Main Menu

Updates

Donations

Available Books

New World War: Revolutionary Methods for Political Control

Dedication & Thanks


Volume I: Current Political Situation


Volume II: The New War


Volume III: Weapons of The New War


Volume IV: The Coverup


Appendix


Problem-Reaction-Solution
Introduction

In his book The New World Order H.G. Wells said that to cause this global revolution, conditions of “discomfort and resentment” would need to be arranged. Similarly, Toffler mentioned that to accelerate the drastic changes that will be occurring globally, crises will be strategically placed on existing political systems.

Without using crises, politicians will not be motivated to make these radical structural changes. This will only occur, he says, when the problem is already so advanced that they see no alternative. “By seducing or terrorizing the population,” Toffler suggests, “it becomes possible to persuade one’s subjects that the existing power system is not only inevitable and permanent, but morally right and proper, if not actually divine.”

Problem-reaction-solution (PRS), also known as order out of chaos, has been used in some form for thousands of years. The use of this formula by various governments, groups, and individuals is a historical fact. In its basic form, it consists of using a fictional or real event, such a crisis, to bring about radical change. It is usually employed when the change to be brought about is controversial and/or disliked. It often includes a type of framing called a false flag operation, which has been used by governments and the civilian sector.

For example, the leadership of Country A wants the natural resources of Country B. But the leadership of Country A realizes that their citizens will oppose an unjust war. So the leadership of Country A creates a problem by staging a terrorist attack against its civilian population. Through the media, the leadership of Country A makes it abundantly clear that Country B is responsible. The people of Country A are traumatized and demand justice. So the leadership of Country A reluctantly (seemingly) complies, and offers the solution by launching a war against Country B. This formula is ancient. Some historical examples follow.

The Great Fire of Rome

On the night of July 19 in the year 64AD a fire broke out in Rome, which burned for a total of nine days and destroyed about two-thirds of the city. Although fires were common in Rome, it is now believed by many that this was deliberately started by a Roman Emperor named Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, also known as Nero.

At an earlier date, Nero had petitioned the Senate with a plan to demolish one-third of Rome in order to build a series of villas and a lake, which he referred to as Neropolis. The Senate, however, refused his request. Shortly thereafter, a fire spread across large sections of the city. Groups of citizens, apparently at the direction of Nero, prevented anyone from putting the fire out, by threatening them with torture.

Because the people held Nero responsible, he shifted the blame to groups of Christians, which he habitually tortured and fed to lions. Although Christians did eventually confess to the crime, it is generally known that he created the crisis as an excuse to build his Neropolis.

Hitler’s Reichstag

The Reichstag was Germany’s version of congress or parliament. On the night of February 27, 1933 the Reichstag building in Berlin Germany was set on fire. Although the fire was blamed on Marinus van der Lubbe, it was later learned that it was set with the cooperation of the German government.

One month later on March 23, The Enabling Act, also known as the Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation, was passed by the Reichstag. This was basically Germany’s version of the USA Patriot Act which suspended most civil liberties outlined in the German Constitution as well as habeas corpus. It eliminated the Reichstag’s participation in the creation of laws and allowed the Nazis to create a legal dictatorship.

Operation Northwoods

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US DOD to stage acts of simulated or real terrorism in the US and blame it on the Cuban Government in order to generate US public support for an invasion of Cuba. The plan included state-sponsored acts of terrorism having real casualties.

“In the early 1960s,” announced ABC News in May of 2001, “America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.”

The plan included sinking boats of Cuban refuges, hijacking planes, blowing up a US ship, and committing acts of terrorism in Washington D.C., Miami, and other major US cities. It was developed as a way to trick the American people and international community into supporting the war. According to ABC News, it received approval from every single one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before making it to President Kennedy.

The proposal was given to Kennedy by the leader of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman L. Lemnitzer of the Council on Foreign Relations. General Lemnitzer ordered all documents pertaining to Northwoods destroyed, but somehow these remained.

The plan was mistakenly discovered and made public on November 18, 1997 by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board, which was overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy’s assassination. General Lemnitzer was denied another term by Kennedy. However, in 1963 the UN made him a Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, which is one of the two highest-ranking positions in the multinational military alliance.

Free Speech Zones

Individuals and groups portraying themselves as protesters may be used by the security forces to create turmoil in order to justify a drastic change (solution).

In the case of a group, this can occur without the knowledge of most of its members. Only the leadership of the group needs to be aware of its true purpose. This appears to have happened during the 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle.

The World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference of 1999 (also called the Battle of Seattle), which occurred from November 30 to December 4 at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle, Washington, was the largest anti-globalization protest in US history, with at least 40,000 protesters.

A protest group known as the black bloc is a collection of affinity groups that assemble during anti-globalization and anti-corporate protests. They wear black clothing and masks to conceal their identities. They routinely vandalize property, assault police, riot, and instigate fights.

The chaos demonstrated by the black bloc which caused riots during the event was one of the main reasons for the implementation of free speech zones. Free speech zones are areas (sometimes cages or concrete walls) set aside in public places for protesters to exercise their free speech. The supposed purpose of the zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, as well as the protesters themselves.

It was reported by multiple media outlets, such as the BBC, Associated Press, and PBS, that during the event most protesters were peaceful. It was only a tiny fringe group of anarchists (the black bloc) that caused chaos.

On one day of the protest, the black bloc showed up and moved through the peaceful crowd, vandalizing local businesses, lighting fires, smashing windows, and spray painting negative slogans. The group had a considerable amount of time to wreak its havoc. The reason for this, it was reported, was that the police were unable to stop them because the crowd was too thick, or they were caught off guard.

After a significant amount of vandalism occurred the police joined with the National Guard and Washington State Troopers and began to control the crowd. As reported in the BBC, one protester was baffled by the behavior of the police, who forced peaceful protesters back while they allowed the black bloc to commit vandalism directly in their view.

The immediate result was a decision by the mayor of Seattle to introduce a ban on protesting for 25 blocks around the convention center where the meetings were taking place. In October of 2001 it was reported by the Associated Press that a federal court upheld the mayor’s decision, citing, “Free speech must sometimes bend to public safety.”

According to Paul Joseph Watson of the independent media outlet Prison Planet, the black bloc is a group of provocateurs run from the top by the security forces. It is used during major protests to cause riots and foster public hatred of peaceful protesters. Watson says that during the WTO protest in Seattle, the police allowed the black bloc to cause chaos as an excuse to target legitimate protesters.

The black bloc seems to have a convenient habit of evading police as it moves through crowds of peaceful protesters damaging property in its path. Unfortunately, legitimate protesters receive the backlash.

This group has been used to justify the attack of protesters in other countries as well. During the 2001 G8 Summit the Italian police planted small bombs in a facility used by anti-globalization protesters in order to frame them, according to the UK Guardian. It was done to portray the peaceful protesters as members of the black bloc, thereby allowing the police to conduct a raid where they beat people with batons, injuring dozens.

Agents provocateurs, in general, have been used by the security forces to disrupt groups of people protesting this global revolution. For instance, in August of 2007 it was reported in the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail that video footage and photographs proved that Canadian police used them to instigate violence during anti-globalization protests which took place at the North American Leader’s Summit in Quebec Canada.

Since the WTO meeting in 1999, the National Lawyers Guild has noticed significant nationwide changes in the state’s handling of major protests that consist of: content-based permit procedures and harsh liability insurance requirements; checkpoints to search demonstrator’s bags without probable cause; unjustified use of nonlethal weapons; misdemeanor charges and detention without access to counsel; unjust arrests; high bails up to $1 million; and free speech zones.

Although these zones have been used sparingly since the 1960s, around the year 2000 their use expanded greatly. They are now regularly used during anti-globalization protests and national conventions to censor people by putting them out of sight of the mass media and the visiting dignitaries. The chaos that occurred during the 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle was the primary impetus for the use of these zones all across the nation, as well as the UK and Canada.

Russian Apartment Bombings

In the beginning of September 1999 a series of apartment bombings occurred in Russia which lasted for about two weeks and killed nearly 300 people. According to the official story told by former Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Federal Security Service (FSB), the bombings were caused by Chechen terrorists.

The suspicious events surrounding these bombings lead many researchers to conclude that they were false flag operations perpetrated by the FSB, the successor of the Committee for State Security (KGB), as an excuse to resume military activities in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin and the FSB to power.

During one attempted bombing, some residents noticed suspicious activity and phoned the local police who arrived to discover a military-grade explosive in the basement of the building. They setup roadblocks hoping to catch the people matching the description. Upon discovering this, the perpetrators used a public telephone to contact a source, apparently for instructions on how to avoid the roadblocks.

When an operator traced the call, it led directly to the FSB in Moscow and when the people who made the call were arrested by the police, each produced documents showing they were FSB agents. The next day, the head of the FSB announced that the entire operation had been just a training drill. However, the police concluded that the live bomb they found was the exact type used in the other bombings.

An investigation of the bombings, which resulted in a conviction of Chechens on charges of terrorism during a closed-door trial, was conducted by the FSB. But no Chechen claimed responsibility. A motion for another investigation was filed by at least one member of the Russian Parliament but was blocked by Putin.

Not satisfied with the official report, some citizens formed a private committee to investigate the bombings. The committee was disbanded, however, after multiple deaths ensued. No more investigations took place.

A former Russian military intelligence officer named Aleksey Galkin proclaimed that the apartment bombings were false flag operations, perpetrated by the FSB to facilitate the second Chechen War. A tycoon named Boris Berezovsky also suggested that the bombings allowed Putin to invade Chechnya and facilitated his rise to power. He is positive that the FSB was responsible.

As reported by the BBC in March of 2002, a former FSB member and director of the Russian Conversion Explosives Center, Nikita Chekulin, agreed with Berezovsky, and mentioned that his sources revealed that before the bombings the security forces purchased large amounts of the explosive Hexogen, which was found at one of the sites.

Another former FSB officer named Alexander Litvinenko also concluded that the apartment bombings were organized by the FSB. Litvinenko, who authored a book which contained information describing them as false flag operations, would eventually die of radiation sickness.

Putin, the former head of the FSB, was the Prime Minister before the bombings. After blaming the attacks on Chechen rebels which caused public outrage, he was able to launch a military invasion of Chechnya, clearly positioning himself as a savior who would neutralize the Chechen rebels and restore order. It also allowed him to win the presidential election in 2000.

Other Incidents

Other Incidents which are believed to have been PRS false flag operations include:

Questionable Events
Oklahoma City

The Oklahoma City Bombing which occurred at 9:03 AM on April 19 consisted of the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people. At first the damage was attributed to a single ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) bomb weighing 1,200 lbs placed inside the building. It was immediately described as a domestic terrorist act committed by extremists.

Several mainstream news sources which received their information from federal, state, and local officials who were on the scene, described that two additional high-tech, unexploded bombs were found in the building. They included news outlets, such as KWTV-9, KFOR TV-5, and Channel 4 News. These reports were consistent with a Department of Defense Atlantic Command memo, a FEMA Situational Report (SitRep), a US Forces Command log, and an Oklahoma Highway Patrol radio log.

Then, the original story began to change considerably. The FBI increased the size of the bomb to 4,000 lbs. And within 24 hours the story changed again. Federal officials said that the explosion had not occurred inside the building but originated from a car parked in front of it which contained the ANFO bomb. Then the car was changed to a truck and the size of the bomb was eventually increased to 4,800 lbs.

An independent investigation was made difficult because the debris was immediately hauled away and covered in a landfill guarded by wackenhut guards. Multiple independent engineers, explosives experts, and military analysts conducted their own studies, however, and with the available evidence concluded that the government’s story of a single ANFO bomb was “technically impossible.”

One included former head of the Los Angeles office of the FBI, Ted L. Gunderson, who claims that the damaged done to the Murrah Federal Building was definitely not the result on an ANFO bomb, but a very high-tech military bomb, built by those who had access to classified information.

General Benton K. Partin has a lifetime of explosives experience. He personally delivered a letter entitled, Bomb Damage Analysis Of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, to 56 members of congress, in which he stated that reports by the media and federal government that the source of the damage to the building was a single ANFO bomb weighing 4,800 lbs parked outside the building were, “impossible.”

General Partin described that explosives had to have been placed inside the building at the supporting columns, and expressed how unfortunate it was that the evidence had been hauled away and covered in a landfill. He urged congress not to rush into passing any antiterror legislation.

Sam Gronning, a licensed professional blaster with over 30 years of experience, agreed with General Partin. According to him, no ANFO bomb placed outside the building could have caused that damage. He has never seen anything to support the official story in his entire career.

Professor of physics at the University of Oregon, Dr. Frederick Hansen, has a career which includes professorships in engineering, aeronautics, and chemistry. He similarly agreed with General Partin’s conclusion. Only bombs placed inside the building at certain columns could have caused it.

Dr. Ernest B. Paxson, a US Army explosives engineer with decades of civilian defense-related projects, revealed that only bombs placed on each of the failed columns inside the building could have caused that type of damage. An ANFO bomb placed outside the building might have created a hole in the wall but would not have damaged the support columns.

Samuel Cohen, a physicist and creator of the neutron bomb, is also an expert on explosives. In a letter sent to Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key, he wrote that it would have been, “absolutely impossible and against the laws of nature,” for a truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil, no matter how much was used, to bring the Murrah building down. Cohen expressed that it could only have occurred with high-tech explosives placed strategically within the building at the failed columns.

Also worth mentioning is that multiple employees of the courthouse next to the Murrah building reported that a bomb squad van was in the vicinity as early as 7:30 AM. The occupants of the van, according to witnesses, were wearing dark shirts with white-silver lettering, which read, Bomb Squad. Also, some witnesses reported hearing at least two explosions. During the investigation, the FBI refused to interview these types of witnesses.

The Oklahoma Daily Gazette obtained hotel receipts which confirmed that Danny Coulson, the head of the FBI Anti-Terrorism Task Force, checked in to the Embassy Suites Hotel in Oklahoma City at 12:20 AM on the morning of the bombing. What was the FBI doing there nine hours before the blast?

This tragedy triggered a public outrage and the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill of 1995 (S. 390/H.R. 896) was the solution. In May of 1995 The Spotlight reported that the leadership of both political parties may have exploited the outrage of the public by considering legislation that threatened the constitutional rights of Americans.

The bill received much support in Congress and was passed in the Senate with 98 votes and 293 in the House. On April 24, 1996 it became law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which was singed by President Clinton. Such domestic antiterrorist bills that were stalled in Congress before the bombing were quickly passed shortly afterward, observed WorldNetDaily.

September 11

Because the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are closely connected to the new war, a few inconsistencies in the official story must be covered. To properly explain the events surrounding 9/11 in a comprehensive manner would require more information than will be presented here. For this reason I’ll only mention the following facts:

These are not conspiracy theories. They are facts which should be investigated. There are many, many other facts and inconsistencies regarding the official story that scholars, architects and engineers, media professionals, firefighters, lawyers, scientists, and others are now questioning. Remember, 9/11 is the basis for the entire Global War on Terror.

On September 14, 2001 former Senator Gary Hart announced at a televised meeting in Washington, D.C. Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations that the president could use the 9/11 tragedy to carry out the New World Order.

In an interview with the New York Times on October 12, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mentioned that 9/11 offered an opportunity, similar to what WWII offered, to change much of the world. Likewise, the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September of 2002, announced that the 9/11 event opened up vast new opportunities.

The USA Patriot Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, less than two months after the attack. As we’ll see shortly, this act focuses on US citizens and has allowed the military to target legitimate dissent.

Concealment for False Flag Operations

Drills and sting operations may be run by the security forces in conjunction with state-sponsored terrorism as a cover in case they get caught, or to create confusion. If their connections to these terrorist attacks are discovered, they can always claim they were incompetent during a drill or sting operation gone badly.

Remember how the real bomb found during the Russian Apartment Bombings was dismissed as being part of a drill? Also, during both the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in 1995, the FBI and BATF were working with the alleged terrorists under a sting operation.

“The most sensible conclusion anyone came to after examining evidence like this,” explained WorldNetDaily in December of 1999, “is that the Oklahoma City bombing was a sting operation that went wrong. But, incredibly, the same conclusion can be drawn about the [first] World Trade Center bombing.”

The funding and/or planning for both the first WTC bombing in 1993 and Oklahoma City led right back to federal law enforcement such as the FBI and BATF. The FBI used an informant named Emad A. Salem to infiltrate an Arab group in New York to coax them into bombing the WTC back in 1993. When the group asked him to create a bomb, he requested a harmless device from the FBI, but instead was given materials to build a live bomb.

“To make a long, complicated story short and simple,” commented WorldNetDaily, “The FBI spent $3 million of your tax money to blow up the World Trade Center. The story’s essentially the same at Waco, Ruby Ridge and other government-made disasters.”

In what The Boston Globe describes as a “bizarre coincidence” US intelligence agencies planned a drill on September 11, 2001, which consisted of an aircraft flying into a building. Adding to the coincidence, the drill was scheduled to occur less than an hour after flight 77 (which was hijacked) left Dulles International Airport. This confusion caused NORAD, which is charged with protecting the airspace, to stand-down for the first time in its 50-year history.

Summary

There are numerous documented historical examples of PRS in practice, as well as countless others which have not yet been officially recognized.2 It’s probably one of the most-used tactics to bring about massive change. Although it’s simple in theory, most people don’t think along these lines, because they themselves would never resort to such methods.

These acts may not make sense if viewed as isolated incidents. But when examined as essential steps in establishing a dictatorship, a picture begins to form. Things also become clearer when a couple of things are considered. First, despite most officers being loyal patriots, federal law enforcement agencies and local law enforcement are controlled from the top by the financial elite. Second, those who are controlling this revolution believe that chaos is necessary in order to make the massive changes that are necessary for them to install a worldwide dictatorship.

“Who benefits most from terrorist activity?” asked WorldNetDaily. “Americans might be shocked to learn that their government is involved in such escapades,” they commented. “But those who study history should expect such things. It’s been going on since the beginning of time.”

Most of us would never give up our personal freedoms—unless it was required to in exchange for protection against a threat. In his documentary, The Capitalist Conspiracy, author G. Edward Griffin revealed that the best way to promote world government is to deliberately create problems which require solutions that result in an expansion of government.

According to author Griffin, this can be accomplished by terrorizing people into giving up their personal liberties and national sovereignty, so that world government will seem acceptable. “The real action,” says Griffin “is in the reaction.”

“The fact that the United States has not faced a recent military or national security disaster,” observed Metz and Kievit in their 1994 US Army War College article, “has hindered the development and application of new technology to conflict short of war.” “Two things could inspire efforts to develop and apply cutting-edge technology,” they advised. “One is the emergence of an active and powerful coterie of visionaries within the national security community... The other is defeat or disaster.”

“But the pursuit of power,” declared Brzezinski, “is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being.”

So, whenever a crisis occurs, or the threat of a crisis looms, or a series of crimes unfold which is hyped by the media, understand that the wealthy interests who run the planet may be attempting to terrorize you into accepting new legislation.

Sources

Endnotes

1 These are listed on the 9/11 Fact Card which is available at 911Truth.Org. The websites of the professionals who are advocating an independent investigation can also be found there. The following films provide substantial evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation: Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State by Alex Jones, Loose Change by Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas, and Matthew Brown, and 9/11: The Great Illusion by George Humphrey. Also see the books, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, and The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, both by David Ray Griffin.

2 For more examples of PRS see the film TerrorStorm: A History of Government-Sponsored Terrorism, by Alex Jones. Also see Volume I of my book The Hidden Evil.