NOTE FROM THE EDITOR

Dear readers:

Perhaps many of you have used – in political discussions – a political arguments that you picked up in the internet, and which contradicts a government statement, but it hasn’t been publicized in the mainstream media – which is the thermometer that people use to consider a story to be true. So then, you don’t believe it.

In other words, if it hasn’t been published in your everyday news outlet, then it can’t be true – you assume. Then your statement is considered a ‘conspiracy theory,” not believable. But as we will see in the following article, written by John Vibes, a lot of times we find out later, that the so called “conspiracy theory, was true. – Marvin Ramírez

86 years ago, Hitler carried out a “false flag” showing how gov’t can control with lies and fear

Today is the anniversary of one of the most pivotal false flags in history as Hitler burned down Reichstag and blamed it on his political enemies so he could seize total control of the country

by John Vibes
The Free Thought Project

“The whole truth about the Reichstag fire will probably never be known. Nearly all those who knew it are now dead, most of them slain by Hitler in the months that followed.” ~ Historian William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

On this date, 86 years ago, the headquarters for the German parliament, known as the Reichstag building, was burned down due to arson. Immediately after the fires, the Nazis passed a piece of tyrannical legislation called the “decree for the protection of state and people,” which gave them total police state control over the population.

The fires were blamed on Hitler’s political rivals, which allowed the regime to be extremely aggressive against anyone they deemed to be their enemies. However, many historians believe that it was actually the Nazi party who started the fire, in a plot to control the masses through fear.
This strategy is actually common in history, and has been used by many governments and has come to be known as a “false flag attack.” Unfortunately, over the years this legitimate military term has been grossly overused to the point where people think that it is some throw-away conspiracy theory. False flag attacks do happen though, and there is even verified proof that the US government has been involved in such operations.

For example, it was a false flag attack that caused the United States to enter the Vietnam war, but it wasn’t until 40 years later that we learned the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
Initially, the American public was told that American ships were attacked by North Vietnamese boats, but the whole story was a twisted web of lies. In reality, the US warships initiated conflict with the North Vietnamese, and then later staged an attack against themselves to justify further action in the region.

Since the beginning of empire, the ruling class has created chaos in their societies so they could be given more power, under the pretense that they would clean up the mess that they actually created. The first ruler that we know of to perfect the art of creating chaos was the Roman emperor Diocletian who came to power in 284 AD.

This is the “leader” that was responsible for changing Rome from a developing civilization into a covert dictatorship. Since the Roman people had a history of freedom and financial prosperity, they were not going to give up their rights unless they were carefully manipulated into doing so. Diocletian needed to create an enemy that he could use as a scapegoat so he could raise taxes, expand his military, and take away the rights of the Roman citizens.

His policies were unpopular and he was having difficulty getting his people to fall in line, so he set his own palace on fire twice in two weeks and blamed it on his political and religious rivals. With his new powers, Diocletian completely reorganized the Roman political system to work like a dictatorship, but he continued to call it a democracy so the people would still think they were free. Diocletian’s approach has been used over and over by authoritarian rulers throughout history who manipulated their people into giving up their freedom.

Many people doubt that these types of plots are possible since they seem so elaborate and require so much cooperation and secrecy, but it is not far-fetched to think that the government is capable of pulling something like this off, and there is evidence of this in history to prove this as well.
The US government has even released documentation, proving they planned multiple false flags.
According to minutes from a meeting on March 22, 1962, held by the “Special Group (Augmented),” which according to an encyclopedia on the Central Intelligence Agency, included Attorney General Robert Kennedy, CIA Director John McCone, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer, detailing the creation of a false flag attack on the United States to be blamed on the Soviets.

According to the documents, the US government wanted to manufacture or obtain Soviet aircraft so they could launch an attack on America or friendly bases and use those attacks as a pretext for war.
According to the previously Top Secret classified documents:

“There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention.”

Many of the accusations that are brought up against the government that get labeled as conspiracy theories are eventually proven to be true way after the fact. The official stories of many world-changing events, including the USS Maine, USS Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Vietnam, are all drastically different than the government and media have led us to believe.

N O T E F R O M THE EDITOR

Dear readers:

Many of you have heard about how certain government officials in Nicaragua and Venezuela could face criminal charges in the International Criminal Court. But do most of you really know what the Court is about? Here I share an article by investigative journalist James Corbett that will provide you with some good light and learning about this world body of “justice”
by James Corbett

As a well-known adage holds: “To the victor go the spoils.” But it might well add: “Meanwhile, the losers go to the gallows.” This is the logic of vic- tor’s justice. It is the logic of the Treaty of Versailles, which demanded unpay- able reparations from the vanquished German nation.

It is the logic of the To- kyo War Crimes Tribunal, where perpetrators of war crimes pronounced judgement on the war crimes of the defeated. It is the logic of Abu Ghraib, where the US military tortured and killed its enemy captives.

Throughout human history, victorious nations have gone too far in exacting revenge from their defeated foes. The entire notion of “international law”—from the Geneva Conventions to the International Law Commission to the International Criminal Court—has been sold to the public as a check against this unfortunate tendency to impose victor’s justice on the fallen. But just as history is written by the winners, so, too, is justice decided by the victors, and the case of the International Criminal Court is the prime example of that. Think of international war crimes in the recent era and what comes to mind? America’s wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan based on premeditated lies about weapons of mass destruction and 9/11? The indefinite detention of captives at Camp X-ray, Guantanamo, or other military prisons that resulted from those illegal wars? Israel’s use of white phosphorous.

in its 2009 massacre of civilians in Gaza? Saudi Arabia’s campaign of genocide in Yemen (made possible by Uncle Sam’s unwavering support)? Well, let’s compare that list of violations of interna- tional law to the list of “situ- ations” that the International Criminal Court has inves- tigated since its formation in 2003. Notice anything? Like how not a single one of those glaring war crimes we just noted are anywhere on the list? Or how every single one of those inves- tigations (save one) tar- geted an African conflict? No justice for Afghanistan. No justice for Iraq. No justice for Palestine. No justice for Yemen. No justice for any victims of any Western-allied aggression. Make no mistake: These “omissions” are not by accident but by design. The most recent demonstration of this fact—as if another demonstration were needed—came late last month when senior ICC judge Christoph Flüg- ge resigned in disgust over American meddling with the court’s activities. Actually, “meddling” is the way many of the headline writers chose to frame America’s interference with the ICC,
but that word doesn’t quite do justice to the situation, if you’ll pardon the pun. Let’s put it as plainly as possible: Judge Flügge resigned because the US had directly threatened ICC judges and prosecutors for even threatening to look into the possibility that Americans had violated international law in Afghanistan. I k n o w, I k n o w : You need a minute to recover from this shock. The story starts in 2017, when the ICC’s chief prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation into US war crimes in Afghanistan, finding “a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity” were committed in the country by US military personnel. Logically, the prosecutor followed up by announcing that she would formally request an investigation by the ICC into the charges. Apparently, this particular prosecutor hadn’t received the memo that the ICC is only to be used to prosecute African despots in kangaroo courts, and that Americans are off limits. To make sure that everyone did have the memo, Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, hand delivered it during his very first speech after joining the Trump administration. “The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court,” he warned, adding “we will fight back” against the ICC. And then, just in case the message wasn’t quite clear enough, he added: “We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will