Fwd: The Waning Power of Truth, John Stockwell, Cia, Angola, Iran, US hegemony.

In October 1987 John Stockwell, a former CIA covet operative who ran the CIA's covert war in Angola, gave a lecture [ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm ] in which he said he abandoned his career when he realized that CIA covert operations resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people and were totally unconnected to any US national security interests. "I concluded that I just couldn't see the point."




ALSO:

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22867.htm

The Waning Power of Truth

By Paul Craig Roberts

June 19, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- David Ray Griffin, the nemesis of the collection of disinformation known as the 9/11 Commission Report, has taken up the question of Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive?

On the basis of the available evidence, Griffin concludes that bin Laden died in December 2001, most likely of kidney failure. He has been kept alive in the media by US government PSYOPS as a useful bogyman to justify America's illegal wars of aggression. The messages received from bin Laden since his death appear to be conveniently timed fabrications designed to advance US government purposes.

Osama bin Laden is likely to become a mythical person, like the Georgia Tech student, George P. Burdell, who will be sighted from time to time over a period that exceeds the length of a human life.

It was less than one year ago that Americans were subjected to PSYOPS disinformation from their government concerning the Russia-Georgia conflict over South Ossetia.

Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin incorporated South Ossetia, formerly a part of Russia, into his home province of Georgia. When the Soviet Union broke up, Georgia became independent and retained South Ossetia. Secession movements arose in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia. These secession movements were the reason European members of NATO rejected the US government's attempt to make Georgia a NATO member in order to extend the US/NATO military presence on Russia's borders in contravention of previous US government agreements with Russia.

To terminate the secession movement and, thereby, remove the barrier to Georgia becoming a NATO member, the US, with Israel's help, trained and equipped the Georgian military and gave the American puppet ruler, installed in the aftermath of one of the US-orchestrated color revolutions, the green light to attack South Ossetia.

Under mutual agreement, Russia and Georgia both provided peace-keeping troops in South Ossetia to prevent violence by secessionists. On the night of August 7-8, 2008, Georgian troops attacked South Ossetia, destroying a town and killing many Russian Ossetians and some Russian soldiers who were part of the peace-keeping force. Large numbers of South Ossetians fled across the border to Russia.

The US government, in its hubris, assumed that Russia would accept the ethnic cleansing of Russians from South Ossetia. Instead, Russian troops arrived and quickly destroyed the American trained and equipped Georgian army and could easily have taken control of Georgia, but refrained.

Defeated in its aim, the US government unleashed a PSYOPS disinformation war against the Russian government, claiming falsely that Russia had initiated the conflict by attacking Georgia. The US government's blatant and transparent lies were force-fed to the American public by the US media.

British disinformation services cooperated with their American masters, but the rest of the world blew the whistle. The real facts emerged, and an American disinformation campaign experienced a rare failure.

Now ten months later, US "black ops" is at it again, pumping out disinformation about the "stolen" Iranian election. The US media is again serving the government's disinformation campaign. This despite the fact that on May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: "The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News."

On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: "Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs."

A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would "be a 'last option' after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed."

On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: "Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership."

The Iranian election protests, essentially by the westernized youth of Tehran who wish to be free of Islamic moral codes, have the hallmarks of orchestration. The protesters are color-coded with green wristbands. Their protest signs are in English and are obviously directed at the western media. Their chants are propagandistic and bear no relation to facts known by every Iranian.

And again, the US media and various experts, whose ambitions depend on government-related careers, are force-feeding the American public the disinformation designed to further isolate and weaken, if not overthrow, the Iranian government.

Until 1978 the US ruled Iran through the Shah. The US intends to again rule Iran through puppets. The only two remaining independent governments in the region are Iran and Syria. If the US doesn't first bankrupt itself, both countries will fall to US black ops destabilization.

The limitless gullibility of the American people guarantees carte blanche to the US government's schemes. Americans seemingly cannot put two and two together. They have already forgotten the lies about weapons of mass destruction that have resulted in the destruction of Iraq. They have forgotten Secretary of State Colin Powell's publicly expressed remorse at the lies he told the UN. Americans blithely accept the conflation of Talliban with al Qaeda and terrorists and the new war that the Obama regime has started in Pakistan, a war that has already produced 2 million refugees.

It can fairly be said that there is not much difference between the American public and the fictional one under Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984. The few independent voices that do exist are simply drowned out by the constant flow of disinformation.

The US government's success in spinning 9/11 guaranteed the government's success in pursuing a hegemonic agenda under a cloak of lies. Although a large percentage of the US population does not believe the government's account and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of experts and informed and well-connected people have challenged the government's tale, the US media has shown no interest despite the official account of 9/11 bearing every known hallmark of a coverup.

High-ranking fire marshals have complained that legally required forensic procedures were not followed by authorities entrusted with investigation.

The testimony of more than 100 policemen, firemen, and maintenance personnel who were in the towers at the time and report hearing and experiencing a series of explosions was ignored and withheld from the public until the government got its story in place.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology studiously avoided testing for evidence of explosives. The severed steel beams were quickly collected and sold abroad as scrap.

As a number of observers have complained, the crime scene was destroyed, not investigated.

The government's story of the destruction of the towers is based on computer simulations that produce results in keeping with the assumptions.

The collapse of the third building is not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

No one abroad believes the US government's story. Europeans have produced documentary films that laugh at the official explanation.

Recently, an international team of scientists reported on their two year examination of dust samples from the debris. They report that they found nano-thermite in the samples. To my knowledge no mainstream US media reported the finding.

One would think that such a finding would lead to a real investigation. Instead, within the US the finding is dismissed by debunkers of "conspiracy theories" (except of course the government's own conspiracy theory) with the charge that the dust samples have not been in controlled environments since collected and could have been contaminated by those who volunteered the samples. In other words, the nano-thermite, if actually in the samples, was planted.

One wonders how residents of lower Manhattan obtained nano-thermite with which to contaminate the dust. Indeed, who has access to nano-thermite other than government ?

Why doesn't the National Academy of Science choose a team to examine the samples? If the finding of nano-thermite is verified, the issue of contamination can be investigated. If it turns out that the people who volunteered the samples have no possible access to nano-thermite, the case for a real investigation is established.

There is little prospect of such a development in the US. American science and the careers of scientists are heavily dependent on US government funding. It would be a career-ending event for American scientists to get involved with this matter other than as a contributer to a cover-up. Professor Steven Jones, a physicist at BYU who first raised the issue of explosives being used to bring down the three WTC buildings, was terminated, despite his tenure, by BYU. Many believe Jones was terminated because of political threats to the university's funding.

In the US truth is an ineffective means by which to hold government accountable. Consider, for example, the fate of whistleblowers. Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers was perhaps the last successful whistleblower and that was three decades ago. Since then the government has put in place many defenses against whistleblowers.

The American public has looked to government for its salvation since Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. Government provides education, health care (Medicare, Medicaid), pensions (Social Security), food stamps, housing subsidies, child care and protects Americans from a long list of demonized villeins ranging from spouse abusers and child molesters to terrorists. Americans see themselves and their government as the salt of the earth, an image supported by American generosity to other peoples who suffer natural calamities. Most Americans believe that their government does stupid things, but not evil things except perhaps by accident.

The right-wing believes that America was attacked on 9/11 because we are so good, hubris to which Bush successfully played with his statement that "they hate us for our freedom and democracy."

The left-wing finds emotional satisfaction in its belief that 9/11 was deserved blow-back from peoples oppressed by US foreign policy who rose up and struck back.

Truth is so impotent in America that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty 42 years ago is still covered up by the US government despite the best efforts of Admiral Tom Moorer, who was Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by decades of effort by the Liberty survivors.

This raises the question: Why do some people blow whistles? Why do those few write books and columns that challenge the lies and deceptions? There is probably more than one answer. For some, hope springs eternal. Others naively destroy their careers thinking that truth will be honored. Still others speak from a sense of responsibility to truth and not from a hope that anything will actually change.

In October 1987 John Stockwell, a former CIA covet operative who ran the CIA's covert war in Angola, gave a lecture [ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm ] in which he said he abandoned his career when he realized that CIA covert operations resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people and were totally unconnected to any US national security interests. "I concluded that I just couldn't see the point."

Nothing has changed. What was the point of the US invasion of Iraq? Even President Bush eventually conceded that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What was the point of the US invasion of Afghanistan and what is the point of Obama's escalation of the war there? The Taliban is not al Qaeda and was totally focused on unifying Afghanistan under an Islamic government. The US was not on the Taliban's radar screen.

What is the point of the war that the US has started in Pakistan?

What is the point of the destabilization of the Iranian government? After the stolen elections of the Karl Rove/Bush era, why does the US think it must overthrow the Iranian government because of allegations that Ahmadinejad stole an election?

If the answer is that these wars and interventions serve the interest of US hegemony, the obvious reply is that US hegemony is more likely to be lost from the massive red ink in the government's budget that is likely to be monetized, thus destroying the dollar as reserve currency, the main source of US hegemony.

If the US wants to have an empire in the Middle East or elsewhere, the government should come out and say so. At least then Americans could revel in the glories of empire. As it is, the pleasure must be gained surreptitiously under the table, pretending that we are protecting the world from evil-doers while we do evil ourselves.

Panama, Nicaragua truth, Thermite, London bombing 7/7/05 inside job, 9/11 controlled demolition

June 19, 2009

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Hats off to informationclearinghouse.org for providing access now to three important elements of Suppressed US History--including the video "The Panama Deception" documenting one of the most shameful episodes in US history. By the way, this steadfast organization is suffering because of the financial collapse--and is a good place to put unneeded money.

Thanks also to James Petras for his valuable corrections to the horrendous Fourth Reich media coverage of the recent Iranian elections. And to Peter Myers for his circulation of some of the important suppressed history cited in the excellent video "Zeitgeist". And to John Vidal for pointing out how widespread are the current vicious corporate assaults on indigenous peoples.

Yours for waking to the quantum ether,

Keith Lampe, Ro-Non-So-Te,

Ponderosa Pine

Transition Prez

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case you missed it
Nicaragua - A Nation's Right To Survive

A Documentary Film By John Pilger

John Pilger's 1983 film about the small nation of Nicaragua and its right to survive investigates the corruption in Central America. In 1979, the Sandinistas won a popular revolution in Nicaragua, putting an end to decades of the corrupt US-backed Somoza dictatorship. They based their reformist ideology on that of the English Co-operative Movement, but was to prove too 'radical' for the Reagan administration. Continue

In case you missed it
The Panama Deception

Video Documentary

This film shows how the U.S. attacked Panama and killed 3 or 4 thousand people in an invasion that the rest of the world was against. The Panama Deception uncovers the real reasons for this internationally condemned attack, presenting a view of the invasion which widely differs from that portrayed by the U.S. media and exposes how the U.S. government and the mainstream media suppressed information about this foreign policy disaster. Continue

The Secret History of the American Empire

The Truth About Global Corruption

Video - John Perkins, author of Confessions of An Economic Hit Man. Perkins zeroes in on hot spots around the world such as Venezuela, Tibet, Iraq, Israel, Vietnam and others and exposes the network of events in each of these countries that have contributed to the creation of the American Empire and international corruption in "The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth About Global Corruption" Continue

======================================================================

Iranian Elections: The 'Stolen Elections' Hoax

by Prof. James Petras

Global Research, June 18, 2009

"Change for the poor means food and jobs, not a relaxed dress code or mixed recreation... Politics in Iran is a lot more about class war than religion." --- Financial Times Editorial, June 15 2009

Introduction

There is hardly any election, in which the White House has a significant stake, where the electoral defeat of the pro-US candidate is not denounced as illegitimate by the entire political and mass media elite. In the most recent period, the White House and its camp followers cried foul following the free (and monitored) elections in Venezuela and Gaza, while joyously fabricating an 'electoral success' in Lebanon despite the fact that the Hezbollah-led coalition received over 53% of the vote.

The recently concluded, June 12, 2009 elections in Iran are a classic case: The incumbent nationalist-populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (MA) received 63.3% of the vote (or 24.5 million votes), while the leading Western-backed liberal opposition candidate Hossein Mousavi (HM) received 34.2% or (3.2 million votes).

Iran's presidential election drew a record turnout of more than 80% of the electorate, including an unprecedented overseas vote of 234,812, in which HM won 111,792 to MA's 78,300. The opposition led by HM did not accept their defeat and organized a series of mass demonstrations that turned violent, resulting in the burning and destruction of automobiles, banks, public building and armed confrontations with the police and other authorities. Almost the entire spectrum of Western opinion makers, including all the major electronic and print media, the major liberal, radical, libertarian and conservative web-sites, echoed the opposition's claim of rampant election fraud. Neo-conservatives, libertarian conservatives and Trotskyites joined the Zionists in hailing the opposition protestors as the advance guard of a democratic revolution. Democrats and Republicans condemned the incumbent regime, refused to recognize the result of the vote and praised the demonstrators' efforts to overturn the electoral outcome. The New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, the Israeli Foreign Office and the entire leadership of the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations called for harsher sanctions against Iran and announced Obama's proposed dialogue with Iran as 'dead in the water'.

The Electoral Fraud Hoax

Western leaders rejected the results because they 'knew' that their reformist candidate could not lose… For months they published daily interviews, editorials and reports from the field 'detailing' the failures of Ahmadinejad's administration; they cited the support from clerics, former officials, merchants in the bazaar and above all women and young urbanites fluent in English, to prove that Mousavi was headed for a landslide victory. A victory for Mousavi was described as a victory for the 'voices of moderation', at least the White House's version of that vacuous cliché. Prominent liberal academics deduced the vote count was fraudulent because the opposition candidate, Mousavi, lost in his own ethnic enclave among the Azeris. Other academics claimed that the 'youth vote' – based on their interviews with upper and middle-class university students from the neighborhoods of Northern Tehran were overwhelmingly for the 'reformist' candidate.

What is astonishing about the West's universal condemnation of the electoral outcome as fraudulent is that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the vote count. During the entire electoral campaign, no credible (or even dubious) charge of voter tampering was raised. As long as the Western media believed their own propaganda of an immanent victory for their candidate, the electoral process was described as highly competitive, with heated public debates and unprecedented levels of public activity and unhindered by public proselytizing. The belief in a free and open election was so strong that the Western leaders and mass media believed that their favored candidate would win.

The Western media relied on its reporters covering the mass demonstrations of opposition supporters, ignoring and downplaying the huge turnout for Ahmadinejad. Worse still, the Western media ignored the class composition of the competing demonstrations – the fact that the incumbent candidate was drawing his support from the far more numerous poor working class, peasant, artisan and public employee sectors while the bulk of the opposition demonstrators was drawn from the upper and middle class students, business and professional class.

Moreover, most Western opinion leaders and reporters based in Tehran extrapolated their projections from their observations in the capital – few venture into the provinces, small and medium size cities and villages where Ahmadinejad has his mass base of support. Moreover the opposition's supporters were an activist minority of students easily mobilized for street activities, while Ahmadinejad's support drew on the majority of working youth and household women workers who would express their views at the ballot box and had little time or inclination to engage in street politics.

A number of newspaper pundits, including Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times, claim as evidence of electoral fraud the fact that Ahmadinejad won 63% of the vote in an Azeri-speaking province against his opponent, Mousavi, an ethnic Azeri. The simplistic assumption is that ethnic identity or belonging to a linguistic group is the only possible explanation of voting behavior rather than other social or class interests.

A closer look at the voting pattern in the East-Azerbaijan region of Iran reveals that Mousavi won only in the city of Shabestar among the upper and the middle classes (and only by a small margin), whereas he was soundly defeated in the larger rural areas, where the re-distributive policies of the Ahmadinejad government had helped the ethnic Azeris write off debt, obtain cheap credits and easy loans for the farmers. Mousavi did win in the West-Azerbaijan region, using his ethnic ties to win over the urban voters. In the highly populated Tehran province, Mousavi beat Ahmadinejad in the urban centers of Tehran and Shemiranat by gaining the vote of the middle and upper class districts, whereas he lost badly in the adjoining working class suburbs, small towns and rural areas.

The careless and distorted emphasis on 'ethnic voting' cited by writers from the Financial Times and New York Times to justify calling Ahmadinejad 's victory a 'stolen vote' is matched by the media's willful and deliberate refusal to acknowledge a rigorous nationwide public opinion poll conducted by two US experts just three weeks before the vote, which showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin – even larger than his electoral victory on June 12. This poll revealed that among ethnic Azeris, Ahmadinejad was favored by a 2 to 1 margin over Mousavi, demonstrating how class interests represented by one candidate can overcome the ethnic identity of the other candidate (Washington Post June 15, 2009). The poll also demonstrated how class issues, within age groups, were more influential in shaping political preferences than 'generational life style'. According to this poll, over two-thirds of Iranian youth were too poor to have access to a computer and the 18-24 year olds "comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all groups" (Washington Porst June 15, 2009).

The only group, which consistently favored Mousavi, was the university students and graduates, business owners and the upper middle class. The 'youth vote', which the Western media praised as 'pro-reformist', was a clear minority of less than 30% but came from a highly privileged, vocal and largely English speaking group with a monopoly on the Western media. Their overwhelming presence in the Western news reports created what has been referred to as the 'North Tehran Syndrome', for the comfortable upper class enclave from which many of these students come. While they may be articulate, well dressed and fluent in English, they were soundly out-voted in the secrecy of the ballot box.

In general, Ahmadinejad did very well in the oil and chemical producing provinces. This may have be a reflection of the oil workers' opposition to the 'reformist' program, which included proposals to 'privatize' public enterprises. Likewise, the incumbent did very well along the border provinces because of his emphasis on strengthening national security from US and Israeli threats in light of an escalation of US-sponsored cross-border terrorist attacks from Pakistan and Israeli-backed incursions from Iraqi Kurdistan, which have killed scores of Iranian citizens. Sponsorship and massive funding of the groups behind these attacks is an official policy of the US from the Bush Administration, which has not been repudiated by President Obama; in fact it has escalated in the lead-up to the elections.

What Western commentators and their Iranian protégés have ignored is the powerful impact which the devastating US wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan had on Iranian public opinion: Ahmadinejad's strong position on defense matters contrasted with the pro-Western and weak defense posture of many of the campaign propagandists of the opposition.

The great majority of voters for the incumbent probably felt that national security interests, the integrity of the country and the social welfare system, with all of its faults and excesses, could be better defended and improved with Ahmadinejad than with upper-class technocrats supported by Western-oriented privileged youth who prize individual life styles over community values and solidarity.

The demography of voting reveals a real class polarization pitting high income, free market oriented, capitalist individualists against working class, low income, community based supporters of a 'moral economy' in which usury and profiteering are limited by religious precepts. The open attacks by opposition economists of the government welfare spending, easy credit and heavy subsidies of basic food staples did little to ingratiate them with the majority of Iranians benefiting from those programs. The state was seen as the protector and benefactor of the poor workers against the 'market', which represented wealth, power, privilege and corruption. The Opposition's attack on the regime's 'intransigent' foreign policy and positions 'alienating' the West only resonated with the liberal university students and import-export business groups. To many Iranians, the regime's military buildup was seen as having prevented a US or Israeli attack.

The scale of the opposition's electoral deficit should tell us is how out of touch it is with its own people's vital concerns. It should remind them that by moving closer to Western opinion, they removed themselves from the everyday interests of security, housing, jobs and subsidized food prices that make life tolerable for those living below the middle class and outside the privileged gates of Tehran University.

Amhadinejad's electoral success, seen in historical comparative perspective should not be a surprise. In similar electoral contests between nationalist-populists against pro-Western liberals, the populists have won. Past examples include Peron in Argentina and, most recently, Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and even Lula da Silva in Brazil, all of whom have demonstrated an ability to secure close to or even greater than 60% of the vote in free elections. The voting majorities in these countries prefer social welfare over unrestrained markets, national security over alignments with military empires.

The consequences of the electoral victory of Ahmadinejad are open to debate. The US may conclude that continuing to back a vocal, but badly defeated, minority has few prospects for securing concessions on nuclear enrichment and an abandonment of Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas. A realistic approach would be to open a wide-ranging discussion with Iran, and acknowledging, as Senator Kerry recently pointed out, that enriching uranium is not an existential threat to anyone. This approach would sharply differ from the approach of American Zionists, embedded in the Obama regime, who follow Israel's lead of pushing for a preemptive war with Iran and use the specious argument that no negotiations are possible with an 'illegitimate' government in Tehran which 'stole an election'.

Recent events suggest that political leaders in Europe, and even some in Washington, do not accept the Zionist-mass media line of 'stolen elections'. The White House has not suspended its offer of negotiations with the newly re-elected government but has focused rather on the repression of the opposition protesters (and not the vote count). Likewise, the 27 nation European Union expressed 'serious concern about violence' and called for the "aspirations of the Iranian people to be achieved through peaceful means and that freedom of expression be respected" (Financial Times June 16, 2009 p.4). Except for Sarkozy of France, no EU leader has questioned the outcome of the voting.
The wild card in the aftermath of the elections is the Israeli response: Netanyahu has signaled to his American Zionist followers that they should use the hoax of 'electoral fraud' to exert maximum pressure on the Obama regime to end all plans to meet with the newly re-elected Ahmadinejad regime.

Paradoxically, US commentators (left, right and center) who bought into the electoral fraud hoax are inadvertently providing Netanyahu and his American followers with the arguments and fabrications: Where they see religious wars, we see class wars; where they see electoral fraud, we see imperial destabilization.

==========================================================================================

From:

Date: June 16, 2009 2:08:03 AM GMT-05:00

Subject: Zeitgeist the movie - Religion and Politics DO MIX

Part Two: All The World's a Stage

... [The 911 Myth: ...

[World Trace Center Towers 1, 2 & 7] ...

"Thermite is so hot that just cuts through steel, structural steel for example, like a knife through butter. The products are molten iron and aluminum oxide, which goes off primarily as a dust. You know those enormous dust clouds? You can imagine when you assemble these chemicals on a large scale."

[Dr. Steven Jones

Physics Professor, BYU

Through Electron Microscope Analysis of the molted WTC Steel & the iron-rich microspheres in the dust, Dr. Jones found exact traces of not only the "Thermite" explosive compound, but, due to the high sulfur content, "Thermate", a patented brand of Thermite used in the demolition industry.] ...

[7/7/2005 London

Three trains and a bus were bombed, killing 56 people.]

[That morning, an "Anti-terror exercise" just happened to be taking place as well

Dealing with…

THE EXACT SAME BOMBING SCENARIO.

AT THE EXACT SAME TRAIN STATIONS

AT THE EXACT SAME TIME]

- "Because at half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of a 1000 people in London, based on simultaneous bombs going off, precisely at the railroad stations that were hit this morning, so still in the back of my mind…"

- "So let me this straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this, and it happened right when you were running the exercise?"

-"Precisely."

[Yeah… that's right.

THE EXACT SAME BOMBING SCENARIO.

AT THE EXACT SAME TRAIN STATIONS

AT THE EXACT SAME TIME]

"We're supposed to believe there's some kind of coincidence, that was also an anti-terrorist drill going on on 7/7, and again, just like 9/11, they were talking about attacks on the same targets, the same tube stations, at exactly the same time as the actual attacks happened, providing some kind of cover for what must be operations orchestrated in some way by the state."

[The 9/11 Truth:

Criminal Elements within the US government staged a "false flag" Terror attack on its own citizens, in order to manipulate public perception into supporting its agenda.

They have been doing these for years.

9/11 was an Inside Job.] ...

Part Three: Don't Mind the Men Behind the Curtain

There is something behind the throne greater than the king himself"

-Sir William Pitt, House of Lords, 1770-

"The World is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes"

-Benjamin Disraeli, English Statesman, 1844-

So what is a central bank? A central bank is an institution that produces the currency of an entire nation. ...

It doesn't take a lot of ingenuity to figure their scam now. For, every single dollar produced by the central bank is loaned at interest. That means every single dollar produced is actually the dollar plus a certain percent of debt based on that dollar. And since the central bank has the monopoly of the production of the currency for the entire country and they loan each dollar out with an immediate debt attached to it, where does the money that pay for the debt come from? It can only come from the central bank again. Which means the central bank has to perpetually increase its money supply to temporarily cover the outstanding debt created which in turn, since that new money is loaned out at interest as well creates even more debt? The end result of this system without fail is slavery for it is impossible for the government, and thus the public, to ever come out of the self-generating debt. ...

For example, from 1914 to 1919 the Fed increased the money supply by nearly 100% resulting in extensive loans to small banks and the public. Then, in 1920 the Fed called in mass percentages of the outstanding money supply. Thus resulting in the supporting banks having to call in huge numbers of loans and just like 1907, bank runs, bankruptcy and collapse occurred. Over 5.400 competitive banks outside of the Federal Reserve System collapsed further consolidating the monopoly of the small group of international bankers. Privy to this crime, Congressman Lindbergh stepped up and said in 1921:

"Under the Federal Reserve Act, panics are scientifically created. The present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical equation." –Charles Lindbergh

However, the panic of 1920 was just a warm-up. From 1921 to 1929 the Fed again increased the money supply resulting once again in extensive loans to the public and banks. There was also a fairly new type of loan called the margin loan in the stock market. Very simply, the margin loan allowed an investor to put down only 10% of the stock's price with the other 90% being loaned from the broker. In other words, a person could own a $1000 worth of stock, with only a $100 down. This method was very popular in the roaring 1920's as everyone seemed to be making money in the market. However, there was a catch to this loan. It could be called in at any time and had to be paid within 24 hours. This is termed "a margin call", and a typical result of a margin call was the selling of the stock purchased with the loan.

So, a few months before October in 1929, J.D.Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch and other insiders quietly exited the market. And on October 24th, 1929 the New York financiers who furnished the margin loans started calling them in, in mass. This sparked an instantaneous massive sell off in the market for everyone who had to cover the margin loans. It then triggered a mass bank runs for the same reason, in turn collapsing over 16.000 banks enabling the conspiring international bankers to not only buy up rival banks at the discount but to also buy up whole corporations at pennies on the dollar. It was the greatest robbery in American history.

But that didn't stop there. Rather then expanding the money supply which were recovered from this economic collapse the Fed actually contracted it, fuelling one of the largest depressions in history. ...

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws"

-Mayer Amschel Rothschild, Founder of Rothschild Banking Dynasty ...

It's important to understand that the most lucrative thing that can happen for the international bankers is war. For, it forces the country to borrow even more money from the Federal Reserve Bank at interest. Woodrow Wilson's top adviser and mentor was Colonel Edward House, the man with the intimate connections with the international bankers who wanted in the war. In the documented conversation between Colonel House, Wilson's adviser and Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary of England regarding how to get America into the war, Grey inquired:

"What will American do if germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?"

House responded:

"I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into war." ...

World War II

On December 7th, 1941 Japan attacked the American fleet at Pearl Harbor triggering our entry into that war. President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared the attack was "a day that will live in infamy". A day of infamy indeed, but not because of the alleged surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. After 60 years of surfacing information it is clear that not only was the attack on Pearl Harbor known weeks in advance, it was outright wanted and provoked. Roosevelt, whose family had been New York bankers since the 18th century, whose uncle Frederick was on the original Federal Reserve Board was very sympathetic to the interest of the international bankers, and the interest was to enter the war because as we've seen - nothing is more profitable for the international bankers than war. In a journal entry by Roosevelt's Secretary of War Henry Stimson dated November 25, 1941 he documented a conversation he had with Roosevelt.

"The question was how should we maneuver them into firing the first shot… It was desirable to make sure the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt as to who were the aggressors." –Henry Stimson, Secretary of War ...

It is important to know, Nazi Germany's war effort was largely supported by two organizations: one of which was called I.G.Farben. I.G.Farben produced 84% of Germany's explosives and even the Zyklon B used in concentration camps to kill millions. One of the unspoken partners of I.G.Farben was J.D.Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company in America. In fact, the German Air Force could not operate without a special additive patented by Rockefeller's Standard Oil. The drastic bombing of London by Nazi Germany, for example, was made possible by a $20 million sale of fuel to I.G.Farben by the Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. This is just one small point of the topic how American business funded both sides of World War II. ...

Once in the war, it was business as usual. In October 1966 President Lyndon Johnson lifted trade restrictions on the Soviet block knowing full well that the Soviets were providing upwards of 80% of North Vietnam war supplies. Consequently, the Rockefeller interests financed factories in Soviet Union which the Soviets used to manufacture military equipment and send it to North Vietnam.

However, the funding of both sides in this conflict was only one side of the coin. In 1985 Vietnam's Rules of Engagement were declassified. This detailed what American troops were and were not allowed to do in the war. It included absurdities like:

* North Vietnamese anti-aircraft missile systems could not be bombed until they were known to be operational

* No enemy could be pursued once they crossed the border of Laos or Cambodia. And most revealing of all..

* The most critical strategic targets were not allowed to be attacked unless initiated via high military officials.

Apart from these imposed ludicrous limitations North Vietnam was informed of these restrictions and therefore could based entire strategies around the limitations of the American forces. This is why the war went on so long. And the bottom line is this: the Vietnam War was never meant to be won. Just sustained. This war for profit resulted in 58.000 American deaths and 3 million dead Vietnamese. So, where are we now?

September 11th was the jump start for, what is now, accelerating agenda by the ruthless elite. It was a staged war pretext, no different than the sinking of the Lusitania, the provoking of Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin lie. In fact, if 9/11 wasn't a planned war pretext, it would be an exception to the rule. It has been used to launch two unprovoked illegal wars, one against Iraq and one against Afghanistan. However, 9/11 was a pretext for another war as well. The war against you. The Patriot Act, Homeland Security, the Military Tribunals Act and other legislations are all completely and entirely designed to destroy your civil liberties and limit your ability to fight back against what is coming.

Currently in the United States, unannounced and most brain-washed Americans, your home can be searched, without a warrant, without you being home, you can in turn be arrested with no charges revealed to you, detained indefinitely with no access to a lawyer and legally tortured, all under the suspicion that you might be a terrorist.

If you need a painted picture of what is happening in this country, let's recognize how history repeats itself. In February 1933, Hitler staged a false flag attack burning down his own German Parliament building, the Reichstag and blamed it on communist terrorists. Within the next few weeks he passed the Enabling Act which completely eradicated the German Constitution, destroying people's liberties. He then led a series of pre-emptive wars all justified in German people as necessary to maintaining "homeland security". ...

"We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

-Paul Warburg, Council on Foreign Relations / Architect of The Federal Reserve System.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years."

"But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march toward a world government, the supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

-David Rockefeller, Council of Foreign Relations

One bank, one army, one centre of power. And if we have learned anything from history it is that power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. ...

I said, "How you're gonna convinced people that this war is real?"

He said, "By the media. The media can convince everybody it's real. You know, it's just that you keep talking about things, you keep saying it over and over and over again and eventually people believe this." You know they've created Federal Reserve in 1913 through lies, they've created 9/11 which is another lie, through 9/11 you're then fighting the war on terror and afterwards you're going to Iraq which was another lie. and then they gonna do Iran. And it's all one thing leading to another, leading to another, leading to another. ...

He said, "The ultimate goal is to get everybody in this world chipped with an RFID chip." And to have all the money to be on those chips, and everything on those chips. And if anybody wants to protest what we do or violate what we want, we just turn off their chip." ...

"We have a Florida family who are really pioneers in the brave new world. They have volunteered to be the first ever to have microchipped identification devices implanted into their bodies."

"After 9/11 I was really concerned about the security of my family."

"I wouldn't mind having something planted permanently in my arm that would identify me."

In the end everybody will be locked into a monetary control grip where every single action you perform is documented. And if you get out of line, they can just turn off your chip for at that point of time every single aspect of society will revolve around interactions with the chips. This is the picture that is painted for the future if you open your eyes to see it. A centralized one world economy where everyone's moves and everyone's transactions are tracked and monitored, all rights removed.

The most incredible aspect of all: these totalitarian elements will not be forced upon the people, the people will demand them. For, the social manipulation of society through the generation of fear and division has completely detached humans from their sense of power and reality. The process which has been going on for centuries, if not millennia, religion, patriotism, race, wealth, class and every other form of arbitrary separatist identification thus conceived has served to create a controlled population utterly malleable in the hands of the few. Divide and conquer is the motto. And as long as people continue to see themselves as separate from everything else they lend themselves to be completely enslaved.

The men behind the curtain know this and they also know that if people ever realized the truth of their relationship to nature and the truth of their personal power, the entire manufactured zeitgeist they prey upon would collapse like a house of cards...

=========================================================================================

Indigenous 'genocide' in battle for oilfields

by John Vidal

Global Research, June 16, 2009

Sydney Morning Herald - 2009-06-14

IT HAS been called the world's second "oil war" but the only similarity between Iraq and events in the jungles of northern Peru over the past few weeks has been the mismatch of force. On one side have been police armed with automatic weapons, tear gas, helicopter gunships and armoured cars. On the other are several thousand Awajun and Wambis Indians, many of them in war paint and armed with bows and arrows, and spears.

In some of the worst violence in Peru in 20 years, the Indians warned Latin America what could happen if companies are given free access to the Amazonian forests to exploit an estimated 6billion barrels of oil and take as much timber as they like.

After months of peaceful protests, the police were ordered to use force to remove a roadblock near Bagua Grande.

In the fights that followed, nine police officers and at least 50 Indians were killed, with hundreds more wounded or arrested. The indigenous rights group Survival International described it as "Peru's Tiananmen Square".

"For thousands of years, we've run the Amazon forests," said Servando Puerta, one of the protest leaders. "This is genocide. They're killing us for defending our lives, our sovereignty, human dignity."

As riot police broke up more demonstrations in Lima and a curfew was imposed on many Peruvian Amazonian towns, President Alan Garcia backed down in the face of condemnation of the massacre. He suspended - but only for three months - laws that would allow the forest to be exploited.

Peru is just one of many countries in open conflict with its indigenous people over natural resources. Barely reported in the international press, there have been major protests around mines, oil, logging and mineral exploitation in Africa, Latin America, Asia and North America. Hydroelectric dams, biofuel plantations as well as coal, copper, gold and bauxite mines are all at the centre of major land rights disputes.

A massive military force continued last week to raid communities opposed to oil companies' presence on the Niger delta. The delta, which provides 90 per cent of Nigeria's foreign earnings, has always been volatile but guns have flooded in and security has deteriorated.

Nigeria's main militant group said yesterday it had destroyed an oil pipeline belonging to the US company Chevron.

"A major gas pipeline manifold and another major crude oil pipeline belonging to Chevron JV recently repaired at a sum of over $US56 million [$68million] were both blown up," the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta said.

It warned that its fighters were heading to the Chevron tank farm in Escravos and urged staff to flee.

The escalation of violence came in the week that Shell agreed to pay £9.7million ($19.7million) to ethnic Ogoni families - whose homeland is in the delta - who had led a peaceful uprising against it and other oil companies in the 1990s, and who had taken the company to court in New York accusing it of complicity in writer Ken Saro-Wiwa's execution in 1995.

In West Papua, Indonesian forces protecting some of the world's largest mines have been accused of human rights violations. Hundreds of tribesmen have been killed in the past few years in clashes between the army and people with bows and arrows.

"An aggressive drive is taking place to extract the last remaining resources from indigenous territories," said Victoria Tauli-Corpus, chairwoman of the UN permanent forum on indigenous issues. "There is a crisis of human rights. There are more and more arrests, killings and abuses.

"This is happening in Russia, Canada, the Philippines, Cambodia, Mongolia, Nigeria, the Amazon, all over Latin America, Papua New Guinea and Africa," MsTauli-Corpus said. "It is global. We are seeing a human rights emergency. A battle is taking place for natural resources everywhere. Much of the world's natural capital - oil, gas, timber, minerals - lies on or beneath lands occupied by indigenous people."

==================================================================================