MPs vote for air strikes on Iraq

cameranus copy

So the war in the Middle East gathers momentum – as it was always planned to. It is time for all of us to start thinking outside of the box – or rather, the bollocks – if we are to discern what is really going on here.

The truth behind this latest war is simple.  Politicians and the ownership class complicate and obfuscate the truth.

1. There is no IS, ISIL, or ISIS. Its a bogus threat created by western intelligence agencies.

2. “Jihadi John” is an actor on the payroll of MI6.

3. None of the alleged beheadings were genuine. They were all faked. Watch the videos if you find that hard to believe.

4. US and UK air strikes on Iraq and Syria have been predicated on the basis of these phoney videos. (After his defeat in Parliament last year, Cameron and his puppet masters had to come up with something that would truly traumatise and horrify the masses and the professional pillocks in Parliament).

5. The moral cesspit that masquerades as a democratically elected parliament comprises of ignorant career politicians who are more interested in feathering their own nests than challenging the blatant lies of the coalition (hence the 524 to 43). And what has happened to the official inquiry into paedophile rings operating at the heart of Westminster?

6. UK air strikes on Iraq represent a major continuity in UK foreign policy that began after the British Empire secured possession of what was then called Mesopotamia under the Treaty of Sevres (1920).

7. UK foreign policy is planned, coordinated and moulded by the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The permanent corporate members of this “think tank” included BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin UK, and Goldman Sachs International. War, after all, is big business for the big defence corporations and international banking syndicates.

Yes, on one level, the renewed war in Iraq and now Syria is about oil and resources. Moreover, as we move closer and closer – albeit incrementally – to a one world ruling structure, these traditional “trouble spots” must be brought to heel, if they are to be absorbed into that structure. Shortly after the false flag 9/11 terror attacks, General Wesley Clark, a former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, admitted in an interview with Amy Goodman that the US planned to “take out 7 countries in 5 years”. These countries were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran“.


Admittedly, the globalist agenda is way behind schedule –  thanks, in large part, to the mass awakening that is currently taking place – but it remains on course, nevertheless. Clark told Goodman that:

Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

But, of course, the rationales for the current airstrikes and impending all out war go even deeper than this. War, or rather, the threat of an external enemy – whether real or promulgated – is requisite to the survival of any ruling hierarchy. Governments do not survive long without enemies. In order to perpetuate human acquiescence to authority – or in truth, a fake authority – governments will always need to contrive the spectre of an external menace. Its a scam that rulers have played for centuries. What we have witnessed since its inception in 2001 is the kind of perpetual war that Orwell warned us about.

“The war, therefore if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless… War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s