PDF
Download Online Version

Tracking the „Deep State“

Von Tommy Hansen , veröffentlicht am: 5. June 2019, Kategorien: Uncategorized

Editor’s note: In April 2018, Free21’s founder and editor-in-chief, the late Tommy Hansen, traveled around Denmark with what turned out to be his last tour of talks: “Tracking the Deep State”. At that time he was already very much marked by his illness, but undertook to complete the entire tour and had also planned subsequent talks on the City of London. As part of his last wishes, he asked the Team-Free21DK to transcribe and translate the “Deep State” talk so – as he wrote – “People will know why Free21 is here!”
Tommy Hansen updated his talks from country to country, from city to city, and this is why we have chosen to transcribe the talk of the very last destination. The Danish version is transcribed 100% according to Tommy Hansen’s spoken words, which might look more like a “story” rather than an actual article. As we have no spoken English words, we adapted them from the Danish version as properly as possible. We have links and photos added which Tommy left behind on his computer.

Several small local newspapers welcomed the published press release and among others did Carsten Tolbøll write in Morsø Folkeblads Ugeavis both on the talk and on Free21 under the headline “Critical talk on the American role in wars[1].”

 

 

The Press Release

For most people peace in the world is a heartfelt desire; no sane individual would ask for war. Nevertheless, we are now facing an alleged war threat from Russia again, only a quarter of a century after the Soviet Union voluntarily withdraw troops from Eastern Germany to allow Germany’s reunification. Putin takes every opportunity to point out that one could only in a “crazy man’s brain” imagine that Russia would attack a Western country, the relative strength of the USA and the former superpower in the East makes the thought ridiculous in itself. However, we do not hear anything about this in the Western media, which on the very contrary spread aligned allegations of “Russian aggression” and Putin’s efforts to break down Western democracies. For decades, the media has massively backed up every US military invention, although recent history proves that the United States have repeatedly conceived bogeymen, fabricated false evidence, and were the driving force behind illegal regime changes in numerous countries. The critical appraisal of US wars disappeared in the wake of the Vietnam War, and ever since media and politicians in the West have “aligned”.
How comes that even left-wing and socialist-oriented parties join the round-table and agree with a nod when theese modern wars are started? Where in the political spectrum is today’s Olof Palme? Nobody is criticizing the United States nowadays. If an American president makes a statement, we accept it at face value. If a Russian president does the same, we promptly reject it as propaganda. Why are media and politicians not as critical to the US as to Russia or China? Unlike Russia and China, the United States have a proclaimed and formulated geopolitical strategy and want to gain influence throughout the globe. 80 percent of the US military is located outside the United States. 80 percent of the Russian military is situated inside Russia. The US have 12 aircraft carriers and plan to build even more. Russia has one. The United States have more than 900 official military bases outside the United States, Russia has two. NATO countries spend more than 12 times the annual Russian military expenditure.

Troops, tanks and other US military equipment pours into Germany month by month, and today we have the largest concentration of fit for action troops in Europe since World War II. Is all this necessary to protect us from Putin, or are other interests behind this? During the First World War, the US media and publishing houses willingly wrote about the “wretched” Germans the Americans should go to war with. The same happened during World War II. Immediately afterwards, the image of the enemy changed and throughout the Cold War the fear of a communist takeover was exploited as bedrock for a monstrous growth in the war industry.
The prospect of peace in Europe after 1992 was not only a disaster for the war industry – it also is straightly opposing the declared US geopolitical objectives – to ensure for all times that no relations between Europe, most notably Germany and Russia, are being established, so that we do not jointly build an economic and cultural superpower.
With September 11th, 2001 the “War on Terror” began, which again brought the geopolitical tiles into a favorable position through the eyes of the United States. The plans to attack and destabilize a number of Muslim countries after 2001 were not a response to the terrorist attack on September 11th. They go several years back.
Again, the media has played a major role in conveying the new bogeymen – from Al-Qaeda and ISIS to Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein and Syrian’s elected president, Assad. The all-new bogeyman now is China, where the United States openly prepare an armed conflict, too.
What is called “Deep State” in the US has long taken over control of democratic developments. Kennedy was the last president to address the problem. Confidence in the American system might for most American voters rest in a very small place. The question is what role does this phenomenon, “Deep State”, play on European ground?

 

Tommy Hansen: “Here we see the reaction of the press. No doubt that “yes, now we hit” the evil ones “[10]. Screenshot: “Sundag Express”, April 15, 2018. “Sunday Mirror” April 14, 2018. “Daily News”, April 7, 2017.

 

 

Years of wondering.

I’m really happy to be here. It’s a super … It’s a pleasure to see so many people gathered. It’s really great to be in West Jutland. I can sense it because people leave their cozy homes and go out to something as old-fashioned as attending a talk, and that is simply wonderful. Because in this way public opinion is created.
This is how we have been doing it for centuries. Until the media came and the journalists and the politicians and all this. But in the old days and beyond, yes, for many, many centuries, we formed public opinion by talking to each other. And matters which concerned us in a way – we talked about them in groups, and the big ones – they were then brought to the thingstead. This system – it still lives on, but it doesn’t work anymore.
And the title of the talk tonight is called “Tracking the Deep State”, and that means – which it’s very important to hold on to – that means we’re on the track of this. I will bring you to the track, but neither can nor will I prove that the so-called “Deep State” exists. Generally,  I don’t want to convince you about anything at all, because you have to find out yourself. That’s the difference between a journalist and a politician, for example … It’s that the politicians, they want to persuade people in a way … Well, I don’t have to say much more. A journalist should be able to confine himself to saying: “I am dealing with facts, now listen; this is the way in which I mean things correlate. “And since there are many free and independent journalists and many free media outlets, you know what to decide on the basis of it. And it is working, it’s a beautiful system. The only problem is, it doesn’t function.
For many years up to … well, I have been – we can just as well take it this way – I have been a journalist throughout my life, my adult life at least, and for many, many years. In the late 80s and through the 90s, “it” began. I then began to wonder: How the hell can it be that the media simply are approaching specific issues onesidedly and superficially, and they all agree on what to say? And it sucked more and more. And I didn’t really give it any thought because I thought: Well, that is how it is – because I didn’t know it – because there are some ruling the media. I still lived in that illusion at that time. So I pushed it aside and took it as a part of my daily life.
And my daily life was that I was a business journalist, and I made good money of it, especially in West Jutland, by making company profiles for small and medium-sized entities. And they were online as PDF files [2]. So what I do today is that I do journalism in the same way. Our articles are available as PDF files on the web. So there is the recurrent theme. It is nothing new at all.

 

 


Tommy Hansen: “We see precisely here that Trump orders” now-and-here “attacks on Syria, and that is to reciprocate yet another, which they fortunately write; “Alleged” – thus an alleged attack [9]. Screenshot: The Independent, April 14, 2018.

 

Tommy Hansen: “Here a professor, Günther Meyer, says that as early as 2012, there were reports that Qatar had begun to supply Al-Qaeda groups with gas equipment, so that they could start making attacks in Syria attributable to Assad. Al-Qaeda. “[11

 

A light dawned on me

I was sitting in the woods up there in Trend and saw September 11th, 2001 on the telly, probably as most of all others did. And I thought it was violent and mysterious, and I did hear, I did very well hear what they said on tv the same day or the day after. And I do not know if we in Denmark have forgotten it, at least the journalists themselves think to have forgotten it. Because on the first day they were speaking in the direct transmissions[3], – they referred to reporters at the site, and we learnt; “there’s a fourth explosion”, “there’s a secondary explosion”, explosions and explosions and explosions. And they had military experts within, analyzing the whole incident, which said that almost only a state can be the driving force behind this. They had building experts, demolition experts within to say that these towers we saw collapsing, this on the nose resembles a controlled demolition. First and second day, as mentioned, the television told us, that what happened over there was…, we were told, there were bombs and explosions. That it is a controlled demolition. It looks like a controlled demolition.
And then, on the third and fourth and fifth day it was over, nothing was said. The dialogue stopped. There simply was silence. And it took me a few years before I even digested it, because I was still waiting for them to follow up on that story.
Well, I know what is oing on in a news room. So, up to this day I am still wondering  how on Earth the colleagues showed up at work on the third day not asking themselves and each other: “How will we follow up on that from yesterday?”. But from then on it was aligned to a degree of which I only today start realizing the consequenses of.
Over the last 3 years I have talked about war and peace in Europe, about NATO, the CIA, about Syria, Libya, Ukraine, all of these things. And I have done this with a background of knowledge I gained after I had moved to Germany. I did so as a consequence of my book on September 11, 2001[4]. I just want to tell you, I did bring it to the thingstead, because I actually sent my book on September 11, 2001, to all Danish MPs, almost everyone, as a Christmas present in 2008. And I didn’t hear anything from them, I didn’t hear anything from any of them. So I tried to bring a case to the thingstead and the thingstead didn’t respond. None of the wings.
And then a light dawned on me, I thought: Something is grating in our basic system. I do remember how I was sitting there waiting beside my telephone. In fact, I thought the Prime Minister would call me and say thank you. He didn’t. A couple of times a day I checked if I had paid the bill…
Well, but my book led me to a Swiss historian named Daniele Ganser[5], who is one of the few historians who critically deal with 9/11 and all of the entire NATO universe of wars which we actually are entangled in. This brought me in touch with KenFM[6], who runs Germany’s largest alternative TV channel. He*s fairly close to getting more likes than Angela Merkel, and it’s not only because they are not content with Merkel.
I moved to Germany, got in touch with, – today we are more than 200, – but quickly became dozens of independent journalists who had left their jobs at the big media companies because they were not allowed to work independently. And it came as a shock over me, but a positive shock, because I was up here in the woods and thought I was alone in the world with this attitude. So this helped me knowing a lot of things today which I didn’t know before. And I will try to share them with you.
Most of them are simple facts – and there are source references. So you can check yourself. And then there are a few – what should we say – analyses, and you yourself  have to decide whether they are good or bad. I’m a journalist and I’m here to do my job.

 

 

Tommy Hansen: “Seymour Hersh about one of the alleged sarin attacks: When Obama accused it, he ignored what he knew because his intelligence community had told him [12] Screenshot: Seymour Hersh on Twitter December 19, 2013.

 

“The John Wayne Syndrome”

It is important to have him here because he is my childhood hero. John Wayne and his values were what I grew up with as a boy up in Blokhus, and I still remember when I came out of the cinema, I was completely prepared. Because if there happened to be any injustice in my surroundings,  I surely should take care of it, right? I was John Wayne in my little, simpelhearted children’s world.
What first dawned on me recently, is that – what I now call the “John Wayne Syndrome” – it is that I actually thought all Americans were like John Wayne. So when Nixon in ’71 left the gold standard[7], – I was a little boy, I didn’t know anything – where he says, “There is an attack on the dollar! We’re gonna defend it!”Then I heard John Wayne saying, “There is somebody who is doing something unjust, I’ll take care of it!” This paragraph reads totally different in the Danish PDF Really quite trivial, and I actually think that a lot of adults have also heard it this way at that time because we are …
Strange enough, we do not ask critical questions when the United States comes up with something. Not anymore. We did that when there were people like Palme, Anker Jørgensen, back in time, when there were politicians with morals and with, – shall we call it ideals – where they discussed politics and not money. In that time there were some people discussing, but they are simply … The voices have silenced.
And that is why I always take John Wayne with me because I want to emphasize that I’m not in any way anti-US, I’m not anti-American in any way. I do not approve  any groups at all, because we all are human beings. But I am anti-injustice. And therefore I became a journalist. And therefore, that’s my basic picture, when I now say a whole lot of very critical things about the United States, it’s not the Americans I say it about. I say it about a combination you’ll only find in the US, of power circles which include the military, politics and finance, and this group has taken over power in the United States, and by doing so this group has also taken over power in Europe. And this is what this talk is all about.

 

 

Warfare solely on allegations

One can say it is almost absurd that today we have a president in the United States who gets his primary information from Fox News and who rules the world via Twitter[8].
So everything has stopped. It is well known that at the time of one of the alleged poison gas attacks, which was not proved to be in Syria at all, –  Trump actually saw it on Fox News and jumped up like jack in the box and said; “Well …” And guns and bullets were sent off if not his officials and all intelligence services and everybody around him told him that there is no evidence for anything. But he had just caught it on Fox News. Placing such a character in this position is very, very, very dangerous. It’s possible that it’s deliberate – I can’t tell for sure. We see here [9] that he orders a “now-and-here” attack on Syria, and that is to retaliate yet another, which they fortunately write: “alleged” – another alleged attack.
I don’t have the list, but there have been dozens of alleged poison gas attacks in Syria for years, and in all cases we were told: It was Assad. In all the cases he says, of course, that he wasn’t. And in all cases it later on emerges that then there is one thing wrong, then there is a second thing wrong, then there is a third thing wrong, and the evidence does not hold. There is zero evidence. Including the very latest, including the very latest.
We have come so far as to go to war based on a claim, on an allegation. And on the basis of that accusation, people are killed. With bombs which are – I almost want to say “made in the US” – they are, but today they are part of the Western war machine because it grows to such an extent in other European countries as well. So we are part of a – if you look at it financially  – then we are part of a positive development in the war industry.

 

 

Tommy Hansen: “A former UN weapons inspector and a professor at the Institute of Technology say they have investigated another of the alleged sarin attacks. They say: it simply couldn’t have been done. ”[13]

 

Richard Lloyd, former UN weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): „The sarin gas could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the „heart“, or from the Eastern edge, of the Syrian government controlled area.“

 

The Staging of the Press

Here we see the reaction of the press[10]. No doubt about “yes, now we hit the evil”. Those “terrible people over there”, and the Daily News shows a picture of a gassed child, just so that we keep the correlation in mind, right? I don’t have to say that this is, of course, Yellow press level. But these are exactly the tools the Western press is operating with. They all agree in advance on what to reckon. And it is very far from what I’ve learned at the journalism school.
I will show you a few examples that there is plenty of reason to doubt, specially in the case of Syria and poison gas. And I don’t know if any of this is right. The point is that the media, the big media, also knows this well. The media which is saying “Now we go to war” – they also know this well. But they choose not to inform you. You can say they publish such an article once. And then all the propaganda drowns it all out.
And here says Günther Meyer, a professor, [11] that already in 2012 there were reports that Qatar – for it not to be a lie, – had begun to give Al-Qaeda-groups gas equipment so that they could begin attacks in Syria to be blamed on Assad. Al-Qaeda.
Here, Seymour Hersh[12] says about one of the alleged sarin attacks that when Obama claimed it, he ignored what he knew because his intelligence community had told him; that the Syrian army was not the only one to have access to sarin. All these rebel groups had, too, especially the Al-Nusra front.
And what we should understand; we can just as well call it what it is: What we call rebels are terrorists and mercenaries. They are groups of terrorists  and mercenaries. It’s Al-Nusra, it’s The Muslim Brotherhood, it’s Al-Qaeda, and the United States are actively working together with all of them and overtly officially, since they (the rebel groups) now are against Assad. And this is exactly the policy that has been conducted in Syria, in Iraq.
Today, both of these countries are completely destroyed and taken over. Their infrastructure is destroyed and bombed back to infinity. And in that process, a hell of a lot of bombs have been thrown. There is a war machine running in the background, which is so constant that it is very, very scary to look at.
A former UN inspector on weapons and a professor of the Institute of Technology say[13] they have investigated another of the alleged sarin attacks. They say: It simply couldn’t have been done. And I think it was based on this;  that Trump went in and bombed some Syrian airbases. So, you know it was blamed on Assad. You know it couldn’t be done because he didn’t have any equipment that could send poison gas rockets so far. Not considering the fact that the missile had been blown on the ground.
It’s a staging to make us believe he’s using gas – these (two) people say. And the media, also in Denmark, should inform you about this when they tell you what Trump is saying. Because then we have a chance to say, “Hey, shouldn’t we just check out before we invade a country now ?” The media is sitting like this – in this field.

To be continued in the next magazine.

 

 

Kilder:

[1] Morsø Folkeblad Ugeavis, Carsen Tolbøll: ”Kritisk foredrag om amerikansk rolle i krige”, 04.04.2018. <http://www.e-pages.dk/morsoefolkeblad_ugeavisen/730/31>[2] Wikipedia: PDFnet, <https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDFnet>[3] YouTube, Loo Bidegaard: ”11 September 2001 – DR TV”, 11.03.2013, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYeKlEne2XQ>[4] Tommy Hansen: ”11 september 2001 II – stadig intet svar” 2. udgave januar 2011. Udgivet af ”pdf net – en NY tids formidling” ISBN 978-87-987227-2-4 <https://free21dk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/stadig-ingen-svar.pdf>[5] Daniele Ganser, <www.danieleganser.ch/buecher.html>[6] YouTube, KenFM: ”KenFM im Gespräch mit Tommy Hansen”, 27.08.2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcQC7PpBb7I>[7] YouTube, Carl Menger Center for the Study of Money and Banking: ”August 15, 1971 – Richard Nixon Closes the Gold Window”, 15.08.2014 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Xw5tWsOQo>[8] Twitter, Donald Trump: ”Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”, 11.04.2018. <https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/984022625440747520?lang=da>[9] Trump orders strike on syria in response alleged chemical attack, by Agency Report on 14. April, 2018, article on www.independent.co.uk/us, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3:32 p.m.[10] Cover pages of ”Sunday Express”, published 15. april, 2018. ”Sunday Mirror”, published 14. april, 2018 and  ”Daily News”, published 7. april, 2017.[11] Poison gas attack in Syria by insurgents?, by Prof. Dr. Guenther Meyer (LS) on 30. April 2013, article on nsnbc.me, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3.49 p.m.[12] Whose sarin?, by Seymour Hersh on 19. December 2013, article on twitter.com, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3.59 p.m.[13]  Richard Lloyd, Theodore A. Postol: „Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013“, 14.01.2014, <https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf>

 

 

Tracking the „Deep State“

Von Tommy Hansen , veröffentlicht am: 5. June 2019, Kategorien: Uncategorized

Editor’s note: In April 2018, Free21’s founder and editor-in-chief, the late Tommy Hansen, traveled around Denmark with what turned out to be his last tour of talks: “Tracking the Deep State”. At that time he was already very much marked by his illness, but undertook to complete the entire tour and had also planned subsequent talks on the City of London. As part of his last wishes, he asked the Team-Free21DK to transcribe and translate the “Deep State” talk so – as he wrote – “People will know why Free21 is here!”
Tommy Hansen updated his talks from country to country, from city to city, and this is why we have chosen to transcribe the talk of the very last destination. The Danish version is transcribed 100% according to Tommy Hansen’s spoken words, which might look more like a “story” rather than an actual article. As we have no spoken English words, we adapted them from the Danish version as properly as possible. We have links and photos added which Tommy left behind on his computer.

Several small local newspapers welcomed the published press release and among others did Carsten Tolbøll write in Morsø Folkeblads Ugeavis both on the talk and on Free21 under the headline “Critical talk on the American role in wars[1].”

 

 

The Press Release

For most people peace in the world is a heartfelt desire; no sane individual would ask for war. Nevertheless, we are now facing an alleged war threat from Russia again, only a quarter of a century after the Soviet Union voluntarily withdraw troops from Eastern Germany to allow Germany’s reunification. Putin takes every opportunity to point out that one could only in a “crazy man’s brain” imagine that Russia would attack a Western country, the relative strength of the USA and the former superpower in the East makes the thought ridiculous in itself. However, we do not hear anything about this in the Western media, which on the very contrary spread aligned allegations of “Russian aggression” and Putin’s efforts to break down Western democracies. For decades, the media has massively backed up every US military invention, although recent history proves that the United States have repeatedly conceived bogeymen, fabricated false evidence, and were the driving force behind illegal regime changes in numerous countries. The critical appraisal of US wars disappeared in the wake of the Vietnam War, and ever since media and politicians in the West have “aligned”.
How comes that even left-wing and socialist-oriented parties join the round-table and agree with a nod when theese modern wars are started? Where in the political spectrum is today’s Olof Palme? Nobody is criticizing the United States nowadays. If an American president makes a statement, we accept it at face value. If a Russian president does the same, we promptly reject it as propaganda. Why are media and politicians not as critical to the US as to Russia or China? Unlike Russia and China, the United States have a proclaimed and formulated geopolitical strategy and want to gain influence throughout the globe. 80 percent of the US military is located outside the United States. 80 percent of the Russian military is situated inside Russia. The US have 12 aircraft carriers and plan to build even more. Russia has one. The United States have more than 900 official military bases outside the United States, Russia has two. NATO countries spend more than 12 times the annual Russian military expenditure.

