via Activist Post
June 8, 2015
By Jay Dyer
The plan to integrate nations into continental trading blocs is not a new idea. In Dr. Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, reference is made to the plan of the Third Reich to create global trading blocs, which itself is an older British Royal Society plan. Daniel Estulin, in his The Bilderberg Group and Shadow Masters provides detailed investigations into both Bilderberg and its many-headed Hydra organization, exemplified in Captain America 2: Winter Soldier. Founded by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, as well as numerous other Atlanticist elites like David Rockefeller, Paul Van Zeeland and numerous other media barons, corporate heads, bankers, and countless other people better than us.
Bilderberg, operating under the guise of “free market capitalism,” represents instead the complete culmination of banking corporate world control. Presented as yet another debate forum, the secretive meetings instead have been revealed in numerous cases to have driven global policy. The most shining example is the 1955 Bilderberg meeting’s plans for the creation of the “European Common Market” and “European Union (Unity) shown below. It is important to recall that the European Common Market came into play some three years later in 1958, while the European Union itself was supposedly founded in 1993. With this in mind, we can see how the TTIP is simply a further extension of the same strategy of economic integration, from the EU to NAFTA.
via Activist Post
June 3, 2015
Considering the years of propaganda surrounding Iran and its nuclear program, it was clear to any informed observer that the recent US-Iran nuclear deal was nothing more than theatre. After all, the US/NATO imperialist machine has made its desire to wage war on the Persian nation explicit for some time. The only question is just how long this theatre will last before that goal is finally realized.
While the Western press and corporate media outlets have taken to presenting the Iran nuclear deal as either a tragic capitulation to the deadly warmongering Iranians or a brilliant lunge for peace with the deadly warmongering Iranians, the premise of their presentations are exactly the same – that Iran is dangerous, wants war, and is doing whatever it can to acquire a nuclear weapon.
This is, of course, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran is attempting to gain a nuclear weapon or has any aggressive intent in the region. In fact, the US and Israeli intelligence organizations have both determined that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon nor is it attempting to acquire one. Indeed, it has been admitted by military industrial complex firm, The RAND Corporation, that Iran’s military capabilities were largely defensive, not offensive. Even further, not only was Iran well within its rights to do everything it was doing in regards to nuclear energy and technology, the agreement signed with the West was an extraordinary act of conciliation and cooperation. Indeed, Iran bent over backwards to appease the West in its imperialists aims.
That being said, I have argued from the very beginning of the US-Iran nuclear talks that the diplomacy taking place was nothing more than theatre to be used later in the rush to war as evidence that the US did “everything in its power” to avoid confrontation. While the future is impossible to predict, one might reasonably believe that the US will soon sabotage the nuclear deal whose final touches and signatures are due at the end of June 2015.
via ACR Boiler Room
May 6, 2015
Tune in to the Alternate Current Radio Network tonight for another episode of ‘The Boiler Room’ with its new 2 hour format, with the LIVE broadcast starting at 11:00 PM-1:00AM EST, or 8:00 PM-10:00PM PST. Join us for this brand new uninterruptible talk radio program, custom-designed for news hounds, media-maniacs, savants, exotic political animals and otherwise loveable social rejects.
Join ACR hosts Hesher, Spore, and 21WIRE’s Patrick Henningsen, along with special guests Daniel Spaulding from Soul of the East, Amir Alwani from Potent News, with possible appearances by ACR’s Ryan G, Jay Dyer from Jay’s Analysis, and Shawn Helton from 21WIRE, all listeners who want to participate on the lines or in the ACR chat room – as we hash out everything under the sun and then some. There’s only one rule: bring something interesting to throw into the Boiler…
This week’s topics: Garland TX Shooting, ISIS, foundations, think tanks, Baltimore, Chemtrails, JADE HELM 15 and more.
[UPDATE/CORRECTION 21/06/2015 pertaining to a quote I mentioned in this discussion:
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.”
Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization (1945)
According to here, here, here, here, here, and here this quote was actually not from Brock Adams, but rather from a George Brock Chisholm, the first Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO). According to here, this Chisholm quote was from “a Speech given at the, Conference on Education, Asilomar, California, September 11, 1954″. If anyone finds a copy of this speech, please send me the link through this contact form.]
[UPDATE 27/06/2015: I remain a voluntarist and do oppose statism – and this was roughly discussed in this Boiler Room episode – however to clarify some interesting points about anarchy and to do justice to the topic, in light of new information that I have recently come across I must say that Clint Richardson raises many good points about statism and sovereignty as he clears up misconceptions about anarchy, statism and voluntarism in this excellent podcast: Debate: Clint Richardson vs. Mark Stevens – “Anarchy: A Modern Fallacy?” – #231 – Gnostic Media]
by Stephen Lendman
Feb 8, 2014
On January 31, he stepped down as Fed chairman. Janet Yellen replaced him. He’s entering a new world of million-dollar book deals. He’ll make $100,000 a pop speeches.
Expect appointments to corporate boards. CEOs value his rainmaking services.
On February 3, Brookings headlined “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to Join Economic Studies at Brookings.”
He’s a “Distinguished Fellow in Residence.” He’s affiliated with the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy (HCFMP). On January 16, Brookings launched it.
Its board of trustees vice chair Glenn Hutchins contributed $10 million in seed money. He co-founded the multi-billion dollar private equity firm Silver Lake Partners. Guess what type policies HCFMP will endorse.
“We are proud to welcome chairman Bernanke into the Brookings family,” said president Strobe Talbot. He’s Clinton’s former deputy secretary of state. He was directly involved in some of his worst policies.
Brookings’ agenda is brazenly imperial. It’s pro-corporate. It’s anti-populist. It feigns concern about inequality. It supports government of, by and for privileged elites alone. Expect Bernanke to fit right in.
His Fed tenure was deplorable. He betrayed the public trust. His record attests to his wickedness. His agenda was ruthlessly anti-populist. He did more to thirdworldize America for profit than any of his predecessors. He handed Wall Street crooks multi-trillions of dollars. He facilitated the greatest wealth transfer in history. He created a protracted Main Street Depression. No end in sight looms.
What the UN report on Syria will say & what the liars in the West will claim it says.
September 14, 2013
The bottom line regarding the UN’s upcoming report regarding the August 21, 2013 chemical weapons attack in Damascus, Syria is best summed up by the BBC’s article, “Syria crisis: UN report to confirm chemical arms attack” [emphasis added]:
Ban Ki-moon made no comment on who was to blame for the 21 August attack in the Ghouta area of Damascus, as that is not part of the report’s remit.
Despite this, the United States and its axis of collaborators are already trying to spin the report as confirmation that the Syrian government was responsible.
Relying entirely on the momentum of its massive media networks and their ability to “will” reality into any shape they please, headlines such as “United Nations’ Syria chemical weapons report “overwhelming,” shamelessly attempt to link two out of context statements by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon regarding the Syria government’s “crimes against humanity” and the confirmed use of chemical weapons in Damascus Syria, to place in the mind of readers assigned blame for the attacks.
In reality, the UN inspectors that were stampeded out of Damascus in the middle of their work, fearing an impending unilateral US military attack, were only attempting to determine how victims in eastern Damascus died, not who killed them. Independent assessments of who was responsible for the attack have not been carried out. The best the US has been able to do is suggest terrorists operating in Syria were incapable of such an attack, leaving only the Syrian government as a possible suspect.
Of course this single point of contention is dispelled by the US’ own policy in the region. CNN’s “Sources: U.S. helping underwrite Syrian rebel training on securing chemical weapons,” reported that:
The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.
The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.
Militant groups operating inside Syria with Western “contractors” (read: mercenaries, see: Blackwater) are more than capable of handling and deploying the weapons, and therefore more than capable of carrying out the attacks in question. The only argument left for the US is whether or not these militants, aligned with Al Qaeda, possess the will or motivation to do so. That doing so and framing the Syrian government would serve as impetus for direct US military intervention and therefore the salvation of the crumbling militant offensive, is more than motivation enough.
UN’s Complicity in Ongoing Syrian Bloodbath
And while Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s comments were taken out of context, that he has seemingly failed to also call for accountability of Syria’s so-called “opposition” smacks of partiality – partiality exhibited by the UN throughout the Syrian conflict. Additionally, the UN’s failure to question who in fact is arming, funding, and logistically supporting verified terrorist organizations within and around Syria’s borders is equally troubling.
Al Qaeda has been active in Syria since the conflict began, and according to the US State Department’s own assessment titled, “Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa’ida in Iraq:”
Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.
Could the UN be so out of touch with reality that it doesn’t realize an operation of this scale surely is state-sponsored, and that the question of who is funding, arming, and otherwise supporting such an extensive operation never seemed important enough to publicly ask?
Examining the UN’s role in the Syrian crisis must also include its 2011 UN Human Rights Council’s report (full text .pdf), and its most recent report published August of this year (.doc). These are nothing more than a collection of “interviews” conducted abroad with “witnesses” provided by Syrian “opposition groups” and alleged defectors, augmented with fabrications and biased spin provided by Western-funded “NGOs” openly working for armed militants inside Syria.
Image: Screenshot from the Washington D.C.-based Middle East Policy Council’s board of directors from which the UN has drawn Karen Koning AbuZayd as head of their recent “expert panel” on Syria. With fellow board members representing the collective interests of the American and Gulf State corporate-financier interests currently underwriting armed militants inside Syria, the conflict of interest resigns the legitimacy of the report – based entirely on “interviews” – as well as the legitimacy of the UN itself.
The UN panel for the 2011 report and the more recent 2013 report were co-headed by Karen Koning AbuZayd, a director of the US Washington-based corporate think-tank, Middle East Policy Council. Its board of directors includes Exxon men, CIA agents, representatives of the Saudi Binladin Group (Osama Bin Laden’s family business), former ambassadors to Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar, US military and government representatives, and even the president of the US-Qatar Business Council, which includes amongst its membership, AlJazeera, Chevron, Exxon, munitions manufacturer Raytheon (who supplied the opening salvos during NATO’s operations against Libya), and Boeing.
Image: Just some of the corporate members of the US-Qatar Business Council, whose president just so happens to sit on the same board of directors of the Middle East Policy Center as Karen AbuZayd, co-author of, now multiple, conveniently timed UN reports on Syria.
In other words, the very underwriters of the armed militancy that is consuming Syria, US, Saudi, Qatari, and Israeli interests, are sitting along side the head of the UN commission producing reports portraying the Syrian government as guilty of “war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
The UN is a diverse organization with both impartial and overtly biased interests busily at work. The utility of the UN’s statements, reports, and investigations must be determined not by the rhetoric that surrounds them, spun either by the Secretary General himself or by media organizations abroad, but rather by whatever solid, verifiable evidence that may be present, if it is indeed even present. The 2011 and 2013 UNHRC reports are throw-away propaganda based solely on biased hearsay. The most recent UN report regarding the August 21, 2013 chemical attacks in Damascus, according to the UN itself, DOES NOT ASSIGN BLAME, but merely confirms that chemical weapons were used – a point that is not contended by either side of the conflict.
This point above all else, must be kept in mind ahead of a predictable barrage of propaganda by faltering Western interests determined to use the UN report to “confirm” their wholly rejected conclusions and prescribed solutions regarding Syria.
Read other contributed articles by Tony Cartalucci here.
June 23, 2013
Tonight, on History So it doesn’t Repeat: We ask the question: Is America safer, now that we’re openly being spied on? We’ll discover how to check our premises, and peer into the origins, form, and function of the intelligence Community. By studying those who spy on us, we’ll uncover the root-causes of the War on Terror; and you will have the facts to help end it. Learning’s the Answer, What’s the Question? It’s all coming up next, on History So It Doesn’t Repeat.
Would You Like to Know More?
History… So It Doesn’t Repeat (Official HD Playlist) http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=…
Jan Irvin’s publications can be found at http://www.GnosticMedia.com and both he and Kevin Cole are members of the T&H online research and development community.
T&H dot com: http://www.TragedyandHope.com
T&H online Research & Development community: https://www.tragedyandhope.com/subscr…
Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/TragedyandHope
Watch on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/TragedyandHopeMag
Subscribe to the Peace Revolution podcast produced by T&H: http://www.PeaceRevolution.org
Like on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TragedyandHo…
Also on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theultimateh…
Screen The Ultimate History Lesson: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=…
Link to Richard’s brain model: https://www.tragedyandhope.com/the-br…
ABOUT TRAGEDY AND HOPE: SUMMARY, PURPOSE, FORM, AND FUNCTION
Tragedy and Hope provides a portal through which individuals can discover, identify, and integrate useful tools, resources, and activities which stimulate and fortify Cognitive Liberty, providing primary sources, research, and educational methods which facilitate consciousness.
Tragedy and Hope’s purpose is to enable individuals to research and form groups of independent thinkers to solve humanity’s most pressing problems, by identifying the etiology (study of the cause-and-effect origins) and thus understanding our way toward the solutions we seek.
Tragedy and Hope’s form and function (free to the public) enables hundreds-of-thousands of people around the world, to experience open-source education without upper-limits, and it is therein where the solutions are discovered- by making the problems truly known and understood at a root-cause level.
Tragedy and Hope creates, produces, and publishes educational content to help adults understand the world they live in and thereby, develop true self-confidence and serenity of mind; our content focuses on history, philosophy, economics, anthropology, science, communications, and every topic which pertains to learning how to survive and thrive in this world.
Tragedy and Hope is funded by those who tune-in to our productions, and the members of the Tragedy and Hope online critical thinking and research community, who subscribe after witnessing the value provided, and voluntarily deciding to contribute in a way to ensure we can continue producing educational media with integrity and consistency. Sacrifice the Tragedy, Preserve the Hope.
T&H: Re-Contextualizing History one Episode at a Time.
by Tony Cartalucci
February 13, 2013 (LD) – AFP has reported that a recent NATO airstrike in Afghanistan has killed over 10 civilians in an all-too-familiar headline glossed over by the Western media in an exercise of both depravity and hypocrisy. RT’s article, “NATO airstrike kills 10 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children – officials,” notes in particular that up to 11,864 civilians were killed in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2011, and that civilian deaths before 2007 were not even tracked by the UN.
Such facts reveal alarming hypocrisy as the UN keeps almost daily, inflated tallies of civilian deaths elsewhere, in particular, in nations like Libya and Syria where Western interests have been heavily involved in regime change and in dire need of manipulating public perception worldwide. The United Nations had in fact pieced together a dubious report crafted from “witness accounts” compiled not in Syria, or even beyond its borders in a refugee camp, but instead, in Geneva by “witnesses” supplied by the so-called Syrian “opposition.”
Image: Just some of the corporate members of the US-Qatar Business Council, whose president just so happens to sit on the same board of directors of the Middle East Policy Center as Karen AbuZayd, co-author of one of many conveniently timed UN Human Rights Council reports on Syria.
Worse yet, that UN report was co-authored by Karen Koning AbuZayd, a director of the US Washington-based corporate think-tank, Middle East Policy Council. Its board of directors includes Exxon men, CIA agents, representatives of the Saudi Binladin Group (Osama Bin Laden’s family business), former ambassadors to Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar, US military and government representatives, and even the president of the US-Qatar Business Council, which includes amongst its membership, Al Jazeera, Chevron, Exxon, munitions manufacturer Raytheon (who supplied the opening salvos during NATO’s operations against Libya), and Boeing.
In other words, the very underwriters of the armed militancy that is consuming Syria are sitting along side the head of the UN commission producing reports portraying the Syrian government as guilty of “war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The hypocrisy does not end there. The pretense the US and NATO have used for over a decade to occupy, subjugate and slaughter the people of Afghanistan – in a conflict increasingly creeping over both Afghanistan’s borders with Pakistan and Iran – is supposedly to fight “terrorism.” Western interests have been allowed to fight this “war on terrorism” with impunity, and even without UN monitoring for years, while Syria was immediately condemned for fighting against Al Qaeda terrorists overtly flooding into their nation with NATO assistance.
Indeed, as NATO claims to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, it has already handed over the North African nation of Libya to Al Qaeda terrorists, specifically the the US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The US in particular oversaw the rise of the Al Qaeda terror-emirate Benghazi, even having a US ambassador slain there by the very terrorists it had armed, funded, trained, provided air support for, and thrust into power.
These same terrorists have been documented extensively as spearheading the invasion of northern Syria via NATO-member Turkey, with NATO cash and weapons in cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The glaring hypocrisy of so-called “international law” and “international institutions” is on full display. Nations like Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, and many others should give serious thought to peeling away from the United Nations, the compromised International Criminal Court, and other corrupt, Western-serving institutions that will, and in many cases already are, being turned against them, their interests, and national sovereignty.
For the people of the world, we must realize that these institutions were created for and by big-business special interests, and the legitimacy they are portrayed as having is a mere illusion created by the corporate media. We must begin identifying these special interests, boycotting and replacing them permanently at a local level. If it is peace we want, it is clear that the UN, NATO, and all institutions in between, sow only death and destruction amidst a myriad of hypocrisy, double standards, and immeasurable corruption, and we must move into the future without them.
by Tony Cartalucci
December 21, 2012 (LD) – As early as 2007, it was reported that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, together were not only organizing, funding, training, and arming militants directly linked to Al Qaeda to be used against Syria and Iran, but knew well in advance that by doing so, they would trigger an unprecedented “cataclysmic conflict” driven by sectarian extremism. Not only was such sectarian violence expected, it was desired ahead of redrawing a new map for the Middle East – one that favored Western corporate-financier and geopolitical interests, while keeping the region weak, divided, and infighting.
Now, the UN is feigning indignation over the inevitable, increasingly overt sectarian nature of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” and its so-called “rebellion.” Entire communities of minorities face extermination. To blunt the impact this will have on public opinion, UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide, Adama Dieng has preemptively stated:
“I am deeply concerned that entire communities risk paying the price for crimes committed by the Syrian government.”
According to Reuters’ article, “U.N. anti-genocide envoy: Syria minorities face reprisal risk,” the genocide NATO and its allies are arming, funding, and willfully fueling is merely “reprisals.” What Reuters doesn’t report is that US, Saudi, and Lebanese officials had for years warned that US foreign policy, started under Bush and continued in earnest under Obama, would trigger this very sort of sectarian violence – driven by Al Qaeda-style fanaticism, not “reprisals.”
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh writing for the New Yorker, wrote in his 2007 article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” that:
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)
Hersh’s report would continue by stating:
“the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations.” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)
Further admissions of a joint US-Israeli-Saudi conspiracy against Syria included:
“…[Saudi Arabia’s] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)
In regards to sectarian extremism in particular it was forewarned that:
“Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)
Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah was also featured in Hersh’s report and had also warned of imminent and spreading sectarian war purposefully stoked by the West:
Nasrallah said he believed that President Bush’s goal was “the drawing of a new map for the region. They want the partition of Iraq. Iraq is not on the edge of a civil war—there is a civil war. There is ethnic and sectarian cleansing. The daily killing and displacement which is taking place in Iraq aims at achieving three Iraqi parts, which will be sectarian and ethnically pure as a prelude to the partition of Iraq. Within one or two years at the most, there will be total Sunni areas, total Shiite areas, and total Kurdish areas. Even in Baghdad, there is a fear that it might be divided into two areas, one Sunni and one Shiite.”
He went on, “I can say that President Bush is lying when he says he does not want Iraq to be partitioned. All the facts occurring now on the ground make you swear he is dragging Iraq to partition. And a day will come when he will say, ‘I cannot do anything, since the Iraqis want the partition of their country and I honor the wishes of the people of Iraq.’ ”
Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.” In Lebanon, “There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.” But, he said, “I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.”
The UN once again is abusing its own self-appointed authority by excusing and spinning premeditated sectarian genocide designed to advance a documented conspiracy admitted to years ago. More recently, this conspiracy to destroy Syria through engineered and purposefully protracted violence was documented further by the very corporate-financiers themselves amongst the pages of reports turned out by their own policy think-tanks.
The Brookings Institution in their “Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” openly stated they sought to “bleed” Syria in purposefully protracted violence:
“The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention.” –pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Such documents completely contradict the public statements issued by the West, which attempt to portray their involvement in Syria as motivated by “humanitarian concerns,” “moral imperatives,” and the “promotion of democracy.” In reality, the goal is to prolong the violence as long as possible, expedite the loss of life, and to destroy the nation by fueling violent militants – just as it was the plan in 2007 when Hersh penned “The Redirection.” The sectarian component of the current conflict is not an unexpected result of violence that began only in 2011, it was an integral part of the West’s foreign policy since 2007.
The sectarian genocide in Syria was purposefully engineered by Western policy makers, and now is willfully covered up, spun, and excused by the UN and the Western mass media alike.
October 20, 2012
Repost: Saad Hariri Aides Western Syria Destabilization from Lebanon.
by Tony Cartalucci
October 20, 2012 – It was, starting at least in 2007, the goal of the US, Saudis, and Israelis to trigger a region wide sectarian war with which to overrun the governments of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. This was documented in detail in Seymour Hersh’s 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection” which was covered in depth in, “Syrian War: The Prequel.
A recent bombing in Beirut, Lebanon left high ranking security chief Brigadier General Wissam al-Hassan dead. Al-Hassan is described as “anti-Syrian.” Before Al-Hassan’s death was announced, and literally as bodies were still being pulled from the wreckage caused by the bombing, politicians from Saad Hariri’s faction began immediately blaming Syria for the attacks. Hariri himself also laid the blame on Syria, offering no other details or supporting evidence.
Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran have all condemned the bombing and cite it as a provocation to start a greater sectarian war, from which none will benefit. Each in turn suspect Israel and the West, as greater sectarian tension is expected to result, playing into long documented attempts by US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to trigger a sectarian war they hope will be the downfall of Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.
Suspicious op-eds in pro-Western “Lebanon Now” insist that Syria is responsible, and again without evidence, concludes that blaming Israel is inappropriate, and that the Wall Street-London militant beachhead is by far a lesser threat to Lebanon than what it calls “the most deadly virus” of President Bashar al-Assad’s Syria.
The blast has given impetus to Hariri’s mobs to flood into the streets, who will no doubt portray themselves to be as “spontaneous” and “independent” as US-engineered mobs were throughout the equally premeditated “Arab Spring.”
Hariri in 2007 was, according to US journalist Seymour Hersh, building an armed militant front in northern Lebanon, across the boarder from Homs, Syria. Many of these militants admittedly had direct ties to Al Qaeda, and with US, Israeli, and Saudi support, they were continuously armed, funded, and prepared for the sectarian bloodbath now unfolding. Homs to this day remains as one of the strongholds for terrorist militants operating in Syria.
While the Western media claims it is a shocking revelation that Al Qaeda is “amongst” the fighters attempting to overthrow the Syrian government, it is well documented that it was Al Qaeda from the very beginning who began armed operations against Syria, using Lebanon and Turkey as a base of operations, with explicit support from the West. The operations were carried out under the tenuous cover of “pro-democracy” protests and with a constant torrent of disinformation provided by the Western media.
While the current story in Lebanon develops, it will be useful to understand the role Hariri has so far played. The republished article below, originally posted in May, 2012, is by no means an exhaustive expose of Hariri and his role in executing the foreign agenda driven by Wall Street, London, Tel Aviv, Doha, and Riyadh, which starts well before 2007.
Originally posted May 21, 2012 -The United Nations has been inexplicably silent over revelations that the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf states, are arming militants in Syria in direct violation of a UN brokered ceasefire. Additionally, the US has openly threatened to arm Kurd militants in Syria to “rise up” against the government. While in reality this constitutes a greater threat to neighboring Turkey, and perhaps an attempt to motivate Ankara to take a more aggressive stance against Syria, the threat of purposefully inciting more violence in a conflict that has allegedly claimed “10,000” lives, seems not only grossly irresponsible, but a violation of international peace.
Image: A bomb detonates in Syria, May 19, 2012, killing and maiming scores. This is the latest manifestation of overt US and Gulf State military support for terrorists attempting to destabilize and overthrow the Syrian government. The West has planned and prepared years in advance for implementing bloody regime change in Syria and Iran.
The West’s meddling in Syria does not end there. Recently, clashes have broken out in Lebanon, revealing a large base of operations supporting the destabilization in neighboring Syria, located along the Lebanese-Syrian border. The significance of this discovery, and extremist groups in Lebanon being directly involved, highlights the veracity of a 2007 New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh titled, “The Redirection,” which exposed a joint US-Israeli-Saudi operation to create a violent extremist front and direct it at Hezbollah in Lebanon, President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and at the Iranian government.
In the article, the fact that these extremist forces had direct ties to Al Qaeda was noted, including the fact that many of these militants either participated in fighting US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, or were affiliated with groups that did:
“In 2005, according to a report by the U.S.-based International Crisis Group, Saad Hariri, the Sunni majority leader of the Lebanese parliament and the son of the slain former Prime Minister—Saad inherited more than four billion dollars after his father’s assassination—paid forty-eight thousand dollars in bail for four members of an Islamic militant group from Dinniyeh. The men had been arrested while trying to establish an Islamic mini-state in northern Lebanon. The Crisis Group noted that many of the militants “had trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.”
According to the Crisis Group report, Saad Hariri later used his parliamentary majority to obtain amnesty for twenty-two of the Dinniyeh Islamists, as well as for seven militants suspected of plotting to bomb the Italian and Ukrainian embassies in Beirut, the previous year. (He also arranged a pardon for Samir Geagea, a Maronite Christian militia leader, who had been convicted of four political murders, including the assassination, in 1987, of Prime Minister Rashid Karami.) Hariri described his actions to reporters as humanitarian.
In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here,” he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a “theatre of conflict.”” -“The Redirection,” Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker 2007
The report also made mention of extensive US funding behind Hariri’s faction, led then by Fouad Siniora, augmenting the creation of this militant force:
“The United States has also given clandestine support to the Siniora government, according to the former senior intelligence official and the U.S. government consultant. “We are in a program to enhance the Sunni capability to resist Shiite influence, and we’re spreading the money around as much as we can,” the former senior intelligence official said. The problem was that such money “always gets in more pockets than you think it will,” he said. “In this process, we’re financing a lot of bad guys with some serious potential unintended consequences. We don’t have the ability to determine and get pay vouchers signed by the people we like and avoid the people we don’t like. It’s a very high-risk venture.”
American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora government and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda.” -“The Redirection,” Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker 2007
It becomes clear then that Lebanon’s recent unrest is a result of a greater gambit targeting not just Syria, but the Hezbollah-Syrian-Iranian sphere of power, following the US-engineered “Arab Spring” installing proxy leaders across the Arab World to specifically support this last leg of geopolitical reordering. Such support has manifested itself as political support from US-proxy president Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia, and similar support from US-installed Libyan Prime Minister Abdurrahim el-Keib, who’s nation has also committed not only arms and cash to Syrian terrorists, but fighters as well.
Image: Saad Hariri, former prime minister of Lebanon, is admittedly a co-conspirator in US-Israeli-Saudi designs to destabilize with militant extremists and violently overthrow the Syrian government. While Hariri feigns anti-Israeli sentiment and makes public calls for Lebanese to refrain from sectarian violence, he is the primary facilitator of both extremists crossing over into Syria, and their creating of chaos in the streets of Lebanon. A 2010 Fortune 500-funded International Crisis Group report describes in detail Hariri’s deep ties, and indeed dependence, on the West.
Now, it is reported that “anti-Assad clerics” have been shot by Lebanese soldiers – and just as was seen during the assassination of Rafic Hariri, demagogues are attempting to draw Sunni Muslims into a conflict with Shi’ias. A strategy of tension is being used to divide the Lebanese people into a deadly conflict mirroring the sectarian, not “democracy,” driven unrest ravaging Syria. With Saad Hariri, the US, and Saudi Arabia overtly working to undermine Syrian stability, it appears that all of the characters described by Hersh in 2007 are now openly implementing their plans.
The purposefully nebulous coverage by the Western media over violence in Lebanon so far, and a disingenuous depiction of it being “spill over” from Syria is meant to portray a general sense of chaos consuming the region. In reality, it is a premeditated destabilization dependent on fostering violence between Sunni and Shi’ia Muslims, just as was purposefully done in Iraq to balk an effective Sunni-Shi’ia alliance that achieved initial success fighting a foreign occupation led by the US starting in 2003.
While exposing the premeditated nature of the destabilization consuming Lebanon and Syria is essential, as well as calling for international condemnation of the US for openly attempting to escalate violence in the middle of a mediated ceasefire, calling on people across the Islamic World to refrain from falling into this sectarian trap, and being used as tools of their own division and subjugation by the West is equally important.
Saad Hariri portends that his alliance with the US, Israel, and the Saudis is simply an attempt to protect “Sunnis” from a “Shi’ia threat.” In reality, as empires have done all throughout history, Hariri’s invitation to the West to meddle in his own nation’s affairs will open the door to the destruction and dismemberment of not only his enemies, but inevitably his own movement as well. A faction too weak to fight its rivals is certainly too weak to fight an invited foreign imperial power that decides to overstay its welcome. A strategy of tension is at play in the Islamic World, the trap set, hatred for Israel and rival ideologies the bait. Time will answer the question, “have the people of the world learned enough collectively to avoid it?”
[hat tip: Activist Post]
October 16, 2012
Subscribe to Breaking The Set’s YouTube channel here: http://www.youtube.com/user/breakingtheset
Mark Dice talks with Abby Martin, host of Breaking the Set on RT about Elite Think Tanks and how they manupulate American foreign policy.
Check out The Illuminati: Facts & Fiction in paperback on Amazon.com, or e-book on Kindle, Nook, or Google Play. http://www.amazon.com/Illuminati-Facts-Fiction-Mark-Dice/dp/0967346657/ref=sr…
Mark Dice is a media analyst, political activist, and author who, in an entertaining and educational way, gets people to question our celebrity obsessed culture, and the role the mainstream media and elite secret societies play in shaping our lives. Check out Mark’s books in paperback on Amazon.com or e-book on Kindle, Nook, or Google Play.
Mark frequently stirs up controversy from his commentaries, protests, and boycotts, and has repeatedly been featured in major media outlets around the world.
Several of Mark’s YouTube videos have gone viral, earning him a mention on ABC’s The View, Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor, TMZ.com, and other mainstream media outlets. Mark has also been featured in (or attacked in) the New York Post’s Page Six, Rolling Stone Magazine, USA Today, The New York Daily News, and in major papers in Pakistan and Iran.
Mark Dice appears in several documentary films including Invisible Empire, The 9/11 Chronicles, and has been featured on the History Channel’s Decoded and the Sundance Channel’s Love/Lust: Secret Societies and more. He enjoys enlightening zombies, as he calls them, (ignorant people) about the mass media’s effect on our culture, pointing out Big Brother’s prying eyes, and exposing elite secret societies along with scumbag politicians and their corrupt political agendas. You can support Mark’s work by sending a PayPal donation to Donate@MarkDice.com or by using the Donate link on MarkDice.com.
He has called into several top-rated talk shows dozens of times, including the Sean Hannity Show, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage, and verbally battles with the hosts on various issues since he has never been asked to be a guest on them as of yet. Audio of some of these calls are then posted online.
The term “fighting the New World Order” is used by Mark to describe some of his activities, and refers to his and others’ resistance and opposition (The Resistance) to the overall system of political corruption, illegal wars, elite secret societies, mainstream media, Big Brother and privacy issues; as well as various economic and social issues.
Dice and his supporters sometimes refer to being “awake” or “enlightened” and see their knowledge of these topics as part of their own personal Resistance to the corrupt New World Order. This Resistance involves self-improvement, self-sufficiency, personal responsibility and spiritual growth.
Mark Dice is the author of several books on current events, secret societies and conspiracies, including his newest book, Big Brother: The Orwellian Nightmare Come True which is available on Amazon.com, Kindle and Nook. While much of Mark’s work confirms the existence and continued operation of the Illuminati today, he is also dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories and hoaxes and separating the facts from the fiction; hence the “Facts & Fiction” subtitle for several of his books. He has a bachelor’s degree in communication.
If you have an iPad or Android tablet, then you can download the Kindle app and then download any of Mark’s books from the Kindle store for only $6.99 or $7.99. Some of them are also available in e-book on Google Play. Or you can get paperback copies from Amazon.com too if you prefer a physical book. They are not available in stores. A lot of work and research went into them and they’ll save you countless hours of web surfing or YouTube watching in your search for pieces of the puzzle. Your support also funds more of Mark’s videos and other operations. Equipment, software, travel, and the props all cost money, so by purchasing his paperback books and e-books, you are helping The Resistance continue and your help is greatly appreciated. Be sure to subscribe to Mark’s YouTube channel, and look him up on Facebook, and Twitter. http://www.YouTube.com/MarkDice http://www.Facebook.com/MarkDice http://www.Twitter.com/MarkDice http://www.MarkDice.com
October 3, 2012
US corporate-funded Brookings 2009 report conspires against the nation of Iran. Plot includes using terrorists, provoked war, economic warfare, and covert military and political subversion against the Iranian people.
Update: October 4, 2012 Brookings has moved around their documents, leaving dead links for anyone who cited them over the years. All documents cited by Land Destroyer will now be hosted online using Scribd, and linked to that way.
Editor’s Note: October 3, 2012 – Brookings has taken down their .pdf reports, leaving dead links. The “Which Path to Persia?” report has been so frequently referenced it would be impractical in the short term to fix all the dead links. Instead, the report is being presented in full below, via Scribd.
“Which Path To Persia?” Report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/108902116/Brookings-Institution-s-Which-Path-to-Persia-Report
Provoke an Attack on Iran? “Lets Bring it On… At the End of the Day… We Ought to Take ‘Em Out” [video included]
Is the Obama administration seeking to trigger a war pretext incident, a justification to wage an all out war on Iran?
Provoking a war and then blaming the enemy for carrying out an act of aggression is no longer part of a hidden agenda, a safely guarded secret as in the case of Pearl Harbor (1941) which was used by the FDR administration as a justification for America’s entry into the Second World War.
Similarly, the Gulf of Tonkin incident (1964) was part of a covert operation which served to trigger the adoption by the US Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The latter granted President Lyndon B. Johnson with the “legal justification” for deploying U.S. troops against North Vietnam.
See the statements of Hillary Clinton and former Secretary of State James Baker III in video above
(video: courtesy of Information Clearing House and Live Leak)
Is the Obama administration seeking to trigger a war pretext incident, a justification to wage an all out war on Iran?
Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, the sinking of the Lusitania, the USS Maine have become talking points in Washington think tanks.
Covert procedures to trigger a war pretext incident are now part of the public domain. Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute of Near East Studies points to the lessons of history, namely to various incidents in US military history used to justify a declaration of war:
“If the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.”
Recent developments, including US-NATO war games and the deployment of a powerful naval armada in the Persian Gulf, `”create conditions” which favor a Gulf of Tonkin type incident.
The Obama administration does not hide the underlying intent. Washington is calling for the implementation of acts of provocation directed against Iran, so that Iran would so to speak “fire the first shot”.
Former Secretary of State James Baker III states quite categorically: “we ought to take ‘em out [Iran]“. Hillary Clinton retorts: “Well, we’re working hard [on that]. We’re working hard.”
Baker concludes: “I say if anybody’s going to do it [take ’em out], we ought to do it because we have the capability of doing it”.
Conversations on Diplomacy Moderated by Charlie Rose
June 21, 2012
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III
Benjamin Franklin Room, Washington, DC
Excerpt, See Transcript below
MR. ROSE: This question about Iran: My understanding of the Administration’s position on containment is that dog will not hunt. Right?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
MR. ROSE: Do you agree with that?
SECRETARY BAKER: I agree with that.
But at the end of the day, if we don’t get it done the way the Administration’s working on it now — which I totally agree with — then we ought to take them out.
MR. ROSE: Secretary Clinton. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re working hard. We’re working hard.
SECRETARY BAKER: And that’s a Republican. I said at the end of the day. The end of the day may be next year. (Laughter.) It will be next year.
MR. ROSE: I’m waiting.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Look, I think the President has been very clear on this. He has always said all options are on the table. And he means it. He addressed this when he spoke to it earlier in the year.
Conversations on Diplomacy Moderated by Charlie Rose
June 21, 2012
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III
Benjamin Franklin Room, Washington, DC
[included below is the relevant excerpt pertaining to Iran (emphasis added)
MR. ROSE: I’m Charlie Rose. Thank you very much for coming this afternoon. This is, as many of you know, a second in a series of conversations with Secretary Clinton and previous secretaries of State. We hope that we will have a chance to do as many secretaries as we can here. And the point of this series is to look at foreign policy in the context of present challenges and options, but also historical lessons and experiences.
. . .
MR. ROSE: This question about Iran: My understanding of the Administration’s position on containment is that dog will not hunt. Right?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
MR. ROSE: Do you agree with that?
SECRETARY BAKER: I agree with that.
MR. ROSE: Containment will not work.
SECRETARY BAKER: I agree with that. My personal position on that is this: We ought to try every possible avenue we can to see if we can get them to correct their desire and goal of acquiring a nuclear weapon, but we cannot let them acquire that weapon. We are the only country in the world that can stop that. The Israelis, in my opinion, do not have the capability of stopping it. They can delay it. There will also be many, many … … Israeli strike.
But at the end of the day, if we don’t get it done the way the Administration’s working on it now — which I totally agree with — then we ought to take them out.
MR. ROSE: Secretary Clinton. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re working hard. We’re working hard.
SECRETARY BAKER: And that’s a Republican. I said at the end of the day. The end of the day may be next year. (Laughter.) It will be next year.
MR. ROSE: I’m waiting.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Look, I think the President has been very clear on this. He has always said all options are on the table. And he means it. He addressed this when he spoke to it earlier in the year.
MR. ROSE: Meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. And also in public speeches that he’s given. Look, I mean, I think Jim and I both would agree that everybody needs to know — most particularly the Iranians — that we are serious that they cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. It’s not only about Iran and about Iran’s intentions, however once tries to discern them. It’s about the arms race that would take place in the region with such unforeseen consequences. Because you name any country with the means, anywhere near Iran that is an Arab country, if Iran has a nuclear weapon — I can absolutely bet on it and know I will win — they will be in the market within hours. And that is going to create a cascade of difficult challenges for us and for Israel and …… friends and partners.
So this has such broad consequences. And that’s why we’ve invested an enormous amount in trying to persuade Iran that if — as the Supreme Leader says and issued a fatwa about — it is un-Islamic to have a nuclear weapon, then act upon that edict and demonstrate clearly that Iran will not pursue a nuclear weapon. And we are pushing them in these negotiations to do just that.
MR. ROSE: But as you know, the question is not whether they will have a nuclear weapon, but whether they will have the capacity to quickly have a nuclear weapon.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that is obviously the question, and that is why Jim said at the end of the day, maybe a year. I mean, these kinds of calculations are –
SECRETARY BAKER: It may be more than that.
SECRETARY CLINTON: It may be more than that. They are difficult to make. A lot of countries around the world have what’s called breakout capacity.
MR. ROSE: Right.
SECRETARY CLINTON: They have stopped short of it. They have not pursued it. They have found it not to be in their interests or in the interests of regional stability.
MR. ROSE: But do you think that’s what they mean and that’s what they intend?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s what we’re testing. That’s what every meeting with them is about, to try to really probe and see what kinds of commitments we can get out of them. Now, at this point we don’t have them, so I can’t speak to what they might be if they are ever to be presented. But that’s why we have to take this meeting by meeting and pursue it as hard as we can.
SECRETARY BAKER: And the problem is not so much the threat they would represent to us or to Israel or to our allies somewhere in the region. It’s the proliferation problem, because it would really then be out of control. And that’s the real thing you have to guard, and that’s why I would say at the end of the …
… at some point you have to say that’s simply not going to happen.
MR. ROSE: I think I heard that loud and clear. But you’ve also suggested that the United States should do it rather than Israel.
SECRETARY BAKER: Absolutely. And the reason I say that is if you look at what Martin Dempsey said not long ago, he said if Israel –
MR. ROSE: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of –
SECRETARY BAKER: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said if Israel hits the Iranian nuclear facilities, we’re going to lose a lot of American lives in the region. Many people in the Israeli national security … … don’t want to do that. They’re having troubles now. The sanctions are not complete yet. We want to squeeze them down more. But they’re having an effect. And the government is having some problems, and you don’t want to lose all that.
SECRETARY CLINTON: In fact, I mean, what Jim is saying is a really important point, because we know that there is a vigorous debate going on within the leadership decision-making group in Iran. There are those who say look, these sanctions are really biting, we’re not making the kind of economic progress we should be making, we don’t give up that much by saying we’re not going to do a nuclear weapon and having a verifiable regime to demonstrate that.
And then frankly, there are those who are saying the best thing that could happen to us is be attacked by somebody, just bring it on, because that would unify us, it would legitimize the regime. You feel sometimes when you … … side of the Iranian Government that we’re not going to give anything up, and in fact we’re going to provoke an attack because then we will be in power for as long as anyone can imagine.
SECRETARY BAKER: And Charlie, let me just explain why I said I don’t think the Israelis can do it but we can. The reason I say that is the Israeli Government came to the prior administration, the Bush 43 Administration, and then they … … made the same request of this Administration. I don’t know the answer to that for sure. The Secretary would. But whether they did or not, that’s the reason I say if anybody’s going to do it, we ought to do it because we have the capability of doing it.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And hopefully we won’t get to that. (Laughter.) I mean, that would be, I think –
MR. ROSE: Because you believe there’ll be a change of behavior or a change of regime?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, there’s — I’m not going to talk about a change of regime. I see no evidence of that. I think the Iranian people deserve better, but that’s for them to try to determine.
MR. ROSE: …
… Iran, and I want to move to some other issues. Looking back at the time of the protest over the election, do you wish you’d done more? Do you wish you’d been more public, more supportive?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, look, at the time there was a very strong, consistent message coming from within Iran that anything we said would undermine the legitimacy of their opposition. Now –
MR. ROSE: This is from the opposition?
SECRETARY CLINTON: This is from the opposition coming out to us. And one can argue, were they right, were they not right, but at the time it seemed like they had some momentum, they did not want to look like they were acting on behalf of the …
… line that the opposition didn’t want us to cross. That was our assessment.
August 29, 2012
(RT) – As analysts around the world question whether the US is losing its superpower status, China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region is strengthening. But a new report has set out a strategy for America to increase its military presence in the area.
The paper, entitled “US Force Posture Strategy in the Asia-Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” suggests America is preparing for a possible conflict with China, one warship at a time.
The report was written by the Centre for Strategic and Independent Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. CSIS is a non-government body, but its assessment was commissioned by the US Defense Department.
The assessment provides extensive discussions with top US military personnel throughout the Pentagon’s Pacific Command.
The report was released on June 27, but only gained media coverage after its main authors – David Berteau and Michael Green – testified before the US House Armed Services Committee on August 1.
The report says the “geostrategic uncertainty the United States and its allies and partners face in the Asia Pacific region is how China’s growing power and influence will impact order and stability in the years ahead.”
The CSIS report approves of the repositioning and strengthening of US military forces on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, which are strategically located in the Western Pacific. It also supports the stationing of combat ships in Singapore, which will be capable of intelligence gathering, special operations, and landing troops with armored vehicles.
The paper confirms that the US has held talks with Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam over possible access to military bases.
But it doesn’t stop there. Recommendations to prevent China’s reemergence as a great power go on and on.
The authors suggest placing a US nuclear aircraft carrier in Australia, doubling the number of nuclear attack submarines based in Guam, deploying combat ships to South Korea, and upgrading anti-missile defenses in Japan, South Korea, and Guam.
The report also suggests permanently basing a bomber squadron on Guam as well as boosting both manned and unmanned surveillance in the region. Moreover, it promotes boosting US army ground presence, including stationing 2,500 more marines in Australia.
The recommendations coincide with the Obama administration’s “Asia Pivot.” It’s a plan to boost US military presence throughout the Asia-Pacific Region, and to back almost all of China’s rivals whilst doing so.
And the government has most certainly accomplished its goal. Just last week, the Pentagon announced it would conduct surveillance drone missiles over a Pacific island chain which have become a point of tension between China and Japan – who the US has deep military ties to.
Washington has also been a firm supporter of the Philippines during its ongoing dispute with China in the South China Sea since April, when a standoff began over ownership of the Scarborough Reef.
Since the disagreement kicked off, Washington has stepped up its military presence in the region. The move angered Beijing, which claims the presence of US naval ships hinders vital shipping lanes which China relies on for energy and raw materials.
If America makes the report’s suggestions a reality, the decision could have far-reaching implications for Washington’s allies, making them vulnerable to attacks in the future.
And if the US aims to strengthen its ties with Asia-Pacific countries in order to squash China, the question remains whether those island nations will actually comply.
Related Article with in depth geo-political analysis and analysis of the deterioration of international law:
by Tony Cartalucci, Contributor
July 21, 2012
The US State Department, via the “US Institute of Peace” is working directly with Syrian “opposition” groups to formulate a “government” to put into place, if and when NATO covert military operations succeed in collapsing the Syrian state.
The report written by Foreign Policy magazine titled, “Inside the quiet effort to plan for a post-Assad Syria,” indicates that the US State Department-funded USIP plans on releasing a report soon, detailing the US-crafted government being planned. The USIP, which already publishes details of how it has crafted, created, and is continuing to manage and facilitate the NATO-installed client regime now running Libya, constitutes nothing less than implementation of modern-day imperialism.
The USIP claims that it is involved in not only “advising” the Western-backed Libyan government, but that it is also involved in, “constitution making, transitional justice, women rights” and “education.” The USIP, US government-funded, will also be writing Syria’s “constitution” as well – which they are now calling a “transition strategy document.”
Foreign Policy magazine, in an attempt to water down the implications of the US government literally crafting the client regime they plan on placing into the vacuum their US-Israeli-Saudi-Qatari mercenaries (FSA) are attempting to create, by claiming:
The absence of Obama administration officials at these meetings, even as observers, was deliberate.
‘This is a situation where too visible a U.S. role would have been deeply counterproductive. It would have given the Assad regime and elements of the opposition an excuse to delegitimize the process,’ [Steven] Heydemann said.Steven Heydemann is heading the USIP Syrian project.
Unfortunately for this line of thinking, the USIP is in fact a direct functionary of the US government, and more specifically the US State Department, with acting members of the US State Department, including Michael Posner and members of the US Department of Defense, including James Miller, serving on the USIP board of directors. Other compromising BoD members include Amnesty International chairmen and policy makers drawn from Fortune 500-funded think tanks like the Hoover Institution and big-oil’s Belfer Center.
To complicate matters further for the so-called “Syrian opposition,” prominent members of the movement, including Radwan Ziadeh, is actually a “senior fellow” of the US-funded institution – meaning the opposition leaders were drawn from US institutions, not Syria. The Guardian’s article, “The Syrian opposition: who’s doing the talking?” has covered this in depth, illustrating that Ziadeh’s background is the rule, not the exception.
Readers should recall that US State Department’s Michael Posner, also serving on the USIP BoD, conceded in an AFP report in 2011 that the US had been funding, equipping, and training “activists” from across the Arab World 2 years in advance for the allegedly “spontaneous” “Arab Spring.” These included activists from Syria who created the rhetorical predication for the violence now unfolding across Syria.
This admission by the US State Department and the head of USIP’s Syrian project indicates the absolute illegitimacy of the so-called “Syrian opposition,” – a complete contrivance of the US government, a manifestation of its foreign policy toward Syria – and in no way representative of the Syrian people. The opposition is literally directed by the US government who is forming for them a government to replace the one they are purposefully destroying through a series of mutually supported economic sanctions, military attacks, and diplomatic undermining.
UPDATE: Thierry Meyssan of VoltaireNet updates us on the latest, from Damascus, Syria.
Video: Thierry Meyssan in Damascus, Syria. Please choose from “choose language” to see English subtitles.
Thierry Meyssan describes Syria’s latest unrest as the result of a coordinated NATO-backed terrorist operation aimed at creating confusion and panic, coupled with Western propaganda – and warns that more operations are likely on the way. NATO hopes to break the will of Syrians as well as its military which is still clearly intact despite assassinations and widespread violence. By falsely portraying Syria as “collapsing,” the so-called “Free Syrian Army’s” foreign sponsors may be able to justify more overt intervention on behalf of their so-far ineffectual proxies.
More from VoltaireNet can be found here.
For the latest updates, follow LD on Twitter @LandDestroyer
You can support this information by voting on Reddit HERE
Bypassing the UN to “end violence” of its own creation, West plumbs new depths of own depravity.
by Tony Cartalucci
June 29, 2012 – Ned Dobos of Australia’s University of New South Wales, has given a presentation, served up in the form of an op-ed in the Sydney Morning Herald titled, “Syria needs a vigilante to save its people,” that can only be described as a new benchmark in Western duplicity. Cued up by the forces of Western imperialism, Dobos plugs in every keyword and talking point flowing through the halls of the very corporate-funded think tanks that have engineered the blood-soaked destabilization in Syria in the first place.
Sidestepping entirely the history of the current conflict, both in Syria, and in a broader regional context, as well as inconvenient facts regarding the driving factors behind the violence Dobos seeks to end with his proposal, he maintains that there is a “moral imperative” for nations to act outside of the “paralyzed” United Nations.
Dobos conducts a rambling pedantic philosophical defense of what is essentially a unilateral act of war built on patently false pretenses, as NATO has already done in Libya, and as the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan at the cost of millions of innocent lives.
Dobos concludes by stating:
“Champions of the UN often fail to see or acknowledge that the obligations of a state’s international commitments are equally prima facie, and that in some cases a perfectly good justification for their transgression will be available.
Syria is one of those cases. The global body entrusted with the task of preventing human rights abuses is, once again, paralysed by politics. For any state that is able and willing to act unilaterally, the imperative to defend people against murder, torture and rape trumps fidelity to international covenant. A vigilante that defends the innocent when the police can’t or won’t is not a villain, he is a hero.” – “Syria needs a vigilante to save its people” Ned Dobos, SMH.
The Truth Drowns Western & Dobos’ Flights of R2P Fancy
Unfortunately for Dobos and his ivory tower academia, the truth about the violence in Syria not only mires his proposal in the unpleasantries of reality, it drowns it. The “murder, torture, and rape” Dobos claims unilateral military intervention will stop, was in fact premeditated, planned, staged, funded, and the forces carrying it out entirely armed by the West in an effort not for “preventing human rights abuses,” but to admittedly overthrow the government of Syria and install a compliant, pro-Western client regime, as the West has done in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and is attempting to do elsewhere from Northern Africa to Southeast Asia and beyond.
Since the early 1990’s, US Army General Wesley Clark was aware of a plan drawn up by the forces of corporate-financier special interests to overthrow the “old client regimes” of the Soviet Union. General Clark would again be made aware of plans post-9/11 to invade and overthrow the governments of seven specific nations, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. General Clark would later present this information at the Commonwealth Club of California, October 3, 2007.
It was also in 2007 that Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker would publish a lengthy report titled “The Redirection” regarding US, Israeli, and Saudi plans to destabilize Lebanon, Syria, and Iran using sectarian extremists with direct ties to Al Qaeda with the foreknowledge they would wreak terrible havoc, committing horrific atrocities as they carried out the West’s proxy war. Upon reading Hersh’s report and viewing the events unfolding today, the West’s plan has clearly been executed with a fair degree of exactitude and precision, obfuscated only by the West’s impressive dissembling enabled by their immense corporate media networks.
The Arab Spring was also being engineered in this period, years before it would actually unfold, with the US training “activists” in the US, providing them with equipment, funding, and directives in the lead up to one of the largest, if not the largest coordinated political destabilization in human history. Regarding Syria specifically, the US State Department would admit that it did indeed train and fund “activists” abroad with the explicit intent of sowing chaos once they returned to Syria.
In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, admitted that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to admit that the US (emphasis added) “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.”
With the CIA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and even elements in Lebanon now openly admitting they are funding, arming, and otherwise enabling terrorists operating in and around Syrian territory – and with these terrorists accused by even the West’s own “institutions” and “international arbiters” of carrying out systematic atrocities of their own, including kidnapping, torture, and murder, Dobos’ narrative is exposed further as absolute, baseless, politically-motivated propaganda unmoored by even what is admitted in headline news.
With Libya serving as the ultimate example of just how disingenuous the West is regarding “responsibility to protect” (R2P), a political ploy contrived by modern neo-imperialists to mask naked military conquest, promoting a similar campaign in Syria is admittedly a hard, if not impossible sell. Libya’s “freedom fighters” have turned out to be sectarian terrorists now carrying out a brutal campaign of nationwide torture, harassment, illegal imprisonments, and genocide. Entire towns have been wiped out with ethnic and religious minorities fleeing the country for their survival. Even the handpicked proxies installed by NATO have been subjected to the violence, threats, and general chaos that has predictably prevailed in Libya.
In fact the only success story that can be told coming out of Libya, is its emergence as a military logistical hub serving similar NATO destabilizations across Northern Africa and across the Middle East. With an entire nation serving as a safe haven for terrorism, a nearly endless supply of weapons and fighters can be propagated to multiple theaters of conflict. Ironically enough, eastern Libya (Benghazi, the epicenter of 2011’s destabilization) had served as a terrorist recruiting center for fueling sectarian violence in Iraq that effectively neutralized a joint Sunni-Shi’ia insurrection against Western occupation.
Selling Unilateral Military Conquest – a Crime Against World Peace
Wittingly or unwittingly, Dobos has committed a crime against world peace by promoting crass, unfounded, irresponsible propaganda aimed solely at defending not only the continuation of violence in Syria, but also by attempting to prepare the ground for a larger act of overt military aggression, which he himself admits violates international law – a Nuremberg offense.
Dobos and the corporate-funded policy makers he parrots almost certainly do not believe the rhetoric they are promoting – as even the most elementary research into the topic exposes immediate and significant flaws in the premise of “unilateral intervention” based on a “moral imperative” to alleviate violence of the West’s own premeditated creation.
Dobos has also played a role in destroying the credibility of not only his own university of New South Wales, but the reputation and credibility of Western academia in general, which has now become an easily purchased stamp of approval to lend credence and employ an “academic” defense to the otherwise indefensible. Australian academia in particular has been almost entirely infiltrated and co-opted by the forces of Western special interests, in particular by the Lowy Institute.
For the very real principles and ideals the West once stood for, we must expose and denounce entirely the hackery of “academics” like “Dr.” Dobos, protest the recognition of his credentials, and give pause for thought to those employing him and allowing him to continuously abuse the good name of their educational institutions for transparently self-serving political agendas. Failing to do this will only accelerate the fall of the West’s institutions, and once credibility has been lost, it will be difficult if not impossible to ever regain it.
Suggesting that the West should unilaterally intervene in Syria, without a UN mandate has been on corporate-financier funded policy makers’ wishlist for months. Neo-Conservative led corporate funded think tank (beginning on page 18, .pdf), the Henry Jackson Society, has openly declared NATO’s plans to do just that. Of course, to do so, it must be thoroughly justified in the court of public opinion – a court Dobos just so happens to have testify before with his pedantic, fact-devoid, intelligence-insulting diatribe.
With Libya and Iraq as two very prominent examples of how the West couches military conquest within “humanitarian” pretexts still fresh in the public’s mind, it will take much more than an obscure ethics PhD from Australia parroting corporate-funded talking points to convince the world that it is necessary, let alone justified to expand upon these grievous crimes against humanity and suffer another blight upon our collective conscience.
Denied no longer, US officials admit US-Saudi cash & logistical support arming terrorists in Syria.
by Tony Cartalucci
May 16, 2012 – Recently reported in “Brookings Announces Next Move in Syria: War,” it was stated that “by the US policy think-tank Brookings Institution’s own admission, the Kofi Annan six-point peace plan in Syria was merely a ploy to buy time to reorganize NATO’s ineffective terrorist proxies and provide them the pretext necessary for establishing NATO protected safe havens from which to carry out their terrorism from.” It was also examined in detail, how in 2007, US, Saudi, and Israeli officials admitted they were creating a militant front of extremists for the sole purpose of causing the destabilization of Syria we see today, and ultimately overthrowing the Syrian government. It was noted how these extremist militants had direct ties to Al Qaeda.
Now it is fully admitted that weapons, cash, and logistical support is indeed being provided to terrorist forces in Syria by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf States. This, despite a current UN ceasefire the West has continuously berated the Syrian government for violating, indicates that indeed reorganizing, rearming, and redeploying NATO’s terrorist proxies is complete, and another round of destructive violence has begun.
In the Washington Post’s article, “Syrian rebels get influx of arms with gulf neighbors’ money, U.S. coordination,” not only is this admitted, but claims made by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have been confirmed that Syria’s historically violent Muslim Brotherhood, stated in 2007 by Seymour Hersh as being a direct proxy of US-Saudi-Israeli funding and support, is also directly arming and funding contingents of extremists committing acts of terror across Syria.
Areas across Syria that have until now been portrayed as centers for “pro-democracy” protests, racked by violence depicted as “repression” by Syrian troops, are now admitted by the Washington Post to be areas where “material is being stockpiled.” This includes the flashpoint city of Idlib on the Turkish-Syrian border, in the suburbs of Damascus, and along Syria’s border with Lebanon. And again, in 2007, Seymour Hersh revealed that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia had planned to array extremists along Syria’s border to commit the very violence now being admitted by the Post today.
The Washington Post openly admits that these weapons, supplies, cash and support, provided by the US and Saudi Arabia are directly responsible for the increased violence in Syria, in the midst of a ceasefire the West has attempted to disingenuously use to defame the Syrian government, hamper its ability to restore order, and indeed, rearm, reorganize, and redeploy their terrorist proxies to begin another attempt at violent foreign-backed regime change:
“The effect of the new arms appeared evident in Monday’s clash between opposition and government forces over control of the rebel-held city of Rastan, near Homs. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said rebel forces who overran a government base had killed 23 Syrian soldiers.” -Washington Post, May 16, 2012
The Post also admitted that Washington, again, in the midst of a UN ceasefire, was attempting to trigger yet more violence, this time in areas controlled by Syria’s Kurds who have remained out of the predominately foreign-backed conflict.
Paradoxically, the US and Gulf State military support being funneled into Syria to purposefully flare violence in the midst of a UN ceasefire, is continuing even after the Pentagon has admitted Al Qaeda is present and active in Syria, this after terrorist groups claimed responsibility for a series of bombings that have killed mostly civilians.
And in the midst of this admitted attempt to increase violence and chaos, the Washington Post also declared that NATO-member Turkey would be pressured to invoke Article IV of the NATO Charter, allowing NATO to militarily intervene to “stop” violence they openly admit they are creating. Unlike previous conflicts – the US’ admission is not a hamhanded obfuscation of the their intentions, but an open declaration of intent to provoke a war of aggression – a Nuremberg offense for all involved. In fact, direct parallels between Adolf Hitler’s September 1938 campaign of destabilization in Czechoslovakia, and NATO’s current destabilization of Syria have been made by noted geopolitical analysts.
Images: The “Henry Jackson Society” and the “Brookings Institution” are just two of many similar “think-tanks” with identical members and identical corporate sponsors. These are the authors of NATO’s increasingly long list of war crimes, including those authorized by US President George W. Bush, now officially a convicted war criminal. While Bush’s conviction currently lacks a realistic means of arresting and sentencing him, if we know the corporations and institutions that craft the policies used by Bush to commit his crimes, we the people, ourselves, can start by “imposing sanctions” on these special interests with boycotts. (click images to enlarge)
A historical conviction handed down by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, finding former-US President George W. Bush guilty of war crimes, sets a precedent to be used against those committing war crimes today, and of course a model to be expanded upon, including methods and official calls to impose sanctions on organizations and institutions supporting leaders committing war crimes, including both the policy think tanks engineering the war crimes and boycotting and banning the corporations and institutions funding these think-tanks. This does not require an act by the UN, or your national government. You can begin boycotting these corporations today and thus begin undermining the authority and impunity from which they operate.
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
April 24, 2012
What are the Spending Priorities of the Government?
In the debate raging over increased costs of tuition in Quebec, increased debt loads of the federal and provincial governments, the need to reduce costs – impose “fiscal austerity” – and find “solutions” to these problems, very little context is given.
As students fight back against increased fees, the counter argument simply states that people must pay for their education, that governments must reduce their deficits, and therefore, cuts in spending and increases in tuition are necessary, though undesirable. But how necessary are they? Where is the government putting its money?
The question really comes down to one of priorities and approach. What are the spending priorities of the government, for people in need or for the benefit of the rich? What is the government’s approach to spending in terms of addressing a major social and economic crisis, to treat symptoms or address the cause?
A great deal is revealed about the moral, ethical and humanitarian considerations of a state in terms of how and where it spends its money. Canada is no exception.
First, let’s start with Canada’s debt. In October of 2011, it was reported that Canada’s combined federal and provincial debt equaled roughly $1.1 trillion. This raised calls from the business community in Canada stating that, “It’s time for governments across Canada to get more serious about controlling and reducing debt.”
In other words: time for fiscal austerity! (i.e., cutting social spending and increasing costs and taxes) This debt load amounts to roughly 58% of government GDP (that is, 58% of yearly tax revenues), as opposed to Greece, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 160%.
An interesting issue to note is that the Bank of Canada (Canada’s central bank) was created in 1934 as a private bank, and it was transformed into a government-owned bank in 1938, and was then able to lend to the government without interest, and thus, “the Bank is ultimately owned by the people of Canada.”
The job of the Bank is to manage monetary policy, by issuing the currency and setting interest rates. Canada had a unique central bank, as most other central banks were founded and maintained as private banks (responsible to private shareholders), such as the Bank of England (1694), the Bank of France (1801), and the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States (1913).
It was responsible for financing Canada’s war machine during World War II, railways, the St. Lawrence seaway, the TransCanada Highway, schools, hospitals, healthcare, pensions, and social security, all with no interest attached. Between 1940 and 1974, Canada had a national debt below $18 billion. In 1974, all of this changed as Canada sunk into its neoliberal abyss, when private banks (the “big five” in Canada) essentially took over the function of lending to the government, and at high interest rates, with Canada paying over $61 billion per year on interest to private banks alone.
Between 1981 and 1995, the Canadian government collected $619 billion in income tax, but because the debt was owed to private banks, instead of being interest-free with the Bank of Canada, during that same period of time, the Canadian government paid the private banks $428 billion in interest payments.
Interest payments on Canada’s debt account for roughly 15% of Canada’s revenues. Statistics Canada provides information up until 2009 on the Canadian government’s expenditures and revenues. In 2009, the federal government’s expenditures amounted to $243 billion, with $26 billion spent on health care, $88 billion on social services, $5.8 billion on education, and $18.6 billion on debt charges.
So, while cuts are being made to social programs and education (fiscal austerity), they are increasing dramatically to the military, defense, and police. In 2000, Canada spent $10 billion on defense, and that rose to $21.8 billion in 2011. In 2008, Canada’s Conservative government set out a plan to increase defense spending over the following 20 years, setting the goal at $490 billion in total defense spending over that period.
Included in the plans are the purchase of 65 F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, the American war profiteering corporation, to a possible dollar amount of $30 billion or more. So there is money for the war machine, to support an increasingly imperialistic foreign policy, and as the ever-present appendage lap-dog to the American Empire to the south.
And since Canada has its lowest crime rate since the 1970s, naturally the ever-pragmatic Conservative government is seeking to rapidly accelerate the construction of prisons and expansion of police forces. The government’s proposed changes to the criminal system seek to “create a flood of Canadians into the prison system.” The government identified prisons, police, and the purposely-Orwellian classification of “public safety” as the biggest winners in increased budget allocations for 2011, seeking to build more prisons and hire hundreds more police officers. At the same time, the government is slashing benefits to seniors and old-age pensioners. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, prison costs are expected to rise from $4.4 billion in 2011 to $9.5 billion in 2015-16.
When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, prison costs amounted to $1.6 billion per year. So while the government spends billions on corporate tax cuts, fighter jets, police and prisons, it is simultaneously planning on cutting spending for old age pensioners and social security programs.
As the government cuts between 11-22,000 federal public sector jobs, the Canadian Forces (military), RCMP (police), and the overall ‘national security’ establishment will not suffer such cuts, and in fact, will gain employees. Ultimately, under the plans of the Conservative government, between 60,000 and 70,000 jobs could vanish across the country to implement $8 billion in spending cuts.
While spending on health care exceeded $200 billion in 2011, it amounted to $5,800 per person in Canada. While this system – of what is often called ‘socialized healthcare’ – is portrayed by Americans as costly and wasteful, it is far cheaper than the American corporatized – or privatized – health “care” system.
The average spending on health care for OECD countries – as a percentage of GDP – is 9.5%: Canada spent 11.4% of its GDP on healthcare in 2009, compared to the United States, which spent 17.4% of its GDP on healthcare; with the Netherlands spending at 12% of GDP, France at 11.8% and Germany at 11.6%. In terms of spending per capita (that is, the cost of healthcare spread out evenly to each individual within the country), Canada spends $4,363 (U.S. dollars) per person on healthcare, with the OECD average at $3,223, and compared to the United States at $7,960 per capita. The irony here, of course, is that a for-profit health system is far more costly than a ‘socialized’ healthcare system, despite the common claims to the contrary.
So naturally, the Federal Government, in the midst of – and on the precipice of a far greater – economic crisis, decides that the best courses of action are to increase unemployment by firing tens of thousands of people, reduce social spending so that they are left with less support in their newfound poverty, and continue to privatize everything. Of course, this inevitably leads to social unrest, protests, even rebellion. Quebec is a great example, as it seems that the anti-tuition strikes and protests are getting more dramatic with each passing week. As the reality of our situation settles in over the course of the next year and years, the protests and resistance will exacerbate and grow nation-wide (along with the development of similar movements around the world).
Thus, we may properly understand the impetus of the government to increase spending on police, the military, “public safety” (national security/police state) and prisons: as typical state responses to social crises, throw money at the systems, structures and institutions of oppression so that when the people begin to rise up, the state may have the force available to push them down, oppress them, and imprison them.
The Government of Quebec, which is doubling tuition costs over the next five years, has a current debt of $184 billion or 55.5% of GDP. Quebec’s current budget, released in March of 2012, projects spending of $70.9 billion, with 42.5% of the budget allocated to healthcare and social services, 22.5% on education and culture, 11.6% on debt servicing, 3.5% on families and seniors, and 19.9% on “other.”
Total expenditures on education, leisure, and sports amount to less than $16 billion, with $1.3 billion being allocated to Quebec’s corporations, $5 billion going to manufacturing, while $8.2 billion of the budget is going to pay the interest on the debt. Meanwhile, the government was announcing major investments in mining, aiming to produce a surplus, with $1 billion in investments in mining and hydrocarbon industries, as part of Quebec’s ‘Plan Nord,’ The Plan includes the creation of Resources Québec, a new Crown corporation that will oversee a $1.2-billion equity portfolio, designed to “help develop the north and exploit the province’s abundant mineral resources.”
The government, in turn, is expecting $4 billion in mining royalties over the next decade. The forestry, tourism, and agribusiness industries are also getting support from the government, creating partnerships between big business, government, and unions. Quebec provides a great deal of corporate welfare. In 2007, Quebec ranked first among Canadian provinces in how much corporate welfare was doled out, at $6 billion, followed by Ontario at $2.1 billion, Alberta at $1.2 billion, and British Columbia at over $1 billion. So, there’s no more money for education, but there’s plenty of money to throw at multi-billion dollar corporations.
For all the screaming and wailing governments engage in over the costs of social programs and benefits for the public, there’s very little discussion over the expenditures of governments which go to corporations, not to mention, tax cuts. Beginning in 2000, under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the Canadian federal government began implementing massive corporate tax cuts, which “allowed Canadian companies to amass some $477 billion in cash reserves,” with corporate taxes going from 28% in 2000, to 21% when the Conservatives came to power in 2006, to 15% at the beginning of 2012.
While the tax cuts were supposedly to encourage job creation, in reality, the cuts “allowed companies to hoard cash, pay out larger dividends to shareholders and beef up executive salaries.” For each percentage point in a decrease of corporate taxes, the federal government loses $2 billion in potential revenue. Thus, the total loss from the tax cuts beginning in 2000 amount to $26 billion. A report from the Canadian Labour Congress explained, “The government has been borrowing money to pay for its corporate tax giveaways. Now, to pay for tax breaks, the government is planning to make massive cuts to public services, such as meat inspection, that are essential to Canadians.”
So while students, seniors, and the poor suffer, Canadian corporations are doing marvelously well. Reports from Statistics Canada show that Canadian corporations are “sitting on more than $583 billion in Canadian currency and deposits, and more than $276 billion in foreign currency.”
The cash reserves of these companies have climbed 27.3% since 2007, back when Canada’s economy was “booming,” and 9% of the increase in reserves was since last year. Not including financial corporations and banks, Canadian companies saw their cash reserves increase by $33 billion in the last quarter of 2011. While Canadian household debt has doubled since 1990, corporate taxes have been cut almost in half in the same amount of time. Canadian provinces have been lowering corporate taxes as well. Back in 2000, Canada’s combined federal and provincial corporate tax rate was the highest of the OECD countries, at 43%.
Today, it’s around the world average of 26%. So while Canadian corporations sit on hundreds of billions of unused dollars, the Canadian government is continuing to give them more money to put in their bank accounts, which then reduces the government budget by billions each year, and the Canadian people are then expected to pay for this corporate welfare through reduced social services, loss of public sector jobs, increased tuition costs and increased debt.
Corporate welfare is dolled out by provincial governments as well. In 2011, the Province of Quebec and Quebec City each provided $200 million to build a new hockey arena for a for-profit hockey team. Ontario is also a corporate welfare haven, as between 2003 and 2005, the province gave $422 million to GM, Ford, Toyota and Chrysler, and in 2009, the province participated in a Canada-Ontario $15.3 billion bailout of GM and Chrysler.
The last year that government statistics are available, in 2008, Ontario spent $2.7 billion on corporate welfare, while Quebec spent $6 billion. Between 1991 and 2009, the government of Ontario gave $27.7 billion in tax dollars to corporations. Meanwhile, the Government of Quebec increased taxes in 2010, and the provincial sales tax increased by 2% since then, along with an increased gas tax, and of course, tuition increases.
This system is, by definition, corporatist. A corporatist system (alternatively referred to as “corporate socialism” or “economic fascism”) is one in which profit is privatized and risk is socialized. In other words, the state ensures that corporations profit and become more powerful and dominant, while the people have to foot the bill and suffer for it.
As Benito Mussolini reportedly stated, “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, for it is the merger of state and corporate power.” It is no surprise then, that as the state becomes more supportive to the suckling-pig-like-corporate cancers of our society, they also become more oppressive and totalitarian. The very circumstances demand it.
The Big Five Banks Declare War on the People
In early March of 2012, it was reported that Canada’s big five banks (Royal Bank, CIBC, TD, Scotiabank, Bank of Montreal) have recorded “sky-high profits” of $7 billion in the first quarter alone (from November 2011 to January 2012), an average increase of 5.8% since last year. Much of the profits, especially for CIBC, “were mostly due to higher volumes of personal and commercial loans,” or, in other words: debt for people and corporations. Canadian banks are, on the whole, doing better than ever. They are consistently rated as the “world’s soundest” banks by the World Economic Forum, and are even adding some jobs, while U.S. banks cut theirs.
A recent report released by CIBC stated that corporate Canada is as “fit as a fiddle,” as “a health check on Canada’s corporate sector shows businesses across the country passing with flying colours.” In fact, according to economists from CIBC, Canada’s corporate sector has never been better. The major indices of corporate ‘health’ are: “debt-to-equity ratios, cash to credit ratios, profit margins, returns on equity, returns on capital.”
The economists concluded that, “even with public sector retrenchment under way, and indications that consumers may not have the same appetite to spend as earlier in the recovery, corporate Canada could be positioned to pick up the mantle and drive economic growth in the years ahead.” So naturally while Canada’s corporations are as “fit as a fiddle” and the public at large is dominated by debt, the government – both federal and provincial – seek to extend more benefits to corporations (tax cuts and state subsidies), while extending hardships to the majority of Canadians (increased taxes, reduced social spending, increased costs). Again, it’s about priorities.
The banking sector in Canada itself is becoming two-tiered, where the big five banks are vacating the inner cities, and so-called “fringe banks” are becoming the choice banks for poor and low-income Canadians. Professor Jerry Buckland wrote that, “There is something ethically troublesome about a situation where low-income people are paying high fees for low-quality services and middle-income people are paying low fees for high-quality services.”
Unexpected fees, bad banking hours, lack of ID, and other constraints have pushed lower income groups away from the big five and toward the ‘fringe banks’ which also charge big fees but are more accessible. However, the combination of the big five leaving the inner cities and the fringe banks charging high fees and interest rates, “exacerbate poverty and create a two-tiered banking system.”
Canada’s big five banks are rolling in money. CIBC reported $835 million in profits for the first quarter, up 9.4% from last year; Royal Bank reported first quarter profits of $1.86 billion; TD Bank had profits of $1.48 billion; Scotiabank had first quarter profits of $1.44 billion, a 15.2% increase from last year; and the Bank of Montreal recorded profits of $1.11 billion, up 34.5% from last year.
So why are Canada’s banks doing so well? It’s simple: because people are in debt, and getting deeper into debt. As the Globe and Mailreported, “Mortgages and credit card spending have fuelled bank profits for years.” So now what? Well, Royal Bank of Canada and TD both announced in March of 2012 that they will begin to increase their interest rates on mortgages, which means that they are seeking to further sap the wealth and deflate the future potential of the average Canadian household. But the increase in interest rates will increase bank profits, so it’s a good thing for Royal Bank and TD, never mind that it’s bad for everyone else. The other major Canadian banks will likely follow suit in raising their interest rates.
The chief economist at TD Bank estimated that, “more than one million Canadian households, or about 10 per cent of those that currently have debt, will have to devote 40 per cent or more of their income to making their monthly debt payments if rates rise by two-to-three points to more normal levels.”
A Bubble Waiting to Burst?
So what is the Canadian mortgage and housing market doing? Well, it’s replicating the disaster seen in the United States just prior to the 2008 crash. Canada’s banking regulator, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions warned that Canadian banks were offering mortgages very similar to the U.S. subprime loans and that these pose an “emerging risk” to Canadian banks. Now the regulator didn’t just come out and say this, because that might be helpful. Instead, this information was released to Bloomberg news via a Freedom of Information law request, which revealed that Canadian mortgages “have some similarities to non-prime loans in the U.S. retail lending market.”
In 2009, Canada’s housing market began to soar with record-low interest rates on mortgages. This is one of the primary reasons why Bank of Canada governor (and former Goldman Sachs executive) Mark Carney warned that household debt is the greatest threat to Canada’s economic stability.
The state of the Canadian population is abysmal. The average debt for a Canadian household is over $100,000, and the average Canadian household spends 150% of their income. This means that for every $1,000 earned, $1,500 is owed. These debt figures are primarily made up of mortgages, but also student debt, credit card debt, and other lines of credit. A 2011 report indicated that, “17,400 households were behind in their mortgage payments by three or more months in 2010, up by 50 per cent since the recession began. Credit card delinquencies and bankruptcy rates also remain higher than before the recession.”
In March of 2012, the Bank of Canada warned that household debt “remains the biggest domestic risk” to Canada’s economy. While part of the Bank’s role is to set interest rates, it has kept interest rates very low (at 1%) in order to encourage lending (and indeed, families have become more indebted as a result). Yet, the Bank says, interest rates will have to rise eventually. Economists at Canada’s major banks (CIBC, RBC, BMO, TD, and ScotiaBank) naturally support such an inevitability, as one BMO economist stated, “while rates are unlikely to increase in the near term, the next move is more likely to be up rather than down, and could well emerge sooner than we currently anticipate.”
The chief economist at CIBC stated that, “markets will pick up on the slightly improved change in tone on the economy, and might move forward the implied date for the first rate hike.” This translates into: the economy is doing well for the big banks, therefore they will demand higher interest rates on debts, and plunge the Canadian population into poverty; the “invisible hand of the free market” in action.
The Canadian housing market is in a major bubble, “with a run-up in prices, high ownership rates and overbuilding.” A majority of Canadian mortgages are financed through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the equivalent of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the United States (which both went bust in the 2008 crash). The CMHC has an outstanding balance of $132 billion in mortgage-backed securities, $202 billion in Canada Mortgage Bonds, and last year issued a debt of $41.3 billion (compared to $6.5 billion in 2001). The big five banks generally provide the remaining mortgages (again, just like in the U.S.).
A spokeswoman for the Canadian Bankers Association, however, reassured those who somehow still trust bankers that Canadian banks “carefully manage risk in their mortgage portfolios.” Home sales are increasing – another indication of the growing bubble – by 9.5% last year alone, while home prices increased by 7.2%. CIBC reported that Canadian homes are overvalued (that is, their prices are artificially inflated) by 10%, and the heads of the Bank of Montreal and Royal Bank both warned in late 2011 that, “condominium markets in Toronto and Vancouver are at risk of correction,” which is to say, a crash.
The problem is especially large in Vancouver, which was recently rated as the most expensive city to live in across North America, followed Los Angeles and New York. Vancouver is now the 37th most expensive city in the world, whereas just last year it was ranked as 72nd.
The average price for a detached bungalow in Vancouver increased by 17% from the previous year to $1.02 million. The average cost of a condominium in Vancouver rose 5.1% to $513,500 and the “average priced home in Vancouver is now 11.2 times the average family income, a figure many economists call unsustainable.” In certain areas of Vancouver, such as Richmond, West Vancouver and the West End, housing prices have soared nearly 80% in the past five years, and 27% just in the past year alone. This has been raising fears of a housing bubble in Vancouver, and indeed it should be.
In January of 2012, Bank of Canada governor warned – in very subtle and vague terms – that Canada’s property market is “probably overvalued,” meaning that it is heavily overvalued. Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty also hinted that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, stating, “We watch the housing market carefully and we are prepared to intervene if necessary.” So is it a bubble? Yes!
In fact, the Bank of Nova Scotia recently reported that, “At 13 years and counting, Canada’s current housing boom is one of the longest-lasting in the world.” The price of Canadian homes has increased by over 85% since 1998, with a slight stagnant period in 2008, and then continued to rise in 2009, growing by a further 20%. It is no coincidence that household debt has increased as well, with the debt burden of Canadian families at 153% of their income, which is “almost as much debt as American households had at the peak of their bubble.”
In fact, theEconomist magazine estimated that the Canadian housing market is overvalued by more than 70% (which is to say, it’s probably much higher than that). One of the major American banks, Merrill Lynch, issued a report indicating that the Canadian housing market is rife with “overvaluation, speculation and over supply.” According to an international survey of housing affordability, Vancouver is the second-least affordable city in the world.
It seems that 2012 will be the year the housing market bubble begins to pop, with the economy slowing down, unemployment rising, and job creation has virtually stalled, according to CIBC, which explained that, “the job market is currently weaker than any non- recessionary period.” Canada is not alone, of course, as the United States and Ireland were just the beginning. It is expected that the U.K., Australia, Belgium, France, New Zealand, Spain, and Sweden are all set to follow suit.
Within Canada, however, British Columbia and Ontario will be the most affected. But don’t worry, the Canadian banking sector will survive the pop, because it is actually the Canadian government which owns 75% of the mortgages, meaning that this will then pass to Canadian taxpayers, not the poor disadvantaged millionaire and billionaire bankers. Besides, the risk they have will probably be bailed out by our government. As our Finance Minister stated, “we are prepared to intervene if necessary,” which means that they will take all the bad debts of the banks, and then hand them to YOU.
An economist at the Bank of Montreal said not to worry, however, because Canada’s housing market isn’t a bubble, “it’s a balloon,” and therefore, she predicted, “Canada’s housing market is expected to deflate slowly rather than pop.” The argument, however, is one based upon faith: faith that the banks won’t increase interest rates by too much, faith that Canadian household debt won’t inflict as much harm as American household debt, and faith that one can compete in verbal and mental gymnastics in such a way as to convincingly refer to a bubble as a “balloon.” It should be noted that up until the burst of the American housing bubble, all the major players were denying that a bubble even existed.
Patti Croft, a recently retired chief economist from the Royal Bank of Canada warned the Canadian Parliament in January of 2012 that, “the risk of a housing bubble was among Canada’s biggest issues.” The Bank of Canada’s extremely low interest rate (of 1%) has stimulated this growth, just as the Federal Reserve in the United States helped stimulate the housing bubble there through historically low interest rates. The result of such low rates is an excess of speculative actions in the housing market, driving prices up. Croft warned that, “the greater concern is the looming housing bubble that we see, particularly in cities like Toronto and Vancouver, because I think that is where the speculative excesses lie.”
In March, TD Bank warned that Canada’s housing bubble posed a “clear and present danger” to Canada’s economy, and singled out Vancouver as “the market with the greatest risk of a housing price correction.” The effects of the bubble are already evident, as British Columbia is increasingly losing people who are moving to other provinces due to the high cost of living.
It should be noted that, even though this housing bubble in Canada has been inflated since the late 1990s, it is only being talked about, admitted as even existing (though some make absurd claims about magical “balloons”), and acknowledged NOW. This is dangerous.
The fact that it is now being acknowledged by top banks, the finance minister, the Bank of Canada and other major international organizations and banks, implies that they are now preparing for it to burst, and are thus positioning themselves to profit from the coming collapse. Remember, this is not a strange idea: during the housing bubble collapse in the United States, all the big banks which helped create it then bet against the market and profited off of its collapse, not to mention, they were then rewarded by the federal government with trillions of dollars in bailouts for their outstanding accomplishments in causing the crisis in the first place. Criminals are rewarded, and victims are punished. That is for a simple reason: government is organized crime.
Canada’s youth are in a major crisis. The youth unemployment rate in Canada is at 14.7%, compared to an overall unemployment rate of 7.4%, with 27,000 less jobs for young Canadians than last year. As one economist explained, “In addition to the fact that youths are facing competition from their own age cohorts, they are now facing competition from people who just lost their jobs during the recession and have 20 years of experience in the workforce.” Further, the economist added, “the whole process of trying to get to where you wanted to be when you got out of university takes years longer than it used to.
Taking a lower wage than you were initially expecting has significant repercussions for your long-term career.” A one percent increase in unemployment rates leads to a six-to-seven percent decrease in salary, and thus, “It can take anywhere from 10 upwards to 15 years to close that gap of reduced wages. So your lifetime earnings are substantially lower, for the simple fact that you graduated at the wrong time.” The real rates of unemployed are actually much higher than the stated 14% “because a lot of young people aren’t collecting Unemployment Insurance or welfare.” Thus, it is 14% of Canadian youths who are on Unemployment Insurance or welfare, and the statistics don’t include the rest of the unemployed youth population of Canada.
As for the net unemployment rate of Canadians at 7.4%, this too is misleading, because the statistics don’t include the number of Canadians who have simply given up on the job search, amounting to 38,000 Canadians in the past year. The province of Manitoba created 600 new jobs in 2011, while cutting 10,000 jobs in the same amount of time. The Canadian economy has cut 37,000 jobs just since October of 2011, and it’s only going to get worse. While there are 27,000 less jobs for Canadian youth than there were last year, this number grows to 300,000 less jobs for youth than there were in 2008.
The Canadian federal budget, released in late March, set out the government’s priorities for the coming year. Students and youth, who are among the most in need of help, were basically left out of the budget, naturally, since they are not multinational corporations, bankers, or billionaires. What money is going to schools is marked for industry-related research (i.e., a corporate subsidy), and as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty explained, “The plan’s measures focus on the drivers of growth: innovation, business investment, people’s education and skills that will fuel the new wave of job creation.” Again, it’s important to note that when politicians use the terms “jobs” or “job creation,” what they actually mean is “profit” and “profit creation,” invariably for corporations and banks. In regards to education:
The Conservatives placed a clear emphasis on partnerships between businesses and universities when it came to research funding: among their plans, they intend to dedicate $14 million over two years to double the Industrial Research and Development Internship Program, which currently supports 1,000 graduate students in conducting research at private-sector firms.
While the Canadian government announced funding of “$500 million over five years to support modernization of research infrastructure on campuses through the Canada Foundation for Innovation,” as well as through other research granting councils, the funding will actually be reallocated from other areas of education financing, what are deemed “lower-priority programs,” which means that they do not directly support corporate or industrial profit-making potential. The government will also cut 19,200 jobs from the public sector.
The federal government’s budget estimates a $5.2 billion cut in spending, as well as increasing the limit on Old Age Security from 65 to 67, meaning that older people will have to work longer before getting any benefits. That will give the government just enough time to steal everyone’s pension and hand them to corporations before the people actually need them. So while the government cuts social spending, ignores the needs of Canada’s youth, and fires tens of thousands of workers – this is what economists call “fiscal austerity” – it simultaneously is increasing its spending and support to Canada’s corporations (who are already as “fit as a fiddle”), with “direct spending and incentives to help firms expand, invest and export, as well as measures designed to shed some of the shackles on their growth.”
The chief economist at TD Bank stated, “They are trying to create a favourable environment in which businesses can grow.” So while the government provides a meager $50 million to help students find jobs, it hands out billions to corporations. The increased funding for research at universities is also specifically designed to produce products to go onto the market; so again, education funding is being further railroaded into merging business and higher education.
These moves are obviously not taken on the initiative of government alone, but are lobbied for by the corporate and financial elite, whether directly through interest groups, or indirectly through think tanks. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) – formerly the Business Council on National Issues (BCNI) – is an interest group made up of the top 150 CEOs in Canada, and which directly lobbies the government to serve their interests. They played a major role in the efforts to create NAFTA and to pursue the agenda of North American integration, as well as a plethora of other free trade deals. However, their “interests” extend beyond trade, and they seek to lobby the government to serve their interests across the whole society.
The current President and CEO of the CCCE is John P. Manley, former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, former Minister of Finance, Industry, and Foreign Affairs. He was the co-chair of a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on the Future of North America (which set the agenda for the Security and Prosperity Partnership and North American integration). He is also on the board of directors of CIBC and a number of other corporations and non-profits. The Vice Chairman of the board of directors of the CCCE is of course, Paul Desmarais Jr. (of the powerful Desmarais family, who essentially OWN Canada’s politicians and Prime Ministers), and other board members include: William A. Downe, CEO of BMO Financial Group; Gordon Nixon, CEO of Royal Bank of Canada; and a number of other leading corporate executives.
The CEOs of the following companies and business organizations are all represented in the CCCE: Air Canada, Astral Media, Barrick Gold Corporation, BCE Inc and Bell Canada, BMO Financial group, BNP Paribas (Canada), Bombardier, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Canadian Oil Sands Limited, Canadian Pacific Railway, Canfor Corporation, Cargill Limited, Chevron Canada, CIBC, CN, Deloitte & Touche LLP, Desjardins Group, Dow Chemical Canada, E.I. du Pont Canada Company, Encana Corporation, Ford Motor Company of Canada, GE Canada, GlaxoSmithKline, the Great-West Life Assurance Company, HSBC Bank Canada, Hudson’s Bay Company, IBM Canada, Imperial Oil Limited, Manulife Financial Corporation, McCain Foods Limited, Microsoft Canada, National Bank of Canada, Pfizer Canada, Power Corporation of Canada, Power Financial Corporation, Royal Bank of Canada, Scotiabank, SNC-Lavalin Group, Standard Life Assurance Company, Sun Life Financial, Suncor Energy, TD Bank Group, TELUS, TransCanada Corporation, The Woodbridge Company Limited, among many others.
Back in October of 2010, John Manley spoke to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada on the issue of making Canada “a leader in the knowledge economy.” Manley stated that Canada needed to ensure that “more of our academic discoveries successfully ‘cross the chasm’ to commercial success,” referring to the need to market what is done in university laboratories. Manley stated that, “there is a need for closer collaboration between post-secondary education institutions and the business community,” as, he explained: “Business-university collaboration is key to Canada’s ability to compete more effectively, to enhance our quality of life and to provide better opportunities for tomorrow’s graduates.” Manley elaborated:
All of us have an interest in achieving stronger partnerships between post-secondary institutions and the private sector, and in overcoming the barriers to commercialization of university research – barriers ranging from “hard” issues of funding and intellectual property ownership, to less tangible considerations such as differences in expectations, culture and behaviour between academia and the private sector.
With the release of the Canadian federal budget for 2012, the CCCE of course praised the budget as “taking steps to promote job creation and business investment.” John Manley stated, “By restraining the growth in public spending, reducing regulatory overlap, improving Canada’s immigration system and enhancing support for business-driven research, the government is helping to build a stronger and more competitive Canadian economy.”
Economists from Canada’s major banks had a good deal to say about the budget. Economists from TD Bank explained that, “When combined, the various measures included in today’s budget are aimed at improving productivity and boosting private sector growth, at a time when public spending is being constrained,” and that, of course, this is a good thing.
An economist at CIBC praised “the path towards fiscal balance,” as “the 2012 budget was as much about Canada’s longer term prospects as it was about squeezing spending.” Economists at the National Bank of Canada praised the budget’s decision to raise the old age security pension eligibility from 65 to 67 years, “While it is a step in the right direction, it could have been implemented earlier.” Economists at Royal Bank of Canada stated that the Canadian government “has delivered on its promise of guiding the Canadian economy towards improved fiscal performance in what are generally difficult economic times globally.” Meanwhile, the National Pensioner and Senior Citizens Federation declared that, “Today’s budget tabled by Finance Minister Flaherty confirmed the worst for our children and grandchildren… This government has attacked the retirement security of future generations as it looks years ahead for dollars to finance other priorities… There was nothing for seniors, not even a discarded penny for the poorest living in poverty.”
But then, that’s the point, isn’t it? Why would you seek to help the elderly and the poor and needy when you can help the multinational corporations and global banks, and thus, when you leave government, get a secure position on their boards (as John Manley did), and live the rest of your days as a jet-setting, globe-trotting, high-rolling elite? As a politician, you get no personal benefit or profit from supporting or serving the poor or the majority, you must only serve a tiny elite, and then your place is ensured among them.
Make no mistake: Canada’s Big Five Banks, the corporations they control, and the federal and provincial governments, which they collectively OWN, have declared class war on the people of Canada. The agenda is simple: get the population of Canada indebted, which is to say, enslaved; then, increase interest rates, cut social spending, increase unemployment, increase tuition, increase consumer costs, increase taxes, and at the same time, give more support and money to corporations and banks, and decrease their taxes. Then, build prisons, fund the military and the police and the police state apparatus of surveillance and control, so that when the people wake up to the fact that their future is being stolen from them, you can put them in their place: under the boot.
So the question for Canadian is this: will you acknowledge the class war taking place against you, your friends, and your families and fellow brothers and sisters, and then seek to fight back; or, will you continue to go into credit card debt, further into student debt, get mortgages and passively accept subservience to a system which treats you like a slave, sub-human degenerates, and superfluous, that is, useless and expendable. It is a question of passive acceptance of an evil system, or active resistance to forge ahead and creatively construct a humane society. The question is for all; the answer is yours alone.
Andrew Gavin Marshall is an independent researcher and writer based in Montreal, Canada, writing on a number of social, political, economic, and historical issues. He is also Project Manager of The People’s Book Project. He also hosts a weekly podcast show, “Empire, Power, and People,” on BoilingFrogsPost.com.
 Rachel Mendleson, “Canada’s Public Debt Hits $1.1 Trillion, But That May Not Be As Bad As It Sounds,” The Huffington Post, 3 October 2011:
 Bill Woollam And Will Abram, Bank of Canada the answer to tax, debt issue, The Citizen, 23 March 2012:
 StatsCan, Federal government revenue and expenditures, Statistics Canada:
 Brian Stewart, “$30B fighter jets just the start of defence-spending boom,” CBC News, 6 April 2011:
 Editors, “A tough-on-crime bill that goes too far,” Maclean’s, 25 August 2011:
 David Akin, Prisons, police top feds’ spending priorities, Toronto Sun, 1 March 2011:
 Barbara Yaffe, Prison spending trumps seniors for Harper government, The Vancouver Sun, 29 February 2012:
 Les Whittington, “Federal Budget 2012: Government not backing down on plan for cuts to Old Age Security,” The Star, 2 February 2012:
 Kathryn May, At least 11,000 local PS jobs on line, study argues, Ottawa Citizen, 23 January 2012:
 OECD, OECD Health Data 2011: How Does Canada Compare? Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
 Rhéal Séguin, “Hobbled by debt, Quebec to table budget amid rising public anger,” The Globe and Mail, 19 March 2012:
Canadian Press, “Quebec 2012-2013 Budget: Read the full document here,” Global Montreal, 20 March 2012:
Corinne Smith, “Quebec budget curbs spending, explores mining,” CBC News, 20 March 2012:
Quebec budget analysis, CBC News, 20 March 2012:
Roberto Rocha, “Quebec budget highlights,” Montreal Gazette, 22 March 2012:
Tasha Kheiriddin, “The new ‘Quebec model,’ same as the old,” The National Post, 22 March 2012:
 Daniel Tencer, “Canada’s Corporate Tax Cuts Prompt Companies To Hoard Cash, Not Hire, CLC Says,” The Huffington Post, 25 January 2012:
 Canadian Press, “Businesses Getting Billions In Tax Cuts Despite Rising Corporate Cash Reserves,” The Huffington Post, 4 January 2012:
 Mark Milke, “How corporate welfare undermines core services,” Troy Media, 25 February 2011:
 Mark Milke, “Corporate welfare is a costly shell game,” Financial Post, 28 December 2011:
 Rhéal Séguin, “Hobbled by debt, Quebec to table budget amid rising public anger,” The Globe and Mail, 19 March 2012:
 Grant Robertson, “CIBC joins big banks’ profit parade,” The Globe and Mail, 8 March 2012:
 Sean B. Pasternak and Ilan Kolet, “Canadian Banks Gain Jobs, Profit as U.S. Lenders Cut Back,” Bloomberg, 20 March 2012:
 Tim Kiladze, “Corporate Canada’s finances ‘fit as a fiddle’,” The Globe and Mail, 27 March 2012:
 Mary Agnes Welch, “’Unbanked’ residents of inner-cities paying price, author finds,” The Montreal Gazette, 19 March 2012:
 “How Canada’s Big Five banks stack up,” The Globe and Mail, 8 March 2012:
 Grant Robertson, “Lending is a bright spot for Canadian banks,” The Globe and Mail, 4 March 2012:
 CBC, “RBC, TD hike 5-year mortgage rates,” CBC News, 26 March 2012:
 Andrew Mayeda, “Canada’s Subprime Crisis Seen With U.S.-Styled Loans: Mortgages,” Bloomberg, 30 January 2012:
 CTV News Staff, “Average Canadian family debt hits $100,000,” CTV News, 17 February 2011:
 Gordon Isfeld, “Bank of Canada says household debt ‘biggest risk’ to economy,” The Leader Post, 9 March 2012:
 Andrew Mayeda, “Canada’s Subprime Crisis Seen With U.S.-Styled Loans: Mortgages,” Bloomberg, 30 January 2012:
 Peter Meiszner, “Vancouver now the most expensive city in North America,” Global News, 14 February 2012:
 CTV, “Is Vancouver’s housing bubble about to burst?,” CTV BC, 26 September 2011:
 Erica Alini, “What happens when Canada’s housing bubble pops?” Maclean’s, 26 January 2012:
 Robert Hiltz, “Housing bubble is really a balloon: BMO’s Sherry Cooper,” The Vancouver Sun, 30 January 2012:
 Derek Abma, “Under-used labour, pending housing bubble, problems for Canada: panel,” Vancouver Sun, 26 January 2012:
 CBC, “Housing bubble a danger to economy, TD says,” CBC News, 16 March 2012:
 Wendy Stueck, “Storm clouds forming over Vancouver’s real-estate market,” The Globe and Mail, 16 March 2012:
 Claire Penhorwood, “Canada’s youth face job crunch,” CBC News, 26 March 2012:
 Julian Beltrame, “Jobless picture in Canada grim,” Winnipeg Free Press, 10 March 2012:
 Emma Godmere, “Students largely left out of federal budget,” Canadian University Press, 29 March 2012:
 Tamsin McMahon, “Top five things you need to know about the budget,” Maclean’s, 29 March 2012:
 Julian Beltrame, “Federal budget passes the stimulus baton from government to business,” Winnipeg Free Press, 29 March 2012:
 John Manley, “Notes for an Address by the Honourable John Manley,” The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 27 October 2010.
 CCCE, “Fiscally responsible 2012 budget includes targeted measures to improve Canadian competitiveness, CEOs say,” Canadian Council of Chief Executives, 29 March 2012:
 Michael Babad, “Jim Flaherty’s budget: Pennywise or attack on our kids’ pensions?,” The Globe and Mail, 30 March 2012:
Source – http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/24/canadas-economic-collapse-and-social-crisis-class-war-and-the-college-crisis-part-5/
by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
March 24, 2012
There is something disturbing in the nature of post 9/11 public discourse. Incessantly, on a daily basis, Al Qaeda is referred to by the Western media, government officials, members of the US Congress, Wall Street analysts, etc. as an underlying cause of numerous World events. Occurences of a significant political, social or strategic nature –including the US presidential elections campaign– are routinely categorized by referring to Al Qaeda, the alleged architect of the September 11 2001 attacks.
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.
Human Consciousness: Al Qaeda and the Human Mindset
How does the daily bombardment of Al Qaeda related concepts and images, funnelled into the Western news chain and on network TV, affect the human mindset?
Al Qaeda concepts, repeated ad nauseam have potentially traumatic impacts on the human mind and the ability of normal human beings to analyze and comprehend the “real outside World” of war, politics and the economic crisis.
What is at stake is human consciousness and comprehension based on concepts and facts.
With Al Qaeda, however, there are no verifiable “facts” and “concepts”, because Al Qaeda has evolved into a media mythology, a legend, an invented ideological construct, used as an unsubtle tool of media disinformation and war propaganda.
Al Qaeda constitutes a stylized, fake and almost folkloric abstraction of terrorism, which permeates the inner consciousness of millions of people around the World.
Reference to Al Qaeda has become a dogma, a belief, which most people espouse unconditionally.
Is this political indoctrination? Is it brain-washing? If so what is the underlying objective?
People’s capacity to independently analyse World events, as well as address causal relationships pertaining to politics and society, is significantly impaired. That is the objective!
The routine use of Al Qaeda to generate blanket explanations of complex political events is meant to create confusion. It prevents people from thinking.
The American Inquisition
The notion of Al Qaeda –“the outside enemy” which threatens Western civilization– is predicated on “an inquisitorial doctrine”. The Homeland Security State personifies what might be described as the “American Inquisition”.
As in the case of the Spanish Inquisition, the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) consensus cannot be challenged.
Reference to Al Qaeda as a central paradigm used to understand the world we live in is ultimately intended to instil fear and insecurity. In the words of Britain’s comedy group Monty Python: “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope….”
Unconditional submission to the Homeland Security State in today’s America is not dissimilar from the process of “fanatical devotion” prevailing under the Spanish feudal order. What is at stake in our contemporary World, in the words of Monty Python, is “fear and surprise” and the unconditional compliance to the “ruthless efficiency” of a dominant political, economic and military order.
The American Inquisition redefines the entire legal and judicial framework. Torture and political assassinations are no longer a covert activity as in the heyday of the CIA, removed from the public eye. They are “legal”, they are the object of extensive news coverage, they are sanctioned by the White House and the US Congress. Conversely, those who dare confront the “War on Terrorism” consensus are branded as “terrorists”. Upholding true justice by challenging America’s “holy crusade” against Al Qaeda becomes an outright criminal act.
A new threshold in US legal history has unfolded. High ranking officials within the State and the Military no longer need to camouflage their crimes. In fact, quite the opposite. Torture of Al Qaeda suspects is a public policy with a humanitarian mandate:
“Yes we did order torture, but it isn’t really torture, its not really war, because these people are terrorists and “we must fight evil”. And the way to uphold democracy and freedom is to “go after the bad guys”, “wage war on the terrorists”. “Its in the public interest.”
Moreover, anybody who questions our definition of “fighting evil” (which of course includes torture, political assassination and concentration camps directed against “the bad guys”) is by our definition also “evil” and can be arrested, tortured and sent to concentration camps. (Michel Chossudovsky, The Spanish Inquisition, Made in America, Global Research, 2004,
Al Qaeda is presented to public opinion as the terror instrument of “radical Islam”, which threatens the Homeland, undermining Western civilization and moral values. Everybody must comply; nobody dares to question “the American Inquisition”.
Al Qaeda and the “Big Lie”
The Al Qaeda Legend sustains the “Big Lie”. It turns realities upside down. It creates both a perception and a belief which cannot be questioned. It permeates US foreign policy and the conduct of international diplomacy. Al Qaeda and the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) constitute a central component of US military doctrine.
“Al Qaeda did this”, “Al Qaeda did that” statements provide a simple and trouble-free elucidation of complex events, while disguising and concealing “the real reasons”, namely the unspoken and forbidden truth behind these events.
Nobody seems to take the time to examine “who is this elusive enemy Al Qaeda”, which has succeeded, with limited military means, in confronting America’s multibillion dollar war machine.
The Al Qaeda blanket explanation not only overshadows the normal channels of human comprehension, it also precludes a move to the next step of rational explanation, which consists in saying: if Al Qaeda is “the cause” as stated in numerous press reports, then: “What is Al Qaeda?” and “Who is behind Al Qaeda?”
But these are questions which in the post 9/11 era are rarely addressed. To investigate “Who is behind the terrorists” has become unmentionable, a political taboo, despite evidence pertaining to the historical role of US intelligence in creating and promoting the Islamic jihad.
Today, if Al Qaeda were to be revealed for what it really is, –e.g in the context of a specific false flag terrorist attack– the legitimacy of the “war on terrorism” and those officials in high office who support it, would collapse like a deck of cards.
While the identity of Al Qaeda is fully documented, including its links to US intelligence, the truth has not trickled down to the mainstay of public opinion.
Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)
Al Qaeda and the Role of Western Intelligence [to be continued in Part II]
Acknowledged by the CIA, the Islamic jihad “was” a US sponsored “intelligence asset” going back to the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1989).
The intelligence community admits, yes we created the Mujahideen, we set up the training camps and the koranic schools together with Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). Acting on behalf of the CIA, the ISI was involved in the recruitment, training and religious indoctrination of the “jihadists” described by President Ronald Reagan as “Freedom Fighters”.
From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979 to the present, various Islamic fundamentalist organizations became de facto instruments of US intelligence and more generally of the US-NATO-Israel military alliance.
Unknown to the American public, the US spread the teachings of the Islamic jihad in textbooks “Made in America”, developed at the University of Nebraska:
… the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..
The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books “are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy.” Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.
… AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.
“It’s not AID’s policy to support religious instruction,” Stratos said. “But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity.”
… Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.” (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
The role of Western intelligence agencies in support of Al Qaeda affiliated organizations will be outlined in Part II
PART II: “WHO IS BEHIND AL QAEDA”
Who is behind Al Qaeda, documented in Michel Chossudovsky’s 2005 international best-seller
Order Online directly from Global Research Publishers
America’s War on Terrorism
by Michel Chossudovsky
US-funded agitators have offices raided across Egypt.
by Tony Cartalucci
Land Destroyer Report
December 30, 2011
The LA Times reported, “Egypt raids foreign organizations’ offices in crackdown. Three U.S. groups are among those raided. Activists say the army is using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses.”
Photo: (AP) US State Department agitators from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) subsidary, the National Democratic Institute, standby as Egyptian security forces raid their offices. Despite NED veritably being run by Neo-Conservative, corporate-fascists who have signed PNAC documents declaring their intentions of acheiving and maintaining a century of global hegemony, they and the US State Department would decry Egypt’s crackdown on their insidious activities as a slight against “human rights.”
However, it is no “ruse” as the US-funded “activists” claim. And while the LA Times denies its readership a documented back-story either confirming or denying “activist claims,” understanding the US role in funding sedition in Egypt is essential to understanding why not only are the raids of NGOs justified, but an absolute necessity to protect both Egyptian national sovereignty and international stability.
Documented Back-Story of the US-Engineered “Arab Spring” in Egypt
In January of 2011, we were told that “spontaneous,” “indigenous” uprising had begun sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, including Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt, in what was hailed as the “Arab Spring.” It would be almost four months before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but “spontaneous,” or “indigenous.” In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” it was stated:
“A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.”
The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):
“The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. “
It is hardly a speculative theory then, that the uprisings were part of an immense geopolitical campaign conceived in the West and carried out through its proxies with the assistance of disingenuous organizations including NED, NDI, IRI, and Freedom House and the stable of NGOs they maintain throughout the world. Preparations for the “Arab Spring” began not as unrest had already begun, but years before the first “fist” was raised, and within seminar rooms in D.C. and New York, US-funded training facilities in Serbia, and camps held in neighboring countries, not within the Arab World itself.
In 2008, Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM’s various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report (page 3 of .pdf) states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman attended, as did Jared C0hen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.
Shortly afterward, April 6 would travel to Serbia to train under US-funded CANVAS, formally the US-funded NGO “Otpor” who helped overthrow the government of Serbia in 2000. Otpor, the New York Times would report, was a “well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States.” After its success it would change its name to CANVAS and begin training activists to be used in other US-backed regime change operations.
The April 6 Movement, after training with CANVAS, would return to Egypt in 2010, along with UN IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. April 6 members would even be arrested while awaiting for ElBaradei’s arrival at Cairo’s airport in mid-February. Already, ElBaradei, as early as 2010, announced his intentions of running for president in the 2011 elections. Together with April 6, Wael Ghonim of Google, and a coalition of other opposition parties, ElBaradei assembled his “National Front for Change” and began preparing for the coming “Arab Spring.”
Clearly then, unrest was long planned, with activists from Tunisia and Egypt on record receiving training and support from abroad, so that they could return to their home nations and sow unrest in a region-wide coordinated campaign.
An April 2011 AFP report would confirm this, when US State Department’s Michael Posner stated that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.” That ripple effect of course, is the “Arab Spring.”
NED & Freedom House are Run by Warmongering Neo-Cons
The National Endowment for Democracy, despite the lofty mission statement articulated on its website, is nothing more than a tool for executing American foreign policy. Just as the military is used under the cover of lies regarding WMD’s and “terrorism,” NED is employed under the cover of bringing “democracy” to “oppressed” people. However, a thorough look at NED’s board of directors, as well as the board of trustees of its subsidiary, Freedom House, definitively lays to rest any doubts that may be lingering over the true nature of these organizations and the causes they support.
Upon NED’s board of directors we first find John Bohn who traded petrochemicals, was an international banker for 13 years with Wells Fargo, and is currently serving as a principal for a global advisory and consulting firm, GlobalNet Partners, which assists foreign businesses by making their “entry into the complex China market easy.” Surely Bohn’s ability to manipulate China’s political landscape through NED’s various activities both inside of China and along its peripheries constitutes an alarming conflict of interest. However, it appears “conflict of interest” is a reoccurring theme throughout both NED and Freedom House.
Bohn is joined by Rita DiMartino who worked for Council on Foreign Relations corporate member AT&T as “Vice President of Congressional Relations” as well as a member of the CFR herself. Also representing the Fortune 500 is Kenneth Duberstein, a board member of the war profiteering Boeing Company, big oil’s ConocoPhillips, and the Mack-Cali Realty Corporation. Duberstein also served as a director of Fannie Mae until 2007. He too is a CFR member as are two of the companies he chairs, Boeing and ConocoPhillips.
We then consider several of the certified warmongers serving upon NED’s board of directors including Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Will Marshall, and Vin Weber, all signatories of the pro-war, pro-corporate Project for a New American Century. Within the pages of documents produced by this “think tank” are pleas to various US presidents to pursue war against sovereign nations, the increase of troops in nations already occupied by US forces, and what equates to a call for American global hegemony in a Hitlerian 90 page document titled “Rebuilding Americas Defenses.” As we will see, this warmongering think tank serves as a nexus around which fellow disingenuous rights advocate Freedom House also gravitates.
The “Statement of Principles,” signed off by NED chairmen Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Vin Weber, states, “we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” Of course by “international order” they mean meddling beyond the sovereign borders of the United States and is merely used as a euphemism for global imperialism. Other Neo-Con that signed their name to this statement include Freedom House’s Paula Dobriansky, Dan Quayle (formally), and Donald Rumsfeld (formally), along with Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Eliot Cohen, and Elliot Abrams.
A PNAC “Statment on Post-War Iraq” regarding a wholehearted endorsement of nation-building features the signatures of NED chairman Will Marshall, Freedom House’s Frank Carlucci (2002), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Martin Indyk (Lowy Institute board member, co-author of the conspiring “Which Path to Persia?” report), and William Kristol and Robert Kagan both of the warmongering Foreign Policy Initiative. It should be noted that the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is, for all intents and purposes, PNAC’s latest incarnation and just recently featured an open letter to House Republicans calling on them to disregard the will of the American people and continue pursuing the war in Libya. The FPI letter even suggests that the UN resolution authorizing the war in the first place, was holding America “hostage” and that it should be exceeded in order to do more to “help the Libyan opposition.”
An untitled PNAC letter addressed to then US President George Bush regarding a general call for global warmongering received the seal of approval from Freedom Houses’ Ellen Bork (2007), Ken Adelman (also former lobbyist for Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra via Edelman), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Neo-Con degenerates Richard Perle, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and the always disingenuous demagogue Daniel Pipes.
It is safe to say that neither NED nor Freedom House garners within its ranks characters appropriate for their alleged cause of “supporting freedom around the world.” It is also safe to say that the principles of “democracy,” “freedom,” and “human rights” they allegedly champion for, are merely being leveraged to co-opt well meaning people across the world to carry out their own self-serving agenda.
Considering NED and Freedom House’s role in fomenting the premeditated destabilization disingenuously titled the “spontaneous, indigenous” “Arab Spring,” and the true nature of those that constitute their boards of directors, we can examine the LA Times article regarding the recent raids for what it is – a white wash if not an outright lie. Similarly, the US State Department comments made condemning the recent raids in Egypt take on a new, farcical, and very hypocritical tone in light of the documented fraud the US is carrying out through the State Department and the organizations it is on record funding.
The Current NGO Raids in Egypt
The LA Times claims:
“Egyptian security forces on Thursday raided the offices of 17 nongovernmental organizations, including three U.S.-based agencies, as part of a crackdown on foreign assistance that has drawn criticism from the West and threatened human rights groups and pro-democracy movements.
The move appeared to be part of a strategy to intimidate international organizations. The ruling military council has repeatedly blamed “foreign hands” for exploiting Egypt’s political and economic turmoil. But activists said the army was using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses.”
The LA Times would go on to describe the US State Department’s response:
“This action is inconsistent with the bilateral cooperation we have had over many years,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at a news briefing after the raids. “We call on the Egyptian government to immediately end the harassment of NGO staff, return all property and resolve this issue immediately.”
Egyptian soldiers and black-clad police officers swept into offices, interrogated workers and seized computers across the country. Those targeted included U.S. groups the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and Freedom House, which are funded by Congress to monitor elections and promote democracy overseas.”
Ironically, US-stooge Mohamed ElBaradei would chime in on the side of the US State Department claiming, “human rights organizations are the guardians of the nascent freedom. Efforts to suffocate them will be a major setback and will surely backfire.” Freedom House director David Kramer, formally a State Department official under the Bush Administation, would claim the Egyptian army crackdown was “an intensive campaign by the Egyptian government to dismantle civil society through a politically motivated legal campaign aimed at preventing ‘illegal foreign funding’ of civil society operations in Egypt.” Meanwhile NDI president Ken Wollack said “cracking down on organizations whose sole purpose is to support the democratic process during Egypt’s historic transition sends a disturbing signal.”
We see then, US and Egyptian organizations that are documented frauds acting in absolute concert not only with each other, but in tandem with both the US State Department and a willfully ignorant corporate-media. These “NGOs” are the equivilant of Great Britain’s imperial networks that spanned the globe, supplanted national sovereignty in nation after nation and executed the will of the crown, not that of the people they ruled over from Ireland to India, from Myanmar to the American colonies.
Let us note and expose the perversion of ideals such as “representative governance” cheaply reduced to “democracy” or “mob rule,” and the obscene abuse of concepts such as “free speech” and “human rights” by organizations like NED and Freedom House who have themselves engineered conflicts that have resulted in genocide, state-sponsored terrorism, codified torture and indefinite detention as well as everything else that crawls out from beneath the rocks of Wall Street and London’s brand of corporate-fascism and its willing servants in America’s “Neo-Conservative” establishment and more recently Obama’s supposedly “liberal” presidency.
And while Egypt has taken up the challenge to directly confront traitors and foreign-funded sedition within their own sovereign borders, as has Belarus recently, Egypt is by far not the only nation suffering under the debilitating division and destruction NED and its US State Department-funded subsidiaries sow throughout nations.
Tunisia’s new president had literally served the US agenda for decades via his Paris-based, NED-funded “NGO.” The destabilization that his NGO contributed to paved the way for his coming to power. Likewise, a list of nations are documented to be under similar attack.
Myanmar: “Democracy icon” Aung San Suu Kyi’s entire political apparatus is US and British funded.
Thailand: Fraudulent NGOs like Prachatai, Thai Netizen, and many others are entirely funded by US State Department cash and are insidiously paving the way for Wall Street servant Thaksin Shinawatra to remove Thailand’s traditional institutions and replace it with US-installed “civil society.”
Russia: Moscow’s streets have been choked week after week with protesters led by verified servants of the US State Department, funded for years by NED and whose foreign-funded NGOs constitute the entirety of accusations of “fraud” in Russia’s recent elections.
Malaysia: NED-funded “Bersih” protesters are attempting to sow division and instability to pave the way for IMF stooge Anwar Ibrahim to return to power and enter the people of Malaysia back under Anglo-American servitude.
Egypt and Belarus have given the world a model to follow. Instead of striking out at throngs of protesters manipulated and used by these insidious organizations as the Egyptian military has been doing, they are now striking at the organizations and the foreign-funded traitors doing the manipulation in the first place. By exposing and attacking Wall Street and London’s network of insidious agents directly, the global destabilization they are attempting to carry out may just very well fail – and not only fail but leave those behind it naked in their megalomania and criminal intentions for all the world to see.
And finally, while Egyptians, and indeed the world, must scrutinize NGOs claiming to promote “democray,” “freedom,” and “human rights,” they must likewise scrutinize those whom these NGOs are attacking. If the forces of “liberal activism” can be so completely hijacked, so can the forces of nationalism. We must then identify the corporate-financier interests driving this obscene agenda, and not only boycott and entirely replace them, but in the meantime, monitor their interactions not only with these NGOs now confirmed to be frauds, but inroads they may be making in compromising the nationalist forccs they are attacking. Eternal vigilance is a price we must be willing to pay if freedom is truly something we aspire for.