The news of the world, near and far, is dominated today by resource wars: military campaigns abroad, peaceful occupations at home. At the center of controversy are oil and gas pipelines. As the projects are transnational by nature, global-scale interests seek to bypass or eliminate competing local interests.
Who agrees to the pipelines, funds them and grants them passage over lands and waters? Who benefits; and who gets to decide? The struggles take ironically different shapes at opposite ends of the earth.
In North America, popular opposition is driven by indigenous people in the hinterland, and a growing public concern for ecology. But the State sides with big money, and brings its militarized police in to clear the way. Meanwhile “Environmental protection” perishes before the inevitability of the next big spill. If an entire ecosystem goes belly up, no problem, that’s just “collateral damage”; the big boys will just pour more toxins in to “clean it up” – make it disappear – and then go elsewhere…
In the Middle East, “regime change” once again is the order of the day, despite bogus smokescreens about human rights and democracy. The overriding agenda seeks more “sustainable” global prizes: flows of currency, tied to oil and gas pipelines. If the populace actually supports its government with its pipeline of choice, as in Syria, then both must fall, like a Mafia target, since they refuse to switch to the project favored by the US (see also the deeper agenda of US military presence in the region, below). Its “police” action already exposed as naked aggression in Libya, the pressure now is more covert—with what Hillary Clinton calls “Special Forces,” in collusion with “moderate rebels,” such as al-Qaeda and ISIS; mercenary proxies in its “Empire of Chaos.” The pipeline serving “our interests,” propping up “our dollars,” must go through.
The old paradigm holds full sway here. A woman friend assesses the situation succinctly: “The old men with their big dicks.”
* * *
Speaking of which, approaching the “Election from Hell” in 2016, if we switch channels we still won’t find real news of what’s happening in the world: only more spin from the corporatocracy. While Hillary and the New York Times trumpet Trump’s downfall and “Russian aggression,” the US plays a dangerous game of nuclear chicken, bent on toppling its next Mideast domino to achieve its realpolitik goal: a pipeline from Qatar to the EU through Syria.
The problem is twofold: what is occurring, and what we are being told and not told. Luckily the Internet is still free enough to give us credible information to refute the misinformation controlled in “news” outlets owned by a handful of media giants.
Here is the best of recent news I’ve collected from reputable alternative sources, with documentary evidence to expose the blatant propaganda by the leaders and press of the so-called free world. As if we have all forgot the bogus claims for both Iraq wars…
[Note: block quotes below taken from the articles listed]
Washington is putting its nuclear missiles on Russia’s borders, conducting war games on Russia’s borders, and stationing its Navy off Russia’s coasts in the Black and Baltic seas. To cover up its reckless, irresponsible aggression toward a nuclear power, Washington accuses Russia of aggression. The presstitute media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, Fox “News,” CNN, and the rest of the despicable whores repeat the lie over and over until the Western populations are brainwashed.
Do you suppose the Russians, who know what is happening, are going to just sit there until they are so completely surrounded by nuclear missiles that they have to surrender?
Unless you believe this, you had best get busy saving your life and the life of our planet. Do not expect political leaders to do this for you. There are no political leaders in public office anywhere in the West, only paid puppets of powerful interests groups. Do not expect experts, most of whom are dependent on these same interest groups, to bring influence to bear on government and media.
There is no one but us.
ISIS and the Neocon (bipartisan) Agenda
“We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran.”
The conflict in Syria is not a war in the conventional sense of the word. It is a regime change operation, just like Libya and Iraq were regime change operations.
The US wants to install a puppet regime in Damascus so it can secure pipeline corridors in the East, oversee the transport of vital energy reserves from Qatar to the EU, and make sure that those reserves continue to be denominated in US Dollars that are recycled into US Treasuries and US financial assets. This is the basic recipe for maintaining US dominance in the Middle East and for extending America’s imperial grip on global power into the future.
“Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria.” — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Why the Arabs don’t want us in Syria, Politico
Addendum: A more recent article by Gareth Porter, at Truthout, punches holes in the above narrative and points to a more persuasive underlying agenda of US policy:
If it’s not a pipeline war, why is the US intervening in Syria? The US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the US permanent war state in its regional alliances [including Israel, it should not be forgotten, another sworn enemy of Assad]. The three Sunni allies control US access to the key US military bases in the region, and the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department and the Obama White House were all concerned, above all, with protecting the existing arrangements for the US military posture in the region.
Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today.
Why do we hear only of the “humanitarian crisis in Aleppo” and not of the humanitarian crisis everywhere else in Syria where the evil that rules in Washington has unleashed its ISIL mercenaries to slaughter the Syrian people? Why do we not hear about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen where the US and its Saudi Arabian vassal are slaughtering Yemeni women and children? Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Libya where Washington destroyed a country leaving chaos in its place? Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, ongoing now for 13 years, or the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan now 15 years old?
The answer is that the crisis in Aleppo is the crisis of Washington losing its ISIL mercenaries to the Syrian army and Russian air force.
The Somalia campaign is a blueprint for warfare that President Obama has embraced and will pass along to his successor. It is a model the United States now employs across the Middle East and North Africa — from Syria to Libya — despite the president’s stated aversion to American “boots on the ground” in the world’s war zones. This year alone, the United States has carried out airstrikes in seven countries and conducted Special Operations missions in many more.
Such wars are mostly “off the book”. Congressional oversight does not happen for them as the impact within the U.S. is too small. The media are practically excluded. The money comes out of secret CIA and special forces accounts or is shaken out of some friendly U.S. client state like Saudi Arabia.
Media Control by Government and Corporate Interests
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.
[note: above linked now to Internet archive, because original has disappeared as of Christmas 2017. Hmm…]
All of the suspects in my book, Another Nineteen, were named based on direct evidence. An example is Wirt Dexter Walker. As the CEO of Stratesec, he was in position to provide access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, as well as prevent that access from being detected. Walker can also be charged with 9/11 insider trading.
Another example is Ralph Eberhart, who sponsored the military exercises that obstructed the air defenses on 9/11. Eberhart also appears to have lowered the Infocon (communications defense) level just hours before the attacks, and gave orders that directly obstructed the interceptors. He also lied to the U.S. Congress about having received documented notification of the hijackings (a crime).
Judges and lawyers know that – if someone intentionally destroys evidence – he’s probably trying to hide his crime. American law has long recognized that destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guiltfor the person who destroyed the evidence.
So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?
Brilliant, entertaining expose of shoddy network video fakery takes 9/11 truth to a new level.
viewer comment: “September Clues is an extraordinary piece of work, in my opinion quite possibly the most important piece of video on the Internet. The research that went into it is remarkable. The implications of what was involved to organize and prepare all the media fakery is simply terrifying.”
Monsanto now appears to be developing genetically modified (GMO) forms of cannabis, with the intent of cornering the market with patented GMO seeds just as it did with GMO corn and GMO soybeans. For that, the plant would need to be legalized but still tightly enough controlled that it could be captured by big corporate interests.
Who Killed Bob Marley:
Carl Colby (son of the late CIA director William Colby)… delivered, according to a witness at the enclave – a pair of boots for Bob Marley. Former Los Angeles cinematographer Lee Lew-Lee…was close friends with members of the Wailers, and he believes that Marley’s cancer can be traced to the boots: “He put his foot in and said, ‘Ow!’ A friend got in there… he said, ‘let’s [get] in the boot, and he pulled a length of copper wire out – it was embedded in the boot.”
Had the wire been treated chemically with a carcinogenic toxin?
–Alex Constantine, The New Agora