December 18, 2012 By 415 Comments
Patrick Henningsen 21st Century Wire Dec 18, 2012 What exactly are we teaching your children? I remember my history lessons in school. Among many things, I can recall Normandy, Patton’s march through France and the Battle of the Bulge, Korea, Vietnam and how about the millions of deaths on – as well as off, the fields of battle throughout history. All in all, it was a tale of battles won and lost, and as was rightly put by my junior high school teacher - a tale of caution for future generations. But as young students, we were never taught to idiosyncrasies of ‘war-gaming’ a conflict in the future. Nor can I recall getting lessons in school about using various aspects of asymmetrical warfare to encircle an enemy, or how admirable and clever it is to deploy terrorist units to bomb a country in order to ‘soften it up’ from within. Unbeknownst to many people, there are school teachers who are delivering pro-war propaganda, indoctrinating young children with violent globalist military stratagem selling the concept of an inevitable war on the people of Iran as well as anyone else deemed as ‘Axis’ powers in relation to western central planning. Interestingly, and quite horrific in fact, when challenged by his young (and extremely bright) female student over her idea of obtaining from a western pre-emptive intervention against Iran, the teacher addressing these students laid down a nonnegotiable maxim stating: “… one of the rules (in this discussion) is you can’t do nothing”. The female student followed his NLP intellectual diversion by rightly pointing out to him: “But we (the US) are the only country in the world that’s ever used nuclear weapons”. To which the teacher replies sharply: “That’s irrelevant.” It appears also towards the end of the video, that the class was being monitored by the principal’s office, who then summoned the student in question to the office. Orwellian – in the extreme. This is the generation of children who may be asked – or drafted in to fight a coming war with Iran and others – so is this part of the indoctrination of future soldiers? Maybe. Certainly here, it’s safe to say that teachers are grooming the next generation of compliant consumer spectators with some heavy indoctrination. Watch the classroom exchange recorded by the student: Immediately, the first thing that’s come to mind here is remembering what Cosby Stills and Nash tried to tell us – all those decades ago… ….
ELITES HAVE ORDERED A MEDIA BLACKOUT ON SUCCESSFUL RON PAUL 2012 CAMPAIGN – VOTERS MUST CARRY HIM TO VICTORY
August 22, 2011 By 18 Comments
By SARTRE 21st Century Wire August 22, 2011 The stark reality about the Ron Paul revolution is that the power elites could not survive in a society based upon individual liberty. Nevertheless, this statement does not imply that a Paul presidency would guarantee the elimination of the oligarchy. The faint memory of what a free nation could be or even what our country once was, could be revived under certain circumstances. Imagine the abolishment of the Federal Reserve and the fractional debt created money system. Consider a non-interventionist foreign policy that allows for actual national defense and secures the borders. Or, best of all, a limited government culture that is based upon the principle that government exists to serve citizens in their pursuit of freedom. Thomas Jefferson’s soul lives within the Ron Paul generation. The barons of media exclusion, that spread a confederacy of silence around Ron Paul, are descendants of the same cabal that sent Jefferson to France during the drafting and debating at the Constitutional Convention. These latest cohorts want to continue the same dominance over the spirit of the revolution. This eternal battle is presently waged under an invigorant new awakening. The old game no longer works. Swept away are their lies, because their pseudo propaganda all point to the oz cult behind the curtain, and the destructive reality of their plots are visible for all to see. No wonder, since he does not play their game, Ron Paul is such a threat to their control. Consider the insight of our long time friend and courageous advocate of an American First foreign policy, Mark Dankof. He gets to the core reason why the (FCM) Fawning Corporate Media wants to prevent Ron Paul from winning the GOP nomination. “Israel, the Jewish Lobby worldwide, the Central Bankers, and the energy/gas consortiums, are the driving force behind making this war happen. Jay Solomon’s story (WSJ – Senators Press Obama On Iran’s Central Bank) indeed notes that Senator Mark Kirk (R., Illinois) and Senator Charles Schumer (D., New York), are the co-sponsors of the letter, in a “sign of bipartisan support for tougher financial measures against Iran. . . .“ What the Wall Street Journal omits, of course, is that Kirk received more Israeli/Jewish PAC money for his initial election to the Senate, than any other candidate in the last election cycle, and that Schumer’s pockets have been lined historically with reams of the same levels of financial largesse for doing the bidding of the Zionist State. We might also draw the legitimate and documentable conclusion that Kirk, Schumer, and their colleagues in both houses of Congress, demonstrate the stranglehold that Israel has on both major political parties, as demonstrated each year by Hugh Galford and Janet McMahon of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in Washington. The numbers provided annually by Galford and McMahon provide the quantitative proof of what President Obama told Ha’aretz in his last trip to Israel: that Obama himself could not possibly have been elected to the U. S. Senate in Illinois (the seat now held by Kirk, by the way), or the American Presidency, without the amount of Jewish money and political support that came his way. Presumably, the President is saying something about the larger political system and the way it works systemically. Follow the money trail. And the Bankers. And the number of Israeli assets in the GOP Presidential sweepstakes (the exception is Ron Paul) who have never met a surrogate war they didn’t like, including the one on the drawing board now they will assiduously promote if The Masters should decide that Mr. Obama needs replacing in 2012 for insufficient sycophancy.” Sadly, many Tea Party conservatives still accept the Neocon foreign policy deception. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. Watch the thinking man’s version of a strong leader in the video, Ron Paul Speaks Out: Media Blackout, Economic Freedom, Intellectual Revolution. Go beyond the sound bites and ads, then ask the hard questions. Once the presidential campaign heats up after Labor Day, the cast of characters will keep shucking out the phony common man populism, while cavorting with the same money interests, corporatists and banksters that select every other nominee. Have you forgotten the Skull and Bones ticket of 2004? Surely, the progressive McCain was no choice over the “bomber” Obama general. Now the Ron Paul generation understands that liberty and genuine national security is never advanced under the military-industrial-homeland war party. Yet, usually the only candidates you get to vote for out of the duel party wag the dog parade is a kosher toady. The unremitting plans to eradicate Iran, drives the banking internationalists for the same reason that Libya became a bombing range target. No nation is allowed to challenge the money monopoly. Gaddafi’s gold and Ahmadinejad’s economic independence as cited in an IMF report, cannot stand the risk of any unorthodox ruler. How dare the Zionist controlled press make a rare slip up and reveal, “The IMF said it has revised its previous figures on Iran’s economy after a brief visit to the country, expressing admiration for some of the controversial plans introduced by the hardline president.” The entrenched GOP party facilitators want to marginalize Ron Paul as dangerous because he resists tribe orders and refuses to waste another generation of youth in the service of zealots. Liberty demands that our sons and daughters no longer be consumed as cannon fodder. Translate the “ON BEHALF OF A GRATEFUL NATION” sympathy statement to read – The defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid. Now even the disappointed left have figured out that warmonger Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama, is no different from George W. Bush. So when will the Republican faithful come to grips, that Bachmann and Cain are IRS and Federal Reserve cronies, respectively?As for Romney, anyone who is willing to champion person status for corporations deserves to file chapter 7 on his own campaign aspirations. New World Order Perry is the puppet of choice. His rhetoric will ring home to many, because he lifts it directly from the Ron Paul journal. However, Rick Perry is the next incarnate plastic doll, which will read the script from the banksters’ ledger sheet, once elected. When was the last time you heard another Republican presidential candidate utter the words civil liberties? Or name another public figure that actually made his life’s work synonymous with LIBERTY? Only Ron Paul stands the test of performance. So how can Paul win in the GOP primaries? The New York Times offers a salient chart and states, “On the Republican side, partisan self-identification peaked in the early 1990s – as did the percent of the electorate voting in Republican primaries – before declining.” Decrying the GOP hacks, every liberty Republican patriot needs to organize their universe of friends and acquaintances to get the vote out at the ballot box on primary day. Just a minimum increase and return to the 33% 1990 levels with Ron Paul voters will result is his victory for the nomination. The caveat does require a verifiable monitoring of any enhanced electronic voting count against liberty-minded voters or the sabotage by the party of the delegate certification process. Presidents are selected well before the general election. Ron Paul will generate significant support and votes from independents. Even disgruntled Democrats will rally in a general election; however, the Republican registered primary voter must resist the perennial Neocon treachery. The frustration of discussing politics in an era of denial needs to be overcome. Enrolling a Republican voter into the cause of Liberty can be a daunting task. Those who believe that the party of Lincoln champions a proper conservative defense of liberty are wholly confused. Tea Party proponents must reject the GOP establishment and their – hijack express. Do not believe the hype. Accurate public Tea Party approval sentiment is not in decline. Simply, the only drink that Rick Perry partakes is an imported Camellia sinensis brew, while he worships another lord in the Bilderberg temple. Lastly, those critics of Ron Paul’s Austrian economics usually oppose a return to a resurrection of a modified gold standard. Yet if you dig deeper, those same detractors maintain an apologist attitude for keeping a central banking system. Few disparagers view the preservation of liberty on the same scale as their return from compound interest. The money elite may soon conduct another false flag to scare the uninformed and redirect one more staged diversion. The rush of enthusiasm for retaking our liberty is the essence of the Ron Paul message. The generation that tasted the joy in the establishment’s fear during the 1960’s appreciates just how a government can be broken, from conducting an exhausted and immoral war. Today everyone needs to learn this lesson, apply traditional conservative populist principles, and eliminate the central banking tyranny that is the prime destroyer of our economy. The fascist state that follows orders and reports to this private bank-ruling cartel is the foremost enemy. Is Liberty more important to you or do you think a looser fit of your governance chains is achievable with your continued apathy? This oldie but goodie YouTube tune is still relevant today. Break out the band and get your neighbor to join in and sing the lyrics. Most important – get out the Republican Ron Paul primary vote. This article first appeared at the BATR FORUM.
June 1, 2011 By 246 Comments
By John Pilger Information Clearing House June 1, 2011 - When Britain lost control of Egypt in 1956, Prime Minister Anthony Eden said he wanted the nationalist president Gamal Abdel Nasser “destroyed … murdered … I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt”. Those insolent Arabs, Winston Churchill had urged in 1951, should be driven “into the gutter from which they should never have emerged”. The language of colonialism may have been modified; the spirit and the hypocrisy are unchanged. A new imperial phase is unfolding in direct response to the Arab uprising that began in January and has shocked Washington and Europe, causing an Eden-style panic. The loss of the Egyptian tyrant Mubarak was grievous, though not irretrievable; an American-backed counter-revolution is under way as the military regime in Cairo is seduced with new bribes and power shifting from the street to political groups that did not initiate the revolution. The western aim, as ever, is to stop authentic democracy and reclaim control. Libya is the immediate opportunity. The Nato attack on Libya, with the UN Security Council assigned to mandate a bogus “no fly zone” to “protect civilians”, is strikingly similar to the final destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999. There was no UN cover for the bombing of Serbia and the “rescue” of Kosovo, yet the propaganda echoes today. Like Slobodan Milosevic, Muammar Gaddafi is a “new Hitler”, plotting “genocide” against his people. There is no evidence of this, as there was no genocide in Kosovo. In Libya there is a tribal civil war; and the armed uprising against Gaddafi has long been appropriated by the Americans, French and British, their planes attacking residential Tripoli with uranium-tipped missiles and the submarine HMS Triumph firing Tomahawk missiles, a repeat of the “shock and awe” in Iraq that left thousands of civilians dead and maimed. As in Iraq, the victims, which include countless incinerated Libyan army conscripts, are media unpeople. In the “rebel” east, the terrorising and killing of black African immigrants is not news. On 22 May, a rare piece in the Washington Post described the repression, lawlessness and death squads in the “liberated zones” just as visiting EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, declared she had found only “great aspirations” and “leadership qualities”. In demonstrating these qualities, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the “rebel leader” and Gaddafi’s justice minister until February, pledged, “Our friends … will have the best opportunity in future contracts with Libya.” The east holds most of Libya’s oil, the greatest reserves in Africa. In March the rebels, with expert foreign guidance, “transferred” to Benghazi the Libyan Central Bank, a wholly owned state institution. This is unprecedented. Meanwhile, the US and the EU “froze” almost US$100 billion in Libyan funds, “the largest sum ever blocked”, according to official statements. It is the biggest bank robbery in history. The French elite are enthusiastic robbers and bombers. Nicholas Sarkozy’s imperial design is for a French-dominated Mediterranean Union (UM), which would allow France to “return” to its former colonies in North Africa and profit from privileged investment and cheap labour. Gaddafi described the Sarkozy plan as “an insult” that was “taking us for fools”. The Merkel government in Berlin agreed, fearing its old foe would diminish Germany in the EU, and abstained in the Security Council vote on Libya. Like the attack on Yugoslavia and the charade of Milosevic’s trial, the International Criminal Court is being used by the US, France and Britain to prosecute Gaddafi while his repeated offers of a ceasefire are ignored. Gaddafi is a Bad Arab. David Cameron’s government and its verbose top general want to eliminate this Bad Arab, like the Obama administration killed a famously Bad Arab in Pakistan recently. The crown prince of Bahrain, on the other hand, is a Good Arab. On 19 May, he was warmly welcomed to Britain by Cameron with a photo-call on the steps of 10 Downing Street. In March, the same crown prince slaughtered unarmed protestors and allowed Saudi forces to crush his country’s democracy movement. The Obama administration has rewarded Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on earth, with a $US60 billion arms deal, the biggest in US history. The Saudis have the most oil. They are the Best Arabs. The assault on Libya, a crime under the Nuremberg standard, is Britain’s 46th military “intervention” in the Middle East since 1945. Like its imperial partners, Britain’s goal is to control Africa’s oil. Cameron is not Anthony Eden, but almost. Same school. Same values. In the media-pack, the words colonialism and imperialism are no longer used, so that the cynical and the credulous can celebrate state violence in its more palatable form. Author John Pilger’s film “The War You Don’t See”. And as “Mr. Hopey Changey” (the name that Ted Rall, the great American cartoonist, gives Barack Obama), is fawned upon by the British elite and launches another insufferable presidential campaign, the Anglo-American reign of terror proceeds in Afghanistan and elsewhere, with the murder of people by unmanned drones – a US/Israel innovation, embraced by Obama. For the record, on a scorecard of imposed misery, from secret trials and prisons and the hounding of whistleblowers and the criminalising of dissent to the incarceration and impoverishment of his own people, mostly black people, Obama is as bad as George W. Bush. The Palestinians understand all this. As their young people courageously face the violence of Israel’s blood-racism, carrying the keys of their grandparents’ stolen homes, they are not even included in Mr. Hopey Changey’s list of peoples in the Middle East whose liberation is long overdue. What the oppressed need, he said on 19 May, is a dose of “America’s interests [that] are essential to them”. He insults us all. www.johnpilger.com
May 31, 2011 By 271 Comments
By Steve Watson Infowars.com May 31, 2011 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul has warned that a lack of oversight from Congress, the media and the American people is enabling the rise of a dictatorship in the US. The Congressman issued the warning via his weekly Texas Straight Talk column, noting that in light of current attitudes within the executive and legislative branches, “it would be incredibly naive to think a dictator could not or would not wrest power in this country” at some point in the future. “Americans who are not alarmed by all of this are either not paying close attention, or are too trusting of current government officials to be concerned.” Paul writes: “Our Presidents can now, on their own: order assassinations, including American citizens; operate secret military tribunals; engage in torture; enforce indefinite imprisonment without due process; order searches and seizures without proper warrants, gutting the 4th Amendment; ignore the 60 day rule for reporting to the Congress the nature of any military operations as required by the War Power Resolution; continue the Patriot Act abuses without oversight; wage war at will; and treat all Americans as suspected terrorists at airports with TSA groping and nude x-rays. ” The Congressman urges. The Congressman also specifically pointed to last weeks passage by Congress of a National Defense Authorization Act that contains an alarming worldwide war provision, noting that it “explicitly extends the president’s war powers to just about anybody.” The ACLU declared that the provision: “has no expiration date and will allow this president — and any future president — to go to war anywhere in the world, at any time, without further congressional authorization. The new authorization wouldn’t even require the president to show any threat to the national security of the United States. The American military could become the world’s cop, and could be sent into harm’s way almost anywhere and everywhere around the globe.” Section 1034 of the Defense Authorization bill that says were are at war with the “associated forces” of al Qaeda and the Taliban. “Would it be so hard for someone in the government to target a political enemy and connect them to al Qaeda, however tenuously, and have them declared an associated force?” writes Congressman Paul. Paul warned that future leaders will ” inherit all the additional powers we cede to the current position holders.” Listen to the Congressman’s warning in full below: A Constitutional lesson for Obama from a genuine scholar on the subject. ——————————————– Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
March 23, 2011 By 259 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