So… this just happened…
[For those who don’t know, I loathe that mindless expression, so the irony applies with force.]
Somewhere in the process of working on other things, while mulling over the definitions of certain things – article, episode, incident, for instance – suddenly something dropped into the (mental) slot… and it finally occurred to me what Patrick Clawson was really and truly actually disclosing back in 2012:
I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran. Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming, that the traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for US interests. Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II. As David mentioned. You may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall they had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS … Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack. So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.Patrick Clawson, How to Build U.S.-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout – The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (September 25, 2012)
So, what’s in a word…? Well, as it turns out, quite a lot – including a shocking confirmation. To explain, allow me to share my own mental journey with regard to what I typically refer to as high-profile Strategy of Tension events. These are events – and particularly the hyperbolic media coverage of which is “intended to generate a pervasive sense of fear which would encourage the population to appeal to the state for protection.” Or as I’ve more recently referred to them; ‘incidents’. These are events that can be conveniently aligned with a certain narrative, in order to suit a certain political agenda – and by ‘political agenda’ I am by no means implying any party affiliation. Quite the contrary, as I do not suffer under the illusion of so-called partisan politics. The agenda is quite bipartisan, and simply stated it is “to force [the] people, the … public to turn to the State to ask for greater security.” As an aside, regarding so-called partisan politics; for those who don’t know, as a subject matter primer I advise investigating:
- How John Adams felt about “two great parties” squaring off in alleged opposition to one another.
- What Carroll Quigley wrote about the “argument of two parties should represent opposed ideas and policies…”
- Philip Dru: Administrator (1912) by Edward Mandell House, the man whom President Woodrow Wilson referred to as “my alter ego”.
Incidentally, speaking of Edward Mandell House – the dubious colonel who was not a colonel – in a letter to House (November 21, 1933) President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote:
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson — and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis.President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, letter to Edward Mandell House (November 21, 1933)
So back to high-profile Strategy of Tension events, or ‘incidents’ as I’ve more recently referred to them. These are events that are easily shaped into the mold of various political agendas such as the ‘gun control’ narrative, all of which narratives seem to conveniently feed into ongoing efforts to further disarm, geld, and inure the general populace, while simultaneously emboldening the Power Elite with the anointing of ever greater power. So naturally, any sycophantic reference to them, rather than exposing the narratives for what they are, increasingly gets under my skin.
When I began publicly discussing these kinds of events, particularly on RWR broadcasts, while seeking to remain ‘true to the facts and story’ but unable to reconcile the ever-widening chasm between the ‘facts’ and the ‘story’ and unwilling to conflate the two, I experienced a growing irritation with the fluid nature of mainstream media coverage. As events and terms are constantly massaged and reworked in a nuanced effort to advance particular narratives and agendas. Not to mention, the manipulation of terminology to convey and instill certain perceptions – ‘assault weapon’ is one such term of art. With a simple change of setting, one man’s rifle suddenly transmogrifies into another man’s deadly assault weapon.
So in my growing cynicism, wanting to cover facts and story both, but seeking to group like events, I sought a more honest and befitting general term to categorize Strategy of Tension events, and so began referring to such events, which invariably garner widespread mainstream coverage, as ‘incidents’, as my own implacably irreverent irascibility demanded. This seemed fitting for a time. But even the term incident ultimately didn’t go far enough in encapsulating the issue, and capturing the point. And then – bam! Suddenly it struck me, what Patrick Clawson was saying. If you’d asked me beforehand what the operative word in that soundbite was, at any given moment I may have given any number of answers. But now I know; the operative word is ‘episode’.
- An incident or event that is part of a progression or a larger sequence. (American Heritage® Dictionary)
- An incident or action standing out by itself, but more or less connected with a complete series of events (Century Dictionary)
Imagine my surprise in this ‘aha!’ moment. Suddenly the various subject matter converged, and it occurred to me, upon discovering the broader description, what Patrick Clawson was actually saying – or confirming, namely; these events are all part of a standardized methodology. This is well known, established, and well documented by experts like James Perloff, Peter Dale Scott, William Blum, and many others. But rarely do ‘the masses’ get such a candid and revealing peek behind the Wizard’s official parliamentary curtain.
And so, coming full circle – Lusitania: episode; Gulf of Tonkin: episode et al. Patrick Clawson was absolutely right: ‘episode’ is the most befitting term for these false flag synthetic terror Strategy of Tension incidents, events “part of a progression or a larger sequence” and “more or less connected with a complete series of events” – on this, I could not agree more! Consequently, all appropriate tags have been updated from ‘incident’ to ‘episode’ to reflect this new understanding and better description.