An attempted color revolution backed by Wall Street unfolded in Bangkok, Thailand in 2010, leaving 91 dead. Since then, Wall Street as well as its proxies inside of Thailand have attempted to blame all 91 deaths on the Thai military despite overwhelming evidence proving armed militants were involved in the protests - this foreshadowed the techniques now being used on a larger scale in Syria.
High profile deaths including those of foreign journalists caught in the crossfire have become political points of leverage for Wall Street's media machine (a technique also reused in Syria) and their Thai proxy, billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra. Unfortunately the same craven political stunt employed at the expense of fallen Reuters journalist Hiro Muramoto who was killed during the April 10, 2010 night ambush of Thai troops, is now being used regarding the death of an Italian journalist by the Thai police currently headed by Thaksin Shinawatra's own brother-in-law.
Police General Priewpan Damapong was appointed as head of Thailand's police shortly after Thaksin's own sister took office last July, with much support from Wall Street & London and demonstrating a breathtaking display of third-world nepotism. Damapong, it should be noted, also just recently, and very eagerly, backed claims by both the US and Israel regarding the false flag Bangkok bombing pinned on Iran - illustrating just how interconnected these geopolitical ploys are regardless of geographic distance.
Claims regarding "new evidence" that Italian journalist Fabio Polenghi was killed by a high-velocity bullet during 2010's unrest, and not an M-79 grenade as previously thought, and therefore "clearly" implicating government troops, echos of similar claims by Thaksin's associates in regards to Muramoto's death and conveniently ignores the fact that both government troops and Thaksin's militants employed not only assault rifles firing high velocity bullets, but both fielded weapons that fired the exact same 5.56mm rounds claimed by Thaksin and his opposition to only have been used by government troops.
The evidence compiled in "Mainstream Propagandists: A Tale of Depravity," featuring photographs, video, witness testimony as well as a Human Rights Watch report, confirms without a doubt that Thaksin's hired mercenaries not only used the very same weapons as Thai troops, including M-16's, but had in their possession scores of weapons confiscated from Thai troops during the first violent confrontation on April 10, 2010. It also provides geopolitical analysts with perhaps the most transparent and well documented use of covert violence to facilitate a Western-backed color revolution to date.
The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been telling Israelis that Israel can attack Iran with minimal civilian Israeli casualties as a result of retaliation, and that reassuring message appears to have headed off any widespread Israeli fear of war with Iran and other adversaries.
But the message that Iran is too weak to threaten an effective counterattack is contradicted by one of Israel’s leading experts on Iranian missiles and the head of its missile defense program for nearly a decade, who says Iranian missiles are capable of doing significant damage to Israeli targets.
The Israeli population has shown little serious anxiety about the possibility of war with Iran, in large part because they have not been told that it involves a risk of Iranian missiles destroying Israeli neighborhoods and key economic and administrative targets.
“People are not losing sleep over this,” Yossi Alpher, a consultant and writer on strategic issues and former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, told IPS in an interview. “This is not a preoccupation of the public the way the suicide bombers were a decade ago.”
Alpher says one reason for the widespread lack of urgency about a possible war with Iran is that the scenarios involving such a war are “so nebulous in the eyes of the public that it’s difficult for them to focus on it”.
The statist rulers of the so-called “BRICS” countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — have been subtly calling for an end to the U.S. dollar’s status as the world reserve currency for years. Now, they are making more moves to turn that rhetoric into reality, proposing a jointly controlled “development” bank and working to sideline America’s already-troubled Federal Reserve Notes in trade by relying more heavily on their own fiat currencies.
The overarching theme of this year’s gathering in New Delhi was “BRICS Partnership for Global Stability, Security and Prosperity,” according to a declaration issued after the summit. And despite being filled with fluff, the final statement adopted by leaders of the respective regimes dealt with a wide range of topics. Overall, the five rulers called for increasing centralization of power at the international level on almost every issue.
Among the most important topics were discussions on currencies and reform of the international monetary system and the global financial regime. The five rulers called for an “improved international monetary and financial architecture,” as well as “the establishment and improvement of a just international monetary system.”
While the widely touted BRICS bank failed to materialize at the 2012 meeting, the final declaration noted that the nations’ “Finance Ministers” had been tasked to study the possibility and report back before next year’s summit. But significant progress was made on expanding the role of the nations’ own currencies in intra-BRICS trade.
“We welcome the conclusion of the Master Agreement on Extending Credit Facility in Local Currency under BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism and the Multilateral Letter of Credit Confirmation Facility Agreement,” the declaration explained. As The New American reported last year, increasing the role of their own currencies — at the expense of the U.S. dollar — has been at the top of the coalition’s agenda almost from the beginning.
I often hear people say, “I’d vote for Ron Paul if it weren’t for his lack of national defense and foreign policy.” I realize that people who make this statement have fallen prey to the clever and effective political spin that twists a candidate’s message inside out. The truth is that Rep. Ron Paul has the most moral, rational, and constitutional approach to protecting the U.S. and interacting with the world. Consider this from his website: “In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.” Dr. Paul wants to “[m]ake securing our borders the top national security priority” and “[a]void long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.” Does that sound like someone who doesn’t care about national defense?
The U.S. needs to stop giving money we do not have to other countries, and we need to stop sending our citizens (fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, wives, daughters, and mothers) to be slaughtered or injured unnecessarily. The U.S. debt is currently at $15.6 trillion, or over $50,000 per person.
The last time the U.S. formally declared war was for World War II in 1941. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were not formally declared. But look at this chart to see the numbers of deaths and wounded soldiers over the history of the United States. There are often four to 10 times as many soldiers injured as are killed. If we are going to deprive parents of their children, children of their parents, husbands of their wives, wives of their husbands, etc., don’t we owe it to the families who will suffer that loss to only send their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers into a real, legitimate war? Dr. Paul is the only president who will honor this serious and sacred responsibility.
The wounds that soldiers return with, from physical limitations to psychological trauma, can last a lifetime, just like the loss of a grown child or parent in combat. Veterans have a much higher rate of suicide. They suffer brain injuries, blindness, and traumatic amputations, and their families suffer. We owe it to the people who chose to defend our country to only risk their lives in the actual defense of the United States.
Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate, Democrat or Republican, who is a veteran. Dr. Paul saw the horror of war and would only risk American lives overseas if war were formally declared. To whose campaign is 87 percent of the active military contributing? Ron Paul.
Yesterday, brought ominous news regarding yet another aggressive Israeli projection of its military power in the Mideast. Since 1967, with but a few exceptions (Osirak being one), Israel has mainly satisfied itself by retaining dominance over its frontline neighbors and not attempting to meddle in affairs of more far-flung states. But with Bibi Netanyahu’s new policy of projecting Israeli power far outside Israel’s immediate sphere and threatening Iran with attack, we have an Israel ready and willing to step far outside its former comfort zone.
To show that Bibi’s aggressive, interventionist approach isn’t a fluke, UPI reports that Israel is negotiating with Greek Cyprus for placement of an Israeli air base on the island, ostensibly to protect the new Israeli-Cypriot joint gas exploration project:
Israel is already preparing to launch a major security operation to protect the offshore fields and the attendant facilities in its waters.
This will involve missile-armed patrol vessels, round-the-clock aerial surveillance by unmanned drones and other naval detachments, primarily to defend the energy zones against attack by Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed force in neighboring Lebanon.
This field is in dispute with Lebanon, which also claims title. Turkey too disputes the area on behalf of Turkish Cyprus. This certainly is one reason for the Israeli move.
If more proof was needed (some of us think it isn’t) that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu lives in a fantasy world that exists only in his own deluded mind, his latest verbal assault on the UN Human Rights Council for its decision to appoint and despatch an independent international fact-finding mission “to investigate the implications of the (illegal) Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” is it.
The Council, Netanyahu said in his fury, has “an automatic majority against Israel”, is “hypocritical” and “out of touch with reality”. He added that “It should be ashamed of itself.”
There is, in fact, some substance to the charge that the UN Human Rights Council is hypocritical. There are many abuses of human rights in many countries which it does not investigate because the African, Asian and Latin American majority on the 47-member Council say “No”. So there is most certainly a case for saying that this particular UN body is hypocritical, even out of touch with some realities and, in that context, appears to be obsessed with Israel-Palestine.
But does that mean the decision of the UN Human Rights Council to set up an independent investigation of the implications of Israel’s on-going colonization of the West Bank including East Jerusalem should be treated with contempt and not taken seriously?
Previously videos surfaced on Syria TV showing CNN running fake Syria news reports.
After failed attempts by CNN to run damage control on the videos, Russia Today is running bullshit stories to discredit Syria TV and help CNN save face.
The Staged CNN Syria Danny Interview
I recently reported on CNN running staged interviews with Syria terrorists who falsely claimed they were being attacked by Syria government troops and directed offstage gunfire to make their claims seem real.
That video was followed by a botched attempt by CNN in which Anderson Cooper interviewed Danny.
The problem is, while most Americans who haven’t seen the video above may be convinced, those who watched the video above can clearly tell Danny was lying.
The only explanation Danny could give is that the footage above should have been deleted.
Andersen fails to question Danny on why he told the Camera man to get the gunfire ready and or why instructed his off scene actors to just start shooting.
Bloomberg's report, "Soros Loses Case Against French Insider-Trading Conviction," indicates that an appeal based on a "human rights" violation against Wall Street speculator George Soros has been rejected by the "European Court of Human Rights." Soros, who was convicted and fined for insider trading in 2002 regarding French bank Société Générale shares he bought in 1988, has built an empire out of obfuscating global criminal activity with the cause of "human rights."
The court's decision in rejecting the appeal was based on Soros being “a famous institutional investor, well-known to the business community and a participant in major financial projects,” and thus should have been “particularly prudent” regarding insider-trading laws. The contents of Soros' appeal, based on "human rights" was not heard, and the details of the appeal not yet made public, however, it is an illustrative example of how Soros and global elitists like him leverage the legitimate cause of human rights and freedom as a means to execute and defend both individual and institutional criminal behavior.
Soros has built a global empire of networked nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) allegedly promoting "human rights," "freedom," "democracy," and "transparency." His Open Society Institute funds amongst many others, Amnesty International (page 10), Global Voices, and Human Rights Watch. In reality these NGOs constitute a modern day network of imperial administrators, undermining national governments around the world and replacing them with a homogeneous "civil society" that interlocks with "international institutions" run from and on behalf of Wall Street and London. And contrary to popular belief, Soros has built this empire, not against "conservative" ambitions, but with their full cooperation.
It is difficult to find a cause Soros' Open Society Institute supports that is not also funded, directed, and backed by the US State Department-funded, Neo-Conservative lined National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI).
The US government has spent about $635bn over the past decade militarising local law enforcement. That, as Stephan Salisbury has reported, includes "tanks and drones, robot bomb detectors, grenade launchers, Tasers, and most of all, interlinked video surveillance cameras and information databases".
In 2003, a federal judge ruled that the New York Police Department could broaden its surveillance programmes in the name of public safety. The AP later revealed that the NYPD had been keeping tabs on Muslims and Islamic groups as far away as Yale University (where I teach). Weeks afterward, it became public that New York City's police force, the largest in the US, had also been monitoring the activities of Occupy Wall Street protesters.
Naturally, there have been attempts to characterise protesters as bums, deviants, criminals or whatever. This is no doubt true in some cases, but even if it were true in all cases, these are still Americans invoking the guaranteed privilege of citizenship - and their actions are being met with the full force of the militarised state. The United States seems to be the land of the free as long as you don't collectively complain about the superstructures of money and power.
But we're not just talking about the marginalised. The middle class, it's safe to say, believes in the American dream; its protests were against bailouts for banks and sacrifice for everyone else. And yet these respectable law-abiding citizens met with police violence, too. If violence is standard operating procedure, doesn't that legitimately call into question the legitimacy of the state?
Today another kind of movement is growing. What the future holds, no one knows. But in 1919, one of President Wilson's advisers said he worried about this threat to both major parties. He said: "Steadily from day to day, under our very eyes, [there is] a movement that, if it is not checked, is bound to express itself in attack on everything we hold dear. In this era of industrial and social unrest, both parties are in disrepute with the average man."
A report published in The Sunday Times on March 25 suggests that “Israel is using a permanent base in Iraqi Kurdistan to launch cross-border intelligence missions in an attempt to find ‘smoking gun’ evidence that Iran is building a nuclear warhead.” (Israeli spies scour Iran in nuclear hunt, The Sunday Times, March 25, 2012)
Western sources told the Times Israel was monitoring “radioactivity and magnitude of explosives tests” and that “special forces used Black Hawk helicopters to carry commandos disguised as members of the Iranian military and using Iranian military vehicles”. The sources believe “Iranians are trying to hide evidence of warhead tests in preparation for a possible IAEA visit”. (Cited in Report: Israeli soldiers scour Iran for nukes, Ynet, March 25, 2012)
The number of Israeli intelligence missions at the Parchin military base in Iran has increased in the past few months, according to the article. During that period, Tehran has been negotiating with the IAEA which had requested to visit Parchin. According to Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, both parties had agreed in early February that the visit would take place in March. (Gareth Porter, Details of Talks with IAEA Belie Charge Iran Refused Cooperation, IPS, March 21, 2012)
The IAEA requested to visit Parchin in late January and late February, after having agreed to a visit in March. The IAEA thus requested to visit the military complex exactly at the same time Israel was intensifying its secret operations to allegedly search for a “smoking gun”.
A few years ago it has been suggested that Israel was the source of fake intelligence, a stolen laptop, related to Iran’s alleged nuclear program. The New York Times reported in 2005 on what was presented as “the strongest evidence” Iran was building nuclear weapons:
The Crisis of Zionism opens with Peter Beinart watching a video on his computer sent by an Israeli friend. It depicts an incident on the occupied West Bank: Israeli military police arrest a Palestinian man for trying to siphon water from the pipes that feed an Israeli settlement, after he had made repeated efforts to secure permission. As he is taken away his five-year-old son, Khaled, cries plaintively after him, “Baba, Baba.”
For those familiar with the occupation, the context is clear. The settlers, with the legal rights of citizens of Israel, have privileged access to the aquifers in this arid land and use water at five times the rate of the Palestinians. This inequality is secured by Israeli military law, which governs the stateless inhabitants of this occupied territory.
Beinart describes the emotions the video set off in him:
As soon I began watching … I wished I had never turned it on. For most of my life, my reaction to accounts of Palestinian suffering has been rationalization, a search for reasons why the accounts are exaggerated or the suffering self-inflicted. … But in recent years, for reasons I can’t fully explain, I had been lowering my defenses, and Khaled’s cries left me staring in mute horror at my computer screen.
It is a powerful passage in a book filled with them, one that encapsulates and personalizes the inequity of the occupation, the apartheid-like legal distinctions between Jewish settlers and Palestinians, and the grotesque disparity between two people’s access to natural resources and civil and political rights. It captures with precision the rationalizing process of many American Jews, most of whom would decry such injustice were it to occur in America or elsewhere in the Western world. Finally it touches on the ineffable mystery of how sophisticated people change their minds—“I had been lowering my defenses”—a puzzle even for those at the top rungs of opinion journalism.
America’s wars are very expensive. Bush and Obama have doubled the national debt, and the American people have no benefits from it. No riches, no bread and circuses flow to Americans from Washington’s wars. So what is it all about?
The answer is that Washington’s empire extracts resources from the American people for the benefit of the few powerful interest groups that rule America. The military-security complex, Wall Street, agri-business and the Israel Lobby use the government to extract resources from Americans to serve their profits and power. The US Constitution has been extracted in the interests of the Security State, and Americans’ incomes have been redirected to the pockets of the 1 percent. That is how the American Empire functions.
The New Empire is different. It happens without achieving conquest. The American military did not conquer Iraq and has been forced out politically by the puppet government that Washington established. There is no victory in Afghanistan, and after a decade the American military does not control the country.
In the New Empire success at war no longer matters. The extraction takes place by being at war. Huge sums of American taxpayers’ money have flowed into the American armaments industries and huge amounts of power into Homeland Security. The American empire works by stripping Americans of wealth and liberty.
This is why the wars cannot end, or if one does end another starts. Remember when Obama came into office and was asked what the US mission was in Afghanistan? He replied that he did not know what the mission was and that the mission needed to be defined.
It is ironic that under the New Empire the citizens of the empire are extracted of their wealth and liberty in order to extract lives from the targeted foreign populations. Just like the bombed and murdered Muslims, the American people are victims of the American empire.
Obama has to conspire with the Pentagon in covering up this mass murder, defending the officers in charge of these ‘pacified’ villages, because there are no alternatives, no back-ups, no new recruits eager to engage in the 12th year of war in Afghanistan . There are only the re-cycled killers, willing to pursue their career in ‘Special Forces’ involving ‘kill and destroy’ operations. Furthermore, Obama cannot rely on the international allies who are rushing to withdraw their own troops from this quagmire. And Obama has a problem with his allied Afghan warlords and kleptocrats, who managed to run off with over $4.5 billion dollars in 2011 (half of the entire state budget) (Financial Times, 3/19/12, p. 1). President Obama cannot allow an entire garrison, including their commanding officer to be put on trial for the war crimes in this massacre. Holding anyone, besides the hapless Sgt. Bales, accountable for the massacre would incite a general rebellion within the armed forces, or, at a minimum, further demoralize the elite Special Forces who are expected to man these long-term engagements after the regulars withdraw, which in the case of Afghanistan could last until 2024.
This issue has implications far beyond Afghanistan : Obama has developed his entire new counter-insurgency strategy centered on the easy entry and bloody exits of US Special Forces targeting over seventy-five countries. The Special Forces figure prominently in Obama’s military preparations for Syria and Iran , which have been developed at the behest of his Zionist overlords.
In the final analysis, the entire imperial military apparatus of the Obama regime, while formidable on paper, depends on the ‘Special Operations’ formations. As such, they are the centerpiece of the new imperial warfare, developed as a response to the demands for reduced ground forces, budgetary constraints and growing domestic discontent. Their ‘actions’ are designed to leave no witnesses and no embarrassments. They may be the butchers of children, women and unarmed civilians but they are the White House’s butchers.
On the domestic front, Obama faces strong popular opposition to the costly unending wars, which have destroyed the US economy, and growing anger and demoralization in the armed forces. As a result of the massive popular discontent among the American people with politicians of both parties who have recklessly sent troops into anachronistic colonial wars, which serve the interest of foreign powers, the President has issued an executive decree, allowing him to assume dictatorial powers in order to militarize the entire economy, its resources and its work force. On March 16, 2012 Barak Obama issued an Executive Order-National Defense Resource Preparedness in order to sustain the global empire.
Clearly prolonged colonial wars cannot be sustained through the consent of the citizens and such wars cannot be prosecuted according to military manuals and the Geneva Conventions. At this point, only Presidential ‘rule by decree’ can secure compliance of the citizens at home and only massacres and cover-ups can sustain the colonial occupations abroad. But these are desperate and temporary: When the extreme measures have run their course there will be nothing to fall back on and nothing can save the president of a collapsing empire from the revolt of its citizens and soldiers.
What is striking is the extent of media coverage of "Al Qaeda related events", not to mention the mountains of op eds and authoritative "analysis" pertaining to "terror events" in different part of the World.
Routine mention of Al Qaeda "fanatics", "jihadists", etc. has become --from a news standpoint-- trendy and fashionable. A Worldwide ritual of authoritative media reporting has unfolded. At the time of writing (March 24, 2012), "Al Qaeda events" had 183 million entries on Google and 18,200 news entries.
A panoply of Al Qaeda related events and circumstances is presented to public opinion on a daily basis. These include terrorist threats, warnings and attacks, police investigations, insurgencies and counter-insurgencies, country-level regime change, social conflict, sectarian violence, racism, religious divisions, Islamic thought, Western values, etc.
In turn, Al Qaeda - War on Terrorism rhetoric permeates political discourse at all levels of government, including bipartisan debate on Capitol Hill, in committees of the House and the Senate, at the British House of Commons, and, lest we forget, at the United Nations Security Council.
All of these complex Al Qaeda related occurrences are explained --by politicians, the corporate media, Hollywood and the Washington think tanks under a single blanket "bad guys" heading, in which Al Qaeda is casually and repeatedly pinpointed as "the cause" of numerous terror events around the World.
You'd have thought the reality of Afghanistan and Iraq might act as a break on the instinctive lunge by hawks to compare apples with oranges as they try to gull us into a belief that war is a doddle.
Remember the neo-con parsing of the proposed invasion of Iraq as a ''cakewalk'' - to address the ''mushroom cloud'' that Condoleezza Rice saw in Iraq's non-existent nuclear arsenal and Tony Blair's wild warning that Saddam Hussein could unleash a WMD strike in just 45 minutes?
It's the same with Iran now. We are being asked to pair a best-case scenario of going to war (neat, surgical strikes; no blood on the ground; and little or no Iranian retaliation) with the worst-case scenario of allowing Tehran to go its nuclear way (become a reckless regional actor; would seek menacing alliances with the likes of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela; and would pass nuclear technology to terrorists).
Despite Barack Obama's warning weeks ago that ''now is not the time for bluster,'' the blustering continues apace - in Washington and beyond.
In The New York Times on Wednesday, the Israeli commentator Ari Shavit warns that unless there is a strike against Iran this northern summer - that is, in the next several months - ''Israel will lose the military capability to stop the Shiite bomb''. In a 30-minute lobbying video doing the rounds, the evangelical Christian leader Gary Bauer intones: ''I'll be brutally honest - I don't trust the president …. I think his record on Israel is abysmal.''
After our story on the Rise of the Prepper, we have been inundated with emails from readers telling us how hard it’s becoming for them to obtain certain types of ammo. We also had a reader send us a press release this morning from Ruger.
Effective Immediately Ruger has stopped accepting Firearms Orders. The Company says that they have had to temporarily suspend the acceptance of new orders after receiving requests for more than one million units.
Here is the Official Statement form Ruger:
SOUTHPORT, CT –Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE-RGR), announced today that for the first quarter 2012, the Company has received orders for more than one million units. Therefore, the Company has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders.
Chief Executive Officer Michael O. Fifer made the following comments: •The Company’s Retailer Programs that were offered from January 1, 2012 through February 29, 2012 were very successful and generated significant orders from retailers to independent wholesale distributors for Ruger firearms. •Year-to-date, the independent wholesale distributors placed orders with the Company for more than one million Ruger firearms. •Despite the Company’s continuing successful efforts to increase production rates, the incoming order rate exceeds our capacity to rapidly fulfill these orders. Consequently, the Company has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders. •The Company expects to resume the normal acceptance of orders by the end of May 2012.
In the Rise of the Prepper article, we warned that with Guns, Gold and Emergency Food all setting record sales numbers we will likely see major shortages hit the marketplace. As people begin to stock up on preparedness related items in response to the coming election cycle, we will likely see nationwide shortages similar to what happened during the elections in 2008. I fear this is only the beginning.
The fact that the world is being restructured from decentralized diversity to collectivized hierarchy by an authoritarian regime cloaked in green trappings can hardly be disputed.
The final push toward the next and perhaps final phase may be announced this June at the 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
A Scientific American editorial by Gary Stix highlights a policy article written by several dozen scientists that appeared online March 15 in the journal Science.
The conclusions reached by the scientists, as well as the editorial from a staff member of Scientific American are incredibly unscientific and fly in the face of the many thousands of independent scientists and researchers who have refuted the theory of man-made global warming. Regardless, this small group pushes ahead with their suggestions that the only way to combat such a global catastrophe is of course to solve it through global government. And not just any global government, but one that Scientific American suggests should be "heavy-handed (in its) transnational enforcement powers."
The policy paper entitled, "Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance" is one of the most blatantly authoritarian among the incrementally more open policy papers that we are witnessing, as global governance continues on its runaway path in the name of saving humanity from itself.
There must be mass outrage to such a degree that even their plan for "majority rule" cannot succeed. A rising tide of protest and civil disobedience can easily smash each one of the building blocks above. The Achilles Heel of their plan is resistance to any initiative that would remove the power of local communities to support and sustain themselves, and instead force sworn fealty to a group of overlords who admit to their desire to impose a scientific dictatorship to be ruled by councils of experts. It has been these so-called experts, at the behest of governments throughout history, who have led to nothing short of a mass murder machine. We need to keep that in mind as they attempt to guilt trip us into compliance with their "humanitarian" agenda.
From the very outset, the idea to construct a naval base in Korea as "Another US Naval Base", on Jeju Island, strategically located about 200 miles from China’s coastline, has broad ramifications.
It is not strictly a Korea-US issue. It affects the entire Northeast Asian region.
China is drawn into a confrontational geopolitical structure, predicated on the de facto militarization of the Korean Peninsula and much of the Northeast Asia region, particularly in the context of what is acknowledged in South Korea as “America’s strategic naval base as a direct military threat to China.” The Construction of "Another US Naval Base" on Jeju Island, Korea is not only a regional issue, it has global military ramifications. There are four major global powers involved: the US, China, Russia, Japan, together with both Koreas.
Resulting from the Jeju Naval base and its strategic geographic location, the national security and geopolitical interests of these countries has become dangerously intertwined. (see map below)
Many Koreans already call the Jeju Naval Base ”Another US Naval Base.” They also call it the “US Pirate Base”
According to several South Korean (both conservative and progressive) media, the “thoroughly pro-US, pro-Japan to the bone” Lee regime (a direct quote from President Lee’s older brother) is marked by an “unprecedented, probably the worst case of political flunkeyism” in recent Korean history.
As a result, due to Lee's disastrous and ruinous four years of corrupt government, the entire Korean peninsula as well as China and the entire Northeast Asian region have been forcibly thrown into a state of military tension.
The joint complaint by the United States, European Union (EU), and Japan filed against the People's Republic of China (PRC) before the World Trade Organization (WTO) for its restrictive rare earth export policies marks another satisfying act in President Barack Obama's contain-China political theater. It also provides some insight into where the world is headed, and Japan's attempts to maintain its economic and geopolitical relevance.
The handwriting is on the wall for the PRC to lose the rare earth case. It is a virtual carbon copy of the raw materials export restrictions case brought by the US, EU, and Mexico against the PRC. Beijing lost, both in the original adjudication and on appeal in January 2012. 
In the raw materials case, the WTO found that China's regime of export duties and quotas for bauxite and other materials created a two-tier system that favored domestically based traders and processors (including FDI entities), and discriminated against foreign purchasers. It rejected the PRC's defense that these measures were protected under GATT provisions permitting restrictions on exports for the purpose of conserving scarce resources and preventing environmental degradation, observing that price and quantity controls that primarily targeted foreign purchasers was not a plausible implementation of a conservation policy.
At the time, it was widely believed that a rare earth complaint would be next, and indeed the shoe dropped in high-profile remarks by Obama in the White House Rose Garden on March 13.
China-bashing makes for good politics in this election season, and his administration and the media did their best to paint the case as a victory for freedom and fair play against the Chinese menace, citing China's monopolistic 97% share of current rare earth production.
These murders, said centrist candidate Francois Bayrou, "because of their origin, of the religion of their family," are linked "to a growing climate of intolerance."
Politicians "have the duty to make sure that tensions, passions, hatred should not be kept alive at every moment. To point the finger at one or another according to their origins is to inflame passions, and we do it because in that flame there are votes to get."
The massacre at the Jewish school and the murders of Muslim and black soldiers, said the head of France's Council of Muslim Democrats, "are a strong signal sent to politicians and, more particularly, to those who, for several months, have played with fire."
And who had "played with fire"?
Sarkozy and Marine Le Pen, candidate of the rightist National Front.
Sarkozy has been toughening his stance on immigration and national identity. In a March 7 debate, he said that there are "too many foreigners" in France and that assimilation is "working worse and worse."
As Europe's native citizens age and die and immigration goes on and on—with 5 million Muslims already in France—issues of national identity will bedevil Europe, even as they will bedevil us, forever.
In Toulouse we see clearly now not only the dark side of diversity but perhaps the future of the West.
First seen on DeadLineLive: March 20, 2012 - In an astounding interview uploaded on August 29, 2011 by Think Progress.org, former US Representative Patrick Kennedy is asked about his appearance at a rally on behalf of Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a US State Department-listed foreign terror organization (#29). He shamelessly declares that not only was he paid a sum of 25,000 USD to appear at the rally, but that he also believes in MEK's "cause."
Kennedy would further astound us by claiming Iranians are "exporting" rocket propelled grenades and IED's (improvised explosive devices) to "kill Americans." He states, "you could never pay me enough to be on the side of any group that is killing Americans," apparently oblivious to the fact that MEK is listed as a terrorist organization specifically because it has indeed killed Americans.
He would then go on to implicate several other co-lobbyists working with him, claiming that he stands with "a whole array of military leadership" in his support of MEK.
Kennedy's support of MEK - being a designated terrorist organization - is in direct violation of USC § 2339A & 2339B - providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations. It is a crime under US law that carries with it a penalty up to and including life imprisonment.
MEK is a listed terror organization for a reason....
US State Department-listed foreign terror organization, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), has carried out decades of brutal terrorist attacks, assassinations, and espionage against the Iranian government and its people, as well as targeting Americans including the attempted kidnapping of US Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II, the attempted assassination of USAF Brigadier General Harold Price, the successful assassination of Lieutenant Colonel Louis Lee Hawkins, the double assassinations of Colonel Paul Shaffer and Lieutenant Colonel Jack Turner, and the successful ambush and killing of American Rockwell International employees William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard.
The reason why America is dying is simple. We have been cut off from our roots, including our Christian moorings, our Bill of Rights, and our patriotic heritage. All plants cut off at the roots eventually die, from lack of nutrition. The life force ebbs from their branches and leaves, and their limbs and vines atrophy and dissipate. So, too, do the limbs and constituent parts of nations die when separated from the nurturing substances that give them life.
America’s terminal illness is not an accident of fate. It is a planned event. This is the working out of "Rothschild’s Plan for America," a plan which I detail at length in my CD/audiotape offering of the same title (Order your copy today by clicking Tape or CD).
The greedy Rothschild is a thief, a global thief, and as Jesus told us, "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy."
America Battered by "Creative Destruction"
The Illuminati elite are deeply complicit in Rothschild’s thieving and murderous plan. They are willing tools of our destruction. Alan Greenspan, the crafty Jewish financier who served Rothschild and the elite cryptocracy as head of the Federal Reserve banking cartel during the administrations of both Presidents Bush (the younger George W. and the elder George H. W.) as well as President Clinton, significantly helped in the fulfillment of this heinous plot. Interestingly, Greg Kaza, in Chronicles journal (Jan. 2010), notes that Greenspan referred to America’s diminishing status twelve times during his reign as Fed Chairman, each time using the carefully crafted catch-phrase "creative destruction" first invented by Harvard’s economist, Joseph Schumpeter, in his 1942 book, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.
Joseph Schumpeter’s book, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, proposes that America be transformed through a process of "creative destruction." Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Libya seems to be on the verge of disintegration one year after the military intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In the first week of March, leaders from its oil-rich eastern region, which includes Benghazi, the focal point of the Western-backed rebellion that ousted Muammar Qaddafi, announced their intention to seek “semi-autonomy” from the central government. The meeting in Benghazi, where the decision was taken, was attended by major political leaders, military commanders and tribal leaders from the region. The new “semi-autonomous” region, Cyrenaica, will extend from the central coastal city of Sirte, Qaddafi's hometown, to the country's border with Egypt. According to energy experts, the area holds around two-thirds of the country's oil reserves.
Observers of the Libyan scene predict that the move is aimed at partitioning the country. At the Benghazi meeting, there was an open call for the re-adoption of the 1951 Constitution, which recognised Tripoli as the administrative capital and Benghazi as the financial capital of the country.
Under King Idris, the pro-Western puppet ruler at the time, Libya was divided into three provinces, Cyrenaica in the east, Tripolitana in the west and Fezzan in the south. Benghazi, where the King resided, was the centre of decision making. The United States had military bases nearby while big Western oil companies monopolised the country's oil resources. After Qaddafi came to power, he nationalised the oil industry and forced the U.S. to vacate its bases.
Sheikh Ahmad Zubeir al-Sanussi, who has emerged as the leader of the Benghazi group, is a grand-nephew of King Idris. The Benghazi meeting rejected the decision of the Libyan Transitional National Council (NTC) to allocate 60 seats to the eastern region in the 200-member Assembly. The leaders are demanding around 100 seats for the region. Elections for a new government are scheduled to be held in June. But with a powerful Western-backed power bloc emerging in the east and general lawlessness prevailing in most parts of the country, it would be an uphill task for the interim government in Tripoli to supervise a peaceful transfer of power to an elected Assembly.
Over 100 militias, flush with lethal arms, are bunkered down in the major towns of the country. They are unwilling to integrate into the national army or give up their arms. In the capital, Tripoli, the main airport and major government buildings are still under the control of opposing militias. Frequent clashes have erupted in the capital and other parts of the country as each militia has been trying to expand its turf. The seven-month- long war inflicted by the NATO forces not only claimed thousands of lives but also destroyed the country's infrastructure.
Several years after the Wall Street-ignited crisis began, the nation’s top bank CEOs (who far out-accumulated their European and other international counterparts) continue to hobnob with the president at campaign dinners where each plate costs more than one out of four US households make in a year. Financial bigwigs lead their affluent lives, unaffected, unremorseful, and unindicted for wreaking havoc on the nation. Why? Because they won. They hustled better. They are living the American Dream.
This is not the American Dream that says if you work hard you can be more comfortable than your parents; but rather, if you connive well, game the rules, and rule the game, your take from others is unlimited. In this paradigm, human empathy, caring, compassion, and connection have been devalued from the get-go. This is the flaw in the entire premise of the American Dream: if we can have it all, it must by definition be at someone else’s expense.
In Why America Failed, noted historian and cultural critic Morris Berman’s brilliant, raw and unflinchingly accurate postmortem of America, he concludes that this hustling model, literally woven into the American DNA, doomed the country from the start, and led us inevitably to this dysfunctional point. It is not just the American Dream that has failed, but America itself, because the dream was a mistake in the first place. We are at our core a nation of hustlers; not recently, not sometimes, but always. Conventional wisdom has it that America was predicated on the republican desire to break free from monarchical tyranny, and that was certainly a factor in the War of Independence; but in practical terms, it came down to a drive for "more" -- for individual accumulation of wealth.
So where does that leave us as a country? I caught up with Berman to find out.
Nomi Prins: Why America Failed is the third book in a trilogy you wrote on the decline of the American Empire. How did this trilogy evolve?
Spin it any way you want. Justify it, rationalize it, chalk it up to the exigencies of war. And at the end, the fact remains:
A U.S. citizen is dead and the U.S. government killed him. Without trial. Without due process. Without hesitation. And many of those who loudly deplored George W. Bush for smaller excesses seem content to allow Barack Obama this larger one.
No, I do not mourn the death of Anwar al-Awlaki. If anyone ever deserved to have a missile from a predator drone land in his lap, it was this New Mexico-born Muslim cleric, killed last September in Yemen, his ancestral homeland. American counterterrorism experts say he planned the failed 2009 bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner. Additionally, he is said to have inspired the Fort Hood massacre of 2009 and the botched Times Square bombing of 2010. The world is a better place without this guy in it.
Still, the means of his dispatch from this world ought to give us pause.
Last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech in which he attempted to justify what the administration did. His reasoning was not compelling. In Holder's formulation, the U.S. government has the right to kill citizens if said citizens present an imminent threat of violent attack and if capturing them alive is not a feasible option. It can do this, said Holder, speaking at Northwestern University School of Law, without judicial oversight.
"Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaida or associated forces," he said. "This is simply not accurate. Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process; it does not guarantee judicial process."
What a flimsy rationale upon which to balance a decision as monumental and portentous as the killing of a citizen. Even granting that the demands of armed conflict sometimes make such things necessary, it is inconceivable that the White House would claim the right to kill without at least presenting its evidence before a federal judge in a secret hearing. To eschew even that safeguard -- there is precedent, in urgent cases, for a ruling to be handed down in hours or even minutes -- is to set Obama up as potential judge, jury and executioner of every accused terrorist.
By now, you’d think we’d be entering the end of the 9/11 era. One war over in the Greater Middle East, another hurtling disastrously to its end, and the threat of al-Qaeda so diminished that it should hardly move the needle on the national worry meter. You might think, in fact, that the moment had arrived to turn the American gaze back to first principles: the Constitution and its protections of rights and liberties.
Yet warning signs abound that 2012 will be another year in which, in the name of national security, those rights and liberties are only further Guantanamo-ized and abridged. Most notably, for example, despite the fact that genuinely dangerous enemies continue to exist abroad, there is now a new enemy in our sights: namely, American oppositional types and whistleblowers who are charged as little short of traitors for revealing the workings of our government to journalists and others.
Here and elsewhere, it looks like we can expect the Obama administration to continue to barrel down the path that has already taken us far from the country we used to be. And by next year, if a different president is in the Oval Office, expect him to lead us even further astray. With that in mind, here are five categories in the sphere of national security where 2012 is likely to prove even grimmer than 2011.
1. Ever More Punitive (Ever Less Fair-minded).
2. Ever More Legal Limbo (Ever Less Confidence in the Constitution).
3. Ever More Secrecy (Ever Less Transparency).
4. Ever More Distrust (Ever Less Privacy).
5. Ever More Killing (Ever Less Peace).
To sum up, the legal gray zone Washington has, over the course of a decade, plunged us into — and everything that goes with it, including punitive measures, attempts to bypass constitutional guarantees, the spread of secrecy and surveillance, a growing distrust of American citizens, and straightforward killing — isn’t something we will soon put behind us. The move away from the rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution and the law is very clearly the way of the American future in our new age of enemies.
In the little town of Bluffdale, Utah, between the Wasatch Range and the Oquirrh Mountains, the National Security Agency (NSA) is building what will be the nation's largest spy center, reports Wired, a print magazine and online publication reporting on technological developments and their effects, including electronic privacy. Dubbed the Utah Data Center, the project is already employing thousands of hardhat workers in its construction and will soon have some 10,000 construction workers building a data center that will be more than five times the size of the nation's capitol, Wired reports.
"We've been asked not to talk about the project," Rob Moore, president of Big-D Construction, one of the three major contractors working on the project, told a local reporter. Plans for the center include a $10 million antiterrorism protection program, a fence designed to stop a 15,000-pound vehicle traveling 50 miles per hour, closed-circuit cameras, a biometric identification system, a vehicle inspection facility, and a visitor-control center, the magazine said.
The $2 billion center is scheduled to be in operation by September 2013. Its purpose will be to intercept and analyze electronic communications both foreign and domestic. The information will be stored in vast data bases that will include the complete contents of private emails, cellphone calls, and Google searches, as well as "all sorts of personal data trails — parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter,' " Wired reports, noting that the center will be in many respects the realization of the Total Information Awareness program created during the first term of the Bush administration. Congress killed the program after it produced a public and media outcry over invasion of privacy.
Financial information, business deals, legal documents, and personal communications will be monitored at the center, along with foreign military and diplomatic secrets. According to an anonymous "top official" quoted in the story, the NSA's code-breaking ability enables the agency to break through encryption systems employed not only by governments around the world, but also by average computer users in the United States. According to the official, "Everybody's a target; everybody with communication is a target."
NSA, the "largest, most covert, and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever created," has been overflowing with tens of billions of government dollars annually since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the magazine says. While its primary role is to discover and monitor threats to U.S. security from overseas sources, it is has turned its surveillance operations on citizens here in the U.S. as well, as officials sift through billions of email messages and phone calls from both overseas and here in "the homeland."
"U.N.-Arab League envoy" Kofi Annan has claimed over the last several weeks to be backing "peace efforts" in Syria to end the conflict which has lasted over a year now. In reality, it has been revealed that his function is to simply buy time for a collapsing militant front and the creation of NATO-occupied "safe havens" from which further destabilization and "coercive action" can be conducted against the Syrian government.
This has been confirmed by Fortune 500-funded, US foreign-policy think-tank, Brookings Institution which has blueprinted designs for regime change in Libya as well as both Syria and Iran. In their latest report, "Assessing Options for Regime Change" it is stated:
"An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts." -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Image: Also out of the Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," makes no secret that "responsibility to protect" is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
While some may be surprised that "peace envoy" Kofi Annan is essentially lying to both Syria's government and to the world, with a complicit UN and "Arab League" willfully "in" on the fraud, Annan's ties with notorious traitors, meddlers, and warmongers indicate that this latest deception is par for the course.
Annan is a trustee of Wall Street speculator George Soros and geopolitical manipulator Zbigniew Brzezinski's International Crisis Group, along side Neo-Conservative corporate lobbyist and warmonger Kenneth Adelman, US State Department-listed Iranian terror organization MEK lobbyist - General Wesley Clark, Wall Street-backed color revolution leader - Mohammed ElBaradei of Egypt, and Brookings Institution's Samuel Berger.
This Executive Order was posted on the WhiteHouse.gov web site on Friday, March 16, 2012, under the name National Defense Resources Preparedness. In a nutshell, it's the blueprint for Peacetime Martial Law and it gives the president the power to take just about anything deemed necessary for "National Defense", whatever they decide that is. It's peacetime, because as the title of the order says, it's for "Preparedness". A copy of the entire order follows the end of this story.
Under this order the heads of these cabinet level positions; Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Defense and Commerce can take food, livestock, fertilizer, farm equipment, all forms of energy, water resources, all forms of civil transporation (meaning any vehicles, boats, planes), and any other materials, including construction materials from wherever they are available. This is probably why the government has been visiting farms with GPS devices, so they know exactly where to go when they turn this one on.
Specifically, the government is allowed to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate. They decide what necessary or appropriate means.
UPDATE: BIN reader Kent Welton writes: This allows for the giving away of USA assets and subsidies to private companies: "(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and (c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities."
What happens if the government decides it needs all these things to be prepared, even if there is no war? You likely won't be able to walk into a store to purchase virtually anything because it will all be requisitioned, "rationed" and controlled by the government. Construction materials, food like meat, butter and sugar, anything imported, parts, tires and fuel for vehicles, clothing, etc. will likely become unobtainable, or at least very scarce. How many things are even made here in the USA any more?
With few exceptions the news that will shape public discourse is subject to a de facto censorial process of powerful government and corporate elites beyond accountability to the public. It is here that Sigmund Freud’s notion of repression is especially helpful for assessing the decrepit state of media and public discourse in the United States. In Freud’s view, one’s collective life experiences are registered in the subconscious, with those particularly disturbing or socially impermissible experiences being involuntarily suppressed, only later to emerge as neuroses. Whereas suppression is conscious and voluntary, repression takes place apart from individual volition.
With opinion polls indicating at least half of the public distrusting the official account of September 11th, the foremost basis for the “war on terror”, no public event has been more repressed in public consciousness via the mass media than 9/11. The enduring usefulness of Freud’s theory is suggested in repeated manifestations of the repressed episode to haunt the public mind for which a surrogate reality has been crafted.
Peter Dale Scott describes occasions such as the assassination of President John Kennedy and September 11th as “deep events” because of their historical complexity and linkages with the many facets of “deep government”—the country’s military and intelligence communities and their undertakings. The failure to adequately explain and acknowledge deep events and pursue their appropriate preventative remedies leads to continued deceptions where unpleasant experiences are contained and a new “reality” is imposed on the public mind. Together with the notion of repression, the term is also applicable for considering how instances of such historical import are dealt with in mass psychological terms, or, more specifically, by ostensibly independent alternative news media capable of recollecting the real.
For example, on May 1, 2011 President Obama announced the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the mythic mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, to an apparently ecstatic nation. Most conventional news outlets reported Obama’s announcement unquestioningly because it fit the scheme of their overall erroneous reportage on September 11th. When alternative news media and bloggers almost immediately pointed to various contradictions in the story—the observations of eye witnesses to the raid, doctored photos of bin Laden’s alleged corpse, and international press reports that Bin Laden died many years prior—corporate news outlets acted swiftly to repress the well-reasoned critiques as “conspiracy theories” with a barrage of swiftly-produced editorials and op-eds. Indeed, the announcement of Bin Laden’s supposed demise came just four days after the Obama administration released the president’s purportedly authentic long-form birth certificate, an event at once uncannily amplified and repressed by the proclamation of bin Laden’s fate; where the vocabulary of repression produced another term, “deather”.
The headline over an article in Ha-aretz by Bradley Burston on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s poker game with President Obama was If Obama wins in November, is Netanyahu in trouble? That’s a question I’ve had in my own mind for quite some time and it begs another. What, really, worries Netanyahu most – the prospect (not real) of Iran posing an existential threat to Israel or the prospect (real) of a second-term Obama?
There is, Burston wrote, something new in the air, something Netanyahu does not like. What is it? “American conservatives have begun to think out loud that Barack Obama will win in November.”
In my opinion there’s a better than evens chance that in the course of a second Obama term, America would put its own best interests first, which would mean an end to unconditional American support for the Zionist state of Israel right or wrong. (As is often the case, the Gentile me and Gideon Levy are on the same page. The headline over one of his recent articles in Ha-aretz was It’s only a matter of time before U.S. tires of Israel).
There are three main reasons why I have that opinion.
◦The first is my belief that Obama hates being a prisoner of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress. (I think that Max Hastings, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and a well respected military historian, was spot on when he wrote the following in a recent article for the Daily Mail. “Privately, Obama yearns to come down hard n Netanyahu, whom he dislikes intensely. But the U.S. President does not dare to do this when his own re-election may hinge on the three per cent of American voters who are Jewish.”)
◦The second, and much more to the real point, is that behind closed doors there are now many in the top levels of America’s military, intelligence and foreign policy establishments who are aware that an Israel which has no interest in peace with the Palestinians, and is led by men who want war with Iran, is an Israel that is much more of a liability than an asset for the U.S. There is also awareness in the top levels of America’s military, intelligence and foreign policy establishments that Netanyahu decided to play the Iran threat card in order to divert attention away from Israel’s on-going consolidation of its occupation of the West Bank and, in short, to have Palestine taken off the American foreign policy agenda.
◦The third is the insight given to me by former President Carter when my wife and I met with him and Rosalyn after they had said goodbye to the White House. “Any American president has only two windows of opportunity to break or try to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress on matters to do with Israel Palestine.”
The growing legions of critics and skeptics arrayed against this latest Wall Street-London psychological operation will undoubtedly seize this irresistible bait laid out, either by chance or by design, to focus on finishing off the already mortally wounded "Invisible Children" organization. It is already turning out to be a spectacular crash and burn.
However, the focus must be maintained on the mechanics behind Invisible Children, the fact that they are backed by USAID and that they participated in the US State Department's Alliance for Youth Movements (Movements.org) summits which laid the groundwork years in advance for the US-engineered "Arab Spring." It must also be remembered that while they pretend to be a movement of the people, Invisible Children is in fact backed by (page 22) Soros-funded foundations, JP Morgan, Chase, and others.
And as satisfying as many will find it to stomp Invisible Children out of existence for intentionally misleading them, preying on their emotions, insulting their intelligence, and literally lying to them, they must remember that all they've managed to do is hack away but a tentacle of a much larger monster. While we have a firm grip on Invisible Children, let's pull up the whole monster from its murky lair.
Let us expose the International Criminal Court and its fraudulent head, Luis Moreno-Ocampo who enthusiastically supported the fraud that is Kony 2012. And the Hollywood propagandists who abused their fame and the misplaced trust of millions to promote Invisible Children, as well as other, more established but equally fraudulent NGOs like Soros-funded (annual report page 8) Amnesty International and the Neo-Con run Freedom House who skillfully rode the wave of publicity Invisible Children created, but ran concurrent anti-Kony/pro-AFRICOM invasion campaigns of their own, safely isolated from what they knew was experimental, unpredictable, and potentially disastrous propaganda.
As the plug is pulled on Invisible Children, the system will gladly sacrifice an easily replaceable tentacle in exchange for its overall self-preservation. Do not allow the writhing tentacle pulled into the boat distract us from the grander prize at hand.
The headline over an article in Ha-aretz by Bradley Burston on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s poker game with President Obama was If Obama wins in November, is Netanyahu in trouble? That’s a question I’ve had in my own mind for quite some time and it begs another. What, really, worries Netanyahu most – the prospect (not real) of Iran posing an existential threat to Israel or the prospect (real) of a second-term Obama? There is, Burston wrote, something new in the air, something Netanyahu does not like. What is it? “American conservatives have begun to think out loud that Barack Obama will win in November.”
In my opinion there’s a better than evens chance that in the course of a second Obama term, America would put its own best interests first, which would mean an end to unconditional American support for the Zionist state of Israel right or wrong. (As is often the case, the Gentile me and Gideon Levy are on the same page. The headline over one of his recent articles in Ha-aretz was It’s only a matter of time before U.S. tires of Israel).
There are three main reasons why I have that opinion.
The first is my belief that Obama hates being a prisoner of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress. (I think that Max Hastings, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and a well respected military historian, was spot on when he wrote the following in a recent article for the Daily Mail. “Privately, Obama yearns to come down hard n Netanyahu, whom he dislikes intensely. But the U.S. President does not dare to do this when his own re-election may hinge on the three per cent of American voters who are Jewish.”)
The second, and much more to the real point, is that behind closed doors there are now many in the top levels of America’s military, intelligence and foreign policy establishments who are aware that an Israel which has no interest in peace with the Palestinians, and is led by men who want war with Iran, is an Israel that is much more of a liability than an asset for the U.S. There is also awareness in the top levels of America’s military, intelligence and foreign policy establishments that Netanyahu decided to play the Iran threat card in order to divert attention away from Israel’s on-going consolidation of its occupation of the West Bank and, in short, to have Palestine taken off the American foreign policy agenda.
The third is the insight given to me by former President Carter when my wife and I met with him and Rosalyn after they had said goodbye to the White House. “Any American president has only two windows of opportunity to break or try to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress on matters to do with Israel Palestine.”
The original "Hollywood blacklist" dates back to 1947, when 10 members of the Communist Party, present or former, invoked the Fifth Amendment before the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
The party was then a wholly owned subsidiary of the Comintern of Joseph Stalin, whose victims had surpassed in number those of Adolf Hitler.
In a 346-17 vote, the Hollywood Ten were charged with contempt of Congress and suspended or fired.
The blacklist had begun. Directors, producers and writers who had been or were members of the party and refused to recant lost their jobs.
Politically, the blacklist was a victory of the American right.
In those first years of the Cold War, anti-communism and Christianity were mighty social, political and cultural forces. Hollywood acknowledged their power in what it produced.
As shown in HBO's "Game Change," John McCain in 2008 ruled out attacks on Barack Obama's 20-year ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago preacher of "God damn America!" fame.
Why? Wright and Obama were black, and such attacks might agitate the latent racism of white America. The Republican Party censors itself so as not to antagonize a cultural establishment that wants to see it dead.
" Beautiful losers," my late friend Sam Francis called them.
The massacre of 16 Afghan civilians by a still-to-be-identified American soldier limns the course of American foreign policy in the post-9/11 era. Think of it: he went out in the dead of night, at three in the morning, armed to the teeth, and snuck into a village where sleeping children were cradled in their beds. Taking careful aim, he knelt and started firing: one after another these young girls and boys had their heads blown off. One news account described a bullet hole right between the eyes of one young victim. That’s some pretty good shooting there, soldier: all that training, financed by the US taxpayers, paid off! His work there finished, our serial killer went to another house, where he repeated his grisly work. After it was over, he gathered the bodies together and set them ablaze, in a display of "shock and awe" and cleansing fire, as if to simultaneously wipe out the evidence of his crimes and appease his Wagnerian sense of the dramatic.
If only the television crews had been there to witness this American Götterdämmerung: it would have made an award-winning shockumentary, the story of a square-jawed over-deployed American soldier and straight-as-an-arrow patriot who just wanted to serve his country and wound up becoming a mass murderer.
The Western media is already running this clichéd narrative up the flagpole, and there are no doubt plenty of Americans ready to salute. After all, we’re being told, he had a "breakdown" – a rite of passage for every normal American these days, whether the precipitating incident is a divorce, impending bankruptcy, or the sudden discovery that their tattooed –and-pierced daughter is having a sex change operation right after she aborts her out-of-wedlock baby. Having a breakdown is now a sacred and legally-protected "right," right up there with the "right" to healthcare, cheap gas, and a federally-insured home mortgage, a "Get out of jail free" card every American gets to play at least once in their lives. So, you had a "breakdown" and massacred 16 civilians, most of whom were young children? Don’t worry, my friend – the "safety net" will catch you.
As a good citizen of America’s "therapeutic state," this soldier embodies the idea that every trauma, or major discomfort, gives us permission to commit acts that would normally be frowned upon. If we apply this operating principle to the realm of foreign policy, what we come up with is the exact course of American foreign policy during the last decade.
The National Security Agency (NSA) continues to conduct warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens at a frenetic pace, according to informed NSA sources.
Much of the surveillance of American citizens and legal residents, known as “U.S. persons” in the NSA eavesdropping lexicon, is now being conducted under the aegis of the U.S. Cyber Command. NSA director General Keith Alexander doubles as the commander of the Cyber Command. Both agencies’ headquarters are located at Fort Meade, Maryland.
Warrantless wiretapping began during the George W. Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. The program was authorized by Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief counsel David Addington and was never known as the so-called “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” or “TSP.” The Terrorist Surveillance Program moniker was a cover story developed by NSA, Justice Department, and White House officials to mask the true targets of the warrantless eavesdropping operation: U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Primary targets include journalists, their government sources, and political office holders and other government officials. The latter includes members of Congress, state governors, senior military officers, U.S. diplomats, and Cabinet officers. Some of the intercepted communications of Americans was entered into an NSA database known as PINWALE.
WMR has learned that although NSA’s acting general counsel Vito Potenza and NSA Inspector General Joel Brenner claimed they were not given access to “The Program’s” key implementing documents, both individuals had worked with Addington and other members of the Bush White House, including chief of staff Andrew Card, to implement massive NSA spying on U.S. citizens. The two NSA lawyers worked closely with Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo to craft the illegal program. Yoo’s actions were approved by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
At NSA, the warrantless eavesdropping program is simply known as “The Program.” The classified code word for “The Program” was STELLAR WIND before the code phrase was leaked to the media. The Bush administration used “The Program” to gain intelligence on its political enemies and friends, alike. The Obama administration maintains “The Program” to similarly engage in political surveillance within the United States.
Looming up in front of us like some ghoulish malevolent giant, is the prospect of mankind having to endure the devastation of a 'Third World War'.
An event, should it come to pass, would pit brother against brother, sister against sister, 'faith' against 'faith', ideology against ideology, nation against nation and all of it together against the continuation of life on Earth.
The forces covertly operating to bring this Third World War about will not be in the direct line of fire, but a long way off, comfortably ensconced in leather chairs in the plush offices of high-ranking officialdom. They made their plans many years ago and the Third World War is a keystone in bringing these plans to fruition.
These individuals come from countries well practiced in historical and modern empire building and share a 'special relationship' whose vision of the future completely excludes the great majority of us. We do not feature on the planet they see ahead of them, except as slaves to whatever activities they may wish to pursue. To them, we are essentially 'dispensable'.
Those who would perpetrate this plan have already prepared their underground bases to survive the destruction they propose to unleash upon this world. We will not be invited to join them there either, except a few carefully chosen minions to manage the technologies that keep this underworld functioning and those who serve their daily needs. It is a very exclusive 'club'.
United States Secretary of State Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton's message to Pakistan was stark; try to go ahead with the IP (Iran-Pakistan) gas pipeline, and we're going to take you out financially.
Islamabad, its economy in tatters, living in power-cut land, and desperate for energy, tried to argue. Pakistan's top official in the Petroleum and Natural Resources Ministry, Muhammad Ejaz Chaudhry, stressed that the 2,775-km, $1.5 billion IP was absolutely crucial for Pakistan's energy security.
That fell on deaf ears. Clinton evoked "particularly damaging" sanctions - tied to Washington's push to isolate Iran by all means available and the no-holds-barred campaign to force particularly India, China and Turkey to cut off their imports of Iranian oil and gas.
So as Washington has been impotent to disrupt Pipelineistan moves in Central Asia - by isolating Iran and bypassing Russia - it's now going ballistic to prevent by all means the crucial integration of Southwest Asia and South Asia, from Iran's giant South Pars gas field to Pakistan's Balochistan and Sindh provinces.
To compound Washington's fury, "isolated" Iran, by the way, is about to start exporting an extra 80,000 barrels of oil a day to Pakistan; and has already committed $250 million to the Pakistani stretch of IP.
This has got the potential of becoming much, much uglier. Washington won't be deterred from its intent to smash IP. For an Iran under pressure and a strangled Pakistani economy - as well as China - this is all about the Asian Energy Security Grid.
The fall of autocratic regimes in the Arab Middle East and North Africa, which had more to do with skyrocketing unemployment and inflation than in a desire to “democratize,” gave the circling vultures of Western “pro-democracy” think tanks and foundations the opportunity to put stakes in the hearts of governing pan-Arab socialist political parties long seen as a threat to the goals of “uber-capitalist” globalization.
The Ba’ath socialist party of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was the first victim of a desire by the global forces of extreme capitalism to remake the Middle East’s financial, demographic, political, and social construct.
Because the invasion and occupation of Iraq was such an unmitigated disaster, the neoconservative and neoliberal forces of corporatism decided that other traditional Arab socialist regimes would fall as a result of “soft power.” Soft power involves the use of foreign-funded domestic pressure groups, financed and organized by Western non-governmental organization (NGO) interests, to foment insurrections and “popular revolutions” by using street demonstrations, propagandized media—including social media—and false flag human rights violations intended to generate worldwide sympathy for the manufactured revolutions.
After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq the first action of L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer, the de facto U.S. viceroy of occupied Iraq and close associate of Henry Kissinger, was to abolish the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. In fact, Bremer’s first order, Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 1, totally banned the Ba’ath Party and all of its affiliated structures. Bremer ensured that pan-Arab socialism was dead in Iraq. Bremer’s propaganda against Ba’athism was supported by his press spokesman, Dan Senor, a longtime supporter of Israel and a former investment portfolio manager for the Carlyle Group.
The Ba’ath Party of Iraq was the principal mechanism through which the Iraqi bureaucracy, which ensured payments of salaries to government workers, operated. Without the Ba’ath Party public sector infrastructure, Iraqis in all walks of life saw an end to their paychecks. Popular discontent and rebellion against the Western occupiers ensued. An army of U.S. contractors arrived in Iraq to ensure the “de-Ba’athification” of the country, with right-wing Republicans at the forefront of trying to create a capitalist and privatized wonderland in Iraq that would not even sell to the public in the most conservative U.S. state.
According to the doctrine of pre-emptive war, Iran can be attacked based on its alleged desire to develop nuclear weapons, just as Iraq was attacked in 2003. In fact, Congress is currently debating whether a nuclear capability alone (which Brazil, Japan, and other countries enjoy) could justify the 'preventive' attack. I believe it is time to negate this doctrine by postulating that Iran in fact has a right, as a sovereign nation, to a nuclear capability.
Having traveled to Iran recently, I can attest to the Joint Chiefs' General Dempsey's reference to Iran as a 'rational' actor. The Iranians have no interest in destroying America, or Israel, at the expense of one of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world, dating back about 2600 years. Iran is currently surrounded by over 40 U.S. military installations, not counting Israel's still-unaccounted nuclear arsenal. To assert that Iran would jeopardize its culture for a one-shot nuclear attack is a complete miscalculation of the Iranian spirit; that spirit gave rise to a revolution in 1979 against what they perceived as Anglo-American imperialism in the form of the Shah, much as our own revolution opposed British imperialism.
I agree with General Dempsey that an attack on Iran would not only be imprudent, it would be 'destabilizing', and for more than just Iran. What is at stake is much larger than Iran's right to become a nuclear power; and based on the attitude of the political figures I spoke with in Iran, they understand this very well -- should Israel, with or without American support, attack Iran's nuclear or military infrastructure, it would be considered an act of war that may prompt World War III.
What I believe is currently being played out is an 'endgame' scenario, by failing West European and American economies, threatening to explode what has historically been referred to by British imperialists as the Heartland of Eurasia: stretching from the Horn of Africa (guarding the shipping lanes of the Gulf) to Afghanistan and Pakistan (in Russia and China's underbelly). The Russians know this 'Great Game' well, having played it with the British since at least the Crimean War of the mid-19th Century. So when Russia says it cannot accept the ongoing destruction of the Syrian government, or an attack on Iran, it is based on the understanding that such destabilization of this 'Heartland' could ignite war between Shia and Sunni Muslims across the region, even affecting the Muslim populations of southern Russia and western China.
Iran is currently accused by the West of being a rogue state involved in spreading amorphous terrorism abroad. In reality, Iran has seen the destruction of the sovereign states in Afghanistan and Iraq, on its borders; and now, the Obama Administration is calling for the downfall of Iran's ally, President Assad's secular Syrian regime. That country is quickly going the way of Lebanon in the 1980s, which could reignite sectarian violence from Lebanon to Iraq, and beyond. The chaos ensuing the overthrow of Assad will not only serve to radicalize the religious factions, as the Iraq war did after the fall of the secular Ba'ath Party, but such a strategy seems to have been predicted; retired General Wesley Clark reported in his 2003 book that the imperialist 'neo-con' faction within the U.S. Defense Department had plans for regime change in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and Iran, dating back to before Sept. 11.
To most Americans, the Prince of Wales is best known as a pop-culture icon and tabloid figure, a royal celebrity who married (and divorced) Diana Spencer, fathered Prince William, and gallivanted scandalously with Camilla Parker-Bowles, now his wife. What is less known, at least in this country, is that Prince Charles, 63, has spent much of his life, and indeed his fortune, supporting, sometimes provocatively, traditionalist ideals and causes.
The heir to one of the world’s oldest monarchies, a traditionalist? You don’t say. But Charles’s traditionalism is far from the stuffy, bland, institutional conservatism typical of a man of his rank. Charles, in fact, is a philosophical traditionalist, which is a rather more radical position to hold.
He is an anti-modernist to the marrow, which doesn’t always put him onside with the Conservative Party. Charles’s support for organic agriculture and other green causes, his sympathetic view of Islam, and his disdain for liberal economic thinking have earned him skepticism from some on the British right. (“Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?” the Tory libertarian writer James Delingpole once asked in print.) And some Tories fear that the prince’s unusually forceful advocacy endangers the most traditional British institution of all: the monarchy itself.
Others, though, see in Charles a visionary of the cultural right, one whose worldview is far broader, historically and otherwise, than those of his contemporaries on either side of the political spectrum. In this reading, Charles’s thinking is not determined by post-Enlightenment categories but rather draws on older ways of seeing and understanding that conservatives ought to recover. “All in all, the criticisms of Prince Charles from self-styled ‘Tories’ show just how little they understand about the philosophy they claim to represent,” says the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton.
Scruton’s observation highlights a fault line bisecting latter-day Anglo-American conservatism: the philosophical split between traditionalists and libertarians. In this way, what you think of the Prince of Wales reveals whether you think conservatism, to paraphrase the historian George H. Nash, is essentially about the rights of individuals to be what they want to be or the duties of individuals to be what they ought to be.
For almost a year Syria has been the scene of an increasingly intense civil war between Bashir al-Asaad’s regime and an assortment of its opponents — Islamists, foreign mujahedin, democrats, secularists, etc. Thousands on both sides have been killed, though the paragons of pro-interventionist “truth” like the BBC and CNN still report the war as if the opposition has only bare chests to present against the regime’s weapons. The United Nations, once again, has arrived on the scene as the West’s anti-Muslim hit man to help destroy a regime it deemed to be a UN-member in good standing until Asaad began trying to maintain domestic order. All of this has occurred, and yet …
U.S. military forces have not overtly become involved in Syria and U.S. dollar expenditures there so far appear to be minimal, except for Secretary of State Clinton’s spending on the few score so-called democrats and secularists who are mixed in with the millions of Syrians opposing Asaad, and whatever costs were incurred by the embarrassing, half-mad U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford as he scurried around Syria championing Mrs. Clinton’s now consistent policy of spurring Arab youngsters to get out on the street and get shot down by their regime. Senior Democratic Party officials, of course, cannot see their way clear to defend genuine U.S. national interests — like avoiding war with Iran or winning in Afghanistan — but their taste for spilling the blood of innocents is unquenchable.
U.S. avoidance of direct involvement in Syria is a good example of how non-intervention can benefit America. A year on and thousands of dead Syrians buried and not one American has lost a job, had a house foreclosed, or incurred any other problem here at home. Americans have thus far not been hurt by the Syrian problem, largely because Washington has yet to find a way to fully interfere in the process of Syrian self-determination. And in truthful but callous terms, many thousands of additional Syrian casualties would affect U.S. interests at home a whit.
This is not, of course, to say, that many Americans are not upset, angry, and eager to intervene in Syria and spend tax dollars and the lives of other American parents’ soldier-children to dethrone Asaad. One empathizes with their hurt and outraged feelings, and I for one hope they are principled enough to match words with deeds, quit their jobs and country, buy AK-47s, and go and fight alongside the Syrian “democrats” they so admire. To start the ball rolling, I am willing to donate enough money to buy AK-47s for Mrs. Clinton, Ambassador Ford, and Ambassador Susan Rice.
How long will America’s luck hold? Sadly, probably not much longer. Both parties are dedicated to relentless interventionism, and the calls for the U.S. to “do something” in Syria are steadily increasing among politicians and the media. This past weekend, for example, FOX allowed Charles Krauthammer and Senator John McCain to propagandize the network’s viewers in favor of U.S. intervention. Mr. Krauthammer earnestly called for Washington to arm the Syrian opposition as President Reagan armed the Afghan and Angolan insurgents, and Senator McCain demanded that the might of the U.S. military be used to stop “the massacres” in Syria. If this is not done, McCain added, it would mean that the $700 billion spent each year on U.S. defense capabilities would have been wasted.
Even the best laid plans of mice and men turn sour sometimes. This is never more true than in the cointelro corporate mainstream media sphere.
Dayem was caught conducting what appears to be staged media reports from Syria. Although the seasoned spin doctor Cooper is able to coolly direct their conversation, Syrian Danny cannot hide the obvious panic which had already set in as a result of being exposed as a stage actor manufacturing news in his alleged home country. The video below shows CNN’s point man Anderson Cooper conducting damage control with the mainstream media’s public face of the Syrian opposition, Danny Dayem who can be seen pleading on air, “Why would we have to manipulate anything?”.
Even amongst the externally engineered violence taking place within their own borders, Syrians turned out in droves to vote in favor of their own new constitutional reforms, boasting voting numbers that dwarf western democratic turn-outs in countries like the US and Great Britain. Still, the western voices led by Hillary Clinton in Washington and William Hague in Britain are relentlessly clamouring for a violent overthrow of President Assad’s ruling secular government.
One of Danny’s main jobs for CNN seems to be helping to inflate the death toll of alleged peaceful protesters in the city of Homs. Western proponents of regime change are looking for that irrefutable, magic casualty announcement of “10,000 innocents dead from Assad government crack-downs”. This number of 10,000 will be used by the UN security council’s new humanitarian bully pulpit, accompanied by the ever popular strap line “genocide” – all designed to ram through a resolution or international ‘no fly zone’ in Syria.
Danny is clearly playing both sides of the fence – not quite the activist and all the while appearing to be playing the reluctant journalist hack for CNN. Critics of Syrian Danny are currently split between those who think he is merely a naive ‘useful idiot’, and those who believe he is a British intelligence operative of Syrian descent who was planted in Syria in order to give the sell the existence of a bonafide Syrian opposition – something the Western axis powers and its media outlets have had considerable difficulty doing since the Syrian uprising began in 2011. Judging by the level of obvious panic and confusion Danny displayed in his last CNN in studio interview with Anderson Cooper, one might guess that he is not a seasoned operative, rather a young, naive opportunist who volunteered to become a western media tool to further some personal or political ambition. Danny Dayem is simply playing his role in Syrian Spring fable, helping to sway western public opinion towards regime change in Damascus.