The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

Globalizing Imperialism: The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel.

Global Research Editor’s Note:

This important analysis and review of US military might by award winning Canadian geographer Professor Jules Dufour, was first published by Global Research in 2007. Jules Dufour passed away after a long illness in August 2017. 

US military presence around the World has expanded dramatically in the course of the last five years.  This study is largely based on data for the period 2001-2005.

The Worldwide control of humanity’s economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultimately consist in a process of global subordination.

Where is the Threat?

The 2000 Global Report published in 1980 had outlined “the State of the World” by focusing on so-called  “level of threats” which might negatively influence or undermine US interests.

Twenty years later, US strategists, in an attempt to justify their military interventions in different parts of the World, have conceptualized the greatest fraud in US history, namely “the Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT). The latter, using a fabricated pretext  constitutes a global war against all those who oppose US hegemony. A modern form of slavery, instrumented through militarization and the “free market” has unfolded.

Major elements of the conquest and world domination strategy by the US refer to:

1) the control of the world economy and its financial markets,

2) the taking over of all natural resources (primary resources and nonrenewable sources of energy). The latter constitute the cornerstone of US power through the activities of its multinational corporations.

Geopolitical Outreach: Network of Military Bases

The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of  an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain.

Known and documented from information in the public domaine including Annual Reports of the US Congress, we have a fairly good understanding of the strucuture of US military expenditure, the network of US military bases and  the shape of this US military-strategic configuration in different regions of the World.

The objective of this article is to build a summary profile of the World network of military bases, which are under the jurisdiction and/or control  of the US. The spatial distribution of these military bases will be examined together with an analysis of the multibillion dollar annual cost of their activities.

In a second section of this article, Worldwide popular resistance movements directed against US military bases and their various projects will be outlined. In a further article we plan to analyze the military networks of other major nuclear superpowers including  the United Kingdom, France and Russia.

---

I. The Military Bases

Military bases are conceived for training purposes, preparation and stockage of military equipment, used by national armies throughout the World. They are not very well known in view of the fact that they are not open to the public at large. Even though they take on different shapes, according to the military function for which they were established; they can broadly be classified under four main categories :

a) Air Force Bases (see photos 1 and 2);

b) Army or Land Bases;

c) Navy Bases and

d) Communication and Spy Bases.

Photo 1. Air Base of Diego Garcia located in the Indian Ocean

Photo 2. Diego Garcia. An Aerial View of two B-52 and six Kc-a135

II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War’”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

Map 1. U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World. The Cost of «Permanent War» and Some Comparative Data

Source: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=884

Map 2. The American Military Bases Around the World (2001-2003)

Source : http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/index.htm

Source : http://www.nobases.org

Map 3 US Military Bases Click here to see Map 3

The Map of the World Network “No Bases” (Map 3) reveals the following:

Based on a selective examination of military bases in North America, Latin America, Western Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Japan, several of these military bases are being used for intelligence purposes. New selected sites are Spy Bases and Satellite-related Spy Bases.

The Surface of the Earth is Structured as a Wide Battlefield

These military bases and installations of various kinds are distributed according to a Command structure divided up into five spatial units and four unified Combatant Commands (Map 4). Each unit is under the Command of a General.

The Earth surface  is being conceived as a wide battlefield which can be patrolled or steadfastly supervised from the Bases.

Map 4. The World and Territories Under the Responsibility of a Combatant Command or Under a Command Structure

Source : http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2009/0109_unifiedcommand

Territories under a Command are: the Northern Command (NORTHCOM) (Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado), the Pacific Command (Honolulu, Hawaii), the Southern Command (Miami, Florida – Map 5), The Central Command (CENTCOM) (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the European Command (Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany), the Joint Forces Command (Norfolk, Virginia), the Special Operations Command (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the Transportation Command (Scott Air Force Base, Illinois) and the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) (Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska).

Map 5. The Southern Command

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapabases.htm

NATO Military Bases

The Atlantic Alliance (NATO) has its own Network of military bases, thirty in total. The latter are primarily located in Western Europe:

Whiteman, U.S.A., Fairford,
Lakenheath and Mildenhall in United Kingdom,
Eindhoven in Netherlands,
Brüggen, Geilenkirchen, Landsberg, Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Rhein-Main in Germany,
Istres and Avord in France.
Morón de la Frontera and Rota in Spain,
Brescia, Vicenza, Piacenza, Aviano, Istrana, Trapani, Ancora, Pratica di Mare, Amendola, Sigonella, Gioia dell Colle, Grazzanise and Brindisi in Italy,
Tirana in Albania,
Incirlik in Turkey,
Eskan Village in Soudi Arabia and
Ali al Salem in Koweit (http://www.terra.es/actualidad/articulo/html/act52501.html)

III. The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

There are 6000  military bases and/ or military warehouses located in the U.S. (See Wikipedia, February 2007).

Total Military Personnel is of the order of  1,4 million of which 1,168,195 are in the U.S and US overseas territories.

Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries:

800 in Africa,
97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia),
40,258 in South Korea,
40,045 in Japan,
491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean,
100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore,
113 in Thailand,
200 in Australia,
and 16,601 Afloat.

In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany.

In Central Asia about 1,000 are stationed at the Ganci (Manas) Air Base in Kyrgyzstan and 38 are located at Kritsanisi, in Georgia, with a mission to train Georgian soldiers.

In the Middle East (excludng the Iraq war theater) there are 6,000 US military personnel, 3,432 of whom are in Qatar and 1,496 in Bahrain.

In the Western Hemisphere, excluding the U.S. and US territories, there are 700 military personnel in Guantanamo, 413 in Honduras and 147 in Canada.

Map 3 provides information regarding military personnel on duty, based on a regional categorization (broad regions of the world). The total number of military personnel at home in the U.S. and/or in US Territories is 1,139,034. There are 1,825 in Europe 114, 660, 682 in Subsaharian Africa, 4, 274 in the Middle East and Southern Asia, 143 in the Ex-USSR, and 89,846 in the Pacific.

IV. The Operational Cost of the Worldwide Military Network

US defense spending (excluding the costs of the Iraq war) have increased from 404 in 2001 to 626 billion dollars in 2007 according to data from the Washington based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. US defense spending is expected to reach 640 billion dollars in 2008.

(Figure 1 and http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002244.php ).

These 2006 expenses correspond to 3.7% of the US GDP and $935.64 per capita   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of-the_United_States).

Figure 1. U.S. Military Expenditures since 1998

Source : http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

According to Fig 1, the 396 billion dollars military budget proposed in 2003 has in fact reached 417.4 billion dollars, a 73% increase compared to 2000 (289 billion dollars). This outlay for 2003 was more than half of the total of the US discretionary budget.

Since 2003, these military expenditures have to be added to those of the Iraq war and occupation The latter reached in March 2007, according to the National Priorities Project, a cumulative total of 413 billion dollars.

(http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml),

(http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182).

Estimates of the Defense Department budget needs, made public in 2006 in the DoD Green Book for FY 2007 are of the order of  440 billion dollars.
(http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/index.html)

Military and other staff required numbered 1,332,300. But those figures do not include the money required for the “Global World on Terrorism” (GWOT). In other words, these figures largely pertain to the regular Defense budget.

A Goldstein of the Washington Post, within the framework of an article on the aspects of the National 2007 budget titled «2007 Budget Favors Defense», wrote about this topic:

“Overall, the budget for the 2007 fiscal year would further reshape the government in the way the administration has been striving to during the past half-decade: building up military capacity and defenses against terrorist threats on U.S. soil, while restraining expenditures for many domestic areas, from education programs to train service”

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401179.html).

V. US Military Bases to Protect Strategic Energy Resources

In the wake of 9/11, Washington initiated its “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Other countries, which were not faithfully obeying Washington’s directives including Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have been earmarked for possible US military intervention.

Washington keeps a close eye on countries opposed to US corporate control over their resources. Washington also targets countries where there are popular resistance movements directed against US interests, particularly in South America. In this context, President Bush made a quick tour to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico «to promote democracy and trade» but also with a view to ultimately curbing and restraining popular dissent to the US interests in the region. .

(http://www.voanews.com/spanish/2007-03-08-voa1.cfm)

The same broad approach is being applied in Central Asia. According to Iraklis Tsavdaridis, Secretary of the World Peace Council (WPC):

“The establishment of U.S. military bases should not of course be seen simply in terms of direct military ends. They are always used to promote the economic and political objectives of U.S. capitalism. For example, U.S. corporations and the U.S. government have been eager for some time to build a secure corridor for US.-controlled oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. This region -has more than 6 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and almost 40 percent of its gas reserves. The war in Afghanistan and the creation of U.S. military Bases in Central Asia are viewed as a key opportunity to make such pipelines a reality.”

(http://stopusa.be/campaigns/texte.php?section=FABN&langue=3&id=24157 ).

The US. are at War in Afghanistan and Iraq. They pursue these military operations until they reach their objective which they call “VICTORY”. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployment_of-the_U.S.-Military), American troops fighting in these countries number 190,000.  The “Enduring Freedom” Operation in Iraq alone has almost 200,000 military personnel, including 26,000 from other countries participating to the US sponsored “Mission”. About 20,000 more could join other contingents in the next few months. In Afghanistan, a total of 25,000 soldiers participate to the operation (Map 6 and Map 7).

Map  6.  Petroleum and International Theatre of War in the Middle East and Central Asia

Source : Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, Global Research, 2003

Source : http://www.heartland.it/

Map 8. Oil Fields in Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

VI. Military Bases Used for the Control of Strategic Renewable Resources

US Military Bases in foreign countries, are mainly located in Western Europe: 26 of them are in Germany, 8, in Great Britain, and 8 in Italy. There are nine military installations in Japan (Wikepedia).

In the last few years, in the context of the GWOT, the US haa built 14 new bases in and around the Persian Gulf.

It is also involved in construction and/or or reinforcement of 20 bases (106 structured units as a whole) in Iraq, with costs  of the order of 1.1 billion dollars in that country alone (Varea, 2007) and the use of about ten bases in Central Asia.

The US has also undertaken continued negotiations with several countries to install, buy, enlarge or rent an addional number of military bases. The latter pertain inter alia to installations in Morocco, Algeria, Mali, Ghana, Brazil and Australia (See Nicholson, B., 2007), Poland, Czech Republic (Traynor, I., 2007), Ouzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Kirghizstan, Italy (Jucca, L., 2007) and France.

Washington has signed an agreement to build a military base in Djibouti (Manfredi, E., 2007). All these initiatives are a part of an overall plan to install a series of military bases geographically located in a West-East corridor extending from Colombia in South America, to North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia and as far as the Philippines (Johnson, C., 2004). The US bases in South American are related to the control and access to the extensive natural biological , mineral and water resources resources of the Amazon Basin. (Delgado Jara, D., 2006 and Maps 9 and 10).

Map 9. The Biological Wealth of Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

Map 10. Freshwater Resources in Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

VII. Resistance Movements

The network of US military bases is strategic, located in prcximity of traditional strategic resources including nonrenewable sources of energy. This military presence has brought about political opposition and resistance from progressive movements and antiwar activists.

Demonstrations directed against US military presence has developed in Spain, Ecuador, Italy, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria and in many other countries. Moreover, other long-termer resistance movements directed against US military presence have continued in South Korea, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Cuba, Europe, Japan and other locations.

The Worldwide resistance to US foreign military bases has grown during the last few years. We are dealing with an International Network for the Abolition of US Military Bases.

Such networks’ objective is to broadly pursue disarmament, demilitarization processes Worldwide as well as dismantle US military bases in foreign countries.

The NO BASES Network organizes educational campaigns to sensitize public opinion.  It also works to rehabilitate abandoned military sites, as in the case of Western Europe.

These campaigns, until 2004, had a local and national impact.

The network is now in a position to reach people Worldwide. The network itself underscores that “much can be gained from greater and deeper linkages among local and national campaigns and movements across the globe. Local groups around the world can learn and benefit from sharing information, experiences, and strategies with each other”

(http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )

“The realisation that one is not alone in the struggle against foreign bases is profoundly empowering and motivating. Globally coordinated actions and campaigns can highlight the reach and scale of the resistance to foreign military presence around the world. With the trend of rising miniaturization and resort to the use of force around the world, there is now an urgent and compelling need to establish and strengthen an international network of campaigners, organisations, and movements working with a special and strategic focus on foreign military presence and ultimately, working towards a lasting and just system of peace»

(http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have, in this regard, created a favourable momentum, which has contributed to the reinforcement of the movement to close down US military bases in foreign countries:

“At the time of an International anti-war meeting held in Jakarta in May 2003, a few weeks after the start of the Iraq invasion, a global anti-military Bases campaign has been proposed as an action to priorize among global anti-war, justice and solidarity movements»  (http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en).

Since then, the campaign has acquired greater recognition. E-mail lists have been compiled (nousbases@lists.riseup.net  and nousbases-info@lists.riseup.net ) that permit the diffusion of the movement members experiences and information and discussion exchanges. That list now groups 300 people and organizations from 48 countries. A Web site permits also to adequately inform all Network members. Many rubrics provide highly valuable information on ongoing activities around the World.

http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en

In addition, the Network is more and more active and participates in different activities. At the World Social Forums it organized various conferences and colloquia. It was present at the European Social Forum held in Paris in 2003 and in London in 2004 as well as at the the America’s Social Forum in Ecuador in 2004, and at the Mediterranean Social Forum in Spain in 2005.

One of the major gatherings, which was held in Mumbai, India, in 2004, was within the framework of the World Social Forum. More than 125 participants from 34 countries defined the foundations of a coordinated global campaign.

Action priorities were identified, such as the determination of a global day of action aiming at underscoring major issues stemming from the existence of US military bases. The Network also held four discussion sessions at the Porto Alegre Social Forum in 2005. One of those pertained to the financing of the Network’s activities.

It is important to recall that the Network belongs to the Global Peace Movement. Justice and Peace organizations have  become more sensitized on what was at stake regarding US military bases.

Map 11. Social and Resistence Movements in Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

The Quito and Manta International Conference, Ecuador, March 2007

A Network World Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases was held at Quito and at Manta, Ecuador, from March 5 to 9 2007

(http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:SmEvQwFUeiAJ:www.abolishbases.org/pdf/CalltoEcuadorFlyer-Francais.pdf+R%C3%A9seau+mondial+des+bases+militaires&hl=fr&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_fr ).

The objective of the Conference was to underscore the political, social, environmental and economic impacts of US military bases, to make known the principles of the various Anti-Bases movements and to formally build the Network, its strategies, structure and Action Plans. The main objectives of the Conference were the following:

–           Analyze the role of Foreign Military Bases and other features of military presence associated to the global dominance strategy and their impacts upon population and environment;

–           Share experiences and reinforce the built solidarity resulting from the resistance battles against Foreign military Bases around the World;

–           Reach a consensus on objectives mechanisms, on action plans, on coordination, on communication and on decision making of a Global Network for the abolition of all Foreign military Bases and of all other expressions of military presence; and

–            Establish global action plans to fight and reinforce the resistance of local people and ensure that these actions are being coordinated at the international level.

Conclusion

This article has focussed on the Worldwide development of US military power.

The US tends to view the Earth surface as a vast territory to conquer, occupy and exploit. The fact that the US Military splits the World up into geographic command units vividly illustrates this underlying geopolitical reality.

Humanity is being controlled  and enslaved by this Network of US military bases. .

The ongoing re-deployment of US troops and military bases has to be analyzed in a thorough manner if we wish to understand the nature of US interventionism  in different regions of the World.

This militarization process is characterized by armed aggression and warfare, as well as interventions called “cooperation agreements”. The latter reaffirmed America’s economic design design in the areas of trade and investment practices. Economic development is ensured through the miniaturization or the control of governments and organizations. Vast resources are thereby expended and wasted in order to allow such control to be effective, particularly  in regions which have a strategic potential in terms of wealth and resources and which are being used to consolidate the Empire’s structures and functions.

The setting up of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases turns out to be an extraordinary means to oppose the miniaturization process of the Planet. Such Network is indispensable and its growth depends on a commitment of all the People of the World. It will be extremely difficult to mobilize them, but the ties built up by the Network among its constituent resistance movements are a positive element, which is ultimately conducive to more cohesive and coordinated battle at the World level.

The Final Declaration of the Second International Conference against Foreign Military Bases which was held in Havana in November 2005 and was endorsed by delegates from 22 countries identifies most of the major issues, which confront mankind. This Declaration constitutes a major peace initiative. It establishes  international solidarity in the process of  disarmament.

Washington Is Intent on Destroying Iran

On February 18 the leader of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, declared that Iran “is trying to establish this continuous empire surrounding the Middle East from the south in Yemen but also trying to create a land bridge from Iran to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. This is a very dangerous development for our region.” Netanyahu’s presentation was dismissed by the Iranian foreign minister as “a cartoonish circus,” but it was nonetheless a reflection of the policy of the United States, which is Israel’s mentor and unconditional ally.

Last November Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suggested to President Vladimir Putin that Tehran and Moscow should cooperate more fully to try to dissuade the US from further disruptive dabbling throughout the Middle East. His opinion was that “Our cooperation can isolate America. The failure of US-backed terrorists in Syria cannot be denied but Americans continue their plots,” which is certainly the case, because although the so-called “moderate rebels” who were recruited to overthrow President Assad, with massive amounts of assistance from the Pentagon and the CIA, collapsed in ignominious failure, the US fandangos continue. Washington is not going to give up, and the Trump administration seems to relish being isolated by almost everyone.

During his time in the White House, President Obama tried to get US-Iran relations on an even keel, and managed to temporarily overcome the Washington warmongers to some extent and push forward the tension-reducing, trade-improving, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) concerning Iran’s nuclear programme, which the BBC described as “the signature foreign policy achievement of Barack Obama’s presidency.” It was settled two years ago by China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the US in a most welcome example of international solidarity and downright common sense, and removed sanctions on Iran in exchange for Teheran’s agreement to limit its nuclear research and development.

Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign affairs representative wrote last year that the arrangement was achieving its main purpose of “ensuring the purely peaceful, civilian nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. The International Atomic Energy Agency – the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog – has issued four reports on the matter and has regularly verified that Iran is complying with its nuclear-related obligations. This means that the Iranian nuclear programme has been significantly reformatted and downsized and is now subject to intense monitoring by the IAEA. The joint commission – which I coordinate – oversees constantly the implementation of the agreement, meeting regularly, which allows us to detect even minor possible deviations and to take necessary corrective measures if the need arises.

The deal is also working for Iran. Major companies are investing in the country: the oil sector, the automotive industry, commercial aircraft, just to give a few examples, are areas where significant contracts have been concluded.”

The JCPOA was indeed a marked diplomatic success on the part of Obama as well as being a victory for pragmatic common sense. So naturally the egregious Donald Trump has been trying to destroy it. On February 3 Trump enforced and it’s been downhill all the way since then. The sanctions that had been imposed and then withdrawn had been aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear programme and the EU quite rightly wanted to confine them to nuclear-related agencies — the individuals and organisations directly associated with nuclear matters — but the United States, even in the Obama-guided era, wouldn’t confine itself to the main aspect of the agreement. It introduced sanctions of its own, intended to make it difficult for other nations to trade with Iran, which is consistent with its longtime spiteful attitude to Tehran’s government.

The United States is determined to destroy Iran. For almost forty years, since the overthrow of the corrupt CIA-backed monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Washington has been on the warpath against the mullahs in Tehran. There wasn’t much to choose, comfort-wise between the Shah and his successor, the intensely religious Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, but morally there was a chasm.

The Shah was deeply unpopular and in the late 1970s there were mass demonstrations against him and the country dissolved into chaos. He had to go, and the only possible replacement was the Ayatollah who was living in exile in France, having escaped from the persecution of the Shah’s dreaded secret police, the Savak, in the 1960s. Two weeks after the Shah fled from Iran, the Ayatollah returned to Iran on 1 February 1979 in triumph and to a level of acclaim not shared by all its citizens.

During the Shah’s dictatorship Iran was a good place to live for many people. There was no freedom of speech, but there was a lot of freedom to make money, especially in the US. There was sixty per cent illiteracy, but women were allowed to wear what clothes they wished and to move freely in society — except in the countryside, of course, where they were kept in their place as second-class citizens exactly as they are in present-day Muslim states such as US allies Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

What really vexes the extremists in Washington is the memory of humiliation when the US embassy in Tehran was attacked by mobs of students in November 1979, only ten months after Khomeini took over. There is little doubt that the attackers were students, but there is equally little doubt that they had the Ayatollah’s blessing (as it were) to storm the embassy and take the staff hostage. They demanded the return of the Shah to stand trial in Tehran — a ridiculous condition for cessation of their demented antics — but 52 US citizens were held hostage in Iran from November 1979 to January 1981, which was not just an awkwardness for Washington: it was an ineradicable embarrassment, an international degradation of colossal proportions that could never be forgiven.

It was convenient to forget the hideous savagery of the Shah’s regime when, for example,

“American-trained counterinsurgency troops of the Iranian Army and Savak [the Iranian CIA] killed more than 6,000 people on June 5, 1963.”

The Ayatollah had taken over and was forever to be condemned for his audacity. His successors in the political sphere could never right the wrongs that had been done to the global image of the United States. As put by Martin Ennals, secretary general of Amnesty International,

“The Shah of Iran retains his benevolent image despite the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief.”

In 2002 the appalling President George W Bush, the man who took his country into its disastrous wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, conjured up the phrase the axis of evil, and put the world on notice that America would overcome any country that opposed it. His speech was dramatic and he declared that “North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens” which was true. And still is true, after 15 years in which the US has managed to do exactly nothing to discourage North Korea from arming itself against invasion. Then he said that “Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade” and a few months later he invaded Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, which of course didn’t exist.

Then Bush announced that “Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom” which was formal warning to Iran that it was definitely on the target list, because “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

Since the era of the Bush wars, the world has certainly known no peace. Washington’s Military Industrial Complex has flourished while its soldiers died for nothing but profit.

The present US campaign against Iran is aimed at destroying the country economically and thus encouraging a violent revolution. And many western observers consider there’s a lot to be said for rising up against the ayatollahs, because they’re a bumptious arrogant unforgiving bunch of bigots who repress women and democracy. So why doesn’t the US have the same thoughts about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, whose unelected princely rulers repress women and do not tolerate democracy? What a horde of humbugs.

Iran is fighting for its life and the Trump administration is following George W Bush in his determination to destroy it. In January Trump tweeted that “The people of Iran are finally acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime. All of the money that President Obama so foolishly gave them went into terrorism and into their “pockets.” The people have little food, big inflation and no human rights. The U.S. is watching!”

Washington is intent on destroying Iran, and the contents of that tweet could hardly be better reason for supporting Tehran in its struggle against the growing menace from the Trump-supported military-industrial complex. The world is watching.

*

Brian Cloughley is a British and Australian armies’ veteran, former deputy head of the UN military mission in Kashmir and Australian defense attaché in Pakistan.

The US Ponders a Strike Against Syria: What’s Behind This Aggressive Approach?

The US is considering the option of military action against Syria. The alleged use of chemical weapons (CW) by the Syrian government, which is not backed by any solid evidence, is to serve as the pretext. Syrian President Assad is going to be “punished.” On March 6, US President Trump and Israeli PM Netanyahu discussed the threat posed by Iran’s presence in Syria and ways to counter it.

Chemical weapons? But why should Syria’s President Assad use them if he has had no trouble winning with conventional weapons wherever he goes? Couldn’t the rebels be using CW? Instances of that have been uncovered and confirmed. But no, US officials don’t even bother to give a passing thought to such “unimportant and irrelevant” considerations. They know better who to blame and who deserves to be made to pay for the wrongdoings they believe have taken place. In April, 2017, the US delivered a missile strike against a Syrian military facility, in flagrant violation of international law.

It’s worth noting that a group of US senators visited Israel in late February. According to them, a conflict between Israel and the pro-Iranian forces in southern Lebanon was imminent and that fighting would likely encompass Syria as well. Israel has been increasing its support of proxy groups in Syria recently.

Senator Lindsey Graham believes that Tehran is “testing” the US and Israel and that the administration is not doing enough to push back against Iran in Syria and throughout the Middle East.

On Feb. 28, just three days before Israeli PM Netanyahu arrived in the US on March 4, Fox News offered its audience an exclusive report on a military base being built by Iran in Syria. It claimed this information was evidence that Tehran was preparing for a permanent presence in the country. The story was presented as a real scoop and the timing was carefully chosen. The report plays into the hands of both the administration and as well as those in Congress who are calling for a more resolute stand on Syria.

Israel enjoys almost unlimited US backing, which forces America to become involved directly or indirectly in the hostilities. Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron said he would order airstrikes against Syria if the use of CW were confirmed.

Israel is a privileged ally but it’s not only Israeli security that drives American policy. And it’s not so much Syria but Iran the US has in its crosshairs. If America allows Iran a land bridge linking it to the Mediterranean via Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, this will frustrate its main Middle East allies – the Persian Gulf monarchies. Lebanon will leave the sphere of Western influence. The tensions between Sunni Arab states and Iran boost US arms sales to rich Middle Eastern countries, which is hugely profitable. Thus a belligerent stand toward Tehran allows America to preserve its political clout in a region where its policy has been such a disaster in recent years.

It will be too hard to reach any agreement on the recently discovered offshore gas deposits in the eastern Mediterranean, which are a bone of contention between Israel and Lebanon. And the gas exports from these fields could diminish or eliminate the need to import Russian gas to Southern Europe, which would kill the prospects for the Turkish Stream project. Without Iran, Lebanon could be pressured into an agreement on terms dictated by Israel and America’s European allies.

With access to the Mediterranean, Iran could build naval bases that would threaten the NATO naval forces there. The ability to ship exports by sea would boost Iran’s income, making the country richer and more powerful.

Attacking Syrian forces to force a retreat will reduce Moscow’s influence and hamper the diplomatic efforts to bring peace to Syria that have been so successful recently. So-called “rebel groups,” so recently and spectacularly defeated, will reemerge as a force to be reckoned with. From Washington’s perspective, a divided Syria with vast swaths under the control of pro-US and Israel-backed groups is better than a united country in which the West can take part in the peace talks but not as a party that controls territory or exerts significant influence on the balance of power.

Inventing a reason to use force against Syria is a way to fight Iran and roll Russia back. This is a very dangerous policy. As a result, Syria will become a battlefield where powerful actors clash in their pursuit of strategic goals. That will be much worse than fighting jihadists. This scenario can be avoided through diplomatic efforts headed by Russia with the input of all. That’s what Moscow is talking about but the US does not listen. There were times when the US ignored Moscow’s concerns about Russia’s security. On March 2, Russian President Putin unveiled information about the new super weapons Russia alone possesses in the world today. In this same manner Washington may find that participating in Moscow-sponsored peace initiatives is a much better way to settle the Syrian conflict than instigating tensions as it is now doing, but it may already be too late.

By Peter Korzun of Strategic Culture.

The Truth About Racism

Race relations is one of the biggest globalist social engineering efforts of the past fifty to sixty years, race has constantly been taken out of context and called an ‘issue of skin color’ by the race propagandists; civil rights figures fought the ‘good fight’, while the opposition; always equated to ‘racist extremists’; were the ‘baddies’.

I will open with two powerful quotes:

“We need to get rid of our liberal preconceptions. Men are not born equal, this is something which has not yet got through to the politicians, and it is by no means clear that all races are equally gifted.”

— Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA

“All the evidence to date suggests the strong and indeed overwhelming importance of genetic factors in producing the great variety of intellectual differences which we observe in our culture, and much of the differences observed between racial groups.”

— Hans Eysenck, Professor of Psychology at London University

In a survey from 1985 only 16% of biologists and 36% of educational psychologists disagreed with the statement “There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens“.^[88]

The two main sides to the race argument (from Metapedia):

‘Race realists’ view race as a natural phenomenon to be observed, studied, and explained. They believe the human race is a valid biological concept, similar to sub-species or breeds or strains.

On the other side, those I term the hermeneusticists view “race” as an epiphenomenon, (like gender as opposed to “sex”) a mere social construction, with political and economic forces as the real causal agents. Rather than actually research race, hermeneuticists research those who study race.

The race-realist approach is empirical and employs a myriad of scientific methodologies, including surveys, social demography, IQ and personality tests, and behavior genetic analyses (e.g. twin studies).

The hermeneutical approach relies on textual, historical, and political analysis. The race-realist viewpoint is descriptive, explanatory, and typically avoids prescribing policy. Because the hermeneutical viewpoint sees inexorable links between theory and practice, its writings are often prescriptive and assume an advocacy position.

To their opponents, the race-realist approach comes across as cold, detached, and suspect of hiding a “racist” agenda. Hermeneuticists appear to race-realists as muddled, heated, and ideologically committed to an anti-racist activism.

---

Scientific race realism is not racist. Racism requires hatred. So the belief that some races are better than others is not racist: it is simply the scientific truth.

This article will put race into scientific context and expand on the deliberately suppressed and underrepresented information surrounding the topic.

---

Globalist migrant agenda (numerical IQ): high net movement from r-selection, low IQ regions to K-selection high IQ regions will spell disaster for the integrity of liberty-oriented Western civilization, lowering the (human development index) HDI and thus creating a more docile, controllable population.

These numbers came from a work carried out from 2002 to 2006 by Richard Lynn, a British Professor of Psychology, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish Professor of Political Science, who conducted IQ studies in more than 80 countries.

Richard Dawkins, ethologist & evolutionary biologist on the topic of racial classification:

“However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.”

— Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale

"Social construct"? Forget it. Race is biologically real. But it's irrelevant to anything that matters. We're all HUMAN.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) December 20, 2015

Yes, we’re all human, we must love one another, but that should not stop us accepting our biodiversity as something to be seriously taken into consideration.

The weakest of us should not be arbitrarily ‘represented’ as the best of us against all natural authority; that isn’t wise or meritocratic, it is dangerously delusional.

Research on ethnic heterogeneity has found that divided societies have numerous and severe problems.

It is sometimes argued that “race is just skin deep“. This diagram from a 2011 study shows how much three populations (from Africa, East Asia, and Europe) differ genetically from one another (according to the genetic measure used) and regarding gene groups with different functions. Red lines (additions to the original image) mark gene groups stated to be involved in pigmentation, hair development, and skeletal development (physical appearance). There are numerous other gene groups including many involved in the nervous system or potentially involved in the nervous system (including the brain). The gene group showing the largest population differences was involved in pituitary gland development. The pituitary gland is the part of the brain which controls the hormone system which has many effects on the whole body (including the brain itself).^[8]

Lifetime risk of incarceration for different racial groups in the United States. The lifetime risk for Black males is around 1/3. The relationship between race and crime is one example of a topic where many important aspects are not covered in mainstream sources.

Past and predicted future population numbers 1950-2100. One issue relevant to White demographics with Whites quickly becoming minorities worldwide.

What we have in modern times is forced redistribution of resources to lower IQ groups, allowing them to r-selectively breed, this drags the whole of society down, benefiting only the rich Jewish oligarchs who stand to gain from the weakness of a genetically decaying population.

The human racial differential phenomenon.

On the other hand, if this natural selective process is allowed to act out on its own, certain racial groups, depending on the extent of their differences, will, on the whole, remain separated.

What is naturally effective will be represented accordingly, what is not naturally effective will not be represented, this is not racism as we’ve been told (i.e. whites being more wealthy and better represented), this is natural selection in action, without it, the human race, and civilization, would simply not survive. 

This natural segregation phenomenon is being deliberately suppressed, multicultural societies are mainly living apart (with bell curve to be accounted for), this truth is being kept from you.

Groups of people with similar IQ levels are able to integrate, hence why many east Asians are able to perfectly integrate in the West, as the IQ point difference increases it drops down to just assimilation, and then finally full segregation.

The fact that there are no culturally divided societies that are even remotely like the multicultural harmonious utopia we are being sold should cause concern (but is instead ignored).

“This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other has failed. Utterly failed.”
― Angela Merkel

• Segregation – Different cultures are kept separate from one another.
• Assimilation – Minority cultures adopt the culture of the majority.
• Integration – All cultures blend into a common culture. Sometimes described as a melting pot.

Multiculturalism assumes there are no important biological forces keeping different groups set apart. It envisions a world where all cultures live in peace and unity, and it is possible to experience other cultures the same as own’s own. Opponents hold this is an impossible fantasy that leads to alienation and anomie, especially when different ethnic groups are together.

Historical observances: most historical, non-socialist empires having many cultures have if anything practiced extensive self-segregation. The different cultures are usually allowed very extensive autonomy to manage their own affairs (including having separate law systems) as long as they pay taxes to the empire. The different groups to a large degree self-segregate from one another in the empire.

For example, in modern day Britain, Islamic migrants have evidently not integrated or even assimilated to the presiding Western culture. What underpins this is a combination of genetic, social, and environmental factors.

Results from various surveys in Britain on British Muslims have been described as stating that:

• 62% do not believe in the protection of free speech.
• 58% believe insulting Islam should result in criminal prosecution.
• 68% support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
• 61% want homosexuality punished.
• only 7% think of themselves as British first (81% say ‘Muslim’ rather than ‘Briton’).
• 31% identify more with Muslims in other countries than with non-Muslim Brits.
• 11% find violence for political ends acceptable.
• up to 52% believe a Muslim man is entitled to up to four wives.
• 51% believe a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. Only 51% believe a Muslim woman may marry without a guardian’s consent.
• 1 in 10 support killing a family member over “dishonor”.
• 1 in 5 young British Muslims agree that ‘honor’ violence is acceptable.
• 28% want Britain to be an Islamic state.
• 40% want sharia in the UK.
• 40% of British Muslim students want sharia.]

On the other hand, the native population feels as follows:

A 2017 US survey found that is asked if the United States was “losing its culture and identity,” 55% of respondents said yes, with 68% of white working class Americans feeling that way. Almost half (48%) of white working class Americans also feel that “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country,” while 62% believe that immigrants arriving from other countries threaten American culture.

A 2017 UK survey found that 56% believe that local culture was threatened by ethnic minorities.

Research on biological/genetic mechanisms related to racial genetic interests has found that different groups tend to feel more empathy for and favor their own group which makes group conflict very difficult to avoid. This research also implies that assimilation/integration may not work unless the different groups are genetically similar. Thus, the different immigrant European groups to the United States could be assimilated/integrated but this may not work with immigrant groups that are more genetically different.

Stefan Molyneux elaborates as to why this racial segregation phenomenon occurs:

Other leading sources on race realism:

• David Duke,
• Steve Sailer,
• Jared Taylor of American Renaissance,
• J Philippe Rushton of the Pioneer Fund,
• Charles Murray of “The Bell Curve”,
• HBDers, the scientific wing of race realism. If race is a fact of nature, then it can and should be studied by science.

Also see:

• Al-Andalus – Lacking any good example of a current multicultural utopia, supporters of multiculturalism have instead often claimed that Al-Andalus (medieval Islamic Iberia) was one, before being destroyed by White Christians.
• E pluribus unum
• No-go area
• Cosmopolitanism – a concept different from and possibly contrary to multiculturalism.
• Cultural Marxism
• Diversity
• Melting Pot
• Monoculturalism
• The Mantra
• The New Colossus
• White demographics

Globalist cultural-Marxism is a method of undermining the success of natural systems of genetic selection, et al, for personal gain.

Cultural Marxism: the gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble everything under the Globalist model for world governance.

Race manipulation is just one part of this agenda, in this article I will focus on ‘race realism’ and genetic engineering as a powerful tool for population control.

Anti-meritocratic minority representation.

Anti-white minority ‘representation’ is afoot across school, media, professional, and political spheres.

Many globalist-owned workplaces are offering jobs exclusively, or with great bias towards minority groups. For example, the BBC has been called ‘anti-white’ after stating that “offering (exclusively) black, Asian and minority ethnic schemes is ‘right thing to do’.”

ITV’s ‘Peston on Sunday Show’ was also found guilty of anti-white job advertisement.

They want to exalt desirable minorities and repress undesirable whites.

Minorities are grossly over-represented, while ‘white guilt’ and other cultural-Marxist social engineering ploys have been used to destroy the order-based western mindset and genotype, replacing it with the chaos-based third world mindset and genotype as a methodology for dysgenic population control.

Minority representation is a deliberate illusion.

The <1% remains majority white Ashkenazi Jews; nothing changes for them, yet everything changes for the population they want to control.

This graph gives a general idea for the race power index, although this is based on mainstream rich lists, not taking into account numerous Ashkenazi Jewish trillionaires, i.e. Rockefellers and Rothschilds.

By ‘representing’ minorities in high-earning and highly regarded roles as a ‘progressive’ social justice statement in a ‘post racial’ world, those in control gain more obedience, and create yet more popular acceptance for mass-migration and multiracial societies. Meanwhile, they still hold onto the real seats of power; having given away mere symbols of power, and not substantial power.

Average vs. extreme groups differences.

Another point is that only looking at average differences between groups may be misleading. Many characteristics that are influenced by many factors (like by many genes) will (due to the “central limit theorem”) have a “normal distribution” (a “bell curve” distribution). However, a characteristic of this distribution is that differences will be amplified at the extremes. Thus, group differences will be more pronounced at extreme values than they are at more average values. In practice, this means that racial differences will be more pronounced at extreme values (such as at extreme IQ values). Furthermore, in some situations these extreme groups may be particularly important. For example, it may be extreme rather than average persons that make most inventions. Thus, only looking at average group differences may in some situations be misleading.

See also the article on the Smart fraction.

Hiding the genetic ceiling with the glass ceiling.

Nothing changes at the very top of the hierarchy, but the general public are led to believe that the future is ‘minorities in high places’, i.e. Barack Obama, Sadiq Khan and so on, that minority groups were held back by a social glass ceiling, rather than a biological genetic one.

 

The Globalists have intentionally undermined natural selectivity, because they control corporate forces that are powerful and influential enough to overwrite the natural order that has ruled for so long and stood in the way of controlling populations.

Now they drive the direction of humanity’s genetic future, by rewriting the human genetic and epigenetic DNA they can pull the biological strings of the human race at their will.

Their false racial paradigm was and continues to be drilled deep into the minds of new generations to indoctrinate an irrational liberality founded in emotion rather than in scientific truth surrounding the subjects of race, colour, and creed — and the truth about biodiversity.

---

The stigma of being called a ‘racist’.

The fear of being labelled a ‘racist’ is one of the biggest mass-hysteric trends of our time, it is a designed social stigma that aims to suppress discussion and acknowledgement of the rational race discussion, this allows social engineering and race-mixing to take place with minimal popular resistance.

There’s a reason the migrant crisis heavily favors African and middle eastern migrants; they have the detrimental genotype and mindset they want to mass-introduce in the West, to create a worker subclass accustomed to poverty, corruption, and illiteracy. They use the welfare state and ‘open-door’ policy making as a magnet for these migrants.

This reality is consistently censored in the West as we are spoonfed the emotional narrative of the race discussion everyday; that those who challenge orthodox race and immigration ideas must, without question, be motivated by an extremist and irrational racist ‘hatred’, and whatever they have to say ought to be dismissed.

Race is not a social construct, it is biological.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

— Martin Luther King, Jr.

Martin Luther King, Jr. at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963.

Martin Luther King, Jr. offered a beautifully idealistic, yet token concept in his famous Washington speech in 1963.

“The idea that race is ‘only skin deep’ is simply not true.”

— Forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, in 2000

He claimed that our differences are not biological, but a result of hard graft, merit, and self-determination. He made an argument for environmental causes defining the ‘content of our characters’, but ignored the biological factors that also define who and what we are as human beings.

Environment plays a partial role in defining us, not an absolute role.

“If only environmental factors were responsible for the different IQs of different populations, we should expect to find some countries where Africans had higher IQs than Europeans. The failure to find a single country where this is the case points to the presence of a strong genetic factor.” — Richard Lynn.

---

“Regression would explain why Black children born to high IQ, wealthy Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents.” — Arthur Jensen.

Today, to even consider race in a non-collectivist light is heavily opposed, both legally and socially. We stand to lose resources, friends, our reputation, or our ego if we stand for what seems to be an idea already beaten by what we are told is the ‘consensus’, that race is a social construct that divides us.

As an individual, it makes sense to go with the ‘politically correct’ herd, to avoid the headache; because it’s the path of least resistance. But the dire implications of doing this are overlooked. Our biodiversity shapes the qualities (or flaws) and the rise or fall of civilization itself, understanding race is understanding ourselves and what it means to be human.

Civilization is made up of human individuals, but speciation can bring on collective racial traits.

Civilization is made up of biological human individuals, our environment is an extension of ourselves; our biology precedes everything we think of, everything we produce, our inclination and reception to certain persuasions, and every trait that enables the group to flourish, or to flounder.

IQ and good genes creates success and progression, poor genetics causes regression, environmental factors play a role too, but the genetic role is understated.

This is an imperative dynamic to successful civilization, a nation of the genetically healthy is going to be a nation set for success.

 Garett Jones states in the video that:

“Smarter people are more likely to see the ‘invisible hand’, having smart, informed voters is crucial to a functioning civilization; to support market competition, to support some degree of long-term thinking, looking at the unseen versus the seen.”

---

Natural selection is everywhere, except in social justice ideology.

If you accept evolution, you accept race realism.

In the animal kingdom, successful genes always outlive weaker genes, stronger traits are passed on while weaker traits are cast aside, this process ensures the success and continuation of a species, it is a natural safeguard that has stood the test of time.

Humans follow these fundamental laws of nature too.

For example, in choosing a mate, or in a professional setting where a company hires on positive traits; a hardworking nature, punctuality, composure, adaptability, and creativity is favored over the slacker, a better candidate will net more resources and boost ‘survival’ chances — we can all agree to this common system of meritocracy; a nation is simply that on a larger scale; it’s group awareness of what has worked for survival in the immediate environment, and a desire to preserve and embolden that.

Yet today, in the name of tolerance, we insist on immigration policies that bring in people that do not have the necessary traits, both biologically and environmentally, to both maintain and further western civilization.

Historical context: race and lineage has always been recognized.

Before the 17^th-century scientific revolution, ideas about race were inchoate and unsystematic — “Folk anthropology.”

To the degree they included notions we would now consider biological, those notions came from:

• The obsession, in aristocratic societies, with ancestry and lineage.
• Practical knowledge obtained from millennia of experience in selective breeding of crops and livestock.

From these, by the time methodical science arrived on the scene, civilized peoples had a fair, but unorganized, stock of knowledge about inheritance and genetic similarity.

In modern times, these ideas about inheritance have been proven true.

“Genetic differences between human groups (in particular, differences in average native intelligence) have been an important factor in human history.”

— A Real Diamond: Michael Hart’s Understanding Human History

With the Enlightenment, systematic biological classification was attempted, most persuasively by Linnaeus.  Philosophers also took an interest — Kant, for example.

In modern times, the race debate is branded as ‘low-brow’ and nonintellectual, yet these leading thinkers partook in deliberating on race.

Race in the modern sense was salient in the 18^th-century Americas and the Caribbean, which had long made use of black African and (to a much smaller degree) local indigenous peoples as slave labor. It was salient, too for the small minority of Europeans who had first-hand experience of Europe’s overseas empires.

This did not lead to much scientific theorizing, but it did cause a lot of noticing. Thomas Jefferson can be taken as representative.

The “long” 19^th century (i.e. to 1914) saw the end of race slavery in the civilized world, and the rise and acceptance of evolutionary biology. There was much theorizing about race, most of it not very scientific. Charles Darwin was of course an outstanding exception — a great scientist.

Darwin observed clear differences between the races.

The 20^th century saw the rise of population genetics (Wright, Fisher, Haldane), the neo-Darwinian synthesis (Dobzhansky, Mayr) in evolutionary biology, the molecular structure of DNA (Watson & Crick), and rigorous psychometry (Burt, Eysenck, Jensen).

All these developments had implications for the understanding of race as a feature of the human world. Modern science has allowed us to prove many of these historical theories and observances.

Race Realism and Race Denialism.

Let’s start by defining ‘race’ itself, modern society has been taught to see race in terms of color, that we are ‘all the same underneath’. Race actually means something else altogether:

“The biological definition of race is a geographically isolated breeding population that shares certain characteristics in higher frequencies than other populations of that species, but has not become reproductively isolated from other populations of the same species.”

— BiologyReference.com

‘Race realism’ is the scientific point of view that:

• Like any other widely-distributed species, Homo sapiens are divided into local varieties – races – that differ in their biology.
• Where races show different statistical profiles on heritable traits – physiognomy, metabolism, disease susceptibility, and the BIP traits (Behavior, Intelligence, Personality) – it is reasonable to infer that biological differences are causal factors.
• Biological race differences work together with adscititious factors (history, geography, epidemiology) to shape social outcomes.

The ‘Bell Curve’: the science is clear, the races have classifiable differences, we must accept this uncomfortable truth and adapt ourselves accordingly.

The opposite of race realism is race denialism, and race denialism is the social ideology and practice promoted by Zionist Globalism in order to gain popular acceptance to subversively sully the races as a part of their agenda of dysgenics; to create the lowest common denominator as the average human being by promoting deleterious alleles.

‘Race denialism’ is the hypothetical point of view that:

• Observed group differences between local varieties of Homo sap. are superficial and inconsequential, like the hair color of individuals.
• The different statistical profiles of races on BIP traits and social outcomes are entirely caused by historical and social factors. Biology plays no part.

Poor genetics for the many means more power to the enlightened few, by lowering the genetic (and epigenetic) ceiling for average humans you can easily assert a designed eugenicist race above a designed dysgenicist slave race. If the average person lacks the mental faculties to conceive of their own enslavement then those in control have succeeded.

This agenda is promoted through race denialist, dysgenic-promoting propaganda which is widely seen across globalist controlled mediums:

• The commanding heights of Western societies – media, schools, politics – are held by race denialists, mainstream anything promotes race denialism in the most one-sided way imaginable.
• Race denialism is a social dogma. All respectable people are required to affirm it.

 

---

The geographical impact on race and IQ.

Early humans settled different landmasses, these landmasses held different environmental characteristics, which, in turn, affected their occupants.

Harsh northern hemisphere climates forced its occupants to become more adaptable and resourceful, surviving in colder, harsher climates required the development of larger intelligence faculties compared to survival in sub-Saharan Africa where an abundance of regional wildlife and flora meant biological adaptation was less necessary for survival.

The five major races correspond to major geographic barriers between human groups: the Oceans, the Sahara desert in Northern Africa, and the Himalayas mountain range in Central Asia (and the deserts and the mountain ranges bordering on the Himalayas). These geographic barriers can be distinguished in the above satellite imagery of Eurasia and Northern Africa.

“Caucasoids and Mongoloids who live in their homelands and in recently colonized regions, such as North America, did not rise to their present population levels and positions of cultural dominance by accident. They achieved all this because their ancestors occupied the most favorable of the earth’s zoological regions, in which other kinds of animals also attained dominance during the Pleistocene. These regions had challenging climates and ample breeding grounds and were centrally located within continental land masses. There general adaptation was more important than special adaptation. Any other subspecies that had evolved in these regions would probably have been just as successful.”

— Carleton Coon (1962)

Read more on arguments concerning biological race.

 

How Western Imperialism Killed Gaddafi

What do you think of when you hear the name Colonel Gaddafi? Tyrant? Dictator? Terrorist? Well, a national citizen of Libya living under his rule may disagree, but we want you to decide.

Muammar Gaddafi was certainly not killed for ‘humanitarian reasons’, as the western public have been led to believe.

Gaddafi talks about Reagan’s foreign policy being controlled by ‘hostile sources’.

Gaddafi’s autocratic populist leadership was hugely popular.

Muammar Gaddafi spearheaded an autocratic political, social, and economic revolution; transforming a desolate, third-world, poverty-stricken Libya into one of the most promising booming economies of Africa.

Gaddafi was not only the leader of Libya, he had ambitions to free Africa from the nefarious fangs of the west. Despite being called a dictator and despot by the west – they do that to anyone who doesn’t submit to Washington’s rules – he was very much liked by Libyans, by his people. He had a more than 80% approval rate by the Libyan people.

The Libyans never knew the meaning of poverty under Gaddafi.

For over 40 years, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans.

His enduring legacy proves that in the hands of a true ‘for-the-people’ populist, politics can work to make everyone prosperous and happy. It is a supreme model of government that we all must aspire to, and a model that is called ‘impossible’ by the tyrants in the shadows of Western governments.

Gaddafi set an example to counter globalism.

Unfortunately, Gaddafi was unpopular with international bankers because of this exceptional model for independent, nationalist prosperity. His planned gold-backed currency, the dinar, being the focal point of this. Gaddafi’s currency might have devastated the US dollar hegemony, as well as Europe’s control over the African economy. Gaddafi fought neo-colonization and the soft imperialism that still plagues the third world. Africa remains poor because powerful people behind western governments want to keep it that way.

Like Iran’s 2007 Tehran Oil Bourse to trade oil in any non-dollar currency, and Saddam Hussein’s promise to sell oil in euros, Gaddafi met the same fate of brutal suppression for his de-dollarization economic policies.

Gaddafi was struck down by the monopolistic globalist bullies.

He was demonized with a slew of fabrications and propaganda, a kangaroo court ruling permitted Western sanctions and military intervention, and a false Libyan ‘people’s revolution’ was funded. Gaddafi was finally captured and assassinated in October 2011 as a result.

When Gaddafi moved to harm the US petrodollar, the economic imperialists moved to kill Gaddafi.

Anybody, to this day, who threatens the dollar hegemony will have to die. That means anybody other than China and Russia (who have the influence to defend themselves), because they have already a few years ago largely detached their economy from the dollar, by implementing hydrocarbons as well as other international contracts in gold or the respective local currencies. That alone has already helped reducing dollar holdings in international reserve coffers from almost 90% some 20 years ago to a rate fluctuating between 50% and 60% today.

The Washington / CIA induced “Arab Spring” was to turn the entire Middle East into one huge chaos zone – which today of course, it is. And there are no plans to secure it and to return it to normalcy, to what it was before. To the contrary, chaos allows to divide and conquer – to ‘Balkanize’, as is the plan for Syria and Iraq.

One of the Washington led western goals of this chaos of constant conflict is to eventually install a system of private central banks in the Middle Eastern / North African countries controlled by Washington – privately owned central banks, à la Federal Reserve (FED), where the neocons, the Rothschilds and freemasonry would call the shots. That is expected to help stabilize the US dollar hegemony, as the hydrocarbons produced in this region generate trillions of dollars in trading per year.

Here’s some big factors that point to why Gaddafi was unpopular with the Globalist ‘hidden hand’ established powers-that-be:

• Gaddafi wanted to detach his oil sales from the dollar, i.e. no longer trading hydrocarbons in US dollars, as was the US / OPEC imposed rule since the early 1970s.
• Gaddafi wanted to introduce, or had already started introducing into Africa a wireless telephone system that would do away with the US / European monopolies, with the Alcatels and AT and T’s of this world, which dominate and usurp the African market without scruples.
• Gaddafi promoted a successful independent autocratic political model. It was a viable way for a resource-rich nation to gain massive prosperity outside of the dollar, and was an example that threatened the globalist’s imperial ambitions.
• Gaddafi’s plan for Africa meant a new banking system for Africa, away from the now western (mainly France and UK) central banks dominated African currencies. It could have meant the collapse of the US dollar – or at least an enormous blow to this fake dollar based monetary system.
• Gaddafi banished all Western influences from Libya, he disallowed Western corporate influences from gaining a financial foothold in the nation.
• Gaddafi’s progressive social policies eliminated radical ideologies. His modernization efforts would have brought Africa out of the dark ages, and into the global arena as the next superpower. This would not have benefited the Globalist imperialist agenda that actively exploits a weak, divided, and illiterate Africa. Western interventions have produced nothing but colossal failures in Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Lest we forget, prior to western military involvement in these three nations, they were the most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa with the highest regional women’s rights and standards of living.

---

Deception: Western media demonized Gaddafi to gain public support for their military ‘intervention’.

Gaddafi’s policies were against the leading banking family’s best interests, he threatened to popularize an independent, anti-globalist, and anti-usury model of government, and get Africa off its knees.

“If Gaddafi had intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accepts something else as a currency or maybe launches a gold dinar currency. Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell.

Post-intervention Libya lies in smoldering ruins, and is festering with Islamic extremism and economic stagnation.

Ever since Gaddafi’s downfall, Libya has fallen back into destitution. Western-backed and trained ISIS and other warring Jihadist factions keep the region divided and ripe for economic exploitation. Today, Libya is a burning, hollow wasteland, a shadow of its former self.

1. In Libya a home is considered a natural human right

In Gaddafi’s Green Book it states: ”The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others”. Gaddafi’s Green Book is the formal leader’s political philosophy, it was first published in 1975 and was intended reading for all Libyans even being included in the national curriculum.

2. Education and medical treatment were all free

Under Gaddafi, Libya could boast one of the best healthcare services in the Middle East and Africa.  Also if a Libyan citizen could not access the desired educational course or correct medical treatment in Libya they were funded to go abroad.

3. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project

The largest irrigation system in the world also known as the great manmade river was designed to make water readily available to all Libyan’s across the entire country. It was funded by the Gaddafi government and it said that Gaddafi himself called it ”the eighth wonder of the world”.

4. It was free to start a farming business

If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge.

5. A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies

When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself and the child.

6. Electricity was free

Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!

7.  Cheap petrol

During Gaddafi’s reign the price of petrol in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars) per litre.

8. Gaddafi raised the level of education

Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. This figure was brought up to 87% with 25% earning university degrees.

9. Libya had It’s own state bank

Libya had its own State bank, which provided loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.

10. The gold dinar

Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise, Gaddafi was trying to introduce a single African currency linked to gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term ”United States of Africa”. Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar  – a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos.

The Dinar was widely opposed by the ‘elite’ of today’s society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say ‘no’ to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader.

“Bigotry Seems Emboldened” George Bush Lashes Out at Trump

Former President, George W. Bush has struck-out at President Donald J. Trump in a heated speech addressing topics including fake news, white supremacy, public-state trust, the elections, and globalism.

The former President blasted that “bigotry seems emboldened” in the U.S, while urging the country to accept “globalization” – the same globalization which the IMF, the BIS and even the Federal Reserve now all agree and warn has led to record wealth inequality in the US.

Mr. Bush stated that “We cannot wish globalization away,” he continued later, urging society to “adapt” to economic and social change.

Mr. Bush slanted nationalism with “We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism.”

Despite the sheer hypocrisy, the former President also had this to say:

“Bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed.”

Yet he is openly an advocate of anti-white programs and the racist social agendas of the globalists.

The man that led the US into a war based on fabrication in the middle-east resulting in the deaths of millions said:

“Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seem more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication.”

Mr. Bush also spoke of the ‘Russian election interference’ — a narrative proven to be false;

George W. Bush on Russian election interference: "This effort is broad, systemic, and stealthy…ultimately, this effort won't succeed." pic.twitter.com/c8A0vtROoc

— ABC News (@ABC) October 19, 2017

One person took to twitter to express how Mr. Bush was “silent through the eight years of corruption called Obama. And now he wants to stand up.”

Alternative news giant, Paul Joseph Watson, chimed in on the former Presidents’ credibility:

George W. Bush, who left office with a disapproval rating beaten only by Nixon, is going after Trump.

Trump should save this for his 2020 campaign ads.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) October 19, 2017

Surprisingly, Mr. Bush had no introspective insight to explain how the collapse of democracy may have started with Trump’s predecessors, including both president Obama and, of course, Mr. Bush himself, or what specific aspects of the US political process may have led to the general popular revulsion with “establishment” system, which – as much as Putin would love to take credit – started long before any alleged Russian involvement.

Bush also spoke about the American identity.

“Our identity as a nation, and unlike many other nations, is not determined by geography or ethnicity, by soil or blood. Being an American involves the embrace of high ideals and civic responsibility.”

What Mr. Bush left out was that ethnicity happens to still be regional, and in these regions there are cultures that have formed; these cultures may hold values and ideals contrary to American ideals and culture. No, not all cultures are equal.

Look to China where the general mentality is to be grateful to work for much less than the Western standard. Mr. Bush said it himself; being American is all about embracing “high ideals and civic responsibility,” yet he advocates the importation of non-western thinking individuals, who come in vast swathes from being under twisted, exploitative governments, their minds and outlooks marred by downtrodden backgrounds that would be grateful for anything they get, all without a word to say that they need to be re-educated in western ideals and standards.

This is about re-population and mindset replacement to whitewash the American dream and its constitution for good, its about bringing in people who will vote for globalist, collectivist-Marxist ideals and big-brother-state welfare, but Mr. Bush slyly talks of ethnicity and skin color as the prevailing narrative, while at every turn taking Trump out of context and trashing him for somehow encouraging ‘white supremacy.’

Mainstream media fiercely supportive of Bush’ globalist speech.

Of course, the establishment-backed armada of biased mainstream media outlets are hailing Mr. Bush’ speech as a complete ‘take down’ of Trump; a ‘successful’ character assassination.

All this anti-Trump hysteria and not a word on the previous destructive administrations, like that of George W. Bush himself. It is clear that this is not about virtue or the American dream: this is about slandering a man who advocates real populist change in America and the wider world.

Media pushing globalist narratives non-stop for those who still listen to it.

The Independent had the gumption to call out Trump for telling the truth by saying that the US’ foreign policy is not as pure as the establishment would like us to believe:

Donald Trump appeared to equate US foreign actions to those of Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying, “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?”

Here's Twitter praising George W. Bush.

Yes, really – George W. Bush.

Let that sink in.

Savor it.

This is the regressive left. pic.twitter.com/BnJWl6TEKu

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) October 19, 2017

Bilderberg 2017 Underway

The 2017 Bilderberg meeting is currently underway, taking place from June 1st-4th.

Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg Meeting is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, between 120-140 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the conference. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; approximately a quarter from politics and government and the rest from other fields.

Members who attend Bilderberg conferences are sworn to secrecy under Chatham House rules which they claim allows them to discuss issues freely without fear of criticism from the media or the public.

The conference is a forum for informal discussions about major issues facing the world. The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor any other participant may be revealed.

Thanks to the private nature of the meeting, the participants are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no desired outcome, no minutes are taken and no report is written. Furthermore, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.

 

The key topics for discussion this year include:

1. The Trump Administration: A progress report
2. Trans-Atlantic relations: options and scenarios
3. The Trans-Atlantic defence alliance: bullets, bytes and bucks
4. The direction of the EU
5. Can globalisation be slowed down?
6. Jobs, income and unrealised expectations
7. The war on information
8. Why is populism growing?
9. Russia in the international order
10. The Near East
11. Nuclear proliferation
12. China
13. Current events

 

Bilderberg, a central force in the meticulous, covert coordination of the globalist cabal that deliberately poses as separate entities to fool the public.