Reinvent Democracy by Creating Three Dimensional 3D Democracy

Archive for September 17, 2011

Neoliberal Corporations & Sunnite Islamism Attacking Nationalism

Imperial “democratic” NATO regimes and Arab undemocratic absolute monarchies hypocritically portray nationalism as xenophobic, leftish, racist and many other fabricated accusations. They do so while they are really sick at their homes. I oppose any mega state; I would rather say “Small Is Beautiful” and fair unity of the willing is helpful.

Tiny corrupt and criminal leaders in Africa are almost all the make Western rotten banking, oil, and minerals corporations and their international secret societies and syndicates. The list is just too long to write here.

The presence of foreigners in any country and in any continent is very acceptable, most welcome and naturally helpful. Any individual regardless of any of his/her attributes or origin might become a citizen once he/she integrates his/her heart; mind and interest with any indigenous/native group. This applies only to individuals and not to groups who try to create foreign ghettos. If an individual is unwilling to integrate sincerely it is very ok; but he/she will remain a refugee; a contract worker; or a residing alien indefinitely. This is the very problem of the USA; Canada; Australia; North Africa; and all other old colonies.

Citizenship and nationality are not inherited at all but personally acquired. They are legal contracts with duties and rights. Even if a person is from pure native origin, which is impossible, he/she must maintain the qualifying heart; mind and interests. It is very ease to know who are the indigenous peoples in any country; but is very hard to admit that they are the only legitimate custodians, and not the owners, of the land.

Islamism and Liberalism are adopted by corrupt naturalized aliens who are seeking to control power and, more importantly, wealth. Now they are working together to defeat nationalism and destroy national security.

Haaretz stated on August 24, 2011 the following headline:
“Clinton: U.S. engagement of Muslim Brotherhood not new policy”
[United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denied allegations that the United States is increasing contact with the Muslim Brotherhood in a press conference in Hungary Thursday to, saying that U.S. policy has not changed toward the Islamist group.

Clinton said in a press conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Budapest that the Obama Administration “is continuing the approach of limited contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood that has existed on and off for about five or six years”.

The U.S. secretary of state added that “we believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency.”

Clinton therefore clarified that the Obama administration welcomes dialogue, but only “with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us”.

Clinton stressed that all U.S. contact with the group is to be based upon democratic principles, “and especially a commitment to nonviolence, respect for minority rights, and the full inclusion of women in any democracy”.

The U.S. secretary of state made clear that this is not a new policy, saying that “the importance here is that this is not a new policy, but it is one that we are reengaging in because of the upcoming elections.”

However, she emphasized that “there will be certain expectations set and certain messages delivered, and we hope that the move toward democracy that is taking place in Egypt will actually result in the kind of inclusive, participatory political system that we would like to see”.]

Joint mega theft and organized criminal businesses are the common goals of those imperial “democratic” NATO regimes and Arab undemocratic absolute monarchies.

Nationalism – How It Works & Why the Corporate Elite Want to Kill It?

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/nationalism-%E2%80%93-how-it-works-and-why-corporate-elite-want-kill-it

How the small East European state of Belarus has been saved from the greed of the ‘oligarchs’ and why the President of Belarus is as hated by the liberal elite and mass media as we are
A heavyweight read, recommended for those with the time and inclination to consider and develop a deeper understanding of nationalism and the sinister forces ranged against nationalists all over what is commonly known as ‘the West’ but which could perhaps more accurately be described as ‘the North’.

Nick Griffin is one of the few MEPs who have repeatedly condemned moves by the EU to isolate Lukashenko’s government as “hypocritical interference in the affairs of a sovereign state”.
“Here we proceed from the fact that the mentality, traditions and way of life of the people cannot be changed overnight. Must they be changed at all? It cannot be possible to throw unprepared people into the market abyss” – Alexander Lukashenko, 2002
“We have once again felt ourselves a part of the sacred whole, which name is the people of Belarus. We have made sure: A healthy nation is being formed in our country. Healthy not only physically, but also spiritually” – Alexander Lukashenko, 2009

By Matt Johnson – Alexander Lukashenko, the President of Belarus, is probably the most maligned politician in the world today. The reasons for this are not difficult to discover. Contrary to the prattle about his alleged “tyranny,” Lukashenko is under attack due to his success. Truth be told, of course, Belarus has more important opposition parties than the U.S., and also has a press that is part state-owned, but with many legal opposition newspapers in existence, partly funded by the United States and the EU. Nevertheless, his success is not based on this.
Lukashenko is victimized because he has proven the economic success of the social nationalist model, or what he calls the “social market” model as opposed to libertarian capitalism. There is no doubt this model has strong national associations, is generally pro-Russian and looks to the East, rather than the terminally ill West, for its economic future. Belarus was one of the most essential components of the old Soviet Union. She is very well educated, specializing in electronics and fuel transport and refining. This makes her highly strategic and a threat to the failing West.

Belarus is terra incognita to most Americans, even most Americans who fancy themselves “experts” in international affairs. Therefore, it strains the imagination as to why the Western elite, including former presidential candidate John McCain, have made attacking Belarus a major aspect of their political life. (Here’s The Weekly Standard gushing over an Ayn Rand-style economist they want to be president of Belarus; here Michele Brand, writing in Counterpunch, exposes the Western onslaught on Belarus.) The country is the size of Kansas with little diaspora in America. It seems that the only rational reason for the constant attacks on this tiny country is that it serves as a means of attacking Russia—a neo-con bogeyman if ever there was one. Russian education, gas and oil technology, scientific establishments and natural resources can be the only rational reason for this constant drumbeat of rhetorical attacks. The fact that Russia and Belarus have seen substantial economic growth and increases in financial capitalization while the West seems forever mired in debt and social decay is something that embarrasses American “free market conservatives.”

Recently, McCain seemed to prove the economic subtext of his often ranting condemnations of Belarus in a recent trip to the Baltics: “We appreciate the step forward the EU took in adopting the visa ban, but, we think, it should go further to economic sanctions on energy companies within Belarus that fuel money for that regime to oppress its own people.” In fact, when any lengthy discussion of Belarus comes up in McCain’s political life, energy resources are usually lurking in the background. McCain has received tens of millions from oil firms in America, Israel, the Netherlands and Britain, serving as at least the financial reason for this strange obsession.

Elected in 1994, Lukashenko has popularity ratings that Western politicians would—and do—envy. Since 1994, Belarus’ spectacular economic growth, diversification, trade surplus and low unemployment have maintained the president’s popularity rating at very high levels, generally hovering around the 60th and 70th percentile. Recently, the London-based TNS Global Research Organization polled 10,000 Belorussians as to their President. This shows Lukashenko with a solid popularity rating of nearly 75 percent as of the Fall of 2010. Therefore, the accusations of his rigging elections are nonsense. Even more, his opposition is highly divided, ineffectual and deeply doubtful as to their purpose.

What is the basis of his popularity? It’s his sense that Belarus needs an economic policy that serves its national interests. As the Russian and Ukrainian economies were devastated and taken out of the country by the oligarchs in the early 1990s with State Department, IMF and Harvard University backing, Belarus put its privatization program on hold. The IMF was asked to leave the country, and, from that point on, Lukashenko was called “the last dictator in Europe.” It is no accident that the bulk of his U.S. opposition comes from Harvard University, especially from the law school, including Yarik Kryovi, who at one point worked for the Soros-owned “Radio Liberty” and served as a lawyer for the World Bank. His CV lists his work for “private clients” he will not disclose. The power elite want Lukashenko’s head as he continues to become popular among the hoi-polloi of the country.

Lukashenko’s record is stellar. According to World Bank statistics updated in 2010, Belarus avoided the recession/depression that has the West in its grip. Belarusian banks, mostly owned by the state, outperformed all European banks in 2009. State-owned banks increased their capitalization by almost 20 percent as the Western taxpayer was forced to bail out the same banks that have condemned the Minsk government.
From 2001–2008, the Belorussian economic growth average was almost 9 percent, which is roughly equal to that of China. As Western economies were contracting in 2010, the Belarusian economy grew about 6 percent, with a 10 percent increase in agricultural production and a 27 percent increase in exports. Real income, that is, inflation and cost of living adjusted income grew by about 7 percent in 2010.

According to the IMF, Belarusian unemployment was 0 percent in 1991, but rose to 4 percent in 1996 as Russia and Ukraine were liquidated from the inside. Under Lukashenko’s firm leadership in stopping privatization and arresting the bandits who tried to liquidate the economy, the IMF reports that unemployment went down to 1 percent in 2008. The United Nations says the same.
Without exaggeration, these figures, all from hostile sources, show that Lukashenko’s leadership was and is a success. This is the main source of his popularity and the reason he is elected and re-elected on a regular basis. But the important question is what serves as the basis for Lukashenko’s leadership? The answer is the “social nationalist and social market” idea. The official Belarusian doctrine on Development says this: “Belarus has chosen to follow the path of evolutionary development and rejected the prescriptions of the International Monetary Fund like shock therapy and landslide privatization. Over many years of creative work, the Belorussian model of socio-economic development has been put in place – the model which combines the advantages of market economy and efficient social protection. Our development concept has been elaborated in keeping with the historical continuity and people’s traditions. The Belorussian model aims to improve the existing economic basis rather than to make a revolutionary break of the former system. The Belorussian economic model contains the elements of continuity in the functioning of state institutions everywhere it has proved effective.”

In other words, Lukashenko’s view here is that of a “third way” between socialism and capitalism. It takes what is good from the free market but does not dispense with a strong state that makes certain economic growth is not just for the well-connected few. What Marxism and capitalism have in common is their results: total inequality in power, wealth and access. Whether it be the party or the oligarchical class, these modern, materialist systems serve as little more than massive transfers of wealth from the working man to the oligarch. Whether these oligarchs claim to be working “for the people,” “the party,” or “American freedom” makes no difference. The result is precisely the same.

In a meeting with his Cabinet and other significant government and military figures in March of 2002, Lukashenko summarized his political views. It is worth quoting at length: “ What are the distinctive features of our model?
First. Strong and efficient state authority. To safeguard the citizens’ safety, to ensure social justice and public order, not to allow expansion of crime and corruption is indeed the role of the state. Only the strong authority managed to drag the Belorussian economy out of the economic abyss.
Our nearest neighbors have in the long run realized that, if there is no strong hierarchy of authority, liberalization of the economy in the transition period brings about social instability and legal unheard-of disorder. It results in public unruliness!
As for us, we had a clear idea at the very beginning that premature expansion of market relations would not allow us to radically resolve any of the existing pressing problems. On the contrary, new problems would emerge, generated by the specificity of the market relations. Public accord would break, resulting in conflicts and instability. And it is political stability that is one of the main conditions for gradual integration into the world economy. I would refer to it as one of the distinctive features or consequences (whatever you call it) of the model of development of the Belorussian economy.
Here we proceed from the fact that mentality, traditions and way of life of the people cannot be changed overnight. Must they be changed at all? It cannot be possible to throw unprepared people into the market abyss. One needs decades to work out a new world outlook.

The second distinctive feature of our model is in the fact that the private sector can and has to be developing alongside the public sector. But not to the detriment of national interests. I emphasize: if you are a private owner, it does not imply you should do whatever you like. National interests, the state, must be the main priority and the main goal for the work of every citizen, enterprise or entrepreneur whose production is based on private ownership.”
This is not campaign rhetoric, but serves as the basis of government policy since the mid-1990s. The state must be strong, honest, and competently led, because the alternative is oligarchical control and the substitution of private for public law. The state is taking a protective stance towards its people—a novel idea in an age when Western elites have systematically undermined the interests of their own people, particularly with regard to immigration. As the Soviet Union fell to pieces, only the state remained to safeguard some minimal concept of the public good. Russian under Yeltsin and IMF control was incapable of this, proving the incompetence and corruption of such multinational agencies. Only in Belarus was this economic rape stopped.
The ignorance of the “free marketeers” is shown in their views on Russia. They assumed around 1991 that if the government just “got out of way” of the “invisible hand,” all would be well. What they did not count on was the radical inequalities of access to power. Those with good government jobs, black market fortunes or other forms of “gray” access to power were precisely those who were in the best position to take power. Under the weak leadership of Yeltsin and the IMF, the Russian economy almost disappeared. The work of decades of the Russian people was liquidated and sent to America, Cyprus, Israel and Latin America in the name of “freedom” and “democracy.”

The “free market” is a slogan—a mode of legitimizing the already extant distribution of power. There was never a time of the pure “free market,” but rather, it existed only because of the abilities of those capable of taking over during the decay of Ancien Régime-Europe in the Enlightenment. The old social protections of the medieval peasant and townsmen were thrown by the wayside in this oligarchic rush for progress, money and power. The same thing happened in Russia and Ukraine in the early 1990s. Weak leadership meant the liquidation of the state, economy and legal system. In his 2009 New Year’s Address, Lukashenko added more detail to his basic approach: “ We were urgently recommended to place the economy under the command of the rules of the world exchange market. But we decided not to rely on the volatile exchange trends.

We are not the ones who have provoked today’s crisis which is sending shockwaves all around the world. On the contrary, the crisis has come as a result of something that we have been always been determined to struggle against.
The central words are this: “I emphasize: if you are a private owner, it does not imply you should do whatever you like.” It is the nation that comes first. The nation here is the bilingual tradition of Belarus between Russian and Belarusian. It is Slavic Orthodox and agrarian. It is based on a fundamentally egalitarian distribution of land and resources in the name of ethnic and national solidarity. Economic progress means nothing if it benefits only the few. Nationalism implies solidarity, especially in a small and vulnerable country under constant attack.”
In his famous essay “On the Historical Choice of Belarus,” the more “ethnic” aspects of his political theory are laid out. In general, the purpose of the state, in this realm, is to provide a safe home for the specific traditions of the peoples living within it to flourish. This includes the agrarian culture, urban life, the specific ethnic traditions of Poles, Belarusians and Russians living within Belarus. The point is not so much that the state is representative of a specific national tradition, but rather that preserving the national traditions of the peoples living within her borders becomes paramount. There are no real ethnically pure states, and therefore, the best the state can do is protect the ethical traditions and regional variations that do exist.
In his April 2002 State of the Union Address, Lukashenko stated: “Rights and freedoms must be in harmony with responsibilities for violations of the state-established regulations. Development of the Belorussian economy implies not only the encouragement of small and medium-sized enterprise (although, as I said, these must and will be encouraged). Historically, the Belorussian industry means large-scale enterprises. There is only one promising way: updating and re-equipping existing major industries so as to produce competitive new generations of products. Just look, the entire world merges into transnational corporations. Why then should we crush, divide and destroy our gigantic highly cooperated enterprises? They must be relied upon. In pursuing its policy, the state will, first of all, be relying upon these giants, which have been maintaining us and feeding us. Immense investments are needed for this, which cannot be attracted without changing the form of ownership. (Translation mine, available only in Russian)”
His doctrine of “social right” is that there are no abstract rights. They are contextualized into a way of life—that of the national collective. You have no right, for example, to do something that harms the economic life of the country. Rights in the West are mindless slogan words without meaning. They exist to end an argument without making your case: “I have a right to do this,” the American businessman might say as he outsources his jobs to China. Justifying such an alleged “right” is another matter, but the very act of claiming a “right” to do something shuts down all argument. Lukashenko asks, not what are your “rights,” but what is the “good” thing to do. No one has a “right” to undermine the public good, especially for private profit. The entire point of law is to protect labor from the arrogance and currency-fetishism of the ruling class. Only strong leadership able to go over the heads of the powerful can fashion such laws. Lukashenko and Belarus have reaped the benefits of such a policy.
In confronting the onslaught of the West in his 2006 State of the Union Address, Lukashenko spared no feelings: “The country’s development policy line worked out by us has proved right. High rates of economic growth, which our economy has been already demonstrating for more than 10 years, provide good evidence thereof. Just compare: our annual GDP growth over the past five–year planning period was 7.5 percent as against 3.5 percent of the world average.

Western theoreticians fail to explain the reasons of such a success. They do not fit in with their “democratic” scheme.
The reasons, however, are simple. We have not embezzled the people’s wealth; we have not got into burdensome debts. Relying on life itself, we have worked out our own model of development based on well–balanced and thought–out reforms. Without any sweeping privatization and shock therapy — preserving everything that was best in our economy and in our traditions. At the same time we have been learning to work under new, market conditions, taking advantage of the experience elsewhere in the world and taking into account the modern trends of the world economy. Strong state power, strong social policy and reliance on the people— that is what explains the secret behind our success. (Translation mine, available only in Russian)”

Liberal democracy in the West has meant, in real terms, the constant transfer of the labor of the American worker to the pockets of the banks and the multinational firms. When the banks failed, they demanded trillions from these same taxpayers to continue to lend. Much of this money just went overseas and into the pockets of the major players like Goldman-Sachs. In the 2008 elections, Goldman spent a huge amount of money on both candidates. Whoever won in 2008 saw Goldman as their primary beneficiary. This is liberal democracy, and this is a large part of the American failure.
In sending the Western oligarchs packing, Lukashenko did two things: first, he assured his own popularity and political success while, second, earning the hatred of the Western establishment. It should be noted that at the 2010 Bildeberg meeting, not a single Russian or Belarusian was invited. The same was true in 2011. (Jim Tucker, personal communication)

In his “Historical Choice” essay, Lukashenko condemns the form of Free Trade practiced by the EU. For him, the playing field is already slanted to the elites in the powerful states of the union. In the EU—he is writing in 2003—states like Greece or Portugal could not compete with the advanced states of Germany or England. The benefits that Greece takes from the EU exist solely in the interests of the ruling classes, while the people suffer. German or French goods flood the Greek market, putting Greek artisans out of business.

When Lukashenko uses the word “independence,” it is meant not just as a campaign slogan, but as a moral reality. Independence means economic independence—the global market will be entered on our terms, not the banks’. Independence means that, while Belarus will always be an Orthodox and Slavic that does not mean issues of justice will be ignored in Minsk’s choice of allies. There is to be no dependence on anyone. Dependence on other states for energy, markets or industrial components automatically means that the people themselves have lost all power over their economic lives, and their well-being in that sense is solely in the hands of others, foreigners. For Belarus, the worker will be involved in all levels of economic decision making and will have some control over the economic life he enjoys.

When commemorating the 60th anniversary of the massacre of Katyn in March of 2003, Lukashenko said this: “We still have to analyze and learn lessons from current events. But already today it is clear: the system of the world order has been destroyed due to the war in Iraq, the role of the UN Security Council has been brought to zero, international law has been trampled underfoot, the principle of no external imposition to any people of the system of governance and power has been violated. The Belorussian people condemn the aggression by the United States of America. So do most of the peoples and states of the world, including even the closest allies of the USA.” Lukashenko has consistently promoted the United Nations as a means of controlling American imperial power. Furthermore, he appreciates that the UN would include the views of poorer states throughout the world in foreign policy decisions. Lukashenko has rejected any form of global government, but still sees a constructive role for some international organizations in protecting the weak against the strong. He stresses the “principle of no external imposition” of state forms or ideology on a people. Lukashenko condemns America’s ideological crusade for oil, Israel and the oligarchic doctrine of “liberal democracy.”

Lukashenko sees ideological crusades not as moral interventions or manifestations of dis-interested humanitarianism, but cloaks for raw oligarchical power. In Lukashenko’s ethical theory, oligarchy is the worst form of government. Historically, from Novgorod to Venice to New York, oligarchies have used liberalism, “republicanism,” and media manipulation as a cloak for their own power. In a similar vein, Lukashenko states in his 2006 address to the heads of Belarus’ diplomatic corps: “If we are talking about respect for states, their independence and sovereignty, their rights to choose their futures, about the right of the people to elect its leaders, about respect of the right to life and free labor, worthy wages and salaries, the right to equality of all before the law, the right to freedom of opinion and expression in conformity to the law, without detriment to the rights of other people — these are our values. The U.S. and the EU do not have a monopoly on these rights. Our nation had paid a far greater price for these values than the USA and the EU.”

As always, Lukashenko shows the distinction between a politician and a statesman. It is concepts like these that have helped this man become one of the most popular politicians in the Slavic world. Again, the Belarussian President holds abstract “rights” as little more than cloaks for raw oligarchic power. The U.S. invades the rights and sovereignty of other states not to protect people from “human rights abuses,” but rather, to serve the interests of its overgrown and excessively wealthy private sector.
While the Western press continually repeats the inaccurate statement that Belarussian media is “state-owned,” they themselves hew to a single line on most important topics, especially on foreign policy. Needless to say, the oligarchic control over Western media is too well known to deserve further comment.
The very fact that the President of Belarus holds that Western hostility is due to “external influences” strongly suggests that he is referring to financial and ethnic sources of power. This is important, since it goes to the heart of his social ideas. The state, at its best, is a source of moral authority and the public good. When the state is captured by alien elements, it then becomes merely a coercive agency of oligarchy. Therefore, in a rather roundabout way, Lukashenko is making the accusation that Western states are not public, but rather private, entities. If they were to become public entities once more, they would then drop their hostility to the Belarussian political system.

Conclusion
In grasping the political ideas of Lukashenko outside of its media distortion, many themes come up repeatedly:
1. A nationalism that stresses the economic security of his small country. Ethnicity and religion are important because they serve as a basis of solidarity for the basic economic concerns of the people.
2. The continual attack on “abstractions,” such as “human rights” or “economic freedom.” Since abstractions can mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean, they are used as covers for the exercise of colonialism and economic imperialism.
3. In cases of emergency, such as the meltdown of the Russian and Ukrainian economies in the early 1990s, the state has the responsibility to take the lead in protecting the population from oligarchy and foreign attack. This is especially the case in smaller and hence more vulnerable states.
4. No state can function when it is penetrated by oligarchy and the “free market” ideology. These care only about private goods, while the state serves the public good only. The state serves the public good when it uses its authority against concentrated economic power and self-interested foreign interference.
5. The state understands its role only in light of the historical experience and ethnic tradition(s) of its people.
6. Economics exists for the whole people. If it does not serve the public good, then it has no moral legitimacy, regardless of all “rights” talk to the contrary.
7. The state has a legitimate economic role in both media and economics. It has no right to rule these in a totalitarian fashion, but it, especially in times of stress, has a right to have its voice heard. A strong state sector is not the same as “tyranny.”
8. There is no real moral distinction between state control and oligarchic control.
9. The media is one of the world’s most powerful weapons. Hence, it should be regulated like any other weapon. Media elites are often oligarchical and centralized, and use their empires for the sake of controlling others. A free media, therefore, is a mixed one, with different points of view being permitted. This is far more the case in Russia and Belarus than it is in the US.
10. No government has the right to manipulate the internal affairs of another. This is especially the case when such interference is blatantly self-interested and serves the interest only of an economic oligarchy.
11. “The people” is another of these abstractions that mean nothing. To use the phrase “the people,” the speaker must be referring to a specific people, a specific language and historical tradition, as well as a specific social context.
12. International justice, if it means anything, refers to a state of affairs where the world’s ethnic groups, races and religions are given the independence to develop according to their own historical tradition, not the ideological slogans of the current hegemon.
13. International justice also implies objective and politically neutral international bodies that can mediate disputes outside of an ideological agenda. This is far from “world government,” but refers only to certain arrangements that can solve international problems in a neutral manner before they lead to mass warfare. This is especially sensitive in smaller states that have lost huge percentages of their population in wars. The fact that Belarus lost almost 30 percent of its population in the Second World War makes the average Belarussian a bit testy about the possibility of another shooting war on its soil.

Matt Johnson is a professional writer and former university professor specializing in Russian and Ukrainian history and theology. His doctoral dissertation at the University of Nebraska was on the nature of scientific methods as a conduit for political revolution. He has taught both at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Mount St. Mary’s University. He is the author of five books; the most recent is Russian Populist: The Political Theory of Vladimir Putin, published by the Barnes Review Press. He hosts a radio program, The Orthodox Nationalist, on the Reason Radio Network.

From: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/08/social-nationalism-the-political-thought-of-alexander-lukashenko-of-belarus/

Illuminati, Nazis & the Illegal State of Israel

November 18, 2010 — Dean Henderson

If we wish to end the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, we need to know who created Israel and why. In 1917 British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour penned a letter to Zionist Second Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild in which he expressed support for a Jewish homeland on Palestinian-controlled lands in the Middle East. This Balfour Declaration justified the brutal seizure of Palestinian lands for the post-WWII establishment of Israel.

Israel would serve, not as some high-minded “Jewish homeland”, but as lynchpin in Rothschild/Eight Families control over the world’s oil supply. Baron Edmond de Rothschild built the first oil pipeline from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean to bring BP Iranian oil to Israel. He founded Israeli General Bank and Paz Oil and is considered the father of modern Israel.

The Rothschilds are the planet’s wealthiest clan, worth an estimated $100 trillion. They control Royal Dutch/Shell, BP, Anglo-American, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Bank of America and scores of other global corporations and banks. They are the largest shareholders in the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve and most every private central bank in the world. They needed a footprint in the Middle East to protect their new oil concessions, which they procured through Four Horsemen fronts like the Iranian Consortium, Iraqi Petroleum Company and Saudi ARAMCO.

Rothschild’s Shell and BP formed these cartels with the Rockefeller half of the Four Horsemen- Exxon Mobil and Chevron Texaco. This new alliance required a “special relationship” between Great Britain and the US, which still exists today. Rothschild and other wealthy European shareholders could now utilize the United States military as a Hessianized mercenary force, deployed to protect their oil interests and paid for by US taxpayers. Israel would serve the same purpose in closer proximity to the oilfields. The Israeli Mossad is less a national intelligence agency than it is a Rothschild/Rockefeller family security force.

The Rothschilds exert political control through the secretive Business Roundtable, which they created in 1909 with the help of Lord Alfred Milner and Cecil Rhodes- whose Rhodes Scholarship is granted by Cambridge University, out of which oil industry propagandist Cambridge Energy Research Associates operates. Rhodes founded De Beers and Standard Chartered Bank.

The Roundtable takes its name from the legendary knight King Arthur, whose tale of the Holy Grail is synonymous with the Illuminati notion that the Eight Families possess Sangreal or holy blood- a justification for their lording over the people and resources of the planet.

According to former British Intelligence officer John Coleman, who wrote Committee of 300, “Round Tablers armed with immense wealth from gold, diamond and drug monopolies fanned out throughout the world to take control of fiscal and monetary policies and political leadership in all countries where they operated.”

Rhodes and Oppenheimer deployed to South Africa to launch the Anglo-American conglomerate. Kuhn and Loeb were off to re-colonize America with Morgan and Rockefeller. Rudyard Kipling was sent to India. Schiff and Warburg manhandled Russia. Rothschild, Lazard and Israel Moses Seif pushed into the Middle East. At Princeton, the Round Table founded the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) as partner to its All Souls College at Oxford. IAS was funded by the Rockefeller’s General Education Board. IAS members Robert Oppenheimer, Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein created the atomic bomb.

In 1919 Rothschild’s Business Roundtable spawned the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London. The RIIA sponsored sister organizations around the globe, including the US Council on Foreign Relations. The RIIA is a registered charity of the Queen and, according to its annual reports, is funded largely by the Four Horsemen. Former British Foreign Secretary and Kissinger Associates co-founder Lord Carrington is president of both the RIIA and the Bilderbergers. The inner circle at RIIA is dominated by Knights of St. John Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, Knights Templar and 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Freemasons.

The Knights of St. John were founded in 1070 and answer directly to the British House of Windsor. Their leading bloodline is the Villiers dynasty, which the Hong Kong Matheson family- owners of the HSBC opium laundry- married into. The Lytton family also married into the Villiers gang.

Colonel Edward Bulwer-Lytton led the English Rosicrucian secret society, which Shakespeare opaquely referred to as Rosencranz, while the Freemasons were symbolized by Guildenstern. Lytton was spiritual father of both the RIIA and Nazi fascism. In 1871 he penned a novel titled, Vril: The Power of the Coming Race. Seventy years later the Vril Society received ample mention in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Lytton’s son became Viceroy to India in 1876 just before opium production spiked in that country. His good friend Rudyard Kipling introduced the swastika to India and later worked under Lord Beaverbrook as Propaganda Minister, alongside Sir Charles Hambro of the Hambros banking dynasty.

Children of the Roundtable elite are members of a Dionysian cult known as Children of the Sun. Initiates include Aldous Huxley, T. S. Eliot, D. H. Lawrence and H. G. Wells. Wells headed British intelligence during WWI. His books speak of a “one-world brain” and “a police of the mind”. William Butler Yeats, another Sun member, was a pal of Aleister Crowley. The two formed an Isis Cult based on a Madam Blavatsky manuscript, which called on the British aristocracy to organize itself into an Aryan priesthood. Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society and Bulwer-Lytton’s Rosicrucians joined forces to form the Thule Society, out of which the Nazis emerged.

Rothschild, Rockefeller and the rest of the Illuminati bankers backed the Nazis. Max and Paul Warburg sat on I. G. Farben’s board, as did H. A. Metz, who was director at the Warburg Bank of Manhattan- later Chase Manhattan. Bank of Manhattan director and Federal Reserve Board member C. E. Mitchell sat on the board of I. G. Farben’s US branch. In 1936 Avery Rockefeller set up a combination with the German Schroeder family, who served as Hitler’s personal bankers. Time magazine called the new Schroeder, Rockefeller & Company “the economic booster of the Rome-Berlin Axis”. Morgan Guaranty Trust and Union Banking Corporation (UBC) also funded the Nazis. UBC board member Prescott Bush is W’s grandfather.

In 1933 at the home of banker Baron Kurt von Schroeder, a deal was cut to bring Hitler to power. Attending the meeting were brothers John Foster and Allen Dulles- Rockefeller cousins and partners at law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, which represented Schroeder Bank. Schroeder, managing director T. C. Tiarks, was a director at the Rothschild-controlled Bank of England. In the spring of 1934 Bank of England Chairman Montagu Norman convened a meeting of London bankers who decided to covertly fund Hitler.

Royal Dutch/Shell Chairman Sir Henri Deterding helped in this effort. Even after the US went to war with Germany, Exxon Chairman Walter Teagle remained on the board of I. G. Chemical- the US I. G. Farben subsidiary. Exxon was integral in supplying the Nazis with tetraethyl lead, an important component of aviation fuel. Only Exxon, Du Pont and GM made the stuff. Teagle also supplied the Japanese with his product.

Exxon and I. G. Farben were such close business associates that by 1942 Thurman Arnold- head of the US Justice Department’s Anti-Trust Division- produced documents that showed, “Standard and Farben in Germany had literally carved up the world markets, with oil and chemical monopolies established all over the map.”

In 1912 railroad magnate Edward Harriman’s widow joined John D. Rockefeller in funding a eugenics research lab at Cold Spring Harbor, NY. That same year the First International Congress of Eugenics was convened in London with Winston Churchill presiding. In 1932 the conference was held in New York. Hamburg-Amerika Shipping Line, owned by George Walker and Prescott Bush, brought the German contingent to the gene-fest. One member of the German delegation was Dr. Ernst Rudin of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy in Berlin. He was unanimously elected president for his work in founding the German Society of Race Hygiene- a forerunner to Hitler’s race institutes.

As of 1998 there were still scores of lawsuits pending against Ford, Chase Manhattan, J.P. Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Allianz AG and several Swiss banks for their dealings with the Nazis.

At the heart of Hitler’s inner circle were the secret societies Germanordern (brothers of Yale’s Skull & Bones), the Thule Society, and Vril. The concepts “Great Masters”, “Adepts” and the “Great White Brotherhood”, which the Nazis used to justify their idea of Aryan superiority, were ancient ideas carried forth from the Egyptian Mystery Schools by the Teutonic Knights, the Illuminati, and Hebrew Cabalists. These same concepts can be found in today’s New Age Movement, whose New Age magazine was first published by the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge of Washington, DC. Henry Kissinger was an early supporter.

Nazi occultists believed ancient German tribes were the true keepers of the Ancient Mysteries which had their origin in Atlantis, when seven races of God-men were introduced to Earth. Thule was a Teutonic Atlantis believed by the Nazis to house these long-vanquished races, who lost their godly Annunaki powers by interbreeding with humans. At the inner core of the Thule Society were Satanists who practiced black magic.

Hitler was once described as a “child of Illuminism”.

According to Dr. Walter Langer, who did a war-time psychoanalysis of Hitler for the CIA-predecessor OSS, Hitler was also a Rothschild. Langer uncovered an Austrian police report proving Hitler’s father was an illegitimate son of a peasant cook named Maria Anna Schicklgruber, who at the time of her conception was a servant in the Vienna home of Baron Rothschild.

In May 1941 Rudolf Hess parachuted into the estate of the Duke of Hamilton, saying a supernatural force told him to negotiate with the British. Hitler was ostensibly visited by this same apparition and suddenly turned vehemently against occultism. He ordered a crackdown against Freemasons, Templars and the Theosophical Society. Suddenly the international banker crowd pulled the plug on Hitler’s finances and began to denounce him. Six months later the Hessianized US military entered WWII.

Hitler’s fate was no different than that of Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega. The Illuminati bankers’ modus operandi is to use men of low integrity to do their dirty work, before conveniently discarding and distancing themselves from them.

The horrific Holocaust that ensued assured sympathy for the already-planned state of Israel. Towards the end of WWII, the murderous Haganah and Stern Gangs were deployed by the Rothschild bankers to terrorize Palestinians and steal their land. Jews who escaped Hitler’s gas chambers were those of means who bought into Zionism. For a fee of $1,000- lots of money at that time- these right-wingers bought passage to Israel and escaped the fate of the poor Jews, Serbs, communists and gypsies. The whole bloody affair was a massive eugenics project. It had more to do with culling the herd along class lines, than it did with ethnicity or religion.

The key to this historic puzzle is to understand that the Rothschild/Rockefeller sangreal international bankers supported both the rise of the Nazis and the creation of Israel. None of this has anything to do with religion. It has everything to do with oil, arms, drugs, money and power. The Rothschilds say they are Jewish. The Rockefellers claim to be Christian. These are irrelevant smokescreens. Any demagogue- who blames injustice a religion or race of people- is sadly misinformed. Throughout history the Illuminati Satanists have sacrificed people of all race and religion to further their agenda of total planetary control.

Israel is not a “Jewish homeland”. It is an oil monopoly lynchpin. Its citizens are being put in harms way- used by the Four Horsemen and their Eight Families-owners as geopolitical pawns in an international resource grab. No peaceful solution is possible until the stolen land is returned to its rightful Palestinian owners.

Israel is an illegal entity. Viva Palestine!

http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/illuminati-nazis-the-illegal-state-of-israel/#more-955

6 Responses to “Illuminati, Nazis & the Illegal State of Israel”

Gino Bernofsky Says: November 18, 2010 at 8:04 pm
AND viva! the Ford Motor Company which outfitted the Wehrmacht with its armored tanks. AND viva! Hugo Boss who dressed, oh so beautifully, Hitlers troops. AND viva! The Rockefeller FOUNDATION which financed the prewar medical research meant to confirm Nazi theories of racial degeneration.

Lynn Pearce Says: November 19, 2010 at 8:13 pm
AND viva! IBM leased their punch card tabulation machines to Hitler to operate the concentration camps.

joann wescott Says: November 21, 2010 at 12:09 am
You are amazing!!!! Love it, Love it, Love it!!!
Glad I got to see this. Sincerely, Jo Ann

Daria Brasseler Says: November 28, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Your article is very interresting. some of the comments you make I have already read from different autors, i thought that was fiction ! But the way you explain , puts great minds like Einstein, D.H.Laurence, T.S.Eliot, D.J.Wells,in my next door garden. The Theosophical society, and the Rosicrucians Have always fascinated me , I thought they were like the Masons also; spiritual and good charitable societies. you got me really scared.

miryana maria Says: November 28, 2010 at 9:25 pm
You are an AWAKE man. Your articles are full of truth.
JeusChrist is ALIVE… He is coming…
Again thank you and huge hug…!

alohagirl Says: March 3, 2011 at 10:18 am
Good article! Thanks.

About the author:
Dean Henderson was born in Faulkton, South Dakota. He earned an M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Montana, where he edited The Missoula Paper and was a columnist for the Montana Kaimin. His articles have appeared in Multinational Monitor, In These Times, Paranoia and several other magazines.

A life long political activist and traveler to fifty countries, Henderson co-founded of the University of Montana Green Party and the Ozark Heritage Region Peace and Justice Network. He is former Vice-President of the Central Ozarks Farmer’s Union and former President of the Howell County Democrats.

In 2004 he won the Democratic nomination for Congress in Missouri’s 8th District.

Dean’s Books Available in print and e-book formats:

Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf…
https://www.createspace.com/3476183
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/DeanHenderson

The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries
www.createspace.com/3477016
www.smashwords.com/profile/view/DeanHenderson

Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries.

His Left Hook blog is at http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/category/left-hook-columns/
Dean Henderson is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Dean Henderson: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Dean&authorName=Henderson

The Energy Vampires

August 19, 2010 — Dean Henderson

The global elite know that energy is paramount to life. Control over energy means control over people. Four giant companies are now making a play to own not just all the oil, but virtually all energy sources on the planet. I call them the Four Horsemen- Royal Dutch/Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco & BP Amoco.

Royal Dutch/Shell and Exxon Mobil are the heaviest and most vertically integrated of the Four Horsemen. These behemoths have led the charge towards horizontal integration within the energy industry, investing heavily in natural gas, coal and uranium resources.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Balkans and Central Asia were opened to Big Oil. Exxon Mobil formed a joint venture with the Hungarian state oil company Afor before the Wall had even hit the ground. BP Amoco took a majority stake in Russia’s Lukoil.

According to Kurt Wulff of oil investment firm McDep Associates, the Four Horsemen, romping in their new Far East pastures, saw asset increases from 1988-94 as follows: Exxon Mobil-54%, Chevron Texaco-74%, Royal Dutch/Shell-52% and BP Amoco-54%. The Rockefeller/Rothschild Oil Cartel had more than doubled its collective assets in six short years.

Russia and Central Asia contain over half of the world’s natural gas reserves. Royal Dutch/Shell has led the way in tapping these reserves, forming a joint venture with Uganskneftegasin at a huge Siberia gas field in which Shell owns a 24.5% stake. Shell has been the world’s #1 producer of natural gas since 1985, often via a joint venture with Exxon Mobil.

In the US retail natural gas sector Chevron Texaco owns Dynegy, while Exxon Mobil owns Duke Energy. Both were key players, along with Enron, in the 2000 natural gas spikes that battered the economy of California and led to the bankruptcy of that state’s main utility provider, Pacific Gas & Electric. Exxon Mobil has extensive interests in power generation facilities around the world including full ownership of Hong Kong-based China Light & Power.

During the 1970s Big Oil invested $2.4 billion in uranium exploration. They now control over 1/2 the world’s uranium reserves, key to fueling nuclear power plants. Chevron Texaco and Shell even developed a joint venture to build nuclear reactors.

Exxon Mobil is the leading coal producer in the US and has the second largest coal reserves after Burlington Resources, the former BN railroad subsidiary which in 2005 was bought by the DuPont family-controlled Conoco Phillips. Royal Dutch/Shell owns coal mines in Wyoming through its ENCOAL subsidiary and in West Virginia through Evergreen Mining). Chevron Texaco owns Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining.

Seven of the top fifteen coal producers in the US are oil companies, while 80% of US oil reserves are controlled by the nine biggest companies. Both Royal Dutch/Shell and Exxon Mobil are hastily buying up more coal reserves.

Concentration of power across the energy spectrum is not limited to the US. In Columbia, Exxon Mobil owns huge coal mines, BP Amoco owns vast oilfields and Big Oil controls all of the country’s vast non-renewable resources. In 1990 Exxon Mobil imported 16% of its US-bound crude from Columbia.

The Four Horsemen have invested heavily in other mining ventures as well. Shell holds long term contracts with several governments to supply tin through its Billiton subsidiary, which has mines in places like Brazil and Indonesia, where it is that country’s largest gold producer. Billiton merged with Australia’s Broken Hill Properties to become the world’s biggest mining conglomerate- BHP Billiton.

Shell also enjoys cozy relations with the world’s 2nd largest mining firm- Rio Tinto- through historically interlocked directorates. Holland’s Queen Juliana and Lord Victor Rothschild are the two largest shareholders of Royal Dutch/Shell.

Shell recently began investing heavily in the aluminum industry. Shell Canada is Canada’s top sulphur producer. Shell controls timber interests in Chile, New Zealand, Congo and Uruguay and a vast flower industry with farms in Chile, Mauritius, Tunisia and Zimbabwe.

Yesterday, Shell’s BHP Billiton tentacle announced a $38.6 billion hostile takeover attempt of Canada’s Potash Corp. BHP Billiton already owns Anglo Potash and Athabasca Potash. Ownership of Potash Corp. would give them control over 30% of the global potash market. Potash is a necessary component in growing any agricultural crop.

BP Amoco, through its ARCO subsidiary, has become one of the world’s top six producers of bauxite, from which aluminum is derived. It has mines in Jamaica and other Caribbean nations.

Chevron Texaco controls over 20% of the huge AMAX mining group, the leading producer of tungsten in the US with extensive holdings in South Africa and Australia.

Exxon Mobil owns Superior Oil and Falconbridge Mining, Canada’s largest producers of platinum and nickel, respectively. Exxon also owns Hecla Mining, one of the world’s top copper and silver producers, and Carter Mining, one of the top five phosphate producers in the world, with mines in Morocco and Florida. Phosphates are needed to process uranium, while phosphoric acid is key to petrochemical production, which the Four Horsemen also control.

Another vehicle for Four Horsemen hegemony in the energy sector is the joint venture. For decades before Chevron merged with Texaco in 2001, the companies had marketed petroleum products in 58 countries under the Caltex brand. They also operated Amoseas and Topco as joint ventures before merging.

Caltex owns refineries in South Africa, Bahrain and Japan. In the Philippines, Caltex and Shell control 58% of the oil sector. When Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos introduced martial law in 1972, Caltex Vice President Frank Zingaro commented, “Martial law has significantly improved the business climate.”

Exxon and Mobil also shared many joint ventures around the world prior to their 1999 merger, including PT Stanvav Indonesia. Royal Dutch/Shell and Exxon Mobil established a North Sea joint venture called Shell Expro in 1964, while in 1972 Shell tied up with Mitsubishi in Brunei to supply oil to Japan.

Shell owns 34% of Petroleum Development Oman in partnership with Exxon Mobil. Saudi ARAMCO, the Iranian Consortium, Iraqi Petroleum Company, Kuwait Oil Company and the ADCO in the United Arab Emirates all represent(ed) Four Horsemen collusion.

In Iran & Iraq these cartels were nationalized. That’s why the Rockefeller/Rothschild Oil Cartel had us invade Iraq and has us now threatening Iran. Our boys die, our debt soars and who gets the first oil contract in Iraq- Royal Dutch/Shell. The 2nd goes to BP and the 3rd to Exxon Mobil. You get the picture.

Energy is paramount to life. That’s why Congress should nationalize the Four Horsemen and form a US Energy Company focused on sustainable alternatives. It’s time to ditch the energy vampires and take control over our own lives.

http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/the-energy-vampires/#more-731

One Response to “The Energy Vampires”

Jimmy Jach Says: September 7, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Interesting post reminds me of another gem. – I believe there is something out there watching us. Unfortunately, it’s the government. – Woody Allen Born 1935

About the author:
Dean Henderson was born in Faulkton, South Dakota. He earned an M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Montana, where he edited The Missoula Paper and was a columnist for the Montana Kaimin. His articles have appeared in Multinational Monitor, In These Times, Paranoia and several other magazines.

A life long political activist and traveler to fifty countries, Henderson co-founded of the University of Montana Green Party and the Ozark Heritage Region Peace and Justice Network. He is former Vice-President of the Central Ozarks Farmer’s Union and former President of the Howell County Democrats.

In 2004 he won the Democratic nomination for Congress in Missouri’s 8th District.

Dean’s Books Available in print and e-book formats:

Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf…
https://www.createspace.com/3476183
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/DeanHenderson

The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries
www.createspace.com/3477016
www.smashwords.com/profile/view/DeanHenderson

Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries.

His Left Hook blog is at http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/category/left-hook-columns/
Dean Henderson is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Dean Henderson: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Dean&authorName=Henderson

Call Off The Pentagon Dogs

July 25, 2010 — Dean Henderson

I’ve traveled to 50 countries in the past 20 years, many of them on numerous occasions. Never has an American President been so loved abroad as Barrack Obama.

A big part of this sentiment is tied to the good riddance of Bush the Lesser, who was considered a laughingstock, a Nazi or both in most quarters. What really rubbed people wrong was that we re-elected him. How stupid could we be? Fair question.

All of this international goodwill is about to go up in smoke if the President doesn’t call off the US military dogs. An aircraft carrier looms off the Korean peninsula. Great idea! Let’s provoke the crazy North Koreans? And for what? US bases should be pulled from South Korea and Japan. Folks can take care of themselves.

In the Straits of Hormuz, the US Navy is threatening Iran. Brilliant! And for what? British Petulance (BP)? The queen of Holland? Rothschilds Inc? No problem, we’ll just shut down a few more schools to cover that.

It’s a pretty basic concept. People don’t like it when a foreign military occupies their country. Neither would you. This is why both Iraqi and Afghani governments will indeed fail as soon as the US military withdraws. And they should fail. Both Malaki and Karzai are puppets of the global oligarchy. Karzai used to work for Unocal, now part of Chevron. Malaki is a millionaire slumlord of equally impressive moral suasion.

You will never win a war that puts you on the wrong side of history. It’s not about military tactics. It’s about political strategy. Political truism: If you prop up thugs the people will hate you. And they do.

In his diplomacy with the Big Powers, Obama has done a nice job re-establishing relations with the Russians, who should be natural US allies despite all manner of historical subterfuge. He has also been wise to stand up to the Chinese, something no American president since Truman has done.

But in his dealings with the Third World Obama has been less stellar. His own CIA helped orchestrate the 2009 Honduran coup, where democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya was ousted by billionaire United Fruit-affiliated right-wing despots. Wrong side of history.

Obama has rubbed shoulders with a Columbian regime whose human rights record is among the worst on the planet. Meanwhile he has treated Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez dismally. Yesterday Chavez cut ties with Columbia after they accused him of harboring FARC and ELN rebels. Wrong side of history.

In Africa, Obama has stood aside while allowing Chinese economic diplomacy to prevail. In SE Asia, Obama should have condemned the Thai governments’ recent crackdown on “Red Shirt” protesters, which resulted in over 100 deaths in Bangkok. In South Asia, we promise more aid to Pakistan, despite its support of the Taliban and other anti-American crazies. Wrong side of history.

As the US debt approaches $14 trillion, it is time to call off the Pentagon dogs, shut down a whole bunch of overseas bases and deal with the rest of the planet as equals. Empires perish. Bullies get their clocks cleaned. If Obama wants to remain popular abroad, he should slash the 2011 Pentagon budget. If he announces big cuts soon, the Democrats might even retain majorities in the mid-terms. Americans aren’t as stupid as the Israeli/Saudi-owned Fox News would have you believe.

http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/call-off-the-pentagon-dogs/#more-714

About the author:
Dean Henderson was born in Faulkton, South Dakota. He earned an M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Montana, where he edited The Missoula Paper and was a columnist for the Montana Kaimin. His articles have appeared in Multinational Monitor, In These Times, Paranoia and several other magazines.

A life long political activist and traveler to fifty countries, Henderson co-founded of the University of Montana Green Party and the Ozark Heritage Region Peace and Justice Network. He is former Vice-President of the Central Ozarks Farmer’s Union and former President of the Howell County Democrats.

In 2004 he won the Democratic nomination for Congress in Missouri’s 8th District.

Dean’s Books Available in print and e-book formats:

Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf…
https://www.createspace.com/3476183
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/DeanHenderson

The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries
www.createspace.com/3477016
www.smashwords.com/profile/view/DeanHenderson

Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries.

His Left Hook blog is at http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/category/left-hook-columns/
Dean Henderson is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Dean Henderson: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Dean&authorName=Henderson

British Petroleum BP: A History: Part III

May 18, 2010 — Dean Henderson

In 1872 British Baron Julius du Reuter was granted an exclusive 50-year mining and communications concession in Persia by that country’s Peacock Throne monarchy. By 1921 the British government had installed Shah Mohammed Reza Khan in a palace coup. With their puppet in place, du Reuter’s firm, one of the British Empire’s most important tentacles, busied itself exploiting the rich oil reserves of Iran.

The Anglo-Persian Oil Company grew swiftly, first changing its name to Anglo-Iranian Oil, and later becoming British Petroleum (BP). During the last two decades of the 20th century BP speeded its global expansion, absorbing Britoil and Standard Oil of Ohio during the 1980’s, then swallowing up Amoco and Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) in the late 1990’s.

In 1991 Russia earned $13 billion in hard currency from oil exports. In 1992 IMF puppet Boris Yeltsin announced that Russia’s world leading 9.2 billion barrel/day oil sector would be privatized. Sixty percent of Russia’s Siberian reserves had never been tapped. In 1993 the World Bank announced a $610 billion loan to modernize Russia’s oil industry, by far the largest loan in the bank’s history. World Bank subsidiary International Finance Corporation bought stock in several Russian oil companies and made an additional loan to the Bronfman family’s Conoco for its purchase of Siberian Polar Lights Company.

The main vehicle for international banker control over Russian oil would be Lukoil, initially 20%-owned by BP and Credit Suisse First Boston. A handful of Zionist Russian oligarchs with Israeli passports, collectively known as the Russian Mafia, owned the rest of Lukoil, which partnered with the Four Horsemen in oil and gas developments throughout the country involving staggering amounts of capital.

These included Sakhalin I, a $15 billion Exxon Mobil venture, and Sakhalin II, a $10 billion deal led by Royal Dutch/Shell, which includes Mitsubishi, Mitsui and Marathon Oil as partners. Siberian developments were even larger. RD/Shell was a 24.5% partner in Uganskneftegasin, which controlled a huge Siberian natural gas field. At Priobskoye, BP Amoco operated a $53 billion project, while at Timan Pechora on the Arctic Ocean a consortium made up of Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco and the Norwegian Norsk Hydo ran a $48 billion venture.

In November 2001 Exxon Mobil announced plans to invest another $12 billion in an oil and gas project in the Russian Far East, while RD/Shell announced an additional $8.5 billion investment in its Sakhalin Islands concessions. BP Amoco made similar proclamations. In 1994 Lukoil pumped 416 million barrels of oil making it fourth largest producer in the world after RD/Shell, Exxon Mobil and its majority-owner BP Amoco. Its 15 billion barrels in crude reserves rank second in the world to only Royal Dutch/ Shell. Lukoil also owns 26% of the strategic Russian Black Sea port at Novorrossiysk.

The Soviet Caucasus, with encouragement from western intelligence, soon split from Russia. The map of Central Asia was re-written as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Georgia declared their independence. Oil industry privatizations were quickly announced in these new Central Asian Republics, which border the vast Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves. Already in 1991, Chevron was holding talks with Kazakhstan.

The Central Asian Republics quickly became the largest recipients of USAID aid, as well as ExIm Bank, OPIC and CCC loans. Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan were especially favored, since these countries, along with Iran and Russia, comprise the shoreline of the Caspian Sea. The Free Trade Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce sent officials to train Kazakhs in the finer arts of global capitalism. The Four Horsemen moved in swiftly, with Chevron Texaco laying claim to the biggest prize, the $20 billion Tenghiz oilfield, along with one at Korolev. Exxon Mobil signed a deal to develop an offshore concession in the Caspian. Tengizchevroil came to be 45%-owned by Chevron Texaco and 25%-owned by Exxon Mobil. Bush the Lesser NSA and later Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice, an expert on Central Asia, sat on the board at Chevron, alongside former Reagan Secretary of State and Bechtel insider George Schultz, from 1989-92. Condie later had a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

Across the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan was receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid. BP Amoco led a consortium of seven oil giants who spent an initial $8 billion to develop three concessions off the coast of the Azerbaijani capital Baku, which had been the base camp of Big Oil in the region before the Bolsheviks overran it in 1917. BP Amoco and Pennzoil (now part of Royal Dutch/Shell) took control of the Azerbaijan Oil Company, whose board of directors included former Bush Sr. Secretary of State James Baker.

In 1991 Air America super spook Richard Secord showed up in Baku under the cover of MEGA Oil. Secord & Co. did military training, sold Israeli arms, passed “brown bags filled with cash” and shipped in over 2,000 Islamist mercenaries from Afghanistan with help from Taliban supporter Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Afghan heroin began flooding through Baku. Russian economist Alexandre Datskevitch said that of 184 heroin labs police discovered in Moscow in 1991, “Every one of them was run by Azeris, who use the proceeds to buy arms for Azerbaijan’s war against Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh”.

A Turkish intelligence source claims that Exxon and Mobil were behind the 1993 coup against elected President Abulfaz Elchibey. Secord’s Islamists helped, while Osama bin Laden set up an NGO in Baku as a base for attacking the Russians in Chechnya and Dagestan. A more pliant Azeri President Heidar Aliyev was installed and by 1996, at the behest of Amoco’s president, he was invited to the White House to meet President Clinton, whose NSA Sandy Berger held $90,000 worth of Amoco (now BP) stock.

In 2003 the Defense Department proposed a $3.8 million military training grant for Azerbaijan as part of the war on terror. Later they admitted it was to protect US access to oil. As author Michael Klare put it, “Slowly but surely, the US military is being converted into a global oil-protection service”.

With the Four Horsemen firmly in charge of Caspian Sea reserves, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium was born. Chevron Texaco took a 15% stake with the other three Horsemen and BP-controlled Lukoil splitting the rest. The Caspian pipeline was built by Bechtel in partnership with GE and Willbros Group. The pipeline quietly began moving oil and gas in November 2001, just two months after 911.

The Bush Administration then even more quietly planned a series of additional Caspian Sea pipelines to compliment the Tenghiz-Black Sea route. A Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline was built by a Four Horsemen consortium led by BP Amoco. The law firm representing the BP consortium was James Baker’s family law firm, Baker Botts. The BP Amoco pipeline runs the length of the country of Georgia through its capital Tblisi.

In February 2002, the US sent 200 military advisors and attack helicopters to Georgia to “root our terrorism”. Rather ironic since in September 2002 Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivaniov accused Georgia, a staunch US ally, of harboring Chechen rebels. In October 2003 Georgian President Eduard Schevardnadze was forced to step down in a bloodless revolution. According to a December 11, 2003 article on the World Socialist Party website, the CIA backed the coup-plotters.

In September 2004 hundreds of Russian school children were killed when Chechen separatists seized their school building. Russian President Vladimir Putin said of the incident, “Certain political circles in the West want to weaken Russia, just like the Romans wanted to weaken Carthage.” He accused “foreign intelligence services” of complicity in the attacks. His advisor Aslanbek Aslakhanov went further, stating on Russian Channel 2 news, “The men had their conversations not within Russia, but with other countries. They were led on a leash. Our self-styled friends have been working for several decades to dismember Russia… (they are the) puppeteers and are financing terror.” Russia’s KM News ran the headline, “School Seizure was Planned in Washington and London”.

The BP-controlled Lukoil epitomizes the corruption so rampant in Russia since the Soviet collapse. Bribery is a regular feature of Lukoil deals. The company has given luxury jets to the mayor of Moscow, the head of Gazprom (the state-owned natural gas monopoly) and Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev.

According to Kurt Wulff of the oil investment firm McDep Associates, the Four Horsemen, romping in their new Far East pastures, saw asset increases from 1988-94 as follows: Exxon Mobil-54%, Chevron Texaco-74%, Royal Dutch/Shell-52% and BP Amoco-54%. The Four Horsemen more than doubled their collective assets in six years while Russia was plunged into two decades of poverty.

http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/bp-a-history-part-iii/#more-603

About the author:
Dean Henderson was born in Faulkton, South Dakota. He earned an M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Montana, where he edited The Missoula Paper and was a columnist for the Montana Kaimin. His articles have appeared in Multinational Monitor, In These Times, Paranoia and several other magazines.

A life long political activist and traveler to fifty countries, Henderson co-founded of the University of Montana Green Party and the Ozark Heritage Region Peace and Justice Network. He is former Vice-President of the Central Ozarks Farmer’s Union and former President of the Howell County Democrats.

In 2004 he won the Democratic nomination for Congress in Missouri’s 8th District.

Dean’s Books Available in print and e-book formats:

Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf…
https://www.createspace.com/3476183
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/DeanHenderson

The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries
www.createspace.com/3477016
www.smashwords.com/profile/view/DeanHenderson

Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries.

His Left Hook blog is at http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/category/left-hook-columns/
Dean Henderson is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Dean Henderson: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Dean&authorName=Henderson

British Petroleum BP: A History: Part II

May 11, 2010 — Dean Henderson

It was a tumultuous week. The Dow plunged nearly 1,000 points in 20 minutes on Thursday. One would have to assume that Goldman Sachs is sending Obama and the Senate Banking Committee a message. Greek revolutionaries burned a bank and still the Federal Reserve funnelled billions in US dollar swaps to bail out (this time) European bankers, whilst these same IMF banksters imposed a set of draconian Third World austerity measures on the people of Greece.

But the perfect metaphor for the global corporate shenanigans run quite haphazardly from the City of London bankster lair, is the ongoing bad movie in the US Gulf of Mexico, where hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil per day have continued to gush into Gulf waters since an April 20 explosion claimed the lives of 11 workers while threatening an entire ecosystem.

Today British Petroleum-Amoco-ARCO (BP) traded jabs with Halliburton-Kellogg, Brown & Root and Transocean-Global Sante Fe (mergers ad nauseum) as to who should be blamed (read pay for) this monumental display of arrogance and greed. That’s more than a few white-gloves pointing at one another.

In 1928 Sir John Cadman of BP held a little meeting at his Achnacarry, Scotland castle. In attendance were Sir Henry Deterding of Royal Dutch/Shell, later an avid supporter of Adolf Hitler; Walter Teagle of Exxon, who later shipped chemicals to the Nazis; and William Mellon of Gulf Oil, which is now part of the ChevronTexaco abomination.

The Achnacarry Agreement divided the world’s oil reserves among the Four Horsemen (see my Big Oil & Their Bankers… book). BP and Shell, the Rothschild faction of the Horsemen, took over the Iraqi Petroleum Company and the Iranian Consortium, while Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Texaco and Gulf Oil, the Rockefeller wing of the Horsemen, became Saudi ARAMCO. By 1949 BP and RD/Shell controlled 52% of Middle East oil, while the American Horsemen controlled 42%.

Between 1931-1933 this Cartel ruthlessly cut the price of East Texas crude from $.98/barrel to $.10/barrel, ruining many independent Texas wildcatters. Those who survived were put under a strict production quota system which still exists today. Meanwhile the Cartel moved its operations to the cheap labor pastures of the Middle East, putting thousands of US oil workers out of jobs in Texas and Louisiana. US taxpayers have been funding Middle East wars for these welfare oil barons ever since. If you want to blame someone for our dependence on foreign oil, blame BP and the their Cartel pals.

BP bought Amoco, then Arco in 1999, becoming a 72% owner of the Alaskan Pipeline. In late 1998 a series of BP emails revealed plans to “short the West Coast market”, by diverting US oil to Asia. The company wanted to create “West Coast uplift scenarios” and gouge US consumers. In late June 2006 BP was accused of trying to corner the US propane market. BP is also one of the world’s biggest bauxite producers, with big mines in Jamaica.

BP has interlocking board directorates with British old money companies such as Hudson Bay, Kleinwort Benson, Jardine Matheson, HSBC & P & O Nedlloyd Shipping- the world’s biggest port operator. The Warburg-family controlled Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo are large share holders, along with the Rothschilds and the European royals.

BP is the biggest deep water driller in the world. For days we’ve heard them pointing fingers, and watched while first they dumped toxic “chemical dispersants into the Gulf and later a “garbage plug”. This incident is now a national security issue. The US military needs to step in and stop this leak. We should not waste one more second depending on BP to deliver. They will not. The Gulf of Mexico belongs to We the People of the United States GOVERNMENT! The BP corporate inmates running the asylum should be arrested and charged. Their oil leases should be revoked. Our national security depends on it.

http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/bp-history-part-ii-day-22-gulf-oil-disaster/#more-595

About the author:
Dean Henderson was born in Faulkton, South Dakota. He earned an M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Montana, where he edited The Missoula Paper and was a columnist for the Montana Kaimin. His articles have appeared in Multinational Monitor, In These Times, Paranoia and several other magazines.

A life long political activist and traveler to fifty countries, Henderson co-founded of the University of Montana Green Party and the Ozark Heritage Region Peace and Justice Network. He is former Vice-President of the Central Ozarks Farmer’s Union and former President of the Howell County Democrats.

In 2004 he won the Democratic nomination for Congress in Missouri’s 8th District.

Dean’s Books Available in print and e-book formats:

Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf…
https://www.createspace.com/3476183
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/DeanHenderson

The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries
www.createspace.com/3477016
www.smashwords.com/profile/view/DeanHenderson

Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries.

His Left Hook blog is at http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/category/left-hook-columns/
Dean Henderson is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Dean Henderson: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Dean&authorName=Henderson