Brandon Smith

The key is to cast off the dread of the machine and realize that none of us is alone in the fight. The juggernaut is hollow. Its terrible roar is choked with smoke. It rolls forward only because we have not yet dared to stand in its path.

At the very foundation of perhaps every modern day conflict between the expansive powers of unchecked bureaucracy and the dwindling freedoms of the ordinary citizen dwells the vital issue of privacy. Privacy and the right to hold personal and political views without being singled out and scrutinized by government is absolutely essential to any society which dares to deem itself “fair and just”. Ultimately, without the presence of these two liberties, and without people to defend them, a nation is ill equipped to circumvent the growth of tyranny, and anyone claiming to be “free” in the midst of such a culture is living a delusion of the highest order.

Often, social engineers attempt to direct debate over the issue of privacy towards rationalizations of relative morality, or artificially delineated priorities. We quibble over the level of government intrusion that should be tolerated for the sake of the “greater good”. We struggle with questions of bureaucratic reach, wondering at which point we should consider government a threat to the safety and liberty of the people, rather than a servant and protector. The dialogue always turns towards “how much” room government should be given to lumber about our personal lives. Rarely do we actually confront the idea that, perhaps, government should not be welcomed at all into such places.

Really, what makes a governmental entity so special that it should be allowed free access to the activities of the average citizen? Why should ANY intrusion of privacy be tolerated, let alone the kind that goes on today? Our most important concern is not how much leeway our government should be given to snoop into our pocket books, our medical records, our education, our political leanings, or our child rearing philosophies, but rather, whether or not they fulfill any purpose whatsoever through these actions. Is the government, as it exists now, even necessary, or does it cause only harm?

More »

Stephen Lendman

Most people know about the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of England, and Bank of Japan.

Few ever heard of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the central bank for central bankers. Based in Basle, Switzerland, it's a banking boss of bosses accountable to no government.

Privately owned by its member central banks, dominant ones and financial elitists have most influence to eventually implement global control under one currency.

The BIS is a secretive 55-member nation global central bank run mainly by monetary authorities in America, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and Britain.

In 2009, serving dominant banking interests, Obama proposed stealth financial reform for global monetary control.

Objective V addressed "Rais(ing) International Standards and Improving International Cooperation" by promoting global control in a single paragraph:

"The United States is playing a strong leadership role in efforts to coordinate international policy through the G-20, the Financial Stability Board, and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. We will use our leadership position in the international community to promote (an) initiative compatible with the domestic regulatory reforms described in this report."

It also recommended "Strengthen(ing) the Financial Stability Board....complet(ing) its restructuring and institutionaliz(ing) its new mandate to promote global financial stability by September 2009."

In addition, it urged "work(ing) with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and standard setters to develop macroprudential tools." Obama asked other nations to follow America's lead.

A Financial Stability Board (FSB) would be a step closer to global monetary control. G-7 nations, the BIS, IMF and other international lending agencies would dominate it. Wall Street would have greater than ever power. Dictatorial finance capital would follow.

More »

Jonathon Blakeley

Atlantic Bridge was set up as the name suggests to bridge across the Atlantic; as an Atlanticist think tank. To foster and maintain that “special relationship” between the US and UK. Founded by Liam Fox in 1997 Atlantic Bridge was ostensibly a charity but failed to meet the basic guidelines for a charity and was booted off in September 2011 by the Charity commission. It was supposed to have an educational role but failed to do so and spent all its donated money on travel, accommodation and social events for its supporters. BICOM (The British Israel Communications and Research Centre) was one of its primary sources of donations.

BICOM lists its activities as:

● Providing daily, expert news summary and analysis of events in Israel and the region through our online publications.
● Taking British journalists, opinion formers and policy makers to Israel and the Palestinian territories to learn about the issues first-hand.
● Bringing analysts, journalists and politicians from the region to Britain, to share their insights with their British counterparts.
● Promoting a balanced discourse about Israel in the British media by creating opportunities for a wide range of voices to be heard.
●Organising events and seminars in the UK aimed at deepening the discussion about Israel in Britain.
● Engaging in dialogue with British opinion formers, policy makers and the media on issues of importance to Israel and the Britain-Israel relationship.
● Providing resources to individuals and organisations in Britain who share BICOM’s agenda to promote a better understanding of Israel.

Bicom has been keen to foster close relationships with all media people as can be seen here by this interesting leaked email. As well as the media interests Bicom has close links and donates large amounts to all three political parties in the UK; but this is not directly. Bicom donates to CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel) & the LFI (The Labour Friends of Israel) as well and many other Political organisations. It is through these mediator organisations that money is channeled to the politicians themselves.

More »

Patrick Martin

Today the “commander-in-chief” targets an Islamic preacher, claiming he is a terrorist. Tomorrow, he may simply target the Islamic preacher because he is “anti-American.” And the day after, he can target any individual, organization or party that opposes the policies of American imperialism.

The Obama administration drafted a secret legal memorandum last year claiming that the president had the power to order the killing of an American citizen without a trial, a power that was exercised ten days ago with the drone missile murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, an Islamic radical cleric born in the United States of Yemeni parents.

Awlaki and three other men—one of them also an American citizen, Samir Khan—were blown to pieces by a missile fired from a CIA-operated drone in northern Yemen. The Obama administration claimed, without providing any evidence, that Awlaki was a high-level “operational leader” of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and justified the killing as a preemptive military action, using almost the same language as the Bush administration before it.

More »