MAY LOVE PREVAIL ON EARTH
September 22, 2005
The Perfect Storm Series #1: Rita Could Doom The U.S.
Here is the ominous warning issued a little over 3 hours ago and which I just found at http://www.wunderground.com/blog/SteveGregory/show.html
SEPT 21, 2005 / 11:10 PM CDT
EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CATEGORY 5 - 3rd STRONGEST ON RECORD
MATAGORDA TO GALVESTON IN NOON SATURDAY
POTENTIAL FOR CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE
One of the most, if not the most, intense hurricanes ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico, Rita's last reported central pressure was last measured at 897mb. However, in the past 3 hours since that observation, satellite imagery indicates the convection has increased further, and the subsidence in the eye has likewise intensified. It is very likely the next RECON will find a lower central pressure. Estimated sustained surface winds are now 175mph, with gusts to 200mph -- equal to or greater than that recorded in Katrina or Camille. With additional intensification still possible - wind gusts of 210mph may be experienced at the surface.
The storm is located near 24.6N /87.5W - or about 560 miles southeast of Galveston, TX. The storm is moving 280° at 8Kts and will continue on this track for the next 24 hours. Satellite imagery depicts what is now intuitively obvious -- 'The Perfect Storm' -- and it is hard to imagine that the storm can get any stronger -- but there is no particular reason for it weaken unless an eye wall replacement cycle -should begin -- though there are not indications that is imminent. The storm is still over the very warm loop current, and will be for another 8-10 hours. Once the storm moves away from the loop current, some slight weakening should occur, but the storm will remain a strong CAT 5 Hurricane for probably another 24-48 hours. The storm continues to grow in size, with sustained gale force winds extending 180NM from the center in the northern semi-circle.
Ocean swells to 12 feet have now reached the north and northeast Gulf coast, and will reach the Texas coast by morning. Ocean wave models indicate that sea height of 80ft or greater are being generated near the storm's eyewall.
The latest model runs remain very tightly clustered along the coast of Texas, and have shifted a bit more to the north ... with the consensus showing landfall near Freeport -- about 30 miles to the SW of Galveston.
The shift by the models is supported and consistent with the initialization data for the location and strength of the strong, but now weakening High Pressure ridge over the Gulf coast states. This ridge is forecast to weaken further and drift eastward during the next 48-72 hours, and will allow Rita to begin heading more northwestward starting in about 24-36 hours, and then taking a NNW track for during the final 18-24 hours prior to landfall.
The storm's forward motion of 10Kts is not expected to change, and as long as it maintains a forward motion in excess of 10Kts -- no appreciable weakening due to upwelling of cooler sub-surface waters seems likely. What may support weakening prior to landfall is some increased shear to the northwest of the storm as it approaches the coast -- and some weakening in the outflow channels. . Rita could reach the coast as a CAT 5 hurricane, though a strong CAT 4 seems most probable.. But even if the storm does weaken for any one of the above reasons -- with eye wall replacement being the most probable -- there is no doubt that a CAT 5 Storm Surge will hit the coast. With the still expanding and intensifying circulation field -- the storm may produce a CAT 5 storm surge for a 60-80 mile stretch of coast line from near the point of landfall and extending to the northeast.
A tidal surge of 3-5 feet is expected to reach across to the eastern portions of the Louisiana coast, with a 4-8 ft surge from Marsh Island westward to Port Arthur - and then increasing to 20 feet or more from near Galveston to Freeport
(End of warning - many pictures and much data at this URL above)
I found many more such ominous warnings (see below) about the EXTREMELY dire consequences of this impeding disaster. The U.S. and much of the rest of the world soon after are in for a rude and potentially beneficial awakening as the consequences of the runaway global warning we have triggered and of our excessive dependence on oil are coming home to roost.
Someone is suggesting below we unite in meditation to dampen the fury of this storm, but no common uniting moment of collective focus is recommended. I'd suggest that we all join doing what is suggested (see "Dissipating Hurricane Rita" below) for 15 minutes starting this Thursday at noon East Coast time and continue doing so for about 5 minutes at the top of every hour trusting that however events turn out to be, it will be for the highest good of all Life on Earth in the long run, as precious lessons will be learned through this impending crisis that will make changes previously unthinkable now unavoidable, and even highly desirable.
We will pull ourselves across the years of great tribulations ahead only through tapping deep within us the wellspring of spiritual wisdom and universal compassion and love to help all our awakening brothers and sisters out of the darkness of this fast fading era into a new age of Spiritual Renaissance and Global Oneness with All That Is.
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
You are welcomed to network anything from this compilation, but please also include the following:
Free subscription to such compilations by sending a blank email to email@example.com
This compilation is archived at http://www.earthrainbownetwork.com/Archives2005/PerfectStorm1.htm
STATS for this compilation: Over 29,440 words and 75 links proviided.
To unsubscribe from the Earth Rainbow Network automated listserver, or change your listing on it when you have a new email address, the simplest way is to do it yourself by sending a blank email at firstname.lastname@example.org -- IMPORTANT: You MUST do it from the email account you wish to unsubscribe otherwise the system won't recognize your request.
"The lessons and challenges of empowerment are as intense as they have ever been, and they will intensify. You have all called for awakening, for illumination and understanding, and now it is before you. Many people also have to understand that the times have changed, just like we said earlier on. Just like your grandparents' reality is very different from yours, and your grandchildren's reality is and will be very different from yours. Therefore, people need to accept that truth. Material that has been written two thousand years ago, even five years ago, has changed in its nature, because you are changing and the Earth consciousness has changed to such an extent that the energies are so diverse that not one teaching is the only way to go.This is why I beseech every one of you to turn your senses into your heart, and to feel for yourself. Even when Spirit speaks to you, you have to discern for yourself if that is in line with your present truth. Perhaps it is a future truth, or it was a past truth, but it is a present truth. And only you know that."
- Master Kuthumi through Michelle Eloff (July 5, 2003) -- Taken from http://www.thelightweaver.co.za/July.htm and found in "Lou Bognon" new and most excellent book "We Are Here To Learn - An inspirational guide to the lesson of life" available from her at email@example.com>
"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
- President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 - taken from "Dodging the Costs of the Warfare State" (Sept 19) at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0919-20.htm
Worthy of Your Attention
The Thithing Tree - Grow By Giving
Creating a simpler, more humanitarian Christmas. Here is how it works...
If this is your first year tithing, we suggest you inform your family and friends ahead of time about your new picture of Christmas, so they know what to expect. Here are some possible scenarios
Sister: Aw you're not giving presents this year. Cool, I won't either.
You: I actually am giving presents - I'm giving them to where I see there's the highest need. Maybe instead of giving me a present, you could tithe to something you believe in.
Wazza: But I've already spent 100 dollars
listen to me - ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS on a subwoofer for your car, and instead of giving me a present, you're giving it to someone else? What were you thinking?!
You: My thought was that we already have enough and it weighs on my conscience when I see how the majority of the world are living.
Husband: Sounds great sweetie, but what about the kids?
You: Well we can still give them something, and at the same time, I believe we need to show our kids that we have an abundance, and that we can share some of that.
Presenting your present when there is no present to present...
Christmas day can still be a time of feasting and abundance with only the gift itself being different. It is a joyful and fulfilling experience to sit together on Christmas day and to take turns speaking about your chosen beneficiary. This helps everyone to understand the positive impact created by each tithe.
Taken from http://www.thetithingtree.org/site3.html - More details at http://www.thetithingtree.org
Many many news summary!
Extraterrestrial Civilizations & World Peace Conference
Presented by the Exopolitics Institute - June 9-11, 2006. Kona, Hawaii - Advanced, ethical extraterrestrial civilizations have been visiting the earth with increased frequency since the dawn of the atomic age due to their concerns over the long term effects of nuclear weapons testing and war. Extensive evidence supports testimony from a number of 'whistleblowers' and 'contactees' that some of these extraterrestrial civilizations specifically approached world governments to ask for an end to nuclear weapons development due to dangers yet unknown to our scientists. Dangers which were (and still are) affecting the global environment, all species on the planet, and the fabric of time-space itself. There is further compelling evidence that visiting extraterrestrials have acted to mitigate the most severe aspects of military conflict, environmental degradation and weaponization of space; offering non-carbon energy alternatives; raising human consciousness; and have been actively promoting world peace through 'citizen diplomats'. This international conference will host a select group of experts, dignitaries, and 'citizen diplomats' to address a variety of key issues concerning the relationship between extraterrestrial civilizations and world peace. The conference will produce a 'Declaration' and an 'Action Plan' for how humanity can cooperate with visiting extraterrestrial civilizations to achieve world peace.
1. RITA will be one of the most destructive storms ever seen
2. URGENT: Dissipating Hurricane Rita
3. RITA: Storm May Be the Coup de Grace for the American Economy and Many of Us As Well
4. The US Government Did Not Fail Its Mission In the Wake of Hurricane Katrina
5. Hurricane Katrina and Climate Justice
6. A Reality Check on Bush's Speech to the UN World Summit
7. Galloway's Frankness Invigorates, Shocks Americans
8. Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World
9. British Mercenaries Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq
10. Iran War Clouds On the Harvest Moon
11. Fireman Admits Again: 9-11 Inside Job
12. Faith and Policy: People sense president's soulless sensibility
13. A surgeons meeting
Apocalypse Now: How Mankind Is Sleepwalking to the End of the Earth (September 21, 2005)
This headline appeared in the London Independent in early February of 2005, following a conference at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, England, where 200 of the worlds leading scientists issued the most urgent warning to date: that dangerous climate change is taking place today, and not the day after tomorrow. Floods, storms, and droughts. Melting polar ice, shrinking glaciers, oceans turning to acid. Scientists from the fields of glaciology, biology, meteorology, oceanography, and ecology reported seeing a dramatic rise over the last 50 years of all the indicators of climate change: increase in average world temperatures, extreme weather events, in the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and in the level of the oceans. The award winning environmental writer Geoffrey Lean wrote: Future historians, looking back from a much hotter and less hospitable world . . . will puzzle over how a whole generation could have sleepwalked into disaster -- destroying the climate that has allowed human civilization to flourish over the past 11,000 years. The overwhelming majority of scientists and international climate monitoring bodies now agree that climate change is taking place, that humans are responsible, and that time is running out. In fact, we could reach the point of no return in a decade, reported Lean. CLIP
Texans Flee from Rita
Residents in southeast Texas and coastal Louisiana scurried to get out of the way of Hurricane Rita, a Category 5 hurricane expected to hit the Lone Star State this weekend.
Where is Crawford, Texas?...
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan (September 11, 2005) VERY, VERY BAD IDEA!
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons - The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction. CLIP
Cindy Sheehan: Wake Up!
Cindy Sheehan: It is time for all of us to stand up and be counted: to show the media, Congress, and this inept, corrupt, and criminal administration that we mean business. It is time to get off of our collective behinds to show the people who are running our country into oblivion that we will stand for it no longer.
STOP THE WAR - Do you have something better to do this weekend? (September 21, 2005)
Cancel your meetings, load up the kids, gather up your friends -- COME TO WASHINGTON, DC and surround the White House. You know you want to. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS CLIP Check also at http://www.unitedforpeace.org/septmobe
Thousands to Protest War in Iraq This Weekend (September 19)
WASHINGTON - Operation Ceasefire ( http://www.opceasefire.org ), an eleven-hour free concert and rally to bring the troops home from Iraq at the Washington Monument on Sept. 24, is pleased to announce new additions to the line-up of performers. Legendary folk singer Joan Baez and the rock band Living Things are now confirmed to perform. (...) The following speakers will appear between the musical acts: host Jello Biafra, Co-Founder of Gold Star Families for Peace Cindy Sheehan, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Washington Wizard Forward Etan Thomas, Former State Department Officer Ann Wright, national radio commentator Jim Hightower, Fernando Suarez del Solar of Gold Star Families, Rev. Graylan Hagler, Cindy Corrie, Mother of peace activist Rachel Corrie who was killed in the West Bank, Code Pink and Global Exchange co-founder Medea Benjamin, the DC Guerilla Poets, investigative journalist Greg Palast, Iraq Vets Against the War Co-Founder Michael Hoffman, Anti-Flag drummer Pat Thetic and more. Operation Ceasefire is sponsored by United for Peace & Justice http://www.unitedforpeace.org which has planned three days of action (Sept. 24-26) to stop the war in Iraq. The Operation Ceasefire concert will immediately follow a massive rally and march that begins at the Ellipse near the White House at 11:30 a.m. and will at end at the Washington Monument. The concert will begin at 2 p.m. and end at approximately 1:30 a.m.
Bill Clinton Launches Withering Attack on Bush
"What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts," Clinton said.
Largest Theft in History: $1 Billion Missing in Iraq
The money missing from all ministries under the interim Iraqi government appointed by the US in June 2004 may turn out to be close to $2bn. Of a military procurement budget of $1.3bn, some $200m may have been spent on usable equipment, though this is a charitable view, say officials.
Are we to conclude that the depopulation of New Orleans went according to the Bush administration's plan? The Progressive Populist claims that the dispersal of hundreds of thousands of Democrat-leaning voters from New Orleans could turn Louisiana from a swing state to a Republican lock. And the stricken area of Mississippi has a Democratic congressman, so it might have been considered expendable as well.
Circles of Hell: New Orleans Gives Us a Glimpse of Bush's Vision for America (Sept 15)
(...) The squalid innermost circles of hell, which thousands of American citizens may still be trapped in, are distinctly manmade. Something far more sinister than incompetence has been at work in post-Katrina New Orleans. While there was plenty of that racism and incompetence seemed to merge to create a sluggish response, Christian Parenti wrote in The Nation the fumbling cluelessness of FEMA under George Bush is a minor aspect of the vision of America, armed and gated, he and his cohorts have bestowed on us. In this virulent, militarized vision, disaster relief is an afterthought. What this administration does enthusiastically is wage war, or at least take potshots at fear. Thus the commander of the Louisiana National Guards Joint Task Force told Army Times, as quoted by Rebecca Solnit in Harpers, This will be a combat operation to get this city under control. If its a combat operation, you need an enemy and the poor and destitute of New Orleans got conscripted into this role. As Solnit pointed out, The Convention Center and the Superdome became open prisons. The evacuees sequestered in these hellholes were not allowed to leave. The National Guardsmen there, like other law enforcement officials in the stricken city, seemed to be employed less in disaster relief than enemy containment. The nation has suddenly learned what compassionate conservatism looks really like: Inside there were National Guard running around, there was feces, people had urinated, soiled the carpet. There were dead bodies. The smell will never leave me. CLIP
FEMA, Slow to the Rescue, Now Stumbles in Aid Effort
Nearly three weeks after Hurricane Katrina cut its devastating path, FEMA - the same federal agency that botched the rescue mission - is faltering in its effort to aid hundreds of thousands of storm victims, local officials, evacuees and top federal relief officials say. The federal aid hot line mentioned by President Bush in his address to the nation on Thursday cannot handle the flood of calls, leaving thousands of people unable to get through for help, day after day.
New FEMA Boss is the Duct Tape Man!
The same guy who, 2 1/2 years ago, advised using duct tape against biochem attack.
Former FEMA Chief Brown Bought Votes in Florida
Michael Brown, the embattled former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, approved payments in excess of $31 million in taxpayer money to thousands of Florida residents who were unaffected by Hurricane Frances and three other hurricanes last year in an effort to help President Bush win a majority of votes in that state during his reelection campaign, according to published reports.
Outpouring of Relief Cash Raises Fear of Corruption and Cronyism (Sept 20)
The outpouring of billions of dollars in federal relief money to victims of Hurricane Katrina is raising concerns about the risks of corruption and cronyism, with Bush administration critics expressing the fear that the Gulf coast, like Iraq, could become another grand experiment in neoconservative ideology. Already, no-bid contracts have been awarded to major Republican contributors including Kellogg, Brown & Root, the subsidiary of Vice President Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton. President Bush has unilaterally lifted a protection law that makes it possible for contractors to pay sub-minimum wage rates to reconstruction workers. Among provisions releasing more than $60bn to the disaster area meanwhile, is a rise in the limit on government-issued credits cards from $25,000 to $250,000. One Republican Senator, and the Democrats, have denounced this provision as outrageous and open to abuse. Critics have been particularly disturbed by reports that Karl Rove, President Bush's political brain who has no experience in disaster relief or urban planning, may be put in charge of the reconstruction effort. Since his speciality is fighting and winning elections, the concern is that he will want to redraw the electoral map of southern Louisiana and Mississippi before providing new homes or electricity and water.The reconstruction programme - forecast by some to reach $200bn, the price of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars put together - appears akin to the vast government programmes enacted by Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s to dig the US out of the Great Depression. But the Bush administration's favourite conservative think tanks suggest it will be very different from Roosevelt's New Deal. The Heritage Foundation, for example, has proposed lifting environmental regulations, eliminating capital gains taxes and permitting private ownership of public school buildings in the disaster area.
Katrina Relief: It's Iraq Deja vu All Over Again, by Arianna Huffington (Sept 15)
Reacting to all the pricey promises the president made in his big Katrina speech, a senior House Republican official told the New York Times, "We are not sure he knows what he is getting into."If that's true, Bush must have the worst memory since Guy Pearce in "Memento" because he's definitely been down this road before. The coming attractions for the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast play like a shot-by-shot remake of the mother of all disaster features, the reconstruction of Iraq.Let's start with the rhetoric. "We will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes," the president pledged on Thursday. "We will do whatever it takes... we will stay there until the job is done," the president said of Iraq in November 2003. It wouldn't be a "Terminator" movie without "I'll be back," and it wouldn't be a massive mega-billion dollar Bush initiative without a vow to stay the course. (...) The feeling that the Katrina relief effort is going to be Iraq all over again is unavoidable when you look at the list of the companies already being awarded clean up and reconstruction contracts. It's that old gang from Baghdad: Halliburton, Bechtel, Fluor, and the Shaw Group (which has a tasteful notice on its website saying "Hurricane Recovery Projects -- Apply Here!"). Together again. A veritable moveable feast of crony capitalism. Even the Wall Street Journal is getting an uneasy sense of déjà vu, pointing out that "the Bush administration is importing many of the contract practices blamed for spending abuses in Iraq," including contracts awarded without competitive bidding, and cost-plus provisions "that guarantee contractors a certain profit regardless of how much they spend." So what's the thinking on this one, Mr. President -- 'If at first you don't succeed...'? CLIP
Katrina Survivors Being Shot? (September 17, 2005)
Pentagon covering up shooting incidents in New Orleans and environs? Reports are emanating out of New Orleans that National Guard, regular military, officers of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and private security personnel have shot to death homeless and needy survivors of Hurricane Katrina. One shooting incident is alleged to have occurred last week at Louis Armstrong International Airport where over a hundred people were subjected to lethal force after troops feared they were going to "riot." It is uncertain how many people have been killed by lethal force in New Orleans, but the numbers mentioned are in excess of 150. There are also reports that those who gathered in and around the New Orleans Superdome after the flooding were shot by troops and their bodies stored in walk-in freezers in the arena. Local reports from New Orleans suggest law enforcement personnel have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements about the shooting incidents. There are also recurring reports that troops, Federal law enforcement, and private security personnel are harassing civilians on the streets. There are also credible reports that wealthy land speculators have descended on New Orleans to buy up flood ravaged property. Some of these individuals, notably from Florida, are connected to the GOP's Indian gambling casino scandal. Informed sources also report that there are plans by the land speculators to turn New Orleans into a "Las Vegas on the Gulf" minus the city's poor and largely African American population. Story unfolding.After the Bush crime family steals the land and homes of the poor, burn and bury the corpses, and disperse the survivors to trailer park ghettos, will New Orleans become the "Las Vegas of the Gulf?"
No crisis, but Maine getting plenty of ice (Sept 20, 2005)
The federal government is diverting hundreds of truckloads of bagged ice cubes from the Gulf Coast hurricane-relief effort to cold storage in Portland and other cities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency says it has more ice than it can use in the hurricane zone and wants to keep it in storage for use in a future emergency. But critics, including some truck drivers who have been paid $800 a day while hauling the same loads for a week or more, say the process seems like a waste of taxpayers' money. "The $9,000 they're paying me to move this load should have gone to some family down there," said Loren Reeves, who hauled his load of ice from New York state to Alabama before being sent to Maine. "There is definitely millions being wasted that could go to people who need it." CLIP
Polluted paradise (Sept 13)
(...) Yet as the sun climbs, California heats up; people awaken, start their machines and pump tons of emissions into the sky. The air pollution, stratified over Visalia like the layers of a cake, begins to cook and mix and expand. The ozone gauge at Beetle Rock starts ticking upwards from .066 part per million and will soon climb toward the unhealthful mark. The smog is coming.With little fanfare, Sequoia-Kings Canyon has become America's smoggiest national park. The mountains that John Muir once described as "not clothed with light, but wholly composed of it" have on many summer days the clarity of miso soup. Grand Canyon, Joshua Tree and Great Smoky Mountains national parks get plenty of bad press for their air quality, but Sequoia-Kings Canyon would be fortunate if it had similar conditions. The pollution in Sequoia is less severe than in the Los Angeles basin, but there are more smoggy days here than in Atlanta or New York City.
Secret Agreement To Amalgamate US, Canada And Mexico (9-19-5) !!!!
When Presidents Bush and Fox and Martin had their secret meeting in Crawford, TX in March 2005 in secret, they laid out the amalgamation of Canada, US and Mexico that will be followed by the absorption of the CAFTA countries forming a single state of North America. The agreement was signed without the consent of the government and the peoples of these three countries. In fact, 99% of them do not know such a secret agreement exists. CLIP
New York Skyscrapers Dim Lights to Save Birds (September 21, 2005)
NEW YORK - The city that never sleeps will darken the lights of the famed Manhattan skyline after midnight to help save migrating birds. New York civic leaders on Tuesday said the lights of buildings above the 40th floor will be turned off after midnight in the fall and spring migration seasons to save birds. Since 1997, more than 4,000 migratory birds have been killed or injured from colliding into skyscrapers, bird experts said. "New York City is this nexus of ancient migratory flyways, and the parks have become these havens for these birds, but ... the buildings with their light draw birds to them, sort of like moths to a flame," NYC Audubon Director E.J. McAdams said at a news conference. McAdams was joined by city officials and real estate groups in promoting "Lights Out New York." One building group leader said he expected 100 percent compliance, and another said he expected around 95 percent of its members to participate. "There's no reason why we can't do this little effort to help our environment. Just because the lights are out does not mean that energy will not be flowing in New York City 24 hours a day," Real Estate Board of New York President Steve Spinola said. The program was modeled after others in Chicago and Toronto. For those who would lament the dimming of New York's famed skyline, New York officials said it would only occur a few months a year and save energy. "This is recognizing that beyond architectural beauty, natural beauty is something that can't be replaced. Once these bird species go extinct they're not coming back," Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe said.
George Monbiot | It Would Seem That I Was Wrong about Big Business
Monbiot: At a conference organized by the Building Research Establishment, I witnessed an extraordinary thing: companies demanding tougher regulations - and the government refusing to grant them ... So why won't the government act? Because it is siding with the dirty companies against the clean ones.
Omega-News Collection 17. September 2005
From: Donna Williams firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: September 21, 2005
Subject: RITA will be one of the most destructive storms ever seen
From: Jim Haggins email@example.com>
Subject: Golden Elks Message dated 09-02-05
Back on September 2nd, 2005 Golden Elk came to me and handed me the following message that he received telepathically (channeled). He asked me to "get it out there" as he has no Internet service. I sent it to a select group on Sept. 03, 2005 and now with what appears to be happening in the gulf, we are expanding our mailing list and including you... Golden Elk feels that it is of the utmost importance to get this information out to the world, which is why I am sending it to you today.
EARTH CHANGES PROPHECY
As received by Cody Golden Elk on 9/2/2005
Today at 11:34 am, Earth-mountain time, I was shown a vision, by the Spiritual Hierarchy of Light (SHL) , of the next great hurricane to strike the U.S.
This will be one of the most destructive storms ever seen, its effects felt around the world. It will approach Houston, Texas from the southeast, and lay waste a large portion of the Texas coast, like a category 5+ hurricane.
When I asked the SHL when this would occur in linear Earth time, they only replied "soon", emphasizing that these events are like a "one, two" punch, with the recent hurricane, Katrina, which destroyed New Orleans being the "jab", and the coming hurricane hitting Houston being the much more forceful "knock out" punch. There will be some loss of life, but a much greater property destruction of oil refinery output.
The SHL wants those few Earth humans who will listen, to know that THIS IS A DIRECT STRIKE FROM THE UNIVERSAL SPIRIT UPON THE EVIL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE FOSSIL FUEL PARADIGM (oil business). The refineries in Houston and New Orleans, for decades have polluted the oceans with noxious chemicals. Also, they produced much gasoline, which, through car emissions have caused severe pollution of the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in cascading environmental degradation. Much of the military fuels used for the evils of the U.S. Government in launching its numerous attacks worldwide (like Vietnam and Iraq) were also made in these places.
WARNING: This is the "beginning of the end" wake up call for the demise of the fossil fuel paradigm, and all the associated evil and environmental destruction it has spawned. It is time for the Secret Government to stop withholding energy technology and for greed to end. The loss of life and property will be sad, but NOT NEARLY AS IMPORTANT AS THE LESSON: GREEDY EARTH HUMANS - STOP DESTROYING YOUR ONLY HOME, THE EARTH.
This event could trigger WW 3, as the Earth Governments contend for oil in your Middle East's oil rich region.
This message was sent BEFORE this big storm strikes Houston (in 3-D linear Earth time) so it would be more believable to your people, once it actually occurs.
From: "Sunny Ariel" firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: URGENT: Dissipating Hurricane Rita
Date: 21 Sep 2005
Greetings, This just came in my in-box from a friend of Joseph Giove's I'm sending it along in the hopes that you will take a moment to read it and add your intention to the power of our collective thoughts. Blessings of love and light, Sunny
As requested below:
Please spread the word to those who have an affinity for the infinite possibilities of the human spirit when we consciously operate as One.
Open Portal Productions
Tel: (505) 331-0340
Good day from InfinityAffinity.org, Please IMMEDIATELY spread the word:
We are going to apply the power of our collective thought and feeling NOW toward dissipating Hurricane Rita BEFORE it hits land. Consider this the power to consciously *select* an alternate, future reality than the one predicted by mainstream thought. Of course, this is in addition to inspired, prudent action, if necessary.
First let us study how Nature accomplished this recently for Hurricane Dennis. Please study this NOW, Part 1: the description of how Hurricane Dennis "underwent a meteorological phenomenon" and suddenly dissipated.
Then move into a constant energizing of the Concordance that follows in Part 2. PART 1. From National Geographic News Service.
"But between then and 4 a.m. Sunday, Dennis underwent a meteorological phenomenon often referred to as bombing out...But as Dennis bore down on the narrow Alabama coast Sunday afternoon, several factors intervened to diminish its winds and drag it away from Mobile Bay.
HOW DENNIS WAS DEFANGED
Randy McKee, chief meteorologist at the National Weather Service's Mobile office, said Dennis's power was diminished when it went through an "eye wall replacement."
This process often happens to very intense hurricanes, such as Dennis, when a second wall of intense thunderstorms begins forming around the storm's existing eye. The eye wall acts as a giant noose, choking the hurricane's momentum and reducing its winds.
The thunderstorms forming and dissipating around Dennis's eye also pulled the storm off its Mobile-bound course.
The thunderstorms had the same effect as putting a small weight on a spinning top, McKee said. "If you had the top spinning perfectly and you put a little weight on one place, it would affect the top's path," he said.
"That little hiccup in there was enough to move the hurricane's landfall from Mobile Bay to the east," McKee said.
Hurricane Dennis ran into another impediment as its eye drew within 150 miles (240 kilometers) of the Alabama coast. At that point the hurricane began crossing over seas that had been churned up by Tropical Storm Cindy late last week. The churning had cooled the water, depriving Dennis of the warm seas it needed to maintain its fearsome winds.
So between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. Sunday, Dennis became a different hurricane. It was still potent but not quite the monster it had been, and it was headed away from the heavily populated cities of Mobile and nearby Pensacola, Florida."
****DISSIPATING HURRICANE RITA CONCORDANCE****
Maintain an inner state of calm and confidence from now until Hurricane Rita dissipates. This is a continual Concordance, not an event, over the next few days:
RITA BOMBS OUT AS THUNDERSTORMS FORM AROUND THE EYE, PLACING PRESSURE ON IT SUCH THAT IS SLOWS DOWN, WITH GREAT FORCE HOLDING IT IN THE GULF WHILE POWERFUL FORCES CHURN AND ***COOL*** DRAMATICALLY THE GULF WATERS BETWEEN THE EYE AND THE COAST, ROBBING THE STORM OF ITS FUEL AND WEAKENING ITS MOMENTUM AND WINDS AND MINIMIZING THE STORM SURGE.
THIS STORM IS DIVERTED BY IT STALLING OUT IN THE GULF, NOT HARMING *ANY* OTHER AREAS. I AM A FORCE RESHAPING THE EYE WALL RESULTING IN GREATLY DIMINISHED MOMENTUM AND WINDS.
WE SEE/FEEL THE RELIEF OF MILLIONS AS THEY RETURN TO THEIR SAFE HOMES WITH THEIR LOVED ONES, INCLUDING THEIR BELOVED PETS. I SEE/FEEL EVERY LIVING THING SAFE, SECURE AND HOME.
I AM CALM AND COOL IN THE FROTHY WATERS OF MY OWN INNER CHAOS, WHICH DISSIPATES *NOW* AND IN DIVINE ORDER CAUSING NO DAMAGE TO MY INNER OR OUTER WORLD. ANY CLEANSING OR PURIFYING THAT I NEED IS GRACIOUSLY ACCEPTED IN A CALM, GRADUAL AND COMPASSIONATE MANNER.
Please spread the word to those who have an affinity for the infinite possibilities of the human spirit when we consciously operate as One.
All my best,
Joseph Giove (aka Flesymi)
PS. Let us place our attention where it most enhances the manifestation of the above Concordance, and OFF what is contrary to it and born of fear. This is where our true power lies.
Recommended by "Kathleen Roberts" email@example.com>
RITA: Storm May Be the Coup de Grace for the American Economy and Many of Us As Well
by Michael C. Ruppert
September 21st, 2005 1530 PST (FTW) As I pack my bags to head to Washington for Congressional Black Caucus hearings on the September 11th attacks (to be conducted this Friday and Saturday) my inbox is being progressively flooded with emails from inside sources in the energy industry about what Hurricane Rita is now likely to accomplish the near-complete destruction of an already teetering US economy.
Fully 30% of all US refining capacity is in the target zone. Perhaps most importantly, almost every refinery capable of producing diesel fuel is in immediate danger. This promises (especially in the wake of Katrina) a devastating and irreplaceable shortage of the diesel fuel needed to power Americas harvest of grain and food crops this month and next. Without diesel fuel to power the harvesters and combines, crops may be left to rot in the ground presenting a double whammy: food shortages (with prices that may treble or quadruple) and export defaults negatively impacting the financial markets and trade deficit.
Even before Rita strikes, fully 30% of all domestic natural gas production is shut in. The US cannot import natural gas from overseas like it can both crude and refined products. Repair work on infrastructure damaged by Katrina has been halted as crews have been evacuated. The remaining half of Gulf energy production undamaged by Katrina is directly in Ritas crosshairs. Natural gas prices are up over 110% and home heating oil futures are up almost 70% before Rita even gets here. Since Katrina, US domestic oil production is down one million barrels per day (from 5Mbpd to 4 Mbpd). We were producing 9 Mbpd less than a decade ago.
Peak Oil has made replacement of losses almost impossible even as Saudi heavy-sour is being spurned as useless around the world, even with discounts of up to $10 and $12 per barrel.
A Bloomberg article contains a quotation from a Wall Street energy expert as saying, Rita is developing into our worst-case scenario, said John Kilduff, vice president of risk management at Fimat USA in New York. This is headed right into our other major refining center just after all the damage done to facilities in Louisiana. From an energy perspective it doesn't get any worse than this.
The Chairman of Valero Energy agrees with the Bloomberg assessment calling Rita a http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=OBR&Date=20050921&ID=5131209" potentially national disaster. His opinion is important because Valero operates more refineries in the US than any other company.
CNN is now predicting $5 per gallon gasoline and this will not likely go away with market manipulations. We had not yet experienced the permanent spikes resulting from Katrina, and the emergency reserves of the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the International Energy Agency have already been tapped once and not refilled.
The South Texas Project nuclear plant one of the largest in the country is being completely shut down in preparation for Ritas landfall. It is only 12 miles from the Texas coast and almost dead center in the hurricanes projected path. Texas has its own power grid but catastrophic electricity shortages could easily ripple throughout the country in a short time. Electricity lost from that that facility will only be added to what is lost from other facilities powered by now critically short supplies of natural gas.
For those of you who expect FEMA to behave any differently in Texas than it did in New Orleans you are in for a crude awakening. FEMA will do what it must now do to preserve even a functioning part of Americas governing and economic infrastructure. Saving lives will be one of the least important functions in its mandate. While I had serious doubts about Americas ability to recover from Katrina, I am certain that barring divine intervention the United States is finished; not only as a superpower, but possibly even as a single, unified nation with the arrival of Hurricane Rita.
THE US GOVERNMENT DID NOT FAIL ITS MISSION IN THE WAKE OF HURRICANE KATRINA
Analysis by G. Edward Griffin, 2005 September 19
There has been widespread criticism of the response of US officials to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. The tone of these complaints is that the authorities failed to do their job quickly enough. Some commentators have said this is a racial issue, claiming that the government would have acted more promptly if the majority of victims had been white instead of black. Others have said it was an issue of the rich against the poor, the oil companies against the consumers, the land developers and contractors seeking to force people out of the city so they can rebuild without interference at taxpayers' expense. Democrats have said the problem is that Republicans were in control, and Republicans are indifferent to the plight of the common man.
In news coverage of this tragedy, the most significant events often were buried beneath a blanket of heart-wrenching stories of personal survival, scenes of awesome destruction, reports of looting, and interviews with experts. However, the key to understanding can be found in the following list of news headlines, most of which did not make it into mainstream coverage. These reports make it clear that the government did not fail to respond in a timely fashion. The problem was that it did respond - but in such a way as to actually hinder rescue operations. There were too many instances for this to be merely a mistake or a bureaucratic snafu. There is a clear pattern here that cannot be denied. Why this should be so will be discussed in a moment, but first, here is the amazing record.
( To access all the documents below, please go at http://www.freedom-force.org/printerfriendly.cfm?pffile=FEMA_Katrina_content.cfm )
FEMA tells first responders not to respond until told to do so. FEMA News 2005 Aug 29
FEMA won't accept Amtrak's help in evacuations.
FEMA News 2005 Aug 29
Offer of helicopters for rescue work is rejected.
Narcosphere 2005 Sept 1
FEMA blocks 500 Florida airboat pilots from rescue work.
Sun Sentinel 2005 Sept 2
FEMA to Chicago: Send just one truck.
Chicago Tribune 2005 Sept 2
FEMA turns back volunteer Sheriff's deputies and medical team. Unknown News 2005 Sept 2
FEMA bars morticians from entering New Orleans.
Tri Valley Central 2005 Sept 2
Pentagon says military mission in New Orleans is combat, not rescue.
Army Times 2005 Sept 2
FEMA blocks 500-boat citizen flotilla from delivering aid.
Daily Kos 2005 Sept 3
Homeland Security won't let Red Cross deliver food.
Post Gazette 2005 Sept 3
Military turns back flood survivors trying to leave city. Thousands held at gunpoint and locked up in Superdome.
Reuters 2005 Sept 3
FEMA fails to utilize Navy ship with 600-bed hospital onboard. Chicago Tribune 2005 Sept 4
FEMA cuts local emergency communications phone lines.
Meet the Press 2005 Sept 4
FEMA turns away experienced firefighters.
Daily Kos 2005 Sept 5
FEMA turns back Wal-Mart supply trucks.
NY Times 2005 Sept 5
FEMA prevents Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel.
NY Times 2005 Sept 5
Navy pilots who rescued victims are reprimanded.
NY Times 2005 Sept 7
US government turns back German plane with 15 tons of aid.
Star Tribune 2005 Sept 10
FEMA officials forbid stores from re-opening. Sheriff defies their order and threatens to arrest them. (Article near the bottom of page.) Times-Picayune 2005 Sept 11
FEMA declines volunteer firemen for rescue operations. Uses them to distibute public relations pamphlets.
Salt Lake Tribune 2005 Sept 12
FEMA orders doctor to stop treating hurricane victims.
Advocate 2005 Sept 16
So what is going on here? Were agents of the federal government trying to kill American citizens? Were they trying to obtain the maximum death toll and the highest level of human suffering? It would seem that way at first, but I would like to suggest that this incredible behavior stems from something else - something equally unsettling.
The primary job of the military, FEMA, and Homeland Security is not to protect the American people in times of emergency but to protect the government in times of emergency and keep it functioning. Their primary assignment is, not to rescue people, but to control them. Their directive is to relocate families and businesses, confiscate property, commandeer goods, direct labor and services, and establish martial law. The reason FEMA and Homeland security failed to carry out an effective rescue operation is that this was not their primary mission, and the reason they blocked others from doing so is that any operations not controlled by the central authority are contrary to their directives. Their objective was to bring the entire area under the control of the federal government - and this they succeeded in doing very well. They did not fail in New Orleans. They were a huge success. Once this simple fact is understood, everything that happened in the wake of Katrina becomes understandable and logical.
If there are new terrorist attacks against the United States or Great Britain (or any other country), what we witnessed in New Orleans may have been a glimpse into the future of global collectivism.
Hurricane Katrina and Climate Justice
by Joshua Karliner, Special to CorpWatch
September 12th, 2005
For nearly five years George Bush has infuriated much of the world by refusing to take action on global warming. Instead, he has called for more study. In a way, he got what he wanted with Hurricane Katrina.
One of the strongest storms on record, Katrina provided an epic and horrific laboratory for observing what happens when corporations and consumers pump more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The worlds top climate scientists have long documented the effects of burning fossil fuels--oil, coal and gas-- and predicted dire consequences for the worlds climate, including increasingly severe and frequent storms and floods.
That future is now. Katrina and its ugly aftermath are harbingers of world torn asunder not only by global warmings howling winds and towering waves, but also by deepening fissures between rich and poor, black and white.
Of course, mother nature does not discriminate by race or class. The flood waters swallowed up plenty of rich folks property and billions in corporate capital. But when nature makes her wrath felt, the wealthy are far more able to get out of the way and write off their losses, while the poor are trapped in her fury. In New Orleans, the poorest neighborhoods lay on lowest ground; the people without cash or cars had no way to evacuate. They are now environmental refugees--the ones the government utterly failed to help for days; the ones who will find it most difficult to relocate, to recover, to start anew.
The least powerfulwhether they live in New Orleans or in the low-lying coastal areas of Bangladesh, Nigeria, Honduras, or on islands from Jamaica to Fiji to the Maldivesare the ones who will suffer most from the hurricanes, typhoons, and rising tides of climate change. As entire coasts come under threat, the wealthy can buy sandbags and create super levies and sea walls, or just up and move to higher ground. The poortens of millions of climate refugees--will be stranded; no gas, no food, nowhere to go; up the toxic creek without a paddle.
Its the Oil, Stupid
The Katrina tragedy is intertwined with oil. Along with gas and coal, when burned, oil produces carbon dioxide, which makes up the bulk of the global warming gases that the worlds people and corporations release into the atmosphere. The United States consumes vast quantities of these fossil fuels. With 4 percent of the planets population, it is responsible for about a quarter of all the worlds greenhouse gas emissions.
Ironically, Louisiana is a major center for refining oil into gasoline and many other petrochemical products. The area right next to New Orleansan area devastated by Katrinahas been dubbed Cancer Alley for all of the pollution its refineries spew onto adjacent poor communities of color, and for the cancer clusters found to correlate with this contamination.
The people of Cancer Alley have suffered the scourge of oil several times over. Every day they breathed the filthy air and drank the contaminated water that the neighboring petrochemcial corporations served up. Many are sick. Some are dead. Now their homes are gone, swept away by a hurricane likely fueled by global warming caused in part by the oil refining that poisoned their community in the first place.
On top of this, almost all 140 chemical plants between New Orleans and Baton Rouge have sustained damage. At least two hazardous waste sites are underwater, at least two oil refinery sites in Chalmette are shut down and possibly flooded, said Darryl Malek-Wiley a grassroots Environmental Justice Organizer in Louisiana. Rigzone.com, an oil and gas industry website reports that refineries and drilling rigs in 13 different sites have spilled tens of thousands of barrels of oil. A toxic stew of this oil, gasoline, vinyl chloride, and other hazardous chemicals threatens to profoundly contaminate the area for generations to come.
In the midst of the flooding, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and an ExxonMobil employee claimed that no toxics were being released," environmental justice organizer Ann Rolfes of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade told her colleagues. "These institutions may have faced reality by now. However, given the woeful track record, the government and industry need monitoring now more than ever, she said. Indeed, in the midst of the chaos, the Exxon Mobil refinery manager abandoned his command post, and only one company employee remained in town. This, says Rolfes, is what happens when corporate chiefs with no ties to the community are in charge.
The corporate leaders werent the only absentees. Where was the government in this hour of need? everyone asks. Where was the National Guard when the poor people of Cancer Alley and New Orleans needed rescuing? At least thirty percent of them were off in Iraq, occupying a land with some of the largest oil reserves in the world. They took with them heavy equipment, generators, and helicopters that would have been invaluable to rescue efforts.
And soon, the military may also lay claim to some of Katrinas younger, poorer victims as they try to get back on their feet. With few options, these climate refugees may become new fodder in Iraq, helping secure US access to a resource whose combustion promotes catastrophic climate change and more hurricanes like Katrina. In the beginning, in the middle and at the end of this disaster... there is oil.
Imagining a Green New Orleans
As the 21st century unfolds, the ravages of global warming will only increase. Certainly if the US government does not dramatically reverse course, the whole world will be studying the issue from an uncomfortably, and often lethally close vantage point.
There are, however, many things we can do to address Katrinas impact, to avoid the scientists worst predictions, and to promote just solutions to the climate change that is already happening.
For starters, This clean up cannot be left in the hands of a state that cannot protect its citizens from toxics even under ordinary circumstances, says Ann Rolfes. Her organization, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade is working to assure that both industry and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality provide an honest and accurate accounting of what toxics have been released. And they are seeking help and funding from experts at all levels to monitor pollution levels once the floods recede. Such efforts can help protect the short- and long-term health of hurricane victims while providing important guidance for addressing issues of chemical safety and environmental justice in the future.
Meanwhile, America, Louisiana, and the Gulf Coast have an opportunity to be visionary and think well into the future in our recovery efforts," says environmental justice organizer, Darryl Malek-Wiley. "In rebuilding New Orleans, and the Mississippi and Alabama Gulf Coast, we can help make America more energy independent by using green building practices that emphasize energy conservation and use renewable sources of energy. We can ensure that the neighborhoods that we rebuild are public transit-oriented and people-friendly. And, we can rethink how toxic chemicals are stored and shipped through our communities. This is also an opportunity to take people who have no hope and give them jobs to rebuild their future while they rebuild their communities.
Rebuilding a more green and just New Orleans and Gulf Coast could be an example to the rest of the country and the world of how to use clean energy and environmentally sustainable construction and production to diminish our negative impact on the Earths ecosystems.
If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change we need to move quickly elsewhere as well. We need to transcend the narrow interests of the oil, coal, petrochemical, and automobile corporations and institute a grand and just transformation of our economy away from fossil fuels and toward clean, sustainable energy. In doing so we can both create well-paying jobs and stem the rising tides of climate change.
Unfortunately we are faced with an administration that is not only out of touch with whats happening on the ground, but all too in touch with the most callous side of American society. It abandoned 150,000 mostly African Americans to sink or swim in flooded New Orleans while continuing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the leaders of Exxon Mobil and Halliburton who put oil, power, and profits above peace, justice, and environmental sanity.
President Bush and his far-right administration have studied the problem enough. Katrina and the devastation she wreaked clearly demonstrate the need to take serious action on climate change. Unless he changes course drastically, history will mark George W. Bush for time immemorial as GW, the Global Warming president.
Joshua Karliner is CorpWatchs founder. He is co-author of the 1999 publication Greenhouse Gangsters vs. Climate Justice
A Reality Check on Bush's Speech to the UN World Summit
by Yifat Susskind - September 16, 2005
On September 14, George W. Bush addressed a gathering of over 170 world leaders at the UN World Summit. His speech came in the wake of international outrage against the US for its attempts to derail the Summit's original purpose, which was to make progress on reducing global poverty. Given the disconnect between the President's words and deeds, we offer the following MADRE reality check on some of Bush's more egregious comments at the World Summit.
"Either hope will spread, or violence will spread-and we must take the side of hope."
As the world's biggest arms exporter, the US has clearly taken the side of violence. On Bush's watch, US arms sales have outpaced the second-largest arms dealer (Russia) two-to-one. More than half of these weapons went to governments known for human rights abuses against civilians, such as Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Colombia.
"The terrorists must know that wherever they go, they cannot escape justice."
Oh no? While the Bush Administration has been busy killing civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda has regrouped to become a more diffuse network of local units able to strike with greater frequency in multiple countries. Osama bin Laden, meanwhile, cannot be found because-as Bush famously explained-"he is hiding."
"The Security Council has an opportunity to put the terrorists on notice when it votes on a resolution that condemns the incitement of terrorist acts."
The resolution, which was passed after Bush's speech, bans incitement without defining the term. It thereby gives governments a powerful instrument to silence political opponents, shut down organizations critical of their policies, and quash peaceful dissent.
"We must send a clear message to the rulers of outlaw regimes that sponsor terror and pursue weapons of mass murder: you will not be allowed to threaten the peace and stability of the world."
Apparently that prerogative is reserved for the Pentagon, which just last week updated plans for using nuclear weapons preemptively. In a move that the UN Secretary General labeled "a disgrace," Bush's UN Ambassador, John Bolton, blocked a call for nuclear disarmament from the Summit's outcome document.
"Confronting our enemies is essential, and so civilized nations will continue to take the fight to the terrorists."
More bad news for the people who happen to live in the battle zone. While Bush was making this callous remark, 150 Iraqi civilians were killed in the worst single day of attacks since the 2003 US invasion.
"We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals."
This must have been news to Bolton, who tried to delete every mention of the goals from the Summit's outcome document.
"I call on all the world's nations to implement the Monterrey Consensus."
The Monterrey Consensus (named for a 2002 economic summit in Mexico) includes a commitment by rich countries to spend 0.7 percent of their national income (less than three-quarters of a percent) on development-something that the US has fought tooth and nail against and still refuses to do. In fact, the US-the word's richest country-spends less than a quarter of one percent on development (.18 percent). Bush is much more enthusiastic about the other provisions of the Monterrey Consensus: poor countries implementing political and economic reforms demanded by wealthy countries in exchange for aid and debt relief.
"Tying aid to reform is essential to eliminating poverty."
Actually, untying aid from "reforms" imposed by donor countries would go a lot farther. These "reforms" center on policies such as privatization, trade liberalization, and debt servicing, which have worsened poverty in poor countries, and resulted in a net flow of about $200 billion a year from poor to rich countries (compared to about $50 billion a year that poor countries receive in aid). And while ending government corruption (to which Bush was ostensibly referring) is crucial, it is the citizens of poor countries, not rich foreign governments, who should have the power to demand accountability from their leaders.
"At the G-8 Summit at Gleneagles, Scotland, we set a clear goal: an AIDS-free generation in Africa. And I challenge every member of the United Nations to take concrete steps to achieve that goal."
Some of Bush's "concrete steps":
* Bush demanded that African governments spend US funding exclusively on drugs patented by US companies, instead of generics (the patented drugs cost about $15,000 a year per patient compared to $350 a year for generics).
* Bush's UN Ambassador refused to allow the World Summit to "encourage pharmaceutical companies to make anti-retroviral drugs affordable and accessible in Africa."
* Bush insists on prevention programs that promote abstinence over proven "safer sex" approaches, put stringent restrictions on condom use, and demand that groups receiving funds formally oppose abortion and prostitution.
* Bush promised in 2003 to spend $15 billion to fight AIDS, but took most of this money from existing programs, including child vaccination initiatives-a move that The New York Times described as "forcing the babies of Africa to pay for their parents' AIDS drugs." 
"We've pledged to increase our funding for malaria treatment and prevention by more than $1.2 billion over the next five years."
Another lie. Only about nine percent of this is new money; the rest was slated to be spent anyway. Malaria is the number one killer of African children, yet Bush is undermining international cooperation in the fight against malaria (and AIDS) by refusing to adequately fund the UN Global Fund to Fight AIIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
"We agreed to cancel 100 percent of the debt for the world's most heavily indebted nations."
This is a frequently repeated distortion of the agreement reached by the G8 (the world's richest countries) in July 2005. Debt cancellation was offered to only a limited number of countries (18 of the 62 that need it in order to achieve the minimum standards of the Millennium Development Goals). In dollar terms, the deal is worth only about $1.5 billion a year (or about 6 percent) of the $25 billion that Africa needs to achieve the MDGs. And it comes with a catch: to qualify, countries must "boost private sector development" and eliminate "impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign." These conditions are designed to bring the G8 countries more money than they write off.
"And when Iraqis complete their journey, their success will inspire others to claim their freedom, the Middle East will grow in peace and hope and liberty, and all of us will live in a safer world."
This delusion has already cost the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis and nearly 2,000 US soldiers and pushed Iraq to the brink of becoming an Islamic state. In fact, the example of Iraq's "journey" has undermined democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond by instilling fear that "regime change" could result in foreign military occupation, mass killings, and civil war.
Bush was able to keep silent about the critical issues that his Ambassador managed to cut from the World Summit's outcome document, including provisions to strengthen the International Criminal Court, protect the environment, promote nuclear disarmament, and commit rich countries to allocating a minimum percentage of their national income to development aid. These silences are criminal for, as the President said, "The stakes are high. The lives and futures of millions of the world's poorest citizens hang in the balance."
Yifat Susskind, Associate Director of MADRE, an international women's human rights organization, has written extensively on US foreign policy, women's human rights, and international development issues. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
 Frida Berrigan, "U.S. leads the world in sale of military goods," Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 11 September 2005,
(...) The U.S. transfers more weapons and military services than any other country in the world. In the last decade, the U.S. sold $177.5 billion in arms to foreign nations. In 2003, the last year for which full data is available, the Pentagon and State Department delivered or licensed the delivery of $5.7 billion in weaponry to countries which can ill afford advanced weaponry -- nations in the developing world saddled with debt and struggling with poverty. Despite having some of the world's strongest laws regulating the arms trade, almost half of these weapons went to countries plagued with ongoing conflict and governed by undemocratic regimes with poor human rights records. (...) The U.S. transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts in 2003, the last year for which full Pentagon data is available. From Chad to Ethiopia, from Algeria to India, transfers to conflict nations through the two largest arms sales programs totaled more than $1 billion. When poor human rights records, serious patterns of abuse and histories of conflict are all factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003 -- a full 80 percent -- were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses. CLIP
 Tim Russet interviews President Bush on "Meet the Press," NBC News, 8 February 2004,
 Walter Pincus, "Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan," Washington Post, 11 September 2005.
 "Development Funds Moving from Poor Countries to Rich Ones, Annan Says" UN News Centre, 30 October 2003,
 Thalif Deen, Tied Aid Strangling Nations, Says U.N," Inter Press Service, 6 July 2004,
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 6 (IPS) - Donor money that comes with strings attached cuts the value of aid to recipient countries 25-40 percent, because it obliges them to purchase uncompetitively priced imports from the richer nations, says a new U.N. study on African economies. The 24-page study singles out four countries -- Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom -- as the only donors breaking away from the concept of ''tied aid'', which comes with strings attached. The four nations now provide more than 90 percent of aid untied, says the report, which will go before the current session of the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), scheduled to end Jul. 23. Tied aid mandates developing nations to buy products only from donor countries as a condition for development assistance. About 60-75 percent of Canadian aid is tied, one of the world's highest amounts. The United States, Germany, Japan and France still insist that a major proportion of their aid money be used to buy products originating only in their countries, according to the report. ''This has ensured that aid money is eventually ploughed back into the economies of donor nations,'' says Njoki Njoroge Njehu, director of 50 Years is Enough, a coalition of over 200 grassroots non-governmental organisations (NGOs). ''The United States makes sure that 80 cents in every aid dollar is returned to the home country,'' she told IPS.
 "Helping Poor Countries," Editorial, The New York Times, 17 February 2003.
 David Bryden, Bush Overstates Africa Aid Increase," Foreign Policy in Focus, 20 July 2005
 "G8 Debt Relief Proposals: A First Step in the Right Direction - And a Long Way to Go" Jubilee Research, 14 June 2005
 Jeffrey D. Sachs, "Four Easy Pieces," The New York Times, 25 June 2005.
Date: 21 Sep 2005
Subject: Galloway's Frankness Invigorates, Shocks Americans...
The Capital Times EDITORIAL
September 17, 2005
Americans who are familiar only with the almost always empty words -- and often empty heads -- of this country's political leaders can be a little shocked by George Galloway's pronouncements.
The British parliamentarian, who came of age in the brawling political landscape of his native Scotland, where a quick wit and a savage debating style are prerequisites for electoral success, does not mince words in the manner that most American pols do.
Consider Galloway's statement in response to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath:
"The scenes from the stricken city almost defy belief. Many, many thousands of people left to die in what is the richest, most powerful country on Earth. This obscenity is as far from a natural disaster as George Bush and the U.S. elite are from the suffering masses of New Orleans. The images of Bush luxuriating at his ranch and of his secretary of state shopping for $7,000 shoes while disaster swamped the U.S. Gulf Coast will haunt this administration.
"In the most terrible way imaginable they show to the whole world that it is not only the lives of people in Baghdad, Fallujah and Palestine that Bush holds cheap. It is also his own citizens -- the black and poor people left behind with no food, water or shelter. This is not simply manslaughter through incompetence, though the White House's incompetence abounds. It is murder -- for Bush was warned four years ago of the threat to New Orleans, as surely as he was warned of the disaster that would come of his war on Iraq. ...
"His is the America of Halliburton, the M-16 rifle, the cluster bomb, the gated communities of the rich and of the billionaires he grew up with in Texas. There is another America. It is the land of the poor of Louisiana, it is the land of the young men and women economically conscripted into the military. It is the land of the glorious multiethnic mix that was New Orleans, it is the land of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and of great struggles for justice."
That's not exactly a politically correct response to the crisis, at least not in George Bush's America of muted debate and sappy bipartisanship. But it is one that will ring true with a significant proportion of the American population, as have Galloway's pronouncements with regard to the war in Iraq.
Galloway, who will appear at 7 p.m. Sunday at the Wisconsin Union Theater on the UW-Madison campus, became an instant hero to many opponents of the U.S. occupation of Iraq when the previously little-known member of the British Parliament flew to Washington to appear before the Senate's Permanent Committee on Investigations.
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., a headline-grabbing conservative who is trying to position himself for a presidential run, had accused Galloway and other European figures of opposing the Iraq war because they had received "oil for food" program kickbacks from Saddam Hussein. In fact, Galloway had successfully challenged the same accusations in Britain and gone on to win a stunning victory in that country's May 5 election. So Galloway jumped at the chance to go before Coleman's committee, which he did in a remarkable May 17 appearance.
After rebutting Coleman's charges -- "Mr. Chairman, I am not now, nor have I ever been an oil trader, and neither has anyone been on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." -- Galloway turned the tables on his accuser, tearing into the senator with a fiery attack on the war and its proponents:
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed 1 million Iraqis, most of them children. Most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to be born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies," Galloway informed the fool on Capitol Hill.
"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaida. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11, 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong, and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies."
Coleman couldn't get out of the hearing room quick enough. The senator had met more than his match, and he quickly changed topics.
For his part, Galloway was stunned by Coleman's lack of preparation for the confrontation.
"The senator's performance was pitiful, embarrassing. He did not know the first thing about the matters he was raising," says Galloway, who has clashed with some of the ablest legislators on the planet. "When I was told that Mr. Norm Coleman has presidential ambitions, I thought: I fear for America. I fear for the world. This man is not prepared to be a senator, let alone the leader of the most powerful country in the world."
If Galloway was dismayed by the quality of American politicians, he was heartened by the response of the American people. He received more than 20,000 e-mails from Americans in just the first few days after his appearance before the committee. So high was the interest that he has now penned a book on the incident, "Mr. Galloway Goes to Washington" (The New Press), and his tour this month of the U.S. is drawing unprecedented crowds. (More than 1,000 people attended his debate this week in New York with war backer Christopher Hitchens.)
Galloway is enjoying the chance to expound on his views before American audiences, even if he is sometimes frustrated by the determination of his critics to paint him as the Beast of Britain.
He laughs at the claim that he is a "friend" of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, noting that he met Hussein only twice -- "exactly the same number of times that (Secretary of Defense) Donald Rumsfeld met him," Galloway notes. "The difference," he adds, "is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns."
Galloway's impression of Saddam is far more nuanced than that of American politicians or commentators. But his is hardly a favorable view.
"I found him to be a man who is capable of rational and irrational actions, which I think is the nature of dictatorship," he explained.
To accusations that his militant opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq means that he supports terrorism, Galloway responds that he is opposed to the killing of innocents by any group or any means -- "be it a suicide bomber or a bomb dropped from an airplane flying overhead." He rejects the notion that the United States or Great Britain ought to decide whether the insurgents in Iraq are "legitimate" representatives of popular sentiment in that country, arguing instead, "It is the height of imperialism to suggest that the Iraqi insurgency is legitimate or illegitimate."
What he will suggest, however, is that the only way to sort out the mess in Iraq is for occupying forces to exit the country. To those who tell him that withdrawal of foreign troops would lead to chaos, Galloway replies, "From what I see, there is quite a lot of chaos there now."
That's Galloway. Quick of wit and unapologetic, he is the antidote to the American politician.
A fter being expelled from British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party, he formed a new party, Respect, and then beat one of Blair's closest allies in parliament. He decries the stilted debate and the "corrupt duopoly" of American politics, which sees many Democrats echoing the lines of a Republican president.
But Galloway takes his anti-imperialism seriously. When asked whether he thinks American war foes should work within the two major parties or go the independent or third-party route, he says, "It's not for me to say whether you need a new party in the United States. We determined in Britain that an alternative was needed. What I can say is that the whole world has suffered because the debate in the United States has been inadequate. One of the reasons I am here is to stir it up."
That George Galloway will surely do.
John Nichols is associate editor of The Capital Times.
LONG BUT VERY INFORMATIVE
Date: 21 Sep 2005
From: David Creighton email@example.com>
Subject: Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World
This long, well-informed and reasoned analysis accurately reflects, imho, the sociological (entropic) level of our present situation. But do not forget, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction, in this case the evolutionary thrust, about which a bit more is attached at the end. Enjoy! dc
Subject: Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World
Date: 21 Sep 2005
This article is archived at: http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id=589&lists=newslog
Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World
The Four Horsemen of this Apocalypse:
* Collapse * Genocide * War * Fascism
We are now on the cusp of one the momentous historical episodes of all time - the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are about to ride. Peak oil is the primary underlying condition forcing change, and Apocalypse is the action plan ruling elites have chosen as their response to that condition. Not only does this response make a great deal of sense, from their Machiavellian perspective, but by their recent actions they have clearly signaled the scope and direction of their intentions. Furthermore, their planned response is in complete alignment with earlier responses to similar situations in the past - by these same people or by their direct predecessors.
* Historical background
"History teaches by analogy, not identity. The historical experience is not one of staying in the present and looking back; rather, it is one of going back into the past and returning to the present with a wider and more intense consciousness." -Daniel Estulin, investigative journalist
Peak oil is real. That is to say, we have reached the point where our annual consumption of oil is considerably greater than our annual ability to develop new sources. While global consumption continues to increase, potential sources can only decrease. No matter what anyone does, our oil-based global economy cannot continue for much longer in its current form - at current population levels. At the same time, we must remember that the remaining reserves are vast - perhaps the same amount remains as has ever been pumped, although it will become increasingly expensive to extract.
The fact of peak oil, in itself, does not necessarily imply that apocalypse is inevitable. If humanity were to face this problem in a sensible way, there is much that could be done to alleviate the crisis, re-organize our societies and economies, localize our production and consumption, reduce our wasteful practices, move to appropriate technologies, develop alternative energy sources and transport methods, etc. But it is not 'humanity' that is in the driver's seat.
As we have watched the arrogant and radical behavior of the Bush administration over the past five years, it has become apparent to all that the neocon clique that dominates the White House is pursuing an agenda of their own, an agenda that is partially described in their PNAC document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which they proudly display on their website - http://www.newamericancentury.org/ - under the button, "Defense and National Security". This is not an agenda that 'humanity' has chosen, nor have the American people chosen it. In fact, people and nations all over the world are resisting and protesting this agenda, Bush's popularity is at an all-time low in America, and none of this makes any difference to the pursuit of the agenda.
For the moment at least, we can all see that a clique is setting the world's course, a clique that acts in its own self-interest, following an agenda that in no way has any kind of democratic legitimacy. Many people assume, however, that this situation is an aberration from our normal political process, something unique to Bush and his crowd. Some see the sinister hand of a Zionist plot, and some point to the Bush family history of collaboration with the Nazi regime. If only we can get Bush out of office, such people think, we can return to some kind of sanity. If only it were so simple.
If we want to understand what we are facing, we need to be a bit more careful in identifying who are the ultimate movers and shakers behind world events. In fact, we are not looking at a Zionist plot, and we are not looking at a recent aberration. A careful examination of history over the past century reveals that a very specific elite clique has come to totally dominate and control world affairs. The neocons are not that clique; they are its agents, eagerly pursuing their assignment because of the looting opportunities thereby made available to themselves and their corporate cronies.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." - Amshall Rothschild
The elite clique I refer to are the top financial circles in New York and London - the people who control financial institutions like Chase Manhattan, Citibank, HSBC, Rothschilds, and Lloyds TSB. We're talking about a handful of people, blessed with inherited wealth, and operating mostly behind the scenes. The Rockefeller brothers are the most obvious members of this clique, due to their uncharacteristically high profile in public affairs. As with the Rockefellers, whose wealth came from the 19th Century exploits of oil-baron J.D. Rockefeller, this clique exhibits considerable continuity through the decades, both in terms of its approach to maintaining its power, and in terms of the family trees and connections that characterize its membership.
I won't repeat here the story of how this particular elite gained its power. Suffice it to say that the financing of wars, when governments are desperate for funding, has been one of the primary vehicles by which this clique has gained its wealth and power. It would be a gross understatement to say that this clique "influences governments". It would closer to the truth to say that the U.S. and British governments are owned, lock stock and barrel, by this clique, a fact which is symbolized by this thing we call 'national debt'. The Federal Reserve Bank, the Bank of England, the IMF, and the World Bank are all directly controlled by this clique and its agents and banks. Presidents and Prime Ministers are groomed in their careers, and selected for their turn in office, based on which particular agendas are being pursued at any given time.
The Bilderberger meetings, the Council on Foreign Relations, and a network of think tanks and foundations serve to rationalize and promulgate the agendas of this clique among lower-level echelons and officials. Through ownership, investment, and other means of influence, this clique controls the mainstream global media and the spin that is applied to the important stories. With their ability to set interest rates and credit availability, and their domination of exchange markets, they exercise decisive control over global finance generally. Their power is extended still further by their close fraternal relationships with key players in the Anglo-American oil cartel and in American and British Intelligence circles.
It is important to make a distinction between ordinary corporations and banks, between corporate power and the power of finance. Ordinary corporations are in the business of making money, and they favour policies which generate economic growth and development. Apart from weapons manufacturers, corporations tend to favor peace and stability in world affairs, as that's when they can grow and develop their markets. When recession hits, corporations suffer, or even go under.
The situation for the big banks is quite different. Banks gain in both good times and bad. In all conditions banks make loans of money they don't really have, and then collect both the principal and interest. In good times, they also make money on their investments in productive enterprises. In bad times, even though the paper value of their assets may temporarily decline, they are able to foreclose on failing enterprises, pick up bargains by buying faltering enterprises, and they can make money by selling assets short before a crash, based on their insider knowledge and ability to manipulate markets. Economic cycles are like a two-phase pump, and both phases benefit the banks. The banks understand that money is simply an accounting system. For them money is not so much an end in itself, as it is for ordinary corporations, but is more a vehicle of ownership and power. Wars and economic collapses have been intentionally engineered by this elite Anglo-American banking clique throughout the past century, as this elite has systematically sought to maintain and consolidate its power.
The reason why the Anglo-American bankers in particular are running things, as opposed to other financial elites elsewhere, has to do with the immense wealth and influence that was accumulated during the heyday of the British Empire, the close fraternal relationships between London and New York banking circles, and a particular strategy of financial dominance. That strategy has very much do with oil, but oil profits are not the main issue. The main issue is that every nation, since the early 20th Century, must have oil to operate.
The strategy is very simple and very effective. If you can control the sources of oil, and if you also control the currency in which oil is traded, and the price of oil, then you have your hand on Archimedes lever: "Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum, then I can move the world". Yes the profits from oil are considerable, but control over oil is much more important - it gives you control over every nation's economy, their ability to wage war, etc. This strategy was adopted by British elites prior to World War 1, was also adopted by American elites, and has been the core geopolitical strategy of the dominant Anglo-American alliance to this day.
We are not talking here about a gross mechanism, where elites say, "Do what I want or I'll withhold oil from you." The game is more subtle, having to do with the price of oil, and the kind of loans a nation can get to deal with its development needs, etc. Ultimate power is financial power, and oil-dominance, in today's world, is the key to financial power. Through intrigue and pressure from this clique, OPEC nations accept payments for oil only in dollars. Every nation must therefore accumulate dollars, making dollars artificially valuable, and thereby financing U.S. deficits. This influx of capital is called "petrodollar recycling". This petrodollar wealth then finds its way to London and enters the 'Eurodollar market', where funds can be recycled into unregulated global investments. Thus both New York and London banks are able to grab their share of the profits from the the oil-dominance strategy. Oil company profits are simply one more source of funds that end up being invested in banker-controlled investment portfolios. Ordinary corporations are powerful, but they play within the game whose rules are set by the banking elite.
This is the context in which we need to examine current events. It is this historical context which leads me to interpret current events in terms of the Four Horses.
Let us consider the first Horseman: Collapse. In this regard there are two primary things to consider. The first is peak oil, and the second is the oil shock of 1973.
Up until 1973, oil was treated as an inexhaustible commodity - the game was to pump as much as possible, sell it a relatively low price, get everyone addicted to oil and automobiles, and make money on volume - lots of money. This strategy fit in perfectly with the post-World War 2 economic regime, which was based on economic growth and development. This was the era in which suburbia was invented, and rail systems were dismantled in the USA and Britain. This was a major growth phase of the economic pump, enriching banks and corporations alike. But in the early 70s the bloom was off the growth cycle, Japan and Germany were gaining economic power, and our Anglo-American banking elites decided the time had come for an adjustment.
Using the diplomatic talents of Rockefeller protégé Henry Kissinger, our banking elites were able to stir up a war between Israel and the Arab states, engineer an oil boycott, and raise the price of oil nearly overnight by 400%. Here we can see demonstrated the power of finance, and the efficacy of the oil-dominance strategy. As intended, economic growth in Europe and Japan was sharply curtailed, and as intended, third world nations were forced to dedicate their budgets to oil imports and debt repayments, rather than to developing their own economies. We know these things were intended, because the program was discussed in some detail at a Bilderberger meeting several months before the Yom Kippur war broke out.
The price increase made exploitation of the North Sea oil sources economically viable, much to the benefit of the London banks that had invested in that project. In addition, the price increase created the petrodollar phenomenon. All in all, the oil shock of 1973 was a very successful, and well masked, coup. It ushered in an era where growth was no longer the dominant paradigm. There has been relatively little real growth in the global economy since that time, as regards industrial production and trade in goods. The banks began focusing more on debt collections, and developing the speculative global markets.
From another perspective, we can view the 1973 oil shock as being an early-warning sign of peak oil. That is to say, oil has always been a finite resource, and the oil companies have been aware of that more than anyone else. By the early 70s everyone was adequately addicted to oil, and it was about time to hike up the price of the remaining reserves. In this regard the dynamics are a bit like with drug pushers: the first hit's free and after that you pay. Cheap oil got you hooked, and now you can dig a bit deeper for your next fix.
We are told that 'market forces' are responsible for all price increases, but that is a gross oversimplification. The Anglo-American oil cartel, in covert collaboration with the Saudis and other 'friendly' OPEC states, decides how much oil will be pumped, and at what price it will be made available. 'Market forces', so called, are themselves manipulated by the banks - that's what financial power is all about. 'Market forces' are simply the current rules of the game, sometimes protectionist, and sometimes free-trade oriented, depending on current elite agendas. More relevant than 'market forces', to the price of oil, is the principle of 'all the traffic will bear'.
A major economic adjustment must occur at some point, due to peak oil, and there are clear signs that now is the time that has been chosen. We have seen sharp increases, even before Hurricane Katrina. And now, with the well-publicized damage to oil rigs and refineries in the Louisiana region, further increases are fully expected and being 'predicted' in the mainstream media. Already trucking companies are complaining that they will be forced out of business by the rises that have already occurred. In addition, we read that interest rates are 'expected' to go up.
We are now much further along on the oil-peak curve than we were in 1973, oil addiction is as strong as ever, China is threatening to become the world's largest economy, and the global economy is greatly over-extended with speculative investments - including over-leveraged home mortgages. An oil shock at this time, combined with an interest rate hike, would once again transform the global economy, much to the advantage of the Anglo-American alliance.
This oil shock will be much more dramatic in its consequences than the shock of '73. That's why this Horseman is called Collapse. The global economy is much more volatile now than it was in the '70s, indeed it is a speculative house of cards, reminiscent of 1929. It cannot stand a major oil shock, combined with an interest rate hike. Stock markets will tumble, recessions will hit the West, and the third world will dive even deeper into poverty - if that can be imagined. China will be hit hard by the oil rises, but more important its export markets will be sharply curtailed by recessions in the West, particularly in the U.S. Unemployment will rise globally, many mortgage holders won't be able to pay their increased variable-rate payments, and the housing bubble will burst. One thing will lead to another, bringing global economic collapse, reminiscent of the Great Depression. This will bring a feeding frenzy for the big banks, like the one they enjoyed during the 1930s, and bad news for the rest of us.
If we consider these consequences along with the implications of the PNAC agenda, we are beginning to see the outline of the elite clique's 'Final Solution' to the problem of peak oil. Peak oil implies, sooner or later, a desperate global struggle for the remaining reserves: the PNAC agenda is largely about grabbing control of as many reserves as possible - now rather than later. Peak oil, in the absence of what the rest of us would call a sensible strategy, implies a general collapse of the global economy, sooner or later: this Shock of 2005 will begin that process now, while vast oil reserves still remain, so that the banking clique can manage the collapse to its own advantage. Our oil-based economy can be compared to a condemned building, and a controlled demolition makes more sense than simply letting the building rot of its own accord: this enables the owner to develop something else on the site. Similarly, if the economic collapse is brought about early, then the vast remaining oil reserves will be available for the construction of some kind of post-Apocalyptic, elite-friendly, world order.
"Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries." - attributed to Henry Kissinger, "National Security Study Memorandum 200 : Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests", April 24, 1974
A search on google reveals hundreds of hits citing the above quotation. However, on downloading and reading the memo, NSSM 200, I was unable to find that particular passage. Perhaps the quote is a hoax, or perhaps it was deleted before the memo was declassified and made public. I've nonetheless featured the alleged quote, because genuine or not it serves as a very good summary of what NSSM 200 is actually about, if you read between the lines. Here, for example, is a passage that does appear in the full NSSM 200 document:
"All readers are urged to read the detailed main body of the report which is presented in full in Appendix Two . This will give the reader a better appreciation of the gravity of this
new threat to U.S. and global security and the actions the many departments of our government felt were necessary in order to address this grave new threat - a threat greater than nuclear war."
Let's review some of the developments 'on the ground', that show how this foreign policy priority is being implemented. In his book, "The Globalization of Poverty", economics insider Michel Chossudovsky describes how IMF policies intentionally devastate third world economies, leading in Africa to massive famine and genocidal civil wars. The recently announced plans for "third-world debt forgiveness" are a sham: what they are really about is reimbursing the banks for their uncollectible loans to the third world. These reimbursements will then be subtracted from foreign aid budgets, so that the third world will actually be worse off than before the "forgiveness" program. And in order to 'benefit' from this 'forgiveness' program, the third-world nations must agree to still further, extremely harmful, IMF privatization programs. The genocidal civil wars we read about in Africa are partly a result of this intentional impoverishment program, partly a result of arms sales to African warlords, and partly the result of covert CIA operations. The West's counter-productive responses to the AIDS epidemic, and the massive use of depleted uranium munitions by U.S. and British forces in former Yugoslavia and Iraq also contribute to depopulation, both among the local populations and among the Western cannon-fodder troops.
Within the context of peak oil, and from the perspective of our callous banking elite, it is easy to understand why a sharp decrease in world population would be highly desirable. I've seen several reports that a target of "80% reduction by 2020" has been adopted in elite circles, but I haven't been able to track down that particular claim to any reliable source. Nonetheless, such a program would certainly change the parameters of the peak oil phenomenon, and pave the way for constructing some kind of new, post-Apocalyptic system. In any case, based on what they say and what they do, I think it is impossible to escape the conclusion that population reduction, a euphemism for genocide, is indeed a primary elite priority
If systematic genocidal depopulation is an elite agenda, as it seems to be, then we must recognize the obvious fact that nuclear war would be one of the most efficient ways to pursue that agenda. This brings us to the next Horseman.
By their actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the neocons have made it clear that they are totally serious about their PNAC agenda - but Afghanistan and Iraq represent only the beginning of that agenda. The agenda is about global, 'full-spectrum' dominance. The agenda explicitly declares that the U.S. must prevent the rise of any power that could challenge U.S. hegemony, even if only regionally. China and Europe are specifically mentioned as powers that must be kept down. The PNAC document does not refer to the time-honoured Anglo-American strategy of oil-based dominance, but we need to take that strategy into account here as well.
China is clearly the power most threatening to the PNAC agenda at this time. China is moving effectively to establish itself as 'the' regional power in Asia with a wide range of alliances, and Russia is selling its most advanced weapons systems to China. The two nations have conducted joint military exercises and they are making arrangements to trade Russian oil and gas for Chinese cash and investments. Although China is making use of the free-trade global economy for its own economic benefit, it does this within the context of its own nationalist goals, and keeps tight control over its internal economy and currency. China is rapidly upgrading its military forces, and has adopted an 'asymmetric strategy', whereby it aims to deter U.S. power without the expense of competing in every category of weaponry. The Pentagon, meanwhile, is spending billions on missile defense systems and space-based weaponry, and these costly initiatives only make sense in the context of an eventual military confrontation between the U.S. and China. All of this is in addition to the fact that China is rapidly gaining on the U.S. economically, and at current rates will soon become the world's largest economy.
If China is not confronted, one way or another, the PNAC agenda will be thwarted. The longer China is allowed to increase its military, economic, and geopolitical power, the more difficult such a confrontation will become. This scenario is highly reminiscent of the pre-World War 1 scenario, where a rapidly growing Germany was threatening British financial and military hegemony. Britain dealt with this crisis by surrounding Germany with secret alliances, ensuring the outbreak of war, and to its own advantage. Washington, with its overwhelming military power, can act unilaterally without such alliances, but its strategic outlook toward China cannot be much different than Britain's was toward Germany in that earlier scenario.
Both China and America are clearly preparing for a war between them, although China would presumably prefer that mutual deterrence be the result of these military build-ups rather than actual warfare. The neocons, on the other hand, must take China down, one way or another, or else give up their plans for total global dominance. When we consider the elite's 'population reduction' agenda, we must suspect that an actual nuclear war with China may be their preferred 'takeout' option. Before that option can be viable however, the Pentagon must be able to ensure that such a war could be managed so as not to annihilate the world's entire population from radiation fallout. The esoteric space-based weapon systems currently being developed - and to some extent already deployed - by the Pentagon are intended to provide the kind of 'full spectrum theater dominance' that would be needed for that kind of 'war management'. In addition, neutron bombs offer the advantage of killing populations without causing property damage or undue fallout.
We cannot be sure whether or not the Pentagon considers itself adequately prepared as yet for this possible war, but we can imagine the preferred Pentagon scenario when the preparations are complete: a surprise first strike, begun with a high-altitude burst that disables all electronic devices in China, followed up by a massive nuclear strike with neutron bombs, and accompanied by the use of space-based and other esoteric systems to minimize China's strategic response from any submarines or long-range missiles that might survive the first strike. A depopulated China, with intact infrastructure, would dramatically advance elite Anglo-American objectives, as regards both hegemony and population reduction. And clearly the U.S. would take possession of China, and its resources, in the aftermath.
The situation becomes more complex when we take into account as well the currently-developing oil shock, and the likely collapse that will follow. These measures go a long ways toward stopping China's advance without the need for outright warfare. China is of course well aware of all of these scenarios, and is endeavouring to defend itself as best it can on all fronts. It is in this broad context that we need to consider the situation vis a vis Iran. Iran is of central strategic importance in all of these considerations.
China's defense against the oil shock - and against the Anglo-American oil-dominance strategy generally - takes the form of an aggressive campaign to secure sources of oil that are independent of the Anglo-American Seven Sisters cartel. In this regard we might recall China's recent bid to acquire Unocal, which Washington quickly quashed. The oil and gas arrangements with Russia are an important part of China's oil-acquisition campaign, and so are the deals China has developed with Iran and Venezuela. There's not much Washington can do about the arrangements with Russia, short of a large-scale military confrontation. On the other hand Washington could easily prevent oil shipments from Venezuela, by either blockade or intervention, whenever it chooses to do so. Iran, with its immense reserves, is the 'hot spot' in this struggle over oil sources. That is where the neocons can do something to thwart China's oil-acquisition campaign, and where doing something will be a non-trivial operation.
Iran today is like the Balkans prior to World War 1 - it is the place where the designs of the two protagonists 'meet on the ground', where armed confrontation is most likely to begin, and where the potential for escalation is very high. China, in cooperation with its newly reconciled Russian ally, has been supplying Iran with advanced missile systems, in an attempt to deter an American invasion. America meanwhile is beating the war drums, announcing a policy of 'first use' of nuclear weapons, and attempting to stir up support for its fantasy that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, despite the egg Washington still has on its face from its fictitious Iraqi WMDs.
Iran may indeed already have nuclear weapons - in the warheads supplied by China and Russia with their advanced missiles. But this possibility, and the Chinese-Iranian alliance generally, are never mentioned in Washington's anti-Iranian propaganda campaign - because Washington does not want to draw attention to the actual geopolitical situation. Similarly Washington never discusses the obvious fact that the PNAC agenda and oil were primary in its decision to invade Iraq. WMD fantasies provide both an excuse and a cover story for invasion, as regards both Iraq and Iran.
There can be little doubt that an American invasion of Iran is imminent. Such an invasion is the obvious next step in the PNAC-oil-dominance agenda, and if that agenda is abandoned Washington would be giving up on its drive for total global domination. I think it is safe to assume that the neocons, and their elite backers, are not prepared to throw in the towel. The question as regards an invasion of Iran is not if, but rather when and by what scenario.
As regards when, the evidence indicates very soon. Israel has already been supplied with 'bunker buster' bombs, which would presumably be used in a first-wave assault. Covert terrorist operatives are already conducting sabotage in Iran, and an arrangement has been worked out with the Turks and the Kurds by which Kurdish separatist fighters will be concentrating their operations in Iran, with American financial support. America's new forward bases in Iraq provide a very convenient launching platform for an aerial assault. The various necessary preparations for invasion seem to be well advanced. With Washington's announcement of a 'first use' policy for nukes, the U.S. is in some sense 'telegraphing its punches' as regards an invasion, and this is something we would expect them to have delayed until near the intended time of invasion, so as to minimize the political fallout in the interim. There have been numerous reports that U.S. military leaves have been cancelled, which if true would also indicate that the time is nigh. Bush's declining popularity, and the quagmire situation in Iraq, would also be reasons to undertake the invasion now rather than later, thus shifting all attention to other matters.
The planned scenario for the invasion seems to be very clear: a phony terrorist event will be staged in the U.S., Iran will be blamed, and the invasion will follow immediately, with no nonsense about the UN, sanctions, or diplomatic channels. Homeland Security has announced repeatedly that it 'knows from intelligence sources' that a major terrorist event in the U.S. is 'expected soon', most likely involving some American nuclear facility. Credible reports have circulated indicating that Cheney has put in place specific battle plans for an invasion of Iran in the event of such an incident, regardless of whether Iranian complicity can be established. 'Establishing complicity' will in any case not be a problem, as Washington will simply blame Iran based on 'intelligence information that we cannot disclose due to security considerations', or else they will produce an Iranian passport 'discovered' in the vicinity of the incident. Just as with 911, all attention will be on the 'terrible attack on America' and there will be negligible political or diplomatic resistance to whatever 'retaliatory' action Washington might 'deem necessary' to 'fight terrorism'. I think it is clear that Washington has signaled this scenario, and it is a scenario that makes a great deal of sense.
The scenario becomes less clear once the invasion begins. We can be sure the invasion will be nuclear (neutron bombs to preserve the oil fields), partly because of the new U.S. first-use policy announcement, and partly because of the quagmire in Iraq: there is no way the U.S. could manage any kind of extended campaign in Iran. What is unclear is how widely the conflict will escalate. Iran has made it very clear that in the event of any attack, it would retaliate with all means available. We can assume that Iran has scattered and hid[den] its advanced missiles around its territory so that they would be unlikely to all be disabled before they could be launched. The obvious targets would be Israeli cities, U.S. carriers, and U.S. forces in Iraq - all of which would be easy targets for Iran's advanced missiles. In addition, Iran would be able to sink shipping in the Gulf and create a global oil crisis by making tanker operations impossible until after the mess had been cleared away.
This much escalation is clear. But would it stop there? Would the U.S. want it to stop there? Would Israel want it to stop there? Would Russia and China allow it to stop there? We cannot be sure how any of these questions are likely to be answered. If the Pentagon feels it is adequately prepared for a confrontation with China (and by necessity Russia), then Washington might choose to go the whole hog at once, blame China and Russia as well as Iran for the staged terrorist incident, and launch its first-strike plan against China and Russia at the same time as the attack on Iran.
Israel, although it usually is kept on an American leash, might nonetheless follow its own lead and escalate at least to Syria. Once one of its cities has been struck by Iranian missiles, it is difficult to predict how Israel might respond, perhaps intentionally forcing Washington into a larger war than the neocons had in mind at this time.
From Russia and China's point of view, the question would be about appeasement. Just as with Nazi expansionism, where Britain and France had to draw the line somewhere, Russia and China know they will need to resist the PNAC agenda of aggression sooner or later. Could Iran, as was Poland in 1939, be the line they have drawn in the sand? By supplying Iran with advanced missiles, they at least suggest the possibility that this might be so. I have seen one report, not confirmed, that Putin has told Washington that any attack on Syria or Iran would lead to the total destruction of Israel by Russian nuclear missiles. We do know that China has said it would initiate nuclear action against the U.S. if Washington interferes in any conflict between China and Taiwan. This proves that China has the balls to draw a nuclear line somewhere, making it difficult [to] put limits on how China might respond to an attack on Iran. Iran is, after all, 'vital to China's strategic interests' - to cite a phrase that Washington uses routinely to justify its own interventionist policies. None of us know what secret warnings and counter-warnings might already have been exchanged between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing.
If the neocons do 'get by' with their attack on Iran, without immediate large-scale nuclear conflict, tensions between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing will certainly not be reduced. The neocons will be even more confident in pursuing their PNAC agenda, and Russia and China will be under even more pressure to take a hard line, the alternative being eventual capitulation to total American hegemony.
If for any of these reasons the conflict escalates, perhaps with a delay, into a full nuclear confrontation, then we are clearly in a truly Apocalyptic scenario. For now, let's consider the 'lesser' scenario, where the conflict is confined to the Middle East. With shipping in the Gulf blocked - and with Iranian oil production brought to a halt - the oil shock already in progress would be greatly accentuated. Indeed, the invasion of Iran, besides moving the PNAC agenda one giant step forward, would also, in retrospect, be seen as the cause of Collapse. The attack would contribute as well to the depopulation agenda, with the people of Iran being sacrificed at the altar of the elite clique's designs.
"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." - Zbigniew Brzezinski, "The Grand Chessboard", p.35
In the event of a major domestic 'terrorist' incident, and particularly with a nuclear war underway in Iran, and a major oil crisis in the works, there can be little doubt that martial law would be declared in the U.S., with normal political processes suspended, and the nation put under the control of some combination of the Pentagon and Homeland Security. Such a takeover is explicitly called out as the mission of Homeland Security in the event of a 'Red Alert', which would clearly be in effect under the circumstances we are considering. And such a takeover would be very easy to justify, and would by most Americans probably be welcomed (at first), under these very frightening circumstances. Under such a takeover, Homeland Security is explicitly empowered to take control of all food, transport, fuel, and communications, to forcibly relocate and detain citizens, and to basically do whatever it might want to do with no kind of legal restrictions or due process.
The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security apparatus amount to a very clear recipe for a fascist takeover. Only in the shadow of the dramatic events of 911 was it possible for such measures to be justified under the smoke screen of 'fighting terrorism'. What do these measures in fact have to do with terrorism? Britain, which suffered under a very real terrorist campaign during the Northern Ireland 'troubles', saw no need for such extreme measures, despite outrageous bombings of innocent civilians in London - and the assassinations of public figures - by a secretive terrorist organization (the IRA).
Britain then, and the U.S. without the Patriot Act, already had sufficient police power to undertake whatever surveillance or detainment that might be helpful in curbing terrorist plots. No judge would refuse, even on the flimsiest evidence, to order the incarceration of anyone who seemed to pose a real terrorist threat. The problem with terrorist organizations is that they are highly secretive and compartmentalized. Infiltration and covert surveillance are helpful tools in fighting such groups, much more so than the power to indefinitely detain citizens against whom no evidence can be found. These Patriot Act powers have in fact produced no breakthroughs in terms of stopping terrorism, but they have served excellently to create precedents for fascist police powers.
Such a 'fascist solution' is nothing new to our ruling elite clique. When Mussolini took over in Italy, and assured the banks in London and New York that he would make sure that war reparations would be paid in full, J.P. Morgan & Co. promptly solidified his regime by loaning him $100 million. Similarly, the Nazi regime was maneuvered into power in Germany by funding from the Anglo-American banking clique, and by financial manipulations that ensured the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Not only did Hitler pay up on Germany's reparations obligations, and not only did Nazi remilitarization provide very profitable investment opportunities for the banks and American corporations, but the European World War 2 theater - which was primarily a conflict between Germany and the USSR, despite what we might assume from U.S. and British war films - served Anglo-American interests very well indeed.
It is from this perspective that we need to view the recent events surrounding Hurricane Katrina and the fate of New Orleans and its poorer residents. The threat posed to New Orleans by a major hurricane was very well known, indeed this was the specific subject of a major FEMA exercise carried out several months before the actual Katrina event. Nonetheless, when the category-5 hurricane began to approach New Orleans, FEMA made no attempt to assist residents to evacuate, nor did it bring in supplies and personnel to help with the predictable aftermath. Instead, after Katrina struck, FEMA turned away help that was offered by the Red Cross, the Coast Guard, the Navy, and many volunteer organizations and individuals - just when it was most needed - leaving unknown numbers to die unnecessarily. In addition, many local residents claim that they heard explosions just before the 17th Street levee collapsed, and that it was intentionally breached - long after the storm had passed - ensuring that the poorest neighborhoods would be flooded while assistance was being withheld.
When Federal 'assistance' finally did arrive, it arrived in the form of heavily armed troops, who brought no supplies with them to assist the victims, and who treated the survivors more like criminals than victims. While the wealthier residents had been able to evacuate on their own, most of those left behind were loaded onto busses and shipped off to heavily guarded detainment centers. This has not been reported in the mainstream media; instead we are treated to the success stories of the relatively few who were allowed to relocate into civil society. Weeks after all of these events, a more humane policy was adopted, and we now read about how those who managed to remain in New Orleans are being helped to rebuild their lives.
While media reports invite us to interpret these events as resulting from 'incompetence', such an interpretation is not credible. One might suppose that the lack of timely Federal assistance could be chalked up to incompetence, although this seems unlikely given the preceding FEMA exercise. But incompetence can hardly be an excuse for the intentional spurning of assistance from other organizations, when thousands of lives obviously hung in the balance. Nor is incompetence involved in the forced detainment of the survivors, and the cover-up of this program in the elite-controlled mainstream media. Far more likely, what we have seen in New Orleans is a test exercise of Homeland Security's protocols for dealing with the War and Collapse scenarios.
A little-publicized fact is that prior to the hurricane, FEMA had been moved under Homeland Security, and stripped of its primary role: disaster response. FEMA was told that disaster response would become the responsibility of some other agency, yet to be established. Recently, after Katrina, President Bush announced that military troops would in future have primary responsibility for disaster response. In fact, that shift of responsibility had occurred prior to Katrina, as was evident in the actual response events. What seems clear is that the main priority of this militarized disaster-response regime will be to manage the survivors, rather than minimizing the casualties in the first place. While such a policy was not actually necessary with Katrina, it will become necessary in the larger scale disasters that can be expected as a result of War and Collapse, where preventing casualties will be either impossible or impractical. By intentionally creating large numbers of casualties in New Orleans, Homeland Security, with military forces under its command, was enabled to practice its new response protocols in a 'live exercise'.
Another little-publicized item is the role of foreign troops in the aftermath of Katrina. I've seen reports of German troops, Mexican troops, and others, positioned at various places in the U.S., ready to be called up by Homeland Security when needed. I found these reports hard to believe myself until I read an article in an Irish newspaper about an Irish relief organization, where it was mentioned as an aside that 500 Irish troops were being dispatched to New Orleans. The idea of America, the most powerful military nation in the world, inviting in foreign troops to help with domestic disasters seems bizarre, to say the least. These words of Henry Kissinger shed some light on this development:
"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from
this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being
granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderbergers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.
For years, right-wing conspiracy buffs have been claiming that UN troops were going to be the agents of a military takeover in America, and that this represents a conspiracy by the "liberal establishment" to create a "socialist world government". I always dismissed these theories, partly because of the actual nature of the UN, and partly because of the actual nature of the ruling elite clique, which is anything but liberal or socialist in its outlook. But behind the fantasies and disinformation in these right-wing conspiracy theories, there seems after all to be an element of truth.
One development we should note in this regard is the changing role of the UN, a development being actively pushed by Washington. As recently as the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, the role of UN troops had always been a passive one, with relatively light armaments, whereby their mere presence was intended to calm tempers and minimize conflict. But since the events in Yugoslavia, and particularly recently, UN troops have been taking an increasingly aggressive role, so that today their actions can no longer be distinguished from those traditionally carried out by Western troops in their role of imperialist domination. As the nature of the UN has dramatically changed in this way, as the result of U.S. initiatives, the right-wing conspiracy theories, or at least parts of them, begin to make a little more sense.
Whenever tyrants have violently suppressed populations with troops, one of the problems that has arisen has been the tendency of troops to refuse to fire on their fellow citizens. When the Soviet Union was suppressing the Hungarian uprising in the 1950s, for example, the Soviets found that even their own Russian troops were responding in this way as regards the Hungarian people. So the Soviets brought in troops from remote Siberia, and these troops didn't give the Soviets any trouble. The less related the troops are to the population, the easier it is to deploy those troops against the population. In suppressing the Iraqi people, American troops serve very well. In suppressing the American people, non-American troops can be expected to perform more reliably.
In addition to foreign troops, we need also to consider the role of hardened mercenaries. Among the security forces now deployed in New Orleans, for example, can be found mercenaries from Blackwater USA, many of whom were flown in from Iraq. These forces were selected for this first-response duty rather than elements of Louisiana's own National Guard who are stationed in Iraq, many of whom had been demanding to be returned home to help out, as is the traditional role of the National Guard. Blackwater mercenaries are some of the most feared professional killers in the world and they are accustomed to operating without worry of legal consequences. Elements of the Louisiana Guard have subsequently been called home, now that the live test has been completed.
U.S troop levels are being stressed in Iraq, and to fill the gap unprecedented numbers of National Guard troops have been deployed in combat operations, greatly depleting domestic National Guard resources. With the quagmire in Iraq continuing without sign of let up, and with the neocons intent on pursuing their PNAC agenda, there is no reason to expect this domestic force depletion situation to improve, indeed it can only get worse. And as we enter into the War and Collapse scenarios, the need for domestic security forces will increase dramatically. As we see foreign and mercenary troops being used domestically in preference to bringing home the National Guard, we can see that Kissinger's predictions, or perhaps we should call them advanced policy announcements, are beginning to be realized.
Fascism doesn't necessarily imply cult-nationalism or appeals to racial superiority - those themes just happened to harmonize with the fears and sentiments of downtrodden Germans in the terrible 1930s. What fascism is really about is an acceptance, on the part of the population, that the state is all powerful and can do anything it wants. Hitler accomplished that in one way, but we can see it being accomplished in our own time by different means. With the Patriot Act firmly in place, with Homeland Security and the military in charge of disaster response, with what we have seen of Homeland Security's response protocols - with the forced detention of disaster survivors from Katrina, and with the deployment of foreign and mercenary troops domestically - there seems to be little doubt that a neo-fascist regime - in all but name and rhetoric - will be established in America as the Collapse and War scenarios unfold.
* The Final Solution to Peak Oil
Even if the initial nuclear conflict is confined to the Middle East - with oil tanker shipping and Iranian oil production out of commission - we can assume that an oil-shock-driven global economic collapse will follow promptly. With America under Homeland Security regimentation, and with all communication systems - including telephone, media, and the Internet - either closed down or tightly controlled, the neocons, on behalf of their elite sponsors, will be in a position to proceed with their plans for the aftermath, totally unconstrained by any domestic political considerations. In America, politics will be suspended, as will any concept of freedom or civil liberties.
The situation in the third world is difficult to predict. With so many people already living in poverty, and many on the edge of starvation, the effects of collapse, and most likely a total lack of fuel, will be devastating. We can assume that any nations blessed with domestic oil supplies, such as Venezuela and West Africa, will see those supplies seized by American forces very early on. If the third world is simply left alone at that point, the elite depopulation agenda will proceed of its own accord. If the elite clique decides to help that process along, with outright genocidal actions, the rest of the world would most likely be unaware of the fact. A few neutron bombs here and there could cheaply and efficiently eliminate millions overnight, leaving infrastructures intact for future uses.
Conditions in Europe and the rest of the West are unlikely to be very different from those in the U.S. Even though these political climates are currently quite unlike the proto-fascist climate in America, an oil shock and general collapse will create crisis conditions very quickly. With massive unemployment, transport and electricity grids largely non-functional, and food distribution disrupted, some form of marital law will be necessary if only to enable survival of the populations. There is of course the additional possibility that nuclear war might have affected parts of Europe, depending on how the conflict between Washington-Tel Aviv and Moscow-Beijing proceeds.
In addition, we must take into consideration the fact that Patriot Act-like 'anti-terrorism' measures have already been enacted throughout most of the West, at the urging of Washington, and enabled by various unprecedented 'terrorist' incidents (e.g. Madrid and London bombings), all of which could easily have been arranged by Anglo-American intelligence operatives. In this regard we must keep in mind that Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, and has been used repeatedly since by the CIA to assist in destabilization operations, including in Kosovo and Macedonia, and presumably currently in Iran.
As in America, Europe's 'anti-terrorist' measures have little to do with terrorism, and everything to do with facilitating a regimented society. How this scenario develops is likely to depend more on the chain of command in NATO than it will on the sentiments of Europe's current political leaders. With American forces in command of all European oil supplies, it is unlikely that NATO or European leaders would attempt to resist any demands made on them by Washington. In this scenario, as in the post-911 scenario, America will appear to be the victim, responding to events, rather than the perpetrator of those events.
By employing a combination of famine, stirred-up civil wars, biological warfare, and nuclear annihilation, the clique will be able to reduce global population levels arbitrarily and relatively quickly. An 80% reduction, well in advance of 2020, would be very easy to arrange, particularly during the final confrontation with China and Russia. Presumably Western populations will be largely preserved, apart from cities lost to nuclear attack - and selective culling of 'undesirable minorities' is very likely. In this regard Katrina serves as a kind of prototype, where it was mostly poor blacks who bore the brunt of the disaster and who were then carted off to tightly-guarded concentration camps - excuse me, detainment centers - to meet whatever fate might be in store for them there. They've been told they'll be forced to remain there for the next five months, by which time we'll be fully into the era of apocalypse.
* The Brave New World
With vast oil reserves still untapped, the Anglo-American financial clique will then be in a position to establish the framework of their own design for a post-apocalyptic world order. As Kissinger and right-wing conspiracy buffs have predicted, we will most likely see a centralized world government, perhaps using the name 'United Nations', but fully under the control of the clique. We can also expect a single global currency, a single global militarized police force, and some kind of regime of enforced birth control, depending on elite plans for future population distributions.
As outrageous as these scenarios may seem, even more amazing is how these developments are likely to be perceived by the survivors, and by future generations. Just as with Word Wars 1 and 2 - both of which were planned and arranged by the Anglo-America clique - the perception of Westerners, and the story told in history books, will be that of an heroic West, bravely resisting aggression by terrorists and by the Sino-Russian axis of evil. And as in those previous wars, little attention will be paid [to] the fates that were suffered by third world populations. With all the hundreds of films we've seen about these earlier wars, how many have examined the events from any perspective other than that of victorious populations and troops - apart from those that have been aimed at demonizing the defeated evil enemy?
The period of harsh military rule in the West will not last long, and memories of that interval will be soon replaced, as in New Orleans, by images of troops helping people rebuild their lives - under the guardianship of their new world order masters. Rather than perceiving a fascist takeover, people will be grateful, as Kissinger predicted, that the military 'maintained order', and they will see the new world government as a wonderful advance for civilization, finally eliminating international warfare. The ruling clique, as usual, will remain behind the scenes, and people will believe that 'democracy' still prevails, as most believe it prevails today, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The political process will appear to have changed only slightly in the West, with one more level of government added, as the EU level was added earlier in Europe. All important decisions, such as those regarding finance, policing, budgets, taxation, environmental policy, corporate regulations, migration of populations, the use of genetic-engineering and nuclear technologies, etc., will be made by the remote world government. People will feel totally detached from this centralized process, just as today's Europeans feel detached from the decisions made in Brussels. People will be encouraged to focus their attention on their disempowered local governments, as in the EU today, and as in Britain, with its pseudo-devolution regime. Whatever suffering the centralized government might impose on Westerners will be blamed, as it is today in the EU and Britain, on mismanagement by these disempowered local governments.
Although the political process will seem to have proceeded with considerable continuity, we can be sure that the elite clique will take full advantage of the transition process in order to take the remaining populist bugs out of their pseudo-democratic system. Trial by jury is sure to go, as it gives ordinary people far too much power. Continuing the propaganda regime that is already exemplified by the popular CSI and courtroom television dramas, people will come to understand that 'incorruptible investigators' and 'impartial judges', can provide more reliable justice than that delivered by 'error-prone juries' and 'self-serving lawyers'. Elections will of course be carried out by means of electronic voting machines, whose software will be unavailable for independent audit, and whose results will be pre-determined centrally. Most likely, all citizens will be implanted by chips at birth, and this will be justified on the basis of protecting your children from abduction. Any objectors will obviously be 'unfit parents', and their children will be taken away from them and put into 'responsible', chip-friendly families.
The mass media will continue more or less as it is, carefully managed by elites. The Internet will be tamed, and will be used mostly for commerce and entertainment, with government licenses required for websites and mailing lists, as they are currently required for television and radio broadcasters. All private communications will be openly subject to surveillance - as they in fact already are. Private use of encrypted communications will be a terrorist crime, equivalent to bringing a gun on an airliner. Any attempt at popular activism will be considered a form of terrorism, as it in fact already is in the fine print of most of our 'anti-terrorist' legislation. All of these political refinements will be accepted without much fuss, because they will all be carefully sold as 'democratic and humanitarian reforms', aimed at making our lives safer and more convenient. With the Internet tamed, those who understand what's really going on will have no effective venue in which to voice their views, and will assume they are alone in their convictions, as most of us did prior to the Internet.
Despite this grim picture, let me emphasize once more that the general public perception is likely to be far from grim. Survivors will welcome this brave new world, free at last from warfare, particularly after the harrowing times they've recently lived through. Vast territories, depleted of population by the intervening holocaust, but with many infrastructures intact, will be available for colonization and reconstruction, leading to a glorious period of adventurous migration, development, and economic growth - making the post-World War 2 boom pale by comparison. As with the Victorians in the age of the British empire, and the off-worlders in Blade Runner, there will be ample opportunities to go off to new lands and begin prosperous new lives in uncrowded surroundings.
With greatly reduced world population, peak oil will no longer be such a pressing issue. Nonetheless, since the strategy of oil-based dominance will no longer be required by the elite clique to maintain its power, it is likely that we will be permitted to enjoy an ecologically enlightened new era, where sustainability is embraced, global warming is recognized, and amazing new forms of energy - currently kept hidden - will be 'discovered'. It is really absolute power that the elite clique is after, and once they have that, they will have little incentive to continue destroying the world that they too must live in.
Even capitalism itself is likely to be tamed of its excesses, or eliminated, since it is inherently incompatible with sustainability in its current form. Society is likely to evolve toward a structure reminiscent of land-based aristocracies of the past, which is a more stable arrangement than capitalism. The ancient Greeks experimented with aristocracy, democracy, and dictatorship as forms of government. Their conclusion was that aristocracy is the most stable, and that democracy and dictatorship tend to oscillate between one another - with democracy being undone by coups, and dictatorships being undone by popular revolts. Our elite-sponsored brave new world is likely to have the political trappings of democracy, and the economic dynamics of a land-based, but centrally governed, aristocratic system.
After a few generations, all popular memory of previous systems will be gone, and we will have only propaganda histories to tell us about how bad everything was before the new enlightened age emerged out of the nuclear holocaust caused by our earlier primitive societies. Only among those at the top of the aristocratic pyramid, which will of course be headed by the descendants of the current elite clique, will stories be told to new generations of how the current system came to be, so that the next elite generation can appreciate the historical significance of its own privileged position, and not be tempted to get sentimental and consider making democratic changes. In that regard, nothing will have changed.
If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website (http://cyberjournal.org) or try out our low-traffic, moderated email list by sending a message to: firstname.lastname@example.org
You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website, provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and this disclaimer.
Richard Moore (rkm) Wexford, Ireland blog: http://harmonization.blogspot.com/
"Escaping The Matrix - Global Transformation: WHY WE NEED IT, AND HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE IT ", old draft: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/rkmGlblTrans.html
cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj
newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog>ttp://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog
Forwarded by "Kathleen Roberts" email@example.com>
From: Infowars firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: September 20, 2005
Subject: British Mercenaries Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq
British Mercenaries Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq
Media blackout shadows why soldiers were arrested
Paul Joseph Watson | September 20 2005
In another example of how the Iraqi quagmire is deliberately designed to degenerate into a chaotic abyss, British mercenaries were caught attempting to stage a terror attack and the media have dutifully shut up about the real questions surrounding the incident.
What is admitted is that two British soldiers in Arab garb and head dress drove a car towards a group of Iraq police and began firing. According to the Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili, one policeman was shot dead and another was injured. Pictured below are the wigs and clothing that the soldiers were wearing.
The Arab garb is obviously undeniable proof that the operation, whatever its ultimate intention, was staged so that any eyewitnesses would believe it had been carried out by Iraqis.
This has all the indications of a frame up.
This is made all the more interesting by the fact that early reports cited as originating from BBC World Service radio stated that the car used contained explosives. Was this another staged car bombing intended to keep tensions high? As you will discover later, the plan to keep Iraq divided and in turmoil is an actual policy directive that spans back over two decades.
The BBC reports that the car did contain, "assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear and medical kit. This is thought to be standard kit for the SAS operating in such a theatre of operations."
And are fake bushy black wigs and turbans standard kit for the SAS? What happened to the early reports of explosives? Why has the media relentlessly reported on the subsequent rescue effort and failed to address these key questions?
The soldiers were arrested and taken to a nearby jail where they were confronted and interrogated by an Iraqi judge.
The initial demand from the puppet authorities that the soldiers be released was rejected by the Basra government. At that point tanks were sent in to 'rescue' the terrorists and the 'liberated' Iraqis started to riot, firebombing and pelting stones at the vehicles injuring British troops as was depicted in this dramatic Reuters photo.
As the terrorists were being rescued 150 prisoners escaped from the jail. Was this intentional or just a result of another botched black op?
From this point on media coverage was monopolized by accounts of the rescue and the giant marauding pink elephant in the living room, namely why the soldiers were arrested in the first place, was routinely ignored.
The only outlet to ask any serious questions was Australian TV news which according to one viewer gave, "credibility to the 'conspiracy theorists' who have long claimed many terrorist acts in Iraq are, in fact, being initiated and carried out by US, British and Israeli forces."
Iran's top military commander Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr pointed the finger at the occupational government last week by publicly stating,
"The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies," Zolqadr said.
"Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners".
"If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers".
That explanation has a lot of currency amongst ordinary Iraqis who have been direct witnesses to these bombings.
In the past we've asked questions about why so-called car bombings leave giant craters, in addition with eyewitness reports that helicopters were carrying out the attacks.
Throughout history we see the tactic of divide and conquer being used to enslave populations and swallow formerly sovereign countries by piecemeal. From the British stirring up aggression between different Indian tribes in order to foment division, to modern day Yugoslavia where the country was rejecting the IMF and world bank takeover before the Globalists broke it up and took the country piece by piece by arming and empowering extremists.
And so to Iraq, New York Times November 25th 2003, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations writes,
"To put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly - with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad.... American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences."
Gelb argues for allowing the rebellion to escalate in order to create a divided Iraq.
And in 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."
So if the plan is to keep the different sects at each others' throats then who benefits from the chaos created by the endless bombings? President Bush's slip of the tongue when he stated, "it'll take time to restore chaos and order -- order out of chaos, but we will" seems less farcical in this light.
Plans for 4,000 NATO troops to replace US troops in Afghanistan will likely be mirrored in Iraq and the country will be used as a launch pad for the coming invasions of Syria and Iran.
It is certain that any reports coming out of Iraq accusing occupational forces of being behind car bombings will be brutally censored.
The Pentagon admitted before the war that independent journalists would be military targets and since then we've seen more journalists killed in Iraq over two and a half years than the entire seven year stretch of US involvement in Vietnam.
In many cases, such as that of Mazen Dana, an acclaimed hero who was killed after filming secret US mass graves, journalists are hunted down and executed because they record something that the occupational government doesn't want to reach the wider world.
Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena's car was fired upon and an Italian secret service agent killed after Sgrena was told by the group that kidnapped her that a threat to kill her if Italian troops didn't pull out of Iraq wasn't made by them. This means that Rumsfeld's Ministry of Truth in Iraq is putting out false statements by fake Jihad groups to try and maintain the facade that the resistance is run by brutal terrorists under the direction of Al-Qaeda/Iran/Syria or whoever else they want to bomb next.
Every high profile kidnapping brings with it eyewitness reports of white men in suits and police carrying out the abductions.
Many will find it hard to believe that ordinary soldiers would have it in them to carry out such brutal atrocities. The people carrying out these acts are not ordinary soldiers, they are mercenary thugs who have been told that they have to be 'more evil than the terrorists' to defeat the terrorists. This is how they morally justify to themselves engaging in this criminal behavior.
We will update this story as and when new developments take place.
Get Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson's books, ALL Alex's documentary films, films by other authors, audio interviews and special reports. Sign up at Prison Planet.tv go at http://prisonplanet.tv/subscribe.html
Rebels 'Inside Iraqi Police'
The Iraqi government has launched an inquiry into events surrounding the arrest of the British soldiers on Monday, both thought to be members of the SAS elite special forces. Iraq's interior ministry ordered the police force in the southern city of Basra to release the soldiers - but that order was ignored.
Who's Blowing up Iraq? (September 20, 2005)
New evidence that bombs are being planted by British Commandos - The Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or TRYING TO PLANT EXPLOSIVES. Washington Post, Ellen Knickmeyer, 9-20-05; British Smash into Jail to Free Two Detained Soldiers In more than two years since the United States initiated hostilities against Iraq, there has never been a positive identification of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Never. That doesnt mean that he doesnt exist; it simply suggests that prudent people will challenge the official version until his whereabouts and significance in the conflict can be verified. At present, much of the rationale for maintaining the occupation depends on this elusive and, perhaps, illusory figure. Its odd how Al-Zarqawi appears at the precise coordinates of Americas bombing-raids, and then, miraculously vanishes unscathed from the scene of the wreckage. This would be a remarkable feat for anyone, but especially for someone who only has one leg. Al-Zarqawi may simply be a fantasy dreamed up by Pentagon planners to put a threatening face on the Iraqi resistance. The Defense Dept has been aggressive in its effort to shape information in a way that serves the overall objectives of the occupation. The primary aim of the Pentagons Strategic Information program is to distort the truth in a way that controls the storyline created by the media. Al-Zarqawi fits perfectly within this paradigm of intentional deception. The manipulation of information factors heavily in the steady increase of Iraqi casualties, too. Although the military refuses to do body counts; many people take considerable interest in the daily death toll. Last week, over 200 civilians were killed in seemingly random acts of violence purportedly caused by al-Zarqawi. But, were they? Were these massive attacks the work of al-Zarqawi as the western media reports or some other more shadowy force? One member of the Iraqi National Assembly. Fatah al-Sheikh, stated, It seems that the American forces are trying to escalate the situation in order to make the Iraqi people suffer
. There is a huge campaign for the agents of the foreign occupation to enter and plant hatred between the sons of the Iraqi people, and spread rumors in order to scare the one from the other. The occupiers are trying to start religious incitement and if it does not happen, then they will try to start an internal Shiite incitement. Al-Sheikhs feelings are shared by a great many Iraqis. They can see that everything the US has done, from the forming a government made up predominantly of Shiites and Kurds, to creating a constitution that allows the breaking up to the country (federalism), to using the Peshmerga and Badr militia in their attacks on Sunni cities, to building an Interior Ministry entirely comprised of Shiites, suggests that the Pentagons strategy is to fuel the sectarian divisions that will lead to civil war. Al-Zarqawi is an integral facet of this broader plan. Rumsfeld has cast the Jordanian as the agent-provocateur; the driving force behind religious partition and antagonism. But, al-Zarqawi has nothing to gain by killing innocent civilians, and everything to lose. If he does actually operate in Iraq, he needs logistical supporting all his movements; including help with safe-houses, assistants, and the assurance of invisibility in the community. (The ocean in which he swims) These would disappear instantly if he recklessly killed and maimed innocent women and children. Last week the Imam of Baghdads al-Kazimeya mosque, Jawad al-Kalesi said, that al-Zarqawi is dead but Washington continues to use him as a bogeyman to justify a prolonged military occupation
.Hes simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people. Al-Kalesi added that al-Zarqawi was killed in the beginning of the war in the Kurdish north and that His family in Jordan even held a ceremony after his death. (AFP) (...) The al-Zarqawi phantasm is a particularly weak-link in the Pentagons muddled narrative. The facts neither support the allegations of his participation nor prove that foreigners are a major contributor to the ongoing violence. Instead, the information points to a Defense establishment that cannot be trusted in anything it says and that may be directly involved in the terrorist-bombings that have killed countless thousands of Iraqi civilians. Regrettably, that is prospect that cant be ignored. After all, no one else benefits from the slaughter.
Forwarded by "Huguette Demers" email@example.com>
October 3 -- November 2 -- December 1
Everything points to one of these new moons as the period of maximum danger of a US-UK sneak attack on Iran. Working backward, we can assume that the new 9/11 provocation that must furnish the pretext for this attack will have to take place several days to two weeks earlier, in order to orchestrate public opinion and complete last-minute military preparations. We have therefore already entered the danger zone for spectacular terrorist events staged by the rogue network infesting the key departments and agencies of the US government. It is time for a political mobilization to stop these events from happening.
Full text below...
Iran War Clouds On the Harvest Moon
RUMSFELD: 10/12 IS IMMINENT
By Webster Griffin Tarpley
Washington DC, Sept. 18 The Bush-Cheney war drive continues unabated, despite hurricane Katrina. The US government continues to operate under Cheneys order to prepare in the short term for the nuclear bombing of Iran in the wake of a new 9/11 of state sponsored, false flag synthetic terrorism, as revealed in late July by Philip Giraldi in The American Conservative.
But Iran is not the only possible target in the wake of a new 9/11. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, speaking at the United Nations this past week, formally accused the US of preparing an unprovoked aggression against his country as well. Chavez promised a hundred years war to beat back such an invasion.
Bush had pledged to the German CDU-CSU opposition that there would be no attack on Iran before todays German election. The result of the German voting indicates that Gerhard Schroeder of the SPD may well be able to remain in power as the chancellor of an independent Germany. Schroeder has pledged that he will not take part in a US-led attack on Iran. His challenger, Angelika Merkel, is a neocon and far too weak to be able to resist orders from Bush and Cheney to join in the planned suicidal adventure. This was sensed by German voters, who declined to give Merkel a mandate to rule.
The most immediate war signal is a 180-degree policy reversal by the British government, with an announcement that the long-touted pullout of UK troops from Iraq will not occur. Instead, one of the British elite units, the 7th Armoured Brigade, will arrive in Iraq in October:
Secret plans by the Government to reduce troop numbers in Iraq have been shelved - and there is now no official date for the withdrawal of British soldiers, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. The decision comes as ministers prepare to announce an unexpected redeployment of up to 6,000 members of the 7th Armoured Brigade - the renowned Desert Rats - in the conflict zone next month. This follows growing concerns that Iraq is heading into full-scale civil war. Under the original withdrawal plans of John Reid, the Defence Secretary, up to 8,500 troops should have returned to Britain by next month with the rest coming home by the middle of next year. (Sunday Telegraph, September 18, 2005)
It is necessary abandon any illusions that the Bush-Cheney disaster relief and civil defense debacle in the wake of hurricane Katrina will do anything to avoid or even postpone the war mobilization on the part of the US. Do not be deceived by the ostentatious presence, for the moment, of parts of the US 82nd Airborne Division in New Orleans. On Sept. 2, the Washington Post announced that the US military had discarded its plans to boost the troop presence in Iran during the October 15 to December 15 period, the time of the Iraqi constitutional referendum and the parliamentary elections. Defending these elections is the obvious cover story for a US buildup targeting Iran. General John Vines in Baghdad suggested that there would be only an increase of 2,000 soldiers over and above the current level of just under 140,000. (Washington Post, September 3, 2002) The Pentagon had earlier suggested that the level would have to be increased to 160,000 for the election period. What would the impact of the New Orleans situation be?
Rumsfeld and Meyers, in a Sept. 6 press conference at the Pentagon, told reporters that the plus-up was going to proceed on schedule, thus giving the US the extra capability needed for the type of raids into Iran that are now being contemplated:
Asked whether the military's response to the Katrina disaster had been hindered by the Iraq deployment, Rumsfeld shot back: "It's just flat wrong. Anyone who's saying that doesn't understand the situation." Myers concurred, pointing to the decision to bring back the Louisiana and Mississippi guard units as evidence of the military's flexibility.
In addition to the ground forces, there is also evidence of a naval buildup, part of which was revealed by the following incident:
US submarine collides with cargo ship in Gulf
DUBAI - A US Navy submarine collided with a Turkish cargo ship in the Gulf in the dark hours of Monday morning, the US Navy reported. No one was hurt on either vessel. The USS Philadelphia was traveling on the surface of the Gulf when it slammed into the Turkish-flagged M/V Yaso Aysen at around 2:00 a.m. local time (2200 GMT Sunday), the US Navy 5th Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain reported in a statement. (AP, 5 September 2005)
The position of this sub was the optimal one for firing conventional or atomic cruise missiles at Iran. A seasoned Israeli observer, Amir Oren, noted as much in his column in Haaretz, September 11, 2005:
"If there was a fateful report this week, it did not come either from Gaza or from New Orleans, where Katrina seemed to threaten to become George Bush's Monica. The report from the Persian Gulf about the collision of the U.S. nuclear submarine Philadelphia with a Turkish freighter north of Bahrain, with Tehran within range of the sub's Tomahawk missiles, showed that the Americans are preparing seriously for the next confrontation, to which Israel will probably not be able to remain indifferent."
The backdrop for all of this is the announcement, published on the fourth anniversary of 9/11, of further US steps to render operative the new military doctrine of nuclear sneak attack against even non-nuclear states by which the US claims it feels threatened:
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. (Washington Post, September 11, 2005)
The new US sneak attack nuclear doctrine has been viewed with alarm by Russian President Putin. This past week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ivanov warned the United States about the new plans for pre-emptive nuclear strikes: "Lowering the threshold for use of atomic weapons is in itself dangerous. Such plans do not limit, but, in fact, promote efforts by others to develop nuclear weapons." (Wire service report, September 14)
Ironically, the main accuser of Iran in the State Department is none other than the discredit hack Robert Joseph, who was responsible for the infamous 16 words about Iraq seeking nuclear weapons into Bushs January 2002 State of the Union Address; these words played an important role in setting up the attack on Iraq. Josephs slide show is entitled A History of Concealment and Deception, and alleges that Ian is committed to developing nuclear weapons, although it offers no proof.
Joining in the bluster is Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq. Khalilzad, a leading neocon in his own right, delivered a diatribe against Syria from the podium of the State Department:
Our patience is running out with Syria. They need to decide: Are they going to be with a successful Iraq or are they going to be an obstacle to the success of Iraq? Iraq will succeed. Iraq will succeed. Syria has to decide what price it's willing to pay in making Iraq success difficult. And time is running out for Damascus to decide on this issue..... Special Briefing, Washington, September 12, 2005)
A few days later, State Department spokesman Ada Ereli repeated the same threats:
"Syria, more and more, is being recognized as a destabilizing element in the region." "It's not just about Iraq; it's about Iraq, it's about Lebanon, it's about the Palestinian Authority. Because there's a connection between Syria and terrorism and murder and mayhem in each of these three different areas." (Associated Press, 17/09/2005)
Are the neocons seriously proposing to attack both Iran and Syria at the same time, in a double flight forward from their current hopeless situation in Iraq? Or was this strategic deception, designed to let Iranians think they might not be next?
Bush himself, although nearer than ever to a nervous breakdown as a result of wide criticism of the Katrina disaster, is still on message, and the message is a new terror attack. On September 6, Bush remarked:
What I intend to do is to lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong. And I'll tell you why: It's very important for us to understand the relationship between the federal government, the state government and the local government when it comes to a major catastrophe
And the reason it's important is that we still live in an unsettled world. We want to make sure that we can respond properly if there's a WMD attack or another major storm.
And so I'm going to find out over time what went right and what went wrong." (September 6, 2005)
A few days later, on Sept. 13, Bush specified that Iran is the main target of the US, at least for the moment. Speaking of his talks at the UN this past week, Bush stated that his main goal was to haul Iran before the UN Security Council:
I will bring the subject up with leaders whom I'll be meeting with today and tomorrow and later on this week
I will be speaking candidly about Iran with the - Hu Jintao, as well as with President Putin, for example. Just had a conversation with Tony Blair and the subject came up.... It is very important for the world to understand that Iran with a nuclear weapon will be incredibly destabilizing. And, therefore, we must work together to prevent them from having the wherewithal to develop a nuclear weapon.
Knowledgeable observers around the world are fully aware of the slide towards an immensely wider war in the Middle East. At the end of August, Anthony Wedgewood Benn, the grand old man of the left wing of the British Labour Party, warned that Bush might see the attack on Iran as a
"way to regain some of the political credibility he has lost
.What must be intended is a US airstrike, or airstrikes, on Iranian nuclear installations, comparable to Israel's bombing of Iraq in 1981
Some influential Americans appear to be convinced that the US will attack Iran
the build-up to a new war is taking exactly the same form as it did in 2002" against Iraq. While the US and UK talked of diplomatic measures, leaked UK memos show that the decision to go to war had already been taken long before
. That may be the position now, and I fear that if a US attack does take place, the prime minister will give it his full support
. Now that the US president has announced that he has not ruled out an attack on Iran, if it does not abandon its nuclear programme, the Middle East faces a crisis that could dwarf even the dangers arising from the war in Iraq. Even a conventional weapon fired at a nuclear research centre -- whether or not a bomb was being made there -- would almost certainly release radioactivity into the atmosphere, with consequences seen worldwide as a mini-Hiroshima. (Guardian, Aug. 31, 2005)
George Galloway, on a book tour in the US, was alert to importance of a new synthetic terrorist to furnish the pretext for the coming attack. He told Alex Jones in a radio interview:
So you cannot discount some kind of provocation being staged by those elements who want to propel the US into an even more disastrous invasion.
As Alex Jones summed up the exchange, Galloway went on to suggest that it is not beyond the realm of imagination for a situation to arise where the power hungry elite in the US uses staged provocation to drag Iran into a geopolitical set-to, using Israel as the hammer. If this were to happen, the consequences could be as far reaching as to start a third world war which would be devastating for humanity. This would provide the authorities with the perfect excuse to set up a police state domestically to regulate the activities of everyone and have complete control. (Prisonplanet.com, September 13, 2005)
Irans new President Achmadinejad told the United Nations on September 16:
A country which possesses the biggest nuclear arsenal, embarks on proliferation of nuclear weapons in defiance of the safeguards and threatens to use them against others, is not competent to comment on peaceful use of nuclear know-how by other states
. These countries should be brought under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. (IRNA, September 16, 2005)
The British International Institute for Strategic Studies has in effect confirmed the finding of the CIAs latest National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran was many years away from being able to build atomic bombs. According to the French press, "It appears probable that Iran does not have significant stocks of non-declared fissile material, or that it is dissimulating the installations capable of producing such material." (Le Monde, September 7, 2005)
Retired Gen. Colin Powell told Barbara Walters of 20/20 that there is no military solution for the problem with Iran. Powell recommended instead a creative diplomatic solution. (20/20, ABC television, September 9, 2005)
THE 9/11 FRONT
New revelations from the Pentagons Able Danger military intelligence unit have, whatever the intentions of the leading actors, tended to re-open the entire 9/11 question in ways which pose serious dangers not only for Bush, but for the whole of the pro-war invisible government faction. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) revealed on September 15 that a Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks
.The employee is prepared to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was expected to name the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents. (Associated Press, September 15, 2005)
The usual suspects have continued to beat the drum for a new 9/11. Joseph Farah offered the following terror scenario: Raising new concerns about the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists, al-Qaeda is planning spectacular attacks next month against the U.S., Russia and Europe in what it is calling the Great Ramadan Offensive. Ramadan, the holiest period in the Muslim calendar, begins Oct. 4 this year and lasts a month. (World Net Daily, September 8, 2005) Such an event would be the immediate prelude to a move against Iran.
An alleged America al-Qaeda has also been dredged up with a histrionic tape threatening terror attacks against Los Angeles and Melbourne, Australia.
More to the point may be the following op-ed from Jim Hoagland in the Washington Post:
Bushs informal minister of war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, perhaps best captures this spirit. Think constantly and urgently about 10/12, he reportedly tells Pentagon staffers in private meetings and what you will wish you had done to prevent it. The 10/12 reference is Rumsfelds epigrammatic way not of predicting the date of a new terror attack but of emphasizing that the horror of 9/11 is likely to be repeated and augmented. It is a chilling symbol of the broad challenge that Bush must confront. (Jim Hoagland, Cruel September, Washington Post, September 15, 2005)
We might do well to take Rumsfeld quite seriously. As already noted, the immediate window for an attack on Iran would appear to be approximately the interval that spans the October 15 constitutional referendum and the December 15 general elections in Iran. The US invisible government might deliver a new 9/11 at any time within this interval, or even sooner. We should at the same time bear in mind that the US timetable for aggression will depend very heavily on surprise bombing attacks, with limited use of special forces and paratroopers to seize and destroy key labs, nuclear facilities, reactor sites, enrichment plants, and the like.
As in Desert Storm and the March 2003 attack, it must be expected that the US-UK bombers will prefer to go into action during the dark of the moon, when planes are harder to locate. The new moons of the last quarter of 2005 are as follows:
October 3 -- November 2 -- December 1
Everything points to one of these new moons as the period of maximum danger of a US-UKsneak attack on Iran. Working backward, we can assume that the new 9/11 provocation that must furnish the pretext for this attack will have to take place several days to two weeks earlier, in order to orchestrate public opinion and complete last-minute military preparations. We have therefore already entered the danger zone for spectacular terrorist events staged by the rogue network infesting the key departments and agencies of the US government. It is time for a political mobilization to stop these events from happening.
DON'T MISS TARPLEY'S SUBSEQUENT FOLLOWUP
Forwarded by Ken NCEpanacea@aol.com> on September 18, 2005
Fireman Admits Again: 9-11 Inside Job
by Victor Thorn On the morning of September 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac, Jr. admitted yet again that 9-11 was an inside job. In fact, here is his exact quote to Lisa Guliani and myself: "I know 9-11 was an inside job, the police know it's an inside job, and the firemen know it too."
Think about the ramifications of this statement. One of New York's own firefighters revealed publicly that 9-11 wasn't the work of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated, and executed by elements within our own government. Isaacs also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, "We all have to be very careful about how we handle it."
Preeminent researcher Jim Marrs (Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies) also quotes author Randy Lavello, who wrote the following about Paul Isaac, Jr.: "New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. Many other firemen knew there were bombs in the buildings,' he said, 'but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact.' Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD's antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. 'There were definitely bombs in those buildings,' Isaac added."
The above information was corroborated by Nico Haupt in the November 1, 2004 edition of 911 Skeptics where he wrote, "[Isaac] explained to me that if the building had 'pancaked' as it's been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks."
Adding further weight to this argument is Greg Szymanski's July 21, 2005 article entitled Former Auxiliary NY Fireman Is 'A One-Man Investigative Team' When It Comes To Finding The Truth About 9/11 where the following quote appears: "When Isaac first watched the towers collapse from a block away, he said they 'strangely came down like a house of cards, in their own footprints' in what he called a perfect demolition job."
Isaac also reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told me during our protest at Ground Zero on September 11, 2005 --- that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade Center towers. Isaac told Szymanski in the above-mentioned article, "I heard some crazy things over my radio in those days, things I can't repeat on the phone."
Also, Isaac directly addressed the gag order placed on firemen and police officers in Szymanski's article:
"It's amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs," said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11.
There is certainly more information of this nature related to Mr. Isaac on the Internet, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene (i.e. William Rodriguez) saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought to their knees not by the airliner's impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition. Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state, and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.
Last but not least, researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also in attendance at the WTC 'open grave site' on the afternoon of September 11, 2005, wrote the following on APFN: "I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth! Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 911 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing! I had tears in my eyes."
Date: 3 Sep 2005
Subject: Faith and Policy: People sense president's soulless sensibility
From: Phyllis Montague firstname.lastname@example.org>
The pen is mightier than the sword...
Faith and Policy: People sense president's soulless sensibility
By Marianne Williamson
Something very important is happening here -- something more than simply a hurricane, or the suffering of thousands who were neglected by their government during a time of great need. Most worldly occurrences reflect deeper truths. What is happening is a gigantic reckoning, as Americans are forced to come to terms with how very, very naked is the emperor who we thought had such incredible clothes.
We are raised in the United States of America to believe our government is the strongest in the world, that as Americans we are basically protected, and that our country is basically good. It is cognitive dissonance for us to be confronted with evidence to the contrary, and yet such evidence has been piling up fast and furiously during this odd and potentially catastrophic phase of American history.
There is nothing strong about rushing into a unilateral war based on faulty intelligence, squandering the resources necessary with which to take care of your own people; there is nothing protective about a government that apparently didn't monitor events on the ground in New Orleans any better -- in fact, less well -- than the average viewer of CNN; and there is nothing good about taking care of the rich at the expense of the poor.
If it took a Category 5 hurricane and the huge suffering of thousands to bring those facts to light, then at least it can be said there is value in this horror. If enough Americans are beginning to wake up and face the awful fact that our country's basic functioning has become infected by a soulless sensibility, then perhaps the suffering on the Gulf Coast will not have been in vain.
Regarding the abysmal response of our government to the hurricane's aftermath, there is a lot of talk right now about accountability. Some argue we should have the discussion today, while others argue that that discussion should wait for a more propitious time.
But there is a danger in waiting, for a governmental status quo has talent for co-opting criticism as long as it can buy enough time. Passions cool; memories become revised and faded.
Six months after a disaster, the government appoints an independent commission to find out what really happened but by the time the commission releases its final report, there is never much sense that too many people are listening. The people are exhausted by then; they're trying their best to move on.
And the status quo knows this; that's part of its game. Do whatever you want; act horrified and remorseful for a minute whenever too much suffering results as a part of your actions; then put off the accountability conversation until people are too tired to care anymore.
This is not a new pattern in America. What might be new -- what I sense might be happening -- is that people are waking up to it now. And as soon as we wake up, then the pattern will end.
Abraham Lincoln said there is not too much evil any American government can perpetrate, as long as the people remain vigilant. He was referring to the fact that we have federal elections every two years, through which we can replace the entirety of the House of Representatives and one-third of the U.S. Senate.
The ultimate accountability conversation is written into the U.S. Constitution; it is called elections. At this particular juncture, that means the mid-term elections of 2006.
The president prides himself on running the government like a well-run business. That, of course, makes him the chief executive. And if the government failed, then he failed.
Fool us once, and maybe their tricks were dirty; fool us twice, maybe their public relations was too good; fool us now, and perhaps we just deserve to be fooled. From war to hurricanes, oh, America, the alarm bells of needless human suffering are going off everywhere.
A nation that refuses to wake up at this point is in a dangerous slumber. The nightmares are upon us now. They will remain until our eyes are opened and we have awakened to the truth.
Marianne Williamson is a best-selling spiritual author from Metro Detroit
Date: 20 Sep 2005
Subject: A surgeons meeting
From: "Stuart G Carnie" email@example.com>
Five surgeons are discussing who has the best patients to operate on.
The first surgeon says, "I like to see accountants on my operating table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."
The second responds, "Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded."
The third surgeon says, "No, I really think librarians are the best; everything inside them is in alphabetical order."
The fourth surgeon chimes in: "You know, I like construction workers. Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over at the end, and when the job takes longer than you said it would."
But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed: "You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine, and the head and the arse are interchangeable.
SUBSCRIPTION TO THE EARTH RAINBOW NETWORK E-LIST
If you are not yet a subcriber to the Earth Rainbow Network emailing list and would like to subscribe to its automated listserver and regularly receive similar compilations covering a broad range of subjects, including each new Meditation Focus issued every two week, simply send a blank email at firstname.lastname@example.org from the email account to which you want to receive the material compiled and networked by the Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator. Subscription is FREE!
BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE