Bob! Not that you care, but the vitriol is really not a good idea. I think if you are shown to be even fractionally correct, an American Tiennamin is unstoppable, and its catalytic power will dwarf all of your anger as well as obviate it. Whether you are right or wrong, ad hominem, as part of a plea to your research, is ugly and pointless. It engages nobody, it warns nobody, it helps only you.

I just want to contribute this: Chomsky's work is absolutely not invalidated by his unwilingness to theorize US hegemonic machinations in a tactical context, or as the work of a few elites. This is because US hegemony is very demonstrably a strategic, not tactical, application of resources that entail the direct work of hundreds of thousands of policymakers, bureuacrats and business leaders. That he didnt drop everything because Dallas looked kind of like a coup doesn't make him complicit in the official story - and I for one am glad that he has kept his eye on the ball.

About conspiracies: There is great risk in both over-broad and over-narrow charatcertizations of the intent and effect of powerful individuals. In reading history, I very often find insititutional psychology was more powerful than we knew and individuals were weaker than we assumed. I trust patterns.

-r

warmowski wrote:Bob! Not that you care, but the vitriol is really not a good idea. I think if you are shown to be even fractionally correct, an American Tiennamin is unstoppable, and its catalytic power will dwarf all of your anger as well as obviate it. Whether you are right or wrong, ad hominem, as part of a plea to your research, is ugly and pointless. It engages nobody, it warns nobody, it helps only you.

You might well be right. What can I say? I dislike a lot of the people who post to the political threads here. Because I don't know them beyond the forum, their posts become all I judge them on, and that probably exaggerates my ill will towards them.

warmowski wrote: just want to contribute this: Chomsky's work is absolutely not invalidated by his unwilingness to theorize US hegemonic machinations in a tactical context, or as the work of a few elites.

-r

I agree 1000%, Chomsky has done significant good work, but I will not allow my enemies to demand that I conform my opinions on conspiracy theories to chomsky's, just because they choose to do that. They can wrap their skepticism up in Chomsky all they want, but it doesn't move me. He's not my icon, and I will keep my grudge against his conspiracy-phobia. And I won't continue to explain why to his disciples.

warmowski wrote:Bob! Not that you care, but the vitriol is really not a good idea. I think if you are shown to be even fractionally correct, an American Tiennamin is unstoppable, and its catalytic power will dwarf all of your anger as well as obviate it. Whether you are right or wrong, ad hominem, as part of a plea to your research, is ugly and pointless. It engages nobody, it warns nobody, it helps only you.

Before you go buy more canned food, read what he wrote again.

Also: Please mumble your response to this post to yourself, rather than type it out. I know you can do it!

stewie wrote:

clocker bob wrote:I expose left dinosaurs like you as the bourgeois collaborators with the oligarchy that you are, with your pop gun message.
Your expiration date has passed.
I'm baking the freshest bread on the block.
You better work on your own self-esteem if you're worried about the size of mine.

Bob, you should be a rapper.

That all reads like a rap.

I was going to say exactly the same thing.

"I'm baking the freshest bread on the block,
Don't step, cous', or I'll pop my glock."

clocker bob wrote:

nihil wrote:
Funny how this part suddenly turned into a "small part" of the so called study.

It is a small part. You're not worth having it explained to you, but the controlled demolition theories are about a twentieth of the total weight against the 9/11 myth. Find me examples of Chomsky addressing specific evidence against the 9/11 official history if you want to continue to serve as his proxy- otherwise, I'm done with you again.

That's it? That's your response to my post? No more inane arguments? Not even a cheesy metaphor?

Find me examples of Chomsky addressing specific evidence against the 9/11 official history

They don't exist because he doesn't take the so called evidence seriously. Pay attention, Bob. Here's a little test: tell me why Chomsky doesn't address the genocide in Darfur.

Is it phobia? Is it peer pressure? Is it because he's a GATEKEEPER?!

You still haven't answered my question. Have you even read a book by Chomsky? I really doubt that you have. If you have not, fine. But do not pretend that you know anything about anyone because you read a website or two.

