Thanks to our inside sources at the conference, we have compiled what we believe to be an accurate and a credible model of Bilderberger 2007 conclusions. We are working against the clock to bring this information into the open. Our Robert Zoellick report from Friday has now been confirmed by the Financial Times when this well respected periodical announced on the front page of June 2, 2007 edition that “Robert Zoellick is the World Bank’s new chief.” We, of course, already knew that. The issues we are working on deal with European Bilderbergers anger at Bush´s shift on climate issue, the upcoming G8 meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany where Merkel and her European Bilderberg allies will position themselves as true leaders of the environment. European Bilderbergers were fairly unhappy that a pre-G8 Bilderberg could not resolve and reconcile contradictory views on the issue. As one German attendee stated, “This requires feats of diplomatic acrobatics, something unfortunately greatly lacking in the current U.S. administration.”
The Bilderbergers are very upset with the neocon’s ineptness in diplomacy and international goals. Obviously the purely Zionist agenda has the European branch of the Bilderbergs mad as a nest of wet hornets. To read the rest of the column here.
Oceana, the mythical mega-nation in Orwell/Blair’s 1984 is the result of the unification of the North American, South American and Australian continents with the United Kingdom. The UK in this instance is the center of the story and is thusly named Airstrip One. The name of the other part of Oceana eludes me for the moment, but this tidbit from Chimes of Freedom via oldepharteintraining gives us pause for concern:
In an inexorable build-up of propaganda and military encirclement prior to a first strike attack on Iran, the Bush junta, along with its London quislings, have switched their anti-Iranian propaganda from nuclear issues to accuse the Iranian government of “meddling” in Iraq and supplying Iraqi guerillas weapons with which to fight the US and British occupying troops.
The evidence for such allegations was always sketchy and reminiscent of the concocted lies about Yellowcake Uranium and WMDs, used by Bush and Blair to drag their people into a genocidal war crime against a much weaker country.
Now, an independent research organization, the British American Security Information Council, has produced its own report on the alleged involvement of Iran in Iraq.
“Whatever the true extent and nature of Iranian military action in Iraq,” the report concludes, “few independent analysts believe Tehran is playing a decisive role in the sectarian warfare and insurgency.”
Instead, the report suggests that “other, more strategic motives also lie behind the considerable US political energy being expended on highlighting the Iranian role in Iraq. Iran may present a useful scapegoat to divert the blame for failures in Iraq away from the occupying powers.”
“Recent allegations must also be considered in the context of the current crisis surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme. If Tehran can be cast as a source ofregional instability in the eyes of the international community, then the US administration’s hand will be strengthened as it seeks support for stronger measures to oppose Iranian nuclear ambitions.”
“In particular, should the administration decide to embark on a military strike – an option which it says is still ‘on the table’ – then garnering public and political support in advance would be vital. Without it, the global unpopularity for military action would likely greatly exceed the opposition to the invasion of Iraq.”
Tony Blair leaves the office of Prime Minister this summer, his successor intimates that his foreign policy will be more “Eurocentric” than Blair’s. Will this make a difference in present Anglo-Saxon expansionist policies? Or will Mr. Brown become a “poodle” to Mr. Bush and his successor?
So far Mr. Orwell (Eric Blair) has been very prescient about a US/UK alliance, if off by 24 years.
I bet he was an Oracle of Delphi in a previous life!
The following article is written by Jack A. Smith and printed by the Malaysia Sun on March 13, 2007:
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the Earth in defense of our great nation.” – President George W Bush in Bob Woodward’s book Plan of Attack.
While most Americans are concentrating on extricating the US government from the debacle in Iraq, and most peace activists are simultaneously concerned that the Bush administration will launch a war against Iran, the leaders of the Pentagon are planning how to win wars 10, 20, and 50 years from now. Washington is preparing for every contingency, from rooting out a handful of suspected terrorists halfway around the world to possible wars with Russia and China.
The Defense Department’s drawing boards are groaning under the weight of blueprints for sustaining total military dominance of land, sea, air and outer space throughout this century. The costs of supporting the US government’s martial propensities will be astronomical in terms of the social programs and benefits denied American working people, not to mention the consequences of living in a state of permanent warfare.
