benefited from repeated endorsements from the financial community and self-proclaimed spokesmen like Bill Gates (Speights, 2020a, 2020b).
The Military-Intelligence Complex
Traditional vaccines have their fair share of safety problems, but coronavirus and other 21st-century vaccines promise to challenge bodily integrity and informed consent in entirely new ways, particularly given their strong reliance on various forms of nanotechnology (Health and Environment Alliance, 2008; Li et al., 2009; Chauhan et al., 2020; Children’s Health Defense, 2020a). Many of the technologies being rolled into Covid-19 vaccines and their delivery systems originated in the military sphere or benefited from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funding. DARPA has had a Biological Technologies Office since 2014 and, since the emergence of Covid-19, has specifically directed many of its pandemic-related efforts toward coronavirus therapeutics and vaccines (Gallo, 2020). Far from being suspect, the military’s role has been celebrated. A BioCentury report optimistically suggested in March that as an agency “that specializes in turning science fantasies into realities”, DARPA might offer the “best hopes” for Covid-19 biotech solutions due to its willingness to pursue “high-risk, high-reward technologies”, set goals “that defy conventional wisdom”, and go after its goals with a “laser” focus (Usdin, 2020).
One of the principal DARPA-incubated vaccine technologies to gain prominence in the Covid-19 era are the nucleic acid (mRNA and DNA) vaccines that turn the human body into its own “bioreactor” (Ghose, 2015; Usdin, 2020). Vaccines using mRNA (such as Moderna’s and Pfizer’s) — which developers compare to “software” (Garde, 2017) and praise for their “programmability” (Al-Wassiti, 2019) — target the cell’s cytoplasm and rely on delivery technologies such as lipid nanoparticles to “ensure stabilization of mRNA under physiological conditions” (Wadhwa et al., 2020). DNA vaccines (such as Inovio’s) are intended to penetrate all the way into a cell’s nucleus and come with the risk of “integration of exogenous DNA into the host genome, which may cause severe mutagenesis and induced new diseases” (Zhang, Maruggi, Shan, & Li, 2019). Describing the scientific community’s early doubts about nucleic acid vaccines — arising from the potential for “many things” to go wrong — a DARPA program manager recently noted, “It was something that was much too risky for groups like the NIH to fund” (Usdin, 2020).
Risks aside, DARPA and vaccine manufacturers are attracted to one chief benefit of nucleic acid vaccines: They can be developed much more quickly and cheaply. Other military-initiated technologies are also coming into view with Covid-19 vaccines. These include electroporation, which applies a high-voltage electrical pulse to make cell membranes permeable to a vaccine’s foreign DNA (Inovio Pharmaceuticals, 2020); syringe-injected biosensors that enable continuous wireless monitoring of vital signs and body chemistry (Peer, n.d.; Profusa, n.d.; Diego, 2020b; Tucker, 2020); and the quantum-dot-based infrared detectors that are under discussion as a tool for tracking vaccination status (Johnson, 2011; Trafton, 2019). DARPA has also played a leading role in developing and funding technologies that “blur the lines between computers and biology”, including brain-machine interfaces and neuromonitoring and mind-reading devices (CB Insights, 2019; Gent, 2019; Tullis, 2019).
Some of Moderna’s earliest funding came from DARPA, which awarded the company $25 million in 2013 to develop the mRNA platform that has become a key feature of its coronavirus vaccine (Usdin, 2020). Other DARPA beneficiaries now involved in efforts to develop Covid-19 vaccines or therapeutics include AbCellera Biologics, CureVac, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Vir Biotechnology; some of AbCellera’s partners include major players like Pfizer and Gilead (Usdin, 2020).
The Pentagon’s involvement in coronavirus-related efforts goes well beyond DARPA-funded research. Four-star General Gustave Perna is serving as chief operating officer of Operation Warp Speed alongside chief advisor Moncef Slaoui. General Perna, in charge of U.S. Army Materiel Command, oversees the global supply chain for over 190,000 U.S. Army employees (HHS, 2020b). For the first time ever, the distribution of the eventual coronavirus vaccines is being planned as a “joint venture” between the CDC and the Pentagon, with the latter overseeing “all the logistics of getting the vaccines to the right place, at the right time, in the right condition” (Owermohle, 2020a). In a CBS “60 Minutes” appearance in early November, General Perna indicated that Operation Warp Speed already had doses of (currently unapproved) vaccine and syringes stockpiled and protected by armed guards, and intends to get them out the door “within 24 hours” of vaccine approval and delivered “to every zip code in this country” (Martin, 2020).
The Pentagon has indicated that private-sector involvement could be a key feature of the distribution strategy, and the private sector is positioning itself to participate. Merck, for example, is testing drone delivery of vaccines in partnership with Volansi, Inc., a company that provides “on-demand” drone services for the military (Landi, 2020; Simmie, 2020). In July, Merck’s CEO set the stage for its logistics involvement by describing vaccine distribution as “even a harder problem” than the “scientific conundrum of coming forward with a vaccine that works” (Murray & Griffin, 2020).
Outside the pharmaceutical arena, technological transformations that are speeding the world toward more centralized control also reveal the influence of the military-intelligence sector. For example, Amazon Web Services has held cloud-computing contracts with the CIA since 2013, with the original $600 million contract extending to all 17 intelligence agencies (Konkel, 2014). In October of 2019, the Department of Defense awarded the $10 billion JEDI cloud computing contract to Microsoft, a decision that Amazon has unsuccessfully disputed in court (Sandler, 2020). In early 2020, the U.S. Navy awarded a cloud computing contract to Leidos (Leidos, 2020).
5G, too, relies in part on the high-range millimeter-wave spectrum previously used almost entirely by the military for “non-lethal” crowd dispersal weapons (Joint Intermediate Force Capabilities Office, n.d.). In October, the Department of Defense announced it would spend $600 million to test “dual-use” applications of 5G to enhance the U.S. military’s “leap-ahead capabilities”, including applications such as 5G-enabled augmented/virtual reality, 5G-enabled “smart” warehouses, and 5G technologies “to aid in Air, Space, and Cyberspace lethality” (U.S. Department of Defense, 2020).
Both 5G and cloud computing are critical components of the Big Data and IoT build-out that is enabling the conversion of individual data into the “new oil” (Fitts, 2020a), and both have exploded in 2020 (Howell, 2020; Klebnikov, 2020). The technologies are essential to the “centrally controlled digital financial transaction systems” envisioned by central bankers, who plan to rely on seamless data flows to and from “every smartphone, community, and home without exception” (Fitts, 2020a).
Discussion
As more individuals and organizations connect the technocratic dots and look beneath the coronavirus pandemic’s seductively simple surface, it should become increasingly apparent that the pandemic profiteers do not have people’s best interests at heart. In The State of Our Currencies and other pandemic-related writings, Catherine Austin Fitts (2020a, 2020b) strongly emphasizes the importance of accepting that what is transpiring in the financial, tech, biopharmaceutical, and military-intelligence sectors is interconnected. Part of this involves recognizing that the coronavirus vaccines currently dominating the headlines represent something likely to go far beyond the simple health intervention being held out by scientists and officials as a panacea. Instead, the evidence suggests that Covid-19 vaccines are intended to serve as a Trojan horse to transport invasive technologies into people’s brains and bodies. These technologies could include brain-machine interface nanotechnology, digital identity tracking devices, technology that can be turned on and off remotely, and cryptocurrency-compatible chips (Fitts, 2020b).
In Fitts’ (2020a, 2020b) view, this type of intimate access — achieved “without notice, disclosure, or compensation” — represents the “final inch” of interest to technocrats. Together with external technologies to control behavior (Max, 2020), such access could permit the achievement of several goals: (1) replacing currencies with a digital transaction system, digital identification, and tracking (an “embedded credit card system”); (2) creating a global control grid that connects the population to the military-intelligence clouds; and (3) obtaining continuous access to valuable individual data on a 24/7 basis (Fitts, 2020b). Countries in West Africa are already piloting a venture by the Gates Foundation, the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine alliance, and Mastercard that “marks a novel approach towards linking a biometric digital identity system, vaccination records, and a payment system into a single cohesive platform” (Diego, 2020a). As Fitts (2020b) summarizes, “Just as Gates installed an operating system in our computers, now the vision is to install an operating system in our bodies and use ‘viruses’ to mandate an initial installation followed by regular updates”. The “neat trick”, as Fitts sees it, is that the use of vaccines as the delivery vehicle cancels out legal liability.
It is noteworthy that Bill Gates announced that he was stepping down from the Microsoft board of directors on March 13 — the same day that President Trump declared the pandemic a national emergency (Haselton & Novet, 2020). That same month, the Pentagon reaffirmed its intention for the JEDI cloud-computing contract to go to Microsoft (Rash, 2020; Sun, 2020). By distancing himself from the appearance of conflicts of interest with Microsoft’s Defense Department commitments and the Pentagon’s subsequent role in Operation Warp Speed, Mr. Gates had more freedom to make the rounds and begin promoting worldwide vaccination and digital certificates (Haggith, 2020). Gates has been less successful in distracting attention from other potential conflicts of interest. An exposé by The Nation (ironically also published in March) showed that the Gates Foundation gives billions to corporations in which the foundation holds stocks and bonds — including all of the major pharmaceutical companies — creating a “welter of conflicts of interest” (Schwab, 2020). A dozen years ago, around the time of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the Los Angeles Times outlined the Gates Foundation’s numerous holdings in a number of notoriously “destructive or unethical” companies (Piller et al., 2007).
Mr. Gates is not the only party strenuously promoting digital IDs and “no-escape” financial tracking (marketed under the benevolent guise of “financial inclusion”). In October, Kristalina Georgieva, the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) Managing Director, evoked “a world in which digital is the way in which financial transactions take place” and made it clear that she views universal digital IDs as a non-negotiable requirement for moving in the “right direction” (International Monetary Fund, 2020). Georgieva has, not unhappily, described Covid-19 as a “once in a lifetime pandemic” (Bello, 2020).
Georgieva’s remarks should be examined in the context of a proposal by the U.S. House of Representatives to bestow the IMF with $3 trillion “no-strings-attached” U.S. dollars as “coronavirus relief aid” (Huessy, 2020; Roberts, 2020). A U.S. taxpayer-funded gift of this magnitude would be unprecedented and would increase the IMF’s lending resources (called Special Drawing Rights or SDRs) by as much as 10-fold (Roberts, 2020). 2020’s events (including global debt entrapment and actual or potential food shortages) and the IMF’s bullying track record (Bello, 2020) suggest that the IMF could then wield the $3 trillion as a weapon, strong-arming countries into accepting an array of unwanted measures such as digital identities, forced vaccination, and eventually (as the World Economic Forum predicts), the relinquishment of private property (World Economic Forum, 2016). As a step in this general direction, the IMF has strongly praised India’s leadership in biometric identification systems. It celebrates the “delivery of social benefits through direct electronic payments to eligible bank account holders”, but glosses over the systems’ vulnerability to “unauthorized access” and the data breaches that are already rampant (Jha, 2018).
While current prospects for ordinary citizens certainly appear challenging, nothing is a foregone conclusion. Large-scale protests against the curtailment of civil rights have occurred and continue to occur in many countries, most notably in Germany (Depuydt, 2020). The Great Barrington Declaration — a statement crafted by public health scientists from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford — has garnered signatures from over 12,000 scientists, over 35,000 medical practitioners, and nearly 639,000 citizens from around the world, all concerned about “the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies” (Kulldorff et al., 2020). Similarly, an Appeal authored in May by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, gathered 40,000 signatures within a few days, with the signatories (religious leaders, doctors, journalists, lawyers, and other professionals) all seeking to draw attention to the threats to sovereignty and freedom that pandemic-related mandates have unleashed (Tosatti, 2020). Archbishop Viganò has also penned severe critiques of the Great Reset, describing its architects as “a global elite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures [and a health dictatorship] with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations” (Viganò, 2020).
One of the signatories of Archbishop Viganò’s Appeal is attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., founder and chief legal counsel of Children’s Health Defense, an organization dedicated to ending childhood epidemics by working to eliminate harmful exposures, holding those responsible accountable, and establishing stronger safeguards. In late October, Kennedy recorded a 19-minute video message to people around the world, describing the “coup d’état by big data, by big telecom, by big tech, by the big oil and chemical companies and by the global public health cartel” (Kennedy Jr., 2020). In his closing remarks, Kennedy also indicated that citizens who wish to maintain their freedoms cannot afford to remain complacent: “You are on the front lines of the most important battle in history, and it is the battle to save democracy, and freedom, and human liberty, and human dignity from this totalitarian cartel that is trying to rob us simultaneously, in every nation in the world, of the rights that every human being is born with.”
Andriotis, A. (2020, September 20). No job, loads of debt: Covid upends middle-class family finances. The Wall Street Journal. https://archive.is/mZAme
Bank for International Settlements. (2019, October 18). Investigating the impact of global stablecoins. G7 Working Group on Stablecoins. https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d187.pdf
Bueno-Notivol, J., Gracia-García, P., Olaya, B., Lasheras, I., López-Antón, R., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Prevalence of depression during the COVID-19 outbreak: a meta-analysis of community-based studies. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 2020 Aug 31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2020.07.007
Chauhan, G., Madou, M. J., Kalra, S., Chopra, V., Ghosh, D., & Martinez-Chapa, S. O. (2020). Nanotechnology for COVID-19: Therapeutics and vaccine research. ACS Nano. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.0c04006
Community FoodBank of New Jersey. (2020, September 30). COVID-19’s Impact on Food Insecurity in New Jersey. Hillside, NJ: CFBNJ. https://cfbnj.org/covidimpact/
Dubey, M. J., Ghosh, R., Chatterjee, S., Biswas, P., Chatterjee, S., & Dubey, S. (2020). COVID-19 and addiction. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome, 14(5), 817-823. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.008
Ettman, C. K., Abdalla, S. M., Cohen, G. H., Sampson, L., Vivier, P. M., & Galea, S. (2020). Prevalence of depression symptoms in US adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Network Open, 3(9), e2019686. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19686
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. (2020, October 4). Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56: Classified Activities. FASAB Handbook, Version 18 (06/19). Retrieved September 26, 2020, from http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_56.pdf
Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010). Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science, 5, 56. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
HHS. (2020a, February 4). Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Federal Register, 85(52), 15198–15203. https://www.law360.com/articles/1253029/attachments/0
Jackson, N. A. C., Kester, K. E., Casimiro, D., Gurunathan, S., & DeRosa, F. (2020). The promise of mRNA vaccines: a biotech and industrial perspective. NPJ Vaccines, 5, 11. doi: 10.1038/s41541-020-0159-8
Pereira, M., & Oliveira, A. M. (2020). Poverty and food insecurity may increase as the threat of COVID-19 spreads. Public Health Nutrition, 1-5. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020003493
Profusa. (n.d.). Profusa is pioneering tissue-integrating biosensors for continuous monitoring of body chemistries. Retrieved October 26, 2020 from https://profusa.com/
Rossen, L. M., Branum, A. M., Ahmad, F. B., Sutton, P., & Anderson, R. N. (2020, October 23). Excess deaths associated with COVID-19, by age and race and ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(42), 1522-1527. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6942e2
Shehab, N., Lovegrove, M. C., Geller, A. I., Rose, K. O., Weidle, N. J., Budnitz, D. S. (2016). US emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events, 2013-2014. JAMA, 316(20, 2115-2125. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.16201
Wadhwa, A., Aljabbari, A., Lokras, A., Foged C., & Thakur, A. (2020). Opportunities and challenges in the delivery of mRNA-based vaccines. Pharmaceutics, 12(2), 102. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12020102
Woolf, S. H., Chapman, D. A., Sabo, R. T., Weinberger, D.M., Hill, L., & Taylor, D. D. H. (2020). JAMA, 324(15), 1562-1564. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.19545
Zhang, C., Maruggi, G., Shan, H., & Li, J. (2019). Advances in mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases. Frontiers in Immunology, 10, 594. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00594
Zhang, J., Xu, K., Zhang, S., Wang, Y., Zheng, N., Pan, G. et al. (2019). Brain-machine interface-based rat-robot behavior control. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 1101: 123-147. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-2050-7_5
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claimed in its final report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 that “there were no witness reports” of an explosion when the 47-story skyscraper fell straight into its footprint late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.
That claim, long discredited by eyewitness reports of a shockwave ripping through the building and multiple explosions going off, was further challenged in a new filing made today by 9/11 families and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The letter, sent to NIST as part of an ongoing effort to have the federal agency overhaul its report, provides the accounts of three different reporters who were close to the scene as Building 7 went down.
Most notably, a NY1 reporter who appears to be Annika Pergament described on television a “loud, incredibly loud explosion” and said, “You could feel the ground rumble.” WABC’s Jeff Rossen recounted hearing a “tremble” from six blocks away. And Daily News reporter Peter DeMarco wrote, “[T]here was a rumble. The building’s top row of windows popped out. Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out. Then the thirty-eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray.”
NY1 reporter Annika Pergament at 5:30 PM:
“I mean, it was a rumble. You could feel the ground rumble.”
_____
NY1 reporter Annika Pergament at 6:30 PM:
“All of a sudden, a loud, incredibly loud explosion.”
_____
WABC reporter Jeff Rossen:
“But when that building collapsed, you heard another tremble.”
_____
The submission of these three eyewitness accounts is the latest filing in a pending “request for correction,” initiated in April of this year under the Data Quality Act, which asks NIST to reverse its conclusion that fires were the cause of the building’s sudden, total destruction. The original request identifies eight items of information in the NIST report that it argues violate NIST’s information quality standards.
NIST issued an initial denial in August, which AE911Truth denounced as “egregious” and a “mockery of the Data Quality Act.” Then, on September 28, 2020, AE911Truth and its fellow requesters filed an appeal, which is now under review by Dr. James K. Olthoff, NIST’s associate director for laboratory programs.
After the non-binding 60-day deadline for Dr. Olthoff to respond to the appeal came and went, AE911Truth and its fellow requesters moved to submit the additional eyewitness evidence, which had been brought to their attention only after they filed the appeal in September.
The collapse of Building 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11:
The east penthouse falls first. The structure then instantaneously goes into free fall.
_____
In addition to the eyewitness accounts of the three reporters, the new filing includes the oral history of Lieutenant Brian Becker of the New York Fire Department.
Becker’s oral history is intended to bolster the claim made in the original request that two men who were attempting to evacuate Building 7 earlier in the day — Michael Hess, the New York City corporation counsel, and Barry Jennings, deputy director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority — witnessed an explosion that trapped them in the building.
Hess and Jennings each appeared on television later that day describing what they had witnessed as an explosion, and Jennings continued to maintain — until his death in 2008 — that he witnessed multiple explosions while attempting to evacuate Building 7, including the initial one that caused the 6th floor landing he was standing on to give way.
