I've done much research on this topic and tempered it with understandings of previous historical clandestine military maneuvers.

My personal take on this well timed event is that the neocons and their allies in Israel want to engage Iran before Bush leaves office. The neocons want to forestall a direct and hot war with Asia. They see it as an endgame, not a first move. They (neocons) realize that a strike upon Iran will precipitate a guaranteed Russian response (so do the neolibs, which is why they like this event too.)

If the Anglo-American establishment can tie Russia up with war fronts on its Southern and Western borders with former USSR members or drag NATO into a conflict, then they can hit Iran with no abandon. Russia will be too pre-occupied with its own border troubles to adequately respond, particularly if the most logistically sound path lies through a path surrounded by well armed and hostile Georgians.

Coincidentally, they also have several carrier groups that have moved into the Iranian coastal theatre at the same time that Georgia attacked Russia.


Bottom line - Georgia attacked Russia. Russia, realizing - yeah they read the same documents that I do too - that they are being surrounded, closed in on, and rightfully launched a counteroffensive.

I want you to understand this key facet : Our media, as a buried sidenote will shamefully admit that Georgia (backed by the US) started this fucking shit.

However, 90% of the coverage in your media is about how awful Russia is for striking back decisively, peppered with pictures of dead, crying people, and hollow eulogies about politically charged words like "freedom."

It is a fucking lie. Please understand it. Even if you can't grasp the Iraq WMD lie or the bankrupt, discredited idiotic mythology of the 9/11fairy tale - please grasp this one.

Georgia, as a puppet NWO faction attacked first.

Georgia's president will gleefully tell you that he is with "the new world order" and that his preemptive attack plays a role in that agenda.



The CFR, that organization's president, and the Wall St. Journal will gleefully tell you that this staged confrontation is about "the new world order."


There are two competing factions jockeying for the right to control what they refer to as the new world order.

There is the "right wing" group (neo-cons) that believes the correct and most efficient path to their new world order lies in occupying and physically dominating the resource rich, colonial regions of the world - ie - the middle east, Africa, and Latin America - with the militaries of the London/New York/Tel Aviv axis before finally closing in on the final pieces of isolated Asia.

There is a "left wing" group (neo-libs) that believes that the correct and most efficient path to their new world order lies in skipping the above steps and fast-forwarding to a direct confrontation with Russia while it is reeling and China before it can fully develop. Once those powers are completely eliminated, the other destitute 3rd world regions will then completely fall into place as isolated and undeveloped, requiring little effort to dominate.

The only real difference is the timeline that the two factions operate on.

Whatever their differences in strategic approach, both have the same ultimate goal - and roughly use the same cloak and dagger techniques in the current interim.

They both use international agreements like NATO and the UN. They both use lending institutions like the World Bank and IMF. They both promote things like NAFTA/WTO and "free trade" - which translates as centralized international corporations looting the fuck out of the third world while eliminating the local economies, production capacities, and middle classes of the first world (including the one you live in.)

If you want the right wing (McCain and the neo-cons) version of what the new world order is - they'll disclose it piece by piece in a 1998 think tank study paper called "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

I guess too many people read it and were horrified by it, what with its calls for racial bioweapons, first strike (i.e. "sneak") nuclear attacks, inside job style fake terror attacks inside America, etc... and all kinds of other evil things - that PNAC decided to pull it down from their website. You can still find copies of it though with creative googling. Oh yeah, those authors are still in the White house with many of them in the McCain brass.


If you want the more nuanced, seductive, good will coaxing, total fraud, trilateral commission opus, considerably more dangerous since it doesn't involve beating up poorly trained and poorly armed 3rd world Muslims but rather engaging in a full frontal assault the fully equipped Asian nuclear powers who can strike back, left wing version (Obama and his revanchist Russia hating, al-quaeda forming, Iran revolution backing, puppet master Brzezinski) pick up The Grand Chessboard.

^^^^^^ That is what you will be getting with an Obama presidency.

The vision of a founding trilateralist, literally working for the same people, but telling you that the proposal of imposed austerity ( the shit about SUVs, food, and thermostats - or going to Europe and demanding global sacrifice while you make threads about this fucking horseshit) is in your interests and not in those, who the little foundation fraud is fronting for as fake opposition meant to capitalize upon the public disgust of their now bug-zappered neocon partnership, and who are also down with totally raping the fuck out of the planet.

Oh and by the way - you'll probably get nuclear war as he shifts the troops to what Brzezinski refers to as "the global balkans" of Central Asia. He wants to expand the war into Pakistan. He wants to aid Georgia, include Ukraine in NATO, etc...

Time is short. Things are about to get bad.

I've laid it out for you. I've pointed you in the right directions. There is a "new world order."

It is no coincidence that this phrase keeps resurfacing.

Cecil Rhodes, Lionel Curtis, Lord Halifax, Lord Balfour, the Cliveden set, and Lord Milner committed themselves to it. (google any one of their names)

The british crown commissioned eugencists and futurists to write about their new world order. One of their chief propagandists, HG Wells, even wrote books - literally one called THE NEW WORLD ORDER - about why the global imposition and facelift of England's feudal system, titles, and bureaucracies "new world order" would be wonderful for every human permitted to live post-eugenic racial cleansing and military domination, after their positioned class politically unworked the renaissance and sent the middle classes, that have historically threatened and replaced sitting elites, back to a refracted, centralized, and rationed latifundia style manorial servitude, while condemning the lesser races in the undeveloped world to perpetual servitude, eugenics, sterilization, and extermination.

Bill Clinton's personal and worshiped mentor (Carrol Quigley) writes books about who the real lever pullers are, concludes that they are good, and any learned man should be sympathetic to their cause.

GHWB talks about NWO. His kid GWB talks about NWO. So do Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Clinton, Obama, Hitler, Churchill, etc... and now this little pawn Saakashvili - you've got the WSJ running pieces about the new world order, the London Independent, etc...

I didn't invent this term. I didn't craft the anglophile network's agenda and value system.

****All I can do is shout, jump up and down, and point to it every time that it displays and admits itself publicly.***

If you don't have the rational faculties beyond that after being directed - well fuck man - maybe they are right and you deserve their top down eugenics programs and slavery.

If it doesn't exist, why do these powerful people keep claiming it does ?

If it is good and sweet, why the subterfuge and all of these horrible documents that reveal that "the new world order" is anything of the sort ?

stay tuned: next up, vermicious_knid will tell us about the 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth, and how we've all been educated evil!

As of yesterday independent and AP news sources are reporting that, not only are Russian troops still camped outside of Georgian cities, they have been systematically dismantling Georgia's infrastructure and military and police capabilities.

Russia has been accused of bombing a vital railway bridge as recently as Saturday, to which the Russians replied "what? that?...ummm...it was like that when we got here."

The Russian forces have been walking into Georgian military bases and police stations and tearing them apart, exploding stockpiled munitions, destroying weapons and communications equipment, and tearing apart buildings. They have also sunk Georgia's few Coast Guard boats in the Black Sea port town of Poti and are blockading the major East/West Highway that connects the government in Tiblisi with the rest of Georgia.

all of this despite signing a cease-fire agreement that stated that Russian troops would return to their poitions from before the start of the conflict.

rather than pulling back, Russia actually seems to be expanding its presence throughout Georgia.

Akhalgori is slightly north but actually well east of Gori and well into what is normally Georgian land.

SOP; and we would behave in exactly the same way.

well. that makes it okay then.

It suggests that people who live in glass houses...

...shouldn't revert to over-simplification of an issue in order to bypass any meaningful discussion of it?

I think my previous statements made quite clear that the issue is actually quite simple. I cannot imagine agreeing with nearly anything Patrick Buchannan has to say; except I think he gets this right:

that's more like it.

I agree that a resurgent Russia isn't a threat to the US. In fact, a healthy Russia is good for everyone. However, a fervently nationalistic Russia with an erratic and belligerent leader isn't. And it's not just the United States that is worried. NATO in general is looking on with concern, as is the UN. The UN collectively drafted another resolution requiring Russia to abide by the cease-fire and return their troops to the positions that they held before August 6th. This is an agreement that Russia has already made, and rather than carry it out, they have been victimizing the country of Georgia.

Russia has even less of an interest in Abkhazia and South Ossetia than Georgia does. This is about punishing Georgia and not about Russia's desire to defend the two provinces, who it knows like them only marginally better than they like Georgia. But I agree...and have said several times here...that Georgia will lose Abkhazia and South Ossetia, largely because of the bellicose incompetence of Saakashvili. That doesn't mean that Russia gets to occupy Georgia indefinitely when it's already agreed under pressure from Europe at large..not just the United States...to leave.

Even if Georgia is able to maintain its pipeline, it hardly challanges Russian dominance of Central Asian Natural Gas supplies flowing to the West. The only thing it does is provide an alternative for when Russia does something like, say, turn off supplies to the Czech Republic as a means of punishment for having the audacity to do what they want within their own country.

This Georgian crisis in the context of the way Russia has been treating many nations that used to be in its sphere of influence, along with its moves to become a controlling supplier of things like energy and grain is troubling. Saying "It's no business of ours." is tantamount to sticking one's head in the sand.

And Russia, holding veto power just like the US has stuck down all UN resolutions. I am going to stick with the pattern recognition theme here! This, like many other behavioral issues is going to haunt us for some time.

This may be the bargaining chip Russia seeks. The NATO statement is largely without teeth, more accurately reflecting EU sentiment than US sentiment. Russia likely has no desire to see Abkhazia or Ossetia become Russian republics and will promise the return of these areas to Georgia in exchange for certain commitments from the EU regarding NATO expansion.

Fair enough; we should be observers and influencers. However, our ability to drive economic and military decisions on the strength of our economic influence is waning and emerging or re-emerging economies are going to increase the amount of influence they have over the flow of oil, gas, and food.

We may be entering a very real war to determine who will control natural resources sufficient to sustain their economies, which will make Russian tanks rolling across Georgia look like child's play.

Indeed. Which is a very good reason to reduce dependence on crude oil, ASAP. (Not just imported crude oil. All crude oil. And when I say "reduce", I mean "by 50% or more".)