This top secret think tank has been
pulling the strings of American government for at least 60 years
Born in the wake of World War II as a factory of ideas designed to advise the Air Force on
how to wage and win wars, RAND quickly grew into a magnet for the best and brightest, and became the creator of
America’s nuclear strategy in the struggle against the Soviets. From its ranks arose Cold War luminaries Albert
Wohlstetter, Bernard Brodie, and Herman Kahn, who arguably saved us from nuclear annihilation with their doctrines
of fail-safe and second strike, and unquestionably created what Eisenhower first termed the military-industrial complex.
The Kennedy era brought RAND directly into the corridors of power, where its analysts
became McNamara’s Whiz Kids and its theories of rational warfare steered our conduct in the Vietnam War. Those same
theories would drive our invasion of Iraq forty-five years later, championed by RAND-affiliated actors such as Paul
Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Donald Rumsfeld. But RAND’s greatest contribution might be its
least known: rational choice theory, a model explaining all human behavior through self-interest. With that theory
RAND sparked the Reagan-led transformation of our social and economic system and also unleashed a resurgence of
precisely the forces whose existence it denied—religion, patriotism, tribalism.
...RAND's ultimate goal was to have technocrats running every aspect of society in pursuit of
aone world governmentthat would be
administered under "the rule of reason," a ruthless world where efficiency was king and men were little more than
machines, which is why RAND studied the social sciences because they were at a loss to work out how to deal with
people and how human beings did not always act in their own predictable self-interests. There is no place for love,
empathy or selflessness inthe new world orderthat RAND
and the Ford Foundation are working to create, and patriotism and altruism are adversarial to their
- Bruce Cumings, Chairman of the Department of History at the University of Chicago -
journalist and author Alex Abella was allowed exclusive access inside the RAND Corporation to view their archives.
What he discovered was a plot driven by mad scientists, behaviorists, and generals who were intent on starting
world war three and fleecing the American people in the process. Once he was a skeptic on the subject of
conspiracy theories and the new world order, but after his work with the RAND Corporation
he is now convinced that this top secret think tank has been pulling the strings of American government for at
least 60 years.
"We're all the bastard children of RAND and we don't even know it," remarks
Abella, as he charts how RAND started off as an organization centered around building new weapons for the military
but ultimately expanded into politics, science, history and economics and was closely allied with the Ford,
Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations. RAND's decision in the 50's to re-model the globe towards a new world order
changed everything, with the development of "rational choice theory," which turned people from being citizens into
consumers, as rights and responsibilities were replaced with choices and people's lives slowly came to be dominated
not by integrity or what they stood for, but by what they spent their money on.
RAND's ultimate goal was to have technocrats running every aspect of society in
pursuit of a one world government that would be administered under "the
rule of reason," a ruthless world where efficiency was king and men were little more than machines, which is why
RAND studied the social sciences because they were at a loss to work out how to deal with people and how human
beings did not always act in their own predictable self-interests. There is no place for love, empathy or
selflessness in the new world order that RAND and the Ford Foundation are working to
create, and patriotism and altruism are adversarial to their aims.
how RAND was instrumental in developing the strategy behind the use of nuclear weapons, and how they actively
promoting nuking the entirety of Eastern Europe as well as China in case of problems in Western Europe, a policy
that could easily have sparked off a catastrophic nuclear holocaust. RAND researchers believed that as long as 10
million Americans survived a nuclear war, the war was won.
Abella notes how RAND saw the United Nations as a template for one world
government but that a new organization controlled by the U.S. would eventually supersede the UN and become the de
facto world government, which is why RAND researchers such as John Williams advocated pre-emptive nuclear strikes
on the Soviet Union, to make sure the United States would be the only country with the supreme power to impose its
will on the rest of the world.
Speaking on the topic of false
flag attacks, Abella notes that the staged Gulf of Tonkin attack and the planned Operation Northwoods false flag
were both initially proposed in RAND documents, highlighting the total immorality with which RAND war games its
scenarios, many of which are ethically repugnant in that they nonchalantly promote the genocide of entire
populations with little regard for the consequences. Abella explains how RAND truly is a shadow government because
it serves as a revolving door between the two, and how RAND is the cradle of the military-industrial complex and
the birthplace of the technocratic elite that we are now fighting against.
We encourage all our subscribers to watch this video now at Prison
Planet.tv by visiting the "video reports" section. Not a member? Pleaseclick here to
subscribe and get instant access to this interview, along with
thousands of hours of material, including daily access to the live video stream and video archives of The Alex
Description: What is a think tank and how can a mere research
institution actually shape the society it claims to be studying? Join us this week on The Corbett
Report as we head down into the nuclear bunker with the boys from RAND to unearth the secrets of the
research institution that has molded our world for the past 60 years.
Documentation – ParadigmShift.tv
The home page of Paradigm Shift TV, which now broadcasts Corbett Report
videos on Sky Channel 201 Friday nights at 7:00 PM UK time.
Beyond the agricultural and industrial revolutions of the past, a
global technology revolution is currently changing the world. This book discusses the
broad, multidisciplinary, and synergistic trends in this revolution, including
genomics, cloning, biomedical engineering, smart materials, agile manufacturing,
nanofabricated computation devices, and integrated microsystems.
“…It goes beyond that, because for instance that’s what the Brookings Institution does.
The Brookings Institution is another think tank that was founded in the 1920s, that never did have as much
influence as RAND. And it’s only been now, under the Obama administration, that they’ve finally found
their own voice. And a lot of the people have got into the Obama administration, whereas for decades it was RAND.
You know like Donald Rumsfeld going from the RAND board of trusties to the pentagon.
-- Alex Abella, Researcher, Author, video : Rand Corp. Exposed, Corbett Report Podcast
We Need to Talk About the Iran
Published on Jan 5, 2018
Are these protests in Iran spontaneous, or are they the result of another regime change operation?
This week on The Corbett Report James explores the past, present and future of US and Israeli
involvement in Iran, and the attempts to foment unrest in the country.
USA, Israel & Saudi Arabia Prepping for Zionist War With
End Times News Report
Published on Dec 9, 2017
War with Iran is inevitable. The Zionist puppet masters have been trying for years to start a war
with Iran and that reality has never been closer than it is today. The USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia
are all making coordinated moves in preparation for a major war.
“This channel [Truthstream Media] has covered multiple times that Iran is so
much in the crosshairs, it’s such a persistent target. It’s such a country that these war generals
and policy wonks in Washington are salivating over, that an actual entire book was written by
theBrookings Institute - yeah satan’s own think tank - raising the question, ’which path to
Persia?’ Not whether there would be a conflict in Iran, not whether they seek regime change, but
how to get there and maintain international credibility. And they ran through everything from a
false flag attack, to a joint air strike with Israel or Saudi
Arabia, to a domino situation with Syria or surrounding countries, to a PT boat confrontation and
-- Aaron Dykes, journalist, Truthstream Media, video
: While Everyone Was Busy Being Distracted by Texas… --
The Rand Corporation and the American Empire, a study of
the world's most influential think tank
FLASHBACK TO SEPT 28, 2010-Father of State Sponsored Terrorism (Full Interview)
Alex talks with Emmy-nominated TV reporter and screenwriter Alex Abella, author of Soldiers of
Reason: The Rand Corporation and the American Empire, a study of the world's most influential think tank. Abella
was the first journalist to have full access to RAND's files in Santa Monica, California. Abella, who migrated with
his family to the United States at age 10 from Cuba, is also the author Shadow Enemies, a non-fiction account of a
plot by Adolf Hitler to start a wave of terror and destruction in the United States. He is also the author of
several novels, including The Killing of the Saints and The Great American. http://www.abellaweb.com/index.html http://www.infowars.com/ http://www.planetinfowars.com/
Born in the wake of World War II, RAND
quickly became the creator of America’s anti-Soviet nuclear strategy. A magnet for the best and the brightest, its
ranks included Cold War luminaries such as Albert Wohlstetter, Bernard Brodie, and Herman Kahn, who arguably saved
us from nuclear annihilation and unquestionably created Eisenhower’s "military-industrial complex." In the Kennedy
era, RAND analysts and their theories of rational warfare steered our conduct in Vietnam. Those same theories drove
our invasion of Iraq forty-five years later, championed by RAND affiliated actors such as Paul Wolfowitz, Donald
Rumsfeld, and Zalmay Khalilzad. But RAND’s greatest contribution might be its least known: rational choice theory,
a model explaining all human behavior through self-interest. Through it RAND sparked the Reagan-led transformation
of our social and economic system but also unleashed a resurgence of precisely the forces whose existence it denied
-- religion, patriotism, tribalism.
With Soldiers of Reason, Alex Abella has rewritten the history of America’s last half century and cast a new light
on our problematic present.
Read an Excerpt from Soldiers of Reason by Alex Abella
The RAND Corporation’s the boon of the world
They think all day long for a fee
They sit and play games about going up in flames
For Counters they use you and me.
—"The RAND Hymn," by MALVINA REYNOLDS
ON OCTOBER 1, 1945, less than two months after the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan, the
commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces boarded a flight from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco on a trip
he was certain would be as momentous as the Manhattan Project.
A man of medium stature, with pudgy features, clear eyes, and a constant smile, General Henry
Harley "Hap" Arnold was a true believer in the power of the Air Force. He was one of only nine people ever to earn
the rank of five-star general and the only one with that rank in the Air Force. He had received his military pilot
license in 1912, and since then had pushed for an Air Force independent of the Army; he never wavered in his
conviction of the usefulness of maximum destructive power in combat. On hearing doubts on the legitimacy of the
Allied fire bombing in Dresden, Germany, Arnold wrote, "We must not get soft. War must be destructive and to a
certain extent inhuman and ruthless."
General Arnold had welcomed the development and deployment of nuclear bombs—especially since it had
fallen to the Army Air Force to deliver, and thus control, that mightiest of weapons. (By 1947 President Truman
would cleave the Air Force from its Army concatenation, setting up both services as rivals for the Pentagon’s
largesse.) But Arnold was concerned that the amazing concentration of scientific minds that had made possible the
Manhattan Project would prove hard to duplicate under peacetime conditions.
Washington had recruited talent from far and wide for its crusade against the Axis. The production
capabilities and sheer output of the country’s industries (General Motors, Ford, U.S. Steel, General Electric) had
been harnessed by the best and the brightest minds from the country’s top scientific research centers (MIT,
Princeton, Columbia), giving the world radar, jet fighters, the atom bomb. In the span of four years, the country
had grown from a second-rate power to the greatest military behemoth in history. It was the dawn of the American
New Order. Like ancient Athens and her league, it would be an empire of the willing—America’s allies willed her to
rule the world and rule the world she would.
Yet now that the battle was won, the unlikely alliance that had guided the United States to victory
was splitting apart. Businesses wanted to make money and scientists wanted to do research. Few wanted to put up
with the military’s restrictions and low pay. General Arnold feared that if everybody went back to industry or
academia, America’s enemies could one day hold sway. The likeliest adversary: our erstwhile wartime ally, the
Already in March 1946, former British prime minister Winston Churchill had warned about an Iron
Curtain descending on Europe. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had shattered his wartime alliance with the United
States, and his troops, firmly in control of Central and Eastern Europe, were pressuring Italy and France. Soviet
boots seemed ready to crush all political opposition; it was only a matter of time before a major American-Soviet
conflict developed. That was why Arnold was flying to California, to find a way to hire the best brains in the
country, put them together in a space they could call their own, and have them come up with weapons nobody had ever
Even in the midst of the war, a year earlier, Arnold had requested his chief scientific adviser, a
colorful Hungarian named Theodore von Kármán (who was also director of the Guggenheim Laboratories), to devise a
plan to entice scientists to continue working for the Air Force during peacetime. Kármán had come up with a report
called "Toward New Horizons," which called for the establishment of a new kind of scientific community, "a nucleus
for scientific groups such as those which successfully assisted in the command and staff work in the field during
the war," a university without students and with the Air Force as its only client. In other words, a prototype for
the organization that would become RAND. Arnold had been delighted with the plan, but the exigencies of the war had
made him put it aside until the right moment. That moment came when lean, steely-jawed, blue-eyed former test pilot
Franklin R. Collbohm, visiting from California, came into Arnold’s office one day in September of 1945.
A fanatically fit former marine, Collbohm swam in his pool every morning, rain or shine, before
going to work. He had fled his childhood environs in upstate New York for the wide skies and opportunities of the
West as soon as he could, eventually becoming the right-hand man of Donald Douglas, head of Douglas Aircraft,
America’s largest airplane manufacturer, and the special assistant to Arthur E. Raymond, the company’s vice
president and head of engineering.
Arnold and Collbohm had met in 1942, when Collbohm procured nascent radar technology being
developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the Army Air Force. Both men shared a passion for
aircraft and a deep love for the armed forces, to the point that they might have been inverse images of each
other—Arnold advocating for scientists among the military and Collbohm standing up for the Air Force among the
Like Arnold, Collbohm was concerned with the imminent dispersal of the best brains the United
States could hire, and had approached a number of officials in Washington, D.C., about finding a way to retain top
scientists after the war, with little success. When he finally came to Arnold’s office, though, Collbohm did not
even have to finish describing his idea for setting up an advisory group of independent scientists consulting for
the military before the general slapped his desk and exclaimed, "I know just what you’re going to tell me. It’s the
most important thing we can do." He told Collbohm to call Douglas right away to enlist his cooperation; they were
to meet at California’s Hamilton Air Force Base in two days. Collbohm was to have a list of all the things required
to make the project come to fruition—the men, the machines, the money.
Collbohm grabbed the first plane he could out of Washington, a B-25 bomber, and landed at Douglas’s
Santa Monica plant. He gathered all the Douglas officials he needed for the meeting and then looked for a plane to
get them to the San Francisco Bay Area. The only aircraft available was President Roosevelt’s private plane, a
Douglas C-54 dubbed "The Sacred Cow," so Collbohm and his people grabbed that and flew to Hamilton in it, arriving
at the base just an hour ahead of Arnold, with barely enough time to round up a luncheon for the meeting.
When the general’s B-21 rumbled into Hamilton Air Force Base, waiting for him were Collbohm,
Raymond, and Douglas, whose daughter had married Arnold’s son. Arnold had brought with him Edward Bowles, a
consultant from MIT who had collaborated with Collbohm in setting up the first instance of coordinated civilian and
military efforts in wartime planning, the B-29 Special Bombardment Project in 1944.
Lunch was served and the men got to work. One of the chief concerns of the meeting was how the new
organization would help develop the technology of long-distance missiles, which Arnold was convinced was the wave
of the future. Arnold and his group were adamant that only the Air Force and no other branch of the armed forces
should control the new weapon. By the time he finished his coffee, Arnold had pledged $10 million from unspent
wartime research money to set up the research group and keep it running independently for a few years. Arthur
Raymond suggested the name Project RAND, for research and development. Collbohm nominated himself to head the group
while he looked for a permanent director. (His temporary stay would eventually stretch to more than twenty years.)
And so was RAND conceived.
At first, Project RAND had no specific definition of purpose other than the very general outline
hashed out in Hamilton Field—a civilian outfit to come up with new weapons. But how? Besides long-range missiles,
what other kind of weapons? How many? Arnold, Collbohm, Bowles, and Douglas exchanged memos, letters, and
suggestions on the future of the organization for months, but final details were not worked out until General
Curtis LeMay came into the picture in late December.
Gruff, aggressive, demanding, and some would say demented, LeMay was the coldest of the cold
warriors. With his bulldog swagger and "never surrender" attitude, he served as a prototype for several generals in
the movie Doctor Strangelove, advocating massive attacks on the enemy—whichever enemy America happened to be facing
at the time, although usually the Soviet Union—while chomping on a stogie.
Named Air Force Deputy Chief of Air Staff for Research and Development, LeMay included among his
responsibilities the supervision of the new research group. Whether purposely or by the sheer serendipity that can
accompany government work, LeMay turned out to be the ideal candidate to shepherd the fledgling organization. With
typical impatience, he tore through the red tape hindering the birth of RAND—at one point gathering all the Air
Force bureaucrats needed for budget approval in one room and refusing to let them leave until they signed off on
Project RAND’s exact mission. Finally, on March 1, 1946, RAND officially was delivered. Its charter was clear:
"Project RAND is a continuing program of scientific study and research on the broad subject of air warfare with the
object of recommending to the Air Force preferred methods, techniques and instrumentalities for this purpose."
Unlike other government contractors, RAND would be exempt from reporting to a contracting command.
Instead, the unfiltered results would be delivered straight to LeMay. LeMay made sure that Project RAND could
accept or reject Air Force suggestions for research and that RAND alone would determine the overall balance of its
research. In exchange, the Air Force would receive information on intelligence, plans, and programs to optimize the
value of its research; nevertheless, the project in no way was meant to exempt the Air Force from its own
decision-making responsibilities. In other words, RAND would always be subservient to the Air Force when it came to
deciding what would get made and how.
Arnold, Collbohm, and LeMay proved prescient on the government’s need for continued assistance from
independent civilian scientists in peacetime. Within a few years, a new mind-set would take hold in government:
science, rather than diplomacy, could provide the answers needed to cope with threats to national
security—especially vis-à-vis the growing Soviet military menace.
The United States had demobilized its armed forces after World War II; new weapons, such as the
atomic bomb, were seen as cheaper and more efficient than keeping large numbers of soldiers stationed abroad.
Rather than nationalize key military industries, as Great Britain and France had done, the U.S. government opted to
contract out its scientific research development to private concerns. The private sector, not bound by the
procurement and personnel requirements of the Pentagon, could create new weapons faster and cheaper. RAND would be
a bridge between the two worlds of military planning and civilian development.
Trinity and Beyond Trailer
Declassified footage about the development of the nuclear weapon
TACTICAL NUKES The Next Phase in Fabricated War on Terror
Michael Chossudovsky: "The war on terror is fabricated" P-1
Published on Jan 25, 2008
Michael Chossudovsky: "The war on terror is fabricated" P-2
While people on both sides of the phoney left/right divide squabble over terrorist boogeymen and
Trump's CIA chief gives Saudi Arabia an award for "counter"terrorism, everyone has lost sight of the bigger
picture: The blithering morons who are the face of international terror are aided, funded, controlled and handled
by the intelligence agencies. It is all part of the con to get you scared of your own shadow so the
terror-industrial complex can laugh all the way to the bank. Today James breaks down the latest chapter in this
never-ending psy-op saga.
As NATO and Russia revive the old nuclear Cold War, the public is being prepared to accept the
first-strike use of tactical nuclear weapons on targets in the Middle East and elsewhere. And as the world inches
closer to a World War III scenario, we find the old MAD doctrine being revived in a new round of madness.
Secret Meeting on the Privatization of Nuclear War Held on
Hiroshima Day 2003 Behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on
Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable – a nuclear holocaust
which could potentially spread in terms of radioactive fallout over a large part of the Middle East.
All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as
“a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now
described as acts of “self-defense”.
The casualties from the direct effects of blast, radioactivity, and fires resulting from the massive use
of nuclear weapons by the superpowers [of the Cold War era] would be so catastrophic that we avoided such a
tragedy for the first four decades after the invention of nuclear weapons.1
During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevailed, namely that the use of
nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union would result in “the destruction of both the attacker and the defender”.
In the post Cold war era, US nuclear doctrine was redefined.
The dangers of nuclear weapons have been obfuscated. Tactical weapons have been upheld as distinct, in terms of
their impact, from the strategic thermonuclear bombs of the Cold War era. Tactical nuclear weapons are identical to
the strategic nuclear bombs. The only things that differentiates these two categories of nuclear bombs are:
1) their delivery system;
2) their explosive yield (measured in mass of trinitrotoluene (TNT), in kilotons or megatons.
The tactical nuclear weapon or low yield mini-nuke is described as a small nuclear bomb, delivered in the
same way as the earth penetrating bunker buster bombs. Tactical nuclear weapons, in terms of in-theater delivery
systems are comparable to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.
The Pentagon’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review envisaged so-called “contingency plans” for an offensive “first
strike use” of nuclear weapons, not only against “axis of evil” countries (including Iran and North Korea) but also
against Russia and China.2
The adoption of the NPR by the US Congress in late 2002 provided a green light for carrying out the
Pentagon’s pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine, both in terms of military planning as well as defense procurement and
production. Congress not only rolled back its prohibition on low yield nuclear weapons, it also provided funding
“to pursue work on so-called mini-nukes”. The financing was allocated to bunker buster (earth penetrator) tactical
nuclear weapons as well as to the development of new nuclear weapons.3
Hiroshima Day 2003: Secret Meeting at Strategic Command Headquarters
On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day, commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima
(August 6 1945), a secret meeting was held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air
Force Base in Nebraska.
Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance. This
mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima. The
meeting was intended to set the stage for the development of a new generation of “smaller”, “safer” and “more
usable” nuclear weapons, to be used in the “in-theater nuclear wars” of the 21st Century.
In a cruel irony, the participants to this secret meeting, which excluded members of Congress, arrived on
the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing and departed on the anniversary of the attack on Nagasaki. More than 150
military contractors, scientists from the weapons labs, and other government officials gathered at the headquarters
of the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska to plot and plan for the possibility of “full-scale nuclear war”,
calling for the production of a new generation of nuclear weapons – more “usable” so-called “mini-nukes” and earth
penetrating “bunker busters” armed with atomic warheads.4
According to a leaked draft of the agenda, the secret meeting included discussions on “mini-nukes” and
“bunker-buster” bombs with nuclear war heads “for possible use against rogue states”:
We need to change our nuclear strategy from the Cold War to one that can deal with emerging threats… The
meeting will give some thought to how we guarantee the efficacy of the (nuclear) stockpile.5
The Privatization ofNuclear War:US Military
Contractors Set the Stage
The post 9/11 nuclear weapons doctrine was in the making, with America’s major defense contractors directly
involved in the decision-making process.
The Hiroshima Day 2003 meetings had set the stage for the “privatization of nuclear war”. Corporations not
only reap multibillion-dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in
setting the agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.
The nuclear weapons industry, which includes the production of nuclear devices as well as the missile delivery
systems, etc., is controlled by a handful of defense contractors with Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop
Grunman, Raytheon and Boeing in the lead. It is worth noting that barely a week prior to the historic August 6,
2003 meeting, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) disbanded its advisory committee which provided
an “independent oversight” on the US nuclear arsenal, including the testing and/or use of new nuclear devices.6
Michel Chossudovsky: North Korea and the danger of nuclear
Paul S. Graham
Published on Jan 17, 2018
Winnipeg, January 15, 2018: Among his many accomplishments, Michel Chossudovsky is professor emeritus at the
University of Ottawa and founder of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He spoke at the University of
Winnipeg on the history of the United States' conflict with North Korea and the prospects for nuclear war. His
visit was sponsored by Peace Alliance Winnipeg, Menno Simons College, CKUW-FM and the Geopolitical Economy Research
The Strategies of Global Warfare: War with China and
Washington’s Military Design in the Asia-Pacific
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, November 07, 2017
Global Research 22 August 2016
First published in August 2016, this article documents US war plans directed against China and Russia. It
should be understood that from a strategic point of view, US threats against North Korea are a stepping stone
towards China and Russia.
The Contemporary Context involves a scenario of a nuclear attack on Russia. “Kill the
Russians”: The New Cold War is no longer Cold
A former CIA Official is calling for the “Killing of Russians”. The US media and the the State
Department applaud. (scroll down for more details)
Michel Chossudovsky, November 7, 2017
It is important to focus on Southeast Asia
and East Asia in a broader geopolitical context. China, North Korea as well as Russia are potential targets under
Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”, involving the combined threat of missile deployments, naval power and pre-emptive nuclear
We are not dealing with piecemeal military endeavors. The regional Asia-Pacific military agenda
under the auspices of US Pacific Command (USPACOM) is part of a global process of US-NATO military planning.
US military actions are carefully coordinated. Major military and covert intelligence operations
are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the
Asia Pacific region. In turn, the planning of military operations is coordinated with non-conventional forms of
warfare including regime change, financial warfare and economic sanctions.
The current situation is all the more critical inasmuch as a US-NATO war on Russia, China, North
Korea and Iran is part of the US presidential election debate. War is presented as a political and military option
to Western public opinion.
The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared
towards destabilizing sovereign states. America’s hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through
acts of war, support of terrorist organizations, regime change and economic warfare.
While, a World War Three Scenario has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than ten
years, military action against Russia and China is now contemplated at an “operational level”. U.S. and NATO forces
have been deployed in essentially three major regions of the World:
The Middle East and North Africa. Theater wars and US-NATO sponsored insurgencies directed against
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism”
Eastern Europe including Poland and Ukraine, with military maneuvers, war games and the deployment of
military hardware at Russia’s doorstep which could potentially lead to confrontation with the Russian
The U.S. and its allies are also threatening China under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.
Russia is also confronted on its North Eastern frontier, through the deployment of NORAD-Northcom
In other regions of the World including Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, US intervention is geared
towards regime change and economic warfare directed against a number of non-compliant countries:
Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the thrust has largely used the pretext of “Islamic terrorism” to wage
counterterrorism ops under the auspices of the US Africa Command (USAFRICOM).
In South Asia, Washington’s intent is to build an alliance with India with a view to confronting
Echoes of WWI: China, the US, and the Next "Great" War
General MacArthur's Conspiracy To Start A War With China! New Documentary
Release & Interview!
The Big Picture RT
Published on Dec 9, 2016
Thom talks with author and filmmaker John Pilger about his new documentary “The Coming War On
China” and the military escalation that could lead World War III.
For more information on the stories we've covered visit our websites at
thomhartmann.com - freespeech.org - and RT.com. You can also watch tonight's show on Hulu - at
Hulu.com/THE BIG PICTURE and over at The Big Picture YouTube page. And - be sure to check us out on
Facebook and Twitter!
In the early 20th century, the world’s dominant superpower looked warily on the
rise of a competitor to its supremacy. The machinations of the British to contain the rise of
Germany led inexorably to the First World War. Once again in the early 21st century, the world’s
dominant superpower is looking warily on the rise of a competitor. Will the American Empire’s
machinations to contain the rise of China lead to the Third World War? Or is the American/Chinese
conflict another engineered conflict for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many? Join
James Corbett as he presents "Echoes of World War I" to the Open Mind Conference in Copenhagen,
Published on Sep 23, 2017
Newsbud is proud to announce, our first DVD release. Available to stream now on Amazon, or secure
your DVD today at Newsbud.com.
Only a few years after Hiroshima and the end of World War II, President Harry S.
Truman was confronted with the horrifying prospect of another nuclear holocaust. General Douglas
MacArthur’s anti-communist fervor impelled him to pursue his own war strategy in Asia, conspiring
against Truman’s official policy to incite Red China by sending the USS Bole on a secret mission
three miles off the Chinese Pacific coast. The servicemen who crewed that battleship was recruited
to the General’s rogue plan without their knowledge and threatened into silence for decades, until
now. This is their story and one we are all lucky they lived to tell.
Told here for the first time is the incredible story of the operation that
triggered Truman's removal of Douglas MacArthur: the secret China mission of the US Navy destroyer
USS John A. Bole. Featuring testimonies of servicemen on the John A. Bole and newly declassified
documents, this documentary goes behind the scenes in Washington, London, and aboard the Bole to
reveal Truman's relief of MacArthur was not a question of choice; it was a matter of desperate
'The Coming War on China' is a film for cinema and TV by John Pilger...
"A gripping film ... a strong corrective to our bland and complacent
Peter Bradshaw, Guardian
**** 4 stars
**** 4 stars
"A film that will change hearts and minds"
"Shocking, terrifying, disturbing"
"The kind of stark warning we need"
"The aim of this film is to break a silence: the United States and China may be on the road to war, and
nuclear war is no longer unthinkable"
This new feature-length documentary by award-winning
journalist and filmmaker John Pilger is his 60th film for television. Coming straight after the election of
President Trump, the film is one of John Pilger's most timely and urgent investigations. As Trump threatens China
with a trade war and worse, this film is both a warning and an inspiring story of people's resistance.
Filmed over two years in the Marshall Islands, Japan, Korea, China and the United States, The
Coming War on China reveals a build-up to war on the doorstep of China. More than 400 US military bases now
encircle China in what one strategist calls "a perfect noose".
Bringing together rare archive and interviews with witnesses, Pilger reveals America's secret
history in the region - he destruction of much of life in the Marshall Islands, once a paradise, by the explosion
of the equivalent of one Hiroshima every day for 12 years, and the top secret 'Project 4.1' that made nuclear
guinea pigs of the population.
Pilger and his crew chartered a plane to the irradiated island of Bikini where the 1954 Hydrogen
Bomb poisoned the environment forever. He reports: "As my aircraft banked low over Bikini atoll, the emerald lagoon
beneath me suddenly disappeared into a vast black hole, a deathly void. When I stepped out of the plane, my shoes
registered "unsafe" on a Geiger counter. Almost everything was irradiated. Palm trees stood in unworldly
formations, unbending in the breeze. There were no birds. It was a vision of what the world can expect if two
nuclear powers go to war."
In key interviews - from Pentagon war planners in what is now Donald Trump's Washington, where the
undeclared strategy is "perpetual war", to members of China's new political class who rarely feature in Western
reports - Pilger's film challenges the notion of the world's newest, biggest trading nation as an enemy.
Edited in chapters, The Coming War is also about the human spirit and the rise of an extraordinary
resistance in faraway places. On the Japanese island of Okinawa, home to 32 US bases - where the population lives
along a razor-wired fenceline and beneath the screeching of military aircraft - Okinawans are challenging the
greatest military power in the world, and succeeding.
One of the resistance leaders is Fumiko Shimabukuro, aged 87. A survivor of the Second World War,
she took refuge in beautiful Henoko Bay, which she is now fighting to save. The Japanese government wants to fill
in much of the bay to extend runways for US bombers. "For us," she told me, "the choice is silence or life."
Across the East China Sea lies the Korean island of Jeju, a semi- tropical sanctuary and World
Heritage Site declared "an island of world peace". On this island of world peace is one of the biggest military
bases in Asia, aimed at China - purpose-built for US aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and missile
For almost a decade the people of Jeju have been peacefully resisting the base. Every day, twice a
day, farmers, villagers, priests and supporters from all over the world stage an extraordinary Catholic mass that
blocks the gates. Every day, police remove the priests and the worshippers, bodily, and their altar. It is a
silent, moving spectacle. One of the leaders, Father Mun Jeong-hyeon, says: "I sing four songs every day at the
base. I sing in typhoons - no exception."
From Jeju, Pilger flew to Shanghai. "When I was last in China," he says, " the loudest noise I
remember was the tinkling of bicycle bells; Mao Zedong had recently died, and the cities seemed dark, forbidding
places. Nothing prepared me for the astonishing changes that had taken place."
He interviews Lijia Zhang, a Beijing journalist and typical of a new class of outspoken mavericks.
Her bestselling book has the ironic title, Socialism Is Great! She grew up during the chaotic and brutal Cultural
Revolution and has lived in the US. A critic of her own country, she also rejects outdated stereotypes. "Many
Americans imagine," she said, "that Chinese people live a miserable, repressed life with no freedom whatsoever. The
[idea of] the yellow peril has never left them... They have no idea there are some 500 million people being lifted
out of poverty."
China today presents exquisite ironies, not least the house in Shanghai where Mao and his comrades
secretly founded the Communist Party of China in 1921. Today, it stands in the heart of a very capitalist shipping
district; you walk out of this Communist shrine with your plastic bust of Mao into the embrace of Starbucks, Apple,
Eric Li, a Shanghai venture capitalist and social scientist, tells Pilger: "I make the joke: in
America you can change political parties, but you can't change the policies. In China you cannot change the party,
but you can change policies. The political changes that have taken place in China this past 66 years have been
wider and broader and greater than probably any other major country in living memory."
The world is shifting east, and America's dominance is ending. Once subjugated, scorned and
impoverished, China is rising inexorably as the world's banker and builder. Will all this be allowed to happen
peacefully? "We need to make America strong again," says President-elect Donald Trump. "We need to make America
great again ... and we need victories."
'The Coming War on China': Film Review
by Neil Young, 12 December 2016
A persuasively partisan example of
old-school investigative journalism, John Pilger's documentary is his fourth project to straddle cinema and
From Taiwan telephone tete-a-tete to pre-Christmas game of drones, President-elect @realDonaldTrump
is inadvertently doing his darnedest to endow John Pilger's eye-opening polemic The Coming War on China with an air
of chillingly urgent topicality. The Australian-born journalist's 60th film for UK broadcaster ITV is his fourth to
be made with cinema exposure in mind - it screened to strong receptions in British theaters the day before its
similarly well-received late-evening network bow. And this authoritative indictment of American nefariousness in
the western Pacific looks set to eclipse predecessors The War on Democracy (2007), The War You Don't See (2010) and
Utopia (2013) in terms of multi-platform global buzz.
But while the title and premise may lead viewers to expect a Cassandra-chronicle of potential
upcoming flashpoints between the countries with the two biggest economies and the two biggest armies in the world,
Pilger's scope is much broader, his historical perspective much longer. Indeed, the PEOTUS only pops up fleetingly
and belatedly - receiving his first name-check at the 107-minute mark in a 113-minute film, as narrator Pilger
comments that "the new president" was swept into office at a time when the U.S. and China had already been at "the
edge of war" for some time.
The Coming War on China is effectively an elaborately illustrated extension of a lecture Pilger
delivered at Sydney University in March titled 'A World War Has Begun,' in which he expounded on why he viewed an
H.R. Clinton presidency with at least as much dread as a D.J. Trump one. "Most of America's wars (almost all of
them against defenseless countries)," Pilger opined, "have been launched not by Republican presidents but by
liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama."
Charismatic and eloquent, and looks-wise little changed from the times of his 1970s breakthrough
with films like the Cambodia-exposé Year Zero (1979), Pilger is a practiced and skilled orator. His oft-sardonic
narration here is seasoned with the tirelessly globetrotting experience of a man who became chief foreign
correspondent of London's Daily Mirror when @realJFK and @realLBJ ruled the White House.
But where The Coming War on China - an unapologetically partisan example of old-school, generously
funded, investigatory journalism - stands out is the range of voices and faces with which Pilger (working with
editor Joe Frost) shares the spotlight. As is standard for this particular behind-the-headlines sub-genre, Pilger
includes talking-head commentary from expert observers such as Chinese political scientist Eric Li (who shrewdly
contrasts the coexistence-oriented philosophy of Buddhist-inflected East with the conflict-sparking
conversion-minded approach of the Judeo-Christian West) and American writer James Bradley, author of The China
Mirage: The Hidden History of American Disaster in Asia.
Crucially, Pilger allots just as much time to the ordinary victims of this "disaster" - as
personified by the long-suffering citizens of the Marshall Islands, an archipelago physically ("they came here and
destroyed our lands") and socio-economically ("apartheid in the Pacific") ravaged by post-World War II American
nuclear testing and ongoing military presence. Each of these speakers is accorded the dignity of being identified
by name via onscreen caption, a courtesy sometimes overlooked by even the most well-meaning documentarians, and
their first-person testimony is harrowing, moving and cumulatively anger-rousing.
Pilger devotes the whole first segment ('The Secret of the Marshall Islands') of his four-chapter
film to a subject which may strike some as being only tangentially related to the matter nominally at hand. But
it´s clear no accident that Pilger accords senior Marshall Islands citizen Rinok Riklon so much more screen time
than Donald John Trump, the imminent proximity of whose diminutive digits to the nuclear button is currently giving
much of the world apocalyptic nightmares.
Pilger himself contributes to such grim forebodings in his concluding chapter ('Empire'), which
includes animated visions of mushroom-cloud annihilation accompanied by Frost´s suitably doom-laden music - like
the film as a whole, the scoring is conventional in style but generally effective. But the closing moments, as well
as finally introducing Trump in understatedly ominous fashion, strive hard to conclude matters on a note of
inspirational optimism. As well as the US, China and (conspicuously backgrounded here) Russia, Pilger discerns that
there is "another superpower, and this is us. Ordinary people everywhere." From Standing Rock, to the world? We
shall all soon see.
This top secret think tank has been
pulling the strings of American government for at least 60 years
Wayne Madsen & Alex Jones: North Korea Attack Part Of RAND Plan For
Total War? 1/2
The exchange of artillery fire between North and South Korea,
which the North says was started by South Korea firing shells
during a military drill, could act as the catalyst for a
huge new conflict that the RAND Corporation has been lobbying for over the past two
The clash, which took place on the Yellow Sea border island of Yeonpyeong, killed
two South Korean soldiers and wounded 18 others. North Korea has reportedly fired some 200 shells,
setting numerous buildings on fire on the island. Both countries have elevated their threat status
and are preparing for potential full out warfare.
As we warned two years ago, the military-industrial complex has been
yearning for a new conflict since the invasion of Iraq some seven and a half years
Back in October 2008, we reported on how the RAND Corporation was lobbying for a
war to be started with a major foreign power in order to stimulate the American economy and prevent
a double dip recession.
The RAND Corporation is a notoriously powerful NGO with deep ties to the
U.S. military-industrial complex as well as interlocking connections with the Ford, Rockefeller,
and Carnegie foundations.
[Continued on last column]
journalist and author Alex Abella was allowed exclusive access inside the RAND Corporation to view
their archives. What he discovered was a plot driven by mad scientists, behaviorists, and generals
who were intent on starting world war three and fleecing the American people in the process.
Once he was a skeptic on the subject of conspiracy theories and the
new world order, but after his work with the RAND Corporation he is now convinced that this top
secret think tank has been pulling the strings of American government for at least 60
This top secret think tank has been pulling the strings of American government
for at least 60 years
Born in the wake of World War II as a factory of ideas designed to advise the Air
Force on how to wage and win wars, RAND quickly grew into a magnet for the best and brightest, and
became the creator of America’s nuclear strategy in the struggle against the Soviets. From its
ranks arose Cold War luminaries Albert Wohlstetter, Bernard Brodie, and Herman Kahn, who arguably
saved us from nuclear annihilation with their doctrines of fail-safe and second strike, and
unquestionably created what Eisenhower first termed the military-industrial complex.
The Kennedy era brought RAND directly into the corridors of power, where its
analysts became McNamara’s Whiz Kids and its theories of rational warfare steered our conduct in
the Vietnam War. Those same theories would drive our invasion of Iraq forty-five years later,
championed by RAND-affiliated actors such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad, and
Donald Rumsfeld. But RAND’s greatest contribution might be its least known: rational choice theory,
a model explaining all human behavior through self-interest. With that theory RAND sparked the
Reagan-led transformation of our social and economic system and also unleashed a resurgence of
precisely the forces whose existence it denied—religion, patriotism, tribalism.
...RAND's ultimate goal was to have technocrats
running every aspect of society in pursuit of a one world
government that would be administered under "the rule of reason," a ruthless world where
efficiency was king and men were little more than machines, which is why RAND studied the social
sciences because they were at a loss to work out how to deal with people and how human beings did
not always act in their own predictable self-interests. There is no place for love, empathy or
selflessness in the new world order that RAND and the Ford Foundation are
working to create, and patriotism and altruism are adversarial to their aims.
Exposed, Corbett Report Podcast
Description: What is a think tank and how can a mere research institution actually
shape the society it claims to be studying? Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we head down
into the nuclear bunker with the boys from RAND to unearth the secrets of the research institution
that has molded our world for the past 60 years.
Wayne Madsen & Alex Jones: North Korea Attack Part Of RAND Plan For
Total War? 2/2
The Alex Jones Channel
Published on Nov 23, 2010
[First column continued]
The RAND proposal, which was reported on by Chinese media sources, brazenly
urged that a new war could be launched to benefit the economy, but stressed that the target country
would have to be a major influential power, and not a smaller country on the scale of Afghanistan
Although at the time RAND considered North Korea on its own to be too small
a target, any full scale confrontation between the Koreas would embroil the United States on the
side of the South and China on the side of the North. If North
Korea were to tap its arsenal of nuclear weapons, the entire international community would quickly
rubber stamp a US-led military assault on the rogue nation.
Given the fact that North Korea's nuclear belligerency has its foundations in the best efforts of
people like Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration, through the AQ Khan weapons trading
network, to provide Communist agitator Kim Jong-Il and his hereditary successor with nuclear
weapons, the fact that we are now seeing tensions reach boiling point
represents a huge opportunity for the US military-industrial complex to manipulate into being the
massive war that they have been seeking for years.
Paul Joseph Watson is the
editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a
fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio
shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America's most listened to late night talk
Alex and crew visit the RAND Corp and cover the mushroom cloud and
lookintoit.org January 21,
Since the time of the above report of
2010, Wayne Madsen and Alex Jones have fallen out with each other. Wayne Madsen has gone on record
that Alex Jones is no longer covering the news as he had in the past, and has soldout to Trump/The
Establishment. As far as I am aware, during the first year of Trump's presidency, there has been no
mention of The Rand Corporation in Alex Jones' reporting (as seen above) in regard to the North
Korea US conflict.
I agree with Madsen; Jones selling out can not be any more obvious than his hawkish stance on
foreign policy, where on his news broadcast he has recently "war gamed" a preemptive nuclear strike
on North Korea that would kill one million Koreans, and ranted about striking China — which would
certainly doom the entire planet! He's repeatedly had Joel Skousen on his show, who claims it is
“The Deep State” that is preventing Trump from striking North Korea (a
supreme psyop) and in a recent instance, exclaims that the only way to have peace with North Korea
is to, "take them out". (You can watch his insane nonsense at this link:
Absurdly, after entertaining such Dr. Strangelove type horrors, and others that I won’t go into
here, Alex Jones every now and then announces that he doesn't want war and that he's not a
To prove that to me, it would take him reporting about the
provocative US military drills on North Korea's border - which could actually start a world
war — with at least a fraction of the coverage he gave one US military drill in Texas and a
few other states called: Jade Helm
15. Infowars created such national hysteria behind this one exercise that even the
governor of Texas responded by assigning the state guard to monitor the operation because of
what our own US military could potentially do to American citizens. (Jade Helm report here:
Last time I counted Infowars’ videos on Jade Helm15 it was 65+… They have done
ZERO video reports on the incendiary Korean Peninsula drills. No
matter how wrong the Jade Helm 15 exercise could have gone, it is nothing in comparison to
what could go wrong with the annual drills: UFG, FOAL EAGLE, and KEY
RESOLVE being done on North Korea's border. They get bigger every year, and along
with them a greater potential for WWIII. In a 2017 Telegraph Article: 'Tipping point for
Nuclear War' stated, "Pyongyang described the joint drill as a ‘dangerous military
gambit of warmongers who are trying to ignite the fuse of a nuclear war on the peninsula.’ ‘A
small misjudgment or error can immediately lead to the beginning of a nuclear war, which will
inevitably lead to another world war,’ it said."
These war maneuvers are what causes North Korea to do their missile testing, but this integral
part of the narrative is left out on purpose by the CIA controlled
media, and the average person ambivalently concludes that North Korea is the aggressor. Alex
knows this because Paul Watson’s article is about these drills almost starting the major conflict
that RAND has been waiting for to “boost the economy”. Alex suppresses this aspect, and points all
the blame at North Korea. Therefore, this kind of manipulation serves to build the consensus The
Establishment needs in taking the military action they had planned all along…And the public is
duped yet again into supporting a war for the psychopaths that caused it!
On top of this, instead of holding Trump
accountable to his sworn allegiance to the American
Constitution, Alex Jones has become a rank apologist for the manufactured war on terror
which defies it, and destroys countless lives of civilians in the Middle East! One such
example is the War Crimes being done in our name in Yemen: Look at the homepage article:
Infowars Turns a Blind Eye to the Impending Deaths of 50,000 Children in
Yemen! In 2009, Alex Jones produced his documentary The Obama
Deception — the mask comes off, where he points out how the N.W.O. uses the
president for the bidding of the military industrial complex. Ironically, now it is Alex
Jones’ mask that is coming off by his endorsement and constant shilling for Trump who
represents this bloodthirsty complex like no other before him, killing more civilians in his
first year, and openly threatening the death of millions on a twitter account!
Alex Jones is nothing more than Trump's/The Establishment’s PR stooge, whose role is (along with
many other pseudo ALT-media) to project a false dichotomy of, “Trump vs The Deep State” when in
fact Trump's foreign policy actions have revealed him to be its frontman, not its adversary. In my
opinion, Alex Jones is able to keep this disgraceful deception going only because the majority of
his viewership is either too new, or has no memory of what he has said and covered in the past. An
example of his prior work condemning his present preemptive war attitude, would be his exposé on
the RAND Corporation. Please investigate RAND Corp and their maniacal nuclear war plans for "The
Big War" as the article above stated, plans it seems Alex Jones and this administration are all in
congruence with. Go to the RAND page to see several of his videos
promoting preemptive strikes. You can hear what Wayne Madsen and others had to say about
Alex Jones in the Youtube Video Below: Infowars Employees Expose Alex
Nuclear WAR is not to be trivialized as it has been by president Trump and news media like Alex
Jones/Infowars, and should concern every person living on this planet. Do not sit idly by and allow
the government or media to carelessly and irresponsibly ramp tensions, or tolerate threats about
mass death as though it were just normal barbarous squalling from some ancient coliseum. Call these
warmongers out because your life and all those whom you love depend on it.
@28:17 "...whenever I go to a family reunion half the people in the room are
former retired CIA." - Alex Jones
The CIA as Organize Crime
"If you give a man the correct information for seven years, he may believe the
incorrect information on the first day of the eighth year when it is necessary, from your point of
view, that he should do so. Your first job is to build the credibility and the authenticity of your
propaganda, and persuade the enemy to trust you although you are his enemy."
- A Psychological Warfare Casebook Operations Research Office Johns Hopkins
University Baltimore (1958)
Former Alex Jones employees and guests speak out about the big problems going on at Infowars
Aaron and Melissa Dykes
and Jack Blood
Alex Jones, Trump, & the False Left vs Right
Ditch Your Box Streamed live on
May 3, 2017
My guest was unable to make it so I went on solo.
I discuss the change in Alex Jones and Donald Trump
from being outside the paradigm of left v right politics to now openly promoting
We cover the false ways the war on terror is promoted
via things like the refugee crisis and Islamic terror. I also talk about the use of Donald Trump as
a tool to reshape American political discourse in a similar fashion to Barak Obama did with the
anti-war movement and civil rights issues he vowed to stand for (but didn't).
I also talk briefly about Israel and Peter Sutherland's dialog with the EU about
changing the demographics of the member states in order to fight homogeneity.
"...So if China keeps
pushingthe only option is full commitment
to hit China preemptively."
-- Alex Jones --
2014 Is A Farcry From Alex Jones'
View of War 2017
Caller - “It is the Military Industrial
Complex, that is taken over here, and…It’s just happening, I mean and I don’t know how we’re gonna defend
ourselves against it.” Jones - “No no I agree, it’s
special interests on all sides that make money off conflict instead of free-market instead of real things that
help people and…There was a top British analyst and government official, I forget his name, like
two months ago came out and said look, our governments are creating crises to stay in
power, and they're going to end up causing WW3...They’re screwing things up on
- From Youtube Video “Growing Dangers of A New Crimean War” March 17,2014 @ 3:12
"If we liberated North Korea I'd kinda probably get behind it, but not if it was going to
cause a Nuclear War." -- Alex
- From Youtube Video "Retired Intel Officer Reveals Globalists Run Agenda in Ukraine"
March 17,2014 -
"...The United States in preparing to Nuke China so get ready
Alex Jones 2017, Youtube Video:
Nuclear War Imminent: US Prepares To Strike North Korean Missile
! WARMONGERING PAR EXCELLENCE !
Alex Jones Calls For Preemptive
Nuclear Strikes on North Korea & China!
North Korea Must Be Totally Crippled In Response To Any Terrorist
RWW News: Jones: Prepare For Nuclear War With China
North Korea Threat To US Will Be Met With “Massive Military
The Alex Jones Channel
Published on Aug 11, 2017
Joel Skousen --
"Well the important thing to remember is that you got a war going on in the white house, of
globalists, neocons trying to Keep Trump From doing an
"North Korea did not make an unqualified threat to attack the US base in Guam.
The mainstream media is completely twisting what was said in the North Korean statement following
Trump's "fire and fury" threat. Here is what North Korea ACTUALLY said..." -- Jake
Expert: Trump Is Planning To Strike North
The Alex Jones Channel
Published on Dec 19, 2017
Joel Skousen joins Alex Jones live via Skype to make bold predictions as to
President Trump's plans for dealing with the North Korean regime, but it will wait until after the
RWW News: Jones: Prepare For Nuclear War With China
"Those crazy people have proven they
will go to war. They're completely psycho
like Kim Jung Un on power trips. So if China keeps pushing the
only option is full commitment to hit China preemptively. That's the only way to
survive this nuclear war and Trump knows it."
"...The United States in preparing to Nuke China so get ready
assholes!" -- Alex Jones
Nuclear War Imminent: US Prepares To Strike North
Korean Missile Sites
The Alex Jones Channel
Published on Apr 5, 2017
Bannon removed from Security council, And China through North Korea is rattling
sabres at the USA. The world is in crisis and on the brink of nuclear war.
RED ALERT! War With North Korea Has Never Been Closer
The Alex Jones Channel
Published on Nov 29, 2017
Alex Jones presents an interview with Senator Lindsey
Graham where he gives his personal assessment with the diplomatic
options with North Korea and backs Trump's strong arm approach.
To Learn More Please Scroll down to: Pivot To Asia,
Hybrid Wars: America’s Strategic Plan to Contain and Destabilize
The Alex Jones Channel
Published on Sep 3, 2017
“We are not looking to the total annihilation of a country, namely North Korea,”
said James Mattis, speaking outside the White House, but “we have many options to do so”.
"If we don't hit them first, who
knows what will happen it will continue geting worse with the mental illness and the megalomania,
there is no good choice. If you hit them conventionally, they're not going to back off. They're not
going to sue for peace, they're going to attack with everything they've got, Japan and South Korea,
and have a bunch of people run to the north as refugees that are already trying to get out, it's
gonna be a giant quagmire. If you hit them with total commitment...you will defeat the communist
regime, you'll kill probably a Million People, and
then you can try and reunify and deprogram the population. If China and Russia standdown. If China
and Russia don't standdown we go into total worldwide thermal nuclear world war 3." -- Alex
Joel Skousen: Only Way To Have Peace In North Korea
Is To Take Them Out
The Alex Jones Channel
Published on Dec 19, 2017
Alex Jones talks with Joel Skousen about what he thinks will happen and how we need
to handle North Korea
The article link below gives a facetious yet valid quick solution to which I
would add Alex Jones, and "The Naked Warmonger" Joel Skousen to join in the
move with super warhawk Graham. Be sure to scroll down this page and see Infowars' report on
missing nukes and Graham.
How to Make Quick Peace with North
Let Lindsey Graham Move to Seoul
"...The United States in
preparing to Nuke China so get ready assholes!"
-- Alex Jones --
Media Complicity Increases The Possibility Of A New
By Martin Hart-Landsberg December 3, 2017
Tensions between the US and North Korea are again rising
in the wake of North Korea’s November 28th test of an ICBM that experts believe has the potential
to deliver a nuclear bomb to cities on the east coast of the US, including Washington D.C.
As I have written before,
we desperately need to change US foreign policy towards North Korea. North Korea’s leaders continue to seek talks
with the United States, with all issues on the table, those of concern to them and those of concern to the US
government. But the US government continues to refuse. The Trump administration has even rejected North Korean
offers to freeze its production and testing of missiles and nuclear weapons in return for a halt to US war games
directed against North Korea.
Instead, Trump continues Obama’s strategy of responding to every North Korean missile launch or nuclear test
with new military threats and sanctions.
Unfortunately, changing US foreign policy towards North Korea is no easy matter. One reason is that there are
powerful forces opposing a de-escalation of tensions. Sadly, the tension is useful to the US military industrial
complex, which needs enemies to support its desire increase in the military budget. It is also useful to the US
military, providing it with a justification for maintaining troops on the Asian mainland and in Japan. The tension
also helps the US government isolate China and boost right-wing political tendencies in Japan and South Korea,
developments favorable to our own militarists and right-wingers. Of course, the costs of US policy fall on ordinary
Another reason for the difficulty in changing US policy towards North Korea is that the US media does little to
provide the context necessary for people in the United States to understand its lawless and destructive nature.
The illegality of Trump administration threats of destruction
The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened North Korea with total destruction. What is missing from
media accounts of these threats is the explanation that they represent a violation of the UN Charter and
international law. As Gavan McCormack explains:
According to the UN Charter’s Article 2 (3), disputes between states must be settled by peaceful means and
(4) “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state …” [italics added]. Article 33
further specifies the obligation of parties to any dispute likely to endanger international peace and security
to “first of all, seek a solution by negotiation inquiry, mediation, conciliation … or other peaceful means of
their own choice.” By ruling out negotiations with North Korea and insisting only on submission, the US, Japan
and Australia ignore or breach this clear rule (and Japan breaches also the proscription on the “threat or use
of force as means of settling international disputes” in its own constitution). Going beyond that, President
Trump has also not only insulted the North Korean leader from the platform of the UN General Assembly but
actually threatened his country with “total destruction,” by “fire and fury, and frankly power the likes of
which this world has never seen before.” That surely qualifies as threat. It is even genocidal, and therefore
criminal behavior, not only on the part of those (Trump) who utter it but on the part also of those like Abe
and Turnbull (to whom perhaps now India’s Modi is to be added) who endorse and encourage it.
Moreover, in 1996, the International Court of Justice, in response to a UN request, ruled that threats to use
nuclear weapons against another country are a violation of international law except “in an extreme circumstance of
self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.” In certainly seems clear that the US is in
violation of international law because of its repeated threats and military exercises designed to practice a
nuclear attack on North Korea.
Tragically, the US media has remained silent about this lawlessness on the part of the US government.
The illegality of US-initiated UN sanctions on North Korea
The US has aggressively pursued the adoption of UN sanctions on North Korea. The ones adopted in August and
September are the most sweeping yet.
They call for blocking North Korean exports of coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore, seafood and textiles, all of
which are important earners of foreign exchange. The resolutions also ban countries from opening new or expanding
existing joint ventures in North Korea or renewing labor export agreements. They also impose a cap on the amount of
oil North Korea is allowed to import and call for a total ban on the country’s import of natural gas and
condensates. If rigorously enforced these sanctions will devastate living conditions for the great majority of
However, sanctions that target an entire population with the aim of causing economic collapse, such as those
being imposed on North Korea, are illegal under the UN charter. As McCormack points out:
Only sanctions carefully tailored to apply to those who act in the name of the government and bear
responsibility for its offensive actions may be legitimate. . . . The point is clear that that those imposing
sanctions bear an obligation to ensure they impact only upon those who are in a position of power, not on
innocent civilians. There is reason to wonder if the United Nations itself, by the ordering of collective
punishment of the entire North Korean people for offenses committed by their government, may be acting
Again, where are the stories pointing out the lawlessness of US and UN actions?
[quote emphasis added]
"North Korea’s leaders continue to seek talks with the United States, with all issues on the
table, those of concern to them and those of concern to the US government. But the US government continues
to refuse. The Trump administration has even rejected North Korean offers to freeze its production and
testing of missiles and nuclear weapons in return for a halt to US war games directed against North
The missing explanation of North Korean responses to US policy
The reporting on North Korea’s November 28th ICBM test offers another example of the US media’s
failure to educate its readers. For example, here is the LA Times:
The launch is North Korea’s first since it fired an intermediate-range missile over Japan on Sept. 15, and
may have broken any efforts at diplomacy meant to end the North’s nuclear ambitions. U.S. officials have
sporadically floated the idea of direct talks with North Korea if it maintained restraint. . . .
Italy’s U.N. Ambassador Sebastiano Cardi, the current Security Council president, told reporters late
Tuesday that “it’s certainly very worrying. Everybody was hoping that there would be restraint from the
This reporting certainly suggests that North Korea just doesn’t want peace no matter how hard the US and broader
international community try. But the story changes if we provide some missing context.
Since 2013 North Korea has offered to halt its testing of missiles and nuclear weapons if the US would halt its
war games. The US organizes two different annual war games in South Korea, the first is held over March and April
and the second is in August. But from time to time, it also engages in other smaller military exercises on and near
the Korean peninsula.
The August 2017 war games included planning for a nuclear attack and “decapitation” of North Korea’s leadership.
These August war games are smaller than the March-April ones but still large. This one included some 20,000 US and
50,000 South Korean troops. And this year, for the first time, they were combined with a separate 18 day live-fire
exercise involving US and Japanese forces on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido.
North Korea responded to these threatening maneuvers by first firing a missile over Hokkaido on August 29, the
day after the completion of the US-led exercises. Then on September 3, it conducted its sixth and largest test of a
nuclear weapon. And finally, on September 15, it tested a new intermediate-range missile to demonstrate its ability
to hit the major US air base in Guam.
There are 75 days from September 15 to November 28; this is an important interval. The reason is that the US had
publicly called upon North Korea to halt its missile testing for at least 60 days to show its good will.
For example, in August, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told a group
of reporters that “The best signal that North Korea could give us that they’re prepared to talk would be to stop
these missile launches . . . We’ve not had an extended period of time where they have not taken some type of
provocative action by launching ballistic missiles. So I think that would be the first and strongest signal they
could send us is just stop, stop these missile launches.” And in October, Joseph Yun, the
U.S. State Department’s top official on North Korea policy,
told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations “that if North Korea halted nuclear and missile
testing for about 60 days, that would be the signal the United States needs to resume direct dialogue with
As we have seen, the North Koreans did refrain from missile launches and weapon tests for more than 60 days.
But, what did the US do during that time to encourage North Korea?
On September 23 the Pentagon sent B-1B Lancer bombers, nicknamed “the swan of death,” to fly over international
airspace just off the coast of North Korea, the first time since the Korean War that a U.S. bomber flew over North
Korea’s east coast.
Then for five days, starting October 16, the US conducted joint naval exercises with South Korea that included
the nuclear aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, three nuclear submarines, Aegis destroyers and more than 40 other
battleships and numerous fighter aircraft.
In November, the US conducted more navel drills. This time it was a four-day exercise involving three aircraft
carriers–the USS Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt and Nimitz–and their multiship strike groups in the waters
between South Korea and Japan. This was the first time all three aircraft carriers were together in the Western
Pacific in a decade. South Korean and Japanese warships also participated in the exercise.
Also in November, President Trump placed North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which
meant new sanctions. And finally, again in November, the US announced yet another war game to be scheduled for the
period December 4-8 involving US, Japanese, and South Korean forces. Called Vigilant Ace, the military announced
that this exercise would include “enemy infiltration” and “precision strike drills” and involve 8
air bases, 12,000 soldiers, and 280 aircraft, including the two stealth fighters, the F-22 and the F-35. This was
to be the first time that the F-22 and F-35 would be used in war games on the Korean peninsula.
So, after waiting 75 days, and observing US actions, all of which were hostile, North Korea not surprisingly
responded with the launch of its most powerful ICBM, showing the US that it could target even its capital if
attacked. But by presenting this missile launch without the appropriate context the media made it appear as just
another example of North Korea’s recklessness and hostility.
Usually foreign analysts of the American
political scene are either sycophantic or just annoying, but no one would dare say that about Aussie observer
Caitlin Johnstone, whose punk rock style of cutting to the chase is as refreshing as it can be shocking (I am not a
fan of the strong language, but I get it). Since President Trump's "fire and fury" explosion yesterday Americans
have to an unsettling degree once again rallied 'round the (false) flag of war propaganda. Today Ms. Johnstone
provided a much-needed slap in the face to the mind-numbed masses once again clamoring for US bombs on a country
they could not find on a map if their lives
depended on it.
As even many soi-disant libertarians reverted back to playing war commander on their keyboards --
"I'm all for a non-interventionist foreign policy, but THIS GUY'S GONNA KILL US!!!" -- Johnstone reminded anyone
with half a brain of one eternal truth: Governments and their house servants (the mainstream media, neocons, deep
state, etc) are murderous liars and the only way they dare flush a few hundred billion dollars -- and oceans of
blood -- down the toilet of war is to first lie their brains out to the people they are confident will swallow the
poison pills and call them candy.
Of course the United States government and its minions are lying about North Korea, Johnstone reminds us. They
The United States power establishment has an extensive history of using lies, false flags and propaganda to
manipulate its hundreds of millions of citizens into supporting needless military interventionism. From the
of Tonkin incident to the false Nayirah
testimony to the amazing network
of lies spun about Saddam Hussein to the 'humanitarian'
intervention in Libya to the unconscionable
Bana Alabed psy-op in Syria, there is no depth to which the US war machine will not stoop in deceiving
the public about the need to unload the military-industrial complex’s expensive inventory onto some third world
country overseas, no limit to the evils that America’s unelected power establishment will commit in order to
secure geopolitical dominance, and no end to the mass media propaganda machine’s willingness to report war
propaganda as objective fact.
It is quite literally impossible to be too paranoid about these people. If you had an acquaintance who was a
known compulsive liar with an extensive history of duping people into fighting one another for his own
sociopathic amusement, how would you react if he handed you a gun and told you that your neighbor is getting
ready to attack you?
This might prove shocking even to some "libertarians" caught up in the frenzy of manufactured
threats. But the US government lies. They lie day and night. All the time about everything.
There is one government in the mix here that has proven itself completely sociopathic and untrustworthy in such
matters, and it ain’t the DPRK. Stay skeptical, stay watchful, and stay woke.
"Oh no," people squeal! "THIS time they're telling the truth!"
Good luck with that. Blood's on your hands, not ours.
Amy Goodman: "How close do you think the U.S. is to nuclear war with North Korea, Professor
ell, I was asked that by people in Korea, who have a little bit more interest
in the subject than we do, although probably their missiles can reach here in Chicago. You know,
I’ve been thinking about this question for six months. And I can’t believe anyone in their right
mind would want to launch a preemptive attack, either to take out—if it could be done—North Korea’s
nuclear weapons and missiles or to decapitate the regime, which we talk about or which the Pentagon
and inside-the-Beltway people talk about as if that would be great, if we could get away with it.
It’s, of course, completely in violation of international law to do something like
A nuclear war
between North Korea and the United States would devastate the region. But more than that, it
would probably lead to at least two years of nuclear winter, where the debris swirling around the
planet and the atmosphere would make it impossible to grow crops. Anyone who talks about nuclear
war in this day and age, with all we know about nuclear winter and the terrible effects of nuclear
weapons, is basically a war criminal, in my view. Nuclear weapons should never be used. And
especially to see a president of United States go to the United Nations and threaten to totally
destroy North Korea, I mean, that was just nauseating. And one thing he forgot, since he knows no
history, is we already did that during the Korean War. We razed every North Korean city to the
ground with firebombing and incendiaries. And it still didn’t work. They still fought us to a
stalemate. There’s no military solution in Korea. We should have recognized that in
- Bruce Cumings, Chairman of the Department of History at the University of Chicago -
The Following Are Underreported Essential Points To The Conflict:
North Korea has been under nuclear threat since the Korean War. Our war plans for decades called for
using nuclear weapons very early in a new war. That’s one reason there hasn’t been a new war , but
every general prepares for the worse case. And so North Korea has essentially spent about fifty or
sixty years developing the only deterrent to nuclear weapons that they possibly can, until they got
their own nuclear weapons in the last two years. [Lawrence Velvel] Do you think most Americans know
that we had nuclear weapons in South Korea as early as, well in 1958 or so? [B.C.] That’s something
that is very mystified. I’ve tried to bring it out time and time again in articles, but I went to the
Eisenhower library and looked at the documents on it. We put ‘Honest John’ missiles - nuclear tipped -
into South Korea in 1958. The decision was made in 1957 by John Foster Dulles. And you look at the
National Security Council’s records, they know they’re violating a cardinal principle of the armistice
that ended the Korean War : which is not to introduce new and different quality weapons. It’s said,
’Well you know they’re always doing that, they’re bringing in new MIGs and everything, so we can do
this. But I mean to go from conventional weapons to nuclear weapons essentially obliterated that
article of the [Armistice]. [L.V.] Yeah that’s taken as these days, that is the line…that is the line.
[B.C.] They were there in the hundreds in the 70’s and 80’s. [L.V.] In the hundreds?! [B.C.] Yeah
hundreds, because they started with bringing in tactical nuclear weapons like nuclear mines that you
could fit in a backpack. Soldier in a jeep goes up to the DMZ and puts one down…In the 80’s a lot of
this came out because our own military didn’t like it. I heard a retired general give a lecture at
Carnegie Endowment where he said, ‘we done things like put a nuclear weapon on a helicopter., and then
it goes up near the DMZ, and what if it is, you know, somehow captured by the North Koreans or gets off
course.’ He said, “We relied way too much on a nuclear deterrent to the point the South Korean army
doesn’t think it has to fight in a new war because we are going to wipeout the North Koreans.” --
Bruce Cuming & Lawrence Velvel
“…The United States in the region has a central objective that does not concern Kim Jong-un or his
nuclear weapons. Rather, it is driven by the perennial necessity to increase forces in the region for
the purposes of maintaining a balance of military force (Asian Pivot) and ultimately trying to contain
the rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).” -- Federico Pieraccini
“…Think about this, if they [The C.I.A] thought that Kin Jong Un was getting ready to nuke American
citizens, they could assassinate this guy within 24 hours. They could knock him off like that, his
government would crumble. The problem with that though, is that the C.I.A. would not have control of
the process of the rebuilding of the North Korean government. What they want is total control. What
they are doing is trying to arrange a full scale military operation like what we did in Iraq. That way
we’d get in, we’d control the infrastructure, we’d control the setting up of the new government and
we’d install a puppet. An entire puppet government, that’s what we did in Iran, and Afghanistan. And
this includes controlling the policies of the new government in a way that favors the United States,
and includes new U.S. military outposts being setup in North Korea. Of course that’s something that
China and Russia are not going to sit by and just allow to happen….There are mutually beneficially
things that can be determined here [between US and NK] , but unless the two sides sit down and talk,
nothing is going to happen, and that is the actual goal of the C.I.A. They don‘t want there to be
negotiations. They want what they want. The globalists do not want compromise, they are after control.
And they are not going to get control as long as Kim is in power; he‘s too independent. The Kim dynasty
, they don‘t go along with what the C.I.A. tells them to do…And that is why I believe that there is not
going to be a Donald Trump negotiation to resolve this conflict.
I think that the deep state is going to push and push and push; they will create a false flag attack if
necessary, something will happen to make it look like we absolutely have to go to war with North
Korea…This is not a simple issue. This is certainly not a story of just some crazy little dictator who
is off his rocker and he wants to control the world; he wants to develop nuclear weapons and destroy
everyone. This is not Dr Evil, this is a puny little guy who was thrust into a position well before he
was ready for it, who is scared to death, doesn’t know what to do. But all he knows is the C.I.A. is
going to murder him if he gives them the chance. ” -- Jake Morphonios
“The US ‘War Economy’. One can also argue there are very powerful vested interests in the US corporate
structure who have, and will continue to benefit from a heated arms build-up, and will certainly use
the North Korea threat as a justification to push forward spending, especially in light of Washington’s
new found austerity culture ushered in through recent budget sequestrations. America’s new pivot
towards Asia provides the catch-all policy net, while the two-way propaganda duel between the two
countries provides the fear needed to justify a new military build up in the region.”
“By now, we should all have learned the lesson: mainstream media, not politics, is the true engine of
war.” -- Patrick Henningsen
In response to the recent U.N. Security Council vote, North Korea’s government stated that it would not
negotiate over its nuclear or missile programs. The assumption that seems to be behind Trump
administration policy is that they can be cajoled into doing this, and furthermore that they can be
pressured into making concessions on these issues before talks begin. The administration is laboring
under the delusion that it is still possible to persuade North Korea to give up on things that its
government considers essential to its security. If anything, the heightened tensions and increased
pressure in recent months have just confirmed their leadership in the belief that they need their
nuclear weapons and missiles more than ever. Needless to say, talking about raining down “fire and
fury” on them isn’t going to make them more likely to compromise on this point.
One of the more common hawkish refrains about North Korea is that “diplomacy has been tried and it
failed,” but this ignores that North Korea acquired nuclear weapons in response to some of the same
pressure tactics that hawks wanted to use in lieu of the nuclear deal with Iran. There was a diplomatic
agreement in place that had succeeded in limiting North Korea’s nuclear program, but the Bush
administration wasn’t satisfied with it. They blew up the agreement, and North Korea withdrew from the
NPT and tested its first nuclear weapon soon thereafter. North Korea is a cautionary tale about what
happens when hard-liners in Washington prefer to scrap an imperfect but working nonproliferation
agreement in favor of pursuing the fantasy of forcing the other side’s total capitulation. --
“Talk of war is dangerous and irresponsible. It would have catastrophic consequences for Northeast Asia
and the world. Military action could slow the North’s program, but not eliminate it. Threats of war,
moreover, only make the North redouble efforts to hold the United States at risk. And they greatly
exacerbate the greatest risk of all: an inadvertent war on the Korean peninsula with the potential for
hundreds of thousands of deaths, including thousands of American citizens. Unfortunately, some American
leaders believe that if there is a war, keeping it on the Korean peninsula will keep us safe. I
maintain that a nuclear war anywhere will have catastrophic consequences for America.” --
Siegfried S. Hecker
"The reason that George Bush was so intent on screwing up the [94Carter/Clinton] deal. Was because when he
took power, the Japanese and South Koreans were basically already ignoring the Americans and had their own
North Korea policy at that point. And really wanted to push The Sunshine policy, they called it, toward
reunification in slow motion, but still toward peace, toward understanding… families aloud to visit back and
forth across the border…Trains that run back and forth so that you could have multinational businesses on both
sides of the border…begin to forge these relationships, and thought-out the crisis. And to the Bush regime that
was absolutely intolerable. That our Japanese and South Korean satellites would think that they can have their
own foreign policy on North Korea issues. And that is why they really moved to quash it…
And that goes to show that the American government’s interest in Korea is not peace. The American government’s
interest in Korea is to keep them divided, because the Pacific is an American lake. And a big part of the
reason that the Japanese rely on us, is because they’ve got that North Korean problem to deal with etc. etc…We
keep them divided, we keep them conquered, we keep them our satellites. If we can tell the Japanese, ‘you shut
up we’ll take care of it’ then we can keep them quiet. If we can’t credibly say that we are in charge of the
situation, then they’re going to go ahead and make their own policy. So the American policy is that we prefer a
divided Korea that could explode into nuclear warfare, rather than sunshine and peace, and globetrotters and
gymnastics and symphony orchestras, and a future that anyone would want to look forward to. So that’s where
your government is coming from on this. They are evil. And they are refusing to solve a problem that is really
pretty simple to solve…At least for a beginning." -- Scott Horton
The North Koreans want peace. They want a formal end to the war and they want guarantees that the United
States won’t preemptively attack them. Is that too much to ask?
But the United States won’t sign a treaty with the North because it is not in its interests to do so.
Washington would prefer for things to stay just the way they are today. In fact, Hillary Clinton said as much
in a speech she made to Goldman Sachs in 2013. Here’s an excerpt:
CLINTON: “We don’t want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one South Korea would be dominant for
the obvious economic and political reasons.-We [also] don’t want the North Koreans to cause more trouble than
the system can absorb. So we’ve got a pretty good thing going with the previous North Korean leaders [Kim
Il-sung and Kim Jung-il]. And then along comes the new young leader [Kim Jung-un], and he proceeds to insult
the Chinese. He refuses to accept delegations coming from them…..So the new [Chinese] leadership basically
calls him [Kim Jung-un] on the carpet. …Cut it out. Just stop it. Who do you think you are? You are dependent
on us [the Chinese], and you know it. (WikiLeaks)
There it is in black and white. The US does not want a unified Korea. (“for obvious economic and political
reasons.”) The US wants to keep the country split up so it can keep the North isolated and underdeveloped,
maintain the South’s colonial dependence on the US, and perpetuate the occupation. That’s what Washington
wants. The goal is not security, but power, greed and geopolitical positioning.
From Washington’s point of view, the status quo is just dandy which is why there is no incentive to end the
war, sign a treaty, wind down the occupation, or provide security guarantees for the North. As Hillary cheerily
opines, “We’ve got a pretty good thing going on.” -- Mike Whitney
* More essential background information can be found on theHome
Page of this site *
Color footage of Atomic Bomb tests in Nevada
- Soldiers being exposed to high levels of radiation
Let this footage be a vivid reminder that certain people on this
planet care nothing about it, nor their fellow man. If the "US government" would do this to its own troops of
the "indispensable and exceptional nation because of its values", can you imagine what these types of people are
doing and have planned for the world? ...Speakout, educate others, and do not tolerate or support those who'd
talk about nuking nations as an option to solve the tensions that exist between them.
The Pentagon recently released its new Nuclear Posture Review. Its critics are stunned. Not only
the use of nuclear weapons is now more thinkable, but the threshold for their use has been lowered. Doctor
Strangelove would be proud. Is the world facing another dangerous arms race?
CrossTalking with Michael O'Hanlon, Kevin Kamps, and Adriel Kasonta.
Who Let Dr. Strangelove Write The Pentagon's Nuclear
The Pentagon’s official outline for its use of nuclear force was denounced as “radical” and “extreme” by
prominent anti-nuclear weapons groups when it was released Friday afternoon—confirming peace advocates’
worst fears that the Trump administration would seek to expand the use of nuclear force.
“Who in their right mind thinks we should expand the list of scenarios in which we might launch
nuclear weapons?” asked Peace Action in a statement.
“Who let Dr. Strangelove write the Nuclear Posture Review?”
The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) calls for the development of smaller warheads that the military
believes would be seen as more “usable” against other nations.
“In support of a strong and credible nuclear deterrent, the United States must…maintain a nuclear force with a
diverse, flexible range of nuclear yield and delivery modes that are ready, capable, and credible,” reads the
serves as the first updated document the U.S. has released regarding its perceived nuclear threats since
In addition to “diversifying” its nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon notes that it will seek to “expand the
range of credible U.S. options for responding to nuclear or non-nuclear strategic attack,” raising
concerns that President Donald Trump will argue for the use of nuclear force as a deterrent—a significant departure
from previous administrations which saw nuclear weapons as an option only for retaliation.
“The risk of use for nuclear weapons has always been unacceptably high,” said Beatrice
Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
“The new Trump Nuclear Doctrine is to deliberately increase that risk. It is an all-out attempt to
take nuclear weapons out of the silos and onto the battlefield. This policy is a shift from one where the use
of nuclear weapons is possible to one where the use of nuclear weapons is likely.”
Derek Johnson, head of Global Zero, called the NPR “a radical plan written by extreme elements and nuclear
ideologues in Trump’s inner circle who believe nuclear weapons are a wonder drug that can solve our national
“Trump’s insistence that we need more and better weapons is already spurring countries to follow in
his footsteps,” he added. “Nuclear arms-racing is a steep and slippery slope; we’d do well to
learn the lessons of the former Soviet Union, whose collapse was accelerated by its unsustainable nuclear
As Paul Craig Roberts summed
up so eloquently, the new US nuclear posture is a reckless, irresponsible, and destabilizing
departure from the previous attitude toward nuclear weapons. The use of even a small part of the
existing arsenal of the United States would be sufficient to destroy life on earth. Yet, the posture review calls
for more weapons, speaks of nuclear weapons as “usable,” and justifies their use in First Strikes even against
countries that do not have nuclear weapons.
This is an insane escalation. It tells every country that the US government believes in
the first use of nuclear weapons against any and every country. Nuclear powers such as Russia and China must see
this to be a massive increase in the threat level from the United States. Those responsible for this
document should be committed to insane aslyums, not left in policy positions where they can put it into
The Road to Nuclear War with China Runs Through
Published on Feb 7, 2018
Nukes are coming back to Asia!
America’s Nuclear Posture Review is out, and it offers a blueprint for a nuclear war with China. China’s not gonna
like it, you’re not gonna like it, but it’s the Pentagon’s miracle cure for declining US conventional strength in
It’s another sign that the uniformed military, its anxieties, and its priorities are at the heart of US foreign
policy. The acronyms you want to watch for are SLCS, LRSO, and B O O M. The powderkeg you want to keep your eye on
is Taiwan, where it looks like the hegemon hopes and nuclear fantasies of the China hawks are going to collide.
(ANTIMEDIA)— A new survey published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) suggests
Americans are willing to make a first nuclear strike against Iran and kill millions of civilians in the
According to the report, entitled “Revisiting Hiroshima in Iran,” although the majority of Americans initially
approved of President Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop the nuclear bomb in 1945 on two civilian populations
in Japan, a poll conducted in 1998 showed the number of Americans who approved of the decision had dropped
since the 1970s and 1980s. This trend carried on even until the early 2000s and arguably to the present day.
However, the new survey shows that many Americans continue to support nuclear warfare when posed with a
hypothetical (albeit currently nonexistent) threat. As the survey notes, a clear majority of Americans
“would approve of using nuclear weapons first against the civilian population of a nonnuclear-armed
adversary, killing 2 million Iranian civilians, if they believed that such use would save the lives of 20,000
Around 60 percent of respondents polled said they would approve of the decision to kill two million
“The survey casts doubt on the power of what experts call the ‘nuclear taboo,’ said Stanford University
historian David Holloway, author of‘Stalin and the Bomb.”’ The idea, or hope, behind the concept is that it’s
not just luck that humans haven’t dropped any nuclear weapons for 70 years — that there’sa stigma that makes the use of nuclear weapons unthinkable.”
One would have to wonder if most Americans are even aware that the Trump administration is spending billions of dollars developing its nuclear
technology far beyond what America’s rivals can match. Recognizing the nuclear threat America poses to Russia
and its interests, particularly by having NATO members surround Russia with its anti-missile defense system,
Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a warning last year that Russia was modernizing its missile systems in
preparation for what’s to come.
As Bloomberg noted, there are a number of other factors that should also be examined:
“‘That just means they haven’t thought about it,’ said Brian Toon, a professor of atmospheric science at the
University of Colorado. They think nuclear weapons are just big bombs that blow up lots of people, he said, without
considering the way a nuclear conflict -– even a ‘small’ one involving some 10 percent of the U.S. arsenal — might
poison millions of men, women and children and change the climate enough to starve hundreds of
What it ultimately shows is that Americans want to fight (and instigate) wars but no longer want to expend their
own people commissioning such conflicts. Polls have also demonstrated that the majority of Americans approve of the use of drone warfare
against suspected terrorists, another example of Americans approving of killing people without realistically
In Libya, an American drone flown out of Sicily by an American pilot based in Nevada directly struck Muammar
Gaddafi’s motorcade. Little thought is paid to the fact that the U.S. helped assassinate a foreign leader
in direct contravention of international law, arguably because no American personnel were
killed or even endangered (in contrast, when many Americans think of Libya, they focus on the handful of
American lives lost in Benghazi).
This paradigm, identified as one of three schools of thought by the MIT study, is solely concerned with
“winning wars and the desire to minimize the loss of lives of their nation’s soldiers.”
This view appeared to hold even when the scenario presented to the respondents was one in which the U.S.
aggravated Iran via sanctions and Iran responded with a direct attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian
Gulf. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was also provoked via U.S.-led crippling economic restrictions on Japan, and even the
number of military personnel killed in the hypothetical scenario MIT presented to subjects was the same as the
number of U.S. personnel who died at Pearl Harbor (though this was not mentioned to respondents).
As we all know, this particular story ended with the complete destruction of Japan’s major cities through
conventional bombing, as well as the nuclear decimation of two civilian populations. Also bear in mind that
America’s modern day nukes are far more dangerous than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, meaning any future nuclear strike would have an even worse impact on the civilian population.
In addition to a majority of Americans’ willingness to use nuclear weapons on civilians, the survey found “an
even larger percentage of Americans would approve of a conventional bombing attack designed to kill 100,000 Iranian
civilians in the effort to intimidate Iran into surrendering.”
...That'sbecause Americans are being propagandized, socially engineered,
brainwashed and dumbed-down!
Did You Hear We NUKED China Last Week?
Published on Apr 5, 2013
Did you hear about the nuclear war between Russia and China? Of course not, because
it didn't happen, but someone should tell that to these people! Man on the Street with Mark
Subscribe to www.YouTube.com/MarkDice
Liberals Call to NUKE North Korea! Preemptive Nuclear Strike APPROVED in
Russia NUKED by America!!! - Citizens React to this Earth-Shattering
Published on Feb 8, 2016
Did you hear about the nuclear war that Obama started in Russia by launching a nuclear strike into
Moscow? Of course not, because it didn't happen, but someone should tell that to these
Liberals Sign Petition to NUKE RUSSIA so America will Stay World's
Published on Jun 8, 2015
Media analyst Mark Dice asked beachgoers in San Diego, California to sign a
petition supporting President Obama's supposed plan to launch a preemptive nuclear attack against
Russia to help keep the United States of America the world's leading superpower. The results are
Meet Edward Bernays,
Master of Propaganda
Corbett Report Extras
Published on Oct 2, 2017
Description:You’ve heard of his uncle Sigmund, so how come you’ve never heard of
him? This week, we dish the dirt on Freud’s American nephew, the man who literally wrote the book
on propaganda, and paved the way for women’s smoking, fluoride poisoning our water supply and
the invasion of Guatemala, among other masterful acts of PR
Liberals Sign Petition to NUKE CHINA in Response to Hacking of U.S.
Published on Jun 15, 2015
Media analyst Mark Dice asked beachgoers in San Diego, California to sign a
petition supporting President Obama's supposed plan to launch a nuclear attack against China as a
response to Chinese hackers allegedly breaking into U.S. government computers. The results are
For WAR/Nuclear WAR
Top 5 - Nukes in gaming
Published on Aug 22, 2016
Blowing up virtual stuff is great but only a few games let you play with the
immensely devastating nuclear bomb. So let’s see which games capture this awe-inspiring moment the
best. Put on
your hazmat suit and get ready for our top 5 nuclear bombs in gaming!
10 Best Games That
Let You Nuke the World
Published on Feb 27, 2017
Unleashing one of the most devastating effects over a large area of land, nuclear
weapons have always been a thing of both wonder and terror. Their immense power fascinated gamers
that they immediately wanted to get their hands on games that would allow them to
Modern Warfare Remastered - Nuke Scene
Published on Oct 4, 2016
Call of Duty Modern Warfare Remastered Nuke Scene. From the missions, Shock and Awe
and Aftermath. Modern Warfare Nuke Scene. Nuclear Bomb.
Published on Aug 22, 2016
Blowing up virtual stuff is great but only a few games let you play with the immensely devastating
nuclear bomb. So let’s see which games capture this awe-inspiring moment the best. Put on
your hazmat suit and get ready for our top 5 nuclear bombs in gaming!
5. Command & Conquer
Most RTS games always have some sort of super weapon that you can aspire to create and Command
& Conquer was no different. There was always this moment where you were looking at the nuke
and thinking to yourself, “Do I want this weapon? Will it even be fair to the other players? Will I
feel guilty using it on my enemies?” The answers to these questions: hell yes!
4. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
You genuinely think that you’re going to save the downed chopper pilot and make it out of the city
safely in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. But then suddenly it all goes wrong. The
nuclear explosion in Modern Warfare is shocking, but it's the immediate aftermath that's unexpected
and terrifying. This was easily one of the most memorable gaming moments in recent
3. World In Conflict
The tactical Nuke in World In Conflict is one of the best looking nuclear explosions in gaming. It
is really meant as a last resort in the most desperate situations. Mainly because it
literally destroys everything and everyone within its blast radius. Following the destruction, a
large area of your map with be nothing but useless wreckage and rubble. Just like in real
life, the aftermath is just as damaging as the explosion itself.
Crysis has a very active modding community that created one of the most awesome nuclear explosions
in gaming. The nuke will destroy everything within a 2000 meter radius including the
player. You have stand pretty far away before launching this sucker and even then the force of the
explosion will blast your hair back. It’s really captures the incredibly power of this
Mercenaries 2: World In Flames – Nuclear Bunker Buster
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
1. Fallout series
You would expect to see a couple of good explosions in a series that’s all about the lurking fear
of nuclear annihilation. The Fat Boy in Fallout blows things up real good, complete with a
tiny mushroom cloud. Although we have to admit that blowing up Megaton in a glorious, cleansing
nuclear detonation made for an even more impressive sight to see.
What is your favorite nuke in gaming? Let us know in the comments and don’t forget to leave us a
like before you go!
In this classic Corbett Report podcast from 2010, James opens up the virtual Skinner box and
peers into the future of gaming in the world of ubiquitous computing. When our daily life consists of interactions
with computers, will there be any way to avoid amusing ourselves to death?
While it may rate up there with the best in gaming, America's Army is not an exercise in
largesse towards the gaming community. It's essentially a propaganda tool funded to the tune of more than $US10
million ($A11.1 million) of US taxpayers' money designed to attract young people to military life.
The US Army spends an estimated $US1.5 million annually to support the game, a drop in the $US583 million
ocean of the army's recruitment advertising budget last year. But the modest expense is reaping big dividends with
28 percent of players clicking through to the US Army's recruitment site and about 40 per cent of new US Army
recruits in 2005 having played the game before signing up.
TomDispatch Interview with author, Nick Turse
Published on Mar 18, 2008
Editor of TomDispatch, Tom Engelhardt, interviews Nick Turse, TD contributor and
author of the new book "The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives."
A mind-boggling investigation of the allpervasive, constantly morphing presence of
the Pentagon in daily life--a real-world Matrix come alive. Here is the new, hip, high-tech
military-industrial complex--an omnipresent, hidden-in-plain-sight system of systems that
penetrates all our lives. From iPods to Starbucks to Oakley sunglasses, historian Nick Turse
explores the Pentagon's little-noticed contacts (and contracts) with the products and companies
that now form the fabric of America. Turse investigates the remarkable range of military incursions
into the civilian world: the Pentagon's collaborations with Hollywood filmmakers; its outlandish
schemes to weaponize the wild kingdom; its joint ventures with the World Wrestling Federation and
NASCAR. He shows the inventive ways the military, desperate for new recruits, now targets children
and young adults, tapping into the "culture of cool" by making "friends" on MySpace.
A striking vision of this brave new world of remote-controlled rats and super-soldiers who need no
sleep, The Complex will change our understanding of the militarization of America. We are a long
way from Eisenhower's military-industrial complex: this is the essential book for understanding its
Black Ops 2 Militainment
"Documentary" Promotion Tied To Real War Killing, Exploits Tragedy As Fun
Published on Aug 23, 2012
Reversals and the Drone War
Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is slated to come out in November. A not-so-futuristic story about drone
warfare frames the game. In this world, the principle concern is that "the enemy" will hack into
From Publishers Weekly
In his exhaustively researched first book concerning the extent to which the
"military industrial complex" has infiltrated the life of the average American, journalist Turse
starts off by documenting how many times supposedly innocent consumer choices support major
Pentagon contractors then covers similar ground in greater detail. Turse has up-to-date information
on a previously well-covered subject and casts a wide net, including the movie industry, video
gaming and military recruitment tactics in his analysis. Many of Turse's facts are purely economic,
but some of them are astonishing. Who knew, for example, that in 2005, the Department of Defense
spent $1.2 million on donuts in Kuwait? Or that Harvard received over $300 million in DoD funds in
2002, after being pressured, despite concerns about discrimination, to allow military recruiters
access to its law school students? Though Turse offers plenty of interesting information,
ultimately this book would have been more convincing if, instead of simply amassing and condensing
such information, he had built a stronger argument about what it all means.
“This is a deeply disturbing audit of the Pentagon’s influence on American life,
especially its subtle conscription of popular imagination and entertainment technology. If Nick
Turse is right, the ‘Matrix’ may be just around the corner.”—Mike Davis, author of Buda's Wagon: A
Brief History of the Car Bomb
“When President Eisenhower warned of the dangers to democracy posed by the
military-industrial complex, he had no idea how far it would penetrate into every aspect of our
everyday lives. In impressive detail, Nick Turse shows how the military is now tied to everything
from your morning cup of Starbucks to the video games your kids play before turning in for the
night. It's not just political anymore—it’s personal. Turse sounds the alarm bell about the
militarization of everyday life. Now it’s up to us to do something about it.”—Bill Hartung, author
of How Much Are You Making on the War Daddy?
“Nick Turse’s searing, investigative journalism reveals just how deeply embedded in
our lives the war-making system is and why we should be viscerally alarmed. He exposes how, with a
growing contingent of
corporate/entertainment/academic/media collaborators, the Pentagon has not only garrisoned the
globe, but come home to dominate the United States. For anyone interested in understanding the
crisis this country is in, The Complex is indispensable reading.”—Dahr Jamail, author of Beyond the
“Americans who still think they can free themselves from the clutches of the
military-industrial complex need to read this
book. For example, the gimmicks the Pentagon uses to deceive, entrap, and sign up gullible 18 to 24
year-olds are anything but voluntary. Nick Turse has produced a brilliant exposé of the Pentagon’s
pervasive influence in our lives.”—Chalmers Johnson, author of Nemesis: The Last Days of the
The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday, Author Nick Turse On
Published on Jul 26, 2012
Nick Turse is an award-winning journalist, historian, essayist, and the associate editor of the
Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com., author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday
Lives, discusses how today's military-industrial complex far exceeds the one Eisenhower warned of,
the Pentagon's influence in Hollywood that often includes vetting rights on movie scripts in
exchange for access to taxpayer funded weapons of war, the early-and-often bombardment of young
people with military propaganda, why far too many businesses and workers are reliant on Pentagon
spending and the five jaw-dropping and under-reported WikiLeaks stories.
NGOs, the Pentagon, and the Human Rights - Industrial
Chossudovsky: CIA's NGOs - the ABC of US foreign policy
The world is facing a decline in political rights and civil liberties, according to
the organization Freedom House. Many US NGOs, like Freedom House, go into other countries to
provide humanitarian aid but it seems their hidden agenda is to make these countries more like the
US. Mark Weisbrot says many NGOs were set up to act as an extension of US foreign policy and set up
in places like Venezuela and Haiti.
SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=18581 Patrick
Henningsen of 21st Century Wire joins us today to discuss his recent article on "Smart Power &
The Human Rights Industrial Complex." Topics discussed include the NGO/State Dept/Pentagon/NATO
nexus, the use of human rights as a perception management tool to demonise NATO enemies, and the
complicity of the media in reporting these stories uncritically.
Russian opposition leaders and human rights activists pleaded with top US officials to
support their plans for political and social change, but the request was apparently given
short-shrift by Washington. Russia's Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, which obtained fresh files
from WikiLeaks, reports that the group was consistently critical of the Kremlin and wanted American
help for reform. Those demands were voiced on a visit to Moscow by Michael McFaul, Special
Assistant to The President for National Security Affairs, who met with opposition leaders at the
residence of the American envoy to Russia in Moscow. According to the reports, the opposition said:
"Washington should pay more attention to significant incidents related to freedom of assembly in
Russia. To solve problems in Russia's civic society, parties should sit down at the negotiation
table -- both Russian and US governments, and representatives from NGOs." The US response was, "It
is up to Russian activists to build up their relations with their administration, without relying
on America." Michel Chossudovsky from the Center for Research on Globalization said it is no
surprise that Russian opposition parties come knocking on the door of the US embassy.
AL-Mayadeen: Patrick Henningsen on Smart Power and The New NGO
NGOs Behind the War on Libya - Julien Teil on GRTV
US NGO's not-so-charitable
The role which high-profile NGO and charities have played in the demonization and
destablization of Syria is well documented by now. But does this mean that all the NGOs are doing
the work of the Anglo-American deep state overseas?
SUBSCRIBE IN ITUNES: http://ur1.ca/5gj2c RSS: http://ur1.ca/50ptm "The Humanitarian War" is a film about the
demonization of Gaddafi in the run-up to the war in Libya. In this carefully researched
documentary, Julien Teil examines the documents and interrogates the NGOs behind the campaign to
oust Gaddafi, and shows the lack of evidence for the alleged war crimes that supposedly justified
UN intervention. Join us for this week's GRTV Feature Interview with documentary filmmaker Julien
Teil as we discuss the lead-up to the war on Libya, and whether it can happen again in
Washington DC is home to the White House, Congress and more than 57,000 non-profit
organizations. Call them think tanks, NGOs, policy forums or nonprofits, many provide vital
services worldwide, while others are created for not-so-charitable purposes.
An Important Rebuttal To What Was Proposed By Warmongering RAND Corp
"...Back in October 2008, we reported on how the RAND Corporation was lobbying for a war
to be started with a major foreign power in order to stimulate the American economy and prevent a double dip
recession." -- [Article Above]
The idea that war is good for the economy is, needless to say, a fallacious argument
which itself is based on incorrect economic data. Find out more about the truth behind the
war/economy myth in this week's edition of The BoilingFrogsPost.com Eyeopener.
The idea that the Great Depression was finally brought to an end by the onset of WWII has been a
staple of history textbooks, documentaries and various war propaganda for decades. This myth continues to be
perpetuated to the present day.
No, World War II Did Not Help the Economy
Published on Oct 29, 2012
Tom Woods replies to the common fallacy according to which World War II was a time
of great prosperity in the United States.
Lecture presented by Robert Higgs at the Mises Circle in Houston: "Great Economic
Myths," Saturday 29 January 2008; Sponsored by Jeremy S. Davis. http://mises.org
Robert Higgs, Ph.D. is an American economist of the Austrian School and a
libertarian anarchist. He currently serves as a Senior Fellow in Political Economy at the
Independent Institute and is an adjunct faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is an
adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Dr. Higgs is also a regular contributor to
Click Youtube Button For Extensive Links
War Causes Misery, Not Prosperity
- Robert Higgs -
V for Voluntary Library
Published on May 19, 2012
More on war: vforvoluntary.com/library/1/ec...
Recorded at the Mises Circle in Houston: "Great Economic Myths," Saturday 26
January 2008; Sponsored by Jeremy S. Davis.
LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE - CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 3.0
“…The United States in the region has a central
objective that does not concern Kim Jong-un or his nuclear weapons. Rather, it is driven by the perennial necessity
to increase forces in the region for the purposes of maintaining a balance of military force (Asian Pivot) and
ultimately trying to contain the rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).” --
Andrew Korybko - South Asia – new geopolitical battlefield
JaysAnalysis: Andrew Korybko on Hybrid Wars & Faux Revolutions
Andrew Korybko of Sputnik, Russia-Insider, Oriental Review, and Katehon joins me to discuss his
book Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach to Regime Change. We cover the western geopolitical machinations
of regime change, color revolutions and manufactured coups in relation to recent events in Syria and the Ukraine.
Beyond that, we discuss the history of this same “technology” of manipulation in the older Balkan crises and
Putin’s role in bringing stability. Andrew’s book is a must-have for understanding the modern geopolitical
landscape. Andrew’s bio: “Andrew Korybko is a political analyst, journalist and a regular contributor to several
online journals, as well as a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions
at the People’s Friendship University of Russia. He specializes in Russian affairs and geopolitics, specifically
the US strategy in Eurasia. His other areas of focus include tactics of regime change, color revolutions and
unconventional warfare used across the world. His book, “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime
Change”, extensively analyzes the situations in Syria and Ukraine and claims to prove that they represent a new
model of strategic warfare being waged by the US.” www.jaysanalysis.com
Hybrid Wars: America’s Strategic Plan
to Contain and Destabilize China
The research has thus far extrapolated on Southeast
Asia’s global economic importance and the most relevant points in its recent history,
which therefore set the appropriate situational backdrop for grasping ASEAN’s geostrategic significance. The
region plays a critical role in facilitating China’s international trade network, and it’s for this reason why
the US has sought to destabilize it and bring the waterways under its control. In response, China has
endeavored to break through the containment bloc being constructed against it and streamline two mainland
corridors as partial geopolitical compensation.
Herein lies the New Cold War tension in ASEAN – the US is alternatively synchronizing both mainland and maritime
portions of the Chinese Containment Coalition (CCC) in order to preempt Beijing’s ‘breakout’ from this region-wide
geopolitical trap, while at the same time China continues to bravely push through its maritime and mainland
agendas. On the waterborne front, the US can only resort to conventional power mechanisms to keep China in check
and traditional alliance politicking, whereas the continental aspect of this containment campaign can incorporate
more insidious tactics.
The major headway that’s been made so far with the China-Myanmar Pipeline Corridor and the ASEAN Silk Road has
raised fears in Washington that Beijing has adeptly sidestepped the US’ South China Sea containment trap. In
response, the US feels pressured to do whatever it can to seize control of the mainland ‘escape routes’ that China
is charting in ASEAN, and if they can’t be geopolitically commandeered (like what appears to be happening in
Myanmar at the moment), then the US won’t hesitate to unleash a Hybrid War to stop them.
China’s Geo-Economic Lifeline To Africa
ASEAN’s steady and consistent growth is attributable to a number of reasons, but first and
foremost this has to do with its convenient geography that allows it to connect Eastern and Western Eurasian
maritime trade. Ships passing back and forth from China, Japan, and South Korea on one hand, and the EU, Arica,
the Mideast, and South Asia on the other absolutely must transit through Southeast Asia. A growing exception is
emerging to this geo-economic rule, however, in that melting Arctic ice will soon make the Northern Sea Route a much more commercially viable option for EU-East Asian trade, but
that won’t at all take away from Southeast Asia’s transit role for South-South economic interaction between
China and Africa, the Mideast, and South Asia.
More specifically, though, the Indian Ocean and related Strait of Malacca and South China Sea access routes will
progressively become more important for Chinese-African trade than any other as a result of the continental “Silk
Roads” directly linking China with the Mideast (through the China-Iran railroad) and South Asia (through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and proposed BCIM corridor), provided of course that they’re successfully constructed. Whether they are
or not, it won’t have an impact on China’s links with Africa because of the geographic incongruity of the
continent to Eurasian connective infrastructure, ergo the motivation for the maritime portion of the One Belt
One Road project.
China’s second Africa policy paper that was revealed in December 2015 emphasizes the priority
that Beijing allots to strengthening full-spectrum relations with all of its African counterparts, specifically
in regards to the economic sphere. Likewise, a Silk Road conference in Lianyungang in September 2015 confirmed that China needs
African markets as destinations for its outbound investment, which in turn is predicted to sustain the country’s
growth rates well into the future and tangentially secure social stability. Understood in this manner, it’s of
paramount importance to China to guarantee itself free access to its African partners and prevent any
geopolitical impediments to bilateral trade.
With the South China Sea gradually coming under heavy American influence and the Strait of Malacca already an
American-controlled waterway, the impetus organically developed for China to spearhead a pair of overland ASEAN
routes to the Indian Ocean that avoids both of them. The China-Myanmar Pipeline Corridor and ASEAN Silk Road are
the geo-economic solutions to this dilemma, but they’re also the reason why the US has set its sights on swaying
Myanmar, Laos, and Thailand away from China. If any of these governments steadfastly reject the respective
outreaches presented to them, then the US will carry through on its tacit Hybrid War threats in order to destroy
China’s containment-escaping infrastructure plans.
Stirring Up Trouble In The South China Sea
The Strategic Underpinning:
The whole reason that China has to resort to ‘escape routes’ in Myanmar, Laos, and Thailand is because of the
trouble that the US has stirred up in the South China Sea. China’s merchant marine fleet can still navigate the
waters as they see fit, but the growing strategic threat to their future freedom of movement is obvious. The
Chinese have never been one to take unnecessary chances, especially when national security is at stake, so Beijing
made the decision to lessen full dependency on the waterway and streamline two complementary mainland solutions in
Nevertheless, for the time being, the China-Myanmar Pipeline Corridor is still in its early stages, and the
route itself is exceptionally vulnerable to rebel attacks, despite none having happened as of yet. Additionally,
the non-resource economic aspect of this corridor has yet to be actualized, leaving a lot of valuable potential
still waiting to be tapped. Concerning the other project, the ASEAN Silk Road hasn’t even been constructed yet and
will still need a few years before it’s fully built and operational (if not over its entire route, than at least
partially through Thailand and up to the Indian Ocean).
(Article Continues Below)
A Military 'Pivot to Asia'
Pivot to Asia
US pivot seeks to contain China
The US is up in arms over Chinese construction of islands in the South China Sea. US spy planes
buzzing the islands are asked to keep away. Meanwhile, the US continues to construct more military
bases in the region.
CrossTalk: Chinese Wave 09Nov2015
RT News CrossTalk The most recent China wave on the remaking of the Pacific: over the last weeks
Beijing and Washington have upped the ante in their game of chicken to determine who will have sway
and influence. Do China and the U.S. face nearly endless trials between accommodation and
CrossTalk on China:
The Donald's Pivot
Published on Nov 8, 2017
In terms of foreign policy Donald Trump has already earned himself the title ‘the
low expectations president.’ This title is now being put to the test during his tour of Asia. Is
the US a status quo power in the Asia-Pacific region or merely a foil challenging China?
CrossTalking with Michael Maloof, Daniel McAdams, and Gilbert Doctorow.
The United States is exploiting China’s territorial disputes with its neighbors as a pretext to
justify its so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region and “contain” Beijing, a peace activist and
analyst in Washington says. “This announced pivot to Asia was announced prior to the current
controversies over disputed islands and disputed territories in the South China Sea and East China
Sea,” said Brian Becker, national coordinator for the ANSWER Coalition, a US-based protest umbrella
group consisting of many antiwar and civil rights organizations. “Those are in fact simply
pretextual incidents and conflicts, allowing the United States to do what it really has sought to
do from a strategic point of view, which is to move large numbers of military forces into the
region, to contain China, to intimidate China, to disrupt China’s relations with other Asia-Pacific
nations,” Becker told Press TV on Friday. Becker said recent comments by Admiral Scott Swift, the
new commander of the US Pacific Fleet, constitute “an escalation of potential conflict between the
United States and the People's Republic of China.” “Admiral Scott’s recent message is just one of
many, a string of pronouncements by Pentagon officials seeking to camouflage the Pentagon’s
aggressive intervention in the Pacific as somehow defensive in character and providing protection
for smaller nations in the Pacific,” Becker observed. On Friday, Admiral Swift assured allies in
the region that American forces are ready to respond to any unpredicted incident in the South China
Sea, amid tensions over the disputed waters. The US Navy could increase deployment of combat ships,
if necessary, and ramp up training exercises with its regional allies, Swift told journalists in
the Philippines capital of Manila. He said his 200-vessel US Pacific Fleet, the world’s largest,
“was ready and prepared to respond to any contingency that the president may suggest would be
necessary.” Beijing claims sovereignty over nearly all of the South China Sea, which is also
claimed in part by Taiwan, Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. Tensions have escalated
between China and its neighbors over the South China Sea, where territorial
This means that China’s dependency on its southern sea is still an important factor that could be exploited by
the US until then, with the strategic window of opportunity narrowing by the year as the mainland ‘detour’ projects
make progress and gradually come into use. In the event that either or both of the two projects is sabotaged or
‘indefinitely delayed’, then the US would predictably prolong and enhance the strategic vice grip that it’s gaining
over one of China’s most vital trade conduits. Should Washington be successful in unleashing full-scale chaos in
Central Asia and disrupting the Eurasian Land Bridge to Europe, then China would most certainly remain almost fully
dependent on the South China Sea, and thus exceptionally vulnerable to US geopolitical blackmail there.
The Escalation Ladder:
The modern-day history of the South China Sea dispute is convoluted and controversial, but what’s less muddled
is that China has had historical claims in the region for centuries that form the basis for its present position.
Without getting into the nitty-gritty of the matter, it’s important to still document the general escalation
progression that’s occurred since the US took the initiative to thaw out the long-frozen conflict. While there were
clashes over some of the participants’ overlapping claims in the past, the issue had largely been put on the
backburner of regional affairs, with all parties implicitly recognizing that it’s in everyone’s shared interest to
maintain the peaceful and stable status quo. That dramatically changed after the US announced its Pivot to Asia at the end of 2011, and in the years since, Washington put tremendous
pressure on Vietnam and the Philippines to aggravate the situation.
Hanoi and Manila’s revisionist actions (in the sense of modifying the
earlier established status quo) appeared to be a coordinated attempt at goading Beijing into an irrational and
emotional response. China’s leadership is well-versed in making calculated moves and it thus wasn’t tricked
into doing anything that could put its position in jeopardy. Actually, what it had decided to do was
surprisingly take the initiative in asserting its sovereign claims while cautiously avoiding any sort of
unnecessary military engagement (no matter how provocative) that could embroil it in a preplanned Pentagon
trap. China presciently saw the writing on the wall and realized that if it didn’t take the determined steps
that it had in reclaiming its island possessions, then Vietnam and the Philippines would have been in a
relatively stronger position to enforce their respective demands, and this could have easily allowed the US to
step in and take charge of the waterway.
By standing up for itself in the face of American proxy aggression, China startled American decision makers that
had been convinced that it would back down, and this in turn prompted them to harness all available information
means at their disposal to discredit Beijing’s moves. Furthermore, while the US had earlier enjoyed ‘escalation
domination’ in the South China Sea, it was now China that had seized the initiative and was fortifying its island
locations, leading observers to wonder whether this ambiguously had defensive and/or offensive applications. Taken
largely off guard, the US realized that the tables had turned and that China had regained its strategic position at
Washington and its allies’ expense. In order to compensate for this, the US responded by pushing forward its
preplanned strategy of multilateral escalation to evolve the dispute past its regional origins and into a larger
Asian-wide one that draws in India and Japan.
The US’ progressive heightening of the escalation ladder has the disturbing but very real potential to hit a
ceiling of inevitable conflict sometime or another in the future, which might very well be what its ultimate plans
are anyhow (albeit under conditions in which it has a monopoly of control). Washington’s first-tier Lead From
Behind partners are entering the Southeast Asian theater through both maritime and mainland means, and India and
Japan’s anti-Chinese involvement there (be it in economic, infrastructure, and/or military manifestations) are
raising the barometer of proxy conflict to unparalleled levels. It should be remembered that India and Japan each
of their own respective self-interests that they feel they are promoting through their provocative engagements
there, and that to be fair, some of the governments (like in Myanmar, Vietnam, and the Philippines) are more than
willing to enable them in order to reap the ensuing anti-Chinese advantages. These will be discussed more in the
next section, but what’s important to realize is that the preplanned escalation that the US had initiated in the
South China Sea has served as a very convenient excuse for all manner of tangential escalations since, every one of
which is related to containing China in as multilateral of a fashion as possible.
The Chinese Containment Coalition
To accomplish the gargantuan task of containing China, a large-scale informal coalition of sorts is being
assembled under American tutelage. The author comprehensively explored this massive undertaking in the article
“Asian NATO-like Project To Be Stopped”, but it’s necessary to review some of its most
important tenets in order to familiarize the reader with the neo-containment taking place. The Chinese
Containment Coalition (CCC) is the neologism used to describe this de-facto alliance, and it has both maritime
and mainland components to it. The most relevant utilization of the CCC of course relates to the South China
Sea, and the US has a vested interest in maintaining the stability of each of its participating members in this
geo-critical theater. It may, however, tinker with punitive Hybrid War threats to keep some of the members in
check and/or create a plausible front for ‘justifying’ a deeper military commitment to each of them, although of
course this could unintentionally spiral out of control and lead to unexpected consequences. The Hybrid War
possibilities for each of the ASEAN states (both those that could ‘unintentionally’ erupt in the CCC and the
ones purposefully planned against specific targets) will be extensively investigated later on in the work, but
the focus right now is on the general shape and power relations within the CCC.
The CCC is a broadly inclusive strategic bloc whose members have their own motivations for containing China. The
following is an enumeration of the states that are involved, as well as an explanation of what they believe to be
their self-interested reasons for participating:
Washington is most of all motivated by concrete geostrategic considerations, believing that the containment of
China is a necessary action in order to indefinitely prolong American hegemony over Eurasia. China is one of the
three Great Power multipolar centers pushing back against the US’ dominance over the supercontinent (with the other
two being Russia and Iran), and the US wants to acquire geopolitical leverage over it by controlling its vial
mainland and maritime economic conduits in Southeast Asia. The US is fearful that a rising China could spearhead a
revolutionary system of post-modern international relations based on win-win benefits and genuine partner equality
(the very concept behind the One Belt One Road endeavor), and coupled with Beijing’s rising naval capabilities, it
believes that China might become powerful enough to weaken Washington’s unipolar stranglehold over the region. If
the US’ control over Southeast Asia begins to deteriorate, perhaps concurrent with a parallel process underway in
the Mideast, then the US would suffer a major geopolitical blow from which its hegemonic control might never be
able to fully recover.
The island state has always been China’s chief geopolitical and civilizational rival, and the present tensions
between the two amount to nothing more than an American-manufactured return to history. Japan aspires for
leadership of the entire East and Southeast Asian space, believing that its historical naval superiority and
maritime identity entitles it to play a premier role in guiding regional events. To add some substance to its grand
ambitions, it’s also the only country aside from the US that has the excess capital and management experience
necessary to compete with China in developing this rapidly growing bloc. Furthermore, while Japan’s World War II
history of conquest in Southeast Asia was objectively a very dark and brutal time for the region, much of the
public and their corresponding leadership have been whipped up into such an anti-Chinese nationalist frenzy as of
late that they seem willing to overlook the negative facts during this time period and dwell only on its positive
The relevance of this to the present day is that the US has been largely successful in convincing people in
Vietnam and the Philippines that China is the latest colonizer to creep into the region, with the subtle intimation
being that a ‘reformed, non-imperialist’ Japan can preemptively liberate them from their coming servitude. Tokyo
already wants to deepen its hold over the ASEAN’s markets (both commercial and military) as it is, and being literally called in by some of the region’s members to do so
and with the full backing of the US is just about the greatest soft power boost that it could have ever hoped
for. The constructed narrative at play here is that the Chinese ‘bad guy’ is trying to control the region and
its maritime resources, while the ‘anti-Chinese good guy’, Japan, is willing do whatever it takes to counter it,
with the ‘trusted’ US keeping an eye on it to make sure it doesn’t relapse into any of its colonialist habits.
The irony is that it’s Japan and the US, not China, which are bent on a neo-colonialist power grab in Southeast
Asia, but the unipolar-influenced information services in the region have largely mirrored their European
counterparts in parroting their patron’s talking points and disseminating a false reality.
New Delhi’s strategy in all of this is to constrain the rise of its natural geopolitical rival, and this has
seen it take a gradually more vocal stance in addressing the South China Sea crisis. For the most part, India’s
leadership has played coy with China in pragmatically interacting with it in large-scale multilateral frameworks
such as the AIIB, BRICS, and the SCO, but in being noticeably less constructive when it comes to indirect bilateral
relations. To explain, India’s dealings with states and regions of mutual interest to it and China tend to be much
more competitive and reek of zero-sum proxy intentions on New Delhi’s part, for example, when addressing ‘freedom
of navigation’ in the South China Sea together with Japan or in unilaterally blockading Nepal. There’s an undeclared butclearly observable Cold War going on between both Asian great powers, despite neither
of them willing to publicly admit it, and it’s in this context that India has a desire to provoke China in
Southeast Asia. Although it has yet to send any naval vessels to the region, the possibility hasn’t been
explicitly discounted by New Delhi, and it’s quite probable that it could find some pretext to do so in the
future (be it under ‘freedom of navigation’ auspices or to participate in a multilateral CCC drill there).
(Article Continues Below)
US pivot to Asia threatens China, region
The Asian Pivot
One Belt One Road and Two Wars? China Spars with North Korea and
The Obama administration’s so-called pivot strategy in the Asia-Pacific is a
provocative move that poses a threat to China and other countries in the region, an anti-war
activist and journalist in Maine says. US President Barack Obama’s pivot policy is being
implemented to “surround and control China” and restore Washington’s “global dominance as China
rises,” said Bruce Gagnon, the coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear
Power in Space. “China is really not a threat, it's Obama’s pivot of military forces into the
Asia-Pacific which is the real threat,” Gagnon told Press TV on Tuesday. “It’s totally crazy, it’s
provocative, it’s highly expensive and it has serious environmental implications,” he added. The
Obama administration is trying to keep its focus on a widely advertised shift to Asia, which it has
pursued since 2011. The White House argues that no region is more important to the United States’
long-term interests than Asia. The peace activist said the US military budget last year was equal
to 34 percent of global military spending, while China was at 12 percent and Russia at 4.8 percent.
“So it’s clear that neither China nor Russia are a military threat to the US; that in fact the
United States is the one causing the instability in this case and really can’t afford to keep doing
it anymore.” Gagnon said the Pentagon’s emphasis on large aircraft carriers in the Pacific is
financially unsustainable and outdated and is bankrupting the country. According to a report
released earlier this month by the Rand Corporation, a global policy think tank, the US should
decrease its emphasis on expensive aircraft carriers in the Asia-Pacific and spend more on
submarines, space capabilities and ways to make air bases and aircraft less vulnerable to a Chinese
attack.Since 1996, China’s ability to threaten the US Navy surface fleet “at significant ranges
from the mainland” has multiplied, the report said. “Over the next five to 15 years, if US and
(People’s Liberation Army) forces remain on roughly current trajectories, Asia will witness a
progressively receding frontier of U.S. dominance,” the report noted. A recent assessment released
in April by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues that the Obama administration’s
Asia pivot has not been successful and American power and influence in the region has been
declining. Observers believe America’s efforts to increase its presence in the Asia-Pacific region
is aimed at containing China. China accuses Washington of meddling in the regional issues and
deliberately stirring up tensions in the South China Sea.
Dan Collins speaks with Max Keiser on the Asian Pivot.
Adding to that, India is clearly a rising power in its own right, and the self-confidence that this comes with
has encouraged its elite to spread their country’s influence to surrounding regions. The so-called “Cotton Route” that was suggested as an institutional counter-weight to the New Silk Road
will likely stretch into Southeast Asia, considering the historical bond between India and the region that was
described in the second chapter. India’s political basis for doing so is termed “Act East”, and it’s Modi’s evolved version of his predecessor’s much more passive “Look
East” policy. It includes not only ASEAN, but also Japan as well, and the interplay between both of the US’ Lead
From Behind proxies in the geographic middle ground of Southeast Asia will be described soon enough. Physical
proximity is an obvious enabler in accelerating India’s bilateral relations with ASEAN, and theTrilateral Highway between it, Myanmar, and Thailand (the ‘ASEAN Highway’) is designed
to physically integrate the subcontinent’s SAARC with the neighboring ASEAN bloc. Suffice to say, this project’s
successful completion would directly infuse Southeast Asia with a steady stream of Indian economic and
institutional influence that could pose a sizeable challenge to China, and its particular effect on Myanmar’s
anti-Chinese pivot will certainly be elaborated on later in the research.
The mainland ASEAN leader of the CCC has a vehement dislike for China, despite its larger neighbor ironically
being its biggest trade partner. In some ways, this actually plays into the anti-Chinese rhetoric and
political ambitions of some of Hanoi’s elite, since they were able to spin this successfully enough as a form of
‘Chinese hegemony’ that the rest of the government fell for the nationalistic knee-jerk reaction of agreeing to
get on board with the US-led TPP. Anti-Chinese nationalism is at such a high level among the most influential
elements of Vietnam’s leadership that the once-proud country has even backtracked on its historical principles
by closely allying with its former US tormentor in ‘countering’ its northern neighbor. As was earlier discussed
when describing the long history of Chinese-Vietnamese relations, there’s definitely an ingrained distrust of
China interwoven into Vietnamese identity due to the country’s millennium-long incorporation into the Empire,
but the US plainly exploited this psychological trait by initiating the timed thawing of the South China Sea
Information warfare specialists were likely consulted well in advance in order to craft the most effective ways
in which the Vietnamese audience could be misguided into interpreting unrequested American diplomatic
interventionism as ‘Chinese aggression’. The sum effect of this nationalist-appealing information manipulation has
been that the anti-Chinese forces in the country decisively won out over the pragmatic ones and that Vietnam
ultimately made its choice in aligning with the unipolar-oriented forces that are militarily and economically
circling China. By becoming the US’ mainland beachhead in the CCC, Vietnam likely hopes for American acceptance of
what will probably soon be a renewed attempt at resurrecting its leading role in the former French lands of
Indochina. Hanoi still has sizeable institutional influence over Vientiane (particularly military and economic),
although it’s of course been relatively dwindling since the end of the Cold War, while Vietnam has urgently been
trying to play catch-up with China in Cambodia ever since its military withdraw in 1989 re-opened the door to
Beijing’s influence. Vietnam’s counter-proposal to both of its neighbors’ chummy ties with China is a so-called
“development triangle” between them, which will in reality serve as a vehicle for the return
of Vietnamese influence to these countries.
The former American colony is much weaker than China by all metrics, and its population is easily riled up by
simple fear mongering techniques. In turn, it presents itself as a tantalizing target for the US’ anti-Chinese
information operations there, which are ultimately predicated on returning the Pentagon’s presence to the island
chain. The American footprint is all over the Philippines owing to the colonial and post-World War II past
(essentially a continuation of the former arrangement albeit under the more acceptable-sounding label of
‘independence’), but Washington’s overbearing presence had the predictable aftereffect of engendering strong
anti-American emotions that eventually manifested themselves in the 1986 overthrow of proxy leader Ferdinand Marcos
and the 1991 order for the US’ full military withdrawal. The military campaign against southern separatists and
Muslim terrorists (which have regretfully merged into a semi-unified movement that mostly discredits the former at
this point) resulted in the return of US special forces to the country in 2002 on the basis of anti-terrorist
The one-and-off insurgency that has been fought since then provided the necessary pretext for embedding the US’
military personnel deeper into the country and making them an integral part of the Philippines’ anti-terrorist
‘tool set’, but it wasn’t sufficient for the full return of forces that the Pentagon initially had in mind. The
2011 Pivot to Asia and subsequent American agitation of the South China Sea dispute served the purpose of stoking
nationalist sentiment in the country that was professionally channeled by the US and its affiliated information
actors (both formal TV and web ones and informal ones such as NGOs) into a self-serving anti-Chinese direction. The
US’ plan was to have the Philippines, once formerly colonized by it, go as far as formally inviting the US military
presence back into the country on the grounds of defending its South China Sea claims from an ‘aggressive China’.
Even still, domestic political sensitivities to such a move evoke heightened emotion even to this day, ergo why the
US had to euphemistically ‘settle’ for an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement in April 2015 that gave it the right to
periodically “rotate” its forces out of 8 or more Filipino bases but stopped short of outright giving it formal
control of the facilities there. For all intents and purposes, this amounts to the exact same thing, but it’s
described differentially via the ‘rotating’ loophole so as to assuage patriotic Filipinos that are dead-set
against a US military return to their formerly dominated nation.
The present situation in the Philippines is actually somewhat of a paradox – for as nationalistic and proud as
most of the population is, many people are apathetic (or even welcoming) to the return of American forces to their
country, having been misled to the point of believing that a re-occupation by their former occupier whom they
previously ousted is somehow more preferable than a full-spectrum and pragmatic partnership with China. This
confounding contradiction only serves to demonstrate the effectiveness of the US’ information warfare operations,
and it also speaks volumes about the subservience and outright collaboration of various elements of the Filipino
elite. The political individuals that publicly support the US’ military return to the Philippines either naively
don’t realize that this is a reiteration of the same imperialist blueprint, or more realistically are well aware of
this but have positioned themselves so as to profit quite handsomely from this arrangement. It cannot be
underscored enough just how much of a contravention of the Philippines’ national interest it is for the country to
‘re-invite’ the US military back onto its territory, and while private individuals could be somewhat forgiven for
having fallen victim to the US’ rabid anti-Chinese nationalist information warfare, their governing elites have no
such excuses and are fully complicit in their country’s reoccupation.
Canberra’s involvement in the CCC is minimal but symbolic, and it proves the extent that Australia is willing to
go to behave as the ‘junior America’ in its corner of Southeast Asia. The Australian elite generally harbor
political ambitions that don’t correlate to their country-continent’s actual potential, and militarily ruffling
China’s feathers in a high-stakes game of chicken is certainly one of them. It’s been revealed that Australia has
been carrying out provocative ‘freedom of navigation’ flights over the South China Sea, despite formally
having positive relations with China through a recently signed Free Trade Agreement. It’s necessary at this point to draw a distinction
between Australia’s economic and military loyalties, as these don’t correspond to one another. The FTA with
China hints at a pretense of pragmatism, yet Australia’s military-strategic loyalty to the US is completely
counter-productive to any of the broader positive inroads that the economic pact could yield in the future. The
clear abrogation of national interest that this entails is symptomatic of the Australia political elites’
prevailing inferiority complex vis-à-vis the US and other Western countries, as Canberra seems intent to score
points with its Anglo-Saxon peers and gain their ‘acceptance’ at the tangible expense of endangering ties with
itsnumber one economic partner.
This shortsighted policy is inherently untenable and cannot continue to exist indefinitely, however, it’s not
likely that China would respond with any punitive economic measures so soon after signing the FTA. Additionally,
Australia is betting that China needs its iron resources more than it needs China’s economic patronage for them (although this is
a dubious gamble), but given that the arrangement is mutually beneficial for the time being,
Beijing isn’t prone to cut it loose anytime soon. Provided that Australia keeps its provocations to a bare
minimum and at as low of a scale and intensity as possible, China will probably ignore it aside from possibly
issuing a strongly worded statement against it, but it’s extraordinarily difficult to maintain such an unnatural
balance when the US will inevitably encourage it to do more in the future. Australia also believes that it
present actions of anti-Chinese provocation are endearing it closer to some of its new ASEAN free trade partners, but they too (especially Vietnam and the Philippines) will
likely join forces with the US in calling for a more active Australian presence in the South China Sea.
(Article Continues Below)
China’s Maritime Strategic Realignment
US 'Asia pivot' plan in shambles, ties with key partners
China's New World Order: Gold-backed oil benchmark on the
Mass anti-government protests in South Korea, along with a change of rhetoric by some other US
allies in the region, including the Philippines, have upset the apple cart for the US and its Asia
pivot, says Brian Backer of the Answer Coalition.
SHOW NOTES: www.corbettreport.com/?p=23932 China has
announced a "new world order" for world oil markets that could have profound effects on the global
economy and the monetary order itself. But as The Shanghai International Energy Exchange gears up
for operation, it's important to note yet again that this is another engineered conflict with the
pre-determined death of the dollar system being used to bring in the new multipolar world order
that the NWO has been openly working toward for decades.
Canberra probably didn’t anticipate this when it initially signed on to the CCC (however low-commitment it may
thought it would be), so eventually it’s going to be pressed into making a difficult decision in choosing between
its main economic and strategic partners (China and the US, respectively). The caveat, however, is that China’s
iron ore-purchasing dependency on Australia will make it reluctant to take any concrete measures against its
‘partner’ even if it ramps up its anti-Chinese activity, and until it finds a third major partner to diversify its
imports from besides Brazil, it’s probably going to be inclined to preserve the status quo of economic relations.
On the other hand, as the FTA enters into full swing and begins more actively involving sectors outside the
mining one, it’s possible that China could establish a few unforeseen strategic footholds in the Australian
economy that might come in handy for ‘leveling the playing field’ and deterring any further unnecessary
Australian aggression in the South China Sea.
The CCC operates under a simple power hierarchy that is expressly dominated by the US. It can be conceptualized
via the basic model below:
The following model adds detail to the framework and accommodates it for the specificities of the
CCC's South China Sea mission:
It’s pretty easy to understand the power flow in the abovementioned hierarchies. The US, as the militant
enforcer of unipolarity, has partially contracted its regional responsibilities to its two trusted Lead From Behind
partners, India and Japan. In turn, the three of them (albeit on different levels and to varying degrees) cooperate
with Vietnam and the Philippines, the CCC’s most geopolitically relevant proxies in the South China Sea. Bringing
up the rear, Indonesia’s potential inclusion in the TPP would provide a serious boost to the CCC’s economic
efforts, while Australia’s military presence, although extraordinarily minimal at the moment, could be beefed up to
a bit more of an impactful contribution in the future.
The concept is also relevant for explaining the CCC’s activities in mainland ASEAN, with scarcely any membership
The first two tiers and power motivations remain the same in this adaptation, with the only differences being
that Myanmar substitutes for the Philippines and Australia is removed from the equation. The reasoning for this is
obvious, since the Philippines aren’t a part of mainland Southeast Asia and Australia has no realistic possibility
for militarily assisting in any CCC operation in this region. If anything, the UK’s base in Brunei gives it the faint possibility of replacing Australia as the auxiliary
military actor in this framework, but even that appears to be unlikely owing mostly to the fact that the
mainland portion of any forthcoming containment campaign will result in a lot less of a direct military presence
for all actors. As will be argued later on in the research, it’s much more foreseeable that Hybrid Wars will be
utilized in place of the type of conventional military containment witnessed in the South China Sea.
The two above-cited conceptual models aptly illustrate the geopolitical convergences between the CCC’s maritime
and mainland missions, with Vietnam functioning as the consistent proxy element between them because of its dual
identity. Partially speaking, Vietnam is a maritime nation because of its extensive coastline and claims over part
of the South China Sea, while it’s also equally a mainland country as well and has the potential to reestablish its
sphere of influence over Laos and Cambodia, two of China’s most important ASEAN partners. This makes it doubly
important for the US and its Lead From Behind partners to enter into its good graces so as to fully exploit the
geopolitical advantage this would provide for them in their shared CCC goal.
There are a few particulars that deserve to be expanded upon in order to understand nuances of the CCC’s overall
mission in each of these two sub-theaters:
To approach the maritime region first, the common space between Vietnam and the Philippines is the South China
Sea and the myriad islands between them, ergo the present focus on provocative ‘freedom of navigation’ bomber flyovers and warship transit. There’s little in terms of strategic asymmetry that the US and its allies
can do in ‘countering China’, so for the most part (save for creative military-technical innovations),
conventional alliance dynamics predominate this vector of geopolitical competition. Therefore, events here are a
lot more predictable because they simply boil down to whether or not there will be a direct military clash
between China and the CCC, although the situation does get increasingly tense and dramatic the more that the US
provokes China into acting.
Eventually, it seems almost inevitable that one side or the other will lose their cool and make a regretful
decision, but even in the event that this happens, it’s very likely to be contained. The exception would occur
under the circumstances that the US chooses to escalate an engagement between China and either of the two
geopolitical proxies (Vietnam, or more likely, the Philippines) to the point of bringing in the Lead From Behind
partners (India, but more foreseeably, Japan) to provide indirect back-up support and institutionalize the CCC.
This scenario is easier to conceptually understand if the reader replaces the Philippines with Ukraine and China
with Russia, thus allowing one to perceive of the strategic structural continuities between both Eurasian
containment operations. Just as Ukraine’s US-provoked aggression against Donbass created the pretext for NATO to
deepen its involvement in the former’s affairs, so too would the Philippine’s possible US-provoked aggression
against China in the South China Sea function as a pretext for the CCC (especially its US and Japanese elements) to
further embed themselves into the island nation.
Even so, the China vs. CCC dynamic still remains largely linear and conventional, thus making it predictable to
a large extent. The same, however, certainly can’t be said for the mainland portion of this rivalry.
Matters are infinitely more complicated, and therefore dangerous, in the CCC’s strategy for mainland ASEAN. As
seen from the previously mentioned model, Myanmar and Vietnam are the ‘geopolitical bookends’ in this sub-theater,
with each respectively falling deeper under their nearby Lead From Behind overseer’s influence. For example,
India’s ASEAN Highway stands to position New Delhi as one of Myanmar’s most vital economic partners, while Japan is
heavily investing in all sectors of Vietnam’s economy and is one of its most important full-spectrum strategic partners. Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia are critically positioned in
between the CCC’s mainland proxies, with Japanese-led investment projects strategically bridging the physical
gap between them.
For example, the Asian Development Bank (ADB, commonly understood as an institutional tool of US-Japanese
policy) and direct Japanese investment are being used to help fund a bunch of multisided physical integrational
projects in the Greater Mekong Subregion (the ADB’s official jargon for mainland Southeast Asia plus
southern China). One should keep in mind that the CCC’s funding extends mostly (but not exclusively) to the East-West and Southern Corridors that link both coasts of mainland
ASEAN, and that Japan is building the Thai sections of both high-speed rail projects. Tokyo is also a major
investor in Myanmar’s Dawei SEZ, so taken together with its railroad ambitions, it’s plain to see that Japan has
staked its Greater Mekong Subregion interests in facilitating connective infrastructure projects between both of
the region’s coasts.
The picture below demonstrates these and the other associated projects:
The red line running from China to Thailand is the ASEAN Silk Road that was mentioned earlier in the work, which
is China’s ‘escape route’ for evading the South China Sea trap that the CCC is setting for it. While the map
suggests that this could dually run through Myanmar and Laos, it’s highly unlikely that it will ever be constructed
(let alone remain secure) in the largely rebel-held portions of the former. The changing nature of domestic
politics in Myanmar, which is rapidly moving along a pro-Western trajectory, also bodes quite negatively for that
prospective route’s political feasibility. It’s much more likely then that China’s ASEAN Silk Road (formally
described by the ADB as the “North-South Corridor”) will remain completely dependent on Laos for its transit access
to Thailand, the infrastructural hub of the Greater Mekong Subregion. In fact, China is actually moving forward
with two Thai-destined railroad projects simultaneously, with the relevant “Central Corridor” spoke forming an
integral part of Beijing’s present railroad construction plans, and it’s this additional ‘artery’ that’s
expected to form the actual basis of the ASEAN Silk Road.
Remembering that it was earlier written that Cambodia is a structurally unreliable ally of China owing to the
lack of direct connective infrastructure to its partner, the reader returns to the conclusion that Laos and
Thailand are China’s only true geopolitical partners in mainland ASEAN. The situation with Cambodia could
theoretically be remedied and the bilateral partnership considerably strengthened well past its already positive
and pragmatic nature via the completion of the Cambodian portion of the Central Corridor route through Laos, but
that project is far from a priority in the face of the much more strategically urgent North-South Corridor and
“Central-North-South Corridor” linking China with Thailand. These projects acquire such strategic importance
precisely because Myanmar’s westward pivot is rapidly diminishing the prospects that the China-Myanmar Pipeline
Corridor will ever expand into an all-out economic one as was originally envisioned, and also because the ASEAN
Silk Road could be modified near its tail end to reach a to-be-constructed terminal along Thailand’s Indian Ocean
(technically Andaman Sea) coast. Thailand might not even have the proper harbor or port conditions for what China
could be planning as its ultimate contingency plan, but that’s not to say that China simply couldn’t build whatever
it needs in its desired geographic location, considering the engineering ‘miracles’ it’s pulled off in the South
The Indian-Japanese Double Flank
It’s relevant at this juncture to highlight the CCC’s guiding geopolitical concept for ‘countering China’ in the
Greater Mekong Subregion (mainland ASEAN), and that’s the ‘Indian-Japanese Double Flank. It’s been thus far
described that India’s primary avenue of approach into the region is via the ASEAN Highway through Myanmar (the
“Western Corridor” as described by the ADB in the above-cited map), while Japan’s strategy has been to link the
region’s two coasts through the East-West and Southern Corridors. What’s pretty much happening here is that India
is moving eastward into the region while Japan is moving westward, and their point of ultimate convergence is
Thailand, which also just so happens to be China’s primary focus as well.
Just like any traditional flanking strategy, the target is moving in a linear direction while the opponents are
striving to simultaneously flank it from both angles. In this actual situation, China is streaming southward while
India and Japan are rushing to block it via their respective advances from the west and the east. Geostrategically
speaking, the greatest point of friction for all parties lay at or near the planned perpendicular intersections of
the unipolar and multipolar projects in Northern and Central Thailand, and in a theoretical sense, that’s where one
would be inclined to believe that a clash of interests could occur. The reality is a bit different, though, since
it’s technically possible for Thailand to accommodate both geopolitically divergent projects and create an ultimate
win-win situation for everyone.
As beneficial as this may be for all of the directly involved parties, US strategists would beg to differ, since
it’s their ultimate aim to keep the CCC firmly on its anti-Chinese course and not to have its main supportive
members (India and Japan) partially deterred out of a shared strategic interest with Beijing, which in this case is
the stability of Thailand.
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to
the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to
march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is
surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller [June,
An independent agency of the United States government responsible for
collecting and coordinating intelligence and counterintelligence activities abroad in the national
interest; headed by the Director of Central Intelligence under the supervision of the President and
National Security Council...There has been considerable criticism of the CIA relating to security
and counterintelligence failures, failures in intelligence analysis, human rights concerns,
external investigations and document releases, influencing public opinion and law enforcement, drug
trafficking, and lying to Congress. In 1987, the former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, John
Stockwell, said the CIA is responsible for tens of thousands of covert actions and destablization
programs since it was created by Congress with the passage of the National Security Act of
1947.At the time, Stockwell estimated that over 6
million people had died in CIA covert actions.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a governmental agency
belonging to the United StatesDepartment of Justice that serves as both a federal criminal
investigative body and an internal intelligence agency (counterintelligence). Also, it is the
government agency responsible for investigating crimes on Indian reservations in the United States
under the Major Crimes Act. The branch has investigative jurisdiction over violations of more than
200 categories of federal crime. The agency was established in 1908 as the Bureau of Investigation
(BOI). Its name was changed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1935. The agency
headquarters is the J. Edgar Hoover Building, located in Washington, D.C. The agency has fifty-six
field offices located in major cities throughout the United States, and more than 400 resident
agencies in lesser cities and areas across the nation. More than 50 international offices called
"legal attachés" exist in U.S. embassies and consulates general worldwide.
'Federal Bureau of Investigation organizes almost
all terror plots in the US' ...The report reveals that the FBI regularly infiltrates communities
where they suspect terrorist-minded individuals to be engaging with others. Regardless of their
intentions, agents are sent in to converse within the community, find suspects that could
potentially carry out “lone wolf” attacks and then, more or less, encourage them to do so. By
providing weaponry, funds and a plan, FBI-directed agents will encourage otherwise-unwilling
participants to plot out terrorist attacks, only to bust them before any events fully
Ever since its inception there have been those who have
warned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, far from offering a simple "collective security" pact to ensure
the integrity of its member nations' borders, would in fact be used as an offensive tool of imperial adventurism
and conquest. Since the NATO-led Kosovo bombing campaign of 1999 at the very least, those fears have appeared more
and more justified.
Since that time, NATO has continued to take a lead role in more and more overtly
offensive campaigns of aggression in theatre after theatre. By now it is commonly understood to be an extension of
the Pentagon itself, a convenient international military instrument for Washington to wield whenever the pretense
of an international consensus cannot be achieved at the UN Security Council.
-- James Corbett
NATO is the first attempt in history to establish an aggressive
global military formation, one which currently includes a third of the nations of the world either as members or
partners, has members and partners on five continents and has conducted active operations on four, with the
potential to expand its reach into the remaining two where it has not yet officially intruded
itself...As NATO continues to expand across the globe
through a series of partnerships, initiatives and dialogues, what was once a collective security agreement is
increasingly becoming a global military strike force capable of bombarding, invading and occupying countries
anywhere in the world.
America's War on the People of Korea: Michel Chossudovsky
Published on Jul 31, 2013
In this speech, delivered at the International Symposium on Concluding a Peace Treaty on the Korean
Peninsula in Seoul, South Korea on July 26, 2013, Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for
Research on Globalization outlines the truth about the threat to peace and stability on the Korean
peninsula and discusses what needs to happen in order to realize a peace treaty.
The Prospect of a Korean Peace Treaty - Gregory Elich in
Published on Aug 5, 2013
Gregory Elich, author, researcher and member of the advisory board of the Korea Policy Institute,
delivers a lecture on the prospect of a Korean peace treaty at the International Symposium on
Concluding a Peace Treaty on the Korean Peninsula in Seoul, South Korea on July 26, 2013.
Korean Association of United Methodist
Published on May 22, 2016
On May 19, 2016 General Conference turned to a presentation of the Committee on
Peace of Korean Association of UMC. They reported their efforts to bring about peace and
reconciliation on the Korean peninsula. Bishop Carcaño, presiding the afternoon session,
highlighted the small wooden Korean “peace Crosses” that have been part of this General Conference.
She noted that they were made in the part of Korea where Wisconsin Area Bishop Hee-Soo Jung is
People Must See Past Media's Portrayal of North Korea, Cumings
Isabel Fenoglio News, On Campus
November 19, 2017
Bruce Cumings, a history professor at the University of
Chicago, addressed a tightly packed audience in Devlin 008 on Wednesday about what he considers to be the most
serious crisis the world faces today: North Korea.
In a lecture titled, “The Sources of North Korean Conflict,” Cumings outlined the complex history
of United States and North Korean relations. Cumings told students that in order to resolve relations, people need
to figure out what makes North Korea “tick,” to discover why they do what they do.
Cumings argued that in many ways, North Korea shares characteristics with the late USSR, and cited
the famous article “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” by George Kennan as evidence.
“Understanding the rise and subsequent collapse of the USSR is essential to understanding North
Korea,” Cumings said.
However, a notable difference between North Korea and the USSR is expansion. With the exception of
Japan, North Korea does not seek to expand beyond the Korean peninsula, Cumings said, but instead pursues policies
of isolationism and exclusionism.
Cumings identified North Korea as the most amazing garrison state in the world. North Korea has the
fourth largest army in the world. The U.S. has the third largest. The North Korean army serves as the underlying
source of power in North Korea.
“Anyone who talks about conquering North Korea, waiting for it to collapse, or decapitating its
leadership will have to reckon with its army,” Cumings said. “To defeat North Korea would be an endeavor that the
U.S. has not amounted to since WWII.”
While there has been no major conflict between the U.S. and North Korea since the Korean War ended
in 1953, there is currently an armada of power up against North Korea waiting to strike, he said.
Cumings characterized the border between North and South Korea as “the most tense border on the
planet today,” adding that the common maxim among troops is “ready to fight tonight.”
This tension directly contributes to public unease in regards to U.S. and North Korean relations,
and Cumings said that the media does not help in easing the public’s fear.
[Bold Added] “Do not believe most of what you hear, they are mostly just
scare stories” he said.
Cumings criticized the media for its “caricature-esque” portrayal of North Korea and
encourage the public to pursue alternative sources for information on the conflict. This is because, in moments of
crises, the media will take any bad story about North Korea and run with it, regardless of veracity, he
In order to reach a complex understanding of relations between the U.S. and North Korea,
Cumings said that the U.S. needs to see through the media’s portrayal of the country.
When asked how to go about restoring U.S. relations with North Korea, Cumings said that
diplomacy must change. He criticized the current militant and antagonistic strategies of the Trump administration,
calling them acts of absurdity.
“We need to start giving out carrots as well as sticks,” Cumings said.
As the anti-War movement continues to lose ground in the West due to widespread
public support for the illegal wars of the Obama administration, an innovative new approach emerges
from SouthEast Asia: the creation of student-run organizations designed to energize youth around
the concept of criminalizing war. Find out more about this idea in this week's GRTV
We may be looking at the echoes of WWI, but we are no mere shadows consigned to
observe the events taking place around us. We are conscious actors with the ability to give our
identities over to the next "great" war cause, or to retain our humanity and refuse to give in. And
make no mistake: your choice does make a difference.
This is an excerpt from "Echoes of WWI: China, the US, and the Next 'Great' War," delivered at the
Open Mind Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in September 2017. Please watch or listen to the full
lecture at corbettreport.com.
If terrorist incidents are always tied back to shadowy groups linked to Al Qaeda or
ISIS, an online, independent media might connect those dots to show how Al Qaeda and ISIS were
literally created, fostered, funded, trained and equipped by the UK government, the US government
and their allies across the world as a tool in their quest of dominance of the Middle East and
control of their domestic population. But such a story can only be told on a free and open
internet, where independent voices continue to reach the masses and inform them of the truth about
these terror groups.
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
hroughout the war, a continuous barrage of accusations was leveled by each side at the other, charging
the enemy with engaging in all manner of barbarity and atrocity, against troops, prisoners of war, and
civilians alike, in every part of the country (each side occupied the other's territory at times),
trying to outdo each other in a verbal war of superlatives almost as heated as the combat. In the
United States this produced a body of popular myths, not unlike those emerging from other wars which
are widely supported at home.(By contrast,
during the Vietnam War the inclination of myths to flourish was regularly countered by numerous
educated protestors who carefully researched the origins of the war, monitored its conduct, and
publicized studies sharply at variance with the official version(s), eventually influencing the mass
media to do the same.)"
don't know what types of alliances are possible. All we can do is to hold aloft the banner of
justice and humanity and see who rallies to it. And no matter who joins us, fight we must.
For as Ludwig von Mises said, ‘Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved
of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is
sweeping toward destruction. Therefore, everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously
into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interest of everyone hangs on
the result…' Let’s all stand together.”
We Who Dared to Say No to War uncovers some of the forgotten but
compelling body of work from the American antiwar tradition—speeches, articles, poetry, book excerpts, political
cartoons, and more—from people throughout our history who have opposed war. Beginning with the War of 1812, these
selections cover every major American war up to the present and come from both the left and the right, from
religious and secular viewpoints. There are many surprises, including a forgotten letter from a Christian
theologian urging Confederate President Jefferson Davis to exempt Christians from the draft and a speech by Abraham
Lincoln opposing the 1848 Mexican War. Among others, Daniel Webster, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, Grover Cleveland,
Eugene Debs, Robert Taft, Paul Craig Roberts, Patrick Buchanan, and Country Joe and the Fish make an appearance.
This first-ever anthology of American antiwar writing offers the full range of the subject’s richness and
It's no telling what these maniacs might do to get a war started...Stay Super Vigilant
All America's Wars Begin with False Flags (and WWIII Will
This D.C. think tank jerk off blatantly admitted all of America's wars have
traditionally begun with false flag events, and they know they will need another one to get the
war with Iran started that they've been working on for so long.
This video is a few years old now, but it's more relevant today with what's going
on in the Middle East than ever. They don't teach you this in school, kids, but whatever happens
over there, just realize how absolutely manufactured all of it is.
Ron Paul Fears False Flag To Start New Korean War
The Alex Jones Channel
Published on Sep 26, 2017
Dr. Ron Paul joins Alex Jones live via Skype to discuss the possibility of a new war with North
Korea initiated by a false flag attack in which a US plane is shot down in Kim Jong-Un's name.
Sen Lindsey Graham has warned of a nuclear strike in S Carolina following the report by Alex
Jones and Anthony Gucciardi about low key nuke transfer from Texas to South Carolina. http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-hig...
Exclusive: High Level Source Confirms Secret US Nuclear Warhead Transfer
Radio host Michael Savage joins in calling for answers over
secret nuke transfer
October 13, 2013
Top radio host Michael Savage has joined in calling for
answers regarding the leaked
secret transfer of nuclear weapons to South Carolina that was followed by both warnings of a nuclear
strike by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and the termination of the top two US nuke commanders.
Originally reported by myself and Alex Jones back on September 3rd, a number of disturbing red flags have
continued to give further evidence to the high level military intelligence source that initially exposed the
transfer of the off-the-record nuclear warheads from Dyess Air Force base to South Carolina — and still, the
irrelevant mega media has ultimately failed to even investigate. Once again, the real media continues to dominate
along with investigative radio personalities in reporting on the news that matters.
As Savage points out, specifically speaking on my report last
Friday concerning how the termination of a high level nuke commander coincided
with the exact September 3rd date of the secret transfer, what we truly need is answers. And while we are
already talking about an issue that is deeply concerning at a base level, what really give the secret transfer a
disturbing amount of depth are the events that followed the leaked intel.
It was Senator Lindsey Graham who came out later on
the same day in warning against a ‘nuclear attack’ in South Carolina if we did not take military action in Syria.
Then we also consider the fact that two of the top nuke commanders in the United States were terminated for
laughable reasons, and it becomes an even larger red flag scenario. What is most amazing to me, however, is the
fact that the termination of the commanders was actually leaked to
the Associated Press and others.
What this means is that United States government did not want us to know that the commanders were terminated —
specifically that the second top commander was fired on the same day as the secret nuke transfer report.
When we look back at the ’2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident’, where nukes were reported missing
from the Minot Air Force Base with no official suspect, the media went into turmoil and investigations were
launched immediately. Even CNN covered the event in depth and continued to investigate what was going on. The CNN
reporter even stated that “this kind of thing is not supposed to happen” in response to the event:
But where is the mainstream media now? Once again, it is
up to us to get the word out and demand answers. My respect goes out to Michael Savage for demanding answers on
such a pertinent and real issue.
Radio host calls for media attention over missing nuke
report and termination of top nuke commanders
Since Alex Jones and I originally reported on the high
level military intelligence
revealing that an unsigned nuclear weapons transfer had taken place back on September 3rd, an absurdly
high number of red flag events lending credibility to the intel have followed. From the termination of the second
highest nuke commander in the country
on the exact same day as the leak, to Senator Lindsey Graham warning of a nuclear
strike on the exact destination of the missile transfer — the red alert scenarios continue to pile up.
And now, Michael Savage of Savage Nation is launching an investigation into the issue and calling upon the media
to properly address the situation.
I joined the Savage Nation to discuss the intel timeline of the nuke transfer, specifically highlighting the
fact that the transfer was unsigned for and completely off the books. Originally covered by Savage earlier
this month following the suspension and termination of the two top nuke commanders in the nation, the
missing nuke intel has since spread internationally — and still, the United States media has failed to even mention
it despite the vital events that continue to point towards its accuracy.
But that fact is nothing new, considering the reality that even the local media was quick to ignore sources
revealing the unsigned transfer to them. As usual, the mainstream media is deathly afraid of crossing the
establishment. After all, it’s who grants them their reach (and oftentimes funding).
The brief report from the top level military source, which was written in a rush to get the information out,
“Dyess is beginning to move out nuclear war heads today. I got a tap from DERMO earlier. He said it was the
first time they have been even acknowledged since being put there in the 80′s. No signature was required for
transfer… There was no directive. He said that Dyess Commander was on site to give authority to release. No one
knew where they were going really, but the truck driver said to take them to South Carolina and another pick up
will take them from there.”
Anthony Gucciardi is a writer, analyst, and Founder of Storyleak.com whose articles are routinely featured on
top sites like Drudge Report and regularly appears on national and international television media.
This article was posted: Monday, October 28, 2013 at 11:57 am
The first nuclear bomb
explosion at the Trinity site in New Mexico, July 16, 1945. The United States is the only country to have used
a nuclear weapon, resulting in the death of around 200,000 people, mostly civilians. Photo: Los Alamos National
During a press conference in the Netherlands today, Obama said he is more worried
about Manhattan getting nuked than any supposed threat posed by Russia.
The president made the remark after a reporter asked him if former challenger Mitt
Romney was correct in his assertion that Russia is once again the primary foe of the United States following
Crimeans voting to rejoin Russia.
“Russia’s actions are a problem. They don’t pose the No. 1 national security threat
to the United States. I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a
nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan,” Obama said.
Obama did not elaborate on the threat.
North Korea has threatened to nuke the United States on several occasions. Last
April, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded with “moderate confidence” North Korea has a
nuclear weapon small enough to be loaded on a ballistic missile. However, according to the DIA, the reliability
of the missile would be low.
California is approximately 3,000 miles from Manhattan. In order to nuke New York,
the North Koreans would require a missile capable of traveling around 9,000 miles.
The next suspect on the Axis of
Evil list the government has claimed for over a decade wants to do us harm is Iran. It currently does not have a
nuclear bomb and, in fact, has not enriched uranium to the level required for a bomb, and also does not possess a missile capable of striking the United States. In January, Secretary of
State John Kerry insisted Iran has pledged to stop stockpiling uranium.
In 2010, Obama said al-Qaeda is trying to get nukes and would have “no compunction in using
them.” He added if “there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications
economically, politically and from a security perspective would be devastating.”
U.S. intelligence officials, however, say the al-Qaeda nuclear threat is, at best, a
“At this point, they don’t appear to have made much progress, but we continue to
review every bit of information that comes in to determine whether they’ve advanced their efforts in any way
whatsoever,” an anonymous intelligence official told CNN in 2010. “Developing a nuclear device involves a highly sophisticated technical
process, and al-Qaeda doesn’t seem to have mastered it based on what we know now.”
Obama apparently does not consider Russia a threat, although it currently has around
45,000 nuclear weapons and a sophisticated ballistic missile system.
Russia, according to Obama, is a “regional power that is threatening some of its
immediate neighbors, not out of strength, but out of weakness.”
Obama made the remark while speaking with Dutch Prime
Minister Mark Rutte after a nuclear security summit in The Hague. Russia attended the summit and endorsed the meeting’s final statement on enhancing nuclear security.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Dmitry Rogozin threatened to use nuclear weapons if Moscow was attacked. He made the
remark following discussions about missile defense systems installed in Eastern Europe by the United States.
“One can experiment as long as one wishes by deploying non-nuclear warheads on
strategic missile carriers,” Rogozin said. “But one should keep in mind that if there is an attack against us, we
will certainly resort to using nuclear weapons in certain situations to defend our territory and state
This article was posted: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 1:25 pm