Troops, tanks and other US military equipment pours into Germany month by month, and today we have the largest concentration of fit for action troops in Europe since World War II. Is all this necessary to protect us from Putin, or are other interests behind this? During the First World War, the US media and publishing houses willingly wrote about the “wretched” Germans the Americans should go to war with. The same happened during World War II. Immediately afterwards, the image of the enemy changed and throughout the Cold War the fear of a communist takeover was exploited as bedrock for a monstrous growth in the war industry.
The prospect of peace in Europe after 1992 was not only a disaster for the war industry – it also is straightly opposing the declared US geopolitical objectives – to ensure for all times that no relations between Europe, most notably Germany and Russia, are being established, so that we do not jointly build an economic and cultural superpower.
With September 11th, 2001 the “War on Terror” began, which again brought the geopolitical tiles into a favorable position through the eyes of the United States. The plans to attack and destabilize a number of Muslim countries after 2001 were not a response to the terrorist attack on September 11th. They go several years back.
Again, the media has played a major role in conveying the new bogeymen – from Al-Qaeda and ISIS to Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein and Syrian’s elected president, Assad. The all-new bogeyman now is China, where the United States openly prepare an armed conflict, too.
What is called “Deep State” in the US has long taken over control of democratic developments. Kennedy was the last president to address the problem. Confidence in the American system might for most American voters rest in a very small place. The question is what role does this phenomenon, “Deep State”, play on European ground?

 

Tommy Hansen: “Here we see the reaction of the press. No doubt that “yes, now we hit” the evil ones “[10]. Screenshot: “Sundag Express”, April 15, 2018. “Sunday Mirror” April 14, 2018. “Daily News”, April 7, 2017.

 

 

Years of wondering.

I’m really happy to be here. It’s a super … It’s a pleasure to see so many people gathered. It’s really great to be in West Jutland. I can sense it because people leave their cozy homes and go out to something as old-fashioned as attending a talk, and that is simply wonderful. Because in this way public opinion is created.
This is how we have been doing it for centuries. Until the media came and the journalists and the politicians and all this. But in the old days and beyond, yes, for many, many centuries, we formed public opinion by talking to each other. And matters which concerned us in a way – we talked about them in groups, and the big ones – they were then brought to the thingstead. This system – it still lives on, but it doesn’t work anymore.
And the title of the talk tonight is called “Tracking the Deep State”, and that means – which it’s very important to hold on to – that means we’re on the track of this. I will bring you to the track, but neither can nor will I prove that the so-called “Deep State” exists. Generally,  I don’t want to convince you about anything at all, because you have to find out yourself. That’s the difference between a journalist and a politician, for example … It’s that the politicians, they want to persuade people in a way … Well, I don’t have to say much more. A journalist should be able to confine himself to saying: “I am dealing with facts, now listen; this is the way in which I mean things correlate. “And since there are many free and independent journalists and many free media outlets, you know what to decide on the basis of it. And it is working, it’s a beautiful system. The only problem is, it doesn’t function.
For many years up to … well, I have been – we can just as well take it this way – I have been a journalist throughout my life, my adult life at least, and for many, many years. In the late 80s and through the 90s, “it” began. I then began to wonder: How the hell can it be that the media simply are approaching specific issues onesidedly and superficially, and they all agree on what to say? And it sucked more and more. And I didn’t really give it any thought because I thought: Well, that is how it is – because I didn’t know it – because there are some ruling the media. I still lived in that illusion at that time. So I pushed it aside and took it as a part of my daily life.
And my daily life was that I was a business journalist, and I made good money of it, especially in West Jutland, by making company profiles for small and medium-sized entities. And they were online as PDF files [2]. So what I do today is that I do journalism in the same way. Our articles are available as PDF files on the web. So there is the recurrent theme. It is nothing new at all.

 

 


Tommy Hansen: “We see precisely here that Trump orders” now-and-here “attacks on Syria, and that is to reciprocate yet another, which they fortunately write; “Alleged” – thus an alleged attack [9]. Screenshot: The Independent, April 14, 2018.

 

Tommy Hansen: “Here a professor, Günther Meyer, says that as early as 2012, there were reports that Qatar had begun to supply Al-Qaeda groups with gas equipment, so that they could start making attacks in Syria attributable to Assad. Al-Qaeda. “[11

 

A light dawned on me

I was sitting in the woods up there in Trend and saw September 11th, 2001 on the telly, probably as most of all others did. And I thought it was violent and mysterious, and I did hear, I did very well hear what they said on tv the same day or the day after. And I do not know if we in Denmark have forgotten it, at least the journalists themselves think to have forgotten it. Because on the first day they were speaking in the direct transmissions[3], – they referred to reporters at the site, and we learnt; “there’s a fourth explosion”, “there’s a secondary explosion”, explosions and explosions and explosions. And they had military experts within, analyzing the whole incident, which said that almost only a state can be the driving force behind this. They had building experts, demolition experts within to say that these towers we saw collapsing, this on the nose resembles a controlled demolition. First and second day, as mentioned, the television told us, that what happened over there was…, we were told, there were bombs and explosions. That it is a controlled demolition. It looks like a controlled demolition.
And then, on the third and fourth and fifth day it was over, nothing was said. The dialogue stopped. There simply was silence. And it took me a few years before I even digested it, because I was still waiting for them to follow up on that story.
Well, I know what is oing on in a news room. So, up to this day I am still wondering  how on Earth the colleagues showed up at work on the third day not asking themselves and each other: “How will we follow up on that from yesterday?”. But from then on it was aligned to a degree of which I only today start realizing the consequenses of.
Over the last 3 years I have talked about war and peace in Europe, about NATO, the CIA, about Syria, Libya, Ukraine, all of these things. And I have done this with a background of knowledge I gained after I had moved to Germany. I did so as a consequence of my book on September 11, 2001[4]. I just want to tell you, I did bring it to the thingstead, because I actually sent my book on September 11, 2001, to all Danish MPs, almost everyone, as a Christmas present in 2008. And I didn’t hear anything from them, I didn’t hear anything from any of them. So I tried to bring a case to the thingstead and the thingstead didn’t respond. None of the wings.
And then a light dawned on me, I thought: Something is grating in our basic system. I do remember how I was sitting there waiting beside my telephone. In fact, I thought the Prime Minister would call me and say thank you. He didn’t. A couple of times a day I checked if I had paid the bill…
Well, but my book led me to a Swiss historian named Daniele Ganser[5], who is one of the few historians who critically deal with 9/11 and all of the entire NATO universe of wars which we actually are entangled in. This brought me in touch with KenFM[6], who runs Germany’s largest alternative TV channel. He*s fairly close to getting more likes than Angela Merkel, and it’s not only because they are not content with Merkel.
I moved to Germany, got in touch with, – today we are more than 200, – but quickly became dozens of independent journalists who had left their jobs at the big media companies because they were not allowed to work independently. And it came as a shock over me, but a positive shock, because I was up here in the woods and thought I was alone in the world with this attitude. So this helped me knowing a lot of things today which I didn’t know before. And I will try to share them with you.
Most of them are simple facts – and there are source references. So you can check yourself. And then there are a few – what should we say – analyses, and you yourself  have to decide whether they are good or bad. I’m a journalist and I’m here to do my job.

 

 

Tommy Hansen: “Seymour Hersh about one of the alleged sarin attacks: When Obama accused it, he ignored what he knew because his intelligence community had told him [12] Screenshot: Seymour Hersh on Twitter December 19, 2013.

 

“The John Wayne Syndrome”

It is important to have him here because he is my childhood hero. John Wayne and his values were what I grew up with as a boy up in Blokhus, and I still remember when I came out of the cinema, I was completely prepared. Because if there happened to be any injustice in my surroundings,  I surely should take care of it, right? I was John Wayne in my little, simpelhearted children’s world.
What first dawned on me recently, is that – what I now call the “John Wayne Syndrome” – it is that I actually thought all Americans were like John Wayne. So when Nixon in ’71 left the gold standard[7], – I was a little boy, I didn’t know anything – where he says, “There is an attack on the dollar! We’re gonna defend it!”Then I heard John Wayne saying, “There is somebody who is doing something unjust, I’ll take care of it!” This paragraph reads totally different in the Danish PDF Really quite trivial, and I actually think that a lot of adults have also heard it this way at that time because we are …
Strange enough, we do not ask critical questions when the United States comes up with something. Not anymore. We did that when there were people like Palme, Anker Jørgensen, back in time, when there were politicians with morals and with, – shall we call it ideals – where they discussed politics and not money. In that time there were some people discussing, but they are simply … The voices have silenced.
And that is why I always take John Wayne with me because I want to emphasize that I’m not in any way anti-US, I’m not anti-American in any way. I do not approve  any groups at all, because we all are human beings. But I am anti-injustice. And therefore I became a journalist. And therefore, that’s my basic picture, when I now say a whole lot of very critical things about the United States, it’s not the Americans I say it about. I say it about a combination you’ll only find in the US, of power circles which include the military, politics and finance, and this group has taken over power in the United States, and by doing so this group has also taken over power in Europe. And this is what this talk is all about.

 

 

Warfare solely on allegations

One can say it is almost absurd that today we have a president in the United States who gets his primary information from Fox News and who rules the world via Twitter[8].
So everything has stopped. It is well known that at the time of one of the alleged poison gas attacks, which was not proved to be in Syria at all, –  Trump actually saw it on Fox News and jumped up like jack in the box and said; “Well …” And guns and bullets were sent off if not his officials and all intelligence services and everybody around him told him that there is no evidence for anything. But he had just caught it on Fox News. Placing such a character in this position is very, very, very dangerous. It’s possible that it’s deliberate – I can’t tell for sure. We see here [9] that he orders a “now-and-here” attack on Syria, and that is to retaliate yet another, which they fortunately write: “alleged” – another alleged attack.
I don’t have the list, but there have been dozens of alleged poison gas attacks in Syria for years, and in all cases we were told: It was Assad. In all the cases he says, of course, that he wasn’t. And in all cases it later on emerges that then there is one thing wrong, then there is a second thing wrong, then there is a third thing wrong, and the evidence does not hold. There is zero evidence. Including the very latest, including the very latest.
We have come so far as to go to war based on a claim, on an allegation. And on the basis of that accusation, people are killed. With bombs which are – I almost want to say “made in the US” – they are, but today they are part of the Western war machine because it grows to such an extent in other European countries as well. So we are part of a – if you look at it financially  – then we are part of a positive development in the war industry.

