Was Saddam Hussein really the ruthless tyrant that American War Criminals claim he was?

I've been thinking a lot about Saddam Hussein lately; especially after watching the video of his lynching and noting how dignified he was and how revolting the behavior of the executioners was. The question that keeps bugging me is this: since we know that Bush and his gang have done nothing but lie since day one, since we know that Bush and his gang are guilty of more War Crimes than Saddam Hussein ever dreamed of, and since we know, without a doubt, that the U.S. media is controlled by Zionists who have an agenda to destroy Iraq, Iran, and pretty much the whole Middle East, can we really be sure that what we have been told about Saddam Hussein is even true at ALL?

So that's been bugging me. It seems it is bugging other people as well. Just came across this interesting piece that makes some damn good points:

Was Saddam Hussein really the ruthless tyrant that American War Criminals claim he was?

By Bert Cooper

So, some may say, Saddam Hussein hanging at the end of a rope was a loser - others may be foolish enough to wonder : "But were his policies really those of a tyrant?"

Because Mr. Hussein is now universally dismissed in the U.S. media (including alternative media) as having once been the very breath of Evil itself - "We all know that he surely did all those bad things everybody says he did, but he should not have been hanged that way," etc. But, when one asks, "What was the direct personal knowledge of his accusers?" "What was the direct knowledge of their sources ?" All of a sudden we find ourselves in the soup of what may eventually be called the largest and most successful psychological barrage possibly in the history of Zionist propaganda.

Compare the educational policy in Iraq under Mr. Hussein to that of the U.S. under its presidents in the same time period.

It is not unusual that in the U.S. a young university student might have to finance an almost perpetual "educational debt" (ranging from $10,000 to $1,000,000, for example, for an engineering degree from a state university, or a medical degree from an Ivy League school, respectively). Moreover, these so-called educations will have been predicated on the twisted ethics of their deans, and on the presumption of "profits by free trade," where a cheaper man is a better man, and on the inevitability of "globalization." In the U.S., students are actually taught creative ways to "spend their way out of debt."

Under leadership of Mr. Saddam Hussein, every student in Iraq finished his or her university education - completely debt free - male and female, in roughly equal proportions - Shia and Sunni in roughly in the same proportion as the national population.

Every student graduating debt free - is that the educational policy of a tyrant? Were Saddam such a tyrant, would he not have feared that the students of his nation might be told - go forward young men and women, use your education, predicated on honesty in labor and productivity through science, in the fields of agriculture, architecture, or engineering, or medicine or whatever, do good and be debt free?

Is that public educational policy of a tyrant? - or, is that a system of education which racists from Texas would perceive as a threat to the so-called "precious style of life" so dear to their children? What would happen to "the American democracy," of, by and for millionaire rogues, if the example of Mr. Hussein’s educational policy were to catch on, not only in the rest of southwest Asia, but even in America itself?

In the U.S., 40% of the population lack access to basic health care, and the poor are charged from 10% to 100% in fictitious interest when they have to use their credit cards for basic health care.

Under leadership of Mr. Hussein, every citizen in Iraq had access to basic health care, be they male or female, be they Shia or Sunni.

Is this the health care policy of a tyrant? Or, would the Iraqi health care system, under the so-called "tyranny" of Mr. Saddam Hussein, be perceived as a threat to the U.S. system, which is managed by profiteers and eugenicists.

Would not Mr. Hussein’s example of universally available basic health care be perceived as a threat to the Hollywood geniuses of the American lie, and their notions of "Hollywood democracy?" (Even some of us Americans have figured out that, although there is no shortage of Jewishness amongst the Jowdets and the Kurds, the rest are either Sunni or Shia. Under the so-called "tyranny" of Saddam Hussein, Iraq had joined three races, Arabic, Persian, Kurdish, and two religions, Shiâia and Sunni, under one official language, currency system, and government.)

In the U.S., the idea of a "democratic" Congress has devolved into the idea of a glorious Zionist infestation, where liars are given unregulated legislative powers, in league with the Hollywood pornographers and the millionaire homosexuals who appoint them to power.

By comparison, under the so-called "tyranny" of Mr. Saddam Hussein, predatory liars, paedophiles, child rapists, homosexuals and pornographers were put into prison - or even killed, as apparently many should be.

However, under the American theory of democracy, which in reality is a system of bank fraud under a Hollywood system of currency reserves, our politicians have become sellouts to predatory liars, paedophiles, child rapists, homosexuals and Hollywood pornographers, e.g. "Capitol Hill." Is it any wonder, that these politicians then appoint baby-killers as generals of their armies, and given them extravagant pensions with full benefits, including funeral by parade. (But, OH! say the generals, the ratio of one Iraqi child murdered per clueless American "volunteer" during the occupation, is only a collateral statistic - a kind of non-damage, a kind of no-visible-effect phenomenon, which therefore can never come back to weigh on the souls of the baby-killing foot soldier, because Iraqi children don’t have any souls yet, so evil was their tyrant, Saddam Hussein - so say the U.S. generals whose appointments were arranged by the self-same infestation who operate "Capitol Hill" as if it were their private sexual nightclub.

Compare the pay scale of the typical CEO in the U.S., whose pensions in retirement are often a thousand times the pay of the average worker, with that of his Iraqi counterpart. The CEO in the U.S. is compensated largely for his having shifted his productive capital, and hence means of taxation, from the U.S. to China. (China has evolved exactly as planned, into an infestation of free-trading nomads whose long-standing enemy has been the civilized Asian, including China, Persia, India, and Russia. It was created first by isolation of U.S. ally, Chiang Kai-shek, by grants of heavy military equipment, from Harry Truman, whose first act was to grant full recognition to Israel, to Ho Chi-Minh and Kim Il-Jung, which allowed Chairman Mao, who was chamber pot boy for an infestation of British-Zionist-Marxists into Chinese culture, to liquefy Chinese-Confucian culture, re-establish an economically huge British slave-labor plantation system, and consolidate it into an anti-American war machine, for the purpose of economically eradicating the principle of general welfare that was first stated in the United States Constitution.)

These American CEOs, who build castles in America while shifting their factories to, and paying taxes to, China, and whose salaries include, with approval of the so-called "Central Compensation Committee" reckless emissions of a new form of Wall St. currency known as stock options, which are now being freely printed without regard for reality or for any competent regulating authority, other than a Zionist-racist and eugenicist one, and whose Hobbesian style of life now goes way beyond the dangers of indolence which our Jefferson so worried about in regard of early American slavery and apartheid, and which is now being crystallized into a globalized domain of racism and eugenics - these so-called CEOs are anointed as "business leaders" in America. Compare that with the so-called tyranny of Mr. Saddam Hussein, where treasonous profiteers, were, without regard to religious protection, removed from society and put in prison, where they belong. Is that the policy of a tyrant? But, HEY!, say the American CEOs, we can shift our factories to China (which must really be understood as Zionist-operated China) - we can destroy American productive capacity, and thus our freedom to trade - because we want to! - These same CEOs will claim that racism and eugenics are simply the artefacts of unlimited freedom for Zionists, and for their Hollywood propaganda frauds, for "our" system of free trade, of globalization, and of "democracy" by bank fraud, will surely last forever and forever.

By comparison to the U.S., and its voluntary and unwarranted use of weapons of mass destruction against the unarmed and economically depressed peoples of Iraq, whose schools and day-care centers, and whose hospitals and clinics, had been destroyed by "smart-bombs" dropped by American pilots flying bravely at 40,000 feet, seven days a week, Sundays and holidays included, for ten years straight, Saddam Hussein, took the peaceful route, and got rid of all of his weapons of mass destruction.

I again suggest that it might not be beyond the veil of reason that Mr. Saddam Hussein will eventually be considered for appointment by the U.S. Congress, for the U.S. Medal of Honor, for his proven humanitarian genius. At a minimum, Mr. Hussein had the military foresight to rid his nation of WMDs, and strip his populations down to their spiritually most powerful and enduring state, their bare humanity. Whatever mistakes he may have made in his youth, in the end, he was smart enough to get rid of his stupid bombs and his weapons of mass destruction.

In a stroke of humanitarian genius, Mr. Hussein prevented his own militia groups from acquiring any form of WMD, knowing that if they fell into the hands of irregular Iraqi militias (who he doubtless foresaw would arise as "neighborhood" militias in the face of the overwhelming U.S. military forces), they would only bring harm to themselves and to their enemy, if they ever got control of them. So he got rid of them. Genius!

By upending his WMD programs, Mr. Saddam Hussein in effect, saved the lives of over 100,000 U.S. soldiers - who he doubtless saw were as innocent in their economic predicament as would be the Iraqi neighborhood militias in theirs. Was this military wisdom, which saved the lives of Iraqi citizens and U.S. soldiers, the act of a tyrant - the very breath of Evil itself, as all those Americans with their direct and personal knowledge profess with such surety?

Lastly, unlike the U.S., which since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, has been borrowing its currency from a foreign power (the Hollywood Dollar being floated as it is in the stench of an equally absurd Hollywood System of Trade Inbalance - a fictional currency loaned back to its own originating population, with interest owed to a foreign power, e.g. with interest charged against its own original and sovereign population, through a deception known as the Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System, a Zionist apparition which is neither open, nor market, nor federal, nor reserve) - the currency of the people of Iraq, the Dinar, under protection of "the tyrant" Mr. Saddam Hussein, was not to be borrowed from a foreign power, specifically the Zionist power that charges interest against the U.S. population for its own internal use of its own sovereign currency. Under his leadership, the Dinar was emitted into circulation by the sovereignty of the Iraqi nation itself, and thus from the domestic population which created their own scientific and reality-based economy to correspond with their own currency. (The test of formation of a Palestinian State will be in the answers to the questions, From whom, e.g. from what foreign power, shall the Palestinian people borrow their own sovereign currency? and who shall control the custom houses of the Palestinian people?)

Is this the signature of a tyrant, who would protect his people from Zionist usurpation, of the individual sovereignty of each citizen and the human dignity of their future grandchildren?

Or, might not Mr. Hussein’s system of honesty in banking, and in the sovereign emission of Iraqi currency, be seen as a threat to the racists and pedophiles who now control the institutions of credit and the emission of new currency in the United States?

(For those who might not know, contrary to the universal bank frauds which lie at the heart of all of Marxist theorizing, be it Marxist left or Marxist right, the power to organize representative governments on principles of general welfare, and then to declare sovereignty and emit new currency in proportion to the growth of the physical economy of a population, is an act of internal and domestic human rights. (Marxist silence on this point of sovereignty over national institutions of credit, currency and customs, and his juxtaposition of the interests of financial capitalists against the interests of wandering mobs, where both were borrowing currency from apparitions like the Federal Reserve, are the key to understanding Marx as a fraudster.)

The power to organize into a sovereign government and emit a national currency is a basic human right, from God, inherent in everyone, who desires to participates in a scientific and reality based economy - that is the message of sovereignty and protectionism which U.S. Constitution of Hamilton represents, and that is the message for which the Zionists of the world have long filled their souls with the venom of jealousy and hatred.

Contrary to the predicates of Marx, which he plagiarized from Mandeville and Smith, the "means of production" does not emanate from offshore gambling houses - credit, when organized on principles of science, sovereignty and general welfare, as opposed to being emitted on principles of racism, eugenics and Hobbesian greed, can then be "matriculated" into forward economic motion, by proportionate circulation of new currency, from an internal banking house, and from that, scientific economic progress and lawful pursuit of happiness can be organized - without need to pay interest on use of fictitious "reserves" of Hollywood perverts.

Some in America will say, that they have direct and personal knowledge that Saddam Hussein dreamed of boiling his grandmothers in oil, and then cutting up their pickled flesh and serving it to his armies of hungry generals, his favorite Grandmother’s Caesar salad - at evening soirees softly illuminated by oil lamps glowing in his many open-air gardens, covered with shades made from the skins of his grandchildren - so evil was he, and so certain are the Americans, who claim universal and direct personal knowledge of their accusations.

Others will say, Saddam built castles for himself! His bathroom faucets were plated in gold and made in America! To which, one might ask, What was Saddam planning to do, take his American faucets with him? Were not "his" so-called castles dedicated to use as a government buildings? - the beauty of which, but for the rage of a few malcontents, was possibly appreciated by many Iraqi citizens. Private occupation - yes, but castle ownership - is that not more the Hollywood fantasy of American CEOs and British oligarchs. Was Saddam’s use of a government "castle" the action of a tyrant within his own culture?

Still others will say, but Saddam ordered, in a time of war some decades ago, an exemplary military response, the killing 148 persons who were planning to overthrow of his government.

Yes, perhaps he did respond, as a humanitarian leader should in time of war, when a band of assassins, arguably financed by a foreign power representing unregulated financial frauds of Wall Street pornographers and legislative frauds of Capitol Hill liars and pedophiles, were planning to create an economic chaos which would bring in an armed infestation of American baby-killers and pimps.

But the more important question might be, What American can lay claim to any standing by which he might accuse Mr. Hussein of brutality for this act, when, for example, a particular Governor of the State of Texas, oversaw the systematic and foreseeable murders of over 400 inmates in his prison system, each year he was in office, for the crime of Being Happy in Black Skin? And that is the murder rate in just one of the fifty state prison systems in the U.S., for a period of only one year.

What American has standing to accuse Mr. Hussein of brutality for making a public example, in time of war, of small band of assassins acting as if they were agents of a foreign power, when Americans are killing many times that number of their own population, for the crime of being Happy while Black?

Was Saddam Hussein a loser? - we shall see, for one day it shall be prophesied that, will come the day, the bravest men of the most powerful nation in the history of the world, will one day be reduced to trembling in their socks and quaking in their underpants, their Senators bedwetting themselves as they try to legislate reality from the dais of their lies, their wives shredding their own good Constitution for fear that their brave husbands might suffer another panic attack - panic brought on by an as yet unnamed form of psychological fear, that a bearded little Mickey Mouse from Yemen, who spends all his days and all his nights crawling about in caves, hiding, in mountainsides half way around the world, might poke his hairy little noggin out of a cave, and say Cocoo or something.

"Quick Honey, before he might say “cocoo”again, feed another page of the Constitution into the shredder “ cried the bravest of the brave in this hyper-powerful nation, "Osama bin Mickey Mouse might poke his nose out - Oh, dear! I feel another panic attack coming! quick! feed the shredder faster!!"

What might be the consequence, in this prophesy yet to come, should a nation of such brave men suddenly march themselves off into war, with supply lies extending half-way round the globe while CEOs are moving their factories to China, on the singular predicate that the pornographic anonymity of their media-lies is so invincible, the racist frauds of their financial-chimera so perpetual, the powers of their bombs so smart, that surely, God must, by comparison, be so stupid?

So, some may say, Saddam Hussein hanging at the end of a rope was a loser - others may be foolish enough to wonder : "But were his policies really those of a tyrant?"

So, there it is, a real mystery to join other mysteries of history. Will we ever know the truth? Or is that the reason for the indecent haste of the lynching of Saddam Hussein - to hide the truth?

Of Hangings and Hypocrisy: Saddam Hussein

hypocrisy

Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

So they hung the guy: 69 years old, and going to his death with dignity while his executioners came across as little more than unschooled adolescents - excited puppies - peeing all over themselves. What a way to go.

Guards taunted Saddam in final seconds

Saddam Hussein went to his death in a scornful exchange with the masked hangmen who taunted him even as the noose was tightened around his neck.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a fan of Hussein, or any despot, but there are certain facts that I have observed over the past few years that really give me pause.

Does anybody remember this little bit about Tony Blair back in the fall of 2002 in the run-up to the now discredited war against Iraq:

Blair defiant over Iraq - 10 September, 2002

[...]Speaking in Blackpool, Mr Blair tried to face down hostility to possible military action against Iraq by branding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein an "outlaw". [...]

Acknowledging opposition to action, Mr Blair was resolute, saying: "If we do not deal with the threat from this international outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or next, perhaps not even this year or the next.

"But it will at some point. And I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and did nothing." [...]

Mr Blair warned that Saddam Hussein was determined to build a nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal.

"To allow him to use the weapons he has or get the weapons he wants would be an act of gross irresponsibility and we should not countenance it," he said. [...]

Mr Blair's Iraq message was heard in silence, although without the heckling some had predicted.

Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT union, said the speech had done "nothing to convince" him or his delegation.

"He seems hell-bent on having a war with Iraq whatever is said," added Mr Crow.

Well, the dealt with Saddam and war is definitely engulfing the U.S. Seems that what should have been said back then is: "If we do not deal with the threats from Bush and Blair and the gang of Global Elitists and their Fascist agenda, it will erupt and engulf us. War on our doorsteps!"

Because, of course, now that they have hung the legally constituted leader of a sovereign nation (it is irrelevant that he was a despot or how he got into power; he was the Iraqi's personal problem, not ours.), a really nasty precedent has been set.

Let me point out another interesting thing I noticed back during those days of build-up to the illegal pre-emptive war on Iraq:: Bush and Blair and Cheney etc, were all ranting about how awful it would be for Saddam Hussein to have "the Bomb." Out of the other side of their mouths, they were ranting about how the U.S. and U.K. might be subjected to "suitcase nukes" by small gangs of terrorists. What always puzzled me was trying to figure out how terrorists could so easily get their hands on Nukes, but Iraq could nott???? I even wondered if they were confident that Saddam did have nukes, and they were just trying to provoke him to use them. But then, observing how they acted toward North Korea, who certifiably DID have nukes, I decided that no, the know that Saddam doesn't have nukes or they wouldn't be harassing him. So it is with all bullies: they never go up against anyone that can fight back.

Of course, there was the testimony of Scott Ritter who, subsequently, the Bush Admin worked very hard to smear:

Ex-inspector: Iraq not pursuing nuclear arms

(CNN) -- With increasing talk of U.S. military action to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a former U.N. weapons inspector spoke out Sunday against President Bush's position.

Scott Ritter, who is an American, addressed the Iraqi National Assembly on Sunday and said the United States "seems to be on the verge of making a historical mistake." He said the Bush administration has not substantiated its case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. [...]

Based upon my experience as a weapons inspector from 1991 to 1998, while we had serious concerns about unaccounted aspects of Iraq's weapons program, we did ascertain a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level of disarmament that included all of the production equipment and means of production used by Iraq to produce these weapons. - So if Iraq has weapons today, like President Bush says, clearly they would have had to reconstitute these capabilities since December 1998. And this is something that the Bush administration needs to make a better case for, especially before we talk about going to war. - Let's keep in mind that the reason why inspectors are out of Iraq isn't because Iraq kicked them out, but rather they were ordered out by the United States after the United States manipulated the inspection process to create a confrontation that led to Operation Desert Fox and then used intelligence information gathered by inspectors to target Iraqi government sites, including the security of Saddam Hussein.

And of course, everyone knows that Ritter was right and Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Blair were all wrong.

Hmmm... one would thing that being wrong on such a biggie as this one would get them all booted out in a flash! I mean, how can anybody put up with leaders that don't know beans from apple-butter? Bush has sure got the whole world in a hell of a mess now!

Anyway, back to Hussein and his hanging. He was convicted of "crimes against humanity". Speaking of crimes against humanity:

Our last occupation

Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all before in Iraq

Jonathan Glancey
Saturday April 19, 2003
The Guardian

No one, least of all the British, should be surprised at the state of anarchy in Iraq. We have been here before. We know the territory, its long and miasmic history, the all-but-impossible diplomatic balance to be struck between the cultures and ambitions of Arabs, Kurds, Shia and Sunni, of Assyrians, Turks, Americans, French, Russians and of our own desire to keep an economic and strategic presence there. [...]

Iraq is the product of a lying empire. The British carved it duplicitously from ancient history, thwarted Arab hopes, Ottoman loss, the dunes of Mesopotamia and the mountains of Kurdistan at the end of the first world war. Unsurprisingly, anarchy and insurrection were there from the start.

The British responded with gas attacks by the army in the south, bombing by the fledgling RAF in both north and south. When Iraqi tribes stood up for themselves, we unleashed the flying dogs of war to "police" them. Terror bombing, night bombing, heavy bombers, delayed action bombs (particularly lethal against children) were all developed during raids on mud, stone and reed villages during Britain's League of Nations' mandate. The mandate ended in 1932; the semi-colonial monarchy in 1958. But during the period of direct British rule, Iraq proved a useful testing ground for newly forged weapons of both limited and mass destruction, as well as new techniques for controlling imperial outposts and vassal states.

The RAF was first ordered to Iraq to quell Arab and Kurdish and Arab uprisings, to protect recently discovered oil reserves, to guard Jewish settlers in Palestine and to keep Turkey at bay. [...]

Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job. [...]

The U.S. is equally, and hypocritically guilty:

A dictator created then destroyed by America

By Robert Fisk

Saddam to the gallows. It was an easy equation. Who could be more deserving of that last walk to the scaffold - that crack of the neck at the end of a rope - than the Beast of Baghdad, the Hitler of the Tigris, the man who murdered untold hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis while spraying chemical weapons over his enemies? Our masters will tell us in a few hours that it is a "great day" for Iraqis and will hope that the Muslim world will forget that his death sentence was signed - by the Iraqi "government", but on behalf of the Americans - on the very eve of the Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice, the moment of greatest forgiveness in the Arab world.

But history will record that the Arabs and other Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question this weekend, a question that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers - what about the other guilty men? [...]

In the aftermath of the international crimes against humanity of 2001 we have tortured, we have murdered, we have brutalised and killed the innocent - we have even added our shame at Abu Ghraib to Saddam's shame at Abu Ghraib - and yet we are supposed to forget these terrible crimes as we applaud the swinging corpse of the dictator we created.

Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam's weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability.

And the mass killings we perpetrated in 2003 with our depleted uranium shells and our "bunker buster" bombs and our phosphorous, the murderous post-invasion sieges of Fallujah and Najaf, the hell-disaster of anarchy we unleashed on the Iraqi population in the aftermath of our "victory" - our "mission accomplished" - who will be found guilty of this? Such expiation as we might expect will come, no doubt, in the self-serving memoirs of Blair and Bush, written in comfortable and wealthy retirement. [...]

Then, of course, there's Israel - they DO have illegal nukes as was recently confirmed - not to mention this fact:

Israel admits using chemical weapons on Lebanon

Israel has acknowledged for the first time that it attacked Hezbollah targets during the second Lebanon war with phosphorus shells. White phosphorus causes very painful and often lethal chemical burns to those hit by it, and until recently Israel maintained that it only uses such bombs to mark targets or territory.

Remembering back to 2002 and the exchanges between Bush and Saddam reported in the media, I can't help but think that Saddam always came across as more intelligent and more dignified than the Bush gang.

In the end, based on the behavior of all concerned, who is to say that Saddam was as evil as Bush and Blair have painted him; after all, they are clearly hypocrites.

The Controversy of Zion

Douglas Reed's "The Controversy of Zion" now on the internet!

Commencing in 1951, as Britain's foremost World War II correspondent, he spent more than three years writing "The Controversy of Zion" - all 300.000 words of it. He completed the epilogue in 1956. Although there is correspondence to show that the book was once discussed with his publisher, the manuscript was never submitted, but remained for 22 years gathering dust in his home in Durban, South Africa.

Would he have loved the internet! Now, half a century later, it exists, and must assist in the dissemination of his powerful truth. Several chapters show how much he would have loved this possibility. Just as much as the zionist censors of the internet hate this breach in their worldwide brainwashing and control of the media.

In Europe during the years immediately before and after World War II, the name of Douglas Reed was on everyone's lips. His books were being sold by the tens of thousands. He was known with intimate familiarity throughout the English-speaking world by a vast army of fans. And then he was banished. Was it this book? Take a look at these chapters and judge for yourself.....

The Controversy of Zion

The Insane Brutality of the State of Israel

I found the following article today on Counterpunch. The thing is, how many similar articles were written in the 30s about the Nazis, warning the world of the fact they were comitting genocide, and no one paid any attention? What is it going to take to wake people up to the fact that the Holocaust IS happening again, only this time, it is being created and perpetrated by Israel itself?

Atrocities in the Promised Land

By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
former CIA analyst

Counterpunch

Words fail; ordinary terms are inadequate to describe the horrors Israel daily perpetrates, and has perpetrated for years, against the Palestinians. The tragedy of Gaza has been described a hundred times over, as have the tragedies of 1948, of Qibya, of Sabra and Shatila, of Jenin -- 60 years of atrocity perpetrated in the name of Judaism. But the horror generally falls on deaf ears in most of Israel, in the U.S. political arena, in the mainstream U.S. media. Those who are horrified -- and there are many -- cannot penetrate the shield of impassivity that protects the political and media elite in Israel, even more so in the U.S., and increasingly now in Canada and Europe, from seeing, from caring.

But it needs to be said now, loudly: those who devise and carry out Israeli policies have made Israel into a monster, and it has come time for all of us -- all Israelis, all Jews who allow Israel to speak for them, all Americans who do nothing to end U.S. support for Israel and its murderous policies -- to recognize that we stain ourselves morally by continuing to sit by while Israel carries out its atrocities against the Palestinians.

A nation that mandates the primacy of one ethnicity or religion over all others will eventually become psychologically dysfunctional. Narcissistically obsessed with its own image, it must strive to maintain its racial superiority at all costs and will inevitably come to view any resistance to this imagined superiority as an existential threat. Indeed, any other people automatically becomes an existential threat simply by virtue of its own existence. As it seeks to protect itself against phantom threats, the racist state becomes increasingly paranoid, its society closed and insular, intellectually limited. Setbacks enrage it; humiliations madden it. The state lashes out in a crazed effort, lacking any sense of proportion, to reassure itself of its strength.

The pattern played out in Nazi Germany as it sought to maintain a mythical Aryan superiority. It is playing out now in Israel. "This society no longer recognizes any boundaries, geographical or moral," wrote Israeli intellectual and anti-Zionist activist Michel Warschawski in his 2004 book Towards an Open Tomb: The Crisis of Israeli Society. Israel knows no limits and is lashing out as it finds that its attempt to beat the Palestinians into submission and swallow Palestine whole is being thwarted by a resilient, dignified Palestinian people who refuse to submit quietly and give up resisting Israel's arrogance.

We in the United States have become inured to tragedy inflicted by Israel, and we easily fall for the spin that automatically, by some trick of the imagination, converts

Israeli atrocities to examples of how Israel is victimized. But a military establishment that drops a 500-pound bomb on a residential apartment building in the middle of the night and kills 14 sleeping civilians, as happened in Gaza four years ago, is not a military that operates by civilized rules.

A military establishment that drops a 500-pound bomb on a house in the middle of the night and kills a man and his wife and seven of their children, as happened in Gaza four days ago, is not the military of a moral country.

A society that can brush off as unimportant an army officer's brutal murder of a 13-year-old girl on the claim that she threatened soldiers at a military post -- one of nearly 700 Palestinian children murdered by Israelis since the intifada began -- is not a society with a conscience.

A government that imprisons a 15-year-old girl -- one of several hundred children in Israeli detention -- for the crime of pushing and running away from a male soldier trying to do a body search as she entered a mosque is not a government with any moral bearings. (This story, not the kind that ever appears in the U.S. media, was reported in the London Sunday Times. The girl was shot three times as she ran away and was convicted to 18 months in prison after she came out of a coma.)

Critics of Israel note increasingly that Israel is self-destructing, nearing a catastrophe of its own making. Israeli journalist Gideon Levy talks of a society in "moral collapse."

Michel Warschawski writes of an "Israeli madness" and "insane brutality," a "putrefaction" of civilized society, that have set Israel on a suicidal course. He foresees the end of the Zionist enterprise; Israel is a "gang of hoodlums," he says, a state "that makes a mockery of legality and of civil morality. A state run in contempt of justice loses the strength to survive."

As Warschawski notes bitterly, Israel no longer knows any moral boundaries -- if it ever did. Those who continue to support Israel, who make excuses for it as it descends into corruption, have lost their moral compass.

Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession. She can be reached at kathy.bill@christison-santafe.com.

George W. Bush Is Dead To Me

Nation cringes as the worst president ever continues long, painful slog to the end

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, July 7, 2006

It is like some sort of virus. It is like some sort of weird and painful rash on your face that makes you embarrassed to walk out the door and so you sit there day after day, waiting for it to go away, slathering on ointment and Bactine and scotch. And yet still it lingers.

Some days the pain is so searing and hot you want to cut off your own head with a nail file. Other days it is numb and pain-free and seemingly OK, to the point where you think it might finally be all gone and you allow yourself a hint of a whisper of a positive feeling, right up until you look in the mirror, and scream.

George W. Bush is just like that.

Everyone I know has had enough. Everyone I know is just about done. There is this threshold of happy deadened disgust, this point where the body simply resigns itself to the pain, a point where the disease, the poison has seeped so deeply into the bones that you just have to laugh and shrug it all off and go for a drink. Or 10.

I was having cocktails recently with a group of people, among whom were two lifetime Republicans, each in his 60s, corporate businessmen, one admittedly slightly more moderate than the other (to the point where, after once hearing a senator read off a long list of Bush's hideous environmental atrocities, actually let his conscience lead his choice and ended up voting for Kerry) but nevertheless both devoted members of the party.

Bush came up, as a topic, as a cancer, as a fetid miasma in the air. They were both shaking their heads. They were sighing heavily. They were both, in a word, disgusted. The more staunchly conservative of the two even went so far as to say he was so embarrassed and humiliated by this president, by this administration, so appalled at all the war atrocities and the wiretapping and the misuse of law, the fiscal irresponsibility and the abuse of the lower classes and the outright arrogance, that if the Dems could somehow produce a decent moderate candidate with a brain, he'd have zero problem switching allegiances and voting for him. Or her.

It may not sound like much. It may not seem like a major shift. But it is, in its way, sort of massive. For thoughtful Repubs with a conscience (they actually exist, I have seen them), there is little left to defend. There is little this administration has done among all categories of ostensible GOP values that they can look to with any sort of pride. Medicare? Shrinking the budget? Smaller government? Less intervention in our lives? Reduced spending? Increased respect in the international community? Responsible international citizen? Ha. Name your topic, BushCo has failed. Spectacularly. Intentionally.

Indeed, countless Dems were disappointed with Clinton's behavior during Monicagate. Many were ashamed that he would cheapen the office so badly by such trashy moral behavior.

But that was just a cheap little affair (our allies never understood all the fuss anyway). This was never the attitude toward Clinton's politics, his capacity to understand complex issues, his astounding political savvy. No one anywhere doubted he made the country richer, more environmentally conscious, more stable, more respected and admired. Clinton was globally adored not only for his charisma but for his contributions to world peace. Plus he could actually point to Afghanistan on a map.

What a difference a handful of years makes. Now, overseas, we are a joke. A threat. A toxin. We are considered reckless and arrogant and ignorant, dangerous not just to the rest of the world but to the overall health of the planet. No one anywhere understands how a man like Bush can be the leader of the Free World, stolen election or no.

Sure, smarter Europeans know full well that the United States is deeply divided between the pseudo-religious right-wing warmongers who control a tiny cadre of the powerful elite, and, well, everyone else. It does not matter. America's reputation as a powerful and respected diplomatic peacekeeper, as the nation that sets the standards for human rights and economic freedom and choice, is hobbled. Crippled. Is very nearly dead. How quickly can we recover? How much damage has been done? History will tell, and it will be ugly indeed.

Interesting feature interview with Al Gore in Rolling Stone recently. Gore mentions two amazing things: one is the discussion he's had with generals regarding Iraq, with one coming right out and admitting that Bush's disastrous Iraq war will go down as the worst invasion in American history, our greatest misstep, our most costly and debilitating mistake. Among top brass in the know, of this there is little question.

The other was about the discussions Gore's had with various major corporate CEOs about Gore's pet issue, global warming, and how obvious it is that 15 minutes after BushCo leaves office, we will have a radically new global warming policy. In other words, Bush won't do a thing about it in the next two years, despite how obvious it shall become that we are in crisis, simply because he can't risk finally coming out and admitting yet another enormous policy disaster. Not to mention how nearly six years of enviro policy abuse, from air quality to water to forestry to pollution deregulation on all his industrial pals, can't be undone with a smirk and a prayer.

Which is just another way of saying we are currently stuck. We are swirling around the bottom of the drain, clinging on to anything that might hold us from going under for just a little while longer. We have to let the neocon disease run its course, and just pray that at the end of it all the scarring and the pain and damage will not be so permanent, and so hideous, that we can't be seen in public for a decade.

This is where it stands: Bush can in no way risk alienating the ultra-right-wing bonk-job contingent that put him in office (they are, considering Bush's 32-percent approval rating, the only ones left even remotely supporting him -- even though, according to many estimates, they're starting to abandon him, too), and hence all policy and all agenda items from here on out will be even more vicious and desperate in an attempt to shore up the base. Hence trying to mutilate the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Hence attacking the New York Times and claiming newspapers are endangering American lives.

In other words, Bush's latest nasty, Rove-designed salvos and upcoming attacks to save a sliver of power and pride and sneering GOP control are just the beginning.

However -- praise Jesus and pass the scotch -- they are the beginning of the end.

Ex-Bush Official Exposes 9/11 As Inside Job

Posted on Signs of The Times Monday, May 8th, 2006 RINF

An enthusiastic standing-room-only crowd packed the Wisconsin Historical Society auditorium Saturday to hear ex-Bush Administration insider Morgan Reynolds prosecute top administration and military officials for the 9/11 inside job. Reynolds indicted Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Meyers, confessed WTC demolisher and insurance-fraudster Larry Silverstein, and others for mass murder, Conspiracy, and other charges including high treason. The enthusiastic response from the overflow crowd was a de facto vote for conviction on all counts.

The former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, showed that the defendants conspired to create a false cover story of suicide hijackings in order to "blow the World Trade Center to kingdom come" with explosives-a shock-and-awe psy-op designed to coerce the American people into supporting a pre-planned "long war" in the Middle East, massive increases in military spending, and the rollback of Constitutional civil liberties. Reynolds stated that everyone in the worldwide intelligence community knew that 9/11 was an inside job as soon as it happened, with the obvious stand-down of US air defenses, controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and non-protection of the President in Florida being the biggest tip-offs. The head of the Russian equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former head of the German intelligence service Andreas Von Bulow, former National Security Agency official Wayne Madsen, and former MI-6 agent David Schayler have all openly called 9/11 an inside job, while former CIA official Ray McGovern has confirmed this directly in private, and indirectly in public by way of his ringing endorsement of David Ray Griffin's work on 9/11. Reynolds, who served as George W. Bush's Labor Department Chief Economist in 2001-2002, believes that a 9/11 truth victory is looming on the near-term horizon. He predicted that one or more of the 9/11 insiders will soon "give it up" and come forward with what they know, saying "Remember, you heard it here first." He said that most of those complicit in the attacks did not realize how over-the-top the plot was, due to the need-to-know compartmentalization of such covert operations, and that some semi-complicit individuals will probably be coming forward. Reynolds said that most of his email acquaintances are now worried that the 9/11 truth movement is going to win, triggering the greatest Constitutional crisis in U.S. history. For Reynolds, this is less a cause for worry than for rejoicing: "We need a Constitutional crisis!" Reynolds argued that 9/11 truth is a matter of extreme urgency, since the perpetrators seem to be preparing another 9/11-style terror hoax as a pretext for attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. He said that exposing the 9/11 fraud is the best way to stop Cheney's plan to stage an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran, and the military draft and Pinochet-style prison camps and death squads for dissenters that might accompany it. Reynolds urged the audience to help educate the American public about the 9/11 inside job. Personal contact with family and friends, the internet, alternative Media, and public events like this are all good educational strategies, he said, adding that a demonstration of 100,000 9/11 truth supporters at Ground Zero next year would be hard for the Media to ignore. Politicians and the Media will help expose the 9/11 inside job, he said, only after the growing grassroots movement reaches critical mass. The organizers of Reynolds' talk urged audience members to come to the upcoming international 9/11 truth conference in Chicago, 9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future, June 2nd-4th, 2006: http://911revealingthetruth.org

Tinfoil Hats Promoted by the Gov?

This is really a strange world we live in, you know? Two things caught my eye today. First item was on the inside back page of the April 15 issue of NewScientist magazine which says:

Clothing for the paranoid

TINFOIL hats may protect the brain from dangerous radio frequencies and mind-control rays. Or they may not, according to a group of students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who tested three standard designs with equipment costing $250,000. They found the foil actually amplified some radio signals - especially those on frequencies used by the US government - by a factor of up to 100. In summing up, they say: "It requires no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC [Federal Communications Commission]. We hope this report will encourage the paranoid community to develop improved helmet designs to avoid falling prey to these shortcomings." (http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/)

Of course the real problem with the classic tinfoil hat is that wearing one makes you look like a nut. Now Less EMF, a company in Albany, New York, allows you to play safe with more style. It makes a line of clothing woven from thread with a core of copper-silver wire that provides electromagnetic shielding (www.lessemf.com/personal.html).

With a baseball-style cap woven from the fabric, you can "provide your brain a quiet place without interference to your mental processes from RF radiation", the company's website says. At $29.95, it costs much more than a roll of aluminium foil, but wins hands down for style. For protection at work you can buy a shirt woven from metal-core thread for $89.95. If your budget is tight, Less EMF also offers shielded undergarments - best worn over standard cotton ones to keep the conductive fabric from touching your skin. A camisole is $38, boxer shorts and T-shirts are $64. And for a worry-free night's sleep, you can shield yourself and your bed with a $499.95 canopy woven from silver/nylon thread.

I thought to myself YEAH! That's why the tinfoil hat thing got to be so popular! The government was subtly promoting it just so they can make all the tinfoil hat wearers crazy! I'm semi-joking... but maybe not. The other item came this morning. Seems that UK's "Prince Harry" has demanded to be sent to war, and that means, I guess, Iraq. You know, I wondered what the "royal family's" view of the war was. I guess I harbored secret hopes that since, Bonnie Prince Charlie was sort of "pro-Muslim," that maybe they were closet anti-war. I was hoping that maybe Blair and his policies were anathema to the old girl and her brood of welfare cheats. If they were, and if they could ever manage to speak against the war, it might have made a difference for the planet and thus might have justified all the public assistance that gets paid to that family of do-nothings. This sort of shot that hope down. In short, being heriditary "royalty" doesn't make a person any smarter or more human... and that's another good reason to do away with monarchy altogether.

"It Can't Happen Here"

NEWSLETTER #81 April 7, 2006 Dave McGowan The Center for an Informed America Published on Signs of the Times At the risk of offending anyone out there, I really need to ask a question here: what the hell is the matter with you people? And by 'you people,' I don't mean specifically the regular readers of these newsletters, but rather the American people in general. So to all you John and Jane Q. Publics out there, let me rephrase the question: what the hell does it take to get a reaction out of you? I realize, of course, that there has been a serious dumbing-down of American society and culture over the years. And I realize that government operatives have virtually complete control over the flow of information, so that virtually every thing you read, hear or see is, at best, an approximation of reality. And I realize that you have been systematically conditioned, over the course of many decades, to revere the institutions of this society - the very same institutions whose spokesmen are routinely called upon to serve you up a nice steaming platter of lies. None of that, however, fully explains the near complete paralysis of the American people as a whole. So let me ask the question once again: what the hell does it take to get a reaction out of you? Let's quickly run through a partial list of things that, thus far, have failed to inspire you to summon your inner Howard Beales: two consecutive stolen presidential elections; back-to-back wars, both of them unprovoked and brazenly illegal, with more on the horizon; the deaths of well over two thousand of your sons and daughters in Central Asia and the Middle East, and the maiming and disfiguring of thousands more; the ongoing slaughter of tens of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis; countless corporate/political scandals directly tied to the Bush mob; diligent efforts by a veritable army of 9-11 skeptics (including a growing list of people that some of you might find more credible than us wacky Internet ‘conspiracy theorists') to convince you that the official story of the ‘terrorist' attacks of September 11 is a nothing more than a fairy tale; passage of the Patriot Act, and various other attacks on your civil, privacy, and due process rights; the entirely preventable deaths of an unknown number of people in New Orleans; military occupation of southern Louisiana; sanctioning of secret military tribunals; revelations of the widespread use of, and official sanction of, various forms of torture; getting slapped in the face with the Abu Ghraib photos; indefinite, warrantless detentions without access to legal counsel; illegal domestic surveillance; open witch-hunting of ‘liberal' members of academia (though it is perfectly acceptable for a former Phoenix Program assassin and torturer to educate your children); gross invasions of your privacy - at airports, at sporting events, when entering many public buildings, even when sitting at home on your computer; massive cuts in social spending, even while hundreds of billions of dollars are spent waging war and militarizing domestic law enforcement; massive tax cuts that primarily benefit corporate America; the steady erosion of the nation's education and healthcare systems; trashing of the environment and environmental protections; the accumulation of an almost unfathomable level of debt; and the act of grand theft masquerading as Medicare ‘reform.' Through all of this and more, you have sat silently by. So again I must ask: what the hell will it take? How much worse does it have to get? How much worse will you allow it to get? And if you continue to sit by and do nothing, who do you think is going to save you from the increasingly bleak future we face? Who do you think is going to stop all the madness for you? Amazingly enough, some of you actually seem to believe that a ‘censure' resolution is the answer to the nation's woes, as if a firm pronouncement of 'Bad George!' - perhaps coupled with a swat with a rolled-up newspaper - will effect a drastic change in the national landscape. Others seem to think that impeachment proceedings will rid the country of its diseased organs, but how you have convinced yourselves of such a bizarre notion is beyond my level of understanding. I know that a lot of phony ‘progressive' websites regularly offer up such claims as some sort of political pacifier, but that doesn't mean that you have to eagerly suckle that teat. Who do you think is going to conduct impeachment proceedings, or pass a censure resolution? The venerable United States Congress? The very same Congress that just overwhelmingly passed an extension of the Patriot Act? As I recall, when the act was first passed, you dutifully bought into the lie that many of the congressmen who voted 'Aye' did so only because they hadn't had time to actually read the legislation. Buying into that lie, of course, allowed you to preserve your image of Congress as some sort of effective counterbalance to the gang in the White House. But four years, one would think, should have been adequate time for even the slowest readers among our elected representatives to catch up on what it was that they passed into law. So I'm curious to know: what sort of mental gymnastics are required to still view this Congress as a body interested in, or capable of, reigning in this administration? What actions by this Congress give you hope for the future? The regular allocation of tens of billions in additional dollars to fund an illegal war based on fully-exposed lies? The moves to retroactively legalize Bush's illegal domestic surveillance programs? The Medicare ‘reform' bill? The bankruptcy ‘reform' bill? The sterling work done investigating the 9-11 attacks and the unnatural disaster in New Orleans? The routine rubber-stamping of reactionary political appointees? The fast-tracking of ‘free trade' legislation, predictably coupled with the wholesale ‘outsourcing' of jobs and widespread attacks on wages and benefits? The fact that, for five years, this Congress has marched in total lockstep with the Bush administration, sparing King George the trouble of having to veto a single piece of legislation? McCain and BushTrust me when I say that I too would like to hold onto a glimmer of hope that America's cancer can be excised through normal political channels, so please tell me what it is that I am missing? What is it that you so desperately cling to? Is it the occasional meaningless posturing by the likes of Russ Feingold, John McCain, Ron Paul, and Harry Reid? Is it because there are occasionally a few token dissenters in the crowd when Congress votes on a major piece of legislation? Or is it because you think that the midterm elections are going to magically usher in a new Congress with a new mindset? Are you one of those who hold out hope that elections are going to fix things? Have you convinced yourself that as long as you show up at your polling place every two years, you are doing your part to halt the headlong plunge into overt fascism? Some of you think we can just ride out these bad times for a few more years, until the next presidential election rolls around, when some great and wise Democrat will take office and miraculously roll back the landscape to the way it was before the bad men came riding into town. Of course, you held out that same hope leading up to the 2004 elections, because you knew, with a certainty, that the American people were not going to confirm the appointment of this would-be president. And you were right. But guess what? It didn't matter, because it had already been established that in the twenty-first century, election results need not correlate with actual votes cast. And so you watched it happen once again - after patiently waiting for four years to deliver your message to Washington, you watched passively as another presidential election was stolen in broad daylight - and now you sit back and wait once again. You wait for Hillary Clinton to come and save the day, because you see a Hillary presidency as a backdoor way to get your hero, Bill Clinton, back in the White House. But as I noted just a few newsletters ago, it becomes more obvious with each passing week that Bill and Hillary are wearing Team Bush jerseys. Just weeks after posting that newsletter, it was revealed (albeit discretely) that your hero, Bill Clinton, was a key player working behind the scenes to facilitate his buddy George's Dubai ports deal. Anton LeVay and John Kerry And yet still you hold out hope, just as you held out hope that George's Skull & Bones fraternity brother (seen here cozying up to another kindred spirit, the late Anton LaVey of the Church of Satan) would end the madness. You hold out hope even though all the Democratic Party's potential presidential contenders have demonstrated repeatedly that they will only attack Bush from the political right. They will not question the underlying legitimacy of the ‘War on Terrorism,' they will only assert that that ‘war' is not being waged aggressively enough. And they will not question the legality of the war in Iraq, they will only question how that war is being waged. None of the outrages committed by this administration, either individually or collectively, have awakened you from your slumber, so I seriously doubt that there is anything that I could reveal here that would provide the necessary wake-up call. Nevertheless, I will give it my best shot. What if I were to tell you, for starters, that our benevolent leaders have already got the ball rolling on an ambitious plan to build concentration camps? Right here on American soil! You would, of course, laugh heartily as you dismissed such sensational claims as the product of the overactive imagination of some Internet crackpots - which is exactly why I'm not going to tell you any such thing. Instead, I'm going to let Halliburton break the news to you, in the form of a press release issued on January 24, 2006. You can read it for yourself if you like; it's posted on the company's website. If you stop by for a visit, this is what you'll find: ARLINGTON, Virginia - KBR announced today that its Government and Infrastructure division has been awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency. KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton (NYSE:HAL). With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five-year term, consisting of a one-year based period and four one-year options, the competitively awarded contract will be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District … The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs. The contingency support contract provides for planning and, if required, initiation of specific engineering, construction and logistics support tasks to establish, operate and maintain one or more expansion facilities. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. (Haliburton article) Since there is little indication that America is about to be bum-rushed by 'an emergency influx of immigrants,' it seems safe to say that the real purpose of these ‘detention centers' is to 'support the rapid development' of these mysterious, unspecified 'new programs.' It doesn't take much reading between the lines to recognize that the 'new programs' will involve mass detentions following the next disaster to strike the country, whether it be real or imagined, and whether it be of natural or unnatural origins. The good news here is that, should you find yourself suddenly occupying a room at Guantanamo on the Pacific, you won't have to worry about having a lot of idle time on your hands. That's because the U.S. Army has an ambitious Civilian Inmate Labor Program in effect that you can read all about right here: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf. As you can see, this report, direct from the Headquarters of the Department of the Army, 'provides guidance for establishing and managing civilian inmate labor programs on Army installations. It [also] provides guidance on establishing prison camps on Army installations.' As I'm sure you'll agree, this sounds like a really great program. First of all, it insures that all the shuttered military bases in the country will still provide a benefit to society. And it provides an answer to that vexing question: in this time of greatly increased militarism, why all the base closures in recent years? Turns out they make great forced-labor camps. And everyone wins: the Army is provided with 'a source of labor at no direct cost to Army installations to accomplish tasks that would not be possible otherwise due to the manning and funding constraints under which the Army operates,' and you, the inmate, are 'provid[ed] meaningful work.' Think of the possibilities here, folks: one day you're out demonstrating against a clearly illegal and immoral war, and the next day you're doing the Army's shit work at a military base cum concentration camp! Due to your new employer's 'funding constraints,' brought on by the difficulty of operating with a paltry annual budget of less than half a trillion dollars, 'the Army is not interested in, nor can afford, any relationship with a corrections facility if that relationship stipulates payment for civilian inmate labor,' so it's a pretty safe bet that you won't be getting paid. In fact, your new employer will pretend that you don't really work there at all: 'Inmates are not Department of Army employees and are not regarded as such. Inmates must not be referred to as employees. They will not be paid from Department of the Army funds, nor receive any personal or private gratuity for work accomplished or services rendered. Interservice, interagency, or interdepartmental support agreements and/or memoranda of agreement with the corrections facility must not create any appearance of employment of inmates.' This DoD program ostensibly applies only to federal inmates, but there are numerous loopholes that allow for state and local inmates to be drafted into a little forced labor as well. In fact, the program appears to provide incentive for a massive expansion of the number of state and local inmates (already the highest in the world, both in absolute numbers and on a per capita basis). 'Inmate labor programs using State and local civilian inmates,' you see, is allowed if said inmates are drawn from 'on-post prison camps.' And 'Section 2667, Title 10, United States code governing leases of DoD property allows acceptance of inmate labor as payment in kind for real property leased to correctional systems for use as prison camps.' In other words, any correctional entity can acquire facilities in which to incarcerate you at no cost. So, like I said, everyone wins with this arrangement: the Army gets a steady supply of free slave labor, the correctional system gets free space to house additional inmates, and you are given meaningful employment. Sounds like a sweet deal for everyone. In addition to the Civilian Inmate Labor Program, the Department of Defense has also drafted an ambitious new Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support. In the Foreword, we find that 'Protecting the United States from direct attack is the highest priority of the Department of Defense.' This is apparently a new policy, since the Defense Department obviously did nothing to protect the United States either before or during what were purportedly 'direct attacks' on the United States on September 11, 2001. Reading on, we learn that 'The military has traditionally secured the United States by projecting power overseas. While our current missions abroad continue to play a vital role for the security of our Nation, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 emphasized that we are confronting fundamentally different challenges from those faced during the Cold War.' Different challenges, of course, require different responses. The 'terrorists,' you see, seek to 'exploit the openness of our society to their advantage.' Even with all the changes we have seen in the last several years, our society is apparently still entirely too open. The solution to this problem, according to the Pentagon, is to take the military power that we have traditionally projected overseas, and project it right here in the Fatherland Homeland. What we need is an 'active, layered defense' that is 'global, seamlessly integrating US capabilities in the forward regions of the world, the global commons of space and cyberspace, in the geographic approaches to US territory, and within the United States. It is a defense in depth.' Ahh, yes, what we need is military control of everything - the nation, the world, the heavens, and the cyber world. What we need to do is create a world where ‘terrorists,' as well as garden-variety dissidents and other persons-of-interest, will have no place to run and no place to hide. Because we are, you see, 'a nation at war, a war whose length and scope may be unprecedented.' To keep pace with this changing and dangerous world, the 'DoD will continue to transform US military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the forward regions, approaches, US homeland, and global commons.' The DoD wants us to know that the 'Department of Defense is responsible for homeland defense,' and the 'Department is prepared to conduct homeland defense missions whenever the President, exercising his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, authorizes military action.' The DoD also wants us to know that it 'maintains land forces capable of responding rapidly, when so directed, to threats against DoD personnel, defense critical infrastructure, or other domestic targets.' Among other duties, these land forces can be used 'to support civilian law enforcement in responding to civil disturbances,' or to provide 'critical CBRNE [chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive mass casualty attacks] consequence management capabilities in support of civil authorities … DoD must therefore equip and train these war-fighting forces, as necessary, for domestic CBRNE consequence management.' So the plan, it would appear, is to call in combat troops to deal with a variety of domestic situations, including 'civil disturbances' and 'manag[ing] the consequences of an attack or a disaster.' As we all remember from last summer, the DoD and the DHS have already run practice drills in the state of Louisiana, with rather predictable results. In addition to the illegal domestic deployment of U.S. military forces, the Pentagon's plan for Total War also includes a massive amount of 'information sharing across traditional military-civilian boundaries.' Already in the works are the development of 'automated tools to improve data fusion, analysis, and management, to track systematically large amounts of data, and to detect, fuse, and analyze aberrant patterns of activity,' as well as the development of 'capabilities to cue, surveil, identify, engage, and access potential threats in real time. Detection and tracking capabilities must be all-weather, around-the-clock, and effective against moving targets.' The grave threat we face today - as opposed to the rather quaint threat of global nuclear annihilation that we faced during the Cold War - 'necessitates an unprecedented degree of shared situational awareness among Federal agencies, with state, local, tribal, and private entities, and between the United States and its key foreign partners.' Note that the inclusion of 'private entities' on the information sharing list is undoubtedly a reference to quasi-governmental paramilitary groups like the infamous Blackwater, which has already been deployed domestically in New Orleans. Note also that, throughout Latin America and other parts of the world, 'information sharing' with such mercenary groups has usually involved corrupt governments supplying hit lists and/or round-up lists. What?! Death squads? People gone missing in the middle-of-the-night? Here?! In America?! Why, that's just absurd! Things like that can't happen here, in the land of the free and the home of the brave! That is what you're thinking, isn't it? That is the thought that you have always used to comfort yourself. As long as you can remain firm in your commitment to the idea that nothing truly bad can happen in the greatest nation on earth, then you can continue to ignore all evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter that Halliburton has announced that it has a contract to build detention centers, because you know that the notion of concentration camps in America is absurd. It doesn't matter that the Army is operating a Civilian Inmate Labor Program, because you know that the very idea of forced-labor camps in America is ridiculous. It doesn't matter that the Department of Defense has drafted an ambitious plan to deploy military forces domestically, because you know that the Posse Comitatus Act forbids any such thing. Not too many years ago, your list of things that 'can't happen here' probably included indefinite ‘detentions' in horrendous conditions without access to legal counsel. It probably also included the official endorsement of torture and assassination as ‘war' fighting tools. It undoubtedly included the domestic deployment of military forces and mercenaries to deal with the aftermath of a hurricane. And it surely included the installation of an illegitimate president through massive voter fraud and Supreme Court intervention. It probably even included open pronouncements that America is now in a state of endless war. None of that could happen here - you said so yourself, if I recall correctly - but all of it and more already has. Concentration camps and forced labor camps can't happen here, but the plans have already been drawn up and the contracts have already been awarded. How many more things that 'can't happen here' have to happen before you come to terms with the fact that America does not have some sort of invisible shield around it that protects you from the evils that befall other nations? Before you answer, let's take a look at some of the other ways that the Pentagon is keeping America safe from the ever-present threat of ‘terrorism.' According to the Strategy for Homeland Defense report, the DoD will 'ensure persistent wide-area surveillance and reconnaissance of the US maritime approaches,' which will, of course, 'require that Navy forces be placed under periodic command and control of US Northern Command as appropriate.' That seems fair. After all, if we've already signed up the Army, the Air Force, the Department of Homeland Security, Blackwater, and federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement entities, it wouldn't be right to deny the Navy the opportunity to do some domestic policing. Reading on through the DoD report, we learn that 'Implementation of the Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support may require several new technological investments. Three areas of particular interest for further exploration are advanced information and communications technology, new generations of sensors, and non-lethal capabilities.' 'The placement of sensors on high altitude platforms,' we are told, 'including new generations of unmanned aerial vehicles, satellites, and aerostats, could allow sustained surveillance of wide areas of the earth's surface.' The Pentagon is also working feverishly to develop 'an urban surveillance system that would use computers and thousands of cameras to track, record and analyze the movement of every vehicle in a city. Named ‘Combat Zones That See,' the project is designed to help the U.S. military protect its troops abroad and fight in cities overseas. Police, scientists and privacy experts say the unclassified technology could be adapted easily to spy on Americans. The CTS' centerpiece is groundbreaking computer software that is capable of automatically identifying vehicles by size, color, shape and license tag, or drivers and passengers by face … The project is being overseen by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is helping the Pentagon develop technologies for combating terrorism and fighting wars in the 21st century. Its other projects include developing software that scans databases of everyday transactions and personal records worldwide to predict terrorist attacks and creating a computerized diary that would record and analyze everything a person says, sees, hears, reads or touches.' (Washington Times) As for so-called non-lethal weapons, 'potential application to homeland defense missions include: counter-personnel technology, used to deny entry into a particular area, temporarily incapacitate individuals or groups, and clear facilities, structures, and areas,' and 'counter-material technology, to disable, neutralize, or deny an area to vehicles, vessels, and aircraft, or disable particular items of equipment.' In other words, what is referred to as ‘non-lethal technology' is actually crowd-control technology. And ‘terrorists' don't, as far as I know, tend to gather in crowds. Angry Americans tend to gather in crowds, for the purpose of exercising their alleged constitutional right to assemble. Or at least they should. Over the last several years, New Scientist magazine has taken a look at some of this emerging crowd-control technology. In June 2004, the publication revealed that 'Weapons that can incapacitate crowds of people by sweeping a lightning-like beam of electricity across them are being readied for sale to military and police forces in the US and Europe. At present, commercial stun guns target one person at a time, and work only at close quarters. The new breed of non-lethal weapons can be used on many people at once and operate over far greater distances.' As the manufacturer of one of these weapons systems gushed, 'We will be able to fire a stream of electricity like water out of a hose at one or many targets in a single sweep.' (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6014) In March 2005, we learned that the 'US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed. But pain researchers are furious that work aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon. And they fear that the technology will be used for torture.' The explicit goal of the research is to create a weapon capable of causing 'the maximum pain possible.' (New Scientist) Returning once again to the Pentagon strategy paper, we find that the Department of Defense will 'identify opportunities to share appropriate non-lethal capabilities with domestic law enforcement agencies.' The Pentagon, it seems, is all about sharing. And that's a good thing, since these weapons systems will certainly come in handy at those times when batons, pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bags and tasers just aren't enough to break up a legally assembled crowd of pissed-off American citizens. Elsewhere on the technology front, 'A scientist funded by the US government has deliberately created an extremely deadly form of mousepox, a relative of the smallpox virus, through genetic engineering. The new virus kills all mice even if they have been given antiviral drugs as well as a vaccine that would normally protect them. The work has not stopped there. The cowpox virus, which infects a range of animals including humans, has been genetically altered in a similar way … the research brings closer the prospect of pox viruses that cause only mild infections in humans being turned into diseases lethal even to people who have been vaccinated.' (New Scientist) (For much more on ‘emerging technologies,' see Sunshine Project. I would provide some excerpts here, but the report really should be read in its entirety to fully grasp all the disturbing avenues of research currently being conducted in US labs, including the development of ethnic-specific biological weapons, weapons aimed at wiping out food supplies, reproductive control weapons, and the resurrection of the Spanish Flu, last seen wiping out some 20-40 million people.) So there you have it, folks: concentration camps, forced labor, martial law, global surveillance, sadistic forms of crowd control, genocidal biological weapons - all this and more is looming in the not-too-distant future. And our trusty servants in Washington will have no trouble finding some handy justification for fully activating and expanding these programs. A seemingly natural disaster, such as an earthquake or hurricane, could serve as the trigger. So too could another ‘terrorist' attack, and the Homeland Defense report promises us that more are coming: 'Terrorists will seek and potentially gain surreptitious entry into the United States to conduct mass casualty attacks against Americans on US soil … Terrorists and/or rogue states will attempt multiple, simultaneous mass casualty attacks against the US homeland.' These triggering events could themselves be triggered by any sudden increase in the anger level of average Americans. Because the truth is, you see, that beneath all the bluster and arrogance, the Washington gang is terrified of you. It's hard to believe, I know, but it is true nonetheless. Even though you have sit idly by while your beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights have been thoroughly trampled over, the powers-that-be view you as a sleeping giant that, if fully awakened, is capable of laying waste to their cherished plans. Although they have convinced you that you are utterly powerless, they know that that is not the case. They know that they would not be able to contain the seething anger of the masses should it ever fully surface. They know the fury that will be unleashed should the dormant beast awaken to the fact it has been deliberately and systematically lied to. And they fear that some day soon one of their provocations will awaken you. They will never let you see that fear, of course, for to do so would shatter the illusion that they are omnipotent and you are powerless to resist. But the fear is there, lurking just beneath the arrogant façade. In Washington, in the halls of academia, and in the newsrooms of Fox and CNN and ABC and NBC and CBS, the fear is palpable. It can be found in all the institutions of society that are complicit in serving you up your daily portion of lies. Their greatest fear is facing the beast at full strength, for they know that if that day of reckoning ever comes, there will be hell to pay for their transgressions against the American people. And so they try to weaken the beast while it lies dormant - by demoralizing it, and by breaking it up into smaller, more manageable pieces, preferably pieces that can be played against each other. And as long as the American people continue to play along, by allowing Washington to dictate the rules of this game, the beast will remain too weak to fight back against the considerable oppressive powers of the state. The rest of the world has a better understanding of how this game must be played. Turn on your television set and you might catch a glimpse of a few million French citizens taking to the streets to express their anger at their government's labor policies. Turn to another channel and you might see half-a-million Latino immigrants marching through the streets of Los Angeles to protest proposed immigration reforms. And yet the American people, as a whole, cannot summon the energy to take to the streets even as your sons and daughters are being fed into the meat grinder in Iraq. Make no mistake about it: those images from Paris and Los Angeles scare the shit out of the criminals in Washington, as can be discerned from the tone of the news coverage provided by the Western media. They look at those masses of humanity and begin picturing such scenes in every big city across this nation. And then they imagine public anger becoming so widespread that they begin to lose control of the militarized law enforcement agencies all across the country that they rely upon to keep the masses at bay. So what's it going to be, people? Are you going to continue to sit passively in the bleachers, or are you going to take to the streets in numbers previously unseen on these shores? Are you going to initiate a general strike and shut corporate America down? Are you going to storm the offices of all the major media outlets and let the opinion-shapers know that aiding and abetting the criminals in Washington is itself a crime, and one that has severe consequences? Is it not your responsibility to act to protect your children if they are in danger? And can we not agree that virtually all of the key figures in the media are not merely messengers, as we are to believe, but rather highly-paid propagandists for the State? And can we not also agree that the propaganda being sold poses a direct threat to our children's futures? If a ‘common criminal,' so to speak, were posing a direct and very serious threat to your children's safety, would you sit idly by doing nothing? Is it not perfectly obvious that we would not be in our current predicament if we had anything resembling a free and independent press? Washington would still harbor a desire to implement an overtly fascist agenda, to be sure, but without a compliant media machine to obscure the truth and shape public opinion, those plans would remain but a dream. Without a compliant media, we would not be living in a post-911 world, because no ‘terrorist' attacks would have occurred on September 11, 2001. Why? Because without a propaganda machine masquerading as a free press, such an audacious and patently fraudulent story could have never been sold to the American people, just as the lie-based wars in Central Asia and the Middle East could have never been marketed. When your children come to you ten or twenty years in the future (and they will - assuming, of course, that they survive that long, given the unfolding plans to wipe out 90% of humanity, likely justified on the basis of the junk science known as ‘Peak Oil' theory: Ebola for Population Reduction) to ask why you were asleep at the wheel while the country was evolving into an overtly fascist police state, what will you tell them? That there was nothing you could do? And when they then ask if you were truly powerless or if you just allowed yourself to be convinced that you were, what will you tell them then? The Pentagon's Homeland Defense report concludes as follows: 'The Department of Defense must change its conceptual approach to homeland defense. The Department can no longer think in terms of the ‘home' game and the ‘away' game. There is only one game. The Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support is a significant step toward this strategic transformation. Defending the US homeland - our people, property, and freedom - is our most fundamental duty. Failure is not an option.' As has been demonstrated repeatedly in various foreign adventures, the US Department of Defense has little interest in defending freedom or people. Its primary function is the acquisition and defense of property - property ‘owned' by US and multinational corporations. In the ‘Homeland' as elsewhere, the role of the military will be to protect corporate property and corporate profits, at the expense of the rights and the freedoms of the people - and quite likely at the expense of the very lives of the people. The responsibility of defending the rights and freedoms of the American people falls squarely on your shoulders. Nobody else is going to do it for you. It is your most fundamental duty. And failure is definitely not an option.