FEMA Camp Mass Incarceration Is A Goal of the Ebola Crisis

The Common Sense Show
by Dave Hodges

For a number of years, the topic of FEMA Camps (i.e. American concentration camps) have been rumored to exist. Jesse Ventura, on his show, Conspiracy Theory, revealed to the public the existence of FEMA Camps in such a dramatic fashion that the episode has been banned from public viewing.

Through the years, there has been much speculation about the existence of FEMA Camps and their true purpose. Recent events surrounding the recent Ebola crisis, is making it clear that the camps, as well as other co-opted public facilities (e.g. stadiums, malls, etc.) will be used to enforce medical martial law for both the sick as well as anyone else who the government determines is a (health) risk to the well-being of the public. Am I saying that the camps will be used to house political dissidents. This is undeniably true. This article traces the inception of FEMA camps to the present and intended purpose. This article will also expose the fact that it will not just be Ebola victims going to these camps where there will be medical facilities.

REX 84

REX 84 is the “granddaddy” of the modern era FEMA camp legislation. When the REX 84 FEMA Camp program was created by people such as Lt. Col. Oliver North, who was both National Security Council White House Aide, and NSC liaison to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and John Brinkerhoff, the deputy director of “national preparedness” programs for FEMA’s role in the creation of the camps, our ultimate fate for future generations of Americans was sealed.

The existence of the Rex 84 plan was first revealed during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987, and subsequently reported by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987.

” These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached.”

The (FEMA) camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners.

Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold thousands of  people”.

The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Since 1987 we have had an estimated 25-30 illegal aliens enter the United States and these camps were not used for “rounding up the mass exodus” of illegal aliens, nor, is this article suggesting that is what should have happened. The point being, the government is lying about the existence of these camps, despite irrefutable legislative proof. Not one illegal alien was sent to a FEMA camp in the recent Central American exodus this past summer, NOT ONE!

Some observers believe that as many as 4 million may have illegally crossed the border since the beginning of this year. Regardless, the stable of 800 existing FEMA camps remain untouched.

Why Aren’t 800 FEMA Camps Enough?

 

Operation Mountain Guardian was a disaster drill and a Continuity of Government exercise.

Operation Mountain Guardian was a disaster drill and a Continuity of Government exercise.

 

On September 23, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA conducted a disaster drill in Denver, Colorado that they called Operation Mountain Guardian. The plan was all-inclusive and basically shut down the Denver metropolitan area including Denver International Airport, many malls, many schools and several other public venues including Sports Authority Field where the Denver Broncos play professional football. Why didn’t this event put people in the streets by the tens of thousands? To rub salt in the wound a similar drill was conducted at Giants Stadium in New York in the same year.

 

 

Got Freedom?

Got Freedom?

 

In September of 2011, Simon Properties, the largest owners of malls in North America inked a deal with DHS to allow their malls to be used as detention centers in times of “national emergency”.

Malls, the "new" FEMA camps.

Malls, the “new” FEMA camps.

 

 CBS News Admitted FEMA Camps Are Real

Did you know that during Hurricane Sandy, CBS actually admitted to the existence of FEMA camps? I was able to obtain documents and photos which can be accessed in an article entitled CBS News Admits FEMA Camps Are Real. The article also details how the FEMA has privately contracted with vendors who can erect temporary FEMA camps withing 24-72 hours as original authentic FEMA/KBR  communications were revealed. 

Your soon to be new accommodations are described in this PDF attachment, published by the Army (FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF). This document tells you that  This is what a typical American FEMA camp looks like. The camps will eventually be run for foreign assets, presumably UN troops.  Internment can occur for a variety of reasons including the stripping of one’s citizenship for political views which can get one to be declared to be a “sovereign citizen”. Medical incarceration would also be a reason that could land Americans into these camps. This document is less than a year old.

Medical Martial Law and HHS Run FEMA Camps

Recently, more attention has been brought to the subject of FEMA camps in the context of the present Ebola scare.

 

fema camp workers

Whether you know it or not, your future reservations remain untouched by the most recent immigration crisis. Soon it will be time to go on the vacation of your life. And this is one of the ways that you will get there.

The Legal Authority to Send “SUSPECTED” Ebola Patients to FEMA Camps and Anyone Suspected of Having Been Exposed!

Before one can “legally” transport Ebola patients to “death camps” and await the inevitable, the public must be reassured that the rule of law is being followed.

When Ebola strikes, the changes in the handling of Ebola patients have already been planned for through a series of legal actions, most of them are Executive Orders. For example, the Executive Order, entitled Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases, amends Executive Order 13295, passed by George W. Bush in April 2003, which allows for the, “apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals”, and Ebola is specifically mentioned. Obama’s executive order, entitled, Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases, amends Bush’s Executive Order 13295, which allows for the, “apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals  to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of suspected communicable diseases.”

Obama has granted his administration the authority to detain, in any manner deemed necessary, any person who demonstrates any degree of respiratory distress. This means people with noninfectious asthma could be detained.

The CDC has greatly expanded guidelines which permit the government to quarantine people with “fatigue” and lists this as a potential Ebola symptom. Anyone THOUGHT to be exposed to an Ebola patient can be quarantined. CDC has opened themselves up to the likelihood that Ebola can be transmitted even from people who are not presently symptomatic at the time of transmission. This goes hand in hand with present CDC measures that allow for the quarantine of non-symptomatic persons.

Medical Martial Law FEMA Camps to Be Run By HHS

In the event of a pandemic, the Secretary of Human Health Services (HHS) will assume operational control of Federal emergency public health and medical response.

“Ambulance” Contracts Will Deport Americans to FEMA Camps

I have found evidence supporting these claims in a federal document entitled  Emergency Support Function #8 (ESF #8) – Public Health and Medical Services Annex.  

This document can be accessed by Googling “ESF #8″ and you will arrive at the following listing and a PDF will appear.

[PDF]Emergency Support Function #8 – Public Health and Medical

http://www.fema.gov/…/emergency_s…

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Medical Services include responding to medical needs associated with mental health, ….. assistance are executed by ESF #8 in coordination with DHS/FEMA. … primarily for communications, aircraft, and the establishment of base camps.

ESF #8 established the national ambulance contract, which is designed to provide support forevacuating seriously ill or injured patients.

HHS will enlist the VA and Department of Defense assets (e.g. the military) in support of providing “transportation assets, operating and staffing NDMS Federal Coordination Centers, and processing and tracking patient movements from collection points to their final destination reception facilities (emphasis added).

The Ebola Detainment Centers (FEMA Camps) Have No Real Medical Facilities

Look at the participating partners in the “hospital” detainment centers in the EFS #8 document. This list is very revealing as to the intended purpose of these camps.

 Support Agencies:

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense

Department of Energy

Department of Homeland Security

Department of the Interior

Department of Justice

Department of Labor

Department of State

Department of Transportation

Department of Veterans Affairs

Environmental Protection Agency

General Services Administration

U.S. Agency for International Development

U.S. Postal Service

American Red Cross

 

Sometimes, it is not what a person says that is important, it is what they do not say. In the above list of Ebola detainment centers, I don’t see the CDC or the National Institute of Health listed. Nor do I see any legitimate medical organizations. I don’t even see the presence of any “volunteer” medical organizations such as Doctors Without Borders. Does anyone else find it disturbing that the transport of very sick people will be conducted and the end point is devoid of any medical treatment organizations and/or facilities?

These camps are death camps. There is not one shred of evidence that these camps are intended to treat or even make comfortable people who will contract Ebola or be exposed to Ebola. The most disturbing thing is that these camps will be death camps for relatively healthy people. If you are a person who is unlucky enough to be discovered to have asthma or merely be temporarily suffering from congestion in one’s lungs from allergies or a simple cold, you could find yourself on one of the Federally approved ambulance services (bus, train, plane) and headed to your final destination.

Conclusion

I cannot shake a story that the late Larry Grathwohl told me regarding a conversation he had with Bill Ayers. Larry’s conversation took with Ayers while he was serving as a FBI special informant sent to investigate Ayers organization, the Weatherman Underground. Ayers is talso he man who launched President Obama’s political career from the living room of his Chicago area home.

Grathwohl revealed, on my talk show,  that he asked Ayers, the then leader of the radical group the Weathermen Underground, in a meeting of about 25 well-to do fellow Weatherman, most with advanced degrees from Ivy League Universities, what the Weathermen planned to do when they achieved their goal of a communist take over the government.  Grathwohl stated that Ayers paused for a moment and then said that it was likely that about 50 million Americans will have to be re-educated in concentration camps located in the American Southwest and that about 25 million would have to be eliminated, meaning that they would have to be murdered.  The potential implications are stunning.

To this day, two years later, and even after Larry’s passing, these words still haunt me.

The Common Sense Show

Did You Hear? Texas Plans to Fingerprint EVERYONE within the Next 12 Years

Activist Post
By Daisy Luther

texasfingerprint

(In case you missed it…)

The Texas Department of Public Safety might as well be called the Texas Department of Public Invasiveness.

They’ve launched a plan to fingerprint every single person of driving age in the state, after which they will add the person’s prints to the criminal database.

Is it just me or is that a rather Dystopian plan?

Jon Cassidy of Watchdog.org writes:

The credit for breaking the news on those two items goes to consumer affairs columnist Dave Lieber of the Dallas Morning News, whose long-running “Watchdog” column often shows up in my Google Alerts, for obvious reasons.

As an old-school columnist, Lieber tends to keep his opinions subdued, and he doesn’t generally call people dishonest. But I have no problem with doing that, so I’d like to point out that the DPS spokesman he quotes at length is less than straightforward about his department’s legal authority.

Last month, Lieber broke the news that DPS had started collecting full sets of fingerprints on everyone who went in to renew their license.

Friday, he followed up with a story on DPS’ dubious legal authority to do so, and then posted lengthy quotations on the issue to his blog.

Lieber quotes an entire email from DPS spokesman Tom Vinger, who quotes Transportation Code Sec. 521.059 at length, including the key phrase, “The department shall establish an image verification system based on the following identifiers collected by the department: ….an applicant’s thumbprints or fingerprints.” (source)

So the gist of this is: if you don’t allow the “authorities” to take your prints and file them away in the event that you commit some heinous crime in the future, you won’t be issued a driver’s license in the state of Texas. This means you’d theoretically be unable to drive or get insurance, because you’d be unlicensed. If you can’t get insurance, it will be difficult to own a car. This, of course, could effect your livelihood, your ability to get your kids to school, and myriad other day-to-day issues. I’m a big fan of opting out, but this makes it a lot more difficult for the average Joe or Josephine to do so.

Doesn’t this sound like a pre-crime system, gathering evidence for the potential day in the future when they wish to use a person’s cataloged prints to identify them?  At the very least, it is an invasion of personal privacy that is being enforced by hindering one’s ability to travel freely.

According to the laws on the books, it’s legal to take ONE print, but not a set of ten.

To get the full context, you’d have to go back to the original bill that was signed into law, and then look up the relevant section of law, which states that an application for a drivers’ license  “must include:  1) the thumbprints of the applicant or, if thumbprints cannot be taken, the index fingerprints of the applicant.”

So that’s why the law mentions fingerprints – it’s index fingerprints, not a full set of 10 fingerprints. While the law mentions that those records can be used by law enforcement agencies investigating a crime, it doesn’t say anything about making them generally available in a criminal database.

According to Lieber, a political science professor at Texas Christian University named Donald W. Jackson, who has a new organization called the North Texas Civil Rights Project, is offering legal support if anybody wants to challenge this new policy in court. (source)

I bet a lot of Texans will have one particular fingerprint they’ll be happy to give – the middle one.

Hat tip to Kimo

Activist Post

Study: Global One-Child Policy Not Enough for “Sustainability”

The New American
by Alex Newman

one child policy

A team of environmental “scientists” published a new study in a U.S. government-linked journal claiming that even a planetary Communist Chinese-style one-child policy would not be enough to stop alleged “overpopulation” from ravishing the Earth and making humanity “unsustainable.” In fact, according to the Australian researchers, even combined with massive reductions in population via another world war, a global one-child policy would still not be enough to save the planet and the environment from the supposed scourge of mankind. To deal with their reputed “crisis,” the authors propose encouraging — read brainwashing or perhaps even coercing — women to have fewer children while rationing resources for those humans fortunate enough to escape their population-control regime. But even that will not be enough, according to the paper.

Fortunately for the people of the world, the fringe population-control movement lurking behind the study has been making similarly outlandish claims since the Malthusian crackpots of the late 1700s — only to be proven embarrassingly wrong every time. Indeed, the editor of the latest paper on overpopulation, Paul Ehrlich, is perhaps one of the most widely ridiculed contemporary “scientists” on Earth. Thanks to funding from billionaire overpopulation zealots and the U.S. taxpayer, Ehrlich remains on the scene — despite being wrong about virtually everything throughout his career as an advocate of draconian population controls to stave off an imagined overpopulation crisis. He has previously stated that the “optimum number of people” is 1.5 billion to 2 billion. Yet, like every other population-control advocate, he has so far refused to lead by example.

“The planet’s large, growing, and overconsuming [sic] human population, especially the increasing affluent component, is rapidly eroding many of the Earth’s natural ecosystems,” claims the new paper, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) of the United States of America. “However, society’s only real policy lever to reduce the human population humanely is to encourage lower per capita fertility.” By lower per capita fertility, the authors mean that each woman should have fewer children. While that may be the only “humane” policy lever, the authors reveal clearly that their “humane” option will not be nearly enough to suit their taste for fewer humans allegedly messing up the “ecosystem” and consuming the elite’s resources.

The paper, entitled “Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems,” also examines various scenarios and potential “interventions” surrounding human population numbers — including mass deaths and drastically decreasing birth rates. Its conclusion, essentially: No matter what population controllers do to slash the population, there will still be too many people to save the planet, so global economic controls are also needed. “Even one-child policies imposed worldwide and catastrophic mortality events would still likely result in 5–10 billion people by 2100,” explains a summary of the paper, with the implicit assumption that 5-10 billion is too many. “Because of this demographic momentum, there are no easy ways to change the broad trends of human population size this century.”

In the abstract for the paper, the authors make similar claims, arguing that the growing population of people “is rapidly eroding Earth’s life-support system.” As such, they claim, there are “more frequent calls” to address the issue by advocating even steeper declines in the number of new people allowed to exist. “Assuming a continuation of current trends in mortality reduction, even a rapid transition to a worldwide one-child policy leads to a population similar to today’s by 2100,” reads the abstract, adding that even a “mass mortality event” killing 2 billion people over five years would still leave 8.5 billion mouths to feed by the end of the century. Especially troubling to the researchers are “human pressures” on the “future ecosystems” of Africa and South Asia. In other words, they believe there are too many Africans and South Asians in particular.

“Humanity’s large demographic momentum means that there are no easy policy levers to change the size of the human population substantially over coming decades, short of extreme and rapid reductions in female fertility; it will take centuries, and the long-term target remains unclear,” the authors claim, operating under the wild assumption that fewer humans is good and more humans is bad. “However, some reduction could be achieved by midcentury and lead to hundreds of millions fewer people to feed. More immediate results for sustainability would emerge from policies and technologies that reverse rising consumption of natural resources.” Hiding behind opaque language, the authors are proposing “policies” — also known as government coercion — to reduce the population, as well as the living standards and consumption levels of those who remain.

The new “study,” published online on October 27, comes as population-control zealots in the Obama administration and at the United Nations have been increasingly coming out of the woodwork. This month, for example, Obama’s new “Ebola Czar,” a lobbyist and attorney, came under fire for a 2008 interview in which he claimed “growing population,” especially in Africa, was the “top leadership challenge” facing the world — not tyranny, genocide, poverty, disease, infant mortality, but the number of people. Obama’s “Science Czar,” John Holdren, has previously proposed forced abortions, sterilization via the water supply, and what he called a “planetary regime” with a “global police force” to control resources and enforce the regime’s population edicts. Like other overpopulation crackpots, however, he has been wrong about virtually everything.

The UN, meanwhile, which recently unveiled a new plot to further slash the number of Africans, just came out with another report advocating global abortion on demand and more population-control measures to promote what it calls “sustainability.” Essentially, the notion of “sustainable development” involves centralizing power over humanity, the environment, and the economy at the global level — all under the guise of ensuring that humanity fits into vague notions of being “sustainable.” Of course, the global outfit has long been at the forefront of the establishment effort to reduce the human population. In recent years, the UN’s population-control agency, known as UNFPA, was even exposed unlawfully using U.S. taxpayer funds to help the Communist Chinese regime enforce its savage one-child policy through forced abortions and sterilization.

The latest call to reduce the population, like the previous ones, is based on multiple false assumptions and premises. One of the 800-pound gorillas behind the new paper reveals a fundamental lack of economic understanding. For instance, if a given nonrenewable resource were indeed becoming scarce, the laws of supply and demand would automatically push the price up. That would lead to increased reliance on substitutes as consumers reduced the quantity they demand. If no good substitutes exist, higher and higher prices for the dwindling resource would drive investment toward discovering one or recovering previously used resources by recycling or other means. When “peak oil” theorists argue that oil will run out, for example, they rarely, if ever, consider the well-documented market forces that would be at work, assuming governments stay out of the way. Perhaps “environmental scientists” and “ecologists” ought to be required to complete Economics 101 prior to obtaining their degrees.

The editor of the paper, Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich of The Population Bomb infamy, has been making his kooky forecasts for decades. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed in 1971, back when he and other population-control fanatics such as Obama’s forced-abortions “science” czar were hyping the “global cooling” fraud. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.” On the first UN Earth Day in 1970, meanwhile, Ehrlich claimed that “in ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Now he is warning that humans may soon be forced to resort to cannibalism.

The authors of the PNAS study, professors Corey Bradshaw and Barry Brook at the University of Adelaide in Australia, are merely continuing to promote the decades-old, totally discredited and anti-biblical notion that the myth of “overpopulation” represents a threat to “Mother Earth.” Despite no global warming in 18 years, record levels of sea ice, and the failure of every single UN “climate” model, both are also deeply involved in promoting climate hysteria — another favorite tool of would-be population controllers. In reality, though, countless experts have warned that the real crisis facing humanity is that there are not enough births. With the rapidly aging population, mankind may well face a major population problem, but it will be the exact opposite of what Ehrlich and his comrades imagine.

The truth is that after a little more growth in the coming decades, human numbers are set to drastically decline based only on current trends. Right now, the entire population of the world could fit in Texas, with each family having its own home and a yard. The world also produces more than enough food to sustain mankind — the primary reason for the hunger that remains is tyranny and oppressive government, not a lack of resources. Even though population pseudo-scientists and neo-Malthusian crackpots are becoming increasingly discredited with the failure of their hysterical predictions, they still maintain a great deal of power in governments and international organizations around the globe. Considering their horrifying past proposals and embarrassing track records, however, they ought to be laughed out of their taxpayer-funded jobs.

The New American

The Deep State and the Bias of Official History

InfoWars
by PETER DALE SCOTT

deep state
Image Credits: Simboli

How do Wall Street, oil companies and the shadow government agencies like the CIA and NSA really shape the global political order?

That’s the question author Peter Dale Scott examines in his forthcoming book “The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil and the Attack on U.S. Democracy,” due out on Nov. 12. Scott, a professor emeritus of English at Berkeley and former Canadian diplomat, is considered the father of “deep politics”—the study of hidden permanent institutions and interests whose influence on the political realm transcends the elected.

In the “American Deep State,” Scott takes a compelling look at the facts lurking behind the official histories of events to uncover the real dynamics in play. In this exclusive excerpt—the first of several we will feature on WhoWhatWhy—he looks at the revolving door between Wall Street and the CIA, and what that demonstrates about where power truly resides. 

In the last decade it has become more and more obvious that we have in America today what the journalists have called… America’s “deep state.” (1)

This expansion of a two-level or dual state has been paralleled by two other dualities: the increasing resolution of American society into two classes—the “one percent” and the “ninety-nine percent”—and the bifurcation of the U.S. economy into two aspects: the domestic, still subject to some governmental regulation and taxation, and the international, relatively free from governmental controls. (2)

All three developments have affected and intensified each other—particularly since the Reagan Revolution of 1980, which saw American inequality of wealth cease to diminish and begin to increase. (3) Thus for example Wall Street—the incarnation of the “one percent”— played a significant role in creating the CIA after World War II, and three decades later the CIA and big oil played a significant role in realigning American politics for the Reagan Revolution.

There is an ambiguous symbiosis between two aspects of the American deep state:

  1. The Beltway agencies of the shadow government, like the CIA and NSA, which have been instituted by the public state and now overshadow it, and
  2. The much older power of Wall Street, referring to the powerful banks and law firms located there.

Top-level Treasury officials, CIA officers, and Wall Street bankers and lawyers think much alike because of the “revolving door” by which they pass easily from private to public service and back.

But a much larger role for the private sector has come with the increased outsourcing of the government’s intelligence budget. Tim Shorrock revealed in 2007 that “about 70 percent of the estimated $60 billion the government spends every year on . . . intelligence” is now outsourced to private intelligence contractors like Booz, Allen & Hamilton (now Booz Allen Hamilton) and SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). (4)

The Overworld

I shall argue that in the 1950s, Wall Street was a dominating complex. It included not just banks and law firms but also the oil majors whose cartel arrangements were successfully defended against the U.S. government by the Wall Street law firm Sullivan and Cromwell, home to the Dulles brothers. This larger complex is what I mean by the Wall Street overworld.

There seems to be little difference in Allen Dulles’s influence whether he was a Wall Street lawyer or a CIA director. Although he did not formally join the CIA until November 1950, he was in Berlin before the start of the 1948 Berlin Blockade, “supervising the unleashing of anti-Soviet propaganda across Europe.” (5) In the early summer of 1948, he set up the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), in support of what became, by the early 1950s, “the largest CIA operation in Western Europe.” (6)

The CIA never abandoned its dependency on funds from outside its official budget to conduct its clandestine operations. In Southeast Asia in particular, its proprietary firm Sea Supply Inc. supplied an infrastructure for a drug traffic supporting a CIA-led paramilitary force, PARU. [Two CIA proprietaries, Sea Supply Inc. and Civil Air Transport (CAT) Inc. (later Air America), initially supplied the KMT 93rd Division in Burma that organized opium mule trains down to Thailand, where opium sales were still legal.

Later, when the USG officially distanced itself from the KMT drug army, the CIA organized an offensive and defensive paramilitary unit, PARU, inside the Thai Border Police (BPP). Like the BPP, PARU financed itself by seizing KMT opium and turning it in to the Thai Government, receiving a bounty payment of 12.5 percent of the retail value.] (7)

***

The CIA appears also to have acted in coordination with slush funds from various U.S. government contracts, ranging from the Howard Hughes organization to the foreign arms sales of U.S. defense corporations like Lockheed and Northrop. (8)

The international lawyers of Wall Street did not hide from each other their shared belief that they understood better than Washington the requirements for running the world.

This mentality exhibited itself in 1952, when Truman’s Justice Department sought to break up the cartel agreements whereby Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) and four other oil majors controlled global oil distribution. (The other four were Standard Oil Company of New York or Socony [later Mobil], Standard Oil of California [now Chevron], Gulf Oil, and Texaco. Together with Royal Dutch Shell and Anglo-Iranian, they comprised the so-called “Seven Sisters” of the cartel.)

Faced with a government order to hand over relevant documents, Exxon’s lawyer Arthur Dean at Sullivan and Cromwell, where Foster Dulles was senior partner, refused: “If it were not for the question of national security, we would be perfectly willing to face either a criminal or a civil suit. But this is the kind of information the Kremlin would love to get its hands on.” (9)

Overthrowing Iran

At this time the oil cartel was working closely with the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC, later BP) to prevent AIOC’s nationalization by Iran’s Premier Mossadeq [or Mosaddeq], by instituting, in May 1951, a successful boycott of Iranian oil exports. “In May 1951 the AIOC secured the backing of the other oil majors, who had every interest in discouraging nationalisation. . . . None of the large companies would touch Iranian oil; despite one or two picturesque episodes, the boycott held.” (10)

Mohammad Mossadeq

But Truman declined, despite a direct personal appeal from Churchill, to have the CIA participate in efforts to overthrow Mossadeq, and instead dispatched Averell Harriman to Tehran in a failed effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution of Mossadeq’s differences with London. (11)

All this changed with the election of Eisenhower in November 1952 (with considerable support from the oil industry), followed by the appointment of the Dulles brothers to be Secretary of State and head of CIA.

In November 1952 CIA officials began planning to involve the CIA in the efforts of MI6 and the oil companies in Iran (12)—although its notorious Operation TP/AJAX to overthrow Mossadeq was not finally approved by Eisenhower until July 22, 1953. (13)

Dr. Mossadeq entering court for his trial.

Nearly all recent accounts of Mossadeq’s overthrow treat it as a covert intelligence operation, with the oil cartel (when mentioned at all) playing a subservient role. However the chronology, and above all the belated approval from Eisenhower, suggest that it was CIA that came belatedly in 1953 to assist an earlier oil cartel operation, rather than vice versa.

In terms of the deep state, in 1951 the oil cartel or deep state initiated a process that the American public state only authorized two years later. Yet the inevitable bias in academic or archival historiography, working only with those primary sources that are publicly available, is to think of the Mossadeq tragedy as simply a “CIA coup.”

Footnotes


1.          Mike Lofgren, “A Shadow Government Controls America,” Reader Supported News, February 22, 2014, http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22216 -a-shadow-government-controls.

2.           To take a single telling example, six of Sam Walton’s heirs are now reportedly wealthier than the bottom 30 percent of Americans, or 94.5 million people (Tim Worstall, “Six Waltons Have More Wealth Than the Bottom 30% of Americans,” Forbes, December 14, 2011, http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/14/six -waltons-have-more-wealth-than-the-bottom-30-of-americans/).

3.           See Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath (New York:     HarperCollins, 1991).

4.           Tim Shorrock, Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008), 6.

5.           Gordon Thomas, Secret Wars: One Hundred Years of British Intelligence Inside MI5 and MI6 (New York: Thomas Dunne Books/ St. Martin’s Press, 2009), 98.

6.           Richard Aldrich, The Hidden Hand: Britain, America, and Cold War Secret Intelligence (Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2001), 343. Dulles also chaired the executive committee of the companion National Committee for a Free Europe (behind the Iron Curtain), whose legal affairs were handled by Sullivan and Cromwell (Wilson D. Miscamble, George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947–1950 [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992], 204).

7.             Scott, American War Machine, 65–67, 87–96.

8.             Norman Mailer, “A Harlot High and Low: Reconnoitering Through the Secret 
Government,” New York, August 16, 1976 (Hughes); Michael Schaller, Altered States: The United States and Japan Since the Occupation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 294 (Lockheed).

9.             Ovid Demaris, Dirty Business: The Corporate-Political Money-Power Game (New 
York: Avon, 1974), 213–14.

10.           J. P. D. Dunbabin, International Relations Since 1945: A History in Two Volumes, 
vol. 2, (London: Longman, 1994), 344. The boycott is denied without argumentation in Exxon’s corporate history (Bennett H. Wall et al., Growth in a Changing Environment: A History of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey), Exxon Corporation, 1950–1975, vol. 4 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988), 476:

11.           Mostafa Elm, Oil, Power, and Principle: Iran’s Oil Nationalization and Its After
math (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1992), 198–99 (Churchill); Robert Moskin, American Statecraft: The Story of the U.S. Foreign Service (New York: Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press, 2013), 627–28 (Harriman).

12.           William Roger Louis, “Britain and the Overthrow of Mossadeq,” in Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, eds., Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2004), 168. Cf. William R. Clark, Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2005), 125: “The Dulles brothers had already conceived a plot when Eisenhower became president in January 1953;” Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 83: “[In November 1952] “The CIA was setting out to depose [Mossadeq] without the imprimatur of the White House.”

13.           Scot Macdonald, Rolling the Iron Dice: Historical Analogies and Decisions to Use Military Force in Regional Contingencies (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000), 98. Cf. Richard H. Immerman, John Foster Dulles: Piety, Pragmatism, and Power in U.S. Foreign Policy (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1999), 67. Allen Dulles played a personal role in TP/AJAX, by flying to Italy and persuading the frightened Shah to return to Tehran.
– See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/10/26/the-deep-state-and-the-bias-of-official-history-2/#sthash.tPtHfSIR.dpuf

InfoWars

NGO Envisages Global One Child Policy, Pandemics to Solve Overpopulation

InfoWars
by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON

Report entertains global catastrophe that kills 6 billion people as potential method of achieving “sustainability”

baby
Image Credits: Wikimedia Commons

The National Academy of Sciences has published a shocking report which envisages a Chinese-style global one child policy as the only means of reversing climate change and reducing global population to a “sustainable” number of 1-2 billion people.

The white paper, entitled Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems and authored by the University of Adelaide’s Corey Bradshaw and Barry Brook, even entertains the impact of world wars and global pandemics that wipe out 6 billion people as potential methods of combating the threat posed to the environment by overpopulation.

Crucially, the paper is edited by Stanford University’s Paul R. Ehrlich, a perennial advocate of population reduction whose dire proclamations about environmental catastrophes as a result of overpopulation have been proven wildly inaccurate time and time again.

In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Ehrlich infamously predicted that, “In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death,” as a result of overpopulation, just one of many ludicrous forecasts that Ehrlich has got spectacularly wrong on a routine basis.

Ehrlich has also expressed his support for mandatory population control, arguing that such methods must be imposed “by compulsion if voluntary methods fail,” while the biologist co-authored Ecoscience with White House Science Czar John P. Holdren, the textbook that advocates putting drugs in the water supply to sterilize people, mandatory forced abortions, and a tyrannical eco-fascist dictatorship run by a “planetary regime.”

Given that connection, it’s unsurprising that the white paper struggles to disguise its advocacy for draconian methods of population reduction in the name of saving mother Earth.

The report presents a selection of scenarios to achieve “reductions in human fertility” in order to prevent “climate change,” threats to biodiversity and to help “plan for a healthy future society.”

The authors admit that global fertility rates are already dropping but that “rising affluence-linked population and consumption rates” (in other words – higher standards of living) are contributing to worsening environmental conditions.

Under one scenario, a global pandemic wipes out 6 billion people from 2041 onwards, resulting in the planet’s population being reduced to 5.1 billion by 2100. However, this reduction of 2 billion people compared to current figures is not sufficient to accomplish the level of human culling desired by the authors, who note that “even future events that rival or plausibly exceed past societal cataclysms cannot guarantee small future population sizes without additional measures, such as fertility control.”


Graph: Global pandemic events which reduce population by 2 billion and 6 billion denoted by skull and crossbone image.

While the paper admits that the notion of global pandemics and wars as tools to reduce population is an “amoral” consideration, its tone almost laments the fact that these “stressors” would not significantly reduce population down to the desired “sustainable” figure of 1-2 billion people.

“It has been suggested that a total world population between 1 and 2 billion might ensure that all individuals lived prosperous lives, assuming limited change in per capita consumption and land/materials use,” states the report. The sober academic tone of the paper only partially obscures the fact that the authors are advocating that 5 billion people be eradicated from the Earth, a notion they acknowledge is “politically sensitive.”

In two other scenarios, a combination of deaths from a massive world war and a Spanish flu-style event combined, as well as a pandemic that kills 2 billion people, both fail to achieve the desired level of population reduction by 2100.

The only method to truly achieve anywhere near the kind of population reduction desired to achieve sustainability and prosperity, according to the report, is a global Chinese-style one child policy, which if imposed by 2045 would reduce global population to 3.45 billion, less than half current levels, by 2100. Models show that this would take at least 140 years to achieve if females were restricted by law to having just one child.

The report notes that one of the main obstacles to imposing stricter family planning measures and a global one child policy is “conservative religious and political opposition.” What is not discussed is the fact that China’s barbaric one child policy is imposed by means of crippling economic coercion and via a system of state terror where pregnant women are kidnapped off the street by government goons, drugged and made to undergo forced abortions before being sterilized.


Graph: According to the report, the only way to reduce global population anywhere near to “sustainable” levels of 1-2 billion would be a global one child policy.

Acknowledging that the imposition of such measures would be “challenging to achieve,” the authors assert that such draconian methods offer, “great potential to reduce the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the long term.”

“There are clearly many environmental and societal benefits to ongoing fertility reduction in the human population,” conclude the authors, arguing that such measures represent a “solution long in the making.”

In reality, when one studies models of human demographics produced by other entities, including the United Nations’ own figures, overpopulation ceases to be an issue past 2050 and in fact the real problem becomes underpopulation.

As the Economist reported, “Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.”

In addition, Professor Hans Rosling’s study of global demographics, expertly summarized in his presentation Don’t Panic – The Truth About Population (embedded below), illustrates how “in a few generations’ time, world population growth will level off completely.”

Given the fact that the white paper published by the National Academy of Sciences has debunked alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich’s fingerprints all over it, its value lies not in providing us with accurate statistics about population growth, but in offering a shocking glimpse into the eugenics-driven madness and environmental radicalism that still pervades the halls of academia worldwide in the context of hysteria about overpopulation.

InfoWars

2010 Rockefeller Foundation Document Envisions Pandemic Police State Scenario

InfoWars
by MIKAEL THALEN

“Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified”

A May 2010 scenario planning report produced by The Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Business Network envisions the likely creation of a technological police state in response to a deadly worldwide pandemic.
lockstep

Lock Step: Think tank predicts possible outcome to deadly virus outbreak

The document, entitled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, attempts to wargame different government responses to several potential disasters, while painting the solution as global governance. Page 18 of the document breaks down a fabricated scenario in which the United States refuses to protect its borders and restrict air travel following the outbreak of a new deadly virus.

“In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain—originating from wild geese—was extremely virulent and deadly,” the scenario states. “Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults.”

Drawing eerily similar circumstances with the current Ebola outbreak, the scenario goes on to detail a botched response by the United States government as large populations throughout Africa are decimated.

“The pandemic blanketed the planet—though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge,” the document reads. “The United States’s initial policy of ‘strongly discouraging’ citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders.”

Interestingly, the scenario’s author uses the Chinese Communist government as the entity which exhibits the best response, specifically mentioning mandatory quarantines and border protection.

However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post- pandemic recovery.

China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.

Necessary and questionable tactics used to stem the tide of the virus remain long after the pandemic, allowing governments to impose “authoritarian” controls under the guise of protecting the public.

“Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.”

“At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit.”

The pandemic was also used to implement long-sought technologies, most notably biometric IDs for citizens.

In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.

Across the developing world, however, the story was different—and much more variable. Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high- emitting vehicles.

While fictional, the attempt to predict and plan for major disasters by think tanks and governments alike could very well provide insight into decisions being made currently. Although certain medical protocols are needed, the likelihood for subtle power grabs are dangerous and present.

In regards to the current Ebola crisis, an executive order update by President Obama has caused concern among civil liberties advocates, especially given the President’s otherwise lackluster response.

The executive order, known as the Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases, allows President Obama to apprehend and detain any American who simply shows signs of any “respiratory illness.”

The dictate becomes even more troublesome in light of the recent admission by Missouri doctor James Lawrenzi, who exclusively told the Alex Jones Show last week that potential-Ebola patients are being “disappeared” from hospitals without notice.

“These patients are disappearing, they’re doing something with the patients and God knows where they’re going,” said the doctor.

Whether the Obama administration’s dismal response is pure ignorance or an attempt to get the public to demand authoritarian control remains to be seen.

Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development (Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network

InfoWars

Police State Targets Dissidents: Government To “Impose Extreme Disruption Orders On Individuals”

SHTFplan
by Mac Slavo

police-state-dissidents-1

The battle for hearts and minds is on and the elite are getting fed up with citizen proles who believe it a right to speak freely and openly about their ideologies and criticisms of government policies.

Their attempts to control the agenda and conversation have repeatedly been met with protests, both online and off, as traditional mainstream audiences migrate by the millions to alternative media and citizen journalism.

But this obvious threat to the establishment’s status quo won’t be allowed to go on much longer. A recent interview with the head of England’s Ministry of Home Security, the British counterpart of America’s Department of Homeland Security, shows just how dangerous open thought and free speech are.

Home Secretary Theresa May explains what the freedom-loving people of the United Kingdom can come to expect in the very near future if their online commentary is deemed to be hatred or extremist thought by the government. And this, as you’ll see below, isn’t just about the UK, which has often been used as a petri dish for global regulators who want to see what does or doesn’t work on a smaller scale before introducing their policies and legalese in the United States.

The police would also be given new powers to apply to a court to impose extreme disruption orders on individuals, using the same criteria.

This could result in those targeted being stopped from taking part in public protests, from being present at all in certain public locations, from associating with named people, from using of conventional broadcast media and from “obtaining any position of authority in an institution where they would have influence over vulnerable individuals or children”.

Breach of the restrictions – which would be time limited – would be a criminal offence. (BBC)

An interview of Theresa May discussing how these new policies will keep Brits “safe and secure” shows the Secretary repeating the same talking points over and over in defense of her position. When questioned about whether innocent people just speaking their minds could get caught up in the extremist web, May goes to her default answer:

What we are looking at is a situation where believe we need to take powers necessary to be able to deal with those people who are preaching hatred on our streets and that is an extremism which can lead others into violent acts.

Of course not all extremists are violent and not all violence comes out of that extremism. But there is a link. There is a thread between this. And I believe we need to be able to deal with that if we are going to do the job we want to do, which is keeping people safe and secure.


(Video via Steve Quayle and All News Pipeline)

But such things like supplanting political thought or the free expression of views only happens elsewhere. Such ludicrous ideas could never be introduced here in America.

Unless of course you consider that a bi-partisan Congressional panel is now looking to impose similar restrictions on free speech right here in the good ol’ USA:

A key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.

Ravel’s statement suggests that she would regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like “Obama Girl,” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations. (Washington Examiner)

Make no mistake. Such regulatory and legislative policy would not only target conservative web sites. Every single American citizen would be subject to its rules.

Want to post a video with political undertones? Banned.

Did you mention a political candidate’s name in your social media post? Banned.

Did you send an email to friends and family promoting a particular idea that runs contrary to the traditionally accepted government policy? Banned.

Are you wearing a T-shirt that upsets the politically correct crowd? Banned.

And not just banned. In the United Kingdom you would face criminal repercussions. In the United States, as noted in the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Acts, you could literally be swept up by militarized government SWAT teams and held indefinitely without charge or trial.

A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act “”dangerous to human life”” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to:  (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.  Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Source: USA Patriot Act

We can see by the broad language how easily one can be accused of “intimidation” or “coercion.” In the end it really just boils down to be a matter of interpretation, and you could bet your bottom dollar that Federal prosecutors and secret terrorism courts will ensure that you fall well within the Patriot Act should you step out of line.

In a recent piece penned by Paul Joseph Watson we can see these new regulations already taking shape through a redefining of terms such as “suspicious activity.”

Purchasing train tickets with cash, exiting a train before or after other passengers, or appearing calm or nervous are all examples of behavior that Amtrak employees have been told to report as “suspicious activity.”

A document entitled Guidelines for Amtrak Customer Service Employees, which was obtained by the ACLU after an FOIA request, lists a number of different behaviors that are “indicative of criminal activity” and should immediately be reported to law enforcement personnel by Amtrak ticket agents.

Are you calm when purchasing a ticket? That could mean you’re a terrorist.

What about nervous? Do you look at little nervous? Yup, that probably makes you a terrorist, too.

This is what the free people of the United States, the United Kingdom and the rest of the world are facing from entrenched elite financial, economic and geo-political organizations who mean to control every aspect of our lives.

And be assured, they’re not war-gaming civil unrest scenarios and stockpiling billions of rounds of ammunition just so they can play target practice.

Many Americans see what’s coming and are taking steps to prepare for a completely different world. But most don’t even have a clue.

Your views and ideas make you an enemy of the state.

In fact, the United Nations Charter on Human Rights addresses people like you, and despite the fact that our founders forbade international treaties for this very purpose, our government is a long-time proponent of these ideals and policies. The Charter talks a big game with, among other things, freedom of expression, the right to live peacefully, and protections to ensure you can’t be detained indefinitely without trial until, that is, you reach Article 29, Section 3:

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

So, as long as you tow the party line you can enjoy your “freedom.”

For those that don’t, one day soon these international and domestic legislative implements will give them the pretext to come looking for you, as well as those who, as Theresa May stated, have a “thread” that might be connected to you.

SHTFplan

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,085 other followers

%d bloggers like this: