Title: False Flags and The Manufacture of Consent - Neil Sanders Source:
YouTube URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7WcG8Bgg4o Published:Feb 10, 2013 Author:108morris108 Post Date:2013-02-14 04:50:13 by GreyLmist Keywords:False Flags, Manufacture of Consent Views:377 Comments:10
Poster Comment:
To picture the Manufacturing of Consent:
A false flag pseudo-event is like a psychological Stun grenade.
A stun grenade, also known as a flash grenade or flashbang, is a non-lethal explosive device used to temporarily disorient an enemy's senses. It is designed to produce a blinding flash of light and loud noise without causing permanent injury. It was first developed by the British Army's SAS in the 1960s.[1]
The flash produced momentarily activates all photoreceptor cells in the eye, making vision impossible for approximately five seconds, until the eye restores itself to its normal, unstimulated state. The loud blast causes temporary loss of hearing, and also disturbs the fluid in the ear, causing loss of balance. The concussive blast of the detonation can still injure, and the heat created can ignite flammable materials such as fuel. The fires that occurred during the Iranian Embassy Siege in London were caused by stun grenades.
Unlike a fragmentation grenade, stun grenades are constructed with a casing made to remain intact during detonation, containing most of its explosive force and avoiding shrapnel injuries, while having large circular cutouts to allow the light and sound of the explosion through. The filler consists of a pyrotechnic metal-oxidant mix of magnesium or aluminium, and an oxidizer such as ammonium perchlorate or potassium perchlorate.
Although stun grenades are usually designed to be non-lethal, several deaths have been attributed to their use.
The media spin stories of false flag pseudo-events set the stage for war, legislation, escape time for the perps, for example, and can be compared to an EMP blast.
The mind is much like the computer that is susceptible to an EMP blast, a large electromagnetic pulse, the same kind that can stop your computer controlled car and shut down the grid.
Leon T. Hadar, a former bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post, is an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
Executive Summary
Now that the Cold War is becoming a memory, America's foreign policy establishment has begun searching for new enemies. Possible new villains include "instability" in Europe --ranging from German resurgence to new Russian imperialism-- the "vanishing" ozone layer, nuclear proliferation, and narcoterrorism. Topping the list of potential new global bogeymen, however, are the Yellow Peril, the alleged threat to American economic security emanating from East Asia, and the so-called Green Peril (green is the color of Islam). That peril is symbolized by the Middle Eastern Moslem fundamentalist [sic]
A New Cold War?
[sic]
The Islam vs. West paradigm [sic] is beginning to infect Washington. That development recalls the efforts by some of Washington's iron triangles as well as by foreign players during the months leading up to the 1990-91 Persian Gulf crisis. Their use of the media succeeded in building up Saddam Hussein as the "most dangerous man in the world"(6) and as one of America's first new post- Cold War bogeymen. Those efforts, including allegations that Iraq had plans to dominate the Middle East, helped to condition the American public and elites for the U.S. intervention in the gulf.(7)
[sic]
Indeed, like the Red Menace of the Cold War era, the Green Peril is perceived as a cancer spreading around the globe, undermining the legitimacy of Western values and political systems. The cosmic importance of the confrontation would make it necessary for Washington to adopt a longterm diplomatic and military strategy; to forge new and solid alliances; to prepare the American people for a neverending struggle that will test their resolve; and to develop new containment policies, new doctrines, and a new foreign policy elite with its "wise men" and "experts."
There are dangerous signs that the process of creating a monolithic threat out of isolated events and trends in the Moslem world is already beginning. The Green Peril thesis is now being used to explain diverse and unrelated events in that region, with Tehran replacing Moscow as the center of ideological subversion and military expansionism and Islam substituting for the spiritual energy of communism.
[sic]
Foreign policy experts are already using the familiar Cold War jargon to describe the coming struggle with Islam. There is talk about the need to "contain" Iranian influence around the globe, especially in Central Asia, which seemed to be the main reason for Secretary of State James A. Baker III's February stop in that region.(9) Strategists are beginning to draw a "red line" for the fundamentalist leaders of Sudan, as evidenced by a U.S. diplomat's statement last November warning Khartoum to refrain from "exporting" revolution and terrorism.(10) Washington's policymakers even applauded the January 1992 Algerian "iron fist" military coup that prevented an Islamic group from winning the elections. The notion that we have to stop the fundamentalists somewhere echoes the Cold War's domino theory.
[sic]
The Making of a "Peril"
The Islamic threat argument is becoming increasingly popular with some segments of the American foreign policy establishment. They are encouraged by foreign governments who, for reasons of self-interest, want to see Washington embroiled in the coming West vs. Islam confrontation. The result is the construction of the new peril, a process that does not reflect any grand conspiracy but that nevertheless has its own logic, rules and timetables.
The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings. A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines and policies that become part of the media's spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.(13)
A series of leaks, signals, and trial balloons is already beginning to shape U.S. agenda and policy. Congress is about to conduct several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism.(14) The [GHW] Bush administration has been trying to devise policies and establish new alliances to counter Iranian influence: building up Islamic but secular and pro-Western Turkey as a countervailing force in Central Asia, expanding U.S. commitments to Saudi Arabia, warning Sudan that it faces grave consequences as a result of its policies, and even shoring up a socialist military dictatorship in Algeria.
Regional Powers Exploit U.S. Fears
Not surprisingly, foreign governments, including those of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, India, and Pakistan, have reacted to the evidence of U.S. fear. With the end of the Cold War they are concerned about a continued U.S. commitment to them and are trying to exploit the menace of Islamic fundamentalism to secure military support, economic aid, and political backing from Washington as well as to advance their own domestic and regional agendas. The Gulf War has already provided the Turks, Saudis, Egyptians, and Israelis with an opportunity to revive the American engagement in the Middle East and their own roles as Washington's regional surrogates. Now that the Iraqi danger has been diminished, the Islamic fundamentalist threat is a new vehicle for achieving those goals.
[sic]
Growing American fears about the Green Peril are playing into the hands of governments and groups who, interestingly enough, tend to regard the Islamic threat as exaggerated. The behavior of those groups and governments recalls the way Third World countries exploited the U.S. obsession with the Red Menace during the Cold War despite their own skepticism about its long-term power.
[sic]
The operational message is that the United States "must refocus its policy on the basic problems facing the Islamic world rather than only the Arab-Israeli conflict."(23) Jerusalem's attempts to turn that conflict into a Jewish-Moslem confrontation and to place America on its side to help contain radical Moslem forces in the region may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The result is likely to be strengthened anti-American feelings in the Middle East and anti- American terrorist acts, which, in turn, will invite a new round of American military intervention.
[sic]
Dangers to the United States
It is not the Green Peril that the United States is facing in the gulf but the peril embodied in its own policies.[sic]
American intellectuals--including many who advocate a Wilsonian global democracy crusade--exhibit a peculiar lack of enthusiasm for democratic objectives when it comes to the Middle East. There, to secure American hegemonic power, they typically support a "realist" approach that includes a U.S. military alliance with, and support for, authoritarian Arab regimes. When U.S. policies incite popular demand for change and reform, the neoconservatives solve their cognitive dissonance by proclaiming that the demonstrators in the streets represent the forces of reaction, the Green Peril, and that the spread of democracy would be served by containing that threat.(74)
[sic]
Washington's approach means that the United States ends up backing ruling authoritarian elites and thereby incurring a backlash from popular opposition forces that resent its interventionist policies. Those policies inherently erode America's power as a role model. The search for imaginary Jeffersonian democrats ends up as a search for enemies, and the Islamic fundamentalists are the latest candidates.
[sic]
The danger for the Western nations, in particular the United States, is that misperceptions will cloud their judgment of and produce counterproductive policies toward Islam and the Middle East. [sic]
American policies that stem from political, economic, and military interests are bound to lead to more incidents that pit the United States against the forces of political and economic change in the Middle East. Political players in both the United States and the Middle East fan the fear of the Green Peril as a way of maintaining public support for policies that serve their self- interest. The interests of the iron triangles are, however, not necessarily synonymous with those of the American nation.
[sic] Now that the Cold War is over, Washington should not be searching for a new enemy; instead, it should view regional conflicts with detachment, realizing that they will rarely pose a danger to America's security.
Related info at Post #200 [PATCON and the Strategy of Tensions] + Posts #211 and #213 [MEK/Mujahedeen-e-Kalq/Camp Ashraf, Iran-Contra, Iraq War profiteering]
Post #1 of 4um Title: Italian Supreme Court President Blames Bilderberg For Terrorist Attacks
Related topic with reference on Operation Gladio at Post #4 of 4um Title: Bilderberg Behind Terrorist Attacks: Italian Supreme Court President Drops Bombshell!