Culture and Religion

A world view where the guide for society is based on human nature,
 not on ancient scriptures.  Home  or Topic Groups

Culture of Fear

False Flags - a strategy of tension

The Global War on Terror, unleashed by the American administration after the 9/11/2001 attacks by 4 hijacked airplanes, has clearly led to a number of military interventions by the American armed forces, in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Iraq in 2003. American special forces have also been involved in other international turmoil, with the regime changes in Libya in 2002 and in Ukraine in 2011, and is clearly continuing its pursuit of regime change in another country, Syria. None of these campaigns are in the interests of the American populace so Americans need intermittent reminders of reasons to be afraid, so as to prevent them from realizing they should stop this ruthless waste of human lives and economic resources.

H. L. Mencken in a work published in 1918 has a frequently referenced quote:


    "Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."


Joseph Goebells also provided a frequently referenced quote (I cannot determine the date of its original publication), though it is rather similar to some text in Hitler's Mein Kampf (1925):


    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."


Randolph Bourne published in 1918 an often referenced essay titled: War is the Health of the State. The essay was published at the time of the first world war but its content is truly timeless and still applies today.

A few notable excerpts (the essay should be read in its entirety):


    War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense. The machinery of government sets and enforces the drastic penalties; the minorities are either intimidated into silence, or brought slowly around by a subtle process of persuasion which may seem to them really to be converting them. Of course, the ideal of perfect loyalty, perfect uniformity is never really attained. The classes upon whom the amateur work of coercion falls are unwearied in their zeal, but often their agitation instead of converting, merely serves to stiffen their resistance. Minorities are rendered sullen, and some intellectual opinion bitter and satirical. But in general, the nation in wartime attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war. Loyalty - or mystic devotion to the State - becomes the major imagined human value. Other values, such as artistic creation, knowledge, reason, beauty, the enhancement of life, are instantly and almost unanimously sacrificed, and the significant classes who have constituted themselves the amateur agents of the State are engaged not only in sacrificing these values for themselves but in coercing all other persons into sacrificing them.


    It cannot be too firmly realized that war is a function of States and not of nations, indeed that it is the chief function of States. War is a very artificial thing. It is not the na´ve spontaneous outburst of herd pugnacity; it is no more primary than is formal religion. War cannot exist without a military establishment, and a military establishment cannot exist without a State organization. War has an immemorial tradition and heredity only because the State has a long tradition and heredity. But they are inseparably and functionally joined. We cannot crusade against war without crusading implicitly against the State. And we cannot expect, or take measures to ensure, that this war is a war to end war, unless at the same time we take measures to end the State in its traditional form. The State is not the nation, and the State can be modified and even abolished in its present form, without harming the nation. On the contrary, with the passing of the dominance of the State, the genuine life-enhancing forces of the nation will be liberated. If the State's chief function is war, then the State must suck out of the nation a large part of its energy for its purely sterile purposes of defense and aggression. It devotes to waste or to actual destruction as much as it can of the vitality of the nation. No one will deny that war is a vast complex of life-destroying and life-crippling forces. If the State's chief function is war, then it is chiefly concerned with coordinating and developing the powers and techniques which make for destruction. And this means not only the actual and potential destruction of the enemy, but of the nation at home as well. For the very existence of a State in a system of States means that the nation lies always under a risk of war and invasion, and the calling away of energy into military pursuits means a crippling of the productive and life-enhancing processes of the national life.


    Every one of us, without exception, is born into a society that is given, just as the fauna and flora of our environment are given. Society and its institutions are, to the individual who enters it, as much naturalistic phenomena as is the weather itself. There is, therefore, no natural sanctity in the State any more than there is in the weather. We may bow down before it, just as our ancestors bowed before the sun and moon, but it is only because something in us unregenerate finds satisfaction in such an attitude, not because there is anything inherently reverential in the institution worshiped. Once the State has begun to function, and a large class finds its interest and its expression of power in maintaining the State, this ruling class may compel obedience from any uninterested minority. The State thus becomes an instrument by which the power of the whole herd is wielded for the benefit of a class. The rulers soon learn to capitalize the reverence which the State produces in the majority, and turn it into a general resistance toward a lessening of their privileges. The sanctity of the State becomes identified with the sanctity of the ruling class, and the latter are permitted to remain in power under the impression that in obeying and serving them, we are obeying and serving society, the nation, the great collectivity of all of us. . . .


In 2013, James Corbett did a short video about false flag operations, those terrorist acts that serve the nation's leaders, not those who supposedly carried out the attacks.


Since 2000, there have been a number of terrorist acts in America. The response has often been something like: we should attack them there so they do not attack us here, as a blatant justification for our military attacks of foreign nations, whose citizens there were never involved in anything here in America.

Is September 2000, the Project for a New American Century published the neocon plan for America and the world, titled Rebuilding America's Defenses. In this manifesto, declaring the intent for military expansion of American armed forces and desired interventions, is this:

    "Further, the process of transformation [to Pax Americana], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."


It is readily apparent this plan was put into action after the events of 9/11/2001, which is clearly a 'Pearl Harbor' type event capable of drastically affecting American society.

There are many problems with the official narrative offered by the American government about the events on 9/11.  There are many resources available from various investigations. The clear signs of something wrong with the official narrative:

Never in the world, before or after 9/11, has a tall office building ever collapsed due to an office fire.

The flight path of the plane hitting the Pentagon was so difficult, a cork screw descending path at 500 mph to hit the Pentagon at ground level, it was probably impossible for a commercial airliner like the Boeing 757. The hijacker supposedly flying this plane could not have done it; his flight instructor claimed this student could not handle a single engine Cessna.

The three buildings destroyed in the World Trade Center complex, hit by only two planes, fell at an incredible free fall rate, not like in a slow pancake fashion that might be expected with only a fire. These were controlled demolitions, implying the events were managed not just by the few hijackers.

There was significant insider trading activity in world financial markets before and during the 9/11 events, implying more than just the hijackers were expecting these events.

There is a short version reviewing the official narrative, only 5 minutes (the article also includes links).
There is a long version, an Italian produced documentary titled ZERO (about 105 minutes).
Here is an investigation into the money aspect of the 9/11 events, including the insider trading investigation (article includes links).

In September 2002 (a year after 9/11), the main elements of what has been called the Bush Doctrine were published, including:

    The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.


Since then, America has been continually at war, ever ready to attack even preemptively. America's Global War on Terror has a stateless enemy that can never be eliminated: militant Islam.

On April, 15, 2013, a bombing occurred at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing 3 and injuring more than 140.

There are clearly several things wrong with the official narrative:

There happened to be a bomb scare drill happening at the finish line at the very same time a bomb was actually detonated. This is quite the coincidence.

The FBI was involved with the suspects for several years. This was initially denied.

There is no evidence connecting the Tsarnaev brothers to the bomb. They even had the wrong small backpacks from the large one found to have the bomb - as simple as that.

The Tsarnaev brothers and their friend in Florida were apparently all supposed to die, which would prevent the suspects from telling their story. Tamerlane was supposedly killed in a shootout with police but eye witnesses saw him alive when taken into custody. The police failed to kill Dzhokhar when they riddled the boat where he was hiding with many bullets. He was put on a show trial, never getting a chance to testify while nothing was ever questioned as a defense would be expected to.

Here is a review of the official narrative, including more links.
Here is a review of Dhokhar's trial.

On December 2, 2015, more than a dozen people were murdered in an office building in San Bernardino, California. A husband and wife were quickly accused of the killing but both were killed by police during a supposed shootout. The woman of the pair supposedly had pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIS just before the attack.

There are clearly several things wrong with the official narrative:

The very office where the shooting occurred had an active shooter drill exactly one year before. There was another active shooter drill at a nearby college at the same time as the real shooting, so dozens of police responded immediately. Both correlations are quite the coincidence.

Several eyewitnesses claimed there were 3 tall white male shooters but the police claim the two of Middle East descent were the real suspects, though the woman is only 5 foot 3 and could never be seen as a tall male.

A number of anonymous sources made unproved claims about the couple right after the shooting, such as a Facebook post supposedly happened right at or near the start of the shooting when the woman had no computer or cell phone available for such a post or that both were supposedly radicalized.

A news chopper video of the final scene of the suspect's SUV is very different from police accounts.

Peter B Collins provided an excellent summary of the problems with this narrative.
An eye witness account of the 3 male suspects was on national news, but that could not divert the narrative maintaining the Muslim couple as suspects.
Here is another review of the official narrative.

One consequence of this shooting in San Bernardino was the subsequent presidential debate allowed candidates to voice their anti-Muslim vitriol. Ted Cruz even said he wants to carpet bomb the Islamic militants. This should not be too surprising given the American tendency in both the candidates and the media to vilify Islam, to create an enemy for our global military empire. No one ever mentions the militant Islam terrorists were created and are supported by America (with help from our allies like Saudi Arabia).

It is quite clear, from the media coverage of these events and the behavior of the remaining presidential candidates, Americans are being kept in a state of vigilance, ready for another war. This domestic policy has been called a 'strategy of tension' as was used by Operation Gladio in Europe, which has evolved into what is called Gladio B for American foreign policy. The Global War on Terror requires the Americans to remain in a state of terror. The mainstream media does nothing about questioning the official narratives provided by the American government, to bring the truth to the American people.

Apparently the only way to divert America off this course of destruction is for Americans to become aware of this direction and how it is being justified, so eventually Americans can express their displeasure and contempt for the American political leaders and their barbaric actions and thereby bring about political change.

created - December 2015
last change - 12/31/2015
Here is the list of topics in this Culture Topic Group.
All Topic Groups are available by selecting More TG.
All topics in the site are in the Site Map, where each Topic Group has its topics indented below it.

Ctrl + for zoom in;  Ctrl - for zoom out ;  Ctrl 0 for no zoom;
triple-tap for zoom to fit;  pinch for zoom change;  pinched for no zoom