Oct 31, 2012
When it comes to national crises and man-made disasters, America as a society has a tendency towards selective blindness. If we were to truly think critically instead of reactively with hyperemotional conclusions, we might ask ourselves a few important questions. In the wake of 9/11, we did not investigate the actual crime for ourselves. Instead, the investigation was done for us, and within hours of the attacks a convenient group of villains was presented to us on a silver platter complete with trimmings as well as a few target countries we did not particularly like ready to bomb into oblivion. After 9/11, we did not think; we set out to slay monsters. Whether they were real or imagined made little difference…
If we had any sense back then, the populace would have asked themselves WHO truly benefited from the event? Who really gained, and who really lost? Did a bunch of cave dwelling Muslim fanatics “gain” from 9/11? What did they gain? Where was the incentive?
In any guerilla resistance or insurgency, the primary objective is to win the support of a particular populace. To win hearts and minds. Post 9/11, the world was ready to embrace the U.S. in a way that had not been seen in decades. The “terrorist” plan to undermine the collective American character had apparently backfired. The supposed goal of Al-Qaeda to rally the world behind its cause against U.S. imperialism had turned to poison. The attacks then opened the political doorway for even more U.S. military dominion in the Middle East, and policies of preemption continue more than a decade later as politician after politician rides the tired pony of “national security” to complete exhaustion, playing the terrorism card as an excuse for every violent action and every disruption of civil liberties, while the establishment rams through every piece of unconstitutional legislation they have had on the backburner for years.
Again, the question remains: who really benefited from the event?
Now, some might claim that terrorists are generally disposed to insanity or religious zealotry, and don’t necessarily need to think in terms of cost/benefit when planning to kill people. This assertion, however, is a mere feat of mental gymnastics designed to allow us to tapdance around the more complex issues. Many of us would like to assume that the story of a sinister super-secret Al-Qaeda clan of death exists, and in order to do so we also have to believe that they are smart enough to embed themselves into every fabric of Western culture as our government constantly forewarns. But, if they truly are that ingenious, wouldn’t we also have to consider the possibility that the terrorists are smart enough to take actions which serve THEIR interests, instead of only serving the interests of the people they are supposed to despise, like the U.S. and European power elite?
Al-Qaeda’s (or whoever they are) presence in Syria and the admitted (or loosely admitted) support they now receive from the U.S. in the form of monetary aid and weapons shipments is a perfect example of this dynamic. Why would we reinforce a terrorist organization which our government has accused of killing thousands on 9/11? Why would they help us destabilize Syria?
Why is it that everything Al-Qaeda does ultimately enriches the men they call their enemies?
Regardless of whether or not you believe such subversive events are the product of terrorist activities, it is impossible to deny that the establishment (globalists and their respective business entities) always seem to come out far ahead in the aftermath of every calamity. We lose, the Muslim nations lose, and the global banks win, every time. This is not debatable. It is simply today’s reality…
Knowing this dynamic exists, I have to apply a bit of skepticism when I read press releases from the Department of Defense and the White House asserting that a 2nd World country like Iran is possibly at the forefront of cyber warfare against the U.S.:
I have to double my skepticism when Fox News reports that Iran is planning cyber-strikes from Mexico (playing into the DHS talking point of joint Mexican/Al-Qaeda operations. Why the hell would Iran need to cyber attack from Mexico? Why not the South Pole, or the Hamptons…?). Not to mention, their expert guest on the matter is none other than Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman, one of the primary soulless political figures behind such freedom roasting bills as the Enemy Belligerents Act (whose language was ultimately melded into the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA 2012), and the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which is essentially CISPA on steroids:
Neither the DoD, nor the White House, nor Lieberman, nor the mainstream media have ever offered any tangible evidence that Iran has anything to do with the alleged cyber attacks on major U.S. banks, the private Federal Reserve, or any American infrastructure of any kind. Yes, in case you haven’t noticed, it sounds like Iraq all over again; lots of “experts” telling us what to think, and no evidence to back their claims. So, without the benefit of any evidence from our fearless leaders in Washington D.C., we are left only with logic. What would Iran’s goal be in executing a cyber attack against the U.S financial system, and what would they gain?
Even if the Middle Eastern nation has the capability to carry out such a techno-barrage, wouldn’t Iran be the first country that the U.S. would blame for the event regardless of evidence? Why would Iran hand over the perfect pretext for a hard physical strike by Western powers? Again, are we supposed to believe that the Iranian government is brilliant enough to pull off a coded 9/11, but too ignorant to realize they will be immediately targeted afterwards?
Now, there have been some cyber attacks in recent years which DO have strong suspects with ample evidence to support their guilt. Namely, the Stuxnet virus attacks which were directed specifically at Iran and its nuclear energy program, all perpetrated by the U.S. and Israel. I have seen cold hard facts showing that the U.S. and Israeli governments have a penchant for computer terrorism, and I have seen no facts that sully Iran.
Iran gains little or nothing from cyber warfare, but there is one group of interests that gain much…
I submit that in the event of a cyber attack on the U.S., the spoils of such a victory will fall into the laps of the very global bankers that are being portrayed as victims, and I also submit that said attacks will open a door to government controls that certain elites have been clamoring for over decades. Here’s what they would get, and what you would lose…
1) A Cyber Attack Would Divert Economic Blame Away From Banks And Government
The Federal Reserve created the powder keg atmosphere within our financial system that we experience today using artificially low interest rates which allowed fiat money to be fed into sure-loss housing loans and toxic debt derivatives. The credit crisis and housing collapse NEVER could have occurred without the direct aid of central bankers. International lenders like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs knowingly issued these toxic derivatives into the system while betting against them on the open market in an outright act of fiscal sabotage on numerous countries from Greece to the United States. Ratings agencies ignored the blatant dangers inherent in the derivatives market and gave toxic securities coveted AAA status. The SEC, which is supposed to stand guard against this brand of corruption, instead looked the other way, rarely if ever investigating whistleblower complaints against the “Too Big Too Fails”.
When the American economy collapses (and it will) under the intense weight of this criminality on every level of the market process, the public will come after the banks and those politicians who helped them – unless a scapegoat is offered as a distraction. A “cyber attack” on our banking system would give perfect cover for the banksters, allowing them to blame the collapse (which was going to happen anyway) on Iranian “terrorists”. With their new victim status, international banks can then step in as the wounded but valiant “saviors” of the global financial system, centralizing even more power into fewer hands, issuing their new world reserve currency (the SDR) in the wake of a disintegrating dollar, focusing regulatory control within the IMF, all while the foolish populace chases after Muslim boogeymen.
2) A Cyber Attack Gives Pretext For War
The argument for preemption against Iran over a nuclear weapons program that has never been proven to exist is simply ineffective and childish. Globalists are beginning to realize that they have overplayed the “expert” card, and dropping a guy in a suit in front of a camera to tell Americans who to bomb is not quite working out like it did a decade ago. Why not? Because ten years ago Americans were still reeling from 9/11. Globalist think tanks like the Washington Institute For Near East Policy now openly call for new attacks to be fabricated (false flag attacks) in order to frighten the American people into supporting a new war against Iran:
The interesting thing about the concept of a cyber false flag is that it leaves no physical fingerprints for average citizens to investigate. Skeptics who suspect that our own government is the engineer of the attack might never be able to see the virus, coding, or transcripts of the event. It is much easier to hide a collapsing network infrastructure than it is to hide a real building collapsing at near freefall speed (Building 7) without the aid of a crashing airliner. With no physical or visible evidence whatsoever, a cyber false flag can be blamed on anyone, and the public will have to take the government at their word.
3) A Cyber Attack Gives The Government Rationale For Internet Controls
Our government, regardless of which party occupies the presidency, has been chewing through concrete in an attempt to gain regulatory power over the internet and its content. SOPA, CISPA, the Cybersecurity Act 2012, and on and on. They do not hide the fact that they want to clamp down on the web, especially the web’s massive independent media presence, which the DHS often refers to as “extremist propaganda and recruitment”. A cyber attack gives web totalitarians the perfect excuse to fence in our creative commons and silence activist media. I can hear it now: “The open and unsecured nature of the internet has given terrorists and terrorist states free reign to attack vital U.S. infrastructure, and it must be restricted for the greater good of the country…”
4) A Cyber Attack Can Go Global
A cyber attack does not have to be limited to a single country and its networks. It could be used to strike multiple countries and fuel a global firestorm of systems failures. Globalists need a macro-crisis, a world-wide catastrophe, in order to present their “global solution” to the desperate masses. This solution will invariably include more dominance for them, and less freedom for us. A global crisis can also be used to manipulate various cultures to forget concerns of sovereignty and think in terms of one-world action. Surely, a worldwide breakdown can only be solved if we “all work together and all think alike”, right…?
Without a doubt, a cyber attack serves the interests of elitist entities and banking monstrosities like nothing else in existence. Set off a nuke, start WWIII, turn the U.S. dollar into stagflationary dust; a cyber attack tops them all, because a cyber attack can lead to them all while maintaining deniability for the establishment. The fact that whispers of cyber threats have turned into bullhorn blasted propaganda should concern us all.
Are we being conditioned for a cyber event in the near future? That remains to be seen. However, none of us should be surprised if one does occur, especially in light of the many gains involved for globalists, and all of us should be ready to dismantle and expose any lies surrounding the event before the American public is whipped into a 9/11 style frenzy yet again.
This article was posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 5:20 am