Paris Attacks: “Impromptu” Bataclan Footage Product of Professionals 

by James Tracy • Home • Tags: journalism, news media, news media analysis, terrorism

Today the iPhone and similar personal electronic devices allow everyday people to take high-quality video and photos in an instant. Yet two key videos that have emerged from the November 13, 2015 Paris terror events were shot by established professionals–one of whom travelled from Russia on the morning November 13 to be quartered in unusually close proximity to the rear exit of the Bataclan Theatre, where he or his his neighbor, a professional journalist, captured footage of shooting victims and survivors being dragged from the building and hanging from the facility’s upstairs windows.
Russian photographer Victor Boyko is a well-connected and established professional photographer, as his portfolio suggests. His clients include some of the world’s foremost entertainment and pop culture luminaries, including film director David Lynch, fashion designer Ralph Lauren, rock musician Lenny Kravitz, and singer/model/actress Paris Hilton. In other words, he .



Mr. Boyko arrived at Charles De Gaulle airport in the early morning hours of February 13, as this Facebook post reveals.

That morning Boyko proceeded to a rented flat ideally positioned at the rear of the Bataclan Theatre, as noted in this Facebook post taken at mid-day on November 14. Perhaps coincidentally Daniel Psenny, a journalist working for Le Monde, was in the room next door where he claimed to film horrified Bataclan concert goers exiting the facility.

Here is a rough translation of excerpts from the text accompanying the above photograph posted by Boyko on Facebook:

I went home and went through hell.
As I left the Republique plaza it became obvious that something wasn’t right. Too many sirens, and for some reason there was a bunch of firemen. I then understood that the firemen were simply reacting to something else. There were lots of police at the restaurant on the corner of the Boulevard Voltaire and they literally pushed people inside the cafe and the waiter shut door and locked it. In the street on the other side of the avenue.
[Boyko then discusses visiting a tavern owned by “Niko,” who invited him in to have a drink despite the circumstances.] Here we heard  about people having been shot, both about bataklane and about small Cambodian restaurant at 20 rue Alibert. In October I rented an apartment on 10 rue Alibert and ordered take out food from there.
Shortly thereafter the pedestrians ran to the other side of avenue together with the policemen with the panels. Niko winked to me and reached from the pocket of coat the bottle of beer. After 15 minutes all hell broke loose. Ten or more people appeared on stretchers and others were being carried by hand and loaded into ambulances. President Hollande arrived and the woman-mayor of Paris … The police stopped with automatic weapons, roughly searching those present. A group of survivors from the Bataclan sat in the fence, many of them lacked clothing and shook in the cold.
I arrived back early this morning, the door of my flat opposite the rear entrance of the Bataclan [my back door out of the Bataclan], where they ran away. I opened the door and there was blood all over the place. The lever to the elevator was covered in blood…

Here Boyko refers to Le Monde‘s Psenny, but oddly fails to point out that Psenny is also a journalist at Le Monde, who remarkably produces the same photos and videos attributed to Boyko (below) from almost the same vantage point outside the Bataclan.

I went up in the elevator to my floor, and there is no neighbor. The door was wide open… he saw people running out of the club from the window and went to help injured. He fell under the some of those exiting the theatre and they shot him through hand. He’s now in hospital and had to have surgery. Even today, the street is covered in blood.

Psenny is also noted in the end credits of a short video produced by the New York Times that includes voice overs of Bataclan Theatre shooting survivors.

In fact, the New York Times credits this video footage to Psenny and Boyko, with similar reports suggesting that Psenny captured the video from his apartment. Yet the video was clearly taken very close to if not from the identical vantage point that Boyko maintains are his quarters. (There are only two unedited shots in the Times video–one inside the Bataclan as the terrorists begin shooting and one of the rear entrance scene–comprising the footage.)
Did Boyko in fact take the video and allow Psenny and Le Monde to appropriate it? After all, this is what professional photographers are commissioned to do. If so, he doesn’t say as much. One may safely conclude that Boyko could not have been Psenny’s guest because he refers to Psenny as his neighbor in the above account. Indeed, their positioning at the scene is highly unusual, yet clearly acknowledged in the end credits to the New York Times short above.
Again, here are frames from the photos attributed to Psenny:

And here are the photos from Boyko’s Instagram page:

Along the lines of Boyko’s Facebook post, Psenny relates to the UK Telegraph. a somewhat sensational account of rescuing an American who cryptically goes by the name of “Matthew” from the Bataclan shooting scene.   “Monsieur Psenny,” the Telegraph notes, “who had been in his apartment filming panic stricken concert goers rushing from the scene–including a pregnant woman hanging form [sic] an upstairs window–managed to drag [Matthew] to safety but was himself shot by one of the gunmen.”
Here is Psenny recovering from the injury and recounting his ordeal.

Indeed, this was “Matthew’s” second “narrow escape from a terrorist strike,” according to the Telegraph account. “He was at the foot of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 heading to a work meeting when a United Airlines plan struck one of the towers.”
Further, the sole video to emerge out of an audience of 1,500 that coincidentally captured the initial stages of the terrorist attack was shot by professional graphic designer and illustrator “Seb Snow,” according to the New York Times (above).


In conclusion, almost everyone today–including Parisians–are equipped with cell phones that have substantial video and photographic capacities. Why then are the only videos taken of one of the most significant terrorist events in recent history produced by professionals who are strategically positioned at the crime scene in advance?

MOMENT of SHOOTING By TERRORIST At BATACLAN MUSIC Theatre PARIS FILMED From INSIDE VENUE {VIDEO RAW} https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpoOQ9fDAF8

Dave McGowan: A Great Man, Taken From Us         ~  when you fight satan !!!    folks that IS y we r better than ....them  :) r 

by patrickchatsamiably • Guest Posts • Tags: alternative media, government conspiracy

By Patrick Murphy
A great loss occurred November 22 at 12:47 PM in Los Angeles: Dave McGowan, the courageous, fearless, brilliant discoverer of patterns no one else noticed, died.
A man who had essentially never had anything physically wrong with him, he all at once came down with cancer, all through his body. Within a few months, he was down to 90 pounds, and the pain could not be managed with drugs. I believe he was murdered, just as I believe that Andrew Breitbart was murdered, and for the same reason.
The crafters of the New World Order are ruthless. Apparently, the decree that Amazon vaporize James Fetzer’s latest edited volume came from the White House. Dinesh D’Souza produced two incredibly damning documentaries exposing the truth about Barry Soetoro, and because he had the misfortune of finding a vast audience, the secret government set about finding a triviality by which his life could be ruined. They even put him in a federal prison camp for the better part of a year (at least they didn’t kill him).
The viciousness of the technique used in Dave’s case is almost unspeakably cruel.

He had decided to publish his last book, about Laurel Canyon, conventionally, with a view of reaching a larger audience than he had with his previous works, and the publisher prevailed upon him to promote it through Facebook. He had not blogged before, and took to it like a fish to water, making thousands of genuine friends. Reading the heartfelt sorrow of the many comments after he revealed his new situation, one was astounded by the power of this new technology to gather a true community from all over the world. The people who wrote to tell him how sorry they were genuinely loved him, and were terribly grateful for what he, via his work, had done for them.
Many offered advice as to how he should approach the battle. Lots of alternative cancer cures, and lots of admonitions to refuse the chemo route. The medical world prevailed, alas, with the fear of how fast-spreading and deadly is the kind of cancer that had hit him so suddenly.
Even with the sickness the rounds of chemo caused him, he was able to compose another essay in his latest project, finding what really happened with Lincoln’s assassination–and reading it, you’d never know anything was now different about him. His mind, and his wit, and his amazing ability to see things there in plain sight that no one ever noticed before, were undiminished. Heartened by this, I continued to drop by his site every morning, in the hopes that the MDs might actually accomplish what they told him they could do: heal him through their allopathic paradigm.
I never wrote at his Facebook page to tell him how sorry I was, because so many people already did so, saying the very things I would have said. How many thousands of his fans can say the same?
He will be missed in a way that few writers are missed when they shuffle off this mortal coil.

******

Dave’s web site started out as an on-line newsletter.  It availed him of the chance to spell out his thoughts about the events of the day, and although I never knew him, I suspect that he learned to write, and think, so beautifully because of it.  He finally had the platform he needed to find his true calling.

His early books, as I recall from radio interviews of his that I caught, were complications of those newsletters.  Understanding the F-Word was about the strange form of fascism America has so easily come to embrace (while that one DOES reside on my shelf, it remains unread by me, sad to say).

Programmed to Kill, which is about the strange and unexpected reality behind the phenomenon of serial killers, is one I wish I DID NOT read.  It is replete with documentation of the pederasty the elites who rule this time of the world seem so addicted to, the world that John DeCamp documented in The Franklin Coverup.  It is such a heartbreaking reality, that even Dave, in a radio interview, said that once these ideas are deposited into your brain, they can’t be expunged, and he wondered at whether it was worth it.  I talked about this once with Sofia, mentioning a particularly horrible anecdote about the Bohemian Grove.  The story I was relating to her was how I felt so horrified to have learned this thing, and I called Stan Monteith to hopefully somehow calm me down.  It was his wife, Barbara, who answered the phone, and she was very comforting.  Sofia knew the anecdote, and understood my horror.  Sofia is stronger than I, and even though years had passed since my chat with Barbara, Sofia’s way was very helpful, too.  Still, I wish I did not know these things.

Dave faced such things with a courage I don’t think I could.  He soldiered on, facing monsters, and laughing at them, one after another.  What he wrote about what he learned exists, as documents we all could face.  Some of it very dark indeed, some of it laughable charlatanism.  Somehow, he could balance the two worlds.

Eventually, his site was not a platform for his newsletters any longer, but a place he could work out the research he was doing in a more systematic way.  If you go there, you can see that gradual transition.  The bottom of the page features a sampling of his newsletters (all–well, most– are fantastic reads), and just above that, you will find a blocked off selection of his 9/11-related newsletters–a different method.  He was a great, early 9/11 researcher, as those entries will demonstrate.  But he also engaged in quite an amusingly antagonistic, public, tête-à-tête with the pompous blowhard Michael Ruppert–but it can only be found in the newsletters not included in the 9/11 section.  Believe me, it’s worth the digging to plough through the newsletters and read what transpired between these two men.  It’s 9/11 related, but not an analysis of what transpired that morning.  It’s about the weirdness of 9/11 research, and how personalities often took center stage.

His analysis of the photographic evidence of what transpired at the Boston Bombing, in 16 parts, is as good as anyone has done.  He absolutely PROVES it was a hoax.  And he makes you laugh, too, as he does it.

Of course, he became famous on a scale even he was shocked by with the series of articles he called Inside the LC: The strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation.  It started out in the most innocuous way possible.  One of his daughters had given him a present, a book about one of his favorite things, the rock music of the 60s, and he took it on vacation to read as a diversion.  But it was filled with what for him were obvious “red flags,” indicating a lot that needed to be looked into.  So he did.  21 Web essays later, he published it as a book, Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon, which I mentioned earlier.  It is probably what he will be most remembered by.

(He took down the articles on the Web, as I mentioned in an earlier piece here at MHB, which I found sad, because they included lots of fantastic pictures, but you can still find them all here.  The book is a re-crafted version of the web series; Dave said that it had 30% more material, but he also dropped lots of fun stuff.  That’s what you have to do when making a book.  So it’s great to have both accessible to us.  Read both.  Dave was a great writer, a great thinker.)

But meanwhile, in the midst of the investigation of the birth of the “hippie” phenomenon, he stumbled upon something else.  He called that series of essays Wagging the Moondoggie.  Here’s how he launched it:

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”
Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon
I can see all of you scratching your heads out there and I know exactly what it is that you are thinking: “Why the hell are we taking this detour to the Moon? What happened to Laurel Canyon? Have you completely lost your mind?”
*Sigh*
Back to me, Patrick.
It the best introduction to the Apollo program hoax.  The best.
And finally, he became interested in Why Everything You Think You Know About the Lincoln Assassination is Wrong.  It is fantastic as anything else he did, even though he was not able to complete the project.  Better.  He was getting better.  How good would he have gotten, given another few decades?
I loved listening to him talk, in interviews.  Listen to his one with Sofia.  You have to love the guy.
I could go on.  I am heartbroken.
My best to his family.

What Happened to the Music? 

by patrickchatsamiably • Guest Posts • Tags: alternative media, public opinion, social engineering

David Dees / deesillustration.com

By Patrick Murphy
Listening to James’ fantastic interview with James Perloff, I developed a thought. The topic was the bit just after the halfway mark, when he was talking about the history of television, and how the bad guys got those machines into our houses as a sort of Trojan Horse, a gift that anyone with a mind crafted in Western Civilization would look forward to receiving. Leave It To Beaver warmed our hearts; Lucy made us laugh. No one could object to the content back then. It was anything but the Devil’s Box.

But by the late 60s, when 90% of households had come to own one, and we were already addicted, a comprehensive transformation was underway. The content was now becoming systematically darker, and steadily contrary to Biblical morality. It was training us that moral “darkness” is not objectively real, only a matter of private interpretation. Perloff rightly contends that, had the Powers that gave us television started out with the content that was put into place by the 1970s, much less more recently, no one in the 50s would have bought a set. A very fine insight.
That part of the conversation had to do with how this coincided with the transformation of the recorded music industry at the very same time, and Dave McGowan’s seminal exploration of the Laurel Canyon scene—an investigation I followed very closely almost from the start, when it was a series of Web articles. (This is the first; most of the rest can no longer be read at Dave’s site—they will now direct you to the published book, which I highly recommend. The book has one downside, though: it does not include the sometimes amazing pictures the original series of articles incorporated in the narrative. But all is not lost! You can read the whole series, starting here, as it originally appeared, complete with pictures. That said, Dave added lots of new, valuable, content when he made it into a book, so I recommend reading both).
Anyway, this year being the centenary of Frank Sinatra’s birth, Mark Steyn, long-time chronicler of the history of the Great American Songbook, has dedicated his “Song of the Week” feature to the backstory of the songs most associated with Frank. (This is the first in the series. I warn you, it is addictive.)
Perhaps I should explain where I’m going with this. Having been born in 1960, I grew up in the era of rock and roll bands  and singer/songwriters, so it was probably inevitable that I would have no truck with Sinatra until later in life. Sure, I liked hearing the songs when a movie used them to nice effect, but until I started reading Steyn’s “song of the week” essays some years ago, I was barely aware of the history of songwriting, much less the business behind it. Mark’s wonderful story-telling reveals this as a fascinating, indeed thrilling, portion of modern history. The fact that I knew next to nothing of this essential building block of the world we now inhabit is quite telling, and Perloff’s remarks put it in focus.
As a little kid I never listened to the radio, and thus only learned about the Beatles when I was ten or eleven years old—after they had already broken up. The bands I developed an interest in were all representative of that time; the first record I bought was Simon and Garfunkel’s Bridge Over Troubled Water.  Elton John, Cat Stevens, The Rolling Stones, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin—you get the picture—constituted the world of popular song for me.  It was as if the songs in old movies were an abstraction, a thing no one would wish to listen to on the radio, much less collect record albums of them.  In truth, though, I never really thought about it.
Perloff’s insight, in the interview, explains that strange reality.
A friend of mine, who is somewhat older than I, is a HUGE fan of the Great American Songbook; he knows all about Cole Porter and Dorothy Fields and George Gershwin, Irving Berlin and all the rest, and when he found out that I, too, am a fan of that music, he advised me to read The House That George Built, by Wilfrid Sheed. I’m glad he did. It is a truly magical read, unfolding as it does the growth of a cultural phenomenon that began with the 20th century. It is great fun to learn about the personalities that fashioned an entirely new, deeply involving, aspect of social reality.
Unfortunately, as the 60s came in, the Forces Of Darkness were taking over that lovely thing, and refashioning it into a tool to shape the collective mind of the youth for horrible purposes.
McGowan writes about The Wrecking Crew, the gaggle of virtuoso session musicians who were the guys who actually played on the fantastic early hit records of many of the late 60s Laurel Canyon bands, when the supposed rock stars had still not really learned to play well enough to sell records. (A movie just came out about it, called, strangely enough, The Wrecking Crew—a fine documentary, and long overdue.) One explanation of the name given to that loose-knit collection of modern masters is the premonition that their existence spelled the end of the world as it had been, a world where Nelson Riddle and Billy May arranged and conducted actual orchestras to back Billy Holiday and Ella Fitzgerald and Frank Sinatra, while they sang the songs of Gershwin and Cole Porter and Johnny Mercer. Electric guitars and drum sets permanently replaced strings and brass and woodwinds—and no one would ever again conduct.)
And it was only a matter of time before even THAT world would be done away with, and all the “instruments” heard on pop recordings would often be computerized simulacra of the real thing.
The point is that however badly the likes of Sinatra might behave with the broads in his real bigger-than-life life, the music itself was reliably wholesome and fine, and decent people would not hesitate to expose their children to it—just as Lucy and Dezi’s private life bore no resemblance to the one everyone saw and admired on I Love Lucy.
The difference between the two, really, is that—if Perloff is correct—television was intended as a Trojan Horse from its very inception, whereas the recorded music business was born innocently, and had to be bent into a corrupt monstrosity over time. Recorded music started out wholesome and decent and matured into something the culture was rightly proud of, only to be taken over and ruined once it was a mature and influential cultural influence.
The minds of the youth, starting with my generation, were systematically shaped by these new, malign, influences. It has come to the point where the transition phase has long since been completed; just as with television, there is no uncontrolled music any more. It is a tool of the System, of a terrifying agenda, wielded by monsters to craft a planned future for us all, the future Orwell saw on the near horizon.

*******

It is instructive to contemplate the difference.
The record industry started life around the same time the long brewing plot to overthrow Western Civilization took its final form (that would be 1913, the year the central bank, our so-called “Federal Reserve” was launched; the Senate was wrenched away from the States; and an income tax was imposed on the people—all that was missing was a catastrophic war that would wash away all memory of life as it had been, but World War I would soon remedy that).
That is to say, our masters were not yet prepared to intercept and shape a new form of popular entertainment even as it was emerging out of the creative genius of the American spirit. It was still a time when a roiling, intoxicating, brew could spontaneously blossom out of the joyous enthusiasm of immigrants who loved their new country and were eager to help shape its culture into something lovely. Mark Steyn makes the fascinating observation that to a great extent we have that horrible war to thank for the Great American Songbook, because until then Americans mostly got the tunes they whistled from the London stage, second hand. But as Britain gave itself over to trench warfare in France and Belgium, the plays stopped being produced. The vacuum thus created turned out to be the grand opportunity that would be filled by Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin, George Gershwin and all the rest of those impoverished new arrivals in the Lower East Side of New York.
Much the same can be said of the singers. Billy Holiday is a phenomenon that was only made possible at that moment in time, in that place. Sinatra’s career likewise could never have happened in any other time or place. Plays like Showboat became possible, and Frank Loesser was able to give the world Guys and Dolls, because we were creating singers to sing those wonderful songs.
It was necessary for the secret government to capture that wild creature and tame it, before it could be twisted into something evil to use for its own devices. The Vigilant Citizen web site, in its hundreds of articles on the subject, chronicles the sad lives of those who seek stardom in what our masters have done to the record industry. To succeed there today, you must agree to be a pawn for the forces of evil to use to systematically indoctrinate the masses. By now, to be a success in the music business, you have to play a part written for you by the machine that is using music to fashion the New World Order.
Contemplating Perloff’s remarks, it occurred to me that our masters learned a lesson as they observed the development of popular song in the first half of the 20th century in America. They have no patience with freedom, much less genuine creativity expressed by free people left to their own devices. It is complete control over slaves that they wish, and they will do what it takes to make it so.
Television, on the other hand, was under their complete control from the start. We need to remember that television was invented in the 20s, but was not introduced to the public until the 50s. It was not a spontaneous, organic, expression of a freewheeling, joyous, people. The entire industry was a product, planned from start to finish. And I think Perloff is correct when he concludes that that plan was a key element in the creation of the New World Order.
Music and visual entertainment are food for the mind; they can be expressions of it, and they can mold it.
The soul is made of three things: the mind, the will, and the emotions. Music and television are twin gateways to the mind, and they have a profound effect on the will and the emotions for good or for evil. Too bad for us that the forces of darkness have complete control over both of them, and use that control to capture our souls.

---

Patrick Murphy, a frequent participant in the conversation at the Memory Hole Blog, runs a small (very small) business in Indianapolis, and is the author of the books How the West Was Lost and The Stairway to Heaven, information about which can be found at Stairwaybook.com.

The Criminalization of the State. The Roadmap to a Police State

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, November 23, 2015

Global Research 3 February 2004

Region: Europe, USA

Theme: 9/11 & 'War on Terrorism', Police State & Civil Rights

Author’s Note
This article first published by Global Research in February 2004 examines the relationship between terrorist attacks (resulting in the tragic loss of life) and the transition in Western countries towards a totalitarian police State. 
Former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks predicted in a 2003 interview with cynical accuracy a scenario, which would result in the repeal of civil liberties and the installation of a de facto totalitarian state:

“a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world … that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.”1

A “massive casualty producing event” as described by General Franks will invariably result in a campaign of fear and intimidation. In turn, politicians in high office will use the tragic loss of life as a justification for the implementation of sweeping police state measures including the enactment of martial law.  
Flash Forward to Paris, November 13, 2015.
The above scenario accurately describes  the tragic “massive casualty producing event” in Paris, depicted by France’s media as “Le 11 septembre à la française” (9/11 French Style).  
Announced in a midnight speech (local time) by the French president, the November 13 terrorist attacks were immediately followed by the enactment of a State of Emergency, the closing of France’s borders and the suspension of civil liberties as a means — according to president François Hollande– to safeguarding democratic values.  
In this context, the tragic loss of life has been used by the Hollande government (with the support of the media) to harness the public into accepting the implementation of police state measures in the interest of French Republic, namely protecting France’s national security against an illusive self-proclaimed “Islamic State” based in Northern Syria, which happens to be a creation of US intelligence. 
Is this the end of the French Republic? 
Michel Chossudovsky, November 23, 2015
*     *     *

The Criminalization of the State

by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, February 3, 2004
America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to “safeguarding democratic values”.
According to Homeland Security “the near-term attacks will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks”.
An actual “terrorist attack” on American soil would lead to the suspension of civilian government and the establishment of martial law. In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: “If we go to Red [code alert]... it basically shuts down the country,"
"You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation." (Donald Rumsfeld)
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals.
A terrorist attack on American soil of the size and nature of September 11, would lead ---according to former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks-- to the downfall of democracy in America. In an interview last December, which was barely mentioned in the US media, General Franks outlined with cynical accuracy a scenario, which would result in the suspension of the Constitution and the installation of military rule in America:

a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.1

Franks was alluding to a so-called "Pearl Harbor type event" which would be used to galvanise US public opinion in support of a military government and police state. The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil is intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.
It is important to understand that General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on this issue. His statement very much reflects the dominant viewpoint both in the Pentagon and the Homeland Security department as to how events might unfold in the case of a national emergency.
The statement comes from a man who has been actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels. In other words, the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and Homeland defense.
The "war on terrorism" which constitutes the cornerstone of Bush’s national security doctrine, provides the required justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to "preserving civil liberties". In the words of David Rockefeller:

We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. 2

A similar statement, which no doubt reflects a consensus within the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), was made by former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:

As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."]

Similarly, the NeoCons' Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published in September 2000, barely a few months before George W. Bush’s accession to the White House, called for:

some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor. 3

What is terrifying in these assertions is that they emanate from the architects of US foreign policy. In other words, America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to "safeguarding democratic values".
The repeal of democracy is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties. Truth is falsehood and falsehood is truth. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards upholding democracy. Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping operations."
This dominant viewpoint is also shared by the mainstream media, which constitutes the cornerstone of the propaganda and disinformation campaign. Any attempt by antiwar critics to reveal the lies underlying these statements is defined as a "criminal act".
In other words, the "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals, supported by Wall Street, the "big five" defense contractors and the Texas oil giants, legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals.
From Orange to Red Code Alert
The "terrorist massive casualty producing event" has become an integral part of the Bush administration’s propaganda campaign. The Administration has put the country on "high risk" Orange Code terror alert five times since September 11, 2001. Without exception, Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda has been identified as "a threat to the Homeland". The official announcement invariably points to "significant intelligence reports" or "credible sources" of a terrorist attack "from the international terrorist group al-Qaeda".
Since 9/11, Americans have accepted these terrorist warnings at face value. Al Qaeda is viewed as an enemy of America. The terror alerts have become part of a routine: people have become accustomed in their daily lives to the Orange Code terror alerts. Moreover, they have also accepted the distinct possibility of a changeover from Orange to Red Code Alert (as stated time and again by Homeland Security) in the foreseeable future, which would result from an actual terrorist occurrence.
Needless to say, the disinformation campaign, which is fed on a daily basis into the news chain, supports this process of shaping US public opinion. The hidden agenda ultimately consists in creating an environment of fear and intimidation, which mobilizes public support for an actual national emergency situation, leading to the declaration of martial law.
The Terror Alerts were based on Fabricated Intelligence
The evidence suggests that the Orange Code "high risk" alerts on February 7, 2003, and December, 21, 2003 were based on fabricated intelligence.
Orange Code Alert had been ordered on 7 February 2003, one day after Colin Powell's flopped presentation on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction to the UN Security Council. Powell's intelligence dossier had been politely dismissed. The rebuttal came from UN Inspector Hans Blix, who showed that the intelligence used as a pretext to wage war on Iraq had been blatantly fabricated.
Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council on the 6th. On the 7th, the Bush administration declared an ‘Orange Code’ Terror Alert. This "save face operation" contributed to appeasing an impending scandal, while also upholding the Pentagon's planned invasion of Iraq.
Media attention was immediately shifted from Colin Powell's blunders at the UN Security Council to an (alleged) impending terrorist attack on America. Anti-aircraft missiles were immediately deployed around Washington. The media became inundated with stories on Iraqi support to an impending Al Qaeda attack on America.
The objective was to present Iraq as the aggressor. According to the New York Post, (11 February 2003):

The nation is now on Orange Alert because intelligence intercepts and simple logic both suggest that our Islamic enemies know the best way to strike at us is through terrorism on U.S. soil.

Another story allegedly emanating from the CIA on so-called ‘radioactive dirty bombs had been planted in the news chain.4 Secretary Powell warned that "it would be easy for terrorists to cook up radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs to explode inside the U.S. … ‘How likely it is, I can't say... But I think it is wise for us to at least let the American people know of this possibility.’" 5 Meanwhile, network TV had warned that "American hotels, shopping malls or apartment buildings could be al Qaeda's targets as soon as next week…"
The hidden agenda in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq was to link Baghdad to Al Qaeda, muster unbending support for President Bush and weaken the anti-war protest movement. Following the announcement, tens of thousands of Americans rushed to purchase duct tape, plastic sheets and gas-masks.
It later transpired that the terrorist alert was fabricated by the CIA, in all likelihood in consultation with the upper echelons of the State Department. 6
The FBI, for the first time had pointed its finger at the CIA.

This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true," said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief and ABCNEWS consultant.
(...)
According to officials, the FBI and the CIA are pointing fingers at each other. An FBI spokesperson told ABCNEWS today he was "not familiar with the scenario," but did not think it was accurate. 7

While tacitly acknowledging that the alert was a fake, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge decided to maintain the ‘Orange Code’ alert:

Despite the fabricated report, there are no plans to change the threat level. Officials said other intelligence has been validated and that the high level of precautions is fully warranted. 8

A few days later, in another failed propaganda initiative, a mysterious Osama bin Laden audio tape was presented by Sec. Colin Powell to the US Congress as ‘evidence’ that the Islamic terrorists "are making common cause with a brutal dictator". 9 Curiously, the audio tape was in Colin Powell's possession prior to its broadcast by the Al Jazeera TV Network.10
Tom Ridge’s Christmas Terror Alert
On December 21st, 2003 four days before Christmas, the Homeland Security Department, again raised the national threat level from "elevated" to "high risk" of terrorist attack. 11
In his pre-Christmas Press Conference, Homeland Security department Secretary Tom Ridge confirmed in much the same way as on February 7, 2003, that: "the U.S. intelligence community has received a substantial increase in the volume of threat-related intelligence reports". According to Tom Ridge, these "credible [intelligence] sources" raise "the possibility of attacks against the homeland, around the holiday season..."12
While the circumstances and timing were different, Secretary Tom Ridge's December 21 statement had all the appearances of a "copy and paste" (Déjà Vu) version of his February 7 announcement, which according to the FBI was a hoax, based on fabricated intelligence..
What is disturbing in the December 21 statement is the fact that an "actual" or "attempted" Al Qaeda terrorist attack seems already to be in the official pipeline. Al Qaeda is once again identified as "the Outside Enemy", without of course mentioning that Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA and an "intelligence asset" controlled by the US.13
Needless to say the atmosphere of fear and confusion created across America, contributed to breaking the spirit of Christmas. According to the media reports, the high-level terror alert is to "hang over the holidays and usher in the New Year".

Terrorists still threaten our country and we remain engaged in a dangerous - to be sure - difficult war and it will not be over soon," warned Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "They can attack at any time and at any place."
With America on high terror alert for the Christmas holiday season, intelligence officials fear al-Qaeda is eager to stage a spectacular attack - possibly hijacking a foreign airliner or cargo jet and crashing it into a high-profile target inside the United States. 14

The official Christmas announcement by the Homeland Security Department dispelled any lingering doubts regarding the threat level:

the risk [during the Christmas period] is perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11, 2001;

It also warned Americans, in no uncertain terms, but without supporting evidence, that there are:

indications that [the] near-term attacks ... will either rival or exceed the [9/11] attacks.
And it's pretty clear that the nation's capital and New York city would be on any list...

Following Secretary Ridge's announcement, anti-aircraft missile batteries were set up in Washington:

And the Pentagon said today, more combat air patrols will now be flying over select cities and facilities, with some airbases placed on higher alert." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation. 15

According to an official statement: "intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda-trained pilots may be working for overseas airlines and ready to carry out suicide attacks." 16
More specifically, Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists were, according to Homland Security, planning to hijack an Air France plane and "crash it on US soil in a suicide terror strike similar to those carried out on September 11, 2001."
Air France Christmas flights out of Paris were grounded. F-16 fighters were patrolling the skies.
Yet it turned out that the stand down orders on Air France's Christmas flights from Paris to Los Angeles, which were used to justify the Code Orange Alert during the Christmas holiday, were based on fabricated information.
According to the official version of events, Washington had identified six members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the Air France passenger list:

U.S. counter-terrorism officials said their investigation was focusing on the "informed belief" that about six men on Air France Flight 68, which arrives in Los Angeles daily at 4:05 p.m., may have been planning to hijack the jet and crash it near Los Angeles, or along the way.
That belief, according to one senior U.S. counter-terrorism official, was based on reliable and corroborated information from several sources. Some of the men had the same names as identified members of Al Qaida and the Taliban, a senior U.S. official said. One of the men is a trained pilot with a commercial license, according to a senior U.S. official.
U.S. law-enforcement officials said the flights were canceled in response to the same intelligence that prompted… Homeland Security… to ratchet up the nation's terror-alert level to orange…
With that information, U.S. authorities contacted French intelligence ... They prevailed upon Air France to cancel [their flights], because the original intelligence information warned of more than one flight being commandeered. 17

Other media confirmed that "the reports gathered by American agencies were 'very, very precise'" Meanwhile Fox News pointed to the possibility that Al Qaeda was "trying to plant disinformation, among other things to cost us money, to throw people into panic and perhaps to probe our defenses to see how we respond?"18
"Mistaken Identity"
Needless to say these fabricated media reports served to create a tense atmosphere during the Christmas holiday. Los Angeles International airport was on "maximum deployment" with counter-terrorism and FBI officials working around the clock.
Yet following the French investigation, it turned out that the terror alert was a hoax. The information was not "very very precise" as claimed by US intelligence.
The six Al Qaeda men turned out to be a five year old boy, an elderly Chinese lady who used to run a restaurant in Paris, a Welsh insurance salesman and three French nationals.19
On January 2nd, the French government confirmed that the intelligence communicated by Washington was erroneous: There "was not a trace of Al Qaeda among the passengers."
Yet, these "inconsistencies" regarding US intelligence had already been uncovered on the 23d of December by France's antiterrorist services, which had politely refuted the so-called "credible sources" emanating out of the US intelligence apparatus.
France's counter-terrorism experts were extremely "sceptical" of their US counterparts:

We [French police investigators] showed [on 23 December] that their arguments simply did not make sense, but despite this the flights were cancelled... The main suspect [a Tunisian hijacker] turned out to be a child… We really had the feeling of unfriendly treatment [by US officials] (ils nous appliquent un traitement d'infamie). The information was not transmitted through normal channels. It wasn't the FBI or the CIA which contacted us, everything went through diplomatic channels... 20

The decision to cancel the six Air France flights was taken after 2 days of intense negotiations between French and American officials. They were cancelled on the orders of the French Prime minister following consultations with Sec. Colin Powell. This decision was taken following the completion of the French investigation. Despite the fact that the information had been refuted, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge insisted on maintaining the stand-down order. If Air France had not complied, it would have been prevented from using US air space, namely banned from flying to the US.
It was only on January 2nd, once the holiday season was over that the US authorities admitted that they were in error, claiming that it was a unavoidable case of "mistaken identity." While tacitly acknowledging their error, Homeland Security insisted that "the cancellations were based on solid information."
Emergency Planning
Needless to say, had the flights not been cancelled, the Administration's justification for Orange Code Alert would no longer hold. In other words, Homeland Security needed to sustain the lie over the entire Christmas holiday. It also required an active Orange Alert to launch emergency planning procedures at the highest levels of the Bush Administration.
The day following Secretary Ridge's Christmas announcement (December 21st), President Bush was briefed by his "top anti-terror advisors" in closed door sessions at the White House. Later in the day, the Homeland Security Council (HSC) met, also at the White House. The executive body of the HSC, the so-called Principals Committee (HSC/PC), headed by Secretary Tom Ridge. includes Donald Rumsfeld, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft , FBI Director Robert Mueller and Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, who overseas the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 21
In the wake of the HSC meeting held on 22 December, Secretary Ridge confirmed that:

we reviewed the specific plans and the specific action we have taken and will continue to take 22

According to the official statement, which must be taken seriously, an "actual terrorist attack" in the near future on American soil would lead to a Red Code Alert. The latter in turn, would create conditions for the (temporary) suspension of the normal functions of civilian government, as foreseen by General Tommy Franks. This scenario was envisaged by Secretary Tom Ridge in a CBS News Interview on December 22, 2003:
"If we simply go to red ... it basically shuts down the country," meaning that civilian government bodies would be closed down and taken over by an Emergency Administration. 23
Preparing for Martial Law
In preparation for a Red code Alert, the Homeland Security department had conducted in May 2003 a major "anti-terrorist exercise" entitled TOPOFF 2. The latter is described as "the largest and most comprehensive terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever conducted in the United States."
In a Strangelovian logic, this "national response capability" translated into a military style exercise by federal, State and local level governments, including Canadian participants, establishes various "scenarios" under a Red Code Alert. In essence, it was conducted on the same assumption as military exercises in anticipation of anactual theater war, in this case, to be waged by foreign terrorists, examining various WMD attack scenarios and the institutional response of State and local governments:

It assessed how responders, leaders, and other authorities would react to the simulated release of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in two U. S. cities, Seattle, WA and Chicago, IL. The exercise scenario depicted a fictitious, foreign terrorist organization that detonated a simulated radiological dispersal device (RDD or dirty bomb) in Seattle and released the pneumonic plague in several Chicago metropolitan area locations. There was also significant pre-exercise intelligence play, a cyber-attack, and credible terrorism threats against other locations. 24

The terror exercise including the WMD scenarios is based on a big lie.
Let us be very clear on what is happening in America. We are no longer strictly dealing with a fear and disinformation campaign. Actual "terrorist massive casualty producing events" constitute the basic premise and driving force behind the Homeland Emergency response system, including its Ready.Gov instructions to citizens, its "anti-terrorist" legal framework under the Second Patriot Act, etc.
What we are dealing with is not only a criminal act, but a carefully engineered act of treason emanating from the highest levels of the US State apparatus. In short, what we are dealing with is "the Roadmap to a Police State" in America, to be implemented in the wake of an national emergency, either under a military form of government or under a police state, which maintains all the appearances of a functioning two party "Democracy".

Notes

1. Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003
2. David Rockefeller, Statement to the United Nations Business Council, 1994
3. See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html
4. ABC News, 13 February 2003.
5. ABC News, 9 February. 2003.
6. ABC News, 13 February 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG302A.html .
7.  Ibid
8. Ibid
9. US official quoted in The Toronto Star, 12 February. 2003.
10.  Ibid
11. See Department of Homeland Security at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/index.jsp
12. For complete statement of Secretary Tom Ridge, 21 December 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
13. See Selected References at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/11SEPT309A.html
14. Boston Globe, 24 December 2003
15. ABC News, 23 December 2003
16. quoted by ABC News, 23 December 2003.
17. Seattle Post Intelligence, 25 December 2003.
18. Fox News, 28 December 2003.
19. Le Monde, Paris and RTBF TV, Bruxelles, 2 January 2004
20. quoted in Le Monde, 3 January 2003.
21. White House Briefing, 22 December 2003.
22. AFP, 23 December 2003.
23. The scenario is presented in detail at the Homeland department's Ready.Gov website at http://www.ready.gov/
24. 24. For full text see, Department of Homeland Security, Summary Conclusions From National Exercise, Office of the Press Secretary, December 19, 2003,http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=2693

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2015