A very pointed and poignant article from
whatreallyhappened.com

 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/index.html

Quote:

Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Spartacus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Spartacus had already defeated in battle. But Spartacus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Spartacus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom.

Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Spartacus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Spartacus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Spartacus had no choice but to march on Rome.

Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Spartacus' army and even though Pompeii took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year.

With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome.

The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.

-----

Elected Chancellor of Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living with the strict limits to his power imposed by German law. Unlike Cicero, Hitler's thugs were easy to recognize; they all wore the same brown shirts. But their actions were no different than those of their Roman predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much trouble as they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could end the crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary powers.

Then the Reichstag burned down; a staged terrorist attack.

The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the total rule of Der Fuhrer.

-----

In 1898, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal were arguing for American intervention in Cuba. Hearst is reported to have dispatched a photographer to Cuba to photograph the coming war with Spain. When the photographer asked just what war that might be, Hearst is reported to have replied, "You take the photographs, and I will provide the war". Hearst was true to his word, as his newspaper published stories of great atrocities being committed against the Cuban people, most of which turned out to be complete fabrications.

-----

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed a war. He needed the fever of a major war to mask the symptoms of a still deathly ill economy struggling back from the Great Depression (and mutating towards Socialism at the same time). Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany to stop Hitler, but despite several provocations in the Atlantic, the American people, still struggling with that troublesome economy, were opposed to any wars. Roosevelt violated neutrality with lend lease, and even ordered the sinking of several German ships in the Atlantic, but Hitler refused to be provoked.

Roosevelt needed an enemy, and if America would not willingly attack that enemy, then one would have to be maneuvered into attacking America, much as Marcus Licinius Crassus has maneuvered Spartacus into attacking Rome.

The way open to war was created when Japan signed the tripartite agreement with Italy and Germany, with all parties pledging mutual defense to each other. Whereas Hitler would never declare war on the United States no matter the provocation, the means to force Japan to do so were readily at hand.

The first step was to place oil and steel embargoes on Japan, using Japan's wars on the Asian mainland as a reason. This forced Japan to consider seizing the oil and mineral rich regions in Indonesia. With the European powers militarily exhausted by the war in Europe, the United States was the only power in the Pacific able to stop Japan from invading the Dutch East Indies, and by moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Roosevelt made a pre-emptive strike on that fleet the mandatory first step in any Japanese plan to extend it's empire into the "southern resource area".

Roosevelt boxed in Japan just as completely as Crassus had boxed in Spartacus. Japan needed oil. They had to invade Indonesia to get it, and to do that they first had to remove the threat of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. There never really was any other course open to them.

To enrage the American people as much as possible, Roosevelt needed the first overt attack by Japan to be as bloody as possible, appearing as a sneak attack much as the Japanese had done to the Russians. From that moment up until the attack on Pearl Harbor itself, Roosevelt and his associates made sure that the commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were kept in the dark as much as possible about the location of the Japanese fleet and it's intentions, then later scapegoated for the attack. (Congress recently exonerated both Short and Kimmel, posthumously restoring them to their former ranks).

end quote
-----

And today? The writing's on the wall, as it were.
And not to worry anyone, but to hint at what may come next,
I'd ask people to bear the above in mind whilst considering
the 'North Korea' situation. Let's just suppose, that the
United Snakes of Globalica actually want to push
North Korea into war...?

May I suggest reading this article..

 http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030227/COKLEIN/National/Idx

Civil disobedience seems like a pretty neat idea, post Feb 15th.

Fight Club 2 anyone? ! (For real)
The first rule of Fight Club 2?
Talk about Fight Club 2!

I also include, for perusal and consideration;

MEDIA ALERT: OUTRAGEOUS OMISSIONS

I reproduce, extract from medialens.org;

MEDIA ALERT: OUTRAGEOUS OMISSIONS

How The Press Has Buried The Truth Of Iraqi Disarmament


The Bush and Blair governments are dragging the public kicking and screaming
into a war that threatens to plunge the world into chaos and which almost
nobody wants. Like an occupying force, British politicians representing
elite interests from both leading political parties are blatantly defying
the will of the British public, just as their counterparts are defying the
public in Turkey where 90% of the population is opposed to war in all
circumstances, in Spain where 79% is opposed to war in all circumstances,
and in Italy where 80% is opposed.

This would be outrageous enough, but there is more. A massive assault is
being planned against a crushed Third World country that was demolished by
the US/UK in the original Gulf War, by continuous (and now all but daily)
bombing raids since, and by murderous sanctions that have been described as
"genocidal" by senior United Nations diplomats who resigned in protest.

But even this is not the whole story. The British and US governments, with
the near 100% complicity of the mainstream media, are basing their arguments
for war on two key deceptions:

1) Iraq has large quantities of deadly weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
which it is not prepared to disclose or surrender.

2) Iraq has had 12 years to disarm but has never done so - a further 120
days of weapons inspections (as proposed by the Franco-German initiative)
are therefore pointless.

Desperate to stick to their early to mid-March timetable for war, the
British and US governments have declared the futility of further
inspections. Tony Blair has dismissed the Franco-German plan for peaceful
disarmament, saying it was "absurd" to think UN inspectors could find lethal
weapons without Baghdad's full cooperation:

"The idea that inspectors could conceivably sniff out the weapons... without
the help of Iraqi authorities is absurd," the prime minister told
parliament. "They are not a detective agency and even if they were Iraq is a
country with a land mass roughly the size of France." (Mike Peacock,
'Britain's Blair Slams Franco-German Iraq Plan', Reuters, February 25, 2003)

In reality, Blair's key claims are flatly contradicted by the UNSCOM inspectors who sought to disarm Iraq between 1991-98.

Now is the time for honesty, truth, dissent, protest and resignations - we must not subordinate the welfare of others to our own self-interest. We must not bow down to the ignoble.


SUGGESTED ACTION:

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for
others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to
maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Sir

Why have you ignored the authoritative claims of UNSCOM inspectors and
others to the effect that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" by December
1998? In 1999, a United Nations Panel reported:

"n spite of well-known difficult circumstances, UNSCOM and IAEA have been
effective in uncovering and destroying many elements of Iraq's proscribed
weapons programmes in accordance with the mandate provided by the Security
Council... UNSCOM has achieved considerable progress in establishing
material balances of Iraq's proscribed weapons. Although important elements
still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes
has been eliminated." (Report of the First Panel, Established pursuant to
the Note by the President of the Security Council on 30 January 1999
(S/1999/100),  http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/Amorim%20Report.htm)

Reviewing the 9 years of Iraqi disarmament, UNSCOM's executive chairman Rolf
Ekeus stated in a presentation at Harvard University on 23 May 2000 that "in
all areas we have eliminated Iraq's [WMD] capabilities fundamentally".'
( http://www.arabmediawatch.com/iraq/reading/artgr6.htm)

Chief UNSCOM weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, has described how Iraq was
"fundamentally disarmed", with 90-95% of its weapons of mass destruction
eliminated between 1991-98. Of nuclear weapons capability, for example,
Ritter says:

"When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100%
eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and
facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been
destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And
we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air -
the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We
never found anything." (Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, War On Iraq, Profile
Books, 2002, p.26)

Why have you not reported and urgently highlighted these vital facts
undermining the US/UK case for dismissing further inspections?

Write to the heads of BBC news and ITN expressing your views:

Richard Sambrook, BBC director of news.
Email:  richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk

Jonathan Munro, head of ITN newsgathering.
Email:  jonathan.munro@itn.co.uk

Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts:  editor@medialens.org

Visit the Media Lens website:  http://www.medialens.org/


Power to the People!

Barrie V

Persistence alone is Omnipotent