People always say, "Show Me The Money!". If you want insight into any aspects of a global agenda, the evidence is often right under your nose. It may not spell it out like Noddy's Guidebook, but when you combine insight and common sense, and read between the lines... it's there for all to see. It can't all be disinformation can it? Agenda 21, Northwoods, The Brookings Report, The MK Ultra files, The Tavistock Charter... the list goes on and on. I hope to cover many more over time, but for now, I have focused in on four particularly Damning (or controversial, depending on your point of view) Documents that are regularly cited as "smelling of a rat". Below are the links to my overviews and discussions of the four items. The documents themselves are easy to find on the web. So if you have the time, please also give them a read.
Remember though... Open minds, folks!
The Truth Seeker's Guide.
Part 1 - PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defences
Part 2 - Report From Iron Mountain
Part 3 - Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars
Part 4 - Global Governance 2025
Part 5 - Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development
Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html
In September of 2000, a neoconservative Washington think-tank called The Project For The New American Century, published a document entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defences'. This particular opus, like many other key documents over the years, quickly became the topic of huge debate and discussion in the Truth Community. Such ‘damning documents’ (as they have become known) are often cited as possible, quantifiable evidence of an inside job, cover up or ‘conspiracy’. For others they are simply the subject of speculation. Over the next few posts, I will endeavour to examine a few of these key articles, look at their origins and authenticity… and their implications.
Rebuilding America’s Defences (or RAD), was seized as particularly damning because of it’s immediately authentic origins. The authors and those involved with Project For The New American Century, held (or were soon to hold) key positions of financial, military and political influence.
Amongst their number were the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, and Elliot Abrams. These (along with many others) became intricate in the Bush years in the White House.
At first glance, RAD appears to be a policy document that outlines detailed aspects of America’s future plans to create a system of global dominance. It discusses ways and means to carry out this policy, including more ’unconventional’ methods. One such observation has been scrutinized to death, dismissed as coincidence by some and held up as a smoking gun by others. It is the well known quote from page 52. When discussing possible ways to expedite the policies therein, it states: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbour". In other words: a huge attack on American soil.
The significance of this should not be underestimated. There has been much research relating to Pearl Harbour as an “allowed to happen” or “false flag” event, that served as the catalyst for public supported, US entry into World War 2. The authors of RAD clearly understood the true meaning of a statement like that. A year later 9/11 happened. An event that served as the perfect catalyst for public supported, US instigation of the War On Terror. The subsequent war also fitted perfectly with the lengthy policy outlines that were proposed in RAD. If this is merely coincidence, then it’s a biggy!
There are 3 central notions at the heart of RAD: a “Pax Americana”, securing a “Global Hegemony” and “Using The Military To Gain An Empire”. The conceited notion of “Pax Americana” involves working hard to maintain the US’s position as the world’s “sole superpower”, following the end of the ‘Cold War’. It encourages intervention in countries that are idealogically opposed to The West, "multiple simultaneous large-scale wars" and the pervasion of “American Peace” and “Democracy”. It also places extreme emphasis on “pre-eminent action”. When you look at the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya, the sabre rattling at Iran and Syria and the intelligence agencies’ involvement in social uprising that have created attempted regime-change in Egypt and Yemen, the existence of “Pax Americana” becomes all to clear.
At this point in RAD, attention is also brought to “Homeland Defence” (coincidently similar to “Homeland Security”, which came into existence following 9/11) and several other aspects, including disregarding the power of the United Nations. In this regard, RAD states: "Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success of NATO operations there attests. Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality. . . . American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force".
The second central notion of RAD, “Securing Global Hegemony”, specifically talks about an “Axis Of Evil” which includes the likes of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It states that any nation pursuing a Nuclear program will be viewed as a threat and talks at length about the threat posed by the rise of China to “great power status”. It also discusses the validity of “Regime Change”. Does any of this sound familiar?!
The final notion, “Using The Military To Gain Empire”, talks about the multi-generational nature of the task and reinforces the idea that America might, must always remain at the core of these policies. "If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned US military preeminence". It goes on to justify the financial cost ($2.3 trillion, Mr Rumsfeld?!) and how that should be distributed throughout the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. RAD also places huge importance on establishing a huge network of US military bases overseas.
It then expands the remit to larger areas of military means. These means include “Nuclear Expansion” (Obama agreed to cut the number of nuclear weapons several years ago, but the real number is unknown), “Control Of Space” (unknown but highly probable) and Control of the "International Commons": meaning a ‘Star Wars’ like missile program or a missile shield system. "An effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defences is a prerequisite for maintaining American pre-eminence" .The latter means is very real and very much in the process of happening today. In fact, in the last few months, Hilary Clinton has been (both secretly and publicly) signing off the commencement of missile and radar placements with several countries.
The prospects for the “Future Forms of Warfare“ (which the document proposes) include:
Soldiers in “encapsulated, climate-controlled, powered fighting suits, laced with sensors, and boasting chameleon-like 'active' camouflage“. Drugs to heighten the senses and control the emotions of soldiers in the form of “skin-patch pharmaceuticals” to “help regulate fears, focus concentration and enhance endurance and strength“. This is something we are already seeing, in the form of vaccinations and pills that soldiers receive prior to going to a combat zone. Although unconfirmed, there is also speculation that army food supplies are tainted with such elements to provide a ‘top-up’. Superior, highly precise and lethal weaponry is also discussed, meaning that a “squad of seven soldiers (are) able to dominate an area the size of the Gettysburg battlefield”.
It states that “air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft.”. This is something commonplace now. Unmanned drones are used all across the Middle East to carry out surveillance and combat operations. These drones have also been seen over the skies of Western countries… what they are up to is anyone’s guess!
Even more shocking is the intention to use “advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes” that “may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool". This is potentially a nightmare scenario.
It also discusses new forms of war including: Cyber Warfare. Here, it discusses systems whereby the US military has “the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks”. This is another aspect which is very much a reality today. The internet is seen a huge threat to the West’s global dominance and has seen the military and intelligence agencies work hand in hand with corporate internet giants, to develop extensive systems that could ’potentially’ limit or even shut down access to the internet.
It is telling that, whilst most of the areas covered in “Rebuilding America’s Defences” have either been actively pursued or come to pass during the Republican / Bush Administration, the sentiment has remained very much the same during the Democrat / Obama Administration. This shows that it is not only a bi-partisan way of thinking, but also a systemic intention… something that goes hand in hand with the very existence of the American (and Western) military industrial complex and (by extension) corporate systems.
The real crime hidden within the pages of this document, is not the spectre of the future of global warfare and western dominance… it is not even the eerie prediction of 9/11 or the fact that it seems to predict the exact strategy of US Foreign Policy for the next ten years. It is the complete and total disregard of the individual. Whilst those from Project For The New American Century (and all those inextricably linked to them) maintain that these proposals are to safeguard and protect the sovereignty and security of The West, I suspect that it is their beloved infrastructure and global reach that they wish to protect rather than ordinary individuals.
Protecting people and keeping them safe is furthest from their minds.
Where the individual is concerned, it is the capacity to control.
That, and another (possibly) ‘damning document’ will be the subject of my next post.
To Be Continued…
Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html
At the end of part one, I posed the question: Was the US complicit in or even, directly responsible for 9/11? Before you even start examining the evidence relating to the 9/11 inside job theory, you have to take a look back through US history and try to establish a context. Many believe that those in the upper echelons of the US power structure have, on several occasions, played a role in assisting or creating events to advance a plan or agenda. The most “infamous” of such theories begins with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour that instigated US entry into World War 2.
Whilst there is still a degree of speculation surrounding the evidence of a cover-up, it does appear that the US knew that Japan intended to attack (pre-Pearl Harbour).
The Hilo Tribune Herald reported “Japan May Strike Over Weekend” on November 30, 1941 (the weekend before the attack), so generic insight was common knowledge at the time. As for exact knowledge of the where and when, is open to debate.
Much of the debate revolves around the degree of Japanese code-breaking that had occurred (the NSA released NJ-25 orders of 1979, certainly show detailed knowledge of Pearl Harbour on the part of the Japanese) and various documentation , such as the “ McCollum” memo (an eight-part plan to counter rising Japanese power over East Asia). What raises the questions are the oddities.
- The positioning of the US fleet to safety just before the attack and leaving old battered ships in place… coincidence?
- FDR began putting the 8 point plan into effect the very next day… coincidence?
- FDR proposed sacrificing 6 cruisers and 2 carriers at Manila (in Feb 1941) to get into war… coincidence?
- Churchills’s observation at the Atlantic Conference: "astonishing depth of Roosevelt's intense desire for war."… coincidence?
- Secretary Interior Harold Ickes: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan"…coincidence?
- The tri-party agreement between Japan, Germany and Italy, executed one year earlier. The agreement stipulated that a war against any one of the parties would be considered to be a war against all three… coincidence?
In August 2002, both the BBC and the Chicago Sun Times ran features on the sunken, 78 foot submarine at Pearl Harbour. These featured the story of a Japanese midget submarine that was shot at (and sunk) by US sailors, a full 2 hours before the aerial attack on Pearl Harbour. Whilst Pearl Harbour can certainly be shown as instigating the US entry into the war, it does allow for the speculation of false flag and ‘events by design’.
Far more compelling, though, is Operation Northwoods. Made public in 1997 (and more completely several years later), Operation Northwoods refers to documents originated by the Joint Chief of Staffs within the Kennedy Administration. Specifically, they refer to engineered events that could used to justify military action against Cuba. The following co-ordinated events were proposed: Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
(1) start rumours (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbour; large fires -- napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbour entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).
The United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base. There was discussion about blowing up US ships in Guantanamo Bay to blame Cuba. Destroying unmanned, drone vessels and arranging “to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both”. Developing a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
“We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.”
“An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.” With the ‘plane’ speculation surrounding 9/11, this particular proposal raises a few eyebrows.
It has to be noted that JFK ultimately rejected these proposals. Some have connected his untimely assasination to his refusal to approve the Northwoods mandate, however this is only speculation. What is fact, is contained within the pages of these documents. Aspects of the US power structure were perfectly prepared to carry out false flag events to advance a political/military agenda. The Northwoods documents are readily available on the net and I would suggest it as recommended reading for anybody interested in learning the truth about the notion of false flag operations.
Such examples as Pearl Harbour and Northwoods are not isolated affairs. You only have to do a cursory look into the Gulf Of Tonkin incident and the subsequent entry into the Vietnam War to see a pattern. Even as late as 1995, the Oklahoma City bombings have raised such questions. Were it not for local affiliate TV stations, we may never have become aware of the presence of a second (and possibly third) bomb/bombs in the Alfred P Murrah building… Or the defusing operation taking place at the time.
The final twist in researching these suggestions, relates to the (Council on Foreign Relations associated) document: Rebuilding America’s Defences, created by the think tank: Project For The New American Century (PNAC).
Not only is this a showcase for individuals who became closely associated or directly involved with both the Bush Administration and proponents of the ‘New World Order’ agenda, it is also seen by many as a roadmap (or worse, policy document) of US political and military, global aspirations post-2000. The document proposes the subjugation of several nations (by name), countries which coincidentally ended up on Bush’s ‘Axis Of Evil’ hit-list. It talks about establishing a “Pax Americana”, a strategy of global influence and expansion which includes the justification of war with other nations as: preservation of “American Peace” and the spread of “Democracy”.
It is strange to note that this policy and mantra has now been adopted by many western countries (UK and Europe) and continues unabated today, despite both the US & UK having ‘politically opposite’ governments to those who initiated this agenda. One should never forgot that all of this could not have easily occurred, were it not for the events of 9/11. AND… what should we find on page 52 of this document:
“The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - LIKE A NEW PEARL HARBOR”
Like a new Pearl Harbour… sound familiar?
Well it should. 9/11 was that “new Pearl Harbour“.
In part one and two, I’ve looked at the possibility of an engineered strategy.
In part three onwards, I’m going to start looking at some of the evidence from 9/11 and see if it matches the ‘official story’ or tells us something more sinister.
To Be Continued…
