EEM-3: The Freedom Revolutions Theatre
In these early days of April 2011, the world is in turmoil with a host of what seem to be ‘people’s revolutions’, currently still mainly in the Middle East and North Africa regions.
This paper will be an attempt to analyze and evaluate this movement and put it in a greater context, to see what may be at play behind what is being shown and written about by the main stream media.
Currently the world is engulfed in a wave of what seem to be a response to a call for freedom, justice and self-determination in a region that is mainly reigned by long-standing, sometimes royal, autocrats.
And it seems right that the people of these very rich oil-producing countries want more freedom and a policy and politics that are closer to their nature and gives them a fairer share of the revenues of the resources of the land.
Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and now Yemen, all fit in the bracket that vast money has been earned through the selling of the natural resources of the country, but that very little has transpired to the population at large.
To this can be added that in the case of Egypt and also Bahrain, the rulers have been practicing politics which in many cases have made the countries complicit in war-theatre, or ‘peace-theatres’, that is seen by the majority of the people as treason to their principles and religion.
And so it seems very natural in these times of change that the people of these countries want change as well, and get rid of the corrupt elites and bring their countries in the new times.
It was miraculous to see how the movement seemed to spread from one country to another and how the momentum of the movement swept away the stability and some of the old rulers to try to find a new way into the future.
Or so it seems.
The Libya Deception
And then Libya started to happen.
Gadaffi, who until recently was feasted and hand-shaked by the West, suddenly became a dictator instead of a revolutionary leader. And the people also seemed to want to get rid of him.
But somehow from the beginning this had a different sense to it.
There were no thousands of people peacefully protesting on the streets of Tripoli to get better conditions or more rights as in Egypt. It very quickly turned very violent. And all the media coincided in suddenly focusing on the ‘brutal regime’ and the 300 or 1,000 or even 2,000 dead that seemed to be there.
It was mentioned that plane-loads of mercenaries were imported to shoot indiscriminately at the people and suddenly ‘the world’ or ‘the civilized world’, the UN, NATO all saw a reason to intervene on ‘human rights’ reasons and ‘to protect the people for possible massacre’.
But somehow it did not feel right.
As there have been question marks with the revolutions in Egypt and Algeria, especially about who organized it all, the feeling with Libya was immediately ‘something is really foul here’.
It could be seen in the preposterous behavior of the Italian foreign minister who first stated there could be up to 1,000 dead, which was copied by all the press everywhere. He even brought it to 2,000 for a short time, but the media consensus with a 1,000, possible, dead.
Or it could be seen in the urgency the French president was suddenly willing to go to war on quite dubious ground. A 1,000 people dead has not been a reason for war in many other countries, so why suddenly the willingness?
Or it could be seen that a vast amount of newspapers suddenly all were writing similar things, all following the same line, seemingly pushing the same agenda. It could also be seen in the fast transition from the ‘protestor’ to the ‘rebels’ whereas in other countries they either stayed protestors of became terrorists.
And suddenly, it wasn’t a mass of suppressed ‘people of the country’ that wanted freedom or change and demanded that by unarmed but persistent protests, but it very quickly became an army of rebels, including children that were very well armed and apparently able to make advances against Libya’s elite troops and armies.
And so there were a host of signs that just shouted out: ‘Something is not as it seems here!
It will go too far here to go into all incongruities as they appeared over time and the differences that came to bear between what the mass media portrayed and what the few still independent media came with, but be it said that the difference between face and reality could have not been greater and it confirmed again the enormous sway that the combination of the media have over what is being perceived as happening in the world and how short-memoried and gullible many people, including politicians, seem to be, and how morally corrupt others.
To put things into some perspective, it may be useful to go back in time a bit and have a look at what Libya had become over the last decades under Gadaffi.
Libya is very different from the other countries in the vicinity as it for example has only 4.5 to 6 million people, with the land being vast and having the greatest reserves in oil and gas in North Africa. It came under the leadership under Gadaffi in 1971, after a bloodless coup that apparently united the people against their king who was seen as a puppet of the oil interests and who had done very little for the people. Literacy was about 15 % in 1971 when the country was freed from the oil interests.
Being an artificial state as a result of the divisions and decisions made by the colonial powers earlier, it contained several tribes that more or less were ‘forced’ to be working together in the state.
As is often in these states: A strong man decides and builds up the apparatus to keep stability in the whole. That this is not always done in very fine ways has been seen in many, or most of the countries in the region.
