World War III Began In May 2006

Building The New Map Of The Middle East In Real Time

By Chycho

I. Beginnings Of Conflicts

Usually there are disagreements as to the exact dates of beginnings of conflicts, especially when those conflicts are global. 

“The beginnings of wars are often hard to identify. Which act lit the spark on the tinderbox? Which straw was the final one? Like peak oilitself, the beginnings of war are often visible only in retrospect.” 

For example, some would argue that World War II began in 1939 withthe German invasion of Poland. Others would pick the 1931Japanese invasion of Manchuria, or maybe even the 1933 Reichstag Fire. The only consensus regarding World War II is that it was devastating. 

As for World War III, some believe that it was the Cold War and that we are in the beginning stages of World War IV. They believe that it started with the invasion of Iraq, and will be completely realized when the United States and Israel begin their attack on Iran and Syria (1, 2). 

Some reference the confrontation between Israel and Palestine at the turn of the century as the start. Others state that the First Gulf War was the “opening guns of World War III”, while some declare that “the most significant feature of this New World Order/World War III is that the target of war is no longer so much a state institution as it is the citizenry of states. Since this majority is working class, World War III is really a war upon the working class, designed to increase the rate of its economic exploitation.” 

There is even a belief that the root cause is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which is “creating worldwide tensions similar to the standoff before the Second World War.” 

Others, specifically, Miles Copeland, Jr. who was one of the founding members of the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), predicted in 1989 that World War III would begin when the United States and Israel get duped by Russia into starting a self-destructive war - referred to as a crusade by some - with the Muslim world:

“But even with the help of the Israelis - especially with the help of the Israelis! - we couldn't defeat the Iranians, the 'Arabs', the world of Islam or the whole Third World if it should turn against us. We [the CIA] have reason to believe that Soviet strategists well understand this, and that the Third World War that they envision will be one of ourselves against shapeless forces of the Third World, with Soviet Russia ostensibly aloof from it...The U.S Government was sinking into exactly the dilemma that best suited the purposes of Moscow's Leninists as they've begun to blossom under Gorbachev. In materials easily available to the U.S government without recourse to espionage, they had made it clear enough that in their version of the Third World War the United States would be forced into a variety of situations in which it would feel compelled to play the role of a powerful nation but, for all the world to see on it television sets, it would in fact, be powerless." The Game Player: Confessions of the CIA's Original Political Operative, London: Aurum Press, 1989

II. Start of World War III

Whichever truth you choose to believe, since they are all relevant and valid in their own right, the fact is that according to the mainstream media, World War III (or IV) has already begun. 

Considering that the players involved in starting this war are so conveniently, on our behalf, declaring that World War III (or IV) has already started, I thought it would be a good idea to narrow the timeline and pick a date which will be marked as the commencement of the demise of our civilization. 

So when exactly did World War III start? 

In early May of 2006, the president of the United States, George W Bush, the commander in chief of the United States Military, stated that 2001 was the beginning of World War III. His remarks were confirmed by Dan Gillerman, at the time Israel's UN Ambassador, when he also acknowledged during a routine UN Security Council meeting on 30 May 2006 that World War III had already begun. Many consider these two statements from two of the main nuclear powers in the world to be the declaration of War, indicating that World War III has already started. 

So even though 11 September 2001 is the key to understanding why this conflict has begun, and considered by the United States to be the event that triggered World War III, I believe that May 2006 is really the beginning of this global conflict. This is when the two major parties, who each individually is capable of starting World War III, declared war. 

III. Map Of The New Middle East

As to what the objective of this war is for some of its conspirators? The most likely purpose is twofold: to create the New Map of the Middle East, and to maintain the status quo of Western economic dominance over global financial markets. A lot more on theeconomics of war later, for now, let’s focus on the new map of the Middle East. 

The boundaries of countries were redrawn after World War I and World War II (1, 2), and that is exactly what the end resulted will be once the dust settles after this world war. 

What is happening right now is very likely related to US plans to create aNew Middle East, the plans for which were revealed in 2006 by retired Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. The map, presented below, with the redrawn borders of the Middle East, indicates that Turkey would lose a large portion of its territory while Iraq would be split into three autonomous regions. This map also shows plans to partition Pakistan and reduce Iran’s territory, along with numerous other imperial agendas. 

Present Middle East

IV. The Human Toll

As to the human toll of this global war, a conservative estimate of how many people would die can be obtained by assuming that the same percentage of people that died in World War II would also die in World War III. 

In the 1940’s the world population was approximately 2.3 billion. World War II resulted in 60 to 80 million deaths (38 to 55 million of which were civilian casualties). This means that approximately 4% of the world’s population was killed. 

At present, the world population is approximately 7 billion. If we assume that the same percentage of people will die during this world war than the last, it would mean that over 280 million people will be dead in the next few years. This is a conservative estimate since nuclear weapons were introduced at the end of World War II, while they are being proposed at the beginning of World War III. The number of wounded will be approximately 1.5 billion if we assume a kill to wounded ratio of 1 to 5.

WW III: The Unthinkable Cost Of Preserving The Petrodollar

As noted by many of our readers, one of the key topics omitted from our article on the inevitability of economic collapse was the petrodollar system. Due to its significance, we felt that this subject deserves its own article. If you have never heard of the petrodollar, don’t be surprised. There’s a good reason for this. No major news network will dare touch this subject because if this information was ever to become public knowledge, politicians would find it next to impossible to convince American people to support any more wars. Public approval of wars is only possible as long as people remain ignorant of the primary driving force behind our foreign policy. The reason you haven’t heard of the petrodollar system is because our government wants you to think that we start wars to spread democracy.

However, if you want to distinguish truth from propaganda, if you want to know the real reasons behind the global conflicts in our recent history, you must first learn about the petrodollar system. Without this crucial piece of info, you will have a hard time understanding what really happened in Libya, what’s happening in Syria right now and what’s going to happen in Iran next.

Why did NATO and the U.S. aid Libyan “rebels” in killing Gaddafi? Why was our government willing to support and arm the same terrorists that would later turn on our embassy and murder US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens? Why was killing Gaddafi so absolutely imperative?

