Here are some prime examples of government speaking out of both sides of the mouth: The US government pretends to restrict illegal immigration while it disregards real enforcement solutions and rewards illegal aliens with welfare assistance and periodic amnesty. It pretends to fight drugs via the DEA while controlling most of the world’s drug trade through protected CIA black operations. It runs a justice system that feigns allegiance to the Constitution, but enforces the Constitution only selectively, when convenient, all the while covering for its extensive and systematic protection of government dark-side government operations. The US pretends to defend liberty and democracy worldwide while undermining and betraying every anti-Communist revolution in the third world. It pretends to a fight a "war on terrorism" while secretly funding and facilitating nations that harbor terrorists--in order to justify increased intervention in other nations.

All of these mixed or contradictory signals from the US government can be explained in one of two ways: Either these men in power are too stupid to realize the contradictions and long-term evil consequences of their policies (the Jeff Nyquist view), or they have ulterior, conspiratorial motives that run counter to their publicly stated interests (my view). As my subscribers know, it is my belief that these contradictory positions are critical to the Hegelian dialectic method whereby insiders purposely foment conflict (while feigning peace) in order to force the voting public to turn to globalist control "solutions" that they would not otherwise choose.

Now let’s look at some current issues that are even more difficult to decipher, because of the amount and complexity of the mixed signals being given. Because of the sophistication of the politics being played in each of these cases, it is often difficult to determine the motives of the players, and the direction that each issue will play itself out. I will propose some conclusions based on my own analysis, but there are many questions still left unanswered.

1. Campaign Finance Reform

Trying to figure out the motive behind this piece of unconstitutional legislation is extremely difficult. All the leaders in Congress, both major political parties, and the president have all benefited handsomely from the existing system--even Feingold and McCain, and Shays and Meehan, the bill’s respective Senate and House sponsors. So, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? We all know there is an incestuous relationship between big corporate donors and government, which rewards political contributors with government contracts. The globally connected corporations involved give to both parties (though not equally) to make it difficult for conspiracy theorists to document a pattern of control.

The way in which this formerly unpopular bill suddenly changed from being "dead on arrival" in Congress to passing with a veto-proof majority is very strange. Bush campaigned against it during the election, but did no lobbying in Congress among Republicans to stop this bill--which is telling. Now he says he will sign it (shades of his father: George "Read My Lips" Bush, Sr.) for the "greater good." Why is it that when a radical Democrat is in office, he can get away with vetoing every conservative measure that passes Congress, without being called obstructionist, and yet when a "conservative" president gains office, he hardly ever uses the veto to defend against bad law? Why is it that only Republicans are expected to be conciliatory and eschew "partisan politics?"

It seems clear that the PTB want to push through the version of campaign finance reform which curtails "soft money" spending, the largest source of campaign financing. The real key to this legislation may be the provision that prohibits any special interest group from spending money to attack a specific candidate 60 days prior to an election (the only time people really pay attention). The NRA, for example, would be prohibited from running ads against any candidate who has an anti-gun record. The same goes for any organization’s newsletter that tries to warn its subscribers about the voting record of any particular candidate. This is a clear violation of the first amendment right to free speech.

It is obvious why the insiders would want to curtail the conservative opposition. But another possible reason behind the push for this bill is that the Powers That Be (PTB) are so confident in their control over the establishment media and both major parties that they see no reason to continue to feed both sides of the political debate with huge amounts of cash. After campaign finance reform, the promotion of favored candidates can shift away from expensive television ads and be centered in the skewed news coverage by establishment newspapers and television news programs--at a fraction of the cost. American conservatives, with no voice in the establishment media, will be the big losers.

Still, if the PTB are determined to shove this thing down our throats, why pull in a heavy-weight lawyer, former Whitewater special prosecutor Ken Starr (who sabotaged the Vince Foster murder investigation), to challenge this new bill in the courts? Attorney General Ashcroft has already proclaimed his verbal commitment to defend this bill strongly in the courts; why pit one insider against another? I suspect the PTB are trotting out Ken Starr, who conservatives still ignorantly think is an honest Christian, to make it appear as if conservatives can still win. It will also take the focus off of Bush signing the bill and shift blame to the courts--just as in the election. I’m not sure yet that the courts are going to let this bill pass muster. The restraint on free speech is clear.

The US has always given mixed signals regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Our government verbally and militarily supports Israel, but won’t ever allow Israel to win the conflict. As I have written before, I’m convinced the entire purpose of the phony "peace process" is to weaken the Israeli military position through dangerous concessions given in exchange for paper promises of peace. The yielding of territory, water rights, settlements and military bases will pave the way for a vastly more vulnerable Israel during a future war in which the globalists hope to impose a permanent UN presence in Palestine.

