US Intel Director Prepares Public for False Flag Event

Desperate for war, US prepares to blame Iran for false flag attack.
by Tony Cartalucci

January 31, 2012 - " would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) "

-US foreign policy makers in the Fortune 500 funded Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report, pages 84-85.

Considering that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a deliberate fabrication to escalate the Vietnam War, one many members in Congress are shown to have acknowledged and debated even at the time, or the more recent Iraqi WMD hoax, there is certainly a historical precedence to create such provocations when targeted nations refuse to provide them.

With this in mind, and noting an overt, ongoing series of bold acts of war carried out by the US and Israel inside of Iran, along with sanctions and planned blockades, also acts of war, the corporate-financier oligarchs have been confounded by what seems to be infinite Iranian patience to endure such provocations. US foreign policy makers have noted for years now that Iran in actuality poses no threat to US or Israeli national security and their acquiring of nuclear weapons serves more of a deterrence against future military incursions against the Islamic Republic by the West, than a means to launch unprovoked attacks against nations that each possess nuclear deterrents of apocalyptic scale.

While Iran endures an increasing torrent of unprovoked attacks, they steadily advance their defensive capabilities to ward off what seems like an inevitable invasion by the West, who has already invaded and occupied for years nations to its east and west on false pretenses, and have for the past year fueled foreign-funded revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa. Time is on the Iranians' side, as Western attempts to destabilize and destroy Syria drag on, and an increasing number of people around the world begin to understand the true source of instability behind the so-called "Arab Spring."

While behind closed doors US policy makers admit Iran is driven by self-preservation and protecting the influence it is steadily gaining throughout the Middle Eastern region it borders, the message they desperately seek to relate to the public is one of an irrational apocalyptic theocracy eager to usher in Armageddon.

However, reports out of the RAND corporation note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of "terrorists." The fact that Iran's extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to the conclusion that Iran is indeed driven by self-preservation.

Brookings notes on pages 24 and 25 of their "Which Path to Persia?" report, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion.

Latest "Warning" of "Impending Iranian Terrorist Attack"

Despite this documented evidence, the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. made a startling statement recently, citing an already discredited alleged "Iranian plot" involving an assassination attempt of a Saudi ambassador on US soil, that Iran is "now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime." What Clapper describes is not in fact an impending Iranian attack, but a false flag event to be blamed on Iran to fit the criteria for a suitable justification for war, clearly defined by the Brookings Institution's report.

What is more troubling is that the Washington Post, which reported Clapper's comments, acknowledges that "a covert campaign is already underway to thwart Iran’s alleged ambition to develop a nuclear weapon." And while the US has officially denied carrying out any act of violence inside of Iran, it is a matter of public record that the US State Department in conjunction with the UN is harboring a US State Dapartment listed "foreign terrorist organization," the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) in Iraq, who has for decades carried out such violent attacks within Iran. In fact, the same Brookings Institution report cited above, also proposed the use of MEK as a suitable US proxy in provoking Iran. It would turn out that the alleged "Iranian-Saudi assassination plot" cited by Clapper, was more plausibly the work of MEK, than the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

And as Al Qaeda is re-purposed for overthrowing America's enemies in Libya and Syria, with LIFG terrorist leader Abdul Belhaj (aka Abdul Hasadi) literally leading NATO-armed legionaries into battle in now two nations, the "terrorists threat" has been shifted onto Iran - the sort of conveniently timed plot twist to be expected for a "War on Terror" that is a verifiable fraud.

The Bottom Line

Iran has nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking the United States. US policy makers have expressed a documented desire to provoke the Iranians into a war the Islamic Republic is clearly trying to avoid. The United States government is on record funding, arming, and training terrorist organizations (LIFG & MEK) on it's own "foreign terrorist organization" list, a violation of their own anti-terrorism laws. They have failed categorically to provide convincing evidence regarding the alleged "Iranian-Saudi assassination plot," more over, the evidence suggests it is instead, the latest in a long string of contrived federal entrapment cases. If an attack occurs on US soil or against US allies in the near future under these circumstances, it is most likely Clapper, General Petraeus at the CIA, and Israel's Mossad that will be to blame.

As was the case in Vietnam, and more recently the fraudulent casus belli against Iraq, the West is being led into another infinitely destructive war, jeopardizing the lives of millions, and further bankrupting already destitute nations reeling from 10 years of unending war. It is essential to raise awareness of US policy makers and their desire to provoke war with an unwilling adversary and the documented history the United States government has in manufacturing provocations when none can be goaded.

It is also important to remember that no matter how detestable our political leaders may be, there is a corporate-financier oligarchy above them pulling the strings. It is important to vote warmongers out of office, but just as important to identify the strength of the corporate-financier oligarchs that drive them and undermine them at all costs.

Globalist Lawyer Attends Color Revolution Rebranding

Notorious meddler Robert Amsterdam back in Thailand.
by Tony Cartalucci

January 29, 2012 - Globalist lawyer Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff, a Chatham House corporate member, was spotted at Thailand's "Nitirat" "campaign committee for the amendment of article 112." The group of Nitirat academics claim to be independent, seeking to "reform" Article 112 designed to protect Thailand's sovereign institutions, and roll back legal changes instituted after the 2006 military coup that ousted Prime Minster Thaksin Shinawatra.

: Robert Amsterdam, corporate lobbyists, globalist, and "celebrity lawyer" concurrently represents both deposed autocrat Thaksin Shinawatra and his street mob “red shirts” also known as the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). Despite claims that Nitirat is an academic movement, it is clearly an attempt to re-brand the street hooligan image of Thaksin's political devotees.

What is Nitirat's Agenda?

Already, at face value, Nitirat's narrative is tenuous at best. While it is noble indeed to keep in check military powers after a coup deposes a nation's government, Nitirat makes no mentions of the numerous and grave transgression committed by Thaksin which necessitated the coup in the first place, nor the continued danger Thaksin's attempt to restore himself to power poses.

Thaksin had been overtly working for foreign corporate-financier interests, most notably the notorious Carlyle Group, long before even taking office in 2001. In 2003 Thaksin's government waged a 3 month "War on Drugs" that saw over 2,500 people murdered in the streets extra-judicially, many of whom were determined later to have had nothing to do with the drug trade. In 2004, Thaksin attempted to ram through a US-FTA without parliamentary approval while systematically eliminating check and balances as he consolidated power.

And while Nitirat claims Article 112 infringes "freedom of speech," Thaksin himself pursued a draconian campaign to muzzle critics amongst local media, legally if possible, extra-legally when necessary. In all, Thaksin was an autocratic, mass-murdering tyrant who effectively eliminated judicial measures designed to reel in such abuses of power. On September 18, 2006, on the eve of the military coup that unseated him from power, Thaksin was before the corporate-financier Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, providing the council with a progress report and reaffirming his ties to Wall Street and London.

If ever there was a time for a nation's military to honor its oath to defend against all enemies, foreign and in this case domestic, it was Septermber 19, 2006. Following such a drastic measure, responsible citizens have the duty to hold the military accountable and ensure a transition back to a representative form of government. This also includes dismantling the removed regime's political machine to ensure such a transition doesn't invite ousted autocrats right back into power. This is suspiciously absent from Nitirat's agenda, and this alone compromises Nitirat's academic legitimacy entirely.

Image: While it certainly looks like an indoor red shirt rally attended by globalist-proxy Thaksin Shinawatra's supporters, Nitirat insists it is independent, objective, rational, and not politically entwined with Thaksin and his foreign sponsors.

However, Nitirat's legitimacy is complicated further when considering its followers are mostly drawn from Thaksin's "red shirt" street movement and even during Nitirat conferences, audience members are dressed in red with pictures of Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister who is serving as prime minister in his place, adorning their bodies in a surreal display of cult-like veneration rivaling anything to be found in Pyongyang , North Korea. Should Nitirat demand that Thaksin's perverse, exploitative cult of personality and political machine be dismantled along side military enacted measures following the 2006 coup, Nitirat's following would be nullified.

Image: A closer look at Nitirat's audience reveals many attendees wearing images of Thaksin, his sister now serving as PM in his place, and "Truth Today" shirts featuring the images of Thaksin's street mob leaders - who also serve in Thaksin's political party as advisers, and MP's.

Image: Nitirat stickers have been passed out amongst UDD red shirt supporters, the sole network promoting Nitirat's activities. Despite claims of being an intellectual "apolitical" movement, Nitirat has been primarily embraced by what is clearly a cult of personality built up around billionaire Wall Street proxy Thaksin Shinawatra. (click image to enlarge)

It should be noted, that Nitirat's second point of contention, Article 112, has been exclusively used to target members of Thaksin's seditious, foreign-funded movement. While foreign media portrays those targeted with 112, like Abhinya Sawatvarakorn aka "Joss Stick," as innocent victims simply speaking their mind, in each case, it turns out these "victims" are active members of the Thaksin's red shirt movement, and in "Joss Stick's" case, even took to the stage during rallies organized by Thaksin and his foreign sponsors, at the invitation of Thaksin's own political lieutenant, Jakrapob Penkair. It should be noted that "Joss Stick" is also a Nitirat supporter.

Nitirat is clearly an attempt to re-brand and clean up the image of Thaksin's "red shirt" street mobs, notorious for acts of violence and for displaying an overt ignorance clearly being exploited instead of remedied with improved education. And while academics disingenuously feign concern over democratic values on stage indoors, rather than blocking city streets with vulgar bull-horning demagogues outdoors as usual, Nitirat is still nothing more than a red shirt rally.

Robert Amsterdam

Since the 2006 military coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra, he has been represented by US corporate-financier elites via their lobbying firms including, Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group, PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR), Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (CFR), Kobre & Kim, and currently Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff (Chatham House).

Amsterdam's client Thaksin Shinawata isn't the first billionaire proxy he has attempted to groom and assist back into power. He has also provided extensive legal and political support for jailed Russian oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, on behalf of Wall Street and London.

The background of Khodorkovsky and his "Open Russian Foundation" fashioned after Wall Street bankster George Soros' Open Society Institute and chaired by both Jacob Rothschild and Henry Kissinger, can be found in William Engdahl's, "The Real Crime of M. Khodorkovsky," as well as in the London Telegraph's humorously titled, "This man is now the people's billionaire," reflecting the paid-for rhetoric typical of Wall Street-London-appointed lawyer Robert Amsterdam.

In the latest round of attempted destabilization in Russia, it may be instructive to look at the "Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center," a website developed in part by Robert Amsterdam and what is called an "international legal team." Coincidentally, it fully embraces the narrative peddled by the West and its corporate media that the Russian elections were "rigged." However, this accusation tenuously hinges on the work of US-funded NGOs including Golos - fully funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Similarlly in Thailand, NED-funded Prachatai forms a symbiotic relationship with Thaksin's red shirts and now Nitirat to lend each other otherwise nonexistent legitimacy, legitimacy that is essential in order for Amsterdam to sell his agenda to a wider audience.

Just as Robert Amsterdam is doing in Russia, where he is using his "defense" of Khodorkovsky as a point of leverage to support US-backed mobs in Moscow's streets, his defense of Thaksin and his red shirts also aims not at defending his clients legally, but at using their case to undermine and ultimately overturn the sovereign institutions of Thailand. It is done in a concerted effort with the US State Department, the corporate media, and a vast network of US and European subsidized NGOs sowing sedition throughout Thailand itself.

Amsterdam's presence, amongst a sea of red-shirted Thaksin supporters at the Nitirat conference confirms there is nothing revolutionary at all about Nitirat, beyond perhaps the imagination of those devising Thaksin's political strategy. While the name has been modified, and the label redesigned, at the core we still find Thaksin, his red shirts, and the foreign agenda that drives them both.

To understand why global corporate-financiers are interested in Thailand, please see, "Hillary Clinton and the New American (Pacific) Century: Secret no more, US moves openly to block the rise of China."

Photos courtesy of "Red Shirts for Democracy"

Nation of 65 Million Gets Lesson on Globalist Agenda

Local media mogul gives 2 hour talk exposing CFR, NED, and global-corporate meddling in Thailand.
by Tony Cartalucci

January 28, 2012 - Media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul of ASTV, a popular news and media outlet in Thailand, gave a 2-hour talk on Friday night (in Thai) regarding the corporate-funded Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and Amnesty International amongst others and their role in destabilizing nation states around the world and in particular their unfolding plot in Thailand itself.

Image: Sondhi Limthongkul - media mogul turned infowarrior - goes from rallying crowds to informing them. Malaysia has used this tactic to great effect against globalist meddling in their sovereign affairs - one can only hope Thailand is starting down a similar path.

No punches were pulled, and the talk was accompanied by a news story on the ASTV website, (in Thai), complete with graphics illustrating the documented ties between foreign corporate-financier interests and seditious elements within Thailand working with them.

Image: From illustrating the globalist tentacles reaching into Thailand and their willful Thai helpers. (click image to enlarge)

Sondhi's narrative encapsulates the underlying cause of over 6 years of political instability plaguing Thailand and focuses on Wall Street and London's proxy of choice, Thaksin Shinawatra.

Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand’s prime minister from 2001 until a military coup removed him in 2006, was a former Carlyle Group adviser and was literally reporting to the globalist Council on Foreign Relations in New York City on the eve of his ousting from power. While in office, Thaksin attempted to ramrod through the US-Thailand Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) without parliamentary approval, a 2004 FTA backed by the exact same US-ASEAN Business Council recently visited by Thaksin’s "red shirt" street mob leaders in April of 2011.

Image: The US-ASEAN Business Council, a who’s-who of corporate fascism in the US, has been approached by Thailand’s “pro-democracy” UDD for support. The UDD never fully explains what corporations like Exxon, BP, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, or other banes to humanity have to do with democracy or what sort of support was asked for or promised. (click image to enlarge)


The council in 2004 included 3M, war profiteering Bechtel, Boeing, Cargill, Citigroup, General Electric, IBM, the notorious Monsanto, and currently also includes the criminal banksters of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Chevron, Exxon, BP, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck, Northrop Grumman, Monsanto’s GMO doppelganger Syngenta, as well as Phillip Morris. These corporations are more synonymous with mass-murder, mass-corruption, war, and human suffering than any of the “democratic” and “open society” ideals Thaksin or his UDD claim to be “bringing” to Thailand.

Since the 2006 coup that toppled his autocratic regime, Thaksin has been represented by US corporate-financier elites via their lobbying firms including, Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group, PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR), Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (CFR), Kobre & Kim, and currently Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff (Chatham House). Meanwhile, his “red shirt” UDD street mob have received rhetorical support by US-funded NGOs like Prachatai.

Thaksin more recently had his own sister run in his place for elections in July 2011, as he is a convicted criminal currently in hiding abroad, evading a 2 year jail sentence. Thaksin’s proxy political party, with heavy rhetorical support from the Western media, including threats from the notorious Council on Foreign Relations to allow Thaksin’s proxy party to take power unhindered, won the elections with only 35% of eligible voters behind them. Despite gaining power, Thaksin’s legitimacy and support base is now exposed in full-light of the recent election as tenuous at best and still faces an entrenched Thai establishment and Thailand’s powerful military.

All of this documented information, once exclusively in the realm of the alternative media, has now been splashed across Thailand's mainstream via Sondhi's Friday presentation. ASTV's is ranked 14 in Thailand (a nation of over 65 million people) by Alexa and rivals Russia's RT in readership. This is a promising first step in holding a real, fully informed debate regarding the political future of Thailand, Southeast Asia, and globalization in general. Sondhi also mentioned America's "Pacific Century," which includes integrating ASEAN not only as a regional superstate to rival China, but to integrate all of Asia into the Wall Street/London international order, or as Sondhi referred to it, the "Washington Consensus."

Those behind this creeping integration, analogous to that of the European Union implemented incrementally against the will of the people, will now have to face an increasingly informed public who will realize and begin balking the rise of globalization long before early successes built on deception take them by surprise.

Lifting the Rock, Exposing the Snake

It should be mentioned that following Sondhi's presentation, US State Department-funded Prachatai immediately responded by insisting that its millions of baht a year from the US government via NED "has no bearing on its news coverage." This even after NED's open involvement with undermining and overthrowing governments throughout the Arab World during 2011 has become a matter of public record, including a full admission printed in the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," which stated:

"A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington."
The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):
"The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. "

NED's duplicity is nothing new. Noam Chomsky in 1993 said of NED's projects in Nicaragua that, "it's about what you would expect from a bipartisan democracy campaign - it's an attempt to impose what is called democracy, meaning rule by the rich and the powerful, without interference by the mob but within the framework of formal electoral procedures." Additionally it was noted in Australia's Southern Cross University's "Activating Human Rights & Peace (AHRP)" conference through a revealing account of their 2008 proceedings that NED was carrying out "a lot of work that was formerly undertaken by the CIA."

Image: Activating Human Rights & Peace (AHRP) 2008 proceedings, page 8. The .pdf has been taken down by the university, however it is available upon request from Land Destroyer. (click image to enlarge)


Also considering NED's Board of Directors, a who's who of corporate fascism, Neo-Conservatism, and warmongering elitists, one must wonder why a Thai "independent" rights advocate is taking money from such people even if taking the money has "no bearing on its news coverage."

Included on NED's Board of Directors:

Francis Fukuyama: Neo-Con, Project for a New American Century (PNAC) signatory, pro-war
Zalmay Khalilzad: Neo-Con PNAC signatory, pro-war + corporate lobbyist
Will Marshall: Neo-Con PNAC signatory, pro-war
Vin Weber: Neo-Con PNAC signatory, pro-war + corporate lobbyist
Richard Gephardt: pro-war, corporate lobbyist for big-pharma, Boeing & Ford Motor Co.
John Bohn: petrochemicals, corporate consultant & international banker for 13 years
Rita DiMartino: CFR, AT&T "Vice President of Congressional Relations"
Kenneth Duberstein: Boeing, ConocoPhillips, Mack-Cali Realty, CFR member & Fannie Mac
William Galston: Brookings Institution
Moises Naim: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Robert Miller: corporate lawyer
Larry Liebenow: US Chamber of Commerce (a chief proponent of SOPA), Center for International Private Enterprise
Patricia Friend: AFL-CIO (a proponent of SOPA)

Indeed, Prachatai and NGOs like it have a lot to answer for. Like lifting a rock under which a venomous snake hides, Sondhi has exposed not just Prachatai, but the greater globalist plot against Thailand within which Prachatai plays a role. Now are dangerous times for Thailand and the world as a whole. As nations begin lifting up the rocks and shining the light of truth on the globalist agenda, the corporate-financier elite have two options, strike out or run.

The truth and scale of the crimes committed by the global elite means that running is out of the question. There is no where for a global criminal to run to when the entire planet is the crime scene. They will strike, the question is - will we be ready?

Sondhi, for his part, has already had an attempt made on his life. In April 2009, gunmen sprayed his vehicle in broad daylight with over a hundred bullets. One bullet grazed his head but he ultimately survived the ordeal. No doubt there will be many displeased with his most recent and thorough presentation exposing the tentacles of Wall Street's 0.1% making their way into Thailand using the camouflage of "human rights," "democracy," and "freedom of speech" to mask their true intent. Camouflage is decidedly less effective when one knows what to look for. A predator or parasite depending on this rouse will be considerably less effective in an environment of informed vigilance.

Image: Sondhi's vehicle in April 2009 after being attacked in broad daylight by armed "critics" from opposing political cliques, most likely those of Thaksin and his UDD - notorious for their acts of murder and mayhem. By adding our voices behind those daring to speak the truth, we make it less effective to commit acts of violence against individuals exposing the system.


Let us continue to undermine the abilities of this predatory-parasitic system by continuing to speak to the truth, identity the source of their corporate-financier power, boycott and entirely replace their self-serving system with one that serves the interests of we the people. By getting active we help diminish the abilities of the global elite and make attempts of violence against those leading the cause of freedom more difficult and less viable, not only in Thailand, but around the globe.

How Do You Escape a Color Revolution? Replace Emotional Reaction With Intellectual Sobriety

Understanding the 21st Century Global Information War: Protect Your Zeitgeist
By Eric Pottenger and Jeff Friesen
January 24, 2012

Authors' Introductory Note: the following essay was prepared in the style of an "open letter" intended to be read by leaders and policy-makers of nation-states targeted for "regime change" by the West.

Try to imagine a world where cultural guidance and future prospects are created largely from within rather than from without. Try to imagine youth in your country—symbolized by genuine energy and enthusiasm and political awareness—pointing the way toward a new national understanding based upon instincts offered from within instead of from without.

Of course each of us knows that Western governments hope to subvert the ambitious political plans of competitor countries and blocs so as to maintain global hegemony and forestall a more equitable distribution of power.

And although there are multiple levels to explore, understand, and different ways to combat this threat, brevity demands that the following analysis offer only a brief solution in the most simplistic terms: namely, the prospect of a world where fear of young people and new ideas are replaced by embracing possibilities; the kind of possibilities that these young people should rightfully embody.

The premise here is that it's absolutely incorrect (and potentially catastrophic) to conclude that 'oppositionists' in each of your countries—and here we mean young local 'foot soldiers' of Western-backed political agendas—are conscious 'agents' of Western governments; or that they're largely “corrupt” or even “unpatriotic.”

The defining characteristics of typical foreign-funded opposition protesters are their youth, their inexperience, their lack of discernment, their relatively high level of education, their personal ambition, their access to media and technology, and their strong inclinations to rebel against the status quo (what they deem to be an unrewarding social and political culture).

In other words, if strategically-placed foreign money, tactical training, and a self-interested geopolitical purpose were absent, these young “protesters” and their rebellion could stably be addressed by (and absorbed within) the local social and political culture, even help infuse this culture with characteristics that every great culture needs: self-reflection; derision; laughter; art; indifference; transcendence; something greater than mere self-preservation.

Unfortunately these movements aren't isolated concerns of an individual nation—they are international security threats. The West now uses both “humanitarian” crises and fake social “revolutions” as a part of its strategic package. This makes national political movements potential arms of foreign powers. To quote Allen Weinstein, the first President of the United States' National Endowment for Democracy (NED), “A lot of what [the NED does] today was done covertly twenty-five years ago by the CIA.”

This presents the principle challenge: how to develop an effective self-defense strategy. The trick is to provide a remedy that doesn't fuel more discord. Coercion sows discord. The movement tacticians anticipate and use ham-handed, unsophisticated, strictly coercive local responses as part of their operational templates. They derive strength from these responses, not weakness. Ultimately the coercive response is a recipe for defeat. If the coercive response appears to be necessary or inevitable, at least it should be provided with some balance.

When the "pro-democracy protester" faces the "government crackdown," whose side are you gonna be on?

Better instead to learn how the imperialist game is now played. The new battlefield of warfare is in the informational realm, the psychological realm. More than at any point in history, war is primarily a media war. The reason the United States, in particular, has been so effective in this style of warfare is because the whole structure of U.S. society has been built around promotion and consumption as a pathway to wealth and power. In the United States, the corporate marketing and advertisement industry has merged seamlessly into the operational templates of foreign policy. There is little difference between selling Coca Cola and selling a particular foreign policy initiative. Corporations sell commodities through marketing campaigns and advertisements; governments sell policies through a myriad of techniques of information control and propaganda.

only the emotional imprint...
Like corporate advertising, propaganda is primarily effective as a form of emotional communication, not one of critical analysis. The purpose is to promote a prescribed behavior, whether that behavior result in the purchasing of a new pair of blue jeans, the supporting of a social initiative, or advocating one's inclusion amongst a battalion of protesters, each of them dragged willingly into the streets to weaken the stature of a particular government.

One identifiable technique the propaganda specialist employs to overthrow unwanted leaders is the exact same one used in the corporate realm: “branding.” In essence, the propagandist attempts to strengthen the “brand” of the opposition movement while weakening the “brand” of the targeted leader or system.

...of the brand remains.
All critical details are removed from the propaganda message; only the emotional imprint of the “brand” remains. The propagandist will rarely explain in substantive terms either the problems of society or the concrete solutions. Instead he will brand the issues in broad emotional terms. The opposition movement will likely be branded as “fun,” “rebellious,” or “revolutionary,” etc., whereas the problems of the entire society are made unspecific, reduced to the actions of a “corrupt,” “greedy,” “power-hungry” “dictator.” The goal is to broadcast this message simply and incessantly; and especially to make people believe that it's true.

Oh, you pretty things! In the words of OTPOR (Serbian) youth group co-founder and international regime change tactician, Ivan Marovic, "I hate politics. It sucks. It's boring. It's not cool. Normal people hate need normal people if you're gonna make change. To do that, you need to make politics sexy. Make it cool. Make it hip. REVOLUTION as a FASHION LINE."

This branding logic works the same for Western governments to achieve domestic public consent for aggressive foreign policy initiatives. For example, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko is known throughout the West as “Europe's Last Dictator.” That is Lukashenko's brand in the West. This brand has been created to prepare Western audiences for his abrupt removal from power. Like Libya's Muammar Gaddafi: allegations of corruption and sponsorship of terrorism had for years been attached to the image of Gaddafi, a fact which later made it permissible for NATO to not only remove him from power illegally, but to even kill him. This should be seen as no surprise. Gaddafi had been branded beforehand for such a fate. The Western public had already been prepared to react uncritically to this violation international justice. For many Westerns, the killing of Gaddafi was even seen as a victory for “the people.”

If I don't live in these countries; and if I know next to nothing about them; WHAT are these ubiquitous images sure to convince me into THINKING? The answers are obvious, but here's the rub: since I don't live there, how can I know for certain whether the impressions they are promoting are actually true?

The only defense against the strength of these branding techniques is to challenge the brand.

Opposition media should never be restricted or prohibited. Instead, governments should provide the domestic media with tools for an effective counter-attack. Governments should sponsor new and better media. They should throw money at it; promote it culturally; expand educational initiatives that develop it. They should make it more entertaining; make it more interesting; infuse it with substance and criticism.

Media should be used to deconstruct the brand the West is selling; it should successfully offer an alternative brand.

The idea here is to hire young people instead of arresting them. Put people to work in the government that have credibility and can project youth and vigor. Demanding love for the country will never be effective if it's about prostrating oneself before the government. The most important and effective way for young people to invest in the destiny of the country is to be embraced as part of the internal power structure. Otherwise these same people are left to wander, highly vulnerable to the venus flytrap of Western propaganda.

Independent media voices in the West can help, both at home and abroad.

Through the critical lens of independent Western media, the highly-romantic impression of “life in the West” (that which is deceptively sold by the propagandist) can be legitimately challenged. Credibility in this case is essential. If these romantic impressions are countered by the local government, the criticism could easily be perceived as propaganda; whereas if an independent Westerner said the same thing, the impressions would probably be considered both interesting and informative. These voices are plentiful in the West. The challenge is to find them and put them to use.

So far as how your countries are perceived in the West, what's important to know is that Western audiences (and especially those in the United States) usually become aware of the existence of a country (and all its internal “problems”) only after that country has been publicly targeted for attack. Although a sizable portion of Western audiences could one day be made to see the injustice of such an attack, by that time it's already too late.

These policies and the motives behind them can be anticipated and even preempted in the dialogue of Western media.

The logic here is that policy-makers and local leaders around the world should come to recognize the value in strengthening the reach of independent voices in the Western media, and expand contacts with them. In other words, help Western journalists more effectively use their own platforms toward the creation of a more balanced view of your countries. Ensure that local officials and scholars are made available to foreign journalists as informational resources. Promote critical conferences and cultural exchanges.

Help assist independent foreign voices to “re-brand” your countries in the West.

Russia has provided a solid example to follow with the launching of the English language media network, Russia Today. By offering Western analysts with a high-profile media platform, Russia Today has provided serious critics of Western policy with the ability to challenge and subvert NED/CIA propaganda campaigns.

Through this contribution, in many circles Russia has come to be seen as “progressive” and even “hip” in the West. And furthermore it is now Western governments--not the usual political targets--that must combat a damaging informational narrative, even on territory the Western propagandist once monopolized.

We conclude here by pointing out that, in a world where the information war reigns supreme, the essence of protecting national sovereignty is change: not change of values, necessarily, but change of attitudes and perspectives. A smart policy would be to embrace this change.

Why not lead the struggle off the traditional battlefield and into the media realm: to television and radio broadcasts; to books and blogs and publications?

Why not take the fight to the battlefield that actually matters?

Our Last Chance for Freedom, Their Last Chance for Global Dominion

We each can decide the fate of humanity every single day.
by Tony Cartalucci

"And our small planet, at this moment, here we face a critical branch-point in the history. What we do with our world, right now, will propagate down through the centuries and powerfully affect the destiny of our descendants. It is well within our power to destroy our civilization, and perhaps our species as well. If we capitulate to superstition, or greed, or stupidty we can plunge our world into a darkness deeper than time between the collapse of classical civilization and the Italian Renaissaince. But, we are also capable of using our compassion and our intelligence, our technology and our wealth, to make an abundant and meaningful life for every inhabitant of this planet. To enhance enormously our understanding of the Universe, and to carry us to the stars." -Carl Sagan, astronomer

Indeed, we teeter on a precipice upon which technology and human innovation will either free us from chains that have collectively bound us since the beginning of civilization, or enslave us within a global scientific dictatorship that will crush us so completely we will cease to even be human. They, the global elite know this, while the average person snickers and giggles at what is perhaps the greatest struggle with the most at stake ever in human history. As the global elite mobilize the summation of their power and wealth on a daily basis, many of us do nothing at all to assert ourselves or our claim to our own destiny. Worse yet, many of us witlessly pay into a system that seeks to supplant individual human sovereignty and achieve the ultimate culmination of megalomaniacal dominion over the human race.

A fear stalks the global elite however - the fear of inevitable technological breakthroughs slipping from their monopolistic grip and into the hands of the people. Technology like file sharing, blogging, open source software, and cheaper hardware have allowed the masses to challenge and in some ways dismantle the structure of domination the global elite are attempting to build over free humanity. Rules and regulations, bills like SOPA and PIPA, and other legal tactics attempt to stem the tide or indeed reverse it. In other ways, this "disruptive technology" is below the radar of most in both politics and throughout the public - but a potential battlefield the global elite are already preparing to fight upon.

