Michael Khazin on the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks in France

Who Stands to Benefit From Terrorist Attacks in France?

by Mikhail Khazin

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.nz/2015/01/who-stands-to-benefit-from-terrorist.html

translation by: Mikhael (thanks a lot Mikhael!! The Saker)


The scale of the events in France and the intensity of the ensuing panic turned out to be so massive that even the most politically unprepared people realized that the stability of EU is facing an enormous threat. And it doesn’t even matter if the French authorities are successful in neutralizing the current situation – it may repeat on a much larger scale. It is impossible to stop this process within the framework of the modern “tolerant democracy” – placing well armed professional security units in front of every building in every city is simply not an option and everything else would be ineffective. An honest assessment of risks associated with similar events, even just in terms of insurance claims, will show that the entire economy is at risk of going down the drain. And I am talking about world-wide economy. Since I have written here a forecast that, among other things, contains some information about year 2015, I am obliged to add some commentary. The first question that begs an answer is: who stands to profit?

Here I will simply list possible beneficiaries. First choice – the US. The authorities in that country realized that the influence of opposition elites (the ones I wrote about in my forecast) is increasing so much that it is not only jeopardizing the agreements around the Trans Atlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA), but also becoming a threat to the pro-American elites’ hold on power in Europe. Orban in Hungary, Zeman in Czech Republic, Marin Le Pen in France… All of these represent very negative processes for the US. Therefore, the situation must be blown up, “democracy” must be tucked away and a strict dictatorship must be established. A pro-American dictatorship that is, which will thoughtlessly follow orders from Washington without the need to engage in any kind of “democratic” procedures. In other words, install “pinochets” in every EU country complete with all the “bells and whistles” that always accompany these types of regimes: “death squadrons”, rollback of all social security standards, removal of state regulations – that is total liberalization. And, of course, along with these developments a free trade area with the US will be established. By the way, the refusal by French authorities to allow “Front populaire” to participate in the “unity march” fits the above scenario very neatly – what kind of “democracy” and “unity” is this when a quarter of the native French (!) population is being rudely shoved aside.

I also would like to note that within the US elite there are several groups each of them having their own channels which could be used to stimulate and organize terrorist attacks that will fit their agenda. Each group has their own partners (British Windsors, world financial elites, China and many others), as well as their own interests, and all of this requires a very detailed and thorough analysis.

Second possibility – Britain (or, to be more specific, the House of Windsor). They might be worried about a scenario where Merkel will completely give in to US pressure and push Brussels to sign the TAFTA agreement, which will put an end to the idea of creating alternative non-dollar currency zones and will force the British financial system (“rothschilds”) to lose control over interzonal transactions. Which basically means that a more or less independent British financial system will cease to exist, just as London will lose its status as a world financial center.

Third possibility – continental European elites (“black internationale”, or the Vatican - in conspirological terms). For them, TAFTA is a catastrophe, and they have already gained enough influence to try and bring nationally oriented opposition elites to power. Once the number of EU countries where this handover of power happens passes a critical threshold, pro-American elites in Brussels would be forced out and the EU as we know it will be finished. It is possible that the ideas of Franco-German-Russian domination in Europe play a certain role in this scenario. Within imperial, and not liberal-democratic framework, of course.

Fourth possibility – Germany. They could have gotten anxious that Hollande will back out (of plans previously coordinated with Merkel) under the threat of losing power and they created a situation that allows to “tighten the screws” and substantially limit the influence and capabilities of the anti-American group led by Le Pen.

Fifth possibility is the one that is currently being “fed” to the masses, which is what makes it the least probable. This version implies that islamists are behind the attack - ISIS, “Al Qaeda”, etc. It has its own intricacies because wherever we see a mention of “Al Qaeda”, we must also look for traces of CIA and British intelligence involvement. “Al Qaeda” does not have enough power and resources to carry out such an attack independently, without outside help.

Sixth possibility – Saudi Arabia. Today it is taking a serious hit and it must find a way to survive. A number of scenarios which are being developed by US imply liquidation of the Saudi state with the ultimate goal of creating a Sunni caliphate, which would subsequently be used in an attack on Israel and Iran. These scenarios must be prevented. The easiest way is to tie up US resources on as many fronts as possible, forcing them to abandon the plans to remove Saudis from power. Israel is helping Saudis in this situation, but keeping a low profile.

Seventh possibility – us (Russia). Having failed to persuade Merkel to drop sanctions and realizing that she is firmly under US control, we decided to “blow up” EU. And started with France as it appears to be the first major European country ready to leave the US confrontation scheme against Russia. This gives Hollande an alibi and support for his anti-American actions (“What can we do, - he will tell Obama, - you didn’t help, while Russia is supporting us”), and so on. It is also possible that we already have agreements with some of the parties mentioned above.

And the eights possibility, as we are moving further East – is China. This would mean that the attack was a “blowback” for Ukraine and other actions directed against the new Silk Road. In other words, it would imply China’s entry into the big political “game” on a world-wide scale.

Theoretically all of the above mentioned possibilities are still not out of the question. As time goes by, more and more information will become available and the picture will become clearer, but we need to pay close attention. Many of the mentioned parties have their own ideological agendas, which were symbolically presented to the public during the last two days. The symbols included candles (for some reason no one in EU lighted candles to commemorate victims in Donbass, Odessa or Mariupol even though all of these places are also located in Europe and there are more people dying there every day, than in France), flowers, staged “unity marches” that reeked of fakeness so badly that one must wonder why it was impossible to prepare better!

Here is Russia things are starting to move as well – just look at the bickering between Venediktov and Kadyrov! However, I still don’t see any constructive course of action being undertaken, but it is possible that it will never happen – because there is no one to implement such a course of action. By the way, I found Khodorkovsky’s statement very indicative of what is happening here right now. He was clearly used to provoke the public and this distinctly showed that he is not an independent political figure. Furthermore, those who are using him are obviously no longer considering him a valuable asset.