Socio-Economics History Blog

Socio-Economics & History Commentary

US Sent Taliban Into Iraq

  • What Wayne Madsen says is much closer to the truth than all the US government propaganda. Most people don’t realize that the US government is a puppet for the shadow Illuminati powers. The Feds are largely bought out and controlled by Illuminati banksters. The war in Iraq is really for corporate oil interest. American soldiers are there to secure and protect all these oil assets. The American government isn’t ruling for the people. They are ruling for the corporate fascist state, the shadow government within the government. The state within the state.
  • Americans need to wake up and see the danger they are in. These ruling elites are traitorous and consider themselves above the law. Their objective is to conquer the world and build their One World Government. America is just a tool for this purpose. When America’s usefulness is past expiry they will destroy America. This is because they will not allow any nation to remain a superpower and thus be a threat to their world government. Kurt Nimmo :
    “I believe this is just a classic false flag terror attack,” said Madsen. “We know that the U.S. has had a long history with the Taliban going back to the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.” Madsen also mentioned the late Robin Cook, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2001, who said al-Qaeda was manufactured by the CIA and was “originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”
    Evidence revealing false flag terrorism orchestrated by the Anglo-American coalition in Iraq came to the forefront in 2005 when Iraqi authorities in Basra arrested two British Special Forces operatives disguised as Arab civilians and caught driving around in car packed with explosives and weapons. The incident took place just prior to a major religious event.
    “What this scandal confirms, in spectacular fashion, is that the ‘war on terrorism’ is a lie. It has been a lie, from the manufactured 9/11 to the present; one huge covert operation spearheaded by the US and the British governments, built upon endless faked intelligence and Downing Paper lies. It further confirms that the lie itself is becoming increasingly difficult to control,”
    Larry Chin wrote on September 20, 2005


July 1, 2009 Posted by | GeoPolitics | , , | Comments Off on US Sent Taliban Into Iraq

Brookings Publication Mentions Possibility of ‘Horrific Provocation’ to Trigger Iran Invasion

  • My feeling is that the PTB will initiate false flag operations to start not just the Iran war. But also : Regional ME war: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, India-Pakistan-China war and North Korean war. This will likely be WW3.
  • The Illuminati Satanic cabal are losing their grip on the world. Their power lies in their control of the western financial system via the control of fiat money. China is a rising threat to them and so is Russia. Russia is no fool. This is why they are conducting military exercises in the Caucasus. This is a show of might and a clear warning to these war mongers: Don’t screw with us in Georgia or we will send you to hell!
  • Their greed for control of Iranian oil is what motivates them to attack Iran. The recent ‘color revolution’ which they tried to ignite has been a failure. So it looks like they will push for war!
  • Prison Planet reports :
    In a recent policy paper published by the influential Brookings Institute, the authors propose almost anything to guarantee dominance of Persia by the new world order, including bribery, lying, cheating and mass murdering by an all-out military assault of Iran. The paper ‘Which path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran’ is just one of many recent and not so recent examples of the firm intent of the globalists to engage Iran militarily and acquire its natural resources in the same effort.
    The group of authors- a cozy little convergence of globalists- contemplate four separate options on ‘how to deal with Iran’ in the cold bureaucratic language that poses as scientific but is really nothing more than the intelligent musings of a calculating psychopath. The first option, ‘Dissuading Tehran’ through diplomatic means is being discussed as something tried, tested and discarded. The second option, ‘Disarming Tehran’ covers several ways of rallying the ‘international community’ around the globalists’ intentions. In the third part, ‘Toppling Tehran’ the warmongering increases as the writers contemplate both covert and overt military action against the Islamic republic of Iran. In the fourth and last section, ‘Deterring Tehran’ the option of ‘containment’ is elaborated upon. The proposed final strategy predictably involves all of the above mentioned options, in roughly the same order of appearance.
    To ensure the cooperation of surrounding countries, the authors propose bribery as an effective tool. After the authors assert that it may be necessary to cut some deals in order to secure Moscow’s support for a tougher Iran policy’, the authors continue with their ‘brainstorming’, advising a widespread bribery campaign in order to ensure international cooperation in regards to Iran:
    Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding.’ And further on: ‘To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran.’
    This means the US will have to cut all kinds of deals with dictators, bloodthirsty local tyrants and other corrupt kings of Arabia- even facilitating them with weapons. Besides rallying the ‘international community’ around the Anglo-American establishment with the help of these ‘unpleasant compromises’, the paper stresses it will also be necessary to persuade the Iranians themselves to topple their government (page 39):
    Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.’
    But the authors underline the necessity of creating a favourable climate for the transnationalists in which to operate.
    ‘(…) any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context (…) The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer- one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.’
    Here the authors seem to abandon even the facade of civility as they proceed. Even though the authors put these vile warmongering words in quotes, they cannot mask the mindset. They mean to rally the ‘international community’ through bribery and deceit- as a steppingstone towards military strikes. The path toward such military strikes will be made smooth by economically strong-holding surrounding countries, forcing them to accept western military action as well as the justifications for it without question.
    Military action. This is as acutely on the mind of the current chickenhawks, as the invasion of Iraq was on that of the neocons in the last couple of decades. Apparently, the authors feel compelled to give a justification for the bravura of their manuscript.
    We chose to consider this extreme and highly unpopular option partly for the sake of analytical rigor and partly because if Iran responded to a confrontational American policy- such as an airstrike, harsh new sanctions, or efforts to foment regime change- with a major escalation of terrorist attacks (or more dire moves against Israel and other American allies), invasion could become a very “live” option.’
    As the geopolitical feeding frenzy increases, the authors clearly begin to lose their cool as they begin to talk about the real plan behind all this elaborate brainstorming, reflecting the long-term agenda of the globalists for whom they work:
    Like Iraq’, the authors state, ‘Iran is too intrinsically and strategically important a country for the United States to be able to march in, overthrow its government, and then march out, leaving chaos in its wake. (…) Iran exports about 2.5 million barrels per day of oil and, with the right technology, it could produce even more. It also has one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. These resources make Iran an important supplier of the energy needs of the global economy. Iran does not border Saudi Arabia- the lynchpin of the oil market- or Kuwait, but it does border Iraq, another major oil producer and a country where the United States now has a great deal at stake.’
    And exactly in line with their masters tendency of using false flags, they allow themselves the luxury of speculating openly about a possible ‘provocation’ to escalate things to the point of armed conflict.
    ‘(…) it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.’
    Now that would be a great disappointment, wouldn’t it. Under the headline ‘The Question of a Provocation’ on page 66, the authors press the point even further:
    With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.’
    Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran. During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil (probably because they know who is usually responsible for such mass terror attacks):
    Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?
    Regarding the question of international support for an US invasion of the Islamic Republic, the Brookings people lament:
    Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds.’
    The same goes for their plans in regards to that old favorite of the elite, covert psychological warfare, in order to subdue a sovereign nation. In chapter 7 of the manuscript, called ‘Inspiring an Insurgency’, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists lute their nation:
    The core concept lying at the heart of this option would be for the United States to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War. The United States would provide arms, money, training, and organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.’
    Isn’t that a familiar sight? Could one way to ‘highlight’ group grievances be to mass distribute the death of a poor woman and then claim it’s all thanks to Twitter?
    All this hinting at another false-flag attack underway and prepping the international community for a future invasion of Iran is becoming increasingly serious as the warmongering is being stepped up. This is the time to fix our eyes upon these globalists and their think tanks. If their blatant arrogance permits them to openly publish their bloodthirsty musings, we should be vigilant enough to pass this knowledge around lest we have another 9/11 on our hands.


July 1, 2009 Posted by | GeoPolitics | , | Comments Off on Brookings Publication Mentions Possibility of ‘Horrific Provocation’ to Trigger Iran Invasion

China Plans to Start Yuan Settlement With ASEAN Soon

  • ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) has been working with China over this plan to rid the USD in their trade settlement. Brazil and Argentina are also working on their plan to remove the USD in their bilateral trade. It is obvious that foreign countries no longer have confidence in the USD. Bloomberg reports :
    China may soon allow companies in its southern provinces of Yunnan and Guangxi to use yuan to settle cross-border trade with Southeast Asia to reduce foreign- exchange risks, a government official said.
    The scheme will protect exporters from swings in currencies and help promote trade with the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations,
    Nong Rong, vice secretary general at the China-ASEAN Expo, said today. The trade fair, sponsored by China and Asean countries, has been held annually since 2004 in the city of Nanning, capital of Guangxi province.
    “Preparation work for the pilot programs are progressing smoothly,” Nong, also deputy head of the Guangxi government bureau organizing such exhibitions, told reporters in Nanning. “Some companies that were deterred by foreign-exchange risk may now seek to expand overseas as the risks have been reduced.”
    China, the world’s third-biggest economy, is seeking to make it easier for companies to do business in yuan and to expand trade with so-called Golden Triangle nations after the global recession choked sales to the U.S. and Europe. Chinese officials, including President
    Hu Jintao, have called for reducing its dependence on the dollar and the creation of a new global reserve currency.
    People’s Bank of China has agreed to provide 650 billion yuan ($95 billion) to Argentina, Belarus, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea through so-called currency- swaps. Yesterday, the central bank signed an agreement with Hong Kong to allow the settlement of cross-border trade in yuan.
    Trade in Yuan
    Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil and Russia have all indicated interest in settling transactions in the currency.
    PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara, Indonesia’s state utility, may negotiate to pay its Chinese suppliers and contractors in yuan to cut foreign- exchange costs, Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati said on April 24.
    “As China’s role in the global economy becomes more significant, it’s natural that more countries will want to trade in the Chinese currency and to hold it in their reserves,” said
    Pan Hejun, Vice Mayor of Nanning.
    Since 2003, the Beijing-based State Administration of Foreign Exchange has
    allowed limited use of yuan in border trade in Yunnan, Heilongjiang, Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Liaoning and Jilin, according to the currency regulator in a book compiled this year.


July 1, 2009 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Comments Off on China Plans to Start Yuan Settlement With ASEAN Soon

Peter Schiff: Exchange Controls and Citizenship


July 1, 2009 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Comments Off on Peter Schiff: Exchange Controls and Citizenship

The Great Bank Robbery: How the Federal Reserve is Destroying America!

  • The Federal Reserve is a private for profit bank. It was never federal in any sense of the world. Like Federal Express it is a wholly private, non governmental organization. What is the cause of boom and bust economic cycles? Austrian economics suggests it is central banks that cause it. The western world is controlled by a cabal of Illuminati banksters! These banksters are plotting their One World Government, One World Army, One World Financial System–>Micro-chipping–> 666.
  • RT reports :
    A large part of the “super” in the American superpower is based on the modern creed of liberal democracy, which serves as the motor of free-market capitalism. And the lubricant that keeps this colossal machine humming at full speed 24/7 is the US dollar. So before we risk any conjectures on the future prospects of America’s versatile banknote, which presently serves as the ‘world’s reserve currency,’ perhaps we should know more about who controls it.
    In the Fed We Trust
    It usually comes as a shock to people – especially diehard Americans who place infinite trust in their sacred Constitution – when they discover that the US dollar is not a product of the American government. That’s right, fellow consumers, that crumpled wad of dollars in your pocket is the product of the U.S. Federal Reserve, and despite the very official title, is about as “federal” as Federal Express. The reality is that the U.S. Federal Reserve is a profit-making venture just like Wal-Mart, General Motors or McDonald’s.
    Yet the US Constitution clearly states (Article 1, Section 8) that one of the many functions of government is to “coin money, regulate the value thereof.” Indeed, this task was deemed so important that the Founding Fathers mentioned it ahead of the obligation to “raise and support armies.” The Constitution says absolutely nothing about outside parties being responsible for printing money or regulating interest rates.
    To quote Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States,
    “The privilege of creating and issuing money is… the supreme prerogative of government.”
    Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas who made an unsuccessful bid for the 2008 Republican Party presidential nomination, represents a growing number of Americans who want to see the Fed severely tamed, or put out of business altogether.
    “Congress created the Fed although it had no constitutional authority to do so,” Paul told his peers during a recent House investigative meeting.
    “We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to the Congress and thus the authority to establish a central bank was never given.
    “Congress… has essentially given up its oversight responsibilities over the Fed: there are no true audits; Congress knows nothing of the conversations, the plans, and the action-taking in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year,” Paul continued.
    Top of the Pyramid
    It is no secret that the power to print money and set interest rates constitutes the greatest power of any government.
    “Let me issue and control a nation’s money,”commented international banker Amschel Rothschild,
    “and I care not who makes the laws.”
    Henry Kissinger reduced the almighty powers of the Federal Reserve to one line:
    “Who controls money controls the world.”
    Former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, who served for 18+ years in his position, was asked by political talk show host Jim Lehrer:
    “What should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and the president of the United States?”
    “Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically that there is no other agency of government (including the executive office) which can overrule actions that we take,” Greenspan responded matter-of-factly.
    “So long as that is in place… then, what the relationships are don’t frankly matter.”
    In light of the above statements, it is safe to say that it is not US Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama who holds the reigns of real power in America, but rather Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed.
    Indeed, last December’s Newsweekmagazine proudly announced that Bernanke was the “fourth most powerful person in the world,” behind Barack Obama, Hu Jintao and Nicolas Sarkozy, but ahead of Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin (fourth, fifth and sixth place in the Newsweek power list went to central bankers, Bernanke, Jean-Claude Trichet (EU) and Masaaki Shirakawa (Japan), as opposed to national leaders)!
    But there is another infallible maxim that also dictates our political life. “Power corrupts,” said Lord Acton, “but absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
    US Department of Usury
    Besides having lost the power to regulate its own currency, the United States must also pay interest on the dollars it borrows. Given that the current bailout (and buy-in) of the American economy is in the ballpark of
    9 trillion dollars it will take incalculable generations to pay back this monstrous bill.
    “Henry Ford thinks its stupid and so do I, that for the loan of its own money the United States should be compelled to pay… interest,” complained the famous American inventor, Thomas A. Edison.
    “Why must we pay interest to money-brokers for the use of our own money!”
    Given the trillions of dollars that the Federal Reserve has pumped into the economy to jumpstart consumer spending (indeed, Capitalism itself), many generations of Americans will be struggling financially as the United States goes from creditor nation to debtor nation practically overnight. Yet somehow US President Barack Obama still promises to create a long overdue national healthcare plan.
    For any American to see the US Constitution being arrogantly ignored to disastrous effect is enough to make a man want to activate other parts of the US Constitution – like form a standing militia and buy a rifle – and drive these pesky bankers straight out of town. To see how serious some Americans feel about the Fed and their shadow leaders,
    click here.
    A less drastic course of action would be to limit the powers of the Federal Reserve, but rather incredibly Chairman Bernanke is requesting the strengthening of the Fed.

  • See also:
    Banksters’ Takeover of America Almost Complete!
    Ron Paul: The Obama Administration Wants To Give More Power To The Federal Reserve, The Institution That Caused Our Problems !
    Obama’s “Financial Regulatory Reform Plan” is Banksters Consolidating Their Power!
    Marc Faber: Geithner and Bernanke are 2 Mad Men Running The Economy Towards Hyper-Inflation
    FedRes Would Be Shut Down If It Were Audited, Expert Says
    US Senator: Banksters “Own” the Congress!
    Illuminati Banksters Implementing State of Permanent Siege!
    Financial Dictatorship of the Federal Reserve and Treasury
    Geithner’s ‘Dirty Little Secret’: The Entire Global Financial System is at Risk
    Banksters Rule America !
    Collapse of America to Lead to New World Order?
    UN & IMF Back Agenda For Global Financial Dictatorship
    A World Currency Moves Closer After Geithner’s Slip
    Ron Paul – I See No Purpose for the Federal Reserve!
    Banksters Rule America !
    The Federal Reserve: Secretive And Incompetent Organization ! The Creature From Jekyll Island.
    History of Money & Fractional Reserve Banking System
    How International Bankers Gained Control of America!
    Federal Reserve is a Private Company. 
    Ron Paul – Federal Reserve is the Culprit! 


July 1, 2009 Posted by | Economics, EndTimes | , , , | 4 Comments