The Truthseeker: NGO documents plan Ukraine war

NGOs caught forging documents for war, insider warns all NGOs infiltrated; ‘Independent military observers’ for EU-based group OSCE again turned away in Crimea, OSCE branded one more ‘vulgar instrument’ for foreign interests; and CNN buys the latest State Department hoax.

Seek truth from facts with Illinois University Professor of International Law and former Amnesty board member Francis Boyle; Infowars Editor Paul Joseph Watson; Eric Draitser of Boiling Frogs Post; Ron Paul Institute Executive Director Daniel McAdams; Ukraine protest organizers; Sliman Bouchuiguir, whose NGO fabricated the claims against Libya; and Asst. Secretary of State Vic Nuland.

Who Really Runs the World? Conspiracies, Hidden Agendas & the Plan for World Government

20130524-091743.jpg

By Andrew Gavin Marshall, Globalresearch.ca For New Dawn Waking Times

So, who runs the world? It’s a question that people have struggled with since people began to struggle. It’s certainly a question with many interpretations, and incites answers of many varied perspectives.

Often, it is relegated to the realm of “conspiracy theory,” in that, those who discuss this question or propose answers to it, are purveyors of a conspiratorial view of the world. However, it is my intention to discard the labels, which seek to disprove a position without actually proving anything to the contrary. One of these labels – “conspiracy theorist” – does just that: it’s very application to a particular perspective or viewpoint has the intention of “disproving without proof;” all that is needed is to simply apply the label.

What I intend to do is analyse the social structure of the transnational ruling class, the international elite, who together run the world. This is not a conspiratorial opinion piece, but is an examination of the socially constructed elite class of people; what is the nature of power, how does it get used, and who holds it?

In answering the question “Who Runs the World?” we must understand what positions within society hold the most power, and thus, the answer becomes clear. If we simply understand this as heads of state, the answer will be flawed and inaccurate. We must examine the globe as a whole, and the power structures of the global political economy.

The greatest position of power within the global capitalist system lies in the authority of money-creation: the central banking system. The central banking system, originating in 1694 in England, consists of an international network of central banks that are privately owned by wealthy shareholders and are granted governmental authority to print and issue a nation’s currency, and set interest rates, collecting revenue and making profit through the interest charged. Central banks give loans to both governments and industries, controlling both simultaneously. The ultimate centre of power in the central banking system is at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), in Basle, Switzerland; which is the central bank to the world’s central banks, and is also a private bank owned by the world’s central banks.

As Georgetown University history professor Carroll Quigley wrote:

[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.1

The central banks, and thus the central banking system as a whole, is a privately owned system in which the major shareholders are powerful international banking houses. These international banking houses emerged in tandem with the evolution of the central banking system. The central banking system first emerged in London, and expanded across Europe with time. With that expansion, the European banking houses also rose and expanded across the continent.

The French Revolution resulted with Napoleon coming to power, who granted the French bankers a central bank of France, which they privately controlled.2 It was also out of the French Revolution that one of the major banking houses of the world emerged, the Rothschilds. Emerging out of a European Jewish ghetto, the Rothschilds quickly rose to the forefront in banking, and established banking houses in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Naples, allowing them to profit off of all sides in the Napoleonic wars.3

As Carroll Quigley wrote in his monumental Tragedy and Hope, “The merchant bankers of London had already at hand in 1810-1850 the Stock Exchange, the Bank of England, and the London money market,” and that:

In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centres, organised as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other.4

Continue reading

Russian “Punkers” Get 2 Years Jail for US State Department Stunt

(Editor’s Note: one of the US State Department Activist: Nadezda Tolokonnikova)

America’s troupe of “activists” continue attempts to divide and undermine Russian society.

By Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer

August 17, 2012 – When the US is overtly backing the terrorist invasion of Syria, seeing to the death, displacement, and disruption of millions of lives abroad, while hosting a mass murdering fugitive dictator at home, what then is it to back an act of hooliganism in a Russian church targeting a geopolitical rival?

The US State Department-backed so-called “punk band” going by the name of “Pussy Riot,” stormed into a Moscow church, defaming the Russian government while mocking the beliefs of churchgoers with vulgarity and disruptive behavior. Marketed as an act of “freedom of expression” by the Western media and the West’s collection of foreign ministries, it was in reality what would be called both a hate-crime and disorderly conduct in the West. Furthermore, in the West, such an act would come with it steep fines and lengthy jail sentences.

