Archive | October 16, 2014

ISIS: A CIA Trojan Horse to Justify War Abroad and Repression at Home*

ISIS: A CIA Trojan Horse to Justify War Abroad and Repression at Home*

Through terrifying headlines and shocking videos, ISIS is being used as a tool to justify war in the Middle East and to cause fear and panic worldwide. No, this is not a “crazy conspiracy theory”, it is simply the oldest trick in the book. ISIS was created by the very forces that are fighting it.

Ever since the creation of democratic nations – where public opinion somewhat matters – the political class is faced with a dilemma: War is needed to gain power, riches, and control, but the general public has a tendency to be against it. What to do? The answer was found decades ago and is still used successfully today: Create an enemy so terrifying that the masses will beg their government to go to war.

This is why ISIS exists. This is why the beheading videos are so “well-produced” and publicized worldwide through mainstream media. This is why news sources regularly come up with alarmist headlines about ISIS. They are used to serve the best interests of the world elite. The current objectives are: Sway public opinion to favor the invasion of countries in the Middle East, provide a pretext for “coalition” intervention across the world, and manufacture a domestic threat that will be used to take away rights and increase surveillance. In short, ISIS is yet another instance of the age-old tactic of creating a terrifying enemy to scare the masses.

“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”– Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard

About a decade after the invasion of Iraq (which is still a chaotic danger zone), most agree that the war was based on false premises. The public ultimately acknowledged that the “weapons of mass destruction” excuse abundantly repeated by George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld was a complete fabrication. Despite this fact, the U.S. and its allies (along with the Council of Foreign Relations and other elite international opinion groups) are still looking to extend war in the Middle East, with Syria as a prime target. While the public across the Western world was decidedly against an unprovoked invasion of Syria, a single media event turned the tide: A short video where a masked jihadist beheads an American journalist.

Alarmist headlines and dramatic pictures help stir up feelings of anger from the Western world.

The outcry was immediate. How could it not be? Shot in high-def, with perfect cinematic lightening, the beheading videos are setup to generate a visceral feeling of horror and terror. Dressed in an orange attire reminiscent of Guantanamo Bay, a helpless Western journalist is executed by a barbaric fanatic dressed in black, dramatically waving a tiny knife as weapon. No propagandist could think of a better way of swaying public opinion for war. As a “bonus” effect, the video stirs up anti-Muslim hysteria across the world, a sentiment that is constantly exploited by the world elite.

Very soon afterwards, war against ISIS was declared, almost as if it had been planned for months. In an interview with USA Today, Ex-CIA director Leon Panetta stated that Americans should brace themselves for a 30-year war that it will extend well beyond Syria:

“I think we’re looking at kind of a 30-year war,” he says, one that will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere.– USA Today, Panetta: ’30-year war’ and a leadership test for Obama

Basically, in the span of a few months, a terrorist group literally popped out of nowhere, causing mayhem in the very regions the US and its allies have been looking to attack for years. Its name: Islamic State in Syria, or ISIS. The name itself is symbolic and revealing. Why is an “Islamic” group named after an Ancient Egyptian goddess? Perhaps because it is a favorite figure of the occult elite – the true culprits that are behind the horrors of ISIS.

A Continuation of History

The idea of the CIA funding an Islamic group to further its political interests isn’t exactly “far-fetched”. In fact, there are several obvious instances in recent history where the US openly supported extremist Islamist groups (dubbed “freedom fighters” in mass media).  The most flagrant and well-documented example is the creation of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, a group that was created by the CIA to lure the USSR in an “Afghan trap”. The term Mujaheddin describes “Muslims who struggle in the path of Allah” and comes from the root word “jihad”. The “great enemy” of today was the friend of the past. An important architect of this policy was Zbigniew Brzezinski one of the most influential statesman in U.S. History. From JFK to Obama, Brzezinski has been an important figure shaping U.S. policy across the world. He also created the Trilateral commission with David Rockefeller. In the following excerpt from a 1998 interview, Brzezinski explains how the Mujaheddin were used in Afghanistan:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.– Le Nouvel Observateur, The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan

President Ronald Reagan sitting in the White House with Afghan “freedom fighters”.

A few decades later, these “freedom fighters” turned into the Taliban terrorists, among them Osama bin-Laden, turned from a CIA agent to public enemy No. 1. The group was then used to justify war in Afghanistan. It is one of numerous examples where an Islamic group was created, funded and used to advance U.S. interests. The U.S. also backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Sarekat Islam in Indonesia, Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan, and the Islamic regime of Saudi-Arabia to counter Russia.

“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”– Henry Kissinger

Questionable Details about ISIS

ISIS is a new Al-Qaeda, fully adapted for this day and age. Popping out of nowhere in the span of a few months, ISIS apparently secured a great number of resources, weapons, high-tech media equipment and propaganda specialists. Where did all the money and know-how come from?

The story of the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, is extremely murky. According to some reports, al Baghdadi was detained by the Americans at Camp Bucca in Iraq for a number of years. Some speculate that it is during this time that he began working with the CIA.

“He was captured by the Americans in 2005 and was held at Camp Bucca in sweltering southern Iraq for years, though it’s difficult to pinpoint the circumstances and timing of his release. In any case, he was free by 2010 and already had ascended enough in the jihadist movement that he assumed control of al Qaida’s Iraq branch after the deaths of two superiors.”– Miami Herald, Who is Iraq’s Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, world’s new top terrorist?

Shortly after his release, al Baghdadi quickly rose to the highest ranks of Al-Qaeda, amassed a fortune, was kicked out of Al-Qaeda, and now leads ISIS. Was he pushed by outside forces?

During his first public appearance as head of ISIS, al Baghdadi ordered Muslims to obey him as the “Leader who presides over you.” He was also spotted wearing an expensive watch that is believed to be either a Rolex, a Sekonda or a Omega Seamaster – all costing a few thousands of dollars. An odd fashion choice for a leader vowing to fight “Western decadence”?

The beheading videos also raised quite a few eyebrows.

A war propagandist couldn’t ask for a better tool to generate consent.

Set-up for maximum theatrical effect, the videos have questionable details. First, why are the victims about to be beheaded able to talk in such a calm and intelligible matter? Needless to say that people that are about to get their head cut off in a horrific matter are usually in a state of advanced panic and terror. Why wasn’t there blood gushing when the knife cut the victim’s throat? And finally, why is the executioner masked? Why does he even care? Also, why does he speak with a British accent? Dubbed “Jihadi John” by low-grade journals across the Western World, he is a way of telling the public that extremists can come from the West so watch your neighbour.

ISIS propaganda material utilizes state of the art equipment produced by seasoned movie producers. Their production are a step above usual “Islamic propaganda” found circulating in the Middle-East.

Naomi Wolf, the reputed author and former advisor to Bill Clinton attracted a barrage of criticism when she expressed scepticism regarding ISIS and requested journalistic rigor.

Naomi Wolf’s Facebook post about ISIS. It was removed.

After finding herself under attack by countless journalists and observers, Wolf added:

“The US benefits from … us being SO DAMN SCARED so that our intelligence agencies can take away the last of our freedoms on behalf of corporate interests the way intelligence agencies in the West are doing all over … Britain, Canada, Australia, next NZ … so there you are.”

“I see some blogs are badly distorting the nature of what I said … Why do I often not take political narratives at face value as they are dictated to the press?

“A) Because I am a journalist and verifying skeptically is supposed be our job but more importantly b) because I worked for two Presidential campaigns, one formally and one informally, as a political consultant, and because I was a spouse of a White House speechwriter for many years.

“As a political consultant and also a longtime close-up observer of how news and statements come out of the White House and Presidential campaigns, I know that FIRST the communications team involved has to start with something handed to them that they had nothing to do with …

“And THEN the creative, talented people in the campaigns’ or nation’s communications shop are asked to construct a narrative about it and talking points and find ‘heroes’ that help the narrative along, and the narrative often finally sounds like nothing to do with the actual deal. (In fact best that way.)

“And that uplifting campaign speech or press conference or initiative or photo op often involves finding individuals with great stories to tell that have nothing to do with the deal.

“So all the people who are attacking me right now for ‘conspiracy theories’ have no idea what they are talking about … people who assume the dominant narrative MUST BE TRUE and the dominant reasons MUST BE REAL are not experienced in how that world works.”

Naomi Wolf has good reason to speak out about ISIS. In her 2007 book, “The End of America”, Wolf outlined 10 steps necessary for a fascist group (or government) to destroy the democratic character of a nation-state and subvert the social and political liberties previously exercised by its citizens.

  1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
  2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place
  3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens
  4. Set up an internal surveillance system
  5. Harass citizens’ groups
  6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
  7. Target key individuals
  8. Control the press
  9. Treat all political dissidents as traitors
  10. Suspend the rule of law

While the public in the Western world is quick to label anyone who questions an official story as a “conspiracy theorist”, the public in the Middle East is overwhelmingly skeptical about ISIS and its so-called “Jihad”. For instance, in Lebanon and Egypt, the idea that ISIS was a U.S. creation was so widespread (high-ranked officials were claiming it), that the US Embassy in Beirut needed to deny the rumours.

Facebook post of US Embassy in Beirut.

For many residents of the Middle East, the actions and the modus-operandi of ISIS are nothing less than suspicious. The group indeed appears to be tailor-made to help the U.S. and coalition reach its military objectives in the Middle East.

This map shows current ISIS strongholds. As you can see, they are located exactly where the coalition has been looking to invade for years.

As the ISIS threat spreads to neighbouring countries, it will allow unprovoked military strikes against various nations. It is only a matter of time before airstrikes will be deemed ineffective and ground troops become necessary. In the end, these operations will complete a long-term plan of re-organizing the Middle East, eliminating any threats to Israel and significantly increasing pressure on Iran, the region’s remaining Islamic force.

ISIS Used for Domestic Repression

Disgusted by the beheading videos, most Westerners now favour the violent annihilation of ISIS.  Of course, they do not realize that this same fervour will lead them to become victims of their own governments

From protesting for peace to protesting for war. A little propaganda can go a long way toward influencing peoples’ thoughts.

In the past few weeks, ISIS has been issuing various threats to specific countries, causing panic in every one of them, prompting governments to “take action”. Unfortunately, “taking action” means reducing free speech and increasing illegal searches and surveillance. Canada is already using ISIS as a reason to spy on citizens and is working on new laws allowing increased surveillance.

“The head of Canada’s spy agency said there are no signs of an imminent terrorist attack against the country, but authorities are monitoring 80 suspected Canadian terrorists who have returned home from violent hot spots around the world.

Coulombe said the 80 suspects have not been charged due to the ongoing difficulty of gathering solid evidence against them.

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said he will introduce new legislative tools in the coming weeks to help law enforcement agencies better “track terrorists.”

Blaney didn’t give details about what those new measures will be.– Toronto Sun, CSIS keeping watch on 80 Canadian terror suspects nationwide

In the UK, the Tories presented their “Extremist Disruption Orders”, a list of unprecedented rules that have grave implications on free speech.

“Extremists will have to get posts on Facebook and Twitter approved in advance by the police under sweeping rules planned by the Conservatives.

They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will lay out plans to allow judges to ban people from broadcasting or protesting in certain places, as well as associating with specific people.”– The Telegraph, Extremists to have Facebook and Twitter vetted by anti-terror police

How long will it take for the word “extremist” to be diluted and used to describe anybody with a differing opinion?

In Conclusion

ISIS has all of the marks of a CIA-sponsored jihadist group, created to facilitate war abroad and repression at home. Whether we look at the “divide and conquer” history of the Middle-East or the suspicious details regarding ISIS and the repercussions of its existence in the Western world, one can easily see how ISIS is a continuation of an obvious pattern. The most important question one can ask is this:

Who benefits from the existence of ISIS and the terror it generates?

What does ISIS gain by creating videos taunting the most powerful armies in the world?

Air strikes?

On the other hand, what does the ruling class in the Western world have to gain?

Continuing to make money through war and weapons, taking control of the Middle East while supporting Israel, increasing oppression and surveillance on domestic populations and, finally, keeping the masses constantly terrified and under control.

In short, stoking panic around the world by provoking a state of chaos in the Middle East has been deemed necessary to implement a new world order. ‘Isis’, the Egyptian goddess and mother of Horus, is the name of the one of the most important figures for the Masonic elite. Their motto? Ordo ab Chao … Order out of Chaos.


Why an expected 30 year war? The Thirty YearsWar was a series of wars in Central Europe between 1618–1648.

It was a religious-sectarian war that began when Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II of Bohemia attempted to limit the religious activities of his subjects in retaliation of the removal of the Hapsburgs. The result reshaped the religious and political map of central Europe, decentralized the Roman Catholic empire in favour of sovereign states, devastated the European population  and armies became a huge military complex paid for through a cycle of abusive taxation.

Related Topics:

Professor Connects the Dots between Ebola and the U.S. Military Complex*

Senior Commander of ISIS is a ‘retired’ US General Paul Vallely*

The NWO’s ‘Grand Chessboard’ of Lies‏

The Hypocrisy of Turkey and Saudi Arabia on Syria is Challenged*

US Blocks Investigation into Theft of $1billion from Iraq*

Connecticut Suspends Constitution over Ebola Scare*

U.S. Confusing Ebola with ISIS*

U.S. – Saudi Deal to Destabilize Russia and Syria Backfires*

Occupy World: Australian Pilots Withdraw from Airstrikes on ISIS*

Question to Harvard Students, ISIS or the U.S. the Greatest Threat to World Peace*

Undercover Iraqi Journalist on ISIS and Why the U.S. Will Fail*

U.S. – Saudi Deal to Destabilize Russia and Syria Backfires*

U.S. – Saudi Deal to Destabilize Russia and Syria Backfires*

They forgot that in the NWO’s globalized world you can’t hit one country without it affecting your own interests!

By Tyler Durden

The US-Saudi “secret” plan that was supposed to crush Putin quickly turned sour when as we reported several days ago, one after another America’s own shale plays, which recently entered a very sharp bear market, started appearing on various death watches (case in point today’s MHR Second Lien refi which repriced from L+500 to L+750 in minutes).

As a result, one wonders: did Obama realize that Russian “costs” which as everyone knows by now include a Eurpoean triple-dip recession, could also very soon include an insolvent US shale industry, and thus may be just a little too much, and, one further wonders, if he is the one who just tapped Saudi Arabia on the shoulder?

WTI – granted, record oversold as is – explodes higher (on no news whatsoever)

As Brent-WTI compresses…

and Shale stocks are bouncing…


Related Topics:

Plunging Oil Prices, ISIS and the Secret U.S – Saudi Deal*

The NWO’s ‘Grand Chessboard’ of Lies‏

The Hypocrisy of Turkey and Saudi Arabia on Syria is Challenged*

U.S. Confusing Ebola with ISIS*

Monsanto Reports $156 Million Loss in Q4 as Farmers Abandon GM Crops*

Billion Dollar Class Action Suit against Syngenta by Farmers*

Occupy World: Australian Pilots Withdraw from Airstrikes on ISIS*

Mali, Al Qaeda & The Rothschilds

Libya Takes Goldman Sachs to Court*

Chile Defends Earth and Halts Gold-Copper Mine*

Palestine Demands Israeli Withdrawal by 2016*

One World: Anti-war Protests Gaining Momentum*

Zambia Prevents Glencore from Avoiding Taxation*

Five States to Debate Division of Caspian Sea*

Occupy World: India Takes Legal Action against Bill Gates for His Vaccine Crimes*

Bolivia: Morales Third Term Breaks the Mould of Control by Wealthy Settlers*

Bolivia: Morales Third Term Breaks the Mould of Control by Wealthy Settlers*

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark 

Bolivia’s President Evo Morales dedicate his win to “anti-imperialists and anti-colonialists

It is a sometimes overly rich recipe, starched with violence and populism, but Latin American politics is something to behold.  In the Americas, experiments have been run and tried with brutal consequences.  Revolutions and counter-revolutions have been plotted and enacted.  The good have tended to be a short time in office, while the coup d’état has had something of a long history.

Evo Morales’ victory in the Bolivian elections for a third term with just over 60% of the vote is no minor achievement.  Cement magnate Samuel Doria Medina received a paltry 25%, something he blamed on the late entry of ex-president Jorge Quiroga, a move that potentially split the anti-Morales vote.  Morales’ Movement Towards Socialism romped in, winning eight of the nine regions, including the affluent area of Santa Cruz.  A remarkable achievement, given Morales’ own background as the son of peasant Altiplano farmers.

Victory for Morales in Santa Cruz also proved particularly sweet given its base for opposition to the MAS in 2008. Then, it was the aspiring Rubén Costas, co-founder of the right leaning Unidad Demócrata (UD), who attempted to fan the flames of secession.  This, it was said, was also being facilitated by US money, be it through USAID or the National Endowment for Democracy.  The latest victory has prompted Morales to quash claims that the country was one of half-moons “but a full moon”.

This victory is much more than a polling matter.  The conflict between wealthy settlers and the indigenous populations has been the scar that never leaves, and a Morales victory did much to stare it down.  (He, himself, is a native Aymara Indian.)

In 2009, he introduced a new constitution with a focus on indigenous rights and grants of greater autonomy. Then came the fiscal redistributions – income gathered from natural gas has been used in targeted programs.  While the corruption stain lingers in its accusing tone, the country has not become the victim of dedicated kleptocrats.  As long as the natural resource boom continues, Morales is on a purple patch.  He knows, however, that such patches do turn colour in time.  (This might be a literal statement, given the environmental costs of the Morales program.)

In the main, Morales has provided a copy book on the redistribution of natural wealth via the state pocket.  Infrastructure projects connected with gymnasiums, schools and medical clinics have received funding through the Bolivia Cambia Evo Cumple program.  Growth rates of 5.5% this year, and 5% for next, have been predicted by the IMF.

Measures of inequality have fallen even as inflation is being kept in check, and while Bolivia remains impoverished, it is barely recognisable as the once noted basket case run by a small ruling class hungry for coups.  Half a million people have been pulled out of poverty.  As if to prove a point, the country made a return to global credit markets in 2012, making its first bond issue since the 1920s, while issuing another in 2013.

Pragmatic socialism, as it has been termed, has not assumed that all sectors of the economy require nationalisation.  The hydrocarbon reserves in May 2006 came in for special treatment, and the government coffers were promptly filled by increased state revenues of 285%.  But the banking sector is being left to its own devices – in the main. “We have never thought of nationalising the banking sector.  As they are earning well, let them pay taxes.”

Such pragmatism would have surprised the late conservative William F. Buckley, Jr. of the National Review, who found the very notion, “in A.D. 2006, of aiming at reform by movement towards socialism” as “at best quaint.”  Buckley did, however, provide Morales with something of a backhanded compliment.  Even if the then newly elected leader was keen on socialising industries, he was also, when required, going to mount the soap box for free trade. This was particularly so over US policies to stamp out coca production.  “Whose problem is it that many Americans use cocaine?”

Buckley’s own question – and he was at least good enough to suggest so – was whether the United States government did, in fact, have a right “to convert its own concern for weak-minded Americans into a veto power on Bolivian agriculture”. The only way was to “straighten up our disorderly theoretical house” and do business with Morales on the subject of protecting Americans.

In September 2006, Morales made a point before the United Nations General Assembly to hector Washington over its policies to criminalise coca production.  With colourful defiance, Morales brandished the otherwise banned coca leaf during his speech.

The Morales victory cannot be seen in splendid isolation.  As the Bolivian leader has himself conceded, such a polling result is not one that can be confined. It is, truly, a continental one that was already gathering pace when he was elected in December 2005.

“There is a deep feeling, not just in Bolivia, but in the Americas, of freedom, of a triumph of the anti-imperialists.”  Through the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, Morales has proven a busy presence.

The argument on indigenous rights is very much a broader argument of Latin American sovereignty in the face of meddling policies hatched in and implemented by Washington’s overly curious representatives.  To those who see Latin America as both backwater and backyard, Morales had only one response: “Homeland yes, colonialism no.”

Morales did wish to dedicate the election victory to a few luminaries – those of “Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.”  And the defiant rejection of Washington’s veto over Latin American regimes, be it through stealth or standard confrontation, continues.


Related Topics:

Bolivia Bans Partnerships with Multinationals*

Bolivian Boycott Forces McDonalds out of Business*

Bolivia Revokes Visa Agreement with Israel*

Bolivian President to Sue the U.S. for Crimes against Humanity*

Bolivia: Life Exists Beyond the Washington Concensus

Bolivia: Rights of Mother Earth Becomes Legal*

Bolivia, Paraguay and… Retrieving Our Backyard!

Bolivia Strikes a Nerve in Rich’s Wealth!

“Our Liberation is for the Whole of Humanity”

London: People Demanding Real Democracy*

London: People Demanding Real Democracy*

By Steve Rushton

The focus of Occupy Democracy is simple: “if we want to change the current system and move away from these multiple crises toward solutions, it must involve people taking to the streets.” It’s time to have a real discussion about democracy.

“We need a massive campaign for real democracy because a tiny few have more and more power and money,” George Barda, a supporter of Occupy London tells me. “Wealth is not trickling down but gushing up at increasing speed with no end in sight.”

Occupy London plans to take Parliament Square for 10 days, from October 17 through October 26, in a camp called Occupy Democracy. The occupation seeks to connect the dots between multiple crises and show how the U.K.’s current economic and political direction represents a failure of the democratic process and the increasing dominance of the 1%.

The occupation is demanding the reverse of current government policies by which the U.K.’s corporate-led parties have backed measures that include the privatization of the National Health Service, imposition of the bedroom taxa rise in frackinggrowing university tuition feesbenefit cuts for people with disabilities and support for the secretive TTIP trade treaty.

Most crucially, the Occupy Democracy camp provides a platform to discuss the many alternatives to the current system. Barda explains that in the current system, only a few are gaining at the expense of everyone else.

“The middle is increasingly dependent on unstable house prices and pensions, in corrupt and bubble-prone markets likely to implode without warning. And the most vulnerable in society – the elderly, the disabled and children living in poverty – more than any other country in Western Europe are still the ones paying the most for the bankers’ crisis,” says Barda.

“This is a recipe for a brutal, broken, divided country that tragically wastes the incredible potential of millions of its citizens. This is not the country we would have if it were really up to us.”

Momentum Building in the Anti-fracking Movement

The movement to protect Britain against fracking, discussed in the video above, points out that the U.K. government has no political mandate to push hydraulic fracturing. Before the last elections, Conservatives claimed they would form the “greenest government ever.”.

Instead, independent studies conclude that fracking greatly endangers human health, the climate and the environment – through chemical contamination of underground water sources, methane emissions and other impacts. The government meanwhile justifies its dash for gas based on studies sponsored by the fracking industry, which paint the opposite picture.

Activist Tina Rothery says that when local residents discover fracking occurring in their region, often their first response is to try democratic means to stop it – only to find that their voices do not get heard. So Rothery and other concerned mothers and grandmothers recently took their protest to a new level and occupied a proposed fracking site, launching nationwide direct actions against government fracking plans.

Rothery says the U.K. government has made it this far against public opposition to fracking because 1. Government and industry are intertwined, and 2. The mainstream media is owned by a small number of elites that benefit directly from the economic potential of fracking.

Lord Browne exemplifies the incestuous government-business relationship: he chairs the country’s leading fracking company, Cuadrilla, while holding a non-elected government role charged with oversight of fracking regulators. Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch’s media empire includes the Sun newspaper, a leading cheerleader for the fracking industry, as Murdoch himself holds vast fracking investments.

Nonetheless, public opposition to fracking is increasing rapidly as more people become aware of its dangers. A recent poll showed 71% of young people in the U.K. are against the unconventional drilling process. At the same time, more and more people are voicing support for viable green alternatives, heralding the shift toward a more democratic, ethical and egalitarian future.

In response to the corporate slanted media landscape, activists from the Radical Housing Network will join Occupy in Parliament Square to hand out the “Standard Evening” – a satirical reworking of the London newspaper Evening Standard, which is renowned for pushing a corporate, neoliberal agenda.

On Friday, 40,000 Standard Evenings will be printed to deliver news-that-could-be in London, prioritizing people over profits and offering real solutions to the city’s housing crisis. The newspaper giveaway is part of a week-long event by groups opposing MIPIM U.K., a property fair that focuses on selling off public land to private investors.

Occupy Democracy is also receiving support from the Green Party, the trade union PCS, the NGOs War on Want and World Development Movement, and the Tax Justice Network. Each day of the 10-day occupation will be themed around a different issue of crisis and alternatives – coinciding with the Occupation of the City of London’s third anniversary.

Those lined up to lead skill-shares and discussions include renowned economist Ha Joon Chang, the radical thinker John Hillary, and mothers from the housing activist group Focus E15.

“We need to recognize the extent that our democracy has been captured by the City of London and take appropriate action to reverse that,” says John Christensen, director of the Tax Justice Network, speaking in this short film in the run-up to Occupy Democracy.

Christensen’s alternative vision to tackle tax injustice includes transparency in political funding, shutting the “revolving door” between politicians and business, heavily regulating corporate lobbying, and stopping City of London senior executives from landing un-elected roles in government. The Tax Justice Network – a coalition of experts focusing on tax havens, corporate tax evasion and its costs to democracy – has revealed that $21 trillion was lodged in tax havens in 2010.

“Political parties get a large proportion of their funding from offshore sources and it goes without saying that these parties are heavily influenced by offshore companies and wealthy people,” adds Christensen. “So the offshore system has deeply corrupted the nature of democracy in Britain, Europe and elsewhere.”

Rejecting the TTIP

U.K. opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, is another example of how quickly popular movements against corporate influence are growing, as reflected in Occupy Democracy.

“TTIP and the other trade treaties are about rewriting the rules of the global economy to further benefit big business, which will be detrimental to ordinary people being able to exercise their voice,” says Nick Dearden, the director of World Development Movement who also featured in this video showing support for the occupation of Parliament Square.

Dearden adds about TTIP: “If it does become law it will give big business the power to sue our government for making legislation in the public interest – in the interest of the environment, for example food standards. TTIP will give big business a parallel process, so it does not even go for our courts system.”

A central tenet of Occupy Democracy is this: if we want to change the current system and move away from these multiple crises toward solutions, it must involve people taking to the streets.

As Dearden says: “Parliament and the surrounding area are called the ‘home of democracy’ [and are] supposed to be the mother of Parliaments. What we are doing is taking back this bit of common land for a short amount of time to create a real debate – a real discussion that people want to be having.”


Related Topics:

U.K. Breaking the Social Contract Set’s it Back to Post-WWII*

TTIP: Corporate Power Taking Control of European Interests*

Tyranny of Taxation and Regulation without Representation*

Rothschild’s Summit Fine-tuning Capitalism into Global Economic Tyranny*

Connecticut Suspends Constitution over Ebola Scare*

The NWO’s ‘Grand Chessboard’ of Lies‏

Fracking Company Must Pay $3 Million To Sickened Family*

More Reason to Hold onto Scotland: Cameron Follows Black Gold to the Shetlands*

For the People, to the Scots*

Accusations of Rigged Scottish Referendum*

British Governance: When You Fear the People…*

The British Monarch Vetoes Legislation that Doesn’t Serve It’s Interests*

NWO Next Step in Making the State Warden of Your Child*

Teaching that all Life Came from God Now Banned in the U.K.*

Starving British children are looking for food in rubbish bins

Liberia: Ebola Vaccine Induced Fatalities and Formaldehyde Dumping in Water Wells*

Liberia: Ebola Vaccine Induced Fatalities and Formaldehyde Dumping in Water Wells*

Schieffelin is located in Margibi County along the Robertsfield Highway that leads to the Roberts International Airport, Harbel and Buchanan (Maplandia image)

Schieffelin is located in Margibi County along the Robertsfield Highway that leads to the Roberts International Airport, Harbel and Buchanan (Maplandia image)

A man in Schieffelin, a community located in Margibi County on the Robertsfield Highway, has been arrested for attempting to put formaldehyde into a well used by the community.

Reports say around 10 a.m., he approached the well with powder in a bottle. Mobbed by the community, he confessed that he had been paid to put formaldeyde into the well, and that he was not the only one. He reportedly told community dwellers, “We are many.” There are  are agents in Harbel, Dolostown, Cotton Tree and other communities around the country, he said.

State radio, ELBC, reports that least 10 people in the Dolostown community have died after drinking water from poisoned wells.

The man also alleged that some water companies, particularly those bagging mineral water to sell, are also involved. The poison, he said, produces Ebola-like symptoms and subsequently kills people.

The Observer had previously been informed that people dressed as nurses were going into communities with ‘Ebola Vaccines’. Once injected, it reportedly produces Ebola-like symptoms and sends victims into a coma. Shortly thereafter, victims expire. Communities are now reportedly chasing vaccine peddlers out of their communities. After 10 children reportedly died from the ‘vaccine’ in Bensonville, the peddlers were reportedly chased out of the community upon their next visit.

It is possible that the ‘vaccine’ is/was composed of the same formaldehyde-water mixture. This publication has received reports from families whose loved ones’ organs were missing upon return of the bodies to the families. Families suspect an organ trafficking operation is capitalizing on the outbreak of the Ebola virus in Liberia.

The district’s representative condemned the act as barbaric, but called upon Liberians not to doubt the existence of the Ebola virus in the country.

An investigation is ongoing.

International ban on Formaldehyde

There are several web articles claiming that formaldehyde has been banned from manufacture or import into the European Union (EU) under REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and restriction of Chemical substances) legislation. This appears to be misinformation, as official EU chemical databases contradict these claims as of February 19, 2010. This misconception has gained some ground. Formaldehyde is not listed in the Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 (export and import of dangerous chemicals regulation), nor on a priority list for risk assessment. However, formaldehyde is banned from use in certain applications (preservatives for liquid-cooling and processing systems, slimicides, metalworking-fluid preservatives, and antifouling products) under the Biocidal Products Directive. In the EU, the maximum allowed concentration of formaldehyde in finished products is 0.2%, and any product that exceeds 0.05% has to include a warning that the product contains formaldehyde.

In the United States, a bill was passed in Congress on July 7, 2010, regarding the use of formaldehyde in hardwood plywood, particle board, and medium density fiberboard. The bill limited the allowable amount of formaldehyde emissions from these wood products to .09 ppm, a standard which companies were required to meet by January 2013. Formaldehyde was declared a toxic substance by the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act.


Related Topics:

In Ghana: Vaccine Induced Ebola*

Connecticut Suspends Constitution over Ebola Scare*

Professor Connects the Dots between Ebola and the U.S. Military Complex*

Ebola: CNN + NYT Caught Using CRISIS ACTORS!