Monday, August 29, 2011

Fethullah Gulen Working for the CIA?

Fethullah Gulen Working for the CIA? – By Dr. Aland Mizell

[Readers should be aware of the Zionist MEMRI source of the following explanation of the current Turkish political scene. Either ignore it, or take it with a grain of salt, but the Israeli mind-twisters are projecting Ergenekon and Sledgehammer as false flag deceptions by the Turkish Islamists' party, JDP (Islamist Justice and Development Party), which just might be true. In my reading of these things, I think that Ergenekon is a smokescreen thrown-up by the CIA-backed Gulen Islamists, to turn the Turkish people against their military leaders before Turkey reaches a point of absolute crisis, when the military just might be needed. The "Ergenekon" investigation into the old Turkish Gladio network put in place by NATO, was generated by the discovery of a crate of grenades and the investigation into how they got buried in the first place. The investigation revealed the Gladio-type "Sledgehammer" plot that was on somebody's books, similar to Operation Northwoods, the American version of the same plot-type. Northwoods, like Sledgehammer, were plots intended to implicate leftists and liberals in seditious plots against the state. These "stay-behind networks," like the Turkish "Deep State" are old plots, concerning old, perhaps outdated weaponry, representing little threat to the state today.

The real threat from these Deep State elements, which are busily at work undermining every country on the planet, is not from these old networks, but from the new conspiracies, which have sprung-up from the military and spy service personnel who were involved in the original plots. Today's conspirators operate in an entirely different manner, no longer content with simple false-flag attacks intended to defame and slander liberals and leftists, today they sponsor terrorism outright, for the seditious purpose of staging destabilizing governments. Even though both the new terror-masters and the old Gladio killers are pushing terrorism as an excuse for military intervention, the excuse of providing covert resistance to an invading power has been cast aside, in favor of instigating outright insurrection.

The real plot involves CIA-related interests and "private security" arrangements, promoting the "moderate Islamist" power structure. Turkish interests are used to project CIA activities in the Middle East and Central Asia. Uncovering the CIA/Gulen connection is the most important investigation that has yet to begin. Getting past the smokescreen of Ergenekon is just the beginning.]


Is Fethullah Gulen really a CIA agent? Or does Fethullah Gulen know how to use the CIA for his interest? Why is the Gulen movement more successful than any other Muslim movement in Turkey or even outside of Turkey? Is the Gulen movement really chosen by God and making his followers “the chosen ones”? Who introduced Gulen to the Washington Circle? What was the role of the Jewish community, such as the Anti-Defamation League, in promoting him in the USA? Gulen and his followers are opportunistic. They know how to use people and systems for their purpose; for example, in the eighties he positioned himself against Communism to get the support of the USA. Gulen never takes risks but rather finds the direction of the wind, and then his followers will do anything to succeed. I would not be surprised if Gulenists have already infiltrated the CIA. In the past Dr. Necip Hablemitoglu, professor of history at Ankara University studied the relation of Fethullah Gulen’s community with the CIA. In his study he claimed that the CIA used Fethullah Gulen or that Gulen worked for the CIA. Dr. Hablemitoglu was assassinated in 2002, and his case has still not been solved. Regarding Gulen’s connection to the CIA, former Turkish Intelligence Chief, Osman Nuri Gundes, in his memoir claimed that Gulen’s movement has been providing cover for the CIA since the mid-1990s, and that in the 90s, the movement sheltered 130 CIA agents at its schools in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan alone. The memoir revealed that the CIA operates in Central Asia by using the Gulenists’ movement. Furthermore, the Washington Post, hastening its news sells, printed the partial and prejudiced coverage of this recently published memoir by Chief Gundes. I think that the publication was an important piece although not a fair, objective news analysis, but rather a marketing tool and a kind of propagandistic journalism for the Gulenists. I think that the author failed to demonstrate the intense secrecy of the organization and neglected to conduct further investigation to see if the Gulenists do have a connection with the CIA.

In addition, the author of the Washington Post article could have interviewed more people not Just Graham Fuller, author of The Future of Political Islam, an ex-CIA agent and former CIA station chief in Afghanistan, and a favorable voice for the movement to see if Fuller’s assertions are relevant or not. It seems Mr. Fuller explicitly denies CIA connections with Gulenists’ missionaries. Further, Fuller claims that he has no knowledge about the Gulenist movement, but then later he adds that he did write a letter to the FBI in 2006 saying that Mr. Gulen is not a danger to US security and urging the government not to deport him to his native country of Turkey. If Graham Fuller does not know much about Gulen, then why would he write a letter to the FBI to say that he is not a danger to American security or to argue against his extradition? Why would he give a free ride to Gulenists and to Gulen? How long did Fuller study the Gulen movement before he made such statements about Gulen’s role in Central Asia or about his not being a danger? How did Fuller and former USA Ambassador Morton Abramowitz and businessman Ishak Alaton know each other? What was the role of the Anti-Defamation League’s president, Abraham Foxman, and the League’s Deputy National Director, Kenneth Jacobson? The Post piece was far from investigative reporting.What other liaisons call into question Gulen’s relation to the CIA? To what extent did the CIA and Gulenists collaborate with General Rashid Dostum, the leader of Afghanistan’s minority Uzbek community? In 1998, the Taliban forced Dostum to flee to Turkey; he returned from exile in Turkey to Afghanistan in April 2001. Seeing his potential, President Hamid Karzai appointed Dostum as Chief of Staff to the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces in 2005. What reshaping or alliances occurred during those three years in Turkey?

Besides the CIA, another group Gulen used and became significantly connected with was the US Jewish community and with the worldwide one, chiefly through Ishak Alaton, co- founder and chairman of the executive board of Alarko Holding Company. Alaton is one of the wealthiest business tycoons in the world, owning Alarko with its interests primarily in energy, land development, housing, investment, tourism, and other enterprises. He is a Jew raised in Turkey. Having been a courageous public voice for Gulen and Gulenists in Turkey and abroad, he is very close to Gulen and regularly keeps in touch thanks to his worldwide contacts. In any difficulties Gulen and Gulenists ask for help from Alaton. For example, the Alaton’s had close business alliances in Turkmenistan, so that when Gulen’s schools ran into political trouble, Gulen asked for his help to keep his schools open there. Also, when the Russian authorities closed down his operations and did not let Gulenists open schools in Russia, Gulen sent Ishak Alaton to tell the Russian authority that Gulen’s followers were not fundamentalists and to lend Alaton’s credibility in testifying that they were safe. In 2006, when Gulen had problems with his immigration in the US, one of Gulen’s closest friends, Ahmet Kara, and the editor of the Zaman newspaper, Ekrem Dumanli, again asked help from Alaton because the Gulenist leaders were nervous about how to prevent his deportation from America. Alaton asked help from the former USA Ambassador to Turkey, Morton Abramowitz. In part through Abramowitz’s intervention and other CIA letters of recommendation besides Fuller’s, the US Office for Immigration did not deport Gulen to his native country of Turkey.

Like the CIA, Gulenists thrive on secrecy. For Gulenists a strategy without

tactics is the slowest route to accomplish their goals. The core of the

organization is secrecy (Sir Tutmak) and caution (Tedbirli olmak) because

tactics without an overarching strategy for them is the noise before the defeat. Secrecy becomes an addiction for Gulenists. They are trained not to give information away, and, according to Gulen. Keeping a secret is equivalent to guarding one’s chastity. Keeping secrets whether personal, collegial, or national is like keeping themselves chaste, so they must be meticulous about keeping the secret as they would be about their honor. Conversely those who spread secrets damage their honor and reputation by leaving them unguarded. Before a candidate joins the organization the Gulenists will indoctrinate the student about how to keep secrets. If followers want to tell someone a secret, they must be sure that they can trust him or her with their honor. An unreliable person, one who is ignorant of the value of chastity, should not be entrusted with keeping a secret. Gulen explains this doctrine in his Pearls of Wisdom. He teaches that hearts are created as safes for keeping secrets. Intelligence is their lock; will power is their key. No one can break into the safe and steal its valuables if the lock or keys are not faulty. He urges his followers to bear in mind that those who carry others’ secrets to you might bear yours to others. Further, he cautions them not to give such tactless people any chance to learn even the smallest details of your private concerns. A secret is a power only as long as it stays with its owner but is a weapon that may be used against its owner if it passes into the hands of others. Developing his point, Gulen explains, “This is the meaning of one of our traditional sayings: ‘The secret is your slave but you become its slave if you disclose it.’” The details of many important affairs can be protected only if they are kept secret. Often enough when the involved parties do not keep certain matters secret no progress is achieved. In addition, serious risks might confront those who are involved particularly if the matter concerns delicate issues of national life and its continuation. This doctrine admonishes them, “Explain what you must but never give away all of your secrets. Those who freely publicize the secrets of their hearts drag themselves and their nation toward an inevitable downfall .If a state cannot protect its secrets from its enemies it cannot develop. If an army reveals its strategy to its antagonists it cannot attain victory. If key workers are won over by the competitors their employers cannot succeed.” Secrecy undergirds Gulen’s life and movement.

If Gulen does not have a secret agenda, then why would his followers be so

secretive? The truth never envelops itself in mystery, yet we see that

Gulenists’ claims about tolerance, interfaith dialogue, justice, peace and

equality slowly reveal the reality behind the movement as it developed in

Turkey. What Gulenists want is total power and one-man rule; they want a status so that none could dare to object to them or to their leader, because they sincerely believe that Allah has chosen them to disseminate their brand of Turkish Islam to the world, and therefore that everything they do is right and without mistakes. That is why the best weapon for a dictator’s regime is secrecy, but the best weapon for a real democracy is openness and transparency, is it not? How democratic, open, and transparent are the Gulenists?

Why did the CIA support Gulenists in Central Asia? It is no secret that the CIA and Washington support Gulenists in Central Asia to counter the Iranian version of the Shia religious influence there. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, there was a social, political, and religious vacuum. Central Asian states were weak, so obviously the world would ask who would fill that vacuum. Even at that time when Gulen sent his followers to Central Asia, he asked them to hasten, urging, “If you don’t go now, later this door could be closed, and others will fill your place.” It was not a surprise that Islam filled that vacuum because the majority of the Central Asian countries have a Muslim heritage. Having recently emerged from an atheistic Communism, they more readily embraced their traditional religion. But after the collapse of Soviet Union the balance of power changed as well. Before this downfall, the East was dominated by the Soviet Union and the West by America, but afterwards the United States became the single superpower and thus had its chance to extend its power to Central Asia.

Another player that tried to benefit from this power vacuum, thus bringing about the US alliance with Gulen , was Iran, because it was important for Iran to be involved in the political and social process of Central Asian countries, Furthermore, Iran wanted to influence the newly independent states with the Shia version of Islam, so that they could export the Islamic revolution to these countries and thereby tie them more closely to Iran. Iran’s neighboring Central Asian country, Tajikistan, does not have Turkic roots but rather is more Persian. Because of the hostile relations between Iran and the United States, the collapse of the Soviet bloc was not a desirable event for Iran because Iran and the Soviet Union were allies to confront the United States. Therefore, the collapse of the Soviet Union raised the question about which model the Central Asian countries should use as an example. There were two choices: one was Iran whose hostility against the US interests in the region were well known, and the second choice was Turkey. The US was nervous that Iran would back a radical

Islamic movement in the Central Asian countries to create Islamic regimes that would be loyal to Iran and threatening to American national interests in the region; therefore, Washington urged the Central Asian countries to adopt the Turkish model, which at the time was supposed to be based on secularism, a free market economy, and democracy. Then in 1992, the US Secretary of the State, James Baker, during his trip to Central Asia, urged the Central Asian countries to adopt the seemingly secular and democratic Turkish model for their political and economical development, not the Iranian model. Especially after 9/11, the US invasion of Afghanistan increased the political will that the US should more intensely confront Iran because the US claimed Iran made it more difficult to win the battle against terrorism because it aided Al-Qaida.

Thus, Turkey and Iran began fighting for a new hegemonic power in Central Asia. Because of the new states’ religious and ethnic ties with Turkey, the demise of U.S.S.R. opened a new door of opportunity for Turkey to renew its kinship with them and its interest in their rich resources, and many Muslims, opened a vast number of schools and invested in businesses there for the long run. However, after the Soviet Union fell, a political space allowed for the rapid growth of Fundamentalism as well as for new national identities. Many Central Asian students went outside their countries, especially to Saudi Arabia and to Egypt to relearn their religion. In response the Gulen community established his religious schools to compete with Iranian Shi’ism and Saudi Wahabism in the region. Turkey desired to influence the republics with its Sunni religion, and Iran wanted to promulgate its Shia sect. In the face of these alternatives, the United States’ policy urged Turkey to become the dominant model for social-political and economic development in Central Asia and in the Middle East. The U.S. viewed Turkey as a democratic country with a free market economy that would influence the newly independent Central Asian countries. Consequently, Washington saw the influence of the Turkish brand of Islam in the Central Asia in a short run as in America’s interest but in the long run understood that it could backfire.

The story of the CIA’s involvement in this strategy emerges at this point. In

the short run the Turkish social and economic model would restrain the Iranian model of Fundamental Islam and thus slow the growth of Fundamentalism in Central Asia and would prevent a confrontational approach to the region’s problems. But Washington did not calculate the long-term US interest in the region because in the long run aligning with Turkish Islam could backfire and could damage the U.S.’s economic interests in the Central Asian and Middle Eastern regions. For example, in 1979, the U.S. supported the small evil Taliban regime in order to

contain the seemingly larger evil of the Soviet Union. After defeating the

bigger evil, the small evil became problematic for the U.S. in that region. The U.S.’s interest in Central Asia would be affected long-term by the new growth of the Turkish version of Islam. Today this version of Islam has become almost a dominant power in Central Asia especially in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan. The political space to gain such power may have resulted from Gulen’s courtship with the CIA in those countries.

I do not know why CIA agents still deny that they know about this association. Because of Fethullah Gulen’s vast network of schools and businesses, thousands of students are graduating each year from those schools, speaking Turkish, practicing the Turkish version of Islam, and moving into key governmental positions. With this strategy Gulen seeks to bring back the Ottoman Empire. Yet, Washington sees the movement only as an alternative to radicalism. Politically as well as religiously Turkey has been fighting for a long time for a new hegemonic power in the Middle East. In addition, Turkey and Iran have been competing for Islamic leadership. Who is the best suited to represent Islam? Turkish Muslims, like Fethullah Gulen, argue that the Ottoman Empire represented Islam for almost six hundred years, and thus the Turks are the only Muslims who represent true Islam. That’s why the CIA supports Gulen’s sect, and it is well known. If the CIA agents do not know anything about the Gulen movement, that means the US foreign interests are in danger, but, of course, the CIA, like Gulen, deny they do not have any relation because both are trained well and require covert operations for their success.Gulen urged his followers not to act prematurely, because it might cost them heavily. Gulen teaches his followers to know their enemy, explaining that if they know the enemy and know themselves, then they do not need to fear the outcome. Gulen trains his followers like CIA agents, thereby creating good obedient young soldiers ready to give their life for the purpose of this (Hizmet) service. I would claim that Gulenists are not working for the CIA, but rather Gulenists are using the CIA for their interest. They know how to use people for their purpose. For example, if today Gulenists’ schools are not closed in Central Asian countries, it is because Gulenists secretly sent the former President of Turkey, Turgot Özal, to visit the schools in Central Asian countries and to tell the heads of the States that they are not a threat, like CIA agent Fuller told the US government that Gulen is not a threat to the USA. The public did not know that the former President of Turkey had a connection with Gulen and his movement; the public did not know that Gulen secretly sent Özal to Central Asia to prevents his schools from being closed; the public did not know that Gulen sent former president Özal to the Balkans to promote his schools as well until Özal died in 1993, when Opal’s connecting with the movement became public. Also, Gulen himself one time said that he asked then President Özal, to intervene because the Gulenists had been kicked out of the military and police academy. Özal’ s answered to Gulen that he had been followed by the Turkish intelligence and everything had been wired, so the Gulenists knew that the CIA had been following them even infiltrated within them; that is why they were so careful.

Did the CIA help Gulenists in Uzbekistan or not? What went wrong in the summer of 1994-1995 in Uzbekistan? Why did so many Gulenists teachers and bellet men (dormitory counselors) go to Turkey for summer vacations and were not able to return to Uzbekistan? The Gulenists are not working for the CIA because in Uzbekistan in the summer of 1994, more than 150 Gulenists belletmen and teachers went to back to Turkey for summer vacation, but also more than 100 belletmen stayed in Uzbekistan, supposedly the first group would take their turn first, go to Turkey, and then come back so the next group could go. But they could not come back to Uzbekistan again because President Kerimov suspected their acvitivities and closed some of the schools. Thus, the half of the teachers and belletmen who were left behind in Uzbekistan could not go back to Turkey, because if they went back, they would not have been re-admitted and that would have been the end of the Gulenist movement in Uzbekistan. Gulen feared the closings could spread to other neighboring countries. He tried everyway to solve the problem, but the Uzbek government did not change its decision. It closed the schools and did not let the followers who had gone to Turkey back into Uzbekistan.

Gulenists used all their power but still failed; the reason they failed to solve

the problem with the Uzbek government was because one of the high positions in Gulen’s organization gave the sensitive information to the Uzbek government. The person who gave information was in charge of the belletmen, all the schools, and the English department; of course, some of the belletmens who stayed in Uzbekistan did nothing for almost one year, wasted their time, were upset, and wanted to kill the person, but Gulenists deported the person to Turkey. No one knows what happened to that person, whether he was excommunicated or whether he stayed in Turkey, but the rest of belletmens were sent to the neighboring countries of Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan. It is not a secret that the CIA and the American government supported the Gulenist movement in Central Asia against Iran‘s influence there. Gulen slowly explained the connection with Ozal and the politics, but in reality, Gulen would say in public that they were not close to any party, but behind closed doors, he would support Ozal. To them, the party, ideology, or principles that “the host” is following is irrelevant; what matters for them is how they can use a person, institution, or source for their interest in a kind of symbiotic relationship. Furthermore, the founder and former leader of the Leftist Demokratik Sol Parti, Bulent Ecevit, praised Gulen during the soft coup against Gulen in 1995 and 1997. Ecevit convinced the secular military that Gulen and his community were serving the country with their schools. In particular, he noted that their schools in the Central Asian republics had decreased Iran’s influence there. It is true that the US embassy and consulates in Central Asia made it easy for Gulenists to get visas to come to the States from post-Soviet countries; for example, the president of a university in Georgia is the mother of the President of Georgia.

Students from those schools and particularly Gulenists’ favorite students have an easy way to come to the USA. Some of their schools even have a connection under the academic and student platform to come to the States. Why would the Gulenists deny their relation to the CIA? The truth seems to be optional for Gulenists. According to Gulen’s teachings, his followers have an obligation to know the truth but that truth cannot be revealed anywhere anytime, because if the time is not right, they cannot tell the truth. For example, the strategy of denial is fabricated to appear that they are not part of any movement or community if any charge against them appears in the news. Sometimes if they need to prevaricate for the sake of the movement, they can deny any accusation, and by being cautious not give way all the information. Rather, they are to work patiently and silently until all the institutions are in order to seize power. Timing about when and how to reveal their true goal is very crucial for the Gulenists. Gulenists are experts on how to buy and use persons for their interest.

Therefore, a lie can be justified. Gulenists are very good at using someone for their interest; it does not matter whether he is a criminal or a dictator as

long as he or she helps his movement to advance. A good example is the President of Turkmenistan, who is a dictator, but they praised him. Gulen trained his followers that when they go to a place, not to denigrate the authority even if he is cruel because if they do, he will harm them or their cause.

Because of their secrecy, deception, unethical tactics for silencing critics

including threats and intimidation, deliberate misinformation campaigns,

brainwashing, and the use of bribery to recruit supporters, the movement is

successful. Gulen has done his calculations many times before his followers go to battle. Sun Tzu said, “He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.” Gulenists know their enemy well and that is why they do not fear the result of their fight. The problem is that the West does not know that the enemy is within, so they should be worried about the result of the fight. A country can survive its fools and its opportunists; however, it cannot endure the enemy from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly, like Al-Qaida. But the enemy within moves freely amongst those within the gates, but surely he is whispering and rustling through all the alleys. For the enemy within speaks, eats, acts, dresses, and behaves in ways familiar to his victims. I do not believe Gulen’s schools and civic organizations are merely motivated by the selfless desire to promote education, but rather they aim to foster the Ottoman Empire’s ideology and to have global

power. What other organizations promoting civil society are so secretive,

reactive, murky, and opaque? What other organization encourage their

organization to infiltrate all the institutions and establishments? As for his relation to CIA, it is clearly mutual and symbolic one. As in Biology, the two live in association with one another. The specific from of symbiosis is mutualism in that both benefits. The CIA believes that it ameliorates radicalism by associating with Gulenists, and Gulen receives the protection and a foil by the CIA’s involvement...

Sunday, August 28, 2011

This latest infringement upon your civil rights brought to you by your friends at the NYPDCIA....


This latest infringement upon your civil rights brought to you by your friends at the NYPDCIA....


This is almost exactly the kind of thing the CIA is out-and-out prohibited from doing:

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the New York Police Department has become one of the nation’s most aggressive domestic intelligence agencies, targeting ethnic communities in ways that would run afoul of civil liberties rules if practiced by the federal government, an Associated Press investigation has found.

The operations have benefited from unprecedented help from the CIA, a partnership that has blurred the line between foreign and domestic spying.

The department has dispatched undercover officers, known as “rakers,” into minority neighborhoods as part of a human mapping program, according to officials directly involved in the program. They’ve monitored daily life in bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs. Police have also used informants, known as “mosque crawlers,” to monitor sermons, even when there’s no evidence of wrongdoing.

Neither the city council, which finances the department, nor the federal government, which has given NYPD more than $1.6 billion since 9/11, is told exactly what’s going on.

Many of these operations were built with help from the CIA, which is prohibited from spying on Americans but was instrumental in transforming the NYPD’s intelligence unit.

First it becomes uncontroversial for the CIA to de facto direct domestic spying operations. Soon it’s hardly a hop, skip, or jump from that to saying, “Hey, we might as well just do this ourselves. It’ll be cheaper. Belt-tightening! Austerity!” I’m not always so fond of slippery-slope arguments, but this one hardly requires one to bust out the tin-foil hat.

What makes this even more disconcerting, however, is the content of the operations the CIA is now second-degree running in NYC, which are patently based upon racial profiling. Take this less-than-wholly-convincing non-sequitur response from an NYPD official, supposedly explaining how that’s just simply not true:

The NYPD assigned undercover officers to monitor neighborhoods, looking for potential trouble. Using census data, police matched undercover officers to ethnic communities and instructed them to blend in, the officials said. They hung out in hookah bars and cafes, quietly observing the community around them.

The unit, which has been undisclosed until now, became known inside the department as the Demographic Unit, former police officials said.

“It’s not a question of profiling. It’s a question of going where the problem could arise,” said Mordecai Dzikansky, a retired NYPD intelligence officer who said he was aware of the Demographic Unit. “And thank God we have the capability. We have the language capability and the ethnic officers. That’s our hidden weapon.”

Cohen said he wanted the squad to “rake the coals, looking for hot spots,” former officials recalled. The undercover officers soon became known inside the department as rakers.

For years, detectives also used informants known as mosque crawlers to monitor weekly sermons and report what was said, several current and former officials directly involved in the informant program said. If FBI agents were to do that, they would be in violation of the Privacy Act, which prohibits the federal government from collecting intelligence on purely First Amendment activities.

Browne, the NYPD spokesman, flatly denied the accounts of mosque crawlers and rakers. He said the NYPD only uses undercover officers and informants to follow leads, not to target ethnic neighborhoods.

Nearly ten years after September 11, our law enforcement agencies are still operating as if it were 9/12/2001, with all the hysteria and short-sightedness that entails.....

Friday, August 26, 2011

Les documents Takieddine: L'émissaire de Sarkozy protégé par la DGSE

Les documents Takieddine: L'émissaire de Sarkozy protégé par la DGSE

Par Mediapart,

La direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (DGSE) ne dirait rien.
Questionnée en 2010 par les juges de l'affaire Karachi, qui enquêtent sur son rôle d'intermédiaire lors de la vente des sous-marins Agosta au Pakistan, la DGSE a dissimulé l'intégralité de ses informations sur l'activité parallèle de l'homme d'affaires, selon de nouveaux documents et des témoignages recueillis par Mediapart.

Dans une note du 17 février 2010, déclassifiée fin 2010 – et dévoilée par le site Owni –, le service de renseignement français assurait ne disposer sur l'intéressé« que de renseignements parcellaires et anciens, datant du début des années 80, lorsque Ziad Takieddine, alors de nationalité libanaise, travaillait au profit du groupe saoudien Al Amoudi ».
Sa méconnaissance des faits et gestes de l'un des plus intermédiaires les plus puissants du moment apparaît crûment aujourd'hui. La DGSE a ainsi caché l'offre de service adressée par M. Takieddine au patron de ce service, Pierre Brochand, en mai 2005. Dans ce courrier, révélé aujourd'hui par Mediapart, Ziad Takieddine s'engage à communiquer «des renseignements touchant à la sécurité extérieure de la France» à la suite de ses «différentes rencontres avec le colonel Kadhafi en Libye».
Ziad Takieddine en 2002. (C) MediapartZiad Takieddine en 2002. (C) Mediapart
A l'époque, M. Takieddine recourt aux services d'une société d'intelligence économique, Salamandre, qui compte parmi ses administrateurs deux anciens responsables de la DGSE : son ancien patron (entre 1987 et 1989), le général François Mermet, et son ancien directeur du renseignement (entre 1989 et 2000), Michel Lacarrière. D'après ce courrier adressé à la DGSE, c'est M. Mermet qui aurait recommandé Ziad Takieddine auprès de M. Brochand.
Selon des documents en notre possession, Salamandre aurait été rétribuée 150.000 euros pour des conseils relatifs à l'introduction des sociétés françaises en Libye. Le marché concernant le cryptage des communications du régime vendu par le groupe Bull a par exemple été élaboré sur les conseils de Salamandre. Il a donné lieu au versement de 4,5 millions d'euros de commissions occultes à des sociétés de M. Takieddine entre 2007 et 2008.

Takieddine demande un contact direct «de vive voix» au patron de la DGSE

Dans l'affaire Karachi, les juges livrent depuis plusieurs mois un combat acharné, et inégal, contre le secret. A l'automne 2010, le juge Marc Trévidic a demandé la déclassification de 54 documents au ministre de la défense. La Commission consultative du secret de la défense nationale (CCSDN), saisie par le ministre, limite son avis favorable, en décembre 2010, à la levée du secret pour 23 documents parmi lesquels figure la fiche, tronquée, de Ziad Takieddine.
Comme on peut le lire sur cette fiche, la DGSE concède que M. Takieddine«est surtout connu en France comme un intermédiaire agissant principalement sur les marchés de l'armement, au profit des sociétés françaises», et qu'il dispose en France «d'un important réseau relationnel». Pour le reste, elle ne «dispose que de renseignements parcellaires et anciens», et se contente de citer deux articles de presse.
Scan 0020

Les deux articles mentionnés par la DGSE datent de 2004. Et la seule relation politique prêtée – «par la presse» – à Ziad Takieddine remonte à 1994 et s'appelle François Léotard. Pas un mot de ses contacts avec Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, Brice Hortefeux, Claude Guéant ou Jean-François Copé, dont Mediapart a révélé l'étendue.

La DGSE n'est pas la seule à imposer le secret, puisque la CCSDN joue son rôle. En avril dernier, elle a ainsi refusé au juge Renaud Van Ruymbeke, chargé du volet financier de l'affaire, la déclassification des déclarations fiscales, dites «DAS II Bis», des sociétés Thomson et Sofresa impliquées dans les ventes d'armes au Pakistan et à l'Arabie saoudite. Ces déclarations au fisc – qui se sont interrompues en 2000 après l'adoption des mesures anti-corruption de l'OCDE – contiennent théoriquement les montants des commissions, les noms des intermédiaires, et ceux des autorités politiques étrangères bénéficiaires.
Si le nom de Ziad Takieddine, qui a été l'intermédiaire central de ces marchés conclus en 1994, devrait apparaître dans ces documents fiscaux, il doit aussi figurer dans les fiches de la DGSE. La procédure d'autorisation de la commission interministérielle pour l'étude des exportations de matériels de guerre (CIEEMG), à laquelle ont été soumis les marchés des frégates et des sous-marins à l'Arabie saoudite et au Pakistan, impliquait la vérification de la probité des intermédiaires par la DGSE. Sa fiche du 17 février 2010 s'apparente donc à un habillage grossier. Rien d'étonnant à ce que la DGSE cache aussi l'étendue de ses propres contacts, directs ou indirects avec l'homme d'affaires. Et son offre de collaboration.
En mai 2005, Ziad Takieddine prend un papier à en-tête de sa prestigieuse résidence, et néanmoins dissimulée au fisc, avenue Georges-Mandel, pour écrire à Pierre Brochand, patron de la DGSE depuis 2002. C'est «sur le conseil du général François Mermet», que Takieddine prétend «contacter directement» le chef des services spéciaux. Objectif : lui communiquer«personnellement et de vive voix», des «éléments d'information (...) touchant à la sécurité extérieure de la France», à la suite de ses«différentes rencontres avec le colonel Kadhafi»
Les parrains de Takieddine sont aujourd'hui embarrassés.

Takieddine disait «je suis l'envoyé spécial de Nicolas Sarkozy»

«Ça ne me dit rien», a réagi François Mermet interrogé par Mediapart sur cette prise de contact avec les services spéciaux. C'est à travers la mystérieuse société Salamandre, dont il était l'administrateur, que l'ancien patron de la DGSE avait noué des contacts avec Ziad Takieddine.
Salamandre enquêtait alors sur la présence d'intérêts américains dans Gemplus, fabricant français de cartes à puces, dont Takieddine était l'un des actionnaires minoritaires aux côtés de Thierry Dassault. «L'affaire Gemplus, c'était clean, assure le général Mermet. Mais il voulait faire d'autres opérations qui l'étaient moins.» «J'ai toujours considéré que M. Takieddine était un type infréquentable, et qu'il y avait tout à perdre de le fréquenter, assure de son côté Michel Lacarrière. Je sais qu'il voulait voir le directeur général de la DGSE et qu'il n'avait pas été très bien reçu. Ce monsieur faisait l'important et il se mêlait de tout un tas de choses.»
En réalité, Ziad Takieddine a étroitement associé la société Salamandre à ses projets libyens. Entre 2005 et 2006, le PDG de Salamandre, Pierre Sellier, lui aussi réputé proche des services spéciaux, a littéralement secondé l'homme d'affaires dans ses contacts avec les industriels français pour les conduire en Libye. Deux projets phare, déjà racontés ici par Mediapart, les mobilisent. Faire obtenir à Sagem la rénovation de la flotte aérienne libyenne et au groupe Bull la vente des systèmes de cryptage des communications destinés à protéger le régime libyen du réseau occidental Echelon. Dans la foulée, ils imaginent la création d'un think-tank franco-libyen, dont François Mermet et Michel Lacarrière seraient les membres éminents. Le président de Salamandre étant pour sa part chargé du «secrétariat général (logistique trésorerie opération)».
Si l'affaire Bull se réalise, le think-tank capote, et le dossier Sagem bute sur la résistance des milieux industriels et d'un haut responsable du renseignement. C'est Alain Juillet, conseiller à l'intelligence économique au Secrétariat général de la défense nationale (SGDN) puis à Matignon – il a lui aussi été directeur du renseignement de la DGSE en 2002 et 2003 –, qui s'oppose au projet de Takieddine avec Sagem.
«Takieddine avait été en Libye et il avait lancé avec Sagem un projet de refonte totale de l'aviation libyenne, alors que les industriels français s'étaient entendus pour la remise en état de neuf Mirage, explique Alain Juillet à Mediapart. L'intérêt des industriels était de vendre des Rafale, ce que compromettait l'arrivée de Takieddine. J'ai donc convoqué tous les opérateurs français, et M. Takieddine, et j'ai tapé du poing sur la table.»
Lors d'une réunion avec Alain Juillet, en janvier 2006, Ziad Takieddine défend une dernière fois l'idée d'un «contrat dix fois supérieur» à celui d'une simple remise en vol des Mirage. Les Libyens, expose-t-il, «n'ont jamais exprimé le moindre intérêt pour le Rafale» et demandent «une modernisation complète de leurs aircrafts».
«Il y a eu à l'époque un forcing parce que l'enjeu était important. S'il avait signé la rénovation complète de l'aviation libyenne, cela faisait beaucoup, beaucoup d'argent, poursuit Alain Juillet. Salamandre, dont le général Mermet et M. Lacarrière étaient administrateurs, travaillait indiscutablement avec M. Takieddine. Il n'y a pas de doute là-dessus. A un moment dans l'affaire libyenne, on a vu apparaître Salamandre avec Takieddine.»
Cette bataille libyenne n'a évidemment pas pu échapper à la DGSE. Mais elle a, elle aussi, été dissimilée aux juges. «Takieddine pendant longtemps s'est promené en disant “je suis l'envoyé spécial de Nicolas Sarkozy”, ce qui était très discutable, assure M. Juillet. Mais Takieddine était un intermédiaire reconnu, et qui a joué un rôle important auprès d'un certain nombre de sociétés en se faisant très bien payer. Les sociétés ne sont pas des philanthropes, quand elles payent, c'est qu'elles ont des raisons.»
Mardi, un porte-parole de la DGSE – aujourd'hui dirigée par Erard Corbin de Mangoux, ancien directeur général des services du département des Hauts-de-Seine entre 2006 et 2007, puis conseiller de Nicolas Sarkozy à l'Elysée –, a indiqué à Mediapart qu'elle ne «commentait pas habituellement ce type d'affaires». «Ce que l'on sait a été dit au magistrat», a-t-il assuré. Pierre Brochand, quant à lui, n'a pas répondu à nos messages.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

الله يحميكم و يقويكم يا شباب إنتو فخر و عزة لبنان

Words fail to express the admiration and gratitude that any honorable being holds for these great men and women of the Lebanese Hezbollah. May God bless them and bestow peace upon them in this life and the next....

إن تنصروا الله فلا غالب لكم

.....في «حزب الله».مرض خبيث ينهكه: العشريني دمّر إحدى عشرة دبابة....

الله يحميكم و يقويكم يا شباب إنتو فخر و عزة لبنان

جعفر العطار -

قبل أيام قليلة، أزاح ع.، الشاب العشريني، ملاءة بيضاء اللون عن جسده النحيل الذي أنهكه مرض خبيث، تاركاً سرير المستشفى بخفر، عائداً إلى منزل متصدّع الأركان في زقاق عشوائي، حليق الرأس والجسد، مبتسماً كعادته.

في مثل هذه الأيام، قبل خمس سنوات، كان ع. ممتشقاً سلاحه، يتنقل به واثباً، في حركات قتالية محترفة، باحثاً بعينيه الذابلتين من شدة النعاس، عن دبابات الـ«ميركافا»، التي سرعان ما تحوّلت إلى ذباب يذوي أمام عيون أفراد مجموعته القتالية، في «وادي الحجير».

آنذاك، اشتهرت تلك المعركة باسم «مجزرة الميركافا»، بعدما دمّر المقاتلون إحدى وعشرين دبّابة، وقتلوا العشرات من الإسرائيليين، في ساعات حرب تموز الأخيرة.
بعد مرور أحد عشر يوماً على انتهاء الحرب، عاد ع. إلى منزله، أشعث الرأس، أغبر الوجه. «هل صحيح أنك شاركت في معركة وادي الحجير؟» سأله عارفوه بفضول فشلوا في إخفائه، اثر انتشار الخبر بين دائرة أصدقائه المقرّبين.

إلى يومنا هذا، يتشبث ع.، مبتسماً ابتسامة بريئة، بجوابه الذي أعلنه قبل خمس سنوات: «لم أشارك في تلك المعركة قطّ. فقد اقتصرت مهمتي، في الحرب، على تزويد المقاتلين بالطعام، فقط».
ومع ذلك، كان عارفوه يحاربونه بالأدلة التي تسلحوا بها، محاولين سبر أغوار الجدار الذي كان العشريني يتحصّن خلفه: «لقد أخبرنا فلان، بأنه ما زال مشدوهاً لمّا رأى تلك الابتسامة على وجهك بغتةً في أثناء احتدام المعركة. لماذا تصرّ على إخفاء مشاركتك؟».

الجواب ذاته، بالأسلوب الرصين الدمث ذاته، كان يواجههم: «ماذا سأستفيد لو أخفيت عنكم ذلك؟ وماذا سأخسر في حال بحت به؟ لا شيء. إذاً، دعونا نتحدث في موضوع آخر، بعيداً عن التخيلات المضحكة.. عن ابتسامات في المعارك».

أصدقاؤه المقرّبون، يعرفون أن الجدار الذي يتحصّن به ع. ، ليس جداراً أمنياً يحاول من خلاله، بأسلوب بوليسي، المناورة كي لا يُكشف أمره. هم يعرفون أنه جدار مصنوع من خجل، وليس من التواضع فحسب. الخجل الذي يفرض على الشاب الاحتماء بجدار، يجهد قدر المستطاع الحفاظ على صلابته.

فهو، كسائر المقاتلين، مقتنع بأن البوح ببطولات نفذّها، يفقده الإحساس الذي رفع الابتسامة على وجهه، لمّا سمع، من بين أصوات الصواريخ والرصاص، أصوات نحيب الغزاة، من شدة الجزع.
هو خبر عن كثب، بأن المشهد الذي رسمه في طفولته، في أن يكون مقاوماً مقاتلاً، لا يشبه التنفيذ: فوداع الأم والأب والزوجة والأطفال، قبل سلوك طريق يصعب الرجوع منه، لا يُختزل بأمنية، كأمنية طفل يحلم برحلة كشفية.. على ضفاف نهر بديع.

ذوو الطفل سيسألون، عندما يحين وقت الرحلة، عن الزمان والمكان، ومخاطر الترحال، وموعد الرجوع، فيما الطفل الذي تمنّى بأن يكون مقاوماً، سيكتشف، متلمساً بعينين يقظتين، أن الأمنية التي تمناها ذات يوم، تحتم عليه الكثير.

فأن تكون مقاوماً، لا يُختزل بحمل السلاح ومعرفة سبل التعامل معه فحسب: الطفل الذي وُلد على حبّ أمه، سيتذكر أنها تنتظر رجوعه من المعركة سالماً. سيتذكر، من بين ما سيتذكر قبل اشتداد أزير الرصاص، أن ابنته الصغيرة لثمته على وجنتيه، متمنية عليه العودة بأسرع وقت.

أن تكون مقاوماً، لا يُختصر بنقرة أصبع خاطفة على عبوة تلف الجسد، تمزّقه إرباً قرباناً...للفوز بالجنّة. الجسد يُقدّم قرباناً للدفاع عن الأرض، عن الوطن بطوائفه مجتمعة، عن أهله، الفقراء منهم والأغنياء.

أن تكون مقاوماً، يعني أن تكون مجهولاً، فقيراً لا تملك، إذا ملكت، إلا كفاف يومك، مترفعاً عن التبجح والتوعّد، بعيداً عن السياسة وخبثها، نائماً في حضن ذكريات لا تبوح بها، منتظراً لحظات من العزلة.. لا يعرفها أطفال السياسة.

أن تكون مقاوماً، يعني أنك ستنام في الحُفر، التي تشبه القبور، منتظراً إما إطلاق رصاصة في صدر من جاء لينتزع الأرض منك، أو استقبال رصاصة في صدرك، ترميك مخضباً بالدماء، تاركاً سلاحك، لطفل آخر، تمنى الأمنية ذاتها.

بعد أيام قليلة، سيعود ع. إلى سرير المستشفى، للامتثال لعلاج طويل، ربما يُبقي على جسده الملاءة البيضاء، ومعها اعتراف لا يبوح به: العشريني دمّر إحدى عشرة دبابة.. مبتسماً.

God bless you and hope you get better soon our Honorable Hero... Our Prayers are and will always be with you....

Dr. Riad JREIGE-

Depuis son installation à la tête de l'Eglise Maronite, le Patriarche Al Raï, sans jamais perdre de temps, enchaîne les visites pastorales à l'ensemble des paroisses maronites des différentes régions du Liban. Lors de ses homélies, ou même des interviews, le message d'amour, de tolérance et de pardon y est très largement évoqué et explicité, rassemblant à chaque fois un peu plus, les maronites, mais pas seulement, autour de ces fondements.

À n'en point douter, la visite de sa Béatitude dans le sud ne passera pas inaperçue.

Le message qui sera véhiculé aura une connotation particulière. Il sera fort et devra être entendu à sa juste valeur. Le martèlement volontariste du chef de l'Eglise est essentiel.

Ce dernier n'a de cesse d'œuvrer pour l'entente entre les Libanais. En substance, ce message traduit le gouffre qui sépare les honnêtes gens des malhonnêtes est infiniment plus grand que la différence dans les croyances entre les différentes communautés musulmanes et chrétiennes. Les tentations sont grandes de transformer une différence de comportement d'un groupe de personnes par rapport à un autre, en un conflit communautaire.

Politiquement, les honnêtes gens sont autant d'un parti que de l'autre. Le problème n'est donc pas politique. Les honnêtes gens font partie autant de l'une ou l'autre des communautés. Le problème n'est donc pas communautaire.

Il est demandé aux voleurs de rendre leurs butins et de se comporter en d'honnêtes citoyens.

Il ne faut donc pas se tromper de conflit.

Le Patriarche va démontrer, comme il ne cesse de le faire, que nous avons tous intérêt à vivre les uns avec les autres, l'ensemble des communautés confondues. Chacun avec ses croyances mais tous ensemble.

La tolérance représente certainement ce ligand indispensable à l'union.

Chaque parti politique serait inspiré de réfléchir à un programme politique destiné à réformer tout ce qui empêche l'évolution vers du meilleur, en dénonçant la main qui vole ou celle qui tue. L'Etat doit s’améliorer et remplir son rôle de sauvegarde, de promotion des institutions et de la coexistence, en arrêtant cette main qui vole ou celle qui tue.

La recherche du bien pour tous, c'est de la responsabilité de chacun.

Ce travail en profondeur doit être fait en interne, aucune main étrangère ne doit s'immiscer dans cette révolution. Sinon elle n'en serait pas une, sinon ce serait une manipulation.

Le Liban a été très longtemps manipulé et les tentatives continuent d'y être nombreuses.

La facilité consiste à succomber à la tentation, soit parce que l'on y a intérêt, soit parce que nous en sommes victimes. La réforme doit permettre à ceux qui en sont victimes d'en prendre conscience et d'agir en conséquence. La réforme doit responsabiliser chacun, abstraction faite de tout lien avec un parti politique ou une communauté.

Le garant des Chrétiens du Liban est leur attachement à leur culture orientale, indissociable des autres communautés, précisément sur la terre du Liban. Aucune puissance, aussi occidentale et "amicale" soit-elle, ne devra tromper quiconque en prétendant défendre les Chrétiens du Liban ou plus largement ceux de l'Orient. La confiance en son frère, de l'autre communauté, doit être supérieure à celle en un quelconque défenseur du christianisme en général et oriental en particulier.

L'appel à l'unité sera, de toutes les façons, lancé. Il a l’étoffe et la verve.

La présence des plus hauts dignitaires religieux, des autres communautés, auprès du Patriarche Al Raï serait un message fort à ceux qui rêveraient à une soumission occidentale, fusse-t-elle par le biais de l'ONU qui utilise l'OTAN qui expose sa force en semant innocemment, les ingrédients d'une future guerre civile en bonne et due forme.

Il redira fort et clair, toute son opposition au projet du nouveau Moyen-Orient en marche et dans lequel il ne voudra pas voir entraîner le Liban.

Il ira en visite pastorale à l'extrême sud du pays, jusqu'à la frontière israélienne, là où très peu de gens s'aventurent, comme pour bien mettre l'accent sur la libanité de cette terre sacrée, jadis foulée par les pas du Christ. Aujourd'hui elle est défendue, à la fois, par l'armée et la résistance.

Il faut reprendre confiance en nous pour exprimer cette conviction que nous sommes chez nous au Liban, chrétiens ou musulmans. Il n’y a pas de place pour la corruption et les réformes ne peuvent plus attendre. Il faut y aller.

Ce qu'il faut attendre de la visite du Patriarche, c'est sa grande contribution à l'édification de cette conviction que le Liban n'a d'autres destinées que celle de la coexistence ainsi que la lutte contre la corruption qui mine le pays, appauvrit sa population et l'offre au plus offrant.

Personne plus que les libanais, eux-mêmes, connaît la signification du mot liberté: liberté de pensée, liberté d'écriture, liberté de parole, liberté des convictions et liberté de respecter l'autre. Personne plus que les libanais ne connaît la signification du mot manipulation.

Le Patriarche apporte sa contribution à la réédification de l'Etat en accompagnant le Président de la république et en priant pour que tous les chefs de partis restent conscients de l'enjeu afin de prendre les bonnes décisions.

Que Dieu protège notre Patriarche afin qu'il continue à dénoncer haut et fort le mensonge et à œuvrer, toujours et quoiqu'il arrive, dans l'intérêt de la paix et de l’unité du pays....

Monday, August 1, 2011

Civil suit planned against Bush officials over Iraq torture, death and Ziocons creeps.

Civil suit planned against Bush officials over Iraq torture, Long list of defendants and witnesses being prepared in planned Iraq torture lawsuit....

July 31, 2011 -- Three individuals involved in blowing the whistle at an early stage on the systematic torture and abuse of Iraqi detainees at the outset of the U.S. occupation of Iraq plan to file suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against senior political and military officials in the Bush administration. Named in the lawsuit will be former Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and top U.S. military commanders of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The plaintiffs include retired Sgt. Frank Greg Ford, who served with the 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion in Iraq and who was unceremoniously removed from Iraq in 2003, strapped to a gurney, after he cited several cases of prisoner abuse in Iraq. Ford was one of the first U.S. military members to report prisoner abuse at detention facilities in Iraq. His reports of prisoner abuse resulted in a determination by his senior officers that he was not fit for service in Iraq and he was detained and flown out of Iraq to a U.S. military hospital in Germany after leveling charges of prisoner torture, including witnessing U.S. troops forcing lit cigarettes into the ears of teenage Iraqi boys.

Ford will reportedly be joined in the lawsuit by retired Army officer Janis Karpinski, the former commander of the 800 Military Police Brigade, which had cognizance over U.S. military detention facilities in Iraq, including the now-infamous Abu Ghraib prison, the scene of repeated acts of prisoner abuse and torture. A number of Army enlisted personnel were sentenced to prison as a result of the torture scandal, however, it is alleged that the U.S. military personnel were following orders from senior officials of the Bush administration. Karpinski was reduced to the rank of colonel as a result of the Army's investigation, however, she contends, with the support of other senior U.S. military officers, that she had no access to the wing of Abu Ghraib, which was under the strict control of military intelligence and the CIA, where the prisoner abuse was taking place.

Also reportedly joining the lawsuit is Stanford University professor emeritus Philip Zimbardo, a former president of the American Psychological Association, who has conducted pioneering research, including the Stanford Prison Experiment, which examined the effects of torture on prisoners.

The lawsuit against the Bush administration officials is expected to be filed in September.

A large list of defendants and witnesses is being developed by the plaintiffs' legal team. Former President George W. Bush may also be called to testify in the trial. There is a precedent for testimony by former presidents. In 1992, former President Ronald Reagan was called to testify before Iran-contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh on his knowledge of the Iran-contra scandal....

America becoming Reckless, As explained by a globalist....

America becoming Reckless, As explained by a globalist....
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand July 30, 2011 – The mechanics of world empire, in particular the current corporate-financier oligarchy has been examined in great detail. The US State Department, supporting NGOs funded directly by both US taxpayers’ money as well as funds from the Fortune 500 corporations they serve, alone constitute a global spanning, incessantly meddling homogeneous network working to undermine both personal and national sovereignty while replacing national governments around the world.

Photo: Globalist warmongering degenerate Anne-Marie Slaughter makes her rounds at the Fortune 500-funded Chatham House. She is the author of the book “A New World Order” and believes foreign policy should be shifted into the unelected, unaccountable hands of corporations, foundations, and NGOs.


This is far from a conspiracy theory – it is stated fact admitted to by the US State Department itself who regularly announces its funding of subversive activities around the globe from training, equipping, and funding hordes of youth activists years before the “Arab Spring” unfolded, to helping dupes in China circumvent national cyber defenses, to forming brigades of youth fodder to take to the streets in Belarus and Malaysia, to propping up pro-globalist propaganda outlets like Prachatai in Thailand.

Perhaps sensing that the secrecy and public ignorance the global elite have been operating behind for decades is now fading, globalist footstool and degenerate warmonger Anne-Marie Slaughter has written a sweeping essay openly admitting “foreign policy” is moving beyond governments and being put into the hands of unelected organizations, corporations, NGOs, and “social movements.” By social movements, Slaughter cites and apparently is referring to the “Arab Spring” which is on record the result of US meddling and organizing, and nothing close to resembling true grassroots activism. It is merely the latest trick out of the social engineering, human exploitation, propagandist playbook.

Slaughter’s admissions should send shivers down the spines of anyone who believes in a constitutional representative government, personal and national sovereignty, and freedom in general – for the world Slaughter proposes is one run by unaccountable, self-appointed arbiters, the likes of which have been covered ad nauseum within these pages. Self-serving hypocrisy has already rendered contrived institutions like the International Criminal Court illegitimate, as it turns its head at documented war crimes committed by Libyan rebels while pursuing in earnest cases against Libya’s Qaddafi based on evidence not even collected within the nation itself.

As we peel back the layers of Slaughter’s vision of the “new foreign policy frontier,” we see nearly every institution, organization, NGO, or consortium mentioned lined with Fortune 500 corporate sponsors and representatives pursing an agenda of global economic and military hegemony. No one would suggest that manipulating people on a massive scale, leveraging legitimate ideals such as democracy, human rights, or freedom to further a corporate-financier oligarchy’s agenda constitutes anything progressive, nonetheless, Slaughter seems to believe this is not only the future of foreign policy, but an appropriate future at that.

Image: The cover of globalist, degenerate warmonger Anne-Marie Slaughter’s book “A New World Order.” Slaughter believes the future belongs to “global networks” which upon closer examination are all chaired, funded, and directed by the Fortune 500.


It should be noted that Slaughter has sat upon the boards of Fortune 500 corporations McDonald’s and Citigroup as well as a Council on Foreign Relations board member. She is the author of a book literally titled, “A New World Order” whose catch line is “Global governance is here.” In it she argues that such governance is done through “a complex global web of government networks.” Upon examination it is obvious to anyone who looks into these “networks” that they represent the Fortune 500, answer to no one, and apply the rule of law as an arbitrary reflection of their self-serving interests subject to change upon a political whim. Despite Slaughter’s enthusiasm for a “New World Order,” in reality it is the recipe for a corporate fascist planetary regime and constitutes the greatest threat to humanity.

The New Foreign Policy Frontier

Slaughter begins a recent Atlantic article titled “The New Foreign Policy Frontier” by citing “corporations, foundations, NGOs, universities, think tanks, churches, civic groups, political activists, Facebook groups, and others” as the new frontier of foreign policy. She then goes on to state that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “insists that 21st century diplomacy must not only be government to government, but also government to society and society to society, in a process facilitated and legitimated by government.” Slaughter continues by saying, “that much broader concept opens the door to a do-it-yourself foreign policy, in which individuals and groups can invent and execute an idea — for good or ill — that can affect their own and other countries in ways that once only governments could.”

And it is through this door Slaughter describes that “groups,” or more specifically corporations, along with their myriad of contrived, disingenuous NGOs, foundations, “charities,” and media outfits go about circumventing both domestic and foreign national laws as well as the will of people across the planet to execute their agenda, including free trade and wars of aggression.

Slaughter mentions a myriad of these corporate-funded entities including the Council on Foreign Relations, Google Ideas, US State Department’s, and the corporate-funded Personal Democracy Forum. She also mentions Jared Cohen, utterly unfazed by the monumental conflict of interest represented by his revolving in and out of the US State Department, Fortune 500 corporations like Google, and fringe organizations like that criminally combine corporate agendas with US taxpayers’ money to meddle in the sovereign affairs of foreign nations. While Slaughter maintains that these unelected corporate funded organizations are more efficient than governments, she fails to highlight that they are unelected and unaccountable. She also fails to mention what motivates corporations to expend resources on circumventing elected governments to pursue “society to society” efforts.

Slaughter goes on to use the “Arab Spring” as proof positive the new foreign policy paradigm is effective. She mentions her two days spent at the corporate-funded Personal Democracy Forum, which included bloggers and organizers from the contrived “Arab Spring.” She notes that other participants included “government officials, corporate executives, and the civic sector.” She claims the six months of unrest in the streets as a result of this “new foreign policy” has accomplished more than 30 years of traditional “foreign policy.”

Why do corporations like Google, Pepsi, British Petroleum, Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Exxon, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs care about “democracy” in the Middle East? Slaughter never seems to get around to answering this question. A thorough examination of the “Arab Spring,” its sponsorship, and the resulting mayhem and wall-to-wall exploitation being attempted clears up any doubt as to the summation of Slaughter’s acclaimed “New World Order.” It is a parasitic modern day empire spreading its influence, consolidating its power, and deposing all competition to its existence. It is the logical progression of the British Empire and American “Manifest Destiny” combined in a modern day transatlantic, corporate-financier oligarchy.

Arab Spring: New Foreign Policy/Neo-Imperialism in Action

Slaughter’s legitimacy stumbles not only because she is a degenerate warmongering corporate fascist who has spent a lifetime in the service of a global corporate-financier oligarchy, it stumbles also because of her poor choice of examples used to sell her concept of “global governance.” She believes that “Build Local, Go Global and Change the World” represents the new 21st century activist mantra – however when foreign money representing nefarious corporate agendas are doing the building locally, using their vast media empire to spread it globally and “change the world” it would be difficult to label it as an “activist mantra.” It more clearly resembles an imperialist mantra of using duped activists.

Take for example the Egyptian April 6 Movement. It was in New York City as early as 2008 receiving training and an opportunity to “network” at the US State Department sponsored Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) summit. In 2009, the April 6 Movement then attended training at the US-created CANVAS organization in Serbia before returning to Egypt to partake in the year-long run up to the revolution led by International Crisis Group trustee Mohamed ElBaradei and his “National Front for Change.” In fact, April 6 Movement members attempted to welcome ElBaradeiwhen he first returned to Egypt back in February, 2010, almost a full year before the “Arab Spring” would even begin.

Image: Alliance for Youth Movements boasts major corporate support, as well as a partnership with the US State Department. The organization was contrived solely to foment unrest throughout target nations.


The US State Department backed by Fortune 500 corporations literally held the Egyptian opposition’s hand for years walking them through their “revolution.” With an overt US stooge, Mohamed ElBaradei leading them and still to this day attempting to worm his way into Egypt’s presidency, the victory is neither the “Egyptian people’s” nor “democracy’s,” but rather the victory of corporations and their interests within the strategically located, 80 million strong nation. Nothing could be more damning of the Egyptian revolution and its final results than the victory lap John McCain, chairman of the International Republican Institute cited by the New York Times as being instrumental in executing the “Arab Spring,” conducted with Fortune 500 industry magnates at his side. The June 2010 trip served as an opportunity for these corporate interests, the chief sponsors behind the training and organizing of ElBaradei’s army of dupes, to size up assets they soon hope to roll into their financial empires as well as to promote “private sector growth.”

This is surely not what the Egyptian youth had in mind – surely it is not in their best interest to be exposed to the parasitic corporate fascists currently bankrupting every nation from North America to Europe. However their ignorance, short-sightedness, and immense naivety allowed this nefarious global network to manipulate and mislead them, their nation, their entire future into the shackles of modern day imperialism.


This nefarious global network is precisely what Slaughter is promoting in her writings, constituting what she admittedly calls a “New World Order” for enabling global governance. For those that take the time to examine who is behind the “NGOs, universities, think tanks, churches, civic groups, political activists, Facebook groups” Slaughter refers to, they will find corporations like Exxon, Dyncorp, Goldman Sachs, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Rothschild, Halliburton, Bechtel, BP, and many others.

Could anyone seriously accept corporations that are responsible for the worst chapters in modern human history as the architects of a system of global governance and ultimately our future? With the power and wealth they wield, how would they be held accountable? They have the ability to literally buy politicians on both sides of every election from one side of the planet to the other with bottom-lines that eclipse many national GDPs – they do so in a process that is streamlined with the creation of supranational entities like the European Union, North American Union, ASEAN and others. Already the EU is proclaiming dictates each member state is beholden to, with supranational law superseding national and local laws.

It is a bleak future indeed, one where true freedom is replaced with the mere illusion of it. Pragmatism and self-reliance is replaced with trips to the ballot box to pick from a variety of bought-off, ineffectual, self-serving crooks serving a degenerate global oligarchy.

Policy is already being produced not by the people but by corporate-funded think-tanks that then market it to the public through their control of the mainstream media. Their system is refined down to a science – their system is now merely being replicated, nation to nation. The solution to this problem is obvious. If the power truly lies with these corporations, the very foundation upon which Slaughter’s “New World Order” rests, undermining these corporations through full-spectrum boycotts and the systematic replacement of their goods and services on a local level shifts that power back into the people’s hands – pragmatically, not politically. It is a solution as elegant as it is simple and one that is impossible to commandeer as the globalists have done with so many attempted political solutions in the past.

There is no doubt now, with daily affirmations coming from the global elite themselves that their “New World Order” is coming. There is no doubt, as exemplified in Libya, that they are willing to murder on vast scales to eliminate any obstruction to their designs. There is no doubt, after the corporate-financiers have just helped themselves to trillions of taxpayers’s dollars to cover their collapsing pyramid schemes that they are far from the progressive “international order” they claim to represent. There is no doubt that now is the time to act. There is absolutely no justification for buying another Pepsi, Coke, Big Mac, or Starbucks and further empowering this modern day empire. What we have been taught are the features of a civilized society are in fact the padded, gilded shackles of our enslavement. There is absolutely nothing the global corporatocracy can do that people can’t do better locally. The only barrier is ambition, education, and a shift in our collective paradigm to see ourselves, not some elected savior, as the ultimate solution to our problems.

The fulfillment of Slaughter’s depraved vision of the future rests entirely in our hands. It will be determined day by day, depending on how we choose to spend our resources, time, attention, and energy. The simple decision to buy or produce locally rather than patronize Walmart, Starbucks, or any number of other globalist consumer feeding troughs as an individual may seem futile, but a shift in our collective actions and paradigm will undoubtedly derail this ignoble future that awaits us....

Copyright 2009 echkelon-Boston-Globe. Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress by Wpthemescreator