Global Research

It’s ironic General Leonid Ivashov, former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, delivers the truth on globalism and this truth, unavailable in the corporate media of the “free world,” is published in a newspaper in Las Tunas, Cuba. Ivashov tells us so-called international terrorism “is not something independent of world politics but simply an instrument, a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite” and “is a phenomenon that combines the use of terror by state and non-state political structures as a means to attain their political objectives through people’s intimidation, psychological and social destabilization, the elimination of resistance from power organizations and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries’ policies and the behavior of people.”

Ivashov hits the nail square on the head. “The organizers of [the nine eleven] attacks were the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order” because they “were not satisfied with the rhythm of the globalization process or its direction.” As others have explained—most notably Andreas von Bulow, Bundestag member of a parliamentary commission which oversaw the three branches of the German secret service—only “secret services and their current chiefs” (or retired staff with “influence inside the state organizations”) have the “ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. Generally, secret services create, finance and control extremist organizations. Without the support of secret services, these organizations cannot exist—let alone carry out operations of such magnitude inside countries so well protected.” Thus the obvious patsy “Osama bin Laden and ‘Al Qaeda’ cannot be the organizers or the performers of the September 11 attacks” because they “do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders” (or the military and intelligence experience and knowledge required). Instead, “a team of professionals had to be created and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation.”

According to General Ivashov, the covert operation nine eleven was effective because it turned “the people’s demands to a struggle of undefined goals against an invisible enemy … destroying basic international norms and changing concepts such as: aggression, state terror, dictatorship or movement of national liberation” and also depriving “peoples of their legitimate right to fight against aggressions and to reject the work of foreign intelligence services.”

Here in America and likely much of Europe, General Ivashov’s message is all but invisible, since the corporate media assiduously ignores any discussion of nine eleven that does not take the fantastical Straussian neocon version of events as gospel truth. As an example of this, run a Google News search on General Ivashov—it will return the sole link to the Cuban newspaper above, peroid.

In order to combat the globalist agenda to reduce the planet to a “free trade” gulag, General Ivashov suggests the creation of “a geo-strategic organization (perhaps inspired in the Cooperation Organization of Shanghai comprised of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) with a set of values different to that of the Atlantists,” that is to say the neolib-neocon faction (in Russia, many political analysts call defenders of “unipolar globalism” Atlantists, or as A. Dugin of the International Eurasian Movement describes it, “strategists of the Western civilization and their conscious supporters in other parts of the planet, aiming at putting the whole world under control and imposing the social, economic and cultural stereotypes typical of the Western civilization to all the rest of mankind…. The atlantists are the builders of the ‘new world order’—the unprecedented world system benefiting an absolute minority of the planet’s population”).

If General Ivashov’s vision of a “geo-strategic organization” comes to pass, it will mean “total war” under the absolutist and demented neocon rubric, since the Straussian neocons, as elucidated in their principle PNAC document, will not tolerate “competitors” and will respond in drastic fashion, more than likely with nuclear weapons (as they appear likely to do under far less provocation in Iran).

The only way to stop this impending nuclear conflagration is to dethrone the Straussian neocons—and soon.

In the meantime, I am wishing for a pony.