In fact, similar cases have played out in the West – minus the feigned indignation over the perceived violation of free speech of alleged bigots, racists, and hooligans that have preceded “Pussy Riot.” In many cases, the West has actively pursued not only people harassing others and creating public disturbances, but also those distributing material to like minded people who’s beliefs are simply perceived as “socially harmful.”

The West Has Jailed Many For Similar or Lesser Offenses

  • 3 Years in Jail for Revising History: In 2006, the BBC reported, “British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison.” The BBC also reported, “the judge in his 2000 libel trial declared him “an active Holocaust denier… anti-Semitic and racist.”” Irving’s beliefs, as unpopular as they may be, were expressed in his writings and speeches, not in the middle of a synagogue he had burst into.
  • 4 Years and 2 Years in Jail for Operating “Racist” Website: For the crime of operating a US-based “racist” website and possessing with intent to distribute “racist material,” two British men, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were sentenced to 4 years and 2 years respectively in the UK in 2009. The presiding judge, according to the BBC, “told the men their material was “abusive and insulting” and had the potential to cause “grave social harm.”” Unlike Pussy Riot, however, these 2 men only crammed their leaflets into the door of a synagogue – instead of bursting in. Still they received 3-4 years in prison.
  • 5 Years in Jail for Disagreeing With Mainstream History: Also in 2009, a man was jailed for 5 years for “propagating Nazi ideas and Holocaust denial” in Austria, Reuters reported. Gerd Honsik apparently wrote books and magazines which he attempted to distribute in schools, though it was the content of the material, not the manner in which he tried to distribute it that earned him his lengthy jail sentence. Unpopular though his ideas may be, according to the latest tirade by the West, he not only should’ve been allowed to proclaim them publicly, but do so in a place of worship amongst those he despised.
  • 3 Years in Jail for Harassing a Jewish Man and Public Hate Speech: In 2011, an Australian man posted an “anti-Semitic” video on YouTube earning him a 3 year jail sentence. The video apparently showed the convicted man insulting a Jewish man before going on a tirade “in front of the Perth Bell Tower,” reported ABC of Australia. Clearly insulting someone in Australia and creating a public disturbance is a punishable crime, yet somehow the Australian government sees insulting churchgoers in Russia as “freedom of expression.” Equally as clear, is that hypocrisy and selective principles are being liberally exercised.
  • Detainment for “Hateful” Public Disturbance: This year, the British Daily Mail reported in their article, “Elmo in cuffs: Man dressed as Sesame Street character is carried away in Central Park after anti-Semitic rant in front of kids,” that “the appearance of a hate-spewing man dressed up as Elmo was a jarring one for many New Yorkers who visited Central Park on Sunday afternoon.” The article elaborated by saying that though the man was put in handcuffs and taken away, he was not arrested. While no arrest or sentence was handed down, the story clearly indicates that there is a line drawn as to what is “freedom of speech” and what is “disturbing the peace” in the United States.
  • Arrested for Aggravating “religious and racial” Facebook Comments:  For the crime of posting “anti-Semitic” remarks on Facebook, the BBC reported that “five men and a 15-year-old youth” were arrested in May, 2012. The BBC would elaborate by reporting, “the six people arrested were charged with a breach of the peace with religious and racial aggravations.”

Politically-Motivated Hypocrisy and Proxy Poseurs

Regardless of what one’s beliefs may be on “freedom of expression” and what lines if any exist between responsible and irresponsible use of this freedom, one cannot ignore the astounding hypocrisy exhibited by the West – now wringing their hands in feigned disapproval over the jailing of “Pussy Riot” while their jails are full of “hate speech” perpetrators – many of whom did not even specifically target or disturb the subjects of their perceived scorn.

Images: “Pussy Riot’s” support campaign is spearheaded by Oksana Chelysheva of the US State Department-funded “Russian-Chechen Friendship Society,” a clearing house for Chechen terrorist propaganda. Along with US State Department-subsidized Alexey Navalny and the West’s media outlets on their side, the hooligan anti-establishment “punk rockers” now on trial in Moscow have a decidedly “establishment” backing. Read more here. (click images to enlarge)

The real reason why the Western media outlets have been so keen on covering the “Pussy Riot” trial has nothing to do with “free speech.”

