Posted by Boris on Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:35 | #

The media in the US has gone from one that took on anybody/thing, to one that’s a partner of the elites now. Lets not forget Time magazine and their softening of readers towards a possible Iran attack. And people still buy it, I really believe one could sell turds and get rich here.

Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 01 Oct 2006 08:26 | #

A loss in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a double victory for us.

1.) It would dampen enthusiasm for more foreign interventions.

2.) It would severely weaken the current international system. Foreign countries will become less willing to outsource their defense to the U.S. (and subsidize our insane economic policies as a consequence). It would embolden resistance movements to American domination the world over.

3.) Withdrawing from the Middle East will do more than anything else to squelch terrorism.

4.) It would definitely be “bad for the Jews.”

Those are a few reasons. Beyond all of that, an isolationist foreign policy would make it much easier to revive racialism in North America. A smaller role in the world means our domestic policies become less susceptible to foreign influence and criticism.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:28 | #

Unfortunately, Daedalus, a loss in Afghanistan implies dead countrymen of mine if it is obtained by the Taliban through the agency of battle.

Posted by Jethro Kull on Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:28 | #

“This is ostensibly odd behavior for a group so invested in hammering home to white America the inevitability and desirability of the browning of America; it becomes less odd when you realize the browning of America is ongoing, and the media is playing its role, Matrix-like, in sedating white America during the euthanasia process. “

Yes, so true.  I had exactly this feeling when I was in Graz, Austria several years ago.  In my undergraduate naivete, drunk and brainwashed on American TV and the nostrums of “diversity,” I just assumed that any other Western country would look just like the US—and be moving to non-White majority status by 2030, just like the USA. 

In fact, what I found in Austria was a country determinedly proud of its history as a great, White European nation and determined to keep it that way.  In recent years I’ve found the same thing in Germany as well as northern Italy (the German Tyrol region)—they’ve had their spells of diversity idiocy, but you can’t imagine how fundamentally different the attitude in those places is, compared to the US.  They actually think it’s a bad idea to invite in the entire Third World to the country.  The Dutch and the French have even been moving in this direction of late, though thus far, Britain seems to be following the US model (to suicide).

It would shock the Diversity Lobby in the USA, but there are actually some European countries that don’t buy into their nonsense.  Methinks that these countries will likely become refuges for what’s left of White North America when the Day of Disaster—aka the day we become a minority here in the US, only a couple decades off.  It is at least some relief to know that a few Western countries haven’t gone totally insane, and it looks like the German-speaking countries may become the main repository for our civilization in two decades.

Posted by Rnl on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 05:06 | #

Guessedworker wrote:

Unfortunately, Daedalus, a loss in Afghanistan implies dead countrymen of mine if it is obtained by the Taliban through the agency of battle.

The obvious response is that fewer Western troops will die if NATO loses the Afghan war tomorrow (and leaves) than if NATO wins the war ten years from now.

I don’t want to see dangerous Muslim fanatics re-installed in Afghanistan, but if the loss of British and other NATO troops is our main concern, then a quick defeat would be preferable to a lengthy victory.

The Taliban are resurgent now because the day after the 9/11 attacks President Bush decided, following the advice of the vocal neoconservatives around him, that a War on (Islamic) Terror would be loudly announced but not seriously fought. The principal target of this misnamed “War on Terror” would instead be Iraq, not Muslim terrorists. “At a meeting in Camp David just after September 11th Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, argued three times that America should attack Iraq rather than Afghanistan” (Economist, Sept 2, 2006). The rejectionist states in the Middle East were perceived as a threat to Israel, whereas weird Koran-thumpers off in Afghanistan were not, even though the weird Koran-thumpers were key facilitators of the Muslim terrorism that the War on Terror was ostensibly being fought to end. Hence the invasion of Iraq and the neglect of Afghanistan.

That was a terrible betrayal in moral terms. It also turns out, surprisingly, to have been a practical mistake. We now know that not even a superpower (supported by eager and not-so-eager allies) can occupy and pacify two large Muslim nations. That fact is becoming increasingly clear; it wasn’t so clear even a year ago.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1777868.ece

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:03 | #

It’s not at all clear that the war in the Stan is being lost, because fundamentally it was never winnable, and really recognised as such. Five, ten or forty years of soldiering will not accomplish what thousands of years of evolution has left undone. The Soviets took 15,000 fatalities over nine years. Coalition casualties to date are under 500. The Brits and Canucks faced some heavy going over the past couple of months, however, 14 of the 29 British deaths over August and September were non-hostile; coming from that most unfortunate Nimrod crash. Five of Canada’s 37 dead were non-hostile fatalities. Taken as a whole 21 of the UK’s 40 dead were non-hostile fatalities. The Taleban are a formidable force and underestimated, however, the Stan, is clearly not Britain’s nor Canada’s Vietnam.  Still, fifty-nine per cent of respondents, in a recent poll, agreed Canadian soldiers “are dying for a cause we cannot win.”

