President Bill Clinton

Unanswered Questions

 By M.K. Styllinski

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt


9/11 was an attack against the minds of the American people.

Shock, fear and anger were the intended by-products of a Hollywood-style production which was delivered to mobilise the mass consciousness towards accepting long-term social and geo-political objectives. Once this programming was in place it was relatively easy to begin pointing fingers at an historical bogey-man which has been carefully cultivated as the Muslim terrorist. What rapidly followed was the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and the later invasions of Libya and covertly Syria. Along with Russia, the destabilisation and ransacking of Iran remains an important goal for the Three Establishment Model. As a consequence, literally hundreds of thousands of civilians – most of whom were children – were killed, maimed and psychologically traumatised, with others suffering from intractable health problems.

The core planners of the September 11th attacks were a combination of audacity, ambition, years of careful planning and the reliance on the inculcation of an Official Culture to carry out their plans. The hackneyed displays of “evidence” were designed to appeal to those eager to believe the official story. Shoddiness of this kind is an indication of how blasé and arrogant the architects of this coup really were. Leaving pristine passports lying around in the rubble to be found and copies of the Koran liberally sprinkled everywhere just to reinforce the idea that all roads led to Al-Qaeda, as but two such examples. “Mistakes” like these do not conform to the ambition and precision of the false flag operation. However, if you wanted to falsely blame it on Muslim terrorists as the history of Al-Qaeda operations shows, then such “blunders” begin to make sense.

So, who would benefit from blaming the Islamic world, its fundamentalism having been fuelled by the very same forces?

The Three Model Establishment of Liberalism, Conservative and Zionist factions. It was their crowing achievement, or – depending on which side of the fence one is – the beginning of their eventual demise.

What should have been the most rigorous and extensive international forensic operation ever conducted was turned into the biggest media circus and cover up in modern times. Ground Zero became a travesty of justice with no attempts to maintain the integrity of what was a vast crime scene. Thanks to Mayor Rudy Giuliani and friends, all the evidence was shipped away before forensics could sift through it. [1]  It is only after almost fourteen years that enormous amounts of data has been pieced together by scientists, academics and the general public who may not all agree with the various conclusions, but a broad consensus exists: that the official story is not only suspect but patently false from whichever angle you approach. Various 9/11 commissions merely extended and built on what is already monumental lie, quickly accepted by the MSM and the majority of the public and which remains entrenched in contemporary beliefs. Recently, certain members of those commissions have begin to speak out, reporting on the restrictive nature and manipulation of data. Indeed, it has even been reported that most 9/11 commissioners do not believe the official story either. [2]

Image programming is immensely powerful. Replaying the destruction of the Twin Towers over and over and thus stimulating the instinct of fear and the emotions of anger and pain is not conducive to object study and reflection. As Historian Laura Knight-Jadczyk observes:

“Brain studies show that what is suggested during a period of pain or shock becomes MEMORY. The brain sort of ‘traps’ the ideas being assimilated at times of pain and shock into permanent ‘synaptic patterns of thought/memory.’ The conditions surrounding the events of 9-11 were perfect for creating specific impressions and memories – manipulation of the minds of the masses by shocking events and media spin.” [3]

And so it is.

dhphoto

Let’s see why this programming has been so successful by taking a cursory look at some of the most glaring issues surrounding 9/11.

Since at least 1996, Federal authorities were aware that suspected terrorists had ties to Osama bin Laden and had been receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. There was even an account by one terrorist that his mission was to fly a plane into CIA headquarters.[4] In fact, there were multiple reports of bin Laden’s location given to both the CIA and the FBI between 1996 and right up to the day before September 11th, 2001. Agents’ reports were ignored or they were actively prevented from taking out bin Laden by top brass. The New York Times reported that:

 [5]“… at least three occasions between 1998 and 2000, the C.I.A. told the White House it had learned where Mr. bin Laden was and where he might soon be. Each time, Mr. Clinton approved the strike. Each time, George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, called the president to say that the information was not reliable enough to be used in an attack, a former senior Clinton administration official said.”

Among the numerous failures in basic protocol and administrative procedures that allowed the hijackers a literal free pass to do as they pleased, one report shows 15 of the 19 hijackers did not fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. (Yes, that’s right 15 of them) and only six were interviewed. Why were 15 of these hijackers not denied entry into the US? [6] It was reported just a few days after the attacks that several of the 9/11 hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta, may have had training at secure US military installations and when many of the hijackers’ mug-shots were lifted from the University campus yearbooks. The 911 Commission Report was destined to be a laughing stock. [7] According to a 2001 report in The Times of London: “Five of the alleged hijackers have emerged, alive, innocent and astonished to see their names and photographs appearing on satellite television … The hijackers were using stolen identities.” [8]

By 2000 and 2001, the military were conducting simulation exercises where hijacked airliners were crashing into targets causing mass casualties. Those targets included the World Trade Centre (WTC) and the Pentagon. If we are to believe White House and security officials, they were as shocked as little Bo Beep at such wildly improbable scenarios. [9] The politicians followed the same script with President George W. Bush stating with wide-eyed innocence: “nobody in our government at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envisage flying air planes into buildings.” National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice also exclaimed: “… no one could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.” Which is curious, considering CIA director George Tenet’s intelligence summary was prepared for Condoleezza Rice on June 28 and read: “It is highly likely that a significant Al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks.” [10] And just to make sure the same memo was received by all; FBI Director Robert Mueller added his chorus line soon after the attacks with: “there were no warning signs that I’m aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country.”

Actually, it was common knowledge that ideas had been seeded in terrorists’ minds to use planes as weapons since 1995. So, our Bob was either lying or so ignorant that he was only the head of the FBI due to his ability to stack paperclips. Even an Air Force general stretched credulity still further with his variation on a theme by stating: “… something we had never seen before, something we had never even thought of.”  [11]

Please…

According to 9/11 expert and author Dr. David Ray Griffin it gets much worse:

“… in 1993 a panel of experts commissioned by the Pentagon suggested that airplanes could be used as missiles to bomb national landmarks. However this notion was not published in its report, Terror 2000, because, said one of its authors: ‘ We were told by the Department of Defense not to put it in.’ […] In that same year, there were three planes hijacked with the intent to use them as weapons, including a highly publicized plan of a terrorist group linked to Al-Qaeda to crash one into the Eiffel Tower. In 1995, Senator Sam Nunn, in Time magazine’s cover story, described a scenario in which terrorists crash a radio-controlled airplane into the US Capitol building.”  [12]

There was also the little matter of another training exercise, this time by a US intelligence agency set for Sept 11th at 9am in which a jet airliner would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. The chances of military drill exercises taking place at the same time as a real-time attack is so statistically improbable as to be impossible. As it happens, one chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000 – to be precise. [13] Strangely enough, this is precisely what occurred in the 7/7 London bombings in 2005. A private consultancy agency called Visor Consultants, linked to the government and police was also running a 1,000 person exercise for an unnamed company adopting the exact same scenario with the Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as the attacks on the morning of July 7th.  [14]

Just another improbable “coincidence” or a tactic for creating confusion within agencies as well as the general public? Actually, training exercises are incredibly common in many false flag attacks in general (See: False Flags? 63 Terrorism Incidents & Training Exercises)

