The Corbett Report
February 22, 2011
DOWNLOAD MP4 for your mobile device
Welcome. This is James Corbett of corbettreport.com with the last word on terrorism.
In an interview with Bloomberg earlier this month regarding the unfolding political unrest in Egypt, Henry Kissinger made at least one very telling statement:
(start watching at 7:10)
That Kissinger would equate Nasserism with terrorism is particularly galling to those who are even passingly familiar with the history of the region. As is typical with such pronouncements by the mouthpieces of the global elite, the easily demonstrable truth is precisely the opposite of what Kissinger asserts. He just thinks his audience is too historically ignorant to call him on his lie.
In 1952 British troops in the Suez Canal area became embroiled in a fight with local police, resulting in the slaughter of 50 Egyptian policemen and the wounding of 100 more. The furious Egyptian public, long suffering under the reign of King Farouk, a pro-British regent who lived in opulence while his people struggled, organized into riots and a cadre of Egyptian army officers calling themselves “The Free Officers Movement” overthrew the king and instituted a republic. They were led by Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein who became the second president of Egypt in 1956.
From the beginning, Nasser was hated and feared by the international oligarchs who had become used to having a puppet regime in power over the key Suez Canal shipping route. Nasser was nothing like King Farouk. Young, charismatic and polished, Nasser set about creating a modern, secular Egyptian state that was to become the template for a new movement, Pan-Arab Nationalism, that threatened the status quo of Western imperial dominance over the region.
Foregoing the royal lifestyle of Egyptian leaders past, Nasser redirected the state’s resources into building up housing, education and health services for the Egyptian people. An adherent to neutralism and the Non-aligned movement, Nasser assured the eternal enmity of the imperial powers and the eternal love of the Arab people by nationalizing the Suez Canal in 1956. For the first time the Egyptian people would have control over their most strategic asset.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Naturally, the prospect of a defiant, viable, secular Arab nationalist state as a model for other Arab nations to follow was anathema to British-U.S.-Israeli interests, and plans to derail Nasser were hatched before he had even become President. Among these plans was the now-infamous Lavon Affair, an Israeli military intelligence plot to plant bombs throughout Egypt in order to blame on nationalists, communists, Muslims or “unspecified malcontents” in order to justify continued British occupation of the Suez Canal zone.
The Israeli military-intelligence cell, code-named Unit 131 and led by Colonel Avram Dar, firebombed a post office in Alexandria, and planted bombs in two U.S. Information Agency libraries and a British-owned theater in Cairo. When the outrageous operation was foiled and one of the bombers was apprehended in the act, the truth was exposed. Israeli intelligence was using false-flag terrorism to manipulate public opinion and achieve their desired result: political destabilization that would induce Britain to maintain their military control over the area.
The easily-documented truth, then, is precisely the opposite of Kissinger’s fact-free assertion. Nasser was not the cause of terrorism in Egypt, but the target of it. But why would someone like Kissinger, someone whose very reputation depends upon his “historical knowledge” and “political acumen,” tell such a transparent lie? The answer is simple. When Kissinger uses the word “terrorism” he is not using it as a descriptive term about acts of political violence and bloodshed. He is using the word itself as a political weapon.
You see, to Kissinger and the other adherents of the globalist ideology, “terrorism” is simply a word for any act or any person or any movement that threatens the agenda of the globalists. In this twisted worldview, those who believe that national autonomy is more important than the needs of international finance capital are terrorists. Those who are opposed to the free trade agreements that have offshored the manufacturing base of the first world and consigned the developing world to squalor are terrorists. Those who uphold the principle that the people are the arbiters of their own lives and that these lives should not be subject to the whims of multinational corporations are terrorists.
That Nasser was so vehemently and treacherously opposed by the globalists with a vested interest in stopping a stable, secular, Arab state is not surprising, nor is it by any means the only example of this phenomenon. On the contrary, the twentieth century is littered with such examples.
In 1951 Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically-elected leader of Iran, nationalized British Petroleum interests in the country. Two years later a CIA team led by Kermit Roosevelt, the president’s grandson, provocateured, funded and fomented a coup d’état against Mossadegh, a coup that installed the autocratic Shah as leader and paved the way for SAVAK security forces to begin a reign of terror and torture, To the globalists, however, the Shah was the good guy and Mossadegh had been the terrorist.
In 1952 Jacobo Arbenz, the democratically-elected leader of Guatemala, began a series of land reforms that expropriated holdings of the United Fruit Company. In 1953 the CIA began training rebels, recruiting pilots and setting up communications to agitate a coup. The following year Arbenz was overthrown, beginning decades of military dictatorship and civil strife. In the eyes of the globalists, though, Arbenz was the terrorist.
In 1970, Salvador Allende won the Chilean elections against the US-backed and financed Jorge Alessandri. When he began nationalizing US copper firms and large industries, the US backed a coup that ended in Allende’s death and the beginning of the brutal reign of General Augusto Pinochet. But in the twisted worldview of the globalists, it was not Pinochet who was the terrorist but Allende.
Numerous other examples exist, but the pattern is obvious and speaks for itself: ‘terrorism’ is a word for anything or anyone opposed to the interests of international capital. The so-called War on Terror has never been about stopping a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists. If the US had wanted that they would have supported Nasser, not undermined him. They would have encouraged Mossadegh, not overthrown him.
If the US had been scared of the scourge of radical Islam, they would not have funded it in Afghanistan in the 1980s. They would not have protected and fostered and funded Mohammed Junaid Babar and Haroon Rashid Aswat and Luai Sakra and Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi and Anwar al-Awlaki and all of the patsies, stooges, informants and operatives that have been paraded in front of the cameras just long enough to identify them as the faces of evil but never long enough for anyone to actually investigate their backgrounds. Because in each and every case, the big, fabulous “terror plots” always tie back to the US-British-Israeli intelligence complex and its tentacles around the world.
No, “terrorism” is only tangentially related to these radical Muslims, and only insofar as they are funded, trained and enabled by their terrorist overlords in the corridors of Langley, Virginia.
Proof of this simple truth has been amply provided time and again since the inception of this mythical war on terror. In the wake of mass popular protest against the globalist agenda in Seattle in 1999, in Washington and Montreal in 2000, and in Genoa in 2001, the global power elite were desperate for a way to defuse and derail their opposition. In the wake of 9/11, they had their chance. Italian plutocrat and globalist stooge Silvio Berlusconi wasted no time in attempting to use the event to blame the anti-globalization movement:
“There is a singular coincidence between this action [9/11] and the anti-globalisation movement that has manifested itself for a year now,” he said at the time.
Other arms and organs of the elite power structure have been no less strident, if somewhat more subtle, in using the terror paradigm to stigmatize any and all opposition to their agenda.
In 2005, the RAND corporation released a report on homegrown terror threats in which they identify the terror threat not as one of radicalized Muslims driven by religious fervour, but protestors and activists driven by opposition to the ideals of the globalists.
“Developing imperatives stemming from anti-globalization do appear to be providing a radical domestic context for galvanizing the militancy of both the far right as well as those driven by more specific extremist environmental agendas.”
Since then, the entire process of demonizing political opponents through the use of the word-weapon “terrorist” has descended into the most absurd form of political farce, with a flurry of reports from the Missouri Information Analysis Center to the State government of Virginia to the Texas Department of Public Safety claiming increasingly ridiculous indicators of terrorism, from buying baby formula to wearing blue jeans to carrying a driver’s licence.
All of this terror hysteria that the public has been force-fed over the past decade would be utterly incomprehensible if we were to understand “terrorist” to mean what you and I and John Q. Public believe it means. But it does not. You see, in our modern world “terrorism” is not terrorism. It does not describe a tactic, it is not about violence and bloodshed, suicide bombers or Allahu Akhbar. It is not a word, it is a weapon, a weapon aimed at those who disagree with the aims of Heinz Kissinger and all of his Bilderberg/CFR/Trilateralist ilk, those who wish for the supremacy of a small, rich elite of financiers and multi-national monopoly capital thugs.
Terrorism is not a word, not a concept. It is a weapon that is aimed at you and me.
And that, in the final equation, is our opportunity. We can point out that terrorism is a word, and it does describe the actions of the bloodthirsty elite who kill and maim the innocent, who start wars or overthrow governments or incite violence to achieve their aims. And in that simple action, that reclaiming of the word “terrorism” to identify the globali