The Israeli right-wing is having the same problem reading their own government’s mixed signals as conservatives are having in the US. PM Sharon is touted as a pro-Israeli hard-liner, but he joined in a coalition with the far left and has allowed them to call most of the shots. Sharon acts tough initially, but never follows through to a complete resolution. His latest military penetrations went further than most Israeli leaders and almost had the right-wing convinced that Sharon really was going to do the job. But, alas, it was not to be. He stopped well short of rooting out the terrorists and is now allowing them to regroup as they dally in meaningless talks about a cease-fire. The Palestinian position is telling. They want the IDF to remove all roadblocks and encirclements around Palestinian strongholds so they can engage in resupply of munitions during the negotiations.

Much of this current confusion is caused by US intervention in Israel, as demonstrated by these comments by Dov Zigelman. Note the complete subservience of the Israeli government to US demands [my comments in brackets]: "At 4:20 PM [March 21], on the corner of King George and Histadrut Street in Jerusalem, a Palestinian suicide-bomber blew himself up. Three Israelis were killed and about 100 wounded (3 in critical condition)....Amidst protest from many ministers [on the right], PM Sharon decided again NOT to retaliate for that attack too, and to 'give' Arafat enough rope to hang himself (I doubt that he ever will). The initial Israeli position was NOT to negotiate under fire. Then the Americans insisted that the Israelis will speak to the PA [Palestinian Authority]. Then came Gen. Zinni [Bush’s special envoy] and requested an Israeli unilateral cease-fire, and Sharon complied. Then came Vice-President Cheney's visit, and Israel withdrew from 'area A' [PA controlled areas] altogether and continued to 'hold the fire,' while Arafat continued to attack and kill innocent Israelis...Why? because the Americans took it upon themselves to revive the political negotiations [for global reasons as explained above].

The complexity of the US government’s position here extends to Saudi Arabia. The US is praising the nothing-new "land for peace" proposal of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah that is merely a propaganda cover to divert world attention away from Saudi collusion with terrorism. So, while the US continues to shield the public from the Saudi’s hidden anti-US agenda, they praise the Saudi Prince of "peace." Some analysts believe the main purpose of US pressure on Israel to gain a cease-fire at any cost is to make sure that Arafat gets to attend next week’s Arab summit conference and meet with Abdullah. The Prince’s latest peace proposal won’t go anywhere without Arafat signing on. Yet even the US praise is a mixed signal. At the same time Bush is holding back criticizing Saudi Arabia, US intelligence has leaked information to the conservative press that Saudi Arabia financed Al Qaeda’s escape from the US military in Afghanistan. Why go to all the trouble of building favorable propaganda for Saudi Arabia, only to undermine the façade with more damaging leaks? Once again, it is difficult to determine ultimate motives amid all the complexity.

But no matter what each side says or does in the coming weeks, be assured, there will never be peace in the Middle East--only further betrayal and war, interspersed with periods of false peace while enemies regroup. My advice to Israel’s true defenders (not government leaders) is get ready for a much bigger war, and prepare to resist the inevitable international pressure to stop short of complete victory.

In another message of mixed signals, US intelligence agencies are starting to make a habit of exposing Russian collusion with terror--even while President Bush keeps praising Russia as a partner against terrorism. CIA Director George Tenet, in his latest appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized Russia directly for providing terrorist states with technology and training in weapons of mass destruction. He also mentioned, according the Agence France-Presse, that Russia is continuing to transfer chemical and biological weapons to these countries. I surmise that the Bush administration is trying to put Russia on the defensive prior to the upcoming Bush-Putin summit meeting so as to counterbalance the expect Russian negotiating position pushing for permanent dismantling of US nuclear weapons, rather than holding them in reserve. As I’ve stated before, US globalist leaders desire to keep their nuclear weapons intact to aid in the counterattack following Russia’s first strike on the US. They plan to allow Russia to defeat the US military, but they intend for the Western NWO to win the next World War.

I’ve discussed some of the complex positions of government regarding its policies, and the mixed signals apparent in many of its leaders’ dealings. Of course, the duplicity of government should come as no surprise. Savvy conservatives distrust much of what government says. But we also have to be careful about people that appear to be on the side of liberty giving mixed signals as well. I have discussed previously the appearance of new private internet news sources, like Stratfor.com and Debka.com, which are fronting for government intel sources. Other phony conservative organs are working for the other side in a more sinister way, trying to undermine and confuse the opposition (us). Let’s look at the two most obvious examples.

First, consider Lyndon LaRouche, publisher of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR). EIR is a polished and well researched magazine that presents a conservative front, adding credibility to LaRouche’s recruitment operations. However, when considered closely, LaRouche’s writings and speeches prove to be full of misleading conclusions that lead conservatives astray. LaRouche is an expert at filling his speeches with conservative trigger words, pretending to be pro-Constitution and anti-greed. He entices unknowing conservatives by touting conspiracy--but his is a narrow form, an Anglo-Jewish-Wall Street conspiracy theory based solely on "greedy capitalist motives." If you look carefully at his material, you will notice that he diverts attention from the much larger globalist conspiracy (going beyond greed) that drives and harnesses Wall Street on behalf of the global control system. In reality, LaRouche attacks the "money powers" because he is anti-capitalist, not because he is anti-global control. His proposed "solutions" promote his peculiar variation of socialism, complete with multiple layers of government control (his reform of medical care is a classic socialist model).

I have occasionally commented in prior briefs on LaRouche’s bizarre philosophical and leftist background. For instance, LaRouche has been in alliance with black radical Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. His German wife, Helga Zepp, is a perennial Bundestag (German Congress) candidate from the European Workers Party--a name always linked to socialist dogma. She visits regularly with many of the worldwide leaders of the Socialist International, which no true conservative would have access to. LaRouche himself seems to have a private source of money that feeds his propaganda machine--far beyond that which is explainable by his meager profit making endeavors. My personal opinion is that LaRouche is a mole for the Socialist International--the Moscow controlled front that i s attempting to control the EU and the NWO from a Marxist perspective. He is most likely working the US scene on their behalf.

Next, we have the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, also posing as a conservative. Moon captured conservatives early on with his strong condemnations of Soviet "peace" movements and of US policies of appeasement toward Russia. However, in the last few years, the "Moonies" have begun to show some strange colors. According to an in-depth article on Moon by Cliff Kincaid (read the whole article at http://www.usasurvival.org/moon-un.html), "since the end of the Cold War, I have seen an ominous turn in Moon's activities, away from a pro-American orientation to a pro-United Nations view of the world. I have seen this show up in the Washington Times. As you know, Moon has even been embracing the notorious Louis Farrakhan. Moon received a ‘Universal Peace Award’ at the UN, has called for a UN-based religious body, and has declared, ‘As long as America sticks with its nationalistic pride it will never be able to embrace the world.’ Moon even conducted one of his notorious mass weddings at the United Nations itself on January 27, 2001. The event was covered by Larry Witham, religion correspondent of the [Washington] Times and identified member of the Unification Church, in a story the next day. This is when Moon called the UN a ‘temple of peace.’" Moon’s religion is a strange mix of eastern and western concepts. He considers himself a Messiah.

Moon has dozens of front organizations that promote family, marriage, the environment and world peace. His most prominent foray into conservative politics was through his creation of the Washington Times and Insight magazine--both excellent sources of conservative investigative reporting … perhaps too good. Being in the private intelligence business, I’m always suspicious of conservatives that are given access to government classified information. The CIA and the State Department have long had a history of planting secret information with favored leftist reporters. Every famous investigative reporter you have ever heard of has been on the far left (Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, Drew Pearson, Walter Lippman, Robert Matthews, Walter Cronkite, etc.). They were favored to climb the ladder of success because they were known and reliable leftists or globalist insiders. According to one CIA defector, most of these recipients of classified leaks also received payments from the CIA of thousands of dollars per month. Now, someone or some group within government is leaking a few tidbits to the right.

Conservatives have always assumed that the few leaks our side got have been from patriotic intelligence agents who were opposed to the globalist agenda and wanted to get the truth out. But I’m not so sure anymore. The government surveillance system is so good that there isn’t any way that a conservative leaker could keep feeding classified info to someone on our side without being caught--especially with the government’s increasing emphasis on "shutting down leaks." The government knows who all the regular leakers are and is allowing them to continue. Why? After all, most of the leaks to conservatives consist of information we suspect is true and want to hear. But consider this: Is a trap being set for disinformation that may follow?

Let’s take a minute to examine the Washington Times’ "miracle investigative journalist," Bill Gertz. Gertz is reported to be a member of Moon’s Unification Church. He joined the Washington Times right out of high school, has no college education, and quickly rose to star journalist status. How? By suddenly being the recipient of regular leaks from the "good guys" in US intelligence. Why Gertz? Why not one of the veteran conservative journalists who are willing to tackle the evidence trail of conspiracy behind the dual face of US intelligence? Don’t get me wrong. I like what Gertz writes. He is a sincere conservative. He details many of the secret dealings with China that are continuing even under Bush. I’m only bothered by the fact that Gertz was critical when Clinton did it but points no critical fingers at Bush, as if somehow the process is now unattached to the President.
«... more in the newsletter... »

[END]

» Archive of previous articles written by Joel M. Skousen

The full weekly edition of the World Affairs Brief is available for $24 per year.
Mr. Skousen's analysis is posted each Friday evening.
See www.joelskousen.com for details.

Copyright 2002 by Joel Skousen