NO END SIGHT - The movie

The first film of its kind to chronicle the reasons behind Iraq’s descent into guerilla war, warlord rule, criminality and anarchy, NO END IN SIGHT is a jaw-dropping, insider’s tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials such as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Ambassador Barbara Bodine (in charge of Baghdad during the Spring of 2003), Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, and General Jay Garner (in charge of the occupation of Iraq through May 2003) as well as Iraqi civilians, American soldiers, and prominent analysts. NO END IN SIGHT examines the manner in which the principal errors of U.S. policy – the use of insufficient troop levels, allowing the looting of Baghdad, the purging of professionals from the Iraqi government, and the disbanding of the Iraqi military – largely created the insurgency and chaos that engulf Iraq today. How did a group of men with little or no military experience, knowledge of the Arab world or personal experience in Iraq come to make such flagrantly debilitating decisions? NO END IN SIGHT dissects the people, issues and facts behind the Bush Administration’s decisions and their consequences on the ground to provide a powerful look into how arrogance and ignorance turned a military victory into a seemingly endless and deepening nightmare of a war.  



 “I think this decision to disband the [Iraqi] Army came as a surprise to most of us…”
Q:  What was your reaction?
“I thought we had just created a problem. We had a lot of out of work
  [Iraqi] soldiers.”
– our interview with Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State



NO END SIGHT alternates between U.S. policy decisions and Iraqi consequences, systematically dissecting the Bush Administration’s decisions.  The consequences of those decisions now include 3,000 American deaths and 20,000 American wounded, Iraq on the brink of civil war, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, the strengthening of Iran, the weakening of the U.S. military, and economic costs of over $2 trillion. It marks the first time Americans will be allowed inside the White House, Pentagon, and Baghdad’s Green Zone to understand for themselves what has become the disintegration of Iraq.

Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

"In the coming decades, humanity will likely create a powerful AI. The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence exists to confront the implied challenge, both the opportunity and the risk."

MAYAN PRIEST CLEANSE HOLY SITE AFTER GEORGE W BUSH VISIT!

Hillary Clinton Threatens to Nuke Iran !!!

1959- The US gives Iran a 5-megawatt nuclear reactor
which became operational in 1967
Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970.
The Islamic Revolution in 1979 saw the overthrow of a CIA back Dictatorship-The Shah (KING)
Israel, a nuclear state, as never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
By NOT declaring nuclear capabilities, Israel doesn't have to let inspectors in!
The Iranians took their own country back, to escape Britain and US control of their oil.
And to rid themselves of a brutal dictatorship!
The US now arms Iran's neighbors with nuclear weapons. And has been painting Iran into a corner with threats of WAR!
Iran isn't a threat to the US, nor is Iran a threat to Israel!
It's the US and Israel that has been threatening Iran!
Hillary Clinton is Pro-Nuclear-War!
She must be STOPPED!!!

Chemtrails again, what is the real truth about this ?

I don't really know whether these planes are all military or civilian or a mixture of both, the only fact I can go on is that the sky seems always white, never blue any more and the trails left by planes last a lot longer than they did in the eighties, that I've seen the trails start and stop as if turned on and off by a switch, that I have had worsening breathing problems, and worse of all, I have noticed a lot more people I know have died prematurely with cancer over the last ten years in line with the appearance of these chemtrails.

Have you noticed any of these things ?

Celebrities For 9/11 TRUTH

A list of celebrities for 9/11 truth.
Be amazed at how many celebrities stand for 9/11 truth.

America To The Rescue - Middle East Balance

Jon Stuart explores the delicate balance the US has managed in the middle east.

War and the "New World Order"

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
LINK

“We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?”



-Norman Dobbs, U.S. Congressional Special Committee for the Investigate of Tax-Exempt Foundations (1982)


War is the ultimate means of attempting to change societies and reshape nations. It is through war that national economies and political structures can be forcibly restructured. War is, potentially, the ultimate economic shock therapy. The wars in the Middle East are stepping stones towards establishing a vision of global order that has been in the hearts and minds of the Anglo-American establishment for years. That vision is global ascendancy.


Towards the “New International Order” through the “Global War on Terror”



“There is a chance for the President of the United States [George W. Bush Jr.] to use this disaster [meaning the attacks of September 11, 2001] to carry out what his father…a phrase his father [George H. Bush Sr.] used I think only once, and it hasn’t been used since … and that is a new world order. Think about this. We already have the support of NATO in a remarkable historic departure.”



-Gary Hart, National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission (September 14, 2007)



On January 18, 2005 Henry Kissinger appeared on Charlie Rose, a television program on PBS, and talked about a “New International Order” being created by George W. Bush Jr. and his administration. [1] Henry Kissinger stated that within the next few years that humanity will see the emergence of the beginning of a “New International Order.” Kissinger also stated that the Bush Jr. Administration could bring about this state; “and it could well be this president, [meaning President Bush Jr.] that is so reviled by intellectuals, will emerge as one of the seminal presidents of …of this…of this period…of American modern history.” [2]

When asked what George W. Bush Jr. has to do to bring about this “New International Order” by his interviewer Kissinger paused and gave a vague answer that avoided mentioning the criminality of war. “He has to do some certain things and he has to have some luck,” Kissinger answered followed by “Luck is the residue of design.” [3] It should be noted that if luck is a residue of design then it is no longer chance, but a calculation of intent.



Briefly the role of the American public was talked about by Charlie Rose with Kissinger who paused to pick his words carefully. Kissinger told his interviewer, Rose, that the United States is a nation whose public has no clue about American foreign policy. [4] In regards to the American public, the war agenda cannot move forward if the U.S. maintains its multi-cultural characteristics. It was this multi-cultural characteristic that initially presented the U.S. a problem in declaring war on Germany in both World Wars until the sinking of the RMS Lusitania and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. [5]

Thus, an end to a liberal North American immigration regime that ensures a multi-cultural environment in North America is a prerequisite to expanded American war(s). Zbigniew Brzezinski has written that “as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [amongst the American people], except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” [6] The E.U. is also beginning to follow suit. This premise by Brzezinski, an individual from within the ruling establishment of America, can be used to explain the demonization of Muslims and several national and ethno-cultural groups such as Arabs, Turks, and Iranians.



It is also worth noting that Gary Hart, a former U.S. senator from Colorado, implied on September 14 of 2001 that the “Global War on Terror” sponsored by the Bush Jr. Administration was a pretext for establishing the so-called “New World Order.” [7] Gary Hart also implicated NATO’s role in shaping this “New World Order.” [8] The project is to be implemented by military might.



A Unipolar World: Pax Americana?



“However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.”



-Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)



During his interview with Charlie Rose Henry Kissinger had referred to what George H. Bush Sr. identified as the “New World Order.” This was a term frequently used by the former American president that became famous during the Gulf War. With the end of the Cold War and the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War, Georgia H. Bush Sr. said that humanity in 1991 was witness to the emergence of a “New World Order” that would be led by America. [9] The Gulf War was merely the beginning of this “New World Order.” The seeds had been planted in the Middle East for future wars and Eurasian expansion.



The Trilateral Commission, an organization founded in 1973 and consisting of the wealthiest and most powerful elites from the U.S., the E.U., and Japan, originally created the term that George H. Bush Sr. drew on. Their word was “New International Economic Order.” The Trilateral Commission’s terminology lays bare the economic fabric of this program. Military might is merely the enforcer of foreign policy, and foreign policy is based on economic interests.



An agenda of perpetual warfare and violence has been fueling the march towards global domination through economic means. In essence this war agenda has been an unbroken process watched over by the different presidential administrations of the United States.



Stepping forth from behind the Curtains: NATO’s Role in the Eurasian Roadmap



“The policies of the U.S., since the end of the Cold War are complicated and vast. They involve an intent to dominate and the use of international organizations to advance U.S. economic and geopolitical interests. They also include the conversion of NATO into a surrogate military police force for globalization and U.S. world economic domination.”



-Ramsey Clark, 66th United States Attorney-General (October 6, 2000)



NATO has started replicating long-term American war tactics and strategy. NATO is creating a rapid response force, which involves a significant German role. The force is modeled on the U.S. Rapid Response Force, the forerunner of CENTCOM, and has a global reach. The transformation of the U.S. Rapid Deployment Force into CENTCOM was part of long-term Anglo-American war plans. The NATO force is projected to be able to deploy to any region in the world within five days and planned to be capable of self-sufficient, detached operations for approximately one month. The force will also have land, sea, and air components, including an aircraft carrier. [10]



It is apparent that control over Iraq was planned during the culmination of the Cold War by Anglo-American policy makers. The series of wars that have occurred since the Iraq-Iran War are debatably the products of a historical Anglo-American project in the Middle East— a project that was once a solely British project that predated the Cold War. The project to reshape and control the Middle East is part of the greater project to control Eurasia. Just as how this grand project was embraced by the U.S., as the inheritor of British strategy, the project has been embraced by the Franco-German entente and NATO. Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in 1997 that “Europe is America’s essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia,” or an entry point towards dominating Eurasia. [11]



From the statements and goals of U.S. officials going back to the 1990s NATO was projected to expand across the Eurasian landmass and set to embrace Japan, South Korea, and Australia in what Zbigniew Brzezinski identifies as the “trans-Eurasian security system.” [12] The characteristics of prospective conflicts seem to be slated to become dominated by NATO as France and Germany expand their roles in the “long war.” NATO’s role in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, along with NATO’s thrust into the post-Soviet niche and inner Eurasia, are all precarious indications of this.



Making Europe the Partner of America in the “Long War:” Enter the Franco-German Entente



“The victory over Iraq [in the Gulf War] was not waged as ‘a war to end all wars.’ Even the ‘New World Order’ cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace.”



-George H. Bush Sr., 41st President of the United States (March 6, 1991)



Brzezinski explained that although Japan was important to American geo-strategy, Europe as a geopolitical entity (via the E.U. and NATO) constitutes America's bridgehead into Eurasia. [13] “Unlike America’s links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland,” and that “the allied European nations [were] still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe’s political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence,” Brzezinski explained in regards to Europe and Japan. [14] Brzezinski was paying more than just lip service to America’s allies in continental Europe; he was stressing that they were crucial, albeit as subordinates, to American global interests.



The strength of NATO would rest on the vitality of the European Union, an Anglo-American and Franco-German device. To emphasis this Brzezinski wrote that “the United States’ ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies .. transatlantic ties.” [15] Brzezinski also added that France and Germany, the Franco-German entente, would be America’s vital partners in NATO expansion and securing Eurasia, but a united Europe was an essential prerequisite. In regards to the Franco-German entente, Brzezinski wrote in 1998 that “In the western periphery of Eurasia, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America’s central goal should be to continue to expand the democratic European bridgehead.” [16] This was essentially the forecast of the “E.U. expansion” that has gone hand-in-hand with earlier NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War. According to Brzezinski it would be up to the Franco-German entente to led Europe: “America cannot create a more united Europe on its own — that is a task for the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans.” [17]



None of the Pentagon’s geo-strategic plans can go forward without the E.U. and NATO. For this to happen it is essential that a strategic consensus between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente be forged. The Anglo-American alliance has pursued this track and deeper integration with the Franco-German side, while also taking an adversarial stance against the Franco-German entente. Iraq is a symbolic testimony to this rivalry while Lebanon and NATO expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean is a parallel testimony to the strategic cooperation between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente. A contradictory and confusing message is sent from these tracks, but there is always more to the picture. However, it is clear that Franco-German and Anglo-American interests must be synchronized for America to expand its global control.



The Endgame: A “Single Market” under One World Administration?



“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer...”



-Major-General Smedley D. Butler, U.S. Marine Corp Commander (War Is a Racket, 1935)



After the Second World War, it was believed that from the nucleolus of Britain and American that a “New World Order” would be formed. Britain and America even had a combined military staff and combined chiefs of military staff. Visions for a singular global polity have vividly been tied to the Anglo-American establishment. In 1966, Professor Carroll Quigley, a noted American economist, wrote in his book Hope and Tragedy: A History of the World in Our Time that economics and finance vis-à-vis banking conglomerates were the engine in this drive and the real forces controlling national policies. Carroll Quigley wrote in regards to the Anglo-American alliance that “I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” [18]



“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia,” insists Zbigniew Brzezinski. He also contends, “Now a non-Eurasian power [i.e., the U.S.] is preeminent in Eurasia— and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” [19] The former U.S. national security advisor has also stated, in 1997, that in order to co-opt the Franco-German entente a “Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united E.U. and the United States.” [20]

There is opposition in North America to what is believed to be the emergence of a projected “North American Union.” This North American entity would further amalgamate Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but the mechanisms for a grander global confederacy have already been drawn. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the E.U. were stepping stones towards this aspiration. Economics is the key that fuses these polities.



A summit between the E.U. and U.S. has shed light on plans for economic amalgamation. [21] The term used at the summit was “single market” by “renewing the Trans-Atlantic partnership.” [22] This is the same term used to describe the “common market” as it intensified Western European integration, which eventually gave birth to the European Union. At the summit President Bush Jr. met with Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, and Federal Chancellor Merkel. Frau Merkel, while officially there on behalf of the E.U., represented the interests of the Franco-German entente while President Bush Jr. represented Anglo-American interests. Jose Manuel Barroso as the President of the European Commission represented both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests because the E.U. is a joint Anglo-American and Franco-German body. America is a de facto E.U. power due to its alliance with Britain, one of the three major E.U. powers along with France and Germany.

An agreement was reached between the E.U. and U.S. to integrate the markets and regulations of America and Europe even further. This agreement was another layer to add to the strategic consensus that was reached at NATO’s Riga Summit. Both sides also stated that economics is the driving spirit in their relationship and that politics mattered very little. The liberal and conservative leaders of America and Europe are merely two sides of the same coin.



Decade after the end of the Cold War the globe is wrapped within a state of almost perpetual war dominated by the military might of America. The last lines in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives reveal the ultimate objective of Anglo-American policy: “These efforts will have the added historical advantage of benefiting from the new web of global linkages that is growing exponentially outside the more traditional nation-state system. That web— woven by multinational corporations, NGOs (…) already creates an informal global system that is inherently congenial to more institutionalized and inclusive global cooperation [a reference to global government].” [23]

Brzezinski goes on to predict that “In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world’s current ‘regent’ [a reference to the U.S.],” and “Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America’s role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower.” [24] All around the globe nation-states are being absorbed into larger and larger political and socio-economic entities. This is part of the story of globalization, but it has its dark side. This is the globalization of the few and not of the many.



The Fight for Civilization and the Gathering Storm



“When all is said and done the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North African campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared to what looms over the horizon— a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States— Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.”



-Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm (The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2001)



One cannot help but remember what was elucidated in 2001 during the start of the “Global War on Terror” by two members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), stating that Afghanistan was only part of a “wide-ranging war.” [25] Both Robert Kagan and William Kristol are deeply linked to U.S. foreign and military policy extending from writing presidential speeches to having a former spouse as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. It is not coincidental that a portion of their editorial from October of 2001 in The Weekly Standard has actually materialized. These men should be taken for their words when they say that Afghanistan is merely the “opening battle” compared to what is waiting in the horizon.



Referring back to Robert Kagan and William Kristol: “this war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that basks in contented consensus.” [26] The “international coalition” being referred to is NATO and the international military network based around the U.S. and the “unbearable strain” is war, but of an unknown scale. On August 10, 2007 Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute, the “War Czar” overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and any expanded theatre, publicly talked about restoring a mandatory military draft. [27] The march to war is not waning, but driving the world towards the abyss.



Afghanistan was the first volley in an advance phase of the global conflict that was in its preparatory stages decades ago during the Iraq-Iran War, the Gulf War, and the Kosovo War. Where this global conflict, this “long war” will lead us is unknown, but all humanity is in this together. The American people will sooner or later feel the pain of war as their freedom is effected. Autocracy is a prerequisite to grand empires. Brzezinski has pointed out that “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad,” and “never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.” [28] Deviancy is being normalized all over the globe because of this global project. Those that are behind such projects must be reduced to social leprids, as outcasts, denounced by all societies.



Resistance in the Middle East: The Power of the People



“The Iraqi Resistance is by definition democratic as it is the spontaneous expression of a people who took its destiny into its hands, and is by definition progressive as it defends the interests of the people.”



-Hana Al-Bayaty (March 18, 2007)



Anglo-American planners have underestimated the capacity of the power of ordinary people and the human spirit. In the Middle East it has been the resistance of ordinary people that has brought militant globalization to a standstill. Popular resistance movements have bogged down the military might of the remaining global superpower.



A nation is only as legitimate as the people(s) who live in it define it. America is not at war with individual nations, but with the people(s) of these nations. Nor are the American people at war with these nations, it is the American ruling establishment and elites that are at war with these people(s).

The forces of resistance are the forces of the will of the people, without the support of the people none of them could last or stand up to some of the most powerful war machines in human history.



The wars in the Middle East are as much about choice as they are about the right to live. What is at stake is self-determination and liberty. These wars represent the drive to impose an overall monopoly of controls over other nations by a few who have hijacked the foreign policies of America and Britain to serve their own goals.



The Iraqi Resistance and the other resistance movements of the Middle East are movements of the peoples and by nature egalitarian. Would anyone in the so-called West dare label the French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Libyan, Chinese, Malaysian, and Soviet resistance movements against Germany, Italy, and Japan during the Second World War as terrorist movements? However, the occupying Axis governments labeled these movements as terrorists. Did not France and the other areas occupied by Germany and the Axis Powers not have governments that said the Axis Powers were welcomed forces bringing stability as do the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan? For example in France there was the Vichy Government. When Germany was defeated the leaders of the Vichy Government in France were executed as traitors.



The U.S. government misleadingly claims that it is bringing democracy to these lands, but since when was democracy forced from the top down to the bottom? Is this not the opposite of democracy; things being forced down from the top to the bottom? Democracy is an expression of the masses that manifests itself upwards and not from the opposite direction.


No force on earth can defeat the popular will of the people; this is why domestic populations are manipulated into supporting wars. It is only division that allows small groups to take temporary reign over the people(s). However, for every scheme and plan to create division and anarchy amongst the people(s) of the world there is a plan to unite them and strengthen them. This is one of the greatest fears of many in positions of power. This is the fear of any awakening of large societal groups and populations.



There is no greater ally to the movements of resistance in the Middle East and beyond than unadulterated public opinion in the rest of the world. The people(s) of Britain, Israel, and the U.S. are also victims of their own governments who manipulate their fears and create animosity between them and other nations. This in itself is a great crime. What differences exist between nations are only a means to test the best of them.



Fear and hate are the weapons of the real terrorists, the masters of deception, and those who belittle others for profit and personal gain. These are the terrorists who give orders in positions of political leadership in the White House and elsewhere at the expense of their own people and the rest of humanity. The world is now embarking into the abyss of perpetual war and a period in which the contemplation of the use of nuclear weapons is being made. A stand must be made by individuals of good conscience and will. It seems possible that it will be a matter of time before the citizens of Europe, North America, and other lands will be compelled or necessitated to join the peoples of occupied lands in resistance.



War must be averted on two fronts; in the shorter-term (as differentiated from “short-term”) or near future, war must be averted from emerging in the Middle East, and in the longer-term in Eurasia. Only the resistance of the people and public opinion can stop war from enveloping the globe. Public opinion must translate into public action if humanity it to be spared from a massive war—a war that could prove to become a nuclear armageddon.



Countdown to 1984?



“In brief, the U.S policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change...”



-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)



In a twist of Orwellian fate, the earth seems closer to appearing like a rendition of the world in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. [29] However, the road ahead is not scripted. The future is only anticipated and planned, but never certain in a universe of infinite probabilities. Time will tell where the road ahead will guide us. Those that see themselves as masters of destiny have had their ideas proven wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, and Lebanon. It may look as if opposition to a war agenda is like tiny raindrops beating against an unrelenting mountain, but mountains can be eventually eroded by those tiny raindrops. There exists a “sensitive dependence on initial conditions,” commonly called the “butterfly effect,” whereas the flaps of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may set off a tornado in Texas. Individual actions can offset the march to war that is unfolding on this planet.


NOTES



[1] Henry Kissinger, A conversation with Henry Kissinger, interview with Charles P. Rose Jr., Charlie Rose (show), January 18, 2005.

[2] Ibid.



[3] Ibid.



[4] Ibid.



[5] The U.S. government was secretly arming Britain during the First World War and profiting off the war. In regards to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, a British passenger ship, unknown to the public at the time the ship was also carrying military supplies from the U.S. to Britain.



In the case of Pearl Harbour, the U.S. government was aware of a Japanese plan to attack the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. American officials allowed the attack to take place to arouse public support for the entry of the U.S. in the Second World War. It should be noted that prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour the U.S. government had led a complete embargo of oil and materials to Japan and frozen all Japanese assets by July 25, 1941. Oil is needed to run economies and war and all strategists and military planners know this very well. Japan was baited into an inevitable war with the U.S. and decided to take the first shot. This benefited the U.S. government in mobilizing the American public to support the war effort in the Second World War just as the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 allowed the Bush Jr. Administration to launch the “Global War on Terror.” U.S. involvement in the Second World War was for economic purposes and had nothing to do with morality.



In the case of the RMS Lusitania the German embassy in Washington D.C. was trying to make clear to the Americans before it started sinking merchant ships helping Britain that it would engage in such activities. It should be noted that Britain was doing the same in both World Wars. U.S. officials are actually believed to have obstructed these attempts by the Germans in an attempt to involve the U.S. in the First World War.



[6] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.211.



[7] Gary Hart, Transcript. National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), September 14, 2001.

link


[8] Ibid.



[9] George Herbert Walker Bush Sr., Gulf War Victory Speech, (Address, Capitol Hill, Washington, District of Columbia, January 6, 1991) March 6, 1991.



[10] Bettina Berg, High readiness and global deployability, Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany), November 30, 2006.



[11] Zbigniew Brzezinski, A geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 5 (September- October, 1997): p.50-64.



Note: The writings from Brzezinski’s paper for Foreign Affairs and the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) were also used for his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives that had its first edition published in 1997. Brzezinski’s 1997 Foreign Affairs journal entry is a condensed synopsis of his 1997 book. Points and quotes cited from it are identical or almost identical to the writing from his 1997 book.



[12] Ibid.



[13] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (NYC, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p.950.



[14] Brzezinski, A geostrategy for Eurasia, Op. cit.



[15] Ibid.



[16] Ibid.



[17] Ibid.



[18] Ibid.



[19] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.30.



[20] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.200.



[21] Desmond Butler, E.U., U.S. Agree on Iran, Russia Disputes, Associated Press, April 30, 2007.

link



[22] US and EU agree ‘single market,’ British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), April 30, 2007.

link



[23] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.215.



[24] Ibid.



[25] Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm, The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2002, p.13.

link


[26] Ibid.



[27] Toby Harnden, ‘Return to conscription should be considered,’ The Telegraph (U.K.), August 11, 2007.

link



[28] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.35-36.



[29] Refer to the polity and geographic boundaries of Winston Smith’s fictional world, in Orwell’s novel. In the fictional state of Oceania (which includes America, the British Isles, and Australia) there is absolute control exercised over all aspects of the lives of all citizens by one single entity, the Party, which has three political mottos: WAR IS PEA

Sept. 11 American Scholars Symposium - Part 4/7

Part 4/7 - Webster Tarpley - Author

Duration: 1:45:00. Alex Jones moderates the discussion panel of the American Scholars Symposium 9/11 + the Neo-con Agenda, including Professor Steven Jones, physics; Dr. Bob Bowman, aeronautics and nuclear engineering; Webster Griffin Tarpley, author; Professor James H. Festzer, author.

Study: US preparing ‘massive’ military attack against Iran by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane

The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.The paper, “Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East” – written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to RAW STORY late Friday under embargo.

“We wrote the report partly as we were surprised that this sort of quite elementary analysis had not been produced by the many well resourced Institutes in the United States,” wrote Plesch in an email to Raw Story on Tuesday.

Plesch and Butcher examine “what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action” and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a “massive” attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.

The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.



• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.



• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.



• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.



• Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.



• Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.



• The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.



• The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

When asked why the paper seems to indicate a certainty of Iranian WMD, Plesch made clear that “our paper is not, repeat not, about what Iran actually has or not.” Yet, he added that “Iran certainly has missiles and probably some chemical capability.”

Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a “full-spectrum approach,” designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of “a weak or failed state.” Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration’s National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power. They suggest, therefore, that:

This wider form of air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the administration’s current counterproliferation goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years to come.

However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for success would be enormous.

Butcher says he does not believe the US would use nuclear weapons, with some exceptions.

“My opinion is that [nuclear weapons] wouldn’t be used unless there was definite evidence that Iran has them too or is about to acquire them in a matter of days/weeks,” notes Butcher. “However, the Natanz facility has been so hardened that to destroy it MAY require nuclear weapons, and once an attack had started it may simply be a matter of following military logic and doctrine to full extent, which would call for the use of nukes if all other means failed.”

Military Strategy

The bulk of the paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of specific military strategies for such an attack, of ongoing attempts to destabilize Iran by inciting its ethnic minorities, and of the considerations surrounding the possible employment of nuclear weapons.

In particular, Plesch and Butcher examine what is known as Global Strike – the capability to project military power from the United States to anywhere in the world, which was announced by STRATCOM as having initial operational capability in December 2005. It is the that capacity that could provide strategic bombers and missiles to devastate Iran on just a few hours notice.

Iran has a weak air force and anti aircraft capability, almost all of it is 20-30 years old and it lacks modern integrated communications. Not only will these forces be rapidly destroyed by US air power, but Iranian ground and air forces will have to fight without protection from air attack.

British military sources stated on condition of anonymity, that “the US military switched its whole focus to Iran” from March 2003. It continued this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

Global Strike could be combined with already-existing “regional operational plans for limited war with Iran, such as Oplan 1002-04, for an attack on the western province of Kuzhestan, or Oplan 1019 which deals with preventing Iran from closing the Straits of Hormuz, and therefore keeping open oil lanes vital to the US economy.”

The Marines are not all tied down fighting in Iraq. Several Marine forces are assembling in the Gulf, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979 as is indicated in this battle map of Hormuz illustrating an advert for combat training software.

Special Forces units – which are believed to already be operating within Iran – would be available to carry out search-and-destroy missions and incite internal uprisings, while US Army units in both Iraq and Afghanistan could mount air and missile attacks on Iranian forces, which are heavily concentrated along the Iran-Iraq border, as well as protecting their own supply lines within Iraq:

A key assessment in any war with Iran concerns Basra province and the Kuwait border. It is likely that Iran and its sympathizers could take control of population centres and interrupt oil supplies, if it was in their interest to do so. However it is unlikely that they could make any sustained effort against Kuwait or interrupt supply lines north from Kuwait to central Iraq. US firepower is simply too great for any Iranian conventional force.

Experts question the report’s conclusions

Former CIA analyst and Deputy Director for Transportation Security, Antiterrorism Assistance Training, and Special Operations in the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism, Larry Johnson, does not agree with the report’s findings.

“The report seems to accept without question that US air force and navy bombers could effectively destroy Iran and they seem to ignore the fact that US use of air power in Iraq has failed to destroy all major military, political, economic and transport capabilities,” said Johnson late Monday after the embargo on the study had been lifted.

“But at least in their conclusions they still acknowledge that Iran, if attacked, would be able to retaliate. Yet they are vague in terms of detailing the extent of the damage that the Iran is capable of inflicting on the US and fairly assessing what those risks are.”

There is also the situation of US soldiers in Iraq and the supply routes that would have to be protected to ensure that US forces had what they needed. Plesch explains that “”firepower is an effective means of securing supply routes during conventional war and in conventional war a higher loss rate is expected.”

“However as we say do not assume that the Iraqi Shiia will rally to Tehran – the quietist Shiia tradition favoured by Sistani may regard itself as justified if imploding Iranian power can be argued to reduce US problems in Iraq, not increase them.”

John Pike, Director of Global Security, a Washington-based military, intelligence, and security clearinghouse, says that the question of Iraq is the one issue at the center of any questions regarding Iran.

“The situation in Iraq is a wild card, though it may be presumed that Iran would mount attacks on the US at some remove, rather than upsetting the apple-cart in its own front yard,” wrote Pike in an email.

Political Considerations

Plesch and Butcher write with concern about the political context within the United States:

This debate is bleeding over into the 2008 Presidential election, with evidence mounting that despite the public unpopularity of the war in Iraq, Iran is emerging as an issue over which Presidential candidates in both major American parties can show their strong national security bona fides. …

The debate on how to deal with Iran is thus occurring in a political context in the US that is hard for those in Europe or the Middle East to understand. A context that may seem to some to be divorced from reality, but with the US ability to project military power across the globe, the reality of Washington DC is one that matters perhaps above all else. …

We should not underestimate the Bush administration’s ability to convince itself that an “Iran of the regions” will emerge from a post-rubble Iran. So, do not be in the least surprised if the United States attacks Iran. Timing is an open question, but it is hard to find convincing arguments that war will be avoided, or at least ones that are convincing in Washington.

Plesch and Butcher are also interested in the attitudes of the current UK government, which has carefully avoided revealing what its position might be in the case of an attack. They point out, however, “One key caution is that regardless of the realities of Iran’s programme, the British public and elite may simply refuse to participate – almost out of bloody minded revenge for the Iraq deceit.”

And they conclude that even “if the attack is ’successful’ and the US reasserts its global military dominance and reduces Iran to the status of an oil-rich failed state, then the risks to humanity in general and to the states of the Middle East are grave indeed.”

Larisa Alexandrovna is managing editor of investigative news for Raw Story and regularly reports on intelligence and national security stories. Contact: larisa@rawstory.com

Muriel Kane is research director for Raw Story.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

MARTIAL LAW TRAINING DRILLS AGAINST 'REBELS'

QUARTER WAY THROUGH IT'S STATED 'REBELS IN T SHIRTS', I WONDER WHAT THEY EXPECT TO HAPPEN SO BAD THAT THEY'LL FACE REBELLION?

B is for Bomb

Winner of the Cannes 2006 online competition, is a short history of the nuclear age as told by a child. Nuclear war is the deadliest video game ever. It's not game over yet.

BUSH MARTIAL LAW POWERS JEROME CORSI

JEROME CORSI ON C-SPAN ABOUT THE POWERS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION GAVE ITSELF, AND ANY FUTURE PRESIDENT, TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW AND HAS KEPT THE PROVISIONS BEHIND WHAT MARTIAL LAW WOULD ENTAIL...SECRET

Market Crash Forecast Suggests New 9/11

Mystery trader bets on huge downturn that could only be preceded by catastrophe
Paul Joseph Watson

A mystery trader risks losing around $1 billion dollars after placing 245,000 put options on the Dow Jones Eurostoxx 50 index, leading many analysts to speculate that a stock market crash preceded by a new 9/11 style catastrophe could take place within the next month.

The anonymous trader only stands to make money if the market crashes by a third to a half before September 21st, which is when the put options expire. A put option is a financial contract between two parties, the buyer and the writer (seller) of the option, in which the buyer stands to benefit only if the price of the asset falls.

"The sales are being referred to by market traders as "bin Laden trades" because only an event on the scale of 9-11 could make these short-sell options valuable," reports financial blogger Marc Parent. Dow Jones Financial News first reported on the story.

The trader stands to make around $2 billion from their investment should an event trigger a market crash before the third week in September.


Such a cataclysmic jolt could only happen as a result of two factors, China dumping its vast dollar reserves in reaction to the sub-prime mortgage collapse, which it has threatened to do, or a massive terror attack on the same scale or larger than 9/11.



9/11 itself was foreshadowed by unprecedented put options that were placed on United and American Airlines. Though the Securities and Exchange Commission refused to reveal who placed the options, private researchers traced the investments back to the Deutsche Bank owned Banker’s Trust, which was formerly headed by then Executive Director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard.

Put options on Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, two of the World Trade Center's most prominent occupants, also spiked in the days before 9/11.

News of the suspicious trades is dovetailed by the comments of Former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers yesterday, who told ABC News that the risk of a recession in the U.S. was greater that at any time since 9/11.

PRISONPLANET

Aaron Russo Has Died Aug. 24th 2007

Aaron Russo (February 14, 1943 -- August 24, 2007) was an entertainment businessman, film maker, and libertarian political activist.

Russo became involved in politics in the early 1990s when he produced and starred in a video entitled Mad As Hell in which he criticized NAFTA, The War on Drugs, the concept of a National Identity Card, and government regulation of alternative medicine.

His latest film is America: Freedom to Fascism, a documentary critical of The Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue Service.
Aaron lost his long battle with cancer
R.I.P.
we love you Aaron

Patriot Hero Aaron Russo Passes Away

Prison Planet
August 24, 2007

We were saddened to hear of the passing of activist, film maker, freedom fighter and all round maverick Aaron Russo today, who died today after a long battle with cancer at the age of 64.

Aaron will be remembered fondly for all his achievements, not least of which the excellent America: From Freedom to Fascism, his final movie which exposed the fraudulent basis of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

Aaron was a real patriot who loved his country and risked his whole career to stand for the truth. He was an example to us all.

Aaron Russo was the Samuel Adams of our day, a stalwart defender of liberty, his passing is greatly mourned but his fiery spirit lives on in all of his great work and in his wife, his children and his film America From Freedom to Fascism.

Our deep condolences go out to Aaron's family and friends at this difficult time

Kottonmouth Kings - Living in Fear

Tony Benn Beats Bolton To A Pulp

NO, I WILL NOT COMPLY! PERIOD

Bit by bit, piece by piece, the US government is taking away all your rights and freedoms and property. How far are you willing to let them go until you stop them? Did you realize governments around the world control the local news? Even Hitler made up stories for the newspaper. It's time to make a decision for yourself.

Excerpt from Michael Badnarik's constitution class.

REVEALED! TOP SECRET MANUAL ON HOW TO DEAL WITH PROTESTERS!

When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.
When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

"Empire" - AfterThought f/ GWB 2003 SOTU

Endless war. Foreign occupation. Severe poverty. Secrecy and torture. These are the sorrows of empire. America is a military empire. This song is a protest against the status quo and a plea to return to the noble ideals upon this country was founded.

Police Pose As Protesters At Montebello Summit

"I confirm (to) you that there is no agents provocateurs in the Surete du Quebec... It doesn't exist in the Surete du Quebec," spokesperson Const. Melanie Larouche told The Canadian Press.
RCMP Cpl. Luc Bessette said the Mounties do "not use tactics that would encourage confrontation or incite violence."
A video posted on YouTube from Monday's protests in Montebello, Que. shows Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP) President Dave Coles in a confrontation with three masked men who appear to be protesters.
"I accused them of being police, and every time I yelled at them that they were police, you could tell by their facial expressions that they were really troubled," Coles told CTV Newsnet Wednesday.
He added that the men "weren't young kids off the streets, they were there to deliberately cause trouble, to give the police a chance to try and get rid of these young kids that were exercising their right to protest peacefully."
In the video, Coles and other protesters tell the men to take off their masks.
One of the three men is holding a rock and Coles tells him to move because their line is meant for peaceful protesters.
"These three guys are cops, everybody!" Coles can be heard shouting to the crowd as he tries to pull down their bandanas.
The three men then push their way into the police line and appear to be arrested, then taken away.
In the video, Coles claims the men were sent as provocateurs to give the police an excuse to move in on demonstrators.
"I looked him in his eye and said 'You're a cop aren't you?' and his eyes just glazed right up," Coles tells a crowd in the video.
In the press release, Coles said he plans to do whatever it takes to bring the matter to justice.
"We have proof that the three individuals who were 'arrested' after being exposed as 'agents provocateurs' were, in fact, members of the Quebec police force," Coles said in a statement Wednesday.
Photographs taken by another protester show the three men lying on the ground with the soles of their boots adorned by yellow octagons. A police officer kneeling beside the men appears to have the same imprint on his boot.
The imprint appears to be the Vibram boots logo. Earlier reports had suggested it was a yellow triangle signifying Canadian Standards Association-approved footwear.
Police have confirmed that only four protesters, not the men in the video, were arrested during the summit.
"But we see very clearly in that video three (other) men being arrested . . . How do (police) account for these three people being taken in, being arrested? Where did they go?" veteran protester Jaggi Singh asked The Canadian Press Tuesday.
"I have no hesitation in saying they were police agents... and they were caught red-handed."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, U.S. President George Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, wrapped up the summit Tuesday.
Many activists were protesting what they perceived a lack of transparency surrounding the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) process.
The two-year-old framework is being used to pursue greater trade and security integration between the three countries.
While a group of top business executives got the chance to make a presentation to the three leaders on Tuesday, no such invitation was extended to environmental or social activists.
Critics claim the SPP is a 'super-NAFTA' that will result in stolen jobs and an erosion of freedoms.

White House Fence Jumper Speaks

October 14, 2006, Alexis Janicki jumped the White House fence and was promptly arrested by the Secret Service. After being released from jail he explains what motivated him.

Benjamin Freedman Warns America

Ex-Zionist Benjamin Freedman speaks at the Willard Hotel, Washington D.C., in 1961

This is a very important speech that verifies what many people have been telling us for over a century.

fun breakdance_ north and south Korea vs

copyright and edit by mihacke

Washington Pedophilia - From Franklin Coverup to Foley

There has long been an inner circle among governing elites a sexual death cult in which young children, mostly male, are used and destroyed, bought and sold like baubles. And the Bushes are right in the middle of it.
One victim, Paul Bonacci, was awarded a $1,000,000 civil settlement.

police accused of attempting to incite violence at spp

Protestors at Montebello are accusing police of trying to incite violence. Video on YouTube shows union officials confronting three men that were police officers dressing up as demonstrators. The union is demanding to know if the Prime Minister's Office was involved in trying to discredit the demonstrators.

NANARD KOUCHNER AU CLUB DU BILDERBERG

Bilderberg 2007: bienvenue dans la clique des lunatiques

21-05-2007

En 1954, les hommes les plus puissants de la planète se rencontraient pour la première fois sous les auspices de la couronne royale néerlandaise et de la famille Rockefeller dans le luxueux Hôtel Bilderberg de la petite ville hollandaise d'Oosterbeck. Pendant tout un week-end, ils discutèrent de l'avenir du monde. Lorsque cela fut terminé, ils décidèrent de se rencontrer une fois par an pour échanger des idées et analyser les affaires internationales. Ils se sont baptisés le Club de Bilderberg. Depuis lors, ils se sont réunis tous les ans dans un hôtel luxueux quelque part dans le monde pour décider du futur de l'humanité.

En plus de cinquante ans de rencontres rassemblant puissance et argent sans précédent au même endroit et en même temps, jamais aucune information n'a filtré quant aux sujets débattus lors des rencontres du Club de Bilderberg. Le Bilderberg, l'une des organisations secrètes la plus puissante du monde est gérée à partir d'un bureau de 18m², où il y a un seul employé, utilisant une seule ligne téléphonique et un seul numéro de fax. Il n'y a pas de site web et pas de plaque en laiton sur la porte. La presse indépendante n'a jamais eu la permission d'y pénétrer et aucune déclaration n'a jamais été publiée sur les conclusions des participants, ni aucun ordre du jour d'une rencontre de Bilderberg n'a été rendu public. Comment, cela peut-il être possible lorsque la liste des membres d'élite du Bilderberg comprend tous les individus les plus puissants qui dirigent le monde ?

Les dirigeants du Club de Bilderberg soutiennent que cette discrétion est nécessaire pour permettre aux participants aux débats de parler librement sans être enregistrés ou rapportés publiquement. Autrement, déclarent les Bilderbergers, ils seraient forcés de s'exprimer dans le langage des communiqués de presse. Sans aucun doute, cette discrétion permet au Club de Bilderberg de délibérer plus librement, mais cela ne répond pas à la question fondamentale : de quoi ces personnes les plus puissantes du monde parlent-elles dans ces rencontres ?

Tout système démocratique moderne protège le droit à la vie privée, mais le public n'a-t-il pas le droit de savoir de quoi leurs dirigeants politiques parlent lorsqu'ils rencontrent les dirigeants d'entreprises les plus riches de leurs pays respectifs ?

Quelles garanties les citoyens ont-ils que le Club de Bilderberg n'est pas un centre de trafic d'influence et de lobbying si on ne leur permet pas de savoir de quoi leurs représentants parlent aux réunions secrètes du Club ? Pourquoi le Forum Economique Mondial de Davos et les rencontres du G8 sont rapportés dans tous les journaux, où ils sont couverts en unes, avec des milliers de journalistes qui y participent, alors que personne ne couvre les rencontres du Club de Bilderberg, même si y participent tous les ans les présidents du Fonds Monétaire International, de la Banque Mondiale , de la Réserve Fédérale , des 100 plus puissantes entreprises du monde, telles que DaimlerChrysler, Coca Cola, British Petroleum, Chase Manhattan Bank, American Express, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, les vice-présidents des Etats-Unis, les directeurs de la CIA et du FBI, les secrétaires généraux de l'Otan, des sénateurs américains et des membres du Congrès, des Premiers ministres européens et des leaders de partis d'opposition, des rédacteurs en chef de premier plan et des directeurs des principaux journaux du monde. Il est surprenant qu'aucun titre des grands groupes de médias ne considère que le rassemblement de telles personnalités, dont la fortune excède de loin la richesse combinée de tous les citoyens des Etats-Unis, ne vaille la peine d'être rapporté alors que le moindre voyage de n'importe lequel d'entre eux fait les gros titres des infos à la télé.

Les délégués au Bilderberg 2007 - Istanbul, Turquie, du 31 mai au 3 juin

La délégation de cette année comprendra une fois de plus tous les hommes politiques, hommes d'affaires, banquiers centraux, commissaires européens et patrons de la grande presse occidentale les plus importants. Ils seront rejoints à la table par les principaux représentants de la royauté européenne, menée par la Reine Beatrix , fille du fondateur du Bilderberg et ancien Nazi, le Prince Bernhard des Pays-Bas, et le Président du Bilderberg, le Belge Etienne Davignon, vice-président de Suez-Tractebel. Selon la liste du Comité Exécutif à laquelle l'auteur de cet article a eu accès, les noms suivants ont été confirmés comme participants officiels du Bilderberg pour la conférence de cette année (Par ordre alphabétique) :

George Alogoskoufis, Ministre de l'Economie et des Finances (Grèce) ; Ali Babacan, Ministre des Affaires Economiques (Turquie) ; Edward Balls, Secrétaire Economique au Trésor (Roy.-Uni) ; Francisco Pinto Balsemão, PDG d'IMPRESA, S.G.P.S. et ancien Premier ministre (Portugal ); José M. Durão Barroso, Président de la Commission Européenne (Portugal/International) ; Franco Bernabé, Vice-président de Rothschild Europe (Italie) ; Nicolas Beytout, Directeur de la publication du Figaro (France) ; Carl Bildt, ancien Premier ministre (Suède) ; Hubert Burda, Editeur et Directeur Général de Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgique) ; Philippe Camus, Directeur Général d'EADS (France ) ; Henri de Castries, Président du Directoire et Directeur Génral d'AXA (France) ; Juan Luis Cebrian, Grupo PRISA media group (Espagne) ; Kenneth Clark, Membre du Parlement (Roy.-Uni) ; Timothy C. Collins, PDG de Ripplewood Holdings, LLC (Uetats-Unis) ; Bertrand Collomb, Président de Lafarge (France); George A. David, Président de Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. (Etats-Unis) ; Kemal Dervis, Administrateur de UNDP (Turquie) ; Anders Eldrup, Président de DONG A/S (Danemark) ; John Elkann, Vice-président de Fiat S.p.A (Italie); Martin S. Feldstein, PDG du National Bureau of Economic Research (Etats-Unis) ; Timothy F. Geithner, PDG de la Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Etats-Unis) ; Paul A. Gigot, Rédacteur en chef de la page éditoriale du Wall Street Journal (Etats-Unis) ; Dermot Gleeson, Président de AIB Group (Irlande) ; Donald E. Graham, PDG de Washington Post Company (Etats-Unis) ; Victor Halberstadt, Professeur d'Economie à l'Université de Leiden et ancien Secrétaire Général des Rencontres du Bilderberg (Pays-Bas) ; Jean-Pierre Hansen, Directeur Général de Suez-Tractebel S.A. (Belgique) ; Richard N. Haass, Président du Council on Foreign Relations (Etats-Unis) ; Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice-président de Perseus, LLC (Etats-Unis) ; Jaap G. Hoop de Scheffer, Secrétaire Général de l'OTAN (Pays-Bas/International) ; Allan B. Hubbard, Assistant du Président pour la Politique Economique , Directeur du National Economic Council (Etats-Unis) ; Josef Joffe, Directeur de la publication-Rédacteur en chef de Die Zeit (Allemagne) ; James A. Johnson, Vice-président de Perseus, LLC (Etats-Unis) ; Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Directeur Général de Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (Etats-Unis) ; Anatole Kaletsky, Rédacteur libre au Times (Roy.-Uni) ; John Kerr of Kinlochard, Président adjoint de la Royal Dutch Shell plc (Pays-Bas) ; Henry A. Kissinger, Président de Kissinger Associates (Etats-Unis) ; Mustafa V. Koç, Président de Koç Holding A.S. (Turquie) ; Fehmi Koru, journaliste à Yeni Safek (Turquie) ; Bernard Kouchner, Ministre des Affaires Etrangères (France) ; Henry R. Kravis, Associé fondateur de Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (Etats-Unis) ; Marie-Josée Kravis, Membre du Comité de Direction de l'Hudson Institute, Inc. (Etats-Unis) ; Neelie Kroes, Commissaire, Commission Européenne (Pays-Bas/International) ; Ed Kronenburg, Directeur du Bureau Privé du siege de l'OTAN (International) ; William J. Luti, Assistant special du Président pour la Politique et la Stratégie de Défense du National Security Council (Etats-Unis) ; Jessica T. Mathews, Présidente du Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Etats-Unis) ; Frank McKenna, Ambassadeur auprès des Etats-Unis, membre du Carlyle Group (Canada) ; Thierry de Montbrial, Président de L'Institut Français des Relations Internationales (France) ; Mario Monti, Président de l'Université Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italie) ; Craig J. Mundie, Directeur Technique des Stratégies Avancées et de la Politique de Microsoft Corporation (Etats-Unis) ; Egil Myklebust, Président de SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA (Norvège) ; Matthias Nass, Rédacteur en chef adjoint de Die Zeit (Allemagne) ; Adnrzej Olechowski, Dirigeant de la Plate-forme Civique (Pologne) ; Jorma Ollila, Président de Royal Dutch Shell plc/Nokia (Finlande); George Osborne, Chancelier de l'Echiquier du Gouvernement Fantôme (Roy.-Uni) ; Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Ministre des Finances (Italie) ; Richard N. Perle, Membre Résident de l'American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (Etats-Unis) ; Heather Reisman, PDG de Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada); David Rockefeller (Etats-Unis) ; Matías Rodriguez Inciarte, Vice-Président et Directeur Général de Grupo Santander Bank (Espagne) ; Dennis B. Ross, Directeur du Washington Institute for Near East Policy (Etats-Unis) ; Otto Schily, ancien Ministre des Affaires Etrangères et Membre du Parlement, Membre de la Commission des Affaires Etrangères (Allemagne) ; Jürgen E. Schrempp, ancien Président de DaimlerChrysler AG (Allemagne) ; Tøger Seidenfaden, Directeur de la Publication de Politiken (Danemark) ; Peter D. Sutherland, Président de BP plc et Président de Goldman Sachs International (Irlande) ; Giulio Tremonti, Vice-président de la Chambre des Députés (Italie) ; Jean-Claude Trichet, Gouverneur de la Banque Centrale Européenne (France/International) ; John Vinocur, Correspondant senior de l'International Herald Tribune (Etats-Unis) ; Jacob Wallenberg, Président d'Investor AB (Suède) ; Martin H. Wolf, Rédacteur en chef associé et commentateur économique du Financial Times (Roy.-Uni) ; James D. Wolfensohn, Envoyé Spécial pour le Désengagement de Gaza (Etats-Unis) ; Robert B. Zoellick, Président de la Banque Mondiale et ancien Secrétaire d'Etat adjoint (Etats-Unis) ; Klaus Zumwinkel, Président du Deutsche Post AG (Allemagne) ; Adrian D. Wooldridge, Correspondant de The Economist.

Parmi les noms qui apparaissent sur la liste initiale des invités, à laquelle ce journaliste a eu accès en janvier 2007, ressortent les noms de John Brown, à présent en état de disgrâce, Directeur Général de British Petroleum, et l'ancien chef de la Banque Mondiale , viré et en état de disgrâce, Paul Wolfowitz. Il sera intéressant de voir si l'un ou l'autre de ces hommes fera une apparition au Bilderberg 2007. Cela ne gêne pas les Bilderbergers d'accueillir des malfaiteurs au sein de leur cercle tant que leurs mauvaises actions restent hors des projecteurs et du regard scrutateur du public. Une fois exposés, les coupables sont généralement rejetés. Lord Conrad Black, l'ancien directeur général du groupe de médias Hollinger est, en fait, un de ces cas.

Deux autres noms de la liste originale de janvier 2007 devraient nous faire hausser les sourcils. L'un d'eux est Bernard Kouchner, le tout nouveau Ministre français des Affaires Etrangères du gouvernement de droite de Nicolas Sarkozy. Kouchner est l'ancien fondateur de l'ONG Médecins Sans Frontières. Il était absent du Bilderberg 2006 à Ottawa, au Canada. Son poste au gouvernement a-t-il pu être arrangé avant les élections nationales françaises ? A mon avis, la palme de l'apparition surprise de l'année devrait revenir à Mahmood Sariolghalam, Professeur associé de Relations Internationales à l'Ecole des Sciences Economiques et Politiques de l'Université Nationale d'Iran. Qu'est-ce qu'un Iranien peut bien venir faire à une conférence de Bilderberg contrôlée par une alliance de l'OTAN ? Nous le aurons bien assez tôt. Le Bilderberg 2007 est certainement le bon moment pour regarder ce qui se passe en coulisse.

De quoi parlera-t-on au Bilderberg 2007 ?

A côté du bourbier en Irak, les problèmes d'énergie continuent de dominer les discussions du Bilderberg. Le pétrole et le gaz naturel sont des ressources finies non renouvelables. Une fois utilisées, elles ne peuvent être reconstituées. Au fur et à mesure que le monde tourne et que les ressources de pétrole et de gaz naturel se réduisent nous avons dépassé la moitié des possibilités de production et de découverte de pétrole. En effet, alors que la demande explose spectaculairement, en particulier avec les économies indienne et chinoise en plein essor qui veulent tous les accessoires et les privilèges de la manière de vivre des Américains, nous découvrons moins de pétrole que nous en produisons. A partir de maintenant, la seule chose qui est sûre est que l'offre continuera de baisser et que les prix continueront de monter. Dans ces conditions, un conflit mondial est une certitude physique. La fin du pétrole signifie la fin du système financier mondial, une chose qui a déjà été reconnue par le Wall Street Journal et le Financial Times, deux membres à plein temps du cercle d'initié du Bilderberg. Le rapport de Goldman Sachs sur le pétrole [un autre membre à plein temps de l'élite du Bilderberg], publié le 30 mars 2005, a augmenté la fourchette de prix du pétrole pour l'année 2005-2006 de $55-$80 le baril à $55-$105. Lors de la rencontre de 2006, les Bilderbergers ont confirmé que leur estimation du haut de la fourchette de prix pour le pétrole, pour 2007-2008, continue d'osciller entre $105-$150/le baril. Il n'est pas étonnant que Jose Barroso, le Président de la Commission Européenne , ait annoncé il y plusieurs mois, lors de l'annonce de la nouvelle politique européenne en matière d'énergie, que le temps d'une "ère post-industrielle" est venue. Pour conduire le monde dans l'ère post-industrielle, il faut d'abord détruire la base économique du monde et créer une nouvelle Grande Dépression. Lorsque les gens sont pauvres, ils ne dépensent pas d'argent, ils ne voyagent pas et ils ne consomment pas.

Tandis que l'impact économique fait son chemin et que les effets secondaires du Pic Pétrolier deviennent évidents en face de l'effondrement de la civilisation, les Etats-Unis seront obligés de défier l'Europe, la Russie et la Chine pour l'hégémonie du contrôle des ressources non renouvelables des hydrocarbures en réduction constante, dont la plus grande partie se trouve au Proche-Orient. Ce sera le point numéro deux de l'ordre du jour du Bilderberg 2007.

Le troisième point de l'ordre du jour est les relations européennes avec la Russie , pas seulement en Europe, mais aussi en Asie Centrale. Avec Moscou qui a passé un accord avec le Kazakhstan et le Turkménistan pour le transport de gaz vers l'Europe, l'objectif géostratégique des Etats-Unis de monter les pays d'Asie Centrale contre la Russie est un désastre. Tandis que les Etats-Unis disent que ceci "n'est pas bon pour l'Europe", les Européens sont divisés. L'Iran est devenu du jour au lendemain le dernier espoir de l'Amérique dans la guerre de l'énergie.

La guerre d'Iran, après deux années où le gouvernement Bush a monté toute une histoire n'est définitivement plus sur le tapis. Qui plus est, avec la France , la Russie , le Japon et la Chine qui investissent lourdement en Iran, le monde a tiré une ligne dans le sable et il sera dit aux Etats-Unis de ne pas la franchir. Il y a du sang dans l'eau et le sang dans l'eau conduit habituellement à un bon combat.

Néanmoins, les Etats-Unis ont besoin de contrôler cette région, non seulement pour leurs réserves de pétrole mais, ce qui plus important, pour aider à maintenir leur hégémonie économique sur le monde. Selon ce plan stratégique, les Etats régionaux seront transformés en domaines affaiblis de Cheiks sectaires avec peu ou aucune souveraineté et cela signifie un programme misérable de développement économique. Le chaos régional favorise la propagation du fondamentalisme islamique, qui, à son tour, renforce le processus de la désintégration politique et sociale soutenue par les Bilderbergers.

Avec Blair qui s'en va, le Royaume-Uni se verra dire une fois encore qu'il doit, quel qu'en soit le coût, faire ce qui est nécessaire pour intégrer le pays dans la Communauté Européenne.

Enf in, avec Wolfowitz qui a démissionné de la Banque Mondiale , les sommités du Bilderberg essayeront d'arriver à un consensus sur la manière de restructurer le mieux, non seulement la banque, mais son organisation sœur, le Fonds Monétaire International (FMI), dirigé par un Espagnol, Rodrigo Rato. Wolfowitz a été pris dans la controverse il y a sept semaines après que des dénonciateurs à la Banque Mondiale ont remis à l'ONG de Washington, Government Accountability Project (GAP), des documents montrant que Wolfowitz a accordé une grosse augmentation de salaire à sa petite amie lors d'un accord de détachement au Département d'Etat américain.

Nous, en tant que société, sommes à la croisée des chemins. Dans presque tous les coins de la planète, des points de tension commencent à se fracturer. Les routes que nous prendrons à partir de maintenant détermineront le futur-même de l'humanité. Ce fut l'ancien Premier ministre britannique, Benjamin Disraeli, qui déclara que "le monde est gouverné par des personnages très différents de ce qu'imaginent ceux qui ne sont pas dans les coulisses".

Il n'est pas du ressort de Dieu de nous faire revenir au "nouvel âge obscur" qui est prévu pour nous. C'EST DE NOUS QUE CELA DEPEND. Que nous entrions dans ce nouveau siècle avec un Etat policier électronique mondial ou comme êtres humains libres dépend de l'action que nous prenons maintenant ! Un homme averti en vaut deux. Nous ne trouverons jamais les bonnes réponses si nous ne posons pas les bonnes questions.

LIEN

La Mondialisation de l’idéologie islamophobe

Depuis la désintégration du bloc dit communiste, les classes dominantes propagent une vision duale du monde opposant l’Occident à l’Orient, la civilisation à la barbarie. Il n’y aurait plus d’antagonisme de classe, mais seulement un affrontement entre le monde judéo-chrétien et le monde arabo-musulman, son antinomie parfaite.


La ligne de séparation que les atlantistes creusent est géographique et intangible. Cette fragmentation sur base du credo religieux ou du groupe ethnique est une régression intellectuelle qui relègue en arrière-plan les identités sociales. Les appartenances substitutives font pièces à la conscience sociale et fortifient l’assise de l’ordre dominant.

L’islam est perçu dans l’imaginaire collectif comme un phénomène politico-religieux nuisible et extérieur. Il serait réfractaire à la raison et incompatible avec les valeurs de liberté et d’égalité du monde occidental. On lui reproche par-dessus tout d’être ontologiquement violent. Il glorifierait le sang et la mort. Sous ce regard, l’islam est une entité homogène immobile incapable de se réformer et de s’adapter à la modernité – il est, en somme, inférieur à l’Occident.

Cette doctrine débouche au terme d’analogies abusives sur un nouveau concept raciste: la mondialisation de l’idéologie islamophobe.

Cette représentation n’est qu’un paravent doctrinal qui dissimule, d’une, part les ambitions hégémoniques d’un réseau d’influence international et qui consolide, d’autre part, sa domination. La menace islamiste a été agitée au moment où les contestations sociales s’exprimaient avec le plus de vigueur, y compris dans le cœur des Etats-Unis. Un mouvement social anti-systémique parvenait à faire écho de Seattle à Gênes et inquiétait les dirigeants capitalistes. Le pouvoir devait renforcer dès lors son système immunitaire en renforçant le complexe militaro-policier (voir La guerre contre le terrorisme islamiste n’est qu’un leurre)

Depuis, on a pu observer une inflation inédite des moyens assignés à la surveillance et à la répression : vidéosurveillance, biométrie, fichage. En développant une menace anxiogène, ce sont les citoyens eux-mêmes qui prêchent pour un surplus de sécurité. Le terrorisme est parvenu à donner un blanc-seing illimité dans le temps et dans l’espace à l’impérialisme euro-américain. Il justifie la présence sine die des armées impérialistes dans n’importe quel recoin du monde.

Depuis le 11 septembre 2001, des experts autoproclamés ès terrorisme (Claude Moniquet, Alexandre Del Valle, Antoine Sfeir,..) sont montés au créneau pour alimenter une paranoïa collective. Les philosophes réactionnaires et conscience du monde du genre Bernard-Henri Levy ou Alain Finkielkraut y ont trouvé eux aussi leur fonds de commerce en accréditant la thèse de la confrontation civilisationnelle.

Selon une logique circulaire, les citations entrecroisées des uns et des autres sont censées avoir valeur de démonstration. Faute de preuves empiriques, les publicistes de l’ordre mondial se contentent de propager les conclusions d’officines gouvernementales pourtant maintes fois confondues de manipulation à grande échelle. Ils participent de la sorte à la construction du fantasme d’une menace externe grandissante et d’une stratégie globale et cohérente de conquête du pouvoir par des groupes jihadistes. S’affranchissant de l’histoire et du cadre socio-économique, ce système explicatif met en liaison un ensemble de mouvements sans parenté.

De Bali au Yémen en passant par Bagdad, les banlieues françaises ou les bidonvilles marocains, un seul coupable est désigné : le terrorisme islamiste. Rien ne peut ébranler cette thèse puisqu’une menace est par définition une virtualité qui peut ne pas prendre forme dans l’immédiat.

Notons par ailleurs que cette propagande confusionniste profite en premier ordre au sionisme qui peut briser la résistance palestinienne au nom de la lutte contre le terrorisme.

Pour Claude Moniquet, président de l’ESISC (European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center : club de réflexion traitant des questions de sécurité stratégique), « il est temps de se lever, tous ensemble, chrétiens, musulmans, juifs, athées et autres pour dire haut et fort : la liberté est notre règle en Europe. Elle est inscrite dans nos constitutions, nos lois et nos coutumes et nous ne voulons aucune autre loi. Que ceux qui s’en trouvent insatisfaits aillent vivre ailleurs ». Claude Moniquet, inlassable défenseur d’Israël, est un intermittent des medias au même titre que son confrère Alexandre Del Valle. Ce dernier, prétendu spécialiste des questions de géopolitique liées à l’islamisme, affirme sans ambages que « les islamistes ne demandent pas seulement le retrait d’Irak et d’Afghanistan. Ils veulent diviser le front occidental, ne perdant pas de vue leur objectif qui est la conquête de l’Europe… ».

Ils sont tous deux relayés et appuyés par les cercles sionistes avec qui ils entretiennent des affinités privilégiées. Bernard-Henri Levy, accoutumé à la phraséologie creuse, fait un parallèle douteux entre l’islamisme et le fascisme : « et puis, en fond de décor, ce à visage islamiste, ce troisième fascisme, dont tout indique qu’il est à notre génération ce que furent l’autre fascisme, puis le totalitarisme communiste, à celle de nos aînés… ». Il ne faut pas se laisser prendre.

L’Islam n’est pas l’ennemi même si les Etats-Unis sont l’ennemi des peuples arabes. Les menaces réelles proviennent de ceux qui prétendent défendre notre liberté tout en nous la restreignant, de ceux qui prétendent imposer la démocratie tout en faisant la guerre.

Claude Covassi covassi@zipolite.com

7/7 London Bus Bomb Witness - Inside Job PROOF -pt1

FULL interview with Daniel Obachike - Part 1 of 5

Eyewitness accounts and photos prove 7/7 foreknowledge and cover-up. Video footage soon to be released to further corroborate story.

EVERYONE must see this video!!! This is Alex Jones' full interview with Daniel Obachike - passenger, survivor and witness of the 7/7/2005 bus bombing in London. Daniel was on the Number 30 bus when it exploded and he reveals some extremely important information concerning suspicious events before and after the 7/7 bombings in London. His account raises some serious questions concerning the official story of the events of 7/7/2005.

Wal-Mart, CIA, ExxonMobil Changed Wikipedia Entries

A new Web site built by an American technology student has uncovered the lengths that companies apparently go to improve their public image by tweaking their entries on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that — famously — "anyone can edit."
ExxonMobil, the U.S. oil giant, made sweeping changes to an entry on the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989.
Meanwhile, his efforts so far have also uncovered amendments made from computers linked to the CIA, which were used to edit entries including the biographies of the former U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.
Individuals using computers registered to the Vatican have amended entries on Roman Catholic saints and Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein.
A computer linked to the Church of Scientology's network was used to delete references to links between it and a group dubbed the "Cult Awareness Network."
A user of a BBC computer, meanwhile, edited George W. Bush's middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker."

Police State 2007

WARNING: CONTAINS EXPLICIT SCENES OF FASCISM

Faces of Modern Slavery

Some of the faces affected by modern-day slavery. The images come from the Invisible Children dvd on N. Uganda, and the Freetheslave.org video on the formerly bonded laborers of Uttar Pradesh, India.

What Would You Do? by Paris

What would you do if you
Knew all of the things we knew
Would you stand up for truth
Or would you turn away too
And then what if you saw
All of the things that's wrong
Would you stand tall and strong
Or would you turn and walk away

I see a message from the government, like every day
I watch it, and listen, and call 'em all suckas'
They warnin' me about Osama or whatever
Picture me buyin' this scam I said "never"
You in tune to a Hard Truth soldier spittin'
I stay committed gives a fuck to die or lose commission
It's all a part of fightin' devil state mind control
And all about the battle for your body, mind and soul
And now I'm hopin' you don't close ya mind - so they shape ya
Don't forget they made us slaves, gave us AIDS and raped us
Another Bush season mean another war for profit
All in secret so the public never think to stop it
The Illuminati triple six all connected
Stolen votes they control the race and take elections
It's the Skull and Bones Freemason kill committee
See the Dragon gettin' shittier in every city

[CHORUS]

Now ask yourself who's the people with the most to gain (Bush)
'fore 911 motherfuckas couldn't stand his name (Bush)
Now even niggas wavin' flags like they lost they mind
Everybody got opinions but don't know the time
'Cause Amerikkka's been took - it's plain to see
The oldest trick in the book is make an enemy
A phony evil so the government can do its dirt
And take away ya freedom lock and load, beat and search
Ain't nothin' changed but more colored people locked in prison
These pigs still beat us, but it seem we forgettin'
But I remember 'fore September how these devils do it
Fuck Giuliani ask Diallo how he doin'
We in the streets holla 'jail to the thief' follow
Fuck wavin' flags bring these dragons to they knees
Oil blood money makes these killers ride cold
Suspicious suicides people dyin' never told
It's all a part of playin' God so ya think we need 'em
While 'Bin Ashcroft' take away ya rights to freedom
Bear witness to the sickness of these dictators
Hope you understand the time brother cause it's major

[CHORUS]

So now you askin why my records always come the same
Keep it real, ain't no fillers, motherfucka blingin'
Mine eyes seen the gory of the coming of the beast
So every story every word I'm sayin' 'Fuck Peace'
See you could witness the Illuminati body count
Don't be surprised these is devils that I'm talkin' bout
You think a couple thousand lives mean shit to killers?
Nigga I swear to God we the ones - ain't no villans [sic]
Or any other word they think to demonize a country
Ain't no terror threat unless approval ratings slumpin'
So I'ma say it for the record we the ones that planned it
Ain't no other country took a part or had they hand in
It's all a way to keep ya scared so you think you need'em
Praisin' Bush while that killer take away ya freedom
How many of us got discovered but ignore the symptoms?
Niggaz talkin' loud but ain't nobody sayin' shit'
And with the 4th Amendment gone eyes are on the 1st
That's why I'm spittin' cyanide each and every verse
I see the Carlyle group and Harris Bank Accounts
I see 'em plead the 5th each and every session now
And while Reichstag burns I see the public buy it
I see the profilin see the media's compliance
War is good for business see the vicious make a savior
Hope you understand the time brother cause its major

[CHORUS X2]