Threat of Fund. Islam vs. Threat of Illuminati

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and why Bush's ideological crusade over there is a joke.

[/ QUOTE ] I think he, and his handlers, know this. Most people seem to be realizing this now as well. Makes you wonder why they are continuing it, until you realize Bush and his other Elite cronies from around the world benefit from more war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong. I think they are, to an extent, trying to establish a presence over there so as to keep some of the religious extremists in check. I think it transcends religion, though.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and why Bush's ideological crusade over there is a joke.

[/ QUOTE ] I think he, and his handlers, know this. Most people seem to be realizing this now as well. Makes you wonder why they are continuing it, until you realize Bush and his other Elite cronies from around the world benefit from more war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong. I think they are, to an extent, trying to establish a presence over there so as to keep some of the religious extremists in check. I think it transcends religion, though.

[/ QUOTE ]If they are actually trying to curb it, then its all because of the oil. Thats what they want control over.

This whole thing is a cycle of violence. The elites need this fanaticism so that they have an excuse for the military activity. Ultimately, they don't want control over those countries, just the oil. These guys probably don't even care if 90% of the Iraq's move to another country. I could easily see the middle east, some countries excluded, being vast open spaces with very little people, other than military and "freedom" fighters battling it out in crumbled cities.

oh wait, thats what it is already.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree Radical Islam is dangerous and should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, Neocons are not helping too much. In fact Radical Islam is spread as never before with magnificent help by their actions.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Neo-Cons are pulling out all the stops to further radicalize and Shari'a-ize the Middle East, and they don't even realize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think they are stupid, huh?

I used to think that but then I realized that it's simply not true. There are many smart politicians. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, for example. They know exactly what they are doing.

Why do people say that politicians are stupid? They say this because they can't explain it any other way because it makes no sense to them. The people who craft these laws are very smart. Make no mistake about that. If you forget about the rhetoric and just look at the policy that comes out of Washington, then you will see what they really care about.

For example, take the War in Iraq. Ask yourself this: "Are we trying to win in Iraq?"

The answer is obviously a resounding NO for several undisputable reasons, not the least of which are the following:

1) Doctrine of Overwhelming Force, a "hard rule" of American warfare was not used. (Look at the difference in troop numbers between the first and second Iraq wars for comparative sake...less than half the size of the first war)

2) Rules of Engagement- The rules of engagement on American troops are incredibly hostile to our own troops and make it damn near impossible for our troops to make any progress.

These two points are indisputable and are certainly worthy of individual threads in their own right.

So, if we aren't trying to win in Iraq, then we must be trying to occupy Iraq.

Now, I don't know the reason that we are trying to occupy Iraq but I can come up with many different theories.

It's not that they are stupid, it's that they have another agenda that has been hidden from the public debate.

If you take it one issue at a time, you have to come up with some rather disturbing hypotheses...

1) Decline of the dollar
2) Subprime lending
3) Amnesty/Illegal Immigration (slave wages)
4) Why the hell is the stock market supporting PE ratios of 30+???

I could go on and on but the policies lack any kind of logic unless you realize that politics is fueled by money and the big money doesn't come from you and I but from the big PACs, lobbyists, and MNCs.

It doesn't take an Illuminati cabal conspiracy to explain what's really happening (although it adds a certain panache). No, just follow the money. MNCs get what they want, how they want, when they want. They pay the money, you don't. You get the choices they give you. No conspiracy necessary.

MNCs want:

1) the erasure of borders
2) cheap labor
3) to keep you poor enough that you can't fund an idea that could compete with (or bankrupt) them.
4) to make profits all over the entire world
5) Opening up all of our patents

When they talk about exporting the idea of America to the entire world, they are literally thinking about a Wal-Mart in every neighborhood from Toledo to Tibet. They want to own it all.

They are the big, monstrous stack against nine smaller stacks. They want to own it all.

Maybe there is a secret cabal somewhere that worships a dark, malevolent force. Maybe there isn't. I don't know, but it really doesn't take an elaborate conspiracy hatched in the woods of northern California. It may sound sexier to say that's what it is but when it all boils down to it we're just talking about capitalists who, now that they're on top, are willing to change the rules of the game that got them there for their own protection.

Start out a capitalist, get rich, become an oligarchist. Captialism in its purist form is a meritocracy. We're a long, long way from that now, people. They are NOT stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post Mempho. That's what i had on my mind when debating about who's more dangerous locally and globally. They are definitely not stupid, neither naive. They knew exactly what will happen in Iraq and how costly it will be, but they were willing to go after it just because of huge profits for the elite. Anyone who believes the present situation in Iraq is a surprise for them would sound very naive (search the net if in doubt).

The fact is they are willing to open huge wars and ignoring hundred thousands of deaths and millions victims of war, putting on risk large numbers of Americans, ignoring huge expenses for war, etc.. just for the extreme profits of the elite. What do you think? Would it be any different if ten thousands Americans would die there for their profits? They don't give a damn about USA. America(ns) will pay the price anyway, no matter how big it is. Quite dangerous group. One thing is certain. They would never leave Iraq (at least for a decades), so don't expect any timetable for withdrawal under the present president.


A good question here would be - what would they be capable to do to remain on the power? A question - how far do you think would they be willing to go in defending the 'new world order'?



"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - J. Edgar Hoover

"Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously--and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply." – George W. Bush

"This job would be a heck of a lot easier if this were a dictatorship hehehe [pausing].. just so long as I'm the dictator." - G.W. Bush

"The terrorists are smart and persistant, and so are we. They will stop at nothing to harm America and neither will we!" - G.W. Bush

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." — G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

"I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." --talking to key Republicans about Iraq, as quoted by Bob Woodward

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]


Great post Mempho. That's what i had on my mind when debating about who's more dangerous locally and globally. They are definitely not stupid, neither naive. They knew exactly what will happen in Iraq and how costly it will be, but they were willing to go after it just because of huge profits for the elite. Anyone who believes the present situation in Iraq is a surprise for them would sound very naive (search the net if in doubt).

The fact is they are willing to open huge wars and ignoring hundred thousands of deaths and millions victims of war, putting on risk large numbers of Americans, ignoring huge expenses for war, etc.. just for the extreme profits of the elite. What do you think? Would it be any different if ten thousands Americans would die there for their profits? They don't give a damn about USA. America(ns) will pay the price anyway, no matter how big it is. Quite dangerous group. One thing is certain. They would never leave Iraq (at least for a decades), so don't expect any timetable for withdrawal under the present president.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think it's not quite as simple as a guy like Alex Jones or some run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist would have you believe. Let's go back to Iraq and the theories upon why we've decided to occupy Iraq. A lot of people will say that it has to do with Iran, protecting Israel, rooting out terrorism, oil, etc.

I would suggest that the real reason is dollar hegemony. I'll quote the following from one of this forum's favorite personalities, Ron Paul:

[ QUOTE ]
In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein – though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

So, this was really just a way to support a fiat currency, the dollar. Now, there are a lot of Americans who would call that evil but many would call that necessary when faced with an economic collapse. The fact is, you don't sell wars to the American public and the United Nations by saying that you need to support our currency. Further, you make the dollar, backed only by faith in what it can buy, pretty much worthless by explaining the situation to the average person in terms he can understand. All of the sudden, we would have tremendous amounts of money going into gold, etc.

Of course, this is really only a delay tactic and the dollar will eventually slide down the toilet. The objective is probably going to be very similar to what happened in European fiat currencies and that is too replace them altogether with a currency that is backed by something.

See, the guys that print the money have reaped the benefits, but, at a certain point, the shell game is over and you have to replace your paper with something of value.

This is almost akin to you starting a company, then retaining 30% of the ownership while offering the other 70% in an IPO on the NYSE. The company quickly spikes up in price, you decide that the company is worth less than a third of its valuation and you decide to sell out. The problem is that you can't just dump the shares out there on Tuesday at 9:00 am or something or you'll have a price collapse because you own 30% of the total shares outstanding. So, you do what you can by slowly replacing your shares with something you deem of value.

Eventually, they will try to replace the fiat currency with something of value before it collapses. Then, the Amero comes in to save the day.

[ QUOTE ]

A good question here would be - what would they be capable to do to remain on the power? A question - how far do you think would they be willing to go in defending the 'new world order'?

[/ QUOTE ]

The New World Order is basically just westernized corporatism on a global level...nothing more, nothing less. The problem that arises with it is what causes all the problems and that is the consolidation of power. I mean, you take someone that is totally benevolant and fair and give him absolute power and there aren't any problems. You give a guy who is just a tiny bit corrupt, however, any power and you will find problems. Quite frankly, that's where worldwide government falls flat. You see, if the United States becomes too oppressive, I run to Canada or Mexico. If the United States, Mexico, and Canada are part of a North American Union, however, I've just lost two of my lower cost options.

The more global a government becomes, the harder and more expensive it becomes to escape that government. Further, the encroaching government feels less competition and can get away with more. At this moment, government is not a monopoly. I mean, if you really, really want to live in anarchy or have your own dictatorship, you could always find a way to make some serious cash here and move to some place in Africa and pretty much do as you wish.

Look, if you want to face reality, then you have to accept what is and that is this: global government is the future.

I don't really like having to say that because I really loved the vision of America that I grew up with....football, apple pie, and [censored]. The problem is that it's just not real. Further, the longer you hold on to a vision that just can't be, the worse it gets when you finally get ripped away.

It's just like that girl you fell in love with too soon. In the logical sense you know that it just can't be but you hold onto that vision so tightly that it becomes unhealthy. Many of you have been through that.

It's like holding AA and getting that all-too-familiar raise on the turn...you know in the logical sense that you're beat. Will you pay it off is the question. I would be a much wealthier man if I had trusted my logic every time at the poker table. Likewise, you will be much better off if you accept that the MNCs rule the roost now.

On that note, I admire Ron Paul supporters. Generally speaking, they're a loyal, fervant, enthusiastic bunch. I will almost certainly vote for Ron Paul in the primaries and I will vote for him in the general (Republican nomination be damned) if no acceptable winnable choice presents itself. In other words, I'll vote my conscience.

That said, Ron Paul is extremely unlikely to win. Most people inherently know that. I hate to say it, but W was right, the Constitution is "just a [bleeped] piece of paper " when it comes right down to it.

Ron Paul supporters, however, tend to still believe that a little piece of paper is going to save them. The truth is, however, that nothing is going to stop the advance of the elitist agenda. As Henry Kissinger stated:

"[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most
significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United
States to change it's perceptions."

So, you don't have to trust me. I don't mean to be trite, but your best bet is to save yourselves. A lot of the people on this forum are smart enough to do just that, at least for a time. You're not going to win a direct fight, however. Perhaps you could win a fight if your fellow citizens were just as smart as you are. They're not and you won't ever be able to teach them out of that. Accept the hand you've been dealt and play it to the best of your abilities. Attempting to go for the throat of the big stack rarely works for very long.

After all, for David Rockefeller, it's just a day's work:

"David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and justanother day's work... In the world of David Rockefeller it's hard to tell where business ends and politics begins" . Bill Moyers

[boracay]

Thanks for another thoughtful post. I’d agree with most what you said.

I believed for some time the attack might be related with saving dollar. However, many facts doesn’t follow this. PNAC were pushing on Clinton with demands to attack Iraq since 1996. Attacking Iraq was the prime subject of the first and the second National Security Meeting ten days after Bush’s inauguration.
link Chaney’s talks about importance of getting a control over Afghanistan and Iraq in nineties. It leads me to believe it was just a questions of time for attack – all they had needed was getting on power and a good persuasive reason for the domestic and global public to get a support. Soon they got one with 9/11 and the action could be started.

For the same reasons I wouldn’t believe too much in other reasons.
Protecting Israel? BS. Iraq/Afghanistan were not a thread for them neither for the USA.
Rooting out terrorism? Saddam would be (and was) the best coalition partner in that fight, no matter in what relationship he was with the USA. If fighting against terrorism would be their goal, their actions would be quite different. Wouldn’t catching the No.1 enemy be one of the prime goals? ("I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." — GWB, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002) .
Oil? I guess not. The US were most interested in forcing embargo against Iraq’s oil. Saddam would be glad if he could sell it and it wouldn’t matter if to the USA only. Does anyone believe otherwise? +There was plenty of oil available on the market. +The price of oil in any circumstance wouldn't be as high as it became with war (and it’s expenses).
Spreading democracy? I wonder who’s that naïve to believe that could be the reason. The US work much better with dictatorships, especially in that region. Would they really want democracy in Iraq? Who would believe that occupation of Iraq would have a positive influence regarding spreading influence in the region? BS. They knew it will be very negative. And they knew it Muslim extremism/terrorism will rise only.
Just because of removing Saddam? Another BS. They would want a dictator like Saddam. They work easily with dictators. If pressed enough, Saddam would be willing to let the power to someone else. If not, they would remove him without a war as they did several times before elsewhere around the globe. The fact is Saddam was very vulnerable after years of embargo, they could press over him and demand almost anything from him and would get that. And Saddam would be a good fellow once again as he was before his invasion on Kuwait. Again, it would be naïve to expect they couldn’t agree with changing euros back to dollars again with him.
Geopolitics? Not likely. Middle East is extremely important region. Growing unstability in Pakistan/Saudi Arabia. Would they need a large permanent military base there? Probably. But wouldn’t it be easier to get them in friendly Pakistan? They would get more control over their government and their nuclear weapons. Didn’t they only rise the unstability in nuclear Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Does anyone believe the whole region is more stable nowadays? Or that it might become in case of prolonged occupation of Iraq? Or that Israel is safer today than it was several years ago? Wouldn’t it be enough just a large base in Saudi Arabia which has 43% of global oil reserves (with Kuwait and UAE) and where regime is extremely cooperative?
Iran threat? Not really. There are US friendly regimes all over Iran. Iraq would be a coalition partner again as Saddam hated religious extremism as much as he hated USA. But an attack and occupation of Iraq had another negative consequences against this reason. Naturally it had bring Iran into need of ‘as soon and as good as possible’ modernization of their weaponry. What else would one expect, they are in danger now. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to attack it first if that was a reason, when it was still unprepared than maybe tomorrow? They had a public support then and world’s opinion would be against it too much. Again, this has changed in time.

So, whatever reason I could think of, I just can’t find any reasonable explanation why Iraq rather than personal gain of the elite. Attack didn’t help America. USA is more vulnerable today, World opinion is very bad towards US initiatives, China/Russia are even faster modernizing their weaponry/technology, demands for a self-defense in EU is growing, South America is leaning left, not to mention a bad influence in all Muslim Countries especially in the whole Middle East. Anything good for the USA here? Not to mention again millions of victims of the US attack, ten thousands of crying Americans and trillion of dollars spent again. They just don’t care about that.

Global government as a goal for the future? Global tyranny would be a better word. I agree corporatism on global level causes all the problems. And it leads to a police state nobody wants to live in.

I’d say probably not all presidential candidates would be admired by their game. So, the good question is – how far do you think they would go to remain on the power? Could it happen another 9/11 this year? A war with Iran in spring 08? According to their actions in the past nothing could be easily ignored IMO. They don’t care about anything. Give them another mandate and there’s no hope for escape or comeback for decades to come.

I believe the next elections (IMO one the most important elections in history of the USA) are crucial for your (our) freedom and lives of our kids and grandchildren. Give them a chance. Do you feel the same about importance of the next elections?


"The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." - Mussolini

"Corporations have been enthroned An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people .. until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . . and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." - President Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The concentrating [all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insideous forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." – GWB, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
"Corporations have been enthroned An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people .. until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . . and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how he would have phrased that if at the time, 80% of the media was owned by 5 corporations, as it is today.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
So, the good question is – how far do you think they would go to remain on the power? Could it happen another 9/11 this year? A war with Iran in spring 08?

[/ QUOTE ]

How far would they go? I don't know the answer to that. I am quite sure that there are elements out there which hope for another attack. I think it is not outside of logic to think that they would allow an attack to happen by conveniently ignoring intelligence. Further, I'm sure that they've disposed of individuals that have gotten in their way.

These people are still humans though. By that, I mean that I don't believe that they are "evil incarnate." I don't think they want to see such suffering. I think that they just want to rule. In fact, I'd venture to say that most of them believe that [them ruling] it's the best thing for the world. I really do believe that even if I don't agree with it.

They think that the best thing for you and I is to be led by them. This is, I believe, the heart of the matter.