this tik tok ban bill is really making me realize how much the government cares about controlling its citizens rather than taking care of them. maybe my idea of what the government does prior to this was entirely incorrect--maybe a government should be in the business of controlling its citizens rather than helping them. but that really doesn't sit right with me

Statement of Diane Devine submitted to the Fraser Committee

Statement Submitted by Diane Devine to the Ohio Legislator regarding involvement in the Moon Unification Church

dated May 18, 1977

I first became involved in the Unification Movement in May of 1973 in Louisville, Kentucky, where I was indoctrinated daily for a month long period to the Divine Principle teaching of the Korean organizer, Sun Myung Moon. When I was sent to Tarrytown, New York, to attend the international training center, I was persuaded to relinquish all of my possessions to the “Family,” as the commune was called, including the use of my car (a ’70 Olds Cutlas), furniture and all personal belongings. In Tarrytown I completed the rigorous 40 day and 120 day training programs in which I was deliberately subjected to the brainwashing methods which I have described openly to the Columbus media over the past year. My objective is to expose the criminal and damaging coercive practices which are being perpetrated on 30,000 American youth in the name of “religion.” To summarize very briefly, the mind control methods used by Moon and other cult leaders:

1. Complete alienation from family, friends, and former environment.

2. Sleep and nutritional deprivation resulting in physical and mental exhaustion (about 4-5 hours sleep nightly, low protein diet of food costing less than $1.00 daily).

3. Complete lack of privacy: never being allowed to think or read alone.

4. Constant peer pressure to reinforce the conviction that the doctrine of Principle is true.

5. Group coercion to conform to standards, behavior, and attitude of the Principled life.

6. Up to 12 hours daily either in indoctrination sessions or in street fund-raising, both activities supervised by a militaristic hierarchy of authority figures.

7. Constant conditioning to self-sacrifice, work harder to purify ones self of sin, and to prove ones allegiance to Moon, who was considered the Second Messiah at this time, literally bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth, and who must be obeyed without question.

8. Any objection, question or argument being met with intimidation, humiliation, rapid re-indoctrination, instilling ideas of self-worthlessness, fear of consequences of leaving the movement, and guilt for having been concerned over own feelings rather than unanimity with the totalist system, a general mistrust of all personal thoughts and emotions, forcing oneself to deny normal reactions or impulses to gain acceptance from other group members, particularly those in authority positions.

The result of undergoing these programming techniques is that the individual identity is obliterated and replaced by a mass-identity carrying an entirely new system of moral and social values, allowing itself to be be easily manipulated by others who speak the new language and set the standards of the new morality. Existing always in a hypnotic or highly suggestible state of mind, one participates compliantly in all activities expected of him, mainly selling token objects in the street to raise money, or rehearsing lectures to be presented to new recruits. The simple, immediate goals of the Unification Church are to increase its wealth and its membership. The ultimate goals are purely political and in no way religious. The teaching of Divine Principle itself is merely a control mechanism to remould the thinking of masses of people, rendering an army of thousands usable for whatever purposes Moon dictates. It is a completely fascist system with Moon as the only decision maker (thus the famous Moon quotation “I am your brain.’’) and the highest ranking officials in the American movement all being of foreign nationality, primarily German, Dutch, French, Italian, and Japanese. Moon claims that the 30,000 membership must be maintained and that the Divine Principle must be injected into every field of American life, meaning that influential people in the government, business, and educational areas must be cultivated and brought to accept the ideology of Unification.

The Divine Principle, or Unification teaching, can be understood as a providence of restoration, whereby man will be reunited with God when he overcomes his fallen, sinful nature, lives in peace and harmony with his brother, etc., etc. (the usual cliches). Moon promises to cleanse impure blood in a marriage ceremony, thus bringing a new race to establish the foundation for the Kingdom of Heaven, which will eventually be migrated from the U.S. to Korea. The holy mission of the Blessed Family is to sacrifice individual, family, society, and nation for the sake of uniting the entire world in love and brotherhood. His followers believe his teaching to be the only solution to communication with atheistic Communist ideologies, and that each Moonie must exist for the one goal of converting the Communist world to the Unification Movement, and with all of mankind as one to be reunited with God. Moon has promised to have the knowledge of how to organize a world government and pledges himself as Lord to be the Savior to erect the World Theocracy. He describes the system as a form of Socialistic Democracy, although there is no policy research center where, as a Moonie, one might study government or learn more about the New Order. Moon, as the Lord, is entrusted to make all decisions. In bringing recognition to Moon and his teaching, his followers are instructed very carefully on how to present themselves so as to gain approval. It is commonly accepted to employ what is laughingly called “heavenly deception” to manipulate someone to think favorably about the movement, particularly if the someone is influential. Outlandish lies are told to such people, smaller lies are habitually told to everyday-people in the street to secure donations. A general disrespect for the public is fostered, and an attitude of delight in one’s ability to exploit for Unification purposes is definitely encouraged.

During my one year involvement I participated in several major programs, semi-practicing heavenly deception with pangs of conscience. I helped host the British Project in which 120 students from England and Ireland attended training sessions at Tarrytown; I worked on the publications staff and designed propagandistic literature; I designed banners for the 21-City Day of Hope Tour and participated as a Public Relations Representative in trying to persuade police officers from each city to attend Moon’s banquet and Day of Hope speeches; I participated in the Fast and Prayer for Watergate in which I was assigned to speak with certain Congressional Representatives asking them to pray for President Nixon and lobbying their support for the Office of the Presidency, as it was phrased; I was assigned the position of State Representative for the state of Kentucky, which I refused to accept, openly confiding my feelings of desperation and conviction that the movement was un-democratic and un-Christian.

In closing I want to emphasize that this is a political movement, distracting the public’s attention by presenting itself as a church, and successfully delaying any judicial action.

One year ago a group of 300 parents met with a Congressional Committee seeking investigation, but to my knowledge the issue of religion and protection by the First Amendment still enable Moon’s empire to prosper $50 million annually, and while thousands of young people continue to suffer intense psychological damage. It may be appropriate to outline some future objectives in an effort to emphasize the grave importance of initiating investigations at this time. Every Sunday morning Moonies pledge to die for Moon, martyrizing themselves at the 38th parallel in Korea in case of invasion. By 1981 Moon intends to take his followers to Moscow to hear him speak publicly. The ultimate goal is to sway an election, lobby heavily and provide Congressional aides to each office, eventually replacing the United Nations with the Unification Church.

Since 1969 [when it was founded] the Moonist front organization, the Freedom Leadership Foundation, has been has been pro-Viet Nam, pro-Cambodia, and pro-South Korea. FLF publishes a journal called The Rising Tide advocating strong military defense of Asian countries. FLF representatives are assigned to each Congressional office, and regularly sponsor dinners and fireside meetings with about 10 conservative-minded Representatives from Congress. A list of these names could be secured on request. During the first years of its existence, FLF denied its affiliation with the Unification Church, although all activities and publications produced by FLF were directly funded by the UC through the contributions raised in the Washington area by the flower and candle selling teams. FLF members were all versed in Divine Principle and the Theory of Victory over Communism. On weekends or Congressional breaks, FLF members were writing articles for The Rising Tide, or selling flowers with the UC teams. All members of UC are used interchangeably in any of the 60 front organizations, as needed or assigned by Moon. Several FLF’ers were top lecturers. The more dynamic and articulate men were chosen to represent FLF, although they all had proven themselves as obedient and easily controlled during a testing-time as UC lecturers and flower sellers. The same Principled manner of maintaining militaristic order (ie Cain-Able relationships) was exercised within FLF. In 1973 Gary Jarmin was acting president. A list of Moonies participating in FLF activities could also be secured on request. (see Alan Wood report)

Moon dictated at Tarrytown and Barrytown that it was essential for each UC Leader to know inside-and-out the three books, Divine Principle, Victory Over Communism, and Unification Thought. (quote Moon “0ur goal is to have our mind united with our body, and with this as the bullet we shall smash the world.’’ He refers to having bodily actions automatically controlled by the theoretical contents of the ideologies) Those who could memorize and pass tests on this substantial amount of material could qualify for any position within UC and would be promised a position of leadership, even future presidency of a nation. Among the respected positions in the present church are any assignment as Public Relations Representatives (openly lobbying in Congressional offices and acknowledging affiliation with UC) or as State Representative(speaking with influential persons in state government). In Moon’s quotation,” Let’s say there are 500 sons and daughters like you in each state, then we can control the government,” he is referring to 500 members who qualify as Leaders. He intends to use these members to organize campaign teams, to work within various areas of the government and business.

During the 72 and 73 US 21 city speech tours Moon asked these Leaders to lure prominent people in each city to attend his banquet and lectures. Hundreds of city and state government officials attended each presentation. Follow-up teams of PR workers were assigned to meet and cultivate those who had responded favorably, the goal being to teach them Divine Principle, or at least impress them with our dedication to purpose and enthusiasm. Offer to help them in any campaign, regardless of which party they represented. Keep records of PR activities. The object here was understood as merely becoming practiced in campaigning. Moon stated that he would decide which US presidential candidate the UC would back when the time had arrived to “put him in office.” We were not to question the choice. Moon stated that thousands of UC Blessed Couples would be migrating from the US to Korea to live communally there when the UC takes the Korean government. He frequently made references for the need for some of the older members to die at that time. He said that he, himself, would die at the age of 80, but that this would be necessary to defend Korea in war and that in so doing the US would be forced to send aide. The Sunday morning pledge which states “I will march bravely forward into the enemy camp until I have judged them completely with the weapons with which God has been defeating Satan” refers to the need to shed the blood of martyrdom to build the Heavenly Kingdom. He taught that some will live to see the Kingdom, others will not. Once the Korean government was well-secured, the plan was to assign UC members to ambassadorships in each Korean embassy throughout the world.

Regarding the selection of candidates to be assigned as first ambassadors to the new Korean government, it was announced that a Japanese Leader named Kamiyama would be able to soon run for election in Japan, with the assistance of a man already holding an official position, by the name of Kuboki. With Kamiyama in office, the doors could easily be opened in Japan. It was announced that Paul Werner, a German leader, would be the first to take an official position in Germany. A younger fellow named Dan Fefferman, an American, is being groomed by Moon to take a position in Israel. No other names were announced, but many were rumored. There was competition among the state representatives for Moon’s attention. Moon expected that each state representative serve at least a three year mission in a foreign country, forcing the Americans to become bilingual. He made international assignments arbitrarily, whether or not a person could speak a language he was expected to be able to lecture the Divine Principle in the native tongue of the country to which he was sent. State representatives from the past three years were sent to 40 countries in 1974. I believe there are now missionaries in 120 countries. Moon promised to tour the world and visit each of these countries and speak to the membership using the missionaries as interpreters. This places each foreign-UC member in a position comparable to Bo Hi Pak, or as Moon’s right hand man, at the particular time of his visitation to that country.

It was assumed from Moon’s many references to the United Nations, that we should be expecting a self-destruction which would enable the UC to proclaim itself as the only unified international organization demonstrating a peaceful standard of living. He predicted that the destruction of the UN would be the thing which would greatly cause the public’s attention to be turned to the UC. He stated that there would be worldwide economic collapse and that the UC would be prepared to offer relief and assistance to thousands of people at the centers, which would be established as hostels, and that they would convert thousands at that time and use them to advance a campaign or election of the presidential candidate chosen by Moon. All UC women are expected to know how to prepare menus, cook for, and serve at least a hundred people. In some places in California self-subsistent farms are being set up. Leaders are being assigned to business enterprises which Moon has purchased in the US dealing with high nutritional foods, particularly fish. Moon stated that at such a time of mass-hysteria in the US, it may be necessary to know martial arts as a form of self defense. He also said many times “All of the Korean businesses and American businesses will be run by the leaders and the air rifles are being made now for you,” implying at the time of disaster the UC would be armed. He promised to purchase an airline so that we could travel internationally with safety. He referred to this as a “fleet of jets.” He said that New York would be the first city to experience the depression and this is the reason he has concentrated on buying property that is cultivatable in the upper state area. He predicted that people would leave the city in a sudden outpouring, and that UC would have food stored and shelter prepared to receive them.

Diane Devine

_____________________________________________

Minions and Master

United States Congressional investigation of Moon’s organization

Statement of Linda Anthenin to the Fraser Committee

Notarized Statement of Linda Anthenien to the Fraser Committee

Statement of Phillip Greek to the Fraser Committee

Sun Myung Moon and the United Nations

Sun Myung Moon’s theology used to control members

Sun Myung Moon: The Emperor of the Universe

Allen Tate Wood on Sun Myung Moon and the UC

“Moon’s Law: God Is Phasing Out Democracy”

By Henry Kissinger.... Henry thinks you are the third world. We are all members of the third world in the eyes of the elite. Not a day goes by when we are not reminded that we are nothing but 'useless eaters' who have been given the temporary right to exist on this planet by the generous elite. However, our continued existence is predicated on the notion that we have no rights, and as such, we should have no expectations. Through the tenets of Agenda 21, we are constantly reminded that we have no right to the resources on this planet. The elite own the water, the food and all other material assets. Enslaving Humanity, One Sheep At a Time Never before in the history of mankind, has a people, such as the citizens of the United States, enjoyed such political freedoms, resulting in self-determination over their lives as well as having enjoyed the affluence of the most prosperous middle class in human history. This experiment in American self-governance and resulting freedom, is nearly over. Both your perceived assets and even your life belongs to the minions representing the elite on this planet, for as we transition from an industrial based economy to a post industrial society, most of us will no longer needed because the size of the labor class will dramatically shrink. Now, we know the meaning of Kissinger's proclamation that we are nothing but a bunch of useless eaters. It should be abundantly clear that when several officials and prominent people on this planet state that the planet would be better off if the human population was reduced from 7 billion to 500 million, that they really mean it. Do you think that they are really kidding when the elite make such statements? It Is the Same Everywhere Everywhere on this planet, the elite are asserting their authority over the 'useless eaters' who occupy space and consume 'their' resources on this planet. The bulk of humanity are kept in metaphorical zoo-like cages on the planet and exist for the mere entertainment of the elite. Literally, nothing belongs to the common people. The elite own the food, the water and all the shelter on this planet. In every country it is the same. The elite, by hook or crook, appoint their minions to government positions. The government subsequently creates the conditions whereby the whims of the elite are enforced, thus, enslaving the people. The elite's strategies slightly differ depending on the local politics. In China, in order to enforce Agenda 21 dictates of moving the masses from rural to the stack and pack ghost cities, the whim of the elite is brutally enforced at the end of the barrel of a gun. In Uganda, when villages are needed in order to plant trees in carbon offset programs, the Uganda military simply burns down the villages and declares the inhabitants to be mere trespassers. And in America, when the elite wants what you own, there is a pretense of going through the constitutionally based courts under the guise of pseudo justice. However, the result is still the same, the Constitution is not followed and you lose. America, there is an important question to consider. If we are so free, as we are constantly reminded that we are by the mainstream media, then why are we spied upon without provocation or cause? And if we are so free, then why is our ability to raise objections to the manner in which we are governed being systematically eliminated? The Global Awakening Must Be Crushed Zbigniew Brzezinski likes to keep his hand on the pulse of humanity. In the middle part of the last decade he warned his elite colleagues that Americans were beginning to wake up the elite's agenda and that they must proceed with all due haste. Most recently, Brzezinski warned of a global awakening that was very dangerous to their agenda. It is abundantly clear that the elite fear humanity's sheer numbers and they know that the mainstream media is losing its control over humanity as the ratings of such MSM mainstays such as CNN are in the proverbial toilet. The blinders placed upon humanity by the MSM are slowly, but surely coming off. If the elite want to maintain control, they must act quickly, according to Brzezinski. The Pattern of Genocide The numbers of humanity are a threat to the ruling elite and these numbers must be radically reduced, and reduced quickly. The pattern leading to genocide, throughout history, is remarkably consistent. In each case, the government attempts to stop the communications between dissident forces which could evolve into an opposition force which would oppose the unfolding tyranny. We are witnessing just such a movement as the government has repeatedly tried to close down the free expression on the internet. Jay Rockefeller (D WVA) has attached a cyber-security amendment to the NDAA 2014 bill in Congress to mandate that precautions be taken to protect America's cyber infrastructure and private entities. Those of us who represent private entities, will soon find our free access to the internet eliminated. The fact that this internet control bill is attached to the NDAA is no accident because this means that dissidents, posting anti-government rhetoric on the internet, can be snatched off the street and held indefinitely for their 'terrorist' views. There is a second and equally disturbing development in that the government has declared that the people of this country do not have the right to challenge the government on its unconstitutional actions. This is a position which fully exposes the fact that America is no longer a democratic republic, but rather a dictatorship which serves the elite. At issue is the ACLU's right to sue the NSA for the unconstitutional and unwarranted intrusions into the private lives of all Americans by spying on their every communication and their web-surfing habits. This position, taken by the government, validates my earlier point that we have no rights and are living under a dictatorship. The Most Important Question of All There is even a more important question. Why does this government feel that it needs to spy upon all the people? Billions if not trillions of dollars are being spent to this end. Why? We should all be concerned that the police state practice of gathering private information on its citizens represents a practice that has never failed to result in genocide against at least a segment of its population. Therefore, if we use history as the judge of the NSA's actions, we should all be hiding under the bed. Although, as an aside, I think it would be appropriate to imitate the anti-gun crowd in Colorado who stalk and harass the activists who are trying to recall politicians who are attempting to seize the guns of law abiding citizens. The police have told the Colorado activists that these stalking behaviors are acceptable. Therefore, I would propose that we make the NSA feel the same heat. Perhaps residents in the area of an NSA facility should subject the NSA officials to the same level of harassment as are the activists in Colorado.The NSA harasses citizens, American citizens act in kind. On a more serious level, we need to all ask where this is leading. We should all consider the fact that there is a certainty that the information being gathered by the NSA will be used against 'undesirable' Americans. This is a civilized description for genocide. Does this allegation have any further substantiation than merely using the lesson of history? A cursory examination of the statements of the global elite, both past and present would indicate that we should all be a little more than concerned. Voices of Depopulation I have come to believe that a great culling is in our future. Before you dismiss this statement as the words of a lunatic, maybe we should see if there is any corroborating evidence from people in positions of authority, both past and present. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, enthusiastically promoted the Thomas Malthus' philosophy as she stated, 'The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.' Perhaps these were merely the musings of two twisted individuals which do not represent any type of central philosophical belief. Unfortunately the theories of Malthus, Sanger and other population control advocates did not die with them. As I discovered, this is a reoccurring theme contained within the personal words of several dozen global leaders. 'Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind'. Theodore Roosevelt 'Malthus has been vindicated; reality is finally catching up with Malthus. The Third World is overpopulated, it's an economic mess, and there's no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing population. Our philosophy is: back to the village'. Dr. Arne Schiotz, World Wildlife Fund Director of Conservation, stated such, ironically, in 1984. 'A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal'. Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine 'There is a single theme behind all our work-we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it….' 'Our program in El Salvador didn't work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females….' The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….' Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs 'In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself'. Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider - Founder and Secretary, respectively, The Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, pgs 104-105,1991 'A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people…. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions'. Stanford Professor, Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb 'In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it'. J. Cousteau,1991 explorer and UNESCO courier 'I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today' and, 'We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox'. Dave Foreman, Sierra Club and co founder of Earth First! 'We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.' Mikhail Gorbachev 'Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government'. Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France,1991 'The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer'. Dr. Henry Kissinger New York Times, Oct.28,1973 'Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries'. Dr. Henry Kissinger 'Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, ' and 'The elderly are useless eaters'. Dr. Henry Kissinger 'World population needs to be decreased by 50%'. Dr. Henry Kissinger 'We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order'. David Rockefeller 'War and famine would not do. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. AIDS is not an efficient killer because it is too slow. My favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston) , because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. 'We've got airborne diseases with 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that. 'You know, the bird flu's good, too. For everyone who survives, he will have to bury nine'. Dr. Eric Pianka University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert, showed solutions for reducing the world's population to an audience on population control 'No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation'. David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations 'The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary'. Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER 'In South America, the government of Peru goes door to door pressuring women to be sterilized and they are funded by American tax dollars to do this'. Mark Earley in The Wrong Kind of Party Christian Post 10/27 2008 Women in the Netherlands who are deemed by the state to be unfit mothers should be sentenced to take contraception for a prescribed period of two years'. Marjo Van Dijken (author of the bill in the Netherlands) in the Guardian 'Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature'. Anonymously commissioned Georgia Guidestones 'If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels'. Prince Phillip, Queen Elizabeth's husband, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing'. David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club 'The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes'. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes 'Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of'. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 'The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.' Obama's science czar John P. Holdren, Co-author of 'Ecoscience' Deny If You Must, but….. In this article alone, there are 27 quotes from individuals representing the global elite who speak clearly on the desires of the elite who seek to significantly reduce the population. There are literally hundreds of more quotes which should concern the average 'useless eater'. There are people who will undoubtedly dismiss these quotes as the musings of people with too much idle time on their hands and they really don't mean what they say. To these naive people, I would say that various governments, on behalf of their elite masters, murdered over 260 million of their own citizens in the 20th century. I contend that these 260 million people are merely the prelude of what is on the horizon. Consider the following quote from the late Congressman, Larry McDonald. 'The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.' Congressman Larry P. McDonald,1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviet Union Conclusion I have related how recently retired members of FEMA and DHS have sought the company of like-minded people as they have sought refuge in remote locations in preparation for what is coming. Maybe we should pay closer attention to what people say as well as what some people are doing. There can be little doubt that depopulation is a consistent theme of global leaders and the idea has been around for a very long time. Preaching drastic population reduction may be one thing, but when the actions match the stated intent, all of us would be fools to not pay close attention and act accordingly as circumstances warrant. Significant contribution by, Dr. Henry Kissinger

Chaos and the Rare Earths Sector

In simple terms (which is what I need) Chaos Theory as an explanation for the emergence of certain events within a complex environment has been so described. A"...branch of mathematics that deals with complex systems whose behavior is highly sensitive to slight changes in conditions so that small alterations can give rise to unintended consequences...the science of surprises, and not always pleasant surprises" (Google,2017).

Personally, I don’t know about the mathematical formula for Chaos Theory but if it relates to ‘complex systems’ that are ‘sensitive’ to ‘slight changes’ which can lead to ‘unintended consequences,’ then we seem to have serious examples of such theory already at work globally.

In fact, “Chaos Theory as the science of surprises” - now appears very apropos to the critical metals sector and, therefore, to the Rare Earths (RE) Investor Website and Forum. Before Trump’s era, RE investors were lamenting the approx. 6 year malaise in the RE sector. Investors asked why it seemed governments were so happily accepting that China be allowed to continue its dominance of this strategic arena? Why were so many companies (and militaries) with RE related needs so content to farm out all their needs to the Chinese? Didn’t the 2010-2011 Chinese/Japanese saga actually mean anything in terms of a global critical metals warning? Basically, there weren't the catalysts around related to RE after 2010-11 to provide the 'Oomph' for any positive movement within the sector.

Bingo! - Fast forward to 2019. The science of surprises hit home.

Apparently, the US had already elected a politician or pragmatist who actually meant what he said. The Americans have a President it seems who while loath to send human forces into war, is very much a hawk when it comes to funding (and potentially securing) US strategic military needs.

In fact, the US apparently has its first leader who now seems prepared to take on directly Chinese trade practices; a trading system that has for decades been allowed by previous administrations to go under the radar. Further, a President who appears much more comfortable with Bi - Tri trade agreements, rather than larger regional approaches.

In other words, we all got a personality who has now helped throw into chaos traditional, Laissez-faire free trade practices. A trading situation that much of the West has been relatively comfortable with for decades. However, a complex system that also necessitated the purposeful ignoring of countries who exploited such trade for their own benefit. In particular, purposeful ignoring by big business and financiers as long as their profit margins benefited, and politicians who loved those lobbyists.

Remember that Chaos Theory could not care less whether one agrees with the triggers for system change, it simply deals with process and outcomes. So, regardless of support for or against, we recognize that the Trump initiated tariff issues with China clearly put the ‘cat amongst the pigeons;’ including for critical metals, particularly, RE.

In fact, as RE investors we should recognize that this is the type of Black Swan event that has really helped move us on from the stagnant malaise that engulfed the RE sector for much of this decade. I think it has caught many by surprise; for RE investors generally a happy surprise. However, the question remains as to how chaotic events will further unfold, and what shape will these future surprises take within the RE sector?

As the easiest and clearest example of chaos influencing a specific RE company, we need look no farther than Australia's (AUS) Lynas. A company that was dying after the 2010 -11 events yet has since re-emerged with even stronger financial backing and production credibility. Lynas is a company that now appears to have mainly overcome its hurdles within Malaysia (in part, due to some Malaysian politicians themselves reading the chaos tea leaves regarding future Asian investment and centrality within the RE sector). Further, Lynas’ new goal of building a cleaning process in AUS (which may later also lead to AUS based processing) was forced in large part by the chaotic process that involved the Malaysian administration's own internal political battles, coupled with the Wesfarmers 'left field' buyout insertion.

Further, we now have in AUS a country itself that has in the last 12 months started to highlight its own philosophical turmoil over the traditional policy re., metals. Specifically, trying to mesh the idea of having big holes dug in its ground while 'others' seemingly benefit from the more lucrative processes that use this raw material further down the critical metals value chain. Hence, such economic and philosophical angst now seems to have spirited at least an initial welcome back for Lynas, along with an increasing interest in Northern Minerals HRE and several other RE companies waiting in the wings).

Also, Lynas may have benefited from the 2018-19 RFI’s issued by the United States Dept' of Defense, which potentially stimulated their Lynas/Blue Line association. Again, an administrative event impacting company direction which has emerged from a chaotic environment directly created by an individual reaction towards what is perceived as unfair trade practices. Couple all this with Trump's hawkish support for both military funding and potential strategic security and you have events to the present.

Clearly, momentum has occurred in particular over the last 12 months within the RE sector. The question for investors, therefore, is do we really think that all this would have happened (or, would have been allowed to happen by vested interests, globally) without the chaos of 2018-19 and the actions of strategically placed individuals?

And it goes on…

Related to the trade issue dispute between the US and China we now have the apparent movement of a number of tech firms etc out of China and into other parts of Asia. These moves media suggest are for the specific intent of diversifying production (and potentially material supply), away from centralized control by one nation. Again, we are seeing the elements of Chaos Theory re., complex systems, sensitivity, small changes and unintended consequences emerging. Will these present (and future) events lead to more pleasant surprises that weary RE investors have long been awaiting? Or will such hopes be derailed by yet to occur Black Swans? It seems that the next 12 – 18 months will show us more clearly as events unfold.

No doubt both the run-up to and the outcome of the US election in 2020 will bring even further chaotic consequences, regardless of the decision.

However, we still have further two present events to consider in our chaos and RE analysis. We will leave the trade dispute between South Korea and Japan and the 'idea' that Greenland is in some fashion potentially in play (for the superpowers) for another discussion.

Hong Kong (HK) is a smoldering timebomb! What began as a response to a threaten extradition bill has now seemingly grown into a defense of perceived remaining democratic policies in HK. The catalyst here is clearly if China moves to crack down on this populace movement; Tiananmen square? Nearly 20% of the HK population have been out demonstrating and the area is literally a phone booth in size should the Chinese send forces in. The young HK's have months of mixing it up with a police force that has shown some restraint. How will they react then with a militarized force charged with the direction to put down unrest as an example for all Chinese watching? from What actions would such an event trigger from Trump, the European Union (EU), Japan, Australasia, etc? Doubtful military, but significant trade, banking, energy and political moves are possible. How would such ‘complexity’ look globally? What would it mean for trade and alliances? What compounding effect might it have on the 'defense' of the present and new critical metals value chains?

Brexit, oh yes Brexit. Some would describe this as the biggest political and economic mess the United Kingdom (UK) has gotten itself into since…? (note - I would not try to compare the memory of catastrophic war conflicts with this present issue, despite its gravity). However, we now have British politicians who have decided to basically cause a UK version of a ‘constitutional’ crisis, by refusing to follow the mandate of the people (regardless of how small) to leave the EU.

In fact, we have a UK government (internally in revolt) that has been denied the right to call a general election by an opposition party, which has been calling for such an election for nearly 2 years, but now apparently does not want to ‘risk’ such a political move. Couple this with an EU that has refused to negotiate any further with the UK on a ‘peaceful’ exit, thereby, impacting British sovereignty. A stalemate that some have suggested may only be broken (if even possible) by the intervention of the monarchy.

Thus, do we have a type of UK constitutional crisis or will Boris J’ come out of left field with a move to still force Brexit, or some other related act? Remember that Trump is in the wings with apparently an immediate US and UK trade deal on offer, and obviously he has no love for the EU approach to trade etc. What does all this mean for not just the UK, but also the EU? Do UK Brexit events and actions influence other EU perceptions with e.g., Greece, Spain, Italy etc? Again, Chaos Theory - small alterations can give rise to unintended consequences...and not always pleasant surprises."

From the RE sector perspective the EU seems presently focused on alternative extraction and recycling moves. Further, it has also touted funding now available for metals exploration companies etc., involved in Africa, as an alternative to Chinese money. However, chaotic conditions make cooperation over business enterprises between countries even within a union more problematic. Creating value chains between nations is no small endeavor. Therefore, will the RE value chain that maybe built in the US, also be designed to take care of allies elsewhere? Or, likewise, will the discussions between the US and AUS over RE needs also include potential moves to supply ‘friends’ (e.g., EU, Taiwan, India, N. Zealand, S. Korea, S. Asia, even Japan etc)? Again, Chinese trade, Hong Kong and Brexit etc., will all impact RE sector decisions down under; chaotic events that are already underway, but with potentially much more impact yet to come.

Consequently, talk on the Rare Earths Investor Forum about potential upcoming Black Swan events should recognize that, in fact, they have already begun and have the potential to greatly intensify. Again, US China trade, Hong Kong and Brexit are examples of issues that could further impact global events and trigger, as yet, more unseen surprises for critical metals (and investors). Such impacts would include serious influence on – RE exploration (e.g., where - N and S. America, Africa, AUS etc), raw material production (e.g., where – US, EU, S. Asia, AUS etc, - financing, extraction methods, production, etc) and processing (where – US, EU, S. Asia AUS, etc., - types, production, closed-loop, supply to whom - military, commercial, etc).

Again, regarding chaos which we are clearly in, when complexity infuses a global economic system look for any small concrete challenges/changes to give rise to both intended and unintended consequences. We may not agree with who or what initiates such changes, but we would be foolhardy as investors to ignore these; especially, if such chaos continues to lead to more positive RE sector adjustments.

Please feel free to add to the discussion on social media or go to the Rare Earths Investor Forum to comment. I have purposely (excluding Lynas, which was used to highlight chaos impacts in concrete terms) avoided discussing RE companies that might benefit from this environment. Feel free to mention your company ideas.

 https://rareearthsinvestor.com/re-blog/f/chaos-and-the-rare-earths-sector

Making Sense Of America's Empire Of Chaos

New Post has been published on http://foursprout.com/wealth/making-sense-of-americas-empire-of-chaos/

Making Sense Of America's Empire Of Chaos

Via TomDispatch.com,

Mark Karlin: How much money has gone to the U.S. war on terror and what has been the impact of this expenditure?

Tom Engelhardt: The best figure I’ve seen on this comes from the Watson Institute’s Costs of War Project at Brown University and it’s a staggering $5.6 trillion, including certain future costs to care for this country’s war vets. President Trump himself, with his usual sense of accuracy, has inflated that number even more, regularly speaking of $7 trillion being lost somewhere in our never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East. One of these days, he’s going to turn out to be right.

As for the impact of such an expenditure in the regions where these wars continue to be fought, largely nonstop, since they were launched against a tiny group of jihadis just after September 11, 2001, it would certainly include: the spread of terror outfits across the Middle East, parts of Asia, and Africa; the creation — in a region previously autocratic but relatively calm — of a striking range of failed or failing states, of major cities that have been turned into absolute rubble (with no money in sight for serious reconstruction), of internally displacedpeople and waves of refugees at levels that now match the moment after World War II, when significant parts of the planet were in ruins; and that’s just to start down a list of the true costs of our wars.

At home, in a far quieter way, the impact has been similar. Just imagine, for instance, what our American world would have been like if any significant part of the funds that went into our fruitless, still spreading, now nameless conflicts had been spent on America’s crumbling infrastructure, instead of on the rise of the national security state as the unofficial fourth branch of government. (At TomDispatch, Pentagon expert William Hartung has estimatedthat approximately $1 trillion annually goes into that security state and, in the age of Trump, that figure is again on the rise.)

Part of the trouble assessing the “impact” here in the U.S. is that, in this era of public demobilization in terms of our wars, people are encouraged not to think about them at all and they’ve gotten remarkably little attention. So sorting out exactly how they’ve come home — other than completely obvious developments like the militarization of the police, the flying of surveillance drones in our airspace, and so on — is hard. Most people, for instance, don’t grasp something I’ve long written about at TomDispatch: that Donald Trump would have been inconceivable as president without those disastrous wars, those trillions squandered on them and on the military that’s fought them, and that certainly qualifies as “impact” enough.

What makes the U.S. pretension to empire different from previous empires?

As a start, it’s worth mentioning that Americans generally don’t even think of ourselves as an “empire.” Yes, since the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, our politicians and pundits have proudly called this country the “last” or “lone” superpower and the world’s most “exceptional” or “indispensable” nation, but an empire? No. You need to go someplace off the mainstream grid — Truthout or TomDispatch, for instance — to find anyone talking about us in those terms.

That said, I think that two things have made us different, imperially speaking. The first was that post-1991 sense of ourselves as the ultimate winner of a vast imperial contest, a kind of arms race of many that had gone on since European ships armed with cannon had first broken into the world in perhaps the fifteenth century and began to conquer much of it. In that post-Soviet moment of triumphalism, of what seemed to the top dogs in Washington like the ultimate win, a forever victory, there was indeed a sense that there had never been and never would be a power like us. That inflated sense of our imperial self was what sent the geopolitical dreamers of the George W. Bush administration off to, in essence, create a Pax Americana first in the Greater Middle East and then perhaps the world in a fashion never before imagined, one that, they were convinced, would put the Roman and British imperial moments to shame. And we all know, with the invasion of Iraq, just where that’s ended up.

In the years since they launched that ultimate imperial venture in a cloud of hubris, the most striking difference I can see with previous empires is that never has a great power still in something close to its imperial prime proven quite so incapable of applying its military and political might in a way that would successfully advance its aims. It has instead found itself overmatched by underwhelming enemy forces and incapable of producing any results other than destruction and further fragmentation across staggeringly large parts of the planet.

Finally, of course, there’s climate change — that is, for the first time in the history of empires, the very well-being of the planet itself is at stake. The game has, so to speak, changed, even if relatively few here have noticed.

Why do you refer to the U.S. as an “empire of chaos”?

This answer follows directly from the last two. The United States is now visibly a force for chaos across significant parts of the planet. Just look, for instance, at the cities — from Marawi in the Philippines to Mosul and Ramadi in Iraq, Raqqa and Aleppo in Syria, Sirte in Libya, and so on — that have literally been — a word I want to bring into the language — rubblized, largely by American bombing (though with a helping hand recently from the bomb makers of the Islamic State). Historically, in the imperial ages that preceded this one, such power, while regularly applied brutally and devastatingly, could also be a way of imposing a grim version of order on conquered and colonized areas. No longer, it seems. We’re now on a planet that simply doesn’t accept military-first conquest and occupation, no matter the guise under which it arrives (including the spread of “democracy”). So beware the unleashing modern military power. It turns out to contain within it striking disintegrative forces on a planet that can ill afford such chaos.

You also refer to Washington D.C. as a “permanent war capital” with the generals in ascension under Trump. What does that represent for the war footing of the U.S.?

Well, it’s obvious in a way. Washington is now indeed a war capital because the Bush administration launched not just a local response to a relatively small group of jihadis in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but what its top officials called a “Global War on Terror” — creating possibly the worst acronym in history: GWOT. And then they instantly began insisting that it could be applied to at least 60 countries supposedly harboring terror groups. That was 2001 and, of course, though the name and acronym were dropped, the war they launched has never ended. In those years, the military, the country’s (count ‘em) 17 major intelligence agencies, and the warrior corporations of the military-industrial complex have achieved a kind of clout never before seen in the nation’s capital. Their rise has really been a bipartisan affair in a city otherwise riven by politics as each party tries to outdo the other in promoting the financing of the national security state. At a moment when putting money into just about anything else that would provide security to Americans (think health care) is always a desperate struggle, funding the Pentagon and the rest of the national security state continues to be a given. That’s what it means to be in a “permanent war capital.”

In addition, with Donald Trump, the generals of America’s losing wars have gained a kind of prominence in Washington that was unknown in a previously civilian capital. The head of the Defense Department, the White House chief of staff, and (until recently when he was succeeded by an even more militaristic civilian) the national security advisor were all generals of those wars — positions that, in the past, with rare exceptions, were considered civilian ones. In this sense, Donald Trump was less making history with the men he liked to refer to as “my generals” than channeling it.

What is the role of bombing in the U.S. war-making machine?

It’s worth remembering, as I’ve written in the past, that from the beginning the war on terror has been, above all (and despite full-scale invasions and occupations using hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops), an air war. It started that way. On September 11, 2001, after all, al-Qaeda sent its air force (four hijacked passenger jets) and its precision weaponry (19 suicidal hijackers) against a set of iconic buildings in the U.S. Those strikes — only one of them failed when the passengers on a single jet fought back and it crashed in a field in Pennsylvania — may represent the most successful use of strategic bombing (that is, air power aimed at the civilian population of, and morale in, an enemy country) in history. At the cost of a mere $400,000 to $500,000, Osama bin Laden began an air war of provocation that has never ended.

The U.S. has been bombing, missiling, and drone-assassinatingever since. Last year, for instance, U.S. planes dropped an estimated 20,000 bombs just on the Syrian city of Raqqa, the former “capital” of the Islamic State, leaving next to nothing standing. Since the first American planes began dropping bombs (and cluster munitions) in Afghanistan in October 2001, the U.S. Air Force has been in the skies ceaselessly — skies by the way over countries and groups that lack any defenses against air attacks whatsoever. And, of course, it’s been a kind of rolling disaster of destruction that has left the equivalent of World Trade Center tower after tower of dead civilians in those lands. In other words, though no one in Washington would ever say such a thing, U.S. air power has functionally been doing Osama bin Laden’s job for him, conducting not so much a war on terror as a strange kind of war for terror, one that only promotes the conditions in which it thrives best.

What role did the end of the draft play in enabling an unrestrained U.S. empire of war?

It may have been the crucial moment in the whole process. It was, of course, the decision of then-president Richard Nixon in January 1973, in response to a country swept by a powerful antiwar movement and a military in near rebellion as the Vietnam War began to wind down. The draft was ended, the all-volunteer military begun, and the American people were largely separated from the wars being fought in their name. They were, as I said above, demobilized. Though at the time, the U.S. military high command was doubtful about the move, it proved highly successful in freeing them to fight the endless wars of the twenty-first century, now being referred to by some in the Pentagon (according to the Washington Post) not as “permanent wars” or even, as General David Petraeus put it, a “generational struggle,” but as “infinite war.”

I’ve lived through two periods of public war mobilization in my lifetime: the World War II era, in which I was born and in which the American people mobilized to support a global war against fascism in every way imaginable, and the Vietnam War, in which Americans (like me as a young man) mobilized against an American war. But who in those years ever imagined that Americans might fight their wars (unsuccessfully) to the end of time without most citizens paying the slightest attention? That’s why I’ve called the losing generals of our endless war on terror (and, in a sense, the rest of us as well) “Nixon’s children.”

*  *  *

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com. His sixth and latest book, just published, is A Nation Unmade by War (Dispatch Books).

Why Syria really matters (September 2013)

Introduction

“Military option is not off the table”, “Military action against Syria”; “Surgical strikes against the government in Damascus”, “Teach the thug Dr. Bashar al-Assad a lesson”, “Limited strikes to deter a monster, the new Hitler, from using chemical weapons again”.

These are just part of the firm and menacing statements that have been coming out from Washington and others since the alleged attack with chemical weapons in al-Ghouta area, east of the Syrian capital Damascus on 21st August 2013. Necessary and urgent, they argue. Others, like Russia, oppose the move for various reasons, among which the lack of clear evidence, the unpredictability of such an action and perspectives of drawing the entire region into an extremely dangerous and unstable situation.

The situation now appears to have calmed down with the latest Russian initiative to put the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile under international control. However, the US was extremely close to launching a unilateral military action and has now made it very clear that they do not take the military option off the table.

I argue that such a move would be an inconceivable catastrophe.

I write the current article because I sense an alarming reality if the US is to ever launch unilateral strikes against Syria.

Writing my current piece, I remain aware that I am no deep expert in the internal issues of the countries in the region; nor do I claim to have THE answer to the Syrian crisis. All I share are my views which I have gathered throughout extensive and continuous research and by closely following events.

I believe that Syria matters to all of us right now, regardless of whether you are Syrian, Jordanian, Israeli, Turkish, American, British or any other nationality.

Structure

In the first part of my article, I shall outline the (recent) historical, political and strategic context of the crisis. In the second part I shall explain the consequences of any foreign intervention in view of the very same context.

I. HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT

How did it all begin?

In March 2011, in the time of the “Arab Spring”, protests broke out in various Syrian cities.

Why? Well, let us have a quick look at Syria right before the unrest began in March 2011.

No doubt, Syria could not have qualified in any way as a 'democracy' or a 'free' country in the Western sense. It has virtually been a one-party (Syrian Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party at the forefront) state for more than 40 years. There should be no illusion: Syria would most certainly qualify in the description of a police state. For what I have researched, one could be in trouble for simply expressing opinion, or for open affinity to the “wrong” party/ideology, get fired or even arrested. The security apparatus was ubiquitous. Administration and bureaucracy is highly over-floated and corruption was and still is literally everywhere, at all levels.

There was no real elections, or constitution.. The President, Dr. Bashar al-Assad, was voted on a referendum, being the only candidate – with 97%. Well, hardly any competition or choice, one might argue.

And the list goes on... But what I want to underline here is:

Syria pre-2011 was by no means a paradise on earth in terms of politics, freedoms and rights, to say the least.

The need for reform was clear and, arguably, urgent.

Protests going violent

It is said that the first city to revolt was Dara'a, in the south, in mid-March 2011. Firstly, the protest was mostly peaceful. Varying reports claim that government forces opened random fire at unarmed protesters from the very first days1. The government has denied any such allegations and sustains that no fire was opened on peaceful protesters but only response to attacks from armed men. Where the truth lays I cannot say for certain, as I was not there personally and am bound to be unable to establish this with a certainty beyond any reasonable doubt. What is clear, though, is that there was social energy and need for a change. And it cannot be denied, those were and still are most legitimate calls.

However, the peaceful and reasonable calls for change could be said to have been immediately 'backed' by violence and from the first days of the uprising, there have been armed men and casualties on both sides, which suggest a quick spillover from “peaceful protest” to armed activity on both sides from the very early stages.2

Syria's complicated religious and ethnicity jigsaw

Not many countries are as ethnically and religiously diverse as Syria. It is home to approximately 10% Christians, 10% Kurds, some 10 to 15% Alawites (an offshoot of Shia Islam, the sect of Dr Bashar al-Assad), and a majority Sunni population. Further, there are also some sizable Druze, Jewish and Armenian minorities, among others.

In brief: governing and securing the complicated ethnic mosaic of Syria would not be an easy-peasy job for anyone.

One thing must be admitted about the ruling Arab Socialist Ba'ath party and President al-Assad: Syria is a secular state where everyone could freely exercise any religion. Prior to the war, I am being told by some good Syrian friends of mine, no one would have ever asked whether you were Sunni, Alawi, Christian, or whatever. One was Syrian. And there was a reasonable degree of stability, security and peace for any of the minorities.

Today in Syria there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different rebel armed factions, many of whom with extremist and Takfiri ideology. Such are Jabhat al-Nusra, an offshoot of Al-Quaeda, and the Islamic State for Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), with some commentators defining them as 'the most efficient forces fighting against Dr al-Assad's government'. The Christians of Syria, for example, mostly support the government and is perhaps not because they are particular supporters of President al-Assad or his Party's policies. It has a lot to do with a fear that a scenario in which extremists take over or chaos ensues, they will be in the gravest of dangers. Something not so unthinkable when they just look across the border and see what happened to the Christians of Iraq following the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 (an invasion in violation of international law and without a UN sanction, by the way).

To summarise: the reality is that if the Syrian government was to fall or was forced out by bombs, few could guarantee what would happen to the complicated ethnic jigsaw of the Syrian society.

The opposition

Like in any country, there is not a unitary, one single opposition against the current ruling government.

Nowhere could this be more true than Syria. Hundreds of groups fight on the ground, not to mention the political side (with its innate disagreements and infightings) – the Syrian National Council (SNC). The SNC is an organisation based in Turkey and run mostly by Syrian ex-pats, sponsored and supported by the West and some regional players.

Either way, it is the case that there is hardly anyone who could stand up and claim that he or she has a reasonable and sufficient command and control of the “opposition” armed groups on the ground. Not to mention the Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS, who take no orders from anyone and are thought to be the strongest fighting force among rebel groups. In fact, the al-Nusra front recently executed one of the top commanders of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighting the government of the Syrian Arab Republic. Skirmishes between jihadists and FSA are not rare and the jihadists now openly oppose the more moderate elements.

This leads to the clear conclusion that, were the government of Syria to collapse, there is absolutely no guarantee that anyone could take the matters in control and form a stable government, let alone ensure the safety of all the sects and ethnic groups.

Demonisation of a single man

We hear it so so often: “Criminal”, “dictator”, Brutal dictator, “Assad is a criminal”, “Assad's army”, “Assad's” this, Assad's that... Looking from the outside, one might as well think that in Syria, everything is about Dr Bashar al-Assad. As in, he is everywhere and everything, in any second. He is all of it. Equating an entire country of 23 million people to one man. Syria = Dr Bashar al-Assad. An occurrence seen over and over again in almost every conflict, demonising and equalising to one man, e.g. “Saddam is a terrorist/dictator/tyrant/[etc.]”. And this is not to get the Syrian government off the hook. No, they certainly have a long list of crimes to account for.

But Syria is not Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian Army is not “Bashar al-Assad's army”. No, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) belongs to the Syrian people. For anyone interested, it might be curious to know that the SAA corps are comprised  of all the ethnicities, layers and sects within the Syrian society.

Regional context

What happens in Syria is not at all about Syria only. The entire region is on the verge of a very big fire that could hardly be extinguished. Syria is, among other things, the battle ground of a nasty proxy war and major geo-political interests and considerations by many players. They all have their reasons.

Either way, it must be crystal clear that the Syrian crisis is not about Syria only. It is not even about Dr Bashar al-Assad. Not at all.

The Persian Gulf states

On one side, there are the Persian Gulf states (Qatar and Saudi Arabia mostly), who are among the most generous sponsors of funds and weapons to the rebels. This, of course, could hardly have anything to do with a push for democracy and human rights on their part, there is just something not genuine in such 'motives', it is a joke-like idea. That is, Saudi Arabia, for instance, is a dark-age feudal theocratic autocracy, ruled by a ruthless monarch. No, such nation can definitely not claim to be supporting democracy and human rights, thus, we definitely cannot talk about it being a true reason for intervention. It has nothing to do with Dr Bashar al-Assad, nor with freedoms and rights.

These states fund and arm armed groups against the Syrian government for various reasons, inter alia, the close ties it has with Iran, the strongest Shia state in the region, (Saudi Arabia and Qatar are mostly Sunni). They want to see themselves as the honourable and deserving 'front-liners' of Islam and leaders in the region. A defiant Iran (and Syria) in this context, is a thorn in the sight for the Persian Gulf states.

Further, there is a new gas pipeline project from Iran through Iraq and ending into Syria and the Mediterranean coast. This would be a huge competition for Qatar, for example, who has one of the largest gas reserves in the world and is looking for potential ways to bring it to the European markets. What is the shortest way for a potential pipeline? The answer lies in a quick check of the map.

There are further reasons, but my point is: as far as Saudi Arabia and Qatar are concerned, this is not about President al-Assad, nor is it about democracy and human rights. These states are following strictly personal agendas.

Iran

Iran is a key player in the current crisis. It has not many allies in the Arab world, and Syria is definitely its strongest one. For Iran, Syria is an absolutely rudimentary element in their support for Hezbollah, and in their opposition to Israel. Syria is at such a strategically important location (located on the Mediterranean, bordering Israel and Lebanon) that for Iran to lose such an ally would mean an end to the support (at least logistically) to Hezbollah and the Palestinian cause. It would also significantly diminish their leverage against Israel. The list goes on with other geo-strategic goals of Iran related to Syria.

Iran would surely do its absolute best to support the Syrian government.

Israel

For Israel, Syria has been a pain in the neck for quite a while. It is geographically too close to Israel itself (and Lebanon/Hezbollah), and it is 'uncomfortably' allied to Israel's biggest foes: Iran and Hezbollah. The current Syrian government is not under the (indirect) control of neither the Americans nor the Israelis, which makes it all the more difficult to effectively exert pressure. The way they choose to do it is by unilaterally conducting air strikes against the Syrian Army which the IDF has done on numerous occasions in the last 1 year.

On the other hand though, Israel is confronted with another danger: Dr Bashar al-Assad's government could be called everything, but it is mostly predictable. As in, it is extremely unlikely that Syria would ever, in its right mind, attack Israel. Were the Syrian government to fall, Libyan-style chaos would most likely ensue, with strong extremist element and Al-Quaeda presence. This is a much more undesired state of affairs than the current one. Therefore, Israel is trapped in quite a complicated puzzle, and this explains why Israel has not been so adamant on the “Assad must step down” rhetoric.  

Turkey

Turkey has been an absolutely essential element in the entire Syrian crisis. It has contributed enormously to the war effort of the rebels. Turkey provides direct and indirect logistical and other support to endless amounts of rebels infiltrating from Turkey into Syria. The reason?

Well, not just one, but perhaps it could be summed up that Turkey likes to see itself as the growing power both in the Middle East as well as in the Balkans (and in fact, in many ex-Ottoman dominions). It also is a close ally of the US and a NATO member. Further, Islamist Prime minister of Turkey Erdogan likes to see himself as the new ruler of the Middle east, establish authority and “strength”. Dr Bashar al-Assad even qualified him as the new “Caliph”. Whether this is the case is arguable, but it certainly is the case that Turkey's influence in the current crisis is absolutely crucial and essential.

Turkey also has a particularly sensitive topic: the Kurds. Dr Bashar al-Assad decided soon after outbreak of the insurgency to withdraw units of the Syrian Arab Army from most of the North-east Kurdish lands, effectively making them an autonomous region. They are a considerable force to be recognised. Matching this with the Iraqi autonomous region of Kurdistan, this poses a great threat to the Kurdish question of Turkey, just across the volatile borders of the region.

Erdogan has recently stated that he is “ready to enter Syria also by ground forces” and he was even amassing troops on the border. This is the bravest call from anyone so far involved, even the US loudly claiming: no boots on the ground. Surely, not all about altruism, human rights or democracy.

On a quick note, in my view Erdogan has somehow failed to observe the reality that what he is doing is to pour petrol onto the burning flames of his neighbour. Sooner or later the fire will definitely spread.

The West

The West, particularly the US and the UK, remain extremely close to their long-term ally and protégé in the region: Israel. It is Israel's interest they would defend before all.

Further, it is also about the fact that exerting influence upon the Syrian government is virtually impossible, as in, it is not a puppet state. Pre-2011, Syria had virtually no national debt, and it was not a member of either the World Bank or the IMF. Adding to this its close ties with ever-inconvenient Iran, it is no wonder that the West would naturally dislike Dr Bashar al-Assad and would ideally like to see him out of the place. And this is not about the person, Bashar al-Assad, it is about the defiance of Syria as a state.

Further, it is about geo-strategic interests and dominance. If the West is to topple Dr Assad, or help to topple his government that is not under their control and install a marionette state, such as Libya or Kosovo, then its influence in the Middle East would grow significantly, having only one more country to 'take care' for after Syria: Iran.

Russia

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world was turning into a sort of a hegemony lead by the West that “won the cold war”. Russia, on the other hand, was on the verge of economic, territorial and political collapse. In this context, it was not difficult for the US to become the world's 'rightful and deserved' policeman, as the 'winner of the Cold war, the better system'.

This has now effectively come to an end, particularly since Putin re-took power again in 2012, most visibly on the international arena. The Libyan fiasco of 2011 is to never be repeated again, Putin stated. Moreover, Syria is not just any country for Russia. The ties between the two states originate back in the 60s. Russia has been supplying Syria with various weaponry and equipment, the economic and cultural ties are too strong. There are thousands of Syrian-Russian families as well. Some have speculated that Russia's support for Syria is only because of Russia's naval base at the strategic port of Tartous, on the Syrian Mediterranean coast (a small facility, it is a reload/repair location, and could hardly be called a naval military stronghold). I argue the context is much broader, and ultimately, it has to do with Russia's influence in the Middle East, but also very much to do with the wider international context. Russia's stance on the international arena is at stake in Syria too. This is too much to allow for and just let go.

With Russia rising so strongly and opposing the USA (very much so in terms of law, concerning the UN Security Council resolution votes), it has become clear to the US that it could no longer so easily be the policemen of the world and act abroad at will, “because we can”.

Crucially, for Russia growing extremism in the region poses a direct threat to its national interests. Looking on the map again, the distance between Syria and the Caucasus is not very large at all, and a further problem is that there are reports of a large number of Chechens fighting jihad against the government of Syria. Surely, Russia's eyes would be close on the activities of those individuals.

There seems to be a difficulty in appreciating the reality that the US is no more the single, most exceptional hegemonic power in the world. This has brought US/Russia stand-off to a new level, unseen since the Cold war.

II. “INTERVENTION IN SYRIA”: THE WAY TO HELL

I have now taken quite some time to outline some of the most significant players and factors that are playing an important role in the ongoing Syrian crisis. I deemed it as necessary for the purpose of being able to put the above words of aggression and military intervention into context and to effectively dissect them into what the actual implications today might be. Not just taking words or events out of their context, as nothing in the Syria's terrible suffering is an isolated case.  

The casus belli: the chemical attack of 21stt August in al-Ghouta, Damascus countryside.

What we heard from all sides was that the 'monstrous and disgusting regime in Damascus has used chemical weapons against its own people. On those grounds, we are going to teach them a lesson and carry out strikes, as the world cannot stand by.'

Great, OK, fair enough! One crucial problem though: there is no irrefutable evidence.

We heard John Kerry and other US politicians using “reports”, “information from credible intelligence sources” and “we strongly believe”. The pure fact is, no one could show to us, the mortals, a single piece of undeniable evidence.

For the sake of probability, let us for a second imagine that the Syrian president, Dr Bashar al-Assad and “his army” did order the use of chemical weapons. Now, let's also imagine that this was a court of law, where, of course, the presumption of innocence exists, and the guilt must be proven. The prosecutor states: “He or she is guilty of a heinous crime!” Then follows an accusation, trying and conviction. However, without a crucial part: an undeniable evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt. Is this really how it works? Can we convict without evidence? My answer is: this is unthinkable and simply illegal.

Furthermore, what exactly might the motive of Dr Bashar al-Assad be to use chemical weapons in his own capital where he lives himself, and, moreover, knowing that UN inspectors are 5-10km away? This would be utterly suicidal for him politically, militarily and, very likely – physically. It makes no sense at all. He is not silly or stupid, that is for sure.

Then, lacking clear evidence or motive, how on earth are we supposed to back and accept a military intervention based on “credible sources”? Are these sources just as credible as those of the Iraq invasion of 2003? Sorry, Mr Cameron, Mr Obama, but we have seen that film already. Not again.

Legality of a strike

In 1945 following the disastrous World War II, virtually all nations agreed upon the slogan: “never again”. They bid on the hope that, by creating the UN with its Charter, war would become unthinkable. Therefore, this beautiful document called the UN Charter, has very clearly provided for when force may be used.

Self-defence (i.e. a State is attacked illegally by another State, then there is the right to respond with force);

Through a sanction of the UN Security Council.

Statements have been made by the White House and top US officials, including Nobel Peace Prize Barack Hussain Obama, that they would not seek UN Security Council support for a strike on Syria. This has been the case even after the chemical weapons deal from September 2013 (under which Syria would cede its stockpiles under international control) with the US stating clearly that force is still in the list of options. Obama even said that, should the Congress approve military action, that would be enough. This is a treacherous and extremely dangerous challenge to the UN as an institution, and to the whole world order as we know it.

Should the US take positive steps towards a military strike, this would be a wholly defiance of the standing international order. This would set a dangerous trend and render the UN all but obsolete. This would mean we are going into a new international order, a new era, and it is not quite clear, how would it look like.

Opening Pandora's box

It is probably not so difficult to order a Tomahawk cruise missile strike in the direction of Damascus. And then? What exactly is the final strategic purpose, the objective of such a strike(s)? We do not have motive/evidence, we do not have legality for such a strike. And the consequences may be dire for all.

The war rhetoric of top US officials after 21st August 2013 went too far. The US was seemingly too far to revert. Were it not for the rather unexpected and surprising for almost all chemical weapons deal initiated by President Vladimir Putin, it could as well have been the case that missiles and bombs would be (illegally) 'travelling' to Damascus today. Luckily, this was reverted in an almost last hope / second move.

As for the US, instead of spending millions on a missile, they could surely find better use in terms of in aid for the dire, catastrophic humanitarian situation in Syria and its neighbours.

The last thing Syria needs right now is more blood. How could one stop a conflict with more weapons and escalation? Makes no sense.

Escalation

In case of strike, Syria would have the legitimacy and legal ground to respond with a counter-strike on the US and its regional bases. It is unthinkable to imagine what would happen if Iran and/or Israel was involved too. Then we would be engulfed in an open-ended conflict with unimaginable repercussions that would change the shape of the whole Middle East, if not the whole world.

Why this all matters to all of us?

I shall point three reasons, but there surely are many others:

1, Refugees and the humanitarian catastrophe

The number of Syrian refugees is growing as we speak, estimates put the internally displaced at 5 million, and those who were forced to flee outside of it at about 2 million. Most of these are in the neighbouring countries, posing an enormous social, political and financial burden on the surrounding countries. Some of those countries, such as Lebanon, have already a long list of problems to solve already and a very fragile socio-political orders.

The refugee crisis, however, does not stop with the surrounding countries. For example, in the last 1.5 months, in a small and poor country called Bulgaria, more than 1,000 Syrians crossed the border illegally. Bulgaria could neither provide for them in the short-run, nor offer any sustainable integration plan. And there are more and more destitute Syrians coming every day.

Escalating the conflict would deteriorate the humanitarian disaster and render it a true catastrophe.

2. Extremism

Very disturbing. There are reports that hundreds, if not thousands, of European nationals are 'fighting jihad' against the secular government of Syria. What would these people do when they come home? They surely will not just sit home and calmly look after their gardens.

Further, who can guarantee that among the thousands of refugees that enter illegally there will not be any Al-Quaeda-linked elements? It only takes one for a suicide attack, God forbid.

3. Unpredictable consequences

No one could say what the consequences of escalation would be. There are many aspects: military, humanitarian, rise of extremism in the region, but also very much economic: the price of oil would likely surge, which would inevitably have a massive domino effect, affecting each and all of us. In essence, there would be dire consequences not just for the region, but across the entire world.

CONCLUSION

In this article, I have attempted to present why I believe anything but a political solution to the Syrian crisis would be more than disastrous. I have also tried to make it clear why I am absolutely convinced that the least likely solution would be any military intervention.

I also hope to have helped raise awareness of why the Syrian issue truly matters to all of us and that it should not be just a quick report on the news.

I sincerely hope for an internal political solution to this shockingly and painfully long and destructive conflict. I underline internal; Syrian issues must be left to the Syrian people to resolve. Not the US, not Russia, not Iran, not the Persian gulf states. Democracy is not a tool you install in a place with a bombing campaign or a military intervention. How the Syrians want to live in their country is entirely up to them, and this is a long and comprehensive internal process.

And I sincerely hope that the bloodbath would come to an end as soon as possible. There are no winners in this disgusting war, the biggest losers, however, certainly are the ordinary Syrian people and this is why the message of peace is so crucial, as opposed to escalation and warmongering.

And I hope that I have succeeded at conveying at least a small part of this message.

Sources:

1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC55uPBKYqU

2 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143026#.UWwdBasac5