False Flag Potential in the Middle East: Iran, Syria, and Israel

Their End Goal for We the People: “I am the State…the State is all!”

(“Quarlo” from “The Outer Limits,” episode “Soldier”)

History does repeat itself; if not identically, then in identical circumstances and events in different nations. History also does not just “happen,” as there are powerful forces at work in every nation. False flags have been used throughout human history: politicians and oligarchs initiate them to follow a hidden agenda. Too often the masses become the “True Believer” of Eric Hoffer. Worked up into a patriotic frenzy, they charge into the fray…little understanding that the great war or the great crusade is orchestrated by smiling bankers and nabobs, securely “in the rear with the gear,” sending men out to die to attain their secret objectives.

In this vein, consider that the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is not limited to American White Anglo-Saxon Protestants of the United States, but a “conglomerate” of independent nations with the ability to wage war, sustain it, and sell arms. Each independent nation has their own “MIC” but they freely exchange goods and services (what we call arms and “negotiated” conflicts). They march to their own beat but allow themselves to be “guided” by the politicians, the oligarchs (who may or may not actively own industries in the MIC), and the bankers.

The lessons learned by history with the Rothschilds banking family as an example shows how one group of bankers can leverage both sides in a war between two different nations and profit no matter what the outcome. Make no mistake: this has not changed, and if anything, it has become even more “specialized” with private contractors waging wars on behalf of governments…the business of war, sanctioned with the (un)holy “blessing” of a nation-state (or an “actor” or “partner” as they’re now ludicrously termed).

The current tensions in the Middle East at first appear to be random acts of probes and military maneuvers. The Syrian question is a big one. What is happening over there? Well, a continuation of Obama-era policies of supporting “freedom fighters” against the reign of Bashar al-Assad, the leader of Syria…that is what is happening. Recently, Russian contractors were killed in battles against U.S. supported “rebels.” The Russian contractors cannot serve Russia (it’s against their law for merc’s to do such), but nothing stopped them from being hired by Assad and Syria.

But “freedom fighters” are only termed that by the United States when an insurgency is desired to overthrow an existing government that is not in favor with the U.S…. a “heroic people’s revolution” in the never-ending quest to force nations into the “freedom” of American democracy. 

The revolution is not complete until all the IMF paperwork has been signed, the nation is “brought into the fold” of NATO, a quacking, U.S.-installed puppet is in place as the “acknowledged leader,” the American oligarchy has its chance to rape the land of its resources, and Wal-Marts and McDonald’s are springing up all over the nation’s cities.  THAT IS WHAT UKRAINE HAS BECOME, courtesy of the Kiev government: a U.S. installed regime that ousted the former President of Ukraine who was elected under Ukrainian constitutional law.

Nuland, McCain, Graham, Clinton, and Obama: “Five Guys Ukrainian Burgers.”

And let’s not forget Soros: initiator of Maidan, with half a dozen NGO’s that helped topple the government and install Yatsenuk (a buddy of Soros), and the destructive force backing every one of those five names. In return, they were going to give him all the mineral and natural resources rights to…. [drum roll!] …. those very provinces that are separatist…for the mere pittance of $50 million…although the resources are worth billions… imagine that.

If the existing hand-puppet government that is friendly to the U.S. is getting ready to topple? It is not a revolution. It is then termed a “criminal overthrow of the government by terrorists.”

All of it is interrelated, and all of it has its roots in the MICs of all parties involved. As referenced in the Iron Mountain report…basically a “blueprint” based on George Orwell’s “1984,” the basis for human society is the waging of warfare for purposes of industry, territorial expansion and change, and population reduction.

The current standoff in the Middle East and heightened tensions are only underlying tensions brought to the forefront. Israel has been bombing facilities and bases in Iran and Syria for decades, as well as assassinating prominent scientists and politicians via the Mossad. The Arab nations have not let up in their hatred nor ceased their sporadic attacks with a “brushfire war” arising every decade or so. The Arabs have the oil, strategic locations, and emerging markets with nations who are slowly pulling away from the Petrodollar. The Israelis have the lobbied support of the United States, the money markets and banking houses of the world tied up, and the support (if not reluctantly) of every predominantly-Christian nation based on the Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs that set Israel apart from the rest of humanity.

Be aware that currently Ehud Barak (former prime minister and former member of the Mossad) has announced that charges are being sought against Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s current leader. The charges are for corruption, and Netanyahu (and his Likud party) are not stepping down.

What better way to distract attention from this mess than a nice war?

Roughly a dozen installations in Iran and Syria were hit by Israeli airstrikes last week, and an Israeli F-16 was shot down. The Iranians have stated that they’re not going to roll over. It was also announced they have ballistic missiles ready to launch into Israel that can carry a nuclear warhead. Much of this stinks of being potentially orchestrated by one or more countries. Even France weighed in…France, mind you, that wouldn’t allow us to fly F-111’s over its airspace to strike Libya (and Quaddafi) back in the 80’s…saying it would attack Syria if it could be proven that chemical weapons were used by Assad.

France is returning a favor. Everyone remembers Benghazi, but what precipitated it? Obama did. Using his Executive Authority, he subjected Libya to a naval bombardment…within the 30-day limit…and this to ensure that Libyan oil still flowed to France, its primary client. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on NBC News: “We came, we saw, he died.”

The same Hillary Clinton who resigned after Benghazi where a Consular Outpost of the United States was attacked, and an American Ambassador and his staff members were killed.

Now it’s time for France to return the favor by taking action in Syria…and this would “legitimize” things needed for us to make another attempt at running a natural gas pipeline through Qatar and knock the knees off Gazprom (and Russia) …further cementing U.S. hold on Ukraine. It would also place another “partner” in the sparring lineup against Russia (indirectly, by proxy). This would be France’s mistake, as Russia knows that protecting Assad’s interests in Syria (and its own interests) is vital to also protect Iran (Russia has billions invested there), to keep Crimea, and to hold off NATO advances in the Ukrainian separatist provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk.

The current joke among Ukrainians: “Why did the Kiev government attack the separatist provinces?  Because Russian troops are there. Why did the Kiev government not attempt to retake Crimea?  Because there are REALLY Russian Troops there!”

The last presidential administration was noted for its bellicose nature…when it had a nation outgunned and outclassed. Libya and Ukraine were prime examples. Syria had the backing of Russia, and Obama showed his pusillanimous nature as the “Commander-in-Chump” without the stones or the tactical knowledge to fight Putin.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un has nuclear weapons. He knows that the second he relinquishes them he will meet with the same fate as Qaddafi of Libya, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. He also has made some smart moves diplomatically, regarding opening relations more with South Korea…giving him the “appearance” of statesmanship.

His country serves a purpose: to provide a pretext for the shadow government and/or the U.S. government to go to war when suitable: a ready-made crisis and nationalistic cohesion by the taxpayers at the press of a button.

The underlying points toward a potential false flag being initiated via the hostilities between Israel, Iran, and Syria.  At the bare minimum, it will generate increased troop deployments and increased military budget expenditures across the board. It may also divert attentions away from corruption charges in Israel, continuing ridiculous (and baseless…Democrat-created) accusations of Russian campaign meddling and the administration’s (alleged) campaign monies paid to a porn star. War is the perfect solution, because the average citizen has no recourse against the State…because the State answers to no one and not even itself.

Superficial, obvious “reasons” for war are the ones the public swallows, gulping down from the firehose supplied by the ceaseless litany of lies and drivel from the mainstream media. The true reasons can only be found by those willing to not swallow the “crafted narrative.” We must look for the underlying money trails and political agendas of those self-serving leaders…puppet masters who see false flags as tools with State-sponsorship that fulfill their own goals and plans…at the cost (as usual) of We the People.

---

Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne).  Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape).  He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com or contact him here.

This article may be republished or excerpted with proper attribution to the author and a link to www.SHTFplan.com.

Upon The Next Crisis, The Rules Will Suddenly Change

...For the benefit of the elites; not the rest of us...

We can add a third certainty to the two standard ones (death and taxes): The rules will suddenly change when a financial crisis strikes.

Why is this a certainty? The answer is complex, as it draws on human nature, politics and the structure of societies/economies ruled by centralized states (governments).

The Core Imperative of the State: Expand Control

As I explain in my book, Resistance, Revolution, Liberation, the core (i.e. ontological) imperative of every central state is to expand its reach and control.  This isn’t just the result of individuals within the state seeking more power; every centralized state views whatever is outside its control as a threat.  The way to reduce or neutralize a threat is to take control of the mechanisms that generated it.

Once the state has gained control of these mechanisms, it is loath to relinquish them; to relinquish control is to invite chaos.

There is of course an intensely self-serving dynamic to extending state control: those being paid to enforce this state control have an immense vested interest in the state retaining (or even extending) this control, as their livelihoods now depend on the state doing so.

The higher-ups in the state also have a vested interest in retaining these new controls, as more control means more wealth and power accrue to those at the top of the centralized power pyramid: this extension of state control means private enterprise must now lobby the state for favors, and it gives the higher-ups more perquisites and favors to dispense—for a price, of course.

This vested interest arises throughout the power pyramid, from the bottom functionary with newfound power over common citizens to the managers of the departmental bureaucracy tasked with enforcing the new control to the apex of state authority.

This hierarchy of state power creates another threat to the central state; the corralling of state power by fiefdoms within the state itself.  In other words, fiefdoms can become semi-autonomous agencies that are only nominally under the control of central authority.  The answer is of course additional layers of oversight, compliance, investigation and enforcement within the state itself.

The State Serves Elites First and Foremost

Though modern states always claim to serve the common citizenry, in reality the state serves the wealth/power elites who need state complicity to maintain their wealth/power.  These power elites function as the modern-day equivalent of aristocracy: everyone is equal, but some or more equal than others, to use Orwell’s timeless phrase.

This reality leads to a non-formalized two-tier system: one for commoners and one for the power elite/New Aristocracy.  A formalized two-tier system would incite political disorder, so the system is nominally “everyone is equal under the law” but in practice there are two tiers.

Tax collection is a good example. The corporate/financier power elite have access to complex tax avoidance schemes that are unavailable to commoners, who have few tax reduction tools.  The judicial system is another: power elites can play the system via high-cost attorneys while commoners are left to plea-bargain a reduced sentence, even when they are innocent.

When crises arise, the state first protects its own authority and control. Its second priority is securing the wealth and power of the elite.

The Self-Serving Savior State

Human nature being what it is, there are two motivations for state authorities to expand their reach and control.  Some of those with state authority feel it is their prerogative (or even their responsibility) to expand state control to protect the commoners who are likely to suffer should a crisis erupt. This do-good impulse may be genuine in some, but by and large it is not compassion that dominates decision-making but the dynamic of a central state having so much power in the first place: you have the power, so do something to save us from the consequences of crisis.

In other words, once power is concentrated in the hands of a few, those few are responsible for handling crises that would have otherwise fallen on a decentralized system with many levels of response.

Then there is the Machiavellian impulse to use crisis as the cover for a power-grab, a dynamic encapsulated in the phrase, never let a good crisis go to waste. This dynamic doesn’t have to be passive; power elites don’t have to wait for a crisis, they can engineer one by exploiting their control of state and private-sector mechanisms.  This process of engineering a crisis can be policy-driven (as described in Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine) or propaganda-driven (the sinking of the battleship Maine, Nazi Germany’s Lebensraum, etc.).

Though many call an expansive state The Nanny State, I prefer the term The Savior State, as the state claims its expanding powers under the guise of saving us from a variety of threats—including those that arise from the socio-economic system the state oversees. In other words, The Savior State’s guiding ideology is to save us from ourselves.

If we might harm ourselves with addictive drugs, the state’s solution is to imprison everyone caught with addictive drugs—except of course those addictive drugs that enrich the Power Elites (nicotine, alcohol, synthetic opioids, etc.).

If the state deems it risky for children under the age of ten to play outside unattended, the state’s solution is to treat the parents/guardians as criminals.

Each extension of control creates new layers of vested interests—more functionaries who gain not from solving problems but insuring they fester into the future as a form of guaranteed employment, and more opportunities to dispense favors in the informal two-tier system of powerless commoners and influential elites.

The Crisis Toolbox: Political Expediency

History teaches us that authorities view crises as first and foremost a threat to state authority, secondarily as a threat to elites’ wealth and power, and then lastly as a threat to the socio-economic system they rule.

Given these crisis management priorities, their first response is to extend their authority by whatever means are necessary.  Once these new powers are in hand, the state deploys them to limit the threat posed to the power elites and the structure that supports state and elite wealth/power.

In a centralized power structure, this crisis management manifests as change the rules without warning to increase the reach and power of the state.  The justification is something along the lines of these emergency powers are needed to protect the nation—powers that all too often become permanent, as powers once taken are rarely relinquished for all the reasons outlined above.

While the rule changes are presented as both necessary and well-planned, in actuality the process is one of political expediency:  a hurried rush to do whatever limits the risks to the power elites’ wealth and power before opposition can be organized, and to cloak the power-grab in the usual Savior State garb: we are acting to save the system that benefits you.

But this expediency comes back to haunt both the state and the power elites, as expedient power grabs designed to protect the state and elites do not actually address the dynamics that spawned the crisis in the first place. Rather, they exacerbate the problem by introducing self-serving fixes that paper over the problem as a quick-and-dirty way of protecting the power and wealth of the state and private-sector elites.

These fixes end up crippling the mechanisms that are needed to actually solve the systemic sources of the crisis.

The Continuing Financial Crisis

Financial crises are inevitable, and the state (which includes the central bank) seeks to limit the crisis by taking control of the market. 

Examples include: closing the stock market, declaring a bank holiday, issuing a new currency, fixing wages and prices, and banning short selling.

In the current financial crisis that started in 2008 (and that has yet to end), central banks and states have largely avoided these outright takeovers of the market in favor of a more subtle strategy of controlling the markets while maintaining the appearance of “free markets.”

In Part 2: How To Defend Against An Unfair Re-Set Of The System, we’ll examine the ways the U.S. state and central bank have already extended control over the market—for example, via the mass purchase of assets by central banks (see accompanying chart)-- and what additional controls they will likely impose as the simmering crisis erupts anew in the years ahead.

We’ll also look at what we mere commoners can do to protect ourselves from the inevitable risks and unanticipated calamities this centralized control will unleash.

Click here to read the report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

Globalist Soros Exposed Funding Over 50 Organizations in Women’s March on DC

Washington, D.C. – An investigation by a New York Times affiliate has revealed that billionaire globalist financier George Soros, who recently called Donald Trump a “would-be dictator” during an interview at Davos, and whose Open Society Foundation works to finance and forward progressive causes across the world, and is intimately connected to numerous color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and various other political uprisings across the globe, has been revealed to be connected to more than 50 of the groups that organized the nationwide “Women’s Marches” that saw millions of Americans take to the streets across the country.

The march’s official website says, “We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.” Many people turned out to be a manifestation of that ideal, but it’s important to understand the reality of what is happening on a strategic political level as an inorganic politically contrived and funded event. This, in no way, takes away from the validity of standing up for women’s issues but is important to note that women are being used as pawns in a larger ideological political game that has international overtones of power politics.

These marches were largely billed as “spontaneous” and “grassroots” actions, by publications like The Guardian and Vox. However, the reality exposed by an investigation by self-described liberal feminist Asra Q. Nomani, writing for New York Times affiliate Women in the World, revealed that after studying the “funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups that are ‘partners’ of the march,” contrary to the non-partisan rhetoric used in these marches, they were not really “women’s march” but were rather “for women who are anti-Trump.”

Nomani reveals that the “Women’s Marches” were actually organized as political tools to be used to strategically forward a progressive political agenda against President Donald Trump — exposing the protests to largely be an organized, top-down driven political operation — and not an organic movement of concerned Americans taking to the streets as reported by the mainstream media.

According to Nomani’s Women in the World/New York Times report:

Following the money, I poured through documents of billionaire George Soros and his Open Society philanthropy, because I wondered: What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the “Women’s March”?

I found out: plenty.

By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment…

Much like post-election protests, which included a sign, “Kill Trump,” were not “spontaneous,” as reported by some media outlets, the “Women’s March” is an extension of strategic identity politics that has so fractured America today, from campuses to communities. On the left or the right, it’s wrong. But, with the inauguration, we know the politics. With the march, “women” have been appropriated for a clearly anti-Trump day. When I shared my thoughts with her, my yoga studio owner said it was “sad” the march’s organizers masked their politics. “I want love for everyone,” she said.

The way Soros operates is as an “ideological philanthropist,” whose Open Society Foundation provides funding for organizations whose interests align with his own, and which blurs the line between political advocacy and social justice – thus being able to leverage selected/funded social justice organizations to affect political discourse.

READ MORE:  Investigation Finds Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests

This method is confirmed in a memo released by WikiLeaks, which was sent to Soros by Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The Clinton campaign reveals the political motives behind using grassroots organizations to “control political discourse.” Podesta wrote to Soros that he wanted to “better utilize these networks to drive the content of politics through a strong echo chamber.”

“Control the political discourse. So much effort over the past few years has been focused on better coordinating, strengthening, and developing progressive institutions and leaders. Now that this enhanced infrastructure is in place—grassroots organizing; multi-issue advocacy groups; think tanks; youth outreach; faith communities; micro-targeting outfits; the netroots and blogosphere—we need to better utilize these networks to drive the content of politics through a strong “echo chamber” and message delivery system.”

Anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe and around the world since the late 1980’s, will know that his supposedly philanthropic “democracy-building” projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990’s allowed Soros the businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries’ wealth, according to the New Eastern Outlook.

A report in New Eastern Outlook reveald exactly how Soros-affiliated organizations across the world operate:

The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation’s Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power.

Soros’ foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department. In 2004 just weeks after Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation had succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine, Michael McFaul wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post. McFaul, a specialist in organizing color revolutions, who later became US Ambassador to Russia, revealed:

Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities — democratic assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. — but their work, however labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine.

Additionally, during the 2016 presidential cycle, Soros committed $25 million dollars to the 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton. Per the standard Clinton operating procedure, this was indicative of the symbiotic relationship of favors between the billionaire and his array of political puppets across the globe.

READ MORE:  After Mentioning Hillary"s Health, Dr. Drew Got "Scary, Creepy" Calls from "Mafia" CNN, Told to Retract Comments

Soros has often been accused of using his wealth to attempt to socially engineer the national domestic politics of entire states. He was accused of being connected to organizations that organized and funded the nationwide protests after the election of Donald Trump — a claim that Soros denies.

“There have been many false reports about George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funding protests in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections. There is no truth to these reports,” said a spokewoman from Soros’s Open Society Foundations in a statement, adding, “We support a wide range of organizations — including those that support women and minorities who have historically been denied equal rights. Many of whom are concerned about what policy changes may lie ahead. We are proud of their work. We of course support the right of all Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their government—a vital, and constitutionally safeguarded, pillar of a functioning democracy.”

Make no mistake that the events you’re seeing transpire nationwide are largely being coordinated, in part, by a billionaire political elite class that is looking to strategically forward a political agenda. Soros has used the same formula to foment domestic unrest to affect political goals in numerous nations –and it certainly looks as if he now has the United States in his sights. It’s clear that Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is being employed by the left in an effort to destabilize and undermine political discourse in the U.S.

Women’s rights are unquestionably a human rights issues, not a political issue, which makes it disappointing that we, as free individuals, don’t organically create manifestations like these large-scale marches, without oligarchs and their vested political interests essentially making it happen as a means of forwarding their particular ideologically driven political agenda.