April 18, 2012
By Patrick Henningsen
“It should be pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that KONY 2012 is a joke.” –KTRN
Time is running out. Not for Joseph Kony, but for Invisible Children.
Tales of the LRA and Kony have again been reignited, as the KONY 2012 campaign’s urgent April 20th deadline approaches. The attempt by evangelical-based business Invisible Children Inc to craft the mythology around Joseph Kony as public enemy number one as a ’Bin Laden Lite’, demonstrates more than anything the emotive power of film, and film as propaganda.
Quite simply, Invisible Children are meant to serve as the new cultural influencers, or “culture makers” who will do the community public relations work that softens the ground for the globalist establishment agenda embodied in organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the United Nations.
Although quiet about its religious affiliation, Invisible Children’s organization is staffed almost exclusively with young, ‘Christian activists’ and could very well have support links to other Christian evangelist organizations, some of whom have historical links to the CIA, and round table groups like the CFR, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group. Many of these also share links with the powerful clandestine US religious-based right-wing Christian political fraternity known as “The Family“, also known as “The Fellowship“.
Invisible Children’s link to The Family explains how KONY 2012 was fast-tracked on to the desks of politicans in Washington DC. A recent expose on Invisible Children explains:
Among the current and past Invisible Children leaders and employees with professional and social ties to Fellowship members are Jason Russell, Laren Poole, Ben Keesey, Ben Thomson, Adam Finck, James A. Pearson, and Jared White – who in late 2009 went on a cross-Africa motorcycle trip with three young Americans who are working to develop The Fellowship’s programs in Uganda, including Eric Kreutter – son of Tim Kreutter, The Fellowship’s longtime American leader on the ground in Uganda.
February 20, 2012
By Tony Cartalucci
Neo-Conservative Max Boot is a certified warmonger, an elitist policy wonk sitting on the Fortune 500-funded Council on Foreign Relations, has signed his name to letters that called for sidestepping both national and international law to militarily intervene further in Libya, as well as call for troops on the ground even after Tripoli fell last year. He is a man you would least expect to champion NGOs and their liberal-progressive agendas.
However NGOs are not “liberal-progressive.” They are the system administrators of modern empire, an empire being forged by the wars and covert operations Boot is a chief proponent of. The absence of NGOs in any given nation, means a nation free from the influence of Wall Street & London’s networks and meddling. That is why Boot feverishly penned, “Obama’s Egyptian Hostage Crisis,” in an attempt to spur a more vigorous response to what would seem like a very minor event in the context of greater global conflicts. Egypt’s arrest and trying of 19 Americans, all of whom are directly involved in Wall Street’s network of National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded NGOs, including the head of the International Republican Institute (IRI) office in Egypt, signifies a potential turning point not just in Egypt, but around the world.
While Tunisia celebrates it’s 1 year anniversary of Wall Street domination with a US NED-funded president in office, and Libya celebrates their February 17th uprising with militants carrying out nation-wide murder sprees, the Egyptians seems to have ground the foreign-funded destabilization effort to a halt and are finishing it off with a “revolution” of their own.
As Max Boot says:
“If any of these NGO workers wind up in prison, it will be a permanent blot not only on the Egyptian government but also on the Obama administration for letting it happen. Put simply, nations do not act like this if they fear American power. Clearly we are not inducing enough respect even in a country such as Egypt which is dependent on over $1.5 billion in annual U.S. aid.
President Obama must intervene personally if necessary to resolve this crisis and get the authorities in Cairo to let our people go. Anything less would make us a laughingstock and a certain target of more affronts.”
Indeed, Egypt standing up to the US and its global network of meddlers would encourage other nations to follow suit. It would help expose the “Arab Spring” as the foreign-plot it really was and balk currently ongoing efforts by Wall Street & London to overthrow governments in Belarus, Myanmar, Malaysia, the old guard in Thailand, and even Russia and China. People in the streets may want change, but they do not want it at the expense of procuring a foreign dictator reinstating its old colonial role.
December 15, 2011
The Intel Hub
By Andrew Gavin Marshall
The process of establishing an American Empire during and after World War II was not – as has been postulated (by those who even admit there is such a thing as an ‘American Empire’) – an ‘accident’ of history, something America seemingly stumbled into as a result of its unhindered economic growth and military-political position as arbiter of world peace and prosperity.
A vast literature has developed in the academic realm and policy circles – particularly within Political Science and the think tank community, respectively – which postulates a notion of ‘American empire’ or ‘American hegemony’ as accidental, incidental, benevolent, reluctant, and desirable.
Robert Kagan is a prominent American neoconservative historian. He is a Senior Fellow at the prestigious think tank, the Brookings Institution, was a founder of the neoconservative think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), formerly worked at the State Department in the Reagan administration under Secretary of State, George Shultz, and served for over a decade as a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and is, of course, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Kagan has written a great deal on the notion of American hegemony. As he wrote in the journal, Foreign Policy, in 1998, “the truth about America’s dominant role in the world is known to most clear-eyed international observers.” This truth, according to Kagan, “is that the benevolent hegemony exercised by the United States is good for a vast portion of the world’s population.”
Samuel Huntington, another Council member and prominent American strategist, wrote that, “A world without U.S. primacy will be a world with more violence and disorder and less democracy and economic growth than a world where the United States continues to have more influence than any other country shaping global affairs.” This “Benevolent Empire” – as Kagan titles his article – rests on such fundamental ideas as the notion “that American freedom depends on the survival and spread of freedom elsewhere,” and that, “American prosperity cannot occur in the absence of global prosperity.”
For half a century, Kagan wrote, Americans “have been guided by the kind of enlightened self-interest that, in practice, comes dangerously close to resembling generosity.”
Sebastian Mallaby, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, former Editorial Board Member and columnist at the Washington Post as well as correspondent and bureau chief for The Economist, wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs, that “empire’s are not always planned,” referring to America as “The Reluctant Imperialist.”
October 27, 2011
Bankers really do control the world! That’s according to Swiss researchers who, in an exhaustive scientific study, mapped out a blueprint showing the real architects of global economic power.
From freemasons to the Council on Foreign Relations to Bilderberg, the belief that secretive groups control the world’s economic and political system are quite possibly as old as human civilization itself.
But while Occupy Wall Street protestors may be slightly exaggerating in calling themselves the 99 per cent, a recent study conducted by the Swiss Institute of Technology in Zurich shows that they aren’t too far off the mark.
Drawing from a 2007 Orbis database, which lists 37 million companies and investors spanning the globe, the researchers focused on 43,000 transnational corporations and the share ownership which connected them. Based on their analysis, the Swiss team found that a core of companies, the majority of which are in the banking sector, yield excessive power over the global economy, the weekly New Scientist magazine reports.
Within this group, 1,318 companies with intertwined ownership structures were on average connected to 20 other companies.
Representing some 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the study also shows this group of 1,318 controls the bulk of the largest blue chip and manufacturing firms. In terms of the real economy – the part which produces actual goods and services – they take in some 60 per cent of global revenues.
The team was further able to break down this group into what they described as a “super-entity” of 147 companies that controls some 40 per cent of the network’s wealth.
“In effect, less than one per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says James Glattfelder, one of the researchers behind the study, as cited by the New Scientist.
And when it comes to the top 50 groups within the super-entity, more than a few would be familiar to those who have been camping out in downtown Manhattan over the last month.
Bank of America Corporation, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Merrill Lynch & Co Inc, and JP Morgan Chase & Co were included among the top 25.
Quick to dismiss criticism that they are merely concocting another conspiracy theory, Glattfelder insists that their research is evidence-based.
“Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it’s conspiracy theories or free-market,” says James Glattfelder. “Our analysis is reality-based, “he said, as cited by the weekly.
Money makes money
The most recent study of the Swiss researchers builds on past economic theories which also recognized such systemic concentrations of wealth.
In 1906, an Economist named Vilfredo Pareto discovered that around 20 per cent of the population in his native Italy controlled around 80 per cent of the land. This observation has come to be known as Pareto’s Principle.
Pareto also found that while individual ratios of wealth and control might vary from country to country, the actual distribution is always the same. That is to say, natural wealth, regardless of human effort, tends to accumulate rather than spread around. That accumulation leads to wealth condensation, a theory more commonly understood as the idea that money makes money. And if less than one per cent of the surveyed companies control 40 per cent of the network, it appears that a slim few have managed to concentrate an astronomical level of wealth into their few hands.
For the researchers, however, the issue of wealth concentration is less important than how deeply the network is integrated.
As the 2008 financial crisis has shown, when a relatively small group yields tremendous power over the global economy, their mistakes will ripple across the world.
Ultimately, those invested in studying the network which controls the bigger part of our world economy hope that through greater understanding, they will be able to make the financial system more stable.
For example, Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute, has suggested taxing firms if their interconnectivity becomes excessive in order to discourage risk, the New Scientists reports. Others have proposed global anti-trust laws to help regulate the level of connectivity.
One question not answered by the study is just how much political power the financial elite are able to wield. John Driffill, a macroeconomics expert at the University of London, told the New Scientist that the interests of 147 companies would most likely be too diverse to sustain collusion.
But while the capitalist network which controls our economy might not be an active conspiracy, they will inevitably have some interests that correspond. The desire to fight any attempts to regulate the network most likely remains a point they can all agree on.
May 2, 2011
By Paul Joseph Watson
A multitude of different inside sources both publicly and privately, including one individual who personally worked with Bin Laden at one time, told us directly that Osama’s dead corpse has been on ice for nearly a decade and that his “death” would only be announced at the most politically expedient time.
That time has now come with a years-old fake picture being presented as the only evidence of his alleged killing yesterday, while Bin Laden’s body has been hastily dumped into the sea to prevent anyone from finding out when he actually died.
In April 2002, over nine years ago, Council on Foreign Relations member Steve R. Pieczenik, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, and James Bake, told the Alex Jones Show that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months”.
Pieczenik would be in a position to know such information, having worked directly with Bin Laden when the US was funding and arming the terror leader in an attempt to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the late 70′s and early 80′s (a documented historical fact that talking heads in the corporate media are actually denying today in light of developments).
“I found out through my sources that he had had kidney disease. And as a physician, I knew that he had to have two dialysis machines and he was dying,” Pieczenik told Jones during the April 24, 2002 interview.
“And you could see those in those films, those made-up photos that they were sending us out of nowhere. I mean, suddenly, we would see a video of bin Laden today and then out of nowhere, they said oh it was sent to us anonymously, meaning that someone in the government, our government, was trying to keep up the morale on our side and say oh we still have to chase this guy when, in fact, he’s been dead for months,” added Pieczenik.
Pieczenik then stated that the video tape of a fat Bin Laden look alike “taking responsibility” for 9/11 that was released in December 2001 was “such a hoax” designed to “manipulate” people in the emotional aftermath of 9/11.
The subsequent war in Afghanistan that followed 9/11 was orchestrated “With the agreement of the bin Laden family, knowing fully well that he would die,” said Pieczenik. “And I think that Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, spilled the beans by accident three months ago when he said that bin Laden was dead because his kidney dialysis machines were destroyed in East Afghanistan.”
November 11, 2009
By Paul Joseph Watson
Doctors in Britain are effectively being bribed by health authorities to push the swine flu vaccine on a reluctant public after suspicions over the safety of the shot resulted in huge numbers of people refusing to take it.
The government originally intended for the entire population of the UK to receive the H1N1 vaccine but less than half have indicated that they will take the shot.
Multiple opinion polls have revealed that half of GPs i n Britain have severe reservations and doubts over the safety of the shot.
A much larger Nursing Times magazine  poll in August also found that 30% of all frontline nurses said they would refuse to be immunized, with another 33% saying they were unsure over the vaccine.
50% of pregnant women  in the UK have also said they will refuse the vaccine.
This resistance has prompted health authorities to bribe doctors to push the vaccine on the public in the form of new bonuses for each and every shot they give, on top of those already in place.
“NHS managers in Birmingham have told family doctors they will be able to get extra payments – on top of the £5.25 they already get per jab – if they meet targets on vaccination rates,” reports the Daily Mail .
“If they vaccinate more than 90 per cent of those deemed at risk of the disease in their area, they will get 50 per cent more per jab, meaning they will be paid £7.88 for every person they vaccinate.”
Doctors who achieve a 40 per cent uptake will receive an extra 10 per cent bonus. In total, the bonuses are potentially worth thousands of pounds per practice.
Critics expressed outrage that doctors were effectively being bribed to become drug pushers for the government.
Jackie Fletcher, of vaccination support group Jabs, said: ‘There are huge questions about the integrity of vaccine decisions if doctors are paid to give them.
‘All vaccines carry a risk of side effects. Can we be confident GPs will tell patients about these risks if they are being paid extra to ensure a high uptake?
‘Rather than paying bonuses, the Department of Health should be investigating possible side effects.’
As we highlighted last week, mass resistance to the vaccine has prompted elitists to devise deceptive schemes in an attempt to get more people to take the shot. During a recent Council on Foreign Relations meeting, Andrew Jack, Pharmaceutical Correspondent for the Financial Times, conceded that “the anti-vaccine movement is having a field day on the internet” and that the CFR, via its many members which occupy prominent positions in the establishment media, should conspire to counter negative information about the swine flu vaccine.
At around the same time, Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer in England, described people who express doubts  about the swine flu vaccine as “extremists”.
During another part of the discussion on whether or not the vaccine should be made mandatory for health workers and school children, Lone Simonsen, Research Professor and Research Director at the Department of Global Health, George Washington University, suggests creating an artificial scarcity in order to ramp up demand for the vaccine.
“I think what would work better would be to say that there was a shortage and people tend to buy more of something that’s in demand. (Laughter.) We saw that — there was one season where, really, people lined up all night to get a flu shot.” Simonsen says, much to the amusement of the other attendees at the symposium.
But this is exactly the scam being run by the corporate media. Endless stories about shortages in supply, allied with footage of members of the public queuing for hours to receive the vaccine, have created a contrived sense of scarcity, similar to how toy companies manufacture a stampede for a particular item before Christmas by floating stories about something being low in stock.