[rattling sabres] with nuclear tips

Preface

Quite frankly, I dislike political "discussion" because it inevitably descends to the same cocktail of rash assertion, blind denial, cliched grandstanding, clever put downs and arguments from inevitably prejudiced and deeply entrenched positions or else from incomplete evidence.

Insert any "trigger word" like Hitler, Blair, Jesus, Cheney, Kissinger, Hillary Clinton, Churchill and you can hear the sighs, the snorts of disgust, the sharpened rapiers on the one hand and the auto-defence shutters closing on the other.

There's no reasoning here - just auto-response.

It's a giant bore having to deal with this when all you want in the first place is to find out the truth. And if the truth is tacky and if it involves public officials, there's next to no chance of uncovering iron-clad proof, given the day jobs each of us has.

We're also not a police department, not an investigatory unit with a thousand operatives working round the clock.

A second thing I deeply dislike is that the moment a blogger writes any more than 200 words, he can count on the Attention Deficiency of the average reader kicking in and being swiftly passed over in favour of the short "info-bite" or the quick witty fisk.

Few people will follow other people's pieces through unless the sentiments and concerns approximately accord with their own. So why bother?

I'm going to bother.

The trigger

So far[1] it's just sabre rattling:

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has used a visit to a US aircraft carrier in the Gulf to warn that the United States will not let Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

"We'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region," he told thousands of sailors on the nuclear-powered USS John C Stennis as it cruised roughly 240 kilometres off the Iranian coast.

Mr Cheney, who spoke with five warplanes arrayed behind him, said the US naval presence in the region sent "clear messages to friends and adversaries alike."

All right. We can divide our responses to this in roughly this way:

1] Cheney won't be there after 2008, so what's he trying to say?

2] Just what can an aircraft carrier achieve against a nuclear programme carried out in bunkers?

3] Despite its mad leader[2], Iran does not stand alone. There is a long tradition of healthy relations with China, for one and the Chinese penchant for opposing any given hegemony at that time in history.

Now whatever I personally think of Cheney and we'll go into that later, the man is not a total idiot and so this utterance clearly fits in with a strategy somewhere along the line.

With a changing executive, what could that strategy be? At home there's a strong anti-war stance and there are insufficient forces in the area anyway - what, are they going to redeploy hundreds of thousands more?

The answer is yes.

The reason why is steeped in the seemingly simple question of just who these people are in the first place. You can't close your mind off to that if you wish to understand the whole ball game. For a start, there are different levels of this understanding:

1] the overt politica, with the two party "democracy", Washington, the paparazzi et al, the part people see;

2] the concealed power behind the executive, for example, Cheney himself;

3] the semi-concealed power behind Cheney himself and its agenda;

4] the character of a person like Richard Cheney in the first place.

Understand all that and it's easy to see how Cheney's statement accords with the known knowns of the international power game.

The power behind the throne

Where does one start on this? One fragment [3] of a report on 911 gave an interesting little snippet about Cheney himself giving the order to act, when he clearly had no broad authority to do so, Bush being in Florida at the time.

Cheney of course said he sought the authority but many of those about him seemingly didn't concur on this.

In a BBC News profile of Cheney[4], the nature of the war command is also touched on and it seems that Bush deferred to his two "experts" Rumsfeld and Cheney in this.

Granted this specific evidence is shaky - the say-so of a few unnamed detractors and "insiders" and so the insisters on iron-clad proof once again have their way.

Only that accords, neither with the known scenario[5], nor with the hundreds of other fragments which go to make up the whole.

The power behind the power behind the throne

There is considerable "circumstantial" that Cheney was former CFR[6]. The CFR are openly behind the SPPNA[7] and the inference is their own that they will man the NAAC. It's just not logical that Cheney knows nothing of this, in the same way that Haldeman and Ehrlichmann could have been guilty while the boss remained squeaky clean[8].

I don't give a damn about party politics here. Let them be Democrats for all I care. It's the nature of the beast I'm looking at, not the surface politics.

It's also inconceivable that the skulduggery at Jeckyl Island[9] and the nature, background and connections of Warburg and House should have passed out of existence and a new squeaky clean power should have taken its place. There is just no incentive for it to have done so[10].

Hence Dean Atcheson[11], hence Kissinger[12], hence Watergate[13], hence Halliburton[14] et al.

The nature of the beast

Most would possibly concede that corruption is rife, that people are making big bucks on inside information - it accords with what we know of the way of the world. I imagine most would draw the line at allegations of degenerate conduct.

When allegations [15] started to surface in the eighties when dozens of children reported ritual abuse involving people high in the community, the official reaction was that it due to FMS [False Memory Syndrome].

As they were toddlers making the allegations, there was no real question of convictions and before the issue could resurface, the tunnels the children were alleged to have been taken down from a pre-school to a local church were caved in and the whole site bulldozed to the ground.

The grounds on which the children had now made the allegations now shifted from False Memory to coercion on the part of the child psychologists and now, if you google the issue, Wikipedia and the entire first page say it was expensive hysteria, an eccentric part of American history and a 'cautionary tale' for any others who would leap to such conclusions.

The interesting thing about the Wiki article is that, though Wiki usually tries to present both sides, even when slanted one way, on this issue it chose quite strong vocabulary to debunk the children and all associated with them. The mother making the original allegation has been declared psychologically unstable.

If I hadn't first read dozens of pages of documents and testimony and had come to this issue "cold", I'd be forgiven for accepting the official version, even down to a psychological association report.

What undercuts this is the testimony[16] from 2004 from the mother of one of the toddlers from the pre-school and she is unequivocal - of course the thing happened. So - one online mother against the weight of the state and the psychological community.

Then came the Franklin Bank, Omaha issue[17] also revolving around ritual abuse in high places and once again, convictions were quashed and instead, the four children making the allegations were charged with perjury. As a result of pressure, two recanted but two refused to recant[18] and they were convicted and incarcerated. They refused till the end to recant and the girl in particular still alleges that the Omaha official did do those things to her.

This is modern America we're talking about here.

When a psychologist[19] went on record at a symposium, in a slide presentation, about what was going down in the psychological community with C.I.A. ordered electric abuse of patients and the misuse of drugs, quoting names and places in detail, he was marginalized and the community closed ranks against him.

However this was backed up later[20], actually occasioning a conviction in Canada and then again[21]in Australia, it was straining credulity to say that each of these were completely isolated instances and it was only what Dr. Ross had been saying in the first place.

Isn't it interesting how people will accept allegations of Japanese sex slaves[22], will concede what is happening in Eastern Europe[23] but allegations of similar things in America about Omaha airport being used to buy and sell white slaves, people close their mind to it.

Americans are incapable of such bestiality, aren't they?

And even if this were so, how does this involve squeaky clean figures like Cheney? Because he is directly named, over and over. Here is one source[24] and this fragment from it.

It was my experience over the years that A Most Dangerous Game had numerous variations on the primary theme of being stripped naked and turned loose in the wilderness while being hunted by men and dogs.

In reality, all "wilderness" areas were enclosed in secure military fencing whereby it was only a matter of time until I was caught, repeatedly raped, and tortured.

Dick Cheney had an apparent addiction to the "thrill of the sport." He appeared obsessed with playing A Most Dangerous Game as a means of traumatizing mind control victims, as well as to satisfy his own perverse sexual kinks.

I would have agreed with you that this was beyond the pale for these authors to claim except for my own experience at school. We had an ancient wood above the school and we were sent out there by the masters to play "The Game".

It was a dog-eat-dog thing and was compulsory in all weathers. It was not unlike William Golding's Lord of the Flies and those who were caught were humiliated. One learnt to survive. A similar thing appeared in the James Bond film Octopussy.

Debunking and failure to debunk

Clearly, such highly polarizing testimony divides readers [see reviews of the book] into the sceptical snorters in disgust:

"But the rest of the book is clear nonsense. Sure there might be some mind control experiments - I'd be astonished if there was none - but you'll have to suspend reality to believe this stuff."

" I am shocked by how people accept irrational claims as fact. It seems those who support the claims in this book fancy themselves as critical thinkers who have made an attempt to question the answers."

… and those who see logic in it, for example:

"So far, facts are beginning to emerge that substantiates some of it - the child prostitution rings, the 'programming', the drug running. Who knows? I recommend it be read and to make up your own mind."

The debunkers say "nonsense" but can't prove their assertion that it is. On the other hand, most of those supporting the allegations have equally failed to prove their stance.

So one is left with unproven, yet undebunked, allegations, which grow by the year.

About this time, a woman came out with allegations, in the year 2000, on Suite 101 site, through interviewer HJ Springer, Chief Editor CentrExNews.com. I have the full text of this in hardcopy only. It's not on my computer anymore and references to it on the web have now disappeared, except for excerpted chapters.

However, there is reference to it here[25] and a broader article including it is here[26]. Of course, if enough people want, I'll upload it.

The themes coming out of all this are cruelty, coercion, treatment of people as animals and a hubristic belief in the right to break the laws, indeed to make the laws, to use people as cogs in a machine and to deny their "human-ness".

The whole thing smacks of deep sadness because as a result, people have been blighted and are living in private hells. And even if all of it were false, all of it invented in some sort of giant hoax by the people, what about the bizarre behaviour of the world's leaders here[27]?

Madness

The symbolism, the rituals, the lack of necessity for any such club and yet the major figures from around the nations of the world who have indulged in it lend credence to the notion that there is something indeed bizarre in their mindsets.

It is simply madness - the madness of the German Holocaust[28], the madness of the anthem Jerusalem[29], the madness of Prince Charles being traced back to King David[30] by "The Illustrious Lineage of the Royal House Of Britain" (First Published in 1902 by The Covenant Publishing Co., Ltd., London, England) and by the Royal College of Heralds.

Further:

1] At his coronation (investiture as Prince of Wales) in 1969, Prince Charles sat on a chair with a large red dragon emblazoned on it. During the ceremony, his mother, Queen Elizabeth II said:

"This dragon gives you your power, your throne and your own authority."

His response to her was:

"I am now your Liege-man, and worthy of your earthly worship."

Incidentally, at the risk of getting biblical, Revelations 13:2 says:

"And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority."

2] In 1992 just before the full unification in 1993, Charles applied to the EU (European Union) to be made King of Europe. He was turned down by the European parliament:

"I am sure that many people consider that the United Kingdom is in an ideal geographical and historical position to act as an interpreter and mediator between the United States and Europe."

The picture which emerges is of overweening arrogance in an elite who know their eminent place [31], of seeing the populace as sheep, of even having the right to meddle with the heavens [32] and with an all consuming drive to monitor, enslave and rule.

A Christian would have not the least problem identifying the underlying source of such sociopathic madness[33]. This has coincided with the increasingly virulent attacks on and suppression of [34] Christianity, which are truly surprising.

If, as they say, Christianity is a dying superstition, then why all the attention?

Agenda

So, if we look at the new rights of search and enter, the Patriot Act, FEMA, the recent Capitol legislation, the EU army, ID cards, the British RIP Act, the surreptitious EU Constitution now going through, the military presence on the streets and so on, where is it all leading?

If you go back to read Svali, she states it quite clearly. But even here are some clues[35]:

Kaletsky, in the Times, says that Davos, usually concerning itself with globalisation, active demand management, financial deregulation and the addition of three billion new consumers and producers to the global capitalist system, [their summum bonum], apparently was discussing other issues this year.

He said the new buzz words were the unquestionable reality of global warming; the threat of an all-embracing conflict in the Middle East on the scale of a world war; the protectionist backlash against globalisation; the seeming inevitability of nuclear proliferation to alarmingly unpredictable countries such as Iran and North Korea and the rise of India, China and Russia, not just as big economic forces but as challengers to the cultural and political hegemony of the United States. He adds the breakdown of nuclear non-proliferation globally and the demographic dwindling of Western democracies.

Angela Merkel spoke of a new Pan-European Army here[36] and finally, look at a former CIA chief's take on the upcoming global congflagration[37]:

At a NATO conference in Prague in November [2002], Woolsey declared "Iraq can be seen as the first battle of the fourth world war … After two hot world wars and one cold one that all began and were centered in Europe," he said, "the fourth world war is going to be for the Middle East."

That's what we're up against.