The Awful Secret
The Awful Secret
The objective of the Bush cabal and the war in Iraq is to get control of all of the oil before the blackouts start!
How stupid are Americans - and how false are their elected representatives - to believe and actually repeat the thought that a far-off nation with the world's second-largest oil reserves, a battered and constrained nation that had already witnessed hundreds of thousands of its citizens killed by the United States, that this bedraggled and helpless nation is actually a threat deserving a full-scale invasion by American troops?
How stupid are Americans not to see that all this war talk is a diversionary tactic, a red herring meant to cover up crimes of the American government: widespread corruption that robbed Americans of billions of dollars in scandals named Harken, Enron and Halliburton; a meaningless genocidal attack on Afghanistan that failed to achieve its stated objective yet killed 5,000 innocent people; and an attack on American soil that killed another 3,000 Americans. In the meantime, the highest levels of the U.S. government work diligently to cover up the brutal facts that highly placed officials knew this atrocity was going to happen and did nothing to stop it. In fact, they wanted it to happen because it served their purposes.
The shock of 9/11 and the butchery in Afghanistan have been displaced from the headlines of the criminally sycophantic mainstream media as President Bush continues his ludicrous push for more death and destruction, constantly changing his rationale as one lie after another is exposed as vicious fiction. Make no mistake: the purpose of the illegal and unconscionable aggression against Iraq is meant to cover up the Bush administration's complicity in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. The mainstream media, a virtual interlocking directorate with the Bush cabinet and his behind-the-scenes moneymen, continue to ignore the central questions about 9/11:
» why did the air defense apparatus fail to respond to the hijackings?
» why haven't the stock market anomalies been investigated and identified?
» why did some people know not to fly that day?
» why were fires still burning underneath three structures of the WTC five weeks later?
You haven't read that in the New York Times, and you won't. The attack on Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11, yet carried out as if it were a search for someone named Osama bin Laden. Five thousand dead, Americans implicated in a horrific massacre, even some Canadians killed for no good reason. Now it turns out many of the Taliban were evacuated in U.S. planes. American military bosses declared the operation a success, and the newspapers didn't blink.
In truth it was a total failure. We didn't catch the alleged perpetrator, against whom, by the way, we had no hard evidence. Bush and Blair said they did, but never told us what it was, and still haven't. All of this obfuscation can only mean one thing, as any cop or lawyer will tell you. The people who cover up the facts are the ones who did the crime. You don't need a college degree to see that. So now, all of this is erased in public consciousness by Iraq war talk. One lie after another.
First they try to link al-Qaida to Saddam; they're still trying, in fact. Bush counts on the fact that most Americans don't realize that Saddam and al-Qaida are enemies, Saddam is an atheist, al-Qaida supposedly is made up of religious zealots. Plus, al-Qaida works FOR the U.S. in Macedonia and Bosnia. Which leads us to another thing that is never mentioned in the New York Times: the long history of the relationship between the Bush and bin Laden families. For instance, why did all the bin Ladens get flown out of the country when everybody else was grounded right after 9/11? You also don't read in the New York Times that the president's father is a key player with the Carlyle Group, one of the nation's biggest defense brokers and that the Carlyle Group just bought the company that makes anthrax and smallpox vaccines, which leads to all sorts of interesting questions about who actually ordered the anthrax attacks.
Some people who don't believe the pap they read in the New York Times think it's the same people who ordered 9/11. OK, now that that's out of the way, let's look again at the red herring: Iraq. Yes, it is a convenient distraction, but it's also more than that. It's the next chapter in the permanent "war against terror." Get your bets down now on which war will follow: Iran, Colombia, Philippines, Indonesia. Nothing has substantially changed with Iraq in the last ten years. Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter has eloquently testified that Bush is lying about Iraq's capability, and as a result, Bush has been reduced to castigating Saddam in a Spielbergian future crime sort of way: "Well, he might have nukes in a few years... "
Why now? Well, first, to cover up Bush's crimes at home, which we have just covered. But there's more to it. As they say, it's the oil, stupid! Plus Iraq is not producing oil as rapidly as Saudi Arabia, and the Seven Sisters (or what's left of them) don't like that. America's intent in Iraq is to just take the oil. Face that fact. America will just take it. And once taken, the U.S. will realize that no one can stop them, and they'll take the oil in Saudi Arabia, in Venezuela and Colombia, and in Indonesia. It will all be the war against terror. As a prediction of Bush's plan, consider the recent words of Al-Qaida No. 2 man Ayman Al-Zawahri, recorded by Muslim superstation Al-Jazeera, that the U.S. has decided to split Saudi Arabia into separate entities, including an eastern region, which has the major oil field and which will be under direct U.S. control.
Of course there are other reasons that people point to for this resurgence in America's aggressive posture. First and foremost is that Israel is driving U.S. policy. The "axis of evil" is not America's enemies, but Israel's enemies. Iraq is no direct threat to the U.S., but it is, conceivably, to Israel. There are some who say that America's Christian Zionists are driving this new and vicious U.S. foreign policy, and that America is behaving as if Israel's needs were its own. There is no doubt a large degree of truth to this, but I don't believe it is the foremost motivator. Does anybody out there remember James Watt? He was the government's Interior Secretary under Reagan back in the 1980s, and widely castigated (by some liberals) for his pro-business trashing of the environment. Comparing then and now almost casts those corporate plunderers as liberals, seeing what Bush and his transparently unqualified Cabinet members like Gayle Norton and Christie Whitman are doing now.
Watt, a prominent Pentecostal, publicly stated that we need not worry too much about exploiting our natural resources because "I don't know how many future generations we can count on until the Lord returns." Sometimes here lately, with all this war talk flying around, I get to thinking there's an awful secret that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld know, but the rest of us don't, and it's making them want to just pile up as much largesse as they can before their expected apocalypse arrives - an apocalypse, by the way, that they are doing their level best to create.
But then I remember the words of Ben Bradlee during Watergate days: follow the money. When you look back through history, this is the far more reliable barometer of why wars are undertaken than any kind of evangelical gobbledygook. And that leads me back to, of course, a web site that I believe is the most important information I've read (except for maybe Mike Ruppert's www.copvcia.com) since 9/11. It explains clearly why Bush and his corporate criminal companions are doing what they're doing. The website is Jay Hanson's http://www.dieoff.org/page1.htm, an incredible compendium of information about the oil industry. The significant article that explains why the Bush-Cheney gang is doing what it's doing is The Peak Of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge by Richard C. Duncan, Ph.D. (http://www.dieoff.org/page224.htm)
The shocking theme of this document is that the world will run out of oil very soon, no later than 2030, and when that happens, civilization as we know it will end, because there is no power source as ubiquitously powerful as oil. Don't think oil. Think electricity. And ask yourself: What will happen to Western civilization without electricity? Then think about oil again. Think about the cars and planes and computers it powers, and think about how nothing can replace it. Trot out your stock answers, read the article and see those answers vaporize. Duncan's thesis is that the Dark Ages are fast approaching, because when the oil runs out, and the lights go out, civilization runs out. "The collapse will be strongly correlated with an 'epidemic' of permanent blackouts of high-voltage electric power networks - worldwide," says Duncan. "Briefly explained: "When the electricity goes out, you are back in the Dark Age. And the Stone Age is just around the corner."
So how does this relate to the Bush cabal and the war in Iraq? The super rich of the world are in possession of this information. They know the cornerstone of Western civilization is electricity, powered mostly by oil, and they know it's running out. Their objective is to get control of all of it, for that incredible day that will soon arrive when the blackouts start. The blackouts, Duncan writes, will become more and more frequent until one day, most of the world will be blacked out, except for the super rich in their armored compounds. Don't think that Donald Rumsfeld's house will be blacked out. He and his friends will have cornered the electricity market (actually, he'll be dead by then, but his heirs and disciples will be in control of the power supply by then - and this is to say nothing about water). So the push into Iraq, and soon into Saudi Arabia, will be aimed at securing enough oil to forestall blackout day for the rich for as long as possible. The majority of the rest of the world will be plunged into darkness and primitivism long before that, and the world will evolve into a two-tiered system, even moreso than it is now. Because there will be those with power, and those who are left in the dark.
One of the most chilling aspects to Duncan's report is the forecast that as rolling blackouts increase sometime shortly after 2008, the death toll among humans will rise in direct proportion. Duncan writes: "Australian writer Reg Morrison foresees that... world population rises to about 7.0 billion in the 2036. Thence it plunges to 3.2 billion in 2090, an average loss of 71.4 million people per year (deaths minus births) during 54 years." Most of you now reading this will not be around for that; say a prayer of thanks. Duncan notes the following: "Where will the Olduvai die-off occur? Response: Everywhere. But large cities, of course, will be the most dangerous places to reside when the electric grids die. There you have millions of people densely packed in high-rise buildings, surrounded by acres-and-acres of blacktop and concrete: no electricity, no work, and no food. Thus the urban areas will rapidly depopulate when the electric grids die. In fact we have already mapped out the danger zones. (see Living Earth, 1996.) Specifically: The big cities stand out brightly as yellow-orange dots on NASA's satellite pictures of the earth at night. These planetary lights blare out "Beware," "Warning," and "Danger." The likes of Los Angeles and New York, London and Paris, Bombay and Hong Kong are all unsustainable hot spots."
Read this document. Study it. Understand that what is happening now is only a slightly unpleasant foretaste of the unprecedented disaster to come. This explains why the Bush cabal is doing what it's doing. The forecast for the future, if you comprehend what is reported in Duncan's estimation, is dark. Very dark.
John Kaminski may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.