NIST’s explanation that the event Hess and Jennings witnessed was not an explosion, but was damage caused by debris from the collapse of the North Tower, relies on the agency’s untenable claim that it took the two men from 9:59 AM until 10:28 AM to make it from the 23rd floor to the 6th floor — which averages out to one minute and 42 seconds to descend a single floor. The request argues that since Hess and Jennings must have reached the 6th floor much earlier than 10:28 AM, the event they witnessed could not have been caused by the collapse of the North Tower at 10:28 AM.
NIST: “As [Hess and Jennings] went to get into an elevator to go downstairs, the lights inside WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed [at 9:59 AM]. At that point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed [at 10:28 AM] . . . and the staircase filled with smoke and debris.”
The oral history of FDNY Lieutenant David Becker demonstrates that he and his team were easily able to descend 30 floors in the North Tower after the collapse of the South Tower at 9:59 AM, even while “checking floors intermittently on the way down.” Becker’s account thus proves beyond any doubt the implausibility of NIST’s claim that it took Hess and Jennings 29 minutes go from the 23rd floor to the 6th floor of Building 7.
The new filing asks Dr. Olthoff to include the additional evidence in the revisions that NIST has been requested to make to its report, since it is directly relevant to the claims already made in the original request.
AE911Truth and its fellow requesters are now awaiting Dr. Olthoff’s final decision, hoping he will direct the responsible NIST personnel to develop a new “Probable Collapse Sequence” that is consistent with evidence of explosions. Should Dr. Olthoff decline to order the requested revisions, AE911Truth plans to file suit against NIST for noncompliance with the Data Quality Act.
“This is an obvious takeover plot, and any that cannot understand this fact have not the capability to think, to understand logic, or to see with open eyes the most massive hypocrisy that has ever existed. Nothing is hidden any longer, as all aspects of this fraud are now completely out in the open.”
“Propaganda is as powerful as heroin; it surreptitiously dissolves all capacity to think.” Gil Courtemanche (2007). “A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali”, p.178, Vintage
The people in this country are being completely inundated with lies, deceit, misdirection, and extreme propaganda. This is meant to cloud the minds of the weak and gullible population with fabricated absurdities in order to frighten them into submission. Unfortunately, this strategy is working, and the masses are folding to the deception, and are acquiescing to most every state demand. This has become the most successful part of this government’s efforts to control the people, in that it allows for the elimination of all their freedoms in the name of non-existent ‘health security.’ The medical and political policies claimed to be for the protection of the public concerning this hoax have exactly the opposite effect, and therefore are causing an excessive amount of suffering and death. In reality, this is nothing less than pre-meditated murder by the state, all due to measures purposely meant to harm.
In one mainstream publication today, the headlines read like hell on earth has consumed this country, and Armageddon has already arrived. This is all due to the coronavirus false flag event being used to take over the world. This is of course without merit, any truth, and in fact is nothing more than lies, but that matters not to the perpetrators of this evil plan.
Headlines on Drudge December 3, 2020:
“PEAK VIRUS USA”
“Deaths top 3100 in single day for first time”
“Data Suggests True Toll 400,000”
“CDC tells American NOT TO TRAVEL”
“LA residents ‘ordered’ to stay in homes”
“DEATH EVERY 30 SECONDS”
When the bulk of this now uneducated, indoctrinated, and dumbed down society is dependent on the mainstream news, and is only fed the state narrative, is it any wonder that we are facing global slavery through a totalitarian system like technocratic communism? The propaganda is so monumental that to be exposed to it daily is psychological suicide considering any possibility of the retention of intellect. When one’s mind is dominated by continuous repetitive lies, the acceptance of those lies becomes almost impossible to avoid. As Edward Bernays said in his book “Propaganda:”
“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.”
This is exactly what is happening. The masses are not only being controlled through false fear, but are demanding that any that are questioning this control must be called out and silenced. The mind control efforts by the state have been so powerful as to not only have won the acceptance and compliance of the herd, but also have caused them to become complicit agents of the state in its effort to command majority obedience through draconian decrees. This is an abomination, as all sovereignty of the individual and the people has been destroyed due to the division purposely instilled in this now proletarian society.
We were told that most everyone would be affected, and that millions upon millions would die. We were told this was the most devastating and fatal virus threatening mankind. We were told that human contact was dangerous, and that we should all avoid each other in favor of total isolation. We were told that working in order to sustain our families, our communities, and ourselves was detrimental to all. We were told to wear useless and deadly masks, and to avoid every pleasure of life. We were told that only global governance could save us from this scourge. We were told that surveillance and tracking of every aspect of our being was necessary to order to stop the spread of this state-fabricated threat. We were told that we could not travel, listen to live music, or even be in nature. With exceptions for the government favored powerful individuals and corporations, the rest of the world closed down in just a few months, and now we are being told that we must accept untested toxic poisons in our bodies in order to be given permission from our ‘masters’ to live.
This is an obvious takeover plot, and any that cannot understand this fact have not the capability to think, to understand logic, or to see with open eyes the most massive hypocrisy that has ever existed. Nothing is hidden any longer, as all aspects of this fraud are now completely out in the open. The only way for something of this magnitude to be able to go forward is for stupidity to be nearly universal. Consider this comment closely; because it is not made frivolously, as why would any intelligent society allow a governing minority to destroy all love, joy, and life in order to restructure the world for their own benefit at the expense of humanity? Why would any sane person, any sane community, or any sane country, act collectively as beasts of burden to a handful of evil, manipulating, and despicable criminals claiming to be saviors? What could possibly possess Americans to voluntarily acquiesce to such torturous madness? What incentive could possibly be sufficient for the people at large to become voluntary slaves to the state?
Listen to the political members of the occult ruling class that are attempting to steal your lives. Listen carefully, because they are telling you exactly what is coming, what they plan to do, and how they will take over the lives of billions while claiming special status for themselves. We are in the midst of the biggest propaganda campaign in history, and the most massive transition of mankind, and that transition is one from hell. Do not allow this “Great Reset” plot to continue to grow without total resistance by whatever means are necessary to stop it. This is a plan for a communistic system based on technocratic control, with common people being relegated to the mundane aspects of basic existence, while the claimed ‘elites’ control the globe. It is time to stand up against this monster called the ‘State,’ and never relent until its back is broken, and its power destroyed.
Imagine this: you wake up to the blaring of your alarm clock and immediately reach for your smartphone to scroll your Insta feed before getting out of bed. But instead of the usual delightful and informative Instagram posts, today you’re greeted by a “server not found” error.
Deciding that it’s too early in the morning to deal with this, you hop in the shower . . . but for some reason Alexa won’t play your Spotify playlist through your bathroom smart speakers. You have to shower in silence like a luddite.
Getting frustrated, you head downstairs for breakfast. You prop your iPad up next to you and go to check your email while stuffing your face with your morning bowl of Cheeri-GMOs (now with extra HFCS!) but you’re not getting any new messages. You turn on your smart TV and navigate to YouTube so you can catch up on all the latest news from MSNBC, but all you get is the never ending spiral of the spinning “loading” wheel.
Twitter? Down.
Facebook? No luck.
Reddit? Forget it!
Increasingly desperate, you try in vain to remember how to turn on your regular terrestrial TV. Then you recall you have something collecting dust in a closet somewhere: a radio. You turn it on, fumble with the dial, and find a station just in time to hear the announcement:
“. . . is claiming responsibility for the outage. Once again, widespread outages across a range of internet services is sweeping the globe this morning, as a shadowy new terror group emerges to take responsibility . . .”
Suddenly, your phone starts making a strange sound. You don’t know what it’s doing at first, until you realize it’s ringing. One of your friends is calling you. On the phone. Not texting, tweeting, messaging or snapchatting. Actually calling you.
“Hello?”
“Hey Norm! You hear about the big news? Internet’s down!”
“Yeah.”
“They say it’s some kind of new terror group. Cybeterrorists In Action. C.I.A. for short. Sounds pretty scary.”
. . . Oh, OK, I’ll stop teasing. Of course this doesn’t describe you or your daily routines, dear reader. I know you’re the clued-in, switched-on sort who peruses The Corbett Report and avoids normie internet sites like the plague (the real plague, not this ginned-up COVID cold).
But don’t scoff at the scenario. A scene like this one could play out one day for billions of Normie McNormesons around the world. And when it does, there will already be a plan in place for changing the internet as we know it.
As I know you know, the transition from the homeland security state to the biosecurity state that I documented in COVID-911 raises the specter of false flag bioterrorism. But there are other vectors for false flag attacks that could cause massive disruption to our lives, and, like every spectacular false flag event, increase the power and control of the deep state. In this case, I’m thinking of false flag cyberterrorism.
The idea of a “cyber 9/11” coming along to disrupt the internet has been around since the actual 9/11 occurred. Back in 2003, even as the Pentagon was feverishly drafting its plans to “fight the net” as if it were “an enemy weapons system,” Mike McConnell, the ex-director of the National Security Agency (NSA), was fearmongering over the possibility of a cyber attack “equivalent to the attack on the World Trade Center” if a new institution were not created to oversee cybersecurity. In the following years, report after report continued to use the horror of 9/11 as a way of fueling public hysteria over cyberterrorism until just such a US Cyber Command was created.
But the creation of CYBERCOM did not end the cyber threat anymore than the creation of the Department of Homeland Security ended the terror threat, and for precisely the same reason: the real terror threat doesn’t come from the cave-dwelling terrorists that the politicians tell us to be afraid of. No, the real terror threat comes from the very agencies that have been tasked with “saving” the public from the terrorist bogeymen.
