Nov 232020
 

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. 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. But 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?

Sep 122020
 

https://open.lbry.com/@corbettreport:0/covid911:4

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/covid911/
9/11, as we were told repeatedly in the days, weeks, and months after the attack, was the day that changed everything. And now a new event has come along to once again throw the world into chaos. But whereas the post-9/11 era introduced America to the concept of homeland security, the COVID-19 era is introducing the world to an altogether more abstract concept: biosecurity. This is the story of the COVID-911 security state.

Sep 122020
 

From 9/11 Terrorists to 2020 Viruses: Dystopian Progress

For anyone old enough to have been alive and aware of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and of so-called COVID-19 in 2020, memory may serve to remind one of an eerie parallel between the two operations. However, if memory has been expunged by the work of one’s forgettery or deleted by the corporate media flushing it down the memory hole, or if knowledge is lacking, or maybe fear or cognitive dissonance is blocking awareness, I would like to point out some similarities that might perk one up to consider some parallels and connections between these two operations.

The fundamental tie that binds them is that both events aroused the human fear of death. Underlying all fears is the fear of death. A fear that has both biological and cultural roots. On the biological level, we all react to death threats in a fight or flight manner. Culturally, there are multiple ways that fear can be allayed or exacerbated, purposely or not. Usually, culture serves to ease the fear of death, which can traumatize people, through its symbols and myths. Religion has for a long time served that purpose, but when religion loses its hold on people’s imaginations, especially in regard to the belief in immortality, as Orwell pointed out in the mid-1940s, a huge void is left. Without that consolation, fear is usually tranquilized by trivial pursuits.

In the cases of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the current corona virus operation, the fear of death has been used by the power elites in order to control populations and institute long-planned agendas. There is a red thread that connects the two events.

Both events were clearly anticipated and planned.

In the case of September 11, 2001, as I have argued before, linguistic mind-control was carefully crafted in advance to conjure fear at the deepest levels with the use of such repeated terms as Pearl Harbor, Homeland, Ground Zero, the Unthinkable, and 9/11. Each in its turn served to raise the fear level dramatically. Each drew on past meetings, documents, events, speeches, and deep associations of dread. This language was conjured from the chief sorcerer’s playbook, not from that of an apprentice out of control.

And as David Ray Griffin, the seminal 9/11 researcher (and others), has pointed out in a dozen meticulously argued and documented books, the events of that day had to be carefully planned in advance, and the post hoc official explanations can only be described as scientific miracles, not scientific explanations. These miracles include: massive steel-framed high-rise buildings for the first time in history coming down without explosives or incendiaries in free fall speed; one of them being WTC-7 that was not even hit by a plane; an alleged hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flying a massive Boeing 757 in a most difficult maneuver into the Pentagon; airport security at four airports failing at the same moment on the same day; all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies failing; air traffic control failing, etc. The list goes on and on. And all this controlled by Osama bin Laden. It’s a fairy tale.

Then we had the crucially important anthrax attacks that are linked to 9/11. Graeme MacQueen, in The 2001 Anthrax Deception, brilliantly shows that these too were a domestic conspiracy.

Read more

Jul 172020
 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/day-after-nine-eleven-security-council-passes-resolution-1368-starts-pillar-four-united-nations/5718707

The first draft of this article was written in 2014. It is now ready for publication (including several corrections).

The first overt diplomatic achievement by the United States related to 9/11, was Resolution No. 1368. It was adopted at noontime by the UN Security Council on September 12, 2001. The resolution contained the obligatory statements of condemnation and of solidarity with the 9/11 victims and their families. But this particular resolution manifested three puzzling features whose implications are unsettling.

Resolution 1368 included a one-paragraph preamble in which the Council “recognized the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter.” There was no need to mention this particular principle in the resolution unless it was the intent of the Council to give the United States a wink that it may, if it wishes, use military force against any country it chooses as a response to 9/11.

Wink 

Note that the Council did not “authorize” the United States to use military force, as it had done in the case of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990,[1] but chose to convey to the United States indirectly the message that the Council would look the other way and ask no questions, if the United States would use military force against foreign states in response to 9/11.

That is precisely what happened: The U.S. bombing campaign against Afghanistan and the subsequent occupation of that country was not condemned by any member of the Security Council, although it was a violation of customary international law – as established on the basis of the so-called Caroline doctrine – and of the U.N. Charter.

According to the Caroline doctrine, the resort to self-defense requires “a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” Furthermore, any action taken must be proportional, “since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.”

Resolution 1368 also condoned a blatant act of aggression. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (1945) called the waging of aggressive war “not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” [2]

I argue that by including the Charter’s provision on self- defense into Resolution No. 1368, Council members contributed to the violation of customary international law and the commission of the supreme international crime by the U.S. government, namely aggression.

Was 9-11 an International Act? 

Furthermore, the Council designated the events of the preceding day as an act of “international” terrorism, and “a threat to international peace and security” without being provided with the slightest evidence in support of both of these assertions. The Council is not known to have at any time requested or obtained such evidence.

Note: it is the formula “threat to international peace” that gives the UNSC the authority to issue resolutions that bind member states. I am referring to Article 39 of the UN Charter:

” The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

According to the US’s official account, four airliners in domestic routes were hijacked by 19 passengers on September 11, 2001. Even if that account had been true – which it is not – it would not have amounted to an act of “international” terrorism, but would remain a large-scale act of domestic terrorism by travelers whose real identities remain in question.

A further puzzling feature is the swiftness with which Resolution 1368 was adopted. Had the above two features not been included in the resolution – calling 9/11 international terrorism and designating terrorism as a threat to peace — there would be nothing odd about the fact that it was adopted one day after the attacks.

Numerous governments and inter-governmental organisations adopted resolutions on the very day of the attacks, September 11, 2001, in which they condemned the attacks and expressed solidarity with the victims.  They, however, carefully refrained from designating the attacks as containing an international dimension.

Vast Implications 

The two features discussed above were neither self-evident nor necessary, yet have vast legal and political implications. It is inconceivable that individuals sitting in the Council, representing their governments, would approve the wording of Council resolutions on the base of their personal feelings, no matter how strong.

Drafts of Security Council resolutions, particularly those which contain legal precedents or entail legal consequences, are typically examined – down to their punctuation – by legal experts in the home countries of the Council’s members. It is inconceivable that experts around the world would be able to assess within hours the legal and political ramifications of the features discussed above.

I can conceive of only two explanations for this apparent swiftness: Either the United States (backed by its NATO allies) threatened the governments of the other Security Council members with severe sanctions, should they fail to adopt this resolution, or the draft resolution had been circulated to, and approved by selected members of the Security Council prior to the events of 9/11, in order to ensure its speedy adoption on September 12, 2001. Both explanations give rise to highly disturbing questions.

Now for a comment on the probity of information put before the UNSC. The Security Council does not have to base its decisions on proven facts. It may legally base its operative decisions on hunches, hypotheticals, hearsay and even fantasy. The Security Council would be legally entitled to determine that the earth is flat, if such determination would politically suit its members.

The members of the Security Council are admittedly under the legal obligation to act in good faith, but no international entity has been set up to examine whether they have complied with this principle, and if violated, to invalidate decisions based on the breach of this principle.[3]

The readiness of all members of the Security Council to underwrite American foreign policy aims, as reflected in the provisions of Resolution No. 1368, must be regarded as a historical watershed.

The UN’s Fourth Pillar 

For years, I have been a lonely voice pointing out that the UNSC’s Permanent Five (US, UK, France, Russia and China) have committed themselves to define “international terrorism” as a major threat to world peace. This definition is a monumental lie, for terrorism is not even a threat to the sovereignty, national defense, or political order of any country. While terrorism (attacks on civilians for political purposes) is a crime, the number of people killed yearly by terrorist acts in most countries lies between zero and and 10.  In Europe, a territory of over 500 million people, about 44 people die on the average yearly in terrorist attacks (compared to over 5,000 yearly homicides).

I have repeatedly warned that the United Nations have adopted the ideology of “counter-terrorism” as one of the pillars for the entire UN system. Now, finally and belatedly, others vindicate my warnings. In June 2020, the UK-based organization Saferworld has lamented the mainstreaming of the counter-terrorism ideology within the United Nations Organization.

“For three-quarters of a century, peace, rights and development have been the three core pillars that define the UN’s unique purpose. However, in the post-9/11 era, governments’ collective determination to define terrorism as the pre-eminent global security challenge has made a deep impression on the UN [sic]. Counter-terrorism has come to the fore through a flood of UN Security Council resolutions, General Assembly strategies, new funding streams, offices, committees, working groups and staff – all dedicated to counter-terrorism.” [4]

Any Good Guys? 

I urge all those who for various reasons believe Russia and China to be “the hope for Mankind” as opposed to Western imperialism, to take a second look at this perception. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are firmly committed to the fraudulent counter-terrorism ideology, for it provides all governments around the globe with justifications to abolish democracy and institute a digital dictatorship.

The counter-terrorism ideology, now complemented by a global health-scare campaign, is precisely the cement that binds the rulers of the P5, and it bears no relation to Al Qaeda, ISIS or other real or fake terrorist organisations. The P5, serving their ruling classes, have thus declared a war against the world’s peoples. The United Nations, once a hope for the world, have become a tool of oppression. “We the People” can trust no government and no organisation of states to ensure our rights and liberties. We must join hands across borders without state or corporate interference to restore an acceptable world order.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Elias Davidsson is an Icelandic citizen living in Germany. He is a composer, human rights and peace activist and author of several books on 9/11 and false-flag terrorism.

 

Jun 042020
 

By Kevin Ryan
Global Research, June 03, 2020

Governments have used psychological warfare throughout history to manipulate public opinion, gain political advantage, and generate profits. Western governments have engaged in such tactics in the war on terrorism as well as in its predecessor, the war on communism. In both cases, state-sponsored terrorism and propaganda were used to distort the public’s perception of the threats, leading to increased governmental control of society and huge financial benefits for corporations. It appears that the same kinds of effects are being seen as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many of the features and outcomes seen in the war on terrorism and the war on communism are evident in this new “war on death.” Therefore, it’s reasonable to wonder if the extreme response to COVID-19, and its associated virus SARS-COV-2, could be another psychological operation against the public. Considering facts about the disease and the disproportionate response emphasizes the possibility.

If COVID-19 has been co-opted for manipulation of the public, through hyping the threat and pushing exploitive solutions, who is behind it and who benefits?

Let’s first review what features and outcomes the “coronavirus scare’ shares in common with the “red scare” that drove the perceived threat of communism and the “Muslim scare” behind the perceived threat of terrorism. Here are a dozen characteristics that these perceived threats share.

Fear-based and globally directed
Media saturation with bias toward fear
Data manipulation and propaganda
Censorship of opposing views
Intelligence agency control of information
Preceded by exercises mimicking the threat
Series of claims made that are later proven false
Response threatens democracy
Large increase in wealth and power for a few; increase in social inequality
Increased government control of the public and reduced individual freedoms
Response kills far more than the original threat
Evidence for manufactured events (see below)

There are also differences between the COVID-19 pandemic response and the “wars” on communism and terrorism. One difference is that, for the virus, agencies dedicated to public health have taken the lead. Although the central characters that hyped the communism threat and the terrorism threat were sometimes the same people, they tended to represent military, diplomatic, or intelligence agencies.

The primary actors driving the coronavirus lockdowns and associated control mechanisms are political leaders. However, the directives being acted upon come from the World Health Organization (WHO), an agency of the United Nations ostensibly responsible for international public health. Others controlling the coronavirus scare are national health agencies, most notably the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS).

Are these agencies acting solely in the interest of public health?

Read article here

Apr 272020
 

We live in very strange times. Just a couple of months ago none of us would have thought that we’d be “locked down” at home because of a virus. Hardly anyone had even used the term ‘Social Distancing’ before and now it’s a part of everyday language. Precedents have been set during this outbreak. This video explores those precedents and why we are being told that life may not ever be the same. I’d like to remind you that in Australia the deaths from COVID19 are still way below the average for Influenza yet we are still living with dramatically curtailed freedoms. Something to think about.

Jan 272020
 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/kevin-ryan

The dubious legal proceedings at the Guantanomo Bay (Gitmo) prison camp continue to promote the idea of justice for victims of 9/11. Unfortunately, these proceedings do not represent an administration of law but an unstated claim that the Global War on Terror is above the law. More importantly, the Gitmo antics have one obvious objective—to perpetuate willful ignorance of the 9/11 crimes. There is a dangerous elephant in the Gitmo courtroom, however, and if it ever gets reported it could bring down the terror-torture house of cards.

Reporters covering Gitmo continue to call it a trial but it is not a trial, it is a “military tribunal.” They continue to call the site “Camp Justice” when justice is as far from the prison camp as it has ever been from any human endeavor. What they don’t do is think critically about the information they are parroting from court sources.

The history is profoundly absurd. The suspects were brutally tortured and held without charges for up to 18 years. The alleged evidence obtained from the torture was made secret. Then the records of the secret torture evidence were illegally destroyed. Then the secret evidence simply turned out to be completely false. FBI and CIA officers then began to make a mockery of the whole thing, secretly bugging defense team discussion rooms and covertly inserting themselves as translators and defense team members.

This is not just a matter of an extreme violation of human rights and an utter disrespect for the law. Within this sequence of stupidity looms the mother of all oversights. That is, the secret evidence that turned out to be false was used as the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report.
At the center of the media’s willful ignorance is “forever prisoner” Abu Zubaydah, the first alleged al Qaeda leader captured and tortured. In 2009, the U.S. government began correcting the record by admitting, in habeus corpus proceedings, that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda and that he had no role in, or knowledge of, the 9/11 attacks. That Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda is no longer challenged by anyone and is regularly repeated in the mainstream press. What is not mentioned is the astounding implication of that admission.

Abu Zubaydah’s “torture testimony” was used to construct the official narrative of 9/11 that is still accepted as fact today.

Check for yourself. Do a quick search for the word “Zubaydah” in The 9/11 Commission Report. You’ll find it 52 times. As you read these references and claims, ask yourself—how could a man who the government now says had nothing to do with al Qaeda have known any of these things? How could he be a key travel facilitator for al Qaeda operatives when he wasn’t associated in any way with al Qaeda? How could Zubaydah give detailed accounts of Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM)’s plans for 9/11 when he had no knowledge of those plans?

Disassociating Zubaydah from al Qaeda causes so many problems for the official narrative of al Qaeda and 9/11 that people like Lee Hamilton, the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, simply develop amnesia when asked about him.

As seen in the 9/11 Commission Report, the official account begins with linking “Mukhtar” (KSM) to “al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaydah,” who we now know was never associated with al Qaeda. Both FBI interrogator Ali Soufan, in a 2009 New York Times opinion piece, and Vice President Dick Cheney, in his 2011 book, claimed that Zubaydah (who never had any knowledge or connection to 9/11) identified KSM as the “mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.” The official account of 9/11, and the ongoing fake trial at Gitmo, all proceeded from there.

But none of it was true.

The latest crime of 9/11 is that this fact is not being reported. The media admits that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda but entirely ignores the devastating consequences of that admission. The false official account for 9/11 is the root cause and ongoing justification for greater crimes—1) wars of aggression in multiple countries that have destroyed millions of lives, 2) the public’s acceptance of torture and indefinite detention, and 3) mass surveillance and an overall attack on freedom.

Instead of reporting that the basis for those greater crimes has been obliterated, the media reduces the subject to a discussion of how torture is bad but perhaps still justified by the gain. Of course, torture is bad but mass murder is much worse and the justification for both the wars and the torture is now indefensible! Until the media reports this fact there will be no justice for victims of 9/11 or for the victims of the resulting wars and torture.

We know that there are many striking anomalies and inexplicable facts about 9/11 that have yet to be resolved. But the fake Gitmo trial stands as a final absurd crime in the history of 9/11 as it is represented as an attempt at justice yet includes more farcical elements every day. For example, the CIA-driven architect of the torture program recently claimed that he was acting on behalf of the 9/11 families and that he would do it again.

The final proceedings have been set to officially begin in January 2021, aligning with the 20th anniversary news cycle and re-emphasizing that propaganda is the primary goal. The propaganda narrative focuses on setting the false official account in stone and further normalizing torture. Sadly, reporters and editors covering these events don’t seem to have an interest in challenging any substantial part of the story. Let’s hope that one or more of them comes to their senses and proves that suspicion wrong.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Dig Within.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Kevin Ryan, Global Research, 2020