The recent decision to escalate the Iraq war with a “surge” of 21,500 more troops, the plan to increase the armed forces by another 92,000 troops, and President George W Bush’s request for $716 billion to meet the Pentagon’s warmaking needs in fiscal year 2008 are a harbinger of what’s coming next – new technologies for fighting future wars on the ground, improvements in the nuclear stockpile and delivery systems, and the militarization of outer space, among other military goals.
The Pentagon’s futuristic war plans and the 2008 war budget leave no doubt that the US has discarded president George Washington’s warning in 1796 to avoid “overgrown military establishments”, or president Dwight D Eisenhower’s advice in 1961 to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex”.
The 2008 war budget not only exceeds the combined military budgets of the rest of the world’s nations, but means the cost of Bush’s “war on terrorism” (including Iraq and Afghanistan) amounts to more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the cost of the Korean or Vietnam wars.
Washington’s ever-expanding forces of war, combined with more than 750 major military bases around the world to secure America’s economic and political empire, mean that the United States, despite the absence of helmeted brutes in hobnailed boots parading on cobblestone streets, is a militaristic society that is a danger to world peace.
“Today, as never before in their history,” writes Andrew J Bacevich in his stunning book The New American Militarism, “Americans are enthralled with military power. The global supremacy that the US presently enjoys, and is bent on perpetuating, has become central to our national identify. Americans in our own time have fallen prey to militarism, manifesting itself in a romanticized view of soldiers, a tendency to see military power as the truest measure of national greatness, and have come to define the nation’s strength and well-being in terms of military preparedness and military action.”
Unless militarism is curtailed, Chalmers Johnson predicts in The Sorrows of Empire, four things will happen: “First, there will be a perpetual state of war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be. Second, there will be a loss of democracy and constitutional rights. Third, an already well-shredded principle of truthfulness will increasingly be replaced by a system of propaganda, disinformation, and glorification of war, power and the military legions. Lastly, there will be [national] bankruptcy.”
Let’s look at some of those Pentagon blueprints for the next war, and the next, and the next, focusing first on America’s high-tech plans for ground wars (Future Combat Systems), then nuclear wars (Complex 2030), and, following directly, space wars (the new National Space Policy).
Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the Pentagon’s name for an effort to “build an entirely new army, reconfigured to perform the global policing mission”, according to the Office of Management and Budget. This is a system of modern warfighting based on dominating any possible adversary through the use of nearly 50 new technologies. The objective is to improve strategic agility, increase battlefield lethality, and kill more of the “enemy” while reducing American casualties even further.
The New York Times has described FCS as “a seamless web of 18 different sets of networked weapons and military robots. The program is at the heart of [a Defense Department] plan to transform the army into a faster, lighter force in which stripped-down tanks could be put on a transport plane and flown into battle, and information systems could protect soldiers of the future as heavy armor has protected them in the past. Combat soldiers, weapons and robots are to be linked by a $25 billion web [known as] Joint Tactical Radio Systems. The network would transmit the battlefield information intended to protect soldiers.”
The February 2007 issue of Harper’s magazine contains a revealing article on FCS titled “The coming robot army” by Steve Featherstone, who writes:
“The practice of warfare has changed dramatically in the past 60 years. Since Vietnam, the American military machine has been governed by two parallel and complementary trends: an aversion to casualties and a heavy reliance on technology. The Gulf War reinforced the belief that technology can replace human soldiers on the battlefield and the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia made this belief an article of faith. Today, any new weapon worth its procurement contract is customarily referred to as a “force multiplier”, which can be translated as doing more damage with fewer people. Weaponized robots are the ultimate force multiplier, and every branch of the military has increased spending on new unmanned systems.”
At $145 billion [not including the cost of the radio network mentioned above], the army’s Future Combat Systems is the costliest weapons program in history, and in some ways the most visionary as well. The individual soldier is still central to the FCS concept, but he has been reconfigured as a sort of plug-and-play warrior, a node in what is envisioned as a sprawling network of robots, manned [and unmanned] vehicles, ground sensors, satellites, and command centers. In theory, each node will exchange real-time information with the network, allowing the entire system to accommodate sudden changes in the “battle space”. The fog of war would become a relic of the past, like the musket, swept away by crystalline streams of encrypted data. The enemy would not be killed so much as deleted.
According to a report last June by the congressional Committee on Appropriations, the cost of FCS could reach an extraordinary $200 billion to become fully operational by the projected date of 2025. Even then, all this money will be able to equip only 15 out of 70 combat brigade teams with the full array of FCS technology. The original cost was supposed to be $100 billion, and some sources are predicting the price may go up to $300 billion before its finished.
The US Navy is modernizing, as well. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “The navy in 2006 introduced a new ship force structure plan that calls for achieving and maintaining a 313-ship fleet,” including another three aircraft carriers to join the existing dozen already in service.
US Air Force modernization includes obtaining 60 F-22A Raptors (out of 183 on order, each costing more than $100 million (but $300 million each when research and development expenses are added to production costs) and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which the CRS describes as the largest aviation program in terms of estimated cost ($276 billion) and numbers (2,458 aircraft). In addition, contracts are out for building 180 C-17 Globemaster strategic airlifters, a sure sign the Pentagon anticipates quickly flying a great deal of military tonnage to distant countries.
According to Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the existing nuclear powers – primarily the US and Russia – are obligated to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.
Washington and Moscow did in fact reduce the number of nuclear warheads in the 15 years since the end of the Cold War, but there have been absolutely no steps toward general and complete nuclear disarmament – the only way to end nuclear proliferation and to prevent nuclear war. Russia (including when it was the USSR) affirms a willingness to rid the world of nuclear weapons but insists that all states, including the US, must be willing to do so as well before Moscow destroys its stockpiles. Washington will not agree.
At this stage, the US has about 6,000 strategic warheads compared with Russia’s 5,000, down from the 1990 total of about 14,000 and 11,000 respectively. (A “strategic” nuclear weapon can produce thousands of kilotons of explosive force. One kiloton equals 1,000 tons of TNT. The largest ever tested was 50,000 kilotons in 1961. A “tactical” nuclear weapon possesses the explosive power of a fraction of a kiloton. The small 12-kiloton atomic bomb with which the United States decimated Hiroshima in 1945 killed more than 150,000 people immediately or in its aftermath.)
According to the terms of the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), the US and Russia must reduce the number of their deployed strategic warheads to 2,200 by 2012 when the treaty expires – a size that can still destroy the entire population of our planet many, many times over. The key word here is “deployed”, meaning mounted and ready to be fired in minutes. SORT does not call for the remaining strategic warheads to be destroyed, which means the weapons will be put in storage, along with thousands of tactical weapons. The treaty does not cover tactical weapons.
The latest plan for increasing US nuclear power was made public on October 20 under the title Complex 2030, the number standing for the year of its supposed completion. The cost at minimum will be $150 billion, but it will end up with a much higher price tag. This program, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, will “entail upgrading the entire US nuclear-weapons complex while designing and producing a series of new nuclear warheads”.
These new weapons, produced through the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Program, would ultimately replace the entire US nuclear arsenal. Under Complex 2030, “the US nuclear weapons laboratories would return to the Cold War cycle of nuclear weapon design, development, and production. This initiative would risk a return to underground nuclear testing and would undercut US efforts to limit the development of new nuclear weapons by other countries.”
The Bush administration’s proposed new budget calls for spending $89 million in 2008 on research and development of the new warheads, double the amount for fiscal 2007. Incidentally, the Pentagon’s existing stockpile of nuclear weapons is expected to remain viable for another 50 years, but the new warheads evidently will be more technically proficient.
The Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Agency, which is in charge of the warheads, claims Complex 2030 will not entail nuclear-weapons testing, but this could change. The US signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, but it has not been ratified by the Senate. Under the terms of the NPT, the US was supposed to have ratified the treaty years ago.
War hawks in and around the Bush administration are worried about reducing the strategic arsenal to 2,200 warheads at the ready, even when enhanced by Complex 2030. A subcommittee of the Defense Science Board, an important advisory group to the Defense Department, reported in December that the new program does “not provide for a nuclear-weapons enterprise capable of meeting the nation’s future needs”.
Wade Boese, writing in Arms Control Today (January-February 2007), says the task force wants the reduction to be “reversible in case relations sour with China or Russia”. The Defense Science Board is evidently contemplating World War III, and it is clearly not alone.
According to the authoritative magazine Foreign Affairs (March/April 2006), “Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.
“This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States’ nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia’s arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China’s nuclear forces. Unless Washington’s policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China – and the rest of the world – will live in the shadow of US nuclear primacy for many years to come.”
Pretty ominous, huh? The Republic is gone, long live the Empire! The Rubicon River was crossed September the 11th, 2001. To finish reading the article, click on the Malaysia Sun link.
Nikola Tesla, as an historical figure never got much press. His contemporary, Tom Edison, received all of the press because as a businessman and inventor, Edison had to dig up as much capital as he could in order to fund his research projects. Tesla, on the other hand, was more into research and theory than business, which was unfortunate for him. In fact, Tesla worked for Edison for a short time. But differing opinions about direct current (Edison favored direct current) versus alternating electrical current for home and industrial usage caused a split and Tesla ended up working for Edison’s rival, Westinghouse. To make a long story short, one of Tesla’s inventions was a generator that could suck the electromagnetic energy in the Earth’s atmosphere and convert it into useful power. In fact, Tesla had a brilliant intern by the name of Otis T. Carr who took the concept and made an experimental vehicle that could fly and it exhibited characteristics similar to “UFOs”!
How come nobody has ever heard of Otis T. Carr? Because as in things that would loosen the control of the NWO over the people of the planet, things and people tend to disappear, or gets pushed into the “conspiracy theory”, “tinfoil-hat” or just plain nutsoid meme spin of history. I’m just asking you to read this story of Otis Carr through the words of Ralph Ring, the pilot of the experimental craft and give it due consideration. Then you can decide whether it’s tinfoil or not.
The author of the article, Dr. Michael E. Salla is an interesting figure in his own right. He what as known as an “exopolitician”. This is a subject I will expand on at another time.
From Clif, a frequent commenter here, Liberally Mirth and whitenoiseinsanity;
Imidacloprid effects on bee population;
They have known about this since 1994, but keep their pieholes shut for a few extra dollars profit, even if it destroys the food supplies right after their stock rises….
And this from Clif:
from a commenter at Sharon Astyks blog:
Mystery Disease? Sounds a lot like poison to me. The real mystery is why we are sitting by like timid dummies while the big corporations spin this one. Cell phones? Really?
I am a beekeeper in Central Massachusetts who read about Colony Collapse in February. Something in one of the reports reminded me of a description of how termites are said to be killed by a new class of pesticides known as neonicitinoids. I went to my local farmers’ coop, picked up labels from the various insecticide bottles and Googled the ingredients with ‘honeybees,’ ’sublethal’ and ‘organic.’ A product called ‘Merit’ containing the neuro-toxin ‘Imidacloprid’ came up as a soil treatment for fruit trees. Other products with other cute names were being advertised for use on turf to kill grubs (also earthworms.) The labels promise that all sorts of insects, including adult japanese beetles will be controlled for 12 months (read systemic.) Visit your local Walmart and garden center and you will find it on all the shelves. They sell more of it every year according to the Bayer Corporation. You remember Bayer, right? They gave us aspirin and other less pleasant products in WW I and WW II. More recently, BayerCropScience has given us the gift of genetically modified rice. You may have read about it.
‘Merit’ ‘Gaucho’ ‘BayerAdvanced’ ‘Admire,’ ‘Gaucho,’ ‘Genesis,’ ‘Platinum,’ ‘Provado,’ ‘Leverage,’ ‘Actara’ are catchy little trade names for Imidacloprid, a systemic insecticide that was banned in France after beekeepers staged an angry protest in Paris. Bayer CropScience paid many millions to the french beekeepers and voluntarily withdrew the product without admitting that it was the culprit. Vive La France! They take their food seriously. Shame on us. Shame on the EPA. Shame on the media for not even mentioning the history of the peoples fight against Imidacloprid in France. The more stories I hear about the mystery disease the sillier they get. Soon the media will begin to snicker at all of the alarmists who worry about GMO’s and cell towers. They will sigh, continue to wonder and finally forget about it. Already some are beginning to talk about how we can survive without bees as though it were just another problem like surviving without oil.
Imidacloprid is the most likely culprit in CCD, even thought there may be other contributing factors. This is the same class of stuff some of us put on our dogs and cats to kill fleas and ticks (see Fipronil and Frontline.) It is much less toxic to mammals than to invertebrates. ( I confess that the ticks at my place have tempted me to put it on my own neck.) Yesterday, I overheard a salesperson in the coop suggest to a customer that he put some on his chickens. What a wonderful idea. We can have it for breakfast in our locally produced eggs. This morning The Weather Channel carried a Bayer advertisement for Merit calling out to those of us who are “sick and tired of all those bugs.” If Imidacloprid were being discussed as a cause for CCD, you can be sure that the Weather Channel would be a little more concerned about those ads. That is why it is hardly ever mentioned by name. Instead, the generic term ‘pesticide’ is used in news discussions of CCD.
Direct poisoning of the bee population? This is serious business when you mess with an important life and death cycle like this in nature. Flowering plants and seeds have made this planet what it is since the days of the dinosaurs. Bees and other insects that transport pollen are not only necessary for flowering plants, but trees that blossom as well, apple and cherry just to name a couple. I’m not a plant biologist, so I’m sure the list is lengthy.
This has been my most popular thread of the week, I think I’ve gotten more hits on this subject than the rest combined. If anybody has more info and links on this, please pass them on.
Oh yeah, here’s a link to Bayer USA’s site where all the chemical stuff is for sale. If you can make heads or tails of it, let me know!
I have to do actual w-o-r-k at my j-o-b today, so if anyone happens to stop by this morning, talk about whatever. Keep it clean, I hate cleaning up troll manure.
From Glenn Greenwald at salon.com:
In his important Washington Post Op-Ed this morning, Retired Marine Corps Gen. John Sheehan — in the course of explaining why he asked not to be considered for the new post of “war czar” in the Bush administration — has become the latest military expert to warn the country that our military and war policy in Iraq is destined to fail, because it is being controlled by a small band of propagandists who have no coherent strategy for ever leaving Iraq:
What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region. . . . There has to be linkage between short-term operations and strategic objectives that represent long-term U.S. and regional interests, such as assured access to energy resources and support for stable, Western-oriented countries. These interests will require a serious dialogue and partnership with countries that live in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood. We cannot “shorthand” this issue with concepts such as the “democratization of the region” or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to “win,” even as “victory” is not defined or is frequently redefined.
Glenn Greenwald has been the man when it comes to exposing more and more the damnedable neocon cabal when it comes to Middle East policy. But man, these s.o.b.’s have themselves firmly entrenched in the halls of government. But you know what, past tyrants thought they could insulate, guard, hide and bury themselves from the unclean peasants when said group got fed up with the abuse.
Most of the time the peasants lost, but sometimes they didn’t.
Iraq: American public opinion vs. a “small but powerful group”
Now for my transhuman part of today. The following is an article concerning liver regeneration and how it could be a substitute for embrionic stem cell research. The liver is the only organ in the human body(I believe) that can actually grow and regenerate itself. Why is that? If the process can be understood, other cells could be “tricked” into behaving like liver cells and enable organ regeneration for various body functions, re; heart, lungs, spleen…you get the idea.
I like this idea, my liver takes a beating from all of the various meds I take to keep my dog-arse alive. I take a blood test every three months to test my liver functions. It would be nice if an advanced method came along and let me regrow my liver from my own cells if I have to. It could save alot of lives. Just think of all the taxpaying citizens it could save! You paying attention Big Brother?
From the WaPo(Washington Post):
Biden Says Bush’s Iraq Policy Doomed
It never ceases to amaze me that politicians running for high office have a flair for stating the obvious, or the absurd.
Biden’s a Democrat, and I’m a registered Democrat. But c’mon, say something at least a little original. Like maybe, “Surge this!”. Sorry. Just my werewolf splice showing.
Read the article:
I never was a Kurt Vonnegut fan, but in a weird way I understand his views on life because I lived some of that strange twisted stuff he wrote about.
I think we all have at one time or another.
This is one for my tin foil hat audience:
Was Kurt Vonnegut A 9/11 Truther?
The more I learn about Vonnegut, the more I relate to the guy.
From tin foil hat Alex Jone’s House: