Beyond Collapse -Free 411 page Survival Reference

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Why Things Don't Get Better - Theater and Artifice Rules The World


Guest Post by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

There's only one small problem with relying on artifice: we haven't actually fixed what's broken in the real world.

As I noted yesterday, we now game dysfunctional systems rather than actually repair them.

Rather than fix the dysfunctional system of higher education, for example (as I proposed in my book The Nearly Free University and The Emerging Economy), students and their parents go to extraordinary lengths to game the Ivy league university admissions system.
Rather than actually address the structural causes of unemployment, we lower interest rates to zero and reckon the resulting financial bubble will fix unemployment (and everything else).
To avoid having to deal with unemployment as an issue, the unemployment rate is heavily gamed by counting marginal jobs (working 1 hour a week--you're employed!) and removing tens of millions of unemployed people from the work-force.

The primary tool of increasing prosperity is the expansion of asset bubbles that supposedly boost the wealth effect, an internalized belief that one is wealthier. This internal belief is presumed to encourage more borrowing and spending which is then presumed to lift all boats in the economy.
This is of course all artifice: the elaborately choreographed applications to the Ivy League, the massaged statistics designed to manage our perceptions of reality rather than address reality itself, and the selling offree money for financiers as a policy that magically helps everyone, even those far from the money spigots of the Federal Reserve.
How did we arrive at a systemic dependence on contrivance and artifice to manage problems? We have no choice. Why do we have no choice?
Because any attempt to actually fix dysfunctional systems necessarily steps on the toes of deeply entrenched vested interests that profit from the dysfunctional Status Quo-- interests who will devote every resource in their command to water down, co-opt, divert or defeat any reforms that lessen their share of the national income or their political power.
As a result, true reform of hopelessly dysfunctional systems is politically impossible. Since politicians are elected to give everyone more of what they want, politicos have no choice to but to game the dysfunctional systems via perception management and statistical sleight of hand to make them appear to give everyone more of what they want. Meanwhile, the politicos collect personal fortunes from the Elites and insiders benefiting from the dysfunctional Status Quo.
Artifice and perception management appear to be win-win: everybody seems to win if they see dysfunction as not just "the way the world works," but as a positive approach that benefits everyone in some fashion.
There's only one small problem with relying on artifice: we haven't actually fixed what's broken in the real world, and those dysfunctions continue to fester beneath the glossy surface of gamed statistics and happy stories we tell ourselves about how well everything is working.
At some point--the actual date is unpredictable, but 2021-2025 is as good a guess as any--the dysfunctional systems will break down and no amount of artifice, bogus statistics or perception management will mask the rot.
Once reality crashes through the thick constructs of artifice, faith in the Status Quo will be lost. At that fragile juncture of destiny, the opportunity to fix what is broken will finally emerge.


A Note from the Editor - I disagree with the conclusion. We always have a choice, choose wisely.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

America’s Bloodless Coup




  Guest Post By RoseAnn Salanitri

The American Patriot in 2014 is a frustrated human being.  Many have been sounding the alarm that our country is being torn asunder by the incompetent, the illegitimate, the opportunist, and the globalist. While all of this is true, the overriding message may be substantially worse.  Our country isn’t being torn asunder; it is being taken over. Let me rephrase:  it’s already been taken over.

In today’s apathetic culture where the day’s schedule, often geared toward chauffeuring our children to and fro, has taken precedence over protecting our children’s future.  In the meantime, many of our ostrich citizens continue to hide their heads in the sands of destruction.  As a result, America is no longer America.  We have suffered a very well orchestrated bloodless coup that few seem to notice – probably because it has been bloodless. The great majority of Americans fail to realize what had happened and without realization, there can be no restoration and the America we love may be gone forever.

To be clear, a coup d’état can be properly defined as:

“A coup d’état typically uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak states that’[a] coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.’” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d’%C3%A9tat (Emphasis added.)

If you will notice from the definition above, a successful coup does not require bloodshed, only the infiltration and displacement of the extant government.  It would be difficult to argue with anyone who possess a modicum of awareness that our system of government has been replaced by ideologues whose true intentions can only be known by God, as they seem to escape those of logical-thinking mortals.

However, there is such a thing as a counter-coup. Counter-coups have fallen into the successful and unsuccessful categories.  They have also run the gambit from violent to peaceful. One thing they all had in common is that they had leaders who understood the state of their condition, refused to cooperate with the coup, and were able to motivate others to do likewise. Unfortunately, America has been tragically slow to understand her fate and worse – she has not yet produced men or women who both understand the tenants of civil resistance and possess leadership abilities.

In today’s political climate there are many who do understand that our government has been overthrown and dismantled. However, those that understand seem either unwilling or bewildered about what to do next, partly because we have been blind-sided.  Bewilderment may not necessarily be a bad thing if it is the first step in achieving a successful counter-coup, which requires understanding the problem.

It is the next step that is crucial.  The next step requires making the decision and the commitment to do something about it.  Unfortunately, this step has a fatal flaw.  It requires leadership – and not just any leadership.  It requires leadership that is capable of creating winning strategies.  This leadership can be comprised of men and/or women with military experience who consider their oath to protect our Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic to be a lifelong commitment that doesn’t end when their paycheck ends, but it can also come from the civilian ranks that understand coups or is willing to study coups and figure out how to successfully orchestrate one.  In either case, this leadership cannot be timid or easily frustrated.

The history of America would have been drastically different if the Pilgrims and Puritans of England and those living in Colonial America did not have such leadership.  They did, and because of those valiant leaders we enjoyed a land filled with liberty and prosperity for the centuries that followed. Every generation requires leaders or it will implode and/or surrender to coups and tyrants of all kinds.  While our airwaves are filled with soundbites from those seemingly capable of leading us back to where we belong, airwaves alone can’t fight this battle for us.  We need men and women with true grit willing to take it to the next step and devise a plan for a counter-coup. Perhaps it could be someone like Col. Allen West, or General David Petraeus, or perhaps Gov. Rick Perry, or Sarah Palin, or any one of the talking heads in the limelight that is willing to do more than talk the talk, or perhaps it will be someone who has been sitting on the sidelines and simply cannot take this travesty any longer.  Regardless of who it may be, they can be sure there will be multitudes to follow.  For surely as the sun rises in the east, there are many patriotic Americans waiting to hear their plan, hoping and praying that it will be revealed soon, and ready, willing, and able to stand with them to throw the innumerable traitors out of the People’s House, Congress and the courtroom benches.

But know this, the burden falls to each and every one of us.  It may be someone who has achieved some celebrity or it may be someone who has escaped the media’s attention, but it needs to be someone with a plan who can inspire others to follow that plan.  America doesn’t need a hero and America doesn’t need another talking head; America needs a plan. America also needs to fully understand that no one is about to give us our country back.  We have to take it back or lose it forever. If that someone is listening, please get off your duff and let’s get rolling. America needs you.  Go out and contact others who think like you do and sit down and do some brainstorming. Our Founding Fathers did it and so can you.  America is hanging in the balance – and the rope she is hanging is on is mighty thin.

The Guns of August


shutterstock_193519106

On the Pushkin square in central Moscow, McDonald’s, this symbol of Pax Americana, has been shut down this week. It was opened 23 years ago, as the USSR collapsed, and the unipolar world of One Superpower came into being. Soviet people queued for hours to get in and try this divine foreign food. They were so innocent, so inexperienced, the Russians of yesteryear! For 23 long years, the US has ruled the world alone, while McDonald’s served its burgers. Meanwhile Russia has changed. McDonalds is no longer an attraction for world-weary Muscovites. Across the Pushkin square, there is now another fashionable eatery, Café Pouchkine, serving the best Russian haute cuisine. In a tit-for-tat, the cheeky Russians had established a new Café Pouchkine in Paris, on Boulevard St Germain, teaching the French the joys of Russian cooking.

The Americans did not accept the challenge lightly. Kill Putin, called American pundits. They proposed to strike against Russian forces from the NATO bases in the Baltics. Pentagon extolled advantages of the first nuclear strike. The Russians gloomily prepared for the worst. In a quiet dacha summer-house to the west of Moscow, my Russian scientist friends discussed Andrey Sakharov’s plan codenamed The Wave to wash away the entire Eastern seaboard of the US by means of a giant tsunami (yes, it is the same Sakharov). They lauded the Perimeter, the Doomsday weapon system Russia inherited from the USSR ensuring total destruction of the US even if Russia were erased. New and secret weapon systems were mentioned. August 2014 increasingly reminded of August 1914 or August 1939, the countdown to a Great War. At that time, conciliatory tone of President Putin’s Crimea speech signalled that the danger of general conflagration abated somewhat. Russia stepped back from abyss.

Ostensibly this is a duel of nerves between Russia and the US; though many states, great and small, from China to Bolivia, are interested in dismantling the US hegemony, meanwhile Russia is the only one with political will, military clout and economical stamina to mess with the bully.
In order to preserve its place of the ultimate consumer at the top of food chain, the US wants to cut Russia down to size; publicly humiliate Putin and remove him; to assert its superiority; to harm European economies and strengthen their submission to Washington; to stop loose talk of its decline, to eliminate opposition; to turn treatment of Russia into a case study for all possible challengers.

Russia’s aims are not so grand: the country wants to live peacefully its own way and to be respected. This desire has been summed up by its opponents as “challenging the architecture of the post-cold-war order”, and it is probably true, for “the order” denies countries’ right for peace and independence.
Americans do not mind a war. They gained in every war: they had sustainable losses, they preserved their industrial base and they profited by their victories. Their world wars and their recent wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria were profitable. A war between Russia and Europe with some American support has attractive sides, for them.

Russians want to avoid war. They had hard and bad experience in world wars: Russia collapsed in the course of the First world war, and suffered a lot in the Second one. In both cases, their development was retarded, a lot of human misery and economical disaster befell them. They did not enjoy their smaller wars: none gave them an advantage or profit of any kind.

Paradoxically, Russian desire to avoid war brings war closer home. The US military and politicians do not mind to play chicken with Russia, as they are sure: Russians will chicken out. This false certainty makes them more daring and fearless with each round.

Russia is not alone. China usually supports its moves, India under Modi gets closer, Latin America builds its alliance with Russia, Iran looks for friendship in Moscow. Equally important, in every state there are people who are dissatisfied with the existing post-cold-war set-up of diminished sovereignty. They are not too far from power in France, where Marine Le Pen makes gains in elections. Americans who prefer to live their own way, just like the US did before the WWII, a normal country, not the world sheriff are potential Russian allies, as well.

The US is not alone. It has its faithful allies, England the devoted, Saudi Arabia the wealthy, Israel the cunning, – and a plethora of important politicians in all countries on the globe that were supported and promoted by various US agencies. There is probably no country without the US agents near power: Karl Bildt of Sweden, Tony Blair of the UK… In Russia they occupy many positions around pinnacle of power, as they were installed during Dark years of Yeltsin’s rule. Whoever wants his country to serve the Empire is an American ally.

This is not only the US vs Russia, but Machine vs Man, as well. In plotting its foreign policy, the US increasingly relies upon the computer-driven game theory using its formidable data resources, while Russians prefer manual human control. Modern super-computers and surveillance techniques give the US an edge over Russia’s decision-making. Increasingly, President Obama appears to be a perfect cyborg of right appearance who says the right things in the right time and right place, but whose actions bear no relation to the words. I wouldn’t be amazed if in a length of time we shall learn that Obama has been the first humanoid robot in the helm of power. And if he is human, he is truly wonderful actor at pretending he is a robot. Even his wife Michelle and girls seem to be well-chosen movie props rather than live partner and children.
Putin is undoubtedly human and manly. One may dislike him, and a lot of people do, but there is no doubt about his belonging to human race. This makes the chicken game less predictable than the US leadership considers. After Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi’s horrible executions, much can be said in favour of an all-out nuclear war in comparison with defeat and surrender. And the young Russian generation does not share their fathers’ fear of war, and they do not mind to try some of better toys their country has. Satan, anyone?
Moreover, the game theory (partly declassified in the last decade) is not perfect yet in cross-cultural conflicts, where antagonists may play different games. For instance, you play chess, but your opponent is kickboxing. This seems to be the case here. The US plays chicken with Russia, while Russia skilfully evades the horns of charging American bull.

The US considers itself the exceptional city on the hill, the God’s Chosen, predestined to rule the world now and forever. History is over. They want to lecture and impose their rules upon the world. Amusingly, the Soviets had similar ideas of Communism being predestined to complete History, so the Cold War between two predestined states was a natural thing. Nowadays Russians do not believe in predestination. Countries rise, and go down, and form alliances, and there is no End of History in sight. The unipolar world is a fluke, now reverting to its normal multipolar state. The best and most comfortable arrangement is each country lives the way it likes. Leben und leben lassen.

For a long while the US was itching to teach Russia a lesson. Russia was not in full rebellion: it sold its oil and gas for US greenbacks, it kept profits in the US Treasury papers, it observed the sanctions on Iran, it did not interfere with despoiling of Libya. Still it was not sufficiently obedient. Russia blocked destruction of Syria; it toyed with de-dollarisation of oil trade; it was for Christ and against gay marriages; cunningly it tried to undermine the Western unity by building pipelines and bridges and bribing Europeans. In short, Russia forgot its collapse of 1991.

The Ukraine was chosen by the US as a suitable place to ignite a war, or at least to put Russia a couple of notches down and to get rid of Putin who became by far too independent.

The Ukraine

The US is winning ground while Russia loses ground in the Ukraine. Putin stubbornly refuses to send his troops in; he strains to come to terms with the US and the West over future of Ukraine. Russia has been humiliated while proposing humanitarian aid to the besieged cities of Donbass: its loaded lorries are still delayed at the border, waiting for Kiev regime permission to move forward. Half a million Ukrainian refugees crossed the Russian border, a few thousand civilians, militia and army personnel were killed in the confrontation.

The war for Donbass was not especially successful for the Russians. Though the military reports are exceedingly obscure and conflicting, it seems the rebels are losing the battle against the Ukrainian army, as they have no external support. While the US claimed that the conflict is caused by Russian intervention, Russia tried to stay out of this conflict. Russia did not interfere in Kiev, when all Western ambassadors and ministers encouraged the revolt against the legitimate president. When Donbass flared up, Russia did not support it.

Putin did not want to take Donbass, in the first place, he did not want to take the Ukraine, secondly, and he did not want to resurrect the USSR, thirdly. He was forced to take the Crimea, the home base of Russian fleet, an old part of Russia, populated by Russians, willing to join Russia, as otherwise Crimea would become a NATO navy base, but he did not want to proceed anywhere else. It did not help him: Putin is blamed internationally for the conflict and internally, for non-involvement and the subsequent defeat.
The revolt in Novorossia (the Russian-speaking half of the Ukraine) was a popular response to the West-inspired coup in Kiev, as this coup had a strong nationalist anti-Russian flavour. People of Novorossia would not try to secede if their language and culture weren’t persecuted, and if their ties to neighbouring Russia weren’t endangered. But they would not be able to proceed far, unless their revolt attracted some rebels looking for a cause, first of all – the military genius and a great romantic figure, Colonel Igor Strelkov, a “Russian Lawrence”.

Igor Strelkov read history in Moscow U, but he decided (like T.E. Lawrence) that it is more fun to make history. He fought in Transnistria, a small sliver of land between Moldova and Ukraine, defending local people from the onslaught of Moldavian nationalists. He volunteered to a Serb militia in Yugoslavia; he forced the indifferent Russian Army command to take him as an officer to the First Chechen war; he served in the Second Chechen war, and as a volunteer, he served in Syria and Dagestan. He writes beautifully, he is a superb tactician, able to lead soldiers by the strength of his charisma. His acquaintances describe him as a daredevil who does not care about money, comfort, family life or pleasures.

For Strelkov, the campaign in Novorossia had a taste of destiny. Like many Russians of his generation, he dreamed of resurrecting Russia as it was, whether the Soviet Union or pre-revolutionary Russian Empire (his preference). Like many Russians of his generation, he considered the Ukraine – a natural part of Russia, and an independent Ukrainian state – a misnomer. Despite his military rank, Strelkov was a free agent; he came to Novorossia without Putin’s blessing and he would come and stay against Putin’s will, too. We shall probably hear more about this remarkable man.

Strelkov was not alone: quite a few brave fighters from Ukraine and Russia came to join the rebels. Their initial success was a surprise for Putin’s administration. But the rebellion failed to take over other provinces. In Odessa, the private army of Kolomoysky the ruthless oligarch burned some fifty unarmed rebel sympathisers alive in a grisly autodafe, and this cruel act scared the timid and jovial Odessites. In Kharkov, the governor made a deal with Kiev regime and the rising miscarried. It seems that Strelkov, though a military prodigy, was less than a wonderful demagogue. His dream of Great Russia did not make sense to the people of Novorossia. Yes, they spoke Russian, yes, they hated Kiev and Lvov neo-nazi gangs, but they did not understand Strelkov’s Russian nationalism.

Without direct Russian involvement, a separatist movement in Novorossia was doomed to fail. There was a way to win: to conquer the whole of Ukraine, perhaps barring its far-west, and afterwards to make arrangements for federalisation or even for break-up. It could be done by using an inclusive ideology, acceptable for Donetsk, Odessa, Kiev, Poltava. Perhaps some neo-Soviet ideas could be employed; dissatisfaction with the oligarchs could be used. But Strelkov and other rebels with their firm rejection of Ukraine per se could not sweep the masses, and they did not even try to move towards Kiev or Kharkov.
Putin minimised Russia’s involvement in the Donbass war. He supported it much less than the United States supported the Texas revolution of 1835. His government tried to patch up with Kiev regime, but its ‘president’ steadfastly refused, under American orders. In Kiev, far-right radicals attacked the Russian embassy; and the regime’s armed forces began indiscriminate shelling and bombing of rebel cities. This was a great humiliation for Putin who promised to defend the Russians in failing Ukraine. His advisers, notably Sergey Glazyev, an expert on Ukraine, called to take a leaf from the Western book on Libya and impose a no-fly zone over Donbass. (In March 2011, as a rebellion flared up in Benghazi, the US and its allies imposed no-fly zone over parts of Libya professing horror of Qaddafi’s ruthless shelling of the rebels. Russia and China abstained, and the French-British draft became the Security Council resolution authorising not only no-fly zone but “all necessary measures” to protect civilians from harm.) Kiev regime certainly killed more civilians than Qaddafi did; but Putin did not declare a no-fly zone, he did not use his firepower to suppress Kiev artillery shelling civilians.

Russia did very little for Donbass. Now, the Russians try to negotiate a conclusion to the Donbass war. The reports predict some autonomy for Donbass within Ukraine.

Many Russians are likely to be greatly disappointed. But some enterprises – worthy and unworthy – fail. Life is full of disappointments. I remember Ibo separatists of Biafra, who were eventually defeated by the central government. Separatists of Iranian Azerbaijan were defeated, though Josef Stalin supported them. The US failed to re-conquer Cuba. Argentines failed to liberate Malvinas. This list is endless. Perhaps Russians have to wait for a better opportunity.

Did Putin chicken out?

Why did Putin gave up on Novorossia? There is no doubt, Novorossia is extremely important for Russia. NATO troops and US missiles in Donetsk and Lugansk would endanger Russia. Its loss would threaten Russian defence industry as this part of Ukraine was fully integrated with Russia since Tsar’s days. Was it fear of an all-out war? Did President Putin consider intervention of R2P mode a too dangerous step for his country?

In Putin’s view, Europe is more important than Ukraine. He is willing to sacrifice Donbass in hope to gain Berlin. For years, he courted old Europe. Even his Olympic games with its expensive show aimed at Europe: he wanted to tell the Europeans that Russia is part and parcel of Europe. Putin speaks German, he served in Germany as KGB operative in the last years of the USSR, and he has a soft spot for Germany.
The US propaganda machine called upon Europeans to defend Ukraine from the Russian bear, claiming the Russians will not stop in the Ukraine but continue to the Atlantic. This claim was quite successful; especially as it came after the very long anti-Russian media campaign (gays, orphans, toilets in Sochi etc.). Putin was afraid that by taking Ukraine he will alienate European public opinion. So he procrastinated, until the Malaysian liner disaster struck.

The liner

The Malaysian liner crash was a terrible disaster in many ways. Not so much per se: three hundred people are being killed each day in Gaza, Iraq, Donbass. Europeans and Americans forgot the Cuban air liner flight 455, or Iranian liner flight 655, or Libyan liner flight 114, as these liners were downed by “our side”. But this was a chance for the Western media machine to unleash its dreadful might. This machine is as powerful as nuclear weapons; when in full blast, it incapacitates leaders and countries. Thousands of TV channels, newspapers, radio programs, bloggers, internet sites, experts, ministers, presidents united in one single message, terrifying as vox Dei, though it’s not even a vox populi, just a device of Masters of Discourse, akin to big trumpets used by Romans to scare the barbarians.

All British newspapers ran photos of dead children with captions like “He was murdered by Putin”. Russians were overwhelmed by the furious blast of propaganda. People wept; some weak and emotional personalities admitted their guilt and lit candles in front of Netherlands embassy in Moscow. Why Netherlands, if the liner was Malaysian? (Because Netherlands is a European “white” country, while Malays are not?) Why guilt, if nothing was known yet? Why did not we see pictures of slaughtered Gaza kids with caption “murdered by Netanyahu”, killed Iraqi kids “murdered by Blair”, murdered Afghani babies “murdered by Obama”? This is the incredible power of the Masters of Discourse: when they go full blast, people lose mind and panic.

I welcomed every conspiratorial scheme in this case, as well as in 9/11 case. Not because I believe or even prefer this or other scheme. I see it as a useful device to release minds from the holding power of mass hysteria induced by mass media. It is necessary to sow doubt in order to release minds and regain sanity.
A successful 9/11 conspiracy theory could have saved lives of thousands of Muslims killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Recently Israeli Jews were induced with mass hysteria as three young settlers disappeared. This mass hysteria resulted in half a million refugees and two thousand dead of Gaza. An attempt to sow doubt regarding the official story (claiming they were stolen by Mossad etc.) was an attempt to save lives. Likewise, every way to sow doubt regarding the Malaysian plane was a way to save lives.
Now, one month later, we know that there was no evidence of Russian involvement in the tragedy. There are strong pieces of evidence suggesting Kiev and US involvement, the best of them is a negative one: if Kiev and Washington would have a proof of Russian and/or rebels’ guilt we would hear of it day and night. If you are interested in detailed analysis of the disaster, you can read this one, recommended by our friends. I must admit I am not interested in details, for the reasons similar to those of Noam Chomsky regarding 9/11. While every explanation that differs from one promoted by Masters of Discourse is good because it breaks their hold on minds, importance of such an event is greatly overblown by media. Anyway, the air liner is out of news and out of mind by now, and this means it was an accident or a failed provocation by Kiev or Washington, for otherwise we would hear about it.

However, in real time the air liner disaster made a huge impact on Russian minds. For a while, I feared Putin would retire or be retired or removed from power, and Russia would fall apart. The US wanted to get rid of Putin and place a more pliable figure on the Russian throne, preferably an oligarch like Poroshenko.
Their thinking was summed up by Herbert E. Meyer, a spook (“an ex- Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council”). He wrote: “Since subtlety doesn’t work with Russians, the president and his European counterparts should also make absolutely clear that we have no interest whatever in how these people solve their Putin problem. If [the oligarchs] can talk good old Vladimir into leaving the Kremlin with full military honors and a 21-gun salute — that would be fine with us. If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head — that would also be okay with us.”

Tension peaked at the most dramatic night between Sunday, July 20 and Monday, July 21, when Putin delivered a short message to the nation – at 01.40 am. For such an unusual time, it was quite a tame message. Putin said nothing of importance. Next day, he was supposed to make a major speech at his own security cabinet. Again, he said nothing of importance. In my view, President Putin wanted to show he is still alive and well and still in command. Apparently this was not obvious for some persons, in Russia or abroad, at that fateful night.

(to be continued)

Israel v. Palestine: MSM Unreported Truths



by Stephen Lendman 

On Tuesday, Israel's Operation Protective Edge aggression entered day 50. Mass slaughter and destruction continue.
MSM scoundrels largely lost interest. Killing Palestinians no longer matters. Justifiable outrage is absent. 

So-called halted US arms shipments to Israel two weeks ago was head fake deception. Deputy State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said no change in US support for Israel exists. 

Weapons include Hellfire missiles, attack helicopters and powerful bunker buster bombs.
Israel uses them to kill Palestinian civilians. Doing so violates core international laws, norms and standards. 

Washington unconditionally supports and encourages Israel's killing machine. It uses banned weapons. They include chemical, biological and radiological ones.
Medical professionals report treating injuries never before seen. Palestinian suffering goes unnoticed. 

On August 26, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) reported what MSM scoundrels ignore. 

"Israeli occupation forces have continued their brutal and immoral offensive on the Gaza Strip for the 50th consecutive day in violation of the international law," it said. ?
"They have employed their full-fledged arsenal to attack the Gaza Strip from the air, sea and land, killing and wounding thousands of Palestinians, mostly civilians, including children and women." ? 

"Many Palestinians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes that attacked their homes without prior warnings." ? 

"Israeli forces have attacked homes and civilian facilities and property."
In the past 24 hours alone, Israeli bombs, missiles and shells murdered 14 Palestinians. Another 120 were injured. Many seriously.
Some won't survive. Others are maimed for life. Mostly non-combatant women and children are affected. 

"Additionally," said PCHR, "a charity, 2 mosques, a workshop and a poultry farm (were) destroyed." 

Hundreds of thousands of Gazans are displaced. Most parts of the Strip lack water, electricity and other basic services. 

Every square inch of Gaza is unsafe. No safe havens exist. Israel considers civilian neighborhoods, hospitals, mosques, schools and UN refuges legitimate targets.
State terror is official Israeli policy. War without mercy continues. It rages lawlessly. Western leaders support Israeli genocide. 

Ceasefires come and go. Israel claims a divine right to mass slaughter and destroy with impunity. 

It does so for any reason or none at all. It commits virtually every imaginable crime and then some. 

International laws don't matter. Nor UN resolutions. Accountability is nonexistent. 

Fact: Israel's entire history is bloodstained.
Fact: It reflects lawless depravity.
Fact: Early Zionists called for "establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Eretz Yisrael." It began a process of:
? settling Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine;
? organizing effective action groups in various countries;
? building Jewish consciousness and a national identity; and
gaining acceptance for a Jewish homeland.
At issue was replacing Arabs with Jews. In 1917, Britain unilaterally "establish(ed) in Palestine (a) national home for the Jewish people."
The 1915 McHahon-Hussein Agreement guaranteed one for Arabs. Britain betrayed them. So did America and France.
Sykes-Picot (1916) carved out Western regional spheres of influence. Ottoman Arab provinces were divided their way. Arabs had no say.
In 1920, Britain's Mandate period began. It assured:
? a liberal Jewish immigration policy;
? immediate citizenship for Jews;
? easy Jewish land acquisition at the expense of indigenous Arabs;
? contiguous settlements to solidify a Jewish presence;
? employment for Jewish immigrants;
? favorable customs policies to develop Jewish commerce; and
? partiality toward Jews at the expense of indigenous Arabs.
Zionist founder Theodore Herzl called Palestine "our unforgettable historic homeland." He called for establishing it by replacing Arabs with Jews.
In his book "Overcoming Zionism," Joel Kovel wrote:
Zionism seeks "the restoration of tribalism in the guise of a modern, highly militarized and aggressive state."
"(It) cut Jews off from (their) history and led to a fateful identity of interests with anti-Semitism (becoming) the only thing that united them."
"(It) fell into the ways of imperialist expansion and militarism, and showed signs of fascist malignancy."
If you accept "the idea of a Jewish state," you mix its twin notions of "particularism (and) exceptionalism?"
They're "the bane of Judaism?(They give) racism an objective, enduring, institutionalized and obdurate character."
It turned Israel "into a machine for the manufacture of human rights abuses."
Its bloodstained history reflects it. Israel rules by strength, confrontation, intimidation, force and violence.
State terror is official policy. So are institutionalized racism, colonization and apartheid.
Lawless occupation continues. Premeditated aggression is called self-defense.
Peace is pure fantasy. Palestine's Nakba never ended. Palestinians are considered existential threats.
Israeli Arab citizens are called fifth column ones. At issue is creating an ethnically pure Jewish state by any means necessary.
Zionism is a cancer. It harms Jews and non-Jews alike. It justifies Jewish ethnocracy, exclusivity and superiority.
Laws favor Jews. Arab rights don't matter. Judaization and de-Arabization reflect official policy. So does slow-motion genocide.
Treat them like "dogs" so they'll leave, said Moshe Dayan. Ben-Gurion favored "terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation," and violence.
Palestinians remain isolated on their own land. Besieged Gazans suffer most. Israel terrorizes, mass slaughters and destroys.
It does so with impunity. Accountability is nowhere in sight.
Official policies include:
? premeditated naked aggression;
? other high crimes against peace;
? calling wars of choice self-defense;
? blaming Palestinians for its crimes;
? ignoring core international laws, norms and standards;
? violating binding UN resolutions;
? maintain large stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons;
? using illegal weapons in all its wars;
? inventing pretexts to wage them;
? using US tax dollars to commit mass slaughter and destruction;
? refusing to declare official borders to advance its Greater Middle East agenda;
? maintaining the myth of unique Jewish suffering;
? calling legitimate criticism anti-Semitism;
? land theft;
? settlement expansions on stolen Palestinian land;
? imprisoning Palestinians for wanting to live free on their own land;
? denying them self-determination and other fundamental rights;
? torture;
? targeted assassinations;
? treating Palestinian children like adults;
? brutalizing them;
? murdering them in cold blood;
? at the same time, claiming victimization;
? using Palestinians as human shields;
? targeting civilians like combatants;
? collectively punishing millions of Palestinians lawlessly;
? denying diaspora ones their legitimate right of return;
? stealing Palestinian resources;
? controlling virtually every aspect of their lives;
? terrorizing West Bank and East Jerusalem Palestinian communities;
? conducting unjustifiable multiple daily pre-dawn raids;
? imprisoning Palestinians for belonging to the wrong political parties;
? incarcerating many thousands of Palestinian political prisoners;
? subjecting them to brutalizing gulag prison harshness;
? maintaining lawless, militarized occupation;
? claiming a divine right to do it; and
? prioritizing premeditated wars without mercy. 

Operation Protective Edge continues. Peace, equity and justice remain more fantasy than reality. 

Palestinians yearn for liberation. Some day they hope. For sure no time soon. 

These should be looked at as people not religions or nations. Until fairness is achieved for all there will be no peace.
 

Monday, August 25, 2014

Understanding the ISIS Threat and It's Connection with Globalization

isis1
Guest Post By Douglas J. Hagmann

The current threats posed by ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, to world stability in general and to the U.S. specifically are very real and extremely dangerous. However, the origins of the group and hence the threats are not to be believed “as advertised.”

We are being subjected to more lies from the White House to Foggy Bottom, along with many elected leaders who know the real story but insist upon pushing a false narrative. Collectively, they are bringing us to the brink of World War III through Syria, which I have long contended, while simultaneously opening our country to a large scale attack that could equal the September 11, 2001 attacks. Unlike 9/11, however, we know at least part of their strategy.

First, ISIS did not mysteriously or unexpectedly originate from vaporous pockets of Islamic terrorists in an area that is referred to as the Levant, or the geographical region roughly bounded by southern Turkey to the north, Egypt to the south, the Mediterranean to the west and Iraq to the East. No, ISIS was created through an intentional process of deliberate default by the U.S. and Western powers—including Israel, working in conjunction if not on behalf of the Saudis, Kuwait and Qatar. This unconventional alliance will be addressed later, but for now, it must be identified to understand the truly dangerous and evil confederation of complicity.

The formation of ISIS: Conception to birth

To understand the present, we must identify—and fully comprehend—the importance of certain pivotal events that brought us to this point. As the first decade of the 21st century, consumed by the Bush years of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was coming to a close, elements of Western and Saudi intelligence were deeply involved in orchestrating what is now known as the Arab Spring. As these plans were being laid, the process to select a new U.S. President was in progress. Specifically, the selection of the democratic nominee between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama was at issue.

Given the requirements needed to accomplish such an ambitious objective as reshaping the power structure of the entire Middle East, it is relevant to cite the “odd meeting” that occurred during the Biderberg Conference in Chantilly, Virginia attended by Obama and Clinton, almost a year to the day (or exactly one calendar year if you use the starting and end dates) before Obama’s infamously important Cairo speech. It was on June 5, 2008 that Obama and Clinton went out of their way to ditch the press and sneak off to the Westfields Marriott Hotel in Chantilly where Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and other globalist leaders were meeting at the Bilderberg conference. Shortly thereafter, it was Obama who was selected as the democratic nominee and ultimately, the next leader of the United States. A wise selection, perhaps, considering the globalist plans as detailed herein.

Whatever happened at that secret meeting, Obama was ultimately named as the 44th President of the United States, and Hillary Clinton was appointed as his Secretary of State.

From the very outset of the Obama foreign policy agenda, the intent to reshape the power structure of the Middle East was telegraphed to the world, but few understood the far reaching and world changing implications of this policy. On June 4, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama delivered his “New Beginnings” speech at Cairo University as referenced above. Perhaps the new restructuring of power within the Middle East was discussed at the ranch of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, located outside Riyadh, where he spent the night on his way to Cairo. From that point forward, it became increasingly obvious that the Saudi agenda was pushing America’s foreign, strategic and even military agenda throughout the Middle East. Obama’s bow to the Saudi king was deep, all we saw was his bony posterior protuberance, which is a lesson in political, or globalist perspective.

Obama: A necessary Saudi asset

At the risk of appearing to digress, it is nonetheless important to revisit the controversy surrounding the legend of the man who is known as Barack Hussein Obama. We should recall the influence of the Saudis over Obama, from his college years to his presidential campaign. Was it not Saudi influence that paved his way into higher academia? During his campaign where he seemed to be cash poor, was there not controversy surrounding the contributions made to his campaign through anonymous internet donations, made possible through the campaigns failure to adhere to standard protections against fraudulent and illegal giving? Suddenly, Obama had funds to carry him through the election cycle, many thousands untraceable to their origin but seemingly originating from overseas and in particular, Saudi Arabia.

Let’s also recall that the controversy surrounding the background and Constitutional eligibility of Obama remains at issue. The long form Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) still lacks the proper authentication to pass for legitimate documentation, and the person responsible for its origination was mysteriously the only fatality of nine occupants of a small plane that made a water landing off the coast of Hawaii last year. That’s quite a coincidence.

The truth, at least from my vantage point as a veteran investigator experienced in background investigations of top executives to hold their positions in Fortune 500 companies, the man known as Barack Hussein Obama has failed to furnish any authenticated proof of his Constitutional eligibility to hold office. Contrary to the corporate media, this issue has never been resolved in any court. This raises not merely a point of law, but the subject of allegiance. Look at the world today and ask yourself whether the commissions or omissions of Obama have benefitted the United States. If not, who or what nation appears to be the primary beneficiary of his agenda?

Much like the secret meeting in Chantilly where it would appear that critical decisions were made outside of the public’s purview and in violation of the Logan Act, it appears that there is a hidden power structure behind this particular man, and a concurrent shield of protection by the media to avoid any meaningful probes of his background. To mention any such things, however, is to be shunned, ostracized, and vilified.

ISIS in gestation

 It strains credulity that the most powerful intelligence apparatus in the world didn’t see the formation of ISIS coming. The closer one looks, the more that can be seen in the creation of this nebulous entity that is unrestricted by borders, which is a very important and significant characteristic of this threat. ISIS was created by design, with the full knowledge of those in power.

As the world watched the transformation of power in the Middle East through what is referred to as the Arab Spring, American intelligence assets landed on the shores of Libya. The landing contingent included U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was previously involved in diplomatic relations with Syria. Shortly thereafter and with the help of U.S. and other Western and Saudi intelligence assets, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, a now pliant and co-operating ally against terrorists, became the next victim of this U.S.-Saudi led agenda. Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted the news with shameful and unstatesman-like giddiness. In Libya, with Gaddafi removed and his son imprisoned, the U.S., with the aid of the British, French, Saudis, Qataris and others, established the largest CIA logistics center in Benghazi to ship arms and fighters across North Africa to Syria via Turkey.

While Michael Reagan was perhaps the first to write about this illegal covert arms operation in his column Building on a kernel of truth, I have authored more than four dozen reports on the role of Benghazi and the road to World War III. It is Benghazi where the truth must win out to prevent us from entering our death race to Damascus, or the beginning of World War III. To date, everyone has been misdirected, or intentionally directed to the “red herring” of diplomatic security as the proximate cause of the death of four Americans in Benghazi. It is nothing of the sort. The attack at Benghazi was an attack by proxy to stop the flow of arms and fighters on a mission to oust Assad and destabilize Syria, which is Russia’s red line in the sand.
Regarding Benghazi, the Select Committee on Benghazi, led by Trey Gowdy, will begin in about a month. We shall see whether this committee will be effective in ferreting out the truth, or be muzzled like the other queries before it. I expect that we will hear one of two things; either the committee will succumb to the official narrative that Benghazi was “a failure of security,” or less likely, provide the refreshing truth that it was a covert yet broadly orchestrated mission involving interwoven groups running arms and fighters across North Africa with sights set on Syria. The latter would then identify the true beneficiaries of this globalist agenda—the Saudis—and their captive agent in the Oval Office. This will not be permitted to happen, in my view, considering the “gang of eight” who knew the agenda far in advance.

As Benghazi blew up in the faces of Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the larger plot to oust Assad had to take different forms. Yet, the American public had awakened, even if for a few moments, and said “no” and “hell no” to yet another offensive or war in the Middle East. This pushback, however, did not stop the Obama-Saudi alliance from additional attempts to engage us in a conflict. We were treated to false flag events that included a chemical weapons attack purportedly conducted at the hands of Assad. Other attempts were made to engage us, yet our collective stomachs were full of the bile of this Renegade-in-Chief’s agenda.

As time marched on, we bore witness to the selection and installation of John O. Brennan as head of the CIA, an interesting choice considering his former involvement not just with the CIA, but with Obama and in particular, the Saudis. It is important to note his reported role in the passport office break-in in 2008, and his possible role with the video that supposedly sparked riots throughout the Middle East, leading to the attacks of 9/11/12. We also saw Hillary Rodham Clinton extricate herself from Foggy Bottom, a political move as she must insulate herself from the continued controversy of a foreign policy contrary to U.S. interests, especially if she intends to seek the 2016 democratic presidential nomination.
Clinton’s natural replacement was none other than John Kerry, whose personal and professional history is conducive to the globalist agenda. It is at this point where we see the actual birth of ISIS.

The birth of ISIS

During John Kerry’s Middle East foreign policy tour during the 2013 Christmas and 2014 New Year, we heard Kerry state that the United States will not intervene in Iraq, which at this time is falling like a rock to jihadist terror groups. It was at this time that ISIS was birthed from conception to reality by Obama’s “hands-off” approach and Kerry’s implementation of the same. The U.S. essentially left our military hardware, Toyota Tundras and Humvees, keys still in the ignition, arms and other assets and walked away upon orders from the Renegade-in-Chief.

This action permitted the formation of a rag-tag group of hardline terrorists to suddenly become fully armed and hardened, now birthed with the necessary firepower to wipe out any Iraqi military and police presence, the presence we trained, equipped and promised to back-up, yet unceremoniously reneged on our promise. This allowed ISIS members to give the Iraqi military and police one of two choices: leave or die. Many chose the former, but unfortunately many others were caught in the latter, looking for the assistance promised by the U.S. They are no longer looking.

Now equipped with some of the best hardware American taxpayer money could buy, ISIS began to grow and overtake the region, perhaps somewhere on the eighth hole of one of Obama’s perpetual golf games. Was it incompetence? It would appear doubtful based on the evidence to date.

ISIS as a threat

Understand that the ouster of Assad against the wishes of Putin remains a primary objective of this globalist crowd of U.S. and foreign leaders. We’ve opened up a new front via the creation of ISIS to get to Assad and Syria, a move fully understood by Putin. Meanwhile, the globalist leaders, including the IMF which was first on the ground in Ukraine, also opened up the Ukrainian front against Russia and Putin, to keep him occupied while the U.S.-Saudi globalist alliance is busy in the Middle East. We are watching a global chess game for power at multiple levels, and these seemingly disparate events are linked by a globalist agenda.
The globalist leaders seem to be making their boldest moves yet to bring about the conditions necessary to unite the world against a nebulous terror threat known as ISIS. The open southern borders have provided unfettered access into the United States by ISIS members, or at least the perception of infiltration, as we prepare for the next 9/11 event. While we’ve seen so many “false flag” scenarios in our lifetime, from the Gulf of Tonkin to more recent domestic events, we can be certain of one thing: an event on par with, or exceeding that of 9/11, is needed to get the attention of the American public. It is the only thing that will serve to galvanize the public into acceptance of a new front, a new war, a new offensive, or the method to get us to rally behind the agenda we have so far rejected. This is the reason that the situation today is so precarious. Simply stated, false flags and the cry for the need of additional foreign entanglements aren’t working anymore.

Is ISIS a threat to us? Indeed it is, but one made in the basement laboratories of the globalists and the lawless leaders of our own government, and those of our allies.

The end-game objective is to create a threat so dangerous and nebulous that we must come together in a globalist fashion. Most Americans would not relinquish their national sovereignty to a one world government structure—not now, not yet. They would not consider a one world, or “new world” order under the present conditions. The attacks of September 11, 2001 softened us up to accept a Third Reich formation of “homeland security” and caused many otherwise rational Americans to accept a fatal blow to our civil liberties. Think about what the next attack of an equal or greater magnitude will accomplish. Oh, by the way, does anyone recall a recent report of a few missing nuclear weapons?

May God be with us all.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Airborne Transmission of Ebola

The public has been misinformed regarding human-to-human transmission of Ebola. Assurances that Ebola can be transmitted only through direct contact with bodily fluids need to be seriously scrutinized in the wake of the West Africa outbreak.

The Canadian Health Department states that airborne transmission of Ebola is strongly suspected and the CDC admits that Ebola can be transmitted in situations where there is no physical contact between people, i.e.: via direct airborne inhalation into the lungs or into the eyes, or via contact with airborne fomites which adhere to nearby surfaces. That helps explain why 81 doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers have died in West Africa to date. These courageous healthcare providers use careful CDC-level barrier precautions such as gowns, gloves, and head cover, but it appears they have inadequate respiratory and eye protection. Dr. Michael V. Callahan, an infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital who has worked in Africa during Ebola outbreaks said that minimum CDC level precautions
“led to the infection of my nurses and physician co-workers who came in contact with body fluids.”
Currently the CDC advises healthcare workers to use goggles and simple face masks for respiratory and eye protection, and a fitted N-95 mask during aerosol-generating medical procedures. Since so many doctors and nurses are dying in West Africa, it is clear that this level of protection is inadequate. Full face respirators with P-100 (HEPA) replacement filters would provide greater airway and eye protection, and I believe this would save the lives of many doctors, nurses, and others who come into close contact with, or in proximity to, Ebola victims.




The United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases conducted a monkey to monkey Ebola study in December 1995, published in The Lancet, Vol. 346. (Here is a link to the abstract, but the entire article must be purchased.) Several Rhesus monkeys were infected with Zaire Ebola by intramuscular injection while three control Rhesus monkeys were kept in cages separated 10 feet from the infected monkeys. All of the injected monkeys died of Ebola by day 13 and 2 out of 3 control monkeys died of Ebola by 8 days after that. The authors of this study concluded that:
"The exact mode of transmission to the control monkeys cannot be absolutely determined, although the pattern of pulmonary antigen staining in one of the control monkeys was virtually identical to that reported in experimental Ebola virus aerosol infection in rhesus monkeys, suggesting airborne transmission of the disease via infectious droplets... Fomite or contact droplet transmission of the virus between cages was considered unlikely. Standard procedures in our BL4 containment laboratories have always been successful in the prevention of transmission of Ebola or Marburg virus to uninflected animals. Thus, pulmonary, nasopharyngeal, oral, or conjunctival exposure to airborne droplets of the virus had to be considered as the most likely mode of infection... Our present findings emphasize the advisability of at-risk personnel employing precautions to safeguard against ocular, oral, and nasopharyngeal exposure to the virus."
Another NHP to NHP (monkey-to-monkey) study was published in July of this year. Rhesus monkeys were infected with Ebola via intramuscular injection and they were terminated on day 6 after becoming unresponsive, but without developing vomiting, diarrhea, or apparent respiratory illness. Ebola virus was detected in their blood, and genetic fragments of Ebola were found in their nose, mouth, and rectum, but no intact infectious Ebola virus was found. Control Cynomolgus monkeys were caged 1 foot away from the infected Rhesus monkeys but did not become infected with Ebola. This experiment is not a helpful comparison in human to human Ebola infections which are characterized by GI (vomiting & diarrhea) and respiratory (cough and expectoration of sputum) shedding of the intact infectious virus. The monkeys in this year’s study simply died too fast, not allowing time for them to shed infectious Ebola particles. It goes without saying that monkeys which do not shed infectious Ebola particles cannot transmit Ebola to other monkeys. Had this year’s rhesus monkeys been infected by the nasal route, as was the case in a pig-to-monkey experiment in 2012, or if they had lived up to 13 days as in the 1995 study, allowing time for intact infectious Ebola virus to appear, and thus more closely matching human Ebola disease, then we may well have seen monkey-to-monkey airborne transmission of Ebola. The authors of this study concluded that:
“NHPs [non-human primates such as monkeys] are known to be susceptible to lethal EBOV infection through the respiratory tract [just like humans] putting the onus of the transmission on the ability of the source to shed infectious particles.”
We know that airborne transmission of Ebola occurs from pigs to monkeys in experimental settings. We also know that healthcare workers like Dr. Kent Brantly are contracting Ebola in West Africa despite CDC-level barrier protection measures against physical contact with the bodies and body fluids of Ebola victims, so it only makes sense to conclude that some -- possibly many -- of these doctors, nurses, and ancillary healthcare workers are being infected via airborne transmission. It makes perfect sense that sick humans, as they vomit, have diarrhea, cough, and expectorate sputum, and as medical procedures are performed on them, have the ability to shed infectious Ebola particles into the air at a similar or higher level compared to Sus scrofa (wild boar) in the pig-to-monkey study.
Dr. Brantley acquired Ebola while strictly following CDC guidelines (simple mask, goggles, or face shield, gloves, gown, leg covering, shoe covers), so it is likely he became infected by inhaling contaminated droplet nuclei into his lungs or having them settle into his conjunctival (eye) sacs despite the use of CDC level protection against direct contact. Dr. Brantly apparently did not use a full-face respirator with P-100 filters, but rather a simple or N-95 face mask. An interviewer noted that
“Brantly says he isn't sure how he got infected. He's certain he didn't violate any [CDC] safety guidelines.”
It is pretty clear from the current West African Ebola outbreak, particularly in the case of Dr. Kent Brantley and the doctors and nurses working with Dr. Callahan in previous Ebola epidemics, that Ebola-infected human beings are very good at shedding Ebola particles, particularly in the hospital setting. People gravely ill with Ebola are in no way comparable to the Ebola-infected monkeys described in this year’s experimental laboratory setting.
Aerosol-generating medical procedures such as surgical operations, endotracheal intubation, airway suctioning,and the operation of mechanical ventilators or BiPap devices place healthcare workers at very great risk, and I suspect even bathing patients is likely to generate infectious airborne droplets into the air. “Casual contact” or spending hours in the same room with Ebola patients also places medical personnel at significant risk, even with the CDC-recommended protective measures listed above. In retrospect it is clear that Dr. Brantly was not at “low risk”, as the CDC would have us believe. As Dr. Michael V. Callahan observed first-hand, and as the case of Dr. Brantly demonstrates, the current CDC guidelines are inadequate for preventing nosocomial transmission of Ebola from patients to medical workers.

It is not feasible for all medical workers in the United States to use "spacesuits" with a self-contained breathing apparatus air supply, as used in BL4 labs and at hospitals specially equipped for Ebola, but at a minimum, the American healthcare system should immediately upgrade respiratory / eye protection to full face mask respirators with P-100 filters for known or suspected cases of Ebola.

The primary mode of person-to-person Ebola transmission is through direct contact with the body or body fluids of Ebola victims, but it is unwise to ignore the airborne mode. Current evidence supports healthcare workers using a higher level of airway and eye protection than is currently recommended. Although less airborne than Influenza, it is reasonable to conclude that the West African strain of Ebola is at times spread by airborne means since over 170 medical workers have been infected to date, with 81 dead. These victims were using CDC level protective measures against direct contact with the bodies and body fluids of Ebola patients, leaving airborne transmission as the remaining alternative mode. Simple face masks, and N-95 masks as well, are not good enough to filter out Ebola contaminated airborne particles, and they do not have silicon rubber seals against the face to prevent entrainment (leaking) of contaminated room air in clinic and hospital settings. Likewise, goggles and face shields are inferior in eye protection compared to full face respirators with P-100 filters. Since CDC-level respiratory/eye precautions for Ebola are inadequate for healthcare workers in West Africa, I assume they will also be inadequate in the United States.

If Ebola comes here via infected individuals from affected overseas areas, and spreads from these cases to American medical personnel, the damage to our society would be greatly magnified. Not only would we lose doctors, nurses and other medical workers who could no longer provide care to Ebola victims (not to mention loss of care for the normal influx of patients), the medical team would its self become sources of Ebola transmission to others. Considering the deadly virulence of the Ebola virus, with a 50-90% death rate, it be behooves us to err on the side of safety rather than on the side of risk by increasing the level of respiratory and eye protection for our medical teams.

The pressing question is why are we being reassured and reassured again with countless soundbites in the mainstream media and even professional guidance literature that Ebola is not airborne despite well documented research of the possibility of the contrary. We can only wonder.





Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Order Out of Chaos: The Global Elites Plan for a “Middle Eastern Union”


Guest Post by Steven MacMillan

The Middle East has been engulfed in a state of chaos for decades now, with the region becoming increasingly unstable in recent years largely due to Western-sponsored proxy wars. The current map of the Middle East was created in 1916 through the surreptitious Sykes-Picot agreement, a deal which divided the Ottoman-ruled territories of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, into areas controlled by either Britain or France. Today the chaos we see in the Middle East is the creation of Anglo-American-Israeli power, which is attempting to redraw the map to meet their present strategic and imperial objectives.

Islamic State: A Creation of US Intelligence

The Islamic State (IS) has hit the headlines in recent months due to their latest terror campaign in Iraq, which has led to US airstrikes in the North of the country. What has been omitted from mainstream circles though is the intimate relationship between US intelligence agencies and IS, as they have trained, armed and funded the group for years.

Back in 2012, World Net Daily received leaks by Jordanian officials who reported that the US military was training ISIL (as it was then known) in Jordan, before being deployed into Syria to fight against Bashar al-Assad. Francis Boyle, a Law professor at the University of Illinois, has described IS as a “covert US intelligence operation” whose objective is to “destroy Iraq as a state”.


The strategy in the Middle East is the creation of a perpetual condition of instability and a policy of “constructive chaos”, where nation states are to be destroyed so that the map of the Middle East can be redrawn. IS provided the pretext to intervene in Iraq once again, with the intervention ensuring the oil fields in Erbil are safely in the hands of multi-national corporations – as opposed to chaotic and dysfunctional mercenaries – as well as providing the justification for the US, Britain and France to “bolster” the Kurds in the North of the country, which furthers the agenda of destroying “Iraq as a state”. As the President of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, Richard Hass, wrote in an Op Ed for Project Syndicate last month:
It is time to recognize the inevitability of Iraq’s break-up (the country is now more a vehicle for Iran’s influence than a bulwark against it) and bolster an independent Kurdistan within Iraq’s former borders.
As I reported in June, the policy in Iraq is to split the country into 3 separate religious and ethnic mini-states: a Sunni Iraq to the West, an Arab Shia State in the East and a Free Kurdistan in the North. The objective of dividing Iraq into 3 has been discussed in neo-imperial policy circles since as far back as 1982, when Israeli journalist – who also had close connections to the Foreign Ministry in Israel – Oded Yinon, wrote an article which was published in a journal of the World Zionist Organisation, titled: “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”. Yinon discusses the plan for a Greater Israel and pinpoints Iraq in particular as the major obstacle in the Middle East which threatens Israel’s expansion:
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel (p.12)……….The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. (p.11.)
Yinon continues:
In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. (p.12)
Israel is merely an extension of Anglo-American power and has been since its creation in 1948, so any expansion of Israeli territory is synonymous with an increase in Anglo-American hegemony in the region. Arthur James Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary from 1916 to 1919 and author of the 1917 Balfour Declaration – which declared British support for the creation of a Jewish state (Israel) in Palestine – was also a member of the Milner Group, according to CFR historian Carroll Quigley in his book the Anglo-American Establishment (p.311). The Milner Group was the precursor to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) or Chatham House; the British arm of the CFR, with both organisations sharing the collective objective of creating an Anglo-American global empire. 


The Plan for a “Middle Eastern Union”

After funding and being directly responsible for much of the chaos and instability that has been unleashed in the Middle East, western think tank strategists are proposing a centralised, sovereignty-usurping union as the solution to the problem they have created, in a classic deployment of the order out of chaos doctrine. As The New American reported last month, Ed Husain, an Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the CFR, compared today’s Middle East to Europe before the EU was created, and he asserted that the only solution to the ongoing violence is the creation of a “Middle Eastern Union”. This sentiment was echoed by Hass, who compared the Middle East of today to 17th century Europe, in his article “The New Thirty Years War”. Hass proclaims that the future will likely be as turbulent unless a “new local order” emerges:
For now and for the foreseeable future – until a new local order emerges or exhaustion sets in – the Middle East will be less a problem to be solved than a condition to be managed.
The idea of an EU-style governing body over the Middle East is not a new concept. In 2008, the Iraqi government called for an EU-style trading bloc in the Middle East that would encompass Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and later perhaps the Gulf states, in an address to the US think tank the Institute of Peace. The President of Turkey, Abdullah Gül, was in attendance at the second meeting in 2011 along with Egemen Bağış, the ‘Minister for EU Affairs and Chief Negotiator’ at the time, who gave a speech where he described the EU as the model for the Middle East:
We all know that the EU emerged as the most successful peace and development project of the history after a bloody war. Today, we have the very same expectations for the Middle East.
Whether a “Middle Eastern Union” will be created is difficult to determine at this point in history, but there is no question that the process of redrawing the map of the Middle East is well under way.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”, where this first appeared.