Globalists Coming Full Circle: Obama executes final leg of Neo-Conservative imperialism

Paul Wolfowitz (right) in 1991 was apparently pleased with the 
outcome of Desert Storm. He believed that the time was ripe
to seize global hegemony before another world power rose to
challenge the Anglo-American establishment.

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Long before the verified lies of Qaddafi's "door-to-door" genocide and even before the media cleverly tagged the engineered destabilization of the Middle East the "Arab Spring," Libya was already marked for destabilization and regime change. For nearly thirty years the US and UK have funded groups both inside Libya and beyond its borders in various attempts to remove Qaddafi from power. The current administration's feigned ignorance over the nature of the rebels in Libya is nothing short of absolute deception. The CIA and MI6 are on record for decades following, and in many cases supporting, these very groups.

Below is a partial time line covering Western efforts to implement regime change in Libya.

1980s: US-CIA backed National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) made multiple attempts to assassinate Qaddafi and initiate armed rebellion throughout Libya.
1990s: Noman Benotman and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) wage a campaign of terror against Qaddafi with Osama Bin Laden's assistance.
2003: Upon Qaddafi's abandonment of WMD programs, Libya's collaboration with MI6 & the CIA to identify and expose the LIFG networks begins, giving Western intelligence a windfall of information regarding the group.
2005: NFSL's Ibrahim Sahad founds the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London England.
2011: Early February, the London based NCLO calls for a Libyan "Day of Rage," beginning the "February 17th revolution."
2011: Late February, NFSL/NCLO's Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric, literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiated accusations Qaddafi is strafing "unarmed protesters" with warplanes.
2011: Late February, Senators Lieberman and McCain and UK PM David Cameron call for providing air cover for Libyan rebels as well as providing them additional arms.
2011: Early March; it is revealed UK SAS special forces are already operating inside Libya
2011: Mid-March; UN adopts no-fly zone over Libya, including air strikes. Immediately, the mission is changed from "protecting civilians" to "ousting Qaddafi." Egypt violates the arms embargo of UN r.1973 with Washington's full knowledge by supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, while Al Qaeda's ties to the rebels are admitted by everyone including the rebels themselves.


Recently, Fareed Zakaria on his CNN show interviewed a former Libyan Al-Qaeda associate, Noman Benotman, to dispel "allegations" that Al Qaeda was playing a key role in the rebellion against Qaddafi. Benotman would concede that Al Qaeda was involved but not significantly, suggesting there were only a few hundred fighters. The Washington Times would later quote Benotman upgrading the number to a thousand. Then after Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted to recruiting extremists into his ranks and that he believed Al Qaeda members were "good Muslims," Benotman began back peddling and even claiming, "The way they start to make statements or to understand the conflicts is unbelievable, beyond my imagination. The only explanation I can offer is because they have been affected - whether they like it or not - by the wave of democracy."


It should be noted that Al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel commander, received his training in Afghanistan and witnessed the US bombing campaign which began in late 2001. He would fight Americans in Afghanistan and was eventually captured in Pakistan, handed over to the US and later released back to Libya in 2008. Now the same man that fought Americans is being provided American air cover over Benghazi while he leads fellow Al Qaeda fighters, some of which fought Americans in Iraq as well.

For the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was founded in the mountains of Afghanistan during the CIA-backed war against the Soviets, then fighting the Americans in both Afghanistan and Iraq, now having the CIA back on the ground in Libya by their side may seem like a reunion of sorts, punctuated by the irony of jets flying overhead that had been hunting them abroad but are now protecting their lives. But to the thousands of US soldiers who have died and the tens of thousands maimed and destroyed supposedly fighting Al Qaeda, to the Americans who have been financially bled to death over the last ten years of war, and to the millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Libya who have been killed, maimed, displaced or otherwise affected by the "War on Terror," it is more like the punchline of a bad joke.

But the implications go much deeper than merely a conjured army of duped extremists, serving the globalist agenda every step of the way. The implications are deep, and dark indeed.

The Grander Agenda

Ten days after 9/11, General Wesley Clark visited the Pentagon where an officer from the Joint Staff warned him of an impending attack on Iraq. After the Afghan invasion, this officer shared with Clark a document handed down from the Office of the Secretary of Defense indicating plans to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries; Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. General Wesley Clark would go on to share this story in a 2007 speech given to the Commonwealth Club of California where he repeated this list.

Of course, the campaigns have already begun against each of the nations Clark listed. Iraq was invaded, decimated, and has been occupied by US troops since 2003. In 2006, Israel attempted to invade and dismantle Hezbollah in Lebanon but the conflict ended in a stalemate and an eventual Israeli withdrawal. Somalia was attacked by a proxy Ethiopian invasion force with US air support starting in 2007, but it too eventually ended in failure. A silent war has already begun within Iran, including covert military operations, the arming of terrorists, assassinations, and 2 failed US backed color revolutions. Sudan has been recently carved into two states and Syria is now being intentionally destabilized by US trained and funded activists.

And now, of course in Libya's case, aerial bombardment by US, UK, and French warplanes has begun, while the CIA and MI6 are on the ground attempting to collapse the Qaddafi regime.

Wesley Clark would backtrack in his 2007 talk in California and recall a conversation he had in 1991 with then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz regarding Desert Storm. Clark was told that America's intervention in Iraq proved that the US could use its military force and the Soviets wouldn't stop them. Wolfowitz said the US had 5-10 years to clean up the old Soviet "client regimes" before the next super power rose up and challenged western hegemony. Clark claimed that this, along with the aftermath of 9/11 constituted a policy coup where Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other members of the of Project for a New American Century had hijacked US foreign policy to destabilize and turn the nations of the Middle East upside down - much the way they are now. The "Neo-Conservative" element of this current round of destabilization goes deeper than the promotion of war, as the "Neo-Cons" have uncharacteristically dedicated themselves to "human rights" and "democracy" side-by-side with the likes of George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization 
was planned as far back as 1991, with the destruction of Iraq, 
Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran on the
drawing board following the invasion of Afghanistan. 

Bush campaigned on an anti-war, anti-nation building platform. Obama then pledged to roll back the agenda Bush swindled the nation into, only to then continue it in earnest. All along we have been treated to the theatrics of the corporate-owned media, with pundits on the left and right reacting in shock and surprise as these engineered events unfolded according to plan.

Despite Wolfowitz' agenda being meted out nearly 20 years ago, the ham-fisted nature of both the operation itself in Libya and the propaganda surrounding it suggests a rushed sense of desperation on the globalists' behalf. Wesley Clark suggested that the operation to destabilize the Middle East and Northern Africa would take 5 years, starting in 2001. Wolfowitz believed that in 1991 the operation would have taken 5-10 years. The failed FBI attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was most likely the staged impetus to trigger the first blitzkrieg. Not only did the attacks fail to cause the catastrophic effects needed to justify such an operation, the Egyptian informant assisting the FBI had recorded his conversations with agents indicating that they were indeed building a bomb for extremists and providing them with real explosives as well.

1993 would have fit in perfectly to tip off Wolfowitz' plan. Upon failing, he and his PNAC cadre would attempt to destroy the World Trade Center buildings again, this time successfully on September 11, 2001. The catastrophic loss of life, the confusion, and the rage that was left in its wake gave the PNAC what they called a "new Pearl Harbor" they claimed they needed in their September 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

These men, who in fact helped create Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan to face the Soviets in the 80s would call on their legion of foreign mercenaries to wreck havoc across the planet, heralding globalist intervention along the way. Certainly this had nothing to do with defending America or spreading "democracy" but rather bolstering the hegemony of the corporate-financier oligarchythat both the PNAC cadre and the bankers who thoroughly saturate Obama's administration constitute.

What appears to have happened is a costly delay in 1993 and a post-9/11 campaign that has dragged on 5 years longer than expected. With the same clumsy hands fumbling in Libya also trying to stab simultaneously at both Moscow and Beijing with their agenda laid on the table openly for all to see, failure on the globalists' behalf now may incur a wrathful response from a planet about to truly awaken.

It should be expected that that any excuse to complete regime change in Libya will be made, including creating the conditions necessary to put troops on the ground - be it because of a failing rebellion, a false flag attack carried out in Qaddafi's name, or even feigned fears the globalists' own Al Qaeda might "seize" Libya should they not intervene. Similarly, with the US openly admitting to funding subversive activities across the Arab world, in Iran, and even as far as China, the globalists have painted themselves into an irredeemable, inescapable corner of confrontation.

Look past the feckless puppets occupying our public offices and toward the corporations and financial empires that are our true "misleaders." Boycott these corporations and systematically replace them by getting self-sufficient as an individual, as a household, and as a community. Independence is freedom, freedom is independence and the dominion of this dark empire can be broken by understanding that they need us, we do not need them.


For ways to battle the globalists by achieving self-sufficiency and freedom through independence please read on:

Self-Sufficiency 
Alternative Economics
The Lost Key to Real Revolution
Boycott the Globalists
Naming Names: Your Real Government

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.   

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Arab Spring: The Israeli Factor

There are bad Israelis exploited and 
used by the globalists and there are good Israelis.
But lumping them together as "bad" you carry
water for the globalists' "divide & conquer " campaign
and undermine entirely the efforts of the good.

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Any analysis of the Middle East would be remiss without factoring in Israel. Israel has been playing a rather muted role in the unfolding globalist gambit -- mainly because any Israeli involvement in supporting these staged revolutions would instantly taint them and ultimately derail them. Interestingly enough, the limited role Israel has been playing includes using this phenomenon, a political "touch of death," to target the various national oligarchies being swept from power.

The first prominent example of this occurred during Hosni Mubarak's besieging led by International Crisis Group stooge Mohamed ElBaradei and the US State Department trained and equipped April 6 Youth Movement. Israel made very overt, in fact, quite oafish statements of support on Hosni Mubarak's behalf including unverified claims of airlifts bringing the embattled dictator "riot equipment." The United States, to a lesser extent, at first capitalized on anti-American sentiment by making similarly oafish statements of support to poison the Mubarak regime, before openly admitting to funding and supporting not only the Egyptian protesters, but the Tunisians, Libyans, and beyond.


Adding further credence, the Council on Foreign Relations' magazine Foreign Affairs reported in March 2010, nearly a year before the "Arab Spring" began:

"Further, Egypt’s close relationship with the United States has become a critical and negative factor in Egyptian politics. The opposition has used these ties to delegitimize the regime, while the government has engaged in its own displays of anti-Americanism to insulate itself from such charges. If ElBaradei actually has a reasonable chance of fostering political reform in Egypt, then U.S. policymakers would best serve his cause by not acting strongly. Somewhat paradoxically, ElBaradei’s chilly relationship with the United States as IAEA chief only advances U.S. interests now. " 

Fully realizing US or Israeli support for ElBaradei in Egypt would destroy any chance for the "revolution's" success, it appears that the cartoonish act of overtly supporting Mubarak in the early stages of the unrest was a deliberate attempt to shift the ire of the Egyptian people toward him, and their suspicions away from globalist stooge ElBaradei.


This has played out in Libya as well. Again, unverified reports of mercenaries hired by Qaddafi through Israel, armed with Israeli weapons swept through the Israeli press. Upon reading the reports, the "evidence" is hearsay from the Libyan rebels themselves. These reports of mercenaries helped not only demonize Qaddafi and render him "illegitimate" in the opening stages of the conflict, but also helped members of the Arab League garner support domestically for UNSC r.1973. With the war now in full swing, these "mercenaries" are no where to be found, and the story effectively swept under the rug.

In fact, during a particularly frank, pre-UNSC r.1973, International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) military briefing, Qaddafi's military was identified as two professional forces divided into eastern and western brigades of approximately 10,000 men in total. IISS analysts would go on to refute claims that Qaddafi was intentionally targeting civilians noting that by doing so, he would only be fueling efforts by the West to use military force against him (16:26 & 1:00:00). When asked about mercenaries (53:00), the IISS conceded to having no credible evidence.

A frank IISS military briefing on Libya, before UNSC r.1973.

Now, perhaps the most ridiculous of all, is an effort to taint the Assad regime of Syria. Hareetz of Israel recently published an op-ed titled "Israel's Favorite Arab Dictator of All is Assad." In what is certainly over-the-top cartoonish propaganda, we are told that Assad's advocacy toward resisting Israel was merely a "slogan" and "hollow, serving the regime merely as an insurance policy against any demand for freedom and democracy."

Of course the arms, fighters, and training that transited Syria into Hezbollah's hands in Lebanon, who handed the aggressors within the State of Israel their first bitter defeat on the battlefield, seem a tangible rebuttal. While the Hareetz piece claims Syria is fighting Israel " to the last Lebanese," the people of Lebanon are most likely satisfied with the results of the 2006 campaign to defend their nation and the wide berth it afforded them and their allies.

Conclusion

Understanding that Israel is comprised of two types of people is key to understanding Israel's role in the Middle East and subsequently their role in the recent "Arab Spring." The first are people who truly live in Israel, recognize it as their home and realize that perpetual militancy and aggression toward their neighbors is neither beneficial nor sustainable.

The second type consists of the same godless, self-serving lost humanity that have hijacked nations across the globe as part of the corporate-financier oligarchy's bid to institute world government. They are using Israel as a beachhead of sorts to project their agenda throughout the Middle East. Their actions, including the ongoing apartheid against the Palestinians and unilateral military aggression towards neighboring nations are not indicative of a nation interested in its own self-preservation.

Like the United States which is being bled to death both literally and financially, those doing the bleeding in Israel are "globalist" in nature, who do not see borders and do not consider themselves to be of any particular religion, race, creed, or nationality. Such contrivances on their part, is merely political camouflage devised to lend them credibility when they otherwise have none. The whole world is their oyster, and the nation-state their plaything. Separating these two groups in Israel is essential in both understanding its role in the Middle East and helping to ensure those who truly consider it their home prevail against those maliciously using it for their own ends with the full intention of discarding it once they are done.

By perceiving Israel as a sort of "black capital" of a "Zionist empire," we carry water for the globalists in their bid to divide and conquer through preying on our petty prejudices. We also lump together and undermine those in Israel that are fighting against the globalists' exploitation of their nation and their people, who are just as lied to, misled, brainwashed, and manipulated as the people of America, the UK or Europe.

By understanding the Israeli factor and that those behind it are neither Israeli or Jewish, or even Zionist, we can understand it is but a gambit within a gambit towards building world empire, thus allowing us to move on to targeting the real culprits.

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Target China: A deeper look at the globalist blitzkrieg's final destination

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Far from the Founding Father's ideal representative republic, China has garnered a reputation as one of the most repressive regimes on earth. While some of this is well earned, much of it is due to the unsavory legacy left by Mao's "Great Leap Forward" which to this day is still being carefully and systematically dismantled. Another large factor at play is the entirely disingenuous and very much hypocritical campaign the Western corporate-financier oligarchy has waged against the 1.3 billion strong nation.

Foxconn, where your iPhone comes from. The nets are there 
to stem a suicide pandemic sweeping Foxconn's workforce, an issue
of little concern for the American consumer or the self- proclaimed
champions of human rights within the US government.

While lofty, poorly articulated ideals like "democracy" and "freedom" are used by the West as leverage to divide and weaken the nation, real affronts to human rights and freedom, such as China's "one-child policy" or the exploitation of labor are either ignored or wildly applauded by the West. In one New York Times op-ed by US Representative James Scheuer titled, "America, the U.N. and China's Family Planning," Scheuer states:

"China's approach to family planning may seem foreign to Western traditions, but that is natural considering that China's whole culture is vastly different from ours. The Chinese program relies on an incessant drumbeat of persuasion and peer pressure, which is undergirded by individuals' sense of responsibility to society and family, which supersedes any perception they may have of their own personal rights." 

In other words, Scheuer is justifying not only usurping human rights, but the article goes on to reveal, he is also defending the 36 million dollars the US funds the UN in assisting nations like China to enforce such policies. Scheuer, in the truly intellectually bankrupt tradition of Malthusians everywhere, would go on to state that overpopulation was causing disease and poverty in nations like Haiti and throughout Africa - willfully ignorant of the fact that education and technology are actually the missing ingredients.

Leveraging "Human Rights"

The hypocrisy doesn't end there. The corporate-financier run Western media has been recently beating their chests over the imprisonment of Nobel Laureate and "human rights activist" Liu Xiaobo, a proponent of ending China's strong central government and politically active military in favor of a weak, Western-style system run by corruptible, feckless, incompetent leadership that invites multinational corporations to entropically infest state institutions and seize control of the nation's people and resources. Liu Xiaobo's support goes beyond the media's scornful chastisement of China's government on his behalf, and includes "pro-bono" legal aid from the Council on Foreign Relations lined "Freedom Now" organization. Readers may remember "Freedom Now" from their extensive involvement in supporting the Syrian opposition leading the recent unrest against the Assad government.

Freedom Now is also providing legal services for Gao Zhisheng, a human rights lawyer also imprisoned in China. Gao had written an open letter to the US Congress detailing human rights violations in China, and his family currently resides in the United States. Council on Foreign Relations minion Jerome Cohen, Canadian MP Irwin Cotler, and former Canadian MP David Kilgour are personally leading the campaigns for both Liu Ziaobo and Gao Zhisheng. All three, are also involved in meddling around the globe in similarly hypocritical gambits revolving around "human rights activists" who just so happen to be fighting governments the West would like to see changed.

While it may seem noble to champion for human rights, it is a matter of fact that men like Cohen, Cotler, and Kilgour, and the entire Freedom Now organization along with the CFR that populates its membership and the foundations that fund it, are amongst the greatest enemies of human rights and human freedom on earth. The Council on Foreign Relations has tirelessly repeated its goal of establishing a one world government, with members working ceaselessly to achieve it and their publications over the decades perpetually reflecting this ambition. This is a world government that is of, by, and for the corporate-financier oligarchy's interests, and their interests alone.

This gambit of leveraging the issue of human rights for geopolitical gain is clearly illustrated in another pertinent example, directly related to China's present predicament. Globalist lawyer and lobbyist Robert Amsterdam, of the Chatham House's Amsterdam & Peroff is currently cultivating two other clients as points of leverage.

From "Globalist Page: Robert Amsterdam:"

His [Amsterdam's] two most recent and perhaps most notorious cases involve one a Russian oligarch named Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and a Thai police colonel-turned-billionaire tycoonThaksin Shinawatra. Khodorkovsky is guilty and indeed sitting in a Siberian prison for embezzling billions. His Thai counterpart, Thaksin, also has two years coming to him for immense fraud. And while both are being defended by Amsterdam as "political victims" what is never mentioned, indeed buried deeply are the extra-legal, meddling affiliations both men have with the globocratic elite that undermine their political aspirations with megalithic, even treasonous conflicts of interest.

Accomplished researcher, William Engdahl, points out some very alarming connections and trends that served as the real basis for Khodorkovsky's current Siberian lodging. It seems that Khodorkovsky wasn't just embezzling money or involved in breathtaking displays of corruption, such was the nature of the times he came into power. It was rather his connections with the West, in particular Henry Kissinger and "Lord" Jacob Rothschild who were sitting on what Engdahl calls a George Soros Open Society-styled "Open Russian Foundation." 

Worth repeating indefinitely, is the role these "foundations" and the networks of meddlesome NGOs they maintain play as the next greatest threat to national sovereignty behind invading armies and the IMF's economic hitmen.

Using both his wealth and his Western organized NGO networks, Khodorkovsky set out on an ambitious political campaign to seize for himself the Russian presidency from which he would undoubtedly repay his foreign backers with the economic liberalization (read: sellout) of the Russian Federation. 

With uncanny exactitude, Thaksin Shinwatra attempted the same "soft-coup" in Thailand. He was a Carlyle Group adviser while holding office in then PM Chavalit's New Aspiration Party which oversaw the 1997 IMF's intrusion and controlled economic implosion of the Thai economy. He would later become PM himself in 2001 and through wealth procured through similarly fraudulent, though not unprecedented means, he began consolidating power, eliminating checks and balances, and preparing the liberalization of the Thai economy on behalf of his foreign backers. On the eve of the military coup that overthrew his government, he was literally standing in New York City giving a progress report to the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Since his ouster from power, he has been backed by fellow Carlyle man James Baker and his Baker Botts law firm, International Crisis Group's Kenneth Adelman and his Edelman Public Relations firm, and now Robert Amsterdam's Amsterdam & Peroff. His proxy political party maintains a "people's power" organization supported by several National Endowment for Democracy NGOs including "Prachatai," an "independent media organization" that coordinates the "people's power" propaganda efforts.

In both Khordovsky's and Thaksin's case we come back to Robert Amsterdam, who now concurrently meddles in both Russian and Thai affairs using these two overtly mired convicted criminals as leverage to push not only the legal cases for which he is responsible, but the continuation of his clients' political objectives of undermining Russia's and Thailand's establishments, which in turn represent the continuation of the "globocrats'" agenda. 

While Russia possesses the intelligence and military apparatuses to suppress significant internal unrest caused by Western backed NGOs and the continued and now lost cause of Khordovsky, the perceived "injustice" Robert Amsterdam accuses Russia of gives the West the moral high-ground to meddle in Russia's surrounding geography, notably color revolutions, NATO expansion, and political destabilization in Eastern Europe. 

Robert Amsterdam is also attempting to lend Thaksin Shinawatra and his organized mob the same credibility and moral high-ground ahead of yet another attempted overthrow of the Thai government this coming spring. While even Thaksin's mob leaders themselves have admitted on numerous occasions to having armed men involved in the bloodbath that ensued in 2010, Robert Amsterdam is now releasing a report that retroactively rewrites history and absolves them of their admissions. He also misses no opportunity to not only defend his "clients" (he also concurrently defends Thaksin's "red" mob) but calls on the Thai government to resign, as per the globocrat's aspirations of regime change and the subsequent economic liberalization under the re-installed Thaksin regime.

This then, is the same gambit being played out in China. Russia is being targeted as the other significant partner in the Shanghai Cooperative which is the focal point of the West's foreign ambitions, from which all other geopolitical policy is driven. Thailand of course constitutes part of China's so-called "String of Pearls," or one of many nations that reside in China's potential sphere of influence as it rises to power. Enticing nations like Thailand to remain aligned to the West has long since failed and a more aggressive and robust response has been formulated, namely color revolution leading to regime change. The West however, may just as well settle for perpetual destabilization to balk China's rise.

String of Pearls: Encircling China

The term "String of Pearls" is taken from the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute's report "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power across the Asian Littoral." Throughout the report, China's efforts to secure its oil lifeline from the Middle East to its shores in the South China Sea are examined as are means to maintain American hegemony throughout the Indian and Pacific Ocean. The premise is that, should Western policy wonks and paper-pushers fail to entice China into participating in the "international system" as responsible stakeholders (fall in line,) an increasingly confrontational posture must be taken to contain the rising nation.

A map taken from SSI's report on China's "String of Pearls." The blue
arrow and the nations it passes represents China's strategic interests.
It also represents a region now mired in US-backed chaos.

Looking at events today, it appears that enticement has failed, and that the worst case scenarios discussed within the report have not only been put into play, but have thus far proven ineffective. Understanding this report and superimposing its implications upon a global map of today's conflicts, we see a nearly perfect match.

Middle East: Destabilization efforts and regime change in the Middle East headed by the US State Department aim at controlling and disrupting China's oil supply. We have seen how the transformation of the Middle East was meticulously planned and entirely coordinated by the West, despite claims that it was spontaneous. With the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt now on record having been supported and funded by the US State Department, and with the State Department now openly funding organizations like the BBC to "combat" Chinese censorship, the failed Chinese "Jasmine Revolution" appears to be more of a poorly veiled attack on China than an uprising of the people.

Though the "Jasmine Revolution" in China was a failure, the now more forceful reordering of the Arab world is setting the stage for the elimination of Iran, after which China and Russia will be further isolated, and further "encircled."

Pakistan: In building China's presence throughout Asia, cooperation with emerging giants like India and the populous Pakistan is in its best interest. So is stability. In order to shorten the trip oil must take to reach China, a transit corridor through Pakistan has been devised and a naval base constructed in Gwadar in Pakistan's southwest Baluchistan province.

China's holdings in Baluchistan have been under constant threat by both internal meddling by the US in Pakistan itself and on the borders of Baluchistan as part of the 10 year military occupation of Afghanistan, particularly the Helmand and Kandahar provinces which border Baluchistan. The globalist "National Interest" magazine published a February 2011 article titled "Free Baluchistan" which openly called for carving Baluchistan out of Pakistan:

"Most important, it [the United States] should aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression. Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces." 

Such irresponsible statements coming from the real authors of US foreign policy should be taken as a serious threat by both the Pakistani and Chinese governments. It should be no surprise that these "Baluch insurgents" are being employed across the border in Iran as well.

The same author, Selig Harrison of the foundation-funded Center for International Policy, elaborated further on Pakistani-Chinese relations in a recent March 2011 article titled "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis." In it is described the joint development of Pakistan's northern Gilgit-Baltistan region and its forming of a gateway into Chinese territory. While Harrison is able to enumerate an impressive list of benefits both nations are reaping from this relationship, all he is able to offer as a possible US response is the reiteration of starting a full-blown insurrection within Baluchistan:

"To counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar." 

In reading the piece, we see another example of leveraging human rights, with Harrison shamelessly able to go from openly admitting to using the Baluch insurgents in a bid to expel the Chinese, to citing Amnesty International and humanitarian concerns as a proposed narrative for justifying US involvement. This is a familiar globalist ploy, and one that is playing out in Libya under UNSC r.1973.

Southeast Asia: China has been developing infrastructure throughout Southeast Asia as well in a bid to create multiple avenues to and from its territory. In Myanmar (Burma) they are developing a deep sea port, an oil pipeline and a highway network that runs from the Bay of Bengal to the Myanmar-China border in the north. The Chinese in 2008 completed a large highway project through the mountainous terrain of Laos, connecting Kunming, China with northeast Thailand. China, Laos, and Thailand are now developing plans to create a high speed rail link between the 3 nations which would ultimately connect China to Singapore.

The West in response to China's growing influence in the region has deferred to the "String of Pearls" strategy and is attempting to contain China by fostering instability in both Myanmar and Thailand. This attempts to install servile, pro-Western regimes and by doing so, the globalists would be able to sever China's newly proposed links and force it to continue relying on the Malacca Strait.

In Myanmar, another Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been leading the opposition and has garnered support from every globalist cadre, think-tank, and organization imaginable. She was a finalist in the Chatham House Prize 2011, and not surprisingly a benefactor of Freedom Now's services as well. Aung San Suu herself, was born into an immensely wealthy and politically well connected family. She studied abroad, worked for the UN in New York City, and received a Ph.D from the University of London before returning to Myanmar to lead the "pro-democracy" movement. Whatever her convictions may really be, the West has fully hijacked her movement as a means of removing the current military junta and replacing it with one more conducive to their corporate agenda, which most assuredly has nothing to do with "democracy for the people."

Knowingly or unknowingly serving the globalist agenda since
1972, Aung San Suu Kyi now leads the Western- backed opposition
bidding to oust Myanmar's ruling regime.

In 2007 there was the so-called "Saffron Revolution," made a spectacle by the corporate-owned media, but gained little ground. Despite the rhetoric, the artificial aura of credibility and heroism built-up around yet another Nobel Peace Prize wearing crowbar trying to pry out another obstacle of globalization, China's heavily invested presence inside Myanmar makes the prospect of regime change highly unlikely.

In Thailand the globalist tool of choice is Thaksin Shinwatra and his "red shirt" color revolution. He and his Western backers have attempted twice, in 2009 and 2010 to overthrow the Thai government with increasingly violent street mobs. This year, a combination of mob leaders being released from prison, the announcement of upcoming elections, and a "convenient" border skirmish with neighboring Cambodia, has taken the wind from the "red" mobs' sails. Likely wanting to ride the wave of destabilization in the Arab world, they now lack both credibility and any conceivable justification to come out into the streets.

"The giant wave of democracy, from Tunisia to Thailand" says 
the globalist-backed red shirt propaganda. Thaksin's "red shirts"
hoped to ride that wave back into political power. (photo: 2bankok.com)

Thailand has also been deepening its ties with China and distancing itself from the West. Repeated rows between the US and the Thai government over intellectual property rights along with the proposal of Tobin taxes aimed squarely at the unraveling international bankers residing in London and on Wall Street all but ensures this chasm widens further.

To a lesser extent, the US has been competing with China in countries like Cambodia, where free-market payoffs and military aid is offered by America while mega-infrastructure projects like rail and dams are on offer from China. Cambodian strongman Hun Sen must be looking at the Middle East with the realization that he is an endangered species and that no amount of appeasement will ultimately save him from globalization. And appease the globalists he has. Nearly 50% of Cambodia's landmass has been sold to foreign investors and at a great humanitarian cost. While the Western media has been wringing its hands over Libya and Syria, it has barely mentioned at all the misdeeds of Cambodia's Hun Sen against his own people. With Hun Sen recently leaning toward China, this corporate media self-censorship may not last long.

Dr. Webster Tarpley breaks down the history and reality surrounding
the personality cult of the "Dali Lama." The Tibetan movement has 
received significant US aid, including clandestine CIA backing over the years.

In several instances, these efforts to destabilize China's peripheries cross over into China itself. Tibet has long been a point of leverage against Beijing, combining nearly ever trick in the globalists' book from the Nobel Laureate Dali Lama complete with his own Hollywood-made personality cult, to human rights cases, to arming and backing sedition and unrest throughout the region.

Conclusion

Of course, by offering China a commanding role in the emerging "international system" it is hoped that given enough coercive pressure it will acquiesce in becoming a "responsible stakeholder." As we see on a smaller scale in Libya, pressure, both militarily and economically, aims at causing divides within any given regime in hopes that enough support can be extorted to effect the globalists' desired changes. Reports like the Brookings Institute's "The Advantages of an Assertive China: Responding to Beijing's Abrasive Diplomacy" says as much in regards to prodding and leading China along.

Disrupting China's oil supply, encircling them with a wave of destabilization along with stoking domestic tension internally, all aims at frustrating their ambitions as a sovereign nation while creating a viable combine of defectors solely interested in their self-preservation. This combine can then effectively steer China toward servile obedience within the globalists' unipolar "international system." It is a delicate balance of both pressure and enticement, constantly refined and adjusted, simultaneously applied and systematically monitored.

As more pressure is overtly applied on China, via the brazen "Jasmine Revolution" and increasingly aggressive destabilization efforts around China's borders and throughout the Arab world where it receives the majority of its oil imports, it appears that the regime has weighed the empty promises and paper empire of the globalists against the 1.3 billion people of China who demand pragmatic, not political solutions to their immediate problems. Most certainly, these 1.3 billion people pose a more immediate threat to the survival of the Chinese ruling regime.

Meeting these demands is done via industry, education, technology, and tangible progress. Policies, including the "one child policy" glowingly appraised by US Representative Scheuer, is an invasive, unpopular measure that is unsustainable and only partially addresses concerns like pollution and poverty. It is also a policy the Chinese government is in the process of rolling back.

As the globalists build financial networks of fiat paper, the Chinese are building networks of high-speed rail throughout their nation and beyond their borders. They are building real, tangible infrastructure from neighboring Laos to the continent of Africa. What possible incentive besides the threat of chaos and upheaval can the West offer China and its "String of Pearls" that solves both the immediate problem of self-preservation of regimes and the multitude of problems of the people under these regimes?

The West's ineptitude is not wholly unprecedented in history. Many empires have been buried by this sort of degenerate, runaway greed exhibited by the globalist corporate-financier oligarchies - often times replaced by a more pragmatic, constructive power like China. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a certain "strategy of tension" is at play, where a purposefully oafish and aggressive West drives and unifies the otherwise fiercely independent nations of Asia and the Shanghai Cooperative together, only to be folded into the global government at a later time.

Particularly in Southeast Asia, much of China's development is being coordinated by the suspiciously globalist "ASEAN" organization. Not only does ASEAN closely resemble other institutes of the West's unipolar model of globalization, but it interfaces with it seamlessly, with many of its greatest proponents being unabashed members of the Western globalist elite.

While rail-links, highways, and infrastructure that mutually benefit participating nations are not necessarily a bad thing, some of the free-trade agreements proposed and pushed through by China are nearly as one-sided and damaging as any US FTA. Foreign ownership laws may not have been changed by these Chinese FTA's, but ASEAN seeks to collectively lower such barriers by 2015.

China should not be looked to as a hero to rescue nations from the creep of the globalist corporate-financier oligarchs. While China may really be battling these oligarchs today, uniting under an analogous model of world government vis-a-vis the Washington consensus only makes it that much easier for the globalists to absorb a larger prize should China fail, or should the Chinese have already agreed to "responsible stakeholding" behind closed doors.

China's real affronts to humanity must be continuously exposed and cited as failures, and efforts to move away from grotesque and invasive policies like population control and social engineering should be encouraged and cited as real progress. So too should China's current stance of across-the-board non-interference within the borders of other nations. Similarly, its current dedication to solving problems with technical, pragmatic solutions involving technology, education, and expanding superior infrastructure should also be encouraged and cited as a viable model of progress.

Ultimately, whatever the end game may be, personal and local independence along with a paradigm shift away from centralized governance and corporate domination can ensure globalism by any name does not prevail. We must commit ourselves to an effort to make real freedom, real progress, and national sovereignty the global consensus, not the morally bankrupt, interdependent, antiquated, and degenerate policies of world governance - regardless of who it supposedly falls under, the West or Asia.

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Elliot Abrams' Plan For Syria

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Degenerate globalist co-conspirator Elliot Abrams, has been consistently supporting the recent conflagration throughout the Arab world and is pushing for ever-expanding US meddling in the region. In his recent piece, featured in the Washington Post titled "Ridding Syria of a Despot," he fleshes out what is a fairly predictable plan of action already taking shape against the Bush-era "Axis of Evil" member.

Elliot Abrams is a member of the corporate-financier Council on Foreign Relations, a Project for a New American Century signatory, and former deputy national security adviser to President George W. Bush. He was convicted for his involvement in the Iran-Contra conspiracy and promptly pardoned by George Bush Sr. He would later go on to be implicated for his involvement in the 2002 Venezuela coup attempt against Hugo Chavez. His history of betraying and disgracing his country, and getting away with it, is probably why he feels perfectly comfortable making broad, sweeping threats toward entire nations today.Elliot Abrams recently issued a personal threat to Libya's Qadaffi and his intelligence chief, stating that they would both meet the "same fate as Saddam Hussein" if any American is attacked in the wake of increasing US threats and actions against Libya. He also had weighed in on Egypt in his piece "Less 'Engagement,' More Democracy" in the New York Times. In this piece he criticizes the current policy of engaging as equals with nations he deems as repressive regimes and calls for a revisit to George Bush's "freedom agenda." In other words - the export of "democracy" that has brought America the trillion dollar military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya at the cost of thousands of US soldiers' lives and the lives of millions of foreigners killed, maimed, or displaced.


It should be no surprise then that Abrams, who has never shouldered a rifle for his nation himself, is more than eager to move on to Syria with a myriad of aggressive attacks on its sovereignty prepared and ready in hand.

Abrams calls on the White House and Congress to condemn Syria, in particular the Assad government. He suggests that Syria be immediately brought before the UN Security Council, who just recently finished extra-legally ordaining the war with Libya. The Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court are also mentioned as possible avenues to pressure Assad and the Syrian government.

Regarding the newly US-reordered Tunisia and Egypt, Abrams suggests they convene the Arab League and expell Syria as a member, as he claims they just did to Libya. Abrams' suggestion echos fellow globalist policy wonk Kenneth Pollack's proposal in his Brookings Institutes report, "Bifurcating the Middle East." Bifurcate, meaning to "divide," indicates the classic gambit of divide and conquer is in play. Pollack, like Abrams, suggests that the "Arab street" after being "reformed" be rallied against states like Libya, Syria, and of course, Iran.

Abrams also suggests that Europe begin acting against Syria. Nicolas Sarkozy of France seems to have gotten the memo and is already making lofty threats toward Syria, including threats of military action, citing the ongoing atrocity in Libya as a stern warning for other Arab nations to consider. Sanctions are also being pushed by Abrams, but to what extent the Europeans are willing to carry them out remains to be seen.

Finally, Abrams suggests that the US pull its ambassador from Syria, reiterating his belief that it was a mistake in the first place to show this token sign of mutual respect for the sovereign nation. He concludes with a breathtakingly absurd display of patriotism and propaganda by stating, "Our principles alone should lead us to this position, but the memory of thousands of American soldiers killed in Iraq with the help of the Assad regime demands that we do all we can to help the Syrian people free themselves of that evil dictatorship." And help the US is, with the entire opposition being funded, defended, supported, and even partially based out of the United States and England.

Strange that Abrams has implicated Assad as complicit in killing US troops in Iraq, when Abrams himself and his "Neo-Con" cabal have hands-down done more to send US troops off to their needless deaths with their willful lying regarding WMD's, than any Arab with a Kalashnikov. Also interesting, considering his statement, is Abrams' support for the armed campaign in Libya, where the US is currently providing air support and arms for Al Qaeda linked rebels who themselves have sent fighters to Iraq to kill American troops, on record.

Of course, Abrams is writing for the impressionable readership of the Washington Post, so this blinding hypocrisy is most likely fodder strictly for the public's consumption. However, sweeping aside the propaganda, we see a very real strategy already beginning to play out in regards to Syria. Let us remember that this is already a plan in motion, and recognize the surprise displayed by our feckless "leadership" as the poorly-feigned act that it is.

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.    

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner