The American Century: Neoconservatism

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

The secretive, mysterious, exclusive all-male club called the Bohemian Club located some 75 miles north of San Fransisco at the 2500 square acre Bohemian Grove is purported by many to be the 'summer camp' of the world's most powerful and influential men. The 100+ year old Bohemian Club has been talked about by anarchists, Christian fundamentalists, conspiracy enthusiasts and occultists for many years. I was reluctant about posting information on this uniquely strange club primarily because of all the fantastic tales that have come to be associated with it. However, I now think that the time is right to post at least some of this information. The Bohemian Club may not be as fantastic or as Satanic as some claim it to be, but I nonetheless believe that it is not as innocent as its world famous club members would want us to believe. You have the information, you have the images, you decide. Nonetheless, if you want to see where the financial and the political "elite" of the West go to discuss policy and partake in bizarre revelry please do yourselves a favor and look into the information provided. To understand how individuals are selected to run for office or to be placed into positions of authority, or to understand why such people do what they do while they are in positions of power, one must understand the very nature and character of their closed circuit environments. These are the people that gave rise to Bolshevism. These are the people that defeated nationalism. These are the people who are currently destroying Christianity. These are people who have all but destroyed the family. These are the people who are spreading globalism worldwide. These are the people behind multiculturalism. These are the people behind "color revolutions." These are the people behind the spread of homosexuality. These are the people behind procurement of weapons of mass destruction. These are the people behind major wars. These are the people behind the deaths of countless millions worldwide. These are the people behind unethical science. These are the people that give rise to nations such as the Zionist state. These are the people behind the world's worst dictators. These are the people that set up the world's financial system. These are the people behind what we are allowed to read, hear and see. This is the face of the "elite" that has been running the West and by extension the world for the past several centuries.

Armenian

************************************

Inside Bohemian Grove - The Story People Magazine Won't Let You Read

1981 News report about Bohemian grove: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCDs9Vs2iYM

Alex Jones - Secrets in Bohemian Grove: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_PAqT2JZOw

Bohemian Grove explained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc8VQ...eature=related

Ralph Nader: Bohemian Grove: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZMlI...eature=related

Ralph Nader: Bohemian Grove Pt2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAio...eature=related

Alex Jones asks David Gergen about Bohemian Grove Rituals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFoU...eature=related

When Dirk Mathison, San Francisco bureau chief for People magazine, infiltrated the exclusive Bohemian Grove retreat this summer, he got a view into the U.S. elite that very few reporters have glimpsed. Unfortunately, that elite includes the management of Time Warner, the owner of People, which prevented Mathison from telling his story. Bohemian Grove, a secluded campground in California's Sonoma County, is the site of an annual two-week gathering of a highly select, all-male club, whose members have included every Republican president since Calvin Coolidge. Current participants include George Bush, Henry Kissinger, James Baker and David Rockefeller -- a virtual who's who of the most powerful men in business and government. Few journalists have gotten into the Grove and been allowed to tell the tale (one exception is Philip Weiss, whose November 1989 Spy piece provides the most detailed inside account), and members maintain that the goings-on there are not newsworthy events, merely private fun. In fact, official business is conducted there: Policy speeches are regularly made by members and guests, and the club privately boasts that the Manhattan Project was conceived on its grounds.

Given the veil of secrecy that surrounds the Bohemian "encampment," a reporter needs to enter the grounds covertly in order to get a full portrait. Mathison entered the grounds three times July 1991, aided by activists from the Bohemian Grove Action Network. He witnessed a speech -- "Smart Weapons" -- by former Navy Secretary John Lehman, who stated that the Pentagon estimates that 200,000 Iraqis were killed by the U.S. and its allies during the Gulf War. Other featured speakers included Defense Secretary Richard Cheney on "Major Defense Problems of the 21st Century", former Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano on "America's Health Revolution -- Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Pays", and former Attorney General Elliott Richardson on "Defining the New World Order". Mathison's entree into the secret world of the Grove was cut short on July 20, however, when he was recognized by two of the participants in the festivities -- executives from Time Warner, People's publisher. More loyal to the Grove than to journalistic endeavor, they had the reporter removed from the premises (San Francisco Weekly, 8/7/91).

Mathison already had plenty of material, however, and turned in an article to his editors, which was scheduled to appear in the Aug. 5, 1991 issue. They were pleased with the piece, according to Mathison: "They liked it enough to expand it a bit," he told Extra!. But then the story was suddenly killed. Landon Jones, managing editor of People, told Extra! that the decision had nothing to do with the Time Warner executives. "It was cut partially because he hadn't been there long enough to get a complete story. Secondly, we felt very uncertain about reporting what we did have, because, and this is my fault and I take responsibility for this, I simply didn't realize it was technically trespassing." For his part, Mathison said he did not know why the story was killed, and implied it would be nearly impossible to find the real reason. "It's easier to penetrate the Bohemian Grove than the Time-Life Building," he told Extra!. But the story raises questions about the ability of a media entity to report critically on an elite when its executives are enthusiastic members of that elite. Indeed, the Time organization was noted for sending a corporate plane to the Bohemian gathering every year, according to long-time Grove-watcher Kerry Richardson.

Time Warner is not the only media corporation with Bohemian connections. The list of Fourth Estate bigwigs who have been members or guests is extensive: Franklin Murphy, the former CEO of the Times Mirror corporation; William Randolph Hearst, Jr.; Jack Howard and Charles Scripps of the Scripps-Howard newspaper chain; Tom Johnson, president of CNN and former publisher of the Los Angeles Times. When Associated Press president Louis Boccardi spoke at one of the Grove's "Lakeside Talks" about kidnapped reporter Terry Anderson (Spy, 11/89), he referred to his audience as men of "power and rank" and "gave them more details than he said he was willing to give his readers." Walter Cronkite, now on the CBS board, hangs out at the same lodge at Bohemian Grove as George Bush and the former chairs of Procter & Gamble and Bank of America; Cronkite's voice has served as the voice of the Owl of Bohemia, a fixture in the club's mock-druidic rituals. The media figures attending the retreat all agree not to report on what goes on inside. The prohibition seems to apply to reporters who are not guests or members as well: In 1982, NPR got a recording of Henry Kissinger's speech at the Grove -- but declined to air it (Spy, 11/89). Also in 1982, a Time reporter went undercover as a waiter in Bohemian Grove; like Mathison's People article, his story was killed.

Source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1489

Additional sources:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/bohemian_grove.html

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/bohemian-grove.html

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/011206_bohemian.html

[Pazooki]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

I heard they sacrifice their kids and xxxx over there and as well as worship Satan.

[Mizzike]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Michael Scheuer's quote is spot on.


The Worldwide Bailout


By Jack Hunter


When powerful nations are provoked by their less powerful neighbors, are those nations justified in responding with massive military might?

When it comes to the current war between Israel and Palestine, the answer given by most American politicians and pundits is a resounding "yes" while world opinion remains more diverse.

For example, the European Union has condemned the recent invasion of Gaza, particularly because of the high number of civilian casualties and what it calls "the loss of lives caused by disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defence Forces and the humanitarian crisis it has aggravated."

Many critics are calling for an immediate cease-fire and a return to diplomatic efforts. In Israel's view, diplomacy ended the moment Hamas began firing missiles into their country.

Last summer, when the country of Georgia spent two days launching missiles into South Ossetia, a province along the Russian border whose sovereignty has long been in dispute, Russia responded by invading Georgia. Much like Israel's response to attacks by Hamas, Russia declared that Georgia's insistence on attacking South Ossetia was in defiance of diplomatic efforts.

While world opinion remained diverse, most American politicians and pundits sided with Georgia, making arguments similar to those of Israel's current critics. Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal." Immediately dismissing any suggestions that Georgia was the aggressor, a flustered John McCain said of Russia's invasion, "This is about hundreds of thousands of individuals whose lives are being taken." Much like those who recently protested Israel's actions in Gaza, McCain was concerned about the lives lost first and the details second.

Israel and Palestine, Russia and Georgia — none are completely innocent; each have their crosses to bear. My purpose here is not to pick sides but to offer an alternative perspective.

America's foreign policy, as illustrated by comparing the U.S. reaction to Israel's recent invasion to Russia's invasion of Georgia in August, often has more to do with old alliances than any objective truth. But do these alliances do us more harm than good?

When traditional conservatives, liberals, and others argue that America's hyper-interventionist foreign policy is the cause of many of our problems and that they would like to see the U.S. do less around the world, they are called "isolationist" or worse. But like it or not, Israel and the U.S. are seen as one-and-the-same in the Middle East, a fact that should make Americans uncomfortable given the never-ending instability in that powder keg of a region.


With the recent events in Gaza in mind, perhaps it's time to add a new term to the lexicon of political cuss words when discussing American foreign policy — "interventionism."

For some, interventionism is a far more dangerous prospect for the United States than simply minding our own business. Writes former CIA counter-terrorism expert Michael Scheuer:

"If America were blessed with a non-interventionist foreign policy, we could all thank Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for giving President-elect Barack Obama a thoroughgoing lesson in the absolute irrelevancy of Israel and Palestine to the national interests of the United States. More than a week into Israel's invasion of Gaza, America is still alive and kicking and none of our citizens are dead, which is the way it should be, as this is their religious war and not ours. If stubborn non-interventionism were our creed — as the Founders intended — the Gaza war could continue for two more days or two more months and we could simply shrug and mutter 'Who cares?' America could simply go on its way, rebuilding its economy and marveling over the madness of two religions fighting to the death over a barren sandpit at the eastern end of the Mediterranean."

Scheuer is right. During the Q&A session of a speech I gave the day after the election, a gentleman asked, "What should we do about Russia?"

I replied, "Nothing." He looked puzzled.

The disproportionate wars waged by Russia or Israel are only harmful to the United States due to the disproportion that exists in the American mind, where it is always assumed not only that something must be "done about Russia" but that we are the country who must do it.

Not being "for" Israel or Palestine, or Russia or Georgia, or any other country, does not mean we are against them, but in making these alliances we have found that their enemies are now against us. The alleged benefit of making the concerns of others our own has been grossly disproportionate to its cost. And any price paid for finally daring to put America first would be infinitely preferable to the never-ending disaster of trying to bail out the entire world.


http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/g...id=oid%3A59890

[Azad]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

"Robert Fisk’s World: When it comes to Gaza, leave the Second World War out of it
How do Holocaust survivors in Israel feel about being called Nazis?
Saturday, 17 January 2009


Exaggeration always gets my goat. I started to hate it back in the 1970s when the Provisional IRA claimed that Long Kesh internment camp was "worse than Belsen". It wasn't as if there was anything nice about Long Kesh – or the Maze prison as it was later politely dubbed – but it simply wasn't as bad as Belsen. And now we're off again. Passing through Paris this week, I found pro-Palestinian demonstrators carrying signs which read "Gaza, it's Guernica" and "Gaza-sur-Glane".

Guernica, as we all know, was the Basque city razed by the Luftwaffe in 1937 and Oradour-sur-Glane the French village whose occupants were murdered by the SS in 1944. Israel's savagery in Gaza has also been compared to a "genocide" and – of course – a "holocaust". The French Union of Islamic Organisations called it "a genocide without precedent" – which does take the biscuit when even the Pope's "minister for peace and justice" has compared Gaza to "a big concentration camp".

Before I state the obvious, I only wish the French Union of Islamic Organisations would call the Armenian genocide a genocide – it doesn't have the courage to do so, does it, because that would be offensive to the Turks and, well, the million and a half Armenians massacred in 1915 happened to be, er, Christians.

Mind you, that didn't stop George Bush from dropping the word from his vocabulary lest he, too, should offend the Turkish generals whose airbases America needs for its continuing campaign in Iraq. And even Israel doesn't use the word "genocide" about the Armenians lest it loses its only Muslim ally in the Middle East. Strange, isn't it? When there's a real genocide – of Armenians – we don't like to use the word. But when there is no genocide, everyone wants to get in on the act.

Yes, I know what all these people are trying to do: make a direct connection between Israel and Hitler's Germany. And in several radio interviews this past week, I've heard a good deal of condemnation about such comparisons. How do Holocaust survivors in Israel feel about being called Nazis? How can anyone compare the Israeli army to the Wehrmacht? Merely to make such a parallel is an act of anti-Semitism.

Having come under fire from the Israeli army on many occasions, I'm not sure that's necessarily true. I've never understood why strafing the roads of northern France in 1940 was a war crime while strafing the roads of southern Lebanon is not a war crime. The massacre of up to 1,700 Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatila camps – perpetrated by Israel's Lebanese Phalangist allies while Israeli soldiers watched and did nothing – falls pretty much into the Second World War bracket. Israel's own estimate of the dead – a paltry 460 – was only nine fewer than the Nazi massacre at the Czech village of Lidice in 1942 when almost 300 women and children were also sent to Ravensbrück (a real concentration camp). Lidice was destroyed in revenge for the murder by Allied agents of Reinhard Heydrich. The Palestinians were slaughtered after Ariel Sharon told the world – untruthfully – that a Palestinian had murdered the Lebanese Phalangist leader Bashir Gemayel.

Indeed, it was the courageous Professor Yeshayahu Leibovitz of the Hebrew University (and editor of the Encyclopaedia Hebraica) who wrote that the Sabra and Chatila massacre "was done by us. The Phalangists are our mercenaries, exactly as the Ukrainians and the Croatians and the Slovakians were the mercenaries of Hitler, who organised them as soldiers to do the work for him. Even so have we organised the assassins of Lebanon in order to murder the Palestinians". Remarks like these were greeted by Israel's then minister of interior and religious affairs, Yosef Burg, with the imperishable words: "Christians killed Muslims – how are the xxxs guilty?"

I have long raged against any comparisons with the Second World War – whether of the Arafat-is-Hitler variety once deployed by Menachem Begin or of the anti-war-demonstrators-are-1930s-appeasers, most recently used by George Bush and Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara. And pro-Palestinian marchers should think twice before they start waffling about genocide when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem once shook Hitler's hand and said – in Berlin on 2 November 1943, to be precise – "The Germans know how to get rid of the xxxs... They have definitely solved the xxxish problem." The Grand Mufti, it need hardly be added, was a Palestinian. He lies today in a shabby grave about two miles from my Beirut home.

No, the real reason why "Gaza-Genocide" is a dangerous parallel is because it is not true. Gaza's one and a half million refugees are treated outrageously enough, but they are not being herded into gas chambers or forced on death marches. That the Israeli army is a rabble is not in question – though I was amused to read one of Newsweek's regular correspondents calling it "splendid" last week – but that does not mean they are all war criminals. The issue, surely, is that war crimes do appear to have been committed in Gaza. Firing at UN schools is a criminal act. It breaks every International Red Cross protocol. There is no excuse for the killing of so many women and children.

I should add that I had a sneaking sympathy for the Syrian foreign minister who this week asked why a whole international tribunal has been set up in the Hague to investigate the murder of one man – Lebanese ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri – while no such tribunal is set up to investigate the deaths of more than 1,000 Palestinians.

I should add, however, that the Hague tribunal may well be pointing the finger at Syria and I would still like to see a tribunal set up into the Syrian massacre at Hama in 1982 when thousands of civilians were shot at the hands of Rifaat al-Assad's special forces. The aforesaid Rifaat, I should add, today lives safely within the European Union. And how about a trial for the Israeli artillerymen who massacred 106 civilians – more than half of them children – at the UN base at Qana in 1996?

What this is really about is international law. It's about accountability. It's about justice – something the Palestinians have never received – and it's about bringing criminals to trial. Arab war criminals, Israeli war criminals – the whole lot. And don't say it cannot be done. Wasn't that the message behind the Yugoslav tribunal? Didn't some of the murderers get their just deserts? Just leave the Second World War out of it."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fiskrsquos-world-when-it-comes-to-gaza-leave-the-second-world-war-out-of-it-1418270.html

[Haykakan]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

What is being done to the palastinians is nothing short of a genocide.It is not like the xxxish or armenian genocide in the sence that it is being done at a much slower pace but the end result is the same (extermination of a race of people).The motivation behind this one is much like our own where the opressor is seeking to takeover the lands belonging to others to claim it as their own.

[Armanen]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

I wouldn't call it a genocide, I think ethnic cleansing is a more appropriate term.

[Armanen]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

The CIA has been directly linked to the global narcotics trade for decades. It is claimed that the CIA generates much of the funds it spends on covert operations, or black ops, through narcotics trafficking. Columbia, Mexico, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kosovo are considered to be centers of the international narcotics trade today - and also where various US agencies have an unusually strong presence. We all know that the CIA has had deep roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan since the 1980s. The Washington backed Afghan president Hamid Kharzai, a corrupt criminal that would put any two bit despot to shame, has been known to be a CIA asset for many years, especially by Afghans themselves. So it came as no surprise when the New York Times revealed last week that Hamid Kharzai's brother, the narcotics kingpin Ahmed Wali Kharzai, is on the CIA payroll as well. The only question I have about the following New York Times article is about its timing: why now? Who leaked this information and for what reason? Nonetheless, despite the New York Times' clear attempt to somewhat whitewash the story in question here we are witnessing yet again the American empire's criminal modus operandi...

Armenian

More on Washington's connection to the global narcotics trade -

CIA drug trafficking-Documentary Proof. Part 1 of 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPEritSwkr0

CIA drug trafficking-Documentary Proof. Part 2 of 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkkCv...eature=related

CIA drug trafficking-Documentary Proof. Part 3 of 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNAPw_CJHVU

Ron Paul on CIA Drug Trafficking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6wef25-c1U

Michael Ruppet on CIA Corruption and Drug Trafficking: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5979024486145#


********************

Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A.

KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials. The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home. The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.




The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America’s increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The C.I.A.’s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban. More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large area of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.




“If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves,” said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan. Ahmed Wali Karzai said in an interview that he cooperated with American civilian and military officials, but did not engage in the drug trade and did not receive payments from the C.I.A. The relationship between Mr. Karzai and the C.I.A. is wide ranging, several American officials said. He helps the C.I.A. operate a paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, that is used for raids against suspected insurgents and terrorists. On at least one occasion, the strike force has been accused of mounting an unauthorized operation against an official of the Afghan government, the officials said.




Mr. Karzai is also paid for allowing the C.I.A. and American Special Operations troops to rent a large compound outside the city — the former home of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban’s founder. The same compound is also the base of the Kandahar Strike Force. “He’s our landlord,” a senior American official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Mr. Karzai also helps the C.I.A. communicate with and sometimes meet with Afghans loyal to the Taliban. Mr. Karzai’s role as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban is now regarded as valuable by those who support working with Mr. Karzai, as the Obama administration is placing a greater focus on encouraging Taliban leaders to change sides.




A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment for this article. “No intelligence organization worth the name would ever entertain these kind of allegations,” said Paul Gimigliano, the spokesman. Some American officials said that the allegations of Mr. Karzai’s role in the drug trade were not conclusive. “There’s no proof of Ahmed Wali Karzai’s involvement in drug trafficking, certainly nothing that would stand up in court,” said one American official familiar with the intelligence. “And you can’t ignore what the Afghan government has done for American counterterrorism efforts.”




At the start of the Afghan war, just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, American officials paid warlords with questionable backgrounds to help topple the Taliban and maintain order with relatively few American troops committed to fight in the country. But as the Taliban has become resurgent and the war has intensified, Americans have increasingly viewed a strong and credible central government as crucial to turning back the Taliban’s advances. Now, with more American lives on the line, the relationship with Mr. Karzai is setting off anger and frustration among American military officers and other officials in the Obama administration. They say that Mr. Karzai’s suspected role in the drug trade, as well as what they describe as the mafialike way that he lords over southern Afghanistan, makes him a malevolent force.




These military and political officials say the evidence, though largely circumstantial, suggests strongly that Mr. Karzai has enriched himself by helping the illegal trade in poppy and opium to flourish. The assessment of these military and senior officials in the Obama administration dovetails with that of senior officials in the Bush administration. “Hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money are flowing through the southern region, and nothing happens in southern Afghanistan without the regional leadership knowing about it,” a senior American military officer in Kabul said. Like most of the officials in this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the information.



[...]


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/wo...=karzai&st=cse