Home | About | Donate

Was San Bernardino the End of Civilization as We Know It?


Was San Bernardino the End of Civilization as We Know It?

Tom Engelhardt

Who can’t feel that something’s in the air? Some mood of fear, panic, and pure meanness ratcheting up in the planet’s “exceptional” nation. Or at least exceptionally jumpy nation. In the wake of the San Bernardino slaughter and news of an online pledge of loyalty to the Islamic State (IS) by one of the killers, the talk of “war” and even “world war” is


"......American policymakers seem to have lost their bearings in the Middle East, imagining a war and a set of “allies” that functionally don’t exist. Think of it as a double whammy of delusion, at home and abroad."
Precisely why all Americans should be deeply concerned....


There are indications here locally that the San Bernardino event was yet another false flag operation. "Official" reports contradict consistent eye witness reports from the scene.


Nature's balance is harsh. When we don't control our populations humanely, nature does it for us inhumanely.


There are quite a few significant indications that this was, indeed, a false flag specifically designed to ramp up fear and division and support for more war in the Middle East and provide policy makers with more ammunition to convince the sleeping masses to relinquish their rights to privacy. Tragic and despicable.


Agree with everyone so far. This was not an actual mass shooting, but a staged event to propagate fear of climate/war refugees, encourage more extreme firearms restrictions, while at the same time promoting gun sales. The information is highly accessible for anyone to find if only one looks.
'Real eyes realize real lies'.


The Dervishes are mobilising; send General Gordon!


Actually it was the slaughter of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary school that was the end civilization as we know it. It was the moment that our country realized that the weapons manufacturers had a stranglehold on our government that was never going to be loosened. Even our President was rendered powerless to do anything to curb the unrestricted sale of guns to anyone, anyone with the money to purchase them.

Ever since that moment, the pace of mass shootings has steadily risen and each incident brings progressively bigger waves of gun purchases. Which in turn creates even more fear and paranoia.


Like what indications?


He does not need to give you any evidence. It sounds good to say it was an "inside job" so it must be true!

Far more than terrorism, it is the utter inability of a majority of USAns to think rationally or logically, attributing "truth" to something merely on the basis of it supporting some preconceived suspicion - made even more severe by the fact that most USans know nothing about anything**, that scares me far more than anything else.


* At a bar tonight, attempting to make conversation based on trivia game cards at the bar, I asked the bar maid if she knew where whiskey was invented (hint; it was NOT Ireland or Scotland). She got flustered - obviously having trouble thinking of the name of ANY other country, and said: "Germany?"

*It was China - 1000s of years before the monasteries of Ireland!


Was it the 'end of civilization as we know it?" Well no, as Tom has been so tirelessly documenting the U.S. has been on the decline since 9/11 and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. What the San Bernadino shootings really represent was a new turning point which shows how dangerously close the country is to losing the remaining tattered remnants of representative democracy. At this point we are probably less than a half a decade away from having the unthinkable happen here.


This incident, depending on whether it happened as portrayed in the MSM, would be significantly different in that it would not be a single individual who had a history of the oft-mislabelled and misunderstood but medicated nevertheless mental illnesses (think physical illnesses given a non-medical mental diagnosis for suitable high profit drugging).

The big problem here is that we don't really know what happened, with additional reports of a staged false flag incident, but the media falls flat either way, having failed to get to the bottom of the dozens of other shootings (over 90% of which involve the consumption or withdrawal from of the sometimes mentally-destabilzing and health-damaging, side effect creating psychiatric drugs). The media plays dead on issues like this, or is comatose with no-holds barred investigative reporting, or perhaps,just hogtied by the parent corporation?

If the cause or connection for an incident involves embarrassing or shameful, immoral or stupid actions or basic amoral profiteering by corporations or US foreign policy/industrial engine, the media is right on it, I mean..ready to ignore it. Sorry, having some advanced delusion of ordinariness and bucolic propriety there.

My question to Tom (well-written article!): have you tried to get this piece or some version thereof onto the editorial page locally or nationally or some other mainstream publication?


Remember the mass murder caused by Timothy McVeigh? Yet, there hasn't been even a whisper about taking some control of America's right wing extremists.


The anti-psychiatric medications discussion is a red herring -- and a dangerous one at that, since there is widespread ignorance about this tremendously complex issue. This is an "all or nothing" generation, and it would be far more damaging to end access to these medications. That said -- Years of political hate speech, scape-goating and fear mongering successfully divided Americans, pitting us against each other by class, race, religion, ideology. Through it all, the gun nuts have served to throw fuel on the fire.


Google the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon," and you'll see a giant list of non-domestic extremist entities deemed by DHS to be threats, of which "patriot movement" is included. Most everyone is included. Second on the list is "alternative media," which reads: "A term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass
media products and outlets."
I guess "Alternative media" doesn't fall under the category of First Amendment protection anymore. The US Government's job is to PROTECT our RIGHT to think, write, read, and BELIEVE whatever we believe as long as it doesn't interfere with others' rights and beliefs, but now it's threatening to view us as extremist threats if we don't go along with the lies of the mainstream media.
The end of civilization was when they created the DHS, and dubbed America, "The Homeland." The government's rights now supersede citizens' rights.


Of course they do - it's their job to play dead on obvious answers to important questions that might embarrass the powers that be.

I think the most obvious answer to the question 'why did they do it?' is this: they did it because they were enraged, and were retaliating for, the fact that the US and its lap dogs are daily killing and maiming their brothers and sisters in the Middle East.

Has anyone heard that reason for the slaughter mentioned on the mainstream media?


a couple of other related articles:


what movie? sounds good.


Natureboy: Yes, that's it. And the first sentence of the article says it too: "a mood of fear and panic". I think, though, that it didn't start after San Bernardino. This anger, hatred, cruelty and aggression are expressions of the free-floating dread we feel because we know we are going to be exterminated, we and all other earthly life forms, when the planet is no longer fit for life. And it's happening so fast that the young among us and certainly their children, will experience it. We all know it, but some of us can't admit it consciously and deal with it. It will get worse, a world war that will really be a world event won't be the only way we commit genocide. (Why does he call it WW4? Was there a third I missed?)


Or perhaps he doesn't need to give any evidence, because it's out there for the having; and even if he were to offer evidence that would seem to support his theory, you may or may not agree.
The US gov has been instrumental in death and destruction in the Middle East for many years now. Actually, since the US officially declared "War on Terror, terrorism has increased almost ten-fold. So it wouldn't come as a surprise if there was retaliation, but it would also come as no surprise for the US govt to use their cunning (though they're getting sloppy) to create fear and manufacture consent for more war and more reasons to convince the ill informed that their privacy must be relinquished. Was attempting to add a few links that might help you understand why some of us think it was an inside job--and not because "it sounds good," but my post kept getting denied. Counter Current News offered a couple of insightful articles, and Washington Blog has a great article about false flags that’s quite informative.
When someone suggests it might be an inside job, they aren't necessarily saying it because it "sounds good." They may be saying it because they have actually done some research—as you were suggesting.