Case in point: Stuxnet. As you might recall, Stuxnet was a military-grade cyberweapon co-developed by the United States and Israel that specifically targeted Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz. As we later learned, Stuxnet was only one part of a full-scale military cyberattack against Iran codenamed Nitro Zeus.
Yes, to the surprise of absolutely no one, the largest and costliest cyberweapon ever developed (or at least officially acknowledged) was not the product of an Al-CIA-da cyberterror group or even the dreaded “Russian hackers,” but the militaries of the US and Israel. Neither should it be surprising to learn that the intelligence agencies have crafted ways of making such cyberweapons appear to have been created by other entities, which is a functionality that is essential to any false flag attack.
We know, for example, that the CIA has already developed the Marble Framework, an anti-forensic tool that “might be used to disguise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russian, Chinese, or from specific other countries.” In other words, the CIA has spent time and energy developing a way to pin the blame for its own cyberweapons on its enemies. Although the CIA obviously will not confirm why, how or even if Marble has been deployed in the past, there is no other explanation for its existence: it is a tool for enabling virtual false flag terrorism.
This is important because, exactly as the Patriot Act was already ready and waiting in the wings pre-9/11, so, too, is an “iPatriot Act” ready and waiting in the wings for a “cyber 9/11” to come along and justify its enactment
We do not have to speculate about this. It was confirmed by Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig at a conference in 2008. “I had dinner once with Richard Clarke at the table,” he told the audience at Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California. “And I said, ‘Is there an equivalent to the Patriot Act — an iPatriot Act — just sitting, waiting for some substantial event? Just waiting for them to come have the excuse for radically changing the way the Internet works?’ And he said, ‘Of course there is’ — and I swear this is what he said — ‘and Vint Cerf is not going to like it very much.'”
Keep in mind that the Richard Clarke who told Lessig about the iPatriot Act is the same Richard Clarke who came out after the death of Michael Hastings to note that intelligence agencies have ways to remotely hijack cars, steer people to their deaths and disguise their tracks well enough to “get away with it.” Also keep in mind that Joe Biden likes to brag about having written the [regular] Patriot Act in 1994.
So what kinds of things might be contained in such an iPatriot Act? Once again, we don’t have to speculate. Various government officials have talked about their wish list for an internet clampdown in recent years.
In March of 2009, Senator Jay Rockefeller opined during a subcommittee hearing that the internet is proving to be such a threat to America’s national security that it would have been better if it had never existed.
In June of 2010, Senator Joe Lieberman stated that he believed the US needed the same ability to shut down the internet as China currently has.
Also in 2010, Microsoft Senior Advisor and Bilderberg attendee Craig Mundie called for the creation of a “World Health Organization for the internet” and suggested creating government-issued licenses to authorize internet usage.
In 2011, Bill Clinton advocated the idea that the US government create an agency for “fact-checking” websites on the internet.
In 2015, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (yes, that NIST) unveiled the “Trusted Identities Group,” part of a national strategy for standardizing online identification systems.
Given all of this, it is not hard to imagine how a cyberterror event may play out: A cataclysmic attack on the internet’s infrastructure massively disrupts people’s online lives for a period of days or weeks. Social media is inaccesible. Online banking and shopping is halted. All news and information during the internet blackout comes from the old, controlled dinosaur media. A shocked and distressed public learn that the Russians (or whatever bogeyman du jour is convenient) are being blamed for the attack. In order to prevent such a thing from reoccurring, emergency legislation is passed in the US (and, coincidentally, in all other Western nations) requiring proof of identity to use any and all internet services.
In one fell swoop, not only would the last vestiges of internet anonymity be eliminated, but a key part of the erection of the social credit control grid would be in place. Now, just like in China, all of your online activity would be tied directly to your social credit score. Lieberman must be wetting his pants in anticipation.
Of course, this is not to say that the internet as we’ve known it would be gone altogether if such a scenario were to play out. In a network that was literally designed to be accessible and usable in the wake of any cataclysm, even nuclear holocaust, there will always be alternative ways of getting online access. There will be pirate internet and mesh networks and dweb sites and peer-to-peer protocols like LBRY that will be accessible to anyone able and willing to put in the effort to learn about such technologies. But the Normie McNormieson we met in the imaginary tale at the beginning of this article would be forever cut off from the free and open internet of old. (Good thing we’re not Normie McNormieson, huh?)
As ever, it is important to know about these false flag possibilities so that when a spectacular cyberterror event takes place we are not railroaded into a phony solution that will serve only to increase the power and control of the real terrorists. And, in the meantime, it is important to be researching and preparing ourselves for just such an event so that, regardless of whether it happens as predicted or not, we will be less dependent on the systems of control that are increasingly defining the normie internet.
This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.
To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, sign up to become a member of the website.
James Corbett: False Flags and the Dawn of Bioterrorism
A false flag operation is an action that is carried out in such a way as to make it look like it was done by someone other than the real perpetrator. Taking its metaphor from naval warfare, where ships would sometimes fly false flags as a ruse du guerre in order to sneak up on their enemy, its use has been expanded to include military actions, intelligence operations and even political subterfuge.
It is not difficult to see how governments can use this tactic to whip the public into war hysteria against their political enemies. By staging an attack and blaming their opponents, governments can dupe their population into going along with whatever policies they wish to enact in the name of “fighting the enemy.” It’s a childishly simple tactic but, as we shall see, it has worked for hundreds of years to lead populations into war against targeted groups.
For the past twenty years, the world has been in the midst of a so-called “war on terror” set in motion by a false flag attack of spectacular proportions. And now, the stage is being set for a new spectacular attack to usher in the next stage in that war on terror: the war on bioterrorism.
GATES: We can’t predict when, but given the continual emergence of new pathogens, the increasing risk of a bioterror attack, and the ever-increasing connectedness of our world, there is a significant probability that a large and lethal modern-day pandemic will occur in our lifetime.
As the world begins to lose its collective mind over the threat of viruses, the idea that biological agents and infectious pathogens will be the weapon of choice of the terrorists is being seeded in the public imagination. As in every such false flag event, the coming bioterrorist attack will be blamed on a convenient scapegoat: the “invisible enemy” of a deadly new pathogen and the shadowy terror groups who, we will be told, are responsible for releasing it.
But, as history shows, it is the people who are claiming to “predict” this attack in advance, and who are in positions to dictate the world’s response to it, who should be considered the prime suspects in the wake of any such event.
This is an exploration of False Flags and the Dawn of Bioterrorism.
Although the term “false flag” has been used in a figurative sense since the 16th century to refer to some person or group disguising their true nature or intentions, its modern use derives from the annals of naval warfare, where ships would literally fly the flag of a different nation, pretending to be allies in order to slip past enemy defenses.
The ruse was successful enough that it was adopted for land and air warfare. No longer were literal flags necessary in order to carry out these “false flag” operations. Any use of deception in order to conceal the true origins and perpetrators of an attack could, by extension, be counted as a false flag operation.
It’s a simple idea, but, to those not versed in the art of deceit, it can be devastatingly effective. Unsurprisingly, rulers have used the tactic for hundreds of years to rally their own populations for war against an enemy target.
Take the case of Swedish King Gustav III. In 1788 he was looking for a way to unite an increasingly divided nation and raise his own falling political fortunes. Like many a ruler before and after, he decided that launching a war against his old rivals, the Russians, would be the perfect vehicle for rallying the public around his government. But the king had a problem: there was no appetite among the Swedish public for such a war, and he didn’t have the authority to declare war unilaterally. So he arranged a false flag operation. Gustav dressed up his own soldiers as Russian troops (complete with Russian coins in their pockets) and ordered them to attack a Swedish garrison stationed in Finland. The Swedish public, believing it to be a genuine Russian attack, were outraged, and the Russo-Swedish War of 1788-1790 began.
Or take the case of Seishirō Itagaki, a general in the Imperial Japanese Army who, by 1931, had risen through the ranks to become the Chief of Intelligence in the Kwantung Army, Japan’s largest army group. Itagaki had a problem: he wanted to invade Manchuria, but the Japanese Minister of War wouldn’t allow it. So the general took matters into his own hands by organizing a small cadre of rebels within the Japanese Army and launching a false flag attack. They detonated some explosives on a railway track near a Chinese garrison and blamed the incident on the Chinese themselves. The next day, the Japanese began their attack in response to the “Chinese” provocation and Itagaki got his Manchurian invasion.
Or take the case of the Manning memo. This document records the discussions that took place between US President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House on January 31, 2003. They were committed to starting a war with Iraq, but they had a problem: they didn’t have any actual reason for invading Iraq. As the memo reveals, Bush proposed a false flag solution: painting a U2 spy plane in United Nations colours and flying it low over Iraqi airspace in the hopes that it would be shot down by Iraqi air defense. The outrage, it was assumed, would give the leaders the blank check they needed to wage their war. Blair reportedly balked at the idea, but the pair did agree that the invasion would go ahead regardless of whether or not any weapons of mass destruction were ever found, war crimes be damned.
There are many such examples of false flag operations being used throughout history. But the tactic isn’t an old, dusty relic of the distant past. It very much pertains to the world of the 21st century . . .
2. False Flag Terrorism
It seems inevitable, in hindsight, that the idea of a “false flag” attack would be adapted from its literal use in naval warfare to a more general tactic of deception in military engagements. So it’s not surprising at all, then, that the concept was further abstracted from a stratagem of warfare to a tool of spy craft.
With the rise of the age of terrorism came the rise of false flag terrorism: spectacular acts of violence designed to look like they were the acts of shadowy terror groups. Once again, the trick is simple but effective.
In the early 1950s, the Israelis were concerned that the British would withdraw their forces from the Suez Canal zone, strengthening Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and his quest to form an alliance against Israel based on Pan-Arab nationalism. Realizing that the only thing that would keep Britain committed to the region was an ongoing state of emergency, they hit upon a simple solution: a false flag terror operation.
Officially codenamed Operation Susannah (but today known as the Lavon Affair), Israeli military intelligence staged a number of bombings around Egypt, hoping to blame the acts on communists, the Muslim Brotherhood, malcontents, or other convenient scapegoats. But the plan was foiled by Egyptian authorities. Several members of the Israeli cell were captured and the Israeli defence minister was forced to resign over the incident. It was never officially admitted until 2005, when Israel formally honoured nine of the spies that had helped carry out the bombings.
But the era of false flag terrorism kicked off in earnest on September 11, 2001, when the neocons in the Bush administration and their accomplices in the military-industrial complex and the intelligence services of multiple countries found an excuse for their longed-for invasion of Afghanistan and the fulfillment of long-standing Zionist plans for carving out a Greater Israel and redrawing the map of the Middle East.
Prized as a pipeline corridor, Afghanistan was also the linchpin of the global heroin trade and an important base of operations for the forthcoming War on Terror. In fact, so important was the country to the Bush administration that it made the full-scale plan for invading Afghanistan the subject of its first national security directive, NSPD-9. The plan was ready and awaiting presidential approval on September 4, 2001, one week before the events that would supposedly justify such an invasion.
RUMSFELD: By the first week of September, the process had arrived at a strategy that was presented to principals and later became NSPD-9, the President’s first major substantive national security decision directive. It w as presented for a decision by principals on September 4th, 2001, seven days before the 11th, and later signed by the President, with minor changes and a preamble to reflect the events of September 11th, in October.”
9/11 was the foundational event of the 21st century, an excuse for numerous items on the checklist of the neocon cabal at the heart of the Bush administration: The creation of the homeland security state. The murderous wars of aggression to reshape the Middle East. The expansion of the military-industrial complex even beyond its Cold War excesses. The formation of the information-industrial complex. We have all watched these events unfolding like a nightmare over the course of the past two decades.
But now, just as the 9/11 myth has finally begun to relinquish its grasp on the public psyche, another event has come along to send the world back into a state of irrational fear. This time, the emergency is predicated not on the Muslim bogeyman but on the invisible bogeyman: SARS-CoV-2.
As we have already seen, the advent of new forms of warfare inevitably brings with it new opportunities for war planners to adapt the false flag strategy for new battlegrounds. And so it is that we find ourselves on the cusp of a new era of false flag operations.
3. The Anthrax False Flag
As it turns out, 9/11 may not prove to be the most long-lasting and world-changing false flag event to have taken place in the fall of 2001. Although largely forgotten today, the anthrax attacks that followed on the heels of “the day that changed everything” have had a profound effect in shaping public policy and setting the stage for the biosecurity state that is emerging today.
The week after September 11, 2001, a series of letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to various media outlets and, later, to two US Senators, Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, who had raised concerns about the Patriot Act which the Bush regime was attempting to rush through Congress. The anthrax-laced letters—which caused the shut down of Congress and lead to the emergency passage of the Patriot Act before legislators even had a chance to read the bill—would go on to kill five and injure 17 others.
In those first chaotic days of the attack, ABC’s Brian Ross began reporting from his anonymous “well-placed” sources that the anthrax spores contained traces of bentonite, a “troubling chemical additive” that just happened to be a “trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program.”
BRIAN ROSS: Peter, from three well-placed but separate sources tonight ABC News has been told that initial tests on the anthrax sent to Senator Daschle have found a tell-tale chemical additive whose name means a lot to weapons experts. It is called bentonite. It’s possible other countries may be using it, too, but it is a trademark of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program.
Of course, this turned out to be a complete lie (a lie that Ross has never clarified or retracted to this day).
As was later confirmed, the spores in question were actually derived from the Ames strain, a strain of anthrax whose virulence makes it the “gold standard” for research into the bacterium by the biological warriors at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Unsurprisingly, once the anthrax was found to have sourced from the US government’s own biological research labs and not an Iraqi weapons program, coverage of the affair in the mainstream media became less frequent and less detailed.
After years of floating the name of bioweapons expert Steven Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the investigation, the FBI pinned the blame on Bruce Ivins, a “lone wolf” who allegedly orchestrated the entire attack himself because of mental instability. Hatfill successfully sued the FBI for nearly $6 million for undue harassment and Ivins conveniently killed himself before ever being charged with any crime. In the end, not a single person was arrested or indicted for their participation in one of the highest profile attacks in American history.
The anthrax false flag killed multiple birds with one stone:
It associated the terror attack of 9/11 with a subsequent bioterror attack that was quickly connected to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. That association was still strong in the minds of many Americans (some who may still have erroneously blamed Iraq for the attack) during the build up to the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003.
As Whitney Webb points out in her exhaustive report on the event, the anthrax attack also saved Bioport, the crony-connected DoD contractor that supplied the US military with the highly controversial anthrax vaccine. Facing growing concerns about the safety and efficacy of its vaccine, Bioport faced financial ruin . . . until the anthrax attacks happened and demand for their questionable product skyrocketed. Later rebranding as Emergent Biosolutions, the company benefited from the largesse of the Gates-backed Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, and, as Webb notes, the company “is now set to profit from the Coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis.”
The anthrax attack also gave an excuse for the creation of a wide-ranging legislative and institutional framework for implementing medical martial law in the event of a subsequent bioterrorist attack, including the wide-scale adoption of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act authorizing forced quarantines and forced vaccinations in the wake of a declared health emergency.
The anthrax false flag also gave a gigantic shot in the arm to another major wing of the military-industrial complex: the “biodefense” sector. Before anthrax entered the public consciousness as a weapon of terror in the fall of 2001, bioweapons research had been sidelined and shrouded in secrecy. After the attacks, however, the US government—and, indeed, every government in the world—had a perfect excuse to vastly expand its biological weapons programs in the name of “biological security.” As Jonathan King, a professor of microbiology at MIT, explains:
“[The] response to the anthrax attacks and the bioterrorism initiative has been to launch a nationwide, billion-dollar campaign to ‘defend us’ from unknown terrorists. But the character of this program is roughly as follows: You say, ‘Well, what would the terrorists come up with? What’s the nastiest, most dangerous, most difficult-to-diagnose, difficult-to-treat microorganisms that we can think of. Well, let’s go bring that organism into existence so that we can figure out how to defend against it.’ The fact of the matter is, it’s indistinguishable from an offensive program in which you would do the same thing.”
And now, two decades later, that massive billion-dollar campaign made to “defend us” from the anthrax threat has led to the creation of a vast biosecurity infrastructure. From biological labs conducting gain-of-function research to government offices conducting bioterror “simulations” to legislation granting extraordinary powers to unelected health “authorities” in the wake of the next attack, the groundwork has been laid for the next stage of government-sponsored false flag terrorism.
4. False Flag Bioterrorism
Ever since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks of 2001, the public has been told that the next spectacular terror attack would involve biological agents engineered by shadowy terror groups.
REPORTER: At a Tucson gymnasium, people wait their turn for life-saving pills to be taken after an outbreak of a smallpox virus. Scenarios like these are taking place across the United States. Thankfully, they’re only simulations.
MR. LYNCH: Although we are fortunate not to have experienced a biological attack here in the United States since the anthrax attacks, post-September 11th the threat remains very real. Foreign adversaries have already demonstrated an interest in developing genetic and biological weaponry.
JEANNE MESERVE: GNN has just learned a group calling itself A Brighter Dawn, or “ABD,” is claiming responsibility for the creation and intentional release of the Clade X virus. In a youtube video, a spokesman for the group says the goal is to reduce the human population to pre-industrial levels. That, he says, will bring the world back into balance and prevent the destruction of the planet.
REPORTER: The Center for Disease Control is one of only two labs in the world which officially holds samples of the smallpox virus. The other is in Moscow. But now, bioterror experts fear many other countries may have the virus, and there are concerns it could be used as a weapon. Bioterrorism experts envisage grim scenarios where a suicide terrorist contagious with smallpox walks through a busy airport, infecting hundreds of others who spread the virus to their destinations.
Those warnings have only increased in urgency in this age of COVID.
GATES: We also face a new threat that the next epidemic has good chance of originated [sic] on a computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus or a contagious contagious and highly deadly strain of flu.
RICK BRIGHT: There will be likely a resurgence of COVID-19 this fall.
It’ll be greatly compounded by the challenges of seasonal influenza. Without better planning, 2020 could be the darkest winter in modern history.
Statements like these not only implant in the public mind the idea that the next spectacular terror attack is likely to be biological, but that when such an attack occurs, we should immediately pin the blame on the shadowy terrorists who (we will likely be told) cooked the pathogen up in their bioweapons lab in the caves of Tora Bora.
But, just as anyone with national security experience immediately recognized that 9/11 was not the work of 19 men with boxcutters but in fact bore the hallmarks of a precisely coordinated intelligence operation, so, too, should the public be aware that those with the means, motive and opportunity to create and disseminate a globally spreading infectious pathogen are not cave-dwelling terrorists but well-funded government and military researchers.
Although prohibited by the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the US has, in fact, maintained an illegal and secret germ warfare research program for decades. Long known to insiders but formally denied by the US government, the existence of the program was confirmed in the pages of The New York Times on September 4, 2001, the same day that the invasion orders for Afghanistan were sent to President Bush for authorization, one week before “the day that changed everything” and two weeks before the beginning of the anthrax false flag.
Although the program was downplayed as “foolish, but not illegal” and portrayed as a defensive program that was largely curtailed in the wake of the end of the Cold War, a groundbreaking 2018 investigation by independent journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva found that a network of Pentagon-run biolabs in ex-Soviet bloc states continues to this day to produce deadly bacteria, weaponized viruses and toxins prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention.
But the US is certainly not alone in its multi-billion dollar quest to develop more deadly—and more precise—biological agents.
Britain’s program, centered around the research at the UK’s secretive Porton Down bioweapon laboratory, included the work of researchers like Vladimir Pasechnik, a microbiologist who had worked on the Soviet germ warfare program weaponizing anthrax and other biological agents before defecting to Britain in 1989. He was hired by the UK government to conduct his own research into anthrax antidotes at Porton Down and died just weeks after the anthrax attacks took place.
Dr. David Kelly, who debriefed Pasechnik after his defection and offered him the job at Porton Down, had told a friend that he was going to write a book exposing what he knew about the bioweapons program—but instead ended up dead on Harrowdown Hill under extremely suspicious circumstances.
The Soviets also had an extensive biological weapons research program. The fruits of that program included the novichok agent that has been blamed for high-profile assassination attempts in recent years, including the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal who were “randomly” discovered by the Chief Nursing Officer of the British Army just ten miles from the Porton Down bioweapons lab.
It was even reported by The Sunday Times over two decades ago that Israel—which is not a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention—has worked on “developing a biological weapon that would harm Arabs while leaving Jews unaffected.” The Israel Institute for Biological Research where this research was conducted is a continuation of HEMED BEIT, a biowarfare unit in the Israel Defense Force whose founders believed that “if microbiology could help in providing the means to establish the Jewish State, so be it.” The institute made headlines earlier this year for its “groundbreaking research” identifying coronavirus antibodies and its subsequent quest to develop an Israeli COVID-19 vaccine.
But beyond the secret biological weapons programs, there has been a publicly acknowledged and funded program to weaponize viruses and pathogens that has been ongoing for years. And once again, the threat of bioterrorism has been invoked as a reason for funding this admittedly dangerous research to create the perfect bioweapon.
ANTHONY FAUCI: Bioterror is—there’s always the potential of bioterror. And we have a major bio defense research and development effort that spans agencies from the NIH to do the basic research to be able to develop better vaccines, how you counter engineered microbes, how you approach drug resistance, engineered microbes. The CDC has surveillance mechanisms to determine if there’s new microbes or anything out there in society particularly toxic that could be used in a bioterror situation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense—we do all of that.
This work, referred to as gain-of-function research, involves weaponizing biological agents so that scientists can develop vaccines or other defenses against them. Of course, gain-of-function research is, in its key aspects, identical to an offensive biological weapons program, but is simply framed as a defensive and preventative measure.
The work of the researchers in this field has not been without controversy.
In 1995 researchers dug up a victim of the 1918 Spanish flu from the Alaskan permafrost in order to “resurrect” the virus using genetic sequencing.
In 2015, researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology participated in experiments weaponizing bat-derived coronavirus that even other molecular biologists warned were presenting the world with a “clear and present danger.” The research even received funding from USAID, which was illegal at the time, as the US had suspended funding for gain-of-function research in 2014.
Time and again, those looking at the history of biowarfare are confronted by a key fact: those who have dedicated their lives to weaponizing pathogens and dreaming up bioterror scenarios aren’t the shadowy terrorist biologists in their cave fortress compound, but the government-funded researchers at both secret and public biolabs around the world.
We have entered an age where the threat of a bioterror attack is very real. The only questions facing the public now are: Who are the real bioterrorists? And can we rely on government agencies, their appointed health authorities, and the corporate media to accurately identify those terrorists in the wake of the next spectacular terror attack?
Conclusion
Two decades ago, the idea of a false flag attack was incomprehensible to the general public. “Why would the government attack itself?” was the oft-heard question of those who could not imagine such duplicity being used to fool a nation into war.
But this is not the world of 2001. It is 2020, and by now nearly everyone is familiar with false flag operations. What was once an obscure tactic deployed by military and intelligence agencies in the shadowy world of spies and soldiers is now openly discussed and debated in the mainstream news.
Make no mistake: this is a major step. An important tool of control, used to pull the wool over the eyes of the public for centuries, had gone from a laughable fringe “conspiracy theory” to an openly acknowledged (and vigorously denied) conspiracy reality within the space of two decades.
But have we really learnt the lessons of history about false flag terrorism? Do we even really know what that term means? And would we recognize it if that trick were employed again in a different context?
They say forewarned is forearmed. Nowhere is that adage more aptly applied than in the realm of false flag terrorism. The entire reason that these deception operations have been used by country after country for centuries is that they are so effective. But they are only effective because throughout those centuries the general public was unable to wrap their minds around a trick so devious and downright evil.
Now we have to completely break the spell that governments have cast over the public. In the event of any spectacular terror attack (biological or otherwise), we have to take the history of false flag operations into account and put the government at the top of the list of suspects. When enough of the population has adjusted their thinking in this way, the trick will have lost its effectiveness and those seeking to direct society through fear will have to abandon it altogether.
This is a monumental task, but it is not to be taken lightly. Given the infrastructure for full-scale medical martial law that has been carefully laid over the past two decades, and given the lockdowns, forced vaccinations, enforced unemployment, and digital dollars tied to social credit scores that have been promised by those seeking to put us through the Great Reset, the future of humanity may depend on our response to the next bioterror attack.
The only question is: Can we wake up enough of the public to these tricks before the real bioterrorists launch their next false flag operation?
Joining Ryan today is returning guest and investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley. The Last American Vagabond has been extensively covering the recent discussions by the MSM and DHS about the “new 9/11” that they could see coming, but ‘don’t know how to stop.’
Vanessa reached out after being told by some of her contacts about a very real possibility that an EMP will be used as the catalyzing event needed to create what The Project For A New American Century called a new ‘pearl harbor-like event’ before September 11th 2001
*Additional reference article Part 1 and Part 2 by ‘Cinderella Broom’ on Sandy Hook researcher Alison “Sunny” Maynard’s The Real Colorado blog.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship & to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry & Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Rocco Galati, Canadian Constitutional Lawyer at Toronto Freedom Rally — October 17, 2020
“…Anyone who was awake at the time, and there were many of us — there were many of us who, in fairness, feared, but were too felt too alone and didn’t want to buck the system in their community to express themselves. But anybody who was awake saw this coming because it had been expressed open and planning for it’s been in the planning for decades.
So I want to talk about human beings and humanity, because at the end of the day constitutional lawyers in defending constitutional rights are defending the human attributes that make us human.
It’s no more complicated than that. So I want to first say to Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Ford, Mr. Tory respectfully: None of us want to sing in your fascist, muzzled, rat-race choir that you’re conducting — that you’re conducting through a score of pornography of fear for globalist criminals.
So I’d like to say to each of you respectfully: Stop lying to your citizens you’re supposed to serve! Stop lying about the bogus, fraudulent “testing”!
Tell us what the PCR tests… and what it actually tests. You know it does not test for any virus.
Your case counts are criminal propaganda.
Your discourse of numbers is criminally fraudulent. In the USA they call that ‘data fraud’, and actually have criminal provisions geared at state officials who engage in data fraud — because it misleads the public
So stop lying about cases to scare us about deaths.”
[As a service to protect truth from censorship & to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry & Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Guest speaker Constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati at Toronto Freedom Rally October 17, 2020.
Catherine Austin Fitts w/ Dark Journalist: Deep State Multi-Layered Chaos Op | Missing Trillions, Weather Warfare, Disaster Capitalism, Riots, Vaccines, “Mark of the Beast” Chips & More
[As a service to protect truth from censorship, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, LBRY & Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video.]
CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS REVEALS THE DEEP STATE CHAOS OP!
In this explosive Part 1 episode Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt welcomes back Former Assistant Secretary of HUD Catherine Austin Fitts.
Catherine has spent two decades tracking Missing Money from Government agencies including HUD and the Department of Defense!
She goes deep on the current weaponization of narratives of division created by a Central Banking Syndicate for political control and how it relates to the dangerous game of Election 2020, Civil War and the Chaos Card the Deep State is playing.
“It’s so hard for a lot of people to understand. They haven’t, you know, they haven’t spent the time looking at what’s really going on under the carpet. And so, if you haven’t done that, you can’t fathom, you know, that someone would envision downloading operating software into human body and hooking it up to the DOD cloud.”
6:05
Dark Journalist
“I’ve noticed that you haven’t cut Trump a lot of slack recently. You kind of see him as part of this, in a weird way.”
Catherine Austin Fitts
“You know, here’s the thing. Trump, if you look at what’s really going on with the riots, yes, you’re talking about many different broken laws. Yes, so you have people financed across state borders and do serious property damage. And some of them may or may not be, you know, somebody’s got guns… My guess is you’ve got mercenaries going in there too. And all sorts of other things… somebody financing people, like an army going in and destroying property. You know this is all illegal and the Department of Justice can shut it down in 24 hours.
,,,So don’t tell me they can’t shut this down. They can shut this down like that, and if they’re not doing it, there’s a reason.”
7:59
Catherine Austin Fitts
“Those aren’t street revolts. That’s an operation. Right? So let’s call what it is. Tt’s a multi-layered op. And it’s an op and somebody’s financing the op.”
9:16
Dark Journalist
“What would be the aim of having that kind of chaos in the streets?”
Catherine Austin Fitts
“And I’m gonna grossly oversimplify, just to help you understand the concepts. So you start, let’s go back to 1995. You can’t get the budget deal through. You give up on the country. You decide to pull all the money out. So 21 trillion gets moved out. You move out another 24 trillion with the bailouts. You know, you have some other fraud… 50 trillion dollars pulled out of the mechanism. Right? But what’s not pulled out of the mechanism, you still have obligations. You have military pensions, you have social security, you have all these health care obligations. So you’ve pulled the assets out but you haven’t gotten rid of the liabilities. Well, how do you get rid of the liabilities? If you have a civil war and people demand that their states secede from the nation, you can say, well… the people didn’t want the vehicle anymore. So they they would rather walk away. … They chose to secede rather than get social security.”
Dark Journalist:
“So it has to be coordinated on both sides of the political aisle?”
Catherine Austin Fitts
“Right. You need a war to get the people to self-destruct their own covenant. In other words, you know they are owed trillions of dollars in health care, trillions of dollars in retirement obligations, trillions of dollars in many different sort of regulatory obligations. And now what you want to do is, you want to slither out of them without admitting that you stole all the money.”
If you’re reading this column, it’s highly likely you’re familiar with “false flag” terrorism. You’ve at least heard the term before, right?
As I’ve had cause to note in my work in the past, the 2013 Atlantic Wire article, republished by Yahoo! News under the headline “What is a ‘False Flag’ Attack — and Was Boston One?” was, for me, a clear sign that the 9/11 Truth movement had accomplished at least one extremely important thing. Namely, it inserted the term “false flag” into the public conversation about terrorism so effectively that the mainstream was forced to address it.
To the surprise of absolutely no one, The Atlantic Wire‘s answer to that headline question was a resounding “No.” But that’s not important. What matters is that they had to address the topic at all. No longer could the establishment press feign ignorance of the very concept (“buT wHy wOuLd thE goVernMEnt AttAcK iTseLf?”), nor could they pretend that the idea of false flag terrorism was so outlandish and so confined to the fringes of mainstream discourse that it could be safely ignored. No, by 2013 any spectacular terrorist incident was quickly followed by an establishment denial that the event had been staged.
That is a major step. An important tool of control, used to pull the wool over the eyes of the public for centuries, had gone from a laughable fringe “conspiracy theory” to an openly acknowledged (and vigorously denied) conspiracy reality within the space of a decade.
But have we really learnt the lessons of history about false flag terrorism? Do we even really know what that term means? And would we recognize it if that trick was employed again in a different context?
Let’s explore these questions with a quick overview of the history of false flag terrorism, its use in the present day, and what we can expect to see as we move into the age of biosecurity.
What is a false flag attack?
Although it’s a welcome development overall, the mainstreaming of any important concept inevitably leads to its dumbing down. The mainstreaming of “false flag terrorism” is no exception. Even some followers of the independent media have become so used to bandying the term around that it is often used for any incident of any sort—whether real or fake, staged or manipulated—Theywhere the officially accepted narrative explanation differs from the truth.
Although the term “false flag” has been used in a figurative sense since the 16th century to refer to some person or group disguising their true nature or intentions, its use in an adjectival sense (“false flag operation”) derives from the annals of naval warfare, where ships would literally fly the flag of a different nation, pretending to be allies in order to slip past enemy defenses.
The ruse was successful enough that it was adopted for land and air warfare. No longer were literal flags necessary in order to carry out these “false flag” operations. Any use of deception in order to conceal the true origins and perpetrators of an attack could, by extension, be counted as a false flag operation.
It’s a childishly simple tactic. But it works.
Take the case of Swedish King Gustav III. In 1788 he found himself hankering for a war with Russia. He had only one problem: the public didn’t want to go to war with Russia. So he did what any great leader would do in that situation: he dressed his own soldiers up as Russian troops (complete with Russian coins in their pockets) and ordered them to attack Swedish forces in Finland. The public were enraged by the attack, and Gustav got to declare his “defensive” war on the dastardly Russians.
Or take the case of Seishirō Itagaki, a general in the Imperial Japanese Army who, by 1931, had risen through the ranks to become the Chief of Intelligence in the Kwantung Army, Japan’s largest army group. Itagaki had a problem: he wanted to invade Manchuria, but the Japanese Minister of War wouldn’t allow it. So Itagaki and a small cadre of rebels within the Japanese Army did what any brave, patriotic soldiers would do: they detonated some explosives on a railway track near a Chinese garrison and blamed the incident on the Chinese themselves. The next day, the Japanese began their attack in response to the “Chinese” provocation and Itagaki got his Manchurian invasion.
Or take the case of the Manning memo. This document records the discussions that took place between US President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House on January 31, 2003. They were themselves hankering for a war with Iraq, but they had a problem: they didn’t have any actual reason for invading Iraq. So, Bush did what any brave Decider-in-Chief would do in such a situation: he proposed painting a U2 spy plane up in United Nations colours and flying it low over Iraqi airspace in the hopes that it would be shot down by Iraqi air defense. Blair reportedly balked at the idea, but the pair did agree that the invasion would go ahead regardless of whether or not any weapons of mass destruction were ever found, war crimes be damned.
There are many such examples of this tactic throughout history. But the tactic isn’t an old, dusty relic of the distant past. It very much pertains to the world of the 21st century . .
False flag terrorism
It seems inevitable, in hindsight, that the idea of a “false flag” attack would be adapted from its literal use in naval warfare to a more general tactic of deception in military engagements. After all, why bother inventing new tricks when the old ones work so well?
So it’s not surprising at all, then, that the concept was further abstracted from a stratagem of warfare to a tool of spycraft. With the rise of the age of terror came the rise of false flag terrorism: spectacular acts of violence designed to look like they were acts of one’s political enemy. Once again, the trick is simple but effective.
In the early 1950s, the Israelis were concerned that the British would withdraw their forces from the Suez Canal zone, strengthening Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and, by extension, Pan-Arab nationalism. Realizing that the only thing that would keep Britain committed to the region was an ongoing state of emergency, they hit upon a simple solution: a false flag terror operation.
Officially codenamed Operation Susannah (but today known as the Lavon Affair), Israeli military intelligence staged a number of bombings around Egypt, hoping to blame the acts on communists, the Muslim Brotherhood, malcontents, or other convenient scapegoats. The plan was foiled by Egyptian authorities, several members of the Israeli cell were captured and the Israeli defence minister was forced to resign over the incident. It was never officially admitted until 2005, when Israel officially honoured nine of the spies that had helped carry out the bombings.
But the era of false flag terrorism kicked off in earnest on September 11, 2001, when the neocons in the Bush administration and their accomplices in the military-industrial complex and the intelligence services of multiple countries found an excuse for their longed-for invasion of Afghanistan. Prized as a pipeline corridor, Afghanistan was also the linch pin of the global heroin trade and an important base of operations for the forthcoming War on Terror. In fact, so important was the country to the Bush administration that it made the full-scale plan for invading Afghanistan the subject of its first national security directive, NSPD-9. The plan was ready and delivered for presidential approval on September 4, 2001, one week before the events that would supposedly justify such an invasion . . . a justification that has since been exposed as a complete lie.
I hardly need to explain everything that unfolded from the foundational false flag event of 9/11. The creation of the homeland security state. The murderous wars of aggression to reshape the middle east. The expansion of the military-industrial complex even beyond its Cold War excesses. The formation of the information-industrial complex. We have all watched that nightmare unfolding over the course of the past two decades.
And just as the 9/11 myth seemed to finally be relinquishing its grasp on the public psyche, another event has come along to send the public back into a state of irrational fear. This time, the emergency is predicated not on the Muslim bogeyman, but the invisible bogeyman: SARS-CoV-2.
But, as we have already seen, the advent of new forms of warfare inevitably bring new opportunities for war planners to adapt the false flag strategy fore new battlegrounds. And so it is that we find ourselves on the cusp of a new era of false flag operations.
False flag bioterrorism
As it turns out, 9/11 may not prove to be the most long-lasting and world-changing false flag event to take place in the fall of 2001. The anthrax attacks that followed on the heels of “the day that changed everything” may in fact have more to say about the COVID-1984 world in which we find ourselves.
Viewers of my recent work on COVID-911 will already know about one of the remarkable “coincidences” linking the anthrax attacks of 2001 with the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2. Namely, that both events were preceded by a “simulation” that mirrored the real-life incident—Dark Winter in the case of the anthrax attacks and Event 201 in the case of the current scamdemic—complete with fake news segments dramatizing the real-life emergencies that would unfold on our tv screens months later. As you will also know, those events weren’t just co-hosted by the same organization (the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security), but actually featured some of the same players who would go on to lay the groundwork for and participate in the US government’s COVID-19 response.
But those “coincidences” really only scratch the surface of the anthrax false flag. The real story of the anthrax attacks is much bigger than we can do justice to here, but it includes:
The revelation in the pages of the New York Times that the US government was running an illegal biological weapons program that was working to—among other things—genetically engineer weaponized anthrax (a revelation that was published on September 4, 2001, but quickly overshadowed by other events).
The death of Vladimir Pasechnik, a microbiologist who had worked on the Soviet germ warfare program weaponizing anthrax and other biological agents before defecting to Britain in 1989, who was hired by Britain to conduct his own research into anthrax antidotes at the UK’s secretive Porton Down bioweapon laboratory, and who died just weeks after the anthrax attacks took place.
The murder of Dr. David Kelly, who debriefed Pasechnik after his defection and offered him the job at Porton Down, and who had told his friend that he was going to write a book exposing what he knew about the bioweapons program before “killing himself” on Harrowdown Hill.
But for today, it serves merely to note that the anthrax attacks were indeed a false flag attack. In those first chaotic days of the attack, ABC’s Brian Ross began reporting from his “anonymous well-placed sources” that the anthrax spores contained traces of bentonite, a “troubling chemical additive” that just happened to be a ” a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program.” Of course, this turned out to be a complete lie (a lie that Ross has never clarified or retracted to this day).
As was later confirmed, the spores in question were actually derived from the Ames strain, a strain of anthrax whose virulence makes it the “gold standard” for research into the bacterium by the biological warriors at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. This made the attack almost certainly an inside job (although, it should be noted, the Ames strain is available to researchers in a number of laboratories around the world, including Porton Down).
Inevitably, the FBI “Amerithrax” investigation into the deadly anthrax letters—the largest investigation in the history of the Bureau—set its sights on a series of “lone wolves.” After failing to even bring charges against “person of interest” Steven Hatfill—a bioweapons expert who was awarded nearly $6 million in taxpayer money after years of harassment—and ultimately landed on Bruce Ivins, a patsy who conveniently killed himself before ever even being charged for the monumental crime that was ultimately blamed on him.
The anthrax false flag killed multiple birds with one stone:
It associated the terror attack of 9/11 with a subsequent bioterror attack that was quickly connected to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. That association was still strong in the minds of many Americans (some who may still have erroneously blamed Iraq for the attack) during the build up to the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003.
As Whitney Webb points out in her exhaustive report on the event, the anthrax attack also saved Bioport, the crony-connected DoD contractor that supplied the US military with the highly controversial Anthrax vaccine. Facing growing concerns about the safety and efficacy of their vaccine, Bioport faced financial ruin . . . until the anthrax attacks happened and demand for their questionable product skyrocketed. Later rebranding as Emergent Biosolutions, the company benefited from the largesse of the Gates-backed Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, and, as Webb notes, the company “is now set to profit from the Coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis.”
And, it also gave a gigantic shot in the arm to another major wing of the military-industrial complex: the “biodefense” sector. With the signing of the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972, biological weapons development was forced underground. Of course, it still went on, but now it was carried out under the mantle of “defense.” After all, one could never trust that those damn *Insert Bogeyman Here* would really get rid of their bioweapon stockpiles, and one needed to create bioweapons in order to understand how to protect against them. But such research was necessarily sidelined and shrouded in secrecy.
Before the anthrax attacks, bioweapons research had been sidelined and shrouded in secrecy. After the attacks, however, the US government—and indeed every government in the world—had a perfect excuse to vastly expand its biological weapons programs in the name of “biological security.” As Jonathan King, a professor of microbiology at MIT, explains:
“[The] response to the anthrax attacks and the bioterrorism initiative has been to launch a nationwide, billion-dollar campaign to ‘defend us’ from unknown terrorists. But the character of this program is roughly as follows: You say, ‘Well, what would the terrorists come up with? What’s the nastiest, most dangerous, most difficult-to-diagnose, difficult-to-treat microorganisms that we can think of. Well, let’s go bring that organism into existence so that we can figure out how to defend against it.’ The fact of the matter is, it’s indistinguishable from an offensive program in which you would do the same thing.”
Thus we get such innovations as the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology’s reconstruction of the 1918 Spanish flu from the tissue of a victim buried in the Alaska permafrost. Or the USAID-funded 2015 research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that weaponized bat-derived coronavirus in experiments that even other molecular biologists warned was presenting the world with a “clear and present danger.” (Oh, and the USAID funding for the research was technically illegal at the time, but who’s keeping track, hey?)
The long story short is that we have indeed arrived at another, potentially even more dangerous era of false flag attack. At this point it isn’t the scary bearded Muslim suicide bombers who we are supposed to be afraid of, though. It’s scary bearded Muslim biologists. Or something like that. Maybe it’ll be the Russkies. Or the ChiComs. Or some shadowy terror group that arises from nowhere and starts claiming responsibility for Bill Gates’ threatened “Pandemic II.”
The point is that bioterrorism is now very much on the table and don’t think for a second that the globalists won’t resort to more spectacular bioterror attacks to keep the current biosecurity hysteria going.
The ridiculous Skripal affair and its even more absurd low-budget sequel (the Navalny hoax) are just a taste of what we are likely to see in the near future. We may scoff at the amateur theatrics of these false flag test runs, but it would be the same as someone in 1993 dismissing the first World Trade Center bombing as a ridiculous, bungled FBI op, instead of the first taste of much bigger attacks to come.
Conclusion
They say forewarned is forearmed, and I think that adage is especially apt when it comes to the subject of false flag attacks. The entire reason that these operations have been used by country after country for centuries is that they are so effective. And they are only effective because throughout those centuries the general public was unable to wrap their minds around a trick so devious and downright evil.
“But why would the government attack itself?” is not just the question of a brainwashed simpleton; it’s the question of an innocent and trusting soul who could never in a million years imagine doing something so underhanded.
But this is not 1800. It’s not even 2000. It’s 2020. The world has cottoned on to the trick.
Now we have to completely break the spell that governments have cast over the public. In the event of every spectacular terror attack (biological or otherwise), we have to take the history of false flag operations into account and put the government at the top of the list of suspects. When enough of the population has adjusted their thinking in this way, the trick will have lost its effectiveness and the globalists will have to abandon it altogether.
The only question is: Can we wake enough of the public up to these false flag tricks before Gates and his ilk get their “Pandemic II?”
This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.
To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, sign up to become a member of the website.
Dr. Joseph Farrell: Emergency Powers, COVID-19, Bio-Economic EMF Warfare, Deep State, Continuity of Government
Dark Journalist And Dr. Joseph Farrell COVID-19 Bio-Economic EMF Warfare Deep State COG Continuity Of Government!
Special LiveStream with QA
Bio-Economic Warfare
In this fascinating episode Dark Journalist interviews Oxford Scholar Dr. Joseph Farrell on the seizing of unconstitutional Emergency Powers in relation to the COVID-19 health crisis.
They examine whether this is an operation designed to accomplish a financial reset that consolidates financial, political and surveillance power into the hands of a repressive Deep State.
Crazy times for sure at Psychotic High. And as predicted, the shift we’re undergoing is impacting vast swathes of society as people either recognize the awakening or are completely ignorant of what’s going on, willingly or unwillingly, and are succumbing to the induced confusion.
All on cue.
The blinding Boston Bullshit Massacre is just another in a long sequence of stimuli in the planned psycho-spiritual assault on Americans, cramming ever more freakish fear into their already overloaded heart, mind and spirit components.
Marie Antoinette would have been brainwashed instead of decapitated in this day and age. Much easier.
Here’s an appropriate post that begins to tell part of the tale of the drastic literally psychotic effects we’re witnessing:
Terrorism. Chaos. Fear of the future. In the age of Obama, America is undergoing a “fundamental transformation” – that much everyone knows.
But what few seem to realize about this transformation is that the sheer stress of living in today’s America is driving tens of millions to the point of illness, depression and self-destruction. Consider the following trends:
Suicide has surpassed car crashes as the leading cause of injury death for Americans. Even more disturbing, in the world’s greatest military, more U.S. soldiers died last year by suicide than in combat;
Incredibly, 11 percent of all Americans aged 12 and older are currently taking SSRI antidepressants – those highly controversial, mood-altering psychiatric drugs with the FDA’s “suicidality” warning label and alarming correlation with school shooters. Women are especially prone to depression, with a stunning 23 percent of all American women in their 40s and 50s – almost one in four – now taking antidepressants, according to a major study by the CDC;
Add to that the tens of millions of users of all other types of psychiatric drugs, including (just to pick one) the 6.4 million American children between 4 and 17 diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed Ritalin or similar psycho-stimulants. Throw in the 28 percent of American adults with a drinking problem, that’s more than 60 million, plus the 22 million using illegal drugs like marijuana, cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens and inhalants, and pretty soon a picture emerges of a nation of drug-takers, with hundreds of millions dependent on one toxic substance or another – legal or illegal – to “help” them deal with the stresses and problems of life.
By the way, things are no better over the pond – and may be worse, according to one major study that concluded almost 40 percent of Europeans are plagued by mental illness. (More here)
It Goes To Show
We’re living in strategically and psychologically compressed and driven times. Hardly anything major in the socio-political realm happens by coincidence or natural means. It’s almost always staged and by very professional executors. Any reasonable open minded study of history will reveal the same conclusion as to how their particular paradigm was sculpted via similar staged events and conditions during virtually any epoch of human history.
Same story, different time.
The recent frenzy over Boston’s own Baked Bullshit Barrage is a manifestation of a mounting, desperate effort to cauterize the American mind once and for all. They want the masses to accept any and every state explanation for anything, great or small, according to their interpretation. These are tests.
And they’re getting away with them.
It’s nasty to the bone, yet so few see it. A very sad state of affairs indeed…when so few challenge the status quo and start to wake up, so little and so late.
Find out the Truth for yourself. Challenge the mainstream disinfo, and reach for the light. Then spread the word.
It’s all there in plain sight.
YOU are the difference! We all are.
Keep on consciously and lovingly being awake, aware and active,
Love always, Zen
Zen Gardner is an impactful and controversial author and speaker with a piercing philosophical viewpoint. His writings have been circulated to millions and his personal story has caused no small stir amongst the entrenched alternative pundits. His book You Are the Awakening has met rave reviews and is available on amazon.com. You Are the Awakening examines the dynamics of the awakening to a more conscious awareness of who we are and why we are here – dynamics which are much different from the programmed approach of this world we were born into.
THE AMERICAN DEEP STATE: Big Money, Big Oil, and the Struggle for U.S. Democracy
The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War
The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America
Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina
