Enlightenment:
A note to the non-ravers out there: codshit is
NOT a derogatory or insulting term and bears no relation in offensiveness to its four-letter
cousin, it's a word used to describe the nonsense that people sometimes talk
when they're off their heads.
Wisdom:
So there, we have figured it out, go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed America, here's American Gladiators. Here's 56 channels of it. Watch these pituitary retards bang their fuckin skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America, you are free... to do as we tell you.
.: Bill Hicks :.
Americans have different ways of saying things. They say 'elevator', we say 'lift'...they say 'President', we say 'stupid psychopathic git'....
.: Alexi Sayle :.
If you confront the Universe with good intentions in your heart it will reflect that and reward your intent. It just doesn't always do it in the way you expect.
.: G'kar :.
Make up your own mind about this one, its authenticity and veracity definitely have a large question-mark over them.
An illusion it will be, so large, so vast it will escape their perception.
Those who will see it will be thought of as insane.
We will create separate fronts to prevent them from seeing the connection between us.
We will behave as if we are not connected to keep the illusion alive. Our goal will be accomplished one drop at a time so as to never bring suspicion upon ourselves. This will also prevent them from seeing the changes as they occur.
We will always stand above the relative field of their experience for we know the secrets of the absolute.
We will work together always and will remain bound by blood and secrecy. Death will come to he who speaks.
We will keep their lifespan short and their minds weak while pretending to do the opposite.
We will use our knowledge of science and technology in subtle ways so they will never see what is happening.
We will use soft metals, aging accelerators and sedatives in food and water, also in the air.
In a courageous stand, a group of rail workers based in Motherwell, Scotland, have refused to drive a freight train loaded with military supplies for the British government’s war against Iraq.
Details remain sketchy as the British press, save for two articles in the Guardian, has all but blacked out news of the boycott. The train drivers union ASLEF has also remained silent on the protest and have refused requests for information.
According to accounts in the Guardian, however, the train—which is owned by the English Welsh and Scottish Railway (EWS)—was due to be moved on January 8. Among EWS’s contracts is the supply route to the huge NATO munitions store at Glen Douglas, on Scotland’s west coast, where missiles and other arms are buried within a hillside.
The drivers’ protest forced EWS and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to initially delay and ultimately cancel the contested service. As the drivers were the only workers at the Motherwell depot trained to move a freight train over the route, EWS and the MoD were forced to offload the train’s contents into trucks and complete the journey by road.
Tim Luckhurst says that the BBC is exercising thought-control over the extent of legitimate debate
Angus Roxburgh, Europe correspondent of the BBC, has published a book called Preachers of Hate. It analyses the resurgence of populist politics in Continental Europe through interviews with leaders and supporters of parties including France’s National Front, Austria’s Freedom party, Slovakia’s HDZS, the Danish People’s party ...and Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia.
Preachers of Hate deserves to be read. Roxburgh is intelligent and informed. He believes he has identified a new generation of proto-fascists, and that they are responsible for a ‘steady erosion of the ideals of European society’. If such ideals exist, historians may one day conclude that they were more grievously injured by communists like Slobodan Milosevic than by assertive tribunes of the new Right. Great minds at Harvard, Cambridge and Heidelberg may even assert that tolerance of dissent suffered terribly under the sanctimonious political monoculture promoted by T. Blair and his ilk.
But let us leave the ultimate evisceration of Third Way claptrap to those who will enjoy the benefits of hindsight. My question relates to the mindset that constricts Roxburgh’s musings and that of many of his BBC colleagues. Britain’s state broadcaster is exercising thought-control over the extent of legitimate debate. The BBC has contributed to a narrowing of the once broad plain of tolerated opinion. It has forgotten that, in a confident democracy, extremism in the defence of liberty should not be deemed a vice. Read Roxburgh and the work of other BBC stars like Andrew Marr, Fergal Keane, Jeremy Paxman and Gavin Esler. The allegation will not feel as contentious as it reasonably should.
Ten years ago, in 1992, a new suspect was added to the list. Former Rep. Paul Findley (R-Ill.) made the little-noticed but intriguing comment in the March 1992 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that “it is interesting but not surprising to note that in all the words written about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned, despite the obvious fact Mossad complicity is as plausible as any of the other theories.”
What Findley did not know was at that very time I was in the process of preparing a volume contending that the Mossad role alongside the CIA in the JFK assassination, was, in fact, the big secret—the “missing link”—that explained the entirety of the JFK conspiracy.
The Mossad role is what I have also called “the secret picture on the other side of the jigsaw puzzle” of the JFK assassination conspiracy. My book summarizing this theory is entitled Final Judgment.
What I find quite remarkable is that while many Israelis today believe that Israeli intelligence played a part in the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, many of Israel’s friends in America have reacted quite hysterically to my contention that the Mossad played a role in the assassination of America’s president.
In addition, although there are many who believe that the CIA had a hand in the JFK assassination, quite a few of those same people are fearful of mentioning the likelihood of a Mossad role.
Venezuela is a beacon for the rest of us, despite what you will hear in the western media the man is a hero of his people. It shows you that when the ordinary people unite against the greedy capitalists there really is very little they can do about it. Now we have populist left-wing leaders in Brazil and Ecuador as well, is it me or is that pretty spectacular for a region that has had its share of military coups and death squads.
The extraordinary and unprecedented events in Venezuela in recent weeks that have sent the world oil price soaring (though controlled this week by an Opec decision to permit a small increase in production) appear to be concluding with President Hugo Chavez ever more firmly in the saddle.
When the conservative opposition to his radical government embarked on a nationwide and open-ended strike at the beginning of December, accompanied by the almost daily mobilisation of its supporters in the streets of Caracas and other major towns, the purpose was to bring about the president's downfall, through resignation or military coup d'etat. Yet although this strategy has done immense damage to the economy, almost bringing the all-important oil industry to a halt, Chavez has never shown the slightest sign of giving in.
Since the new year, he has been fighting back with vigour, leaving a divided and leaderless opposition - who never expected their strike to last beyond Christmas - with an uncertain future. Chavez is a popular and democratically elected president, and he is firmly backed by the armed forces. A former army officer himself, he has an intimate knowledge of the institution, and he is well aware that the opposition's attempt to cripple the nationalised oil industry - the icon of the country's nationalists - has not been popular with the soldiers.
If anyone could sell George Bush's planned war of aggression against Iraq, surely it should be Tony Blair, a politician whose career has been built on his ability to smoothtalk his way out of a crisis. He has been straining every nerve to do just that for the past week. The latest sales drive began with the prime minister's attempt to link the alleged ricin find above a north London chemist's shop with "weapons of mass destruction". And it culminated on Monday with his imaginative effort to construct a link between "rogue states" such as Iraq and Islamist terrorism.
But all the signs are that his spin offensive simply isn't working. Such tales may find more of an echo in the United States, where half the population believes Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11 attacks, according to some polls. But in Britain - and even more so in the rest of the world - most people are now convinced that the opposite is the case: that the best way to boost support for al-Qaida and Islamist attacks on western targets is precisely to launch an Anglo-American crusade to invade and occupy Arab, Muslim Iraq.
Since the creation of Israel in 1948, its supporters have been highly successful in ensuring that Israel's version of its and its neighbours' histories has been accepted as received truth. Dents have been made, notably by Israel's own historians as they have had greater access to official documents, in the Zionist myths. But they have usually been hammered out with alacrity, both by Israel and our domestic broadcasters.
Whenever Israel has been exposed as an aggressor - in Lebanon in 1978 and 1982, or during the first intifada of the late 1980s - its media doldrums have been temporary. The efforts of its spin doctors, the US government and media, in conjunction with a weak Arab communications operation, have usually combined to make Israel's broad version of events prevail.
These continue to give the impression of a struggle between equal forces: a beleaguered and misunderstood Israel, occasionally forced into excessive measures to clamp down on "terror", versus hordes of recalcitrant Palestinians careless of "western" values and endemically suicidal for obscure religious reasons. "Equivalence" is at the heart of Britain's misreporting of the crisis.
The fact of Palestinian resistance against a foreign occupying power is rarely emphasised. TV news viewers would have been unaware that last month Israeli soldiers killed 75 Palestinians, 14 of them children under 18. Then, two suicide bombers attacked Tel Aviv - the first such attack for six weeks. It was only when it had this "peg" that the BBC reported the rate of Palestinian casualties. Thus, suicide bombs are made to appear as the beginning of a new "cycle of violence", rather than an outcome of the occupation.
There is no way Washington can keep big forces in the Gulf if United Nations arms inspections in Iraq take more than six months, analysts say.
It would have to use the forces, remove them or halt the buildup.
Naval task groups could bob in waters within striking distance of Iraq for months. But planners would face problems of how to rotate more than 100,000 ground troops, keep them in training and keep their morale high enough for combat.
A spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said yesterday that UN resolutions provided timelines of "somewhere between six and 12 months" for inspections.
This raised the possibility that any United States-led strike against Iraq - widely seen as coming late next month or in early March - could be delayed.
In late 1968 a small group of men gathered in a rambling old house situated a few miles outside the German city of Munich. The weak afternoon sunlight was starting to fade as they sat down at the polished oak conference table, and despite a roaring log fire in the ornate fireplace there was a noticable chill in the air. These men were of no particular religion, nor were they politicians, bankers, bureaucrats or mainstream military personnel. To use their own self-effacing term they were "no-persons", just a group of intelligent men from all over the world deeply concerned about the looming probability of global thermonuclear war. The American Department of State, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Russian Kremlin were brimming over with megalomaniacs quite capable of destroying all life on the planet in their blind quest for power, unless they could be persuaded not to do so.
Global thermonuclear war was not the only problem. Since the end of the First World War and the
subsequent formation of the League of Nations, the same megalomaniacs had frequently expressed their determination to implement a "New Order", bureaucratic code for a one world government. If left to run unchecked, within a single century the megalomaniacs would remove national borders entirely, destroy delightfully diverse national cultures developed over thousands of years, and replace them in-toto with hordes of multicultural drones willing to slave for endless hours in "worker's paradises" for the exclusive benefit of a tiny but immensely powerful global elite. The first successful phase of the New Order exercise was at that very moment in full swing, less than a thousand miles away in the worker's paradise known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Faced with a completely unacceptable Orwellian future, the Munich Group had two objectives: stop the megalomaniacs from destroying all life on the planet with thermonuclear weapons, and at the same time protect the myriad national cultures existing around the world from extinction. The critical question facing its members was how to achieve these awesome objectives with strictly limited resources.
The politicians and mainstream military controlled more than 90% of the conventional and nuclear weapons so their use was not an option. Besides, if the Munich Group resorted to such methods they would risk triggering a global thermonuclear exchange, the very event they were determined to prevent. Many years later this and other groups would supplement their arsenals with micronized atomic weapons for use against specific targets, but the primary weapon system under discussion at the 1968 Munich meeting was quite different, and well beyond the comprehension of any professor of classical or quantum physics.
Israel is embarking upon a more aggressive approach to the war on terror that will include staging targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries, former Israeli intelligence officials told United Press International.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has forbidden the practice until now, these sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The Israeli statements were confirmed by more than a half dozen former and currently serving U.S. foreign policy and intelligence officials in interviews with United Press International.
But an official at the Israeli Embassy in Washington told UPI: "That is rubbish. It is completely untrue. Israel and the United States have such a close and co-operative intelligence relationship, especially in the field of counter-terrorism, that the assertion is ludicrous."
With the appointment of Meir Dagan, the new director of Israel's Mossad secret intelligence service, Sharon is preparing "a huge budget" increase for the spy agency as part of "a tougher stance in fighting global jihad (or holy war)," one Israeli official said.
Since Sharon became Israeli prime minister, Tel Aviv has mainly limited its practice of targeted killings to the West Bank and Gaza because "no one wanted such operations on their territory," a former Israeli intelligence official said.
America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.
The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.
The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.
Israel is asking the United States for $8 billion (£5bn) in loan guarantees - and has sent to Washington one of the former army officers implicated in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre of Palestinian civilians to persuade the Bush administration to grant the money.
Amos Yaron, who is now director general of the Israeli Ministry of Defence, was the Israeli military commander in Beirut when Lebanese Phalangist militiamen entered the refugee camps and slaughtered up to 1,700 Palestinian refugees. He ordered flares to be dropped over the camps, at the request of the Phalange, and Israeli soldiers blocked the exits to prevent civilians from leaving the area. Israel is pleading for the money - along with an additional $4 billion in military aid - on the grounds that a US invasion of Iraq will provoke further attacks against Israel.
It argues that some of the aid should be given to anti-missile defence systems for El Al airliners. Al-Qa'ida members tried to destroy an Israeli civilian aircraft with missiles at Mombasa last year, but narrowly missed it.
One day, when the stories of our people are told and the true events of recent years are a matter of public record, when the bodies have been counted and their ashes spread to the four winds. On that day the people of earth will speak of you and ask; "Why did they say nothing when the truth was staring them in the face? How could they let all those innocent people die because they were too afraid to ask the important questions? How could they let the greed of the few outweigh the needs of the many?"
And on that day you and your kin will be judged, and you will be found to have failed the people of Earth.
That is how history will remember you my friends, not with love or respect but with anguish and a sense of deep betrayal.
The Washington Post recently (and casually) reported (1/3/03) that the ownership of our nation’s media and entertainment industries is becoming more even more consolidated than they are today. FCC Chairman Michael Powell is determined to relax the restrictions which control how much investment in media and information immense corporations like AOL-Time-Warner can make within individual markets. It has long been the opinion of this writer that media concentration is the Number One problem facing this country. People who dispute this idea always point out that the Internet is a source of information for those who (rightly) avoid the mainstream. However, the Bush right-wing faction (as opposed to the right wing faction that deplores government interference with liberties) is planning an attack on the freedom many of us associate with the “information superhighway” as you read these words.
With a more concentrated media comes the prospect that serious lines of inquiry will not be pursued in a timely fashion to correct problems. For example, what really happened on 9/11/01?
The heavy-weights step in to the ring... Question is, what does this mean...? These guys are both sons of the illuminati and as such we should take them seriously.
