March 31, 2011 By 17 Comments
Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com March 30, 2011 The clip features the usual NWO suspects, including Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations since July 2003; former U.S. rep Jane Harman, soon to be the boss of the globalist training center, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; the neocon Robert Kagan, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a PNAC co-founder, and the neocon and former CIA director under Clinton, James Woolsey, who is a self-described “Joe Lieberman Democrat” (meaning he advocates bombing small and defenseless Muslim countries) who is also a PNAC supporter and former member of the CIA-infested “Freedom House” (an Orwellian term – it should be called the “Color Revolution House”). Usual NWO suspects argue about six and one half dozen of the other aka “regime change”.
March 31, 2011 By 240 Comments
Editor’s Note: Barrack Obama was given his Nobel Peace Prize only 2 months after being in office, a bizarre move if there ever was one and one that finally discredited the Nobel Prize Committee. ”Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined”, this message has been widely retweeted all over Twitter today. He’s now joined the ranks of Henry Kissinger and other notable mass bombers, an elite club for the ages. Congratulations Barrack. Digital Journal March 31, 2011
The Bolivian President and a Russian political leader have launched a campaign to revoke Obama’s honour after the US attacked Libya. Liberal Democratic Party of Russia leader and Vice-Chairman of the State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky released a statement today calling for the Nobel Prize Committee to take back the honour bestowed on US President Barack Obama in 2009.
Zhirinovsky said the attacks were “another outrageous act of aggression by NATO forces and, in particular, the United States,” and that the attacks demonstrated a “colonial policy” with “one goal: to establish control over Libyan oil and the Libyan regime.” He said the prize was now hypocritical as a result.READ ARTICLE HERE
March 30, 2011 By 1 Comment
Editor’s Note: Please. Listen people, it’s time for a reality check. We’re going to just throw this out there for any of our confused readers who still believe- in their heart of hearts, that this attack on Libya is for humanitarian reasons. If you fall into this camp, well… you’ve been duped again. Iraq should have your wake up call, but we are aware that many people suffer from short-term memory loss. At some point, you will have to wake up and realise that powerful western financial interests are steering the economic takeover of these sovereign states, like parasites feeding off the resources of their new host. So we only ask that next time, when the sparks fly, watch as the players move in for the kill… Bloomberg Financial reports: Libyan rebels in Benghazi said they have created a new national oil company to replace the corporation controlled by leader Muammar Qaddafi whose assets were frozen by the United Nations Security Council. The “Transitional National Council” released a statement announcing the decision made at a March 19 meeting to establish the “Libyan Oil Company as supervisory authority on oil production and policies in the country, based temporarily in Benghazi, and the appointment of an interim director general” of the company. The Council also said it “designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.” The Security Council adopted a resolution on March 17 that froze the foreign assets of the Libyan National Oil Corp. and the Central Bank of Libya, both described in the text as “a potential source of funding” for Qaddafi’s regime. Libya holds Africa’s largest oil reserve. Output has fallen to fewer than 400,000 barrels a day,Shokri Ghanem, chairman of the National Oil Corp., said on March 19. The country produced 1.59 million barrels a day in January, according to estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Exports may be halted for “many months” because of sanctions and unrest, the International Energy Agency said.
‘Extended Shutdown’Brent crude for May settlement on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange fell 0.3 percent to $114.62 as of 8:50 a.m. It surged to a 2 1/2-year high of $119.79 on Feb 24 as geopolitical tensions spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The European benchmark will average $109 a barrel this year, up from a previous forecast of $98, on expectations of an “extended shutdown” of Libyan oil supplies, Societe Generale SA said in a monthly review dated yesterday. The statement by the Transitional National Council also said the rebels would “urgently prepare a file on the referral of Qaddafi and his gang and his associates involved in the killing of Libyans to the International Criminal Court.” The Security Council referred allegations of human rights violations by the Qaddafi regime to the court in a resolution adopted on Feb. 26. The statement said the council would begin choosing ambassadors to foreign countries. The UN said yesterday that Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi, who broke with the regime last month and said he was then representing the rebels, was no longer Libya’s accredited ambassador. Ambassador Mohammed Shalgham, who also broke with the regime, similarly lost his accreditation when Qaddafi appointed former UN General Assembly President Abdussalam Treki as envoy to the world body. Treki hasn’t presented his credentials yet to Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon, a prerequisite for officials taking the post. -
March 29, 2011 By 378 Comments
activist post March 29, 2011 It’s perplexing to see a high level of support for the unprovoked bombing of Libya on so-called “progressive” websites. There has been an endless stream of humanitarian propaganda flowing from these sites trying to convince average liberals that the “human thing to do” is to rain down tomahawk missiles with depleted uraniumto bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed people. Huffington Post ran a piece by Ed Schultz titled Why I Support President Obama’s Decision to Invade Libya where he described his reasoning as follows:
“President Obama explained this won’t be a long-term operation… Matter of days, not a matter of weeks. Not even months… He’s (Obama) trying to give the rebels, those who want democracy, a fighting chance at just that and trying to stop Gaddafi –this is the human thing to do — from slaughtering his own people.”By the very use of the word “invade” in the title, Schultz would seem to understand that the continued military support is likely to last for quite some time. Indeed, this was confirmed on Sunday morning when Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted that the operation could indeed last for months, which seems to debunk Schultz’s main argument that it’s only a days-long conflict. This justification is reminiscent of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld falsely stating that the Iraq war would be quick and easy — only cost a couple of a billion dollars that would be paid for by Iraqi oil. Establishment progressives can no longer hide behind phony labels. They have officially joined the ranks of the War Party serving up American blood and treasure to support profits for the military-industrial complex and Big Oil, while compromising on austerity cuts at home. Related: central bank of libya is 100% state owned
March 29, 2011 By 20 Comments
The Economic Collapse March 29, 2011 The rebels in Libya are in the middle of a life or death civil war and Moammar Gadhafi is still in power and yet somehow the Libyan rebels have had enough time to establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company. Perhaps when this conflict is over those rebels can become time management consultants. They sure do get a lot done. What a skilled bunch of rebels – they can fight a war during the day and draw up a new central bank and a new national oil company at night without any outside help whatsoever. If only the rest of us were so versatile! But isn’t forming a central bank something that could be done after the civil war is over? According to Bloomberg, the Transitional National Council has “designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.” Apparently someone felt that it was very important to get pesky matters such as control of the banks and control of the money supply out of the way even before a new government is formed. Of course it is probably safe to assume that the new Central Bank of Libya will be 100% owned and 100% controlled by the newly liberated people of Libya, isn’t it? Most people don’t realize that the previous Central Bank of Libya was 100% state owned. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia’s article on the former Central Bank of Libya….
The Central Bank of Libya (CBL) is 100% state owned and represents the monetary authority in The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and enjoys the status of autonomous corporate body. The law establishing the CBL stipulates that the objectives of the central bank shall be to maintain monetary stability in Libya , and to promote the sustained growth of the economy in accordance with the general economic policy of the state.Since the old Central Bank of Libya was state owned, it was essentially under the control of Moammar Gadhafi. But now that Libya is going to be “free”, the new Central Bank of Libya will be run by Libyans and solely for the benefit of Libyans, right? Of course it is probably safe to assume that will be the case with the new national oil company as well, isn’t it? Over the past couple of years, Moammar Gadhafi had threatened to nationalize the oil industry in Libya and kick western oil companies out of the country, but now that Libya will be “free” the people of Libya will be able to work hand in hand with “big oil” and this will create a better Libya for everyone. Right? Of course oil had absolutely nothing to do with why the U.S. “inva—” (scratch that) “initiated a kinetic humanitarian liberty action” in Libya. When Barack Obama looked straight into the camera and told the American people that the war in Libya is in the “strategic interest” of the United States, surely he was not referring to oil. After all, war for oil was a “Bush thing”, right? The Democrats voted for Obama to end wars like this, right? Surely no prominent Democrats will publicly support this war in Libya, right? Surely Barack Obama will end the bombing of Libya if the international community begins to object, right? Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize. He wouldn’t deeply upset the other major powers on the globe and bring us closer to World War III, would he? Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has loudly denounced “coalition strikes on columns of Gaddafi’s forces” and he believes that the U.S. has badly violated the terms of the UN Security Council resolution….
“We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council resolution.”So to cool off rising tensions with the rest of the world, Obama is going to call off the air strikes, right? Well, considering the fact that Obama has such vast foreign policy experience we should all be able to rest easy knowing that Obama will understand exactly what to do. Meanwhile, the rebels seem to be getting the hang of international trade already. They have even signed an oil deal with Qatar! Rebel “spokesman” Ali Tarhouni has announced that oil exports to Qatar will begin in “less than a week“. Who knew that the rag tag group of rebels in Libya were also masters of banking and international trade? We sure do live in a strange world. Tonight, Barack Obama told the American people the following….
“Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”So now we are going to police all of the atrocities in all of the other countries around the globe? The last time I checked, the government was gunning down protesters in Syria. Is it time to start warming up the Tomahawks? Or do we reserve “humanitarian interventions” only for those nations that have a lot of oil? In fact, atrocities are currently being committed all over Africa and in about a dozen different nations in the Middle East. Should we institute a draft so that we will have enough young men and women to police the world with? We all have to be ready to serve our country, right? The world is becoming a smaller place every day, and you never know where U.S. “strategic interests” are going to be threatened next. The rest of the world understands that we know best, right? Of course the rest of the world can surely see our good intentions in Libya, can’t they? Tensions with Russia, China and the rest of the Arab world are certainly going to subside after they all see how selfless our “humanitarian intervention” has been in Libya, don’t you think? In all seriousness, we now live in a world where nothing is stable anymore. Wars and revolutions are breaking out all over the globe, unprecedented natural disasters are happening with alarming frequency and the global economy is on the verge of total collapse. By interfering in Libya, we are just making things worse. Gadhafi is certainly a horrible dictator, but this was a fight for the Libyan people to sort out. We promised the rest of the world that we were only going to be setting up a “no fly zone”. By violating the terms of the UN Security Council resolution, we have shown other nations that we cannot be trusted and by our actions we have increased tensions all over the globe. - -
March 28, 2011 By 10 Comments
21st Century Wire MARKET FLASH By Andrew McKillop March 28, 2011 Coalition bombing in Libya has transformed the prospects for embattled insurgents, now sweeping further and further west from their Benghazi stronghold. Likely ground support, or at least weapons supply and military specialist manpower from the coalition can speed the coming encirclement and defeat of the Gaddafi regime, in its Tripoli heartland. As Gaddafi loses ground, oil prices should slide and set to a V-profile in forward trading, with the rebound leg coming after the sequels of Libyan regime change are better mapped. Oil forwards, already softening this week from a mix of other factors, may show a sharp downward blip, perhaps trimming prices for US WTI to the key $99/bbl psychological price level, below which support can weaken through a range of up to 10 dollars on continuing bearish sentiment. The pace of events in Libya and ground advance by the insurgents will fix the time interval for this price strategy. Countervailing trend across the Sarab world, especially the Middle East can include heightened tension in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and Jordan. Any overflow to street protest in Saudi Arabia can only be oil price positive. JAPAN RUNS BOTH WAYS To the extent Japan can manage and sustain national reponse to the twin disasters of massive tsunami damage and nuclear meltdown, or near-nuclear meltdown at its Fukushima 6-reactor complex, Japan’s role as third biggest oil importer in the world will always tend to lift oil prices. But if the nuclear disaster becomes a multiple-Chernobyl leading to accelerated decentralization and population reduction of Tokyo and its region – long planned and discussed at cabinet level but never moved to application – the bets are off for Japan quickly racking up its oil import demand. Sombre scenarios are now on the Web for what happens if the world’s third biggest economy goes into something a lot worse than recession. Oil is not favoured in that sombre scenario – but the food commodities are. Japan’s need to import food will stay strong under any hypothesis, any scenario and nuclear disaster wiping out as much as 20 000 square kilometres of food producing areas can only, and powerfully reinforce that analysis. This generates a two way oil-and-soft commodities strategy for generating investor value, with a strong focus on the best crossover soft commodities. These are provided by sugar and the major traded vegetable oils, palm and soy. Both have considerable upside potential at this time, with sugar being exposed through its close correlation with petroleum oil to the largest predictable range of price movement in the coming few weeks. Sugar prices may grow by large amounts from this week’s price range, attain a peak, and fall with oil, while palm and soy oil are likely to show sustained price appreciation in choppy trading. ********
March 28, 2011 By 60 Comments
By Eric V. Encina 21st Century Wire March 28, 2011 One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned. The world’s globalist financiers and market manipulators do not like it and would continue to their on-going effort to dethrone Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi, bringing an end to Libya as independent nation. Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations. When the smoke eventually clears from all the cruise missiles and cluster bombs, you will see the Allied reformers move in to reform Libya’s monetary system, pumping it full of worthless dollars, priming it for a series of chaotic inflationary cycles. The CBL is currently a 100% state owned entity and represents the monetary authority in The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The financial structure and general operation procedures of a state bank is of course much different than that of an American or European based central bank. Form starters it is not privately owned, for-profit bank with a undisclosed list of private shareholders like the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are. Libyan constitutional law establishing the CBL stipulates that its central bank maintains monetary stability in Libya and promotes sustained growth of its national economy. Libya also holds more bullion as a proportion of gross domestic product than any country except Lebanon, according to the London-based World Gold Council using January data from the International Monetary Fund. The value of gold is based on the March 25 close of $1,429.74 an ounce. Will this gold remain in Libya once Allied forces have taken control of Tripoli, or will it lost, or exchanged for pallets upon pallets of paper aka US dollars? FOLDING LIBYA INTO THE NEW WORLD ORDER In the Libyan banking charter, one of the primary mandates will be that it is regulating the quantity, quality and cost of credit to meet the requirements of economic growth and monetary stability. This of course, is the very opposite role which privately owned central banks play elsewhere in the world. Private central banks elsewhere create inflation, periodically inflating bubbles by design and then popping them in order to transfer large sums of wealth out of lower and middle class hands and into the hands of the financial elites. It is becoming easy to diagnose the very root-causes of chaos in the Middle East and the ongoing war-attacks against Libya. Finance, oil, militarization & imperialism, globalization- all of these comprise a running agenda for the New World Order. Egypt and Tunisia have both fallen to interim military dictatorships and have been hooked with billions in cheap loans from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the World Bank. Any country or nation that is running against the grain of this agenda- going against the orthodoxies of the New World Order, will eventually be flagged and brought to heal by way of military hammer. Regular acts of war against these non-globalist nation states are designed to humiliate, degrade and compromise international human rights- a condition that has become embarrassing to the world at large. CANADIAN PUPPET DESIGNATED AS LEADER FOR NATO’S LIBYAN OPERATION Most observers would claim that Canada is neutral in the Libyan conflict. But on this occasion, it’s been the consensus of the world axis of greedy powers that Canada will be running the front-of-house for their intervention in Libya’s civil chaos. With respect to Honourable Canadian leaders and officials, Canada’s participation in this particular war and in the cover-up for Obama in Libya is too adroit for the sake of profits and taking over resources in that particular region of the world. “Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay said Friday that Lt. General Charles Bouchard has been designated to lead the alliance’s military campaign in Libya. (Yahoo News, March 25, 2011). “Bouchard is stationed in Naples, Italy, at the Allied Joint Force Command. Bouchard’s recent job was deputy commander of NORAD, reporting to an American general. MacKay adds here, “He will be commander of the NATO operations, yet to be fully defined NATO operations”. Here is another challenge for the Canadian people. Another repercussion is that the Canadian budget will also be leached by such participations as the national Bank of Canada is also based on debt finance. If Canada, in not too distant future, would continue to participate in war(s), it would then become a fully fledged globalist war-nation, joining the likes of the USA and the UK. One wonders what will become a world that is at perpetually at war with itself? Why build wealth only to have it destroyed by wars? Why collect more taxes, spend and wantonly waste state revenue, create money out of nothing at the point of usury, and lend and/or borrow money at interest that disastrously piles up national debt at sky-rocketing rates? We see the results time and time again: the economy collapse, creation of poverty, and the continuing finance of weapons’ manufacturing, arms sales and the most technologically sophisticated wars in history that cause the most unimaginable devastations and irreparable damages to human lives and nations. If the Western based foreign policies continued to be war-based, bent on controlling the world’s resources, there seems to be no worse future for mankind. One big reason for the Western assault on Libya: Libya owns and issues its own money. - Author Eric V. Encina is based in the Philippines and works as an activist and social reformer. He is also an advocate of Social Credit. RELATED: Wow, That Was Fast! Libyan Rebels Have Already Established New Central Bank Of Libya
March 25, 2011 By 293 Comments
By Andrew McKillop 21st Century Wire March 25, 2011 What the atomic energy lobby calls The Nuclear Renaissance is advance warning of uncontrolled and runaway financial and economic disaster. This adds on to vastly growing risks of industrial disaster like we have witnessed this month in Japan, nuclear weapons proliferation, and reactors turned into and used as massive Dirty Bombs while their wastes are recycled as Depleted Uranium ordnance. The so-called ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ could or might see as many as 225 new large-size reactors built in as many as 45 countries, through 2010-2020. World uranium demand – already at least 20 percent more than uranium mine supply – could almost double in the same period. Presently almost unknown to the public and ignored by the media, national security and even the concept and present reality of nation states is under threat. Nuclear accidents, nuclear weapons production, and financial disaster triggered by the nuclear subprime asset bubble now under way are direct challenges to the existence of nation states. Nuclear power has ever less credibility as its costs spiral upward, pumping ever growing amounts of taxpayers’ money to feed the beast in every country treading the nuclear path, as is shown by any rational analysis of the nuclear industry’s energy and economic facts. But the real strategic role of civil nuclear power, despite it being able to yield nuclear weapons in “a few screwdriver turns”, is now economic and financial. Fast increasing numbers of civil reactors, uranium mines, fuel fabrication and reprocessing plants, waste fuel centres and “plutonium repositories” across the world have generated a surge of political and corporate, economic and finance sector elite support. Nuclear power is the new “No Alternative”, shading down and crowding out the reality that massive volumes and quantities of nuclear materials, in any country, destroy all reality of national defense and the nation state. The choice is simple: nuclear power or national defence. In the coming decade we will have to choose between the atom and the nation. Conventional war, like conventional nation states is not credible in a world with 45 or more nuclear power using states. Due to certain assured massive destruction of the economy when, or if , large reactors and nuclear installation are hit… conventional war is finished. Do our political leaders know this, as they sign ever bigger reactor and nuclear fuel contracts with a growing list of low income Emerging economy countries? How many politicians are factoring this into their decision making? CHERNOBYL – THE FINAL SOLUTION The world’s civil nuclear power system is a giant-sized Chernobyl-type dirty bomb offering no energy security or freedom from oil. Quantities of plutonium produced worldwide by civil reactors are already about 22 tons a year – enough for more than 2000 Hiroshima-sized bombs every year. By 2020 this could rise to 3500 per year. Oil saving due to the atom is negligible. In a fast growing number of countries both the size and complexity of nuclear installations is also rising fast. Reactor building costs and prices are exploding, with the inflation rate in 2010 close to 25 percent per year. Only a few types of reactor, especially underground or ‘hardened’ military reactors can resist a wide-body airplane crashing on them. Their costs are astronomic as shown by the European EPR, whose proud boast is that it could also resist a wide-body plane crash – at fantastic cost. But almost no reactor of any kind will resist entirely conventional ballistic missiles, conventional artillery shells, conventional anti-tank and anti-building munitions, and infantry launched or drone launched missiles. The reality is inescapable. All are totally vulnerable to operator error and IT safety system failures. Every single one of them is a potential Doomsday Machine. Reactors will also not resist worst-case seismic damage, as the Earth’s tectonic systems shift to a new long-term period of cooling climate and intensified volcanic activity, driving increased numbers of major seismic events. Due to the world’s uranium supply and fuel reprocessing system being totally fossil energy dependent, the vaunted claim of “Low Carbon Nuclear” is more of a marketing myth than the Friendly Atom. NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE We are promised or threatened the so-called Nuclear Renaissance. This is shorthand for a return to the rates of reactor orders and completions closer to those of the nuclear industry’s previous heydays and high times, dating from the first Oil Shock of the 1970s and by overdrive into the early 1980s. At the time and for 10 years one new reactor came on line every 17 days. Uranium prices and reactor construction costs exploded. The result was simple: the nuclear asset bubble imploded. The industry downsized, restructured, forced mergers took place, tens of thousands of jobs were lost – and Big Government, that is the taxpayers, paid for the party. Today, like the 1970s, nuclear power is again promoted as the fast track to energy independence - and for delivering supposedly Low Carbon energy to fight global warming from burning fossil fuels. To be sure, the rationale is bizarre: nuclear energy claims to deliver energy security, but there is massive import dependence for uranium supply in nearly all nations using civil nuclear power systems. This is perhaps because uranium exporter countries are not yet seen as “terror supporting regimes”, not yet accused of overcharging for their uranium exports. This will soon change as uranium prices spike up to unknown peaks. ATOMIC SURPRISES ARE BAD SURPRISES Nuclear boomers dream in print they have the Final Solution to all safety risks, cost limits and uranium fuel shortages, that might or could bar mankind’s route to nuclear powered Universal Prosperity. This essentially cornucopian dream – very ironically – came from the fusion of two supposedly total opposite world views. In the deep Cold War period of extreme American defence of capitalism, and extreme Soviet defence of totalitarian state control, through the 40 years from the late 1940s until 1989, both regimes placed all their military faith in nuclear weapons. Both also linked civil and military nuclear power, then fused them into a nuclear technological utopia. This ideology-spanning facet of the all nuclear solution, joining civil and military in a seamless web of myth, makes it unsurprising that China and India, and other big states, or would-be big states of today are fully embarked in the Nuclear Renaissance. Certainly for the Big 5 UN Security Council declared nuclear weapons states, any pretence that civil nuclear, and military nuclear are not 100% linked and totally interdependent, is a complete farce. All the Big 5 Security Council states started their nuclear story with a fevered race to develop nuclear weapons, then made a few screwdriver turns to spin-off and start their civil nuclear systems - always with fantastic government cash subsidies. Despite this, by a strange form of mass schizophrenia among the political elites of these states, nuclear power is imagined to be cheap and economic – and of course… safe ! Yet, the reality of dirty bomb capability for each and every large sized reactor anywhere on earth, is stoically denied. So as we wait patiently in the shadow of the fallout cloud, the myth of the nation state continues. The permanent denial of civil and military nuclear power being one and the same has likely favoured the most proliferative-possible, most vulnerable-possible civil nuclear systems worldwide, both in the “old nuclear” countries, and in the 15 or more new nuclear states that the Nuclear Renaissance may bring. In any case, the historic reality of international wars started by one nation and fought against another nation is now obsolete. Any nation with sizeable nuclear installations on its home territory is vulnerable to devastating attack using entirely conventional, non-nuclear weapons of the type possessed by dozens of states and nations, today. This reality hides the awesome question: who will look after nuclear power using states when they have suffered economic, political and social meltdown in civil, international, or terror wars ? Who can step in to prevent worst-case damage all the nation’s nuclear plants and fuel facilities? If we ask the key question: “Can we be certain this awesome challenge is understood by our political elites and the opinion formers who control our press and media ?”, and still all we hear is silence, there is no answer. THE END OF NATIONS? The fully globalized economy is described by many as a certain death sentence for the nation state. Nuclear power proliferation sets the exact same No Future full stop for the nation. With a fully developed global nuclear power system the historical trend or social instinct of the nation state has no place and must disappear. To be sure, large nuclear reactors and facilities will surely serve, as they already do for Iran today as last-ditch anti-invasion defence, but they are also prepositioned enemy weapons for hostile opponents not necessarily wanting to invade and occupy. Only to destroy. The asymmetric war potential is almost open-ended. This can inject new themes for the flagging ”Bin Laden industry” of technology-terror potboiler books, films and docu-dramas, but the reality of nuclear power’s threat to the nation state must be addressed. In a civil war, which reactor will get hit, first ? So what are we left with? The linked illusions of the nation state and national security must be abandoned, if the world’s political and corporate elites want to pursue the chimera of cheap and safe atomic energy. Otherwise our leaders will have to stay hopeful and ignore the civil nuclear overkill threat, while they continue to pump state funds into the economic failure of nuclear power. When we wake up to hear the incredible and fantastic worst case has already happened- as we have these last few weeks with Japan’s own major accident, or later because of operator error, or even in the shape of purposeful military or terror attack on large civil nuclear installations, it will be too late – much too late. - Andrew McKillop is guest writer and energy markets analyst for 21st Century Wire. He has more than 30 years experience in the energy, economic and finance domains. Trained at London UK’s University College, he has extensive experience in energy policy, project administration, including the development and financing of alternate energy.
March 23, 2011 By 266 Comments
By Patrick Henningsen 21st Century Wire March 24, 2011 Received wisdom states that if you understand history and apply it to the present day, you stand a better chance of not making the same mistake twice. It’s also true that the victors write the history of world events- one of the spoils of war we are told. But after decades of changing the language of modern war and its recent history, all those old lessons are becoming buried- under a heap of customised propaganda and legalese. This is the new language of war. Regarding all of the West’s military strikes, invasions and occupations over the last decade, namely Iraq and Afghanistan, the victors and their mercenary legal teams have indeed written their way into wars, and afterwards attempted to write their own version of popular history, skillfully rewriting international law in the process- all of which has been recycled, yet again, in order to justify a new globalist operation Libya. This week has witnessed the latest bombing attack unleashed under fake humanitarian cover against the sovereign state of Libya. Lest we forget- that’s right, Libya is still a sovereign state. With Libya, like with past conquests in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, we see the same identical twisted neo-conservative doctrine which was officially chrisined under George Bush Jr, formerly known as the “pre-emptive strike”, now refashioned for neo-liberals like Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy… as the humanitarian strike. The idea of the humanitarian strike is ultimately more profound than its predecessor because the term effectively disarms columns of liberal-minded mainstream pundits and intellectual academics. It’s quite an ingenious evolution from the lumbering NeoCon days. But do not be confused, they are both contrived terms designed to cover the same exact long-range foreign policy goals: regime change, followed by carving up the assets of the host country through a series of military operations and western corporate privatisation projects. In time, Libya will face the same long corporate onslaught that Iraq has. Last week’s UN Security Council resolution appeared to be, on its surface anyway, a quick, drive-through triumph for diplomacy. But this quick agreement managed to conceal the underlying political approach and the military strategy to follow. But for the big player abstainers like Russia and China, a humanitarian no-fly zone was as far as they would go in order to secure peace on the ground in Libya. Air patrols they said, would stop Colonel Gaddafi mounting air attacks on civilians. End of story, right? We all wished. As we have learned from past no-fly zone projects like Iraq, these are effectively a UN-enforced martial law and may only exacerbate or lead to a full-on civil war, followed by military escalation. It’s pretty obvious to any astute observer of world events that western coalition countries have quickly cobbled together a vague enough UN resolution- a fait accompli attack plan disguised as a “No Fly Zone”. No end-game plan was given by the West during the UN hearing on Libya, but surely even the most naive political observer knows there is no simple ‘exit strategy’ with no-fly zones. The new language of war By a flick of the linguistic wand, any military action can be justified by the self-styled moralist and the 21st century political shape-shifter. First comes the humanitarian “No-Fly Zone”, a legal foot in the door. Then come the “surgical” air strikes. And by extension, any foreign peoples who happen to be killed by an officially branded Allied Air Strike fall under the category of “collateral damage”. This week, Deputy National Security adviser Ben Rhodes invented more new language to describe the air strikes against Libya stating, “Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.” Very, very impressive language. Entrusting our modern language to UN bureaucrats, White House Press Secretaries and major media talking heads from CNN, ABC, MSNBC, FOX and others has meant that public opinion on such matters has become more or less irrelevant. They have successfully replaced the old, out-dated humanist language which described modern warfare pre-Desert Storm in 1991, with a new language and a new improved perspective. Naturally, this means a new play book for all wars. Those who are awake to this fact can only sit back in wonder as it gets increasingly ridiculous. Likewise, those who remain in a trance, thoroughly impressed by the science they have come to learn and love the new lingua franca of modern warfare, are dazzled by it. This is perhaps one of the most significant trends of the 21st century. We now live in a world where, as Western audiences go, anything can be made acceptable by the use of received ‘official’ language. It’s that simple. You can compare this world of creative writing to life in the modern American legal system- a place where any lawyer will tell you, there is no right or wrong, only legal definitions that are constantly changed and reinvented, allowing its inhabitants to navigate through their morally relative pathways, constantly filled with the air of hypocrisy. It’s certainly no place for a layman. It’s a place where only a skilled lawyer lives and breathe. Few will argue that when it comes to the punch, Western foreign policy is now the exclusive domain of lawyers and their vast labyrinth of legalese. According to British PM David Cameron, his first military adventure in the Mediterranean would hold up in a court of law. The PM has proclaimed, “It’s necessary, it’s right and… it’s legal”. That of course is the clincher for PM Cameron- it’s legal. This is, after all, Barrack, Nicolas and David’s first virgin war and so it’s very, very important to cover one’s political ass, so to speak, particularly in the wake of Tony Blair’s dubious and very long (and still pending it seems…) international war crimes criminal rap sheet. A moment of clarity for the Mad Dog Muammar Gaddafi claimed earlier this week that the UN resolution authorising international military intervention in Libya is “invalid”. Moral shape-shifters will of course say that Gaddafi is simply mad. However, according to International Law, the Libyan leader is actually correct. By definition, what has transpired in Libya is defined as a civil conflict and does not involve in any way (despite initial western media scares of refugees over the border into Egypt), any of its neighboring UN member states. Whether you are a fan of Gaddafi or not, you have to recognise what looks to be a moment of clarity for Libya’s notorious Mad Dog. Earlier this week it appears that the Libyan leader had sent a message to US President Barack Obama defending his decision to attack rebels and their enclaves in certain cities: “If you found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do.” The statement came via a government spokesman at a news conference in Tripoli and speaks volumes. Whether it’s a democracy, a monarchy, or a dictatorship- there are no two ways about it, civil unrest is civil unrest. Not responding to it will certainly lead to anarchy and all its unsavoury trappings. This is validated by the reports of armed gangs marauding and robbing their way through Benghazi, a familiar scene when law and order breaks down. And how a government deals with such an event will certainly differ according the particular circumstances. What would Barrack do? Now, let’s rewind a few weeks. How the current civil conflict in Libya actually started was from an organised group of protesters who took over the Libyan Parliament building and proceeded to set it on fire. This followed by an organised attack on the state-run television station and further attacks on police stations. Were these so-called rebel groups backed given support beforehand by Western Intelligence agencies as they have across the globe throughout recent history? The answer to this question will eventually come out in the wash, but putting that aside for the minute, what would a Western leader do when faced with such a situation? This scenario is not even far-fetched, particular in the case of Sarkozy’s own France, the most likely candidate for a “Flash Mob” manifestation in 2011 and 2012. Now let’s think about it for a minute. If a group of armed militia decided to takeover and burn down David Cameron’s own Parliament building in London, or Sarkozy’s own Palais de Élysée in Paris, or Barrack Obama’s Captial Hill building in Washington, would there be a swift and firm response on the part of government forces? Judging by the current climate in the UK, where peaceful protestors need to file for a permit to protest, and where US protestors are only allowed to demonstrate in specific government-designated “Free Speech Zones”, and where hundreds of peaceful young American G20 demonstrators in Pittsburgh, PA were brutally beaten, shot with ‘bean-bag’ rounds by police, targeted with ear-piercing sound cannons, then it is safe to expect that any escalation to organised armed gangs attempting to burn down the centres of government and take over cities and towns in these same western countries… would certainly be met with lethal force. Yes, American or British demonstrators would shot down in cold blood in order to avert the complete descent into urban anarchy. Following such a domestic event in the West, in the case of the Washington Press Secretary, you can also bet that it would not be classed as “an insurrection by rebel forces”, as is the case with the Western media depiction of Libya’s civil unrest. No, it would be under the heading of “treason by anti-American, domestic terrorists”. Later, once quashed, do you really believe that the UN would go on to pass a new resolution laying blame on Obama’s DC government, like it has in the case of Libya, for “murdering its own citizens”? Definitely not. HOW IT ALL STARTED: Another side to the Libyan story. The Party Line As innocent Libyan bodies begin to wash up, Western apologists, along with the endless platoons of mindless media pundits and other moral shape-shifters will be (amazingly albeit predictably) parroting the exact same lines in defense of military attacks on Libya. It generally sounds something like this: “Lighting fires to buildings isn’t exactly great, but with a government ignoring citizens, killing them in the streets for rising against evil and continuing to act like they’ve got a fierce stronghold on the people, we can’t just sit back and do nothing. I support the rebels because by burning down these reminders of corruption and evil, the people flush out the offenders giving them no place to hide.” So here we find ourselves again, at that same familiar place we have come loath about our once great western civilisation. We have the modern double standard held high by the usual suspects: the UN, US, UK and their fabled Coalition. And if that’s not enough, Coalition Forces have already begun to accumulate their own list of dead Libyans, most of which will of course be civilians. By western moral standards it’s OK if western military forces kill Libyans but it’s not OK if Libyan military forces kill Libyans, because when western military forces do it, again, it’s simply written off as collateral damage. Authentic sands of change Popular history may describe today’s events as something like this: “With all the uprisings in the Middle East, the time of dictatorship appears to be winding down, as oppressed people in nations all over are using their voices along with social media to demonstrate public opinion”. Indeed, it was Gaddafi’s own son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi who displayed some formidable rhetoric in his university dissertation entitled, “The Role of Civil Society in the Democratisation of Global Governance Institutions: From Soft Power to Collective Decision Making?”. In his paper, he describes a philosophy where he believes that governments should be more democractic, in effect condemning the very things his father has been doing over the last 40 years. Later on, he declared he would not succeed his father’s position because it was against Libya’s new progressive system. However, after some 40 years of oppression, progression which was to be in the hands of the people, is now firmly in the hands of the UN, and its gang of three – the US, Britain and France. We should know by now that the gang of three will never sit idle and let a real progressive democracy develop over time, as would have been the case in Libya, especially if there’s oil and gas under those sands. Interestingly enough, while all these societies throughout North Africa and the Middle East all appear to be evolving towards something ultimately better and more dynamic, the West seems to moving backwards… towards something more monolithic. Both domestically, and in a foreign intervention sense, the West is effectively rewriting their law books as they go along, attacking who they want around the world and revoking domestic civil rights where they see fit. Hardly progress. Russian leader Vladimir Putin condemned the air and missile strikes waged by the US and its allies in Libya as another “crusade”. China has condemned the Allied attack on a sovereign state. It’s a charming twist, the West now has China and Russia doling out moral lessons on foreign intervention, as it appears the US and Europe have already been publicly and permanently compromised by their wanton power-grabs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are pedestrian politicians and middle class voters in the US and Europe able to see any of this? They should, because they already had a master course in it since 2001. Still, we haven’t even begun to catalogue the long list of lies that we’ve been sold, used to justify all these foreign, undeclared wars. But we will… Stay tuned in. - Patrick Henningsen is a writer, pr/communications consultant and Managing Editor at 21st Century Wire. Contact: email@example.com
March 22, 2011 By 303 Comments
Matt Ryan Infowars.com March 22, 2011 AT&T’s pending acquisition of T-Mobile USA has the tech world buzzing with various pros and cons of what this merging would mean for the consumer. Among the pros are the possibility of having a single mobile standard (4G LTE) and a market where phones aren’t restricted to a single carrier. The cons include having less choice between carriers and rate plans, millions of customers suddenly being subject to a more restricted terms of service, and the loss of what T-Mobile customers considered to be a much better overall customer experience. What’s more troubling, are recent announcements by AT&T to begin capping the monthly usage and impose overage fees on their DSL and U-Verse customers. These customers were originally given a promise of unlimited usage by AT&T only to find an essential mode of communication is now restricted. In a sense, AT&T is forcing their customers to buy in to their cable and phone service to defer the bandwidth used by their online competitors, Skype, Hulu, Netflix, and others. If you’ve spent time searching for an apartment in the U.S. over the past few years, you may have noticed complexes are beginning to sign contracts with service providers like AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, and others that forbid their tenants from switching to any other provider than the one they’re under contract with. This deal is offered to landlords in exchange for either what amounts to a kickback or a mock coupon giving their tenants a small discount on service costs. In a sense, you’re subject to your carrier’s restrictive terms and conditions as long as you’re under lease. With some of these contracts, tenants are forced as part of the lease to purchase and maintain a cable and/or Internet service with the carrier. For many in small towns and rural communities where WiMax and other options are impossible, this means you are all but forced to use a carrier’s service, especially when a certain complex is all you can afford. As we’ve covered here in the past, all signs point to an eventual collapse of the Internet as we know it today. With phone, cable, and web services provided by only a handful select single corporations, more and more Americans are essentially at the mercy of an elite few. AT&T has been in hot water before with privacy advocates, in particular their sharing of private information with the NSA. (Hepting v. AT&T) This trend to restrict services is even more concerning when coupled with Google and other search engines moves to limit search ranking for news aggregates and other sites they deem to be a “content farm”. This determination is based on the “quality” of a site’s content as determined by the search engine… READ FULL REPORT HERE