The book above named is a marvelous anthology of 28 all-star thinkers’ reflections (notably, Paul Craig Roberts, Mujahid Kamran, A.K. Dewdney, Barry Martinez, Nick Kollerstrom, Henry Makow, Stephen Lendman, etc., etc.) on the notorious terrorist attacks in Paris and other places over the past two years, their authorship, inspiration, and meaning, for the most part concluding that the attacks were staged and prosecuted by the powers that be, not by organizations or networks of Muslim terrorists. All but two of the essays argue that position. The reason this writing is dubbed a “sort of” review is that I have not attempted to characterize separately each of the 28 essays, since to do so adequately would require 28 reviews.
Instead, I have eschewed such an exhaustive review, in favor of an evaluation of what I consider the book’s core exchange, the outstandingly-productive debate between the main proposition’s two detractors, Gilad Atzmon and Eric Walberg, and the lead protagonist of the central thesis, Dr. Kevin Barrett, the work’s deft organizer, in a triad of chapters placed near the end of the book.
Atzmon and Walberg essentially argue, completely without recourse to details of the evidence of the false-flag nature and role of the various related terrorist operations, as laid out in the opening twenty-three signature essays, that a false-flag op in any particular case of terrorism, whether postulating Mossad involvement or not, would be too complex and involve too many players and coordination too intricate involving diverse factions, to be plausible as an explanation.
The obvious primary answer to this has to be that whatever lay behind the phenomena of the attacks would have to be complex, so complexity doesn’t at all preclude false-flag authorship or sponsorship. And since the different manifestations (Paris1, Paris2, San Bernardino, and afterward Brussels) are indisputably all linked in a series, what is really rife for exploration is a landscape of causation, not singular events. Rather, a set-up in place of whatever sort is fairly obviously involved, productive of a whole landscape constituted of a sequence of linked events materializing one upon another upon another… day-in, day-out as is deemed necessary. And, as far as states doing this, rather than autonomous terror organizations, or postulated “networks”: if the visible portion and workings of modern super-states are labyrinthian by nature, then why not their corresponding portions intended to be covert? We know that such exist. And if secretive modern states with the means and capability did not in fact operate to manipulate events and outcomes routinely in what they see as their favor, they would most assuredly be missing a golden opportunity.
The opening twenty-three essays in this most-impressive cavalcade effectively compile and apply evidence that the Paris2 attacks were in fact internally generated by agencies of the U.S. and allied states. They indicate convincingly that the prime motive of the attacks was to scare and convince soft European allies of the U.S., both their officials and their populations, in order to strongly reinforce in action their will and allegiance to fulfilling U.S. Mideast and beyond war aims. Also involved in the likely calculation would be aligned aggressive policies aimed at Russia, Central Asia, etc. This book, in the vanguard of documents heralding a more-recent era in western thinking concerning shock events in general is, if for that reason alone, highly recommended.
As for Atzmon and Walberg, the duo who criticize the foregoing essays and essayists for the “implausibility” of their false-flag attribution of the attacks without engaging any of the evidence set forth, their shortcoming in misreading (or reading through antiquated lenses) the character of the attacks can best be attributed to their (evidently willful) lack of familiarity with the new landscape of causation common to the various linked manifestations, albeit of necessity sketchily described.
This same sort of off-throwing “lack of familiarity” with background conditions was responsible for our “primitive” ancestors’ attribution of violent storms to giants battling, or of the pronounced vertical crenellations on the gigantic volcanic plug rising from the northern Great Plains now known as Devil’s Tower to a hypothesized outraged giant bear. In both cases – if they had but known and recognized the true background elements…
Kevin Barrett, in his essay, takes this, perhaps the single, defining argument of the chaotic era we are now entering one truly Herculean step further. He suggests that what is being birthed in this book is, in fact, a vital new paradigm of western understanding, vying to displace the old. In other words, he contends that the evidence-based arguments of those we can perhaps celebrate as “The First Twenty-Three”, which comprise the bulk of this landmark book, in concert proclaiming, rather uniquely in print, that the blanket causation of the sort of events described was what we have called for a while now MIHOP – that the states deliberately and visibly claiming shared victimhood have themselves, true to their evolved, demonstrably amoral, partly-hidden nature, MADE IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE.
I more than think he’s onto something, especially prospectively. Indeed, it would be hard to even imagine a current non-fiction book more worthy of everyone’s serious attention than this one. Happy Reading (and sharing) to all!
Buy new:
$16.34$16.34
Buy new:
$16.34$16.34
FREE delivery May 3 - 6
