Target Indonesia?


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 27, 2017

There are some interesting developments on the other side of the world from Syria, in Indonesia, to be precise, courtesy of some articles many of you sent to me, including Mr. E.G., who supplied the following three articles:

Prabowo Expresses Gratitude to FPI Leader for ‘Saving Indonesia’s Democracy’

Trump’s Indonesian Allies In Bed With ISIS-Backed Militia Seeking to Oust Elected President

Of the two articles, I want to concentrate on the second, for if its sweeping allegations are true, we have yet another case of elements of the American deep state supporting the most radical elements within Islam, to overthrow the government of yet another “moderate” or “secular” Muslim state, in this case, Indonesia. See if the following play book sounds vaguely familiar:

Associates of Donald Trump in Indonesia have joined army officers and a vigilante street movement linked to ISIS in a campaign that ultimately aims to oust the country’s president. According to Indonesian military and intelligence officials and senior figures involved in what they call “the coup,” the move against President Joko Widodo (known more commonly as Jokowi), a popular elected civilian, is being impelled from behind the scenes by active and retired generals.

Prominent supporters of the coup movement include Fadli Zon, vice speaker of the Indonesian House of Representatives and Donald Trump’s main political booster in the country; and Hary Tanoe, Trump’s primary Indonesian business partner, who is building two Trump resorts, one in Bali and one outside Jakarta.

This account of the movement to overthrow President Jokowi is based on dozens of interviews and is supplemented by internal army, police, and intelligence documents I obtained or viewed in Indonesia, as well as by NSA intercepts obtained by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Many sources on both sides of the coup spoke on condition of anonymity. Two of them expressed apparently well-founded concerns about their safety.

Now, of course, when one thinks of the words “coup”, “Indonesia” and “military junta” all at once, one tends to think of 1965 and the coup against Indonesian president Sukarno, a coup that, for all its complexities, many (this author included) still think has the CIA’s hands all over it (and let’s not forget the ever-present Hjalmar Schacht hovering in the background, and Sukarno’s more recently revealed connection to Operation Golden Lily’s looted Japanese gold). Indeed, as the article itself notes, the 1965 coup is viewed that way to this day, in Indonesia:

Yet in repeated, detailed conversations with me, key protest figures and officials who track them have dismissed the movement against Ahok and the charges against him as a mere pretext for a larger objective: sidelining the country’s president, Jokowi, and helping the army avoid consequences for its mass killings of civilians — such as the 1965 massacres that were endorsed by the U.S. government, which armed and backed the Indonesian military.

Now, as then, the fear is Communism in the government:

Barely mentioning religious questions, they said Indonesia’s problem was New-Style Communism, and the army must be able to step in and guide the situation because Indonesia is not mature, not ready for democracy. Jokowi, they charged, was providing a space for communism, and the only strong organization that can face up to that is the army.

As to their street protest movement, they said, we civilians must be backed by the military, something they said was indeed happening secretly because now under reformasi the military can’t engage in politics. According to Haji Usamah, “It’s an intelligence operation by military personnel, but the army can’t be out front. They give the strategic view and direction. The army doesn’t like the communists.”

Leaving aside the memories of 1965, I want to concentrate on the high octane speculation of the day. I am certainly not by any stretch of the imagination familiar with Indonesian history, culture, or the internal tensions in that country, other than in the most general way. What intrigues me about this article and more importantly, with the more disturbing developments in that country in general, are things that lie outside the convenient comparisons of today with 1965, of President Jokowi with President Sukarno. Certainly the internal tensions are there to be exploited. What is disturbing is the wider picture and pattern that we’ve seen before: radicalized Islamic elements, the military, and US connections.

The question is: why, with these suggestions of US deep state connections, would those elements be interested in toppling yet another relatively secular and moderate Muslim state? The reasons for that, I suspect, are many and varied, and not the least of them involve the idea of setting up a “clash of civilizations” scenario. There appears to be a certain element of the globaloney crowd that wants to promote the most egregious and radical forms of Islam wherever it can. And thus far, its allies in these endeavors have been radical elements, funded and armed by a variety of cutouts, with many of those roads leading to Riyadh. Why there? Consider: the world is being divided into two blocs (again), one centered on Russia and China, and the latter’s New Silk Road project, against which Mr. Globaloney has only one thing to offer: dollars, drones, and empire. As a way of extending its reach, it would appear that the “standard play book” is being revised, updated, and translated from Damascus to Jakarta. But Riyadh, too, is getting cold feet, and has recently made noises about wanting to join the BRICSA bloc.

Howsoever one parses its role, it does seem clear that there are deeper players in the most recent Indonesian shenanigans, and I hate to say it, but we have not heard the last of those deeper players. This is one to watch, folks, for rest assured, Washington, Beijing, Tokyo, and Moscow are watching.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Advertisements

That Wikileaks Thing…

conspiracy
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 21, 2017

Most readers of this website know that I seldom rely on Wikileaks as a source nor comment on any of its major leaks. Indeed, the organization reached a new high – or, depending on one’s lights, low – during the last American presidential election cycle when leaks began to emerge during the last days of the campaign that were particularly damaging to Darth Hillary. Granted, she didn’t need much help, for the stink of corruption and “suspicious deaths” have followed the Clintons since the Arkancides of the 1970s and 80s’ up to and including the weird “suicide” of Clinton aide Vince Foster and the strange details around the bloody massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco, the weirdness around the Oklahoma City bombing, the dubious financial activities in Haiti, and so on.  These matters have been covered by other researchers in depth, so there was no need here to comment on them.

But Wikileaks itself has not been much of a subject here, either, though most regular readers here probably suspect that to gain access to the information contained in its “leaks,” it had by the nature of the case to have “inside help,” as it were. This, at least, has been my own suspicion, which is why when I saw the following article shared by Mr. S.D., and read a certain passage within it, that I had to pass it along, together with my daily dose of high octane speculation. The article in question is by Professor Michel Chossudovsky and appears at the website Global Research; the article, you will note, was dated December 13, 2010:

Who is Behind Wikileaks?

The pattern of backers here is intriguing, for one has the usual suspects; Professor Chossudovsky writes:

Wikileaks had also entered into negotiations with several corporate foundations with a view to securing funding. (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007):

The linchpin of WikiLeaks’s financial network is Germany’s Wau Holland Foundation. … “We’re registered as a library in Australia, we’re registered as a foundation in France, we’re registered as a newspaper in Sweden,” Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax-exempt charitable organizations in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that “act as a front” for the website, he said. He declined to give their names, saying they could “lose some of their grant money because of political sensitivities.”

Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest donations processed by its website, and the other half from “personal contacts,” including “people with some millions who approach us….” (WikiLeaks Keeps Funding Secret, WSJ.com, August 23, 2010)

Acquiring covert funding from intelligence agencies was, according to the email exchanges, also contemplated. (See Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007)

At the outset in early 2007, Wikileaks acknowledged that the project had been

founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa…. [Its advisory board]  includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers.” (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).  (Emphasis added)

Note that the backers, by Wikileaks’ own admission, includes:

1) Chinese dissidents, mathematicians, and start up company technologies;

2) from the USA, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa;

3) Expat Russian and Tibetan refugees;

4) Reporters;

5) A former US intelligence analyst;

6) Cryptographers; and

7) “people with some millions who approach us.”

Chossudovsky then notes:

From the outset, Wikileaks’ geopolitical focus on “oppressive regimes” in Eurasia and the Middle East was “appealing” to America’s elites, i.e. it seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives. Moreover, the composition of the Wikileaks team (which included Chinese dissidents), not to mention the methodology of “exposing secrets” of foreign governments, were in tune with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering “regime change” and fostering “color revolutions” in different parts of the World.

In addition, further on in the article, Chossudovsky notes the ties of Wikileaks to The Economist and to the Rothschild interests:

Wikileaks and The Economist have also entered into what seems to be a contradictory relationship. Wikileaks founder and editor Julian Assange was granted in 2008 The Economist’s New Media Award.

The Economist has a close relationship to Britain’s financial elites. It is an establishment news outlet, which has, on balance, supported Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war. The Economist’s Editor-in-Chief, John Micklethwait was a participant in the June 2010 Bilderberg conference.

The Economist also bears the stamp of the Rothschild family. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972 to 1989. His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist’s board. The Rothschild family also has a sizeable shareholder interest in The Economist. Former Editor of The Economist (1974-86), Andrew Stephen Bower Knight is currently Chairman of the J. Rothschild Capital Management Fund. He is also reported to have been member of the Steering Group (1986) of the Bilderberg.

The broader question is why would Julian Assange receive the support from Britain’s foremost establishment news outfit which has consistently been involved in media disinformation?

Are we not dealing with a case of “manufactured dissent”, whereby the process of supporting and rewarding Wikileaks for its endeavors, becomes a means of controlling and manipulating the Wikileaks project, while at the same time embedding it into the mainstream media.

It is also worth mentioning another important link. Julian Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), a major London elite law firm, happens to be the legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust. While this in itself does prove anything, it should nonetheless be examined in the broader context of Wikileaks’ social and corporate entourage: the NYT, the CFR, The Economist, Time Magazine, Forbes, Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), etc.

What caught my eye in all of this was the strangeness of these combinations of interests: Western financiers and members of the “oligrachy”, expatriates from Russia and Tibet, Chinese dissidents (including, presumably Taiwanese), South Africa, and so on. Additionally, it is to be noted that the inclusion of intelligence analysts, cryptographers, and mathematicians, would appear to give Wikileaks its own in-house encryption, decryption, and analysis capability, backed by unknown persons with “millions.” Clearly, at one level, one has all the presence of “Mr Globaloney” that could be interpreted to mean Wikileaks has an inside track to that group and, to that extent, represents their interests and agendas. The citations Professor Chossudovsky has provided in his article are alone a gold mine of information and he deserves credit for exposing it.

It’s that pattern of involvement with South Africa, Taiwan, and “Chinese dissidents”, however, that attracted my attention, for in it, one detects another pattern, one associated with the former World Anti-Communist League, which was, not surprisingly, based from much of the period of its operation in Taiwan. That organization has since changed its name, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, to the World League for Freedom and Democracy. Same organization, new name.  If one searches for the organization under its new name, one comes here:

World League for Freedom and Democracy

And scrolling down, one reads this:

In 1978, Roger Pearson became the World Chairman of the WACL. Pearson was described in a Washington Post article as having neo-Nazi associations[1][2][3][4][5][6] and sources report that as a result of an article in the Washington Post in 1978 critical of WACL and alleging extreme right wing politics of Pearson that either he was expelled from WACL or at least was pressured into resigning from his position as World Chairman.[7][8][9]

The U.S. chapter of WACL, the United States Council for World Freedom (USCWF) was founded in 1981 by Major General John K. Singlaub. Singlaub was the former US Chief of Staff of both United Nations and American forces in South Korea, but was relieved in 1977 by U.S. PresidentJimmy Carter after publicly criticizing Carter’s decision to reduce the number of troops on the peninsula. Singlaub became a member of the WACL in 1980, and founded and became president of its U.S. chapter, the United States Council for World Freedom. This branch generated controversy when it supported Nicaraguan guerrillas in the Iran–Contra affair[10] and, in 1981, the USCWF was placed under watch by the Anti-Defamation League, which said that the organization had increasingly become “a point of contact for extremists, racists, and anti-Semites”.[11][12] During the 1980s, the USCWF and WACL conducted a purge of these elements, and invited ADL observers to monitor its conferences;[13] by 1985, the Anti-Defamation League declared itself “satisfied that substantial progress has been made since 1981 in ridding the organization of racists and anti-Semites.”[14]

It is alleged that in the mid-1980s WACL had become a supplier of arms to anti-communist rebel movements in southern Africa, Central America, Afghanistan and the Far East.[15] During the 1980s, the WACL was particularly active in Latin America, notably by aiding the Contra forces in Nicaragua.[16] During this period, WACL was criticized for the presence in the organization of neo-Nazis, war criminals, and people linked to death squads and assassinations.[11] Other allegations have included reports claim that the World League for Freedom and Democracy is responsible for producing what its opponents call “troops of killers”, while ostensibly organizing to provide support for Corazon Aquino from the right-wing in the Philippines[17] and for supporting the Mozambican National Resistance (RENAMO) movement in Mozambique.[18]

The World Anti-Communist League held annual conferences at various locations throughout the world. Numerous groups participated, including the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. WACL also enjoyed support from many U.S. Congressmen, most notably 2008 presidential nominee Senator John McCain (RAZ),[10][19] who sat on the United States Council for World Freedom (USCWF) Board of Directors in the early 1980s.[20][21] McCain has said previously he resigned from the council in 1984 and asked in 1986 to have his name removed from the group’s letterhead.[22]

In other words, the organization is not only well-connected to the upper echelons of the American political and intelligence establishment, but also connected to the post-war network of Neo-Nazis and their influence over Latin American death squads.

Why should the Taiwanese and therefore, the possible World Anti-Communist League/World League for Freedom and Democracy connection concern us? In his crucial study The Beast Reawakens: Fascism’s Resurgance from Hitler’s Spymasters to Today’s Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists (Routledge, 2000), Martin A. Lee notes, in an extended footnote on pp. 226-227 the following disturbing series of connections:

On rare occasions, the (Institute for Holocaust Revision) managed to entice mainstream historians, such as Pulitzer Price-winner John Toland, to present papers at its conferences. Ex-CIA agent Victor Marchetti also lecture at an IHR gathering…. Another favorite IHR speaker and collaborator was Issah Nakleh of the World Muslim Congress(WMC). Basied in Pakistan, the WMC was initially headed by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who, like his friend H. Keith Thompson, stood by the Third Reich until his death in 1974. A few years later, the WMC, then headed by Pakistani Dr. Inamullah Kahn, mailed Holocaust-denial literature to every member of the U.S. Congress and the British Parliament…. Dr. Kahn also served as an advisor to the Saudi Arabian royal family, which lavished funds on the WMC. In addition, the Saudi Arabian government retained the services of American neo-Nazi William Grimstead as a Washington lobbyist. Like many European neofascist groups, the WMC adopted a third-position stance toward the superpowers, as demonstrated by this headline from Muslim World: U.S. AND USSR – BOTH SERVE ZIONIST INTERESTS. But Khan tempered his anti-American tirades when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Soon the World Muslim Congress began working closely with U.S. intelligence and Pakistani military officials, who were covertly supporting the Afghan mujahideen in their fight against the Soviet-installed regime in Kabul. This effort was strongly endorsed by Dr. Khan, who served for many years as the Pakistani representative of the Nazi-infested World Anti-Communist League, which played an important role in the Reagan administrations “secret war” in the Golden Crescent.(Emphasis added0

Global Crescents and secret wars and Afghanistan imply a covert war for control of drug money coming from that region.

In other words, one is looking at a mouthpiece not just for globalism, but one which could conceivable have deep connections to other global networks: radical Islam and its dubious connection to the Saudis (and again, note that Saudi-Nazi connection), global terrorist networks, and, of course, global fascist networks.

And that should give everyone pause.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

French Should Expose Government Not Islam Over Neo-Gladio Provocations

whistleblower1
Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 25, 2016

How should France answer to the horror in Nice? The country is now deeply entrenched in a long-term war with few hopes of dodging future attacks. The anger of the French population is understandable. But booing a prime minister at the commemoration ceremony for the loss of innocent lives is not the smartest idea.   No intelligence service could have prevented the Nice attack as nothing in the profile of the lunatic who drove over 84 people could have suggested a potential link to terrorism. – Al Jazeera

We’ve been writing regularly about the meme of “evil Islam” and our perspective that it propaganda – a dominant social theme – intended to create military tension, further authoritarianism and even, eventually, wider wars setting the West against Islam.

You can see our articles HERE and HERE And HERE too.

The lie is that Islam of itself is a terrible threat to the French – and Western – way of life.

The lies are propagated by a tiny group of people who organize fallacious themes that then become Western policy.

Global warming, the economics of central bank – and the dangers of Islam – are all examples of these themes.

The lies are regularly expanded and deepened.

Here is a famous recent quote by the Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure – Patrick Calvar:

 “We are on the verge of a civil war.”

Calvar is actually describing a war that he likely wants. The whole idea of the Evil Islam exercise is to polarize Europe in preparation for increased globalist solutions.

More from Al Jazeera:

The anger of the French population is understandable. But booing a prime minister at the commemoration ceremony for the loss of innocent lives is not the smartest idea.

If the French were booing the prime minister because they understood the manipulations taking place, that would be a positive development.

But no doubt the French in question were booing because they believed the state had not taken a firm enough stance against “radical Islam.”

Unfortunately, it is the state that has created the problem, starting with the forcible absorption of Algeria that later gave rise to the Algerian War of Independence, (1954–62).

This war was a bitter one and many of the “Muslims” in France are from Algeria. They still don’t like the French establishment.

The antipathy that French Algerian Muslims harbor has been used by the mainstream media as evidence that Muslims cannot be absorbed into France.

The “Islam versus the West” meme is filled with lies.

There are as many questions about the Paris attack in France as the one in Nice.

When it comes to the recent horrible attack in Nice, photos and videos seem to show no blood on the truck. Go look on the Internet for yourself.

Every large terror incident in France has had significant questions attached. Just as in the US, evidence is easily presented that these attacks are not what they seem.

It is no doubt difficult to accept that evil forces are manipulating events in Europe and the US so as to cause tension between Islam and the West.

But this is how wars are manufactured. The West did the same sort of thing to Japan. It demonized Japan  and then created a war .

And twice with Germany. In the past years it is has been revealed conclusively that banks and Western industry funded Hitler.

In much of the post-war 20th century period, the CIA and other intel agencies prosecuted Operation Gladio, which manufactured terror incidents purportedly generated by left-wing forces.

HERE, from TruthMove:

The main function of the Gladio-style groups, in the absence of Soviet invasion, seems to have been to discredit left-wing groups and politicians through the use of “the strategy of tension,” including false-flag terrorism. The strategy of tension is a concept for control and manipulation of public opinion through the use of fear, propaganda, agents provacateurs, terrorism, etc. The aim was to instill fear into the populace while framing communist and left-wing political opponents for terrorist atrocities.

Has a neo-Operation Gladio been started?

The CIA doesn’t make announcements. But in the Internet era, it doesn’t have to.

Those running these affiliated intel operations may not like it but the pattern is increasingly obvious. This is surely an ongoing strategy not a series of incidents. How cold-blooded.

Ironically, the Al Jazeera editorial provides us with some pertinent conclusions on how to face the provocations of a neo-Operation Gladio.

Here:

The only option for France today is to stand proud on its secular republican values, multiply the satire that fundamentalists want to shut down, encourage societal inclusion, educate and educate again.

A turn to the extreme right would mean a victory for the terrorists.

However painful it is, the best way to prevail for the French is to stand strong and resist the populist temptations.

The editorial is written by  Remi Piet, an assistant professor of public policy, diplomacy and international political economy at Qatar University.

Two issues with it:

The first thing he does not mention is that the acts of terror are the historical result of French government policies. These policies go back a long ways.

The French bullied Algeria, absorbed Algerian Muslims and then did not give them the opportunity to integrate.

The upshot is a generation of Muslim Algerians that live in France and are bitter about their treatment.

The second problem is that the issue is not one of Islamic terrorism from a historical standpoint so much as the French state being complicit in “false flag” terrorist operations.

Today’s “Evil Islam” meme is being created by forces that want to foster tensions and then worse between Islam and the West.

The French should stand up to their government and demand accountability. But the accountability should involve a confession that “radical Islam” is being advanced by forces affiliated with the government.

The REAL problem, therefore, is not how to defend against radical Islam but how to prevent the French government and broader Western facilities and associates from creating bloody false flags designed to increase tensions.

Conclusion: The French should confront their own government and other European populations should do the same. That goes for America, too. People should demand answers and call on the mainstream media to do its job instead of remaining complicit in an unpublicized but evident neo-Gladio program.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com