In Your Face and Hidden in Plain Sight - Submission from Michael Wolsey

Michael Wolsey emailed out this article he wrote a few weeks back. It is not posted on any other sites currently, so here is the article in its entirety.

In Your Face and Hidden in Plain Sight
December 7, 2005
by Michael Wolsey
Colorado 911 Visibility

A recent story from November 10th 2005 by Doug Thompson of Capitol Hill Blue highlights yet another example of a long string of writings, memo’s and very real plans which advocate or suggest that terrorist attacks could be used to further a political agenda. The article reports on a "confidential memo" which "suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people." The article goes on to quote one Bush aide as saying "The President's popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks," admits one aide. "Americans band together at a time of crisis.".

Indeed, this statement is true. Bush’s popularity hit record levels after the 9-11 attacks. American streets were filled with vehicles sporting American flags as the media whipped the population into a patriotic furor. As the Bush regime banged the drums of war, the American public was firmly behind the President demanding vengeance against the new "Boogie Man", TERRORISM. After the 9-11 attacks, one word, terrorism, could and did frighten an entire country of 280 million. Americans were terrified at the idea of a faceless, country-less enemy who could strike anywhere, at anytime. High officials in our own government prepared the public for, in Vice President Dick Cheney’s words, "a war that may not end in our lifetimes.".

However, those who were paying attention were crying foul. These informed people knew about the planned pipeline through Afghanistan, the "carpet of bombs" threat, and the plan to begin a war against the Taliban before the Winter snows, among other things. The Bush regime was right on schedule with its’ October 7th invasion of Afghanistan and September 11th provided the pretext. One of Hitler’s top men, Herman Goering summed up this process during the Nuremberg Trails after WWII when he said:

"Naturally the common people don’t want war...But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship...All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

This Capitol Hill Blue article illustrates and emphasizes this major 9-11 smoking gun which is In Your Face and Hidden in Plain Sight. The sheer volume of evidence which include historical precedence, official government memo’s, statements by high level government officials, and writings of prominent past and present members of the U.S. government support the idea that we are watching before our very eyes, the haunting scenario painted by Goering 60 years ago, only worse.

Historical Precedence

Prior to America’s entry into WWII, most Americans did not want to be involved in the war. Not unexpectedly, the attack at Pearl Harbor dramatically changed public opinion and provided the needed pretext for America’s entrance into the war. But was the attack at Pearl Harbor really a surprise like the administration of FDR wanted the world to believe? FOIA requests provide numerous documents which show that the administration knew the attacks were coming and had actually implemented a plan designed to get the Japanese to attack the United States. Declassified in 1994, the McCollum memo contained an 8 step plan designed to provoke an attack, a plan that was ultimately implemented shortly before the December 7th, 1941 attack. In his article from June 2001 titled Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction published in The New American, James Perloff writes:

"The memorandum advocated eight actions predicted to lead Japan into attacking the United States. McCollum wrote: ‘If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.’ FDR enacted all eight of McCollum’s provocative steps - and more."

In this way, America had created an enemy, rallied the people of the United States, and justified entrance into the war, a startling foreshadowing of the later words from Nazi war criminal Herman Goering. It is not such a leap to make the obvious comparisons to 9-11 and equally important, what happened after 9-11. The President himself reportedly wrote in his diary on the evening of September 11th, 2001, "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century took place today.", one of a long string of references to the attacks at Pearl Harbor.

Although, since the end of WWII there have been many other incidents in which the American public have been deceived into war, including the Viet Nam war and Gulf War I, one other historical precedent is worthy of note.

America’s entrance into WWII was an example of creating an enemy by provocation. FDR simply pushed the Japanese into attacking the United States, thus creating an enemy from behind the scenes, waiting for them to attack, and then seizing the opportunity to wage war.

The declassified memo from 1962 known as the "Northwoods Document" is an example of manufacturing an enemy, an even more sinister plan than the McCollum memo. This document, marked TOP SECRET, and signed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, L.L. Lemnitzer but rejected by President Kennedy, called for committing acts of terror against US citizens and then blaming these acts on Cuba to justify a war. The document boldly suggests that "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.." as well as other manufactured scenario’s carefully designed to generate what the document itself calls "PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA". The Northwoods plan also asserts that "Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." showing that they were concerned about swaying public opinion in support of their manufactured war.

While the Northwoods plan was not implemented in the 60's resulting in war with Cuba, the document proves beyond debate that elements within the "Military Industrial Complex" have covertly conspired to manufacture enemies where none exist. Thats right, an out right conspiracy within our own government. The next time someone calls you a "conspiracy theorist" in a derogatory way, bring them a copy of the Northwoods document and let them see it for themselves. My question is this: Did the Bush regime resurrect the Northwoods plan on 9-11?

In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned the American public when he said:

"In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberty or democratic process’s. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Unfortunately, this warning to the "citizenry", was not heeded and Americans have not remained "alert and knowledgeable". The American public have been propagandized by a controlled media and tricked time after time into supporting acts by their government that they would never have supported otherwise. This historical precedence is important for understanding the big picture and who is really responsible for the crimes of 9-11.

In Their Own Words

Another piece of this 9-11 smoking gun comes directly from the words of key leaders both past and present.

In the spring of 1997, several members of the current Bush Regime including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and others formed a group calling itself "The Project for the New American Century" or PNAC for short. PNAC was formed to prepare for a hoped republican take over of Congress and the White House in the 2000 elections which can be inferred from their own "Statement of Principles". Take a good look at the signatories at the bottom of the PNAC Statement of Principles. Recognize any of these folks?

In September of 2000, just one year before the 9-11 attacks, PNAC released a document titled "Rebuilding America’s Defenses". In this document, PNAC lays out their plan for securing America’s dominance as a world super-power and then boldly states that the process of transformation would be long and expensive absent a "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor". (emphasis added) David Ray Griffin’s ground breaking book, The New Pearl Harbor; Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 took its name from this statement. In your face and hidden in plain sight, the PNAC openly said that a Pearl Harbor style attack would help them achieve their goals!

In January of 2001, the Bush regime effectively took control of the US government and installed many of these same PNAC people in key positions within the regime. Was 9-11 the "new Pearl Harbor" that PNAC needed to proceed with their imperialist agenda?

About the same time the PNAC was being formed, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter and member of world government advocates, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published his book The Grand Chessboard-- American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives. Similar in theme to the PNAC document quoted above, Brzezinski’s book outlines plans for American dominance in the world with particular emphasis on the oil and gas reserves of the Central Asia region which includes Afghanistan. Brzezinski includes maps of proposed pipelines, including the one mentioned above. Coincidence?

Brzezinski also makes a reference to Pearl Harbor when he says, "The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."

While not as bold as the PNAC statement calling for a "new Pearl Harbor", this statement is nonetheless interesting when it is laid beside another statement found later in the same book.

Brzezinski writes, "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. ... In the absence of a comparable external challenge, American society may find it much more difficult to reach agreement regarding foreign policies ... that still require an enduring and sometimes costly imperial engagement." (emphasis added)

Laid out together, these two statements by Brzezinski effectively combine the technique described above by Herman Goering for getting the people behind war, with the suggestion that shocking Pearl Harbor style attacks could be used to rally the American public. . Another coincidence or more in your face and hidden in plain sight?

9-11 as an opportunity

After 9-11, some may find it a surprise that just hours after the attacks many within our own government were referring to the attacks as opportunities. It was as if those waiting for a "new Pearl Harbor" were chomping at the bit and couldn’t wait to use the attacks to further their agenda’s. The President himself called the attacks a "great opportunity" and in September of 2002, The National Security Strategy of the United States declared that the 9-11 attacks "opened vast, new opportunities". Indeed, the 9-11 attacks brought about many benefits and opportunities, mainly to the Military Industrial Complex and those who support the radical PNAC agenda....The same people who before 9-11 were touting the benefits of a "new Pearl Harbor". Another coincidence or yet another example of in your face and hidden in plain sight?

One of PNAC’s founding members and signatories, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the night of 9-11-01 made the following statement directed at the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin:

"Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don't have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense.....Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending, to dip into Social Security, if necessary, to pay for defense spending?"

As Dr. David Ray Griffin so rightly points out in Chapter 10 of his book The 9/11 Commission Report; Omissions and Distortions,

"Earlier that day, the Pentagon, which by then had been under Rumsfeld's leadership for almost seven months, failed to prevent airplane attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon itself. Now that very evening Rumsfeld was using the success of those attacks to get more money from Congress for the Pentagon and, in particular, for the US Space Command."

Dr. Griffin goes on to point out the fact that this "remarkable coincidence" was ignored by the 9-11 Commission. After all, his affiliation with the PNAC and his new cabinet level position of Secretary of Defense might suggest that Donald Rumsfeld did not have an interest in preventing the 9-11 attacks. This would not fit into the basic premise adopted by the 9-11 Commission, that being that the entire attacks of 9-11 were completely planned and orchestrated by al Qaeda.

Just 3 days after the 9-11 attacks on September 14, 2001, former Colorado Senator and CFR member Gary Hart said in a televised meeting organized by the CFR in Washington, D.C.,

"There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this (9-11) disaster to carry out ... a new world order."

In your face and hidden in plain sight, Hart calls for the President to use the 9-11 attacks to carry out what the Presidents father, G.H.W. Bush had spoken of ten years earlier in an address to Congress, ironically on September 11th, 1991.


It is obvious that there is a clear and documented historical precedent for elements at the highest levels of the U.S government to sacrifice its’ own citizens and even members of its’ own military to further a covert agenda. On this, the 65th anniversary of the attacks at Pearl Harbor, it is particularly poignant that we use their own words as they relate to 9-11, and to use these words to shed light on the fact that things are not always what they seem.....or in this case, what your government wants you to believe.

Pearl Harbor, however, should not be considered an isolated incident. History is rife with examples of governments creating crisis, taking in the public reaction, and then offering up their solution. We’ve seen it over and over throughout recorded history and even have a name for it, the Hegelian Dialectic. One of the most infamous of such use of the Hegelian Dialectic was the incident which propelled Adolf Hitler to power, the Reichstag Fire, which has been compared to 9-11 many times.

It is also clear that 9-11 did indeed create opportunities for many within the Bush regime. We will have to wait and see if the ideas in memo’s floating around Washington, D.C., such as the one cited in the most recent report from Capitol Hill Blue, are used to create new opportunities for the flailing Bush regime.

Nice article...

Nice article...

The YBBS 10 Bestest Threads

Yes, very good - though

Yes, very good - though nothing new - until the end. All this ignorant NWO stuff about the Hegelian dialectic, from people who've never read Hegel, is annoying to no end. Yes, the ruling classes have always created problems and provide the solutions - since long before Hegel - but to call that the "Hegelian dialectic" is nothing less than moronic.

What name would you prefer,

What name would you prefer, O' cynical James?

"nothing new," "ignorant NWO stuff" "Hegelian dialectic is nothing less than moronic" "annoying to no end"

That is a whole bunch of criticisms without one ounce of support.

Look, if you say that the

Look, if you say that the Hegelian dialectic has something to do with 9/11, geopolitical conquest, US terror and repression, then you're the one who should back it up. Otherwise I say it's ignorant claptrap, know-nothing loony prophecy that's even worse than saying that Nostradamus predicted 9/11. Creating problems and providing "solutions" is one of the oldest tricks in the book used by the powerful, and the author of the Phenomenology of Spirit-who lived only 200 years ago- has nothing to do with it. Hegel sought to describe what he saw as the unfolding of a universal spirit through history and philosophy; he provides no toolbook for world conquest by the NWO. Hegel was certainly a central influence on Karl Marx.
But this NWO "Hegelian dialectic" nonsense is the sort of crackpot, disinfo type stuff that diverts people's attention from what's happening in this blood-soaked real world of ours, and gets them thinking about utter nonsense. But because Hegel can be obscure, difficult to understand, he's perfect grist for the mill to use to mystify people who had never heard of him before (or never read any philosophy before). Wanna read Hegel?:

I agree mostly with James.

I agree mostly with James.

Reign means the same old methods since its introduction 5000- 7000 years ago.

Hegelian dialectic has only minor points with that in common- Hegels view of the world was a greater look how the world works, it reminds me of the principles of the Kybalion.

If there were some philosophist the NeoCons rely on it sure have to be Hobbes and Carl Schmitt. And maybe some influence of Trotzki.

And for sure Leo Strauss.

And for sure Leo Strauss.

Yes, Leo Strauss. Though I

Yes, Leo Strauss. Though I would downplay the importance of any particular philosophy in what's happening now, or in 9/11, whether it's Strauss or whoever. This is about power and money, not philosophy.

Political philosophy like that of Strauss (or Niccolo M.), legal theory like that of Carl Schmitt might be important in understanding the mindset of certain key individuals, your PNAC set, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc., but the whole enterprise is about conquest for world power. That's what 9/11 was about.

Don't know much about the Kybalion, but it seems to be presented as a secret wisdom, but there's absolutely nothing secret about Hegel: he's just a hard read.

I would disagree about the Trotsky thing, because it's mostly based on the superficial analysis that since Trotsky was for world revolution, and these PNAC/Bushie guys are for it too (in their own imperial way) then, voilà, they're "Trotskyists".

At least these things are reasonably debatable, not like this pathetic "Hegelian dialectic" farce. (BTW, if the "Hegelian dialectic" is such a powerful weapon in "their" hands, why can't we use it back against them?)

Part of the problem is that people don't read. I mean books.

The Problem Reaction

The Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm (The Hegelian Dialectic)

1) The government creates or exploits a problem blaming it on others

2) The people react by asking the government for help willing to give up their rights

3) The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis

Ab, this

Ab, this problem/reaction/solution approach has been with us ever since we've had governments, and that is exactly what has been happening with 9/11. But the fact remains, if you can actually understand this - hello, are you there? - is that to attribute this to Hegel or the "Hegelian dialectic" is a fraud, something like saying that Professor David Ray Griffin is really behind the Iraqi armed resistance(an example that just popped into my head).
I guess this weird NWO stuff is a sort of religion with you barely-schooled guys, and you're impervious to actual facts. Free your mind.

First of all, I take

First of all, I take everything Michael Wolsey says with a pound of salt. (And when 911blogger tells us that MW's article is not published anywhere else, but I know that MW runs a 9/11 web site, I think I may need more salt... Best info strongly suggests that MW was involved in the cancellation of Morgan Reynolds' recently scheduled visit to Colorado because MR wasn't sufficiently afraid of 911 gatekeepers to prevent his use the "H"-word.)

ab's definition of the Hegelian dialectic parrot's Alex Jones' definition of it. I condsider that an alternate way of looking at it (THD).

I think Hegel was talking about "the 2 sides", and jerking people back and forth between them, and making them feel that if they adopt a view which is outside "the 2" (sic) positions, that they are marginalized outside the mainstream.

This is how the false fake Rep-Dem paradigm works. (ie, if Dems don't see anything wrong with Bush's incriminating 9/11 witness statements, there must not be anything wrong with them (based upon the supposition that Dems oppose Reps and would "get" Bush if they ever had any dirt on him).

IOW, they try to jerk us around from side to side (ie, left-right).

Alex Jones promotes a different view of THD. Alex's "problem, reaction, solution" definition describes a way of jerking us around across the 4th dimension, time. (ie, we were too lax, then we had some big calamity, so now we need to be more rigorous than before about restricting freedoms)

I give credit to AJ for this other-dimensional view, but sometimes it seems as if he promotes it to the exclusion, or at least detriment, of the more standard view of THD.

For instance, Alex knows and says that the Dem-Rep paradigm is fake/phony, but it took 911blimp to point out to him the evidence which shows that Dems have been shilling for Reps for more than 50 years! (I basically informed someone in his employ that if AJ could not acknowledge this view even though he mentioned so much info surrounding it [incl John Buchanan], he might be seen by some as gatekeeping it! Soon thereafter, this buried article appeared on his web site.)