Confidential Ad Personam Memorandum
April 23 2003
The Vatican’s Divisions
At the Beginning of World War IV
"The Pope? How many divisions does the Pope have?"
(Stalin, 13 May 1935)
"I do not understand this position (of the Pope who considers the pre-emptive strike strategy as immoral)…I don’t understand how the use of force against a regime of this type can be
considered immoral…..Inaction could allow even more immoral actions to occur…"
(Condoleeza Rice, Bush Counselor, 13 February 2003)
THE WOLF AND THE LAMB
A wolf sees a lamb near a stream drinking from the water,
and he decides that he would like to eat the lamb, but he needs to find a pretext.
So, standing upstream, the wolf begins to accuse the lamb of dirtying the water, so that he is not able to drink there.
The lamb responds that when he drinks, he barely touches the surface of the water, and that, being downstream, he could not possibly dirty the water that was upstream.
Having lost that pretext, the wolf said: "You are the one who, last year, insulted my father!"
The lamb explains that last year he had not even been born yet,
"Well", exclaimed the wolf, "since you are so good at finding excuses, I cannot in any way refuse to eat you".
The fable shows that just defenses do not work against someone who has already decided to do wrong. Even Heads of State, when they want to win by using force, invent false pretexts, and it is not
possible to change their minds with just and well-founded arguments.
(Freely taken from an original attributed to Aesop, VIII B.C)
On the13th of May 1935 - according to what was recorded by various sources, including The Gathering Storm from Winston Churchill – Stalin answered to a desperate request by the French Foreign
Minister, Pierre Laval, with the now famous phrase: "The Pope? How many divisions does the Pope have?"
Laval had tried everything to convince Stalin to create an opening with the Vatican at the moment in which the Nazi military machine was starting up, and at the moment in which the unity of
European forces (religious, ideological, political, State, and military) which was being immediately, or at least potentially, threatened by Hitler was a sine qua non.
The existential effort to find a concerted action against the growing Nazi threat did not truly emerge until the apocalyptic launching of the blitzkrieg (Hitler’s expedited war) against a series
of weak countries (Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.). These countries were crushed by the superiority of the Nazi military machine in terms of technology, organization, espionage, and psychological warfare; above all,
however, they were victims of their own fears and of the cynical-masochistic calculations of the international community.
Many powerful nations of the time, above all the elite in Great Britain, had placed their bets on the possibility of a German attack against Russia which, according to their calculations, was to
be handed over to Hitler on a silver platter. At the same time, the German-Russian war would wear out Germany, thus creating a classic case of "killing two birds with one stone" scenario. This explains the
consent, or even the encouragement, of Hitler on behalf of the hegemonic Anglo-Saxon nations that saw in him a brutal, yet effective instrument for reaching their goals.
The U.N. of that time, known as The League of Nations, although certainly not an example of a sinless or fearless Round Table, was still cast aside without any hesitation because, just as in the
case of today’s U.N., it was the only global forum where weak countries, in order to save their sovereignty and territorial integrity, could count on the protective principles of international law.
We will not, in this report, go further into the strategic details (which are still vastly unknown) of the Second World War. A disquisition on the genesis of that War is not among the goals of
this report. The references to Stalin, and to the "divisions of the Pope," as well as the final dialogue about the wolf and the lamb, have a much more direct scope: to call attention to the frightening (in the
literal sense of the word) strategic situation that exists in this April of 2003.
Fear: the main obstacle
After the war against Iraq and the propositions of "an endless, quick war" expressed by the instigators of that war, it is no longer possible to close our eyes and hope that the monster
will go away. As was well-illustrated by Francisco Goya, the opposite is true: the sleep of reason produces monsters, or, giving in to fear produces monsters. If there is no change in international dynamics, this
parade of monsters will represent only the beginning of what is already being called – see the statements by former head of the CIA R. James Woolsey – the Fourth World War (considering the Cold War as the Third).
For those in positions of leadership and responsibility it must be clear that, little by little, accepting small and then bigger lies, we have arrived at an existential crisis. A moment in which
the future existence of the nations of the world, based on the principles that governed them, for better or worse, up until this moment are in doubt. Until now, the vast majority of world leaders have tacitly accepted
the idea that it is better to commit suicide than to face the fear provoked by a force which is perceived as being incalculably superior. Now, the alternative between suicide and facing the fear is a very concrete
choice. Purely "objective" solutions do not exist.
Every person that is in a position of leadership must begin to face his or her own fears, and he or she must confront them individually. Only then will that leader be able to help free the
people he is responsible for from their own fears. Unfortunately, many so-called leaders "have faked it" up until now. They pretended – but only pretended -- to personify those principles of courage and
wisdom that they rhetorically refer to continuously. And this is not surprising to the majority of Italians who "are well-informed", even if only verbally. Nonetheless, we have now arrived at the test of
fire. The shepherd that has more fear of the wolf, than of betraying the duty he has to his flock, will end up with an exterminated flock. And then, the wolf will attack the shepherd as well.
It is impossible to overestimate the importance of this subjective problem and of the connected problem of individual fear. This is the starting point to re-emerge form the inferno that the world
– and Italy – is falling into very, very rapidly. Any strategic or tactical consideration must start from there: from the will to confront the wave of irrational fear.
In reality, the ability to instill fear, to confuse and paralyze a victim, thus forcing them to surrender without a fight is the ultimate goal of psychological warfare and, in fact, of war tout
court. The classic modus operandi of the British colonial wars was known as the "Gunboat Diplomacy".
The recipe was simple: you choose a country or a city to conquer, the best being one that is willing to defend itself, and is respected by other territories that you intend to conquer. You subject
the territory to cannon fire of the Navy, whose technological superiority the victim cannot possibly counter, (the equivalent of today’s Air Force) and you bombard them at a methodical pace for as long as is deemed
necessary, after doing everything to isolate, infiltrate and break down the government of that territory with internal wars and sabotaging of their logistical capacities. The exercising of brutality against the
population was not only directed at the immediate victims, but also to serve as a lesson for those observing.
It was a way to create fear and induce impotency. The "lesson" had the scope of softening large areas to be conquered. After the "lesson," the dictates of the colonial
power were accepted without the need for a war. It is not a coincidence that this is the guiding principle behind that branch of unorthodox warfare commonly known as terrorism (strike one to educate one hundred).
Without the element of fear and intimidation, it would be impossible for the colonial Empire to conquer and, above all, to maintain conquered areas with a population and geographical area
hundreds of times larger than the conquering nation. Only the collaboration (involuntary but iron-clad) of the victims made the existence of the Empire possible. If the mechanism of intimidation had been obstructed, even
for a moment, the entire edifice would have collapsed.
The weapon of truth
The first step towards emerging from the abyss, and neutralizing the effects of psychological warfare, is to tell the truth. For the pragmatic politician that lives day by day, this could
seem trivial. For him, the truth is merchandise which is to be used sparingly and only in the form of dossiers or "warnings". For a historic leader that intends to defuse the strategic time bomb that was
activated on September 11, 2001, the truth is the only realistic means by which to mobilize the precious resource on which a credible counterattack depends: the minds of the population. The truth is the unique basis from
which to free citizens from the cloud of confusion and fear that prevents them from thinking and reacting.
From a military point of view: this is the only way to gain a strategic advantage against an enemy whose power is based on fear and confusion. Furthermore: this is an enemy who counts on the
certainty that no one will have the courage to publicly speak the truth. This certainty in the power of intimidation reassures the aggressors and disheartens the leaders of victim countries.
These disheartened leaders don’t find the courage to expose and denounce to their people the plots of which they are victim, even under the most ferocious attacks by the enemy. The details of
the conspiracy can be discussed in private, or can become a profound conviction of a large portion of the population, but it can never emerge as an official truth. The result is that without even the need to mention it,
the population becomes convinced that its leaders have betrayed them and that they gave in without a fight.
For example: it is clear that the events of September 11th were the starting point of a semi-original coup d’etat in the United States. With the pretext of September 11th
and the succeeding intimidation of the American Congress using anthrax, the American people were forced to swallow a monstrous politics of wars "without end" as foreign policy, and police state measures as
domestic policy. But this can only be whispered.
Spokesmen for the families of the victims of the World Trade Center in New York recently protested that no real inquiry was ever carried out to discover who launched those terrorist attacks. But
no institution has the courage to pick up on this cry of pain from the victims.
The theory that Osama Bin Laden could be capable of organizing and carrying out, without complicity at the highest level, the events of September 11th from his Afghani cave is a macabre
joke to anyone having professional competence in this field. In fact, no serious inquiry has been permitted up until now, even after two wars have been launched (with many others in the planning stages) on the basis of
this theory which has never proven.
What about the groups of Israeli "students" who were arrested in the context of the first investigations (including in the vicinity of the World Trade Center), and who wound up being
tied to the Israeli Military Service? The news of these arrests was simply made to disappear. Those that know are not speaking.
At this moment a large number of American citizens are convinced that there is definitive proof that Iraq was behind the September 11th attacks. This is why they supported the American
"retaliation". The fact that this is false does not have much importance, because the truth did not find institutional legs on which to stand.
And what can be said about the arms of mass destruction? And the famous chemical weapons? Just another macabre game. Iraq, tormented and exhausted from 12 years of ferocious sanctions, did not
even launch a bomb of tear-gas. Almost all of the American prisoners were freed without a scratch, whereas the American authorities have made known that they have no intention of carrying out, or even permitting, an
investigation to determine the number of Iraqi civilian casualties, nor even less, the military ones. American representatives have lied publicly to the U.N., but no one has "called their bluff". So that, those
lies have now become "the truth".
On 27th February 1933, the Reichstag, the building of the German Parliament in Berlin, was destroyed by an act of arson. The police captured Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch citizen who
confessed. Yet, the successive investigations were not able to find the organizer. The suspected "accomplices" of van der Lubbe, arrested under Hitler's orders, were found not guilty by the German Supreme
Court. Yet, the German President Paul von Hindenburg immediately granted Hitler "dictatorial powers". The march towards Nazism had begun.
One year later, Hitler took his revenge against the German Supreme Court – which had refused to back the theory of the fire – as well as against German Law. The Court was deprived of cases
regarding treason, in favor of a special Court, in which the judges were to be members of the Nazi party. The German Parliamentarians (those that potentially could have reacted) were intimidated and forced to accept the fait
accompli.
Following September 11th 2001, the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, on the wave of a frantic, chauvinistic campaign, began to implement "reform measures" of the court system
that would subvert the system of American rights. There were no institutional protests. Many American congressmen lived in the fear of the moment, of being accused of "anti-patriotism" if they dared to speak
freely.
It is also known that both the war against Iraq and the one against Afghanistan were prepared, in detail, long before the September 11th attacks.
The American congressmen are not the only ones being intimidated and forced into silence. The vast majority of American military leaders (those in uniform) were opposed to the war, just as a large
part of the State Department, and even many elements within American intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA). Some diplomats presented their
resignation.
In the Pentagon, the fanatics of these imperial wars were commonly called chicken-hawks. The common characteristic of the chicken-hawks is having escaped, thanks to sponsorships from above,
military service in war zones, starting with George W. Bush who avoided the war in Vietnam, thanks to "friends of the family". The young Bush preferred to enlist for an alternative service, with attendance at
his discretion, in the National Guard in Texas.
While the chicken-hawks, having established themselves in the control room, were preparing computer-model plans for the war in Iraq, an apparent split occurred in the high ranks of the American
elite. For the moment this split is only "apparent". The jury is still out on that. It could be true, or it could be a "division of labor".
The President (who, rumors say, is often drunk on the job and apparently uses scurrilous language against any employee that is unlucky enough to be in his presence) has turned out to be a docile
instrument for the chicken-hawk conspirators. And he is falling more and more under the influence of the religious fundamentalists, such as the tele-evangelist, Franklin Graham, an anti-Islamic fanatic.
On the other hand, a group tied to Bush Sr., including James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger and others, have criticized the war with apparent conviction. In fact, the former American
Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger openly threatened Bush with impeachment in an interview to BBC on 13th April. Among other things, Eagleburger said that "if George Bush were to decide to launch
his troops against Syria and Iran he would not remain in office for more than 15 minutes. If he were to try something like that I, myself would be in favor of his impeachment".
The Conspirators
We will not go further into the details of the colossal staging of September 11th. The point is that, by using that very sophisticated unorthodox war operation, a group of actual
conspirators (unfortunately this is the truth) took power in the White House, the Pentagon, and have placed their men throughout the Administration, and in the academic decision making centers, as well as in the media
and think-tanks that shape the strategic thinking (so to say) of Washington. Grotesque characters, full of hatred, megalomania and racism, often coming from the extreme Left and moving to the "neo-conservative"
right-wing filled with Nietschean ideology such as "Might makes right". Almost all of them are tied by a double (or triple) cord to the Israeli elites of Sharon and Nethanyau. In some cases they even have
double citizenship, American and Israeli.
Nevertheless, with George W. Bush, this group has assumed power. The group prefers the position of "influential advisor". The image that fits Washington is that of an emperor, such as
Tiberius, Caligula or Nero, seated on his throne, drunk with power but incapable of any intellectual activity, surrounded by counselors that inject verbal venom into his ears, stimulating his narcissistic instincts.
What is the Bush plan? It has been ready for quite some time, and was prepared by the conspirators: to transform the U.S. into a modern empire based on a privileged axis with Israel and England.
The conspirators have written openly that any country refusing to abide by the rules of the new empire, or any attempt to compete with it, will be crushed without mercy.
Who are the conspirators?
Let’s name some names: the Deputy Minister of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz. The mentor of Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, who was, until a few days ago, the President of the Defense Policy Board which
advices the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on which policies to adopt. Perle was forced to resign from the Presidency due to a financial scandal. Yet, the Bush Administration supported him after the scandal. Then
there is the Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who is a protégé of Wolfowitz. Then there is Douglas Feith, another protégé of Perle, who is Undersecretary of Defense for
Policy.
Also parts of the clique are two high ranking executives of the Pentagon, Dov Zacheim and Peter Rodman. It should be mentioned that the Israeli and Syrian/Lebanese sectors of the Pentagon are
domains of the members of this group. In the State Department the presence of the group is more limited. One name that stands out is the Undersecretary for Arms Control, John Bolton, and his special assistant, David
Wurmser. Wurmser, along with Perle and Feith prepared two crucial and strategic documents for the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Nethanyhau, back in 1996, which "predicted" exactly that which occurred in
Israel from the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin until today.
We must not forget the former Director of the CIA, R. James Woolsey (apparently not very popular within CIA itself) who recently launched an appeal for the Fourth World War. Nor must we forget the
theorist of universal fascism, Michael Ledeen or Eliot Cohen, member of Richard Perle’s Defense Policy Board, and whose book was read by President Bush (or at least that’s what Bush has said). The book explains how a
real leader is capable of pushing recalcitrant Generals into war in the name of a superior ideal.
The group of "influential advisors" has been on the rise since the war in Iraq. Bush recently nominated Daniel Pipes, one of the most notorious anti-Muslim racists in Washington, to the
leadership of the U.S. Peace Institute. While the Republican demagogue Newt Gingrich was just put into action by Washington against "those traitors" in the State Department that do not accept the policies of
the White House. The unleashing of a repulsive character like Gingrich signals, according to well-informed sources, the decision to arrive a settling of accounts– and a Stalinist-style purge – with those
opposing, even partially, the nazi party-line.
It is remarkable that the "influential counselors" are united, often explicitly, by a neo-conservative and messianic ideological link that spills over into religious, or cultist,
fundamentalism. It is even more remarkable that these fanatics are the inventors of "war on fundamentalism" in the name of "democracy".
The Plan
But September 11th, although being the most dramatic moment – the fuse – in the organization of this highly technological coup d’etat, was not the most important part. The preparation goes
back many years, to a scholarly and pain-staking work that included a technical part and an ideological-cultural one. The project of World War IV – an instrument to create the new empire – with which mysteries R.
James Woolsey and the other conspirators have indoctrinated ("molded") a young Bush who came from a life of artificial paradises, was not a project born yesterday.
Now in certain Washington circles it has become almost commonplace to tie the genesis of the American coup to neo-conservative think-tanks, like the Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
which, in September 2000 produced a report for the future leaders of the Bush Administration. Among the recipients of that report were, the future Vice President Dick Cheney, the future Secretary of Defense, Donald
Rumsfeld, the future number two of Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, the "brother", Jeb Bush and the future Chief of Staff of the Vice President, Lewis Libby. The report described in detail the military strategy
adopted in the Middle East and Asia after September 11th. Clearly that report renders unsustainable the theory that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. were the result of the so-called anti-terrorist emergency that
followed September 11th.
The report ("Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century"), fixed some firm points for the future Bush Administration (which was
"inaugurated" in January 2001).
http://www.americancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
http://home.earthlink.net/platter/common/misc/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
These are the main points of the report:
A) The United States must take possession of the Gulf region with or without Saddam Hussein. Quote: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides an immediate justification, the
necessity of a substantial American presence in the Gulf transcends the question of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
B) The United States must be capable of "combating and decisively winning multiple and simultaneous wars in different locations".
C) The U.S. Forces are "the cavalry of the new American frontier".
D) The report mentions the infamous draft known as the "Defense Planning Guidance" from 1992, which sustained that Washington "must discourage industrialized nations from
challenging our leadership and to aspire at a more ample global or regional role". (This point is clearly directed at Europe).
E) Permanent American bases must be established in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.
F) China must be forced into a "regime change"
G) "It is time to increase the presence of American Forces in Southeast Asia". This will facilitate "the U.S. and its allied powers in its operation to stimulate China’s process
of democratization".
H) The creation of U.S. Space Forces that can dominate space, and at the same time establish a total control over cyberspace", which is the only way to stop its enemies from utilizing the
Internet against the U.S.
I) "Biological warfare (and other new arms) could become a politically useful instrument". This point is particularly frightening if one considers the sudden spreading of
the incurable SARS, which started in China, at the same time as the war in Iraq. Due to the importance of the subject, we are printing the remaining portion of the text. "New methods of attack – electronic,
non-lethal, biological – will be more widely available….combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes….advanced forms of biological warfare that can target
specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
J) The creation of a "system of command and control", to "contain"
regimes such as Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria (that’s right, Syria!).
This is the immediate plan that has guided the revolutionary "reforms", especially in the Pentagon and the Bush Administration.
We must add that the gang of chicken-hawks has continued to elaborate, practically in public, their conspiracy. On 10th July 2002, the entire Defense Policy Board – the group of high
level experts and notables, presided over by the head conspirator, Richard Perle, which is preparing the "line" for the Pentagon – participated in mass in a session of indoctrination by one Laurent Murawiec,
one of the Perle boys. The meeting had been organized by Perle to convince the Board to accept his war policy towards Iraq.
The slides of the presentation ended up in the Editor’s office of a famous American newspaper (this is always a sign of a factional fight within the elite), which published an article. After a
smattering of cheap, anti-Islamic racism, Murawiec, encouraged by Perle, said that the sacred sites of Islam – Mecca and Medina – had to be threatened if Washington’s geopolitical plans were to run into resistance.
The goal must be the taking direct possession, militarily, of the oil wells in the Gulf area, including Saudi Arabia: the conquering of Iraq must be only the starting point. The arrival point, on the other hand, is
Egypt, which means, the entire Middle East. A slide literally said:
Iraq is the tactical pivot
Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot
Egypt the prize
The new French Revolution for "Democracy"
One of the ideological points underlined by Murawiec, as well as by the other conspirators, was that the imperial war plans were a way to export "democracy", which is the magic word that
would justify any variety of the new nazism. The pretense is obscenely funny. Yet, before laughing it off, the Europeans or those clever Italians (who "know everything") should think about what their
governments have done and said during the preparation and realization of the war in Iraq. Did perchance anyone challenge the improper use of the word "democracy" made by the Bush Administration while they were
experimenting, in corpore vili, the latest and most deadly weapons of the US arsenal of the post-Revolution In Military Affairs ?
No! No one challenged its intentions. There were some slight remarks, some ironic statements, but no one dared speak the truth. No one dared organize their population, their citizens on the
basis of that truth. And now that the law of the jungle has been de facto accepted, we will all pay the consequences if we do not wake up from this nightmare of impotence.
Listen to what is being prepared. It is only a taste, but it demonstrates that words are important and that not reacting to the lies can create very devastating consequences. The revolution of the
chicken-hawks, this macabre clown act of the "wars for democracy", just like other precedents, such as the "vital space" (Lebesraum) from Hitler, or even the contemporary variation (for example, the
"security of Israel") will not bite the dust because it is too sickening a fraud.
These plans of lucid criminal folly will be stopped only when somebody stops them. Otherwise they will go forward. No illusions. Bush had already told a delegation of Senators that the decision to
smash Iraq had been taken at least one year before the war. With the typical approach of a born-again Christian, the President stuck his head into the office, where the Head of the National Security Council, Condoleeza
Rice was discussing with a Congressional delegation on what to do with Iraq, and pronounced the famous phrase: "Fuck Saddam! We’re taking him out". Neither Tiberius, nor Caligula could have done better in
terms of relations with the Senate!
For one year the entire American political and economic world argued, Europe protested, the world disagreed, the debate at the U.N. demonstrated how almost every country in the world was against
that war. Result: the war happened anyway, and the intention is to push forward their plans.
If the resistance is what we have seen up until now, then it is certain: the Hitlerian-"democratic" revolution will advance. First the Middle East will be subject to coup d’etats
favored by arms and covert operations by the Anglo-Israeli-Americans. Middle Eastern governments will be accused of corruption, despotism, feudalism, in a sort of Procrustean bed of provocations, the governments that
have any popular support will be accused of fundamentalism and of possession of arms of mass destruction. Those that do not have popular support will be accused of usurping democracy and will be ousted.
Is the truth the exact opposite? Aren’t the accusers exactly those who own those weapons of mass destruction and, in fact, are using them? It is not important. The truth needs the arms,
minds and courage of individuals and institutions in order to assert itself. Without these, the truth can be crushed with impunity.
Then the "revolution" will expand to Asia. China will be targeted and Russia will be looted. Both of these countries – responsible not of "anti-democracy", but of being a
potential obstacle to the installation of the new empire (the Fourth Reich?) -- will be demographically mauled. The raw materials, above all oil, will be placed under control, willing or nilling. As the chicken-hawks in
Washington say, the oil, wherever it is, is a priority for "national security" of the United States.
Already the blueprint for South America and Africa – with a complete and ruthless plan for re-colonization with the final goal of looting the raw materials – is ready and signed off on. Find
out, for example, what is being planned for Colombia or Nigeria.
African oil has already been weighed, counted and put in the revenue column. In Italy, it is practically unknown that an American-Israeli think-tank, based in Jerusalem and Washington, held on
January 25, 2002 a symposium in Washington that has all of the characteristics of being a self-fulfilling prophecy that came true in a very short period of time. The title of the symposium? "African Oil: A priority for the National Security for the United States
and the African Development". (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strategic/africawhitepaper.pdf
)
What was the name of the Israeli think-tank? The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS). The manifesto of the influential Israeli think-tank starts with quotes from Vice
President Cheney (who was already head of the multinational military logistic and extraction firm, Halliburton), from the Republican Congressman Ed Royce, President of the Under-Committee on Africa, from the Assistant of
Secretary of State, Walter Kansteiner, and others.
Royce says: "African oil should be treated as a priority for U.S. national security post-9-11, and I think that post-9-11 it’s occurred to all of us that our traditional sources of
oil are not as secure as we once thought they were." Kansteiner: "African oil is of national strategic interest to us, and it will increase and become more important as we go forward".
The Report on the National Energy Policy (of May 16, 2001), which Vice President Cheney wanted to be directly under his jurisdiction, gets to the point: "Along with Latin America, West Africa
is expected to be one of the fastest growing sources of oil and gas for the American market. African oil tends to be of high quality and low in sulphur, making it suitable for stringent refined product requirements and
giving it a growing market share for refining centers on the East Coast of the United States." Meaning: "That oil is good and we want it for ourselves."
The IASPS plan for African oil is to be savored. To be read and to be circulated, cowardice permitting. It is nothing less than a declaration of intentions according to which the African states
must "privatize" their oil in favor of Anglo-American oil companies. In return, these companies, with the support of the American (and naturally, Israeli) Government, will use their control over the oil to
supply a minimum portion (panem et circernses) directly to the population, depriving the elected governments and, through this massive corruption, rendering the population dependant on their will.
As is already known, a very similar plan is what the new, Deputy King of Iraq, the American General Jay Garner, will apply to that country. Speaking of corruption, Garner, who is tied to the
chicken-hawks by a double thread (Cheney and Wolfowitz), had a career developing missile systems for Israel and did business with the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. He also made money with the missiles that were then
tested on Iraq. But the scandals, even the most obscene, do not exist if the persons in charge of denouncing them are paralyzed by infantile fears.
Why the attack against Europe
So, these Americans are implementing a looting war against Africa, the Middle East and Asia! We Europeans, we Italians are safe! Maybe we could prostitute ourselves a little bit more and they will
give use some extra juicy crumbs! We can always say that we are in favor of freedom and democracy and that we don’t like the French (we can repeat the fascist scheme and stab the French in the back, who deserve it
because they are unpleasant and speak with a funny accent), but we like Bush because he is brave and wise. So Berlusconi has been clever and now: we are on the side of the winners. We will never be sent to the
concentration camps; this is a problem only for others… What a relief…. Right?
Wrong! This is not simply cowardice. It is also a colossal and suicidal mistake! The war in Iraq, as well as all of the other wars of the chicken-hawks, are,
in fact, wars against Europe! Let’s be clear, they are not wars against France or Germany, because they refused to join the just war for "democracy". No! The wars for raw materials not simply wars with
which America grabs resources for its economy. No way!
That is not the point. Otherwise we would have already developed more advanced energy sources (which today are possible, but "forbidden") than the out-of–date oil. The wars for raw
materials are wars to prevent Europe – as well as Japan, China, and other countries – from gaining access to those raw materials without having to get the permission and without having accepted the conditions
imposed by the U.S.
As a matter of fact, to say it like it is, we are not even talking here of the United States as a country. We are speaking of a clique that carried out a coup in the U.S. against the very vital
interests of the American nation and its people. It would be, in fact, in the interest of the United States to finds its way out of the present economic depression with a program of economic development. Instead, the
approach of "wars abroad and police state at home" is exactly the way to control the entire American population. To control it and to regiment it right when the economic crisis starts. The response by the coup-ists
was to launch the most violent chauvinist campaign (known as patriotism) in man’s recent history. "Are you starting to get hungry? Then eat the chauvinism and military marches! And...join the Army!"
In this way, paradoxically, we have in the United States, at this point, a huge force that could literally crush, politically and electorally, the small gang of conspirators. We are talking about
the great majority of Americans. An alliance between Europe and this America would be the most natural solution. "Therefore, it must be stopped." And it is here that we can see the true strength behind the
ideology and the psychological warfare! The Press has been placed under complete control and it will be even more so once the Congress approves the dictatorial measures included in the Patriot Act.
Well-organized, private groups linked to Cheney and Bush have launched one of the most violent, racist campaigns – that against France – ever witnessed. Lists of products to be boycotted have
been publicized by televisions, radios and newspapers that are literally controlled or influenced by the offices of psychological warfare. This experiment – to place specialized military personnel in the editing room
of the most important media – which had already started during the war in 1991, has now reached levels of perfection that would make even Goebbels or Albania’s Enver Hoxa turn white with shame. The new method of
conducting "warfare journalism" has brought about the transformation of journalists, already weakened in their moral views, to become an integral part of the propaganda machine.
It is not a secret, yet one cannot mention it. The show of Americans, which, for love or for intimidation, follow the orders of the propaganda, is intended as a warning to Europe.
"You see, we can manipulate Americans as we wish. There is no limit, and there is no international law that we cannot break; the population will follow us. If you were afraid of Hitler, you
now have reason to be even more afraid!"
Therefore, the real objective of this coup and of the "Fourth World War", is not the particular regime that is accused of despotism or of being gang-like, nor is it the "Axis of
Evil", but the American population and European countries, perceived as being a potential obstacle to the imperialist dream. The American population and the Europeans must become docile hosts of the nazi parasite
raised by the chicken-hawks.
In fact, at the time in which the American coup took place, the world was on the verge (and, in some ways, still is) of an epic change. The countries of Western Europe, first of all, France,
Germany, but also Italy, were establishing a tight web of economic, political and cultural ties with the major countries of the Eurasian continent, in particular, with Russia, China and India. Even the mere proposal of
the integration of this vast area, with unimaginable development and investment possibilities, was radically changing the strategic geometry of the world. The most extreme group within the Anglo-American elite had been
put in a position that kept it from causing harm. It was quickly losing the initiative.
Add to this the fact that the EU, even in its "half man, half beast" state, had emerged as a semi-independent financial institution. All of those countries that had undergone, with a
growing resentment, the whipping of a crazed dollar, had found a point of coagulation; an alternative!
For example, on the question of oil payment, it is known that the payments are made in dollars and that, due to the mechanism that began when the dollar was "freed" from the price of
gold. Every barrel of oil carries with it a tax paid to the "dollar men". It is less known, however, that Iraq had decided – and announced – that it would accept payment in Euros for its oil. The same thing
had been decided by Venezuela before the series of "made in Washington" coup attempts. And many others were in line to do the same, including large oil producing countries.
This process was well under way when a machination, with a military, technological, logistical and intelligence complexity without precedence, led to the attacks of the 11th of
September 2001. The American people would never have accepted the "endless war" and the "police state measures" without that new type of Pearl Harbour.
Why the attack against the Vatican
The strategy of "endless war" (look at a map) is bringing about a progressive siege of Europe. Look at the area of production and the transportation route of raw materials, first of all
oil – the vital lymph for the European economy. The Persian Gulf oil risks being placed under the total control of the Anglo-Israeli-Americans.
In the Balkans and in Southeast Asia, a well-planned march is conquering directly or indirectly the oil production area in and around the Caspian Sea. The same strategy is aimed at taking over the
potential sea or land transportation routes. Seen from this point of view, Chechnya is the crucial geographical point to checkmate Russia’s ability to transport its oil to Europe. And this explains the terrorist
insurgency in Chechnya, more than a whole library of sociological studies.
Furthermore, after a period of formal support for the European efforts to unite, now the American coup-ists are explicitly playing the dividing card. They are promoting a split between the new
member candidates of the European Union in the South East and the North and the Franco-German bloc. And at the same time, they are promoting a split between this same Franco-German bloc and Italy-Spain-Great Britain.
They are also working hard to create animosity between the European Union and Russia.
It does not matter how, the goal is the neutralization of this potential Eurasian alternative. Such an alternative that would be a life-saver for all of the participating countries, but also for
the American continent and for the entire Third World. However, it would be the bitter end for this click, which is basing its power on financial speculation and the cruel division of the world.
This group has identified in the current Vatican and in the Catholic Church the biggest potential obstacle to overcome. And this not simply for what the Vatican has done, but mainly because of
what it could do. This group is convinced that people in the Vatican do not realize that such an institution represents today.
The moral power of the Church could give cohesion (a soul) to Europe, it could prevent a Clash of Civilizations between Christians and Muslims, that the American coup-ists have selected as an
essential element in their power game. Some well-placed observers have recalled the public’s attention to the 1981 assassination attempt against John Paul II; in particular, they notice how the instigators made sure
that the assassination attempt was executed by a Turk, Mehemet Ali Acga, who then was supposed to show his "Islamic hatred" towards the Pope: a clash of civilizations ante litteram! The mechanism did not
work because some astute Vatican officials did not hide what they thought about that attempt and on who were the real instigators.
The conflict of civilizations that the "endless war" intends to provoke risks making Europe, even those nations that opposed the war in Iraq, the target of terrorist operations. As
described by an original observer, it is like hitting someone in order to induce him to attack the mediator.
The Vatican under John Paul II has carried out a crucial role in avoiding, until now, that the clash took place. The coup-ists had prepared a very different role for the Vatican: that of an
organizer of anti-Islamic crusades. They have failed thus far. Let's hope that they do not prevail (Non Prevalebunt).
In the context of this criminal game, we have to find the real cause of the ferocious campaign of "homosexual scandals" that has hit the American Church. What is absurd is that when Rome
insisted on putting an end to the "sexual laissez-faire" that was being pushed in the American seminars; the Vatican was accused by the main American media of being "homophobic" and
dictatorial. Homosexuality was praised as a sign of democracy and openness. Then suddenly everything changed: those same newspapers were suddenly filled with scandals.
The goal was to break the Catholic hierarchy as well as to break the link (in reality, already not so solid) between the American Church and Rome. If one observes the activities of nominally
Catholic groups, like the Voice of the Faithful, which claimed the merit of having provoked the resignation of Boston’s Cardinal Bernard Law, it is evident that the intention is to provoke a real protestant-like split
between the hierarchy and a large number of the faithful.
Furthermore, the scandal has been maneuvered in a way to favor a confused antagonism between "right" and left". Such a debate recalls to mind the scheme used to split and weaken the
Catholic Church in Latin America in the beginning of the 70’s. The split was the philosophical base for the artificial left-right clash which made the Latin American countries weak and vulnerable to the attacks from
the North.
At the end of that cynical operation, there was the loss, to a significant extent, the national sovereignty of those countries and a drastic increase in misery and social destruction. Argentina is
a perfect example: from a rich and prosperous nation to a fourth world state. Or one can consider the examples of Colombia, Mexico, and many others. The normal modus operandi was to divide a country between
military forces trained by the United States and with coup-ist tendencies: and on the other side, violent, terrorist or narco-terrorist gangs that lead the country to an endless war of gangs, progressively destroying the
idea of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Yet, even the narco-terrorists are necessarily linked to North American agencies, their raison d’etre, the feeding of the colossal narcotics market of the United
States.
The scheme worked perfectly: the narco-terrorists supply the raw material, which is indispensable for many American banks. Who cannot forget the famous hug between the head of the Colombian narco-terrorists
known as FARC, and the President of the New York Stock Exchange in a demilitarized zone of the country in June of 1999? The narco-terrorists even provided the threat to "national security" which – just as
9/11 clearly demonstrated – justified the militarization of the society and an increasing control by the Washington Big Brother.
According to documents from March of 1970, originally classified as "SECRET/SENSITIVE", the then Presidential National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger wrote a memorandum for President
Richard Nixon entitled "Study on Subversion in the Catholic Church". It explained that the banker David Rockefeller (of the powerful Chase Manhattan Bank) had delivered to Kissinger (both non-Catholics) a
document, which described the existence of a Communist conspiracy within the South American Catholic Church. The memo was an appeal to the defense of the Catholic religion against "progressive subversion". It
proposed the creation and the financing of a semi-clandestine network inside the Church in order to defend it from the subversives.
At the same time, other groups – which through intertwining routes worked for the same North American circles – were involved, for quite some time, in the creation of what would eventually
become the famous Theology of Liberation. The two groups – with typical gang/counter-gang dynamics – had one single target, even if most of its members were totally unaware of it. The target was the strategy
announced by Paul IV in 1967 with the encyclical Populorum Progressio and its central point: "Development is the New Name for Peace". Economic development was conceived as the basis for a true peace and
a true national sovereignty: it would have made the countries prosperous and thus stable and independent. Paul IV had mainly two areas in mind: the Middle East and South America.
The response by the groups, threatened by this Christian and human strategy, was to contaminate the minds of the youth with the cult of "revolutionary violence" – which unjustly took
over the name of the Theology of Liberation. Simultaneously, the plan, as discussed by Kissinger and Rockefeller, for the creation of a "anti-subversive" counter-gang was launched.
Michael Novak and the lions of the Colosseum
Although the events of the last 30 years in South America represent a defeat, they did demonstrate, nonetheless, the amount of fear that a firm word from a high moral institution, such as the
Church, provokes in the groups that today carried out the American coup. Thirty-three years later, in 2003, these same men have sent to the Vatican, under the protection of the American Ambassador, James Nicholson, their
"theologian" of choice, Michael Novak. Novak, who is nominally a Catholic, and a close collaborator of Richard Perle at the American Enterprise Institute, was supposed to explain to those ignoramuses over at
the Vatican that the war in Iraq was a "just war" that should be supported.
Novak was not able to convince anyone except those already contaminated by the financial-speculative paganism. Nevertheless, from that moment on, the Vatican became the target of a well-financed
operation aimed at the recruitment of so-called "conservative elements" that were then unleashed to preach about the religiosity of George W. Bush and his anti-Islamic crusade. It seems that the work of
persuasion involves a miraculous multiplication of dollars. These great Catholic conservatives tell you that the Pope does not understand, but Michael Novak does, and, after all, it is not a good idea to go against Bush
and his "circus lions".
Are we witnessing the creation of the fifth column of neo-conservatives that will be pitted against the "liberationist" groups and, in this way, destabilize what remains of the Church?
Such an attempt would not be surprising.
The Divisions of the Vatican
Let’s get back to Stalin’s mocking question: "How many divisions does the Pope have?" echoed by Condoleeza Rice, who reproached the Pope for being against the use of American
divisions. It should be remembered that Stalin was convinced that Hitler would never attack Russia and he did not take into account the report by an intelligence officer, Richard Sorge, a.k.a. Ramzaj, which presented
precise information about the day of the attack.
The idea of "might makes right" is behind both of these conceptions, and an unarmed Pope does not count for much: he can be ignored. Naturally, millennia of human history have proven
that Stalin and Rice are wrong and that ideas are what, at the end of the day, makes the armies march.
But there is a "but". These ideas and conceptions must be incarnated in the world through men and institutions, and must produce fruits in the real world. When a war explodes, and brutal
and irrational forces clash, then the idea of justice and the common good, the Christian idea, must find an arm and an institution capable of implementing it. Otherwise, Stalin and Rice would be right.
What does this mean in this April of 2003? It means that the moment has arrived to create an institution that can represent that arm. The moment to act and to create an alternative has come. The
Vatican, despite everything (and despite what many inside the Vatican think), is in a unique position, to inspire a united front of all forces of humanity.
It’s true that there is not much time, but time, as we all know, is subjective. Time multiplies whenever one thinks that there is little way out. Time multiplies once the fear to challenge the
emperor and his lions is overcome. Of course, one could always give in to the new Nero, but it would be the death of ideas even before the physical death. We are not yet at a moment similar to that in which the German
Bishops were forced (too late) to read from the pulpits the denunciation of the Nazi paganism at the time of the 1937 encyclical Mit Brenneder Sorge. Now there is more time; but an even bigger potential danger.
The illusions must be abandoned.
The Catholic Church, not by itself, but with a special role, must transform the great hope and faith that has awakened in many people during the war in Iraq, into a solid mobilization of minds and
arms. A mobilization that can create the conditions so that the elite in countries all over the world -- including in the United States of America – lift again their heads up high and find the courage to do
subjectively, what is objectively rather easy, since they would represent the overwhelming majority of the citizens of the world. And the enemy, aside from the terror he inspires, does not represent anything more than a
small, wretched group of criminals surrounded by a crowd of opportunists and corrupt characters who think they are betting on the winning horse.
If the Church uses its weapons, that horse will lose.