The coming "crisis" and American totalitarianism

[Earnest]

Are you misreading something, Almanac? The GP's health policy still states: "In Government we would immediately ban water fluoridation."

It was a non-negotiable demand of the Greens before the 2002 general election, but that idea disappeared shortly before the 2007 election, apparently because the Greens saw that they might have to coalesce with FF, who are the only pro-fluoridation party (though the FFers themselves don't understand why).

Isn't it wonderful the way political realities make fluoridation less harmful? Has anyone done scientific research on that phenomenon?

Four legs good, two legs better.

Before the 2007 election the Green Party decided to have no non-negotiable demands, since a decision on coalition should depend on the amount of green policies accepted, not on writing down non-negotiable demands which would prevent negotiations taking place. It had nothing to do with fluoridation.

[soubresauts]

Before the 2007 election the Green Party decided to have no non-negotiable demands, since a decision on coalition should depend on the amount of green policies accepted, not on writing down non-negotiable demands which would prevent negotiations taking place. It had nothing to do with fluoridation.

You think you can just forget about it? Just like that? "The Government just happens to be poisoning the whole population with fluoride, and we Greens just happen to be in the Government, but it's nothing to do with us really. Actually we don't like it; in fact, we really object to it, and we want it stopped, or at least our policy wants it stopped; but don't ask us to do anything about it."

Consider what the Indo reported, 8 Feb 2002:

A bill to end the controversial practice of adding fluoride to public drinking water was published yesterday by the Green Party. The fluoride ban will be a "non-negotiable" demand in Coalition negotiations after the general election, according to the party. Green Party health spokesperson, John Gormley TD, blasted the Forum On Fluoridation set up by the Minister for Health as a "disgraceful waste of tax payers' money".

This FF-Green government is STILL wasting a vast amount of public money to poison the population.

Waste, waste, waste -- our health as well as our money.

[rhonda15]

"markets are where the wars are fought now"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcvyU2k0L0o&feature=channel_page]YouTube - Economic Warfare Jim Norman and George Noory Part 1[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGVqx3-6ghc&feature=related]YouTube - Economic Warfare Jim Norman and George Noory Part 2[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwXXF9pvOiQ&feature=channel]YouTube - Economic Warfare Jim Norman and George Noory Part 3[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdF5CuPGHQQ&feature=channel"]YouTube - Economic Warfare Jim Norman and George Noory Part 4[/ame]

[Almanac]

"markets are where the wars are fought now"

Thanks for all these links and the previous ones Rhonda. I've listened to Celente being interviewed before... It's utterly mind-boggling that there are still people willfully ignorant about what we're all now facing and why we're facing it.

[Almanac]

[COLOR=#000000]In a recent opinion piece in The Irish Times, Washington Post propagandist, Charles Krauthammer, makes the extraordinary claim that the US has “done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any other nation.” He then lists a number of US interventions in which he claims the American army “bled for” Muslims. I think there are relatively few people left who still believe that humanitarian motives inspired the US led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq so it’s understandable that Mr Krauthammer does not dwell long on these ‘liberations.’ It’s worth recalling though that Enron, which had links to both Bush and Cheney, was negotiating with the Taliban to build a pipeline across Afghanistan in the months preceding the invasion. Cheney’s Halliburton had the actual contract to build the pipeline. These negotiations were unsuccessful. In the summer of 2001, the Taliban had reportedly been given the choice, “Either you accept a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.” The bombs came shortly after September 11th. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#000000]The plan to invade Iraq dates back much further. Perhaps back as far as 1992 when former Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, called for preemptive wars. The discovery in the late nineties that the world was running out of oil brought a new sense of urgency. A leading light of the Project for a New American Century, Wolfowitz stated frankly in 2003 in relation to the war, “we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.” I guess the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi victims of that war weren't left with much choice either.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#000000]With regard to another example supplied by Mr Kraufhammer, Dr Coleman points out in his book Diplomacy by Deception that the motivation for the mission to save the “starving children” in Somalia was also less about humanitarian relief and more about securing the misappropriation of that country’s oil resources, which had been located by satellite. When the Somalian authorities began to wake up to the fact that they were about to be plundered, the US army was sent in to protect the drilling operations. Since neighbouring Ethiopia had no similar natural resources, there was no similar sudden US intervention to save that country’s starving children then or since.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#000000]The motivation for the humanitarian missions to the Balkans was unsurprisingly no different. Originally the US had sponsored the break-up of Yugoslavia through financing all the extreme nationalist movements. Two pipelines were planned, one from the Caspian Sea through Kosovo to the Adriatic; the other from Baku through Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. At first the US backed Milosevic, classifying Serbian aggression as a civil war, and in this way justifying its non-intervention. By the mid-nineties, though, the Serbs turn for demonisation came when it became clear that Milosevic would not cooperate and acquiese to the occupation of Kosovo. Clinton then authorised a mass bombing of civilian targets. After Serbia had been bombed into submission, an enormous US military camp was constructed within Kosovo to guard the pipeline. It’s not difficult consequently to understand US concern for Kosovo or, indeed, its friendship with Georgia. And it's quite clear that none of the US interventions were motivated by concern for Muslims. This is sheer propaganda.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#000000]In fact American foreign policy has been largely determined by the desires of the oil cartel and its associates for decades, who employ the powerful American NGO, the Council on Foreign Relations, as their mouthpiece. Incidentally, the heads or owners of all the major media corporations, such as The Washington Post Company, sit on the Council on Foreign Relations. The function of these media then is no longer to seek and accurately reflect the truth but rather to disseminate disinformation and to propagandise on behalf of an utterly corrupt controlling elite of super-poweful private interests.[/COLOR]

[Almanac]

The existence of purpose built manned but empty detention camps was documented in the OP. Well more detention camps are on the way, except this time they're being explicit that they're for civilians:

[COLOR=#0000ff]Rep. Alcee L. Hastings[/COLOR], D-Fla., has introduced to the House of Representatives a new bill, H.R. 645, calling for the secretary of homeland security to establish no fewer than six national emergency centers for corralling civilians on military installations.
The proposed bill, which has received little mainstream media attention, appears designed to create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.

[soubresauts]

Kyrgyzstan is kicking the Americans out.

Makes you wonder: What will it take for the FF-Green government to realize that:

1. The vast majority of Irish people don't want to facilitate American war-mongering in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. Irish neutrality forbids such facilitation anyway, no matter how many dollars they pay.

As the Green principle goes:

"The need for world peace overrides national and commercial interests."

[rhonda15]

In recent weeks, the world has been politely standing by and watching how things play out with the fiscal stimulus and latest bank-bailout plans in Washington. Yes, there's been some grumbling overseas about "buy American" provisions in the stimulus bill, but for the most part, officials elsewhere don't want to step on the toes of a new President to whom they are favorably disposed. They also don't want to endanger legislation that they hope will help jump-start the global economy.

Just wait a couple of months, though. Politicians from Beijing to Berlin to Brasília see the current crisis as the product of a messed-up global financial infrastructure dominated by the U.S., and they will soon be pushing for big changes--whether Americans like them or not.

All this will begin to gel on April 2, when the newish international organization known as the G-20--the leaders of 19 of the world's biggest national economies, plus the European Union--meets in London.

New World Order for the Economy - TIME

[Almanac]

From an article in yesterday's Irish Examiner:

IT WAS an auspicious start to President Barack Obama’s new world order. By his second week in office he’d directed military leaders to end the war in Iraq, ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay and witnessed Iraqi prime minister Nouri Maliki’s resounding victory that made it look like a 16-month exit plan is in the offing.

Clearly the phrase "new world order" is now part of common currency. It is picked up and used by commentators and even politicians in a sense quite different to its original meaning and the manner in which it is still employed by global planners such as Kissinger or Rockefeller. In this its original usage it refers to the aspiration towards a world government controlled by, and exercised for the benefit of, private interests. All one has to do is identify the occupations, and philosophy of, the original founding members of the "think-tanks" (in fact powerful international policy determiners) who have directed the whole world in this direction, ie the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission along with the Club of Rome, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and the other similar organisations these have spawned. Or examine the writings of proteges such as Zbigniew Brzezinski who basically called for the enslavement of the world under an elite. Prince Bernhard, founder of the Bilderberg Group, also stated explicitly that the long-term goal of his new organisation was world government.

Global threats- the myth of global warming, international Islamic terrorism (notwithstanding the fact that Islamic terrorism is real just not nearly so powerful as the manipulators want us to believe), the international economic crisis, food shortages, overpopulation, are used to justify the "globalisation" agenda: the systematic deconstruction of nationalism, the free trade agenda, an international monetary system, a newly empowered international criminal court, an international UN "peacekeeping" army (in fact the enforcement wing of the ruling elite), enforced sterilisation and abortion or linking of these with economic aid since third world population growth is classified as a US (in fact the western elite) security threat, agribusiness and the drive to control the world's food resources ("Control the oil and you control nations. Control the food, and you control the people" Henry Kissinger).

[garlandgreen]

41 Pages. Sweet Zombie Jesus