Related Material...
Hard Talking Galloway
Showing posts with label Fascism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fascism. Show all posts
Monday, January 19, 2009
Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza
Gerald Kaufman MP Denounces Israel
The inimitable Galloway
*****
Related Material...
Hard Talking Galloway
Related Material...
Hard Talking Galloway
Thursday, January 31, 2008
This War on Terrorism is Bogus
Michael Meacher MP
UK's environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003.
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too.
The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.
Source: The Guardian
meacherm@parliament.uk
*****
Related Material...
Who is Hamid Karzai?
A 'Pearl Harbour Event'?
War is a Racket
Former Italian President Speaks Out
UK's environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003.
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too.The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.Source: The Guardian
meacherm@parliament.uk
*****
Related Material...
Who is Hamid Karzai?
A 'Pearl Harbour Event'?
War is a Racket
Former Italian President Speaks Out
Friday, January 18, 2008
Out of Chaos Comes Order
Philip Jones
Britain is sliding inexorably into Fascism. Of this there can be no doubt. The 'land of my father's', seems today like a foreign country to me . The once friendly 'Bobby on the beat' is no more to be seen.
In his place are legions of surveillance cameras, many fitted with loudspeakers to terrorize and shame pedestrians and shoppers publicly into abject conformity.
Around the 'Mother Of Parliaments', an area of one square kilometre has been declared a 'no protest zone'. This would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. Is this really the country of Byron, Shakespeare, Bronte and Charles Dickens ?
I was a teenager in South Wales back in the seventies, , when 'Coal was King' and Steel it's consort. All our men folk were either Miners or Steelworkers. The family unit was very tight, and communities helped each in good times and bad. The only `surveillance` was Sgt. Evans, our local Cop. Thirty eight years on, I still remember him, as being somehow always there, and usually friendly and helpful, yet with an air of authority and decency sadly lacking in today's Officers.
That country is gone 'with the wind' one might say. In it's place is a far more ominous, impersonal 'State' where the 'regime' has become all powerful and intrusive. I was a Police Officer for fifteen years. I carried no Gun, no Taser, no Pepper Spray and wore no Body Armour. My only protection was a short piece of wood, and my wits.
Britain's Police 'Service' has become a politicized paramilitary arm of of the state. They can 'gun down' innocent people (as in John Menezes), shoot them eight times in the head at point blank range and go unpunished. Unmanned `Drones` fly over the London skies with intrusive camera equipment and microwave weapons on board. Peaceful protesters are battered with `nightsticks`, and then arrested for their trouble. The ancient right of trial by jury is under constant attack, egged on by the `Code Napoleonists` in Brussels..
For most of my career , I watched successive governments do nothing as crime and disorder escalated out of control. Paedophiles, were allowed (perhaps encouraged) to prowl our land with apparent impunity and State sponsored anonymity. Traffic chaos, road rage, the break down of the family, `feral` children, football hooliganism. All out of control. Why did government stand idly by and pay only lip service to 'law and order'.
The Masonic Motto is , "Out of Chaos comes order". In other words, create the problem incite the reaction, then offer your solution. One of Blair's solutions was the `Civil Contingencies Act of 2004. This is in spirit a direct descendent of the Nazi Enabling Act of 1936, and a first cousin to the 'US Patriot Act'. In effect, it gives 'the government' the power to declare a 'state of emergency' and impose Martial Law. Of course, the Al Qaeda bogeyman has played it's part further justifying this 'necessary restriction of liberties'. It was only the first of other tyrannical statutes to be introduced subsequently in order 'To protect the people'.
Surveillance Cameras, Drones in the sky, Bio ID Cards, 'Tooled Up' Police on the Streets, no protest zones, free speech zones, intrusive and invasive Council Tax Inspectors. It is hard to fathom how this could have happened to that country I loved so much in only half a lifetime. It was Huey long who said, "When Fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of Anti Fascism". Well Fascism came to Britain in 1997 in the guise of a liberal left wing government, led by a 'liberal' 'child of the sixties' Mr 'Phoney' Blair.
My late father fought with Montgomery during WWII. He was a damaged man when he came home, and never realised his own potential. That can be said of a generation of British men who went to war to 'fight for freedom'. What a betrayal of millions of lives.
I moved to live in Denmark in 1996, one year prior to the New Labour 'coup d'etat' but in truth, in my heart, I never left Britain, it left me and all my generation. Blair's 'Cool Britania' was and is something very different. A nation of TV addicts, sports crazy's and hedonists, mixed into a cocktail with multiculturalism, anti social behaviour and ruthlessness.
This essay could be entitled 'Problem Reaction Solution versus The Hidden Threat'. Here in Denmark, things are done differently. It is my thesis that the Utopian Danish Social State is actually something other from that which on face value at least, it appears to be. Denmark is not about Welfare, nor has it ever been. Welfare was the 'Carrot' and now 'the Stick' is being used to beat the Danish people down economically, having installed over five decades, deep within their national character, a complete dependency on the State apparatus.
The nearest example to this is Huxley's nightmare novel, 'Brave New World'. Denmark' apparent prosperity, comprehensive social welfare, and corporate efficiency, are I would suggest products not of enlightenment, but of a profound insecurity and uniformity in the Danish character. The political system here, has not only successfully undermined the role of the Danish Parliament and substituted a vast bureaucracy that has contrived a firm pact between labour and the establishment, it has also presided over a process by which the Dane has become the obedient and malleable item in a 'town planners' or sociologist's dream.
A friend, the Danish Political Commentator Kjeld Heising (www.heising.dk) wrote recently on the Danish condition,
For the moment, there seems no reason for the more obvious, draconnian and overt measures here in Denmark that we see being put in place across the North Sea. The 'Silent threat' is enough for the present. The incessant economic turning of the screw is doing its job well enough for now. But, I just wonder how many turns are left before Danes wake up and 'smell the coffee' or should I say 'Kaffe'.
PS. The book 'The New Totalitarians' by Roland Huntford written in the 1970's was an ominously correct analysis of the Swedish Social Model. Denmark, Sweden, potato, potaato. It's well worth a read.
Britain is sliding inexorably into Fascism. Of this there can be no doubt. The 'land of my father's', seems today like a foreign country to me . The once friendly 'Bobby on the beat' is no more to be seen. In his place are legions of surveillance cameras, many fitted with loudspeakers to terrorize and shame pedestrians and shoppers publicly into abject conformity.
Around the 'Mother Of Parliaments', an area of one square kilometre has been declared a 'no protest zone'. This would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. Is this really the country of Byron, Shakespeare, Bronte and Charles Dickens ?
I was a teenager in South Wales back in the seventies, , when 'Coal was King' and Steel it's consort. All our men folk were either Miners or Steelworkers. The family unit was very tight, and communities helped each in good times and bad. The only `surveillance` was Sgt. Evans, our local Cop. Thirty eight years on, I still remember him, as being somehow always there, and usually friendly and helpful, yet with an air of authority and decency sadly lacking in today's Officers.
That country is gone 'with the wind' one might say. In it's place is a far more ominous, impersonal 'State' where the 'regime' has become all powerful and intrusive. I was a Police Officer for fifteen years. I carried no Gun, no Taser, no Pepper Spray and wore no Body Armour. My only protection was a short piece of wood, and my wits.
Britain's Police 'Service' has become a politicized paramilitary arm of of the state. They can 'gun down' innocent people (as in John Menezes), shoot them eight times in the head at point blank range and go unpunished. Unmanned `Drones` fly over the London skies with intrusive camera equipment and microwave weapons on board. Peaceful protesters are battered with `nightsticks`, and then arrested for their trouble. The ancient right of trial by jury is under constant attack, egged on by the `Code Napoleonists` in Brussels..
For most of my career , I watched successive governments do nothing as crime and disorder escalated out of control. Paedophiles, were allowed (perhaps encouraged) to prowl our land with apparent impunity and State sponsored anonymity. Traffic chaos, road rage, the break down of the family, `feral` children, football hooliganism. All out of control. Why did government stand idly by and pay only lip service to 'law and order'.
The Masonic Motto is , "Out of Chaos comes order". In other words, create the problem incite the reaction, then offer your solution. One of Blair's solutions was the `Civil Contingencies Act of 2004. This is in spirit a direct descendent of the Nazi Enabling Act of 1936, and a first cousin to the 'US Patriot Act'. In effect, it gives 'the government' the power to declare a 'state of emergency' and impose Martial Law. Of course, the Al Qaeda bogeyman has played it's part further justifying this 'necessary restriction of liberties'. It was only the first of other tyrannical statutes to be introduced subsequently in order 'To protect the people'. Surveillance Cameras, Drones in the sky, Bio ID Cards, 'Tooled Up' Police on the Streets, no protest zones, free speech zones, intrusive and invasive Council Tax Inspectors. It is hard to fathom how this could have happened to that country I loved so much in only half a lifetime. It was Huey long who said, "When Fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of Anti Fascism". Well Fascism came to Britain in 1997 in the guise of a liberal left wing government, led by a 'liberal' 'child of the sixties' Mr 'Phoney' Blair.
My late father fought with Montgomery during WWII. He was a damaged man when he came home, and never realised his own potential. That can be said of a generation of British men who went to war to 'fight for freedom'. What a betrayal of millions of lives.
I moved to live in Denmark in 1996, one year prior to the New Labour 'coup d'etat' but in truth, in my heart, I never left Britain, it left me and all my generation. Blair's 'Cool Britania' was and is something very different. A nation of TV addicts, sports crazy's and hedonists, mixed into a cocktail with multiculturalism, anti social behaviour and ruthlessness.
This essay could be entitled 'Problem Reaction Solution versus The Hidden Threat'. Here in Denmark, things are done differently. It is my thesis that the Utopian Danish Social State is actually something other from that which on face value at least, it appears to be. Denmark is not about Welfare, nor has it ever been. Welfare was the 'Carrot' and now 'the Stick' is being used to beat the Danish people down economically, having installed over five decades, deep within their national character, a complete dependency on the State apparatus.
The nearest example to this is Huxley's nightmare novel, 'Brave New World'. Denmark' apparent prosperity, comprehensive social welfare, and corporate efficiency, are I would suggest products not of enlightenment, but of a profound insecurity and uniformity in the Danish character. The political system here, has not only successfully undermined the role of the Danish Parliament and substituted a vast bureaucracy that has contrived a firm pact between labour and the establishment, it has also presided over a process by which the Dane has become the obedient and malleable item in a 'town planners' or sociologist's dream.
A friend, the Danish Political Commentator Kjeld Heising (www.heising.dk) wrote recently on the Danish condition,
"Danes live within narrow margins. Inside these margins, we can live normally, as part of the labour force, as consumers and as members of a 'thought community'. Outside of this is a steep slope to poverty, social isolation and deroute. The slope is vertical, there are no 'in betweens'. Constants heaps of legislation ensure that no Dane understands his conditions and therefore no Dane can operate in them. Consequently, the middle class Dane lives under a constant threat of bills, fines, penalties, duties, charges, fees, loss of income and esteem. These 'narrow margins' ensure that even minor sanctions can tip the scales. That's why he can be controlled with a smile, a raised finger and a subtle reminder of small sanctions. A 'Silent Threat'."
For the moment, there seems no reason for the more obvious, draconnian and overt measures here in Denmark that we see being put in place across the North Sea. The 'Silent threat' is enough for the present. The incessant economic turning of the screw is doing its job well enough for now. But, I just wonder how many turns are left before Danes wake up and 'smell the coffee' or should I say 'Kaffe'.
PS. The book 'The New Totalitarians' by Roland Huntford written in the 1970's was an ominously correct analysis of the Swedish Social Model. Denmark, Sweden, potato, potaato. It's well worth a read.
Democratic Fantasies: Symbols, Slogans & Spin
By Tibor S. Friedman
Americans surround themselves with symbols that represent who they think they are or want to be. Symbols and slogans conveniently defer introspection and curiosity.
True patriotism and love of country requires we go beyond putting Support Your Troops magnets or flags on our cars. The Great American experiment in democracy is in crisis and immediate jeopardy. The most secretive administration ever has installed a repressive security apparatus paving the way for dictatorship and martial law awaiting an 'event' to trigger the trap set for us. Unless we become active participants and educate ourselves about the crisis that is rapidly enveloping us the Great Experiment will end.
Americans aren't stupid but uninformed of what is really happening in their country and the world because of the dumbed down content and propaganda they consume in the mainstream media (MSM) and the public educational system. Recent studies have declared that high school graduates are unable to write a coherent sentence; schools teach information and expect students to retain and regurgitate data, not connect them. This is by design; the elite do not want too many critical thinkers in a diminished economy.
Information is the currency of the realm. The Internet today offers our best hope for our education and research, at least until the Elite figure out how to replace it with the restricted and establishment controlled Internet 2 currently being developed.
Information is managed and edited in the MSM and propaganda is an acceptable tool long used in media and education. Spin is the method of the day used to confuse and deflect. The Infotainment Industry?MSM and Hollywood combined?share financial, operational and propaganda interests. A recent example is the TV docudrama Oil Storm on Fox TV on June 5 that served the goals of putting fear into Americans about losing their oil lifeline and their American way of life and to gather support for the 21st Century Oil Wars by calling them the War on Terror, which is phony and being used by the psychopaths to divide us and reduce our numbers. The Bush administration is supported by Fox (aka GOP TV) owner Rupert Murdoch. Similarly, other media events usually have some ulterior motive to influence the public in some way.
For us to fully appreciate our current crisis we have to review our media history.
Walter Lippmann, the prominent journalist in the 1920s, said that the public must be put in its place. He believed, as did Woodrow Wilson and the Elite, that the responsible men (Elite) should manage the 'common interests' and 'live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd,' the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. The only function the 'herd' has was to trample periodically in support of one or another element of the leadership class in an election.
As the 'herd' in the last century became more enlightened ever more sophisticated mechanisms for controlling information and perceptions have developed. The manufacture of consent, a term created by Edward Bernays, the father of the Public Relations industry, author of Propaganda and coincidentally Sigmund Freud's nephew, has become an art form and required of journalists.
Bernays says:
Expanding on this understanding about the MSM and the Public Relations industry (the propaganda machine) we can include gatekeepers, or sources considered to be on the left (so-called liberals), who are charged with making sure that dissent and alternative views do not stray too far off the reservation of Elite acceptance.
Excluded topics include the 9/11 Truth Movement, the New World Order, the City Of London financial center, chemtrails, the Federal Reserve, Inc., etc. It is safe to assume that your letters to the editor are monitored and pre-selected prior to printing. I suspect that some letters and articles in The New York Times (as elsewhere) are fictitious, manufactured and planted, like the Judith Miller articles on WMDs (with con man Chalabi as her source) in the NYT prior to the current Iraq War that encouraged the congressional vote to go to war. MSM always supports and benefits from war. CNN's Aaron Brown declared that now that we are at war we have to get behind the government and the troops disregarding CNN's obvious cheerleading efforts to build support before the war.
My purpose of this article is to address the obvious fantasies about our democracy and the so-called free press (MSM) and their failure to provide Americans with real information for making educated decisions; we are considered the least informed population in the world. The MSM and most gatekeepers are believed to be infiltrated with CIA personnel and work explicitly for the Elites in power, in corporations, government and banking and serve to protect their interests in the US and abroad. My ultimate purpose is to compel Americans to wake up and begin to explore what is going on and to become engaged in their lives and their children's futures.
It is not my intent here to go into all the aspects that constitute the over arching plan (conspiracy, some would say) to create a One (New) World (Order) Government?a generational and incremental implementation process that, now in its final stages, presently threatens the world with the 21st Century Oil Wars and the destruction of what little sovereignty is left in America and elsewhere (observe this process in the EU).
Neo-liberalism / Globalism (imperialism disguised as democracy and free trade) are names used to describe the acquisition and consolidation of ever greater wealth, natural resources, total political power and control over others and are the motivational forces which drive the decisions by the international Elite. They control the transnational corporations, the 200-plus think tanks (the Council On Foreign Relations being foremost in the US) which exist to facilitate their goals, the foundations (Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, etc), the World Bank, IMF, WTO, the Federal Reserve (a private corporation never audited and with no congressional oversight); this influence is pervasive and can only be truly appreciated as one researches the various issues.
Themes and Trends
The recent Online Journal report on Bilderberg 2005 confirms the intent and complicity of our leaders and the transnational corporations and banking interests they serve to create a One World Government using the UN, or similar institution, and to further diminish America economically and to ultimately abdicate US sovereignty and the Constitution to a Regional and subsequent World Power while enriching themselves and accumulating power in the process.
The Congress, MSM (including CPB, NPR and PBS), all academic and other Institutions, with rare and generally marginalized, individuals as exceptions, are in general alignment with this 'conspiracy.' This diverse involvement is reflected in the roster of the 4,000 or so members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group described as, superficially an innocent forum for academics, businessman, politicians, contains within its shell, perhaps unknown to many of its members, the power elite that unilaterally determines US foreign policy. The major objective of this submerged - and obvious subversive?foreign policy is the acquisition of markets and economic power (profits) for a small group of giant multi-nationals under the virtual control of a few banking investment houses and controlling families.
The Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London (one of the center of power for the elite), founded its American wing, the CFR, funded by the Rockefellers, in 1921. The RIIA's patron is the Queen of England.
CNN has recently been using CFR 'spokespeople' to get Americans to accept them as 'mainstream' and also uses other conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings and CATO Institutes to disseminate their views designed to shape American perceptions and beliefs.
Think tanks provide the two supposedly oppositional political parties with intellectual material and propaganda. Issues are used as smokescreens and for public distraction and confusion while greater and more relevant issues are ignored or downplayed. What we witness in MSM is the allowed official version of reality?much of it staged theatre. It is apparent as one examines (CFR, TC, Bilderberg member) Bill Clinton's record (presiding over NAFTA, media consolidation, FDA approval of GMO going into the world's food supply via Monsanto, laid the foundations for the USA PATRIOT Act, passed welfare 'reform' etc.) and associations that he is as much (if not more so) a Globalist / New World Order operative as George Bush is. Both parties serve the same masters as one can see from the Bilderberg attendance list.
John Edwards auditioned at the annual Bilderberg meeting in 2004; apparently the elite chose to stay the course with George Bush. One cannot become president of the US without the Elites' explicit approval. The election is a formality and exercise for the benefit of creating the illusion of an ongoing democracy. The 'free speech zone' areas created by both parties in 2004 were their version of democracy. The MSM (already) is focusing on the battle for the White House 2008, creating mythologies of opposing individuals and distracting the public with a hope for change that never comes?as both parties work towards the creation of a New World Order with the United States as a much reduced power, economically and militarily. Remember that politicians are the fronts for (or part of) the Elites and as such share in their fortunes and power. One need only look at the Bush dynasty and their involvement in and creation of their fortunes and power by the Military / Industrial / Intelligence Complex. War is profitable.
Henry Kissinger (perennial Bilderberg, Trilateral, CFR member) received knighthood from the Queen of England in 1995 for his lifelong devoted service to the Crown; after years of trying to retake the American colonies the City of London decided to infiltrate through the CFR and other ways to reclaim their perceived influence over their new addition to the Empire; and so it appears it has. Their conspiracy has become our fact.
Conspiracy theories are a convenient 'slide' term used by MSM and others to short circuit further inquiry into a matter. The greatest conspiracy is the one created by this concept that keeps people from being inquisitive and concerned about the health and direction of their country.
As noted, only a small group of Elites know the full scope of their agenda while those outside are given information on a need to know basis and as loyalty and subservience is developed move closer to the center of affluence and control. A corporation is a perfect example of this where one can succeed and move up the hierarchy as long as one fulfills the needs of the corporation but if one challenges the system, then you could be ejected and possibly blacklisted from entry into other corporations. In this way, people buy into the system and by being invested in it are reluctant to jeopardize their position and wealth. Hierarchy assures compliance, promotions or corrective actions if needed. America is a transnational corporation (an Enron) disguised as a government; a form described as totalitarian corporatism.
What can you do?
As Catherine Austin Fitts and others suggest, voting, writing to your representatives or editors has limited, if any effect, but continue letting them know what you think. The system is generally rigged with gatekeepers to marginalize any dissent or resistance.
The only practical options open are to divert our financial and personal support for the tapeworm (the system) by withdrawing our attention from TV (shut it off) and its mind control and our money out of large multinational banks and corporations that depend on our money to survive, and putting it into local banks and businesses; cut up all your credit cards. Support local efforts to develop sustainable economies and environmental initiatives; get to know your neighbors and share what you know.
Ultimately, the tapeworm will have only itself to devour.
Stop supporting the so-called two-party system that is really two groups belonging to the same business party that share the One World Government agenda. The continuity of bipartisan corruption clearly shows that, with rare exceptions like Reps Cynthia McKinney and Ron Paul, their allegiance is to the international elite and not to the American people.
Americans surround themselves with symbols that represent who they think they are or want to be. Symbols and slogans conveniently defer introspection and curiosity.True patriotism and love of country requires we go beyond putting Support Your Troops magnets or flags on our cars. The Great American experiment in democracy is in crisis and immediate jeopardy. The most secretive administration ever has installed a repressive security apparatus paving the way for dictatorship and martial law awaiting an 'event' to trigger the trap set for us. Unless we become active participants and educate ourselves about the crisis that is rapidly enveloping us the Great Experiment will end.
Americans aren't stupid but uninformed of what is really happening in their country and the world because of the dumbed down content and propaganda they consume in the mainstream media (MSM) and the public educational system. Recent studies have declared that high school graduates are unable to write a coherent sentence; schools teach information and expect students to retain and regurgitate data, not connect them. This is by design; the elite do not want too many critical thinkers in a diminished economy.
Information is the currency of the realm. The Internet today offers our best hope for our education and research, at least until the Elite figure out how to replace it with the restricted and establishment controlled Internet 2 currently being developed.
Information is managed and edited in the MSM and propaganda is an acceptable tool long used in media and education. Spin is the method of the day used to confuse and deflect. The Infotainment Industry?MSM and Hollywood combined?share financial, operational and propaganda interests. A recent example is the TV docudrama Oil Storm on Fox TV on June 5 that served the goals of putting fear into Americans about losing their oil lifeline and their American way of life and to gather support for the 21st Century Oil Wars by calling them the War on Terror, which is phony and being used by the psychopaths to divide us and reduce our numbers. The Bush administration is supported by Fox (aka GOP TV) owner Rupert Murdoch. Similarly, other media events usually have some ulterior motive to influence the public in some way.
For us to fully appreciate our current crisis we have to review our media history.
Walter Lippmann, the prominent journalist in the 1920s, said that the public must be put in its place. He believed, as did Woodrow Wilson and the Elite, that the responsible men (Elite) should manage the 'common interests' and 'live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd,' the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. The only function the 'herd' has was to trample periodically in support of one or another element of the leadership class in an election.
As the 'herd' in the last century became more enlightened ever more sophisticated mechanisms for controlling information and perceptions have developed. The manufacture of consent, a term created by Edward Bernays, the father of the Public Relations industry, author of Propaganda and coincidentally Sigmund Freud's nephew, has become an art form and required of journalists.
Bernays says:
"Those who manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . we are dominated by a relatively small number of persons. . . as civilization has become more complex. . . . the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented. . . . I must lead the people. Am I not their servant?
"The invisible government tends to be concentrated in the hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes."
Expanding on this understanding about the MSM and the Public Relations industry (the propaganda machine) we can include gatekeepers, or sources considered to be on the left (so-called liberals), who are charged with making sure that dissent and alternative views do not stray too far off the reservation of Elite acceptance. Excluded topics include the 9/11 Truth Movement, the New World Order, the City Of London financial center, chemtrails, the Federal Reserve, Inc., etc. It is safe to assume that your letters to the editor are monitored and pre-selected prior to printing. I suspect that some letters and articles in The New York Times (as elsewhere) are fictitious, manufactured and planted, like the Judith Miller articles on WMDs (with con man Chalabi as her source) in the NYT prior to the current Iraq War that encouraged the congressional vote to go to war. MSM always supports and benefits from war. CNN's Aaron Brown declared that now that we are at war we have to get behind the government and the troops disregarding CNN's obvious cheerleading efforts to build support before the war.
My purpose of this article is to address the obvious fantasies about our democracy and the so-called free press (MSM) and their failure to provide Americans with real information for making educated decisions; we are considered the least informed population in the world. The MSM and most gatekeepers are believed to be infiltrated with CIA personnel and work explicitly for the Elites in power, in corporations, government and banking and serve to protect their interests in the US and abroad. My ultimate purpose is to compel Americans to wake up and begin to explore what is going on and to become engaged in their lives and their children's futures.
It is not my intent here to go into all the aspects that constitute the over arching plan (conspiracy, some would say) to create a One (New) World (Order) Government?a generational and incremental implementation process that, now in its final stages, presently threatens the world with the 21st Century Oil Wars and the destruction of what little sovereignty is left in America and elsewhere (observe this process in the EU).
Neo-liberalism / Globalism (imperialism disguised as democracy and free trade) are names used to describe the acquisition and consolidation of ever greater wealth, natural resources, total political power and control over others and are the motivational forces which drive the decisions by the international Elite. They control the transnational corporations, the 200-plus think tanks (the Council On Foreign Relations being foremost in the US) which exist to facilitate their goals, the foundations (Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, etc), the World Bank, IMF, WTO, the Federal Reserve (a private corporation never audited and with no congressional oversight); this influence is pervasive and can only be truly appreciated as one researches the various issues.
Themes and Trends
The recent Online Journal report on Bilderberg 2005 confirms the intent and complicity of our leaders and the transnational corporations and banking interests they serve to create a One World Government using the UN, or similar institution, and to further diminish America economically and to ultimately abdicate US sovereignty and the Constitution to a Regional and subsequent World Power while enriching themselves and accumulating power in the process.
The Congress, MSM (including CPB, NPR and PBS), all academic and other Institutions, with rare and generally marginalized, individuals as exceptions, are in general alignment with this 'conspiracy.' This diverse involvement is reflected in the roster of the 4,000 or so members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group described as, superficially an innocent forum for academics, businessman, politicians, contains within its shell, perhaps unknown to many of its members, the power elite that unilaterally determines US foreign policy. The major objective of this submerged - and obvious subversive?foreign policy is the acquisition of markets and economic power (profits) for a small group of giant multi-nationals under the virtual control of a few banking investment houses and controlling families.
The Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London (one of the center of power for the elite), founded its American wing, the CFR, funded by the Rockefellers, in 1921. The RIIA's patron is the Queen of England.
CNN has recently been using CFR 'spokespeople' to get Americans to accept them as 'mainstream' and also uses other conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings and CATO Institutes to disseminate their views designed to shape American perceptions and beliefs.
Think tanks provide the two supposedly oppositional political parties with intellectual material and propaganda. Issues are used as smokescreens and for public distraction and confusion while greater and more relevant issues are ignored or downplayed. What we witness in MSM is the allowed official version of reality?much of it staged theatre. It is apparent as one examines (CFR, TC, Bilderberg member) Bill Clinton's record (presiding over NAFTA, media consolidation, FDA approval of GMO going into the world's food supply via Monsanto, laid the foundations for the USA PATRIOT Act, passed welfare 'reform' etc.) and associations that he is as much (if not more so) a Globalist / New World Order operative as George Bush is. Both parties serve the same masters as one can see from the Bilderberg attendance list.
John Edwards auditioned at the annual Bilderberg meeting in 2004; apparently the elite chose to stay the course with George Bush. One cannot become president of the US without the Elites' explicit approval. The election is a formality and exercise for the benefit of creating the illusion of an ongoing democracy. The 'free speech zone' areas created by both parties in 2004 were their version of democracy. The MSM (already) is focusing on the battle for the White House 2008, creating mythologies of opposing individuals and distracting the public with a hope for change that never comes?as both parties work towards the creation of a New World Order with the United States as a much reduced power, economically and militarily. Remember that politicians are the fronts for (or part of) the Elites and as such share in their fortunes and power. One need only look at the Bush dynasty and their involvement in and creation of their fortunes and power by the Military / Industrial / Intelligence Complex. War is profitable.
Henry Kissinger (perennial Bilderberg, Trilateral, CFR member) received knighthood from the Queen of England in 1995 for his lifelong devoted service to the Crown; after years of trying to retake the American colonies the City of London decided to infiltrate through the CFR and other ways to reclaim their perceived influence over their new addition to the Empire; and so it appears it has. Their conspiracy has become our fact.
Conspiracy theories are a convenient 'slide' term used by MSM and others to short circuit further inquiry into a matter. The greatest conspiracy is the one created by this concept that keeps people from being inquisitive and concerned about the health and direction of their country. As noted, only a small group of Elites know the full scope of their agenda while those outside are given information on a need to know basis and as loyalty and subservience is developed move closer to the center of affluence and control. A corporation is a perfect example of this where one can succeed and move up the hierarchy as long as one fulfills the needs of the corporation but if one challenges the system, then you could be ejected and possibly blacklisted from entry into other corporations. In this way, people buy into the system and by being invested in it are reluctant to jeopardize their position and wealth. Hierarchy assures compliance, promotions or corrective actions if needed. America is a transnational corporation (an Enron) disguised as a government; a form described as totalitarian corporatism.
What can you do?
As Catherine Austin Fitts and others suggest, voting, writing to your representatives or editors has limited, if any effect, but continue letting them know what you think. The system is generally rigged with gatekeepers to marginalize any dissent or resistance.
The only practical options open are to divert our financial and personal support for the tapeworm (the system) by withdrawing our attention from TV (shut it off) and its mind control and our money out of large multinational banks and corporations that depend on our money to survive, and putting it into local banks and businesses; cut up all your credit cards. Support local efforts to develop sustainable economies and environmental initiatives; get to know your neighbors and share what you know.
Ultimately, the tapeworm will have only itself to devour.
Stop supporting the so-called two-party system that is really two groups belonging to the same business party that share the One World Government agenda. The continuity of bipartisan corruption clearly shows that, with rare exceptions like Reps Cynthia McKinney and Ron Paul, their allegiance is to the international elite and not to the American people.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
A New Year
Lets celebrate by changing a few things...
This has to be one of the most powerful short out there.
This has to be one of the most powerful short out there.
Monday, December 31, 2007
We Are All Prisoners Now
Paul Craig
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan administration. He is credited with curing stagflation and eliminating “Phillips curve” trade-offs between employment and inflation, an achievement now on the verge of being lost by the worst economic mismanagement in US history.
At Christmas time it has been my habit to write a column in remembrance of the many innocent people in prisons whose lives have been stolen by the US criminal justice (sic) system that is as inhumane as it is indifferent to justice. Usually I retell the cases of William Strong and Christophe Gaynor, two men framed in the state of Virginia by prosecutors and judges as wicked and corrupt as any who served Hitler or Stalin.
This year is different. All Americans are now imprisoned in a world of lies and deception created by the Bush Regime and the two complicit parties of Congress, by federal judges too timid or ignorant to recognize a rogue regime running roughshod over the Constitution, by a bought and paid for media that serves as propagandists for a regime of war criminals, and by a public who have forsaken their Founding Fathers.
Americans are also imprisoned by fear, a false fear created by the hoax of “terrorism.” It has turned out that headline terrorist events since 9/11 have been orchestrated by the US government. For example, the alleged terrorist plot to blow up Chicago’s Sears Tower was the brainchild of a FBI agent who searched out a few disaffected people to give lip service to the plot devised by the FBI agent. He arrested his victims, whose trial ended in acquittal and mistrial.
Many Europeans regard 9/11 itself as an orchestrated event. Former cabinet members of the British, Canadian and German governments and the Chief of Staff of the Russian Army have publicly expressed their doubts about the official 9/11 story. Recently, a former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, said in an interview with the newspaper, Corriere della Sera (November 30, 2007), that “democratic elements in America and Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know that the 9/11 attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad in order to blame the Arab countries, and to persuade the Western powers to undertake military action both in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
It is unclear whether Cossiga was being sarcastic about the opinion of skeptics or merely reporting what people think. I have written to him asking for clarification and will report any reply that I receive. Apparently, the Italian media has not offered a clarification.
Cossiga’s statement has not been reported by a US newspaper or TV channel. Raising doubts among Americans about the government is not a strong point of the corporate media. Americans live in a world of propaganda designed to secure their acquiescence to war crimes, torture, searches and police state measures, military aggression, hegemony and oppression, while portraying Americans (and Israelis) as the salt of the earth who are threatened by Muslims who hate their “freedom and democracy.”
Americans cling to this “truth” while the Bush regime and a complicit Congress destroy the Bill of Rights and engineer the theft of elections.
Freedom and democracy in America have been reduced to no-fly lists, spying without warrants, arrests without warrants or evidence, permanent detention despite the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, torture despite the prohibition against self-incrimination--the list goes on and on.
In today’s fearful America, a US Senator, whose elder brothers were a military hero killed in action, a President of the United States assassinated in office, an Attorney General of the United States and likely president except he was assassinated like his brother, can find himself on the no-fly list. Present and former high government officials, with top secret security clearances, cannot fly with a tube of toothpaste or a bottle of water despite the absence of any evidence that extreme measures imposed by “airport security” makes flying safer.
Elderly American citizens with walkers and young mothers with children are meticulously searched because US Homeland Security cannot tell the difference between an American citizen and a terrorist.
All Americans should note the ominous implications of the inability of Homeland Security to distinguish an American citizen from a terrorist.
When Airport Security cannot differentiate a US Marine General recipient of the Medal of Honor from a terrorist, Americans have all the information they need to know.
Any and every American can be arrested by unaccountable authority, held indefinitely without charges and tortured until he or she can no longer stand the abuse and confesses.
This predicament, which can now befall any American, is our reward for our stupidity, our indifference, our gullibility, and our lack of compassion for anyone but ourselves.
Some Americans have begun to comprehend the tremendous financial costs of the “war on terror.” But few understand the cost to American liberty. Last October a Democrat-sponsored bill, “Prevention of Violent Radicalism and Homegrown Terrorism,” passed the House of Representatives 404 to 6.
Only six members of the House voted against tyrannical legislation that would destroy freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and that would mandate 18 months of congressional hearings to discover Americans with “extreme” views who could be preemptively arrested.
What better indication that the US Constitution has lost its authority when elected representatives closest to the people pass a bill that permits the Bill of Rights to be overturned by the subjective opinion of members of an “Extremist Belief”.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan administration. He is credited with curing stagflation and eliminating “Phillips curve” trade-offs between employment and inflation, an achievement now on the verge of being lost by the worst economic mismanagement in US history.
At Christmas time it has been my habit to write a column in remembrance of the many innocent people in prisons whose lives have been stolen by the US criminal justice (sic) system that is as inhumane as it is indifferent to justice. Usually I retell the cases of William Strong and Christophe Gaynor, two men framed in the state of Virginia by prosecutors and judges as wicked and corrupt as any who served Hitler or Stalin.This year is different. All Americans are now imprisoned in a world of lies and deception created by the Bush Regime and the two complicit parties of Congress, by federal judges too timid or ignorant to recognize a rogue regime running roughshod over the Constitution, by a bought and paid for media that serves as propagandists for a regime of war criminals, and by a public who have forsaken their Founding Fathers.
Americans are also imprisoned by fear, a false fear created by the hoax of “terrorism.” It has turned out that headline terrorist events since 9/11 have been orchestrated by the US government. For example, the alleged terrorist plot to blow up Chicago’s Sears Tower was the brainchild of a FBI agent who searched out a few disaffected people to give lip service to the plot devised by the FBI agent. He arrested his victims, whose trial ended in acquittal and mistrial.
Many Europeans regard 9/11 itself as an orchestrated event. Former cabinet members of the British, Canadian and German governments and the Chief of Staff of the Russian Army have publicly expressed their doubts about the official 9/11 story. Recently, a former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, said in an interview with the newspaper, Corriere della Sera (November 30, 2007), that “democratic elements in America and Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know that the 9/11 attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad in order to blame the Arab countries, and to persuade the Western powers to undertake military action both in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
It is unclear whether Cossiga was being sarcastic about the opinion of skeptics or merely reporting what people think. I have written to him asking for clarification and will report any reply that I receive. Apparently, the Italian media has not offered a clarification.
Cossiga’s statement has not been reported by a US newspaper or TV channel. Raising doubts among Americans about the government is not a strong point of the corporate media. Americans live in a world of propaganda designed to secure their acquiescence to war crimes, torture, searches and police state measures, military aggression, hegemony and oppression, while portraying Americans (and Israelis) as the salt of the earth who are threatened by Muslims who hate their “freedom and democracy.”Americans cling to this “truth” while the Bush regime and a complicit Congress destroy the Bill of Rights and engineer the theft of elections.
Freedom and democracy in America have been reduced to no-fly lists, spying without warrants, arrests without warrants or evidence, permanent detention despite the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, torture despite the prohibition against self-incrimination--the list goes on and on.
In today’s fearful America, a US Senator, whose elder brothers were a military hero killed in action, a President of the United States assassinated in office, an Attorney General of the United States and likely president except he was assassinated like his brother, can find himself on the no-fly list. Present and former high government officials, with top secret security clearances, cannot fly with a tube of toothpaste or a bottle of water despite the absence of any evidence that extreme measures imposed by “airport security” makes flying safer.
Elderly American citizens with walkers and young mothers with children are meticulously searched because US Homeland Security cannot tell the difference between an American citizen and a terrorist.
All Americans should note the ominous implications of the inability of Homeland Security to distinguish an American citizen from a terrorist.
When Airport Security cannot differentiate a US Marine General recipient of the Medal of Honor from a terrorist, Americans have all the information they need to know.
Any and every American can be arrested by unaccountable authority, held indefinitely without charges and tortured until he or she can no longer stand the abuse and confesses.
This predicament, which can now befall any American, is our reward for our stupidity, our indifference, our gullibility, and our lack of compassion for anyone but ourselves.
Some Americans have begun to comprehend the tremendous financial costs of the “war on terror.” But few understand the cost to American liberty. Last October a Democrat-sponsored bill, “Prevention of Violent Radicalism and Homegrown Terrorism,” passed the House of Representatives 404 to 6.
Only six members of the House voted against tyrannical legislation that would destroy freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and that would mandate 18 months of congressional hearings to discover Americans with “extreme” views who could be preemptively arrested.
What better indication that the US Constitution has lost its authority when elected representatives closest to the people pass a bill that permits the Bill of Rights to be overturned by the subjective opinion of members of an “Extremist Belief”.
Looking at the The Big Picture
Terror Storm
Puts current events into a sharp perspective, excellent doc.
Endgame
If you have time watch all of this, otherwise start from 1hr 20min, recommended by Dr Ron Paul.
Puts current events into a sharp perspective, excellent doc.
Endgame
If you have time watch all of this, otherwise start from 1hr 20min, recommended by Dr Ron Paul.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
On How To Rig An Election - Tips for Musharraf
Alabama Governor, Don Siegelman on electoral inconsistencies
Interesting interview from this recently unearthed video
Taped in 2004, in which the former governor focused on allegations of the out-and-out theft of his 2002 contest. He describes having gone to bed on Election Night after having been declared the victor by 6,000 votes following the publicly-counted results. But then, he was then awoken at about 4:30am with the shocking news that the numbers had magically been flipped after the all-Republican Election Board in Baldwin County had "re-counted" the results, illegally, by themselves, after midnight.
Seigelman's only guess about what could have happened: "Somebody electronically manipulated the election results."
Siegelman still sits in jail, and disallowed from speaking to the media, after U.S. Attorney brought an apparently trumped-up case against him.
20 Amazing Facts About US Voting
Interesting interview from this recently unearthed video
Taped in 2004, in which the former governor focused on allegations of the out-and-out theft of his 2002 contest. He describes having gone to bed on Election Night after having been declared the victor by 6,000 votes following the publicly-counted results. But then, he was then awoken at about 4:30am with the shocking news that the numbers had magically been flipped after the all-Republican Election Board in Baldwin County had "re-counted" the results, illegally, by themselves, after midnight.
Seigelman's only guess about what could have happened: "Somebody electronically manipulated the election results."
Siegelman still sits in jail, and disallowed from speaking to the media, after U.S. Attorney brought an apparently trumped-up case against him.
20 Amazing Facts About US Voting
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Four Charged with Treason
Thursday November 8, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Four men have been charged with treason by the Pakistani authorities for making anti-government speeches in the southern port city of Karachi, a court official said today.
The treason charges against the three politicians and a union activist, which carry a maximum sentence of death, came in the wake of mounting political unrest since General Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency on Saturday and suspended Pakistan's constitution.
The four were arrested on Monday and interrogated by police before being formally charged yesterday, said the court official.
Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's party (PPP) today said the number of people arrested since the imposition of emergency rule was now "in the thousands".
A spokesman for the former prime minister said around 800 PPP supporters had been arrested in the central Punjab province.
"They have raided homes of our activists across Punjab throughout the night. The number of people arrested is now in the thousands," a party spokeswoman added.
Ms Bhutto has planned a public meeting in Rawalpindi, a garrison city just south of the capital, Islamabad, tomorrow to protest against emergency rule.
She has also threatened a "long march" from Lahore to Islamabad - two days before the November 15 date by which Gen Musharraf had previously promised to leave the army.
Police have warned the planned rallies are banned, and a clash between them and Ms Bhutto's supporters could dramatically escalate the political crisis.
Ms Bhutto's gambit poses the first significant challenge to Gen Musharraf since he imposed emergency rule.
It also coincided with the first intervention into the crisis by US president George Bush, who yesterday pressed the general to to hold planned elections and to step down from the army.
The American president, who had not contacted Genl Musharraf directly since he established emergency law on Saturday, told a press conference: "You can't be the president [of Pakistan] and the head of the military at the same time. I had a very frank discussion with him."
Mr Bush has faced demands from Democratic congressmen to cut aid to Pakistan.
He has also been under pressure from the US media, which has contrasted his harsh words for the Burmese junta with his soft approach to Gen Musharraf.
But, speaking at a press conference with the French president Niçolas Sarkozy, Mr Bush recounted his conversation with Gen Musharraf: "My message was that we believe strongly in elections, and that you ought to have elections soon, and you need to take off your uniform."
The US deputy secretary of state, John Negroponte, softened Mr Bush's rebuke further with a statement to the House foreign affairs committee in which he disagreed with Gen Musharraf's tactics but described him as "an indispensable ally" in the US battle against terrorism.
Until now protests have been led by lawyers infuriated at the sacking of their chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who remains under house arrest in Islamabad.
Ms Bhutto's newfound steel edge could change the dynamic. She urged supporters to reach Rawalpindi tomorrow "at all costs".
"We can't work for dictatorship. We can work for democracy," she told an Islamabad news conference. "We're talking about the future of Pakistan as a modern nation."
In a possible prelude to the showdown, teargas was used on 400 Bhutto activists outside parliament yesterday, moments after government legislators inside the building had rubber-stamped Gen Musharraf's emergency rule.
The demonstrators retreated through the choking clouds of gas chanting "Benazir! Benazir!" and "Down with the emergency!"
Until yesterday Ms Bhutto had played a careful game, issuing verbal condemnations of Gen Musharraf but refraining from calling her party, which has countrywide support, on to the streets.
Power-sharing talks between the two have spared her party the worst of the government crackdown. While the leaders of virtually every other party have been jailed since Saturday, Ms Bhutto and her top officials have avoided the purge.
Even now she is keeping open the possibility of cohabitation with Gen Musharraf. He could "open the door" again if he "revives the constitution, retires as chief of army staff, and sticks to the schedule of holding elections", she said.
Still, some analysts detected a change. "She has come to the conclusion that if she doesn't put genuine full pressure [on him], Gen Musharraf will not lose his uniform and the political parties have no future, including herself," said Talat Masood, an analyst and retired army general.
"The Americans have also realised that Gen Musharraf has a rapidly diminishing utility. And he's reaching a point where he is more a problem than a solution."
Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, a senior member of Gen Musharraf's inner circle, told the Guardian he expected the emergency would be lifted in "two to three weeks".
The route for Ms Bhutto's planned "long march" is highly significant. Lahore is the capital of the Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province and the area from which most of the army comes.
A mass road rally into Lahore was a high point of Justice Chaudhry's street campaign against Gen Musharraf last spring. The government promised a harsh reception for the march.
Guardian Unlimited
Four men have been charged with treason by the Pakistani authorities for making anti-government speeches in the southern port city of Karachi, a court official said today.
The treason charges against the three politicians and a union activist, which carry a maximum sentence of death, came in the wake of mounting political unrest since General Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency on Saturday and suspended Pakistan's constitution.
The four were arrested on Monday and interrogated by police before being formally charged yesterday, said the court official.
Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's party (PPP) today said the number of people arrested since the imposition of emergency rule was now "in the thousands".
A spokesman for the former prime minister said around 800 PPP supporters had been arrested in the central Punjab province.
"They have raided homes of our activists across Punjab throughout the night. The number of people arrested is now in the thousands," a party spokeswoman added.
Ms Bhutto has planned a public meeting in Rawalpindi, a garrison city just south of the capital, Islamabad, tomorrow to protest against emergency rule.
She has also threatened a "long march" from Lahore to Islamabad - two days before the November 15 date by which Gen Musharraf had previously promised to leave the army.
Police have warned the planned rallies are banned, and a clash between them and Ms Bhutto's supporters could dramatically escalate the political crisis.
Ms Bhutto's gambit poses the first significant challenge to Gen Musharraf since he imposed emergency rule.
It also coincided with the first intervention into the crisis by US president George Bush, who yesterday pressed the general to to hold planned elections and to step down from the army.
The American president, who had not contacted Genl Musharraf directly since he established emergency law on Saturday, told a press conference: "You can't be the president [of Pakistan] and the head of the military at the same time. I had a very frank discussion with him."
Mr Bush has faced demands from Democratic congressmen to cut aid to Pakistan.
He has also been under pressure from the US media, which has contrasted his harsh words for the Burmese junta with his soft approach to Gen Musharraf.
But, speaking at a press conference with the French president Niçolas Sarkozy, Mr Bush recounted his conversation with Gen Musharraf: "My message was that we believe strongly in elections, and that you ought to have elections soon, and you need to take off your uniform."
The US deputy secretary of state, John Negroponte, softened Mr Bush's rebuke further with a statement to the House foreign affairs committee in which he disagreed with Gen Musharraf's tactics but described him as "an indispensable ally" in the US battle against terrorism.
Until now protests have been led by lawyers infuriated at the sacking of their chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who remains under house arrest in Islamabad.
Ms Bhutto's newfound steel edge could change the dynamic. She urged supporters to reach Rawalpindi tomorrow "at all costs".
"We can't work for dictatorship. We can work for democracy," she told an Islamabad news conference. "We're talking about the future of Pakistan as a modern nation."
In a possible prelude to the showdown, teargas was used on 400 Bhutto activists outside parliament yesterday, moments after government legislators inside the building had rubber-stamped Gen Musharraf's emergency rule.
The demonstrators retreated through the choking clouds of gas chanting "Benazir! Benazir!" and "Down with the emergency!"
Until yesterday Ms Bhutto had played a careful game, issuing verbal condemnations of Gen Musharraf but refraining from calling her party, which has countrywide support, on to the streets.
Power-sharing talks between the two have spared her party the worst of the government crackdown. While the leaders of virtually every other party have been jailed since Saturday, Ms Bhutto and her top officials have avoided the purge.
Even now she is keeping open the possibility of cohabitation with Gen Musharraf. He could "open the door" again if he "revives the constitution, retires as chief of army staff, and sticks to the schedule of holding elections", she said.
Still, some analysts detected a change. "She has come to the conclusion that if she doesn't put genuine full pressure [on him], Gen Musharraf will not lose his uniform and the political parties have no future, including herself," said Talat Masood, an analyst and retired army general.
"The Americans have also realised that Gen Musharraf has a rapidly diminishing utility. And he's reaching a point where he is more a problem than a solution."
Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, a senior member of Gen Musharraf's inner circle, told the Guardian he expected the emergency would be lifted in "two to three weeks".
The route for Ms Bhutto's planned "long march" is highly significant. Lahore is the capital of the Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province and the area from which most of the army comes.
A mass road rally into Lahore was a high point of Justice Chaudhry's street campaign against Gen Musharraf last spring. The government promised a harsh reception for the march.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)