Sunday, June 19, 2016

Orlando Terror, Operation Gladio Plan C and the Resistible Rise of Donald Trump

Sorry to skip a month blogging - most of May was spent on an incredible, possibly life-changing vacation that I will be providing much more details on in my next blog post - but since the Presidential contest for November has been decided for the major parties, I feel compelled to take my focus off deep history for a moment and weigh in.  I've already written about and was correct in predicting that Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic Party nomination.  It really is incredible that in challenging her, Bernie Sanders was able to win as many votes, states and delegates and last as long as he did.  But it is past time that he and his most passionate supporters face reality: he never had a chance.

You can run on a platform that threatens the system and win in the House, you can even run on a platform that threatens the system and win in the Senate, but if you run for President on a platform that threatens the system, you will not be allowed to win even the nomination of a major party.  Sorry to be such a cynical bastard, but if media bias, DNC-enabled disenfranchisement and computer voting fraud doesn't convince you the fix was in from the beginning, nothing will.  As I wrote previously in a blog post explaining why the system wouldn't let Bernie win, the last time a candidate from a major party who ran for President on a platform that genuinely threatened the status quo came close to winning the nomination, it was Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.  Remember what happened to him?  I suppose it's possible there was an exception to the rule four years later when McGovern was nominated, but that only happened because of the Canuck Letter and other instances of "ratfucking" done at the instigation of President Nixon so that he could face an opponent easier to beat.  Two years later, Nixon found out what happens when you try to cheat the system.

It is because of this that while I believe that establishment-favorite Clinton is most likely to win, the portrayal of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump by the Radical Establishment Media (and himself) as being anti-establishment is a clever piece of misdirection.  I'm reminded of the logical extension of a Carl von Clausewitz quote by Michael Ruppert in the movie Collapse, "There was a guy name von Clausewitz who said that war is a continuation of politics by other means.  Politics is a continuation of economics by other means."  From that perspective, it should be clear that Trump, political neophyte though he may be, is far from being anti-establishment where economics are concerned.


http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/56c640526e97c625048b822a-480/donald-trump.jpg
Donald Trump 2016 GOP presumptive nominee   Photo credit: businessinsider.com



If it isn't clear, let me spell out the absurdity of The Donald's unctuous outreach to Sanders' supporters: you know that richest 1%; those billionaire fat-cats Bernie's always railing against?  Trump is the milk-carton-poster-child personification of that social strata.  Basically born with a $200 million silver spoon in his mouth, he parlayed that into a real estate/reality TV huckster empire worth billions.  While a complicit media has done a magnificent job of image reinforcement for Trump by painting him as simpatico with the stereotypical blue-collar angry guy on a bar-stool, this is someone who has spent his entire adult life wining and dining the elite.  They may view Hillary as the better choice because of her longer track record of political compliance with overworld objectives, but that doesn't mean they see Trump as an untrustworthy loose cannon.  Remember, this is the man who literally wrote the book on The Art of the Deal.  He can be counted on to negotiate in their favor, even if his road to electoral victory is riding a wave of discontented revolt.

That possibility of victory should not be discarded as a pipe dream.  My recent road trip with my wife took us through Pacific Northwest blue states as well as Great Basin red states.  The only presidential candidates that I saw signs and bumper stickers for, often in the same state regardless of color, were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  I realize that's not the most scientific basis for measuring the level of anger and political discontent with the status quo.  But the fact remains that Trump, with large dollops of free media enabling, rode this wave of anger to victory and Sanders, despite significant media obstruction, rode a parallel wave of discontent to a close second.  While it may not make logical sense from an ideological perspective for a Bernie supporter to switch to Trump, the reality of politics is that sometimes emotion trumps logic.  As comedian Bill Maher observed, we're one terror attack away from "President Trump."

Orlando club Pulse    Photo credit: pix11.com


In that context, it's important to take a closer look at the recent terror attack in Orlando.  This horrific mass shooting on June 12, the worst in US history in terms of casualties with 49 killed and 53 wounded, already has the presumptive nominees pouncing on it to provide red meat for their respective bases.  Clinton is highlighting it to promote gun control against "lone wolves" while Trump uses it to rally around the 2nd amendment and highlight his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country; even expanding it to "suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or allies."

But what alarms me with this particular incident are the number of inconsistencies ignored by REM indicative of a Brabant-style Gladio operation similar to other recent attacks.  Just as the San Bernardino massacre last December originally had eyewitness reports of three shooters subsequently reduced to two, initial reports in Orlando of two shooters were reduced to one Omar Mateen, even though Mateen reportedly told police he had accomplices.  Just as with the Boston Bombing in 2013, we have the FBI questioning the perp/patsy on multiple occasions only to be cleared of suspicion before the subsequent terror event.  The FBI even admit that they introduced Mateen to "informants" - a procedure usually employed so they can be handlers in a sting operation - though somehow Mateen, like Tsarnaev in Boston before him (and the WTC bombers in 1993) just slipped through the cracks.  Then there's the curious case of James Wesley Howell from Indiana, arrested in Santa Monica, California in the early hours of the same morning as the Orlando attack for possessing weapons in his car.  He claimed that he was on his way to an LA Gay Pride event.  Cuz what better way to express your bisexual pride than firing three assault rifles with high capacity ammo and detonating a five gallon bucket of explosive chemicals?

Now I'm willing to admit I might be wrong in some of my suspicions.  Perhaps the Howell case is completely coincidental and there's no connection.  Maybe Mateen was really just a frustrated bipolar American lashing out in rage over his conflicted sexuality.  I find that a much more believable motive than radical Islam, especially considering in addition to pledging support to ISIS, Mateen had earlier attracted the attention of the FBI in 2013 by telling co-workers he was a member of Hezbollah, which anyone with a cursory knowledge of Sunni-Shiite relations understands is fighting against ISIS in Lebanon, indicating Mateen doesn't understand shit about who he supports; yelling 'ISIS' is a convenient deflection from his closeted reasons.  But I'm a lot more reluctant to let go of my suspicions of his handling by the FBI where they attempted to lure him into a terror plot, particularly since this was not his only connection with the intelligence community.

There are at least three connections that I'm aware of that Mateen had with the CIA.   (Thanks to the whole crew at RI for their contributions.)  First, there is his father, Seddique Mateen.  According to Daniel Hopsicker, the US-based Afghan satellite channel that Mateen has a show on, Payam Afghan, is said to be "widely known in Southwest Asia as a CIA-Pakistani-ISI construct."  Second, Omar Mateen was a member of the Timbuktu Seminary, an educational website run by former US Marine and undercover FBI agent Marcus Dwayne Robertson.  According to The Intercept, Robertson, who now goes by Abu Taubah, claims he worked as a covert operative for the CIA.  Third, there is Mateen's security guard employment with G4S.  This security corporation was formerly known as Wackenhut, a CIA proprietary company previously involved in Iraqgate, among other offenses.  The shares of G4S were bought up by Pakistan in 2012, a deal the Chairman of Wackenhut said would not be possible without the support of Bank al Falah.  According to wikipedia, "the roots of the bank go back to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI)."


http://cdn.historycommons.org/images/events/401_sibel_edmonds2050081722-9823.jpg



Sibel Edmonds author of The Lone Gladio  Photo credit: historycommons.org



It is this last intelligence connection that intrigues me the most because it ties into a personal hypothesis I have regarding the overworld vetting of Donald Trump's nomination.  My previous post on Iran/Contra explained how the overworld, exemplified by David Rockefeller, manipulates deep state events in coordination with the realms of intelligence, politics, finance and the underworld.  Much of the covert operation apparatus that had been the domain of CIA proper was partially outsourced through the private efforts of guys like Gen. John Singlaub, but also through BCCI, which intersected all those realms.  Privatization as a tool for Empire Maintenance is something that became even more intense in the 21st century with the invasion of Iraq as mercenary contractors like Blackwater were used in some cases to supplement and in some cases to outright supplant the military.  With more and more attention being brought by alternative media to the history of Operation Gladio in false flag terror attacks, and in the case of the Paris attacks last November the finger of blame being pointed at the organization in charge of Gladio B, NATO, on an international television outlet, is it likely that there are plans underway to obscure the role that Gladio plays today by trying to change it again?  The original change in the 90s from Gladio A to Gladio B changed how it operated, from Cold War objectives to War on Terror objectives.  Could they now have plans to change where it operates from in the latest evolution?

This possibility is certainly something I'm not alone in entertaining.  Sibel Edmonds hinted at something similar happening in her novel The Lone Gladio on page 352:

"Well, Greg, you did it.  You exposed and ended the operation.  Here's to that."  She raised her glass and took another sip.  "And I believe that's it for me.  I no longer owe you.  I fulfilled my obligation and kept my end of our deal."  Elsie lifted her glass high and drained it.  "Even Steven."

Greg narrowed his eyes.  "That was Operation B.  You are right: it ended.  But Operation C has already kicked in and is hard at work...as we speak.  We might have cut two tiny heads off the beast, but the hydra's got hundreds more, you can bet your life on it."


My hypothesis is the overworld is currently exploring the possibility of transitioning Operation Gladio Plan B to Operation Gladio Plan C by decentralizing NATO responsibility and privatizing wherever possible to obscure accountability.  That Gladio continues is essential for Empire Maintenance; the question then is how to do so in the most effective manner.  Keeping in mind that in being the presumed nominee Trump passed his overworld vetting, declaring that NATO "may be obsolete" and that "maybe" it should be gotten rid of would constitute the most efficient path of achieving an overworld objective - with the added bonus of appearing to be anti-establishment! 

Why else do I think President Trump might be a useful instrument in the evolution of Gladio B under NATO to Gladio C privatized?  At the same time Trump was questioning the need for NATO last March, he unveiled his list of top foreign policy advisors.  One name in particular stood out in bold for me: Joe Schmitz.  While REM outlets usually described him as a former Defense Department inspector general, he stood out to me for a different position entirely: a former executive with the firm of mercenaries formerly named Blackwater.  If you haven't read Jeremy Scahill's book Blackwater, it's worth it for how he details the whole sordid history of the Schmitz family.  For Trump to lambaste the entire Bush family name over Iraq, which I loved, then choose as one of his main foreign policy advisors someone who helped protect that criminal administration proves two things.  It proves Trump likes to have it both ways and that he has a particular interest in the arena of privatization that could prove very useful to the Deep State if he won in November.


“Therefore learn how to see and not to gape.
To act instead of talking all day long.
The world was almost won by such an ape!
The nations put him where his kind belong.
But don't rejoice too soon at your escape -
The womb he crawled from is still going strong.”
Bertolt Brecht, The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui 


There have already been so many articles and op-ed columns dedicated to comparing the rise of Trump to the rise of a fascist dictator, it's hard to resist the temptation, which is basically what the quote above from Brecht's play does.  I certainly don't believe that President Hillary Clinton would shy away from emasculating NATO if it best served the interests of Empire Maintenance.  Perhaps that is the choice we really face in November: transition to Gladio C at a glacial pace to preserve the appearance of business as usual with another President Clinton, or shake the status quo with the "faster, please" position of President Trump.  In that light, Orlando may be a trial balloon for the Deep State to get a pulse on what America can take - similar events before November could either quicken that pulse or make it catatonic.  "Faster, please", in case you didn't get the reference, is a signature meme of Machiavelli lover and author of Universal Fascism Michael Ledeen.  While Ledeen might make a scholarly claim that historically speaking Trump is not a fascist, I would invite him and everyone else to read Umberto Eco's 14 points of fascism to see if the candidate you despise measures up.  Personally, whatever you call it, I don't think American Judas would survive it should President Trump take this whim and make it law:



Donald Trump wants to 'close up' the Internet



Donald Trump has called for a shutdown of the Internet in certain areas to stop the spread of terror.

In a speech at the U.S.S. Yorktown in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, on Monday, Trump referenced the use by ISIS of social media as a recruitment tool. He recommended a discussion with Bill Gates to shut off parts of the Internet.

"We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet," Trump said. "We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people."

Some totalitarian governments do it
 
The notion that the Internet could be shut off is not completely off base. North Korea does it. Some countries have been known to shut off Internet service to their citizens in times of crisis. Egypt restricted the Internet during the 2011 Arab Spring uprising.

Other countries block certain Internet services and sites. China is the most famous example, forbidding most social networking sites as well as websites that deal with subjects the government doesn't want its citizens to know about.

more...

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/08/technology/donald-trump-internet/


Call it fascist, call it foolish, call it a 'loose cannon' like so many others in the 'establishment' do.  But if you care about freedom and if anything I've written in this entry makes any sense, whatever you call it, resist it.  It doesn't have your best interests at heart.  At all!

6 comments:

Kevin Keogh said...

very nice post overall

thank you

Robert Paulsen said...

Thanks Kevin! Glad you liked it.

Tanya Savko said...

Wow, a lot to think about here! Your dedication to research, and weaving it all together, always impresses me.

Robert Paulsen said...

Thanks Tanya! I always try to look beyond the headlines to find the deeper story. Your response is definitely appreciated!

Eric Frost-Barnes said...

A truly fantastic piece. Very well done (and researched)! There are so many reasons for Trump's popularity, but regardless of those reasons, everyday folks need to resist and refute Trump's bullshit shenanigans. The man-child is a charlatan and is using our electoral system to generate mad money for his own elitist empire.

Robert Paulsen said...

Damn straight, Eric! It's all about building that brand of his to the ultimate of phallic heights to feed his own warped insecurities. "Man-child" - you nailed it. Thanks!