News & Analysis
Bin Laden Episode End of Empire? – Top US Official Says 9/11 Was an Inside Job
Osama bin Laden killing sparks calls for early Afghanistan withdrawal ... Debate within Obama administration over whether to speed up pullout of US troops, set to start this summer ... The killing of Osama bin Laden has opened up divisions inside the US administration over whether the withdrawal of US troops in Afghanistan, which is scheduled to begin this summer, should be bigger and faster than planned. – The Guardian
Dominant Social Theme: We need to be very careful now that bin Laden is dead. There will be retaliation for sure. Everybody in the West will have to give up more civil rights to be safe and more countries will have to be invaded to ensue the capabilities of al-Qaeda are degraded.
Free-Market Analysis: We are on record as doubting that Osama bin Laden was killed on Sunday, as we believe he has been dead for years, but we also speculated about what might be the result – and why the US might want to pretend that bin Laden had been "tapped" by Navy Seals. One obvious speculation is that purported retaliations give the Obama Administration even more reasons to deprive Americans of civil rights. But another was that it gave the Administration a pretext for drawing down the Afghanistan war more aggressively.
A recent DB editorial carried the following speculation: "Perhaps the war in Afghanistan is going so badly that by announcing the 'death' of bin Laden, the Pentagon can pave the way for a graceful exit before the Taliban blows up even more NATO brass with its adolescent suicide bombers." Now in the above article excerpt in The Guardian we see the immediate fruition of this speculation. There is indeed a "debate" about whether or not the exit should be bigger and faster than previously planned. Bin Laden is dead. The US has prepared an "honest" exit and might as well take it. You can see the editorial here:
This is an important development in terms of larger Anglo-American elite strategy. The Internet has basically blown up most of the power elite's dominant social themes, the fear-based promotions that it uses to frighten Western middle classes into giving up more power and wealth to globalist institutions like the UN. The game is always to advance the New World Order, but Anglosphere elites – those powerful banking families based in the City of London – have increasingly turned to violence and intimidation because the memes are being debunked as fast as they can be trotted out.
The US and NATO continue to struggle, and there is nothing to be done about it. The war is increasingly unpopular in Europe and Britain (and in America as well) and costs billions every year. It is basically unsupportable. So there is an overwhelming reason to declare victory in Afghanistan, which can be promoted as a major dominant social theme. The idea has been to use brute force to indicate to people that the new world order is an implacable consequence. It cannot be stopped and it is victorious everywhere; a victory in Afghanistan is necessary as the faux-death of bin Laden provides it.
It is as good a time as any. General David Petraeus is leaving Afghanistan to take over the CIA. His mission is over, if not successful. In Iraq, Petraeus basically bribed the Shias into not opposing the current regime (though now the Shias are threatening to start the violence all over again). But in Afghanistan there was no one to bribe, really, and the violence has gone up if anything.
Petraeus's last major statement so far as we can tell before he glimmers into the night (and unlike other prognosticators we believe his career ended in the graveyard that is Afghanistan) was to suggest that Afghan parents burn their children on purpose to discipline them. His spokesperson was reduced to defending this statement after Petraeus indicated that Afghans were burning their children to gain compensation from the American military above and beyond what might already be due. The "greatest military mind of his generation" departs from Afghanistan slinging insults at the Pashtun population that he once intended to win over with his policy of pacification.
Yes, he intended to win the hearts and minds of a savage agricultural population that needed to be brought into the 21st century but just the other day a 13-year old blew himself up in the midst of a NATO meeting and killed many. All over Afghanistan children and young adults are blowing themselves up or turning their weapons on NATO-trained soldiers and police. It never seems to occur to the Western mainstream press that this is a sign that the Pashtun tribes don't want to be rescued from their tribal squalor; they just want to be left alone.
Would the Pentagon and the Obama Administration be so nefarious as to kill (or pretend to kill) a false Osama? In fact, they would. There are plenty of on-the-record programs of suggested and implemented CIA programs aimed at Western populations, including operations Gladio, Monarch, Paperclip, etc. The Pentagon once debated and almost implemented a false flag operation in the skies of the US that was supposed to be an attack from Castro's Cuba. There is no reason why this mindset should have changed from the 1960s; in fact evidence shows it has gotten more powerful.
And now the next phase of "Operation Quit Afghanistan" kicks in. The steps are being taken; the policies (already decided on) are supposedly being debated. The various options (already concluded) are being discussed and "leaked." Sotto voce, as if revealing a great scoop, the Guardian tells us: "Politicians, soldiers and analysts from the US to Afghanistan have debated whether the removal of the al-Qaida leader will shorten the war and open the way for reconciliation with the Taliban."
Well, as we reported several weeks ago, the "reconciliation" with the Taliban is ongoing. We found and presented information that indicated NATO and the Pentagon had foregone their usual spring offensive and were instead indicating in numerous ways that the war was over, and that negotiation was about to take the place of shooting.
There are conflicting reports as always. The Pentagon according to the Guardian is "braced" for a springtime Taliban onslaught. Cuts should be in the area of only 2,000 of the 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan. But the unspoken necessity for serious cuts involves ongoing ruin: The US, which has provided the majority of resources for the war, has spent US$2 trillion on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It cannot afford these hostilities, no matter what the Pentagon wishes.
Now with bin Laden "dead," all sorts of rationalizations can be advanced for pulling out and declaring victory. Al-Qaeda (which likely doesn't exist) is said to have a membership pledged personally to bin Laden. Now that the Great Mage is dead at the hands of Navy Seals, the bond of duty is broken; al-Qaeda will break up and cease to become a threat. Additionally, it is simply "mission accomplished" for US forces that initially went into Afghanistan (so the story goes) to route bin Laden out of his holes in Tora Bora in retaliation for 9/11. Here's some more from the Guardian article:
Barney Frank, a Democratic congressman who was until this year chairman of the House finance committee, told the ThinkProgress website: "We went there to get Osama bin Laden. And we have now gotten Osama bin Laden. So yes, I think this does strengthen the case." He added: "We just killed Osama bin Laden, and I think that takes a lot of the pressure away – a lot of the punch away from the argument that 'Ooh, it will look like we walked away'."
Richard Lugar, the most senior Republican on the Senate foreign affairs committee, speaking at a hearing on Afghanistan, referred to the $100bn (£61bn) the US planned to spend in Afghanistan next year. "It is exceedingly difficult to conclude that our vast expenditures in Afghanistan represent a rational allocation of our military and financial assets," he said.
Larry Sabato, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, predicted: "One of the unintended consequences of Bin Laden's death will be American soldiers coming back faster. Listen to the man in the street. I can't count the number of times I have heard people say 'We can get out off Afghanistan faster'. "People think the peace dividend is getting out of Afghanistan. By the summer, it will be unavoidable. We will have to get out faster."
... Michael Semple, who has held extensive talks with the Taliban as a European representative in Kabul and still maintains contacts, said the removal of Bin Laden might open the way for reconciliation with the Taliban. "This could be helpful for a settlement, as it gets Osama off the agenda and makes the al-Qaida issue much easier to deal with," Semple said. In western eyes, the killing of Bin Laden makes it easier to cut the tie because it ends the personal bond between him and the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. But that only becomes relevant if serious peace talks start.
We have saved what we consider the most important for last. The City of London (home of the great banking families) invaded Afghanistan some 100 years ago and ended up with exactly the same result as now. Afghanistan was basically partitioned into ethnicities; the part of Afghanistan that was NOT pacified was the Pashtun nation, which extends through Afghanistan into Pakistan.
The US and its allies may "stay" in Afghanistan once peace negotiations are concluded, but they might as well spare themselves the bother. Bases in the non-pacified part of Afghanistan are probably useless. The toss of the dice was always to defeat the Pashtuns and that has not been accomplished. The Taliban, which draw most of their fighters from the Pashtuns, fought back effectively. Afghanistan, the Pashtun part, apparently remains no more or less pacified now than it has been for the past several thousand years.
It is our contention that this putative defeat (if that is what it is) marks the high-water mark of the Anglo-American empire, just as the defeat in Afghanistan marked the effective end of the British Empire. Empires based on force last only so long as they are victorious and expansive. Rome began to die once its legions ran up against the "barbarians" on the other side of the Rhine. The Anglo-American empire – which has been showing signs of stress for 20 years – will begin to die as well. It is perfectly possible that the power of the Anglosphere banking families shall wane as well.
It does not seem that way now, of course. But empires always seem impregnable. If we are correct, even the purpose of the wars being fought now shall change over time. Without being able to pacify Afghanistan, plans to pacify the rest of the "stans" shall probably wane. The Anglo-strategy shall change from world domination (which was planned) to what it was after the advent of the Gutenberg press – a "long war" (or series of wars) to ensure that domestic domination is maintained even though larger ambitions must be laid aside.
Will this prove impractical as well? The history of the Gutenberg press seems to shows us that the qualitative change made by information technology will continue apace. The quality of control over domestic population will likely degrade more quickly now as the significance of this defeat becomes domestically internalized.
American policing via the FBI, for instance, has expanded furtively to some 90 separate countries around the world, but without blanket dominance, this "investment" might as well be consigned to a bonfire. The idea was that a corrupt American Congress – as the Anglosphere elite's enforcement arm – could declare almost anything illegal and those caught in the crossfire would resign themselves to the regulatory fraud. But without dominance in the "stans," this totalitarian strategy degrades into impracticality. The stakes are not merely high; they are astronomical. What is to prevent a resurgent Pashtun nation from declaring a gold currency or any one of a number of other facilities that are anathema to Western regulatory (central banking) democracy?
But that is what the Anglosphere is faced with in this era of the New Internet Reformation. When empires confront their limits, social instability inevitably expands. Having turned to violence, the great banking families cannot afford to look as if they have lost – even a little bit. The patina of inevitability must not chip. Yet the "hive mind" is well aware of the real conversation. Fear shall subside; defiance shall expand as defeats (even if explained away) mount. The nightmare scenario the Anglosphere elite fears most shall likely begin to unfold. All the money in the world cannot fully ameliorate such entropy, not at this point in time, anyway.
Conclusion: If indeed the West is withdrawing from Afghanistan, what we have just described is certainly an operative scenario – among others. The banking empire is surely under stress, and we cover its failing memes every day. Everyone reports on them disparately, but they are not disparate. The failing of the EU (see other staff report, this issue), the puncturing of global warming, the foundering of DOHA, the rising numbers of unresolved wars and the general uncontrollable unraveling of the world's economy and its central banking economy are all a result of the ongoing Internet Reformation. Evidences that the latest great intergenerational banking conspiracy is unraveling after a run of 100-300 years continue to present themselves. We shall do our best to continue to report on it as it occurs.
Editor's Note: TOP US OFFICIAL: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB ...
Top US Government Insider Says Bin Laden Died In 2001 & 9/11 A False Flag ... Life is apparently more complicated for the power elite in the era of the "Internet Reformation." An alternative news site run by Alex Jones is carrying a report that a top US government insider says Bin Laden died a decade ago and that 9/11 was carried out with the cooperation of the US government. Alex Jones runs a family of prominent alternative news sites including several that are highly controversial from a mainstream standpoint. On occasion, reports have had to be retracted (in much the same manner as mainstream sites) but presumably this report, given its high profile, is accurate both from Jones' point of view and Pieczenik's.
Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who held numerous different influential positions under three different Presidents and still works with the Defense Department, has told Jones that Osama bin Laden died in 2001 and that he was prepared to testify in front of a grand jury how a top general told him directly that 9/11 was a false flag inside job. He made the comments on the Alex Jones program.
A story at the Alex Jones news site notes that, "Pieczenik cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. He served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations, Nixon, Ford and Carter, while also working under Reagan and Bush senior, and still works as a consultant for the Department of Defense. A former US Navy Captain, Pieczenik achieved two prestigious Harry C. Solomon Awards at the Harvard Medical School as he simultaneously completed a PhD at MIT."
Ironically, the character of Jack Ryan, who appears in many Tom Clancy novels and was also played by Harrison Ford in the popular 1992 movie Patriot Games, is based on Steve Pieczenik. Piecznek said, "He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence community knew about it." Pieczenik noted CIA physicians had visited bin Laden in July 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai. "He was already very sick from Marfan syndrome and he was already dying, so nobody had to kill him," added Pieczenik, stating that bin Laden died shortly after 9/11 in his Tora Bora cave complex." [DB Note: For the record, no such "complexes" were every discovered by NATO or US troops.]
Pieczenik said that the decision to launch the hoax now was made because Obama had reached a low with plummeting approval ratings and the fact that the birther issue was blowing up in his face, according to the article. "This is orchestrated, I mean when you have people sitting around and watching a sitcom, basically the operations center of the White House, and you have a president coming out almost zombie-like telling you they just killed Osama bin Laden who was already dead nine years ago." Both bin Laden and the false flag 9/11 event, according to Pieceznek, "were used in the same way that 9/11 was used to mobilize the emotions and feelings of the American people in order to go to a war that had to be justified through a narrative that Bush junior created and Cheney created about the world of terrorism."
During his interview with the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Pieczenik also asserted he was directly told by a prominent general that 9/11 was a stand down and a false flag operation, and that he is prepared to go to a grand jury to reveal the general's name. "They ran the attacks," said Pieczenik, naming Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Elliott Abrams, and Condoleezza Rice among others as having been directly involved. "It was called a stand down, a false flag operation in order to mobilize the American public under false pretenses….it was told to me even by the general on the staff of Wolfowitz – I will go in front of a federal committee and swear on perjury who the name was of the individual so that we can break it open," said Pieczenik, adding that he was "furious" and "knew it had happened."
Posted by Justin on 05/05/11 05:37 AM
What's with the registration DB, you want everyone on file or something?
Anyhow, one point I haven't seen made is that if Bin Laden was killed just the other day in some house in Pakistan with only a few others, it would seem that he was petty well isolated.
This indicates to me that Al Quaida is no longer a functioning organisation & thus poses no threat (if it ever did).