data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/65863/65863bf8955b959a3cfd4c8eec30a3f523b3f0f5" alt=""
South Shields, King Street, 1905. Postcard by Raphael Tuck & Sons of London, Town & City Series
-----------------
Saturday, November 1, 2008
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7548/d75488f1be6dc1149e479c43f4b9d0ad777f46dc" alt=""
-----------------
In a remarkable speech on nuclear policy delivered October 28 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), US Defense Secretary Robert Gates painted a dire portrait of international affairs and argued that Washington should expand the doctrine of pre-emptive war formulated by the Bush administration to include possible nuclear strikes.
It is widely rumored that, in the likely event that Democrat Barack Obama wins next week's US presidential election, Obama will keep Gates as defense secretary. Gates' speech, given in the waning days of the Bush presidency, has the character of a policy declaration of the next US administration.
Gates began by making extended and ominous parallels between the world situation today and that which prevailed at the founding of the Carnegie Institute in 1910, four years before the outbreak of World War I. At the time, he noted, Wall Street was passing through the panic of 1910-1911 and facing a credit crisis, the US had recently put down an insurgency in the Philippines at a cost of 4,200 American lives, comparable to today's US death toll in Iraq, and "Europe was arming itself to the teeth and forming a series of alliances whose implications were obvious to anyone who cared to look."
Gates argued that the pacifist illusions promoted by CEIP founder Andrew Carnegie—a US steel magnate at the turn of the 20th century, most famous in the working class movement for the brutal suppression of the 1892 Homestead strike against his company—— should not deter Washington from planning broader war.
He noted, "In August of 1913, Carnegie said that ‘the only measure required today for the maintenance of world peace is an agreement between three or four of the leading civilized powers... pledged to cooperate against disturbers of world peace.'" Gates pointed out that, writing four years later to President Woodrow Wilson, who had been elected in 1916 on a platform of keeping the US out of the world war, "the same Andrew Carnegie encouraged the president in the strongest terms to declare war, because, he wrote, ‘There is only one straight way of settlement.'"
Turning to US nuclear policy, Gates said, "As long as others have nuclear weapons, we must maintain some level of these weapons ourselves: to deter potential adversaries, and to reassure over two dozen allies and partners who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security—making it unnecessary for them to develop their own."
This comment gives a sense of the highly tense and unstable character of international relations, and the paranoia of US officials. Gates' fears about the spread of nuclear weapons are not limited to existing programs of "potential adversaries," among which Gates included "rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, or Russian or Chinese strategic modernization programs." His fears extend to the nuclear policy of all states, including current US allies.
Gates later repeated this point: "We simply cannot predict the future. [...] our adversaries and other nations will always seek whatever advantages they can find. Knowing that, we have to be prepared for contingencies we haven't even considered."
Gates' list of US-friendly states that have chosen not to develop nuclear weapons was significant: South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, and Libya. Two of the most obvious such countries—ex-World War II enemies Japan and Germany—were not included. Gates did not explain what political factors induced him to omit them.
Gates then issued a remarkable threat: "As long as other states have or seek nuclear weapons—and can potentially threaten us, our allies and friends—then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the US in the nuclear arena—or with other weapons of mass destruction—could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response.
According to Gates, the US must be able to credibly threaten a nuclear holocaust against any state that "challenges" the US in the nuclear arena or with other "weapons of mass destruction." By his own words, such a challenge does not require a nation to threaten to attack the US. It does not even require that a nation possess nuclear weapons or other WMD. It is enough for a nation merely to "seek" such weapons for it to become a potential target for a preemptive "overwhelming, catastrophic response" from the United States.
Such a doctrine has immense implications not only for US nuclear weapons programs, but for the totality of US foreign policy. It stipulates that every foreign power in the world must believe that attempting to develop nuclear weapons invites US nuclear attack. Thus, the US would arguably be obliged to attack with nuclear weapons countries which it accused of developing nuclear weapons—such as Iran and North Korea—lest the rest of the world conclude that the US will not carry out its threats.
Gates is filling out the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war—announced in advance of the unprovoked invasion of Iraq based on lies about supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction—with the proviso that a US first-strike can involve the large-scale use of nuclear weapons.
In his speech, he called for a substantial increase in nuclear weapons spending, including the possible resumption of nuclear weapons testing. "There is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program," he declared.
Citing a "bleak" prognosis for overcoming technical and staffing problems of US strategic nuclear weapons programs, Gates explained that his policies involved the largest and most powerful US weapons: "The program we propose is not about new capabilities—suitcase bombs or bunker-busters or tactical nukes. [...] It is about the future credibility of our strategic deterrent."
Gates also addressed concerns about the command structure of the US Air Force's nuclear forces, sparked by his June 5 sackings of several top Air Force officials after it was discovered that US nuclear missile parts had been shipped to Taiwan. At the time, the World Socialist Web Site raised the question of whether the shipment to Taiwan had been part of an unofficial foreign policy carried out by rogue sections of the US military. However, the bourgeois press accepted official explanations that this had been a simple technical oversight.
But Gates' proposals centered not on fixing technical problems with Air Force shipping protocols, but rather on controlling Air Force policy. He announced measures to centralize "nuclear policy and oversight," including a new headquarters office at the Air Staff and a Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base, which is to be tasked with "clearing up ambiguous chains of command that have created problems in the past."
Gates closed by listing several types of attack that the US might use "deterrence," nuclear or otherwise, to prevent. He spoke of developing "appropriate" responses to cyber-attacks on US computer systems, to deterring attacks on US communications satellites (which could be carried out only by countries with technologically advanced militaries) and of developing "new technologies to identify the forensic signature" of nuclear material, which would allow the US to "hold any state, terrorist group, or other non-state actor or individual fully accountable for supporting or enabling terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction."
It should be pointed out that several of these types of attack—especially cyber-attack and terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction—are by their nature difficult to track, and leave open the possibility of manipulation by Washington. This is perhaps best shown by the 2001 anthrax attacks, which were carried out using spores from a US Army lab at Fort Detrick and ultimately blamed on a US civilian scientist working at Fort Detrick, but which the media long blamed on Muslim terrorists.
In assessing the significance of Gates' remarkably bellicose comments, it should be noted that Gates' justification of pre-emptive nuclear war is not isolated. In April, then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that if Iran attacked Israel, the US would respond by "obliterating" Iran. These comments are further evidence that the US ruling class will pursue an even more aggressive foreign policy after the 2008 elections than before.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/gate-o30.shtml
General Toshio Tamogami's essay, posted on the website of a Japanese hotel and apartment developer, was expected to spark anger in China and South Korea, where memories of Japan's wartime acts and colonisation run deep.
Beijing and Seoul say Tokyo has failed to properly atone for its invasion of the Korean peninsula, Taiwan and parts of China.
"His views are different from the government's. It is not desirable for him to stay in the job," Defence Minister Yasukazu Hamada told reporters soon after the essay was made public.
In the essay, titled "Was Japan an Aggressor Nation?" Tamogami said it was "certainly a false accusation" to say Japan was "an aggressor nation" during the Second World War.
"The current Chinese government obstinately insists that there was a 'Japanese invasion,' but Japan obtained its interests in the Chinese mainland legally under international law through the Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, and so on, and it placed its troops there based on treaties in order to protect those interests," he wrote.
He also claimed life under Japanese occupation was "very moderate" and cited a rise in the population on the Korean peninsula during Japan's 1910-1945 occupation as "proof that Korea under Japanese rule was also prosperous and safe."
Gen Tamogami also claimed that Japan was tricked into attacking Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941, by US President Franklin D Roosevelt.
Japan was "snared in a trap that was very carefully laid by the United States in order to draw Japan into a war," he wrote.
"Roosevelt had become president on his public pledge not to go to war, so in order to start a war between the United States and Japan, it had to appear that Japan took the first shot. Japan was caught in Roosevelt's trap and carried out the attack on Pearl Harbor," he wrote.
Gen Tamogami ended his essay by saying Japan should reclaim its glorious history and warning that a country that denies its own history is destined to fall.
Japan renounced its right to wage war in its 1947 US-drafted constitution, and Tokyo has repeatedly expressed remorse to its neighbours for its colonial rule and wartime aggression, including in a 1995 statement by then-Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of the war.
But Japan has struggled to convince Asian critics - and victims - of its contrition because of a strong nationalist presence in the Japanese government. Last year, a group of nationalist lawmakers from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party angered China by saying the generally accepted death toll in the "Rape of Nanking" massacre was grossly inflated.
Gen Tamogami's essay won a writing competition organized by a hotel and condominium developer, Apa Group, which published the prize-winning article on Friday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/3331691/Japanese-general-claims-Japan-was-not-an-aggressor-in-Second-World-War.html
------------------
J. P. Morgan was a Rothschild agent. When he died, it was discovered that he was not nearly so wealthy as was commonly believed. The wealth he had supposedly controlled in fact ended up in the coffers of the Rothschilds.[1] After the banking crises of the early Twentieth Century, Morgan acted as a scapegoat for the Jews who had deliberately caused these crises.
The highly corrupt Zionist Jews Louis Dembitz Brandeis, a known Frankist Jew,[2] and Samuel Untermyer, who declared war on Germany on behalf of World Jewry in 1933, used Morgan and the debilitating panic of 1907, which the Jewish bankers had deliberately caused, to force the American public into clamoring for banking reforms.[3] As so often happens, corrupt Jews investigated themselves and scapegoated the Goyim for their Jewish crimes, sending off the Goyish goat into the wilderness as a gift to the Devil, whom the Jews believe will then act as their agent with God absolving them of their sins and subverting Gentile interests.[4]
The Jews' goals were to institute the Federal Reserve Act and to consolidate the banks under their virtual monopoly. In this way, the Jews were able to finance World War One and profit from it, while driving European Gentiles into ruin. They also set America up for the "Great Depression" of the 1930's, and profited from it, as well. Louis Brandeis blackmailed Woodrow Wilson into bringing America into WW I on the side of the British. Zionist Jews also saw to it that FDR brought America into the Second World War, while ensuring that European Jews would find no welcome in America.
Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. was very aware of the fact that the bankers had deliberately caused the panic in 1907 in order to make the public clamor for banking reforms, banking reforms the bankers would draft which would give them complete control over the money supply and wipe out the lower level, but numerous, competing banks,,
"When the Aldrich-Vreeland Emergency Currency Bill was sprung on the House in its finished draft and ready for action to be taken, the debate was limited to three hours and Banker Vreeland placed in charge. It took so long for copies of the bill to be gotten that many members were unable to secure a copy until within a few minutes of the time to vote. No member who wished to present the people's side of the case was given sufficient time to enable him to properly analyze the bill. I asked for time and was told that if I would vote for the bill it would be given me, but not otherwise. Others were treated in the same way.Accordingly, on June 30, 1908, the Money Trust won the first fight and the Aldrich-Vreeland Emergency Law was placed on the statute books. Thus the first precedent was established for the people's guarantee of the rich man's watered securities, by making them a basis on which to issue currency. It was the entering wedge. We had already guaranteed the rich men's money, and now, by this act, the way was opened, and it was intended that we should guarantee their watered stocks and bonds. Of course, they were too keen to attempt to complete, in a single act, such an enormous steal as it would have been if they had included all they hoped ultimately to secure. They knew that they would be caught at it if they did, and so it was planned that the whole thing should be done by a succession of acts. The first three have taken place.
Act No. 1 was the manufacture, between 1896 and 1907, through stock gambling, speculation and other devious methods and devices, of tens of billions of watered stocks, bonds, and securities.
Act No. 2 was the panic of 1907, by which those not favorable to the Money Trust could be squeezed out of business and the people frightened into demanding changes in the banking and currency laws which the Money Trust would frame.
The Act No. 3 was the passage of the Aldrich-Vreeland Emergency Currency Bill, by which the Money Trust interests should have the privilege of securing from the Government currency on their watered bonds and securities. But while the act contained no authority to change the form of the bank notes, the U. S. Treasurer (in some way that I have been unable to find a reason for) implied authority and changed the form of bank notes which were issued for the banks on government bonds. These notes had hitherto had printed on them, 'This note is secured by bonds of the United States.' He changed it to read as follows: 'This note is secured by bonds of the United States or other securities.' 'Or other securities' is the addition that was secured by special interests. The infinite care the Money Trust exercises in regard to important detail work is easily seen in this piece of management. By that change it was enabled to have the form of the money issued in its favor on watered bonds and securities, the same as bank notes secured on government bonds, and, as a result, the people do not know whether they get one or the other. None of the $500,000,000 printed and lying in the U. S. Treasury ready to float on watered bonds and securities has yet (April, 1913) been used. But it is there, maintained at a public charge, as a guarantee to the Money Trust that it may use it in case it crowds speculation beyond the point of its control. The banks may take it to prevent their own failures, but there is not even so much as a suggestion that it may be used to help keep the industries of the people in a state of prosperity.
The main thing, however, that the Money Trust accomplished as a result of the passing of this act was the appointment of the National Monetary Commission, the membership of which was chiefly made up of bankers, their agents and attorneys, who have generally been educated in favor of, and to have a community interest with, the Money Trust. The National Monetary Commission was placed in charge of the same Senator Nelson W. Aldrich and Congressman Edward B. Vreeland, who respectively had charge in the Senate and House during the passage of the act creating it.
The act authorized this commission to spend money without stint or account. It spent over $300,000 in order to learn how to form a plan by which to create a greater money trust, and it afterwards recommended Congress to give this proposed trust a fifty-year charter by means of which it could rob and plunder all humanity. A bill for that purpose was introduced by members of the Monetary Commission, and its passage planned to be the fourth and final act of the campaign to completely enslave the people.
The fourth act, however, is in process of incubation only, and it is hoped that by this time we realize the danger that all of us are in, for it is the final proposed legislation which, if it succeeds, will place us in the complete control of the moneyed interests. History records nothing so dramatic in design, nor so skillfully manipulated, as this attempt to create the National Reserve Association,—otherwise called the Aldrich plan,—and no fact nor occurrence contemplated for the gaining of selfish ends is recorded in the world's records which equals the beguiling methods of this colossal undertaking. Men, women, and children have been equally unconscious of how stealthily this greatest of all giant octopuses,—a greater Money Trust,—is reaching out its tentacles in its efforts to bind all humanity in perpetual servitude to the greedy will of this monster.
I was in Congress when the Panic of 1907 occurred, but I had previously familiarized myself with many of the ways of high financiers. As a result of what I discovered in that study, I set about to expose the Money Trust, the world's greatest financial giant. I knew that I could not succeed unless I could bring public sentiment to my aid. I had to secure that or fail. The Money Trust had laid its plans long before and was already executing them. It was then, and still is, training the people themselves to demand the enactment of the Aldrich Bill or a bill similar in effect. Hundreds of thousands of dollars had already been spent and millions were reserved to be used in the attempt to bring about a condition of public mind that would cause demand of the passage of the bill. If no other methods succeeded, it was planned to bring on a violent panic and to rush the bill through during the distress which would result from the panic. It was figured that the people would demand new banking and currency laws; that it would be impossible for them to get a definitely practical plan before Congress when they were in an excited state and that, as a result, the Aldrich plan would slip safely through. It was designed to pass that bill in the fall of 1911 or 1912."--C. A. Lindbergh, Banking and Currency and The Money Trust, National Capital Press, Washington, D.C., (1913), pp. 92-98.
The Jews are again setting up a scenario whereby they will investigate themselves, institute the policies and agencies they seek, consolidate the banks under their control, and scapegoat the Goyim for their crimes. The Jews will then instigate World War III. For years, I have expected the events which are taking place today. In my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, which I published in May of 2006, I wrote at page 1000, inter alia,
"In 1913, the creation of the Federal Reserve together with the creation of the Federal Income Tax made war an immensely profitable venture. The Jewish bankers had at last a means to tax the American People and heat up the economy and then collapse it in the Great Depression by contracting the money supply, which created a wonderful buying opportunity for them in that it forced others to sell and yet maintained the value of the bankers' money enabling them to buy up whatever they wanted to buy.It appears that another trap is today being set for the American Public. Americans will be asked to chose between the gold standard as one panacea, or an international currency issuing from a central world bank as another panacea. Either option could ruin the nation. Poseurs serving the interests of the Jewish bankers, bankers who are driven by greed and religious fervor to place all of the wealth of the world in Jewish hands, will step forward and ridicule the bankers and the Federal Reserve and might even scapegoat all Jews including assimilated Jews. These propagandists will be the agents of the bankers themselves and they will offer up the poisoned fruit of the gold standard. Jewish bankers control most of the gold in the world and if America were to adopt the gold standard it would transfer America’s wealth into the hands of Jewish bankers. America would lose its sovereignty to the prophesied Jewish world government and ultimately the gold will be melted down and shipped to Jerusalem severely contracting the money supply and destroying all Gentile economies (Genesis 47).
America's gold should be recovered by legal and military means and reparations and damages, as well as the principal and accrued interest stolen from the American economy by Jewish bankers should be recovered. However, the method of securing the lasting value of American money most likely to succeed is for the American Government to issue its own notes and so pay down the debt without accruing more debt. This cannot be done by adopting a gold standard.
J. P. Morgan served the interests of the Zionists by funding England in the war, which tied America to it in the minds of the public, and by financing the American war machine. He made immense profits doing it, most of which ended up in the hands of the Jewish bankers, who ultimately served Rothschild, King of the Jews. The newspapers were edited and staffed by a disproportionate number of Jews. At the end of Morgan's life, it was discovered that most of the monies thought to be controlled by him found their way back to the Rothschilds."
1).E. C. Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection, Bankers Research Institute, Staunton, Virginia, (1983); and The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, Common Sense, Union, New Jersey, (1954); and A Study of the Federal Reserve, Kasper and Horton, New York, (1952).
2). A. Hertzberg, The Jews in America: Four Centuries of an Uneasy Encounter: A History, Simon and Schuster, New York, (1989), p. 218.
3). On Untermyer, see: Corp Author: United States., Congress., House., Committee on rules., Investigation of the Money Trust. No. 1-[2] Hearings Before the Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives, on House Resolutions 314 and 356. Friday, January 26, 1912., Washington, D. C., U. S. Govt. Print. Off., (1912). See also: Corp Author: United States., Congress., House., Committee on Banking and Currency., Money Trust Investigation. . . Statistical and Other Information Compiled under Direction of the Committee., Washington, D. C., U. S. Govt. Print. Off., (1912). See also: A. P. Pujo and Arsène Paulin and E. A. Hayes. Corp Author: United States., Congress., House., Committee on Banking and Currency, Money Trust Investigation. Investigation of Financial and Monetary Conditions in the United States under House Resolutions Nos.429 and 504, Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency., Washington, D. C., U. S. Govt. Print. Off., (1913). See also: J. G. Milburn, W. F. Taylor, Money Trust Investigation: Brief on Behalf of the New York Stock Exchange, New York, C.G. Burgoyne, (1913). See also: J. P. Morgan, Testimony of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan and Mr. Henry P. Davison Before the Money Trust Investigation, J.P. Morgan & Co., New York, (1913). On Brandeis, see: L. D. Brandeis, Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It, F.A. Stokes, New York, (1914). See also: L. D. Brandeis, M. I. Urofsky and D. W. Levy, Editors, Letters of Louis D. Brandeis, In Five Volumes, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, (1975). This set has numerous letters as well as editorial comment related to Brandeis and Untermyer’s campaigns against some bankers.
4). Leviticus 16. Cf. J. A. Eisenmenger, The Traditions of the Jews, Contained in the Talmud and other Mystical Writings, Volume 1, J. Robinson, London, (1748), pp. 199-201.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.
A fierce debate has now ensued in China about who that foreign power may be, with China itself as well as Russia and even Japan suspected to be the targets of aggression.
The reports cite French media news sources as having uncovered the proposal, in which RAND suggested that the $700 billion dollars that has been earmarked to bailout Wall Street and failing banks instead be used to finance a new war which would in turn re-invigorate the flagging stock markets.
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.
Current directors of RAND include Frank Charles Carlucci III, former Defense Secretary and Deputy Director of the CIA, Ronald L. Olson, Council on Foreign Relations luminary and former Secretary of Labor, and Carl Bildt, top Bilderberg member and former Swedish Prime Minister.
Carlucci was chairman of the Carlyle Group from 1989-2005 and oversaw gargantuan profits the defense contractor made in the aftermath of 9/11 following the invasion of Afghanistan. The Carlyle Group has also received investment money from the Bin Laden family.
Reportedly, the RAND proposal 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 or Iraq.
The reports have prompted a surge of public debate and tension in China about the possibility that a new global conflict is on the horizon.
China’s biggest media outlet, Sohu.com, speculated that the target of the new war would probably be China or Russia, but that it could also be Iran or another middle eastern country. Japan was also mentioned as a potential target for the reason that Japan holds the most U.S. debt.
North Korea was considered as a target but ruled out because the scale of such a war would not be large enough for RAND’s requirements.
The reported RAND proposal dovetails with recent comments made by Joe Biden, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright and others, concerning the “guarantee” that Barack Obama will face a major “international crisis” soon after taking office.
It also arrives following a warning from Michael Bayer, chairman of a key Pentagon advisory panel, who echoed the statement that the next administration will face an international crisis within months of taking office.
One would hope that good people, or at least sane people who don’t wish to start a global nuclear war, will oppose the RAND proposal, such as top the military generals who threatened to quit if Bush ordered an attack on Iran. Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, quit in March last year as a result of his opposition to Bush administration policy on Iran.
Translations from Chinese provided by Yihan Dai.
SOURCES
Sohu.com - http://news.sohu.com/20081030/n260330741.shtml
Ifeng.com - http://news.ifeng.com/mil/4/200810/1029_342_851523.shtml
http://www.prisonplanet.com/rand-lobbies-pentagon-start-war-to-save-us-economy.html
------------------
Xword information -- Across: 1. Fruit variety with a sweet-spiced flavor; 10. Patron saint of sailors; 14. ____ Arena (Kings’ home); 16. Geological range; 17. Uruguay and Paraguay; 32. Outdoor cooking spot; 38. Having shipped out; 41. “In principio ___ Verbum”; 62. B.C. neighbor; 65. Resting place; 68. Car radio mode. Down: 5. Wane; 7. Represent by drawing; 12. Calls to farmers; 13. Carry-___; 22. Certain ballroom event; 26. European capital; 27. Cabinet dept.; 32. A sergeant might ask soldiers to pick it up; 33. Espanola, for one; 44. ___ Point Lighthouse, Massachusetts landmark since 1838; 56. R.A.’s place; 57. Rule out; 59. Blah; 60. James Cavell’s “___-Pan”.