Thursday, 31 July 2008

A History of US/ CIA Terrorism and False Flag Attacks

LBJ, Israel & the USS Liberty Massacre
by William Hughes
(Sunday, February 8, 2004)

"The White House knew within minutes of the USS Liberty attack, that the perpetrator was really Israel. On two separate occasions, the White House recalled aircraft rescue missions for the Liberty. On the last attempt, LBJ told Rear-Admiral Lawrence Geis of the Sixth Fleet, “I WILL NOT EMBARRASS OUR ALLY.” The Liberty was then left “dead in the water,” without any assistance for over 16 hours."

On June 8, 1967, the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty, in international waters, 13 miles off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, and tried to sink it, and kill all 294 Americans on board the spy ship (“Assault on the Liberty,” James M. Ennes, Jr. and James Bamford’s “Body of Secrets.”) The Israelis then falsely claimed it was just a case of “mistaken identity.”

However, according to Peter Hounam, the author of the expose’, “Operation Cyanide,” the murderous Israeli attack was a set up to blame the Egyptians and bring the U.S. into the 1967 war on their side. The Liberty was a “sitting duck” for the Israeli jet planes’ missiles and rockets and their torpedo boats. The attack lasted at least 75 minutes, killing 34 brave Americans and wounding 172 others. Liberty survivor, Petty Officer Ernie Gallo, said, “I mean for a group of people, who are suppose to be the children of God, (the Israelis), they didn’t show any mercy for us.”

Both Captain Ward Boston, an ex-Navy attorney, who participated in a Court of Inquiry, with respect to the Liberty, and Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff, (who recently died), believe that President Lyndon Baynes Johnson ordered a massive “cover-up” after the attack by the Israelis (10/23/03,

On first hearing of the Liberty attack by allegedly “unidentified aircraft,” the U.S. launched planes from the Sixth Fleet carriers, then located in the Mediterranean, off Crete, armed with nuclear weapons. They were headed for Cairo to retaliate. Only minutes before reaching their target, they were recalled. Why? The Israelis had failed to sink the Liberty! The Zionist predators had mistakenly believed U.S. planes were also on their way to rescue the Liberty, so they were forced to stop their assault. Only then, did they admit to the U.S., that they were the culprits.

According to Hounam’s research, the White House knew within minutes of the Liberty attack, that the perpetrator was really Israel (p. 94). On two separate occasions, the White House recalled aircraft rescue missions for the Liberty. On the last attempt, LBJ told Rear-Admiral Lawrence Geis of the Sixth Fleet, “I WILL NOT EMBARRASS OUR ALLY.” The Liberty was then left “dead in the water,” without any assistance for over 16 hours. (See also, an excellent documentary of the same title by the BBC and affidavits and statements found at

At pp. 267-268, Hounam said, “Sinking the Liberty and blaming Egypt and the Soviets would have freed Johnson’s hand to do almost anything - even to drop an atomic bomb on Cairo. Trouble only arose when the Israel operation failed - and the damned ship stayed afloat.”

Hounam revealed that within LBJ’s hawkish administration, there was shadowy clique that met under the rubric of the “303 Committee.” Richard Helms, the late CIA Director, said that entity was, “A device for examining covert operations of any kind and making a judgment on behalf of the President, so he wouldn’t be nailed with the thing, if it failed.”

Out of the “303 Committee,” came a project labeled, “Frontlet 615,” which was furthered defined as, “A secret political agreement in 1966 by which Israel and the U.S. had vowed to destroy (Egypt’s Gamal Abdel) Nasser.” The military name for the operation was, “Operation Cyanide.” The U.S. also had a draconian plan, entitled, “Condition November,” a strategy for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. All of the above ended up being interwoven into the tragic saga of the Liberty.

LBJ was an extremely ambitious man, who was, in 1967, seeking reelection. The Vietnam War was going badly for him and his popularity was plummeting. He had surrounded himself with Zionist zealots, like the late Walter Rostow, his Special Assistant for National Security Affairs.

Here is how Hounam described Rostow, “A sinister, Svengali-like figure, or simply the biggest and best fixer? Of all the people in Johnson’s entourage, he was crucial in determining which way the U.S. might respond to the threatened hostilities in the Middle East... Rostow was a hawk who believed in the justness of the Vietnam War and, as a Jew, his Zionism was strongly felt and expressed...(He) had daily contact with the President. This gave him especially close access.” He had acquired enormous influence running the committee (303 Committee) that sanctioned covert operations by the CIA. He also knew in taking Israel’s side on most issues he was playing to the President’s tune. He described Johnson as the ‘most pro-Semitic man’ he had ever met.” Rostow was also an “advisor” to LBJ when he used the phony “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,” in 1964, to launch the U.S. into the disastrous Vietnam War.

Just imagine for one moment, if an individual dedicated to putting America’s interests first - before the interests of the Zionists - had been the U.S. President on June 8, 1967. Instead of recalling our aircrafts that were on their way to rescue the Liberty, he (or she) would have ordered them to continue on their mission, not only to defend the Liberty and to stop the massacre, but to retaliated against the Zionist aggressors by bombing their naval base at the port of Ashdod, their military headquarters at Tel Aviv and Haifa, and for good measure, dropping a few MX missiles on Dimona, their secret nuke-making plant, located in the Negev desert. If, only?

What kind of man was LBJ? Well, here is what the distinguished British statesman, Denis Healey, one of his contemporaries, had to say about him: “LYNDON JOHNSON WAS A MONSTER. He was one of the few politicians with whom I found it uncomfortable to be in the same room. He exuded a brutal lust for power which I found most disagreeable...” (p. 131).

As a result of the Six-Day War, the Israelis illegally seized vast areas of land belonging to Syria, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian people. It also began being armed by the U.S. and treated as a strategic ally. Since 1967, Donald Neff pointed out (WRMEA, 08/02), Israel has also received enormous amounts of U.S. aid. Incredibly, it is “many times over the cost of the Marshall Plan to regenerate Western Europe after WWII.”

Query: Why are we giving billions of dollars of foreign aid to a country, Israel, that deliberately attacked and tried to sink our vessel, the Liberty, and that continues to make us more enemies in the Islamic World?

Finally, the last word on the horrors of the Israeli attack on the Liberty, and the cruel indifference of LBJ to its fate, has to be left to one of the injured survivors of that terror-filled day, Lt. George Golden, the Liberty’s chief engineer. He told author Hounam, (at p. 240-41), in a recent interview, “We were the guinea pigs to get shot up, to make it look like the Egypt was doing this so the U.S. could step give our country an excuse to get in there to help Israel...” When asked how he felt when he was told all of this about being damned guinea pigs, Golden responded, “I thought I was going to cry because I couldn’t believe something like that would happen. I didn’t think our government was that way...”


History of American False Flag Operations

The leaders of smaller and less industrialised nations are not madmen (whatever the media claims). They also are generally better informed than their citizens. In a war an attacker does not need equal forces compared to the enemy. The attacker needs a 5-fold local superiority, or better. No one begins wars without very definite objectives and a quick victory in sight. If a war with more even military balance erupts, someone has been mislead and walked into a trap (usually arranged by third party).

After the American war of Independence (1776-1779), and an English challenge to that independence (1812-1814) no single nation has planned an offensive war against the USA. It is probable that a strong coalition of Anglo-French-led European nations planned to split the USA into two states through diplomatic recognition of the Confederate states possibly followed up by naval blockade embargoing the Union. At that time the British Empire was the strongest naval power, and the French the second strongest. The events led, however, into the Civil War (1860-1865) and due to the Russian intervention 1863 (1863) on the Union's side, those European plans were quietly abandoned.

Mexican wars 1819, 1846-48: Long series of operations, commencing with the annexion of Florida (1819) and followed by a declaration of independence of Texas from Mexico (1836). Provocative troop movements near the U.S. southern border caused an incident which led to war. (It is said the US built a fortification 150 km inside the Mexican border.) The annexation of Texas by the USA and the conquest of California, New Mexico, and nearby territories followed. Mexico had a weak government at that time, because after Napoleon conquered Spain (1809) their former colonies soon revolted. Mexico had been a colony of the Spanish kingdom but now they revolted and formed a republic. There were a series of revolts, not just one.

Spanish-American war, 1898: The surprise explosion of the battleship Maine at Havana, Cuba. 255 of the crew died. The Hearst press accused the Spanish, claiming that the explosion was caused by a remote-controlled mine. The USA declared war on Spain, and conquered Philippines, Guam and Cuba. Subsequent investigations revealed that the explosion originated inside the Maine and that it was either an accident, such as a coal explosion, or some type of time bomb inside the battleship. Divers investigating the shipwreck found that the armour plates of the ship were blown bending outwards, not inwards.

World War I, 1914-1918: A U-boat torpedo hit ocean liner Lusitania near Britain and some 1200 people, including 128 Americans, on board lost their lives. Subsequent investigations revealed that the major explosions were inside the Lusitania, as it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of artillery shells and rifle ammunition, as well as other explosives on behalf of Morgan banking corporation to help their clients, the Britain and the France. It was against US laws to transport war materials and passengers in the same ship.

World War 2, 1939-1945: A U-boat torpedo hit the ocean liner Athenia near Britain with some 1100 passengers, of which 311 were Americans. The sea was calm and only 118 people on board lost their lives. The ship was sunk because it behaved like a military transport, blackened out and zigzagging. This incident wasn't enough to precipitate war, and the Germans also refused to be provoked by several American acts of war. Americans confiscated German merchant ships, and Americans started to support the British with various lend-lease items, US volunteer pilots joined the RAF and some RAF pilots were trained in the US, US gave the British 50 old but usable WW1 destroyers and 20 modern torpedo boats, tanks, light bombers, fighter aircraft like P-40s and so on. American destroyers also escorted the convoys bound to Britain, and attacked German U-boats even far away from those convoys. The US did not maintain a neutral stance attitude towards the warring nations.