Why are we now doing the same thing in Syria? Why are U.S. operatives currently on the ground in Syria aiding Al Qaeda to topple Assad? Why are we willing to work along side known terrorists just to destabilize Syria and overthrow the regime there?

Why are we willing to risk World War 3 by attacking Iran, a key ally to Russia and China?

Pakistan and North Korea already possess a nuclear stockpile, but Iran is years away from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran has no military capability to target the U.S. and it has not attacked another country since 1798. Yet the media is trying to convince us that we are weeks away from Ahmedinajad unleashing his non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Sound a little familiar? Have we heard this before, maybe?

So what is the petrodollar system and why is it so important? Why is the United States willing to trigger a new world war just to maintain the hegemony of the petrodollar? To get a proper perspective we need to start with a quick historical background:

Bretton Woods Conference

In July of 1944, as World War II was still raging, 730 delegates from all 44 Allied nations gathered in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to setup institutions and procedures to regulate the international monetary system and to establish the rules for commercial and financial relations among the world’s major industrial states.
The Bretton Woods Agreement established the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which meant that international commodities were priced in dollars. The agreement which gave the United States a distinct financial advantage, was made under the condition that those dollars would remain redeemable for gold at a consistent rate of $35 per ounce. The fixed dollar to gold convertibility rate established a stable platform for global economic growth.

As the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, the United States promised to print dollars in direct proportion to its gold reserves. However, this promise was based on “the honor system” since the Federal Reserve refused to allow any audits or supervision of its printing presses.

The U.S. Defaults On Its Obligation To Convert Dollars To Gold

In the years leading up to 1970, expenditures on the Vietnam war made it clear to many countries that the U.S. was printing far more money than it had gold. In response to this and the negative U.S. trade balance, nations began demanding fulfillment of America’s “promise to pay” – that is, the redemption of their dollars for gold. This of course set off a rapid decline in the value of the dollar. The situation climaxed in 1971 when France attempted to withdraw its gold and Nixon refused.

On August 15, President Nixon made a televised announcement
referred to as the Nixon shock, stating the following:
“I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to
take the action necessary to defend the dollar
against the speculators. I have directed Secretary
Connolly to suspend temporarily the convertibility
of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets,
except in amounts and conditions determined to be
in the interest of monetary stability and in the
best interest of United States.”

This was obviously not a temporary suspension as Nixon claimed, but rather a permanent default. For the nations of the world who entrusted the United States with their gold, this action was outright theft. Overnight, dollars transformed into fiat currency and the Federal Reserve was now free to print away. By abandoning the gold standard, the U.S. government removed all restrictions from the Federal Reserve. However, the ability to print money out of thin air comes with a pitfall.

This is because each new printed dollar devalues the existing money supply already in circulation.

That is unless there is a growing demand for dollars to counterbalance the newly issued currency.

So, under the direction of the Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a brilliant political and economic idea was soon devised referred to as the petrodollar system.

The Birth Of The Petrodollar Leads To Global Domination

In 1973, President Nixon promised King Faisal of Saudi Arabia that the US would protect Saudi Arabian oilfields from any and all invaders. In return, Saudi Arabia and by extension OPEC, agreed to sell their oil in US dollars only. Essentially, this meant that all countries purchasing oil from OPEC had to do so in US dollars, or ‘petrodollars’. This forced the world’s oil money to flow through the US Federal Reserve, creating ever-growing international demand for U.S. dollars. As if that weren’t sweet enough, as part of the deal, OPEC countries were required to invest their profits in US treasuries, bonds and bills. This strengthened the US dollar, resulting in a steady US economic growth.


While other countries exchanged their currency for the dollar (forfeiting value in the process), the U.S. simply printed more money to match their needs and purchase their oil – essentially for free.

Of course rather than exchange currencies, many countries focused on exporting goods to the U.S. to maintain their constant supply of the Federal Reserve paper. Paper went out, while everything America needed came in and in the process the United States got very, very rich. It was the largest financial con in recorded history.

As the coffers got fatter and fatter, the U.S. military machine continued to expand at an accelerated rate. The arms race of the Cold War was a game of poker. Military expenditures were the chips and the U.S. had an endless supply of chips. With the Petrodollar under its belt, the U.S. was able to raise the stakes higher and higher, outspending every other county on the planet. Until, eventually, U.S. military expenditure surpassed that of all other nations in the world combined. The Soviet Union never had a chance.

The collapse of the Communist block in 1991 removed the last counterbalance to America’s military might. The United States was now an undisputed super power with no rival. Many hoped that this would mark the beginning of a new era of peace and stability. Unfortunately, there were those in high places who had other ideas.

Petrodollar System Must Be Maintained At Any Cost

That same year, the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first Gulf War. And after crushing the Iraqi military and destroying their infrastructure, including water purification plants and hospitals, crippling sanctions were imposed on Iraq, which prevented its infrastructure from being rebuilt. These sanctions, which were initiated by Bush Sr. and sustained throughout the entire Clinton administration, lasted for over a decade and were estimated to have killed over 500,000 children. The Clinton administration was fully aware of these figures.

Excerpt from a May 5, 1996 interview:
Lesley Stahl from 60 Minutes show, asks Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright about the U.S. sanctions against Iraq:
“We have heard that a half million children have died.
I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima.
And, you know, is the price worth it?“
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replies:
“I think this is a very hard choice,
but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

What exactly was it that was worth killing 500,000 kids for? Let’s see if you can spot a pattern here.

Iraq… In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil exclusively in euros. This was a direct attack on the petrodollar and it wasn’t going to be tolerated. In response, the U.S. government with the assistance of the mainstream media began to build up a massive propaganda campaign, claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to use them.

In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq. Once the U.S. had control of the country, oil sales were immediately switched back to dollars. This is particularly notable due to the fact that switching back to the dollar meant a 15-20% loss in revenue due to the euro’s higher value. It doesn’t make any sense at all unless you take the Petrodollar into account.

Excerpt from a March 2, 2007 DemocracyNow interview: 

So I came back to see him a few weeks later and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” and he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that”, he reached over on his desk, picked a piece of paper and he said:
“I just got this down from upstairs today (meaning secretary of defense office) today. This is a memo that describes how we’re going take out 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing of Iran.” 

– Wesley Clark, Retired 4-Star General and Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000

Libya… Muammar Gaddafi harbored the Lockerbie Bombers and allowed various terrorist organizations establish training camps in Libya. He tried to buy a nuke from China in 1972. In 1977, he approached Pakistan, then India. He sought nerve gas from Thailand. Then he did something totally insane. Gaddafi decided to move away from the petrodollar in favor of a gold-based currency. Seeking nukes and harboring terrorists is one thing, but threatening the petrodollar is quite another. Within a year, ‘internal’ elements rose up in rebellion against Gaddafi.

After taking control of the region, U.S. and NATO armed rebels executed Gaddafi in cold blood and immediately setup the Libyan Central Bank.


Iran… In 2005, Iran sought to create an Iranian Oil Exchange, thus bypassing the US controlled petrodollar. Fear that western powers would freeze accounts in European and London banks put an end to that plan. More recently however, Iran was able to secure agreements to begin trading its oil in exchange for gold. In response, the U.S. government, with mainstream media assistance has been attempting to build international support for military strikes on the pretext of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. In his recent State of the Union address, Obama went as far as to say that when it comes to Iran and the insistence they dismantle their nuclear program, “no options are off the table”. By stating ‘no options’ this would include nuclear deployment as a deterrent. In the meantime, the U.S. established sanctions that, U.S. officials openly admit, are aimed at causing a collapse of the Iranian economy.

Syria… Syria is Iran’s closest ally and they’re bound by mutual defense agreements. Syria is currently being destabilized from within by the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA), in its intensifying effort to topple Assad. It is a well known fact that FSA consists of multiple terrorist factions from Afghanistan to Chechnya, most notably Al Qaeda. Yet this is not stopping United States or NATO from providing covert assistance to FSA. Despite warning from Russia and China to the United States, the White House has made statements within the past month indicating that the U.S. is considering military intervention.

However, it should be clear, that military intervention in Syria and Iran isn’t being considered. It’s a forgone conclusion, just as it was in Iraq and Libya.

World War 3: A Calculated Risk To Preserve The Petrodollar

The U.S. is actively working to create the context which gives them diplomatic cover to do what they already have planned. The motive for these invasions and covert actions becomes clear when we look at them in full context and connect the dots.

The petrodollar paradigm is saving the dollar from crashing by accomplishing two things. First, it creates a mandatory international demand for the Federal Reserve paper, preventing dollar inflation from going into hyperinflation. Second, the oil profits from OPEC pay for a portion of our ever expanding national debt, helping perpetuate a giant Ponzi scheme in the U.S. treasury market. Those who control the United States understand that even if only a few countries begin to sell their oil in another currency it will set off a chain reaction and the dollar will collapse. They understand that there’s absolutely nothing else holding up the value of the dollar at this point, and so does the rest of the world.


But rather than accepting the fact that the dollar is nearing the end of its lifespan, the powers that be have made a calculated gambit. They have decided to use the brute force of the U.S. military to crush each and every resistant state in the Middle East and Africa.

That, in and of itself, would be bad enough. But what you need to understand is that this is not going to end with Iran. China and Russia have stated publicly and in no uncertain terms that they will not tolerate an attack on Iran or Syria. Iran is one of their key allies, one of the last in independent oil producers in the region. And they understand that if Iran falls, then they will have no way to escape the dollar without going to war. And yet, the United States is pushing forward despite the warnings.

What we’re witnessing here is a trajectory that leads straight to the unthinkable.
It’s a trajectory that was mapped out years ago, in full awareness of the human consequences.

Who Is Pulling The Strings?

But who was it that put us on this course? What kind of psychopath is willing to intentionally set off a global conflict that would lead to millions of deaths just to protect the value of a paper currency?

It obviously isn’t the president. The decision to invade Libya, Syria and Iran was made long before Obama had risen to the national spotlight. And yet he’s carrying out his duty just like the puppets that preceded him. So who is it that pulls the strings?


Often the best answer to questions like these are found by asking another question. Cui bono? Who benefits?

Obviously, those who have the power to print the dollar out of thin air have the most to lose if the dollar was to fall. Since 1913, that power has been held by the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE entity, owned by a conglomerate of the most powerful banks in the world. And the men who control those banks are the ones who pull the strings. To them, this is just a game. Your life and the lives of those you love are just pawns on their chess board. And like a spoiled four year old who tips the board on to the floor when he starts to lose, the powers that be are willing to start World War III to keep control of the global financial system.

Remember this when these wars extend and accelerate. Remember this when your son or your daughter comes back home in a flag draped coffin. Remember this when they point the finger at the new boogeyman.

So, What Can We Do About All This?

Today’s Geo-political climate, coupled with the desperation of the banking cartel to save the petrodollar, makes World War III a legitimate concern more than ever. If we’re lucky enough, maybe we will avoid a global military showdown between Russia, China and the West. But, we cannot avoid an economic collapse, regardless of whether WWW III is triggered or not. This is because no matter how many Mideast regimes we topple, we simply cannot stop China and Russia from dropping the dollar in the near future. Both of these countries have already signed significant agreements purposed to move them away from the dollar. Despite the best efforts of the banking cartel to preserve the petrodollar, this paradigm is starting to crumble.

So what can we do about all this? First, let’s admit the obvious. The power to prevent any of this is not in our hands. But, at the same time, we don’t have to just sit idly while the dollar is circling the drain. There are specific things we can and should do.

1. BE MORE DISCERNING

Critical thinking and common sense are in decline these days.

Rather than just swallow what we’re fed by the mainstream media, we need to question it.

Most people are just unaware that 90% of all American media is controlled by six global conglomerates that also hold assets in the military complex and oil industry, and are interconnected with major banking interests.

2. GET THE FACTS

Read both of the articles linked below and make sure to watch the videos on those pages.

Remember, be discerning. So crosscheck the info in these articles to make sure the facts are accurate.

a) Click here to see why the coming economic collapse is a mathematical fact.

b) Click here to see why “Obama vs Romney” is an illusion of choice.

The first article will convince you just how deep of a hole we’re in. The second will help you understand that we can’t depend on the government to get us out of this mess.

3. SPREAD THE TRUTH

Individually we are ineffective. But together we have a chance. The powers that be count on the sheeple to be asleep. They also count on our willful ignorance, because they know that rather than accept the unpleasant reality, people readily deny the obvious.

Still, the internet gives us a distinct advantage over the system. Social media makes it possible for information to spread among millions of people in a matter of days. We need to make articles and videos like this go viral by Tweeting, posting on Facebook, emailing everybody we know, posting on forums, etc. You can do your part right now by clicking on the floating “Share” button on the right and using some of the social media icons on that menu to share this information.

4. GET READY NOW

There’s a ton of online resources on this subject. Sometimes the information is helpful and practical, and other times it’s outdated or incomplete. Also, beware of the sites out there that try to scare the crap out of you just to sell you their eBooks on emergency preparedness. Still, if you take your time, you can find lots of good info online.

With that said, we are currently working on a free “how to” guide with an easy to follow step by step action plan. It will outline practical but critical actions you should take right now to get ready for the ensuing chaos, along with financial advice to safeguard whatever savings you may have. FYI, CrisisHQ.com does not sell gold or bunkers or anything else for that matter. Our single mission is to help you be prepared instead of scared.

To be notified when we publish the article on “How to prepare for the coming crisis,” please subscribe to our article notification list using the form in the box on the right. We hate spam just as much as you do, so we don’t sell or share your email or ever send out spam. Your info is kept absolutely private and safe.

Via: "Crisis HQ"

7 Steps To Dissolve the Matrix

Stop World War Three

Shall We Put an End to the Human Race or Shall Mankind Renounce War? -- Bertrand Russell

By Julian Rose
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Courtesy Of "The Activist Post"

Looming up in front of us like some ghoulish malevolent giant, is the prospect of mankind having to endure the devastation of a 'Third World War'.

An event, should it come to pass, would pit brother against brother, sister against sister, 'faith' against 'faith', ideology against ideology, nation against nation and all of it together against the continuation of life on Earth. 

The forces covertly operating to bring this Third World War about will not be in the direct line of fire, but a long way off, comfortably ensconced in leather chairs in the plush offices of high-ranking officialdom. They made their plans many years ago and the Third World War is a keystone in bringing these plans to fruition.

These individuals come from countries well practiced in historical and modern empire building and share a 'special relationship' whose vision of the future completely excludes the great majority of us. We do not feature on the planet they see ahead of them, except as slaves to whatever activities they may wish to pursue.  To them, we are essentially 'dispensable'.

Those who would perpetrate this plan have already prepared their underground bases to survive the destruction they propose to unleash upon this world. We will not be invited to join them there either, except a few carefully chosen minions to manage the technologies that keep this underworld functioning and those who serve their daily needs. It is a very exclusive 'club'.


The master plan involves certain nations being sacrificed to the cause. Those nations will have their populations wiped off the map and most of their history with them. The fact that they are nations situated in key geographical areas that hold extraordinary historical records of great importance to an evolving humanity – is not coincidental. The timing of this Third World War is not incidental either. Its perpetrators have long since noted the approaching changes at the universal macro-cosmic level which will directly affect Earth. They have noted that energies associated with these changes might work against them, especially if humanity were to embrace them unhindered.

So they set their clocks to ensure that this particular alarm will go off at a time designed to obscure the relevance of the simultaneously unfolding macro-cosmic event. And to draw the attention of mankind away from that which aids the evolution of its consciousness – and towards that which ensures its further victimization.

We are, according to the manipulators of this scenario, not supposed to know that we have a choice. We are not, of course, supposed to ever recognize what their game is, or what our real potentiality is. We are not supposed to know that we have the power to stop this Third World War from ever happening.

The procedures which have been put into effect to ensure that humankind remains in a state of non-awareness are many and varied. Many, which are quite deadly underneath, look innocuous enough on the surface and remain accepted by the majority as necessary aspects of the standard routines of daily life. Others are less easily received and even resisted; but few amongst us comprehend the fact that they all belong to one underlying plan of repression, control and domination.

The financial and material resources employed to keep the lid on humanity's awakening depend entirely upon the unconscious majority fulfilling their role as unstinting providers. Providers of both the energy and the money to keep in place all the elements of the control system. The 2012 London Olympic games are to provide a perfect smoke screen for the further imposition of this control system. 

There are to be some 35,000 police and troops on hand to impose 'lock down London' and the lock down will not be relinquished when the event is over. It has its complementarity in the heart of Europe where plans for a totalitarian superstate are nearing completion. And since bankers and 'security agents' feature strongly in the mix which constitutes 'the club' standing behind these impositions, it is not too difficult to guess where the 'missing billions' of recent banking scandals ultimately lands up.

In summary: unless we take conscious action to withdraw our support from the system, the Third World War will be sponsored by we the people, freely and at times grudgingly, donating our energy, our money and even our brain power to our own self destruction. 

That is – so long as we continue our refusal of consciousness and avoid seeing what is staring us in the eye almost every day of our lives. And that state of refusal, of course, is exactly what 'the club' wants maintained.

As the Occupy Movement has discerned: it is the 1% who hold power over the 99%; and in all other circumstances 99% would certainly hold the whip hand over 1%. But while the majority of the 99% remain dumbed down, docile and divided, they remain easy prey to the 1%. 

In a state of semi-sleep most can be hypnotically induced to accept the political lies and distortions that contrive to place in our minds an unimpeded acceptance of the 'inevitability' of a Third World War.  A war which would constitute a big step down the road to the end of the human race.

Seven Steps to Defeat the Matrix and End War: 

Now please take a deep breath. This is no idle threat dreamed up by an amateur prophet; it is a reality and one which is being revealed by more and more awaking individuals daily. We are getting a handle on the great lie being perpetrated against humanity and we have had enough. We are going to put an end to it. It is perfectly possible for us to make sure the Third World War never happens.

The first step in doing so involves breaking the spell that 'the club' employs the mass media to hold us under. Just on the other side of the television set and the Sunday newspaper lies the road that leads to the end of war and the beginning of freedom … if we want to take it. But 'freedom' is not achievable without an effort; a real effort. It is not achieved by prayer or by meditation, although both can support it. Neither is freedom simply the removal of a state of oppression. It is a direct and determined statement of intent to put in place a better world and to take the actions that give expression to this intent: physically, mentally and spiritually.

The second step is to use this intent to challenge, unmask and expose corrupted authority by refusing to go along with its life inhibiting demands and revealing its ideology to be fundamentally false. The accompanying action to this involves withdrawing support for the military-industrial complex which is the foundation of the war machine.

This means taking pragmatic, practical steps. Start by taking your money out of the mainstream banking system and putting it into ethically oriented banks that do not support the weapons industry and the war machine, but do support benign enterprises and human-scale creative initiatives.

The third step is to trace how the arteries of war are spread throughout the veins of our consumer society. How everyday acts of aggression, suppression and control are the elements that fuel corporate domination in today's globalized market place.

How today's (and yesterday's) education system encourages all the wrong instincts in young minds: the urge to be 'competitive', 'successful' and to achieve the exclusivity of status which guarantees the top positions and highest salaries in the matrix.

How deliberate human, animal and ecological exploitation are rife within the supermarket-dominated food chain.

How the same deliberate exploitation is equally rife within the money system, the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, the housing market, the political and legal system, the family, marriage and in the church.

Join the dots and see how the same underlying 'war' symptoms are at large in all these and more.

The fourth step is to seek out others who are also endeavoring to bring about positive change. Keep company with such individuals; mutual support, cooperation and encouragement is crucial in overcoming the war state which relies on divisions and incriminations to keep society weakened, fractious and self absorbed.
The fifth step involves moving out of the city and into the country. That's a big one isn't it? However, the only alternative is to be part of a major greening of the city and this may not be possible to achieve within the short time span available to us. The need is to transition away from the crass consumerist 'supermarket syndrome' and establish links with local food and farming operations that can provide fresh and nutritious foods grown in the proximity of your home. 

It also means starting to grow your own chemical-free food, saving water and introducing renewable energy systems to heat your home and to cook with. Reasserting authority and self-reliance over your home is an excellent starting point from which wider fields of resistance can grow.

Step six is about re-educating yourself. Re-educating yourself to be able to recognize the behavior patterns and appearances of oppressors, posers and infiltrators, for they are many and often move with great guile and cunning. 

Once one is true to oneself, one can spot those who disguise their intentions behind falsehood and flattery. The process of re-education also involves dedicating serious time to researching and exploring the phenomena which stand behind events often portrayed by the mainstream media as the precise opposite of what they really are.

Step seven: grow your own spiritual and creative powers! This is a very personal process because there are many different pathways leading to creative and spiritual awakening. Each individual needs to find his or her own right of passage and feel comfortable with it. 

However, a prerequisite for becoming a conscious human being is the recognition that this state is not something external to ourselves which we try to draw down; rather it is a force which lies dormant within us and simply needs awakening. Much of the process of this awakening involves shedding the protective layers we have built around ourselves as a form of extra persona, deemed necessary to get along in this distorted modern world. Beneath the mask of this persona lies a great wealth of creative spiritual potential just longing to be allowed to shine forth.

This potential is the quality most feared by our oppressors. This is because it has the power to render their control system and war agenda completely powerless. It is the one force capable of freeing humanity from the state of funk which holds millions in hypnotic captivity to a consumerist indoctrination which lies at the heart of our present society's ills.

In order to renounce war we have to do far more than just come out onto the streets waving anti-war placards. We have to vibrate with an unswerving passion to defend Life to the very end. Once so empowered, nothing can stand in the way of a process of planetary transformation which will cut off the arteries of war at their base and render those who stand behind its grotesque atrocities powerless to pursue their dark agendas.

Addendum: I would like to state that I would not be making any of the above recommendations if I had not already put them into effect in my own life and drawn great benefit thereby.

Julian is a British pioneer organic farmer, writer and activist. He is currently president of the 'International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside' which is leading the fight against GMO in Poland. He is author of "Changing Course for Life - Local Solutions to Global Problems"www.changingcourseforlife.info  

Imperial Insanity & The Road To World War III

By Andrew Gavin Marshall
January 14, 2011
Courtesy Of "Global Research"

Defining the Imperial Stratagem

In the late 1990s Brzezinski wrote up the design for America’s imperial project in the 21st century in his book, “The Grand Chessboard.” He stated bluntly that, “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America,” and then made clear the imperial nature of his strategy:

To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.[1]

He further explained that the Central Asian nations (or “Eurasian Balkans” as he refers to them):

are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.[2]

Brzezinski emphasizes “that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.”[3]

Obama as a Rabid Imperialist

Obama wasted no time in rapidly accelerating America’s imperial adventures. While dropping the term “War on Terror” from usage, the Pentagon adopted the term, “overseas contingency operations.”[4] This was to be the typical strategy of the Obama administration: change the appearance, not the substance. The name was changed, but the “War on Terror” remained, and not only that, it was rapidly accelerated to a level that would not have been possible if undertaken by the previous administration.

The current expansion of American imperialism globally has been rapidly accelerated since Obama became President, and seems intent on starting and expanding wars all over the world. When Obama became President, America and its Western allies were engaged in a number of wars, occupations and covert destabilizations, from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, to the Congo, and Obama took office in the midst of Israel’s brutal assault against Gaza. From the beginning of his presidency, Obama immediately justified Israel’s vicious attack against innocent Palestinians, rapidly accelerated the war and occupation of Afghanistan, expanded the war into Pakistan, started a new war in Yemen, and supported a military coup in Honduras, which removed a popular democratic government in favour of a brutal dictatorship. Obama’s administration has expanded covert special operations throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa, and is paving the way for a war against Iran.[5] 

In fact, the Obama administration has expanded Special Operations forces into 75 countries around the world (compared with a height of 60 during the Bush regime). Among the many countries with expanded operations are Yemen, Colombia, the Philippines, Somalia, Pakistan, among many others.[6] Further, in recent months, the Obama administration has been saber rattling with North Korea, potentially starting a war on the Korean Peninsula. With the creation of the Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM), American foreign policy on the continent has become increasingly militarized.

No continent is safe, it seems. America and its NATO cohorts are undertaking a seemingly insane foreign policy of dramatically accelerating overt and covert military imperialism. This policy seems to be headed for an eventual confrontation with the rising eastern powers, in particular China, but potentially India and Russia as well. China and America, specifically, are headed on an imperial collision course: in East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. The competition for access to resources is reminiscent of the ‘Great Game’ of the 19th century, of which Afghanistan was a central battlefield.

One would think that in the midst of a massive global economic crisis, the worst the world has ever seen, the major nations would scale back their imperial over-reach and militarism in order to reduce their debts and preserve their economies. However, there is an ‘imperial logic’ behind this situation, and one that must be placed within a wider geopolitical context.

Conceptualizing the Rise of China

First, we must properly address the nature of China’s rise in the world order. What we are witnessing is an historically unique situation. For the first time, the rise of a ‘new’ power is taking place not in the context of rising against the hegemonic powers of the time, but within the hegemonic order. In short, China’s rise has not been a rise against America, but rather a rise within the American world order. Thus, China has risen as much as the West has allowed it to rise, but that does not mean that China will not seek to serve its own interests now that it has accumulated significant global status and power. China has risen by integrating with the Western-dominated economic system, and in particular the Western banking and central banking systems. China and America are economically dependent upon one another, as America purchases China’s cheap products, and China funds America’s debt. In effect, China is also funding America’s imperial adventurism.

Thus, we are presented with a unique situation: one of mutual dependence and competition. While China and America are dependent upon one another, they are also each other’s greatest competitors, specifically in terms of access to and control over resources. For example, China supports both Iran and Sudan. These two nations are major targets of American imperial ambitions, not because of any humanitarian or anti-terrorism concerns (although that is the propaganda espoused most often), but because of the significant resources and strategic relevance of these nations. As they are not subservient to the West and specifically America, they are considered ‘enemy nations’, and thus the media focus on demonizing these nations so that the public is supportive of military or other means of implementing “regime change.” China supports these nations because of its access to their resources, and as a counter to American influence.

Global Governance

To add another complex feature to this story, we must place this conflicting relationship in the context of the global economic crisis and the world response to it. The G20 is the principle forum for ‘global governance,’ in which the nations of the world are working together to increasingly integrate their governance approaches on a global scale. The economic crisis has provided the impetus to spur on calls for and the implementation of plans to construct a system of global economic governance: a global central bank and global currency. So, as China and America are seeking to further integrate economically and globally, they are also competing for access to and control over resources.

The logic behind this is that both powers want to be able to negotiate the process of constructing a system of global governance from a more secure standpoint. While it is generally acknowledged that the world is witnessing “the rise of the East,” in particular with China and India, we see the center of global power moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Several commentators for years have been analyzing and discussing this issue; however, the fact that power has been centered in the Atlantic for the past 500 years means that it will not be so easily moved to the Pacific. In fact, the Western powers not only acknowledge the rise of the East, but that the East has risen because they have allowed it to and aided it in this process. The Western powers have done this not out of some benevolent design, but because the organized intellectual powers of the West (namely, the principle think tanks and banking interests) have sought to create a perfect global system of governance, one in which power does not sway from nation to nation, or West to East, but rather that power is centralized globally. This is obviously a long-term project, and will not (if ever) be realized for several more decades. Yet, it is through crises – economic, political, and social – that this process of global governance can be rapidly accelerated.

See: “Crisis is an Opportunity”: Engineering a Global Depression to Create a Global Government
  

Understanding Imperial Dynamics

There is another dynamic to this complicated relationship that must be addressed, that of the internal dynamics between the political, economic and military elite of the dominant nations. For the sake of time, I will focus on the two principle nations: America and China. America’s national security apparatus, namely the Pentagon and intelligence services, have long worked in the service of the economic elite and in close cooperation with the political elite. There is a network that exists, which President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” where the interests of these three sectors overlap and thus America is given its imperial impetus.

It is within the major think tanks of the nation, specifically the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), where cohesion between these sectors is encouraged and managed. The think tanks, and the CFR most especially, are the policy-makers of the American Empire. Think tanks bring together elites from most power sectors of society – the military, political, corporate, banking, intelligence, academia, media, etc. – and they discuss, debate and ultimately produce strategy blueprints and recommendations for American foreign policy. Individuals from these think tanks move in and out of the policy-making circles, creating a revolving door between the policy-planners and those that implement them. The think tanks, in this context, are essentially the intellectual engines of the American Empire.

Still, we must not assume that because they are grouped together, work together, and strategize together, that they are identical in views or methods; there is significant debate, disagreement and conflict within and between the think tanks and policy-making circles. However, dissent within these institutions is of a particular nature: it focuses on disagreement over methods rather than aims and objectives. To elaborate, the members (at least the powerful members) of think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations do not disagree on the cause of empire and supporting American hegemony, that is a given, and is not often even discussed. That is the environment in which the elite operate.

What is up for debate and discussion is the methods used to achieve this, and it is here where significant conflicts arise between elites. Bankers and corporations seek to protect their financial and economic interests around the world. Military officials are concerned with preserving and expanding American hegemony, and are largely focused on potential rivals to American military power, and tend to favour military options of foreign policy over diplomatic ones. Political representatives must be concerned with the total influence and projection of American power – economically, militarily, politically, etc. – and so they must weigh and balance these multiple interests and translate it into a cohesive policy. Often, they lean towards the use of military might, however, there have been many incidents and issues for which political leaders have had to reign in the military and pursue diplomatic objectives. There have also been instances where the military has attempted to reign in rabidly militaristic political leaders, such as during the Bush administration with the neo-conservatives pushing for direct confrontation with Iran, prompting direct and often public protests and rebuttals from the military establishment, as well as several resignations of top-ranking generals.

These differences are often represented directly within administrations. The Kennedy years, for example, saw a continual conflict between the military and intelligence circles and the civilian leadership of John Kennedy. His brief term as President was marked by a constant struggle to prevent the military and intelligence services of America – particularly the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA – from starting wars with Cuba, Vietnam and the Soviet Union. The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved only after Robert Kennedy, JFK’s brother and the Attorney General, convinced the Russians that Kennedy was at risk of being overthrown in a military coup, which would result in a direct nuclear war against the USSR.

Thus, within the key policy circles – namely the think tanks and presidential cabinets – there is always a delicate balancing act of these various interests. Fundamentally, with American power, they all rest and support American corporate and banking interests. Diplomacy, especially, is concerned with supporting American corporate and financial interests abroad. As the Wikileaks diplomatic cables have revealed in a number of cases, diplomats directly intervene on behalf of and work with various corporate interests. US diplomats acted as sales agents to foreign governments promoting Boeing planes over European competitors, they pressured the government of Bangladesh to reopen a widely-opposed mine in the country operated by a British company, they lobbied the Russian government directly on behalf of the interests of Visa and Mastercard, engaged in intelligence sharing with Shell in Nigeria, and in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan, US diplomats worked with major British business interests and British Prince Andrew, who stated that, “the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you Americans too,” were “back in the thick of playing the Great Game,” and that, “this time we aim to win!”[7]

The military, in turn, acts in the interests of the corporate and financial elite, as those countries that do not submit to American economic hegemony are deemed enemies, and the military is ultimately sent in to implement “regime change.” Strategic concerns are de facto economic concerns. The military is concerned with preserving and expanding American hegemony, and to do so they must be focused on threats to American dominance, as well as securing strategic locations in the world. For example, the war in Yemen, a country with very little to offer economically, has a lot to do with strategic-economic interests. The ‘threat’ in Yemen is not in the form of al-Qaeda, though that is what is most propagandized, but rather it is the fact that the long-supported dictatorship of President Saleh, who has been in power since 1978, is threatened by a rebel movement in the North and a massive secessionist movement in the South, as the central government controls barely one-third of the country. In short, Yemen is on the verge of revolution, and thus, America’s trusted ally and local despot, President Saleh, is at risk of being usurped. Thus, America has heavily subsidized Yemen’s military, and has even directly launched cruise missiles, sent in Special Forces and other forms of assistance to help Yemen’s dictator suppress, repress and ultimately crush these popular people’s movements for independence and liberty.

Now why is this a strategic-economic concern to America, for a country that has little dwindling resources to offer? The answer is in Yemen’s geographic location. Directly below Saudi Arabia, a revolutionary government that would be highly antagonistic towards America’s trusted Saudi proxy state would be a threat to America’s interests throughout the entire Middle East. It would be likely that Iran would seek to ally itself and aid such a government, allowing Iran to expand its own political influence in the region. This is why Saudi Arabia is itself taking direct military action in Yemen against the rebels in the North, along its border. The Saudi elite are fearful of the rebellious sentiments spreading into Saudi Arabia itself. No wonder then, that America recently signed off on the largest arms deal in U.S. history with Saudi Arabia, totaling $60 billion, in an effort to support operations in Yemen but principally to act as a counter to Iranian influence in the region. Further, Yemen sits atop the Gulf of Aden, directly across from the Horn of Africa (namely Somalia), connecting the Black Sea to the Arabian Sea, which is itself one of the major oil transport routes in the world. Strategic control over the nations lining the Gulf of Aden is of primary interest to American imperial strategists, whether they are military, political or economic in nature.

Yemen is also directly across the water from Somalia, another country ravaged by the American war machine. As the diplomatic cables confirmed, in 2006, “the Bush Administration pushed Ethiopia to invade Somalia with an eye on crushing the Union of Islamic Courts,” which is exactly what happened, and Somalia has been a ‘failed state’ mired in civil war ever since.[8] The piracy that has exploded in the waters off of Somalia are a result of the massive toxic waste dumping and over-fishing done by European and American and other major shipping lines, and have served as an excuse for the militarization of the waters. In this context, it would be unacceptable from a strategic standpoint to allow Yemen to fall from American influence. Thus, America is at war in Yemen.

  

China, alternatively, does not have such direct cohesion between its political, economic and military sectors. China’s military is intensely nationalistic, and while the political elite are more cooperative with U.S. interests and often work to achieve mutual interests, the military sees America as a direct challenge and antagonistic (which of course, it is). China’s economic elite, specifically its banking elite, are heavily integrated with the West, so much so that it is very difficult to separate the two. There is not such an integration between the Chinese and American military establishments, nor is there an internal dynamic within China that reflects the American system of empire. The divisions between military, political and economic circles are more pronounced within China than in America. The Chinese political leadership is put into a very challenging situation. Determined to see China advance economically, they must work with America and the West. However, on key political issues (such as with Taiwan), the political leadership must adhere to an intensely nationalistic approach, which is counter to U.S. interests, and supportive of Chinese military interests. Increasing military superiority is seen as a key aspect and objective of China’s increasing political dominance in the world scene. As one top Chinese general stated in 2005, “China should use nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan.” The General cited “war logic” which “dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival.” His view suggested that elements within the Chinese military are ‘determined’ to respond with extreme force if America intervenes in any potential conflict over Taiwan, saying that, “We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”[9]

The Logic of Competitive Co-Operation

The Chinese military must be ready to protect its economic interests abroad if it is to have control over its own economic growth and thus maintain international power. Thus, China’s political impetus to support and increase its international influence is very conflicting. On the one hand, this means actively cooperating with America and the West (primarily in economic matters, as we see with the G20, where China is engaging in the dialogue and the implementation of global governance arrangements); and on the other hand, China must also challenge America and the West in order to secure its own access to and control over vital resources necessary for its own economic and political growth. China is placed in a paradoxical situation. While working with the West to construct the apparatus of global governance, China does not want to be dictated to, and instead wants a strong negotiating position in these arrangements. So while engaging in discussions and negotiations for the construction of a system of global governance, China must also actively seek to increase its control over key strategic resources in the world in order to strengthen its own negotiating position. It is often the case that when warring parties come to the table for negotiations, the on-the-ground operations are rapidly accelerated in order to strengthen the negotiating position of the respective party.

This was the case during the Rwandan Civil War, where throughout the Arusha Peace Process, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), heavily supported by America against the Rwandan government (which was supported by France and Belgium), rapidly accelerated its military campaign, thus gaining the upper hand during negotiations, which worked in its favour, ultimately resulting in the Rwandan genocide (which was sparked by the RPF’s assassination of the Rwandan president), and the RPF usurped power in Rwanda.  This is also the case in Israel-Palestine “peace” negotiations, such as during the Oslo process, where Israel rapidly accelerated its expansion of settlements into the occupied territories, essentially ethnically cleansing much of the Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This expanded process of ethnic cleansing is what the Western political leaders and media call a “peace process.” Thus, when Palestinians react to this ethnic cleansing and expansion of the settlements (which is an inherently violent process), or a suicide bombing or mortar attack takes place in reaction to this expansion of settlements, Western political leaders and media blame the Palestinians for breaking a period of “relative peace” or “relative calm.” Apparently, it is considered to be “relative peace” if only Palestinians are being killed. Thus, Israel always ensures that through any negotiation process, its interests are met above all others.

So we see this logic with China and America today. While not directly at war with one another, they are each other’s greatest competition. This competition is prevalent in Central Asia, where America is seeking dominance over the region’s enormous natural gas reserves, thus depriving China of access to and control over these vital strategic resources. It is also heavily present in Africa, where China has presented an alternative to going to the World Bank and IMF for African governments to get loans and support in exchange for resource access. In this context, America established its newest Pentagon command, Africa Command (AFRICOM) to merge American diplomatic, civil society and military policy in Africa under command of the Pentagon. In the Middle East, America is primarily dominant, thus leaving China pushed to ally itself with Iran. In South America, China is allying itself with the somewhat progressive governments which rose in opposition to American military and economic hegemony over the region.

This logic holds for both America and China. Both seek to secure a dominant position while engaging in discussions and the implementation of a global governance apparatus. This leads both powers to seek cooperation and mutual benefit, yet, simultaneously, compete globally for control of resources. This is magnified by the global economic crisis, which has revealed the weaknesses of the global economy, and indeed the global monetary and banking systems. The world economy is on the verge of total collapse. The next decade will be scarred by a new Great Depression. This provides a further impetus for both of these powers to rapidly accelerate their control over resources and expand their military adventurism.

The American Empire is in decline, and is utterly bankrupt; however, its elites, which are in fact more global than national in their ideology and orientation, are seeking to not simply have American power disappear, or be replaced with Chinese power, but rather to use American power to construct the apparatus of a new global structure of authority, and that the American Empire will simply fade into a global structure. This is a delicate balancing act for the global elite, and requires integrating China and the other dominant powers within this system. It also inherently implies the ultimate domination of the ‘global south’ (Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia). This is an entirely new process being undertaken. Empires have risen and fallen throughout all of human history. This time, the fall of the American Empire is taking place within the context of the rise of a totally new kind of power: global in scope, structure and authority. This will no doubt be one of the defining geopolitical events of the next several decades.

Historically, periods of imperial decline are marked by a rapid acceleration of international conflict and war, as the declining power seeks to control as much as it can as fast as it can (thus we see America’s seemingly insane expansion of war, conflict and militarization everywhere in the world), while rising powers seek to take advantage of this decline in order to accelerate the collapse of the declining power, and secure their position as the next dominant power. Yet, in this geopolitical landscape of the 21st century, we are faced with this entirely new context, where the decline of one empire and the rise of a new power are taking place while both seek to integrate and construct an entirely new system and structure of power, yet both seek to secure for themselves a dominant position within this new structure. The potential for conflict is enormous, possibly resulting in a direct war between America and China, or in a mass of global proxy wars between them.

This new century will indeed be an interesting one. The prospects of a new global war are increasing with every accelerated military adventure. The primary antagonist in this theatre of the absurd is without a doubt, the United States. If the world is headed for World War III, it is because America has made such a situation inevitable. One cannot preclude that for many global elites, such a result may be desirable in and of itself. After all, World War I provided the impetus for the formation of the League of Nations, and World War II provided the push for the United Nations to “secure peace between nations.” In a world largely run by global strategists, it would be naïve to assume that it has not occurred to some that a new world war could be precisely the event they need to convince the people of the world to accept their desired system of global governance; no doubt to secure ‘world peace.’ At least, I am sure it will be sold under that pretense.

Notes

[1]        Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 40

[2]        Ibid, page 124.

[3]        Ibid, page 148.

[4]        Scott Wilson and Al Kamen, 'Global War On Terror' Is Given New Name, The Washington Post: 25 March 2009:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402818.html

[5]        MARK MAZZETTI, U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Actions in Mideast, The New York Times, 24 May 2010:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/25military.html?_r=1

[6]        Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe, U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role, The Washington Post, 4 June 2010: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304965.html

[7]        Eric Lipton, Diplomats Help Push Sales of Jetliners on the Global Market, The New York Times, 2 January 2011:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/business/03wikileaks-boeing.html?_r=2; Fariha Karim, WikiLeaks cables: US pushed for reopening of Bangladesh coal mine, The Guardian, 21 December 2010:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-us-bangladesh-coal-mine?INTCMP=SRCH; Luke Harding and Tom Parfitt, WikiLeaks cables: US 'lobbied Russia on behalf of Visa and MasterCard', The Guardian, 8 December 2010:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard; David Smith, WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed, The Guardian, 8 December 2010:http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying; Borzou Daragahi and Alexandra Sandels, CENTRAL ASIA: WikiLeaks dispatches reveal a Great Game for the 21st century, Babylon & Beyond: LA Times Blog, 14 December 2010: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/12/great-game-wikileaks-turkmenistan-prince-edward-chevron-kazakhstan-kyrgyzstan-azerbaijan-turkmenista.html

[8]        Rob Prince, WikiLeaks Reveals U.S. Twisted Ethiopia's Arm to Invade Somalia, Global Research, 26 December 2010: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22512

[9]        JOSEPH KAHN, Chinese General Threatens Use of A-Bombs if U.S. Intrudes, The New York Times, 15 July 2005:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/international/asia/15china.html

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century," available to order at Globalresearch.ca. He is currently working on a forthcoming book on 'Global Government'.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Andrew Gavin Marshall