In 2012, the National Security Archive released 120 previously secret documents concerning the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the United States. They showed yet again that President George W. Bush was lying through his teeth. The documents showed:

“From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called ‘Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats’ writes that ‘[redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.’ The famous August brief called ‘Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US’ is included. ‘Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,’ it says.”  [15]

It’s not just America’s intelligence personnel who are silenced. Britain, Germany, France, Sudan, Egypt, Israel and Russian intelligence agencies warned of impending attacks on the US, all of whom were ignored. [16] Russian President Vladimir Putin later stated that in August of 2001, he ordered his intelligence: “… to warn President Bush in the strongest terms that 25 terrorists were getting ready to attack the US, including important government buildings like the Pentagon.” The head of Russian intelligence also said: “We had clearly warned them on several occasions, but they did not pay the necessary attention.” [17]

Britain’s contribution to the warnings was in the form of an official memo included in an intelligence briefing for President Bush on August 6th which said that: “… Al-Qaeda had planned an attack in the United States involving multiple airplane hijackings.” However: “The White House kept this warning secret, with the President repeatedly claiming after 9/11 that he had received no warning of any kind. On May 15, 2002, CBS Evening News revealed the existence of the memo from British intelligence … [The US administration] refused to release the memo while claiming there was nothing specific in it.”[18]

Compartmentalisation of intelligence managed by strategically placed high-level personnel allowed the plans for 9/11 to proceed with relatively little resistance. Official Culture of programmed belief systems did the rest.


 “I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It’s not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc.) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93’s debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field?”

journalist, Robert Fisk


As 2001 entered the picture a long-time tradition of leaving the oil-rich Saudis alone took on epic proportions of favouritism. The CIA and FBI ordered its employees to avoid the bin Laden’s and Saudi royals – they were untouchable. When the House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ final report of the Joint Inquiry into 9/11 eventually arrived in 2003, some 28 pages had been redacted. These reportedly dealt primarily with Saudi Arabia and three Saudi princes who were suspected of being involved in the financing of 9/11 hijackers. They were to die in 2002, within days of each other and in mysterious circumstances. [19]

In 2000, The French intelligence agency, the DGSE, as part of a claim that they regularly pass on intelligence to the CIA, published a 13-page classified report entitled “The Networks of Osama bin Laden.” In the report, a wealth of detailed information about Al-Qaeda is described including the payment of $4.5 million from the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) to bin Laden. However, the IIRO is off limits to US investigations due to its close ties with the Saudi government. [20] The report also casts doubt on Osama bin Laden as the “black sheep” of the family and cultivating the idea of “good and bad” bin Ladens. French journalist Guillaume Disquié writing for La Monde observed: “It seems more and more likely that bin Laden had maintained contacts with certain members of his family, although the family which directs one of the largest groups of public works in the world, has officially renounced him. One of his brothers apparently plays a role as intermediary in its professional contacts or the monitoring of its business.” [21]

It was the same story with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In 1998, Julie Sirrs was a military analyst for the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and travelled to the country on various missions from 1997 – 2001. On the part of her superiors and CIA top brass she encountered disinterest and apathy regarding Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts and actions.

bin_laden1

Osama Bin Laden’s family had longstanding oil connections to the Bush Dynasty.

In early 2001, she travelled undercover to meet Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud and observed a terrorist training centre in Taliban-controlled territory. Sirrs later claimed: “The Taliban’s brutal regime was being kept in power significantly by bin Laden’s money, plus the narcotics trade, while [Massoud’s] resistance was surviving on a shoestring. With even a little aid to the Afghan resistance, we could have pushed the Taliban out of power. But there was great reluctance by the State Department and the CIA to undertake that.” [23]  According to Sirrs and many other commentators, this was primarily due to the US State Department’s interest in securing the trans-Afghanistan pipeline under contract in the region to the American Unocal Corporation. Political stability of the Taliban regime was essential to that end.[23]

Despite returning with a “treasure trove” of photos, maps and interview recordings, her security clearance was pulled and materials confiscated. She was later accused of being a spy, prompting her resignation from the DIA in 1999.  Sirr’s discovery of collusion in CIA and Afghanistan drug lines as well as the protection of Osama as a long-time CIA asset was the probable cause. [24]

It appears that protecting the bin Ladens was a top level directive which meant many FBI agents were blocked in their efforts to investigate and who often resigned disillusioned and frustrated. Reports of FBI units in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago and New York being obstructed in their duty surfaced in 2001, with reassignments, stone-walling and the alteration and/or deletion of data connected to the bin Ladens and Saudi nationals was carried out.  [25]

bushladen-networkSource: http://www.questionsquestions.net/ (now defunct)

Let’s not forget that the bin Ladens, as one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia had business dealings with the Bush family for over twenty years. Following the week after the attacks it was learned that bin Laden’s family had been taken under the wing of a branch of FBI supervision and escorted out of the country by private plane, before the national air ban was lifted.

Perhaps the Bush and bin Laden family ties to oil exploration might have had something to do with it? [26] 

The disclosure of 52 intelligence warnings to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the threat of terrorist hijackings between April and September, 2001, makes this somewhat easier to understand. [27] Resources, from oil, gas, food and water have always been one of the primary objectives of Anglo-American expansionism and World Order philosophy.

In the Spring of 2001, military and governmental policy documents revealed the implementation of PSYOPS to legitimize the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. This was an extension of the Neo-Conservative, National Security strategy of preemption. A Council on Foreign Relations darling Mr. Jeffrey Record advocated: “… the acceptability of presidential subterfuge in the promotion of a conflict” and further: “… urged painting over the US’s actual reasons for warfare with a nobly high-minded veneer, seeing such as a necessity for mobilising public support for a conflict.” [28]

Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush officials stated that the whereabouts of bin Laden were unknown. Yet, a very ill Osama bin Laden had received kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Terry Calloway in July 2001, at the American Hospital in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. He had also been treated to a visit by CIA agents and the head of Saudi Intelligence. [29] [30] Meanwhile, A CBS News report headed by soon to be sacked Dan Rather claimed bin Laden was back in hospital on September 10, one day before the 9/11 attacks and in the process of being safely tucked up in bed by the CIA’s Intel ally the Pakistani Military Intelligence (ISI). The CBS report revealed that bin Laden had received further dialysis treatment in Rawalpindi, at Pak Army’s headquarters, under the jurisdiction of Pakistani Armed forces with close ties to the Pentagon. [31]

Why was no attempt made to arrest the nations “most wanted terrorist”? Why lie about Osama’s whereabouts? Unless that is, he was serving a greater purpose.

Though the reports were denied by the CIA, the hospital and bin Laden himself, Dr. Calloway reportedly refused to comment, and the media outlets who ran the stories stood by them. After all, the US authorities could easily have ordered his arrest and extradition in Dubai July 2001, but they did not. Volumes of other evidence suggest that, in the words of Alex Standish of Jane’s Intelligence Review: “The attacks of 9/11 were not an intelligence failure but the result of a political decision not to act against bin Laden.”

Without a pretext, there would have been no war on terror and no Grand Plan for the monopolisation of the Middle East.

On the morning of September 11th a cosy breakfast rendezvous had been arranged on Capitol Hill with head of Pakistan’s military intelligence General Mahmoud Ahmad, members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees and several other attendees, including senator Bob Graham, subsequent CIA head Porter Goss; senator John Kyl and Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi. [32]  Despite the CIA and Pakistani ISI working in hand in hand for decades, ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad’s cheery presence over orange-juice and pancakes takes on a brevity when we realise that the General not only: “… ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban,” but was alleged to have organised the wiring of $100,000 to WTC hijacker Mohamed Atta from Pakistan via Intel asset Ahmad Umar Sheikh. [33]

What were Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence committees doing together with the alleged 9/11 “money-man” at breakfast on the morning of 9/11? More importantly, what were the same individuals (Goss and Graham) who had developed a personal rapport with General Ahmad, doing on the joint committee inquiry into 911? Conflict of interest would be an understatement.

On September 12th General Mahmoud Ahmad had negotiations at the office Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and again with Secretary of State Colin Powell on the 13th as though the attacks were a mere fomality.  Just what was this General doing meeting with such a wide ranging set of top of officials and despite the greatest “terrorist” attack on American soil?

usualsuspects2

One month later in August 2001, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,” was the title of the intelligence briefing Bush received which also mentioned the World Trade Centre as a possible target. In 2004, Bush was busy lying so atrociously it placed the media in the spotlight for their purposeful ineptitude rather than the fact that George W. clearly knew he was going to get away with it. He claimed it: “… said nothing about an attack on America,” even though the subject of the briefing was about just such an attack. [34]

As the big day approached it seems there were plenty of people who knew that something dramatic was about to happen; so many in fact, it fell way beyond the bounds of mathematical probability. Just a day before the attacks several top Pentagon officials abruptly cancelled their travel plans for the following morning due to “security concerns.” Several other officials were also told not to fly by persons unknown.

At 1.00am in the morning of September 11th San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, scheduled to fly to New York that morning, received a warning from his “security people at the airport” advising him to be cautious in his travelling. Although later reports would claim that this was due to picking up on a State Department warning of September 7 which focused on the threat to military personnel in Asia, why it was personally issued to Brown, remains unknown. Attorney General John Ashcroft had also been warned by the FBI in August 2001 to avoid commercial airlines, but this information never made it to the media until much later. Indeed, it seemed Ashcroft was hiding something.[35]

David Ray Griffin observed:

In late July… the Taliban’s Foreign Minister informed US officials that Osama bin Laden was planning a ‘ huge attack ‘ inside America that was imminent and would kill thousands. That the information indicated that the attack was to involve commercial airlines is suggested by the fact that on July 26, CBS News reported that Attorney General Ashcroft had decided to quit using this mode of travel because of a threat assessment – although neither the FBI nor the Justice Departmentwould identify what the threat was, when it was detected, or who made it.’

In May of 2002, it was claimed that the threat assessment had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, but Ashcroft, according to the Associated Press, walked out of his office rather than answer questions about it. The San Francisco Chronicle complained: ‘The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind…. The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances.’ CBS’s Dan Rather later asked, with regard to this warning: ‘ Why wasn’t it shared with the public at large?’  [36] [Emphasis mine]

Presumably, for the same reason so much other information wasn’t shared with the public.

As if this wasn’t strange enough, on September 11th aftermath, data extracted from 32 damaged computer hard drives revealed evidence of an unusual rise in financial transactions peaking just before the attacks. Over $100 million of illegal transfers were made through WTC computer networks immediately before and during the 911 attacks. [37]

Insider trading suggesting foreknowledge of the attack was also evidenced from huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack United Airlines and American Airlines; on stocks of Munich Re and the AXA Group reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack; stocks of financial services companies Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, (which occupied 22 stories of the WTC) and Bank of America incurring losses from the attack; on stocks of a weapons manufacturer Raytheon expected to reap massive rewards from the disaster and major surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes. Indeed, the overall level of put option trading was up by “1,200 percent” in the three days prior to the World Trade Centre attacks. [38]

Though the amount of money made does not show definitive foreknowledge – as billions could have been made from trading on a catastrophic event not just millions – it does suggest a strange confluence of interest, or as University of Illinois’s Professor Allen M Poteshman states from the conclusion of his own research: “… there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.” [39]

Financial parasites profiting from tragedy is quite different to Bush officials and intelligence agents having foreknowledge. The latter may be just another red herring as it not only offers credence to Al-Qaeda bogeyman as the evil enemy of apple-pie freedoms but serves to distance the common knowledge that successive US administrations have consistently supported Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network as part of their foreign policy agenda. The US military and intelligence Establishment have been complicit in providing continuity of this agenda. That being so, it immediately places “foreknowledge” of the attacks in quite a different light.

The above points have barely scratched the surface. So, before we go any further let’s remind ourselves of the key moments of the “Day of Infamy” with a timeline of September 11, 2001. [40]


 9/11 Timeline

7:59: Flight 11 takes off 14 minutes late
8:14: Flight 175 takes off 16 minutes late
8:20: Flight 77 takes off 10 minutes late
8:28: Flight 11 is confirmed as hijacked
8:37: Flight 11 enters New York control space; Boston flight control notifies NORAD
8:42: Flight 93 takes off 41 minutes late
8:46: Flight 11 hits the North Tower of the World Trade Centre
8:50: Flight 175 en route to New York City
8:54: Flight 77 strays off course
8:56: Flight 77 transponder signal disappears; Flight 77 disappears from radar screens
9:03: Flight 175 crashes into WTC South Tower; shown on international TV networks
9:06 Bush starts photo op at school; thinks WTC Crash Is Accidental
9:06-9:16: Bush told of second plane crash, continues photo op; reads pet goat story for almost ten minutes; Secret agents as per protocol do not remove him from the room; Ari Fleischer holds up sign saying “do not say anything yet”
9:16-9:29: Bush works on a formulating a speech with staff; no decisions are made
9:20: Barbara Olson, a passenger on Flight 77 is said to have called her husband Ted Olson, solicitor general at the Justice Department. Account is full of contradictions
9:28: Sounds of a struggle are heard at Cleveland Flight Control as Flight 93 is hijacked
9:29: Speech by Bush declaring a terrorist attack
9:30: Langley fighters take off toward Washington; Instead of arriving in the usual 6 minutes, they could reach city in six minutes but take 30 minutes. The jets were redirected east over the Atlantic Ocean and were 150 miles from the Pentagon when it is hit
9:30: After 25 minutes the Secret Service finally decide to hustle Bush out of the school
9:37: Flight 77 disappears from radar; Flight 77 crashes into reinforced section of the Pentagon
After 9:37: FBI confiscates film of Pentagon crash
9:40: Flight 93 transponder signal turned off; flight still closely tracked
9:42: Mark Bingham calls his mother From Flight 93
9:45: White House Evacuated
9:45 – 9:56 Counterterrorism ‘Tsar’ Clarke Initiates Continuity of Government Plan; Senior FAA Manager, on His First Day on the Job, Orders All Planes Out of the Sky Nationwide
9:45 – 9.58 Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer speaks to GTE customer service supervisor Lisa Jefferson and FBI, gives contradictory statements
9:50: Molten metal pours from WTC South Tower
9:52: Fire-fighters reach 78th floor of South Tower; two isolated fires are found
9:55-10:15: Langley fighters reach Washington after considerable delay; contradictory accounts of time lag;
9:57: Passengers Begin Attempt to Regain Control of Flight 93
9:58: Call from Ed Felt on Flight 93, describes explosion
Before 9:59: Gold Transported Through WTC Basement; EMT Worker Given Message That WTC Towers Are Going to Collapse; High-Level Officials Evacuate Lobby of North Tower; Mayor Giuliani apparently told WTC towers will collapse when fire chiefs think otherwise
9:59: Explosions heard in South Tower just before collapse; South Tower of WTC collapses into its own footprint
9:59-10:28: Fire-fighters receive no messages to evacuate North Tower
10.00: Hijackers respond to passenger revolt
10:06: Flight 93 crashes into a Pennsylvanian field; Reports of light 93 Breaking Up Prior to Crash; timing of the crash disputed
Before/After 10:06: Second plane, described “as a small, white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings,” is seen by at least ten witnesses over the crash site within minutes of United Flight 93 crashing.
After 10:06: Fighter flies past Flight 93 crash site; witnesses report lack of plane wreckage at Flight 93 crash scene
After 10:06: Bush is told of Flight 93 crash, wonders if it was shot down
10:15: Pentagon Section Collapses
10:28: WTC North Tower collapses; Many witnesses hear explosions during the collapse of the north WTC tower.
11:45: Air Force One, with President Bush on board, lands at Barksdale Air Force Base
12:00 Noon: Senator Hatch repeats intelligence community’s conclusion that Osama bin Laden is responsible
After 12:00 Larry Silverstein Tells fire department commander to ‘pull’ WTC 7
12:16 US airspace cleared of all civilian aircraft
13:02: Defence Secretary Rumsfeld Calls for War; President Bush Says there will be a counterattack
14.00 – 14:30 Chief Fire Officer makes decision to abandon WTC 7
14:50 President Bush arrives in Nebraska; enters Strategic Command Centre
14:40 Rumsfeld is told Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11 attacks but wants to blame Iraq
16:30: WTC Building 7 Area Is Evacuated Due to Anticipated Collapse
17:20: WTC Building 7 Collapses; Cause Remains Unclear
18:42 Rumsfeld, Shelton, White, and Senators give news briefing on attacks
18:54 President Bush returns to White House
20:30: President Bush gives third speech, declares Bush Doctrine
21:00: President Bush meets with advisers, declares war without barriers
23:30: President Bush sees 9/11 as New Pearl Harbour

Notes

[1] ‘Hugo Neu and the Giuliani Partners Who Destroyed the Steel of 9/11’ April 18, 2011, By Christopher Bollyn, http://www.bollyn.com
[2] ‘Most 9/11 Commissioners Don’t Buy The Official Story – Why Do You?’ 9/11 Blogger http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdqIzc4TZAY
[3] ‘Comments on the Pentagon Strike’ By Laura Knight-Jadczyk, September 25, 2002. | http://www.cassopaeia.org
[4] ‘FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools’ By Steve Fainaru and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers , September 23, 2001; Page. | ‘FBI Chief Acknowledges FBI Errors’CBS News May 30 2002 /updated 2009.
[5] ‘Why I Resigned From the CIA’ by Michael Scheuer, The Los Angeles Times, December 05, 2004. | ‘Many Say U.S. Planned for Terror but Failed to Take Action’ The New York Times, December 30, 2001.
[6] ‘Hijackers Got Visas With Little Scrutiny, GAO Reports’ By Dan Eggen, Washington Post, October 22, 2002; Page A07.
[7] ‘Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases’ Newsweek, Sep 14, 2001.| ‘Alleged 9/11 Hijackers Trained at U.S. Military Bases?’ 2nd Witness Arrested 25 Held for Questioning by Guy Gugliotta and David S. Fallis Washington Post, September 16, 2001; Page A29.
[8] ‘9/11 Hijackers Still Alive’ by Dominic Kenndy / Suicide hijackers hid behind stolen Arab identities; America at war: New York agony; Terror in new York, Edition 5LTHU 20 SEP 2001, Page 3. “Five of the hijackers were using stolen identities, and investigators are studying the possibility that the entire suicide squad consisted of impostors. Details are emerging of the killers’ humdrum final weeks in the US suburbs – joining gyms, eating pizzas and visiting an “adult video” store.”
[9] ‘NORAD had drills of jets as weapons,’ By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA Today, April 19, 2004. | ‘A Nation Challenged: Warnings; Earlier Hijackings Offered Signals That Were Missed’ By Matthew L. Wald, The New York Times, October 3, 2001.
[10] p.68; The New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin Published by Olive Branch Press; 2004 | ISBN 1566565529.
[11] ‘Fried Rice: Condi’s Coming 9/11 Firestorm’ Perspectives, February 11, 2005 | ‘Terrorist Plan to Use Planes as Weapons Dates to 1995’ WTC bomber Yousef confessed to US agents in 1995. Public Information Center. December 8, 2002.
[12] op. cit Griffin.
[13] Miami Science Museum www. miamisci.org/ – c/o alienscientist.com ‘Probability of 7/7 War Games and Attacks happening at the same time (Impossible)’ September 2011.
[14] London Underground Bombing ‘Exercises’ Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack – Culpability cover scenario echoes 9/11 wargames by Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet | July 13 2005.
[15] ‘New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims’ By Jordan Michael Smith, Salon.com Jun 19, 2012.
[16] ‘Resentful west spurned Sudan’s key terror files’ War on Terrorism – Observer special The secret war. Part 1 By David Rose, The Observer, Sunday 30 September 2001. | ‘Revealed: The Taliban minister, the US envoy and the warning of September 11 that was ignored’ By Kate Clark in Kabul, The Independent, 07 September 2002. | ‘Report cites warnings before 9/11’ CNN News, September 19, 2002.
[17] op. cit. Griffin, (p.70)
[18] Ibid.
[19] ‘The Kingdom and the Towers’ By Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan Vanity Fair, August 2011.
[20] ‘Two Suspected Charities Apparently Protected by Saudi Government Ties’ October 12, 2001. historycommons.org timeline.
[21] ‘September 11 2001: How much the French knew’ by Guillaume Dasquié Le Monde (Paris) April 15, 2007. | ‘The House of bin Laden – A family’s, and a nation’s, divided loyalties’.by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, November 12, 2001. “two of Osama’s sisters apparently taking cash to an airport in Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates], where they are suspected of handing it to a member of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization.”
[22] ‘Ex-Spook Sirrs: Early Osama Call Got Her Ejected’ by Gail Sheehy New York Observer, March 2004.
[23] Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 by Steve Coll, Published by Penguin books, 2004. ISBN-10: 0143034669 (p. “Robin Raphel, Deputy Secretary of State for South Asia, speaks to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister about Afghanistan. She says that the US government ‘now hopes that peace in the region will facilitate US business interests,” i.e. the Unocal gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. (p.330).
[24] op. cit. Sheehy; New Yorker.
[25] op. cit. Griffin (p.152)
[26] ‘Bin Laden Kin Flown Back to Saudi Arabia’ by Kevin Cullen, The Boston Globe, September 20, 2001.Page: A29. | ‘A |Nation Challenged: The Family. ‘Fearing Harm, Bin Laden Kin Fled From U.S.’ The New York Times, By Patrick E. Tyler, September 30, 2001. | ‘Has someone been sitting on the FBI?’ By Greg Palast, Newsnight programme for the BBC. Transcript at BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm November 6, 2001.
[27] op. cit. Perspectives, 2005.
[28] ‘Defence redefined means securing cheap energy’ The Sydney Morning Herald, December 26 2002.
[29] ‘CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July’ French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital, by Anthony Sampson, The Guardian, 1 November 2001. | ‘Ailing bin Laden ‘treated secretly for kidney disease’ By Adam Sage, Times of London Edition 5L November 2001, Page 5.
[30] ‘Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama’ CBS News February 11, 2009.
[31] ‘Mysterious September 11 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill’ by Michel Chossudovsky Global Outlook,Winter 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca,August 4, 2003. |
[32] ‘India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links’, The Times of India, 9 October 2001. | “French author Bernard-Henri Levy later claims to have evidence from sources inside both Indian and US governments of phone calls between Sheikh and Mahmood Ahmed, head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, during this same time period, and he sees a connection between the timing of the calls and the money transfers (see Summer 2000). [Frontline, 10/13/2001; Daily Excelsior (Jammu), 10/18/2001; Levy, 2003, pp. 320-324] From historycommons.com.
[33] ‘Bush: Memo had no “actionable intelligence”’CNN, April 12, 2004. | Declassified and Approved for Release, 10 April 2004 – ‘Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US’ “Clandestine, foreIgn government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997′ has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US televisioni nterviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Youse! and ‘bring the fighting to America.’” http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf
[34] ‘Willie Brown Got Low-Key Early Warning About Air-Travel’ by Philip Matier and Andrew Ross, San Francisco Chronicle, September 12, 2001 | ‘Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies’ by Dennis Ryan MDW NEWS 3 Nov 2000 http://www.globalresearch.ca 3 April 2004.
[35] op. cit. Griffin (p.70)
[36] Ibid.
[37] ‘We’ve Hit the Targets’ By Michael Hirsh, Newsweek, Sept. 13 issue, 2003. […] “Could the bombers have been stopped? NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill.” | ‘German Firm Probes Final World Trade Center Deals’ Reuters, December 17, 2001. | ‘Insider Trading Apparently Based on Foreknowledge of the 9/11 Attacks, The Times,(London) September 18, 2001.
[38] ‘Insider Trading Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge’ 911 Research, http://www.911research.wtc7.net
[39] ‘Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11 2001.’ By Allen M. Poteshman. University of Illinois. http://www.scribd.com/doc/11079387/Unusual-Option-Market-Activity-and-the-Terrorist-Attacks-of-September-11-2001
[40] Grateful assistance from that wonderful online resource: wwwhistorycommons.org 911 and other related timelines and reports which made up the summary.

Advertisements

Dark Green IX: UN Agenda 21 and US Land Grab

By M.K. Styllinski

“One of the big lies about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is that it ‘builds strong communities’. It does. But not in the way you would expect. It is managed democracy and manufactured consensus.”

– Rosa Koire, Executive Director, Post-Sustainability Institute


If we are to live our lives supporting and deriving benefit from Nature’s bounty, sustainable development must be an essential part of human destiny. However, in the hands of our leaders the concept of sustainability in its present incarnation may be very far from what many environmental activists believe it to be.

One of the many initiatives to come out of the Rio conference in 1992 was a 300 page document called Agenda 21 which the UN defines as: “… a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and major groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” Out of the summit came a National Strategy for a Sustainable America which led to the announcement in July 1993 by US President Bill Clinton of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) to implement a “national Strategy” for sustainable development. By 2010, this had advanced to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s mission of advancing the principles and goals of sustainable development through partnerships, collaboration, and outreach. [1]

The 1992 Earth summit’s Rio Declaration on Environment and Development set out 27 principles intended to guide future sustainable development around the world. The PCSD also had a set of “We Believe Statements” outlining 16 principles which paraphrase the Rio Declaration. Both these sets of principles are incorporated into Agenda 21 (“21” refers to the 21st Century).

The Agenda 21 document comprises of 40 chapters grouped into 4 sections:

  • Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions
  • Combating poverty in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.
  • Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development
  • Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.
  • Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups
  • The roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and workers and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
  • Section IV: Means of Implementation Science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms. [2]

In the above, we find the complement to the Earth Charter, where the opposite poles of political beliefs come together to create maximum noise ratios and thus obscure any rational discourse on the issue. A “divide and rule” friction is set up between so called “lefties” and “right-wing whackos” for which Agenda 21 is the devil incarnate or a practical framework for a sustainable future. Is Agenda 21 an innocent “soft law” platform for change? Or are the “radical right, conspiracy theorists” correct and this is an an attempt to impose a vast template for technocratic global governance?

treeeee © infrakshun

The UN Commission on Global Governance established in 1992 with full support from then Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali published a report in 1995 called “Our Global Neighbourhood.” Sustainable development (SD) and environmental protection are seen as integral step to the long-term security of that vision. As the report confirms: “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” And further: “Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.” [3]

The problem that many have with this process as it is being developed in both EU and the United States, is that it removes the public from the decision-making process, by default. If elected officials are by-passed by non-elected officials who have been tasked with an agenda, however well-intentioned, it means that democracy and civil liberty is side-lined in favour of a consensus that may have no relation at all to the values, culture and self-determination of the country involved. Regionalism and the communitarianism are fine ideas – even welcome theories for socio-economic development. However, the devil is in the details. The overriding importance for members of the UN and Establishment circles is the dismantling of national sovereignty and the absolute control of the domestic population with the means to see that come about. When you get these people whole-heartedly supporting such potentially massive changes you can be absolutely sure it has nothing whatsoever to do with the greater good but the interests of the “lesser evil.”

Areas which are prompting most concern involve policy making procedures defined by collaborative consensus building a conflict resolution label appropriated by SD and SMART redevelopment and is inaugurating drastic changes in the way public policy is created in the United States. This consensus process as defined in Agenda 21 and the “We Believe” Statements of the PCSD serves to circumnavigate elected officials and place power in the hands of unelected officials who then determine Agenda 21 policy. This gives a free reign to a multitude of SMART redevelopment programs, where government and the corporate sector merge in ethically compromised, ideologically questionable ways.

With the United States having already had much of its constitution eviscerated by both the Bush-Cheney and Obama-Biden Administrations, the legitimate concern here for this one-time Republic and for the nations of Europe is that governments are exercising entirely undemocratic powers through seemingly benign programs. They do this because such passion can be usefully diverted to agendas which piggy-back the initial intent from public and officials, which is sincere. The Agenda 21 platform certainly has collectivist principles to its policy changes which immediately causes the political right to raise its hackles at the merest hint of such a thing. Since the US has an appalling record on global resource use and environmental safeguards in general, the kinds of changes which are being demanded under Agenda 21 will mean that there will be a forced redistribution of wealth and the confiscation of private property under the guise of “protecting the environment.” Therefore, the “social equity” in such a context, is a collectivist dream.

The concept of sustainable development does require a system of governance that is even more centralised under an integrated package of social equity, environmental protection and economic activity. (And we haven’t even looked at carbon tax yet). The PCSD brought the concept of Sustainable Development (SD) into the policy process of every agency in the US federal government. In partnership with the same environmental organisations who drafted Agenda 21, federal government agency grants are allowing SD programs to be seeded into the infrastructure of American life. So, while the UN cannot impel communities to adopt Agenda 21 policies its influence and beliefs are outsourced to hundreds of environmental groups and NGOs – the latter often paid quangos for government meddling – who carry out its operations so that Agenda 21 dove-tails seamlessly into future SMART growth infrastructure.

As a prelude to the Agenda 21 framework and The Convention on Bio-Diversity which has yet to be ratified, the Ecosystem Management Policy spear-headed by the UNEP is up and running in many US states. This means that where federal management of ecosystems exists it would inevitably expand federal control of the use of privately owned land and increased restrictions on the use of public lands for economic purposes. Since ecosystems do not have a defining boundary, private lands would be included in an expanded regulatory framework with the imposition of restrictions and guidelines mandated by law. The scope for the abuse of power would be limitless.

In Agenda 21’s vision for America, the protection of the ecosystem and sustainable development would take precedence over economic activity and private property rights. If the authority for implementing ecosystem management eventually meshed with Agenda 21 and continues to lie with the federal government, the vested interests of stakeholder input and authoritarian environmental activists, a massive transfer of power from the individual to the state is the only possible outcome.

The political and social equality pushed in Agenda 21 does not necessarily equate with a free society.

The repeated statement that a “transformation of society” is required includes an irreversible change in the process through which decisions affecting citizens are made. Extensive land use planning delivering SD to local communities dispenses with these democratic processes, or as commentator Henry Lamb correctly observes: “The fundamental principle that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is completely by-passed in the process … the natural next step is for government to dictate the behavior of the people who own the land that the government controls.” [4]

The lure of partnership-privatisation, be it water or forestry management and the wider issues involved, are often eclipsed by the approach of financial dividends. Everyone is always keen to make a buck and nothing is more seductive when one’s conscience is perceived to be clean while doing it. Bailing out bankers is a euphemism for maintaining an exploitative system. Such bailouts can operate under corporate lawyers and foundation executives offering financial assistance while making sure that they can gain much more for their money in return. Local officials and rural communities are seldom aware of what they are being “sold” and wouldn’t know a biodiversity clause or an Agenda 21 stipulation if it was deftly flashed in front of them on an i-pad screen. But it would sure look benevolently green.

One of the most surprising and little known facts related to SD and the present land grabs which are now taking place in the USA are the Executive Orders No.11490 and No.11647 enacted by President Richard Nixon on February, 10, 1972. The United States was divided into 10 Regional Councils, each federally controlled by bureaucrats for the improvement of coordination of activities between different levels of government. These 10 federal regions were to be given powers over everything pertaining to regionalism. Within those regional divisions, this included conservation, land use, water and all other natural resources within the United States. Fairly momentous and dramatic contributions to the US yet very few people know about it thanks to a compliant media and a corrupt Congress.

fedregional Standard Federal Regions

A bureaucratic binding has now arrived in the form of four federally chartered regional commissions: the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), signed into effect by President Kennedy in 1963 and amended numerous times up until the present; The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) signed into effect by President Ronald Reagan (1988) and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA) signed into effect in 1994 and the Denali Commission (DC) signed into effect in 1998 – both by President Clinton, the latter being the only commission targeting a single state (Alaska).

Each commission is responsible for a variety of legislative operations and procedures implementing a long term economic plan:

  • ARC: On top of a mandate to improve “regional infrastructure, reducing regional isolation; water and wastewater management resources; natural resources development; and human resources development, including housing, education, job skills, and health care” the Truman Administration expanded this to “… promot[e] economic development in the region; and establishing a framework for joint federal and state efforts in developing basic facilities essential to promoting coordinated regional responses to the region’s problems.”
  • DRA: “The Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY1989.9 Title II of that act, known as the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, authorized the creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission (LMDDC […] the Commission’s legislative mandate was to identify the economic needs and priorities of the Lower Mississippi Delta region, and to develop a 10-year economic development plan for the region.
  • NGPRA: “… directed it to study and make recommendations for improving the economic development prospects of residents of rural Northern Great Plains communities. The Commission was charged with developing a 10-year rural economic development plan for Northern Great Plains (NGP) with the assistance of interested citizens, public officials, groups, agencies, businesses, and other entities. […] “The act charged the NGPRDC with developing a 10-year plan that would address economic development, technology, transportation, telecommunications, employment, education, health care, housing, and other needs and priorities of the five-state region. The act encouraged the NGPRDC to develop the plan in collaboration with Native American tribes, federal agencies, non-profit and specific issue areas: value-added agriculture, international trade, business development, telecommunications, transportation infrastructure, health care, and civic and social capacity.”
  • DC: “… the Commission’s mission included providing job training and other economic development assistance to distressed rural areas in the state. The act also charged the Commission with providing for rural power generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems, and other infrastructure needs of remote areas in the state.” [5]

All these Commissions are in turn, focused on a highly complicated jumble of state and local county development programs many of which are integrated or in the process of being integrated into the Agenda 21 blueprint. What Nixon and the Clinton-Gore administration did was to create a new government eco-bureaucracy or “regional” government placing the states into the aforementioned Ten Regions and their requisite federal funding. However, as regional government was the assigned vehicle for federal fund distribution it meant that local government officials were unaware that they were effectively reducing their power by being answerable to administrators of regions. Local authorities would be bypassed in favour of regionalism which isn’t just a system of grant distribution but an extension of State power.

The justification for all these eco-imperatives comes from the United Nations which – in much the same way as the Eurocrats in Brussels – overrides democratically elected decision-makers in favour of SD and SMART associated stake-holder legislations. Fusing management and administration systems based on new technology, redevelopment and eco-imperatives are making regionalism very far from democracy and constitutional accountability. We are faced with a situation where decisions are rubber-stamped by international regional government administrators and their connected councils serving a desperately hierarchical world management system which has nothing whatsoever to do with serving Mother Earth or its people.

The concept of Sustainable Development as it was sold to the public was never a grassroots ignition. It is a top-down product of a world management system dressed up in green language which will allow yet another vast channel of technocratic control to merge with fake land ethics, laws, and regulations. Environmental protection of fauna and flora will certainly take place but society will be in no position or have the legal right to enjoy it! Nature’s new found liberalisation, sagely bestowed by global stewards will always know best it seems.

The UN works through the emerging civil society which is actually made up of thousands of NGOs with largely the same beliefs as UN personnel. They are not necessarily representative of society as a whole. Via summits, national and international conferences, seminars and local outreach groups policy documents are formulated drawn from the gospel of Agenda 21, they are all overseen by Maurice Strong’s UNEP. Under the ever-present influence of NGOs and environmental pressure groups, local governments become un-elected members of “stakeholder councils” managing “empowerment zones”, or “enterprise committees” and “visioning councils” determined to adhere to the concepts of SMART growth. *

Despite many recommendations still to be implemented, the UN has spent – and continues to spend – millions of dollars whilst holding various international meetings which are attended by hundreds of political leaders, corporate CEOs and thousands of other non-governmental organizations who expend equal amounts of time drafting massive policy documents. Clearly, this is much more than a whimsical green distraction. They mean business. Although Agenda 21 is entirely “voluntary” and “non-binding” that is not how it’s playing out on the ground. Using an array of Delphi-based psychological techniques a veritable army of “facilitators” are descending on American cities and part of the neighbourhood councils and planning associations. Often, eco-SMART NGOs are nothing more than pincer movements into communities in order to extract support for redveelopment proposals under Agenda 21/SMART auspices.  Most importantly, they represent a fusion of corporate and government sponsorship which stands to make a lot of money for both parties at great expense to specific communities, most notably in suburbia.  As these new vested interests are drawn from Rockefeller-type Foundations and corporate CEOs it does not bode well for the future that will be defined by the disempowerment of civil society and the dilution, if not disappearance of truly representative local government and community.

The ubiquity of SD activists and advocates becomes especially problematic when so many of these people are tuning in to what is after all, a genuine wish to protect the environment and improve the quality of societies for future generations. Yet there is a refusal and a lack of knowledge as to how an ideology and system can be co-opted and used for something quite different. The young’s natural passion to protect the Earth is strong, so too are the dangers of the dogma and fascism that are intimately connected to the history of the environmental movement. With the present global economic system in terminal decline and media propaganda as potent as it has ever been, we are reminded of Peter Staudenmaier’s observation in the context of rising fascism: “The attraction such perspectives exercised on idealistic youth is clear: the enormity of the crisis seemed to enjoin a total rejection of its apparent causes. It is in the specific form of this rejection that the danger lies.” [6]

So Agenda 21 network continues to infiltrate by stealth every aspect of society and local development plans from biosphere reserves, wetlands, greenways, railways, carbon footprints, partnerships, conservation /environmental protection, land use, heritage areas and planning, to name but a few. While securing more legislation and government control it reduces the rights of the individual and usurps power from local, democratically elected councils. Perhaps most importantly, after our exploration of eco-fascism and depopulation we should be extremely concerned when a vast blueprint for ecological management and sustainable development is sourced from those who cheerily support perpetual war, state-sponsored terror, cartel capitalism, eugenics, forced sterilisation; a global tax, (usually on those who will be least able to pay) and massive reduction of the human population by any and all means to reach that objective.

So, the perceived belligerent fears from the right-wing resistance to Agenda 21 stems from a much more complex dynamics playing out in plain sight. Therefore, there needs to be much more bipartisan support for rooting out what really gives on this issues both politically and within the public. The refusal to address legitimate fears from liberal and left-wing groups displays the same tunnel vision.

UN-Logo© infrakshun

Building on the advances made from the 1992 Rio summit, the Rio+20 Summit on Environmental Sustainability took place in late June of 2012. Though no real breakthroughs or commitments were forthcoming, the “larger achievement [may have been] making global sustainable development goals a priority on the international agenda” according to a recent Council on Foreign Relations report. The summit produced Rio+20’s outcome document, The Future We Want the greatest contribution of which “… catalyses a global call to make sustainable development priorities central to global thinking and action.” [7]

Whether this is a turn for the better for humanity is entirely dependent on whom we choose to preside over this transformation. Some of the perceived enemies of environmental activism such as large polluting corporations and bureaucratic government departments also play a part as effective double agents on the panoramic stage of social engineering. Presenting and even encouraging the rifts between the two serves to prop up the illusion that the overall conflict is real when it is all part of the programming. That is not to say that is ALL a conscious ruse. Clearly not. But we can hopefully begin to see how these ambitious macro-social projects connect like a vast net across the globe. And a big part of this eco-Intelpro involves the confiscation of land.

The rush to grab land and resources across the world has defined a new form of colonialism in the 21st century. China, America, Britain and other European countries are leading the way in carving up African land under the pretext of offering environmental or humanitarian assistance. [8]But how many of us know about the vast tracts of land which are being bought up by federal government programs in partnership with Establishment families, and hundreds of conservation trusts and environmental groups a bit closer to home?  In the US these “buffer zones” and “rural corridors”; heritage sites and designated conservation areas of “re-wilding” which are falling under the protection of SD and biological diversity legislation sometimes run into anything from 100,000 to 25 million acres where human presence is seen as “interference.” [9]

The re-introduction of species which have died out in specific regions, the management of forests and lakes, reservoirs and various types of land reclamation rides on the powerful and deep-seated wish for people to care for their environment. Difficult as it may be to accept – especially for ecologists and environmentalists who are traditionally some of the most passionate in their beliefs – the US is experiencing a gradual but inexorable large-scale theft of US land by those with money and power in order to turn almost 50 percent of America into protected habitats and reserves for the good of biological diversity. It is a theft because the vast majority of the public has neither access to, nor the necessary information to make an informed decision as to where they stand on the issue. Thanks to the usual lack of proper investigative reporting by the US media and the constant noise and distraction of Republican and Democrat knockabouts, the required public awareness on this agenda is non-existent and thus proceeds with ease, with locals and their councils oblivious to the larger implications, all too often embroiled in the impenetrable bureaucracy that SD has spawned.

The Wildlands Network (formerly the Wildlands Project) is more radical than the vision of SD though it is sitting alongside its ideological platform quite comfortably. The United Nations gave its seal of approval in its “Global Biodiversity Assessment” when it mentioned The Wildlands Project as a possible approach to preserving biological diversity. [10]  It is vast in scope, extending from one end of the continent to the other. Equally impressive is the enormous list of Wildlands Network affiliated organisations and groups, councils and foundations which in turn have sub-categories of affiliates which are thousands in number. And what do you know? The Rockefeller Foundation is there among the donators as is The Turner Foundation, from media mogul and depopulation advocate Ted Turner, the largest sponsor of environmental causes in the country. The Environmental Grantmakers Association makes sure a steady stream of cash keeps this long-term project afloat and on course.

The network was created from the concept of “re-wilding” a term first coined by conservationist and activist Dave Forman, one of the founders of the group Earth First! The term described the creation of “reserve networks” across the United States which would provide vast areas of wildlife habitat, the goal being to maximize biological diversity across the land. Humans, however, do not feature in this grand plan. Having laid the blueprint for the Wildlands Network in the 1980’s with colleagues Howie Wolke, and Bart Koehler, conservation biologists Michael Soulé and Reed Noss continued to build on the ideas, most notably in an influential paper published in 1998. [11]While Forman’s involvement has faded somewhat, Reed Noss, has become the leading spokesman for the Plan, expanding the possibilities with federal government support.

The philosophy which suffuses the Wildlands Network is Deep Ecology. In the words of Forman, from his popular 1991 book Confessions of an Eco-Warrior: “The only hope of the Earth is to withdraw huge areas as inviolate natural sanctuaries from the depredations of modern industry and technology. Move out the people and cars. Reclaim the roads and the plowed lands.” Deep Ecology is essentially a mix of the rich tradition of Pantheistic nature worship with streams of Taoism, Buddhism and American and German eco-revivalism thrown in. It is in fact, a beautiful philosophy. However, in radical hands it becomes something quite different.

Norway’s premier Philosopher Arne Naess and recognised pioneer of the Deep Ecology movement drew up eight basic principles that describe the philosophy:

  • The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
  • Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realisation of these values and are also values in themselves.
  • Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
  • The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life demands such a decrease.
  • Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
  • Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
  • The ideological change is mainly in appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
  • Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary change. [Emphasis mine]

Eminently sensible. Except that this same philosophy is also embraced by eco-fascists who define our “obligations”, in slightly more authoritarian ways thereby hoping to change political policies to a situation “deeply different from the present.” We might hazard a guess what they might be prepared to do to get that ideal differential.

Deep Ecology has many positive connections to past traditions which involve co-creating with Nature rather than exploiting it, thus exhibiting a much needed humility. Nonetheless, since it appeals to those harbouring eco-fascistic views and authoritarian designs it is easily absorbed into the Agenda 21 framework.  Despite the central premise of Deep Ecology as philosophical (which often means impractical) and a guide to a deeper awareness of nature and our relationship to it, in the context of Pathocracy it becomes another nail in the coffin of true awareness; the case of the horse bolting before the cart. When Deep Ecology becomes grafted on to the State – much like anything other truth – it cannot become anything else but subverted.  The radicalism of the Wildlands Network in combination with Agenda 21 and Deep ecology advocates has the potential to become something quite different to the romance of us all returning to a more harmonious connection to the Earth. Such radicalism invites it as John Davis, editor of Wild Earth magazine exemplifies: “Does all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrialized civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go …”

So, to what does the Wildlands Network comprise? Reed Noss defines it in the following terms: “A wilderness recovery network is an inter-connected system of strictly protected areas (core reserves), surrounded by lands used for human activities compatible with conservation that put biodiversity first (buffer zones), and linked together in some way that provides for functional connectivity of populations across the landscape.” [12]

 agenda21wildlandssustainabilitydiagramThe 4C’s meets the 3E’s 

The characteristics of these core areas include the expansion of parks and “wilderness areas to include adjacent old growth, roadless areas, and ecological areas,” where size means “bigger is better.” (So much for E.F. Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful) Existing roads would be closed and “Human access greatly reduced or eliminated altogether.” Noss interjects that: “Many ecologists (myself included) would just as soon see huge areas of land kept off limits to human activities of any kind.” [13] “Buffer zones” allow for some human activity, while “corridors” permit wildlife to travel freely from one core area to another, extend reserve habitats; allow seasonal migration genetic interchange between core reserves; “provide for long distance migration in response to climate change” with the average width of corridor one mile wide where little or no human use is encouraged. All of which seems to confirm the idea of that humans are to be controlled and managed in order to preserve Nature. The Integration and marriage of the natural world of which we are a part seems an unworkable hypothesis, but such segregation would certainly appeal to a super-rich Elite who have made it their long-term purpose to live in these reserve habitats while the rest of us get used to living in Mega-cities.

SD principles and the parallel visions of conservation biology share a special place in collectivist minds. The three pillars of SD which can be found in almost every article or paper related to Agenda 21, ecology and environmental ethics are: “Equity”, “Economy” and “Environment” or “The three E’s of Sustainability.” (See above). Each sector requires a total transformation towards global government. The “transformation of society” under the auspices of the UN and its agencies, the Club of Rome and many other think tanks and non-elected institutions and NGOs is not about a paradigm shift to more freedom and ecological emancipation but to accept a carefully engineered set of beliefs in order to welcome its exact opposite. Equity, Economy and Environment are embedded in the collectivist-corporatist ethos of the 4Cs of: commercialisation, consolidation, centralisation and control. Equity is about social justice that will put nature before humans and thus create the conditions by which private ownership is diluted and eventually seen as “eco-unfriendly” and against the “greater good”. Integrated into a SMART infrastructure a police state will be relatively “soft” due to the pervasive sanitising of consciousness drawn from socio-eco-engineering principles. In this way, Fabian economics has always been behind much of the new ecological visions currently capturing the minds of the Western young bureaucrats and technocrats. It is the core force behind the 4Cs, the 3Es and the 3EM.

Ecologists, environmental activists, politicians and bureaucrats are so bound up in green visions or the cash incentives for green technology that they cannot seem to entertain the possibility that such huge projects may serve a totalitarian game-plan. As discussed the shadow of right-wing paranoia and conspiracy theory lunacy, rather than a cold-bloodied appraisal of some obvious sign-posts holds sway.  One wonders if the Rockefeller, Oppenheimer, Windsor, and Rothschild dynasties and the protégés of One World, eco-fascists are going to be inhabiting the carefully regulated, SD-designed SMART cities of the future where everything conforms to a bland monotony of ecological and technocratic “efficiency”. I doubt it. The poor of course will remain where they always have – in centralised systems, on the margins of society scratching a living without access to nature (or nurture) while the middle class will be suffocated under more and more eco-SMART technocracy with very little ability to free themselves from  biometric “convenience.” The Elite will be residing in “secure zones” with grand ranches, mansions and resorts set deep in the wilderness away from the human species that does not respect her; like demi-Gods on earth whose stewardship and spiritual status demand their presence as custodians of the New World Religion. The World State writ large. Meantime, the rest of humanity will be corralled into cities known as “safe zones” and far away from “sacred” wild lands. These mega-cities will house what’s left of the human populations, after wars, disease and manufactured crises have done their work…

Dystopian fantasy? Hysterical hyperbole?  Or perhaps we really believe that all of this is really for us, and everyone will be happily paragliding, hiking and rafting the rapids at their leisure from core wilderness centres to the grand corridors of their choosing?

In the next post we will look deeper into the Sustainable Development, UN Agenda 21 and how it is currently affecting cities in America.

 


* In the unlikely event that you still unclear as to what SMART growth actually means, wikipedia provides as good a summary as I can come up with describing it as:

“… an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in compact walkable urban centers to avoid sprawl. It also advocates compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use, including neighborhood schools, complete streets, and mixed-use development with a range of housing choices. The term ‘smart growth’ is particularly used in North America. In Europe and particularly the UK, the terms ‘Compact City’ or ‘urban intensification’ have often been used to describe similar concepts, which have influenced government planning policies in the UK, the Netherlands and several other European countries.”

As we get to the section on Technocracy you’ll see how snugly all this “exciting” and “liberating” SMART technology fits into Sustainable Development and Agenda 21.


See also: What Is Sutainable Development? By James Corbett


Notes

[1] ‘Sustainable development,’ U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[2] http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
[3] The Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[4] ‘Is your private property in jeopardy?’ By Henry Lamb, October 31, 2005 | http://www.sovereigntinternational.com
[5] CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web, Federal Regional Authorities and Commissions: Their Function and Design Updated September 21, 2006, By Eugene Boyd, Analyst, Government and Finance Division. http://www.hsdl.org
[6] op. cit. Staudenmaier.
[7] ‘Examining Rio+20’s Outcome’ Authors: Suan Ee Ong, Senior Research Analyst, Multilateralism Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University Rômulo S. R. Sampaio, Professor of Environmental Law, Getulio Vargas Foundation Andrei Marcu, Senior Advisor and Head of Carbon Market Forum, Centre for European Policy Studies Agathe Maupin and Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, Research Fellow and National Director, South African Institute of International Affairs. http://www.cfr.org/ July 5, 2012.
[8] The Land Grabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns The Earth by Fred Pearce. Published by Eden Project Books. 2012.
[9] The Wildlands Project: Summary: http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org
[10] Section 13.4.2.2.3, page 993, ‘Global Biodiversity Assessment’ Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[11] Michael Soulé and Reed Noss, “Rewilding and Biodiversity: Complementary Goals for Continental Conservation,” Wild Earth 8 (Fall 1998) 19-28.
[12] “The Wildlands Project: Land Conservation Strategy, ”by Ross F. Need, Wild Earth Journal, .January 1992.
[13] Maintaining Ecological Integrity in Representative Reserve Networks by R. Noss, World Wildlife Fund Canada Discussion Paper, 1995. p.12.