Islam only represents a threat because Islam is here. The Taleban have no heavy-lift air transport, nor aircraft carriers nor ICBM. Accepting Enoch’s advice, deracinate and repatriate, a fundamentalist Islamic government in the Stan would not threaten the West.

The other issue for white Canucks, Brits, and Yanks is the inequality of sacrifice. Two of the 37 Canuck fatalities in the Stan are minorities despite the vismin population in Canada being ~20%. Thirteen of the 37 killed are from Ontario currently with a vismin population [including aboriginals] that is approaching 30%. Of the 37 deaths, two are from Quebec. a black man and an Anglo. The Quebecois constitute ~23% of the population of Canada however, to date have not suffered a single death.

Overwhelmingly the dead in the Stan were white and more particularly Anglo-Saxon.

57% of Canada’s population is white Anglos. They represent 95% of the fatalities in the Stan. 74% of US fatalities are white. I looked at 149 British fatalities in Iraq and the Stan. Of the 149, eight were visible minorities. Three were Fijian and non-residents. Five of the UK dead were vismins. Three percent of UK dead are vismins despite 7.9% being from a non-White ethnic group.

Posted by wjg on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:31 | #

GW,

What would have been better for White (and especially British) EGI - “winning” WWI in 1918 or “losing” in 1916?  Same thing in WWII: “winning” in 1945 or “losing” in 1940?

Our choices now are least-worst.  The monstrosity that rules Anglo-America must be defeated.

Posted by wjg on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:34 | #

James,

Neoconnery seems to metasticized into the more left-liberal domain of the mainstream media.  The latter Jews are finally realizing how valuable imperialism is in hastening the demise of White America; hence the appropriate “news” fed to the American cattle.

Posted by wjg on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:45 | #

Desmond,

Our best die in these wars and the brown masses fill in those gaps and then some.  I’m surprised it took so long for many of our masters to see the wonders of this.  The controlled media is now saluting the flag and singing the anthem as our dwindling, vigorous young manhood is sent into the grave.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:36 | #

WJG,

The consequences of a German victory in 1916 depend in large measure upon the nature of German government in the following years.  One could argue that victory would have been disastrous, since Hitler performed better in saving the country from communists than, for example, post-Adenauer liberal democratic governments did with the cultural left.

As for Britain, I am quite unable to form a view since I do not know what terms Germany would have exacted from us.  If they were anything like Versailles it might have been us that duly developed a virulent nationalist politic.  Who can say with any certainty?

As for losing to Hitler in WW2, I have not the slightest doubt that life under the supremacist thumb of a triumphant Germany would have been appalling.  Certain Germans are rather poor at magnanimity in victory.  Their arrogance can be insufferable when they think they have the upper hand.

But ... would an existence as a slave economy to a bombast, triumphalist Thousand Year Reich have been more tolerable than galloping negroidalism and an eventual loss of homeland?  Yes, of course.  From an EGI perspective.

Posted by wjg on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:03 | #

GW,

It is impossible to know what would have happened in either case though I suspect it would have been less negative than you imply.

The main problem is that Britain has been (and still is) under the control of a foreign ruling elite whose objectives are diametrically opposed to ours (White folks).  Same thing in America.  We have been conditioned to conflate its interests with ours.

The Lloyd George’s and Winston Churchill’s and Tony Blair’s have their Yankee idiot counterparts in Wilson, FDR, and Shrub.  You seem to still regard Britain’s real interests as coinciding with your ruling regime’s.  In the 20th and 21st centuries that is no longer the case.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:27 | #

WJG,

Two things.

First, Americans have more of a problem with the “foreign ruling elite” than do most others.  We have had many discussions about the liberal excesses of societies such as Sweden and even Norway, Ireland and now Iceland, for pete’s sake, falling over themselves to accomodate Third World vibrancy when they have not the slightest need to do so.  But Jews are not agitating to convince Swedes, Norwegians, Irishmen and Icelanders that Jewish interests are Swedish, Norwegian, Irish and Icelandic interests.  Still, liberalism does what liberalism does, I’m afraid.

Second, the historical parallels between national interest and the interests in the <u>national</u> ruling elites were, I think, pretty strong up to 1945.  The rot really set in with the wave of “German emigres” in the 30’s, for example the burgers of Frankfurt.

Posted by wjg on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:19 | #

“First, Americans have more of a problem with the “foreign ruling elite” than do most others.”

I disagree.  Britain was under its control sooner.  It infected us – or at least reached full fruition – as a result of the Balfour Declaration.  Britain sold its soul to “win” WWI and brought us down with it.  London, at that time, being the money changing capital of the world was already fighting for empire (i.e. the banking interests of the Rothschilds, Warburgs, etc.) rather than its people.  When Britain went from being the wellspring of healthy white expansionism to being a rotten, money-worshipping, decadent empire is a good question but it was clearly almost complete before the blood bath of the Great War.  It has since become much worse and more overt in its genocidal intentions but the foreign control was in place long before.

“But Jews are not agitating to convince Swedes, Norwegians, Irishmen and Icelanders that Jewish interests are Swedish, Norwegian, Irish and Icelandic interests.”

I beg to differ.  What the hell is “liberal” and from whence did it come?  The good little liberal Swedes didn’t one day wake up and say “how can I destroy my country today” and it did not spring up from within them.  The West since the confluence of international finance and mass media (radio, television) has found itself in an ever-tightening noose such that even nominally judenfrei areas absorb and internalize its value structure.  (Note that these are the values that the Goyim need to hold not those more sensible values Jews reserve for themselves.)  If they don’t, they are reminded how bad they are; and if words don’t work penury will; and if that doesn’t, prison.  In some cases – such as the early Bolshevik regime – death was also a way to deal with thought criminals.  The same thing happened in reverse to all the savage areas that “converted” to Christianity.  When the sweet words of Jesus didn’t suffice, the White Man’s fire sticks and handouts did.  In that earlier era physical presence was required but no longer.

“The rot really set in with the wave of “German emigres” in the 30’s, for example the burgers of Frankfurt.”

By “German émigrés” did you not mean “German” émigrés as in the “Russian” Revolution?  Also “set in” might better be replaced by “was exacerbated by”.  The decay was already there.

Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:49 | #

I’m personally glad that things are going so “bad” for us in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s really the only thing stopping us right now from jumping head first into a much larger debacle in Iran. I don’t say this because I want to see American troops die. Those troops overwhelmingly come from states like Alabama where I am from. Their lives are being thrown away for the sake of this ridiculous neocon project of bringing “democracy” to the Middle East for the benefit of the Israelis.

“Victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan will only translate into more foreign interventions and more dead American soldiers - for nothing. The easiest way to “fight terrorism” would be to withdraw our forces from the Middle East and cut parasites like Israel loose; something we should be doing anyway, terrorism or not. We never had a terrorism problem before our incessant attempts to dominate the region. The U.S. was actually quite popular in the region until the Kennedy/LBJ years.  Let the Arabs overthrow the dictators in the region and establish their little theocracies. I’m not going to lose any sleep over the status of women in Kabul.

Also, it should be kept in mind that the “War on Terror” is a constant distraction from the more pressing problem of third world immigration. Immigration would rapidly become the most pressing national issue if it were not for all the talking heads on television exaggerating the threat of terrorism. The most Al Qaeda was able to accomplish was knocking over a few buildings in New York City. That is nothing really compared to the ongoing invasion of the Southwest by Mexican settlers.

The sky didn’t fall when we withdrew our troops from Vietnam. That was the end of the matter. A period of relaxed international tension followed. What is the worst thing that could happen to us if we withdrew from Iraq? Israel would be put on the defensive. The tyrannies in the Gulf states might fall to popular discontent. Taiwan might reach an accomodation with China like Hong Kong. The Japanese and Europeans might have to learn how to defend themselves again. Tension between South Korea and North Korea might relax. All things we should be opposed to.

A “defeat” in Iraq and Afghanistan is only a “defeat” for the rootless cosmopolitan globalists who want to extend the LDC nightmare throughout the world with the U.S. playing the role of Team America World Police forever. The dispossessed majority has a clear interest in precipitating the demise of this state of affairs. The sooner the better.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:21 | #

“Also, it should be kept in mind that the “War on Terror” is a constant distraction from the more pressing problem of third world immigration.”

It’s not clear that’s the case. The terrorist threat is driving, along with mid-term elections, enforcement of US borders.

“Sections of the Canada-U.S. border in British Columbia and southwestern Ontario - areas deemed most vulnerable to drug smuggling and terrorist infiltrations - are likely the first locations where American authorities will deploy a ‘‘virtual fence’’ of high-tech monitoring equipment to stop illegal crossings, Homeland Security officials said Thursday.”

“A task force appointed by a Republican congressman from Georgia has recommended that at least 12,000 National Guard troops and additional agents be deployed on the U.S.-Canada border to halt what it fears is a growing flow of illegal immigrants.”

“The U.S. Coast Guard’s plans to arm boats on the Great Lakes with machine-guns — a measure that has drawn fire from Canadian residents — were sanctioned by Ottawa three years ago, officials from both countries confirmed today.

Earlier this year, the American coast guard started training exercises on the lakes with live .30-calibre machine-guns attached to several small boats.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:31 | #

Daedalus,

All you say is only the blessed truth.  But I sense in the saying of it the natural mental detachment of the strategist.  I arrive at your conclusion through the need to save English lives.  That is my overiding concern.  Accordingly, a defeat will not be welcome to me if it is forced upon the decision-makers through a loss of life that is simply politically unacceptable.  I would welcome a “defeat” that flows from a re-evaluation of national interest ... and a holding of Mr Blair to account.

You should know that in Britain there is (excepting Jews) little support for the decision to send troops to these godawful countries, but (excepting Moslems) total support for the boys while they are there.

And that brings me on to WJG.

Politically and democratically, Britain is not remotely like the US.  We have a long and honourable tradition of parliamentary confrontationalism, and that breeds mainstream political dissent - traditionally from the left.  A current prime example is to be found in the person of George Galloway, whom you may have seen demonstrating some of the differences between British and American political mores to a couple of senators recently.  He is no one-off.  Tam Dalyell, though now retured from the House, is another excellent example of the breed. 

The right produces not dissent, exactly, but its fair share of truth-tellers.  Norman Tebbitt and the great Enoch immediately spring to mind.

In consequence it is important not to view British and other European democratic processes too much through an American federal prism, and also to understand that Jewry is not the same issue for the radical right in Europe as it is in America.  In that regards, I urge you to allow for the nature and direction of liberalism before you consider the role of Jewry.

Posted by Rnl on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:33 | #

Daedalus wrote:

I’m personally glad that things are going so “bad” for us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The war against the Taliban was a rational response to a savage act of Muslim terrorism. The invasion of Iraq was not a response to Muslim terrorism. We shouldn’t confuse the two. They are different wars fought for different purposes.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:00 | #

You should know that in Britain there is (excepting Jews) little support for the decision to send troops to these godawful countries, but (excepting Moslems) total support for the boys while they are there.

However, little or no support for them, apparently, when they return.

Seriously wounded soldiers have complained that they are worried about their safety after being left on wards that are open to the public at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham.

On one occasion a member of the Parachute Regiment, still dressed in his combat uniform after being evacuated from Afghanistan, was accosted by a Muslim over the British involvement in the country.

Soldiers on operations say they would rather receive a more serious injury and go to the top American military hospital in Ramstein, Germany, than end up in a NHS hospital.

They now half jokingly refer to getting “a Boche rather than a Blighty” in reference to the wounds that would send them home. Ramstein has an outstanding unit for brain surgery, and neurological intensive care beds in Britain are in short supply.

“The blokes see it that if you are unlucky you get wounded and go to the UK at the mercy of the NHS, but if you get a head wound you get sent to Ramstein in Germany where the US has an outstanding medical facility,” said an officer serving in Afghanistan.

Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:19 | #

The “War on Terror” has been misguided from the start. How do you defeat “terrorism,” a tactic, with conventional military forces? You can’t. We have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for years now and “terrorism” still hasn’t been defeated, in spite of the billions of dollars wasted and thousands of lives thrown away in pursuit of this elusive objective. In Iraq, we have created legions of terrorists where none existed before. By occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, we are accomplishing nothing but bleeding ourselves to death fiscally (like the Russians) and giving every hothead in the Middle East an opportunity to take potshots at U.S. soldiers in their own backyard. The problem is worse now than it was five years ago. If we attack Iran, it will become still.

The solution to terrorism is to address the causes of terrorism while simultaneously treating terrorists as rogues. We should stop propping up the corrupt regimes in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. We should stop subsidizing Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. We should pull our troops out of the Islamic world. Muslims are not in need of our tutelage. Above all else, we should put an end to Islamic immigration to the West and start repatriating all the alienated potential terrorists to their nations of origin. 9/11 would never have happened if it were not for our liberal immigration policy. This would deprive terrorists like bin Laden of their base of support amongst the masses. Terrorist organizations would atrophy and the remaining terrorists, now rebels without a cause, could be ferreted out, rounded up, and shot.

Posted by Andy on Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:29 | #

Above all else, we should put an end to Islamic immigration to the West and start repatriating all the alienated potential terrorists to their nations of origin. 9/11 would never have happened if it were not for our liberal immigration policy.

 

  This here is the key.  DON’T LET THEM COME HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Posted by wjg on Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:04 | #

GW says…

“In that regards, I urge you to allow for the nature and direction of liberalism before you consider the role of Jewry.”

Whatever liberalism was as a destructive force, it has SINCE BEEN co-opted/taken over by Jewry (and their Shabbas Goy partners) for malignant purposes.  Whites are prone to utopian fantasy but this is not of itself our main fight RIGHT NOW.  Liberals today are dolts that must be laughed at, not enemies to take seriously.

The French Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, the American Civil War (sic) - these various manifestations of “liberalism” were simply seeds that have been corrupted.  That’s not to say these movements were good or bad - just that they were.
IF liberals are our main enemy then we as a race had better hang it up now because liberalism is part of the spirit of our race.  What we must fight is the poisoning of our people against our people.

Liberal Whites/Yankees/etc, are no more our enemy than White Women are our enemy (because of say feminism).  They must be dealt with as wayward brothers and sisters; completely different than the doppleganger who is effectively carrying out our destruction and laughing at our folly for running down their rat holes.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:43 | #

The destruction of Europe subsequent to WW II cannot be considered independent of US hegemony, and US hegemony cannot be considered independent of Jewis influence.  I certainly agree that northern Europe is more susceptible to perversion of tribal altruism by parasites than southern Europe but that is a human ecologogical phenomenon appearing around the world due to climatic variation and consequent food caloric density.

Posted by Rnl on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 05:19 | #

Daedalus wrote:

The “War on Terror” has been misguided from the start. How do you defeat “terrorism,” a tactic, with conventional military forces? You can’t.

Terrorism is a tactic employed by Muslim terrorists. The terrorists employing the tactic can be defeated, and they were initially defeated in Afghanistan by conventional military forces. Their capacity to injure us by their tactic can therefore be reduced. Failure to confront the terrorists who practice terrorism guarantees that they will inflict further atrocities.

It’s wrong to treat a tactic as something floating about in the air, too ethereal to be touched by solid soldiers. People employ tactics, and other people can prevent them. The tactic won’t go away, but the number of people employing it can be reduced. 

In Iraq, we have created legions of terrorists where none existed before.

That’s clear.

The invasion of Iraq was not, however, intended to defeat Muslim terrorists, since there were no Muslim terrorists in Iraq to be defeated. The invasion was not part of a war on terror, and the neoconservative architects of the invasion were under no illusion that it was.

On the other hand, the 9/ll terror attack was launched from Afghanistan, as were other attacks against a variety of Western targets. Afghanistan was a training center for jihadists. Retaliation against the perpetrators and facilitators of Muslim terrorism was both just and inevitable.

Much of the hostility even to the idea of a War on Islamic Terror has its origin in justified outrage at the monstrous invasion of Iraq, which all White nationalists opposed from the outset. But punishing Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan and preventing them from launching further attacks are logically distinct from the Iraq debacle. They are often confused, because the neoconservative advocates of the invasion marketed their plan to reshape the Middle East as a frontal assault on terrorism. 

We shouldn’t take them at their word. The invasion of Iraq never had any connection with a war against Muslim terrorism, other than to increase the number of Muslim terrorists.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:59 | #

Defeat in the military sense “means to conquer so completely that resistance is broken” and clearly that is not the case in Afghanistan.

If you live in Newton, Mass. you are not affected by crime in Camden N.J. However, if you encourage the blacks and browns in Camden to move to Newton because you desire landscapers on the cheap, then crime will rise in your neighbourhood.

The point being that it does not matter what happens in Afghanistan or anywhere in the Islamic world if Muslims are not your neighbours. Sure intervene in the Stan, push back the Taleban hard, open a path to Bin Laden and then assassinate the bastard or drag him back to the US for trial. Then leave. Stop Islamic immigration from any source. Profile them. Intern them at every opportunity. Stick to them like a fly to cow shit and encourage them in every possible way to leave. It’s like Enoch said, it’s the numbers that count. Diminish the opportunity for Islam to grow and prosper in your country and the terrorist threat with diminish with it.

Posted by Paki Stan on Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:52 | #

WHY WAS NEWSWEEK’S COVER STORY “LOSING AFGHANISTAN” NOT PUBLISHED IN THE US ?

A fine example of the ‘liberal media’

“Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is a must-read for anyone concerned about the future of our planet. Since the document is over 80 pages here is a short summary

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a Washington-based think tank that was formed in 1997. Its goal is to establish the United States as “the new global leader” over all nations through military might if necessary, aggressively promoting the interests of the United States abroad, and dominating other countries socially, economically, and militarily.

The plan, as outlined in the PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, is to start with the invasion of Iraq, removal of Saddam Hussein as the first of several planned wars which would include attacks on Syria and Iran. The purpose of these wars is to demonstrate military might to intimidate other nations, at the same time permanently installing US military bases around the world to act as the global police, imposing and enforcing a law and order beneficial to the United States’ interests.

Their campaign to overthrow Hussein was unsuccessful during the Clinton presidency and early days of Bush’s term, but on 9/11 they found the event they needed to push for the overthrow of Hussein. Within 24 hours both Wolfowitz and Cheney were calling for an invasion of Iraq, even before anyone knew who had been responsible for the attacks.

PNAC was founded in part by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz. Many other PNAC members were installed into the Bush Administration immediately following George W. Bush’s inauguration, and were behind the aggressive push to war with Iraq—a war that many of us still don’t understand why Bush started, and a war that many Americans are misinformed about.

“Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (a PNAC project paper) also described the need for a catastrophic event, such as a new “Pearl Harbor,”(9/11????) in order for the described plans in the document to unfold at anything other than an undesirably slow pace.

And this is the lesson of 9/11. You stage a terror attack to convince the world we need to fight terror

 

The tragedy of September 11th gave them exactly what they needed to set the plan in motion. Suddenly, claims were made by the Bush Administration about Saddam Hussein’s menacing “stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction”, unmanned aircraft capable of reaching the US with chemical or biological agents, nuclear weapons (WMD) programs, and a strong desire to attack the United States.

However, those in the Bush Administration who were not PNAC members told us that Saddam Hussein had no significant WMD’s—and was not a threat.

Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S. policy. For instance, the concept of “Homeland Defense” comes straight from “RAD.” Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that George Bush calls the “Axis of Evil”, are listed together in “RAD” several times as possible military threats to the U.S. There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent of the GDP, exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for next year’s budget. Its basic statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the idea of preemptive engagement.

Bush’s National Security Strategy of September 20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized a broadened definition of preemption. Since we are already hearing accusations against regimes in Iran and Syria, will they be slated next for invasion?

The document is written with all of the single-mindedness, unilateralism and inattention to international ramifications (with either friend or foe) that the Bush administration displayed in its current build-up for war with Iraq. There is even assertion of the necessity of American political leadership overriding that of the U.N. (p. 11), a policy that was sadly played out when the U.S. invaded Iraq without the approval of either the U.N. or the international community.

9/11 gave these men everything they could possibly ask for including unlimited power to implement their otherwise unacceptable plans for global domination. Nothing else would have enabled them to go ahead with their plans. 9/11 was the greatest thing that ever happened to these men. If that does not make you suspicious, nothing will. What are the odds that all of this is nothing more than a historical coincidence? Do these facts, at the very least, merit public discourse?

Information on PNAC and a list of founders along with their Statement of Principles and documents are freely available on their own website, located here: http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.

However, to this day, PNAC has not been mentioned by any of our corporate news media.  Most Americans have never heard of it, and few can name its members in positions of power in their own government.

9/11 Special -  Dutch Television Documentary
(Copy & Paste the link bellow and watch the film,its only 23 min long but it makes you “THINK”)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm