Alarm Clock

Paris Attacks Reveal Bizarre ISIS Strategy and NATO's Strategy of Tension in Europe

Scenes from the multiple coordinated terror attacks in Paris on Friday 13th November 2015
"It's so shocking. When Charlie Hebdo happened, it was a specific, targeted attack. But this time it's terrifying because it is just random, innocent people going about their lives. I know a lot of people in Paris - there is panic and disorder here, no one can understand what's going on. We are all in a state of complete shock."
So said Quentin, 27, who works for an online company in Paris, and whose oldest friend was shot multiple times at the Bataclan concert hall.

Terrorist attacks like these are never "random", at least not in the sense that they have no point. If they appear random, then that is undoubtedly part of the strategy that drives them. Governments and groups use terrorism to achieve a specific goal, so there is always a point. To understand what the point is, you just have to know who is really responsible.

We've already been told that "ISIS" has claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks, a claim partly backed up by the convenient discovery of a Syrian passport on the body of one of the "suicide bombers" (why do these terrorists always carry ID on their suicide missions?). But given that most ISIS terrorists in Syria are foreign mercenaries, this isn't really evidence of anything, except perhaps that some ISIS terrorists were hidden among the Syrian refugees that transited through Greece this summer.

We're told that ISIS aims to establish a caliphate over as much of the Levant as possible. But achieving that aim necessarily involves the removal of the Assad government, which Western powers have been lobbying for for several years. Over the past 4 years of the "Syrian revolution", and until about 6 weeks ago, the group had gone a long way toward attaining that goal, with the Syrian Arab Army seriously pressed and the Assad government's areas of control limited to small areas in and around Damascus. After 6 weeks of Russian airstrikes however, ISIS is now losing ground faster than a 3-legged donkey in a horse race, and their paymasters in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Washington DC can't seem to funnel enough money and weapons to them to make a difference.

Blue Planet

The great global change game: Our civilization is headed for the fate of the Bronze Age - destruction

I haven't written anything for SOTT in quite a while, mainly because, as far as I could see, I had said everything that I thought needed to be said in dozens of articles over the years. It's not that I gave up, I just turned my attention to my historical research in an effort to find the key that might possibly unlock a system for change. I haven't found it. In fact, historical research has convinced me more today than ever that there is no good outcome for the human race if the present conditions continue along their defined trajectory. If human beings don't kill billions of other human beings rather soon, it seems the planet itself, or the cosmos, will do it for us.

Oh, indeed, Vladimir Putin has tossed a monkey wrench into the works of the Global Elite's drive for full-spectrum dominance, but the last person who did that from within what could be called an equivalent empire was Julius Caesar, and look what happened to him.

At present I'm working my way through a detailed account of the collapse of the Bronze Age civilization and the comparisons are so interesting that I think I'd like to bring them to your attention. At the end of the Bronze Age, there was a perfect storm of conditions and events that took the Mediterranean peoples - possibly the peoples on the entire planet, if the data could be collected - into a dark age that they did not come out of for about 300 years. If humanity survives at all, I think we are facing something similar.

Comment: Recommended reading: 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed by Eric H. Cline.


Fat Controversy - What You Don't Know About Healthy Fats

We all know that saturated fats are unhealthy and kill us. The government says it, the experts say it, and the medical professionals say it.

But is this really the case? Let's have a look a the actual science behind this claim.

The hypothesis, that saturated fats are unhealthy was first developed in 1955 by a researcher, Ancel Keys. In his famous - or I should rather say infamous - Seven Countries Study, he showed that the countries with the highest amount of saturated fat in their diet showed the highest rates of cardiovascular disease.

The problem with his study however was pointed out by two other researchers - Yerushalmy and Hilleboe - two years later. Keys had only picked seven countries out of a total of 22 for which these data were available. Had he used the full data set, his theory would have looked much weaker, and his study probably never published.


Was an 'exotic energy weapon' used to down Russian plane in Sinai?

Attentive observers of global politics may have noticed that when 'terror attacks' take place, Western authorities usually have a preprepared narrative about what happened and which terror group was responsible that is quickly pitched to the media and public. On very rare occasions however, such events are met with an uncharacteristic silence from the halls of Western power, at least for the crucial initial few days when the public mind is 'open' to impressions...

Such was the case with the downing of a Russian plane over the Sinai, when Western governments came close to saying absolutely nothing about the crash other than it had to be investigated. This was, of course, shocking to many people. After all, the authorities are meant to be authoritative and give us the simple black and white explanations we all crave so we can go back to sleep.

While the Russian government has repeatedly called for everyone to refrain from jumping to conclusions before any actual investigation had taken place, after their few days of relative silence, the US and British government officials couldn't restrain themselves from pushing the terror threat into the collective face of the global public.

British 'intelligence' has led the recent campaign to convince the world that a bomb, and therefore 'ISIS', brought down the Russian plane. The evidence for this claim involves unnamed British intelligence personnel simply saying 'it was probably a bomb'. When pressed for actual evidence however, they refer to "chatter" they "picked up" after the crash, where "ISIS militants" celebrated the event. In intelligence terms, "chatter" today usually means some tea boy at MI6 HQ seeing a post by an alleged jihadi on FB.

The closest we can get to non-social-media-based evidence for a bomb on the plane are statements by various unnamed sources, some of them allegedly "close to the investigation". One such source told AFP that "everything was normal during the flight, absolutely normal, and suddenly there was nothing." He described the accident as a "violent, sudden" demise.

Meanwhile, a source with access to the black boxes told France 2 TV channel that a sound similar to that of an explosion could be heard on the recording. This information has led other "sources close to the investigation" to tell French news magazine Le Point that the Metrojet flight was "definitely blown up by an explosive device". This was apparently based on analysis of the black boxes by Russian, French, German and Irish investigators in Cairo.


Inside the NATO Troll Factory: Meet Finnish troll-doctor Torsti Sirén, who hates


Finnish Pro-Washington troll, Docent Torsti Sirén.
You may recall our run-in with Finnish media outlets earlier this year, when Finnish presstitutes targeted with specious accusations in an apparent effort to intimidate us.

When Finnish SOTT ( editors recently wrote an article about Finnish military historian and honorary doctorate Sampo Ahto's condemning views about US imperialism, and shared it on their Facebook page, the post was subject to the kind of trolling usually only reserved for those who stray too close to the truth.

The reason we're bringing this to your attention is that Finnish mainstream newspaper Lappeenrannan uutiset subsequently published a hit-piece on October 31st titled: "a man from Lappeenranta had an incident with a Russian troll factory".


Some dude at the Finnish newspaper reading's FB page. He better be careful!
In this article by reporter Janne Koivisto, the "Russian troll factory" is our Finnish SOTT site. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. So let's take a closer look at this "news" story according to the Finnish newspaper:
Jorma Tyrmi from Lappeenranta was startled last week while using Facebook, when an unusual advertisement came up on the screen. Russia's president Vladimir Putin smiled on the advertisement, which led to an article on a website named

- An interesting thing was, that the ad was paid for. Russia is ready to pay a US business, so it can feed its nonsense to Finnish people, Tyrmi says astonished.
Maybe the Finnish media needs to retake Social Media Activism 101 at the US State Department, because what they describe as an "advertisement" is actually a Facebook link to an article on Finnish The article in question is a write-up about the website

So to summarize: some dude called Jorma Tyrmi from Lappeenranta in Finland saw an "advertisement" on the Finnish Facebook page, drew the conclusion that it must have been paid for by the Russian government because it contained an image of Putin, became hysterical and called Finnish journalists, who then wrote a story about it. This, dear readers, is the "source" for the dubious claims in the headline of the Finnish newspaper. That's quality journalism right there!


Russian Flight 9268 downed by extreme weather/meteor event?

The crash of Kolavia Flight 7K9268 from Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, to St. Petersburg, Russia, on October 31st killed all 224 passengers and crew, making it Russia's worst ever aviation accident.

The Airbus A321 disappeared from radar over the Sinai desert 23 minutes after takeoff. No emergency signal was broadcast by the pilots. The plane began a rapid, almost vertical, descent from around 31,000 ft until it disappeared from radar at around 28,000 ft. The plane's debris and passenger bodies were spread over a 20 sq km area, with one 3-year-old passenger allegedly found 8 km from the main crash site. This strongly suggests that the plane broke up in mid-air.

Russian aviation experts have discounted the idea that the plane was shot down by a missile or that a bomb exploded on board. A technical fault that could have caused the plane to suddenly plummet out of the sky and incapacitated the pilots before they could send a distress signal is also implausible. Even if both engines failed simultaneously, the plane would still have been 'airworthy' enough to allow the flight crew to glide the plane to an emergency landing over the course of at least 25 minutes.

Something else, something extremely violent, sudden and catastrophic befell the plane and its passengers. Viktor Yung, deputy director of the airline, echoed this assessment when he said today that only an "external force" could have caused the plane to suddenly plummet from the sky.

"As the catastrophic incident started to develop, the crew members were rendered completely incapable. This explains why they didn't attempt to contact air traffic and report the incident happening on board," Yung said. Aleksandr Smirnov, who supervises the company's fleet, said that "the only possible explanation is a mechanical force acting on the aircraft, there is no combination of system failures that could have broken the plane apart in the air."


U.S. scrambling to save face in Syria

The U.S. political, military and intelligence leadership have been scrambling to save face in Syria since Putin threw a geopolitical curve-ball at the empire-builders one month ago. Russia has now been pounding them with it repeatedly for 30 glorious days, taking out 1,600 terrorist targets and sending many of the critters fleeing. Put simply, the Americans created a wasteland, dug a giant hole in that wasteland, filled it with cannibalistic, head-chopping psychopaths, and bet the farm on burying their enemies in it, only to find themselves neck-deep in their own duplicity and hubris, scrambling to escape a problem of their own creation. American petard, meet Russian hoist.

Here's how it happened. After decades of using every dirty trick in the book to expand and maintain their hegemony -- bribery, blackmail, torture, coups, assassinations, death squads -- the Americans got complacent. To this end, the 'Al-Qaeda' bogeyman served them well. It is at once both a media creation to terrify the plebs and justify domestic and foreign power-grabs and a cover for mercenary warfare against foreign resistance to American occupation (e.g., Iraq), and against governments who refused to toe the American line (e.g., Libya).

Al-Qaeda 2.0 (ISIS/ISIL/IS) is no different. From 9/11 and the launch of the 'war on terror', the empire-builders enforced the PATRIOT Act and corresponding police state legislation right across the Western world, launched wars of occupation and proxy wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Mali and elsewhere and increased their economic, political and military dominance around the globe.

Naturally, they didn't think anyone would seriously challenge or call them on their bluff and bluster. Enter Vladimir Putin. Judging by American words and actions over the last month, and despite crying wolf about 'Russian invasions' in Ukraine since the coup d'état in Kiev in February 2014, the Americans didn't see the Russians coming in Syria.

Let's be honest here, the Americans practically handed it to Putin on a platter. They spent so much time and energy building up ISIS as the biggest, baddest, scariest bunch of psychopathic monsters that all Putin had to do was say, "Yeah, you guys are right. Mind if I take 'em on? You know I know Judo, right?" I would have loved to see the looks on their faces when they heard the news on September 30th.


Have you heard? Meat causes cancer! But does it really?

© Reuters/Alexander Demianchuk
A recent report published by the World Health Organisation (WHO) titled 'Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat' has garnered a significant amount of media attention the world over in the past few days. As usual, the mainstream media didn't hesitate to take the opportunity to ramp up fear among the masses with sensationalist headlines like 'Processed meats do cause cancer - WHO' (BBC), 'If meat causes cancer, What can we eat?' (CNN), and 'Hot dogs, bacon and other processed meats cause cancer' (Washington Post).

These types of definitive statements, however, have not been limited to sensationalist media headlines, with even the World Health Organization itself making such claims on social media:

Stock Up

Are Syria and Russia more democratic than the US?

© SANA / Reuters
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad
"Assad is a dictator." I hear it a lot, in the news, in conversations with people in person and from callers to the radio show I co-host. But I'm still taken aback every time I hear it. To be fully honest, I guess I should start out with a shocker: I don't necessarily think a dictator is a bad thing. Take a moment to compose yourself before I continue.

The word 'dictator' comes from ancient Rome, where the office of dictator was filled by an individual for a period of 6 months originally, and for the express purpose of performing a specific task. Gaius Julius Caesar modified the office to full-year terms, before being voted dictator perpetuo - dictator for life.

Like any public office, the position can be abused, as it was by Sulla in ancient Rome. But that's not always the case. If a leader is genuinely well-intentioned towards the people and has their support, a 'benevolent dictatorship' has several advantages over a system where the head office changes every 4 years or so. For example, a short-term system favors short-term goals. What's the use of long-term planning if you'll be booted out of office in just a few years? That's the problem Caesar faced: his enemies in the reactionary aristocratic oligarchy could simply rescind any laws or projects he had initiated while in office. What's the point in even trying to make beneficial, lasting changes in a government like that? As long as a leader continues to live up to the standard of making wise decisions that benefit the state, why not keep them in power as long as possible, rather than have them replaced after a few years by some mediocre, corporate shill.

But even if the term had a very specific meaning in ancient Rome, nowadays it tends to conjure up images of the "evil dictator": usually a man who rules for life (or at least decades), wields a lot of power, and, most importantly, oppresses his own people. If that's how you define it, sure, a dictator would be a bad thing, simply because by definition that person would be evil. But is there anything wrong, in theory, about serving for life or wielding a lot of power?


Closing the BUK on MH17? Dutch final report is clearly biased

Like so much other propaganda that issues from the official Western channels in recent years, the 'official' story about what happened to MH17 has been presented to the public upside down, inside out and backwards.

Within a day of the crash, Western governments and their subservient press were screaming "Putin's missile!", without a shred of hard evidence to back up their hysterical claims. Yet with the recent release of the final report by Dutch authorities that pointed the finger at a "9N314M warhead as carried on a 9M38-series missile and launched by a Buk surface-to-air missile system" as the cause of the destruction of the plane, the response from the same Western powers and press has been shockingly muted.

The reason for this should be clear to all: the real goal behind the shoot-down of MH17 was achieved in the immediate days and weeks after the crash.

Soon after Putin's immediate "trial by Western media", sanctions were imposed on Russia and the South Stream pipeline agreement between Russia and the EU was cancelled. These and other punitive anti-Russian measures benefited the USA in its long, ultimately futile, war aimed at preventing the emergence of a strong Russia onto the international stage. So, as some suggest about the 9/11 attacks, was the shooting down of MH17 by Ukrainian rebels a stupendously lucky break for Western warmongers in that it came at just the right time to add fuel to its ongoing anti-Russian propaganda campaign? Or is it possible that Western warmongers themselves were responsible for the shooting down of MH17?

Before you decide, there are a few things you should consider.