The acts of terrorists are designed by terrorism’s ultimate, but often hidden, leaders with this slogan in mind: The Action is in the reaction. The reaction to terrorist acts is implemented by national-governments and international governments upon governmental policies, actions, laws, treaties, etc. Government policies are implemented upon the citizens of countries affected by those governments. But to what ends would those organizing, funding, training, and arming terrorists be aiming terrorist conspiracies to launch attacks at America? What outcome is desired by those behind the international terror network?

                One chief and ultimate outcome the leaders of International Communism and communist nations have desired from their terrorism is the overthrow of existing governments in favor of a global government with their oligarchy at the helm. 

                In America some, whom we could describe as Internationalists in American academia and political circles, desire a similar outcome to be brought from the “crucible” of terrible crises, a global government, a world effectively controlled by the United Nations, a “new world order.”

                In the February 24, 1961, Study Memorandum No. 7, A WORLD EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED NATIONS, by Lincoln P. Bloomfield, was deemed completed and submitted to the Institute for Defense Analyses and the Department of State. It was a report prepared for project VULCAN, a study made by the Special Studies Group of IDA, contracted for by the Department of State, we read in its opening summary:

                “A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which ‘world government’ would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force.  Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization rather than in individual national units, and would assume the effective operation of a general disarmament agreement.  While this supranational organization—the United Nations—would not necessarily be the organization as it now exists, the present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.”

                Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield, a member of The Council on Foreign Relations,  continues in the report to lay out a hypothetical model of what a UN controlled world might look like and how it could be helped by political leaders to come about.  He plots out the role of disarmament of nations and subsequent armament of the United Nations needed to bring about a preponderance of deadly force in the hands of The United Nations so that it can enjoy the monopoly-power of armaments to enforce its will upon any recalcitrant nation-states.  But to me, one of the most interesting sections of the document is the section of the report where he writes about “PRINCIPAL PROBLEMS IN ACHJIEVING A WORLD ORDER.”

                In that section Dr. Bloomfield writes about the global and national political environment and how to change it. In 1961, of course, a major component of the global political environment was recognized as the International Communist power, especially as vested in the Soviet Union. For achieving a global government, Professor Bloomfield pointed out that “For purposes of this exercise, we assume that, if the communists would agree, the West would favor ‘a world effectively controlled by the United Nations.’” 

                Then Dr. Bloomfield, an MIT professor of Political Science at the time, writes, “The remaining question is then how to transform and tame the forces of communism, in any event to the point where the present international system might be radically reshaped.” (I believe anyone who wants a description of how that goal of taming the forces of communism has since been accomplished could read the excellent book, The Peristroika Deception, still available from www.shopjbs.org .)

                Further on, Dr. Bloomfield states, “The other condition, which puts the possibility [of world government] within a more foreseeable time span , is a crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war situation so grave or commonly menacing that deeply-rooted attitudes and practices are sufficiently shaken to open the possibility of a revolution in world political arrangements. The assumption has to be made here that one or the other of these conditions has come about and that the communists have consequently been brought to a significant mitigation of their doctrine.”

                So, if Bloomfield’s suggestions have been followed at all by power-elites in America who received the report and were influenced by it, and who would have handed down its advice to future leaders, and if the plan has been followed by counterparts in Russia who may be enabling such a planned establishment of world government to unfold, then, we should ask ourselves, have we, since 1961, seen any evidence reported of a mellowing of communism? Indeed we have. In fact repeatedly we in the West have been told that Communism is dead. The Berlin Wall came down so don’t worry, be happy.  We are reminded constantly that the Russians and Chinese leaders are now “our partners” in economic realms such as trade and within the World Trade Organization (WTO), partners in the War on Terrorism, and partners in addressing global environmental concerns. We’re all one big happy global family.

                But what about the “crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war situation so grave or commonly menacing that deeply-rooted attitudes and practices are sufficiently shaken to open the possibility of a revolution in world political arrangements,” have we seen such crises brought into being? 

                We could list many crises of course, beginning with the production of one global environmental crisis after another since the late 1960s including: global warming, acid rain, deforestation, ozone holes, and now “climate change.” These are environmental-crises trumpeted endlessly as justification for bringing about increases in governmental powers and regulations on both a national and an international stage as we see reflected in the Cap and Trade bill and the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change slated for December 7-18, 2009 in Copenhagen (http://unfccc.int/2860.php  ). 

                We see international and national wars on pandemic-disease with its attendant fear campaigns to frighten people about: the AIDs virus, the Ebola virus, the Hanta virus, the Bird flu, the Swine flu, etc.  These campaigns bring justification for more strengthening of government authority at the national level and beyond to the UN World Health Organization (WHO). That government ”health” authority extends to our own personal mortal bodies as we see pressure to accept swine flu inoculations, or to eradicate babies through government funded abortions to alleviate an imagined “Population crisis,” etc.

                We have seen an international financial crisis brought on by the policies of central banks, quasi governmental institutions (i.e. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) that effects many nations at this time. That crisis has been used to justify a call by the G-20, by Russian leaders, and by Chinese leaders for a new global monetary authority, a global monetary system, even a global currency.  British Prime Minister Brown even called for a “New World Order.”

                Now, let’s look at other crises that fit this scenarios of a “crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war situation” that can be viewed by people worldwide as “commonly menacing.”  How about acts of terrorism, does a global-terrorist network and acts of terrorism appear to be a frightening enough menace to push people into accepting a “revolution in world political arrangements” or not? 

                Certainly it can be shown that International Communists have always been partial to using terrorism as a way of producing reactions in politics that they hope will favor the accomplishment of their global ends, haven’t they? Sometimes they fund, arm, and train terror networks directly, other times they have been known to have surrogate nations fulfill such functions.

                Often Communist national governments have themselves perpetrated acts of terror upon populations openly and by military force to gain their ends of domination. Take for example September 1, 1983, when leaders of the Communist Soviet Union ordered aloft a pair of Soviet interceptor jets to shoot down a civilian Korean Air Lines Flight 007, en route from Alaska to Seoul, and ordered their pilots to obliterate the commercial airliner using air-to-air missiles. That act of military terrorism resulted in 269 civilians being killed, including the then CEO of The John Birch Society, Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald, M.D.  (http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/world/270-kal-flight-007-remembered  )

                Terrorism has been sponsored by some national governments throughout the 20^th and into the 21^st century as a political weapon. (see booklet: Exposing Terrorism, by Arthur Thompson).

                Despite a great deal of intelligence and prior warnings about al-Qaeda’s intention to commander commercial aircraft to use as missiles to attack America, and to create bombs of commercial aircraft, that had been reported to the FBI, to President Bill Clinton, to President George W. Bush, and to others prior to September 11, 2001, there was a failure by top leaders in America to take preventative action to warn the airline companies to take action to harden cockpit security in airliners, to arm pilots, or to request that air marshals be aboard commercial aircraft.  (Read the book: TRIPLE CROSS, by Peter Lance.)

                September 11, 2001, Americans from coast to coast, and in Hawaii, rediscovered what we had once understood from the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941, that our nation was vulnerable to foreign attack. We learned that morning that America was vulnerable particularly to a well-planned, well-financed, tightly-coordinated, simultaneous attack by a team of conspiring, international terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, a terror-team who had infiltrated our nation.  The conspiracy of foreign-terrorists, who had hijacked Commercial airliners from airports in Boston, Washington, and Newark, used the hijacked airliners as guided missiles against their chosen targets within American cities. The hijackers killed over 3,000 Americans and others in a single day. Suddenly, there was a very visible renewal of a “crisis” that was viewed as “commonly menacing” that caught everyone’s attention across the USA, Europe, and the rest of the globe—a crisis that has been called “Islamic terrorism.”

                That morning, we learned that the FBI, CIA, Army Intelligence, and other security agencies had failed to protect America again from another attack by terrorists upon American soil, but this attack was even more destructive than the previous al-Qaeda attack of February 27, 1993 upon the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers.

                This time, September 11, 2001, with so many murdered by the terrorist attack, the reaction by President Bush to commit America to a new “War on Terrorism” was swift, even though he lacked any kind of declaration of war by Congress upon a nation for backing up the al-Qaeda team of terrorists.  It took less than a week for President George W. Bush to announce that there would be a consolidation of federal police power into a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

                The War On Terrorism has been describe as a “global war on terrorism” with indefinite time frames, enemies, and expanding need for expensive American military involvements in foreign lands entangled in coalitions such as NATO.  Two large and ongoing military installments of the War on Terrorism are our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and our continuing military occupations of the same nations.

                What other outcomes have resulted from the 9/11 terrorist attack? Another response to the attack occurred on September 13, 2001, we read on page 327 of THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT,  “President Bush promised to provide $20-billion for New York City, in addition to the $20-billion the Budget Director had guessed the country might need as a whole.” So obviously there was to be a commitment of federal funds in enormous proportions from day one to the new war on terrorism and to rectifying terrorism’s consequences to our nation as well.  In additions, the billions upon billions now spent upon the middle-eastern wars boggle the mind.

                Another result of the 9/11 terror attacks was seen within the week of the 9/11 attacks, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) held a televised meeting to announce the fact that they had suggested that just such a Homeland Security Agency should be formed months earlier and that had America listened the nation wouldn’t have had to suffer such an attack.

                Within a week after the 9/11 terror attacks, President George W. Bush had announced to America that he was in effect implementing the CFR’s plan since he was creating a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and appointing as its Chief the then governor of Pennsylvania. While he didn’t point to the CFR as the originator of the plan to consolidate so many government agencies into one centralized DHS, he was nevertheless carrying into reality their suggested plan even before a bill to do so had been introduced to Congress.

                Another result from the 9/11 terror attacks was the unqualified Congressional acceptance and passage of the Patriot Act with all its attendant allowances of government intrusions upon our private communications. Enough has been expounded on this Act without my adding to it here.

                Americans demanded to know how such an attack was not prevented by our intelligence community. They wanted to know who was to blame for the failures inside the White House,  the CIA, the FBI to discover and stop the al-Qaeda conspiracy from murdering so many Americans.  Congress and President Bush created the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Public Law 107-306, November27, 2002).  From that Commission came THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT which purported to present to us the entire story of how the 9/11 tragedy occurred.

                What are the results from that Report?  Of course one result is we have the written-story which the federal government’s Commission on Terrorist Attacks has produced to explain their version of what happened, who did it, and how it came about. That’s an important piece of reference material to compare evidence to in order to see if the government’s Commission has told the truth or covered up important information about who’s to blame.  Investigative Peter Lance, in his book Triple Cross,  has done an extensive study into cover-up by the FBI and other agencies concerning their failures to “connect the dots” of what they knew prior to 9/11 to prevent the attack for being carried out.

                Another outcome of from THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT has been the use of its suggestions to implement certain new federal initiatives into law such as the Real ID Act.  The ten Commission members, including four men who are also members of The Council on Foreign Relations, included several chapters in their report that put forward recommendations for Congress, the States and law enforcement to implement in America to protect us from terrorists in the future. These recommendations are reactions to terrorism as well.

                One such recommendation on page 389 of THE 9/11 COMMISON REPORT says:

“Recommendation:  The Department of Homeland Security, properly supported by the Congress, should complete, as quickly as possible, a biometric entry-exit screening system, including a single system for speeding qualified travelers. It should be integrated with the system that provides benefits to foreigners seeking to stay in the United States. Linking biometric passports to good data systems and decision making is a fundamental goal.  No one can hide his or her debt by acquiring a credit card with a slightly different name. Yet today, a terrorist can defeat the link to electronic records by tossing away an old passport and slightly altering the name in the new one.”

                On the same page we see the REPORT discussing a global standard used for identification as we read: “The international community arrives at international standards for the design of passports through the [UN] International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).  The global standard for identification is a digital photograph; fingerprints are optional.”

                So another outcome, we have seen national standards for ID pressed upon the State governments by the federal Congress through the Real ID Act. Then, the Congress was seeking a national data bank to track the people who soon would have the federally mandated standards implemented into their drivers licenses, in effect creating a federal identification system instead of a state system, centralizing data and control more and more in the Federal power.  In Arizona the next step was to seek a Drivers License that also conformed with international standards to bring us even closer to a system of International ID that, if conforming to International Standards, would ultimately end with the United Nations setting those ID standards if we extended the lines into the future.

                Our neighbors to the South in Mexico have already adopted the use of an implantable chip under the skin as an identification method for government officials. The Verichip is available now for use in human beings as an identification method and a tracking device and as a way to activate databases such as a planned national health care data base. See one of several articles The Deseret Morning News has published about the chip extolling its benefits for individuals and families and denying any serious threat of government or corporations tracking an individual’s activities:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/913009/Family-in-Florida-pioneers-implant-of-computer-chips.html

                Below is a brasschektv website that plays a friendly advertisement now available to help convince the populace that views it that they should allow the “chip” to be introduced under their skin as a new identification method to make us all “safer.”

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/720.html

                Then an assertion is made in THE 9/11 COMMISION REPORT requiring increased collaboration between nations:

“Recommendation: The U.S. government cannot meet its own obligations to the American people to prevent the entry of terrorists without a major effort to collaborate with other governments.  We should do more to exchange terrorist information with trusted allies and raise U.S. and global border security standards for travel and border crossing over the medium and long term through extensive international cooperation.” (page 390)

                So another outcome from the report is recommendations for more integration of and sharing of  intelligence between nations and international-collaboration, a kind of integration of national intelligence communities. Later, George W. Bush would initiate his Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) plans with Mexico and Canada that sought a deeper integration of security agencies between the three nations as part of the vision of another CFR member, Robert A. Pastor.  All this integration between nations is for our “Security” and our “prosperity” just as it was in Europe when the people of the European nations were tricked and trapped into the EU and virtually lost their national, political independence.

                Can we see the dynamics of fear used to justify government officials further growing government involvement in our lives? Can we see that government involvement  surrounding us as a series of crises are pointed to in order to engender that fear response in us? 

                We are told there’s a health care crisis in America and only government can solve it and voila, October 7, 2009, the House of Representatives passes H.R. 3962, the 1,981 page AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA ACT.  More government in our lives at the most personal level!

               Isn’t government policy at home and abroad driven by “crises management” now? The crises can be manufactured, partly real, or imagined (i.e. human caused global warming), but each crisis is leading us deeper and deeper into a dependence on government intervention and a reliance on government guiding our lives with more and more regulations until we are no longer free human beings.

                For decades haven't we heard an increase in the news media and politicians talking about crises, crises management, about global solutions to crises, and globalization as the ideal?  Will America read the handwriting on the wall in time to extricate herself from the evil schemers taking our freedoms away?  We Americans who have been warned must make that handwriting explicit for fellow Americans. Peel the layers of the onion away for our fellow Americans so they can see the hidden truth about what’s being done to them, by whom, and for what purposes.

             This is a good time to give Christmas gift subscriptions to The New American magazine to bring the truth to your friends.