Surreal: Clinton Pledges $45 Million in Aid to Al Qaeda in Syria

US inundates terrorist legions with cash & support after regional embassy attacks and death of own ambassador.
by Tony Cartalucci 

September 28, 2012 -  US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US would be providing an additional $45 million in "non-lethal aid" to the "opposition" in Syria, reported the Associated Press. The Western press chose their words carefully, ensuring that the term "civilian opposition" was repeatedly used to describe the armed terrorist forces attempting to violently overthrow the Syrian government.

Image: Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), addressing fellow terrorists in Syria. Harati is now commanding a Libyan brigade operating inside of Syria attempting to destroy the Syrian government and subjugate the Syrian population. Traditionally, this is known as "foreign invasion." US aid is going to foreign terrorists, not a "civilian opposition." 

In reality, the "opposition" in Syria constitutes foreign terrorist legions flowing across Syria's borders, and in particular, staging and crossing over from NATO-member Turkey. In fact, it was recently admitted by the terrorist legions themselves that their headquarters has been located within Turkish territory for the duration of the conflict. In a recent France 24 article titled, "Free Syrian Army move HQ from Turkey to Syria," armed militants claimed they had only just recently "moved from Turkey to within Syria."

Clinton's Aid is Going to Al Qaeda, Not a "Civilian Opposition." 

While the Western media attempts to portray heavily armed foreign terrorists as "Syria's civilian opposition," it has been revealed that entire brigades are led by Libyan terrorists drawn from the ranks of the US State Department (#29), UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf), and UN-listed terror organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

The presence of LIFG in Syria was first announced by the Western press in November of 2011 when the Telegraph in their article, "Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group," would report:

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey," said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. "Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there." 

Photo: The face of Libya's "revolution" was literally Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda's LIFG commander, Abdul Hakim Belhadj, was NATO's point man in Libya and has now redirected his terrorist forces against Syria. LIFG commanders are now literally running entire brigades in Syria with Western diplomatic, logistic, and military support.

Another Telegraph article, "Libya’s new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels," would admit

Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya's new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad's regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested "assistance" from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and potentially volunteers.
"There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria," said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. "There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see."
Later that month, some 600 Libyan terrorists would be reported to have entered Syria to begin combat operations and more recently, CNN, whose Ivan Watson accompanied terrorists over the Turkish-Syrian border and into Aleppo, revealed that indeed foreign fighters were amongst the militants, particularly Libyans. It was admitted that:
Meanwhile, residents of the village where the Syrian Falcons were headquartered said there were fighters of several North African nationalities also serving with the brigade's ranks.
A volunteer Libyan fighter has also told CNN he intends to travel from Turkey to Syria within days to add a "platoon" of Libyan fighters to armed movement.
 CNN also added:
On Wednesday, CNN’s crew met a Libyan fighter who had crossed into Syria from Turkey with four other Libyans. The fighter wore full camouflage and was carrying a Kalashnikov rifle. He said more Libyan fighters were on the way.

The foreign fighters, some of them are clearly drawn because they see this as … a jihad. So this is a magnet for jihadists who see this as a fight for Sunni Muslims.
CNN's reports provide bookends to 2011's admissions that large numbers of Libyan terrorists flush with NATO cash and weapons had headed to Syria, with notorious terrorist LIFG commanders making the arrangements.

LIFG officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007, but has fought along Al Qaeda since its inception by the US and Saudis in the mountains of Afghanistan in the 1980's. This includes fighting alongside Al Qaeda most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq against US troops while sowing sectarian violence, as covered by the US Army's West Point Combating Terrorism Center in a 2007 report.

The report titled, "Al-Qa'ida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq" stated specifically:

The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al‐Qa’ida, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al‐Qa’ida on November 3, 2007.   
The vast majority (84.2%) of Libyans that recorded  their route to Iraq arrived via the same pathway running through Egypt and then by air to Syria. This recruiting and logistics network is likely tied to LIFG, which  has long ties (not all positive) with Egyptian and Algerian Islamist groups.      
The announcement that LIFG had officially sworn allegiance to al‐Qa’ida was long‐expected by observers of the group. Both the ideologue Abu Yahya al‐Libi and the military leader Abu Layth al‐Libi have long histories with the LIFG, and  are increasingly prominent figures along the Afghanistan‐Pakistan border and in  al‐Qa’ida’s propaganda. Abu Layth is now an operational commander in  Afghanistan; and in 2007, Abu Yahya is second only to Ayman al‐Zawahiri as the most visible figure in al‐Qa’ida’s propaganda. The increasing prominence of  LIFG figures in al‐Qa’ida’s high command may be a function of the group’s logistics capacity, including its now demonstrated ability to move people  effectively around the Middle East, including to Iraq. (begins on page 9, .pdf)
It would now appear that LIFG's logistics capacity aimed at Iraq which was previously routed through Syria and Egypt in cooperation with sectarian extremists, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood based in both nations, is now being directed exclusively at Syria. LIFG is doing this with Qatari, Saudi, US, French, British, and NATO support (predominantly Turkey) after receiving similar support in overthrowing the Libyan government in 2011.

US Support of Al Qaeda Announced on Heels of US Ambassador's Death.

Ironically, the recent infusion of cash and support for Al Qaeda terrorists by the US comes on the heels of assaults staged by the group against US diplomatic missions across the region. One in particular, emanating within LIFG's own terror emirate in Benghazi, Libya, would claim the life of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. While Stevens' death was most likely accidental, (he succumbed to smoke inhalation, and was not killed directly by militants), it was most certainly the LIFG militias who dominate Benghazi that staged the attacks.

The purpose of the attacks was to reestablish an adversarial narrative between the US and regional sectarian extremists after a surge in public awareness that the two have been working in tandem against the enemies of the West for years. The US itself would implicate "Al Qaeda" as being behind the regional attacks for this very purpose, before continuing their support of the terror organization in its efforts to overrun Syria.

Image: Bi-partisan treason. Senator John McCain pictured alongside the now deceased Ambassador Stevens (right, wearing a blue tie) had been in Benghazi, Libya supporting Al Qaeda militants since 2011 and highlight that the US' current support of global terrorism is bi-partisan in nature. It does not stem from a "secret plot" hatched by current US President Barack Obama, but is merely the latest leg of a singular agenda dictated by corporate-financier interests that transcend presidencies. The violent destabilization of Syria in fact began in 2007 under US President George Bush.

West Point's Combating Terrorism Center 2007 report specifically mentions the city of Benghazi and nearby Darnah as the LIFG terror epicenter, stating specifically:
Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in  Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid‐1990s.  The Libyan government blamed the uprising on “infiltrators from the Sudan and  Egypt” and one group—the Libyan Fighting Group (jamaʹah al‐libiyah al‐ muqatilah)—claimed to have Afghan veterans in its ranks. The Libyan uprisings became extraordinarily violent.  Qadhafi used helicopter gunships in  Benghazi, cut telephone, electricity, and water supplies to Darnah and famously claimed that the militants “deserve to die without trial, like dogs.”    

Abu Layth al‐Libi, LIFG’s Emir, reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al‐Qa’ida, saying:  

"It is with the grace of God that we were hoisting the banner of jihad against this apostate regime under the leadership of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which sacrificed the elite of its sons and commanders in combating this regime whose blood was spilled on  the mountains of Darnah, the streets of Benghazi, the outskirts of Tripoli, the desert of  Sabha, and the sands of the beach." (begins on page 12, .pdf
It is quite clear then, that the NATO-backed 2011 "revolution" in Libya was merely the continuation of Al Qaeda's campaign against Qaddafi, this time assisted by US, French, and British jets and special forces, with an infusion of Western, Qatari and Saudi cash, "non-lethal" aid, and weapons. The West, with a sound understanding of LIFG long predating their support for Al Qaeda in Libya in 2011, knowingly aided and abetted terrorists with Western blood on their hands who were long-listed on various Western foreign terrorist organization lists.

Deceitfully, European foreign ministries and the US State Department had portrayed these terrorists as "Libya's civilian opposition," in order to justify military intervention and regime change just as they are portraying these very same terrorists as "Syria's civilian opposition."

Hillary Clinton is handing millions in cash to known Al Qaeda terrorists, on the heels of these terrorists claiming one of her own ambassadors in the middle of LIFG's terror emirate - this while the West berates Iran for supporting the government of Syria as it attempts to defend itself against what is clearly a foreign invasion, not a popular uprising.

While it may seem an act of unhinged insanity - it is not. It only seems "insane" if one believes the narratives spun by Western politicians who are attempting to sell their agenda from various, not always mutually conducive angles. If one however understands that the corporate-financier interests of Wall Street and London are pursuing global hegemony at any cost, the use of Al Qaeda terrorists who have just led mobs attacking Western consulates across the region that claimed the life of one of America's own ambassadors makes perfect sense.

NATO Terrorists Bomb School in Syria

France seeks no-fly zone over Syria to repeat Al Qaeda Benghazi-blowback. 
by Tony Cartalucci

September 26, 2012 - As NATO desperately attempts to coverup a botched false flag operation in Benghazi, Libya which left a high ranking US diplomat dead, France has urged a repeat performance in Syria. That is, arming and providing air support for the very terrorist battalions now operating in Syria that have ravaged and overrun Libya, leaving it a perpetually wrecked, destabilized terrorist epicenter.

The announcement made by French President Francois Hollande came on the heels of a deadly terrorist bombing in Damascus targeting a school rebels claim baselessly claim was being used by Syrian security forces. Western propagandists are now calling the school a "security building."  

Reuters reported in their article, "Syrian rebels bomb security building in Damascus:" 
Protection for "liberated" areas would require no-fly zones enforced by foreign aircraft, which could stop deadly air raids by Assad's forces on populated areas. But there is little chance of securing a Security Council mandate for such action given the continuing opposition of veto-wielding members Russia and China.
 Before quoting Hollande who said:
"How long can we accept the paralysis at the U.N.?"
To answer Mr. Hollande's question, one might look toward Libya where an identical campaign of violent subversion based on similar lies regarding the "protection of civilians," was carried out by NATO and proxy terrorist organizations who were in fact listed by the UN itself as affiliates of the notorious global terror network Al Qaeda. The NATO-led, UN mandated evisceration of Libya put power into the hands of genocidal, racist terror battalions who literally scoured entire cities of their inhabitants either massacring, imprisoning, or exiling them all beyond Libya's borders.

Image: Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), addressing fellow terrorists in Syria. Harati is now commanding a Libyan brigade operating inside of Syria attempting to destroy the Syrian government and subjugate the Syrian population. Traditionally, this is known as "foreign invasion." 

It should be clear then, to Mr. Hollande, that the UN is not in fact "paralyzed" but that the member nations that constitute the Security Council and the General Assembly are increasingly aware of and opposed to the duplicitous and untenable nature of NATO's wars of conquest, merely dressed up as humanitarian intervention.

As France Pushes for A Libya Repeat, Media & Politicians Desperately Attempt to Rewrite Narrative

As international condemnation grew, recognizing that NATO, led by the US, UK, and France were essentially funding, arming, training, and handing an entire nation over to Al Qaeda affiliates, these terror battalions were directed to attack US diplomatic missions across the Arab World (and here).

One attack in Benghazi, Libya, left the US consulate ablaze, unexpectedly trapping US Ambassador Christopher Stevens who succumbed to smoke inhalation. Despite the attacks, and the subsequent media circus and staged rallies to depict Libya's client regime as "disbanding" terrorist militias, the fact remains that vast terrorist networks stretching from Libya to Syria are still fully armed, funded, and covertly backed by the very corporate-financier interests that sold the last decade of "War on Terror" to the West.

In addition to a myriad of staged events to portray a divide between the West and its terrorist proxies, there are also sophomoric and desperate attempts throughout the corporate-media to rewrite the Syrian narrative as public awareness grows, and support for Western destabilization under the guise of "humanitarian causes" collapses.

One such attempt was published in the Washington Post in a piece titled, "Among Assad’s opponents, moderation reigns," where David Pollock of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy attempts to argue that Syria's "opposition" is overwhelmingly moderate, with sectarian extremists being an exception to the rule, based on a poll conducted by the International Republication Institute.

However, Pollock's think-tank, the Washington Institute, is in fact a Wall Street pro-war think-tank, lined by notorious warmongering frauds and Neo-Cons including Richard Perle, Max Kampelman, US Ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis, accused war criminal Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and James Woolsey, all signatories of the now infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and all signatories of numerous letters calling for war with both Libya and Syria.

The International Republican Institute (IRI) is in fact funded by the US State Department and is chaired by Senator John McCain, who had shaken hands with the very terrorists responsible for the US consulate attack that left Ambassador Stevens dead in Benghazi, Libya. McCain has also traveled to the Turkish-Syrian border to provide these same terrorists with support. The IRI itself had played an instrumental role in engineering the allegedly "spontaneous" "Arab Spring," training and organizing activists years before unrest took to the Arab World's streets. 

Image: Senator John McCain (with the now deceased US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens on the right with blue tie) in the terrorist rat nest of Benghazi after marshaling cash, weapons, and political support for militants tied directly to Al Qaeda. McCain's insistence that the terrorists he helped arm and install into power were "not Al Qaeda" runs contra to the US Army's own reports which state that Benghazi's terror brigades officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007. McCain's "Libyan patriots" have now killed US Ambassador Stevens with weapons most likely procured with cash and logistic networks set up by NATO last year, part of a supranational terror campaign that includes violently subverting Syria - a campaign McCain also supports.


Clearly the "poll" which was conducted over "Skype" by IRI with "activists" inside Syria was produced for public perception only to cook up numbers that would allow Pollock, CNN and others to conclude, "all in all, the data show that most Syrian opposition activists are far from being Islamic fanatics or extremists," as well as "the argument that providing this help might result in trading Assad’s hostile secular dictatorship for a hostile Islamic one does not square with these facts."

The idea is to maintain the narrative that the US is backing "freedom fighters" not terrorists, and it is an idea perpetuated by the very pro-war advocates behind the Libyan disaster and the Arab World unrest in the first place.

We can expect calls for arming and defending terrorist proxies in Syria to continue while the corporate-media continues its attempt to portray what is literally Al Qaeda operating in Syria with NATO backing as instead, "pro-democracy" "freedom fighters" in desperate need of Western assistance. Conversely, we must continue to expose the corporate-financier narrative as the lies they are, while resolving to undermine the very source of their unwarranted influence which allows them to meddle globally in the first place.

Wall Street, Pro-Israel Groups Support Malaysian Opposition

Editor's Note: Nile Bowie had written this piece exposing the Malaysian opposition's foreign funding and the duplicitous implications involved, in the midst of what is an increasing public awareness of the role foreign-funded NGOs play in destabilizing and destroying the sovereignty of a nation targeted by Wall Street and London corporate-financier interests. 

In response to this increasing awareness, these very Wall Street-funded NGOs have published a ridiculous rebuttal featured in the image below.

Image: An absurd demand for an "apology" aimed at Malaysian journalists simply exercising the "freedom of speech" foreign funded NGOs like Bersih and the Centre for Independent Journalism have claimed to be fighting for. In reality the facade that these NGOs are "humanitarians" is collapsing, exposing the fact that they instead work subversively for the corporate financier interests of Walll Street and London toward the recolonization of Malaysia and the installation of a Western client regime headed by Anwar Ibrahim or one of his associates.

It should be noted that Bersih at the top of the signatory list, is funded by the US State Department and convicted criminal George Soros' Open Society. Each subsequent signatory is also funded either directly or by NGOs that are directly funded by Wall Street, the US State Department, and George Soros' Open Society. 

Regardless of the rhetoric put out by these NGOs on a daily basis, the common thread that unites them is a concerted effort to both undermine the current Malaysian government, while promoting opposition groups led by IMF, Wall Street, and US State Department proxy, Anwar Ibrahim. These affiliations have been explored at great length in "Wall Street Fills Malaysian Streets With Unrest." 


Nile Bowie
September 26, 2012 

As Malaysia approaches its highly anticipated 13th General Elections set to take place at some point before late June 2013, a tense political climate and a sense of unpredictability looms over the nation. The significance of these upcoming elections cannot be understated. During Malaysia’s 2008 General Elections, the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, which held power continuously since the nation’s independence, experienced its worst result in decades, while the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition won 82 parliamentary seats. For the first time, the ruling party was deprived of its two-thirds parliamentary majority, which is required to pass amendments to Malaysia’s Federal Constitution. As the United States continues to militarily increase its presence in the Pacific region inline with its strategic policy shift to East Asia, Washington’s leaders would like to see compliant heads of state who will act to further American interests in the ASEAN region.

The outcome of the approaching elections could have significant ramifications for Malaysia’s foreign policy, economy, and trade relations. While allegations of corruption and economic mismanagement hinder the credibility of ruling Prime Minister Najib Razak, foreign organizations affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and funded by the United States government, have contributed support toward bolstering the influence and status of the Malaysia’s opposition groups, in addition to the controversial Bersih coalition for electoral reform, led by Ambiga Sreenevasan. Opponents of this information may dismiss these claims as the “propaganda” of Barisan Nasional, however the validity of these accusations have been highly documented, and constitute an attempt by foreign governments to undermine Malaysia’s independent political process. On June 27th, 2011, Bersih coalition leader Ambiga Sreenevasan conceded that her organization received financial assistance from two private American organizations:
Ambiga admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march. [1]
However innocuous such contributions may seem, a more critical review of these organizations and their affiliations is necessary. Hungarian-American philanthropist and financier George Soros founded the Open Society Institute in 1993, whose principle aim sought to “strengthen open society principles and practices against authoritarian regimes and the negative consequences of globalization,” with an emphasis on countries in transition from communism after the fall of the Soviet Union. [2] Although OSI has emphasized its commitment to "human rights" and "transparency" by heavily sponsoring organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Soros was convicted of insider trading in 2002 regarding French bank Société Générale and was ironically denied an appeal by the "European Court of Human Rights." [3][4][5] Although Soros has appeared to be publicly critical of capitalism, he has disingenuously profited from predatory trading in many instances, most prominently in 1992 when he earned an estimated $1.1 billion by short selling sterling while the British government was reluctant to adjust its interest rates prior to devaluing the pound. 

Image: NDI's website in 2011 before taking down any mention to Malaysia's Bersih movement. (click image to enlarge)
Former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright chairs the National Democratic Institute, an organization that supplies electoral observers and promotes governance reform, widely seen as an attempt to foster foreign political systems compatible with American interests by assisting civil society groups in mounting pressure on national governments. NDI President Kenneth Wollack served as the legislative director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, widely considered to be Israel’s most prominent lobbyist organization, one that influences American legislation to exert aggressive Israeli policy and viewpoints. [6] The National Democratic Institute is one of four organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), in addition to the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Chamber of Commerce's Center for Private Enterprise (CIPE) and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity. 
Alan Weinstein, one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy was notably quoted in 1991 as saying, “A lot of what we (NED) do was done 25 years ago covertly by the CIA.” [7] The National Endowment for Democracy receives its funding entirely through an annual allocation of funds from the United States Congress within the budget of the development assistance agency USAID, a branch of the US State Department. [8] Although the NED receives public funding from the US taxpayer, the activities of its four satellite institutes are not reported to Congress, making funding trails and their final recipients difficult to identify. Although the organization boasts of “promoting democracy” and “fortifying civil society” around the world, history had proven that these tired euphemisms have been used in numerous countries to mask funding to various political forces opposed to their national governments and aligned with American interests. American historian and former employee of the US State Department William Blum writes:
NED's Statement of Principles and Objectives, adopted in 1984, asserts that "No Endowment funds may be used to finance the campaigns of candidates for public office." But the ways to circumvent the spirit of such a prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American elections, there's "hard money" and there's "soft money". As described in the "Elections" and "Interventions" chapters, NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996; helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992; and worked to defeat the candidate for prime minister of Slovakia in 2002 who was out of favor in Washington. And from 1999 to 2004, NED heavily funded members of the opposition to President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to subvert his rule and to support a referendum to unseat him. [9]
NED President Carl Gershman was formerly a member of the Governing Council of the American Jewish Congress and Vice-Chairman of the Young People's Socialist League, and in 1968, he was employed in the research department of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, considered the most prominent Jewish service organization in the world, committed to the security and continuity the State of Israel. [10] The Anti-Defamation League is a US-based human rights group committed to the “security of Israel and Jews worldwide," and was implicated in 1993 by the District of Attorney of San Francisco for overseeing a vast surveillance operation monitoring American citizens who were opposed to Israel’s policies in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, prior to passing their personal information to the Israeli government in Tel Aviv. [11]
Image: NED is anything but a "promoter of democracy and freedom." Representing some of the largest corporate-financier interests spanning Wall Street and London, it merely couches global, neo-imperial hegemonic ambitions within the guise of "freedom" and "human rights." For Malaysian NGOs, it is indefensible to take money and support from NED.
In addition to providing funding to the Bersih coalition through the National Democratic Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy’s Malaysian operation provides $100,000 (RM 317,260) for political news website Malaysiakini, considered to be the nation’s most pro-opposition news outlet. [12] Premesh Chandran, Malaysiakini CEO, is a grantee of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and launched the news organization with a $100,000 grant from the Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), a recipient of funds from the Open Society Institute, the NED, and Freedom House, an organization reliant on US federal government grants for a significant percentage of its funding. [13][14] NED also provides $90,000 (RM 285,516) to SUARAM, an organization promoting human rights. [15]
The most significant recipient of NED’s Malaysia programs is the International Republican Institute (IRI), who annually receives $802,122 (RM 2,544,670) and is tasked to “work with state leaders in Penang and Selangor to provide them with public opinion research, training and other resources to enable them to be more effective representatives of their constituents.” [16] IRI’s mention of these specific regions is unsurprising, as Penang is held by the Malaysian Democratic Action Party, while Selangor is held by Parti Keadilan Rakyat, two of the three organizations comprising the opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat, led by Anwar Ibrahim. US Senator John McCain, an ardent supporter of American militarism who boasts of being “proudly pro-American and proudly pro-Israel”, chairs the International Republican Institute, whose mission statement in Malaysia reads:
Since Malaysia’s independence in 1957, the country has experienced a series of national elections, but never a change in national government.  The ruling coalition, known as Barisan Nasional (BN) since 1973, has held power continuously during Malaysia’s post-independence era. In the 2008 general elections, for the first time, the BN lost its two-thirds majority in parliament and control of five state assemblies to the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat (PR). Subsequently, in April 2011 in Sarawak (the only state holding assembly elections before national elections occur) the BN retained control of the state assembly but suffered a reduction in its majority. It is in this context that IRI provides technical assistance, training, and consultation to political parties to build knowledge and impart skills that enable both ruling and opposition Malaysian political leaders to more effectively address citizen concerns. IRI’s current work in this area started in 2009 when the Institute began a groundbreaking series of training sessions designed to assist political parties in developing the in-house capacity to conduct and analyze focus group discussions. These sessions were followed by workshops which allowed focus group moderators to present their findings to their colleagues and craft messages that were used to recruit new political party members and retain existing ones. [17]
It comes as little surprise that opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim talks boldly of a “Malaysian Spring,” as the same organizations bolstering the opposition in Kuala Lumpur have successfully fomented events that led to the series of uprisings across the Arab World in 2011. Such organizations rely on the passive impressionability of their followers, while enflaming the legitimate grievances of the subject population to pressure a change in government. This is accomplished by the formation and propagation of dissident news media organizations, and by leveraging police misconduct and human rights abuses to discredit targeted governments in the eyes of the international community. Such agitation is not intended to promote a genuine democratic framework; its purpose is the gradual installation of national governments friendly to American interests by coaxing popular uprising and social unrest. In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," it was 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 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. [18]
In the Egyptian context, these organizations have experienced “blowback” from their activities training and funding dissidents, and fomenting Egypt’s popular revolution. In a December 2011 article published by the Los Angeles Times, it was said:
Egyptian security forces on Thursday raided the offices of 17 nongovernmental organizations, including three U.S.-based agencies, as part of a crackdown on foreign assistance that has drawn criticism from the West and threatened human rights groups and pro-democracy movements. The move appeared to be part of a strategy to intimidate international organizations. The ruling military council has repeatedly blamed "foreign hands" for exploiting Egypt's political and economic turmoil. But activists said the army was using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses. Egyptian soldiers and black-clad police officers swept into offices, interrogated workers and seized computers across the country. Those targeted included U.S. groups the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and Freedom House, which are funded by Congress to monitor elections and promote democracy overseas. [19]
While the Los Angeles Times frames its report to insinuate that Egypt’s security forces have intrusively aimed to “intimidate” international human rights groups, one must examine the case of Egypt’s newly drafted constitution. After the overthrow of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, democracy advocates called for the constitution to be rewritten from scratch. Reuters published reports citing a pro-opposition judiciary official, who said Egypt’s new constitution would be drafted by civil society groups, namely, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, a recipient of funds directly from George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, financed by the National Endowment for Democracy. [20][21][22] Undoubtedly, the conduct of foreign nations and their relationship with opposition organizations and civil society groups is incompatible within any authentic democratic framework. 
In the Malaysian context, opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim maintains close ties with senior US officials and organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy. In July 2006, Ibrahim chaired the Washington-based Foundation for the Future, established and funded by the US Department of State at the behest of Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who was recently convicted in absentia for war crimes for his issuance of torture during the Iraq war by Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, chaired by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed. [23] In 2007, Ibrahim was a panelist at the National Endowment for Democracy's "Democracy Award" event held in Washington. [24] These questionable affiliations raise strong concerns over the legitimacy of the candidate and the administration he would lead if winning the 13th General Election. 
Image: Taken from the US National Endowment for Democracy's 2007 Democracy Award event held in Washington D.C., Anwar Ibrahim can be seen to the far left and participated as a "panelist." It is no surprise that NED is now subsidizing his bid to worm his way back into power in Malaysia. (click image to enlarge)
It would be advisable for Malaysia to follow the example of Russia; President Vladimir Putin recently approved a new law that tightens controls on civil rights groups receiving funded from abroad, forcing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engaging in "political activity" to register with the Russian Justice Ministry as "foreign agents," requiring such organizations to file a report to officials every quarter. [25] While such a law would inevitably be criticized as a suppression of dissent, it must be understood that such legislation would not hamper legitimate activism. Malaysia, like Russia, must take the initiative to address the legitimate grievances of activists by bolstering its own indigenous institutions and civil society organizations. Foreign organizations with questionable affiliations attempting to tip the balance of power in their favor is the very antithesis of an authentic democracy. A quote from a recent Op-Ed penned by Russian journalist Veronika Krasheninnikova sends a strong message to the people of Malaysia:
Building a patriotic civil society cannot be outsourced. Democratic processes and national security cannot be outsourced – all the more so to openly hostile governments. [26]


See the complete list of notes at Nile Bowie's website here

Western Narrative on Syria is Crumbling

Land Destroyer interview by Kourosh Ziabaria, published by Tehran Times.

Tehran Times
Kourosh Ziabari
September 26, 2012

A U.S. journalist says the United States and its allies are taking serious steps to launch a military strike against Syria.
“We can expect to see the mechanisms at play in undermining, dividing, and destroying Syria next turned on Lebanon and Iran if and when critical mass can be reached to topple Syria's government,” said Tony Cartalucci in a recent interview with the Tehran Times.
Cartalucci, who is based in Bangkok, Thailand, writes for different news websites including Global Research and Activist Post and is currently co-authoring a book with geopolitical analyst and photographer Nile Bowie, titled, “Subverting Syria” available through Progressive Press.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: You've written on unrest in Syria extensively. The opponents of the government of President Assad claim that his government has resorted to violence and killed many protesters and civilians, while the Damascus says that certain Western countries are providing the insurgents with weapons and money. Please comment over this. 
A: The violence began from the very beginning of the so-called demonstrations. There were undoubtedly well-intentioned demonstrators in the streets. Unfortunately, many of the organizations that gathered them had very sinister intentions. 
Acts of vandalism, arson, and assault were being reported by even Western news agencies by March of 2011. This, by necessity, would bring armed security forces onto the streets in any country -- as was the case in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots. In LA, the protesters were more lightly armed, and the overwhelming presence of thousands of National Guard soldiers and Marines quelled the violence in days. Still government forces killed several people, and in total 53 would die in the violence. 
The difference in Syria is that the unrest was designed to be sustained and increasingly violent. To introduce this increasing cycle of violence, third party groups began targeting unsuspecting protesters as well as security forces charged with minding the protesters. These “mystery gunmen,” usually firing from rooftops, were reported not only by official Syrian government reports, but also by protesters and bystanders. The goal was to radicalize protesters and justify increasing violence and its subsequent support by Western backers.
We saw the same thing happen in Bangkok, Thailand in 2010 where these “mystery gunmen” targeted both protesters and security forces from the rooftops in an attempt to spike the violence and increase the stakes. In Bangkok, as in Syria, deadly crossfire would ensue, giving opposition groups and their foreign sponsors the propaganda they needed to demonize the government, while attempting to justify an increasingly militant opposition.
Now, without a doubt, this violence has escalated to the point where combat operations are being carried out by organized foreign-backed militant groups. The U.S., Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have all made outright admissions of supporting the funding, logistics, and arming of these militants. What is evident is that the West and the Persian Gulf States have also illegally entered Syria with “journalists” serving as embedded propagandists. What is neither admitted, nor overtly evident, but most certain, is that special operations from NATO and the Persian Gulf are on the ground inside of Syria along with agents of their respective intelligence agencies. 
This tactical environment was exactly what the West was seeking, and was the goal of covert violence in early 2011, and well as the gradual increase of arms and fighters sent into the crisis. 
Q: Some political commentators say attack on Syria will be a prelude to an all-out military strike against Iran. Your views. 
A: Commentators are saying this precisely because it is written in nearly 10 years of U.S. policy papers. Citing some examples, there is the 2007 Seymour Hersh piece in the New Yorker titled, “The Redirection.” Hersh's conclusion that the U.S. was attempting to undermine Syria as a means of subsequently undermining and executing regime change in Iran wasn't one he drew himself, it was an enumerated policy that members of the  Bush administration had relayed to him; a policy that already at the time had been set in motion. 
In 2009 in the Brookings Institution's “Which Path to Persia?” report, Syria is again mentioned as a necessary factor that must be neutralized before proceeding on to Iran. The document details the use of violent, listed-terrorist organizations to undermine Iran, namely MKO, means of provoking a war with Iran it neither wants nor will benefit from, and mitigating perceived U.S. complicity if Israel were to strike Iran. While all of these strategies, in the 2009 report, are directed against Iran, we see many of them now playing out against Syria. 
With this in mind, we can expect to see the mechanisms at play in undermining, dividing, and destroying Syria next turned on Lebanon and Iran if and when critical mass can be reached to topple Syria's government. Also, an interesting reoccurring theme in Brookings' “Which Path to Persia?” report is how the U.S. can lure Iran into an armed conflict. The destruction of Syria seems to be a potential means of doing this, though Iran has been very careful and adept at avoiding this pitfall.  
The West lacks the political capital at home and abroad to launch an attack on Iran. An attack would unify the Iranian people further, is estimated to have little chance of destroying Iran's civil nuclear program or setting back Iran's armed forces, and leaves open the possibility that Iran may not even retaliate -- this in order to accentuate the moral depravity of an unprovoked Western act of military aggression. Without the West committing to total war, something they can neither justify, nor politically afford, Iran will continue to exist as a growing and enduring countervailing force in the Middle East. 
The West is undoubtedly seeking to undermine Iran politically, socially, morally, economically, as well as destroy it militarily. Doing this however, is becoming increasingly complicated. Even the prospect of justifying an “invasion” using a catastrophic false-flag event is waning as global public awareness of such a plot grows. The bus bombing in Bulgaria that was immediately blamed on Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah -- even before the flames were extinguished -- was met globally by doubt, even indignation at the U.S. and Israel's rushed, dubious, and politically-motivated accusations. 
As the conflict in Syria drags on, regional shareholders in Western hegemony, namely the (P)GCC and Turkey, may want to begin divesting in this losing strategy and preparing to co-exist with Iran. When that begins to happen, the prospect of a successful attack or invasion of Iran will become even more unlikely.  
Q: Have you noted that the recent UN report on Syria published when Kofi Annan was the UN-Arab League envoy to Syria was produced by a number of people who have certain neoconservative attitudes and were allied with the reactionary monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Who has selected these people to provide reports on Syria? 
A: Representatives of Western corporate-financier interests are pervasive throughout the United Nations. Kofi Annan himself is a trustee of the Fortune 500-funded International Crisis Group and a member of the JP Morgan International Council along with many of the very engineers of Syria's current unrest. Likewise, a 2011 UN Human Rights Council report, and the most recent August 2012 “expert panel” report regarding Syria have been compiled by a commission headed by Karen Koning Abu Zayd, a director of the Washington-based Middle East Policy Council. Indeed, Exxon, the Saudi Bin Laden Group, former ambassadors to (P)GCC members, the CIA, the U.S. military, and combines representing the collective interests of Al Jazeera, Boeing, Chevron and many more all have representation on the board of directors next to Mrs. Abu Zayd. 
These people are “selected” by the UN members that dominate its various councils -- and of course the collection of corporate-financier interests that dominate each respective member. The largest corporations on Earth, emanating from Wall Street and London clearly stack initiatives with their own people, thus habitually undermining both the credibility and authority of the UN. 
Clearly, not only does an immense conflict of interest exist with the appointments of Kofi Annan or Kraen Koning Abu Zayd, but immense improprieties arise with them. For the latest UN report on “war crimes” carried out by the Syrian government, we are once again treated to “interviews,” many of which were not even conducted inside of Syria, but in Geneva, Switzerland. And who was interviewed? Opponents of the government, alleged defectors, and so on. 
It is not that interviews like this have no value. However, interviews alone do not make a case. They make a starting point for a real investigation, an investigation Abu Zayd's commission failed to conduct. And because she failed to conduct a proper investigation, the result of her “interviews” is a report fit for propaganda value only; propaganda immediately capitalized on by the West for several news cycles and will be continue to be cited for dramatic effect until Abu Zayd's next performance. 
Q: What's your viewpoint regarding the role of Iran in resolving the Syrian crisis? You have praised Iran's initiative in hosting 30 countries in a consultative meeting over Syria. Is Iran capable of neutralizing the efforts made by the United States and its allies in isolating Syria?
A: As the conflict drags on and the West increases the cost its shareholders must pay for what appears to be a losing strategy, it will benefit these shareholders to consider divesting from Western hegemony and consider a multipolar co-existence with each other and with Iran.
Iran, by providing a forum for some 30 nations representing around half the world's population, shows that it -- contrary to Western propaganda -- is not interested in unilaterally exerting its influence. By recognizing the need for reform in Syria, but recognizing the current violence is a manifestation of foreign terrorism, not rebellion, the 30-nation International Consultative Conference on Syria seeks to provide a sheltered forum for genuine parties in Syria to resolve the conflict. 
In theory, this was the intention of the UN and Kofi Annan. Annan's actions along with his affiliations attempted to undermine these efforts from the very beginning, however, and the UN has proven to be entirely compromised. Iran, by organizing this meeting, is attempting to create a true multipolar alternative to the UN in regards to Syria. Iran, Russia, and others, with true geopolitical acumen, seek non-invasive measures to solve Syria outside the UN, while the U.S. and its combine attempt to justify acts of military aggression beyond any semblance of international law. 
As far as neutralizing efforts by the West to isolate Syria, it is working. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) intends to further undermine efforts to isolate Syria in the court of public opinion and give alternative options to shareholders currently entangled in the West's unraveling assault. 
Of course, this is a good first step, but ultimately to stop the foreign subversion of Syria, the weapons, cash, and foreign fighters flowing over Syria's borders must be stopped. Hopefully, Iran's efforts in breaking Syria's isolation can lead to growing international condemnation of the West's funding of foreign terrorists, a necessary first step in implementing further measures to politically and physically block foreign intrusion. 
Q: The Non-Aligned Movement summit was just concluded in Tehran and high-ranking officials from 120 member states as well as UN chief Ban Ki-moon attended the event. What's your view regarding the efforts made by Israel and United States to undermine the summit and dissuading the world leaders and Ban Ki-moon from attending?
A: It is clear that the entire Western narrative in regards to Syria is crumbling. The use of Israel to attempt to “shame” UN chief Ban Ki-moon from attending the 2012 NAM conference smacks of desperation. The idea is to undermine both NAM and its leading members, more specifically Iran, Russia, and China, who have consistently opposed efforts to divide and destroy Syria. This too, seems to be a losing strategy for the West. 
For example, the last UN General Assembly vote on Syria came with some telling results. A growing number of nations are beginning to abstain or skip votes on resolutions proposed by the West and laundered through the (P)GCC. This included India who may now be realizing the U.S. has only interests, not friends, and the destabilization Syria suffers today can easily be on any one of India's borders as well as deep within them. Sustainable economic prosperity and progress, not to mention viable self-preservation, comes only from stability at home and abroad. Stability does not preclude reform, but requires that it is done sensibly, peacefully, and incrementally. 
I believe many nations are beginning to realize that by promoting violent subversion abroad, they are further enabling its use against them at home, and are now shying away from further enabling the West's methodology. I think the Persian Gulf states in particular are really starting to understand this in recent months. 
Q: In one of your articles, you had pointed out some self-censored facts and truths which the Western mainstream media hide about Saudi Arabia, including the fact that women are not allowed to drive, the world's foremost terrorist organization Al-Qaeda is a furtive ally of the Saudi government, the political prisoners are brutally tortured, etc. However, the United States, which constantly preaches human rights and values of Western democracy to other nations, has never protested these flagrant violations of human rights in the Arab nation. Why?
A: Corporate-financier interests in the U.S. spend an inordinate amount of money and time investing in NGOs that promote “human rights.” This is not because they believe in human rights, but because it is a convenient point of political leverage when attempting to mobilize public opinion against its geopolitical adversaries. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, and many more are all funded and headed by some of the most notorious advocates for war and atrocities, and contrary to what one would expect, many of these characters are card-carrying Neo-Conservatives. 
Consequently, this point of political leverage is only used when geopolitical interests are in play, while an otherwise “media black-hole” forms around notorious human rights violators like Saudi Arabia who currently serves and is entwined with U.S. interests. Another good example of this is how the U.S. is leveraging “human rights” against Syria while U.S.-backed, deposed Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra is currently on tour of the U.S. People might remember his notorious 2003 “War on Drugs” which saw over 2,800 people killed extra-judicially over the course of 90 days. 
However, this doesn't mean extensive catalogs of atrocities aren't being compiled against the Persian Gulf states. On the contrary, just as was the case with Saddam Hussein who committed his most egregious atrocities with both U.S. support and an arsenal made possible by U.S. arms dealers, the Persian Gulf States will be retroactively convicted when, not if, the time comes. 
The “human rights” racket maintained by the U.S. State Department is not only a form of political extortion, it also undermines real human rights advocacy, leading many well-intentioned people toward a false sense of security, falsely believing “someone” is watching. 
The eradication of Libya's Africans, particularly the emptying out of the entire city of Tawarga, exemplifies this better than any other recent example. Here, Fortune 500-funded Refugees International, recorded the atrocities that took place in Tawarga, and instead of using its immense influence to make it headline news, it merely published a YouTube video that garnered a few hundred views. Why? Because the militants that committed the atrocities now form the NATO-backed government in Tripoli. 
The same can be said of U.S. support for state sponsorship of terrorism. These are tools clearly at their disposal and moral objections to such tactics are for public consumption only. 
Q: In another article, you wrote that BBC has just received a considerable amount of money from the U.S. Congress to launch media attacks on the independent, non-aligned countries such as Iran and Cuba. What's your viewpoint toward BBC's and other mainstream media outlets' coverage of Iran affairs? Isn't their attitude toward Iran some kind of a misinformation and propaganda campaign?
A: The BBC, along with a myriad of other news agencies and pseudo-news NGOs are all underwritten and representative of the West's corporate-financier interests. Powerful interests buying up media to control public perception is a reoccurring theme throughout the history of the printed and now broadcast word.
These corporate-financier interests, many familiar Fortune 500 companies, fund the think-tanks that produce both national policy and daily talking points for the evening news. These are disseminated to politicians for approval and to the desks of large corporate news networks to then be presented to the public. What's worse, is that many of these news organizations share representation amongst the very think-tanks producing policy and their corresponding talking points. At face value, there are already tremendous conflicts of interest at play.  
So clearly, if corporate-financier interests seek to undermine and eliminate those opposing their global geopolitical-economic hegemony, they will use the media houses they own to spread propaganda. The BBC is guilty of many very high profile incidents of outright fraud and misrepresentation, but it is their daily, and very persistent dissembling that gradually poisons the perception of Western audiences against nations like Syria and Iran. 
Iran, no matter what it does in reality, will be portrayed by the West as a belligerent, irrational, and backwards threat to humanity. Increasing public awareness and alternative media's successful challenging of the corporate-media's monopoly has eroded the effectiveness of this propaganda. Additionally, Iran's own very persistent efforts to counter this propaganda, not only through the skillful use of its own media organizations, but through its own actions both at home and abroad, have also helped hobble the West's perception management.
The biggest impetus for war is public ignorance. Organizations like the BBC work ceaselessly to maintain and compound that ignorance. Nonetheless, as ignorance fades in the information age, so do the prospects of habitual warmongers. 
Q: What do you think about the assassination of Iran's nuclear scientists? The families of the victims have just filed a lawsuit against Israel's Mossad, UK's MI6 and America's CIA for their possible role in the killings. What's your viewpoint? 
A: The U.S. and Israel have tacitly admitted they were behind the assassinations. They openly admit they are training, funding, arming, and regularly deploying the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MKO). U.S. politicians openly lobby for MKO in full-page columns bought in large U.S. papers. It would interest many Americans to know that many of these lobbyists include stalwart supporters of the so-called “War on Terror,” including Rudy Giuliani, Ed Rendell, Tom Ridge, and even former-USMC Commandant James Jones. Americans should note that their own U.S. State Department lists MKO as a foreign terrorist organization.
It would also interest Americans to know exactly why MKO is listed as a terrorist organization. It had carried out a series of terrorist attacks not only in Iran against Iranians, but there was also the attempted kidnapping of U.S. Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II, the attempted assassination of USAF Brigadier General Harold Price, the successful assassination of Lieutenant Colonel Louis Lee Hawkins, the double assassinations of Colonel Paul Shaffer and Lieutenant Colonel Jack Turner, and the successful ambush and killing of American Rockwell International employees William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard.    
The Brookings Institution in their 2009 report, “Which Path to Persia?” admits, “undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks” including attacks on civilian targets. To this day, MKO is considered even by its own supporters in Washington, a “cult-like organization” with “totalitarian tendencies.” 
And like the West's double standards regarding human rights, its policy on state sponsorship of terrorism is determined by convenience and opportunism. In other words, the U.S. is using terrorists against its enemies while accusing its enemies, in many cases, of supporting the very militants it has armed and funded. 
And indeed, had Iran assassinated U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, immediate war would break out. In fact, false-flag events running along this theme, most notably the alleged “assassination plot” against a Saudi diplomat allegedly masterminded by Iran which turned out to be yet another patsy led along by US federal agents, were tried but failed. 
The MKO will continue its terrorist activities with or without a spot on the U.S. State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization list. It was reported in March 2012 that MKO was handed by the U.S. State Department, control a former U.S. military base in Iraq to operate out of, this being with MKO currently on the U.S. State Department's own terror list.
It appears that laws in the U.S. and across Europe are vestiges of an age where rule-of-law, or at least a semblance of it, prevailed. Those days are over. Whether the West's abandonment of its own rule-of-laws has created the current undermining of its global legitimacy, or its declining legitimacy allowed it to discard its own laws is debatable. What is certain is that the West's current foreign policy and agenda is unhinged both from its own population's approval and any sense of legitimacy.

Tipping the Balance of Power

How to really change the world - and it's easier than you think.

Tony Cartalucci
Land Destroyer
September 23, 2012

Democracy is a Form of Oppression 

The modern concept of "democracy" is perhaps the most effective form of human oppression ever devised. It has single-handedly convinced billions of people around the world that if only they cast their vote at each election, struggle behind their favorite politicians and pet political causes, they can change the world. And as each side of any given political paradigms struggles against each other, a singular agenda continues to march forth, one above and beyond "democracy"  and the strategies of tension we've all been mired in.

Image: Bush = Obama = Romney. Professional spokesmen, representative not of the American people but of Fortune 500 multinational corporations and banks. Since the time of JP Morgan 100 years ago, the corporate-financier elite saw themselves as being above government, and national sovereignty as merely a regulatory obstacle they could lobby, bribe, and manipulate out of existence. In the past 100 years, the monied elite have gone from manipulating the presidency to now reducing the office to a public relations functionary of their collective interests. Only tipping the balance of power from corporate-financier monopolies back to our local communities can change anything - this cannot be accomplished by merely "voting." 

The corporate-financiers of Wall Street and London, and their ever expanding orbit of proxies, client regimes, and co-conspirators have mastered long ago the method of controlling both sides of any given political paradigm, ensuring that no matter who you fight for, no matter how hard you fight, you still ultimately contribute to the singular agenda as determined by the corporate-financier elite. Thus, despite believing you have a "choice" and a "say" in your destiny, you do not. You spend all of your time and energy pursuing a false solution to fixing a system you do not truly understand, against forces you are either vaguely aware of, or entirely oblivious to. 

No better can this be illustrated than in American politics where still, many people believe there is some sort of discernible difference between Republicans and Democrats. However, for example, from 2000-2012, we see a singular Western agenda of invading, occupying, dividing, overthrowing, destroying, and installing client regimes across the Arab World and to a lesser extent, across Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe. However, within that period, we saw two allegedly ideologically opposed presidents in office.

The corporate media has gone through great lengths to sell each leg of the agenda in terms most fitting to each respective president's alleged political agenda, but in reality, all that President Barack Obama did was pick up where President George Bush left off, who was in reality carrying out a singular agenda, modern empire, that has been more or less in play for decades, possibly centuries depending on where one would like to draw the line.

The quest for American global hegemony began with corporate-financier interests during the late 1800's and continues today. The policy we believe is born of our leaders' political ideologies is in reality produced by these corporate-financier interests and the myriad of think-tanks they fund and direct. The policy papers these think-tanks produce, often published and even available to read online, are then rubber stamped into law by our politicians and sold to the public through the filter of false political paradigms.

The military, political, and economic conquest of the Middle East was sold by Bush under the guise of fighting the "War on Terror." Under Obama, it was sold as "democracy promotion." In reality, the policies dictating both legs of this singular agenda were meted out by think-tanks possessing both Bush and Obama-era administrators, often sitting around the same table, implementing the collective will of the their corporate-financier sponsors.

A recent examination of two such institutions, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Atlantic Council in "The Queen of Corporate-Fascist Faux "Democracy,"" provides lists where Neo-Conservative warmongers sit side-by-side with current and former Obama administrators, producing policies that were implemented throughout both Bush and Obama's presidencies. Identical corporate-financier interests were discovered behind both institutions, and are the same corporate-financier interests to be found pervading all Western foreign and domestic policy.

Image: It is clear that NGOs and opposition movements many believe are spontaneous, indigenous, and independent are in fact part of a larger network for the sole purpose of imposing and maintaining global system administration. This is not a web of elaborate, vague associations. In each case there is direct path of funding leading back to Western foundations and the think-tanks that devise policy for them, all funded and chaired by the Fortune 500 of Wall Street and London. (click image to enlarge)

Under such a system, voting is an exercise in futility - at best to make you content with the chains of your confinement, at worst, providing unwitting approval of your subjugation by corporate-financier domination. The constitutional representative governance we believe we live under, or are attempting to restore, or in some countries, trying to establish in the first place, exists only in the figments of our imaginations. To truly manifest a representative government, driven by our own ambitions and our true collective interests, toward a self-determined destiny, we must begin locally, and we must begin with much more than simply casting a ballot.

Freedom and self-determination means taking on the responsibility ourselves for the functioning and progress of our communities and society as a whole.

Identify, Boycott, and Replace

Clearly, the first step is recognizing that corporate-financier interests dominate modern civilization, and through controlled paradigms, maintain domination over all aspects of society through rules and regulations, laws, and law enforcement.

We must identify who these corporate-financier interests actually are, and through what avenues they execute their agenda. Then we must understand the source of power behind their unwarranted influence and aim at undermining and cutting it off. Luckily for us, we ourselves are the source of this unwarranted influence. More specifically, our daily patronage of the global elite's corporations, institutions, and organizations through the payment of our time, money, and attention grant them nearly inexhaustible wealth, power, and influence.

While, say a single Coke or Pepsi, might seem like a very insignificant contribution to this global spanning conglomeration of corporate-financier interests, it is through millions and millions of people on a daily basis, collectively contributing, that results in significant power, wealth, and subsequent influence in the hands of a concentrated elite.When we consider that our collective earnings month to month often go to either taxes or large corporate interests, we may begin to understand just why there exists such a disparity between their power and influence versus our subservience and impotence.

Image: Several Fortune 500 corporate-financier funded think-tanks who produce the total summation of Western policy, both foreign and domestic, which is then merely rubber stamped into law by proxy politicians, who along with the corporate-owned media then sell this policy to the public. "Naming Names: Your Real Government" provides an extensive, but by no means all inclusive list of many of these corporate-financier interests.

It becomes obvious that to rebalance this equation in our favor, we must stop paying our time, money, and attention to the corporate-financier elite's corporations, institutions, and organizations. It also quickly becomes obvious that in order to stop paying into these concentrated, centralized conglomerations of power, wealth and influence, we must devise decentralized, local alternatives.

While it may seem futile and insignificant to deny these large, global-spanning conglomerations our individual patronage on a daily basis, collectively it will undermine them, just as we have collectively built them up. Simply boycotting something like Coke or Pepsi is also something easy we can do starting today.

In any given country, in any given town, there are surely at least some local alternatives we can begin to replace what we have depended on large global-spanning corporate-financier interests to provide for us. But what exactly can we do if no alternative exists?

Building Local Institutions to Empower Local People 

The power of civilization lies within its institutions. This is something that the purveyors of empire knew long ago. While most attention in history books and movies is paid to the military might of any given empire, equally as important were the financial, economic, and administrative institutions created to both direct these military forces and reap the benefits from their campaigns. Those with the most powerful institutions will always prevail - as institutions form the basis of organizing and directing human resources.

This is explained at great length in " Empire's Double Edged Sword: Global Military + NGOs." What we see today, around the world operating under the guise of "democracy promotion," is the West establishing modern day equivalents of these administrative networks and institutions to establish a modern day global empire.

The counterbalance for vast networks of global institutions, is to create an equally vast network of independent local institutions to replace the role these global networks attempt to play. The obvious advantage of global institutions is the endless amount of funding they have access to. This advantage currently gives them an edge alternative, indigenous local institutions lack. Through greater awareness, participation, and collaboration, however, local institutions can not only out-compete global institutions, but entirely and permanently replace them.

While imperial, and now neo-imperial institutions generally work under vast amounts of deceit, manipulation, and coercion, local institutions wouldn't need or be able to. Local institutions, involving local people, aimed at solving local problems operate on a level people can easily understand. With people able to meet all involved face to face on a daily basis, a greater aspect of transparency would inhibit the level of compartmentalized duplicity and deceit that are common and necessary features of modern corporate-financier global institutions.

Examples of Local Institutions & Activism

There exists already traditional local institutions that we have allowed to be eroded by corporate-financier interests who have specifically, systematically, and ceaselessly attempted to undermine and destroy them. These include:  

The Family: the basic building block of any society
The Church, Temple, or Mosque: a place for local social networking, welfare, charity, and coordination
The Sheriff: charged with local security, law and order
Local Schools: educate and develop local human resources, the foundation upon which all society, economically and intellectually is built. 

We can begin by revisiting each one of these institutions and seeing where, individually and collectively, we can revitalize, rebuild, or repurpose them to serve our communities in a more effective way. Preventing corporate-financier driven government meddling and regulating of these institutions is essential. And where rules and regulations are already in place, inhibiting the functioning of these institutions, innovative means of circumventing such measure must be implemented.

There are endless possibilities for the creation of innovative new local institutions that can help us pool our resources and collaborate both financially and intellectually to solve problems, to improve our local communities, and to live better and more meaningful lives.

The resurgence of farmers' markets provides for us an example of a traditional institution that has been revitalized and repurposed to address modern trends in food security and health. Other possibilities include:

Underground Trading: This is the creation and trade of alternatives to commonly purchased corporate-financier dominated commodities within private circles of friends and family. The carbonation of beverages as a micro-business or hobby, to replace the consumption of Fortune 500 products like Coke or Pepsi can be traded "underground" at dinner parties or small get-togethers. In many countries, small businesses like this remain unregulated, mostly untaxed, and very accessible. In other countries, legal barriers may require creative solutions - such as trading "underground." 

photo by Rachel Stringer
Farmers' Markets: Everyone should make a point of at least visiting their local farmers' market once. Get to know the people there, see what is available and ask yourself whether or not the extra time and perhaps, extra money is not warranted in the face of  the alternative - continuing to fuel corporate-financier monopolies that are literally poisoning us. Local independent farmers and organic growers have been at the forefront of localization and the preservation of individual liberties and independence. While the cost may be higher, the more people that get involved locally as both consumers and producers will help develop a stronger local economy and stabilize prices.

Hackerspaces: A relatively new phenomenon - a hackerspace can be thought of as a local "field" where instead of growing food, people collaborate to develop new technology. Hackerspaces generally have membership fees for access to tools, electricity, and work areas. Additionally, educational short courses, lectures, and presentations can be given, pro-bono or also for extra income. Hackerspaces like New York City's "NYC Resistor" have served as springboards for local small businesses and technological innovations.

While a group of electronic, computer, robotic, design, and other technical hobbyists getting together in a common area and collaborating seems like a simple idea, but as technology enables individuals and small groups of individuals to do more on their own today than armies could do 50 years ago, the implications and possibilities for developing and strengthening our local communities become far reaching.

If a hackerspace does not exist in your area, you can simply start your own - it requires nothing more than a table and several like-minded people to sit around it for a first meeting. Again, like everything else, while the results may seem underwhelming, day to day, on an individual basis - added up over a year quite a bit can be accomplished. Add together everyone tempted to get involved on a global scale - and the collective impact becomes overwhelming.

Image: Hackerspaces provide an environment within which people can leverage technology on a local level - turning consumers into producers and skewing the current paradigm. Pictured is MIT's Dr. Neil Gershenfeld inside his "Fab Lab," arguably the birthplace of the personal fabrication revolution and the inspiration for hackerspaces around the world. More details can be found in "Self-Sufficiency: a universal solution to the globalist problem."

Gardening: Another simple idea that seems underwhelming - but if pursued incrementally over time, can make a big impact, is simply growing your own garden. This can be done on virtually any budget, and as marijuana growers have proven, can be done virtually anywhere. Growing your own food, even your own herbs to offset even in the smallest way your dependence on large corporate-financier monopolies collectively has a much bigger impact.

Like the concept of "underground trading," one need not bring their produce to the local farmers' market to make some extra money or socially interact with others in their community. Dinner parties with friends and family where food was grown and prepared entirely "in-house" can easily replace the degenerate corporate-financier forms of entertainment we all too often waste our times participating in. 

The Alternative Media: Every bit makes a difference, and starting your own blog, twitter, or Facebook account with the expressed purpose of informing others of what is going on locally, nationally, and internationally is both free and easy to do. Even if you simply repost articles others write - your efforts combined with others already active will make a significant difference.

How far your project goes depends solely on the amount of time and effort you spend investing in it and the standards of objectivity and intellectual honesty you hold yourself to. The alternative media is a perfect example of a new "institution" and form of activism that has already successfully begun to shift the paradigm, and it does so by leveraging technology that allows us to do as individuals what was once only possible with large, capital intensive organizations.

Shooting Club: A great way to exercise your right to bear firearms, hone your marksmanship and safety skills, as well as develop a community of safe and organized marksmen who can at the very least serve as a constructive source of socializing, and at the most, come through in an emergency to defend your community is to form a shooting club. It can start as nothing more than a few friends who get together on the weekend who share a common interest in firearms, the 2nd Amendment, safety, and the discipline of marksmanship, and can be expanded to help educate others in the community, work with the local sheriff, and promote responsible firearms ownership.

The presence of a localized, professional group of firearms enthusiasts who are well organized and politically active serves as a deterrent against corporate-financier driven federal efforts to disarm the public. By promoting responsible firearms ownership in an organized and professional manner, people can begin disarming the government and its corporate-financier sponsors of the endless excuses they use to legislate intrusive measures of gun control.

Constructive Pastimes: Pastimes, depending on what they are, can either greatly empower us individually and collectively, or forever inhibit our development and progress as human beings and as a society. Watching sports, vegetating behind the TV in general, consuming alcohol, going shopping, and watching Hollywood movies are all examples of activities that no matter how long you do them, will never yield opportunities or spur personal development on any level, physically or intellectually. These also so happen to be the pastimes of choice endlessly promoted by the same corporate-financier interests that propose to us that "voting" in their political theater is the greatest possible expression of human self-determination.

Conversely, playing sports as a community, making movies, writing, woodworking, gardening, brewing alcohol, and nearly anything at all that is productive or encourages positive social interaction and health provides us with endless opportunities. While the accomplishments we may make pursuing any given pastime may seem negligible on a daily basis, over time the results of  what we passionately pursue add up toward a "critical mass" of sorts that open the door to many opportunities - such as starting a small business, providing a useful good or service to our local community, or solving a myriad of problems.

We can question how significant these opportunities may or may not be - but one thing is for sure. If we do exactly zero with our spare time on a daily basis, at the end of one year we will have exactly zero to add up. No matter how insignificant our constructive pastimes may seem on a daily basis, they will add up to "something" over a year. The level of passion, imagination, and collaboration we put into that pastime determines how big that "something" is. 

Get Organized & Get a Program

The point behind all of this is to simply get organized - personally and as a community - toward doing something both constructive and fulfilling while tipping the balance of power away from a destructive self-serving system that dominates and exploits us however gilded the cage may seem.  We must get organized with friends and family, and as a community. 

It doesn't need to be a well-oiled organization at first. It can simply be a group of hobbyists or enthusiasts of any variety that get together simply to pool resources and share interests. With a full understanding of how necessary it is to organize and work together as a community, rather than delegate our responsibilities to centralized governments and corporate-financier interests, these small gatherings can be expanded.

What guides this expansion is a program. Instead of subscribing to political demagogues, we must instead search for programmatic and pragmatic solutions and devise the road maps needed to then arrive at these solutions.  Instead of surfing cable TV for political pundits selling us endless debate within a false political paradigm, we should get out a piece of paper and write down what our problems are, then organize locally, leverage the technology at our disposal, and devise solutions.

Education, the economy, infrastructure, and healthcare generally top the list. Things like education can be tackled on a local level leveraging the immense amount of resources available for free online. We can pool resources together and take cues from and expand upon the ever growing home-schooling movement.

In many ways, we can begin to boycott large corporate-financier monopolies and piecemeal develop our own local economies to be stronger and more independent. Certain aspects of infrastructure and healthcare can also be tackled on varying levels, starting locally and working our way upward.

Regarding healthcare, by understanding that big corporate monopolies and government subsidies may currently be necessary aspects of modern healthcare, but are untenable permanent solutions, we can begin pursuing avenues to help find solutions that are permanent.


All of this and more, however, can only be accomplished if we stop depending on others, and starting having faith in ourselves. For we are the only ones who truly have our own interests at heart, and are the only ones we can trust to pursue what is truly in our best own interests - even our own self-preservation. To delegate these responsibilities to others, particularly large corporate-financier interests lorded over by people we neither know, nor have ever met, is to delegate as well our freedom, self-determination, independence, and liberty - all of those things that we currently, and may very erroneously believe we enjoy within our current "democratic" political paradigm.   

As technology advances, we are able to do more individually and locally than entire nations could accomplish decades ago. This is what makes a real revolution possible now more than ever. By recognizing that this power in our hands, wielded locally and pragmatically is the solution, is the first step toward reclaiming our destiny.

It will not be easy. It will be hard work. It will not happen overnight. Change doesn't happen with one person, with a single instantly reverberating act. But change is not impossible, and it only takes our individual actions added up collectively over time to achieve it. Even the elite today who dominate the planet, only do so because they possess an immense network involving millions of people wittingly or unwittingly contributing to their agenda.

We the people already have a common agenda - peace, progress, and prosperity - something average people have always yearned for. Next, we must simply just get started, in whatever capacity, today to build up our own local networks to pursue our own collective agenda, on our own, outside the global elite's paradigm and inside a new paradigm of our own design.