 

 

Tommy Hansen: “A former UN weapons inspector and a professor at the Institute of Technology say they have investigated another of the alleged sarin attacks. They say: it simply couldn’t have been done. ”[13]

 

Richard Lloyd, former UN weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): „The sarin gas could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the „heart“, or from the Eastern edge, of the Syrian government controlled area.“

 

The Staging of the Press

Here we see the reaction of the press[10]. No doubt about “yes, now we hit the evil”. Those “terrible people over there”, and the Daily News shows a picture of a gassed child, just so that we keep the correlation in mind, right? I don’t have to say that this is, of course, Yellow press level. But these are exactly the tools the Western press is operating with. They all agree in advance on what to reckon. And it is very far from what I’ve learned at the journalism school.
I will show you a few examples that there is plenty of reason to doubt, specially in the case of Syria and poison gas. And I don’t know if any of this is right. The point is that the media, the big media, also knows this well. The media which is saying “Now we go to war” – they also know this well. But they choose not to inform you. You can say they publish such an article once. And then all the propaganda drowns it all out.
And here says Günther Meyer, a professor, [11] that already in 2012 there were reports that Qatar – for it not to be a lie, – had begun to give Al-Qaeda-groups gas equipment so that they could begin attacks in Syria to be blamed on Assad. Al-Qaeda.
Here, Seymour Hersh[12] says about one of the alleged sarin attacks that when Obama claimed it, he ignored what he knew because his intelligence community had told him; that the Syrian army was not the only one to have access to sarin. All these rebel groups had, too, especially the Al-Nusra front.
And what we should understand; we can just as well call it what it is: What we call rebels are terrorists and mercenaries. They are groups of terrorists  and mercenaries. It’s Al-Nusra, it’s The Muslim Brotherhood, it’s Al-Qaeda, and the United States are actively working together with all of them and overtly officially, since they (the rebel groups) now are against Assad. And this is exactly the policy that has been conducted in Syria, in Iraq.
Today, both of these countries are completely destroyed and taken over. Their infrastructure is destroyed and bombed back to infinity. And in that process, a hell of a lot of bombs have been thrown. There is a war machine running in the background, which is so constant that it is very, very scary to look at.
A former UN inspector on weapons and a professor of the Institute of Technology say[13] they have investigated another of the alleged sarin attacks. They say: It simply couldn’t have been done. And I think it was based on this;  that Trump went in and bombed some Syrian airbases. So, you know it was blamed on Assad. You know it couldn’t be done because he didn’t have any equipment that could send poison gas rockets so far. Not considering the fact that the missile had been blown on the ground.
It’s a staging to make us believe he’s using gas – these (two) people say. And the media, also in Denmark, should inform you about this when they tell you what Trump is saying. Because then we have a chance to say, “Hey, shouldn’t we just check out before we invade a country now ?” The media is sitting like this – in this field.

To be continued in the next magazine.

 

 

Kilder:

[1] Morsø Folkeblad Ugeavis, Carsen Tolbøll: ”Kritisk foredrag om amerikansk rolle i krige”, 04.04.2018. <http://www.e-pages.dk/morsoefolkeblad_ugeavisen/730/31>[2] Wikipedia: PDFnet, <https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDFnet>[3] YouTube, Loo Bidegaard: ”11 September 2001 – DR TV”, 11.03.2013, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYeKlEne2XQ>[4] Tommy Hansen: ”11 september 2001 II – stadig intet svar” 2. udgave januar 2011. Udgivet af ”pdf net – en NY tids formidling” ISBN 978-87-987227-2-4 <https://free21dk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/stadig-ingen-svar.pdf>[5] Daniele Ganser, <www.danieleganser.ch/buecher.html>[6] YouTube, KenFM: ”KenFM im Gespräch mit Tommy Hansen”, 27.08.2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcQC7PpBb7I>[7] YouTube, Carl Menger Center for the Study of Money and Banking: ”August 15, 1971 – Richard Nixon Closes the Gold Window”, 15.08.2014 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Xw5tWsOQo>[8] Twitter, Donald Trump: ”Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”, 11.04.2018. <https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/984022625440747520?lang=da>[9] Trump orders strike on syria in response alleged chemical attack, by Agency Report on 14. April, 2018, article on www.independent.co.uk/us, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3:32 p.m.[10] Cover pages of ”Sunday Express”, published 15. april, 2018. ”Sunday Mirror”, published 14. april, 2018 and  ”Daily News”, published 7. april, 2017.[11] Poison gas attack in Syria by insurgents?, by Prof. Dr. Guenther Meyer (LS) on 30. April 2013, article on nsnbc.me, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3.49 p.m.[12] Whose sarin?, by Seymour Hersh on 19. December 2013, article on twitter.com, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3.59 p.m.[13]  Richard Lloyd, Theodore A. Postol: „Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013“, 14.01.2014, <https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf>

 

 

Tracking the „Deep State“

Von Tommy Hansen , veröffentlicht am: 5. June 2019, Kategorien: Editor's Choice, International politik, Krig og Fred, Transskription

Licens: Tommy Hansen/Free21 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

                                                                              Foto: Ukendt Public Domain.

Redaktionens note: I april 2018 rejste Free21´s grundlægger og chefredaktør, afdøde Tommy Hansen, rundt i Danmark med det, der skulle vise sig at blive hans sidste foredragstour: “På sporet af deep state”. Han var allerede dér meget mærket af sygdom, men satte sig for at gennemføre hele foredragstouren og havde planer om, at næste foredrag skulle omhandle City of London.
Som en del af sine sidste ønsker bad han om, at Team-Free21DK ville transskribere og oversætte “Deep state” for, – som han skrev: ”Så ved folk, hvorfor Free21 er her!”
Tommy Hansen opdaterede altid sine foredrag fra land til land, fra by til by, og derfor har vi valgt at transskribere den allersidste destination.
Foredraget er transskriberet 100% efter Tommy Hansens ord, hvorfor det måske kan fremstå mere som en ”fortælling” end som en egentlig artikel. Vi har tilføjet links/fotos, som Tommy efterlod sig på sin computer.
Flere små lokalaviser tog godt imod den udsendte pressemeddelelse, bla. skrev Carsten Tolbøll,  Morsø Folkeblads Ugeavis, både om foredraget og Free21 under overskriften ”Kritisk foredrag om amerikansk rolle i krige[1].”

God fornøjelse med at følge sporet.

Pressemeddelelsen

Fred i verden er for de allerfleste et dybtfølt ønske, og ingen normale mennesker ønsker krig. Alligevel står vi nu igen angiveligt over for en krigstrussel fra Rusland, kun et kvart århundrede efter, at de sovjetiske tropper frivilligt trak sig tilbage fra Østtyskland for at muliggøre Tysklands genforening. Putin benytter enhver lejlighed til at sige, at kun i en “gal mands hjerne” kunne man forestille sig, at Rusland ville angribe et vestligt land, – alene styrkeforholdet mellem USA og den tidligere supermagt i øst gør tanken latterlig.
Det hører vi imidlertid intet om i de vestlige medier, som tværtimod organiseret viderebringer påstande om “russisk aggression” og Putins indsats for at nedbryde de vestlige demokratier.

Medierne har nu i årtier massivt bakket op om enhver krigsindsats fra USA, selv om den nyere historie beviser, at USA gang på gang har opfundet fjendebilleder,

fabrikeret falske beviser og har stået bag ulovlige regimeskift i talrige lande. Den kritiske holdning til USA’s krige forsvandt i kølvandet på Vietnamkrigen, og siden har både medier og politikere i vesten “rettet ind”.

Hvordan kan det være, at selv venstreorienterede og socialistisk orienterede partier sidder med ved bordet og nikker, når de moderne krige sættes i gang? Hvor er nutidens Olof Palme i det politiske spektrum? Ingen kritiserer i dag USA. Når en amerikansk præsident kommer med en udtalelse, tager vi den for pålydende. Når en russisk præsident gør det samme, afviser vi det prompte som propaganda. Hvorfor er medier og politikere ikke nøjagtigt lige så kritiske over for USA som over for Rusland eller Kina? I modsætning til både Rusland og Kina, har USA en erklæret og formuleret geopolitisk strategi og et ønske om at vinde indflydelse overalt på kloden.
80 procent af det amerikanske militær befinder sig uden for USA. 80 procent af det russiske militær befinder sig i Rusland. USA har 12 hangarskibe og planer om at bygge endnu flere. Rusland har ét. USA har mere end 900 officielle militærbaser uden for USA, Rusland har to. NATO-landene bruger årligt mere end 12 gange så meget på oprustning som Rusland. Tropper, tanks og andet krigsudstyr fra USA vælter måned for måned ind i Tyskland, og vi har i dag i Europa den største koncentration af krigsklare tropper siden 2. verdenskrig. Er det alt sammen nødvendigt for at beskytte os mod Putin, eller ligger der andre interesser bag?

Under 1. verdenskrig fortalte de amerikanske medier og bogforlag villigt om de “usle” tyskere, som amerikanerne skulle i krig med. Det samme under 2. verdenskrig. Straks efter skiftede fjendebilledet, og gennem hele den kolde krig blev frygten for en kommunistisk magtovertagelse brugt som fundament for en uhyrlig vækst i krigsindustrien. Udsigten til fred i Europa efter 1992 var ikke kun en katastrofe for krigsindustrien, – det strider også direkte mod de erklærede geopolitiske amerikanske målsætninger – til enhver tid at sørge for, at der ikke skabes forbindelser mellem Europa, først og fremmest Tyskland og Rusland, således at vi ikke i fællesskab opbygger en både økonomisk og kulturel supermagt.

Med 11. september, 2001, startede “Krigen mod terror”, som igen har bragt de geopolitiske brikker i en gunstig position set med USA’s øjne. Planerne om at angribe og destabilisere en række muslimske lande efter 2001 var ikke en reaktion på terrorangrebet den 11. september. De rækker flere år tilbage. Igen har medierne spillet en hovedrolle i formidlingen af de nye fjendebilleder – fra Al-Qaeda og ISIS til Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein og Syriens folkevalgte præsident, Assad. Det helt nye fjendebillede er nu Kina, hvor USA også åbent forbereder en væbnet konflikt.

Det, man i USA kalder “deep state”, har forlængst overtaget kontrollen med den demokratiske udvikling.

Kennedy var den sidste præsident, som italesatte problemet. Tilliden til det amerikanske system kan for de fleste amerikanske vælgere ligge på et meget lille sted. Spørgsmålet er, hvilken rolle spiller dette fænomen, “deep state”, på europæisk jord?

Foto: ”Her ser vi pressens reaktion. Slet ingen tvivl om, at ”ja, nu rammer vi ”de onde”[10]”. Screenshot: ”Sundag Express”, 15 april, 2018. ”Sunday Mirror” 14. april, 2018. ”Daily News”, 7. april, 2017.

Transskription:

“En årelang undren

Jeg er rigtig glad for at være her. Det er en super… Det er en fornøjelse at se så mange mennesker samlet. Det er virkelig dejligt at være i Vestjylland. Og det kan jeg mærke, fordi her rejser folk sig fra deres stole derhjemme, og så går de ud til noget så gammeldags som et foredrag, og det er simpelthen vidunderligt. Fordi på den måde danner man nemlig den offentlige mening. Sådan har vi gjort i århundreder. Indtil medierne kom og journalisterne og politikerne og alt det her. Men i gamle dage og frem til, ja i mange, mange århundreder, der dannede vi den offentlige mening ved at tale med hinanden. Og ting, der sådan optog os, – dem talte vi om i grupper, og de helt store, – dem bragte man så på tinge. Det system, – det lever endnu, men det virker ikke mere.
Og titlen på foredraget i aften, det hedder “På sporet af deep state”, og det betyder, – og det er meget vigtigt at holde fast i, – det betyder, at vi er på sporet af det her. Jeg skal bringe jer på sporet, men jeg hverken kan eller vil bevise, at der findes noget, der hedder “deep state”.

Jeg vil i det hele taget slet ikke overbevise jer om noget som helst, fordi det skal I selv finde ud af. Det er det, der er forskellen på en journalist og en politiker, f.eks… Det er, at politikerne, de vil gerne overbevise folk sådan så… Ja, jeg behøver ikke sige mere. En journalist skulle gerne kunne begrænse sig til at sige: ”Jeg beskæftiger mig med fakta, nu skal I se her; sådan her mener jeg, tingene hænger sammen”. Og i og med, at der er rigtig mange frie og uafhængige journalister og rigtig mange frie medier, så ved I, hvad I skal beslutte jer på grundlag af. Og det fungerer, det ér et smukt system. Problemet er bare, at det virker ikke.

I mange år op til… altså jeg har været, – det kan vi ligeså godt tage; jeg har været journalist i hele mit liv, voksne liv i hvert fald, og i mange, mange år. I slutningen af 80’erne og gennem 90’erne, der begyndte ”det”. Der begyndte jeg at undre mig over;

hvordan pokker kan det være, at medierne, de så simpelthen ensidigt og overfladisk behandler bestemte emner, og at de alle sammen er enige om, hvad det er, de skal sige?

Og det blev værre og værre. Og jeg skænkede det egentlig ikke nogen tanke, fordi jeg tænkte det; jamen, altså sådan ér det så, – fordi jeg vidste det jo ikke, – fordi der sidder nogle og bestemmer over medierne. Den illusion levede jeg i hvert fald stadigvæk i dengang. Så jeg skubbede det til side og tog det som en del af min dagligdag.

Og min dagligdag var, at jeg var erhvervsjournalist, og jeg levede rigtig godt af, især oppe i Vestjylland, at lave firmaprofiler for små og mellemstore virksomheder. Og de lå som pdf-dokumenter på nettet[2]. Så det, jeg laver i dag, det er, at jeg laver journalistik efter samme princip. Vores artikler ligger som pdf-dokumenter på nettet. Så dér er den røde tråd. Det er slet ikke noget nyt.

 

Foto: ”Vi ser her netop, at Trump beordrer ”nu-her”-angreb på Syrien, og det er for at gengælde endnu et, som de heldigvis skriver; ”alleged”, – altså et påstået angreb[9]. Screenshot: The Independent, 14. april, 2018.

Foto: ”Her siger en professor, Günther Meyer, at allerede i 2012 var der rapporter om, at Qatar var begyndt at give Al-Qaeda-grupper gasudstyr, sådan så de kunne begynde at lave angreb i Syrien, som kunne tilskrives Assad. Al-Qaeda[11]”.

En lille lampe tændes

Jeg sad hjemme i skoven oppe i Trend og så 11. september, 2001, i fjernsynet, ligesom sikkert de allerfleste andre gjorde. Og jeg syntes, det var voldsomt, og det er mystisk, og jeg hørte godt, jeg hørte godt, hvad de sagde i fjernsynet på selve dagen eller dagen efter. Og jeg ved ikke, om vi har glemt det i Danmark, i hvert fald synes journalisterne selv at have glemt det.

Fordi på førstedagen, der talte man om i de direkte transmissioner[3], – der refererede man jo fra reporterne ovre på stedet, og der fik vi at vide; ”there’s a fourth explosion”, ”there’s a secondary explosion”, – altså eksplosioner og eksplosioner og eksplosioner.

Og de havde militæreksperter inde og analysere hele begivenheden, som sagde, at bag det her kan der nærmest kun stå en stat. De havde bygningseksperter, nedrivningseksperter inde og sige, at de her tårne, vi så kollapse, det ligner grangiveligt en kontrolleret nedrivning. Første og andendagen, som sagt, der berettede man i fjernsynet, at det der skete derovre, det var, fik vi at vide, at der var bomber og eksplosioner. At der er en kontrolleret nedrivning. Det ligner en kontrolleret nedrivning.

Og så på tredjedagen og fjerdedagen og femtedagen var det slut, der sagde man ingenting. Så dialogen gik i stå. Der blev simpelthen stille. Og det tog mig et par år, inden jeg ligesom fordøjede det, for jeg ventede stadig på, at de skulle følge op på den historie.

Nu ved jeg, hvordan det foregår i nyhedsredaktionerne.

Jeg undrer mig stadig over den dag i dag, hvordan i himlens navn vil de kollegaer møde op på dagen på arbejdet på tredjedagen og ikke sige til sig selv og hinanden: ”Hvordan vil vi følge det der op fra i går?” Men derefter blev det ensrettet i en grad, som jeg først i dag begynder at forstå rækkeviden af.

Jeg har holdt foredrag i de sidste 3 år om krig og fred i Europa, om NATO, CIA, om Syrien, Libyen, Ukraine, alle de her ting. Og det har jeg på baggrund af en viden, jeg har fået efter, at jeg er flyttet til Tyskland. Det gjorde jeg som følge af min bog om 11. september, 2001[4].

Jeg skal lige sige, den bragte jeg til tinge, fordi rent faktisk så sendte jeg min bog om 11. september, 2001, til alle folketingsmedlemmer, næsten alle, som en julegave i 2008. Og jeg hørte ikke noget fra dem, jeg hørte ikke noget fra nogen af dem.

Så jeg prøvede at bringe en sag for tinge, og tinget reagerede ikke. Ingen af fløjene!

Og der var så en lille lampe, der tændte inde i mig, jeg tænkte; der er et eller andet, der knirker i vores fundamentale system. Jeg kan huske, hvordan jeg sad der og ventede ved min telefon. Jeg troede faktisk, statsministeren ville ringe og sige tak. Det gjorde han ikke. Jeg var henne et par gange om dagen for lige at tjekke, om jeg havde betalt regningen…

Godt, men altså den bog førte mig på sporet af en schweizisk historiker, der hedder Daniele Ganser[5], som er en af de få historikere, der beskæftiger sig kritisk med 9/11 og hele det der NATO-univers af krige, som vi rent faktisk er blevet viklet ind i. Det bragte mig i kontakt med KenFM[6], som driver Tysklands største alternative TV-kanal. Han har nærmest snart flere likes end Angela Merkel, og det er ikke kun, fordi de er utilfredse med Merkel.

Jeg flyttede til Tyskland, kom i kontakt med, – i dag er vi over 200, – men hurtigt blev snesevis af uafhængige journalister, som havde sagt deres stilling op ved de store medier, fordi dér kunne de ikke få lov at arbejde uafhængigt. Og det kom som et chok for mig, men et positivt chok, fordi jeg sad heroppe i skoven og troede, at jeg var alene i hele verden med den her holdning. Så det har gjort, at jeg ved en masse ting i dag, som jeg ikke vidste før. Og det skal jeg prøve at delagtiggøre jer i.

Hovedparten af det, – det er simpelt hen fakta, – og der er kildehenvisninger på. Så I kan selv tjekke det. Og så er der nogle få, – hvad skal vi sige, – analyser, og det skal I bestemme, om det er godt eller skidt.

Jeg er journalist, og jeg er her for at gøre mit arbejde.

 

Foto: ”Seymour Hersh om et af de påståede sarin-angreb; da Obama påstod det, – da ignorerede han, hvad han godt vidste, fordi det havde hans intelligence community fortalt ham[12] Screenshot: Seymour Hersh på Twitter 19. december, 2013.

”John Wayne-syndromet”

Det er vigtigt at have ham her med, fordi det er jo min barndomshelt. John Wayne og hans værdier, det er jeg vokset op med som dreng oppe i Blokhus, og jeg kan stadig huske, da jeg kom ud af biografen, så var jeg fuldstændig klar. Fordi hvis der var en eller anden uretfærdighed i min nærhed, så skulle jeg godt nok tage mig af den, ikk’ osse? Jeg var John Wayne i min lille, naive drengeverden.

Hvad der først er gået op for mig for nylig, det er, at, – nu kalder jeg det ”John Wayne-syndromet”, – det er, at jeg troede faktisk, alle amerikanere var ligesom John Wayne. Så da Nixon i ’71 forlod guldstandarden[7], – jeg var en lille dreng, jeg anede ikke noget om noget, – hvor han så siger: ”Der er nogle, der gør noget uretfærdigt, det skal jeg nok ordne!” Altså helt banalt, og det tror jeg faktisk, at rigtig mange voksne også har hørt på det tidspunkt, fordi vi er… Mærkeligt nok stiller vi ingen kritiske spørgsmål, når USA siger noget. Ikke længere.

Det gjorde vi da, der var sådan nogle som Palme, Anker Jørgensen, tilbage i tiden, da der var politikere med moral og med, – skal vi sige idealer, – hvor de diskuterede politik og ikke penge. Der havde vi nogle, der diskuterede, men de er simpelthen… Stemmerne er forstummet.

Og derfor tager jeg altid John Wayne med, fordi jeg vil understrege, at jeg er ikke på nogen måde anti-USA, jeg er ikke anti-amerikaner på nogen måde. Jeg anerkender slet ikke nogle grupper, fordi vi er alle sammen mennesker.

Men jeg er anti-uretfærdighed. Og derfor blev jeg journalist. Og derfor; det er mit grundbillede, så altså; når jeg nu siger en hel masse meget kritiske ting om USA, så er det ikke amerikanerne, jeg siger det om. Jeg siger det om den kombination, man kun har i USA, af magtcirkler, der omfatter militær, politik og finans, og den gruppe har overtaget magten i USA, og den gruppe har dermed også overtaget magten i Europa. Og dét går det her foredrag ud på.

Krigsførsel alene på påstande

Man kan sige, det er jo nærmest absurd, at vi i dag har en præsident i USA, som får sine primære informationer fra Fox News, og som regerer verden via Twitter[8]. Altså alting er hørt op. Man ved, at dengang et af de påståede giftgasangreb, som heller ikke var belagt i Syrien, – der så Trump det rent faktisk i Fox News, og han sprang op som en trold af en æske, og sagde; ”well…!” Og så blev der ellers sendt kanoner og kugler afsted.

Men hans embedsmænd og alle efterretningstjenester og alle rundt omkring sagde, at der er ikke beviser for noget som helst. Men den havde han lige fanget i Fox News. Det er en meget, meget, meget farlig position at placere sådan en karaktér på. Det er muligt, det er bevidst, – det skal jeg ikke kunne sige. Vi ser her netop[9], at han beordrer ”nu-her”-angreb på Syrien, og det er for at gengælde endnu et, som de heldigvis skriver; ”alleged”, – altså et påstået angreb.

Jeg har ikke listen, men der er snesevis af påståede giftgasangreb i Syrien, i årevis, og i alle tilfældene siger man;  det var Assad. I alle tilfældene siger han, selvfølgelig, at det var det ikke. Og i alle tilfælde kommer det efterfølgende frem, at så er der det ene galt, så er der det andet galt, så er der det tredje galt, og beviserne holder ikke. Der ér nul beviser. Inklusive det allerseneste, inklusive det allerseneste.

Vi er nået dertil, at vi går i krig på en påstand, på en beskyldning. Og på grundlag af den beskyldning bliver mennesker altså slået ihjel.

Med bomber, som er, – jeg vil næsten sige ”made in USA”, – det ér de, men de er i dag en del af den vestlige krigsmaskine, fordi den vokser i dén grad op i andre europæiske lande osse. Så vi er med på en, – hvis man ser finansielt på det, – så er vi med på en positiv udvikling for krigsindustrien.

 

Foto: ”En tidligere FN-våbeninspektør og en professor ved Institute of Technology siger, at de har undersøgt et andet af de her påståede sarin-angreb. De siger; det kunne simpelthen ikke have ladet sig gøre[13]”.

Richard Lloyd, former UN weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): „The sarin gas could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the „heart“, or from the Eastern edge, of the Syrian government controlled area“.

Pressens iscenesættelse

Her ser vi pressens reaktion[10]. Slet ingen tvivl om, at ”ja, nu rammer vi ”de onde””. De der ”forfærdelige derovre”, og Daily News sætter lige et billede ind af et gasset barn, så vi lige husker sammenhængen, ikk’ osse? Jeg behøver vist ikke sige, at det der, at det er selvfølgelig sladderpresseniveau. Men det er præcis de virkemidler, den vestlige presse kører. De er alle sammen enige om, hvad de skal mene på forhånd. Og det ligger meget langt fra det, jeg lærte på journalisthøjskolen.

Jeg skal vise jer et par eksempler på, at der er masser af grund til tvivl, lige nøjagtig i tilfældet; Syrien og giftgas. Og jeg ved ikke, om noget af det her er rigtigt.

Pointen er, at medierne, de store medier, ved også godt det her. De medier, der siger: ”Nu går vi i krig”,

– de ved også godt det her. Men de vælger ikke at orientere. Man kan sige, de bringer sådan en artikel en enkelt gang. Og så kommer al propagandaen og overdøver det.

Og her siger en professor, Günther Meyer[11], at allerede i 2012 var der rapporter om, at Qatar, – for at det ikke skal være lyv, – var begyndt at give Al-Qaeda-grupper gasudstyr, sådan så de kunne begynde at lave angreb i Syrien, som kunne tilskrives Assad. Al-Qaeda.
Her siger Seymour Hersh[12] om et af de påståede sarin-angreb, at da Obama påstod det, da ignorerede han, hvad han godt vidste, fordi det havde hans intelligence community fortalt ham; at den syriske armé var ikke den eneste, der havde adgang til sarin. Det havde alle de her oprørsgrupper også, især Al-Nusra-fronten.

Og det vi skal forstå, og det kan vi ligeså godt kalde det, hvad det er; det, vi kalder rebeller, det er terrorister og lejesoldater. Det er terrorgrupper og lejesoldater. Det er Al-Nusra, det er The Muslim Brotherhood, det er Al-Qaeda, og alle arbejder USA aktivt sammen med og officielt, fordi de nu er imod Assad. Og det er præcis den politik, der er blevet ført i Syrien, i Irak.

Begge de nævnte lande er fuldstændig ødelagt i dag og overtaget. Deres infrastruktur er ødelagt og bombet tilbage til uendelighed. Og i den proces er der blevet kastet rigtig mange bomber.

Der kører en krigsmaskine i baggrunden, som er så konstant, at det er meget, meget skræmmende at kigge på.

En tidligere FN-våbeninspektør og en professor ved Institute of Technology siger[13], de har undersøgt et andet af de her påståede sarin-angreb. De siger; det kunne simpelthen ikke have ladet sig gøre. Og jeg tror, det var på grundlag af det der; der var det, at Trump gik ind og bombede nogle syriske luftbaser.

Altså man ved, man påstår, det var Assad. Man ved; det kan ikke lade sig gøre, fordi han havde ikke noget udstyr, der kunne sende giftgasraketter så langt. Rent bortset fra, at missilet var blevet sprængt på jorden.

Det er en iscenesættelse for at få os til at tro, at han bruger gas, – siger de her mennesker. Og det skulle medierne, også i Danmark, orientere jer om, når de fortæller om, hvad Trump, han siger.

Fordi så har vi en chance for at sige: ”Hey, skulle  vi ikke lige tjekke, før vi nu invaderer et land?”

Medierne sidder sådan her – på det her område”.

Fortsættes i næste magasin.

Quellen:

[1] Morsø Folkeblad Ugeavis, Carsen Tolbøll: ”Kritisk foredrag om amerikansk rolle i krige”, 04.04.2018. <http://www.e-pages.dk/morsoefolkeblad_ugeavisen/730/31>

[2] Wikipedia: PDFnet, <https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDFnet>[3] YouTube, Loo Bidegaard: ”11 September 2001 – DR TV”, 11.03.2013, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYeKlEne2XQ>

[4] Tommy Hansen: ”11 september 2001 II – stadig intet svar” 2. udgave januar 2011. Udgivet af ”pdf net – en NY tids formidling” ISBN 978-87-987227-2-4 <https://free21dk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/stadig-ingen-svar.pdf>

[5] Daniele Ganser, <https://www.danieleganser.ch/ >

[6] YouTube, KenFM: ”KenFM im Gespräch mit Tommy Hansen”, 27.08.2014, Original link forsvundet, klip fra interviewet. 19.05.2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C39vjZWHpn0&ab_channel=ausstellungsraum.at%7Craumf%C3%BCrkunstundalltagskultur >

[7] YouTube, Carl Menger Center for the Study of Money and Banking: ”August 15, 1971 – Richard Nixon Closes the Gold Window”, 15.08.2014 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Xw5tWsOQo>

[8] Twitter, Donald Trump: ”Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”, 11.04.2018. <https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/984022625440747520?lang=da>

[9] Trump orders strike on syria in response alleged chemical attack, by Agency Report on 14. April, 2018, article on www.independent.co.uk/us, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3:32 p.m.

[10] Cover pages of ”Sunday Express”, published 15. april, 2018. ”Sunday Mirror”, published 14. april, 2018 and  ”Daily News”, published 7. april, 2017.

[11] Poison gas attack in Syria by insurgents?, by Prof. Dr. Guenther Meyer (LS) on 30. April 2013, article on nsnbc.me, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3.49 p.m.

[12] Whose sarin?, by Seymour Hersh on 19. December 2013, article on twitter.com, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3.59 p.m.

[13]  Richard Lloyd, Theodore A. Postol: „Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013“, 14.01.2014, <https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf>

Tracking the „Deep State“

Von Tommy Hansen , veröffentlicht am: 5. June 2019, Kategorien: Editor's Choice, International politik, Krig og Fred, Transskription

Licens: Tommy Hansen/Free21 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

                                                                              Foto: Ukendt Public Domain.

Redaktionens note: I april 2018 rejste Free21´s grundlægger og chefredaktør, afdøde Tommy Hansen, rundt i Danmark med det, der skulle vise sig at blive hans sidste foredragstour: “På sporet af deep state”. Han var allerede dér meget mærket af sygdom, men satte sig for at gennemføre hele foredragstouren og havde planer om, at næste foredrag skulle omhandle City of London.
Som en del af sine sidste ønsker bad han om, at Team-Free21DK ville transskribere og oversætte “Deep state” for, – som han skrev: ”Så ved folk, hvorfor Free21 er her!”
Tommy Hansen opdaterede altid sine foredrag fra land til land, fra by til by, og derfor har vi valgt at transskribere den allersidste destination.
Foredraget er transskriberet 100% efter Tommy Hansens ord, hvorfor det måske kan fremstå mere som en ”fortælling” end som en egentlig artikel. Vi har tilføjet links/fotos, som Tommy efterlod sig på sin computer.
Flere små lokalaviser tog godt imod den udsendte pressemeddelelse, bla. skrev Carsten Tolbøll,  Morsø Folkeblads Ugeavis, både om foredraget og Free21 under overskriften ”Kritisk foredrag om amerikansk rolle i krige[1].”

God fornøjelse med at følge sporet.

Pressemeddelelsen

Fred i verden er for de allerfleste et dybtfølt ønske, og ingen normale mennesker ønsker krig. Alligevel står vi nu igen angiveligt over for en krigstrussel fra Rusland, kun et kvart århundrede efter, at de sovjetiske tropper frivilligt trak sig tilbage fra Østtyskland for at muliggøre Tysklands genforening. Putin benytter enhver lejlighed til at sige, at kun i en “gal mands hjerne” kunne man forestille sig, at Rusland ville angribe et vestligt land, – alene styrkeforholdet mellem USA og den tidligere supermagt i øst gør tanken latterlig.
Det hører vi imidlertid intet om i de vestlige medier, som tværtimod organiseret viderebringer påstande om “russisk aggression” og Putins indsats for at nedbryde de vestlige demokratier.

Medierne har nu i årtier massivt bakket op om enhver krigsindsats fra USA, selv om den nyere historie beviser, at USA gang på gang har opfundet fjendebilleder,

fabrikeret falske beviser og har stået bag ulovlige regimeskift i talrige lande. Den kritiske holdning til USA’s krige forsvandt i kølvandet på Vietnamkrigen, og siden har både medier og politikere i vesten “rettet ind”.

Hvordan kan det være, at selv venstreorienterede og socialistisk orienterede partier sidder med ved bordet og nikker, når de moderne krige sættes i gang? Hvor er nutidens Olof Palme i det politiske spektrum? Ingen kritiserer i dag USA. Når en amerikansk præsident kommer med en udtalelse, tager vi den for pålydende. Når en russisk præsident gør det samme, afviser vi det prompte som propaganda. Hvorfor er medier og politikere ikke nøjagtigt lige så kritiske over for USA som over for Rusland eller Kina? I modsætning til både Rusland og Kina, har USA en erklæret og formuleret geopolitisk strategi og et ønske om at vinde indflydelse overalt på kloden.
80 procent af det amerikanske militær befinder sig uden for USA. 80 procent af det russiske militær befinder sig i Rusland. USA har 12 hangarskibe og planer om at bygge endnu flere. Rusland har ét. USA har mere end 900 officielle militærbaser uden for USA, Rusland har to. NATO-landene bruger årligt mere end 12 gange så meget på oprustning som Rusland. Tropper, tanks og andet krigsudstyr fra USA vælter måned for måned ind i Tyskland, og vi har i dag i Europa den største koncentration af krigsklare tropper siden 2. verdenskrig. Er det alt sammen nødvendigt for at beskytte os mod Putin, eller ligger der andre interesser bag?

Under 1. verdenskrig fortalte de amerikanske medier og bogforlag villigt om de “usle” tyskere, som amerikanerne skulle i krig med. Det samme under 2. verdenskrig. Straks efter skiftede fjendebilledet, og gennem hele den kolde krig blev frygten for en kommunistisk magtovertagelse brugt som fundament for en uhyrlig vækst i krigsindustrien. Udsigten til fred i Europa efter 1992 var ikke kun en katastrofe for krigsindustrien, – det strider også direkte mod de erklærede geopolitiske amerikanske målsætninger – til enhver tid at sørge for, at der ikke skabes forbindelser mellem Europa, først og fremmest Tyskland og Rusland, således at vi ikke i fællesskab opbygger en både økonomisk og kulturel supermagt.

Med 11. september, 2001, startede “Krigen mod terror”, som igen har bragt de geopolitiske brikker i en gunstig position set med USA’s øjne. Planerne om at angribe og destabilisere en række muslimske lande efter 2001 var ikke en reaktion på terrorangrebet den 11. september. De rækker flere år tilbage. Igen har medierne spillet en hovedrolle i formidlingen af de nye fjendebilleder – fra Al-Qaeda og ISIS til Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein og Syriens folkevalgte præsident, Assad. Det helt nye fjendebillede er nu Kina, hvor USA også åbent forbereder en væbnet konflikt.

Det, man i USA kalder “deep state”, har forlængst overtaget kontrollen med den demokratiske udvikling.

Kennedy var den sidste præsident, som italesatte problemet. Tilliden til det amerikanske system kan for de fleste amerikanske vælgere ligge på et meget lille sted. Spørgsmålet er, hvilken rolle spiller dette fænomen, “deep state”, på europæisk jord?

Foto: ”Her ser vi pressens reaktion. Slet ingen tvivl om, at ”ja, nu rammer vi ”de onde”[10]”. Screenshot: ”Sundag Express”, 15 april, 2018. ”Sunday Mirror” 14. april, 2018. ”Daily News”, 7. april, 2017.

Transskription:

“En årelang undren

Jeg er rigtig glad for at være her. Det er en super… Det er en fornøjelse at se så mange mennesker samlet. Det er virkelig dejligt at være i Vestjylland. Og det kan jeg mærke, fordi her rejser folk sig fra deres stole derhjemme, og så går de ud til noget så gammeldags som et foredrag, og det er simpelthen vidunderligt. Fordi på den måde danner man nemlig den offentlige mening. Sådan har vi gjort i århundreder. Indtil medierne kom og journalisterne og politikerne og alt det her. Men i gamle dage og frem til, ja i mange, mange århundreder, der dannede vi den offentlige mening ved at tale med hinanden. Og ting, der sådan optog os, – dem talte vi om i grupper, og de helt store, – dem bragte man så på tinge. Det system, – det lever endnu, men det virker ikke mere.
Og titlen på foredraget i aften, det hedder “På sporet af deep state”, og det betyder, – og det er meget vigtigt at holde fast i, – det betyder, at vi er på sporet af det her. Jeg skal bringe jer på sporet, men jeg hverken kan eller vil bevise, at der findes noget, der hedder “deep state”.

Jeg vil i det hele taget slet ikke overbevise jer om noget som helst, fordi det skal I selv finde ud af. Det er det, der er forskellen på en journalist og en politiker, f.eks… Det er, at politikerne, de vil gerne overbevise folk sådan så… Ja, jeg behøver ikke sige mere. En journalist skulle gerne kunne begrænse sig til at sige: ”Jeg beskæftiger mig med fakta, nu skal I se her; sådan her mener jeg, tingene hænger sammen”. Og i og med, at der er rigtig mange frie og uafhængige journalister og rigtig mange frie medier, så ved I, hvad I skal beslutte jer på grundlag af. Og det fungerer, det ér et smukt system. Problemet er bare, at det virker ikke.

I mange år op til… altså jeg har været, – det kan vi ligeså godt tage; jeg har været journalist i hele mit liv, voksne liv i hvert fald, og i mange, mange år. I slutningen af 80’erne og gennem 90’erne, der begyndte ”det”. Der begyndte jeg at undre mig over;

hvordan pokker kan det være, at medierne, de så simpelthen ensidigt og overfladisk behandler bestemte emner, og at de alle sammen er enige om, hvad det er, de skal sige?

Og det blev værre og værre. Og jeg skænkede det egentlig ikke nogen tanke, fordi jeg tænkte det; jamen, altså sådan ér det så, – fordi jeg vidste det jo ikke, – fordi der sidder nogle og bestemmer over medierne. Den illusion levede jeg i hvert fald stadigvæk i dengang. Så jeg skubbede det til side og tog det som en del af min dagligdag.

Og min dagligdag var, at jeg var erhvervsjournalist, og jeg levede rigtig godt af, især oppe i Vestjylland, at lave firmaprofiler for små og mellemstore virksomheder. Og de lå som pdf-dokumenter på nettet[2]. Så det, jeg laver i dag, det er, at jeg laver journalistik efter samme princip. Vores artikler ligger som pdf-dokumenter på nettet. Så dér er den røde tråd. Det er slet ikke noget nyt.

 

Foto: ”Vi ser her netop, at Trump beordrer ”nu-her”-angreb på Syrien, og det er for at gengælde endnu et, som de heldigvis skriver; ”alleged”, – altså et påstået angreb[9]. Screenshot: The Independent, 14. april, 2018.

Foto: ”Her siger en professor, Günther Meyer, at allerede i 2012 var der rapporter om, at Qatar var begyndt at give Al-Qaeda-grupper gasudstyr, sådan så de kunne begynde at lave angreb i Syrien, som kunne tilskrives Assad. Al-Qaeda[11]”.

En lille lampe tændes

Jeg sad hjemme i skoven oppe i Trend og så 11. september, 2001, i fjernsynet, ligesom sikkert de allerfleste andre gjorde. Og jeg syntes, det var voldsomt, og det er mystisk, og jeg hørte godt, jeg hørte godt, hvad de sagde i fjernsynet på selve dagen eller dagen efter. Og jeg ved ikke, om vi har glemt det i Danmark, i hvert fald synes journalisterne selv at have glemt det.

Fordi på førstedagen, der talte man om i de direkte transmissioner[3], – der refererede man jo fra reporterne ovre på stedet, og der fik vi at vide; ”there’s a fourth explosion”, ”there’s a secondary explosion”, – altså eksplosioner og eksplosioner og eksplosioner.

Og de havde militæreksperter inde og analysere hele begivenheden, som sagde, at bag det her kan der nærmest kun stå en stat. De havde bygningseksperter, nedrivningseksperter inde og sige, at de her tårne, vi så kollapse, det ligner grangiveligt en kontrolleret nedrivning. Første og andendagen, som sagt, der berettede man i fjernsynet, at det der skete derovre, det var, fik vi at vide, at der var bomber og eksplosioner. At der er en kontrolleret nedrivning. Det ligner en kontrolleret nedrivning.

Og så på tredjedagen og fjerdedagen og femtedagen var det slut, der sagde man ingenting. Så dialogen gik i stå. Der blev simpelthen stille. Og det tog mig et par år, inden jeg ligesom fordøjede det, for jeg ventede stadig på, at de skulle følge op på den historie.

Nu ved jeg, hvordan det foregår i nyhedsredaktionerne.

Jeg undrer mig stadig over den dag i dag, hvordan i himlens navn vil de kollegaer møde op på dagen på arbejdet på tredjedagen og ikke sige til sig selv og hinanden: ”Hvordan vil vi følge det der op fra i går?” Men derefter blev det ensrettet i en grad, som jeg først i dag begynder at forstå rækkeviden af.

Jeg har holdt foredrag i de sidste 3 år om krig og fred i Europa, om NATO, CIA, om Syrien, Libyen, Ukraine, alle de her ting. Og det har jeg på baggrund af en viden, jeg har fået efter, at jeg er flyttet til Tyskland. Det gjorde jeg som følge af min bog om 11. september, 2001[4].

Jeg skal lige sige, den bragte jeg til tinge, fordi rent faktisk så sendte jeg min bog om 11. september, 2001, til alle folketingsmedlemmer, næsten alle, som en julegave i 2008. Og jeg hørte ikke noget fra dem, jeg hørte ikke noget fra nogen af dem.

Så jeg prøvede at bringe en sag for tinge, og tinget reagerede ikke. Ingen af fløjene!

Og der var så en lille lampe, der tændte inde i mig, jeg tænkte; der er et eller andet, der knirker i vores fundamentale system. Jeg kan huske, hvordan jeg sad der og ventede ved min telefon. Jeg troede faktisk, statsministeren ville ringe og sige tak. Det gjorde han ikke. Jeg var henne et par gange om dagen for lige at tjekke, om jeg havde betalt regningen…

Godt, men altså den bog førte mig på sporet af en schweizisk historiker, der hedder Daniele Ganser[5], som er en af de få historikere, der beskæftiger sig kritisk med 9/11 og hele det der NATO-univers af krige, som vi rent faktisk er blevet viklet ind i. Det bragte mig i kontakt med KenFM[6], som driver Tysklands største alternative TV-kanal. Han har nærmest snart flere likes end Angela Merkel, og det er ikke kun, fordi de er utilfredse med Merkel.

Jeg flyttede til Tyskland, kom i kontakt med, – i dag er vi over 200, – men hurtigt blev snesevis af uafhængige journalister, som havde sagt deres stilling op ved de store medier, fordi dér kunne de ikke få lov at arbejde uafhængigt. Og det kom som et chok for mig, men et positivt chok, fordi jeg sad heroppe i skoven og troede, at jeg var alene i hele verden med den her holdning. Så det har gjort, at jeg ved en masse ting i dag, som jeg ikke vidste før. Og det skal jeg prøve at delagtiggøre jer i.

Hovedparten af det, – det er simpelt hen fakta, – og der er kildehenvisninger på. Så I kan selv tjekke det. Og så er der nogle få, – hvad skal vi sige, – analyser, og det skal I bestemme, om det er godt eller skidt.

Jeg er journalist, og jeg er her for at gøre mit arbejde.

 

Foto: ”Seymour Hersh om et af de påståede sarin-angreb; da Obama påstod det, – da ignorerede han, hvad han godt vidste, fordi det havde hans intelligence community fortalt ham[12] Screenshot: Seymour Hersh på Twitter 19. december, 2013.

”John Wayne-syndromet”

Det er vigtigt at have ham her med, fordi det er jo min barndomshelt. John Wayne og hans værdier, det er jeg vokset op med som dreng oppe i Blokhus, og jeg kan stadig huske, da jeg kom ud af biografen, så var jeg fuldstændig klar. Fordi hvis der var en eller anden uretfærdighed i min nærhed, så skulle jeg godt nok tage mig af den, ikk’ osse? Jeg var John Wayne i min lille, naive drengeverden.

Hvad der først er gået op for mig for nylig, det er, at, – nu kalder jeg det ”John Wayne-syndromet”, – det er, at jeg troede faktisk, alle amerikanere var ligesom John Wayne. Så da Nixon i ’71 forlod guldstandarden[7], – jeg var en lille dreng, jeg anede ikke noget om noget, – hvor han så siger: ”Der er nogle, der gør noget uretfærdigt, det skal jeg nok ordne!” Altså helt banalt, og det tror jeg faktisk, at rigtig mange voksne også har hørt på det tidspunkt, fordi vi er… Mærkeligt nok stiller vi ingen kritiske spørgsmål, når USA siger noget. Ikke længere.

Det gjorde vi da, der var sådan nogle som Palme, Anker Jørgensen, tilbage i tiden, da der var politikere med moral og med, – skal vi sige idealer, – hvor de diskuterede politik og ikke penge. Der havde vi nogle, der diskuterede, men de er simpelthen… Stemmerne er forstummet.

Og derfor tager jeg altid John Wayne med, fordi jeg vil understrege, at jeg er ikke på nogen måde anti-USA, jeg er ikke anti-amerikaner på nogen måde. Jeg anerkender slet ikke nogle grupper, fordi vi er alle sammen mennesker.

Men jeg er anti-uretfærdighed. Og derfor blev jeg journalist. Og derfor; det er mit grundbillede, så altså; når jeg nu siger en hel masse meget kritiske ting om USA, så er det ikke amerikanerne, jeg siger det om. Jeg siger det om den kombination, man kun har i USA, af magtcirkler, der omfatter militær, politik og finans, og den gruppe har overtaget magten i USA, og den gruppe har dermed også overtaget magten i Europa. Og dét går det her foredrag ud på.

Krigsførsel alene på påstande

Man kan sige, det er jo nærmest absurd, at vi i dag har en præsident i USA, som får sine primære informationer fra Fox News, og som regerer verden via Twitter[8]. Altså alting er hørt op. Man ved, at dengang et af de påståede giftgasangreb, som heller ikke var belagt i Syrien, – der så Trump det rent faktisk i Fox News, og han sprang op som en trold af en æske, og sagde; ”well…!” Og så blev der ellers sendt kanoner og kugler afsted.

Men hans embedsmænd og alle efterretningstjenester og alle rundt omkring sagde, at der er ikke beviser for noget som helst. Men den havde han lige fanget i Fox News. Det er en meget, meget, meget farlig position at placere sådan en karaktér på. Det er muligt, det er bevidst, – det skal jeg ikke kunne sige. Vi ser her netop[9], at han beordrer ”nu-her”-angreb på Syrien, og det er for at gengælde endnu et, som de heldigvis skriver; ”alleged”, – altså et påstået angreb.

Jeg har ikke listen, men der er snesevis af påståede giftgasangreb i Syrien, i årevis, og i alle tilfældene siger man;  det var Assad. I alle tilfældene siger han, selvfølgelig, at det var det ikke. Og i alle tilfælde kommer det efterfølgende frem, at så er der det ene galt, så er der det andet galt, så er der det tredje galt, og beviserne holder ikke. Der ér nul beviser. Inklusive det allerseneste, inklusive det allerseneste.

Vi er nået dertil, at vi går i krig på en påstand, på en beskyldning. Og på grundlag af den beskyldning bliver mennesker altså slået ihjel.

Med bomber, som er, – jeg vil næsten sige ”made in USA”, – det ér de, men de er i dag en del af den vestlige krigsmaskine, fordi den vokser i dén grad op i andre europæiske lande osse. Så vi er med på en, – hvis man ser finansielt på det, – så er vi med på en positiv udvikling for krigsindustrien.

 

Foto: ”En tidligere FN-våbeninspektør og en professor ved Institute of Technology siger, at de har undersøgt et andet af de her påståede sarin-angreb. De siger; det kunne simpelthen ikke have ladet sig gøre[13]”.

Richard Lloyd, former UN weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): „The sarin gas could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the „heart“, or from the Eastern edge, of the Syrian government controlled area“.

Pressens iscenesættelse

Her ser vi pressens reaktion[10]. Slet ingen tvivl om, at ”ja, nu rammer vi ”de onde””. De der ”forfærdelige derovre”, og Daily News sætter lige et billede ind af et gasset barn, så vi lige husker sammenhængen, ikk’ osse? Jeg behøver vist ikke sige, at det der, at det er selvfølgelig sladderpresseniveau. Men det er præcis de virkemidler, den vestlige presse kører. De er alle sammen enige om, hvad de skal mene på forhånd. Og det ligger meget langt fra det, jeg lærte på journalisthøjskolen.

Jeg skal vise jer et par eksempler på, at der er masser af grund til tvivl, lige nøjagtig i tilfældet; Syrien og giftgas. Og jeg ved ikke, om noget af det her er rigtigt.

Pointen er, at medierne, de store medier, ved også godt det her. De medier, der siger: ”Nu går vi i krig”,

– de ved også godt det her. Men de vælger ikke at orientere. Man kan sige, de bringer sådan en artikel en enkelt gang. Og så kommer al propagandaen og overdøver det.

Og her siger en professor, Günther Meyer[11], at allerede i 2012 var der rapporter om, at Qatar, – for at det ikke skal være lyv, – var begyndt at give Al-Qaeda-grupper gasudstyr, sådan så de kunne begynde at lave angreb i Syrien, som kunne tilskrives Assad. Al-Qaeda.
Her siger Seymour Hersh[12] om et af de påståede sarin-angreb, at da Obama påstod det, da ignorerede han, hvad han godt vidste, fordi det havde hans intelligence community fortalt ham; at den syriske armé var ikke den eneste, der havde adgang til sarin. Det havde alle de her oprørsgrupper også, især Al-Nusra-fronten.

Og det vi skal forstå, og det kan vi ligeså godt kalde det, hvad det er; det, vi kalder rebeller, det er terrorister og lejesoldater. Det er terrorgrupper og lejesoldater. Det er Al-Nusra, det er The Muslim Brotherhood, det er Al-Qaeda, og alle arbejder USA aktivt sammen med og officielt, fordi de nu er imod Assad. Og det er præcis den politik, der er blevet ført i Syrien, i Irak.

Begge de nævnte lande er fuldstændig ødelagt i dag og overtaget. Deres infrastruktur er ødelagt og bombet tilbage til uendelighed. Og i den proces er der blevet kastet rigtig mange bomber.

Der kører en krigsmaskine i baggrunden, som er så konstant, at det er meget, meget skræmmende at kigge på.

En tidligere FN-våbeninspektør og en professor ved Institute of Technology siger[13], de har undersøgt et andet af de her påståede sarin-angreb. De siger; det kunne simpelthen ikke have ladet sig gøre. Og jeg tror, det var på grundlag af det der; der var det, at Trump gik ind og bombede nogle syriske luftbaser.

Altså man ved, man påstår, det var Assad. Man ved; det kan ikke lade sig gøre, fordi han havde ikke noget udstyr, der kunne sende giftgasraketter så langt. Rent bortset fra, at missilet var blevet sprængt på jorden.

Det er en iscenesættelse for at få os til at tro, at han bruger gas, – siger de her mennesker. Og det skulle medierne, også i Danmark, orientere jer om, når de fortæller om, hvad Trump, han siger.

Fordi så har vi en chance for at sige: ”Hey, skulle  vi ikke lige tjekke, før vi nu invaderer et land?”

Medierne sidder sådan her – på det her område”.

Fortsættes i næste magasin.

Quellen:

[1] Morsø Folkeblad Ugeavis, Carsen Tolbøll: ”Kritisk foredrag om amerikansk rolle i krige”, 04.04.2018. <http://www.e-pages.dk/morsoefolkeblad_ugeavisen/730/31>

[2] Wikipedia: PDFnet, <https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDFnet>[3] YouTube, Loo Bidegaard: ”11 September 2001 – DR TV”, 11.03.2013, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYeKlEne2XQ>

[4] Tommy Hansen: ”11 september 2001 II – stadig intet svar” 2. udgave januar 2011. Udgivet af ”pdf net – en NY tids formidling” ISBN 978-87-987227-2-4 <https://free21dk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/stadig-ingen-svar.pdf>

[5] Daniele Ganser, <https://www.danieleganser.ch/ >

[6] YouTube, KenFM: ”KenFM im Gespräch mit Tommy Hansen”, 27.08.2014, Original link forsvundet, klip fra interviewet. 19.05.2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C39vjZWHpn0&ab_channel=ausstellungsraum.at%7Craumf%C3%BCrkunstundalltagskultur >

[7] YouTube, Carl Menger Center for the Study of Money and Banking: ”August 15, 1971 – Richard Nixon Closes the Gold Window”, 15.08.2014 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Xw5tWsOQo>

[8] Twitter, Donald Trump: ”Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”, 11.04.2018. <https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/984022625440747520?lang=da>

[9] Trump orders strike on syria in response alleged chemical attack, by Agency Report on 14. April, 2018, article on www.independent.co.uk/us, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3:32 p.m.

[10] Cover pages of ”Sunday Express”, published 15. april, 2018. ”Sunday Mirror”, published 14. april, 2018 and  ”Daily News”, published 7. april, 2017.

[11] Poison gas attack in Syria by insurgents?, by Prof. Dr. Guenther Meyer (LS) on 30. April 2013, article on nsnbc.me, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3.49 p.m.

[12] Whose sarin?, by Seymour Hersh on 19. December 2013, article on twitter.com, Screenshot on 17. April, 2018 at 3.59 p.m.

[13]  Richard Lloyd, Theodore A. Postol: „Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013“, 14.01.2014, <https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf>

Go to Top