The West, and more specifically, the corporate-financier interests of Wall Street and London, see Russia’s current government as a barrier to not only the return to the unmitigated plundering of the Russian people they had enjoyed in the 1990′s, but a check and balance inhibiting their hegemonic ambitions globally. The West has propped up with money and political support the opposition movement from which “Pussy Riot” has emanated.

This latest stunt was designed specifically to breath new life into the crumbling, overtly foreign-backed “opposition” that has been attempting to divide and undermine both Russia and the government of President Vladamir Putin, before, during, and after his return to the presidency. Instead, this latest stunt does little more than further expose the increasingly visible hypocrisy and injustice pervading all parts of Western society.

Finally, “Pussy Riot” are not punk rockers. They are US State Department-backed instruments of corporate-financier hegemony, used as leverage against a Russian government standing in the way of Wall Street and London’s order of international corporatocracy. The punk culture, ironically represents the antithesis of such an international order – ironic indeed that so many have superficially defended “Pussy Riot” as targeted “punkers” when substantively they are “poseurs.”

The Road To Tehran Goes Through Damascus

Written by Nile Bowie

Source: Nile Bowie’s Website

Between the chaos and artillery fire unfolding in Homs and Damascus, the current siege against the Ba’athist State of Bashar al-Assad parallels events of nearly a century ago. In efforts to maintain its protectorate, the French government employed the use of foreign soldiers to smother those seeking to abolish the French mandated, Fédération Syrienne. While former Prime Minister Faris al-Khoury argued the case for Syrian independence before UN in 1945, French planes bombed Damascus into submission. Today, the same government – in addition to the United States and its client regimes in Libya and Tunisia – enthusiastically recognize the Syrian National Council as the legitimate leadership of Syria. Although recent polls funded by the Qatar Foundation claim 55% of Syrians support the Assad regime, the former colonial powers have made a mockery of the very democratic principles they tout.
Irrespective to the views of the Syrian people, their fate has long been decided by forces operating beyond their borders. In a speech given to the Commonwealth Club of California in 2007 retired US Military General Wesley Clark speaks of a policy coup initiated by members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Clark cites a confidential document handed down from the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2001 stipulating the entire restructuring of the Middle East and North Africa. Portentously, the document allegedly revealed campaigns to systematically destabilize the governments of Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Iran.Under the familiar scenario of an authoritarian regime systematically suppressing peaceful dissent and purging large swaths of its population, the mechanisms of geopolitical stratagem have freely taken course. Continue reading

Pourquoi je ne voterai pas pour Jean Luc Melenchon aux élections présidentielles de 2012

J’ai longtemps pensé à voter pour Jean Luc Mélenchon aux élections présidentielles de 2012. Surtout après la lecture de plusieurs de ses livres. En effet, son discours me séduisait: Redonner à l’Homme une place centrale dans la société au détriment du capital et de la haute finance. Oui, je suis pour. Qui ne l’est pas? Mis à part ceux qui détiennent le “capital” puis dirigent et bénéficient des profits extraordinaires de la haute finance?

Pourquoi je ne voterai pas Mélenchon? La raison est très simple. Et vous la comprendrez en lisant le courriel que je lui ai adressé le 18 Mars 2011 suite à son passage dans l’émission de Jean Jacques Bourdin sur RMC. Bien entendu, ce mail est resté sans réponse malgré 7 relances. Si vous aussi vous souhaitez obtenir une réponse au sujet que j’aborde dans ledit courriel, vous pouvez “tenter” de contacter Jean Luc Mélenchon à l’adresse qui suit:

jean-luc.melenchon@europarl.europa.eu ou comme je l’ai également fait, en passant par son site: http://www.jean-luc-melenchon.fr/contact/

Email à Jean Luc Mélenchon du 18/03/2011

Sujet: Résolution UNSC

Monsieur Melenchon,

Je vous ai entendu ce matin 18/03/2011 sur RMC (émission de M. Bourdin). Et tenais simplement à vous dire à quel point je suis déçu par votre position sur la question Libyenne!

Je vous pensais proche du peuple, et désireux d’œuvrer pour ce dernier, en dénonçant les manipulations incessantes auxquelles se prêtent nos medias. Egalement, en dénonçant les manipulations et leurres auxquels nous soumettent nos dirigeants.

Après lecture de “L’autre Gauche” et “Qu’ils s’en aillent tous”, il ne faisait aucun doute que mon vote irait au Front de Gauche. Bien que je notais déjà une certaine faiblesse en matière de politique extérieure. Ce vote, vous l’avez perdu ainsi que celui de tous mes proches. Malheureusement, nous n’avons plus d’autres alternatives que l’abstention.

Votre Xénophilie affichée et démagogie ne suffisent plus.

Revenons sur la question Libyenne : je n’ai pas la prétention de vous apprendre les enjeux poltico-stratégiques et énergétiques de ce pays. Ni de vous apprendre l’histoires de ces « pseudo » mouvements rebelles, organisés depuis Washington, et financés par des agences gouvernementales et ONG (Notamment la N.E.D …)

Je trouve tout simplement déplorable la récupération médiatique que vous faites de cette situation, en profitant d’une population (FRANCAISE) totalement désinformée et soumise à une féroce propagande médiatique. Je m’explique : la résolution est présentée comme ayant un but « humanitaire » et également un but de venir en aide aux « révolutionnaires ». Et donc, le front de gauche qui prône la révolution, s’engouffre dans la brèche en disant que bien sur, il faut soutenir les révolutions populaires !

Une démarche honnête, venant d’un homme tel que vous, un intellectuel, se disant proche du peuple, transparent, dénonçant les « autres » politiciens, aurait été de revenir en détail sur l’histoire de la Libye (depuis que Kadhafi la dirige) et d’approfondir un peu plus vos recherches au sujet de ces pseudo-révolutions. Et d’exposer par la suite un avis avisé sur la question.

Aussi, depuis quand une intervention militaire est une bonne chose pour un peuple ? Vous expliquiez ce matin, que vous étiez contre l’intervention en IRAK (1ère et 2nde guerre du Golfe). Bravo Monsieur Melenchon, merci de rappeler ces faits, qui soit dit en passant, ne sont pas spécialement glorieux, il s’agissait là de ne pas soutenir une démarche américaine criminelle, quoi de plus normal ? Vous ajoutez également qu’il s’agira d’une intervention « light », il ne s’agira que de clouer au sol l’aviation Libyenne. Une chose semble vous échapper. Non, elle ne vous échappe pas. Vous êtes tout simplement du même acabit que ces « politiciens » que vous aimez critiquer. Kadhafi a regagné le contrôle du pays, et est donc aux commandes de l’armée. Dans ses nombreuses déclarations, il montre une détermination sans faille et promet de se battre jusqu’à « la dernière goutte de son sang ». Et donc, cette intervention « light », vous le savez très bien, deviendra par la force des choses une opération sanglante. Qui ne bénéficiera à aucun Libyen. Ni rebelle, ni pro-gouvernement. Elle provoquera une déstabilisation comme celle que nous voyons en Irak. Et ceci, servira les intérêts de ces « élites » qui apparemment vous répugnent (TOTAL, BP, ETC…)

A ce moment là, peut être aurez vous l’occasion d’une seconde récupération politique en dénonçant l’enlisement ?

Pensez bien que si je prends le temps de vous écrire ces mots, c’est que ma déception est grande. Il ne s’agit pas de simples diatribes sous le coup de la colère. Je souhaite très sincèrement que ces quelques lignes vous fassent réfléchir, et qu’elles suscitent votre envie d’approfondir le sujet, et d’avoir une approche intellectuellement plus honnête.

Je reste à votre entière disposition pour continuer cet échange

Bien respectueusement,

MKERone

Arab Spring: Egypt Strikes Back

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo: (AP) US State Department agitators from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) subsidary, the National Democratic Institute, standby as Egyptian security forces raid their offices. Despite NED veritably being run by Neo-Conservative, corporate-fascists who have signed PNAC documents declaring their intentions of acheiving and maintaining a century of global hegemony, they and the US State Department would decry Egypt’s crackdown on their insidious activities as a slight against “human rights.”

By Tony Cartalucci at Infowars.com

The LA Times reported, “Egypt raids foreign organizations’ offices in crackdown. Three U.S. groups are among those raided. Activists say the army is using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses.”

However, it is no “ruse” as the US-funded “activists” claim. And while the LA Times denies its readership a documented back-story either confirming or denying “activist claims,” understanding the US role in funding sedition in Egypt is essential to understanding why not only are the raids of NGOs justified, but an absolute necessity to protect both Egyptian national sovereignty and international stability.

Documented Back-Story of the US-Engineered “Arab Spring” in Egypt

In January of 2011, we were told that “spontaneous,” “indigenous” uprising had begun sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, including Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt, in what was hailed as the “Arab Spring.” It would be almost four months before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but “spontaneous,” or “indigenous.” In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” it was stated:

“A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.”

The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

“The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. “

It is hardly a speculative theory then, that the uprisings were part of an immense geopolitical campaign conceived in the West and carried out through its proxies with the assistance of disingenuous organizations including NED, NDI, IRI, and Freedom House and the stable of NGOs they maintain throughout the world. Preparations for the “Arab Spring” began not as unrest had already begun, but years before the first “fist” was raised, and within seminar rooms in D.C. and New York, US-funded training facilities in Serbia, and camps held in neighboring countries, not within the Arab World itself.

In 2008, Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM’s various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report (page 3 of .pdf) states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman attended, as did Jared C0hen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.

Shortly afterward, April 6 would travel to Serbia to train under US-funded CANVAS, formally the US-funded NGO “Otpor” who helped overthrow the government of Serbia in 2000. Otpor, the New York Times would report, was a “well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States.” After its success it would change its name to CANVAS and begin training activists to be used in other US-backed regime change operations.

The April 6 Movement, after training with CANVAS, would return to Egypt in 2010, along with UN IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. April 6 members would even be arrested while awaiting for ElBaradei’s arrival at Cairo’s airport in mid-February. Already, ElBaradei, as early as 2010, announced his intentions of running for president in the 2011 elections. Together with April 6, Wael Ghonim of Google, and a coalition of other opposition parties, ElBaradei assembled his “National Front for Change” and began preparing for the coming “Arab Spring.”

Clearly then, unrest was long planned, with activists from Tunisia and Egypt on record receiving training and support from abroad, so that they could return to their home nations and sow unrest in a region-wide coordinated campaign.

An April 2011 AFP report would confirm this, when US State Department’s Michael Posner stated that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.” That ripple effect of course, is the “Arab Spring.”

NED & Freedom House are Run by Warmongering Neo-Cons

The National Endowment for Democracy, despite the lofty mission statement articulated on its website, is nothing more than a tool for executing American foreign policy. Just as the military is used under the cover of lies regarding WMD’s and “terrorism,” NED is employed under the cover of bringing “democracy” to “oppressed” people. However, a thorough look at NED’s board of directors, as well as the board of trustees of its subsidiary, Freedom House, definitively lays to rest any doubts that may be lingering over the true nature of these organizations and the causes they support.

Continue reading

Syrian NGOs Working Directly With British Government, London-based “Syrian Observatory” Consorting Directly with UK Foreign Minister Hague

By Tony Cartalucci

In May 2011′s article “The Siege of Syria,” it was reported:

“The coverage by the corporate-owned Western media exclusively relies on “activists inside and outside the country,” the London-based “Syrian Human Rights Monitoring Centre” which apparently has no web presence, the Damascus Center for Human Rights which boasts memberships with the National Endowment for Democracy and Tides Foundation-funded International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, funded by the European Union, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the Sigrid Rausing Trust, and Humanity United.

Humanity United in turn boast partnerships with the BBC World Service Trust, NED/Open Society/US State Department-funded Benetech, the Open Society Institute, and the NED-funded Solidarity Center which mobilized Egypt’s labor unions just as the US-stoked unrest began to falter. In other words, every organization involved interlocks with the vast corporate/foundation-funded imperial network masquerading as individual “human rights organizations” and benign NGOs. In reality this “civil society” network seeks to supplant national governments, and interface with global “institutions” like the IMF, World Bank, and the UN, all of which have been contrived by corporate-financier oligarchs. It is a modern day empire in the making.”

The US National Endowment for Democracy’s journal, Democracy Digest, would report in their August 2011 article titled, “Syrian military ‘strained’, as Clinton meets opposition activists,” (warning: link automatically plays very loud video clip) that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights made one of many joint statements with the above mentioned US-funded Damascus Center for Human Rights. Meanwhile, Reuters featured a photograph of the Observatory’s head, Rami Abdelrahman, leaving a meeting with the British Foreign Minister William Hague.

From Reuters: “Rami Abdelrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, leaves the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after meeting Britain’s Foreign Secretary, William Hague, in central London November 21, 2011. REUTERS/Luke MacGregor”

 It is quite clear that the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” based in London and receiving the entirety of their reports Continue reading