The US naval intelligence, chief of Japan desk planned and suggested "8 insults", which should bring Japan into war with the US. President Roosevelt executed this plan immediately and also added some other insults, enraging the Japan. The most serious one was a total blockade of Japanese oil imports, as agreed between the Americans, British and the Dutch. FDR also declared an all-out embargo against the Japan and forbade them the use of Panama canal, impeding Japan's access to Venezuelan oil.

The Flying Tigers volunteer air group successfully fighting the Japanese in China with some 90 fairly modern P-40Bs was another effective provocation that is not generally acknowledged by historical accounts of World War 2, most of which fail to mention any air combat action prior to 7th December 1941. But at that time the Japanese had already had lost about 100 military aircraft, mostly bombers, to the Tigers. After Pearl Harbor these squadrons were some of the the hardest-hitting ones in the US service.

The attack on Pearl Harbour followed some 6 months later. Having broken the Japanese encryption codes, the Americans knew what was going to happen, when and where, but the president did not dispatch this information to Pearl Harbor. Americans even gave their friends the British 3 Magic decrypting machines which automatically opened encrypted Japanese military traffic. But this same information was not available to the commanders of Hawaii. The movement of the fleet was also visible in the very effective radio direction finding network. Japan had an alliance with Germany, and the Germans upheld their promises by declaring the war against the USA right after the Japanese declaration.

Two scapegoats, the navy commander Admiral Husband Kimmel, and the army commander Lt. General Walter Short were found incompetent and demoted as they were allowed to retire. Short died 1949 and Kimmel 1958. In 1995, the US Congress re-examined this decision and endorsed it. Then in 2000 some archive information came to light and the US Senate passed a resolution stating that both hadserved in Hawaii "competently and professionally". In 1941 they were denied vital information, and even on presidential orders purposefully mislead into believing that the Japanese feet could be expected from the southwest. These commanders have yet to be rehabilited by the Pentagon.

Korean War, 1950-1953: South Korean incursions (the Tiger regiment etc.) into North Korea (1949) led to contrary claims and into war. The cause of this war propably was covert action involving leaders of Taiwan, South Korea and the US military-industrial complex (John Foster Dulles has been mentioned as an organizer of the hostilities.) After the unpublished hostilities in 1949, the communist powers were strongly backing North Korea.

Chiang Kai Sek was being abandoned, isolated and falling prey to the powerful communist Chinese operations. The right-wing South Korean ruler was expected to loose the soon-to-be-elections. The American military-industrial complex went into high gear again, and huge government orders for equipment were flowing in.

The American-led UN forces had difficult times early in the war, but after sufficient forces arrived they advanced victoriously and penetrated deep into the North Korea. The strong Chino-Russian intervention into the war once again turned the tides, the Chinese with vast armies on ground, and the Soviets less visibly with large numbers of aircraft, nearly costing the UN forces the war.

Finally the front stabilised along the original 38th parallel armistice line. The war resulted in the death of 3 million Korean Chinese and the destruction of virtually all of the Korean cities, and left Taiwan in strong American protection and South Korea firmly in the hands of the right-wing president Syngman Rhee. Some 55,000 Americans lost their lives.

Vietnam War: "The Tonkin incident", where American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. What was happening at the time were aggressive South Vietnamese raids against the North in the same general area. Huge American presence wasn't decisive and President Nixon negotiated a "peace with honour" 1973. This war was lost, when the North Vietnam finally conquered South Vietnam 1975.

Grenada invasion: The Grenadian leader favouring the left and having invited Cubans to help building the infrastructure, extending the airport to accomodate long range Soviet aircraft, was replaced at a moment when he was negotiating in the UN, New York for a more open UN UFO policy based on Grenada initiatives. The proffered reason for the immediate invasion was that American medical students studying in the Grenada were in danger due the Cuban presence. The new leader supported by the US favoured more traditional values and the right.

War on Drugs: The war was launched by Richard M Nixon sometime around June 17,1971. The drug problem was found bad within the army in Viet Nam around 1968 prompting action was required towards the end of the war. Nowadays it is estimated that the military will never win the War on Drugs. The street prices of illicit drugs did not change significantly in the USA despite the military action in foreign drug-producing countries. The Colombian experience, with local military supported by the US, has shown that peace is more important than war against drugs. The Colombians have successfully negotiated some 1000s of guerrilla fighters back into the society and out of jungle.

This "war" actually seems to be a pretext for military invasions into less developed countries, where covert "bad" drug lords on behalf of western intelligence services are producing drugs into US and first world markets. This operation produces huge incomes, generating black budget money for those intelligence services managing the global drug operations.

Panama invasion: The incident between American and Panamanian troops led to invasion. The leader Noriega was changed and the earlier Carter administration plan to hand the control of the canal over to Panama was cancelled. The strategic importance of the canal has surpassed any more just thinking in the US global domination policy.

US-Israeli sponsored war between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988: The US has built power bases in the Middle East in Iran starting with the CIA-organised coup 1953, where Iranian prime minister Mossadeq was replaced with the Shah of Iran Reza Pahlavi and he by his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran was equipped with the best western military equipment, including the American F-14 fighters with Phoenix missiles and the British Chieftain MBTs. Unfortunately there was in 1979 a coup of ayatollah Khomeini replacing the Shah and founding an Islamite nation.

After this, the US warmed up relations with their good Iraqi friend Saddam Hussein, and started to build a nation capable of challenging the Iran. Iraq acquired large numbers of effective weapons including factories able to produce older versions of gas warfare agents. These would later be called WMDs, which of course they were not, being the WW1-vintage weapons.

The war broke out and was fought to exhaustion because third-party powers, especially Israel, were carefully monitoring the power balance supplying more weapons to the side which seemed to be loosing. "Too bad they both cannot loose" is how Kissinger evaluated this situation.

Desert Storm (First Gulf war), 1991): Hussein asked for permission from the US (via their ambassador April Gillespie) and got an answer that the US does not care Arab quarrels. That was a trap, and after Saddam occupied Kuwait, George Bush Sr. mobilised a coalition of some 40 nations to "liberate Kuwait" and to smash the recently-built Iraqi military power base. This also involved a media hoax, where the daughter of Kuwaiti US ambassador played nurse on TV and testified to "witnessing" Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait.

War on Terror: The war was launched by Bush administration October 2001. The war was claimed to be the response on terrorism, especially the 9-11 incidents. Most of the people in the world today know that these reasons are false and that those events were based on MIH type (make it happen) inside job.

Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan invasion), 7.10.2001-: Without any evidence, the former CIA-asset, a Saudi-Arabian Osama bin Laden was claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 strikes at the WTC and the Pentagon. Such a complex operation, if actually executed which it was not, in this case would be much beyond the capabilities of anything in Afghanistan. Only some top ten intelligence services in the world could hope to be successful in such an operation involving forgery, infiltration, living "underground" in a foreign non-Muslim country, coordination of moves, illegal arms, hi-quality flight training, accurate aircraft navigation in no-visibility conditions and so on. Perhaps even less, because the friends of the US (at that time, still most of the world) would also have been interested in stopping the attack.

Enduring Justice (Second Gulf war), 20.3.2003-: later known with less irony as Operation Iraqi Freedom The claimed reason of the attack was that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US with wmd's available within less than an hour after the decision to assemble them has been made. Since no wmd's were found, and after the Iraqi also scrapped some 800 long range Scud style missiles before the US coalition attack, the reason for the invasion was changed into "bringing the democracy into Iraq".


Why the Pearl Harbor took place
Robert B. Stinnett: Day of Deceit: the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, 2000
Mark Emerson Wiley: Pearl Harbour - mother of all conspiracies

Cordell Hull's Ultimatum to Japan

What the US usually knew in advance (books)
Fredrick W. Winterbotham: The Ultra secret, 1974
Bradley F. Smith: The Ultra-Magic Deals, 1992
F.H.Hinsley: British Intelligence in the WW2 (4 large volumes), 1988

How to create innocent-looking wars

How wars are made
Especially these items: World War 1, World War 2, Korean War, The Vietnam War

How to create distant future wars
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony C. Sutton
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony C. Sutton
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony C. Sutton
The out-of-print book: From Major Jordan's Diaries (Google this item)


Deep Cover CIA, False Flag Op's & Foreign Policy

United States Air Force Colonel Edward Lansdale mentioned as the Chief of the Cuba Project in the National Security Archive's article, below, was a full time CIA Agent who was eventually promoted to the rank of General in the USAF for 'cover' purposes, as were all his previous promotions.

In early 1953, Lansdale, then posing as a USAF Lieutenant Colonel, was in charge of a false flag operation in the Philippines which fabricated the existence and threat of the HUK Communist Guerrilla Movement bent on the overthrow of the existing Philippine Government.

This ruse was accomplished with the same tactics outlined in the Northwoods document, below. The operation was successful and the hero of the operation was one Philippine Colonel Magsaysay who immediately became the new President of the Philippines. The previous president was balking at certain US requirements and had to be replaced.

There was no HUK anti-government movement. It was purely a fantasy, orchestrated by Lansdale at the behest of the CIA.

Interesting to note: President Truman would have had a hissy fit if he knew of such an operation. Most learned folks don't believe he had a clue. Eisenhower was newly elected and although he had a great career in military administration, he had no combat experience nor any of the daring do of special operations. Allan Dulles, head of CIA, found a willing student of the Black Arts in Eisenhower. The later U2 incident strained that relaltionship severely.

This fabricated campaign began in early 1953 immediately after Eisenhower's inauguration. At the same time, the plan for the CIA takeover in Iran was underway. Shortly after would be the coup in Guatemala in 1954. Note that none of these activities were allowed under Truman.

After the success of the Philippine false flag operation, the HUK Campaign as it was known at the time, Lansdale was shipped off to become the Chief of the US Military Mission in Saigon, in early 1954, as we had no Embassy there then and the Indo China war was about to end.

As Diem Bien Phu was falling to the Viet Minh, due to the fact that Eisenhower refused the French request for B-52 bomber support, (although not just a few CIA pilots were flying French marked aircraft for resupply of men and munitions for the doomed French position) Lansdale was cozying up to Diem, the newly US chosen first president of the newly created country of South Vietnam. Diem had just been plucked from a Catholic enclave in New Jersey.

Some circles believed CIA wanted the French to lose Vietnam and let the real liberators take charge. Ironically, the mistakes made by the French Forces in Vietnam were repeated, ad nauseum, by the US Military in Vietnam. See: Street Without Joy by Bernard Fall.

By 1956, Lansdale had hatched a plan, with nods from Washington, to import 1.1 million North Vietnamese Catholics, using CIA proprietary aircraft (Continental Air Transport) and ships, to support the Diem Regime (Catholic) much to the angst of the Buddhist's who were the great majority in newly designated "South" Vietnam. The religious conflict set in motion by Lansdale evolved into the Second Indo China War; The Vietnam War. Those displaced by the North Vietnamese Catholics were forced into the country side and resorted to banditry just to survive. This nucleus became the Viet Cong (Free Vietnam---not Vietnamese Communists as spouted by the US Media.)

By 1961, Lansdale was back in Washington, at the Pentagon, working in the Special Op's basement offices. At the time, these offices were known as the Office of The Deputy Chief of Staff For Special Operations.

Lansdale found himself briefing President Kennedy on the updates of the War in Vietnam. Kennedy was so impressed with "Colonel" Lansdale that consideration for his appointment as Ambassador to Vietnam was discussed with Lansdale. Lansdales dashing looks did not go unnoticed by Jackie Kennedy.

In 1962 Lansdale had been on the periphery of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and, as noted in the Northwoods document, he recommended responsiblity for the overt and covert operations associated with Northwoods, be at the Joint Chief's of Staff. Therefore, if anything went wrong, the blame would not go to the CIA, again. And, Kennedy, at the strong recommendation of his brother Robert, had already placed responsibility for all para-military operations into the Pentagon, unknowingly infiltrated by deep cover CIA Agents such as Lansdale.

By 1963, Lansdale had not been chosen as the new Ambassador to Vietnam but he was still closely associated with President Diem.

October, 1963 found Diem assassinated, along with his brother.

Novemeber 22, 1963 found Ed Lansdale in Dallas, Texas, in civilian clothes, photographed walking by the three "tramps" being escorted by shotgun toting "police". The "tramps" were later identified as future Watergate Burgler E Howard Hunt and two Cubans also arrested during the break-in at the Democratic Headquarters.

So, this bit of history begs the question: Who is the new "Lansdale" and what is the next false flag operation to justify the preemptive attacks on Syria and Iran? Or the next batch of assassinations? ...

The later release of documents published by the New York Times of the so called Pentagon Papers actually originated at CIA. That is why Ellsberg and Lansdale were so chummy. And, interestingly enough, not all of the documents delivered to the Times were published.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Tertullian, The 7/7 Bombings and the Fall of Rome

Anas al-Liby ; The al Qaeda terrorist funded and sheltered by Britain

Around AD 210 during the fall of the Roman Empire, the author Tertullian wrote that human numbers were now such a burden to the earth which could hardly support them that famine, epidemics and wars were the means of cutting them back to a sustainable number.

Just as Mao in China engineered the mass famines of the Cultural Revolution to cut back human numbers and Stalin engineered the Ukranian Famines to kill off those who opposed him - the State, in all its myriad forms from democracy, fascist to communist, has willingly killed its own people and others in the name of its own interests.

There are some people, an ever dwindling number, who still believe that we live in a democratic society, that we can trust politicians, that we have a free press, that ACPO are not the Gauleiters of the New Labour International Corporate Fascist State and that rogue factions within the security services of our country who work for the Shadow Government of the Military-Industrial Block would not work with Al Qaeda to plant bombs.

Think again suckers.

Here is a website with the testimony of David Shayler, an ex-MI6 officer and probable victim of some sinister psychological warfare operation whilst in prison in order to discredit him after he left prison - as evinced by his recent announcement that he has became 'god' eg LSD and the CIA anyone ? If the Shadow Government can release nerve gas on the British public in secret then would they baulk at poisoning a man (shayler) or killing a man (Dr. David Kelly).

" THE British al-Qaeda leader linked to the London terrorist attacks was being questioned by police in Pakistan last night after the discovery of mobile phone records detailing his calls with the suicide bombers.

Aswat, 30, who is believed to come from the same West Yorkshire town as one of the bombers, arrived in Britain a fortnight before the attacks to orchestrate final planning for the atrocity. He spoke to the suicide team on his mobile phone a few hours before the four men blew themselves up and killed fifty-two other people.

Intelligence sources told The Times that during his stay Aswat visited the home towns of all four bombers as well as selecting targets in London. "

The 7/7 bombings were run by a faction within MI6 and the bombings themselves were directly organised with their paid Al Qaeda agent Haroon Rashad Aswat - full video here ;

Note that whilst MI6 were working directly with Al Qaeda to plant bombs to kill Colonel Gadaffi in Libya, the same network of Al Qaeda agents were the ones working with MI6 to plant the 7/7 bombs.

The four bombers who made the bombs and delivered the bombs were run directly by Haroon Aswat who in turn was being run a faction within the MI6 run directly by agents of the United States Shadow Government within the UK Military-Industrial Complex.

Heres Michael Meacher MP saying this in an article ;

The four bombers of 7/7 were Mohammad Sidique Khan (30),Shehzad Tanweer (22),
Germaine Lindsay (19) and Hasib Hussain.

They were not patsys, there were no 'secret bombers' and there were no hidden devices. There didnt need to be.

Those four did the bombings willingly and 'proudly' in the name of Islamic Fundamentalism, the Global Jihad and Al Qaeda.

They saw themselves as soldiers of jihad.

They were not patsys, they were Islamist scumbag terrorists whose actions were undertaken on behalf of Al Qaeda under the direct commands of Haroon Aswat who, they thought, was an Al Qaeda leader.

They thought that Al Qaeda and probably Bin Laden himself were organising the plan. They probably imagined Bin Laden in a cave somewhere quietly exulting at their plans for the atrocities.

The truth was that they never that Al Qaeda was, and still is, a CIA run organisation set up to draw islamic fundamentalists into participating in terrorist operations THAT SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE US SHADOW GOVERNMENT and not those of either Al Qaeda or Islam.

Haroon was an Al Qaeda leader, but he was also an MI6 operative.

Haroon Aswat ran the 7/7 bombings for a rogue faction within MI6 who also work for the CIA and the US Military-Industrial Complex.

Al Qaeda is an CIA run, controlled and funded operation.

The aim of Al Qaeda is to destabilise areas of the world where the US has a strategic interest in. Al Qaeda plant the bombs, the US reaps the reward.

Osama Bin Laden was an CIA asset from the early years of the Jihad in Afghanistan when the CIA recurited, armed and funded the Islamists terrorists that evolved into Al Qaeda. Bin Laden and the Bin Lden family with George Bush Sr and the Bush family have been in business for decades and both profited from the Iraq War via the Carlyle Group ;

The islamist fighters that join Al Qaeda, or who operate under its franchise, are so dumb that they do not even realise that they are working for the CIA themselves.

That just like most of the so called 'nazi' and 'communist' organisations in the UK, the Al Qaeda organisation is a a 'false flag' operation run by the security services and operating to their agenda via the paid state agents and deluded saps in those organisations.

The slime trail from all these creatures always leads back to the same stinking shit pile.

The Al Qaeda units set up after the Russians left Afghanistan were controlled by the CIA via Bin Laden.

The Al Qaeda units that operated in the Balkans were organised, equipped and trained by elements of the CIA and British MI6 and they worked for the interests of the US in the Balkans and not for the benefit of Islam.


The Al Qaeda units paid for by MI6 to kill Colonel Gadaffi were working not for Islam but for the benefit of British interests in the Middle East.

The Al Qaeda unit that blew up the 911 towers were working for the US Shadow Government who needed a new 'Pearl Harbour' to unleash their plans for global Oil Imperalism.

The Al Qaeda unit that blew up the tube trains in London on 7/7 were also working for an Al Qaeda double agent under the orders of MI6, the same MI6 units that worked with Al Qaeda in Libya.

Everything you have been told by the media and the government is a lie.

The system is a corrupt criminal running amok in our nations and across the world.

It is a vile bloody thirsty monster controlled by genocidal criminals who understand that the end game of the present human civilisation is at hand, and who seek to ensure they survive the coming collapse.

They understand that unless the entire present globalised order of human civilisation is stopped and a new natural order imposed based on eco-nationalist principles imposed, that a global collapse is inevitable and with it a global population crash from wars and famines that will be the global equivalent of the Fall of Rome.

Because the people who control the Shadow Government are crminals, they can never allow their crimes to be discovered. Therefore they can never stop the process they have started and the crash they have caused.

The crash is how they will hide their crimes.

They will ensure that as much chaos is caused as possible so that they can burn all the evidence of their crimes during the firestorms that will be unleashed.

A myriad tipping points have been reached at the same time from Peak Oil, Climate Change, Human Over Population, Resource depletion, islamic terrorism, economic collapse, environmental destruction, peak food, peak water etc etc.

Unless the present system is smashed and the criminals taken from their positions of power, then humanity is about to suffer at least an 80 % population crash. The Olduvai Theory is proof of this ;

When Rome fell within less than two hundred years half the population of Europe had died off.

Rome's enormous wealth in loot and imperial taxes made possible a brilliant civilisation by BC 167, supported by imported food, but a grave Italian population crisis set in almost at once, that lasted variably for three centuries, accompanied by violence. Rome's population passed a million by the end of the lst century BC, and was 80% ex-slaves. Around AD 210 Tertullian wrote that human numbers were now a burden to the earth which could hardly support them, and that famine, epidemics and wars were the means of cutting them back. Unemployment was a nightmare. In the final catastrophic crisis in the 6th century AD, the Western Empire disintegrated into barbarian kingdoms and the population shrank to the low level permitted by purely local food. The crises culminated in the pandemic of AD 542-3 which killed 40% of the Empire's population.

Today the new Tertullians are preparing for the coming collapse and manouvering themelves into positions where they expect to survive the comong crash.

The End Game has begun.

Either The System is overthrown - or the world will fall into chaos.


"British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.... two French intelligence experts ......reveal that the first Interpol arrest warrant for bin Laden was issued by Libya in March 1998. According to journalist Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, an adviser to French President Jacques Chirac, British and US intelligence agencies buried the fact that the arrest warrant had come from Libya ....... Five months after the warrant was issued, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania....

The Libyan al-Qaeda cell included Anas al-Liby, who remains on the US government's most wanted list with a reward of $25 million for his capture. He is wanted for his involvement in the African embassy bombings. Al-Liby was with bin Laden in Sudan before the al-Qaeda leader returned to Afghanistan in 1996. Astonishingly, despite suspicions that he was a high-level al-Qaeda operative, al-Liby was given political asylum in Britain and lived in Manchester until May of 2000.....

The Observer has been restrained from printing details of the allegations during the course of the trial of David Shayler, who was last week sentenced to six months in prison for disclosing documents obtained during his time as an MI5 officer..... Shayler claims he was first briefed about the plot during formal meetings with colleagues from the foreign intelligence service MI6 when he was working on MI5's Libya desk in the mid-Nineties.

The Observer can today reveal that the MI6 officers involved in the alleged plot were Richard Bartlett, who has previously only been known under the codename PT16 and had overall responsibility for the operation; and David Watson, codename PT16B. As Shayler's opposite number in MI6, Watson was responsible for running a Libyan agent, 'Tunworth', who was was providing information from within the cell.

According to Shayler, MI6 passed £100,000 to the al-Qaeda plotters.... Shayler, who conducted his own defence in the trial, intended to call Bartlett and Watson as witnesses, but was prevented from doing so by the narrow focus of the court case.... During the Shayler trial, Home Secretary David Blunkett and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw signed Public Interest Immunity certificates to protect national security. Reporters were not able to report allegations about the Gadaffi plot during the course of the trial.... These restrictions have led to a row between the Attorney General and the so-called D-Notice Committee, which advises the press on national security issues..... Members of the committee, who include senior national newspaper executives, are said to be horrified at the unprecedented attempt to censor the media during the trial."

Add to Technorati Favorites

Hi To The Puppets

Theres an old saying from the R.A.F during World War Two which goes ;

" How do you know when you are right on target - when you are taking flack from all sides ".

Wise words indeed.

To be attacked for my Odinic Archetype article first on Stormfront and then on Lancaster Unity is proof that the right targets are right in my sights.

When both the Zionists of LU and the Hollywood Nazis of SF, the puppetmasters and their puppets, are attacking you then this is complete validation of your position.

Only when both the Puppetmasters and the Puppets of the Zionist-Nazi Nexus are attacking you, can you say you are near the truth.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Monday, 28 July 2008

The SNP and the Arab Takeover of North Sea Oil

The myth of Thatcherism and the basis of Scottish Nationalism are both based on North Sea Oil.

The oil revenues from North Sea Oil was the basis of the Thatcherite economic boom of the 1980's, not her economic policies.

She in fact squandered our oil wealth and her most damning legacy was Blairism and New Labour, her 'conservative lite' clones.

Together they created the worst of all possible worlds, Thatcherism spawned our dependence on the Globalist International Corporate Fascist economic model which commands our national economy and its pimp sister Consumerism in the private sphere, whilst the Politically Correct Servile State dominates our national society in the public sphere.

Free Market Thatcherism and Politically Correct Blarism = Oil Imperialism and Multi-Culturalism.

The rise of the Scottish National Party is based solely on the idea that Scottish independence will lead to a more prosperous Scotland due to the SNP keeping the potential £ 750 Billion pounds worth of potential oil reserves and revenues left in the North Sea.

The only problem for the SNP and the Scottish nationalists is that the Arabic nations are going to buy up North Sea oil production plants, refining companies and will also invest in new equipment.

This means the profits from North Sea oil will go straight to the Arab nations that own the drilling companies, the pumping plants and the refinining companies.

The myth of scottish nationalism is about to be destroyed by the rise of Islamo-Capitalism.

Islamo-capitalism is the final phase of the globalised system and the Petro-Dollar Recycling System.

Islamo-Capitalism is when the rise in demand for oil and the reduction in supply means a rise in price that enriches the Arabic oil producing nations to such an extent that capitalism begins to shrink as the banks and finance companies they own begin to purchase ever more industries, corporations and companies.

In the final phase of Islam-capitalism the Marxist idea of immiseration actually occurs, in that as capital is concentrated in the hands of the arabic oil prouding nations then the more they will buy up sectors of the British aand global economy and control them.

The more the oil depletes, the richer they will get - the faster the process of Islamo-Capitalist immiseration will occur.

As the power of the arabic nations over our national economies increases, the more power they will have in relation to the imposition of a Theological Economics in the UK - where workers will have to obey Islamic customs to work for Islamic companies.

Therefore Capitalism will deliver us into the hands of the Islamists.

This is why globalism, dependence on foreign energy and the petro-dollar recycling system has to be reformed into an Green Energy Econimics system.

Shell, Exxon North Sea interests bought
Jul 7, 2008 11:57 PM

Abu Dhabi National Energy Co (Taqa) said it had bought northern North Sea equity interests from Shell and ExxonMobil as part of efforts to consolidate its presence in Europe.

"Today's announcement brings us one step closer to our stated strategy of building a global energy company, with an equal distribution of assets in North America, Europe and the Middle East," Taqa CEO Peter Barker-Homek said in a statement.

"We believe that the North Sea offers significant potential for companies like Taqa and we will be making a significant investment over the coming years to extend the productive life and commercial viability of our assets."

Taqa did not give financial details of the deal.

The sale includes all equity, infrastructure and production licences for the Tern, Eider, Cormorant North, South Cormorant, Kestrel and Pelican fields and related sub-sea satellite fields, Taqa's wholly owned subsidiary Taqa Bratani said in a statement.

The fields produce around 40,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent.

Oil majors have been selling their assets in the mature, declining oil sector for years as they look to invest in cheaper production regions with higher potential returns.

But Taqa, which is majority owned by the Abu Dhabi government, has already amassed over $1 billion of North Sea oil and gas assets in purchases from Canada's Talisman and oil major BP in November 2006 and January 2007 respectively.

"This is further evidence of our long-term commitment to Europe and will build on our asset optimisation successes in the Netherlands and the UK to date," he said.

The UAE is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and Taqa's expansion is part of the Gulf Arab state's drive to use record oil revenues to diversify.

The company expects to announce four new deals worth around $5 billion this year, including a joint venture with a major US utility and a windfarm in Morocco.

Taqa has appointed energy services company John Wood Group to operate, maintain and manage offshore production in the northern North Sea fields.

Taqa itself would focus instead on building its presence in the United Kingdom.

The transaction is subject to regulatory approval. It is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2008.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Kill The Kuffars Say Muslim NUS Members

One of the things that makes me laugh about Liberals is how they ignore reality for dogma, such as when they say ' it is poverty, racism and social alienation that is driving vulnerable young muslims into terrorism'.

This of course is utter BS.

1) Most of the Muslims involved in terrorism are middle class and well educated

2) Islam is a religion and not a race, therefore no such as thing as 'racism' against Muslims can exist

3) Social alienation is not what the Muslims have suffered in our country, it is how they have chosen to live in our country. Self Segregation is how Muslims have chosen to live under the Multi-Cultural system and they have been allowed to become colonists in their own colonies in our country.

The 7/7 bombers were all well educated, university degree, middle class scumbags in good jobs. The main 7/7 bomb leader, Siddique Khan was a teacher and the funding for the bombs came courtesy of Leeds Council who had given him a grant to set up a gym for muslim youths.

Instead he spent the grant from the council on building bombs.

The 7/7 bombings were subsidised by the cringing idiot liberals on Leeds Council.


It appears that in fact the best educated, most intelligent and well off muslims are now becoming the Islamists.

The recent doctors plot around the Glasgow car bombing where the bombers were muslim doctors shows us that it is not only the criminal muslims who reside in our streets and act as drug dealers and gangsters we have to worry about, it is also the intellectual Muslims who have become Islamists and who mainly perpetrate the Islamist bombings.

The article below reveals just how this new middle class, edu\cated elite despise us, our nation and our values as a culture and a civilisation.

It shows us that 3rd and 4th generation Muslim youth have not integrated into our country - so what makes the government think they ever will, especially when the contempt a massive majority has for this country will ensure more self segregation, more hate for the 'kuffars' and more terrorism ?

For a true taste of their hate for us watch this video here ;

One third of British Muslim students say it's acceptable to kill for Islam

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:13 AM on 28th July 2008

Comments (44) Add to My Stories

Nearly one third of Muslim students believe it can be acceptable to kill in the name of religion, according to a survey published yesterday.

It also found that 40 per cent want to see the introduction of Islamic sharia law in Britain, 40 per cent think it wrong for Muslim men and women to mix freely together, and 33 per cent want to see a worldwide Islamic government based on sharia law.

The findings were described by researchers at the Centre for Social Cohesion think tank, which commissioned the poll, as 'deeply alarming'.

But a prominent Muslim student group called the report 'weak and unrepresentative' and said it undermined 'positive work carried out by Islamic societies'.

The Centre for Social Cohesion, founded last year to study religion and tolerance, has drawn attention to the extremist influence of Islamic societies and study centres at British universities.

The survey was based on a YouGov poll of 1,400 students, 600 of them Muslims, at 12 universities with influential Islamic societies.

These included eight in London, among them the London School of Economics, Imperial College, and the School of Oriental and African Studies, and the universities of Birmingham, Leeds, Leicester and Manchester.

It found that a large minority of Muslim students express views that are strongly socially conservative or which suggest they are open to extremist thinking.

Spanish police foil ETA plot to bomb holiday resorts

While 32 per cent justified killing in the name of religion if the religion was under attack, 60 per cent of students active in Islamic societies did so. Four per cent thought killing to promote religion was permissible.

More than half, 54 per cent, wanted an Islamic political party to stand up for Muslims at Westminster.

There was strong criticism of the British Government over Iraq - 66 per cent of Muslim students said they had lost respect for it.

But 30 per cent of Muslim students said their respect for British society had grown because of the negative public reaction to the Iraq war.

Report author Hannah Stuart said: 'These findings are deeply alarming. Students in higher education are the future leaders of their communities, yet significant numbers of them appear to hold beliefs which contravene liberal, democratic values.

'These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said that there is no extremism in British universities.'

Miss Stewart also said that ministers should be wary about treating university Islamic societies as representative because their members appeared to be more extreme than other Muslim students.

The Federation of Student Islamic Societies called the survey mischievous.

Its president Faisal Hanjra said: 'This is yet another damning attack on the Muslim community by elements within the academic arena whose only purpose seems to be the undermining of sincere efforts by mainstream Muslim organisations to tackle the threat of terror which wider society faces.

'The report is methodologically weak, it is unrepresentative and above all serves only to undermine the positive work carried out by Islamic societies across the country.'

Concerns over extremism among the 90,000 Muslims studying at British universities have grown alongside the spread of radical groups, including the Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation which Tony Blair said in 2005 should be banned.

Terrorists who have passed through British universities include Kafeel Ahmed, who died after driving a burning vehicle into a Glasgow airport terminal last year, and Jawad Akbar, jailed for life in April 2007 for conspiring to attack shopping malls and nightclubs. He was said to have become involved in militancy while a student at Brunel University.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Friday, 25 July 2008

The Shadow Government attacks its own Citizens

Image - British government spray car spraying nerve gas on British civilians.

There are those that refuse to believe the British government and security services that are supposed to protect our country and people would work with Al Qaeda agents and foreign governments, such as the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel, to set up false flag terrorist attacks to coerce the citizenry into surrendering their liberty for security.

Is it so fantastical to suggest that the British government would work with agents in Al Qaeda to organise terror attacks in the UK in order to drive through the Labour governments laws to remove our fundamental freedoms ?

Is it so absurd to believe that 7/7, like 911, was an inside job - that the government used its assets in islamist terrorist groups to work with islamist terrorists to assist in the creation and planting of bombs ?

Is it so insane to ask whether Dr. David Kelly was murdered as he knew that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and would have therefore gone public with the plot by the US Shadow Government and its puppets to invade Iraq ?

Here is the story of how the British government from the 1950's to the late 1960's has admitted using biological weapons against the British public by secretly exposing them to nerve agents in hundreds of illegal trials.

Any 'democratic governments' that would use nreve gas on their own citizens would have no compunction on using bombs against its own people.

Behind every so called 'democratic government' is the Shadow Government, the Military Industrial Block, and whilst the puppet politicians do their pathetic charade of running the country for five years, the Shadow Government never relinquishes power.

Here are some of the research into the effects of the attacks ;

Sarin tested on British soldiers ;

Here is an article about how the US also tested biological weapons on its troops and citizens ;

A centerpiece of the Bush administration’s propaganda to justify a US invasion of Iraq is the charge that Saddam Hussein “used gas against his own people.” This is a reference to the Iraqi military’s gassing of Kurdish villages in the latter stages of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, a crime that was carried out with the tacit support of the Reagan administration and Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East, the current secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Washington’s professed horror over the use of poison gas is doubly hypocritical, now that it has been revealed that the Pentagon itself used chemical and biological weapons against American soldiers, sailors and civilians, as part of military weapons testing in the 1960s and 1970s.

A Pentagon spokesman confirmed last week that these tests took place during a 12-year period, from 1962 through 1973, exposing more than 5,000 soldiers and sailors and an unknown, but large, number of civilians—possibly “into the thousands,” the official said.

Here is the full story ;,4273,4398507,00.html

This is the important bit of the article relevant to today " Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: 'Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.

'The results from these trials_ will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons.'

Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.' "


At the same time as this scientists a Porton Down were exposing British soldiers to nerve agents, biological weapons and giving them LSD as part of their psychological weapons test.

Millions were in germ war tests

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials

Antony Barnett, public affairs editor

Sunday April 21, 2002

The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.

The tests, carried out by government scientists at Porton Down, were designed to help the MoD assess Britain's vulnerability if the Russians were to have released clouds of deadly germs over the country.

In most cases, the trials did not use biological weapons but alternatives which scientists believed would mimic germ warfare and which the MoD claimed were harmless. But families in certain areas of the country who have children with birth defects are demanding a public inquiry.

One chapter of the report, 'The Fluorescent Particle Trials', reveals how between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. The chemical drifted miles inland, its fluorescence allowing the spread to be monitored. In another trial using zinc cadmium sulphide, a generator was towed along a road near Frome in Somerset where it spewed the chemical for an hour.

While the Government has insisted the chemical is safe, cadmium is recognised as a cause of lung cancer and during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon.

In another chapter, 'Large Area Coverage Trials', the MoD describes how between 1961 and 1968 more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii , which mimics anthrax. These releases came from a military ship, the Icewhale, anchored off the Dorset coast, which sprayed the micro-organisms in a five to 10-mile radius.

The report also reveals details of the DICE trials in south Dorset between 1971 and 1975. These involved US and UK military scientists spraying into the air massive quantities of serratia marcescens bacteria, with an anthrax simulant and phenol.

Similar bacteria were released in 'The Sabotage Trials' between 1952 and 1964. These were tests to determine the vulnerability of large government buildings and public transport to attack. In 1956 bacteria were released on the London Underground at lunchtime along the Northern Line between Colliers Wood and Tooting Broadway. The results show that the organism dispersed about 10 miles. Similar tests were conducted in tunnels running under government buildings in Whitehall.

Experiments conducted between 1964 and 1973 involved attaching germs to the threads of spiders' webs in boxes to test how the germs would survive in different environments. These tests were carried out in a dozen locations across the country, including London's West End, Southampton and Swindon. The report also gives details of more than a dozen smaller field trials between 1968 and 1977.

In recent years, the MoD has commissioned two scientists to review the safety of these tests. Both reported that there was no risk to public health, although one suggested the elderly or people suffering from breathing illnesses may have been seriously harmed if they inhaled sufficient quantities of micro-organisms.

However, some families in areas which bore the brunt of the secret tests are convinced the experiments have led to their children suffering birth defects, physical handicaps and learning difficulties.

David Orman, an army officer from Bournemouth, is demanding a public inquiry. His wife, Janette, was born in East Lulworth in Dorset, close to where many of the trials took place. She had a miscarriage, then gave birth to a son with cerebral palsy. Janette's three sisters, also born in the village while the tests were being carried out, have also given birth to children with unexplained problems, as have a number of their neighbours.

The local health authority has denied there is a cluster, but Orman believes otherwise. He said: 'I am convinced something terrible has happened. The village was a close-knit community and to have so many birth defects over such a short space of time has to be more than coincidence.'

Successive governments have tried to keep details of the germ warfare tests secret. While reports of a number of the trials have emerged over the years through the Public Records Office, this latest MoD document - which was released to Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker - gives the fullest official version of the biological warfare trials yet.

Baker said: 'I welcome the fact that the Government has finally released this information, but question why it has taken so long. It is unacceptable that the public were treated as guinea pigs without their knowledge, and I want to be sure that the Ministry of Defence's claims that these chemicals and bacteria used were safe is true.'

The MoD report traces the history of the UK's research into germ warfare since the Second World War when Porton Down produced five million cattle cakes filled with deadly anthrax spores which would have been dropped in Germany to kill their livestock. It also gives details of the infamous anthrax experiments on Gruinard on the Scottish coast which left the island so contaminated it could not be inhabited until the late 1980s.

The report also confirms the use of anthrax and other deadly germs on tests aboard ships in the Caribbean and off the Scottish coast during the 1950s. The document states: 'Tacit approval for simulant trials where the public might be exposed was strongly influenced by defence security considerations aimed obviously at restricting public knowledge. An important corollary to this was the need to avoid public alarm and disquiet about the vulnerability of the civil population to BW [biological warfare] attack.'

Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: 'Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.

'The results from these trials_ will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons.'

Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'

Add to Technorati Favorites

Batman and the Odinic Archetype

Saw the new Batman - The Dark Knight yesterday. What a great film.

The Heath Ledger creation of The Joker is superb.

As I watched the film I was reminded of the book The Werewolf Complex by Denis Duclos as the Joker captures the essence of the darkness of the Odinic archetype.

The Joker has no identity, no background - he just appears, the same as the archetype of the dark side of Odinism.

Just like Odin the Joker is an agent of chaos, a force unleashed to destroy a sick society and to make way for a new order.

Until he appears in Gotham City the Joker does not exist - just like an individual 'possessed' by an archetype one minute they are 'normal' (eg repressed, sick and degenerate) the next they become a force for an ancient archetype that was once worshipped by our people.

The Joker exists above good and evil, he is simply an instrument of destruction. He does not seek to create anything from the chaos he unleashes, his role is simply to unleash chaos.

This is the same as the role of the Berserkers on the battlefield, their role was to unleash chaos and war, to kill and conquer.

The Joker in the film admits he has 'no plan' and that is another example of the archetype of Odin, in that because the archetype is unconscious it is beyond the conscious understanding of the conscious mind - it serves the life force and is therefore a consciousness millions of years old and its intent is beyond any understanding of the human ego.

Its plan is the plan of aeons, beyond the simple lifespan of an individual human being.

Heath Ledger by unlocking this arhcetype unleashed a darkness within himself he was unable to control.

In order to control the archetype he needed to understand the 'Sun' side of the archetype, that of the Odinic veneration of nature and the love for folk, family, the forests and the fields. The shadow of Odin is just one aspect of his divine nature, for the other aspect is personified by the wandervogel movement of the early 1930's and the Hippie movement of the 1960's established by the scions of the German wandervogel movement in California after the war.

Heath needed to purge himself of the shadow of the Joker, but he did not know how to do that.

Heath never knew he was channeling an archetype, and therefore he was swept away by it.

He needed to get into the countryside, camping and just commune with nature.

The Joker in mythic terms is the same as the Fool, the Trickster, Loki and the other 'insane divine fools' of the mythic past from Merlin to the Fool in English folk festivals. There is even a scene where the Joker wears a dress, a classic reference to the cross dressing shaman of the tribes, the berdache of Native American tradition and the shapeshifter, and a direct link to the fool of English folk tradition who wears a dress and carries a sickle representing death.

He represents an upwelling of primal energy that seeks to sweep away the conceits of modern man, he is meant to remind us of the natural laws that we think we can break but which ultimately break our civilisation.

The Joker is a warning for man, a symbol of mans trangression from nature and an instrument uneashed as punishment for his crimes.

The Joker as created by Heath Ledger is himself an archetypal image, and though Heath is dead the power of his creation, and the mantic frenzy he represents, will empower that archetype.

The Joker stands at the border of the world of man and the world of the occult, he is a channel for primal forces, a daemonic and chthionic figure, and thanks to Heath Ledger he now walks the world in the minds of men.

He is the 'lightning that licks the earth' as Neitzsche described, and a portent of the darkness about to be unleashed.

Men think they control the symbols they create in their art and on the movie screens, when in reality those symbols control Man.

In an age of war, terrorism, resource conflicts, disease and violence the Joker is the symbol of mans nemesis unleashed upon himself by his own hubris.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Thursday, 24 July 2008

The BBC, Hurricane Katrina and the Obama Effect

Image - From the political left to the political right, all of the politicians are puppets of the media and the public are slaves of the media.

The pictures of the 100,000 german lemmings lining up to listen to a speech of Barack Obama is evidence of the utter, horrifying power of the media to influence and manipulate the minds of the public, both in Europe and America.

This Obama hysteria in the US, Europe and germany is a sign of a deep sickness in all our democracies, and also a deep sickness in the soul of the german people.

Of the crowds that came to see him in germany not one of them would have any ideas of the policies of Obama, his ideas or his plans if elected - they come because they have been taught to come.

Political correctness has unleashed a terrorist war against the psyche and soul of the german people and the white race in particular.

The enemy marked for eradication and extermination by Political Correctness is the White Race itself.

Political correctness seeks the extermination of the entire genetic lines of the white phenotypes.

It is a genocidal, insane ideology that rules by fear and by directing hatred against its opponents.

It has inculcated a sense of shame and guilt for the war that has been passed like some defective mental gene from generation to generation. Political correctness is how each generation is infected with his poison.

The endless incultation of poisonous war guilt in the minds of young people in germany has resulted in the creation of a pathological germany, a germany sick, twisted and at war within itself.

The german people have a death wish. They abort their children and their future in the name of excorcising the ghost of the past.

Political correctness is the terrorism of the soul.

This terrorism of the soul has resulted in a poisonous self hatred that manifests as a cringing and servile obedience to the icons of liberalism peddled to the public in the media.

Obama is the perfect Liberal Icon for the conditioned masses.

His black skin allows the media to trigger the 'slave guilt reflex' inculcated in white children (inserted into their minds during school) whilst his part white racial heritage means he can be sold to the public as part of the 'inclusiveness' agenda and the new advertising niche that has taken hold in the mind of the media, that of the mixed race.

An mixed race actor in an advert is employed as you manage to hit all the racial demographics at the same time, and this is also why the mixed race relationship is now a staple of the advertising industry.

The fact that the BBC showed live the speech of Obama in Berlin was an example of the way the media has such power to influence the British public.

I cannot remember any time before where the BBC has interrupted the news at 6 to show a speech from an American Democratic candidate on a visit to a foreign country.

THIS WAS PURE MANIPULATION - the intent was to violate the perceptions of the British public and to bolster the Obama reflex.

As I type this Obama has been on the BBC news live for over 5 minutes.

I have no doubt the BBC will not allow John McCain the chance to speak live to the British public when he visits a foreign country.

The fawning, sickening, lickspittle liberal scumbag of the BBC, Matt Frei, as usual was introducing Obama.

The BBC love to use Matt Frei, the blonde cringing male poster boy for the self hating white liberal elite. As he is of German heritage how fitting the BBC saw it to use this servile lackey of the liberal elite to fawn over the latest icon of liberalism.

He is the same arsehole who they also used to peddle the myth during the New Orleans floods, that the floods themselves were George Bush controlled genocidal attacks on the 'poor black descendants of slaves'.

The population of New Orleans at the time of the flood was only 28 % white, but the numbers of white people dead in the New Orleans flood represented 33 % of the total of victims.

This means whites were disproprotinately victims of the floods.

But do you remember the way the media chose to peddle the floods - as though they were some sort of black holocaust deliberatly inflicted by a Bush controlled Nazi organisation (FEMA) who let a concentration camp for black americans (New Orleans) to be deliberatly flooded.

It was Matt Frei in his canoe paddling amongst the bodies talking bullshit who did most to perpetuate this lie.

Race did play in the New Orleans floods - if you were white you were more likely to die.

I cannot remember a single news report from the BBC where the plight of whites was reported in such a race based way as the plight of blacks.

Whilst black mobs threatened to rape lone white women in the Super Dome ( where there were at least 6 murders, and 12 rapes among the enclosed evacuees ) the BBC REFUSED TO RELEASE THAT INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC ! The BBC mentioned the race attacks here ;

But not once did the news report on the BBC point out that whites were being murdered, raped and attacked by black mobs just because they were white.

You would have thought that such race attacks would have been of as significance as the flood itself, but the BBC refused to highlight those rapes.

IMAGINE THOUGH IF WHITE MOBS HAD BEEN RAPING BLACK WOMEN OR KILLING BLACK MEN - then you could just imagine the howls and paroxysms of the media over those vicious racial atrocities !

The only newspaper that revealed the race attacks on whites by blacks during the floods was an Australian one here ;,21985,16473521-663,00.html

Note her comments ' it has turned into a BLACK AGAINST WHITE thing ' - not as usually peddled by the media a WHITE AGAINST BLACK thing - note how the subtle movement of just two words completely change ones conception of the incidents.

The media always report such things as 'white against black' but in this case, due to the witness stating what happened, we get a verbatim report of the facts not a media spin of the facts which changes the entire emphasis of the facts.

The article here debunks the bullshit BBC / Matt Frei propaganda offensive about the New Orleans floods killing more blacks than whites and the response to the floods being a 'racial incident' against blacks ;

In fact the real racial impact was after the floods, take a look at how the crime rates rose after residents of New Orleans were moved to other areas and the crimes rates went through the roof ;

In the article below Jamie Glazov interviews Theodore Dalrymple (in real life London psychiatrist Anthony Daniels who works in a prison hospital) about political correctness and the damage that it does.

FP: You make the shrewd observation of how political correctness engenders evil because of “the violence that it does to people’s souls by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question.” Can you talk about this a bit?

Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

The media is the primary tool of the destruction of our civilisation, culture and future.

It is the true Weapon Of Mass Destruction and Mass Deception that we should all fear.

The real terrorists killing our democracy are those that control the media.

Those that control the media and who control the people through the media, are the enemies of the people.

They are the destroyers of democracy, the usurpers of our cultures and the gravediggers of our race and nations.

Whilst the traitorous political elites pass the laws that kill - the media bury the truth for the politicians they get elected. The politicians commit the crime, the media cover it up.

The media get the politicians elected and then protect them as they destroy our countries and people.

The media are the enemy of everything we hold as sacred.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, 23 July 2008

UFO - Disclosure draws nearer

Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact - but it has been covered up for 60 years

Last updated at 8:55 PM on 23rd July 2008

Comments (0) Add to My Stories

Edgar Mitchell was the Lunar Module Pilot for Apollo 14

Aliens have contacted humans several times but governments have hidden the truth for 60 years, the sixth man to walk on the moon has claimed.

Apollo 14 astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell, said he was aware of many UFO visits to Earth during his career with NASA but each one was covered up.

Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had had contact with aliens described the beings as 'little people who look strange to us.'

He said supposedly real-life ET's were similar to the traditional image of a small frame, large eyes and head.

Chillingly, he claimed our technology is 'not nearly as sophisticated' as theirs and "had they been hostile", he warned 'we would be been gone by now'.

Dr Mitchell, along with with Apollo 14 commander Alan Shepard, holds the record for the longest ever moon walk, at nine hours and 17 minutes following their 1971 mission.

'I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real,' Dr Mitchell said.

'It's been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so, but slowly it's leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it.

UFO theorists believe Roswell in New Mexico was the site of an alien crash in 1947

'I've been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes - we have been visited. Reading the papers recently, it's been happening quite a bit.'

Dr Mitchell, who has a Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical engineering and a Doctor of Science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics claimed Roswell was real and similar alien visits continue to be investigated.

He told the astonished Kerrang! radio host Nick Margerrison: "This is really starting to open up. I think we're headed for real disclosure and some serious organisations are moving in that direction.'

Mr Margerrison said: 'I thought I'd stumbled on some sort of astronaut humour but he was absolutely serious that aliens are definitely out there and there's no debating it.'

Officials from NASA, however, were quick to play the comments down.

In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.

'Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinions on this issue.'

Add to Technorati Favorites

Mark Steyn - telling it as it is

Great article below from Mark Steyn.

He asks ' what will the west leave behind as its monuments' - the answer is abortion clinics, assisted suicide clinics and packed mosques.

Pity he doesnt understand Peak Oil, he needs to get on board with that ASAP.


Dont say you werent warned.

Whilst the west sits obsessively popping prozac whilst playing its playstations and undergoes endless agonizing liberal solipsistic self scrutiny about multi-culturalism and imperial its past, the future is already devouring its children in the killing fields and free fire zons of Iraq and Afghanistan.



It's the Demography, Stupid

The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.


Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands--probably--just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.

One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society--government health care, government day care (which Canada's thinking of introducing), government paternity leave (which Britain's just introduced). We've prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity--"Go forth and multiply," because if you don't you won't be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare.

Americans sometimes don't understand how far gone most of the rest of the developed world is down this path: In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department. I don't think Don Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health and Human Services.

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths--or, at any rate, virtues--and that's why they're proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.

Speaking of which, if we are at war--and half the American people and significantly higher percentages in Britain, Canada and Europe don't accept that proposition--then what exactly is the war about?

We know it's not really a "war on terror." Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even "radical Islam." The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in "Palestine," Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.

Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose--as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.

That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures--the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don't want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It's a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.

Then September 11 happened. And bizarrely the reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, the prince of Wales did, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did, the prime minister of Canada did . . . The premier of Ontario didn't, and so 20 Muslim community leaders had a big summit to denounce him for failing to visit a mosque. I don't know why he didn't. Maybe there was a big backlog, it was mosque drive time, prime ministers in gridlock up and down the freeway trying to get to the Sword of the Infidel-Slayer Mosque on Elm Street. But for whatever reason he couldn't fit it into his hectic schedule. Ontario's citizenship minister did show up at a mosque, but the imams took that as a great insult, like the Queen sending Fergie to open the Commonwealth Games. So the premier of Ontario had to hold a big meeting with the aggrieved imams to apologize for not going to a mosque and, as the Toronto Star's reported it, "to provide them with reassurance that the provincial government does not see them as the enemy."

Anyway, the get-me-to-the-mosque-on-time fever died down, but it set the tone for our general approach to these atrocities. The old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between the traffic light changing in New York and the first honk from a car behind. The new definition is the gap between a terrorist bombing and the press release from an Islamic lobby group warning of a backlash against Muslims. In most circumstances, it would be considered appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual "hate crime" by scaremongering about a purely hypothetical one. Needless to say, there is no campaign of Islamophobic hate crimes. If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes. A commenter on Tim Blair's Web site in Australia summed it up in a note-perfect parody of a Guardian headline: "Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow Morning's Terrorist Attack." Those community leaders have the measure of us.

Radical Islam is what multiculturalism has been waiting for all along. In "The Survival of Culture," I quoted the eminent British barrister Helena Kennedy, Queen's Counsel. Shortly after September 11, Baroness Kennedy argued on a BBC show that it was too easy to disparage "Islamic fundamentalists." "We as Western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves," she complained. "We don't look at our own fundamentalisms."

Well, said the interviewer, what exactly would those Western liberal fundamentalisms be? "One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I'm not sure that's true."

Hmm. Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people's intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. So you're nice to gays and the Inuit? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of fellows like that, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists. In other words, just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda.

For example, one day in 2004, a couple of Canadians returned home, to Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto. They were the son and widow of a fellow called Ahmed Said Khadr, who back on the Pakistani-Afghan frontier was known as "al-Kanadi." Why? Because he was the highest-ranking Canadian in al Qaeda--plenty of other Canucks in al Qaeda, but he was the Numero Uno. In fact, one could argue that the Khadr family is Canada's principal contribution to the war on terror. Granted they're on the wrong side (if you'll forgive my being judgmental) but no one can argue that they aren't in the thick of things. One of Mr. Khadr's sons was captured in Afghanistan after killing a U.S. Special Forces medic. Another was captured and held at Guantanamo. A third blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul. Pa Khadr himself died in an al Qaeda shootout with Pakistani forces in early 2004. And they say we Canadians aren't doing our bit in this war!

In the course of the fatal shootout of al-Kanadi, his youngest son was paralyzed. And, not unreasonably, Junior didn't fancy a prison hospital in Peshawar. So Mrs. Khadr and her boy returned to Toronto so he could enjoy the benefits of Ontario government health care. "I'm Canadian, and I'm not begging for my rights," declared the widow Khadr. "I'm demanding my rights."

As they always say, treason's hard to prove in court, but given the circumstances of Mr. Khadr's death it seems clear that not only was he providing "aid and comfort to the Queen's enemies" but that he was, in fact, the Queen's enemy. The Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal 22nd Regiment and other Canucks have been participating in Afghanistan, on one side of the conflict, and the Khadr family had been over there participating on the other side. Nonetheless, the prime minister of Canada thought Boy Khadr's claims on the public health system was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his own deep personal commitment to "diversity." Asked about the Khadrs' return to Toronto, he said, "I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree."
That's the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: You can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick "home team" or "enemy," according to taste. The Canadian prime minister is a typical late-stage Western politician: He could have said, well, these are contemptible people and I know many of us are disgusted at the idea of our tax dollars being used to provide health care for a man whose Canadian citizenship is no more than a flag of convenience, but unfortunately that's the law and, while we can try to tighten it, it looks like this lowlife's got away with it. Instead, his reflex instinct was to proclaim this as a wholehearted demonstration of the virtues of the multicultural state. Like many enlightened Western leaders, the Canadian prime minister will be congratulating himself on his boundless tolerance even as the forces of intolerance consume him.

That, by the way, is the one point of similarity between the jihad and conventional terrorist movements like the IRA or ETA. Terror groups persist because of a lack of confidence on the part of their targets: The IRA, for example, calculated correctly that the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. So they knew that while they could never win militarily, they also could never be defeated. The Islamists have figured similarly. The only difference is that most terrorist wars are highly localized. We now have the first truly global terrorist insurgency because the Islamists view the whole world the way the IRA view the bogs of Fermanagh: They want it, and they've calculated that our entire civilization lacks the will to see them off.

We spend a lot of time at The New Criterion attacking the elites, and we're right to do so. The commanding heights of the culture have behaved disgracefully for the last several decades. But if it were just a problem with the elites, it wouldn't be that serious: The mob could rise up and hang 'em from lampposts--a scenario that's not unlikely in certain Continental countries. But the problem now goes way beyond the ruling establishment. The annexation by government of most of the key responsibilities of life--child-raising, taking care of your elderly parents--has profoundly changed the relationship between the citizen and the state. At some point--I would say socialized health care is a good marker--you cross a line, and it's very hard then to persuade a citizenry enjoying that much government largesse to cross back. In National Review recently, I took issue with that line Gerald Ford always uses to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." Actually, you run into trouble long before that point: A government big enough to give you everything you want still isn't big enough to get you to give anything back. That's what the French and German political classes are discovering.

Go back to that list of local conflicts I mentioned. The jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you're not shy about taking on the Israelis, the Russians, the Indians and the Nigerians, why wouldn't you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Danes and New Zealanders?
So the jihadists are for the most part doing no more than giving us a prod in the rear as we sleepwalk to the cliff. When I say "sleepwalk," it's not because we're a blasé culture. On the contrary, one of the clearest signs of our decline is the way we expend so much energy worrying about the wrong things. If you've read Jared Diamond's bestselling book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," you'll know it goes into a lot of detail about Easter Island going belly up because they chopped down all their trees. Apparently that's why they're not a G-8 member or on the U.N. Security Council. Same with the Greenlanders and the Mayans and Diamond's other curious choices of "societies." Indeed, as the author sees it, pretty much every society collapses because it chops down its trees.

Poor old Diamond can't see the forest because of his obsession with the trees. (Russia's collapsing even as it's undergoing reforestation.) One way "societies choose to fail or succeed" is by choosing what to worry about. The Western world has delivered more wealth and more comfort to more of its citizens than any other civilization in history, and in return we've developed a great cult of worrying. You know the classics of the genre: In 1968, in his bestselling book "The Population Bomb," the eminent scientist Paul Ehrlich declared: "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." In 1972, in their landmark study "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993.

None of these things happened. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. We're pretty much awash in resources, but we're running out of people--the one truly indispensable resource, without which none of the others matter. Russia's the most obvious example: it's the largest country on earth, it's full of natural resources, and yet it's dying--its population is falling calamitously.
The default mode of our elites is that anything that happens--from terrorism to tsunamis--can be understood only as deriving from the perniciousness of Western civilization. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

And even though none of the prognostications of the eco-doom blockbusters of the 1970s came to pass, all that means is that 30 years on, the end of the world has to be rescheduled. The amended estimated time of arrival is now 2032. That's to say, in 2002, the United Nations Global Environmental Outlook predicted "the destruction of 70 percent of the natural world in thirty years, mass extinction of species. . . . More than half the world will be afflicted by water shortages, with 95 percent of people in the Middle East with severe problems . . . 25 percent of all species of mammals and 10 percent of birds will be extinct . . ."

Etc., etc., for 450 pages. Or to cut to the chase, as the Guardian headlined it, "Unless We Change Our Ways, The World Faces Disaster."

Well, here's my prediction for 2032: unless we change our ways the world faces a future . . . where the environment will look pretty darn good. If you're a tree or a rock, you'll be living in clover. It's the Italians and the Swedes who'll be facing extinction and the loss of their natural habitat.

There will be no environmental doomsday. Oil, carbon dioxide emissions, deforestation: none of these things is worth worrying about. What's worrying is that we spend so much time worrying about things that aren't worth worrying about that we don't worry about the things we should be worrying about. For 30 years, we've had endless wake-up calls for things that aren't worth waking up for. But for the very real, remorseless shifts in our society--the ones truly jeopardizing our future--we're sound asleep. The world is changing dramatically right now, and hysterical experts twitter about a hypothetical decrease in the Antarctic krill that might conceivably possibly happen so far down the road there are unlikely to be any Italian or Japanese enviro-worriers left alive to be devastated by it.

In a globalized economy, the environmentalists want us to worry about First World capitalism imposing its ways on bucolic, pastoral, primitive Third World backwaters. Yet, insofar as "globalization" is a threat, the real danger is precisely the opposite--that the peculiarities of the backwaters can leap instantly to the First World. Pigs are valued assets and sleep in the living room in rural China--and next thing you know an unknown respiratory disease is killing people in Toronto, just because someone got on a plane. That's the way to look at Islamism: We fret about McDonald's and Disney, but the big globalization success story is the way the Saudis have taken what was 80 years ago a severe but obscure and unimportant strain of Islam practiced by Bedouins of no fixed abode and successfully exported it to the heart of Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Manchester, Buffalo . . .

What's the better bet? A globalization that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalization that exports the fiercest aspects of its culture? When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.

As fertility shrivels, societies get older--and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business--unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don't think so. If you look at European election results--most recently in Germany--it's hard not to conclude that, while voters are unhappy with their political establishments, they're unhappy mainly because they resent being asked to reconsider their government benefits and, no matter how unaffordable they may be a generation down the road, they have no intention of seriously reconsidering them. The Scottish executive recently backed down from a proposal to raise the retirement age of Scottish public workers. It's presently 60, which is nice but unaffordable. But the reaction of the average Scots worker is that that's somebody else's problem. The average German worker now puts in 22% fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable will propose closing the gap in any meaningful way.

This isn't a deep-rooted cultural difference between the Old World and the New. It dates back all the way to, oh, the 1970s. If one wanted to allocate blame, one could argue that it's a product of the U.S. military presence, the American security guarantee that liberated European budgets: instead of having to spend money on guns, they could concentrate on butter, and buttering up the voters. If Washington's problem with Europe is that these are not serious allies, well, whose fault is that? Who, in the years after the Second World War, created NATO as a postmodern military alliance? The "free world," as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else. And having been absolved from the primal responsibilities of nationhood, it's hardly surprising that European nations have little wish to reshoulder them. In essence, the lavish levels of public health care on the Continent are subsidized by the American taxpayer. And this long-term softening of large sections of the West makes them ill-suited to resisting a primal force like Islam.

There is no "population bomb." There never was. Birthrates are declining all over the world--eventually every couple on the planet may decide to opt for the Western yuppie model of one designer baby at the age of 39. But demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called population explosion was really a massive population adjustment. Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world's population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%.

Nineteen seventy doesn't seem that long ago. If you're the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair's less groovy, but the landscape of your life--the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge--isn't significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified.

And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.

And by 2020?

So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.

Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.

What will Europe be like at the end of this process? Who knows? On the one hand, there's something to be said for the notion that America will find an Islamified Europe more straightforward to deal with than M. Chirac, Herr Schroeder & Co. On the other hand, given Europe's track record, getting there could be very bloody. But either way this is the real battlefield. The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they're flying planes into buildings for they're likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock 'em over?

The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction. You don't notice yourself slipping through those stages because usually there's a seductive pol on hand to provide the age with a sly, self-deluding slogan--like Bill Clinton's "It's about the future of all our children." We on the right spent the 1990s gleefully mocking Mr. Clinton's tedious invocation, drizzled like syrup over everything from the Kosovo war to highway appropriations. But most of the rest of the West can't even steal his lame bromides: A society that has no children has no future.

Permanence is the illusion of every age. In 1913, no one thought the Russian, Austrian, German and Turkish empires would be gone within half a decade. Seventy years on, all those fellows who dismissed Reagan as an "amiable dunce" (in Clark Clifford's phrase) assured us the Soviet Union was likewise here to stay. The CIA analysts' position was that East Germany was the ninth biggest economic power in the world. In 1987 there was no rash of experts predicting the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself.

Yet, even by the minimal standards of these wretched precedents, so-called post-Christian civilizations--as a prominent EU official described his continent to me--are more prone than traditional societies to mistake the present tense for a permanent feature. Religious cultures have a much greater sense of both past and future, as we did a century ago, when we spoke of death as joining "the great majority" in "the unseen world." But if secularism's starting point is that this is all there is, it's no surprise that, consciously or not, they invest the here and now with far greater powers of endurance than it's ever had. The idea that progressive Euro-welfarism is the permanent resting place of human development was always foolish; we now know that it's suicidally so.

To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted. The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. Given that the CIA's got pretty much everything wrong for half a century, that would suggest the EU is a shoo-in to be the colossus of the new millennium. But even a flop spook is right twice a generation. If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate. It seems more likely that within the next couple of European election cycles, the internal contradictions of the EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night. Even if they avoid that, the idea of a childless Europe ever rivaling America militarily or economically is laughable. Sometime this century there will be 500 million Americans, and what's left in Europe will either be very old or very Muslim. Japan faces the same problem: Its population is already in absolute decline, the first gentle slope of a death spiral it will be unlikely ever to climb out of. Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it's populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Very possibly. Will Germany if it's populated by Algerians? That's a trickier proposition.

Best-case scenario? The Continent winds up as Vienna with Swedish tax rates.

Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner--and we're already seeing a drift in that direction.

In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: "As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?"

Excellent question. Britannia will never again wield the unrivalled power she enjoyed at her imperial apogee, but the Britannic inheritance endures, to one degree or another, in many of the key regional players in the world today--Australia, India, South Africa--and in dozens of island statelets from the Caribbean to the Pacific. If China ever takes its place as an advanced nation, it will be because the People's Republic learns more from British Hong Kong than Hong Kong learns from the Little Red Book. And of course the dominant power of our time derives its political character from 18th-century British subjects who took English ideas a little further than the mother country was willing to go.
A decade and a half after victory in the Cold War and end-of-history triumphalism, the "what do you leave behind?" question is more urgent than most of us expected. "The West," as a concept, is dead, and the West, as a matter of demographic fact, is dying.

What will London--or Paris, or Amsterdam--be like in the mid-'30s? If European politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, retirement at 60, etc., then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

This ought to be the left's issue. I'm a conservative--I'm not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I'm with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West's collapsed birthrates? Even if one were to take the optimistic view that Europe will be able to resist the creeping imposition of Sharia currently engulfing Nigeria, it remains the case that the Muslim world is not notable for setting much store by "a woman's right to choose," in any sense.

I watched that big abortion rally in Washington in 2004, where Ashley Judd and Gloria Steinem were cheered by women waving "Keep your Bush off my bush" placards, and I thought it was the equivalent of a White Russian tea party in 1917. By prioritizing a "woman's right to choose," Western women are delivering their societies into the hands of fellows far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad. If any of those women marching for their "reproductive rights" still have babies, they might like to ponder demographic realities: A little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Amsterdam chanting "Hands off my bush!"

Just before the 2004 election, that eminent political analyst Cameron Diaz appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show to explain what was at stake:

"Women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. . . . If you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body," she advised Oprah's viewers, "then you should vote."

Poor Cameron. A couple of weeks later, the scary people won. She lost all rights to her body. Unlike Alec Baldwin, she couldn't even move to France. Her body was grounded in Terminal D.

But, after framing the 2004 presidential election as a referendum on the right to rape, Miss Diaz might be interested to know that men enjoy that right under many Islamic legal codes around the world. In his book "The Empty Cradle," Philip Longman asks: "So where will the children of the future come from? Increasingly they will come from people who are at odds with the modern world. Such a trend, if sustained, could drive human culture off its current market-driven, individualistic, modernist course, gradually creating an anti-market culture dominated by fundamentalism--a new Dark Ages."

Bottom line for Cameron Diaz: There are worse things than John Ashcroft out there.

Mr. Longman's point is well taken. The refined antennae of Western liberals mean that whenever one raises the question of whether there will be any Italians living in the geographical zone marked as Italy a generation or three hence, they cry, "Racism!" To fret about what proportion of the population is "white" is grotesque and inappropriate. But it's not about race, it's about culture. If 100% of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy, it doesn't matter whether 70% of them are "white" or only 5% are. But if one part of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy and the other doesn't, then it becomes a matter of great importance whether the part that does is 90% of the population or only 60%, 50%, 45%.

Since the president unveiled the so-called Bush Doctrine--the plan to promote liberty throughout the Arab world--innumerable "progressives" have routinely asserted that there's no evidence Muslims want liberty and, indeed, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If that's true, it's a problem not for the Middle East today but for Europe the day after tomorrow. According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah--in the United Kingdom. If a population "at odds with the modern world" is the fastest-breeding group on the planet--if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the "modern world"?

Not good.

"What do you leave behind?" asked Tony Blair. There will only be very few and very old ethnic Germans and French and Italians by the midpoint of this century. What will they leave behind? Territories that happen to bear their names and keep up some of the old buildings? Or will the dying European races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to pluralist, liberal democracy? It's the demography, stupid. And, if they can't muster the will to change course, then "What do you leave behind?" is the only question that matters.

Mr. Steyn is a syndicated columnist and theater critic for The New Criterion, in whose January issue this article appears.

Add to Technorati Favorites