El Paso Walmart, four shooters, eyewitness removed from youtube:
https://www.brighteon.com/b201b475-5a5e-4f95-b313-a27967685539
Call it the ‘let’s get Tulsi off the front page and force her into alienating her conservative supporters with the right to bear arms trap’ employing some tried and true (same old deep state) shit. CBS reports/tweets:
“El Paso Police say they have “no doubt” there are multiple shooters”
And then CBS deleted their tweet and it is predictably one shooter. Predictably? Read on, here’s a bit of history:
For those unfamiliar with ‘GLADIO’, this is the name assigned a known history of western democracies intelligence agencies unleashing terror on their own citizens for purpose of influencing or manipulating public opinion to the advantage (historically-typically) of the right wing in politics. In the history developed since GLADIO first spilled into the open in Europe in 1990, we see the Pentagon & Central Intelligence Agency were central to setting up the original cells. Although exposed for mass murders falsely blamed on left wing political movements, the initial GLADIO actors were never prosecuted and the apparatus behind GLADIO never shut down. There is a video documentary of GLADIO (NATO’s secret armies) farther down this page, followed by more print information. Meanwhile, presented here are holes in the stories of several USA mass shootings, raising the specter of ongoing GLADIO operations –
Las Vegas:
Gunshot victim testimony of what went on from inside the venue matches the analysis of multiple shooters:
Las Vegas, gunfire from at least two automatic weapons, analysis:
2nd, 19 second recording, clearly two automatic weapons:
All for the ‘fact’ of a lone shooter who must simultaneously work two automatic weapons like Rambo (and then conveniently commit suicide.) BUT, What I clearly hear is two separate calibers, two rates of fire, the heavier caliber a lower rate of fire at distance but steady, indicating it is belt fed. The lighter caliber with higher rate of fire is much closer and in bursts. It’s been nearly 50 years but you never forget the noise, in fact you need to learn to accurately interpret the noise because it can give you critical information in a fluid combat circumstance. These are 2 separate weapons without question, employed from distinct locations.
Then, the Las Vegas Sheriff (going ‘off script’, read on) says the shooter had to have had help, at least in pulling the act together (setting it up)
If you follow the Sheriff over the entire (longer, following) interview, what becomes clear is, in his own words, the ‘facts’ he reports are coming from the FBI. Is the FBI corrupt? Oh yes. So, when we hear two automatic weapons discharging from separate locations, you have to look for openings in the ‘lone shooter’ story the FBI is feeding us.
Interesting ‘facts’ are 1) the ‘hero’ security guard is sent packing before the room is breached by the police team. Is this sanitizing witnesses? The other interesting fact is, the Sheriff states there was a second team hauled a large, heavy bag of weapons to the location in the midst of the operation. Is this opportunity to swap out weapons used? Did large quantities of ammo and, spent brass with associated weapons come up to the room and, a belt fed machine gun and associated ammo and spent brass & belt links go back down in that bag? 3) It has been reported there was a full hour passed after the shooting had stopped, with police on location, before the police forced their way into the ‘shooters’ room. This, coupled with ‘the adjacent room’ (adjoining suite) spoken of by the Sheriff, provides plausible separate entry and exit, with ample time to swap out the evidence.
Also, the Sheriff’s investigators don’t have access to the ‘shooters’ girlfriend, all this information will be fed via the FBI who appear have total control over all information.
An interesting aside, the ‘gentlemen’ (includes FBI ‘investigative’ leader) standing behind the Sheriff like minders, while giving very close attention to every reporter and every question asked, pass a note from one to the other at minute 32:17. What couldn’t wait to be known at that moment? These two guys seemed more interested in the reporting than the crime.
The full interview:
Munich:
GLADIO returns to Munich: “A Munich police spokesman says witnesses have reported seeing three shooters with “long guns” who attacked a McDonald’s in a city mall”
Three gunmen then magically morph into a single shooter who commits suicide: “A teenage German-Iranian gunman who killed nine people in a shooting spree at a busy Munich shopping centre and then committed suicide had likely acted alone, German police said Saturday”
This preceding would appear to be the more recent USA GLADIO model re-exported to Europe; recalling there has never been a satisfactory explanation for how a recently sold in the USA military grade assault rifle was reported to be employed in the Paris Bataclan massacre:
“Milojko Brzakovic of the Zastava arms factory told The Associated Press that the M92 semi-automatic pistol’s serial number matched one his company delivered to an American online arms dealer in May 2013. It was not clear how the gun got back to Europe”
As well at the Bataclan, a member of the band stating: “When I first got to the venue and walked in, I walked past the dude who was supposed to be the security guard for the backstage. I immediately went to the promoter and said: ‘Who’s that guy? I want to put another dude on. Eventually I found out that six or so [band security detail] wouldn’t show up at all.”
Moving back to the USA and the recent killing of police in Dallas, immediately it is apparent the reporting is problematic; with initial reports of multiple snipers firing from elevated positions, which would be consistent with an initial high rate of police casualties. Most of the police appear to have been gunned down in the first minutes. It was also reported the fire (from multiple snipers) was “triangulated” or a professionally set up, coordinated ambush. Former CIA officer & clandestine service Afghanistan veteran William Hurd stated:
“When gunfire started exchanging, you had folks in cross positions that were moving towards the target,” the Texas Republican told Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” program. “Usually, most folks that have never been in that situation are going the opposite direction. The level of coordination, there seemed to be some type of triangulation”
This information is also stated by the Dallas Chief of Police:
“We believe these suspects were positioning themselves in a way to try to triangulate against officers,” Brown said”
But within 48 hours the narrative had dramatically changed; it is now a ‘lone gunman’ whom the police took care to blow up with a robot after they had him cornered (never-mind they’d initially reported he’d shot himself.) Question: Why, after cornering the suspect, instead of holding out for a negotiated surrender and possible critically important intelligence gains, would they take him out with an explosive device? How could the professional police of Dallas, many of them military veterans qualified to make an accurate first assessment, get it all so wrong as to have to change the entire story?
At San Bernardino; three shooters, tall with athletic build: eye witness account. Of course we all are subsequently informed this was a (conveniently dead) lone gunman…
Orlando nightclub shooting; eyewitnesses claim more than one shooter and accomplices preventing escapes, blocking exit doors from the outside, while shooting went on. Of course this morphed into a single, dead shooter…
Orlando eyewitnesses part 1:
Orlando eyewitnesses part 2:
The Navy Yard shootings generated initial reports of multiple gunmen at more than one location, but ultimately a single lone gunman is dead at the scene. But this one gets a little stickier; a swat team on location was ordered not to intervene and leave scene of the ongoing shooting:
“A tactical response team from the force was told by a supervisor to leave the scene instead of aiding municipal officers, police sources told the BBC”
Aurora: The evidence covered up by law enforcement and the court in the ‘Batman’ theater shooting is nothing short of overwhelming. Video of close eyewitness accounts ( < preceding link is expanded witness accounts) clearly detail the shooter(s) had inside help and this evidence is suppressed:
The only difference between the old domestic Gladio which had been western intelligence agencies engineering terror and the current version of domestic Gladio (Gladio B) is the label put on the enemies supposedly responsible; today’s boogeyman is often Islam (and radical reactionaries to ‘Islam is terrorism’ propaganda) whereas previous to the fall of the Soviet Union the terror boogeyman was communism. A fifty minutes documentary of social engineering via GLADIO terror cells employed by intelligence agencies in Europe is a good place to start people unlearning & relearning:
A postscript observation would be concerning historian Daniele Ganser’s otherwise excellent conclusions in his 2004 book NATO’s Secret Armies:
‘Prudent Precaution or source of Terror?’ the international press pointedly asked when the secret stay-behind armies of NATO were discovered across Western Europe following the Gladio revelations in Italy in late 1990.
[…]
Experts of the Cold War will note that Operation Gladio and NATO’s stay-behind armies cast a new light on the question of sovereignty in Western Europe. It is now clear that as the Cold War divided Europe, brutality and terror was employed to control populations on both sides of the Iron Curtain. As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, this fact has long been recognised, long before it had been openly declared. After the Red Army had in 1968 mercilessly crushed the social reforms in Prag, Soviet leader Leonid Breschnew in Moscow with his infamous ‘Breschnew doctrine’ had openly declared that the countries of Eastern Europe were only allowed to enjoy ‘limited sovereignty’. As far as Western Europe is concerned the conviction of being sovereign and independent was shattered more recently. The data from Operation Gladio and NATO’s stay-behind armies indicates a more subtle and hidden strategy to manipulate and limit the sovereignty, with great differences from country to country. Yet a limitation of sovereignty it was. And in each case where the stay-behind network in the absence of a Soviet invasion functioned as a straightjacket for the democracies of Western Europe, Operation Gladio was the Breschnew doctrine of Washington. The strategic rationale to protect NATO from within cannot be brushed aside lightly. But the manipulation of the democracies of Western Europe by Washington and London on a level which many in the European Union still today find difficult to believe clearly violated the rule of law and will require further debate and investigation. In some operations the secret stay-behind soldiers together with the secret military services monitored and filed left-wing politicians and spread anti-Communist propaganda. In more violent operations the secret war led to bloodshed. Tragically the secret warriors linked up with right-wing terrorists, a combination that led – in some countries including at least Belgium, Italy, France, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Turkey – to massacres, torture, coup d’etats and other violent acts. Most of these state-sponsored terrorist operations, as the subsequent cover-ups and fake trials suggest, enjoyed the encouragement and protection of selected highly placed governmental and military officials in Europe and in the United States. Members of the security apparatus and the government on both sides of the Atlantic who themselves despise being linked up with right-wing terrorism must in the future bring more clarity and understanding into these tragic dimensions of the secret Cold War in Western Europe.
If Cold War experts will derive new data from NATO’s stay-behind network for their discourse on limited sovereignty during the Cold War, then international legal experts and analysts of dysfunctions of democracies will find data on the breakdown of checks and balances within each nation. The Gladio data indicates that the legislative was unable to control the more hidden branches of the executive, and that parliamentary control of secret services is often non-existing or dysfunctional in democracies on both sides of the Atlantic. Totalitarian states have long been known to have operated a great variety of largely uncontrolled and unaccountable secret services and secret armies. Yet to discover such serious dysfunctions also in numerous democracies comes as a great surprise, to say the least. Within this debate of checks and balances military officials have been correct to point out after the discovery of Operation Gladio and NATO’s stay-behind network that there can never be such a thing as a ‘transparent stay-behind army’, for such a network would be exposed immediately in case of invasion and its members would be killed by the invasion force. Parliamentarians and constitutional lawyers meanwhile have been equally correct to emphasise that both the armed forces and the secret services of a democracy must at all times be transparent, accountable, controlled and supervised closely by civilian representatives of the people as they represent the most powerful instruments of the state.
This clash between mandatory secrecy and mandatory transparency, which lies at the heart of the Gladio phenomenon, directly points to the more general question of how much secrecy should be granted to the executive branch of a democracy. Judged from the Gladio evidence, where a lack of transparency and accountability has lead to corruption, abuse and terror, the answer is clear: The executive should be granted no secrecy and should at all times be controlled by the legislative. For a secret government, as it manifested itself in the United States and parts of Western Europe, can lead to abuse and even state terrorism. The growth of Intelligence abuses reflects a more general failure of our basic institutions’, US Senator Frank Church had wisely noted after a detailed investigation of CIA covert operations already in the 1970s. Gladio repeats this warning with a vengance.
It can hardly be overemphasised that running a secret army and funding an unaccountable intelligence service entails grave risks every democracy should seek to avoid. For the risks do not only include uncontrolled violence against groups of citizens, but mass manipulation of entire countries or continents. Among the most far-reaching findings on the secret war, as seen in the analysis, ranges the fact that the stay-behind network had served as a tool to spread fear amongst the population also in the absence of an invasion. The secret armies in some cases functioned as an almost perfect manipulation system that transported the fears of high-ranking military officers in the Pentagon and NATO to the populations in Western Europe. European citizens, as the strategists in the Pentagon saw it, due to their limited vision were unable to perceive the real and present danger of Communism, and therefore they had to be manipulated. By killing innocent citizens on market squares or in supermarkets and blaming the crime on the Communists the secret armies together with convinced right-wing terrorists effectively translated the fears of Pentagon strategists into very real fears of European citizens.
The destructive spiral of manipulation, fear and violence did not end with the fall of the Soviet Union and the discovery of the secret armies in 1990, but on the contrary gained momentum. Ever since the vicious terrorist attacks on the population of the United States on September 11, 2001 and the beginning of the ‘War on Terrorism’ fear and violence dominate not only the headlines across the globe but also the consciousness of millions. In the West the ‘evil Communist’ of the Cold War era has swiftly been replaced with the ‘evil Islamist’ of the war on terrorism era. With almost 3,000 civilians killed on September 11, and several thousands killed in the US-led war on terrorism so far with no end in sight, a new level of brutality has been reached.
Such an environment of fear, as the Gladio evidence shows, is ideally suited to manipulate the masses on both sides into more radical positions. Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaida terror network manipulated millions of Muslims, above all young male adults, to take up a radical position and believe in violence. On the other side also the White House and the administration of George Bush junior has fuelled the spiral of violence and fear and lead millions of Christians and seculars in the United States and in Europe to believe in the necessity and justice of killing other human beings in order to enhance their own security. Yet human security is not being advanced, but on the contrary decays, as the atmosphere is drenched with manipulation, violence and fear. Where the manipulation and the violence originate from and where they lead to, is at times very difficult to dissect. Hitler and the Nazis had profited greatly from manipulation and the fear in the wake of the mysterious Reichstagsbrand in Berlin in 1933, whereupon the Third Reich and Second World War followed. In 2001 the war on terrorism began, and once again radical critics have argued that the White House had manipulated 9/11, the largest terrorist attack in history, for geostrategic purposes.
As people across the globe share a vague sensation ‘that it cannot go on like that’ many search for an exit strategy from the spiral of violence, fear and manipulation. In Europe a consensus is building that terrorism cannot be defeated by war, as the latter feeds the spiral of violence, and hence the war on terrorism is not part of the solution but part of the problem. Furthermore also more high-tech – from retina scanning to smart containers – seems unable to really protect potential targets from terror attacks. More technology might even increase the challenges ahead when exploited for terrorist purposes and asymmetric warfare, a development observable ever since the invention of dynamite in the nineteenth century. Arguably more technology and more violence will therefore not solve the challenges ahead. A potential exit strategy from the spiral of fear, manipulation and violence might have to focus on the individual human being itself and a change of consciousness. Given its free will the individual can decide to focus on non-violent solutions of given problems and promote a dialogue of understanding and forgiveness in order to reduce extremist positions. The individual can break free from fear and manipulation by consciously concentrating on his or her very own feelings, thoughts, words and actions, and by focusing all of them on peaceful solutions. As more secrecy and more bloodshed are unlikely to solve the problems ahead the new millennium seems a particularly adequate time to begin with such a shift in consciousness which can have positive effects both for the world and for oneself.
Following on his excellent deconstructive analysis of GLADIO, Ganser’s epic fail is in the last paragraph where…
A potential exit strategy from the spiral of fear, manipulation and violence might have to focus on the individual human being itself and a change of consciousness. Given its free will the individual can decide to focus on non-violent solutions of given problems and promote a dialogue of understanding and forgiveness in order to reduce extremist positions. The individual can break free from fear and manipulation by consciously concentrating on his or her very own feelings, thoughts, words and actions, and by focusing all of them on peaceful solutions
…naively presuming the class of psychopaths risen to rule from the shadow will somehow magically correct the organic deficit in their personalities. What’s more and what’s worse is, on top of ‘leopards don’t shed their spots’ or criminals do not voluntarily surrender their business models, utterly missing is the ‘how’ that will be required; to weed out a pervasive criminal ‘deep state’ apparatus rooted in every branch and at every level across western democratic institutions. This septic infection of western democratic institutions has become the world’s largest and most entrenched organized crime family, where military-industrial corporate boards are fused with rogue intelligence agencies and ‘terror’ is essential to their bottom line: PROFIT. The stark reality is, generating terror has become a money making venture of such magnitude, were the symbiotic relationship between deliberately generated terror, and the armaments and related industries that derive immense profits from the same, were interrupted, the western culture’s economic engine would collapse.
Insofar as Genser’s ‘non-violence’ proposal, that is well and good, provided it is not manipulated akin to the Gene Sharp model where Ghandi’s moral and ethical principles had been suborned to amoral utilitarian ends based in ‘color revolutions.’ This evil, and those who’ve perpetrated it, must be put away. As well, Genser’s last paragraph should not be construed to allow the GLADIO criminal elements forgiveness along the lines of a ‘truth and reconciliation’ process, which is inconsistent with accountability and the rule of law. If the criminals were to walk free, the principle of deterence is not only rendered meaningless, recidivism would reinfect every institution.
The cycle of revolution attending the ‘rise and fall’ phenomena of the western civilized hierarchies throughout history demonstrates a failed model. At the end of the day, that required going forward will be more along the lines of a ‘reverse’ Social Darwinism where decentralization is the habit and the rule, and all those aspiring to the rise of hierarchy are speedily and effectively squelched; demanding an entirely new social perspective. The impediments to this are formidable.
Example given, rather than initiate a program to convert eastern Europe’s small farmers to organic production, when expanding, the European Union has forced tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of small farmers off the land with required equipment and farm to market ‘upgrades’ these small farmers could not afford or had no access to where the infrastructure did not exist, effectively handing ‘food security’ to multinational conglomerates such as Monsanto and Syngenta. Already a new generation is coming up having lost critical knowledge in community self-sufficiency. There have been few less criminal and anti-democratic acts in the annals of democracy; where the actual facts demand surrender of a community right to self-sufficiency. On the pretext of ‘sanitation’ the EU took away the largest source of clean, community produced foodstuffs and has positioned the likes of Monsanto and Syngenta to replace this vanished community produce with product that, were it labelled honestly, would sport a skull and crossed bones.
Every day that passes with these sort of events left unchecked, reduces the chances of intelligent dismantling of a system gone horrendously wrong; sans violence and escalated social trauma. Everyday that passes under the current criminal class of leadership, the liberal democracies-GLADIO false flag actors represented in those ostensibly controlling the Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well, Europe’s Macron, Merkel & company, who either cannot or will not look and act beyond the amorality of ‘Realpolitik’ and move on behalf of people rather than a corporate system which feeds on people, compounds the problem.
Each day of deferred action determines increased gravity in coming, inevitable, social collapse. It is the undeniable repeat history of western civilization. Short of intelligent dismantlement, a radical event in the age of the most lethal weapons the world has ever seen, there almost certainly will be no ‘phoenix’ rise from the western civilization’s ashes, this time. C’est la mort.
Ronald Thomas West 