One example, and perhaps the most profound, is that of advanced computer controlled manufacturing that is starting to appear on desktops around the world. An article on the globalist Lowy Institute's "Interpreter" notes the emergence of this technology in an article titled, "The replicator: Life imitates Star Trek," which concludes, "I don't think we yet have any idea of the disruptive capacity of such technology, for good and ill."

The implications are that the average person will be able to design and create their own goods and no longer depend on the crass consumerism that has characterized, aligned, and controlled society for the last several decades. Instead of having the TV tell people what they want, people could decide for themselves. And while we could collaborate globally, we would be able to decide locally how best to employ our time, energy, and resources to solve local problems. The blending of designers, manufacturers, and end-users would make collaboration and the erasing of the concept of "intellectual property" an inevitability. It would deconstruct walls standing in the way of progress like never before - as well as diminish both corporate profits and the unwarranted power these profits have granted corporations for generations.

And while computer-controlled manufacturing entering into the hands of the masses would bring a quantum leap to human progress, reducing material scarcity as the technology improved, none of this is being talked about in political or public circles beyond a handful of universities and enthusiasts who genuinely want what's best for humanity. In attempts to garner government support, many organizations are told specific rules exist that prevent governments or corporations from assisting projects that turn consumers into producers and thus opening the door to the personal manufacturing revolution.

It is a good bet that the upper echelons of the global elite are well aware of the impending personal manufacturing revolution - and would rather keep it silent. Concepts and predictions of "universal constructors" have been around since the 1940's. Even the most obedient and servile amongst the globalists' helping hands would see the value and allure of such a paradigm shift finally becoming reality and might be tempted to stray from servitude if such ideas became more mainstream. Keeping this quiet buys the elite time to put their global system in place, increase interdependency between people and nations as well as increasing dependency on their contrived international institutions - when technology already exists that make such global empires both unnecessary and entirely unpalatable.

Globalists through deindustrialization have made it more difficult to continue making advances in manufacturing technology that would normally trickle down to hobbyists and the general public. Perpetuating and celebrating ignorance and ineptitude amongst a population that now values pop stars and athletes more than those seeking to advance the frontiers of humanity has also served the global elite well in staving off this paradigm shift.

The wisdom of Carl Sagan yielded the observation that we live in a society constructed on science and technology, but where the public has little or no knowledge at all regarding either. So then who, Sagan asked, is determining the fate of humanity? The answer is simple, the corporate-oligarchies that hold a monopoly on science, technology, and engineering and who seek through rules and regulations to defend, consolidate, and expand further that monopoly. In many ways we already live under a scientific dictatorship.

We are faced with a series of decisions. Do we allow the petty, short-sighted self-serving corporate oligarchies to continue dominating society by our paying into their system on a daily basis? Will we allow corporate-funded think-tanks like the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations to continue determining national policy for us, but on behalf of their corporate sponsors? Will we continue hoping for political leaders and political solutions to come and improve our lives for us like needy children? Or are we prepared to grow up as a civilization and take on these responsibilities for ourselves? Are we prepared to starve into extinction the antiquated elitist parasites that have misled us from one dark age to another, one war to the next, from one economic depression to even worse, and who have brought us to the edge of perhaps the most frightening abyss in human history?

Personal manufacturing is here, a paradigm shift of immense proportions stands before us. People around the world are already utilizing it to solve real world problems, as demonstrated by MIT's FabLab - and improves lives where politics have categorically failed. Society will continue to march forward with an expanding scientific and technological infrastructure. It is up to us and our will to get involved that will determine whether that infrastructure serves the elite or the people.

Above all others, Americans should be scientifically and technologically literate. The "bread and circus" of corporate-funded spectacles like the NFL, American Idol, and all the other pointless diversions that have absorbed our time and energy and even our own will to determine our destiny are like the ancient Sirens of Greek mythology guiding us into the rocks of our own destruction. It is time for us to determine whether we will command the direction of our own destiny, or if the cage the global elite have constructed around us incrementally is sufficiently comfortable enough to resign the destiny of humanity for.

For those interested in personal manufacturing, the above Interpreter article features the "Makerbot" designed and constructed by a collaborative workspace in New York City called "Resistor." America used to have a thriving DIY industry, with an abundance of clubs, organizations, contests, and publications. Today there is a resurgence - only this time augmented with technology like personal manufacturing that has immense implications that go beyond a constructive pastime.

It would be a good idea to connect with these people and add our talent, energy, and free time to something more constructive than vegetating on the couch behind the glow of the Fortune 500 TV programming that has lulled a great nation to sleep. The future is as bright as we make it - not through merely voting and protesting, but through the use of our two hands and to whom we choose to pay our money, time, and attention to. The fate of humanity is determined each and every day by how we choose to spend these personal commodities. Technology has reached a point of no return granting whoever wields it, control of human destiny well into the foreseeable future. Let's make sure it is we the people that are wielding it.

Australian Militarism in the Asia-Pacific Century

Nile Bowie
LinkJanuary 22, 2012

For a nation who has historically subordinated itself to larger powers, Australia’s Labour-led foreign policy shows little divergence away from being wholly complicit to American full spectrum dominance in the region. For all of its pristine natural beauty, the continent-nation has become a treasure chest of precious natural resources managed by a monopolistic elite, and a martial subsidiary of the world’s most militaristically aggressive empire. While the potential exists for Australia’s economy to hemorrhage in the absence of Chinese trade and demand, the permanent force of 2,500 US marines building up in the Northern Territory certainly does not appear to be in the public interest.

A document issued by the Australian
Ministry of Defense in 2009 entitled "Defending Australia in the Asia-Pacific Century: Force 2030" cites the introduction of an expansive military program, which seeks to enable a “comprehensive set of reforms that will fundamentally overhaul the entire Defense enterprise, producing efficiency and creating savings of about $20 billion.” The agenda’s efficiency and the savings it can potentially yield however, are unquestionably a subject of speculation. Reconfigurations of Australia’s armed forces under Julia Gillard’s Labour government have ratified a $100 billion program to purchase advanced military hardware from the United States, such as F-35 jet fighters, missile-guided frigates and submarines.

With naval expansionism being cited as a high priority, Australia seeks to maintain twelve submarines, three destroyers equipped with SM-6 long-range anti-aircraft missiles, eight new frigates and a fleet of LHD amphibious ships by the mid 2030s. Australia has also recently purchased ten C-27J aircrafts equipped with missile warning systems and radar from the United States, to the tune of $95 million. While the Gillard government pays lip service to China by welcoming its rise, the zeros on her defense receipt suggest otherwise. With regards to China, the Ministry of Defense document states China’s rise in economic, political and military terms has become more evident. Pronounced military modernization in the Asia-Pacific region is having significant implications for our strategic outlook.”

By heavily depending on China in the economic sphere and aligning itself militarily with the United States, playing both sides of the coin may prove to be most injudicious. Australia’s involvement in the ostensibly anti-Chinese multilateral trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) appears to be fencing China into an economic exclusion zone at the behest of US corporate interests. Much like the detested US-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the TPP requires participating countries to restructure their economies to benefit transnational entities. The carbon tax-pushing Gillard has also aligned closer to India in the form of a new trilateral security pact, which also incorporates the United States. The Chinese perspective on these developments remains plausible; commentators such as People’s Liberation Army Major General Luo Yuan reiterate, “The intent is very clear - this is aimed at China, to contain China".

As a means strengthen the foundation of the new trilateral pact, the Labour government has overturned its own ban on selling uranium to countries that are not signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). By giving India access to 40% of the world’s identified uranium reserves (possessed by Australia), the country plans to build 30 nuclear power stations in the next 20 years, earning billions for the Australian corporate elite. Australian uranium is also sold to the General Atomics Corporation; a producer of unmanned aerial drone aircrafts, which are frequently deployed against sovereign nation-states to indiscriminately exenterate any living being in its focus. The Australian leadership’s contribution to such unethical forms of warfare is truly against the will of the Australian people.

As the US faces economic torpidity and abject bankruptcy, it’s clear that a restored focus on Asia is not solely in the interest of economics, as professed by Hillary Clinton in her manifesto, America’s Pacific Century. The skulking encroachment of American militarism beneath the public relations-jargon of the State Department is increasingly evident in dealings with Australia. Although the Gillard government criminalized certain lethal armaments such as Cluster munitions under Australian law, US personnel transit and stockpile the weapons at US military facilities in Darwin. The people of Australian cannot tolerate a foreign military power illegally conducting operations on their territory and a foreign President asserting, “we’re here to stay.”

The underlining initiative of recent US foreign policy has been to continually thwart Chinese economic interests in various parts of the globe, irrespective of moral and ethical consequence. The moment that it’s provocations appear too reckless, China may incite a collapse of the US dollar by dumping its holdings of US treasury bonds. While the current Labour government spends an unjustifiable amount of money on military expansion, the original inhabitants of Australia have the shortest life expectancy of any of the world’s indigenous groups. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has reported that half of the Indigenous people in the Northern Territory do not have adequate housing, while various communities are unable to access potable water.

Australia is the only developed nation where cases of blinding trachoma still exist. While basic infrastructure and housing in Aboriginal communities is abjectly insufficient, clearly, owning amphibious warships is more of a priority for the Australian leadership, who sheepishly play junior to American authority. While the rate of Aboriginal imprisonment in the state of Western Australia is eight times the figure than that of South Africa’s apartheid regime, the scene of mining bulldozers demolishing invaluable Aboriginal artwork on the walls of expansive natural caves situated on traditional tribal land is truly the weltschmerz of an entire people. Canberra’s allegiances are evidently not to its population, but to amoral mining enterprises and the military industrial complex.

For more on Australia, please see the Australian Archives.

SOPA - Don't Just Protest - Get Even

by Tony Cartalucci

January 18, 2012 - The entire reason why SOPA's authors and supporters have the money, influence, and power to put draconian bills like it forward in the first place is because of our daily patronizing of their corporations and the goods and services they provide.

SOPA supporters include the US Chamber of Commerce, the MPAA, and many of the mega-corporations Americans, and indeed people around the world, support on a daily basis. The key to stopping SOPA and the watered down feigned "concession" that will surely follow it is to undermine the unwarranted power and influence of the corporations and financiers backing it in the first place. If Americans withdrew their support from these corporations, if theaters were left empty, if Pepsi and Coke were left collecting dust on the shelves of an empty Walmart, bills like SOPA would not exist, let alone have a chance to be passed into law.

Below is just one letter signed by just one group of these corporations and organizations. Boycott, put out of business, and replace these corporations with local alternatives.

Sponsors of this letter in support of "rougue sites legislation" include:

Alliance of Automobile Manufactures
American Apparel and Footwear Associations
Autodesk Inc.
Bose Corporation
Broadcast Music Inc (BMI)
Council of Fashion Designers of America
Electronic Arts (EA)
Ford Motor Company
GlaxoSmith Kline
Harley-Davidson Motor Company
Johnson & Johnson
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
National Basketball Association (NBA)
National Football League (NFL)
NBC Universal
News Corporation (Fox News)
Nintendo of America
PGA of America
Philip Morris International
Rite Aid
Rosetta Stone
Software & Information Industry Association
Dow Chemical
Walt Disney
Tiffany & Co.
Time Warner
US Chamber of Commerce
Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)
Universal Music Group
Warner Music Group
World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)
Xerox Corporation
Zippo Manufacturing

If you can't live without the endless crass torrent of "bread and circus" as well as trinkets provided by the above mentioned supporters of this corporate-fascist agenda - the literal crafting and backing of legislation of, by, and for corporations -you don't deserve the freedom you believe yourself entitled to.

There is not one corporation listed above that society could not live without and in many cases replace with decentralized, superior local alternatives. Freedom is not simply voicing your opposition or choosing representatives to do so on your behalf. Freedom is also about the responsibility to keep in check the creation of unwarranted power and influence garnered from your daily payments in attention, money, time, and energy to corporations that would seek to impose their will upon society using the very mechanisms of governance designed solely for the people's benefit.

Identify the source of power behind bills like SOPA, and indeed many of the government policies wrecking our society, miring us in endless war, and leaving us in economic destitution. Boycott them, and replace them. We cannot be blamed for the greed and depravity of the global corporate-financier elite, but we can be blamed for fueling their megalomania on a daily basis.

Regime Change Express Surges Toward Budapest

Daniel McAdams
January 17, 2012

Poor Tamas Fellegi. Hungary's envoy to the International Monetary Fund had to spend last week enduring endless lectures on democracy and fiscal responsibility from the unelected head of an international financial organization that is largely funded with money stolen from the US taxpayer.

And poor Viktor Orban. Just over twenty years ago the young Hungarian had the temerity to stand up at the reburial of the hero of the 1956 uprising to demand that Soviet troops leave and that the communist regime agree to hold free and democratic elections. The communists didn't like him very much. Orban and many other anti-communists of that era were fighting unelected Moscow-based occupiers who stole his country's sovereignty and ruined its economy for ideological reasons. Now, as Hungary's prime minister, he is fighting against an unelected Brussels and Washington-based force that seeks to steal (what's left of) his country's sovereignty and ruin its economy for ideological reasons.

The Europeans — and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — are bearing down on the Hungarian government, attacking its "authoritarian tendencies" and demanding that Orban restore democracy. Charles Gati, a State Department official in the administration of Clinton's husband, has gone even further, opining in the pro-opposition news weekly 160 Ora that, "there are opportunities indeed to remove this (Orbán) government — if possible in a democratic way, if not then in some other way."

Gati, who has been joined at the hip to the renamed Hungarian communist party and its governing allies from even before the regime change in 1989, now threatens a violent overthrow of the democratically-elected Hungarian government — in the name of promoting democracy! (And if you wonder whether he is serious, click on the above link and you can see that he is pictured in front of the "Regime Change Factory" flag of the CIA-affiliated Freedom House).

(Incidentally, Gati's tireless efforts on behalf of the former communists in Hungary were richly rewarded in 2009, when his friends in the Hungarian government awarded him the Commander’s Cross with the Star of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary. Hmmm... a star?)

So what is the problem with Orban? Well the "problem" for Orban and his center-right political party Fidesz is actually not a lack of democracy, but rather too much democracy! His party was elected with an unprecedented two-thirds majority in 2010 by an electorate brought to its knees by the financial mismanagement and corruption of the long-ruling renamed communists, now called the Hungarian Socialist Party, and its junior coalition partner, the Alliance of Free Democrats, which was literally obliterated in the last election.

The Hungarian voter became outraged when a recording at a private Socialist Party meeting was made public in which then-Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany admitted that his government lied to the population and "screwed up" the country.

"It lists the crimes of Communism and lifts the statute of limitations that protected the criminals of the Soviet era who despatched 600,000 Hungarians to concentration camps. Hungary’s transition to democracy is often called painless, because the Red nomenklatura saw the game was up, liquidated state assets and became the new rich. The Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party dropped one word from its title and soon regained power: Ferenc Gyurcsány, prime minister from 2006 to 2009, was the former president of the Communist Youth Organisation. In a world where nonagenarian Nazis who should have been hanged in 1945 are carried into court in oxygen tents, why is it an outrage for Hungary now to target Red murderers? Well, er, because the right commits atrocities, the left commits mistakes."

Orban's other divergences from "democracy" according to the European Commission and the US administration include using his mandate to bring the Hungarian central bank under the oversight of elected officials rather than remain the purview of highly-paid bureaucrats who more often than not do the bidding of their foreign counterparts at the expense of those who pay their salaries. It is not quite an "end the Fed" movement in Hungary but it certainly could be seen as a move to curb the seemingly limitless power of an unelected Hungarian Ben Bernanke.

As financial expert Andrea Hosso observed regarding claims of Orban "threatening the independence" of the central bank:

"How independent is the US Federal Reserve with its consecutive bouts of Quantitative Easing, or the European Central Bank with its new venture into buying up hundreds of billions of Eurozone bonds to keep the big project afloat?"

No wonder the Obama administration is irritated.

It is particularly rich to see the European Commission threatening legal action against the Hungarian government unless it "return to democracy" by overturning laws such as the above curb on the power of the central bank and a new mandatory retirement age for judges. The European Commission, that paragon of democracy, is as we know an entirely unelected body that meets and votes in secret.

Unfortunately for him in this instance, Orban's tendency to shoot from the hip can come back to haunt him. After declaring last year that no new IMF assistance was needed, Orban's government experienced what seems to some a concerted effort to bring the country to its knees -- to bow before the IMF and international finance. Bond yields soared, Moody’s downgraded the government’s debt to junk status, and the forint has lost 15% of its value. Orban sent Fellegi to Washington, tail between legs, to have his pound of flesh extracted by IMF managing director Christine Lagarde.

Not so fast, said the unelected Lagarde last week. First Hungary must change several of its domestic laws and renew its commitment to democracy. Then the price of a bailout to Hungary's creditors will be a new austerity program on its population. It seems the government is in a panic and will agree to anything for IMF assistance, but they would do well to have a look at Greece, where IMF "reform" is producing its usual results.

As if by design in these situations, the demanded austerity programs will make the ruling regime (who the West wants to change) extremely unpopular. A shocked and bewildered population will take to the streets demanding a change in regime, assisted by the generous support — and intoxicating lies — provided by the US regime change experts NED, NDI, and, IRI. Violence may ensue, sovereignty will be destroyed, and the Western-preferred malleable descendents of the old regime will sweep back into power.

Questions the Hungarian government might want to ask instead, looking at its debt obligations, are why should the current population be squeezed to death to repay the endless borrowing by the communist regime in the 1970s and 1980s? Where did that money all go? To build villas in the hills of Buda, no doubt.

The great Bill Bonner suggested last year, "Why Greece Should Default and Go Broke With Dignity." He could be writing for Hungary as well.

Maybe Hungary should just tell Lagarde, José Manuel Barroso, and Hillary Clinton to "stuff it."