Controlling the Blowback

On the evening of February 15, 1898, in Havana harbour, the USS Maine mysteriously exploded. Quickly sinking to the bottom. 274 of the 374 crew were killed. The Maine had been in Cuba during a time of upheaval, with local rebels resisting Spanish rule. A month later, the US Naval Court of Inquiry ruled that a sea mine had caused the disaster, and it was widely held that the mine was planted by the Spanish. The resulting nationalist sentiment within the US sparked the Spanish-American War.

Later, it was revealed that the presence of a mine was unlikely. It emerged that an internal explosion, from the coal bunker igniting the weapon magazines, was responsible for the sinking of the ship.

The sinking of the Maine certainly didn't count in favour of the Spanish, since they weren't looking for a fight with the US, and ended up losing control of Cuba to the Americans.

It could be co-incidence. Maybe everything happened as official sources claim, or, maybe, this is all too convenient. This could be another example of the most insidious strategy used by governments around the world. Attacking their own, or allowing attacks to be made, in order to appear the victim. Will governments shoot themselves in the foot to appear righteous in the coming war? I believe so. (See False Flag Incidents, right.)

Here's a nuts and bolts example of how it works. Country A wants to influence Country B, only, so does Country C. Countries A & C don't really get along. A could assassinate C's friends in B, but the resulting wave of public opinion swinging against Country A does even more damage. The population of B feels, despite what they may be told, that A is responsible. C now has more friends inside Country B. So A's short-term benefits are ineffective against the long-term 'blowback'. Intelligence agencies know this. They are not stupid. So let's run that scenario again. This time A kills its own friends within B. The blowback goes the other way. Despite the short-term liability of losing sympathetic allies, many more are recruited. Country B is now within Country A's sphere of influence. The blowback has been controlled.

Which makes you wonder about a lot of things. How did the Japanese manage a surprise attack on Pearl Harbour, moving the largest carrier force ever seen four thousand miles over eleven days, when the US knew a war was inevitable, and had cracked all the Japanese codes? While at the same time, being warned of a pacific attack by their allies? Furthermore, radar operators at Pearl Harbour were ordered to ignore massive amounts of unknown contacts picked up that morning. I'm sure that's what they teach at day one of air defence school. Is this stupidity, or deliberate inaction? As chance would have it, only surface battleships (considered obsolete since the Battle of Jutland) were in the port during the attack. The US carriers (the decisive weapon in the Pacific theatre) were all away at the time. Can anyone else smell a Reichstag fire?

Why? Franklin D. Roosevelt had come into his historic third term promising to keep the United States out of the Second World War, even though he supported re-armament and the British war effort. America needed to join the war against the Axis, but a turnaround in policy would have been political suicide. Something big and horrific was needed. Another Lusitania.

The Former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko might have been killed because he believed the FSB were behind the Russian apartment bombings which prefaced the Second Chechen War. What about 9/11? Worry about the next big horrific false flag incident which will herald the next war.

What am I describing here? Responsible governments with the safety of their citizens as the highest priority? Or sophisticated organised crime networks offering up human sacrifices to achieve their goals? I doubt there's a government in the world which deserves your respect or obedience. I'm not against Human civilisation, in the words of Gandhi: 'I think it would be a good idea'.