“VAZIANI TRAINING AREA, Republic of Georgia — Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen from the U.S., Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine participated in the opening ceremony here July 15 for the training exercise Immediate Response 2008.”

“‘Over the next several weeks, we will live together, work together, and train together,’ SETAF commander Brig. Gen. William B. Garrett III said in his remarks at the event. ‘This is an invaluable opportunity to get to know and understand one another, to learn about different cultures, and to build enduring relationships between professional militaries.’”

–

Coincidence?

Bound to be.

The Financial Times reports today that “Opec nations earned as much in the first half of this year as they did in the whole of 2007 – thanks both to record oil prices and record production – triggering a big increase in its spending.”

The question is, what are they spending it on?

One answer came in yesterday’s Sunday Times.

So,  London based financial interests artificially drive up the price of oil, their friends in Saudi make pots of money, and in return, London based defense companies get lovely big contracts, safe in the knowledge there’ll be no corruption inquiry.

I’m sure there’s nothing to worry about here. Move along, now.

In the future, people will look back on the 8th of August, 2008 as the day WWIII began. Long in the planning, the defeated Lisbon Treaty faction within the EU has been pressing ahead anyway with their policy of destabilisation in the Balkans and the Caucasus.

Back in February, when the EU supported the unilateral independence of Kosovo, it was already perfectly clear that this destabilisation would not only touch the Balkan states, but was also giving the green light to every conceivable separatist movement and minority throughout the world.

Just as the war in the Balkans lead up to World War I, this ethnically complicated region is serving as a chessboard for EU geopolitical destabilisations, drawing Europe and Russia into conflict, with the ultimate aim to subsume Russia into an even more massive European super state.

Yesterday morning, an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was called at the behest of Russia. The Georgian Ambassador stated his position - that Georgia offers South Ossetia autonomy, but only along “European lines,” with international guarantees. This “European” style autonomy is the same strategy defined by the Centre for Liberal Strategies, based in Bulgaria, from where it is argued that the entire region must become a “post-modern European order,” with no nation states. As a result, they say, a clash with Russia is inevitable, because Russia “embodies the nostalgia both for the old-European nation-state, and for a European order organised around the balance of power and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states”

That Russia is the ultimate target was made clear at the end of last month in a Newsweek article by Mark Leonard, Director of the European Council On Foreign Relations. An anti-Russian propaganda piece, he rounded it off by saying “This one lingering issue [the Litvinenko affair] is but a glaring illustration of the kinds of problems Russia poses to the rest of Europe. It is therefore time for the EU to agree, at least on principle, to a common response to these shows of Russian aggression. The EU’s population is more than three times the size of Russia’s; its economy is 15 times larger. But its biggest strength lies in interdependence, solidarity and consensus. When the next crisis comes, all European states will need to be prepared.”

Clearly, some in the EU corridors of power are beginning to think like Hitler.

On the very same day, another ECFR “thinker,” Nick Whitney, released a report which argued for a group of European nations to press ahead with the establishment of the military and defense institutions envisaged by the Lisbon Treaty, thus creating a “two speed” European defense policy.

Although there is no requirement for EU countries to participate, he wrote, they then have no right to interfere with EU “pioneer group” decisions on sending troops abroad.

There should be the creation of an EU headquarters in Brussels, which would integrate civilian assets for crisis management, for example the police, with the military. (Just a few days ago, Silvio Berlusconi deployed Italian troops onto the streets of Italy, to “help police fight crime,” in what’s clearly a trial run of this policy recommendation.)

Whitney’s report calls for the consolidation of the pioneer group’s men and materiel, and the creation of a cartel of streamlined defence industries which are, he says, presently too focused on sovereign national priorities. He demands that pioneer groups of countries, with their expeditionary force capabilities, pool together around the European Defense Agency - the EU’s mini Pentagon.

Many European nations have been well aware for some time of Georgia’s intentions to attack South Ossetia. Indeed, they have been planning it. Under EU Secretary General Javier Solana’s direction, the EU organised a diplomatic group which traveled to Transdniestria, Moldova, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They arranged visits to Brussels and London by leaders they were cultivating from these so-called “unrecognised republics.”

In this effort, the EU group has been working closely with Georgia’s “Rose Revolution” leader, President Michael Saakashvili, who said himself in May: “We are the fighting ground for a new world war.”

The building blocks are being put in place for a war between Europe and Russia. A new report from European Council for Foreign Relations makes calls for a “two speed” European defence policy - effectively urging certain nations to proceed with one of the key tenets of the Lisbon Treaty / European Constitution without the need to wait for agreement from the rest. To hell with you, Ireland!

The report is written by ECFR Senior Fellow Nick Witney. Educated at Oxford, Witney is a career diplomat for Britain, among other things he supervised the Al Yamamah contract (BAE) for the U.K. Ministry of Defense, before becoming the first head of the European Defense Agency, the EU’s mini-Pentagon.

The report (pdf) calls for the reduction of the total number of Europeans in uniform, the reduction in “useless” military equipment such as tanks (consolidation), and the creation of a cartel of streamlined defence industries which are, he says, presently too focused on sovereign national priorities. He demands that “pioneer groups” of countries, with their expeditionary force capabilities, pool together around the EDA.

Although there is no requirement for EU countries to participate, he writes, they then have no right to interfere with EU “pioneer group” decisions on sending troops abroad.

There should be the creation of an EU headquarters in Brussels, which would integrate civilian assets for crisis management (such as police) with the military. (Are this weeks events in Italy a trial run, do you think?)

The report also urges the creation of a civilian reserve corps, to ensure the right personnel are available.

On the same day the Witney report was released, his colleague, Mark Leonard, Director of the ECFR, had an anti-Russian propaganda piece published in Newsweek. He rounded off by saying “This one lingering issue [the Litvinenko affair] is but a glaring illustration of the kinds of problems Russia poses to the rest of Europe. It is therefore time for the EU to agree, at least on principle, to a common response to these shows of Russian aggression. The EU’s population is more than three times the size of Russia’s; its economy is 15 times larger. But its biggest strength lies in interdependence, solidarity and consensus. When the next crisis comes, all European states will need to be prepared.”

Is it a coincidence that these two reports from the same think tank were published on the same day?

I think not.

That’s the headline in today’s Telegraph coverage of the “trial” of three men accused of helping the alleged suicide bombers who blew up London Underground trains and a bus on the 7th of July 2005.

Except that these men didn’t assist the alleged bombers, because the alleged bombers didn’t do it.

What’s rarely noticed is that, by the official story, the “bombers” took a train with their rucksack bombs from Luton to Kings Cross Station. Except that train doesn’t go to Kings Cross station - it goes to Kings Cross Thameslink station.  It’s a walk of several minutes to the Kings Cross underground station. Even if the bombers had run through the tunnels, out onto the street, over the top of the rush hour commuters, through more tunnels, and even if there had been a tube train just waiting to pull away as they got on, it isn’t possible to get to Edgeware Road on time. I know - I tried. Couldn’t do it.

Never mind all the other holes in the official tale.

The whole story is a pile of shite, so it’s no wonder the Jury at the trial of the supposed co-conspirators can’t reach a unanimous verdict. No wonder the government refuses to hold an official inquiry.

Science was recently able to announce proof that women’s brains are different to men’s. Anyone with a wife probably knows that anyway. But what science has so far not been able to prove, is whether Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary, has a brain at all.

On the 17th June, the government published the crime figures for 2007/08 (pdf). The statistics show a 12% fall in violent crime over the previous year, and yet, as part of the British government’s effort to disarm the general population of everything from guns to rolling pins, we have all been bombarded with story after story about the rise of knife related crime.

According to the British crime figures, no-one knows whether or not knife crime is more common now than in previous years, because they haven’t collected statistics on this specific area before - the numbers were rolled into the statistics for general violent crime, which as I already pointed out, are down on the previous year.

So in an effort to make certain that next year’s figures show an upward trend, Ms Smith is encouraging members of the public to intervene in knife related incidents. I can’t think of a better way to get yourself killed, which would be ideal for the propagandists at the Home Office, who would have a field day.

This government doesn’t want to see a reduction in knife related crime, or any other crime - they are using it as an just another excuse to degrade civil liberties, in the same way they use the non-existent terrorist threat.

The Guardian headlined a story yesterday with, “Policing to be put in the hands of directly elected mayors as part of radical shakeup.” The article says, “Directly elected mayors are to be given democratic control over their local police as part of a shakeup to be detailed today by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith.

So far only 12 towns and cities, including London, have directly elected mayors. Ministers hope the powers will increase the appeal of such a post.

Under the proposals, to be spelled out in a Home Office green paper on policing this afternoon, mayors such as Boris Johnson in London will become  the “new crime and policing representative” for their city, replacing the  existing police authority.”

So, what’s this all about, then?

Feudalism

Feudalism does not, as the word might suggest, require a society of kings and noblemen with peasants living in mud huts any more than to be a fascist requires the wearing of a swastika.

Rather, a feudal society is one where 95% of the population is treated like ill-fed, poorly educated (if at all) cattle, where there is no hope of a better life for the next generation, and where the top 5% live as an oligarchy, feeding off the rest via their corporations, supported by their unelected puppetmasters (think tanks, NGOs) who manage the so-called elected representatives.

Lisbon Treaty

One of the key authors of the Lisbon Treaty was Giuliano Amato, erstwhile President of Italy. In an interview with Barbara Spinelli*, printed in the Italian daily La Stampa on the 13th July, 2000, Amato explained his vision for the future:

“Frankly, I do not want a continental Europe only, without the immense patrimony of England, and of the Scandinavians linked to England. Nor would I like to lose Spain, which is skeptical of the vanguard … To have England among us would not be bad: In many ways, London is already where we would like to be. It would not be bad if England, with its experience of economic reforms, were present in the council of States belonging to the euro … Therefore I prefer to go slowly, to crumble little by little pieces of sovereignty, avoiding sudden shifts from national to federal powers … I do not believe in a federal sovereign, because our globalised universe is post-Hobbesian.”

Spinelli: “The world you describe seems to be pre-Hobbesian. It seems to precede the nation-state.”

“And why not going back the period before Hobbes?” replied Amato. “The Middle Ages had a much richer humanity, and a diversity of identity which today can be a model. The Middle Ages is beautiful: It can have its policymaking centers, without relying entirely on anyone. It is beyond the bounds of the nation-state. Today, as then, nomads are reappearing in our societies. Today, also, we have powers without territories … Without sovereignties, we will not have totalitarianism. Democracy does not need a sovereign.”

So, the idea behind the Lisbon Treaty, and surely Amato must have agreed this with the other authors, is for a return to middle ages style feudalism, which was characterised, for the vast majority, by a complete absence of human rights or justice, by short life expectancies, and by rampaging war and disease. To consider this “beautiful” is insane, is it not?

City States

Another characteristic of the middle ages, was the City State, and there lies the second front in the destruction of the nation state.

The modern drive to re-establish the City State came in April, 2006, with the “First Transatlantic Conference of Mayors,” held in Lyon, France.

Opening the conference, Denver Mayor, Wellington E Webb said, “If there is one theme that I would like to impart during this session, it is: the nineteenth century was the century of Empires. The twentieth century was the century of nationstates. The twenty-first century will be a ‘century of cities.’”

The Policy Of Dictatorship

So just as the Lisbon Treaty moves power from soveriegn nation state governments to an unelected dictatorship, the City State takes power via devolution. In combination, they leave the nation with no power of self determination, because in the end, the City State will only exist to implement the policies handed down by the unelected dictatorship.

This political architecture represents the goal of a centrally managed, global, fascist dictatorship. The key elements are being put in place slowly, but surely, and the migration of control of the police from the Police Authority to the City Mayors is just another step.

–

* The full interview can only be found by using La Stampa’s archive search. Use the search term “Europa,” change the next drop down to “Frase esatta,” change the dates to 13th July 2000, and click on Ricerca. The article is entitled “DAL SOGNO DEL PRINCIPE AL GOVERNO DI BRUXELLES DIBATTITO AMATO all’Europa non serve un sovrano” and is the first result returned.

Today is quatorze juillet here in France, commemorating the 14th July 1789 storming of the Bastille, which ultimately triggered the Jacobin Revolution.

The storming of the Bastille is typical of those events in history, such as the burning of the Reichstag, or the 11th September “attacks;” events which are entirely fabricated and manipulated for the sake of public opinion - in this case to arrange for the restoration of Swiss born Jacques Necker as Finance Minister, who had been dismissed from his post by Louis XVI on the 11th July.

It was certainly clear to Jean-Sylvain Bailly, first deputy of Paris to the Estates General, first president to the National Assembly, first Mayor of Paris, and later beheaded during the Jacobin Terror of Robespierre, that the storming of the Bastille was such an event. “The agitation of the people, had changed to fury,” he wrote. “It was clear that an order had been given to storm the Bastille.”

By 8 o’clock on the morning of the 14th July, the cannons on the Bastille were already pointing at the people. Why? Why defend such an unimportant post? It was only a prison, after all. What’s more, there were only seven prisoners - four forgers, two “lunatics” and one “deviant” aristocrat, the comte de Solages. The Marquis de Sade had been transferred out ten days earlier, by “coincidence.”

At around 1.30 pm, the guns fired on the crowd outside. By 3pm, the crowd was reinforced by “mutinous” gardes françaises and other “deserters” from among the regular troops, along with two cannon. At 5pm, the governor, de Launay, ordered a cease fire. The gates were opened and at 5.30 pm the vainqueurs swept in to “liberate” the Bastille.

Bailly wrote in his memoires, “there is no doubt that orders were given to defend himself [de Launay] to the very last; and I cannot conceive of the reason for this, because the Bastille was neither a citadel, nor an important post … Whatever may have been his orders, a general insurrection was surely not intended; it necessarily had to force a modification of them. The Bastille was a prison and not a citadel; it was not worth defending at the cost of the people’s blood; even the commandant of a post must defend himself differently, whether he is attacked by the people or by the enemies of the nation. This situation required more precise orders, much more appropriate to the circumstances of the moment, which were not known in Versailles, for taking the extreme decision to open fire and to massacre Frenchmen. De Launay has not recognised the deputations that were sent to him; furthermore it was his duty to call on the city to discuss [the situation] with him.”

Bailly believed that the whole affair had been a pre-planned insurrection organised by Jacques Necker, Philippe Égalité, and Baron Besenval de Bronstadt. It bears an uncanny resemblance to the Jacobin storming of Newgate prison in London, nine years earlier.