Permit me to piss into Clocker Bob's stale wind on a Thursday night.

Here are some things I think are good about conspiracy theorizing (leaving aside the fact that most are undercut by its inescapably reactionary character):

- it encourages distrust of authority, especially government and state authority
- in some versions [though not apparently Bob's] it fosters or even demands debate and inquiry
- it is often loopy and fucked up and fun
- it produces a subculture
- it produces symptomatic and unwitting figures [such as Bob] who, like monkeys or kitty-cats, can be fun to watch

Here are some generalizations about conspiracy theorizing that reflect my personal opinions about it as a way of thinking about history, power, and society:

- it piles theory on top of theory, often in situations where one unproven theory is used to prove or reinforce another
- it finds proof in association
- it relies almost exclusively on the bad intentions of individual human beings or individual groups to explain society and social organization as a whole
- it is informational, and thus, in an uncanny reflection of the social sciences which eschew it (sociology, etc), it is inherently normative
- it is reactionary and constantly appeals to and idealizes foundational categories of Nation, State, Reason, Law, and Legitimacy that ought to be critiqued and problematized rather than defended
- it is fetishistic
- it is self-agrandizing
- it does not produce or create a space for anything new, unlike truly radical action, art, or thought

Bob's opinions, in perfect harmony with influential American conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and G Edward Griffin, are those of a reactionary, a (more or less) libertarian capitalist, a reformist, and an American nationalist. It's all about returning to the good-old pre-fascist days before the American Dream was hijacked by central bankers, et al. It's a Disneyland scene: predicated on mythology and necrophiliac idealism.

Bob's standard outbursts evince an amusing failure of self knowledge that is, for example, typical of classic psychoanalytic typologies such as the obsessional neurotic. Yes, I'm psychologizing--a standard "anti-conspiracy" move.

But the projection and transference involved in Bob's online interaction does Sigmund a great service: 'all you robotic-pussy-conspiracy-phobes can do is generalize and name-call!'

So great.

'Unlike conspiracy theorists--with whom I identify completely and without qualification, and whom I will defend to my last, fanatical breath--you cocktail-party leftists all think the same way about things and can't accept criticism!'

It's like watching a five-year-old with access to a cheap thesaurus scream into a mirror, wearing nothing but his favourite socks.

At the level of thought and logic--in terms of the categories and processes Bob uses and adheres to in understanding the world--there is nothing remotely radical about his positions.

Following other radical thinkers who have devoted themselves to thinking through such things, some people (though none Bob has the patience to read) believe that categories such as the nation, the state, the law, instrumental reason, commodity-exchange, and yes society itself are not things to be defended. Many, in fact most people on this board, would side with Bob to the contrary. Most believe things like America, or Britain, or Canada, or citizenship, legal violence, and wage-labor, are as natural and inevitable as genital herpes, shame, and Bob Newhart.

What is radical is to call that shit, and the versions of life, justice, and reality it reproduces, into question.

Most can't be bothered. Including Bob.

That's my piece. Bloody Oilers lost tonight.

Andrew L. wrote:

What is radical is to call that shit, and the versions of life, justice, and reality it reproduces, into question.

If I was a pussy of the magnitude of Andrew L., I'd concentrate on psychanalyzing conspiracy theorists, too. Every time you tip toe through the conspiracy theory threads, you duck the same simple questions over and over. Structuralist dorks like you are terrified of defining their positions on major historical events- they would rather envelope themselves in system theory, as a defense mechanism *against* the demands of radicalism.

Here is your test. Answer in full, or your continued stalking of clocker bob will become a road of unrequited love. You duck these again, and you get shut off, and I sweat your pussy ass with a torrent of new conspiracy threads that cast your antiquated progressivism into the shadows where it belongs.

1- Did the creation of the US Federal Reserve have conspiratorial origins?

2- Does the US central bank act to benefit the economy of the general population?

3- Does the Warren Commission report satisfactorily explain the Kennedy Assassination?

4- Does the 9/11 Commission report satisfactorily explain the attacks of 9/11?

Angus Jung wrote:

warmowski wrote:Bob! Not that you care, but the vitriol is really not a good idea. I think if you are shown to be even fractionally correct, an American Tiennamin is unstoppable, and its catalytic power will dwarf all of your anger as well as obviate it. Whether you are right or wrong, ad hominem, as part of a plea to your research, is ugly and pointless. It engages nobody, it warns nobody, it helps only you.

Before you go buy more canned food, read what he wrote again.

I'm already more than fractionally correct. The objective now is to guarantee an American Tianenmen Square, and to do that demands more of what has worked so far: me. America needs more me. My anger cannot be dwarfed by the catalytic power of the eventual insurrection, because I am the insurrection. I am the early riser and the lighthouse, and my personal courage dwarfs that of the laggards who cry themselves to sleep with the covers pulled tightly overhead, pining for the days when the movement demanded so much less of them.

*Deleted, as I'm sure it would be a wasted joke*

Andrew L. wrote:

Bob's opinions, in perfect harmony with influential American conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and G Edward Griffin,

I try my best. You might learn a few things by listening to Alex Jones. Maybe you've heard of Greg Palast? Why would such a decent man appear on the same radio show with an American Nazi conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones? Better hunt Palast down and apply your psychiatric remedies to the poor man, Andrew. The man has obviously come unhinged,ranting about 'secret agreements' and predatory lending practices and media blackouts. Good thing it ran on the Alex Jones show, or we might have to take Palast seriously.

Transcript of Interview of Greg Palast,
Journalist for BBC and Observer, London,
by Alex Jones

Alex Jones Radio Show, Monday (PM), March 4, 2002
___________________________________________


AJ: This is earth shattering. Can you break it down for us and tell us what the economists have done?

GP: Well, I'll tell you two things. One, I spoke to the former chief economist, Joe Stiglitz who was fired by the (World) Bank. So I, on BBC and with Guardian, basically spent some time debriefing him. It was like one of the scenes out of Mission Impossible, you know where the guy comes over from the other side and you spend hours debriefing him. So I got the insight of what was happening at the World Bank. In addition, he did not brief me but I got some other sources. He would not give me inside documents but other people handed me a giant stash of secret documents from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

AJ: So to insulate himself, somebody else did it.

GP: No, I'm telling you. He wouldn't touch it but I really did get from completely independent sources a big stack of documents.

AJ: Just like you got W199I, from the same folks we got it from.

GP: And so one of the things that is happening is that, in fact, I was supposed to be on CNN with the head of the World Bank Jim Wolfensen and he said he would not appear on CNN ever if they put me on. And so CNN did the craziest thing and pulled me off.

AJ: So now they are threatening total boycott.

GP: Yea right. So what we found was this. We found inside these documents that basically they required nations to sign secret agreements, in which they agreed to sell off their key assets, in which they agreed to take economic steps which are really devastating to the nations involved and if they didn't agree to these steps, there was an average for each nation that signed one-hundred and eleven items that they are required to sign on to. If they didn't follow those steps they would be cut-off from all international borrowing. You can't borrow any money in the international marketplace. No one can survive without borrowing, whether you are people or corporations or countries - without borrowing some money and having some credit and ...

AJ: Because of the debt inflation pit they've created.

GP: Yea, well, see one of the things that happened is that - we've got examples from, I've got inside documents recently from Argentina, the secret Argentine plan. This is signed by Jim Wolfensen, the president of the World Bank. By the way, just so you know, they are really upset with me that I've got the documents, but they have not challenged the authenticity of the documents. First, they did. First they said those documents don't exist. I actually showed them on television. And cite some on the web, I actually have copies of some...

AJ: Greg Palast dot com?

GP: Yea, gregpalast.com. So then they backed off and said yea those documents are authentic but we are not going to discuss them with you and we are going to keep you off the air anyway. So, that's that. But what they were saying is look, you take a country like Argentina, which is, you know, in flames now. And it has had five presidents in five weeks because their economy is completely destroyed.

AJ: Isn't it six now?

GP: Yea, it's like the weekly president because they can't hold the nation together. And this happened because they started out in the end of the 80s with orders from the IMF and World Bank to sell-off all their assets, public assets. I mean, things we wouldn't think of doing in the US, like selling off their water system.

AJ: So they tax the people. They create big government and big government hands it off to the private IMF/World Bank. And when we get back, I want to get to the four-parts that you elegantly lay out here where they actually pay off the politicians billions to their Swiss bank accounts to do this transfer.

GP: That's right.

AJ: This is like one of the biggest stories ever, Sir. I'm sorry, please continue.

GP: So what's happening is - this is just one of them. And by the way, it's not just anyone who gets a piece of the action. The water system of Buenos Aires was sold off for a song to a company called Enron. A pipeline was sold off, that runs between Argentina and Chile, was sold off to a company called Enron.

AJ: And then the globalists blow out the Enron after transferring the assets to another dummy corporation and then they just roll the theft items off.

GP: You've got it. And by the way, you know why they moved the pipeline to Enron is that they got a call from somebody named George W. Bush in 1988.

AJ: Unbelievable, Sir. Stay right there. We are talking to Greg Palast.

BREAK

AJ: We are talking to Greg Palast. He is an award-winning journalist, an American who has worked for the BBC, London Guardian, you name it, who has dropped just a massive bomb-shell on the Globalists and their criminal activity. There is no other word for it. You link through at inforwars.com, you can link to his web site - gregpalast.com, or any of the other great reports he has been putting out. He now has the secret documents. We have seen the activity of the IMF/World Bank for years. They come in, pay off politicians to transfer the water systems, the railways, the telephone companies, the nationalized oil companies, gas stations - they then hand it over to them for nothing. The Globalists pay them off individually, billions a piece in Swiss bank accounts. And the plan is total slavery for the entire population. Of course, Enron, as we told you was a dummy corporation for money laundering, drug money, you name it, from the other reporters we have had on. It's just incredibly massive and hard to believe. But it is actually happening. Greg Palast has now broken the story world-wide. He has actually interviewed the former top World Bank economist. Continuing Sir with all these points.
I mean for the average person out there, in a nutshell, what is the system you are exposing?

GP: We are exposing that they are systematically tearing nations apart, whether it's Ecuador or Argentina. The problem is some of these bad ideas are drifting back into the U.S. In other words, they have run out of places to bleed. And the problem is, this is the chief economist, this is not some minor guy. By the way, a couple of months ago, after he was fired, he was given the Nobel Prize in Economics. So he is no fool. He told me, he went into countries where they were talking about privatizing and selling off these assets. And basically, they knew, they literally knew and turned the other way when it was understood that leaders of these countries and the chief ministers would salt away hundreds of millions of dollars.

AJ: But it's not even privatization. They just steal it from the people and hand it over to the IMF/World Bank.

GP: They hand it over, generally to the cronies, like Citibank was very big and grabbed half the Argentine banks. You've got British Petroleum grabbing pipelines in Ecuador. I mentioned Enron grabbing water systems all over the place. And the problem is that they are destroying these systems as well. You can't even get drinking water in Buenos Aires. I mean it is not just a question of the theft. You can't turn on the tap. It is more than someone getting rich at the public expense.

AJ: And the IMF just got handed the Great Lakes. They have the sole control over the water supply now. That's been in the Chicago Tribune.

GP: Well the problem that we have is - look, the IMF and the World Bank is 51% owned by the United States Treasury. So the question becomes, what are we getting for the money that we put into there? And it looks like we are getting mayhem in several nations. Indonesia is in flames. He was telling me, the Chief Economist, Stiglitz, was telling me that he started questioning what was happening. You know, everywhere we go, every country we end up meddling in, we destroy their economy and they end up in flames. And he was saying that he questioned this and he got fired for it. But he was saying that they even kind of plan in the riots. They know that when they squeeze a country and destroy its economy, you are going to get riots in the streets. And they say, well that's the IMF riot. In other words, because you have riot, you lose. All the capital runs away from your country and that gives the opportunity for the IMF to then add more conditions.

AJ: And that makes them even more desperate. So it is really an imperial economy war to implode countries and now they are doing it here with Enron. They are getting so greedy - they are preparing it for this country.

GP: I've just been talking to, out in California just yesterday, from here in Paris, the chief investigators of Enron for the State of California. They are telling me some of the games these guys are playing. No one is watching that. It's not just the stockholders that
got ripped off. They sucked millions, billions of dollars out of the public pocket in Texas and California in particular.

AJ: Where are the assets? See, everybody says there are no assets left since Enron was a dummy corporation - from the experts I've had on and they transferred all those assets to other corporations and banks.

GP: Well yea, this stuff has really gone just like a three-card Monty game. I mean remember that there is money at the bottom. You did pay California's electric bills according to the investigations, they are telling me that they were pumped up unnecessarily by 9 to 12 billion dollars. And I don't know who they are going to get it back from now.

AJ: Well they actually caught the Governor buying it for $137 per megawatt and selling it back to Enron for $1 per megawatt and doing it over and over and over again.

GP: Yea, the system has gotten completely out of control and these guys knew exactly what was happening. Well, you have to understand that some of the guys who designed the system in California for deregulation then went to work for Enron right after. In fact, here I'm in London right now and we have, the British has some responsibility here. The guy who was on the audit committee of Enron, Lord Wakeham. And this guy is a real piece of work, there isn't a conflict of interest that he hasn't been involved in.

AJ: And he is the head of NM Rothschild.

GP: There isn't anything that he doesn't have his fingers in. He's on something like fifty Boards. And one of the problems, he was supposed to be head of the audit committee watching how Enron kept the books. And in fact, they were paying him consulting fees on the side. He was in Margaret Thatcher's government and he's the one who authorized Enron to come into Britain and take over power plants here in Britain. And they owned a water system in the middle of England. This is what this guy approved and then they gave him a job on the board. And on top of being on the board, they gave him a huge consulting contract. So you know, this guy was supposed to be in charge of the audit committee to see how they were handling their accounts.

AJ: Well, he is also the head of the board to regulate the media.

GP: Yes, he is, because I have run into real problems, because he regulates me.

AJ: They are also trying to pass laws in England where you've got an 800-year old well, or in some cases a 2000-year old well that the Romans built that's on your property and they say we are putting a meter on it. You can't have your own water.

GP: Yea, and that's Lord Wakeham. I mean this is the guy from Enron. He is a real piece of work. He can't be touched here because like I say he actually regulates the media. So if you complain, he's got his hand on your pen.

AJ: Burrow into NM Rothschild, you'll find it all there. Go through these four points. I mean you've got the documents. The IMF/World Bank implosion, four points, how they bring down a country and destroy the resources of the people.

GP: Right. First you open up the capital markets. That is, you sell off your local banks to foreign banks. Then you go to what's called market-based pricing. That's the stuff like in California where everything is free market and you end up with water bills - we can't even imagine selling off water companies in the United States of America. But imagine if a private company like Enron owned your water. So then the prices go through the roof. Then open up your borders to trade - complete free marketeering. And Stiglitz who was the chief economist, remember he was running this system, he was their numbers man and he was saying it was like the opium wars. He said this isn't free trade; this is coercion trade. This is war. They are taking apart economies through this.

AJ: Well look, China has a 40% tariff on us, we have a 2% on them. That's not free and fair trade. It's to force all industry to a country that the globalists fully control.

GP: Well, you know Walmart - I did a story, in fact, if you read my book. Let me just mention that I've got a book out, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" about how, unfortunately, America has been put up for sale. "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" is coming out this week. But I have a story in there about how Walmart has 700 plants in China. There is almost nothing in a Walmart store that comes from the United States of America, despite all the eagles on the wall.

AJ: Exactly, like 1984, then they have big flags saying "Buy American" and there's hardly anything --- it's Orwellian double-think.

GP: What's even worst is they will hire a factory and right next to it will be the sister factory which is inside a prison. You can imagine the conditions of these workers producing this lovely stuff for Walmart. It's really....

AJ: And if an elitist needs a liver, they just call.

GP: (Laughs) I know, it's grim. In fact, I talked to a guy, Harry Wu, is his name and, in fact, he broke into, he's been in Chinese prison for 19 years. No one believed his horrible stories. He actually broke back into prison, took a camera with him and took pictures of the conditions and said this is the conditions of factories where Walmart is getting its stuff made at, it's all....

AJ: I was threatened to be thrown off TV here in Austin when I aired video of little girls 4-years old chained down, skinnier than Jews in concentration camps, to die. And I was threatened, if you ever air that again, you will be arrested.

GP: Well you know, it is horrifying stuff that, unfortunately, I have been handed and Stiglitz, was very courageous for him to come out and make these statements. Like I said, he didn't provide me the documents. The documents really sealed it because it said this is what really happened. They really do say sign on the dotted line agreeing to 111 conditions for each nation. And the public has no say; they don't know what the hell is happening to them. All they know....

AJ: Go back into privatization. Go through these four points. That's the key. It sends billions to politicians to hand everything over.

GP: Yea, he called it briberization, which is you sell off the water company and that's worth, over ten years, let's say that that's worth about 5 billion bucks, ten percent of that is 500 million, you can figure out how it works. I actually spoke to a Senator from Argentina two weeks ago. I got him on camera. He said that after he got a call from George W. Bush in 1988 saying give the gas pipeline in Argentina to Enron, that's our current president. He said that what he found was really creepy was that Enron was going to pay one-fifth of the world's price for their gas and he said how can you make such an offer? And he was told, not by George W. but by a partner in the deal, well if we only pay one-fifth that leaves quit a little bit for you to go in your Swiss bank account. And that's how it's done.

AJ: This is the ....

GP: I've got the film. This guy is very conservative. He knows the Bush family very well. And he was public works administrator in Argentina and he said, yea, I got this call. I asked him, I said, from George W. Bush. He said, yea, November 1988, the guy called him up and said give a pipeline to Enron. Now this is the same George W. Bush who said he didn't get to know Ken Lay until 1994. So, you know.....

AJ: So now they are having these white-wash hearings. You know I was at Enron yesterday in Houston because I'm now here in Austin. We were like 30-feet from the door, right on the sidewalk and I have it on video - goons came up and said you can't videotape. I said go ahead and have me arrested. I mean I'm talking on the sidewalk, Greg.

GP: Well, you know, I was there in May, telling people in Britain you've never heard of Enron, but ... And these are the guys who have figured out how to (garbled) this government. In fact, we saw some interesting documents, a month before Bush took office, Bill Clinton, I think to get even with Bush's big donor, cut Enron out of the California power market. He put a cap on the prices they could charge. They couldn't charge more than one-hundred times the normal price for electricity. That upset Enron. So Ken Lay personally wrote a note to Dick Cheney saying get rid of Clinton's cap on prices. Within 48 hours of George W. Bush taking office, his energy department reversed the clamps on Enron. OK, how much is that worth for those guys. You know that has got to be worth, that paid off in a week all the donations.

AJ: Listen at the bombs you are dropping. You are interviewing these ministers, former head of IMF/World Bank economist - all of this, you've got the documents, paying people's Swiss Bank accounts, all this happening. Then you've got Part 2, what do they do after they start imploding?

GP: Well, then they tell you to start cutting your budgets. A fifth of the population of Argentina is unemployed, and they said cut the unemployment benefits drastically, take away pension funds, cut the education budgets, I mean horrible things. Now if you cut the economy in the middle of a recession that was created by these guys, you are really going to absolutely demolish this nation. After we were attacked on September 11, Bush ran out and said we got to spend $50 to $100 billion dollars to save our economy. We don't start cutting the budget, you start trying to save this economy. But they tell these countries you've got to cut, and cut, and cut. And why, according to the inside documents, it's so you can make payments to foreign banks - the foreign banks are collecting 21% to 70% interest. This is loan-sharking. If fact, it was so bad that they required Argentina to get rid of the laws against loan-sharking. because any bank would be a loan-shark under Argentine law.

AJ: But Greg, you said it yourself and the documents show it. They first implode the economy to create that atmosphere. They institute the entire climate that does this.

GP: Yea, and then they say, well gee, we can't lend you any money except at these loan-shark rates. We don't allow people to charge 75% interest in the United States. That's loan-sharking.

AJ: Part 3 and Part 4. What do they do after they do that?

GP: Like I said, you open up the borders for trade, that's the new opium wars. And once you have destroyed an economy that can't produce anything, one of the terrible things is that they are forcing nations to pay horrendous amounts for things like drugs - legal drugs. And by the way, that's how you end up with an illegal drug trade, what's there left to survive on except sell us smack and crack and that's how...

AJ: And the same CIA national security dictatorship has been caught shipping that in.

GP: You know, we are just helping our allies.

AJ: This is just amazing. And so, drive the whole world down, blow out their economies and then buy the rest of it up for pennies on the dollar. What's Part 4 of the IMF/World Bank Plan?

GP: Well, in Part 4, you end up again with the taking apart of the government. And by the way, the real Part 4 is the coup d'etat. That's what they are not telling you. And I'm just finding that out in Venezuela. I just got a call from the President of Venezuela.

AJ: And they install their own corporate government.

GP: What they said was here you've got an elected president of the government and the IMF has announced, listen to this, that they would support a transition government if the president were removed. They are not saying that they are going to get involved in politics - they would just support a transition government. What that effectively is is saying we will pay for the coup d'etat, if the military overthrows the current president, because the current president of Venezuela has said no to the IMF. He told those guys to go packing. They brought their teams in and said you have to do this and that. And he said, I don't have to do nothing. He said what I'm going to do is, I'm going to double the taxes on oil corporations because we have a whole lot of oil in Venezuela. And I'm going to double the taxes on oil corporations and then I will have all the money I need for social programs and the government - and we will be a very rich nation. Well, as soon as they did that, they started fomenting trouble with the military and I'm telling you watch this space: the President of Venezuela will be out of office in three months or shot dead. They are not going to allow him to raise taxes on the oil companies.

AJ: Greg Palast, here is the problem. You said it when you first came out of the gates. They are getting hungry, they are doing it to the United States now. Enron, from all the evidence that I've seen was a front, another shill, they would steal assets and then transfer it to other older global companies, then they blew that out and stole the pension funds. Now they are telling us that terrorism is coming any day. It's going to happen if you don't give your rights up. Bush did not involve Congress and the others who are supposed to be in the accession if there is a nuclear attack in the secret government, Washington Post -"Congress Not Advised of Shadow Government." We have the Speaker of the House not being told. This looks like coup d'etat here. I'm going to come right out with it. We had better spread the word on this now or these greedy creatures are going to go all the way.

GP: I'm very sad about one thing. I report this story in the mainstream press of Britain. I'm on the BBC despite Lord Wakeham. I know he doesn't like me there. I'm in the BBC, I'm in the main daily paper, which is the equivalent of the New York Times or whatever, and we do get the information out. And I'm just very sorry that we have to have an alternative press, an alternative radio network and everything else to get out the information that makes any sense. I mean this information should be available to every American. I mean, after all, it's our government.

http://www.infowars.com/palast.htm

I appreciate all the effort Chomsky puts in to reduce info like this into something useless and impenetrable, so the masses just tune it out and the death spiral continues. Take all that conspiratorial crap out of it, dilute the outrage, don't use names like Rothschild for Christ sake, you know, make it all Noamy, so it gathers dust on Andrew L.'s bookshelf and the evil plans of the central bankers can continue without interference by the stupid class.