By Dennis from Oregon:


I think all of us are aware that there is a considerable Naval build up in the Persian Gulf, that Patriot missiles are currently being shipped to the Middle East to "protect friendly Arab nations" , that additional troops are being deployed to Iraq and that the media is rife with "The Iranian Nuclear Threat", despite unbiased research that this is not an imminent threat and that Iran will need civilian nuclear power to offset declining oil production if it is to remain a modern civilized nation.  The air is thick with rumors of impending attack and there is speculation that orders have already been given.

It also is apparent that Israel will take the initiative to attack Iran if America fails to do so and there is some evidence that they have already been thwarted by the US in actually carrying out a nuclear attack.  Many analysts and think tanks are busy predicting the outcome of such an attack as evidenced by the recent report issued by ING.

While this attack on Iran is clearly being contemplated by the US and Israel as serving in the interests of dollar hegemony and control of the entire Middle Eastern oil reserves might there not be other forces at work??  Might the US and Israel be the victims of an elaborate trap designed to destroy argueably the most dangerous power alignment to ever threaten the Earth??  Could this possibly be true??  Lets examine geopolitical events of late from this perspective.

First lets understand the ramifications of the coalition that Putin is forming between India, China, Russia and Brazil.  This will reshape the United Nations.  Russia and China are permanent members of the security council, India and Brazil are soon perhaps to be.  This coalition has three fourths of the worlds population, the largest amount of natural resources, and the  largest pool of technical and scientific talent.  Note also that in 2004 the IAEA issued Brazil  a permit to commence the experimental stage of uranium enrichment.

This is far from the whole picture as the coalition automatically includes the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which is presently comprised of China, Russia, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Iran.

Then there was the announcement of a China-Kazakhstan pipeline agreement, worth $3.5 billion dollars and then the signing of a huge natgas deal between Beijing and Tehran worth $100 billion.  This entails the annual export of some 10 million tons of Iranian liquefied natural gas (LNG) for a 25-year period, as well as granting to China's state oil company participation in such projects as exploration and drilling,  industries, pipelines, services and the like.

It should be clear that this deal puts Iran firmly under China's protection, because any US attack on Iran will impact directly on Chinese National Security by severing its energy resources.  It should alos be noted that Iran has full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and overall protection by the Russian-Chinese Axis.  Perhaps this explains the recent and very publicised test of a Chinese anti satelite system??

I dont think anyone has any doubts of the importance of Middle Eastern and Caspian Basin oil to the continuance of US economic and military dominance, but what makes us think that the coalition led by Russia and China is impotent?  Lets look at the non nuclear conventional weapons balance and possible stategies of this coalition.

Onyx and Sunburn missiles.  These are manufactured in Russia and India, and thousands have been sold to China and Iran.  Nuclear capable, mach 2+, flying 20 feet of the surface they are capable of destroying any target within a distance of 250 kms.  The US or its allies have no countermeasures.  The kinetic energy combined with a small conventional charge is more than enough to sink a carrier.  These missiles can be launched from quad tubes on ships, singly from 40' flatbed trucks or fighter aircraft.  These missles are widely dispersed in Iran.  They are considered "the most dangerous missile in the world" by US military planners.

S-300 anti air missiles.   Both Iran and Syria have recently been equipped with the very latest version of this missile, the S-300PMU-2. The range of this missile is in excess of 125 miles, with the ability to acquire and kill targets flying as low as 30 feet. The Russians routinely shoot down random target drones travelling at 5,800 feet per second, and further claim the weapon is easily capable of destroying targets approaching at up to 15,500 feet per second, or Mach 14.  Many experts credit this missile as the finest anti air missile in existence.  It is rumored to be able to sniff out and destroy a B-2 stealth bomber

Cruise missiles.  Ukrainian arms dealers smuggled 18 nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran and China in 1999-2001 according to Ukraine's prosecutor-general.  The Soviet-era Kh-55 missiles - also known as X-55s - have a maximum range of 2,500km (1,550 miles).

It should be clear by now that a conventional bombing attack on Iran could be disasterous and that the Russian-Chinese coalition means business and has already outmanouvered the US and its allies in the future exploitation of the Caspian Basin reserves.  What is in contention now is the future of the Middle East.  America risks loss of not only its current supplies from the Middle East from an Iran bombing campaign, which would likely be at least temporarily be disrupted in a wider conflageration, but also the loss of its Gulf of Mexico oil and onshore refining capability.

Unmentioned til now is Hugo Chavez, and Venezuela.  Russia has supplied Hugo with 55 Mig29SMTs, Russias latest air superiority fighter.  These are equipped with the latest Russian plasma stealth system and also equipped to fire the latest generation of Onyx missiles, and intelligence sources report that Hugo is in possesion of at least 40 of these missiles.  They are based in Venezuela and Cuba.  In less than 30 minutes every major US Gulf of Mexico oil platform and oil refinery could be destroyed, with no warning.

The loss or disruption of the current Middle Eastern and Venezuelean oil imports combined with the loss of our Gulf oil and onshore refining capability would collapse the US within 60 days, without the use of any nuclear weapons.  It seems evident this is the Russian-Chinese coalition general plan.

America has been manouvered into a position where it can no longer gain an ever increasing share of oil resources and maintain dollar hegemony without executing an Iranian attack.  America is faced with the prospect of gradual loss of economic and military might, or risking a potentially catastrophic attack, an attack that Israel is determined to execute wether or not supported by the US.

The only way out of this scenario is for the US to use nuclear weapons, testing the resolve of the rest of the world to retaliate.  The ultimate game of chicken.  I hesitate to predict how this scenario would play out...

It's from a man named Dennis -- he actually did even more homework than the above article shows.

How?

Here is the original version of the article -- with references (hyperlinks!) References to the MIGs, Onyx missiles, etc. and anything NOT HIS PERSONAL OPINION have links to publicly available information!

So it's very likely ALL TRUE.

Matthew

So here's China again.  Don't hear much about Russia these days.

They are around.

Russia warns US against further unilateral sanctions against Iran

Jan 27, 2007, 13:05 GMT

Moscow - In the row over Iran's controversial nuclear programme, Russia warned the United States Saturday against additional unilateral sanctions against Tehran now that a compromise resolution has been passed by the United Nations Security Council.

Unilateral measures that have not been subjected to a vote would damage common efforts to encourage Tehran to return to talks about its nuclear programme, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in Moscow.

The US hard line on Iran had wanted much stricter measures than those decided by the Security Council in December, Lavrov said, adding that he planned to discuss this during an upcoming visit to Washington on February 2.

Russian Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov was expected for talks in Tehran Saturday evening.

Ivanov was scheduled to meet with his Iranian counterpart Ali Larijani, Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said.

Russia did vote for the UN resolution against Iran in December, but managed to push through some amendments, including the exclusion of previously agreed contracts, such as the delivery of Russian air defence systems to Iran in January.

Moscow is also helping Tehran build its first nuclear reactor in the city of Bushehr.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

To Dennis from Oregon:

May I ask how you found the article so quickly? I only posted it less than 24 hours ago. Did Google just do an update?  :shocked:

I used to have "LifeAfterTheOilCrash.net" as one of only 3 links on my tagline (on another forum I was part of).

I try to spread the word about Peak Oil as best I can.

Just as an aside, I can say that the crowd here is far different than the readership of LATOC, since I would describe most of them as agnostic or at least "unchurched" whereas most of the membership here is traditional Catholic.

But one thing we have in common -- traditional Catholics are certainly used to going "against the grain" as it were, and they are all about holding/spreading the truth.

Matthew

I hadn't heard of an aborted Israeli attack on Jan 7 -- what exactly happened?

I have been following the Iran issue for some time now, and I can see that SOMETHING has to happen soon. Even if the US does nothing, I remember back in October (?) Bush was given an ultimatum by Israel -- something like "in 6 months, we'll attack Iran ourselves".

So either way, the clock is ticking.

The scary part, is that Iran is NOT Iraq, even though they both start with "Ira".  That's about where the similarities end. Iran is much more well-connected (to Russia, China). Just for starters, Iran actually has an air force! Plus they've been arming to the teeth during all this "standoff" period.

But like most people, I don't relish the thought of WW3. Nevertheless, if it's going to happen, I want to see it coming.

That's why I liked your article so much -- it meshes with everything I've discovered so far.

Matthew

To start with, I should briefly explain what a traditional Catholic is.

First, we must leave aside those who call themselves traditional Catholic because they are nostalgic for the 1950's as well as those who think that Vatican II's aftermath was a horrible mistake (a misinterpretation of Vatican II's true intentions). The latter are usually called "conservative" Catholics, not traditional.

Traditional Catholics see that a major rupture happened in the Catholic Church around 1970. Not only was a new Mass created (out of nothing, having no continuity with the previous Mass used for centuries), but a new kind of priest, new sacraments, new role for the people, new architecture, new music, new official Catechism, new theology, new outlook on "the world" ('it's our great teacher', vs. the old 'it's a naughty, wayward child') new governmental structure (democratic vs. the old hierarchical), etc. In short, the Catholic Church became an almost unrecognizable religion from what it used to be.

Many well-informed traditional Catholics are aware of things like the "Alta Vendita", which was a docuмent of the Freemasons which professed the desire to have a Pope elected who would be FULL OF THEIR IDEAS without being one of them. This would allow him to be more sincere, and would cause less trouble for them. They would have the best of both worlds. To make a long story short, they succeeded. God only knows how many Cardinals and bishops are Freemasons, and even worse, how many are heavily influenced by their doctrines (liberty, equality, fraternity).

Only a fool would deny that the modern world lives by the principles of the French Revolution -- which was (and is) Freemasonic. The fact that the Catholic Church habitually condemned Communism, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and other errors -- while TODAY SHE DOES NOT -- tells me a lot. One can only conclude that the formerly condemned enemy has infiltrated the organization in sufficient numbers to influence her official policy.

(The subject of the "Crisis in the Church" is a huge one, and I could write a book. Don't worry, I won't!)

In conclusion, a traditional Catholic is someone who holds to the complete teachings of the Catholic Church, as they were taught around 1962. They attend the old Mass in Latin, which was used from the early days of the Church up to 1962. They read classic Catholic works, written by great men and women of the Church in the past 19 1/2 centuries. They avoid modern philosophers (except, perhaps, for academic reasons) and follow the Church's own advice to use St. Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica as the main authority to solve questions of Theology and Philosophy.

I read the article in question, and here is my critique of it:

First, I must confess that it reminded me of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code". Nevertheless, I will not get hung up on that point, and will treat the author seriously.

I know that the Jesuits started out as a great religious order, specializing in study and missionary work. I also know that there was a book written centuries ago by a Protestant called "the Black Legend" which, though utterly false, spread countless lies about the Jesuits. I don't have the author's name, date, or ISBN number (if it even has one), but my mind specializes in the big picture, not memorizing every person and date. I can look up an individual fact if I need it. But Google CANNOT give someone wisdom or the big picture. But I digress.

The Jesuits were highly educated, and plenty of them would have qualified as "intellectuals". That very strength would have put them at risk around 1900, when the greatest system of errors arose, called "Modernism". Modernism was called "the sewer of all heresies" by Pope Pius X, and he wrote 2 encyclicals exposing and condemning the error. The Pope did such a good job of hammering the new heresy, that it went underground, and didn't re-emerge until around 1940, when many professors in Catholic universities were infected with Modernism. It was new and exciting, and many people took to it. Many bishops who attended the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) had professors who taught them modernist ideas when they were younger.

I am not sure exactly when the Jesuits "fell from grace" as a whole, but by 1970 they were not very Catholic, if "Catholic" is defined as teaching what the Catholic Church always taught, which is the Deposit of Faith received from the Apostles. That being said, I would not attribute massive cօռspιʀαcιҽs to them.

It is true that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy going on right now, so if a person rejects my assertion of who is behind it, if they are intelligent they will look for another culprit, not deny the conspiracy altogether. So in this sense, the article is logical. At least the author sees that things never happen by accident, etc. But I would suggest he look elsewhere than the Jesuits to find the puppetmasters. They are a once-glorious, though currently fruitless branch of the Catholic Church, but nothing more. There might be conspirators in their midst, since I am sure many of them are Freemasons. Since the Jesuits are drastically different than they were 150 years ago, and they are basically useless as a religious order today (given that a religious order is supposed to promote holiness and the salvation of souls), I would not be surprised if the Freemasons took over the Order's direction to use it for their own purposes.  But then the conspiracy is essentially Freemasonic, not Jesuitic.

I notice the author said, "When fear and superstition rule..." I would guess that he is not a devout Catholic, since he considers Catholicism to be "superstition" -- just a huge scam, part of "organized religion" which is out for money and power. If that is what you think of the Catholic Church, then attributing cօռspιʀαcιҽs to it is just another baby step.

I know how much I DON'T know, but I can put things together. Some things simply do not fit.

Matthew

Hi Chant,

Knowing what you know about the puppetmasters I would recommend checking these sites out with their links & there is a great possibility that this is a 'scam' by the GLOBALISTS for control & not for the reason of oil supply running dry.

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eroot.man/peak.html

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/peakoilindex.shtml

http://www.the7thfire.com/peak_oil/peak_oil_is_a_scam_to_promote_world_depopulation.htm

Well Im not Chant but I just read your links, and what a bunch of crud.  

The Russian deep oil is totally outrageous, I should know, Ive been in oil and natgas my entire life, and have worked from Prudhoe Bay to the Gulf of Mexico and Venezuela, from the North Sea to Oman and Kuwait, currently I own a small gasfitting business in Oregon.

I know Mike Ruppert personally, and while I disagree with many of his conclusions, he is right on about peak oil.  I also know Alan Hart of 7th fire, and have discussed everything from Liberty dollars to his associates bogus debt eliminination and soverignity scams.  He lives nearby as did Mike.  I summarily dismiss most of what 7th fire promotes.  Its mostly scam, but profitable for them.  They are not scrupulous people..

We are not going to run out of oil any time soon, its the amount we can get during a time frame, its supply rate, and the increased expense of recovering more difficult deposits that doom our profit based system.  Fiat currency is just a promise to pay, not wealth, and the promise to pay on future profits that will become nonexistant dooms the dollar.  Its gonna get rough.  Not that there is no merit to the idea that oil supply could be disrupted by war and create chaos and depopulation... What do you think will happen if an Iranian attack disrupts the Persian Gulf supplies.  Oil is not abiotic, this is simply a myth, the disinformation lies with our governments and corporate structures, notably the oil companies, they dont want you to know the truth.

Please educate yourself further on the subject, consider the facts, the science, and not just conspiracy theories..  The truth is very accessable...