But there is a massive difference.
About a half a year ago, news came about that Gadaffi had said that he was considering nationalizing the oil interest to get more out of the resources of the land for the people.
Around the same time, there were also notices that Gadaffi had proposed to disband the parliament and give the money of the resources directly to the people, as well as that he proposed that the people would need to take greater responsibility at local level for the development of the country. So he was proposing to take the power from the bureaucrats and the politicians and give it back to the people.
And he proposed to give them, the people, the money that came from the land in the form of resources and wanted to maximize the value for the people by ensuring a greater part of it would go to the people by means of nationalizing the resources.
The proposal was blocked by the politicians and was shelved, which says that the country has a functioning parliament/democracy, which is allowed to go against their leader. It also says that no matter that the proposal to give the people of the country more power and also the money that comes from the sources of the land, may not have been immediately practical (although it might have worked with a relatively small population), it does say that the man is neither a dictator, nor a greedy money gobbler, and actually could be called someone who really wanted to bring democracy to the people and let them decide what to do with what he saw to be their money.
How many leaders in the world are willing to do this?
But of course, nationalizing the oil and gas resources is a very dangerous thing to even think about these days for country leaders, as it would mean that even more oil would be out of reach for the major corporations.
And so the Libya-uprisings started in Bengazi, in the east of the country, where most of the oil and oil infrastructure lies. And the rebels were welcomed by the Western media and leaders and were suddenly well-armed and well-connected, and were given all support from the ‘Western world’ that were suddenly so concerned about what could happen to the people that within days, apparently on ‘humanitarian grounds’, a war was started and the country, not only the army, was bombed and attacked, whilst the ‘rebels’ were being fed with weapons and ‘instructors’ even before any decision was taken.
Of course, if an autocratic leader turns against his people and starts to massacre them, the international community could and would and should react. But was this the case?
Studying the news items from the first days of the uprising, before the media frenzy started, gives a very different picture.
In the first day of the debauchery it was mentioned in the English media, still quite neutral, that there were a good 300 victims of the violence as it was reported by the representatives of the sitting regime, with 189 civilians and 111 soldiers having died.
This was very strange, because at that time the Gadaffi regime was accused of having flown in plane-loads of mercenaries that were killing the people/protestors.
But if a regime is using plane-loads of mercenaries, then why so many soldiers died? From what? The people were unarmed.
And if it was such a brutal repressive regime, and actually had no reason to expect a revolution because basically most of the people of the country are quite well-off (certainly in comparison with the other countries in the area), why does it need all those mercenaries and where does it get them from on such a short notice (as they were not expecting a revolution)?
Or is the story in reality quite different? And as has been suggested by several independent thinkers, as well as by Gadaffi himself, that it was all organized and the mercenaries were not paid by Libya, but by the governments and corporations that saw themselves being threatened by the plans to nationalize the energy sources?
It is a bit strange that a man that proposed to do away with the politicians and bureaucrats, and wants to give the money of the resources directly to the people, would start a massacre amongst his people only a few months later.
Taking this path opens up a whole new venue, because if the mercenaries were not paid for by Gadaffi, by whom then? Or was it again a false flag operation to create the reason for a war-like intervention on ‘humanitarian grounds’? That would also explain the speed and the frenzy with which the leaders and the media reacted, and the exaggerated, possible death toll, and the claim of an apparent Muslim woman who declared on a press conference that she was raped by the Gadaffi loyal troops (do you really think that an honest Muslim woman would state on a press conference (!) that she was raped? I don’t!).
These are the same media-using picture-forming manipulations that have been used in Iraq and are being used against Iran, Yemen and quite some other countries. It is very practical if the mass media and the aggressors work hand-in-glove.
The result is now that Gadaffi has been vilified for the rest of his life, his country degraded, part of the sovereign funds being blocked and basically stolen and that the eastern part of the country is now in the hands of a mixture of mercenaries, ‘trainers and advisors’, rebels and increasingly Islamic extremists, all paid by the same sources.
As it happens to be that in the East are most of the oil fields and the rebels now want a negotiated solution, half way between the east and the west of the country, the richness of the country would fall (again) in the hands of the corporations that come from the countries that were very outspoken in their ‘defense of human rights’.
The hypocrisy and deception is appalling.
And so we will likely see Libya split up in two parts and east Libya being ‘liberated’ and ‘helped’ to become a country by the countries or corporations that are basically only interested in cheap oil and gas.
The west of Libya will probably be left alone and be subject to much intervention, but much more out of sight of the media that already move on to the next country and war theatre, now Ivory Coast, another country with much oil but a not so obedient ruler.
The Bigger Picture I
If it is taken that the Libyan ‘revolution’ was well organized and planned long before (in the light of which it is interesting to see that BP in December 2010 decided to postpone drillings planned for March 2011) then of course the question arises whether the other uprising were as spontaneous as they seemed, and if not, why they were organized and by whom.
It is clear that the world is in a time of awakening and it seems very natural that in these times of greater consciousness and omnipresent media, the people want to get rid of geriatric kleptrocrats and deals and policies that go against the interests of the people and the nature of the country.
So it would be natural to expect the countries that have been protesting against their leaders, and succeeding in changing the leadership, there would be great changes in policies and management.
But we don’t hear anything like that from countries like Tunisia or Egypt. The public faces have gone, but the power structures stayed ‘almost’ the same, and apart from some cosmetic changes not much has happened other than the leaders and strong men have gone, but the people pulling the strings have been strengthened.
And these people do not sit in the same countries as where the revolutions took place.
And why is there ‘great concern’ for the potential victims in Libya, but is it apparently not so bad when the Bahraini royalty asks help from the notorious brutal Saudis to suppress an uprising from the 70 % Shiite ‘minority’ against the ruling Sunnite royal family and kill a few on the way?
Or does that have to do with the role Bahrain plays in hosting one of the largest US bases in the Middle East? Or with the possibility that the Shiite would align themselves more with Iran and against ‘the Great Satan’?
When there were 300 victims in Libya it was world news and kept humming in the press and was blown up in proportions with allegations that became facts and these ‘facts’ became the ground for an illegal invasion under the mantle of ‘humanitarian help’.
But when there were victims in the uprising in Bahrain, it was mentioned, spoken of with understanding, and quickly disappeared from the news.
So what is really happening in the Middle East? Why are these uprisings occurring at this time and why was Libya invaded and will be attempted to be split in half (with most of the oil in the hands of the paid rebels), whilst in Egypt the face disappears but the regime stays, or in Bahrain where nothing changes apart from the brutal suppression of the protestors and some promises to the citizens.
In Egypt, the people have all reason to demand change as the wealth gap between the elite and the rest of the people is enormous, as it is in Algeria. In Bahrain, the majority of the people is suppressed by a small minority and so a revolution would be very understandable.
But only in the country where the leader actually brought substantial change, did much good for the people, wanted to try to get more out of the resources by nationalizing them, and give this to the people, an invasion is destroying the country and the media erect a vilification campaign even more dirty than against Iraq or Iran.
But why all the wars? What is the agenda behind it?
Because there must be an agenda as it is clear that some people must have decided, and very well prepared, what to do and how, in what country, and when. Operations such as Libya, or Egypt or Algeria and Tunisia, have a long-lead time and need much thinking, analyzing, training, people on the ground, money, and cooperation and coordination of the media, and all the talking heads and other experts.
What seem spontaneous uprisings are in reality very well planned operations in which a lot of people (and lots of money) are involved.
Who organized the mercenaries and the rebels? Gadaffi had no reason, nor need for them, so who was it then? You don’t just pluck a pack of mercenaries out of the air and put them in a plane, make sure they know what to do and are armed and able to communicate. That all takes time and people. It also takes quite some people to co-ordinate it with all the other ‘revolutions’ to make sure that it looks like all the other ‘spontaneous’ uprisings, and the cry for freedom from the people.
There must have been many hundreds of people on the ground in the different countries over quite a few months. And there must have been people planning it all, communicating, etc.
The Bigger Picture II
So why is all this happening and why is it happening now?
Why are ever more wars created and why in the Middle East where a very substantial part of the oil for the world is coming from? Wouldn’t we all be helped by a calm, stable and friendly MENA area? It would mean stability and security of supply, which would mean stability of oil prices.
And in the current situation of over-supply and under-demand it would most surely mean low oil prices, which would be good for the recovery of the economies all over the world that are still struggling with the effects of the economic crisis.
It was already curious that, whilst there is clearly a glut in the oil market for a long time, the price keeps rising, we are now in a situation that whilst some production in Libya has been taken off the market (until the moment the rebels run out of money to pay their volunteers), OPEC countries have pledged to fill up the difference, this has no effect on the price, it just keeps rising.
So why does the price keep rising whilst it is clear that this will be very detrimental for many countries and hundreds of millions of people?
Of course we can say that the greed and hubris of the big oil companies is responsible for this, but it is only part of the picture.
Because why do the media keep talking up the price? This time, for the moment, not blaming China or Peak Oil, but the insecurity in the Middle East (and soon Africa). Someone/some people need to decide where the oil price is going, as it is already for a long time not anymore based on supply and demand.
Why does it keep going up and why are the countries that provide much of the energy of the world the target of these attacks?
This is not only contained to the Middle East, currently in upheaval, but also Iran, Sudan (or where the oil is, South Sudan), Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Yemen see themselves in trouble because of ‘uprisings’, or ‘freedom fighter’, or ‘rebels’, or ‘Al Qaida’.
Some other countries also have their share of trouble over the last years (several countries in East Africa where new oil and gas provinces have been discovered now) but are now firmly in the hands of corporations.
Ongoing destabilization-operations are also going on against Venezuela and Bolivia and Ecuador, whilst Colombia is already taken over and the first very preliminary campaign against Saudi Arabia can be seen.
But what is the rationale behind it? Certainly the US itself is one of the greatest victims of this, as it is still very dependent on imported oil and its economy is in shambles and ever more poverty is spreading.
So why would a country drive such a campaign of destabilization on a global scale if it is clearly against the common sense of what would be good for its own economy and the people?
And what is the rationale of such a campaign if it is also bad for the many economies and partners in other parts of the world that have come into trouble due to the economic crises that started in, and mainly was caused by, the US.
Why is the US driving this trail, as it seems a bad deal for almost all countries in the world and is only good for the international oil corporations, the military industrial complex and the multiple ‘private contractors-organizations”.
And why do the media keep banging on the ‘danger’ drum, if not Peak Oil, then the possible interruption of supply, or China demand, whilst it is clear for all to see and know that the market is over-supplied?
Who or what is coordinating and planning this?
Someone needs to decide where the rebels turn up, or to what moon the ‘press wolves’ will howl.
And as all these are all operations with a long-lead time and needing a long view, who or what are these people that plan all this, and why?
The Bigger Picture III
So why is this all happening?
Why is gold going up forever, and silver? Why are there trillions of Dollars being created out of thin air (and forcibly after that Euros and Yens, Rubles and Yuans, with everywhere the bill being presented to the people) with no other effect than more speculation bubbles and more hardship for billions of people due to, amongst others, rising food and energy prices.
And where is all the money going? The extra-ordinary profits?
Why ever more debt are being made whilst it is clear they will never be able to be paid back?
Why was it not allowed, is it not allowed, for most countries to pay for their oil in Euros (or other currencies)? Remember, only two months after Saddam Hussain had announced he wanted the Iraqi oil to be paid in Euros, the country was invaded and the measure was reversed.
And why is the US still dependent, for about half of its demand, on oil from other countries, whilst it is sitting on multiple trillions of cubic feet of gas and apparently trillions of barrels of oil?
Is there a pattern that can be recognized, a plan that can be seen?
Thinking the Unthinkable
Please see that for this job of Chief Editor of Alexander’s Gas & Oil Connections, The Gas & Oil News, Oil Around and Energy Evaluation Monthly, I see and read through many hundreds of articles a week since about fifteen years and have built up connections with alternative media, not yet controlled, that allow to find articles normally not available for the average reader. The many articles on this site come from hundreds of different sources (as can be seen on the Sources page) and working through them has allowed me to develop an instinct and feeling life that allows to separate information from disinformation (in most cases).
The access to such a wide range of news sources and news items (many of which can be found in Gas & Oil News and Oil Around), gives the opportunity to read about or hear from extraordinary people and their knowledge or analysis, and get very different insights into matters that cannot be gotten from the main stream media, that are heavily controlled and directed and ‘shield’ their readers from many truths and realities.
As also quite some alternative media are being used to bring stories into the world that contribute to the common disorientation and therefore controllability, it becomes ever more important to develop the feeling-instinct about ‘what wrote this article’.
Sometimes, it becomes clear that people actually speak from conviction, true understanding or knowledge, or from a concern of what is happening or what is going to happen.
One example of this is in the beginning years of the awareness of Peak Oil, where someone like Colin Campbell (long before I knew him personally) had high credibility with me because it was clear that he was speaking from a deep understanding of the matter in combination with a clear insight in what would, and will, be happening if the situation he was warning for, would become reality.
All the ridicule of the main press at the time, as well as all the talking experts about the ‘technology will save us’ and ‘there is much more oil’, etc. were just hollow manipulated writings and talkings as they came from a hidden agenda that did not want this coming reality to be known at large.
All the attempts at discrediting the concept of Peak Oil in the beginning added for me to the credibility of the story, as Colin has nothing to gain from the story and kept going and telling about it.
And of course he was right.
Since about 2008, after the high, and after the crash, there needed to be found a reason why oil would need to become more expensive again. And suddenly a whole lot of talking heads and experts suddenly discovered Peak Oil and started a fear campaign of a possible shortage in the future.
However, the situation has changed again and the combination of new finds, new technologies and declining economies has taken out a very large part of the urgency of Peak Oil.
Currently, there is a glut in the market, almost everywhere, nevertheless the price keeps rising.
Now not anymore on Peak Oil directly, but on fear of disruption in combination with possible shortage.
We are looking at a world that for a large part is in economic trouble with, apart from a few countries, with the main economies shrinking and reducing their energy demand. Most developed economies have built up more debt than they will ever be able to pay back. On the forefront the US, of which no-one know anymore how much debt is built up.
Whilst it is known that the debts will never be paid back, evermore debts are being made, with ever more countries to which the US is very heavily indebted.
At the same time, trillions of dollars are being created out of thin air, with which speculation bubbles are being fed and real assets are being bought, with many trillions of dollars being stashed away in offshore havens or being transferred in essential metals or minerals.
How does this all make sense?
Although it looks like the whole thing is driven by lunatics, the people driving these campaigns and coordinating the next moves, are in this business of extreme power for decades and are highly intelligent and skilled in what they do.
So we can’t do it off with ‘those people are mad’, because they clearly aren’t.
Could we then think that, in the face of the slumping economy and ever increasing debt, there is not really a wish to pay back the debts?
This is a view that is held by several free-thinking analyst that are concerned with situation and combine the rampant debt increased with the rampant inflation and see a pattern that leads to the strong devaluation of the dollar, making all the dollar-denominated debts next to worthless.
This coincides with what one analyst described as the plan to make the dollar worthless by the end of 2012 and thereby screwing (excusez le mot) or double crossing the Arabs and Chinese and Japanese that will finds themselves with debt papers that are worth less than the paper than they are written on.
Apparently in the early 70s, President Nixon went on a travel spree to all oil exporting countries, at the time mainly the Arab countries, with the proposal that the US would leave its oil in the ground and would buy its oil from the oil producing countries in exchange for the promise that they would buy the debt papers of the US. In that way, a seemingly stable interdependency was created and the US had access to almost unlimited oil and could make almost unlimited debts. A similar deal has been made with Japan and China, but this time with exports of other sorts, with the US importing vast amount of relatively cheap stuff (ruining its own economy on the way).
Now China, Japan and the Arab oil producers are the biggest holders of the US debt papers.
When an economy is overly indebted or in deep economic trouble, there are two ways to change the situation: Be in war or devaluate your currency, so all debts become near to worthless.
Currently both is happening.
In ever more places in the world there is instability created, deliberately, as recently came in the open through the active involvement of the US in the Mumbai, India attack two years ago and in the recent arrest in Pakistan of a US almost-diplomat who turned out to be very active in recruiting people to fight as Islamic extremists and further destabilize Pakistan to provide reason for further military engagement in Pakistan. (Cases David Healy for Mumbai and Raymond Davis for Pakistan.)
Why is the US actively recruiting and training terrorists it says, is the reason for the ‘war on terror’ and the occupation of Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen, as well as in the near future North and North-west Africa and quite a few more places?
Unless eternal instability serves a purpose. A country under terrorism or under the war on terror does not produce anything much, cannot develop itself, can easily be controlled, being used for many other purposes.
So we see a policy of excessive debt making with at the same time a parallel movement to make sure the debt papers become worthless.
And we see a movement that sows trouble and hate in the oil producing countries, whilst the US keeps sitting, for the moment, on apparent massive oil reserves in its soil (or in the soil of occupied countries).
Thinking the Unthinkable II
Another aspect that needs to be considered here is the long-term economic picture.
With every bubble created in the stock market, many people were enticed to invest in the bull market and get a part of the winning, and many did so, and many are doing so at the moment (at least those still having some).
With every downturn, that are never arbitrary and always exactly planned, vast amount of money of the ‘little people’ got lost, whilst the ‘bears’ made a killing.
Being on time made the difference for many between richness or poverty.
Every major change of the market brought poverty to vast masses of small investors whilst it concentrated enormous wealth in ever fewer hands.
That is how the US has become the richest country in the world with the greatest gap between the rich and the poor anywhere in the world.
Is this a coincidence? Or just as planned?
But again: Why?
The picture laid out shows that currently a relatively small group of extremely wealthy and powerful people are and have been consciously ruining the economy of their country, and a whole lot of other countries, are siphoning off ginormous amounts of money and substantia, and are buying up vast amounts of critical resources and materials, are creating wars all over the globe, seemingly with the purpose to either disrupt the flow of oil or control it, and are creating hitherto unknown amounts of debt that they apparently are turning into worthless paper by creating excessive inflation.
So where does it all lead to?
Coming to some sort of Interim Evaluation we can see:
- a world economy that is basically in tatters and hovers on the brink of collapse due to excessive speculation, illegal profiteering, blatant market manipulation and over-indebtness
- a US with empirical treats that fights terrorism on the one hand (or says so) and creates it at the other, apparently to perpetuate and grow instability and create the reasons for ‘helping’, interfering and taking over
- a US, and to a lesser extent the other OECD countries, that have accumulated debts that can never be paid back
- and unparalleled creation of money out of thin air, that are given to the banks almost for free, with which market bubbles are created (driving billions of people into poverty) and massive amounts of assets and resources are being bought up, whilst causing rampant inflation, driving up the prices even further, with seemingly the aim to makes the dollar worthless in due time, as a result of which the massive debts would be wiped out.
An added notice to this: Due to the hyper-creation of the dollar, the central banks of all other countries are almost forced to do the same, otherwise their regions would be overtaken by the massive flow of dollars.
However, most of these countries have a debt problem now, but do not have the policy to ruin the economy, or make their currency worthless.
This means that when the shit hits the fan and the dollar is sinking into oblivion, all other countries suddenly see themselves in a situation that their dollar-denominated debt papers have become worthless whilst due to the whole inflationary money creation they are much more indebted than ever.
So all these countries will be hit by a double sledge hammer: All the money they have spent on buying debts from the US is worth nothing anymore, whilst at the same tie the economies are in big trouble as a result of the ‘movement of the market’ and the fact they had to devaluate their own currency in defense of their economies.
Of course this will also mean that many millions of people in the US and in many other countries, will face extreme economic hardship for the coming decades should this all work out as envisaged.
And whilst most economies are being ruined, instability is being created in most oil producing countries, that either will cause production halts (a reason to drive the price), or the oil production is being taken over (such as in Iraq and now probably Egypt and most of Libya and Algeria, to a certain extent Nigeria, and one could say Somalia, Tanzania, Sao Tome & Principe, Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast or Indonesia, or Colombia and quite a few more, or is being attempted to take over as in Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia and also quite a few more).
We are looking at a picture that combines purposefully ruined economies, oil producing countries either in turmoil or under control, a worthless dollar, and a US military with about 1,000 bases stretches out to almost the whole world, (US-)controlled media that determine the politics of many countries more than the elected politicians (in elections already manipulated by the media) and a money system that is determined by the ruthless search for excessive profit and concentration of power.
When it is then said that the process of devaluation of the dollar will reach its shrieking high point towards the end of 2012, which is a time already hyped to be either catastrophic or apocalyptic, and that coincide with quite some other stories that indicate that these times will be used to create worldwide havoc, including nuclear wars, to create space for the new Messiah, or for a new time/new World Order, we know that very turbulent and dangerous times are coming, in which a small group of players are apparently able and willing to ruin many economies and people’s live to drive their agenda, and take over as much as possible of the world and its resources to make sure they can perpetuate and control after everything has come down.
It very much looks like the most dangerous people in the world are concentrated in New York, Washington, Houston and Boston, and not in Pyongyang, Tehran, Caracas or Tripoli.
8/9/11 April 2011
P.S.: One thing never fails to amaze me: If these people want ‘to create space’ for a new Messiah, then would a new Messiah, if he/she were real, and be here on Earth to guide humanity into its next level of development, not get rid of the evil that was at play in these agendas first?