Zbigniew Brezinski and Brent Scowcroft, two national security advisors to the White House, have called on Bush to avoid unilateralism, and believe Bush must not take action without consulting [U.S.] allies.
This is the harshest criticism yet coming from a Democrat and a Republican politician. The criticism was addressed to Bush on a CNN broadcast.
"Thus far, we have moved on the correct path and have forced the international community to put pressure on Iraq, and the probability of UN inspectors finding something which may lead to the disarmament of Iraq is very high. We must make sensible decisions at this juncture and accept peace, because we can not act alone," Brezinski said.
"When Hans Blix presents his final report to the UN, the Bush administration will face a big problem," Scowcroft is quoted saying. "We are dealing with forces with were unknown during the Cold War, thus, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea should not have been lumped together in the 'axis of evil'. Anti-American sentiments result from the fact that we are considered a global superpower and everyone is waiting for us to solve all problems, and for the past year we have been looking like a warmonger and rude and indifferent toward friend and foe. If this situation does not end, we will become isolated and earn the enmity of other countries."
Who Will Inspect Americans Themselves? "The current U.S. administration is the faithful spokesman of the military-industrial complex and big oil companies who shamelessly lie," said Mercelo Clossi, an author.
The 10 Most Startling Speculations and "Conspiracy Theories" About September 11 and America's New War
For about thirty minutes after his chief of staff told him that America was under attack, George W. Bush continued to sit in an elementary school classroom listening to a second-grader tell a story about a pet goat. He did a marvelous job of looking completely unsurprised. Meanwhile, four hijacked jumbo jets were able to fly off-course across several states without encountering any opposition from the most powerful and responsive air force in the world.
Less than a month later, on the pretext of pursuing terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, the Bush administration began what it called a "war" on the impoverished and already war-torn country of Afghanistan. It turns out this assault had been in the works well before September 11 took place.
Soon after replacing the Taliban government with one more to its liking (and, in what is surely a coincidence, resuscitating the world's most bountiful opium fields), the administration began agitating for a similar, but even more destructive, bombardment of the oil-rich nation of Iraq. This, although Osama bin Laden was still at large and no link between him and Saddam Hussein could be established.
For these reasons and hundreds of others, the year following September 11 has seen probably the most staggering proliferation of "conspiracy theories" in American history. Angry speculation -- focused mainly on government dirty dealings, ulterior motives, and potential complicity in the attacks -- has risen to a clamor that easily rivals what followed the Kennedy assassination. Some of these suppositions are patent balderdash. But many others are coherent and well argued, and cite disconcerting reports from the U.S. corporate media and respected overseas news desks to support their claims. Providing grist for the mill are such odd episodes as last year's partisan anthrax poisonings (using U.S. army microbes) and the sniper attacks that recently plagued Washington, DC.
Following are the ten most alarming theories about September 11, the "war on terror," and the future of the world. Feel free to accept them as gospel, study them as symptoms of a traumatized culture, or scoff at them as anti-American propaganda: I'm only the messenger. Personally, though, at this point the only person I hold above suspicion in the matter of September 11 is that poor kid with the goat.
It is more than 30 years ago now, though it seems like yesterday. A Republican president, much derided by liberals, was in the White House and his opponents were being lashed by the rightwing attack dogs, led then by the vice-president, Spiro Agnew.
The elite East Coast press, exemplified by the New York Times and the Washington Post, were the special targets of his scorn: "pointy-headed liberals," he called them, and "the nattering nabobs of negativism".
But the press laughed last and longest. Agnew resigned in disgrace, to be followed by his president, Richard Nixon - forced out by the investigations of two Post reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, whose doggedness revealed Nixon's role in covering up the Watergate break-in and sundry other crimes. It remains one of the greatest - maybe the greatest - moment in the history of American journalism.
Now there is a new Republican president, elected even more controversially and pursuing a far more divisive agenda. Where are the pointy-head liberals now? The change can be summed up in Woodward's own career. As the Watergate investigator, he not merely protected his sources, he glamorised them. Now, still on the Post staff, he functions as a semi-official court stenographer to the Bush White House. And it is notable that those who talk to him - such as the president himself - always play the heroic role in his stories.
The worldwide turmoil caused by President Bush's policies goes not exactly unreported, but entirely de-emphasised. Guardian writers are inundated by emails from Americans asking plaintively why their own papers never print what is in these columns (in my experience, these go hand-in-hand with an equal number insulting us for the same reason). In the American press, day after day, the White House controls the agenda. The supposedly liberal American press has become a dog that never bites, hardly barks but really loves rolling over and having its tummy tickled.
The creeping lunacy creeps on, creepishly. It gives life a constancy comforting in an uncertain world. For this we should be grateful.
In the Greeley Tribune (January 8, 2003) of northern Colorado I see that Mitch Muller, a boy of thirteen, has been expelled from school for a year. Yep. Gone.
You might surmise that he committed some grave crime, that he assaulted a teacher perhaps or was discovered to be selling bulk-lot cocaine. No. He played with a small laser pointer – the sort that projects a red dot onto maps during lectures. It was, said the depressing drones who run the school, a "gun facsimile."
This is fascinating, like a rare and aggressive tumor. Let us think about it.
To begin, there is no substance to the charge. A laser pointer does not look like a gun, no more so than a ball-point pen or a lipstick tube. It isn't a weapon, doesn't look like a weapon, and is not intimidating, being less dangerous than, say, a fist.
Further, note that we are not confronted by a somewhat overzealous application of a reasonable rule. If young Muller had disrupted class and gotten tossed for a week, that would have been excessive but not absurd. (Excessive because unnecessary: When you have a male principal who has not been administratively neutered, he says, "Bobby, stop that. Now." That's all he says.)
The child was suspended for a year, not for misbehavior but for possession of a legal and harmless object that was determined ex post facto to be gunlike. You see. Crimes carry harsh penalties, but you cannot tell what things are crimes until after you have committed them. That is, the authorities can find you guilty at will, whenever they wish to punish you.
Tony Blair is neither wicked nor stupid. This puts those of us who disagree with his Iraq policy under an obligation. We need to do better than merely caricature his policy or insult him. We need to show why his assessment is wrong.
Though Blair speaks often now about Iraq, he rarely does so candidly. Much remains merely implied, especially about the relationship with Washington. Even at yesterday's press conference, he certainly concealed more than he revealed. In some ways it is as hard to get an absolutely clear overall picture of Blair's views on Iraq as about Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes themselves.
Blair's most recent remarks on Iraq came in his new year message, in his speech to British ambassadors a week ago, in the first prime minister's questions of 2003 and now in yesterday's Downing Street press conference. Through all of them there has run a pronounced vein of pessimism. It first caught the headlines in the new year message, which spoke of unprecedented dangers and difficulties.
What exactly is the source of this pessimism? The primary answer can be found in the speech to ambassadors, in a passage which was relatively overlooked in most reports, since these concentrated on Blair's "America must listen" message.
A United Nations report marked “Strictly Confidential” and dated December 10, 2002, spells out in harrowing detail the likely humanitarian consequences of US-led war against Iraq.
Compiled by UN planners, the report makes clear that unlike the attack on Iraq in 1991, which it describes as a “relatively short, aerial bombardment of infrastructure, towns and cities”, the western powers are now planning “potentially a large scale and protracted ground offensive, supported by aerial and conventional bombardment.” [para 1]
Consequently, the potential devastation will be far greater than in 1991, it reports. Whereas a majority of the population of 26.5 million at that time had family members in work and access to cash and material assets, this is no longer the case.
Neither does the report consider it valid to make a comparison with the result of the recent war in Afghanistan where the population is predominantly rural and used to being “more self-reliant”. In Iraq the people are largely urbanised and under the sanctions regime imposed after 1991 have “become even more reliant on the state to meet their basic needs” [para 3] with “some 60 percent of the population (16 million) highly dependent” [para 11] on the monthly “food basket” from the government.
The Bush administration is arm-twisting Turkey's new government to allow the U.S. to deploy up to 80,000 troops in eastern Anatolia, whose mission will be the invasion of northern Iraq.
Turkey's government, led by Justice and Development Party chairman Recep Erdogan and Prime Minister, Abdullah Gul, are caught between Iraq and a hard place. Ninety percent of Turkey's 67 million citizens strongly oppose any attack on Iraq.
Erdogan's moderate Islamic party recently won a landslide election victory due to public anger over the devastated economy, corruption and resentment against the heavy-handed role of the intrusive Turkish military, which has long been the real "deep power" behind a thin facade of democratic government, and opposition to war against Iraq. Erdogan, the most popular and promising Turkish leader in decades, has gotten off to a commendable start by trying to settle the thorny Cyprus problem by backing the current, sensible UN peace plan, and normalizing relations with old foe, Greece.
But U.S. pressure on Turkey, NATO's faithful eastern bastion, keeps mounting. Bankrupt Turkey is being offered $18 billion U.S. in new aid, on top of $16 billion given over the past two years, plus $400 million to build new military bases in Turkey, cut-rate aircraft, and new weapons systems. The Bush administration is warning Turkey it will no longer have America's support in its efforts to enter the EU if Ankara does not cooperate. Pentagon No. 2 Paul Wolfowitz and State Department heavyweight Marc Grossman are heading efforts to enlist Turkey in the impending war.
EIR's recent series of exposés tracing the dirty money behind Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Likud party, have helped fuel the roaring political scandal threatening to wreck what was once thought to be a certain Sharon win in the upcoming Jan. 28 election. Since the series began, Israeli and American journalists and researchers have provided revealing information concerning the Likud's most important foreign funders, which, upon investigation, has proven to be accurate.
Israeli law has, since 1994, prohibited foreign donations to Israeli election campaigns. Yet tens of millions of dollars have continued to pour in from abroad, financing the radical-right Likud political apparatus which is driving the mideast and the world into religious-ethnic warfare. One prominent Israeli jurist told EIR, "Talking about illegal foreign money flows into Israeli elections is like talking about illegal booze in Chicago during Prohibition. Everybody does it, or you just don't survive."
But in the case of the money propping up the Sharon regime, its legal prohibition is made more sinister by its sources, primarily in the United States. They include heirs of the Meyer Lansky/ Moe Dalitz mafia syndicate; Michael Milken's junk-bond "monsters," corporate predators, and looters; and the sponsors of terrorists such as Meyer Kahane and the Armageddon-theme racial and religious provocateurs.
According to knowledgeable Israeli sources, the following names are at or near the top of the list of perpetrators, whose covert funding of the Likud has brought the Mideast to the brink of disaster.
Federal officials are trying to intimidate an individual who—six months prior to the 9-11 tragedy—had provided, through multiple venues, early warning, based on inside information, that terrorists reputedly connected to al Qaeda were planning massive attacks on American soil.
On Jan. 8, high-ranking FBI official Ted Gunderson (ret.) visited American Free Press headquarters on Capitol Hill in Washington and provided detailed documentary material that unveils a remarkable series of events.
Gunderson has compiled evidence demonstrating beyond any question that the FBI is now engaged in a clear-cut effort to cover up its foreknowledge of specific allegations about then-impending terrorist attacks of the type that happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
Gunderson’s charges are particularly powerful precisely because of who he (Gunderson) happens to be: a 27-year FBI veteran who capped his career in the bur eau as senior special agent in charge of the Los Angeles office of the FBI.
The warmongers encourage secular autocrats to suppress the Muslim world
How did it come to this?" asks Theoden, King of Rohan, as he gazes down on the massed ranks of evil beleaguering his fortress in Hollywood's adaptation of Lord of the Rings.
The words may be fictional but, as we count down to Washington's second instalment in the real-life epic that is the the war on terror, an honest examination of what has brought the civilisations of Islam and the west to this critical pass is long overdue. For despite the seemingly unassailable sway of the clash of civilisations thesis - in some quarters more a desire than a forecast - there is hope and it lies in the fact that the differences are less intractable than the forces of darkness would have us believe.
Five years ago, the Iranian president Mohammed Khatami called for a "dialogue of civilisations" before a meeting of the UN. The speech was an encomium to liberty, articulating what progressive Islamists have been advocating for years as the key to peace: emancipation from despotism. The major obstacle to peace, goes the theory, is not terrorism or religious obscurantism but the enslavement of hundreds of millions of Muslims, who continue to be denied the fundamental right of being free to choose their own leaders and systems of government.
The warmongers have made sure the message has remained outside mainstream debate so they can forge ahead unimpeded. Using their agents and sympathisers in the mass media to blanket all Islamist politics as fundamentalist, and by excluding its fluid, nuanced discourse from the international conversation, they have rendered voiceless a full quarter of humanity.
Many years ago before gaining access to the Internet, I wrote a report about the most likely causes of Gulf War Syndrome. The report slowly moved around the world by snail mail, and was eventually published in four small magazines. Then I forgot all about the report for a few years, because the nightmare symptoms being suffered by Gulf War veterans in America and Britain, seemed light years away from my sleepy little backwater in Western Australia.
That was before George W. Bush decided to do the whole thing all over again, in his increasingly frantic and very public attempts to pillage Middle East oil for Wall Street. Though I am obviously powerless to prevent Bush from ruthlessly sacrificing American lives in the Iraqi desert, I can at least sound a warning designed to minimize the physical and psychological impact on servicemen before they leave for the Gulf, and after they hopefully return.
There is no doubt that the panic generated by the false “War on Terror” is already being used to coerce people into accepting “preventative medical treatment”, that in a more sane world they would instantly refuse. Most profitable by far for the pharmaceutical multinationals backing the Bush Dynasty, are inoculations forced onto service men and women by legislation. Taking the dreaded “Anthrax Shots” as an example, the manufacturer makes a net profit of $18.00 out of every single individual, a figure that has to be multiplied by 2.4 million to get a true feel for multinational profit margins.
It is a harsh fact that the Anthrax vaccine being forcibly administered to service men and women today, is the same as that included in the deadly Gulf War “cocktail” inoculations of 1990-1991. This has no meaning whatever for politicians who habitually bend forward over a desk when their masters approach from behind, but it might have some meaning for you. In the event that the multinationals manage to spark a “civil emergency” somewhere near your own home, be advised that you too will be forced to accept exactly the same untested but hugely profitable vaccine as military personnel bound for the Persian Gulf.
The direct relationship between the Anthrax shots of today and the “cocktail” of yesterday is deeply troubling, and is the prime reason for reviving, editing, and adding to this 1995 report. You might find part of the text disturbing, which is probably a very good thing. It is difficult to protect your family from government-induced harm if you are not completely alert.
The UK would not join American unilateral military action against Iraq, according to International Development Secretary Clare Short. Ms Short said the UK had a duty to try to keep the world united over the Iraq crisis and ensure the danger of Saddam Hussein was only tackled through the United Nations.
Other ministers have shied away from saying whether or not the UK would join America if it decided to act alone against Iraq. With US troop build-up continuing in the Gulf, Labour Chairman John Reid has denied there is widespread disquiet about the handling of the Iraq crisis. Two surveys in Sunday newspapers point to deep unease about the prospect of war among Labour activists. Despite cold weather, a group of 30 peace campaigners went naked in East Sussex for their latest protest against any military action.
British television regulators have cleared journalist John Pilger of breaking broadcasting rules in his documentary on the Middle East which attracted more than 100 complaints from viewers.
Palestine is still the issue: A special report by John Pilger, shown in the United Kingdom in September and in New Zealand one month later, incurred the wrath of Michael Green, the Jewish chairman of Carlton television which made the programme, and provoked 116 complaints about bias and inaccuracy to the Independent Television Commission (ITC). The ITC also received 553 letters supporting the documentary.
In an adjudication published today the ITC says that, despite orchestrated campaigning for and against the programme, Carlton had provided "persuasive evidence of the care and thoroughness with which it was researched".
The wife of European Central Bank chief Wim Duisenberg on Saturday described Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories as "inhuman" and accused Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of provoking violence.
Gretta Duisenberg has stirred international controversy by using a diplomatic passport to visit Palestinian President Yasser Arafat this week, urging an end to Israeli occupation and making remarks that Dutch and Israeli officials have called biased and Jewish groups said verged on anti-Semitism.
The ECB chief's spouse, who heads a pro-Palestinian activist group in the Netherlands and last year hung a Palestinian flag from her family home, said after further talks with Palestinians she wanted to look into alleged Israeli human rights violations.
"The power of the Israeli government to humiliate (Palestinians) like that -- I cannot stand it ... If you see it yourself, it's more inhuman," Duisenberg told Reuters after a meeting with Palestinian lawmaker Hanan Ashrawi.
She blamed Israel for the violence afflicting the region since Palestinians launched an uprising in September 2000 for a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
Venezuela's opposition radicals and their cloak-and-dagger financiers are growing desperate as the 5th week of their national stoppage grinds inexorably to its close with democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez Frias still firmly in place.
"We are at War, since Chavez will not enter into dialogue or resign immediately, there is only one option left: to execute him!"
Spanish-language transcripts of secret opposition radicals' conversations made available to VHeadline.com by IC sources say "Esto es en serio: ofrezco recompensa de US100 millones por la cabeza de Hugo Chavez Frias, al que lo meta de un tiro en la frente y uno en el corazon; luego lo decapite y cuelgue la cabeza expuesta al publico por los dias que nos ha tenido de paro en la Plaza Altamira, la Plaza Francia, La Plaza de la Libertad."
Translated: This is serious: US$100 million reward for the head of Hugo Chavez Frias, to anyone who puts a bullet in his forehead and one in his heart, afterwards to decapitate and hang the head exposed to the public for the same number of days as we have held the strike in Plaza Altamira, the Plaza of Liberty."
As Patsy Calton of the Liberal Democrats asked the British prime minister: "Are you engaging in dangerous brinkmanship with Saddam Hussein, or are you seriously telling us that you intend to commit British troops when an overwhelming majority of the public is against this?"
Pressures are building up for Blair.
More than 100 of his Labour MPs threaten to oppose military action without more evidence from U.N. weapons inspectors against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
The public too remains unconvinced. Talking to Londoners this week, doubts were raised over sufficient proof to justify an attack, the cost of a war and the motives, with one man saying it was just about oil.
One issue is crucial. Polls indicate that if the United Nations authorises an invasion of Iraq, then 73 percent of the British public will back it. But what if the United Nations doesn't?
An illusion it will be, so large, so vast it will escape their perception. 
In a courageous stand, a group of rail workers based in Motherwell, Scotland, have refused to drive a freight train loaded with military supplies for the British government’s war against Iraq.
Angus Roxburgh, Europe correspondent of the BBC, has published a book called Preachers of Hate. It analyses the resurgence of populist politics in Continental Europe through interviews with leaders and supporters of parties including France’s National Front, Austria’s Freedom party, Slovakia’s HDZS, the Danish People’s party ...and Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia. 
Ten years ago, in 1992, a new suspect was added to the list. Former Rep. Paul Findley (R-Ill.) made the little-noticed but intriguing comment in the March 1992 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that “it is interesting but not surprising to note that in all the words written about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned, despite the obvious fact Mossad complicity is as plausible as any of the other theories.”
The extraordinary and unprecedented events in Venezuela in recent weeks that have sent the world oil price soaring (though controlled this week by an Opec decision to permit a small increase in production) appear to be concluding with President Hugo Chavez ever more firmly in the saddle. 
If anyone could sell George Bush's planned war of aggression against Iraq, surely it should be Tony Blair, a politician whose career has been built on his ability to smoothtalk his way out of a crisis. He has been straining every nerve to do just that for the past week. The latest sales drive began with the prime minister's attempt to link the alleged ricin find above a north London chemist's shop with "weapons of mass destruction". And it culminated on Monday with his imaginative effort to construct a link between "rogue states" such as Iraq and Islamist terrorism. 
Since the creation of Israel in 1948, its supporters have been highly successful in ensuring that Israel's version of its and its neighbours' histories has been accepted as received truth. Dents have been made, notably by Israel's own historians as they have had greater access to official documents, in the Zionist myths. But they have usually been hammered out with alacrity, both by Israel and our domestic broadcasters.
There is no way Washington can keep big forces in the Gulf if United Nations arms inspections in Iraq take more than six months, analysts say. 
Israel is embarking upon a more aggressive approach to the war on terror that will include staging targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries, former Israeli intelligence officials told United Press International.
America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. 
The Washington Post recently (and casually) reported (1/3/03) that the ownership of our nation’s media and entertainment industries is becoming more even more consolidated than they are today. FCC Chairman Michael Powell is determined to relax the restrictions which control how much investment in media and information immense corporations like AOL-Time-Warner can make within individual markets. It has long been the opinion of this writer that media concentration is the Number One problem facing this country. People who dispute this idea always point out that the Internet is a source of information for those who (rightly) avoid the mainstream. However, the Bush right-wing faction (as opposed to the right wing faction that deplores government interference with liberties) is planning an attack on the freedom many of us associate with the “information superhighway” as you read these words.
Zbigniew Brezinski and Brent Scowcroft, two national security advisors to the White House, have called on Bush to avoid unilateralism, and believe Bush must not take action without consulting [U.S.] allies.
"When Hans Blix presents his final report to the UN, the Bush administration will face a big problem," Scowcroft is quoted saying. "We are dealing with forces with were unknown during the Cold War, thus, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea should not have been lumped together in the 'axis of evil'. Anti-American sentiments result from the fact that we are considered a global superpower and everyone is waiting for us to solve all problems, and for the past year we have been looking like a warmonger and rude and indifferent toward friend and foe. If this situation does not end, we will become isolated and earn the enmity of other countries."
It is more than 30 years ago now, though it seems like yesterday. A Republican president, much derided by liberals, was in the White House and his opponents were being lashed by the rightwing attack dogs, led then by the vice-president, Spiro Agnew. 
The creeping lunacy creeps on, creepishly. It gives life a constancy comforting in an uncertain world. For this we should be grateful. 
Tony Blair is neither wicked nor stupid. This puts those of us who disagree with his Iraq policy under an obligation. We need to do better than merely caricature his policy or insult him. We need to show why his assessment is wrong. 
A United Nations report marked “Strictly Confidential” and dated December 10, 2002, spells out in harrowing detail the likely humanitarian consequences of US-led war against Iraq.
The Bush administration is arm-twisting Turkey's new government to allow the U.S. to deploy up to 80,000 troops in eastern Anatolia, whose mission will be the invasion of northern Iraq. 
EIR's recent series of exposés tracing the dirty money behind Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Likud party, have helped fuel the roaring political scandal threatening to wreck what was once thought to be a certain Sharon win in the upcoming Jan. 28 election. Since the series began, Israeli and American journalists and researchers have provided revealing information concerning the Likud's most important foreign funders, which, upon investigation, has proven to be accurate.
How did it come to this?" asks Theoden, King of Rohan, as he gazes down on the massed ranks of evil beleaguering his fortress in Hollywood's adaptation of Lord of the Rings.
Many years ago before gaining access to the Internet, I wrote a report about the most likely causes of Gulf War Syndrome. The report slowly moved around the world by snail mail, and was eventually published in four small magazines. Then I forgot all about the report for a few years, because the nightmare symptoms being suffered by Gulf War veterans in America and Britain, seemed light years away from my sleepy little backwater in Western Australia.
The UK would not join American unilateral military action against Iraq, according to International Development Secretary Clare Short. Ms Short said the UK had a duty to try to keep the world united over the Iraq crisis and ensure the danger of Saddam Hussein was only tackled through the United Nations. 
The wife of European Central Bank chief Wim Duisenberg on Saturday described Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories as "inhuman" and accused Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of provoking violence.
