Revolutionizing Awareness

helping humanity, make choices, more so through awareness, than ignorance

Posts Tagged ‘Soviet Union’

Ascension For All

Posted by Admin on June 24, 2012

by Owen K Waters

Humanity is about to ascend into a more subtle physical form. This will be a gradual change, not a sudden transformation. The start of the new Mayan time cycles on December 21, 2012 will be a pivotal time when consciousness will shift to a new reality. However, this 2012 event is more likely to be viewed as a pivotal time after the fact, and not immediately.

When the astrologically-significant Harmonic Convergence occurred in August 1987, many people expected the world to transform and world peace to dawn on that very day. Human inertia, however, preempts such a sudden change. It takes time for new thought to filter into the reality of world consciousness, and even more time for events to unfold as a result of this change.

Two years after the Harmonic Convergence, what did happen was an unprecedented step forward in human liberty: The Berlin Wall, that separated the Soviet Union from the West, fell. Two years after that, the Soviet Union itself collapsed, ending the global standoff that had threatened the very survival of the human race for over forty years.

The evolution of the consciousness of humankind has been accelerating. Starting with the birth of the Renaissance 600 years ago, then accelerating with the growth of science 300 years ago, and coming into focus with the spiritual searching that blossomed in the 1960’s, the mass mind of humanity has been moving ever more quickly towards The Shift.

Although The Shift is a gradual process that is occurring over many decades, its main milestone marker will be when the mass consensus of human consciousness reaches the tipping point between material, third-density consciousness and heart-centered, fourth-density consciousness. When that happens, physical humankind will become firmly located in a fourth-density environment.

Pioneering individuals have been moving their awareness in and out of fourth-density consciousness for decades. The key marker in The Shift is when the mass mind of humanity reaches that dividing line and takes the quantum step forward into its own heart.

In that new reality, along with the shift into fourth-density consciousness, people will notice that the development of their inner senses has become relatively effortless. Intuition-supported thought will become commonplace. Telepathy between loved ones will become easy to develop. Contact with friends and relatives who have passed on will become ever more commonplace.

Fourth-density physical bodies are less dense than third-density ones. People will begin to perceive the light that radiates from their bodies and other fourth-density matter. Colors will take on deeper hues and sounds will expand in depth, creating a whole new range of possibilities in the arts. People will consume lighter foods and more liquids than before. Everyone will have one job description – to serve humanity in the best way of which they are capable.

The Shift is a cosmic event. It is much larger than this planet or this solar system. It is an upgrade in energy and consciousness that affects all of us. The Earth itself will ‘rise in the heavens’, meaning that, when the time comes for that decisive step forward into the New Earth, the soil beneath your feet will rise in vibration into fourth density just as your physical body will. Humanity will rise in frequency along with the body of the planet.

When the time comes, every physical thing around you will move forward and relocate into a fourth-density frequency of manifestation in, as predicted in the Bible, the twinking of an eye.

Those already existing in fourth density – the spirits of those who have passed on from the physical realm – will also move into a higher sub-layer of existence. This is what is meant by the prophecy in the Bible, that “the dead shall be risen.” Because people inhabiting spirit bodies are already in fourth density, it will be easier to communicate with them once we move into fourth density, even though we will be in a different sub-layer.

Once the mass shift to heart-centered consciousness has occurred, humankind will look back at this present era as something that was very different. Just as you mature and gain wisdom, you view the past differently from the way you experienced it at the time. So, too, will we view the Old Reality differently as we gain wisdom in the New Reality.

The timing of the main event of The Shift – the translation of the mass mind of humanity into heart-centered, fourth-density consciousness is not known. It depends entirely on how much the pioneers of human consciousness – people like yourself – develop their own heart-centered awareness in order to open that pathway in consciousness for more people to follow.

Just as there are those who want The Shift to happen soon, there are those who wish to delay it as much as possible, even though delaying a cosmic event is not within their power. Today, fear is being constantly fed to the public about the possibility of terrorist events. Fear delays conscious evolution and self-empowerment.

As long as there is a risk of terrorist events, it is common sense to follow any intuitive warnings that keep coming to your attention about places to avoid. Your soul won’t let you be in the wrong place at the wrong time provided you listen to those intuitive warnings that we all run into at some point in our lives.

One of our greatest gifts we can offer humankind is to stay the course in our spiritual awakening. Stay the course by focusing on heart-centered consciousness regardless of events that conspire to fill people with fear. Then, The Shift will happen sooner rather than later.

*If you enjoyed today’s article, forward it to a friend! They will appreciate your thoughtfulness.

Owen K Waters is the author of The Shift: The Revolution in Human Consciousness,which is available as a downloadable e-book, at:

http://www.infinitebeing.com/ebooks/theshift.htm

Advertisements

Posted in Owen Waters | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ascension For All

How Have We Become the United States of Fear?

Posted by Admin on December 20, 2011

http://www.truth-out.org/how-have-we-become-united-states-fear/1323880893

Thursday 15 December 2011
by: Mark Karlin, Truthout | Interview

(Image: Haymarket Books)

Tom Engelhardt‘s “The United Sates of Fear” is yours with a minimum one-time donation of $25, or a monthly commitment of $10 or more to Truthout. If you’re a fan of TomDispatch, this book weaves together Engelhardt’s trenchant and incisive thoughts about America’s declining empire – and how it impacts all aspects of our society.

Mark Karlin: Your last chapter in so many ways embodies what you have covered in TomDispatch, and what is at the core of our crisis of democracy today: imperial decline. When did our American empire begin to implode?

Tom Engelhardt: Well, I have no doubt that, economically speaking, we’ve been losing traction for quite a while on that downhill slope, but a crucial “moment” was certainly Washington’s decision to follow what I call “the Soviet path.” After all, in those last years of the Cold War, the Soviet Union, the far weaker of the two superpowers, threw money into its military while its deficits rose and its infrastructure crumbled – and of course it got mired in a terrible war, a “bleeding wound,” in Afghanistan. It all sounds eerily familiar, no? Washington’s decision, in its moment of Cold War triumph, to follow essentially the same path and the Bush administration’s wild belief that it could drive U.S. military power unilaterally into the heart of the Greater Middle East and establish a Pax Americana there (the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were only supposed to be the beginning of the process) had a similar effect. Now, of course, we have soaring deficits, rotting infrastructure and unending war in Afghanistan (and elsewhere). It could give you the chills.

MK: How is the instigation of a state of national fear tied into the effort to maintain empire?

TE: I think that the real thing it’s tied into is an effort over this last decade to turn what I call the “national security complex” into America’s growth industry. Fear – of terrorism and nothing else – has been the “drug” that has powered the national security state to heights and a size it never reached when it had a genuine superpower enemy with a nuclear arsenal. Today, the intelligence bureaucracy dwarfs what existed in the Cold War era; the Pentagon budget is so much larger and so on. Give credit where it’s due: it’s been quite a feat based on remarkably little when you think about it.

Truthout doesn’t take corporate funding – this lets us do the brave reporting and analysis that makes us unique. Please support this work by making a tax-deductible donation today – click here to donate.

MK: If 9/11 hadn’t been carried out by al-Qaeda, would it had to have been invented to justify the measures that have been carried out to attempt to maintain America’s military footprint around the world, at such great expense to our society?

TE: It’s a good question that is, of course, impossible to answer. What-if history is fascinating, but always remains what-if. It’s easy to forget, for instance, that in the period before 9/11 the Bush administration had essentially rejected Clinton administration and other warnings about terror and al-Qaeda because they considered China the future enemy to grow the Pentagon and the rest of the national security state upon. Without 9/11, many things might have been different. For one thing, to offer an example, on September 10, 2001 the Bush administration polling was lousy. It was already a remarkably unpopular administration in the political doldrums. Had it wanted to do something like set up a Department of Homeland Security, it probably would have gotten all snarled up in Congress and not succeeded. The Patriot Act, never. Etc. etc….

MK: Isn’t the concept of an ongoing “terrorist threat” fulfilling the need of an ongoing enemy that we lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union?

TE: Yes, it’s played that role. Or put another way, at most a few thousand scattered terrorists and a couple of ragtag minority insurgencies (in Afghanistan and Iraq) with poor arms and limited funds have, miraculously enough, fulfilled the role of an actual superpower! That speaks to the deceptive power of the 9/11 attacks which managed to look apocalyptic – hence the nuclear term “Ground Zero” that was almost immediately applied to the spot in New York City where the towers came down – without being so. Americans dealt with the 9/11 moment as if a major power had hit us with a nuclear weapon and so declared “war” on what? Those who wanted to deal with the event, which was terrible but not exactly civilization-threatening, as a criminal act were laughed out of the room and all the rest followed.

MK: Clearly, you believe that President Obama has not only failed to restore many of our civil liberties taken away under the Bush/Cheney administration, but, in fact, has gone further than the neocons? What happened to his constitutional scholar principles?

TE: Increasingly, I don’t speculate much on the motives of the players in our national drama, in part because I think we humans are all like the unreliable narrators of modern fiction, not to be trusted when we claim to know why we do things. We’re mysteries – perhaps to ourselves above all. It is clear, however, that the Obama administration, like those before it, hasn’t exactly been eager to give up the prerogatives of an imperial presidency, much expanded under the Bush administration and in some cases has been at work expanding them further. This has been the direction the presidency has taken in our lifetime – ever expanding power – whatever the constitutional bona fides of the occupants of the Oval Office.

MK: Obama promised government transparency during his 2008 campaign, but you would argue the maintenance of a shadow government that operates in secrecy is necessary to operate the military-industrial complex. Why is this so and why is Obama going along with it?

TE: I would argue that our ever expanding national security state has, like a mother ship leaving Earth, simply lifted itself out of our world and, surrounded in secrecy (which helps the process along), has entered a space above us all where its denizens need be accountable for nothing and, unlike the rest of us, are assured of never being subjected to the legal system for whatever acts they take – with a single exception: whistleblowing. If you or I break into a house and commit acts of violence, we’ll undoubtedly be arrested and brought before a court of law. But if the national security state breaks into another country and does the same, if it kidnaps, tortures, assassinates, those who do it will not be prosecuted. It’s essentially a guaranteed. Obama’s “sunshine” policies were simply swallowed whole and disappeared almost without a trace into the new national security state.

MK: All of the rollbacks of our constitutional rights taken by the executive branch and government and Congress are being done in the name of fighting terrorism. How serious a threat is terrorism and what are the alternatives for dealing with it?

TE: Since 9/11, even if you include the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the guy who ran his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, terrorism has ranked above shark attacks but below just about anything else that has the ability to harm Americans here in the US. As a comparison, my crude calculations show maybe 25 domestic terror victims, including in the incidents above, whereas some 30-odd thousand Americans a year die on our roads in traffic accidents. Yet terror is the only thing where the government promises us something close to 100% safety. Generally, terror attacks can be tragic, but they are relatively minor dangers for Americans, even if they have been used to engorge our national-security-homeland-security state.

MK: Getting back to the issue of America and empire. Isn’t it ironic that the US was founded as a nation in a war against the reigning empire of its time: British military rule that spanned the world?

TE: I don’t know how strange it is. Militant republics seem quite capable of becoming empires from Rome to France, no? It is true, however, that the anti-imperial tradition that began with the American revolution here has historically acted as at least some kind of brake on imperial thinking, however modestly. Americans at least didn’t like to think of themselves as imperial. It was part of the national self-image – until, at least, the George W. Bush years and when such thinking took hold among right-wing pundits, it was – or should have been – a sign that something was coming unglued.

MK: You discuss drones and advanced military technology in your book and TomDispatch. No technology is exclusive for long. Isn’t the American reliance on current superior technological warfare bound to boomerang against us in the end?

TE: “Perfect weapons,” the atomic bomb included, never fulfill the promises made for them, but by the time that’s obvious, they’ve embedded themselves in our world. Something in the range of 40-50 nations now either have drones, are at work designing them, or are planning to buy them. The (un)friendly skies are going to be filled with them and when the first Iranian or Russian or Chinese drones start to take out their version of bad guys, we’re not going to be so happy. When the first “suicide drones” hit we’re going to be even less happy. What we’ve done in these years is to create a rationale for overriding national sovereignty and assassinating whomever we care to wherever we care to. Think of it as the globalization of death and, in the end, it will indeed by an ugly precedent for the planet.

MK: Although we are currently in a state of perpetual war, most Americans don’t think of us being at war. Why is this so and compare it to the national consciousness of World War II, for example, when everyone was suffused with contributing to the war effort?

TE: After the U.S. Army nearly collapsed in Vietnam – a draft or citizens army, that is – the high command and other interested parties in essence said “never again.” They created the All-Volunteer Army in part to detach the military (and so the wars it fought) from and insulate it from, our society, from citizen pressure. In that they succeeded. Americans, as I (and others) at TomDispatch have regularly pointed out, are now remarkably detached and insulated from the wars fought in our name and, increasingly, even those wars are fought with an eerie detachment, at least the drone part of them. In essence 1% of Americans who run things send 1% of Americans (those in the armed services) out to fight their wars and the other 98% are left out of things. It’s not exactly the definition of a democratic republic, is it?

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Posted in Truthout Articles | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Have We Become the United States of Fear?

70 Years Ago, December 1941: Turning Point of World War II The victory of the Red Army in front of Moscow was a major break…

Posted by Admin on December 20, 2011

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28059

by Jacques R. Pauwels

Global Research, December 6, 2011

World War II started, at least as far as the “European Theatre” was concerned, with the German army steamrolling over Poland in September, 1939. About six months later, even more spectacular victories followed, this time over the Benelux Countries and France. By the summer of 1940, Germany looked invincible and predestined to rule the European continent indefinitely. (Great Britain admittedly refused to throw in the towel, but could not hope to win the war on its own, and had to fear that Hitler would soon turn his attention to Gibraltar, Egypt, and/or other jewels in the crown of the British Empire.) Five years later, Germany experienced the pain and humiliation of total defeat. On April 20, 1945, Hitler committed suicide in Berlin as the Red Army bulldozed its way into the city, reduced to a heap of smoking ruins, and on May 8/9 German surrendered unconditionally. Clearly, then, sometime between late 1940 and 1944 the tide had turned rather dramatically. But when, and where? In Normandy in 1944, according to some; at Stalingrad, during the winter of 1942-43, according to others. In reality, the tide turned in December 1941 in the Soviet Union, more specifically, in the barren plain just west of Moscow. As a German historian, an expert on the war against the Soviet Union, has put it: “That victory of the Red Army [in front of Moscow] was unquestionably the major break [Zäsur] of the entire world war.”[1]

That the Soviet Union was the scene of the battle that changed the course of World War II, should come as no surprise. War against the Soviet Union was the war Hitler had wanted from the beginning, as he had made very clear on the pages of Mein Kampf, written in the mid-1920s. (But an Ostkrieg, a war in the east, i.e. against the Soviets, was also the object of desire of the German generals, of Germany’s leading industrialists, and of other “pillars” of Germany’s establishment.) In fact, as a German historian has just recently demonstrated,[2] it was a war against the Soviet Union, and not against Poland, France, or Britain, that Hitler had wanted to unleash in 1939. On August 11 of that year, Hitler explained to Carl J. Burckhardt, an official of the League of Nations, that “everything he undertook was directed against Russia,” and that “if the West [i.e. the French and the British] is too stupid and too blind to comprehend this, he would be forced to reach an understanding with the Russians, turn and defeat the West, and then turn back with all his strength to strike a blow against the Soviet Union.”[3] This is in fact what happened. The West did turn out to be “too stupid and blind”, as Hitler saw it, to give him “a free hand” in the east, so he did make a deal with Moscow – the infamous “Hitler-Stalin Pact” – and then unleashed war against Poland, France and Britain. But his objective remained the same: to attack and destroy the Soviet Union as soon as possible.

Hitler and the German generals were convinced they had learned an important lesson from World War I. Devoid of the raw materials needed to win a modern war, such as oil and rubber, Germany could not win a long, drawn-out war. In order to win the next war, Germany would have to win it fast, very fast. This is how the Blitzkrieg-concept was born, that is, the idea of warfare (Krieg) fast as “lightning” (Blitz). Blitzkrieg meant motorized war, so in preparation for such a war Germany during the thirties cranked out massive numbers of tanks and planes as well as trucks to transport troops. In addition, gargantuan amounts of oil and rubber were imported and stockpiled. Much of this oil was purchased from US corporations, some of which also kindly made available the “recipe” for producing synthetic fuel from coal.[4] In 1939 and 1940, this equipment permitted the German Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to overwhelm the Polish, Dutch, Belgian, and French defenses with thousands of planes and tanks in a matter of weeks; Blitzkriege, “lightning-fast wars,” were invariably followed by Blitzsiege, “lightning-fast victories.”

These victories were spectacular enough, but they did not provide Germany with much loot in the form of vitally important oil and rubber. Instead, “lightning warfare” actually depleted the stockpiles built up before the war. Fortunately for Hitler, in 1940 and 1941 Germany was able to continue importing oil from the still neutral United States – not directly, but via other neutral (and friendly) countries such as Franco’s Spain. Moreover, under the terms of the Hitler-Stalin Pact the Soviet Union herself also supplied Germany rather generously with oil! However, it was most troubling for Hitler that, in return, Germany had to supply the Soviet Union with high-quality industrial products and state-of-the-art military technology, which was used by the Soviets to modernize their army and improve their weaponry.[5]

It is understandable that Hitler already resurrected his earlier plan for war against the Soviet Union soon after the defeat of France, namely, in the summer of 1940. A formal order to prepare plans for such an attack, to be code-named Operation Barbarossa (Unternehmen Barbarossa) was given a few months later, on December 18, 1940.[6] Already in 1939 Hitler had been most eager to attack the Soviet Union, and he had turned against the West only, as a German historian has put it, “in order to enjoy security in the rear (Rückenfreiheit) when he would finally be ready to settle accounts with the Soviet Union.” The same historian concludes that by 1940 nothing had changed as far as Hitler was concerned: “The true enemy was the one in the east.”[7] Hitler simply did not want to wait much longer before realizing the great ambition of his life, that is, before destroying the country he had defined as his archenemy in Mein Kampf. Moreover, he knew that the Soviets were frantically preparing their defenses for a German attack which, as they knew only too well, would come sooner or later. Since the Soviet Union was getting stronger by the day, time was obviously not on Hitler’s side. How much longer could he wait before the “window of opportunity” would close?

Furthermore, waging a Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union promised to provide Germany with the virtually limitless resources of that huge country, including Ukrainian wheat to provide Germany’s population with plenty of food, also at wartime; minerals such as coal, from which synthetic rubber and oil could be produced; and – last but certainly not least! – the rich oil fields of Baku and Grozny, where the gas-guzzling Panzers and Stukas would be able to fill their tanks to the brim at any time. Steeled with these assets, it would then be a simple matter for Hitler to settle accounts with Britain, starting, for example, with the capture of Gibraltar. Germany would finally be a genuine world power, invulnerable within a European “fortress” stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, possessed of limitless resources, and therefore capable to win even long, drawn-out wars against any antagonist – including the US! – in one of the future “wars of the continents” conjured up in Hitler’s feverish imagination.

Hitler and his generals were confident that the Blitzkrieg they prepared to unleash against the Soviet Union would be as successful as their earlier “lightning wars” against Poland and France had been. They considered the Soviet Union as a “giant with feet of clay”, whose army, presumably decapitated by Stalin’s purges of the late 1930s, was “not more than a joke,” as Hitler himself put it on one occasion.[8] In order to fight, and of course win, the decisive battles, they allowed for a campaign of four to six weeks, possibly to be followed by some mopping-up operations, during which the remnants of the Soviet host would “be chased across the country like a bunch of beaten Cossacks.”[9] In any event, Hitler felt supremely confident, and on the eve of the attack, he “fancied himself to be on the verge of the greatest triumph of his life.”[10]

(In Washington and London, the military experts likewise believed that the Soviet Union would not be able to put up significant resistance to the Nazi juggernaut, whose military exploits of 1939-40 had earned it a reputation of invincibility. The British secret services were convinced that the Soviet Union would be “liquidated within eight to ten weeks,” and Field Marshal Sir John Dill, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, averred that the Wehrmacht would slice through the Red Army “like a warm knife through butter,” that the Red Army would be rounded up “like cattle.” According to expert opinion in Washington, Hitler would “crush Russia [sic] like an egg.”)[11]

The German attack started on June 22, 1941, in the early hours of the morning. Three million German soldiers and almost 700,000 allies of Nazi Germany crossed the border, and their equipment consisted of 600,000 motor vehicles, 3,648 tanks, more than 2.700 planes, and just over 7,000 pieces of artillery.[12] At first, everything went according to the plan. Huge holes were punched in the Soviet defences, impressive territorial gains were made rapidly, and hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers were killed, wounded, or taken prisoner in a number of spectacular “encirclement battles” (Kesselschlachten). After one such battle, fought in the vicinity of Smolensk towards the end of July, the road to Moscow seemed to lay open.

However, all too soon it became evident that the Blitzkrieg in the east would not be the cakewalk that had been expected. Facing the most powerful military machine on earth, the Red Army predictably took a major beating but, as Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels confided to his diary as early as July 2, also put up a tough resistance and hit back pretty hard on more than one occasion. General Franz Halder, in many ways the “godfather” of Operation Barbarossa’s plan of attack, acknowledged that Soviet resistance was much tougher than anything the Germans had faced in Western Europe. Wehrmacht reports cited “hard,” “tough,” even “wild” resistance, causing heavy losses in men and equipment on the German side.[13] More often than expected, Soviet forces managed to launch counter-attacks that slowed down the German advance. Some Soviet units went into hiding in the vast Pripet Marshes and elsewhere, organized deadly partisan warfare, and threatened the long and vulnerable German lines of communication.[14] It also turned out that the Red Army was much better equipped than expected. German generals were “amazed,” writes a German historian, by the quality of Soviet weapons such as the Katyusha rocket launcher (a.k.a. “Stalin Organ”) and the T-34 tank. Hitler was furious that his secret services had not been aware of the existence of some of this weaponry.[15]

The greatest cause of concern, as far as the Germans were concerned, was the fact that the bulk of the Red Army managed to withdraw in relatively good order and eluded destruction in a major Kesselschlacht, the kind of repeat of Cannae or Sedan that Hitler and his generals had dreamed of. The Soviets appeared to have carefully observed and analyzed the German Blitzkrieg successes of 1939 and 1940 and to have learned useful lessons. They must have noticed that in May 1940 the French had massed their forces right at the border as well as in Belgium, thus making it possible for the German war machine to encircle them in a major Kesselschlacht. (British troops were also caught in this encirclement, but managed to escape via Dunkirk.) The Soviets did leave some troops at the border, of course, and these troops predictably suffered the Soviet Union’s major losses during the opening stages of Barbarossa. But – contrary to what is claimed by historians such as Richard Overy[16] – the bulk of the Red Army was held back in the rear, avoiding entrapment. It was this “defence in depth” that frustrated the German ambition to destroy the Red Army in its entirety. As Marshal Zhukov was to write in his memoirs, “the Soviet Union would have been smashed if we had organized all our forces at the border.”[17]

By the middle of July, as Hitler’s war in the east started to lose its Blitz-qualities, some German leaders started to voice great concern. Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of the Wehrmacht’s secret service, the Abwehr, for example, confided on July 17 to a colleague on the front, General von Bock, that he saw “nothing but black.” On the home front, many German civilians also started to feel that the war in the east was not going well. In Dresden, Victor Klemperer wrote in his diary on July 13: “We suffer immense losses, we have underestimated the Russians…”[18] Around the same time Hitler himself abandoned his belief in a quick and easy victory and scaled down his expectations; he now expressed the hope that his troops might reach the Volga by October and capture the oil fields of the Caucasus a month or so later.[19] By the end of August, at a time when Barbarossa should have been winding down, a memorandum of the Wehrmacht’s High Command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, OKW) acknowledged that it might no longer be possible to win the war in 1941.[20]

A major problem was the fact that, when Barbarossa started on June 22, the available supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts etc., were only good enough for about two months. This had been deemed sufficient, because it was expected that within two months the Soviet Union would be on its knees and its unlimited resources – industrial products as well as raw materials – would therefore be available to the Germans.[21] However, by late August the German spearheads were nowhere near those distant regions of the Soviet Union where oil, that most precious of all martial commodities, was to be had. If the tanks managed to keep on rolling, though increasingly slowly, into the seemingly endless Russian and Ukrainian expanses, it was to a large extent by means of fuel and rubber imported, via Spain and occupied France, from the US. The American share of Germany’s imports of vitally important oil for engine lubrication (Motorenöl), for example, increased rapidly during the summer of 1941, namely, from 44 per cent in July to no less than 94 per cent in September.[22]

The flames of optimism flared up again in September, when German troops captured Kiev, bagging 650,000 prisoners, and, further north, made progress in the direction of Moscow. Hitler believed, or at least pretended to believe, that the end was now near for the Soviets. In a public speech in the Berlin Sportpalast on October 3, he declared that the eastern war was virtually over. And the Wehrmacht was ordered to deliver the coup de grace by launching Operation Typhoon (Unternehmen Taifun), an offensive aimed at taking Moscow. However, the odds for success looked increasingly slim, as the Soviets were busily bringing in reserve units from the Far East. (They had been informed by their master spy in Tokyo, Richard Sorge, that the Japanese, whose army was stationed in northern China, were no longer considering to attack the Soviets’ vulnerable borders in the Vladivostok area.) To make things worse, the Germans no longer enjoyed superiority in the air, particularly over Moscow. Also, insufficient supplies of ammunition and food could be brought up from the rear to the front, since the long supply lines were severely hampered by partisan activity.[23] Finally, it was getting chilly in the Soviet Union, though no colder than usual at that time of the year. But the German high command, confident that their eastern Blitzkrieg would be over by the end of the summer, had failed to supply the troops with the equipment necessary to fight in the rain, mud, snow, and freezing temperatures of a Russian fall and winter.

Taking Moscow loomed as an extremely important objective in the minds of Hitler and his generals. It was believed, though wrongly, that the fall of Moscow would “decapitate” the Soviet Union and thus bring about its collapse. It also seemed important to avoid a repeat of the scenario of the summer of 1914, when the seemingly unstoppable German advance had been halted in extremis on the eastern outskirts of Paris, during the Battle of the Marne. This disaster -from the German perspective – had robbed Germany of nearly certain victory in the opening stages of the “Great War” and had forced it into a long, drawn-out struggle that, lacking sufficient resources and blockaded by the British Navy, it was doomed to lose. This time, in a new Great War, fought against a new archenemy, the Soviet Union, there was to be no “Miracle of the Marne,” that is, no defeat just outside the capital, and Germany would therefore not again have to fight, resourceless and blockaded, a long, drawn out conflict it would be doomed to lose. Unlike Paris, Moscow would fall, history would not repeat itself, and Germany would end up being victorious.[24] Or so they hoped in Hitler’s headquarters.

The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid-November some units found themselves at only 30 kilometers from the capital. But the troops were now totally exhausted, and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow, tantalizingly close as the city may have been, and that even doing so would not bring them victory. On December 3, a number of units abandoned the offensive on their own initiative. Within days, however, the entire German army in front of Moscow was simply forced on the defensive. Indeed, on December 5, at 3 in the morning, in cold and snowy conditions, the Red Army suddenly launched a major, well-prepared counter-attack. The Wehrmacht’s lines were pierced in many places, and the Germans were thrown back between 100 and 280 km with heavy losses of men and equipment. It was only with great difficulty that a catastrophic encirclement (Einkesselung) could be avoided. On December 8, Hitler ordered his army to abandon the offensive and to move into defensive positions. He blamed this setback on the supposedly unexpectedly early arrival of winter, refused to pull back further to the rear, as some of his generals suggested, and proposed to attack again in the spring.[25]

Thus ended Hitler’s Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union, the war that, had it been victorious, would have realized the great ambition of his life, the destruction of the Soviet Union. More importantly, at least from our present perspective, such a victory would also have provided Nazi Germany with sufficient oil and other resources to make it a virtually invulnerable world power. As such, Nazi Germany would very likely have been capable of finishing off stubborn Great Britain, even if the US would have rushed to help its Anglo-Saxon cousin, which, incidentally, was not yet in the cards in early December of 1941. A Blitzsieg, that is, a rapid victory against the Soviet Union, then, was supposed to have made a German defeat impossible, and would in all likelihood have done so. (It is probably fair to say that if Nazi Germany would have defeated the Soviet Union in 1941, Germany would today still be the hegemon of Europe, and possibly of the Middle East and North Africa as well.) However, defeat in the Battle of Moscow in December 1941 meant that Hitler’s Blitzkrieg did not produce the hoped-for Blitzsieg. In the new “Battle of the Marne” just to the west of Moscow, Nazi Germany suffered the defeat that made victory impossible, not only victory against the Soviet Union itself, but also victory against Great Britain, victory in the war in general.

Bearing in mind the lessons of World War I, Hitler and his generals had known from the start that, in order to win the new “Great War” they had unleashed, Germany had to win fast, lightning-fast. But on December 5, 1941, it became evident to everyone present in Hitler’s headquarters that a Blitzsieg against the Soviet Union would not be forthcoming, so that Germany was doomed to lose the war, if not sooner, then later. According to General Alfred Jodl, Chief of the Operations Staff of the OKW, Hitler then realized that he could no longer win the war.[26] And so it can be argued that the tide of World War II turned on December 5, 1941. However, as real tides do not turn suddenly, but gradually and imperceptibly, the tide of the war also turned not on one single day, but over a period of days, weeks, even months, namely in the period of approximately three months that elapsed between the late summer of 1941 and early December of that same year.

The tide of the war in the east turned gradually, but it did not do so imperceptibly. Already in August 1941, as the German successes failed to bring about a Soviet capitulation and the Wehrmacht’s advance slowed down considerably, astute observers started to doubt that a German victory, not only in the Soviet Union but in the war in general, still belonged to the realm of possibilities. The well-informed Vatican, for example, initially very enthusiastic about Hitler’s “crusade” against the Soviet homeland of “godless” Bolshevism and confident that the Soviets would collapse immediately, started to express grave concerns about the situation in the east in late summer 1941; by mid-October, it was to come to the conclusion that Germany would lose the war.[27] Likewise in mid-October, the Swiss secret services reported that “the Germans can no longer win the war”; that conclusion was based on information gathered in Sweden from statements by visiting German officers.[28] By late November, a defeatism of sorts had started to infect the higher ranks of the Wehrmacht and of the Nazi Party. Even as they were urging their troops forward towards Moscow, some generals opined that it would be preferable to make peace overtures and wind down the war without achieving the great victory that had seemed so certain at the start of Operation Barbarossa. And shortly before the end of November, Armament Minister Fritz Todt asked Hitler to find a diplomatic way out of the war, since purely militarily as well as industrially it was as good as lost.[29]

When the Red Army launched its devastating counteroffensive on December 5, Hitler himself realized that he would lose the war. But of course he was not prepared to let the German public know that. The nasty tidings from the front near Moscow were presented to the public as a temporary setback, blamed on the supposedly unexpectedly early arrival of winter and/or on the incompetence or cowardice of certain commanders. (It was only a good year later, after the catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad during the winter of 1942-1943, that the German public, and the entire world, would realize that Germany was doomed; this is why even today many historians believe that the tide turned in Stalingrad .) Even so, it proved impossible to keep the catastrophic implications of the debacle in front of Moscow a total secret. For example, on December 19, 1941, the German Consul in Basel reported to his superiors in Berlin that the (openly pro-Nazi) head of a mission of the Swiss Red Cross, sent to the front in the Soviet Union to assist only the wounded on the German side, which of course contravened Red Cross rules, had returned to Switzerland with the news, most surprising to the Consul, that “he no longer believed that Germany could win the war.”[30]

December 7. 1941. In his headquarters deep in the forests of East Prussia, Hitler had not yet fully digested the ominous news of the Soviet counter-offensive in front of Moscow, when he learned that, on the other side of the world, the Japanese had attacked the Americans at Pearl Harbour. This caused the US to declare war on Japan, but not on Germany, which had nothing to do with the attack and had not even been aware of the Japanese plans. Hitler had no obligation whatsoever to rush to the aid of his Japanese friends, as is claimed by many American historians, but on December 11, 1941 – four days after Pearl Harbor – he declared war on the US. This seemingly irrational decision must be understood in light of the German predicament in the Soviet Union. Hitler almost certainly speculated that this entirely gratuitous gesture of solidarity would induce his Eastern ally to reciprocate with a declaration of war on the enemy of Germany, the Soviet Union, and this would have forced the Soviets into the extremely perilous predicament of a two-front war. Hitler appears to have believed that he could exorcize the spectre of defeat in the Soviet Union, and in the war in general, by summoning a sort of Japanese deus ex machina to the Soviet Union’s vulnerable Siberian frontier. According to the German historian Hans W. Gatzke, the Führer was convinced that “if Germany failed to join Japan [in the war against the United States], it would…end all hope for Japanese help against the Soviet Union.” But Japan did not take Hitler’s bait. Tokyo, too, despised the Soviet state, but the land of the rising sun, now at war against the US, could afford the luxury of a two-front war as little as the Soviets, and preferred to put all of its money on a “southern” strategy, hoping to win the big prize of Southeast Asia – including oil-rich Indonesia! -, rather than embark on a venture in the inhospitable reaches of Siberia. Only at the very end of the war, after the surrender of Nazi Germany, would it come to hostilities between the Soviet Union and Japan. [31]

And so, because of Hitler’s own fault, the camp of Germany’s enemies now included not only Great Britain and the Soviet Union, but also the mighty USA, whose troops could be expected to appear on Germany’s shores, or at least on the shores of German-occupied Europe, in the foreseeable future. The Americans would indeed land troops in France, but only in 1944, and this unquestionably important event is still often presented as the turning point of World War II. However, one should ask if the Americans would ever have landed in Normandy or, for that matter, ever have declared war on Nazi Germany, if Hitler had not declared war on them on December 11, 1941; and one should ask if Hitler would ever have made the desperate, even suicidal, decision to declare war on the US if he had not found himself in a hopeless situation in the Soviet Union. The involvement of the US in the war against Germany, then, which for many reasons was not “in the cards” before December 1941, was also a consequence of the German setback in front of Moscow. Obviously, this constitutes yet another fact that may be cited in support of the claim that “the tide turned” in the Soviet Union in the fall and early winter of 1941.

Nazi Germany was doomed, but the war was still to be long one. Hitler ignored the advice of his generals, who strongly recommend trying to find a diplomatic way out of the war, and decided to battle on in the slim hope of somehow pulling victory out of a hat. The Russian counter-offensive would run out of steam, the Wehrmacht would survive the winter of 1941-1942, and in the spring of 1942 Hitler would scrape together all available forces for an offensive – code-named “Operation Blue” (Unternehmen Blau) – in the direction of the oil fields of the Caucasus – via Stalingrad. Hitler himself acknowledged that, “if he did not get the oil of Maikop and Grozny, then he would have to end this war.”[32] However, the element of surprise had been lost, and the Soviets proved to dispose of huge masses of men, oil, and other resources, as well as excellent equipment, much of it produced in factories that had been established behind the Urals between 1939 and 1941. The Wehrmacht, on the other hand, could not compensate for the huge losses it had suffered in 1941. Between June 22, 1941, and January 31, 1942, the Germans had lost 6,000 airplanes and more than 3,200 tanks and similar vehicles; and no less than 918,000 men had been killed, wounded, or gone missing in action, amounting to 28,7 percent of the average strength of the army, namely, 3,2 million men.[33] (In the Soviet Union, Germany would lose no less than 10 million of its total 13.5 million men killed, wounded, or taken prisoner during the entire war; and the Red Army would end up claiming credit for 90 per cent of all Germans killed in the Second World War.)[34] The forces available for a push towards the oil fields of the Caucasus were therefore extremely limited. Under those circumstances, it is quite remarkable that in 1942 the Germans managed to make it as far as they did. But when their offensive inevitably petered out, namely in September of that year, their weakly held lines were stretched along many hundreds of kilometers, presenting a perfect target for a Soviet attack. When that attack came, it caused an entire German army to be bottled up, and ultimately to be destroyed, in Stalingrad. It was after this great victory of the Red Army that the ineluctability of German defeat in World War II would be obvious for all to see. However, the seemingly minor and relatively unheralded German defeat in front of Moscow in late 1941 had been the precondition for the admittedly more spectacular and more “visible” German defeat at Stalingrad.

There are even more reasons to proclaim December 1941 as the turning point of the war. The Soviet counter-offensive destroyed the reputation of invincibility in which the Wehrmacht had basked ever since its success against Poland in 1939, thus boosting the morale of Germany’s enemies everywhere. The Battle of Moscow also ensured that the bulk of Germany’s armed forces would be tied to an eastern front of approximately 4,000 km for an indefinite period of time, which all but eliminated the possibility of German operations against Gibraltar, for example, and thus provided tremendous relief to the British. Conversely, the failure of the Blitzkrieg demoralized the Fins and other German allies. And so forth…

It was in front of Moscow, in December 1941, that the tide turned, because it was there that the Blitzkrieg failed and that Nazi Germany was consequently forced to fight, without sufficient resources, the kind of long, drawn-out war that Hitler and his generals knew they could not possibly win.

Jacques R. Pauwels, author of The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, James Lorimer, Toronto, 2002.

Notes

[1] Gerd R. Ueberschär, „Das Scheitern des ‚Unternehmens Barbarossa‘“, in Gerd R. Ueberschär and Wolfram Wette (eds.), Der deutsche Überfall auf die Sowjetunion: “Unternehmen Barbarossa” 1941, Frankfurt am Main, 2011, p. 120.

[2] Rolf-Dieter Müller, Der Feind steht im Osten: Hitlers geheime Pläne für einen Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion im Jahr 1939, Berlin, 2011.

[3] Cited in Müller, op. cit., p. 152.

[4] Jacques R. Pauwels, The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, James Lorimer, Toronto, 2002, pp. 33, 37.

[5] Lieven Soete, Het Sovjet-Duitse niet-aanvalspact van 23 augustus 1939: Politieke Zeden in het Interbellum, Berchem [Antwerp], Belgium, 1989, pp. 289-290, including footnote 1 on p. 289.

[6] See e.g. Gerd R. Ueberschär, “Hitlers Entschluß zum ‘Lebensraum’-Krieg im Osten: Programmatisches Ziel oder militärstrategisches Kalkül?,” in Gerd R. Ueberschär and Wolfram Wette (eds.), Der deutsche Überfall auf die Sowjetunion: “Unternehmen Barbarossa” 1941, Frankfurt am Main, 2011, p. 39.

[7] Müller, op. cit., p. 169.

[8] Ueberschär, “Das Scheitern…,” p. 95.

[9] Müller, op. cit., pp. 209, 225.

[10] Ueberschär, “Hitlers Entschluß…”, p. 15.

[11] Pauwels, op. cit., p. 62; Ueberschär, „Das Scheitern…,“ pp. 95-96; Domenico Losurdo, Stalin: Storia e critica di una leggenda nera, Rome, 2008, p. 29.

[12] Müller, op. cit., p. 243.

[13] Richard Overy, Russia’s War, London, 1997, p. 87.

[14] Ueberschär, “Das Scheitern…“, pp. 97-98.

[15] Ueberschär, “Das Scheitern…“, p. 97; Losurdo, op. cit., p. 31.

[16] Overy, op. cit., pp. 64-65.

[17] Grover Furr, Khrushchev Lied : The Evidence That Every ‘Revelation’ of Stalin’s (and Beria’s) ‘Crimes’ in Nikita Khrushchev’s Infamous ‘Secret Speech’ to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, is Provably False, Kettering/Ohio, 2010, p. 343: Losurdo, op. cit., p. 31; Soete, op. cit., p. 297.

[18] Losurdo, op. cit., pp. 31-32.

[19] Bernd Wegner, “Hitlers zweiter Feldzug gegen die Sowjetunion: Strategische Grundlagen und historische Bedeutung“, in Wolfgang Michalka (ed.), Der Zweite Weltkrieg: Analysen – Grundzüge – Forschungsbilanz, München and Zurich, 1989, p. 653.

[20] Ueberschär, “Das Scheitern…“, p. 100.

[21] Müller, op. cit., p. 233.

[22] Tobias Jersak, “Öl für den Führer,“ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, February 11, 1999. Jersak used a “top secret” document produced by the Wehrmacht Reichsstelle für Mineralöl, now in the military section of the Bundesarchiv (Federal Archives), file RW 19/2694.

[23] Ueberschär, “Das Scheitern…“, pp. 99-102, 106-107.

[24] Ueberschär, “Das Scheitern…“, p. 106.

[25] Ueberschär, “Das Scheitern…,” pp. 107-111; Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin`s Wars from World War to Cold War, 1939-1953, New Haven/CT and London, 2006, p. 111.

[26] Andreas Hillgruber (ed.), Der Zweite Weltkrieg 1939–1945: Kriegsziele und Strategie der Grossen Mächte, fifth edition, Stuttgart, 1989, p. 81.

[27] Annie Lacroix-Riz, Le Vatican, l’Europe et le Reich de la Première Guerre mondiale à la guerre froide, Paris, 1996, p. 417.

[28] Daniel Bourgeois, Business helvétique et troisième Reich : Milieux d’affaires, politique étrangère, antisémitisme, Lausanne, 1998, pp. 123, 127.

[29] Ueberschär, “Das Scheitern…“, pp. 107-108.

[30] Bourgeois, op. cit., pp. 123, 127.

[31] Pauwels, op. cit., pp. 68-69; quotation from Hans W. Gatzke, Germany and the United States: A “Special Relationship?,” Cambridge/MA, and London, 1980, p. 137.

[32] Wegner, op. cit., pp. 654-656.

[33] Ueberschär, “Das Scheitern…,” p. 116.

[34] Clive Ponting, Armageddon: The Second World War, London, 1995, p. 130; Stephen E. Ambrose Americans at War, New York, 1998, p. 72.

Jacques R. Pauwels is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Jacques R. Pauwels

Posted in Geo-Politics, Global Research, War Quotient | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 70 Years Ago, December 1941: Turning Point of World War II The victory of the Red Army in front of Moscow was a major break…

Mikhail Gorbachev Says Occupy Wall Street Signals an Emerging New World Order

Posted by Admin on October 28, 2011

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/mikhail-gorbachev-says-occupy-wall-street-signals-an-emerging-new-world-order/

By  | October 22nd, 2011 | Category: Latest News | 154 comments

As the Occupy Wall Street movement continues, some unlikely faces appear supporting the movement and some even more unlikely scenarios are presented as “solutions”.  While most protesters call for the return of grass-roots democracy and the stop of the unlawful rule of international banks, you have figures working for the exact opposite – a big, fat, socialist world government – supporting the movement. George Soros and Mikhail Gorbachev, two of the world’s most vocal elite globalists, have indeed been working for years for a New World Order and everything it implies.

Is OWS trapping people in Hegelian dialectic, where supporting the protesters becomes supporting a New World Order? Here’s what Gorbachev said during on October 20th at Lafayette College.

“We are reaping the consequences of a strategy that is not conducive to cooperation and partnership, to living in a new global situation. The world needs goals that will bring people together. Some people in the United States were pushing the idea of creating a global American empire, and that was a mistake from the start. Other people in America are now giving thought to the future of their country. The big banks, the big corporations, are still paying the same big bonuses to their bosses. Was there ever a crisis for them? . . . I believe America needs its own perestroika. The entire world situation did not develop properly. We saw deterioration where there should have been positive movement.

My friend the late Pope John Paul II said it best. He said, ‘We need a new world order, one that is more stable, more humane, and more just.’ Others, including myself, have spoken about a new world order, but we are still facing the problem of building such a world order…problems of the environment, of backwardness and poverty, food shortages…all because we do not have a system of global governance. We cannot leave things as they were before, when we are seeing that these protests are moving to even new countries, that almost all countries are now witnessing such protests, that the people want change. As we are addressing these challenges, these problems raised by these protest movements, we will gradually find our way towards a new world order.”
– Lafayette College website

Posted in Economic Upheavals, Vigilant Citizen | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mikhail Gorbachev Says Occupy Wall Street Signals an Emerging New World Order

ISI may act if Afghanistan gets too close to India: Musharraf

Posted by Admin on October 28, 2011

http://in.news.yahoo.com/isi-may-act-afghanistan-gets-too-close-india-035842060.html

By Arun Kumar | IANS – 13 hours ago

Washington, Oct 27 (IANS) Accusing India of trying to create anti-Pakistan Afghanistan, former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf has warned that Islamabad’s spy agency will need to take ‘counter-measures’ if Afghanistan becomes too close to India.

‘Since our independence, Afghanistan always has been anti-Pakistan because the Soviet Union and India have very good relations in Afghanistan,’ he said at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank Wednesday.

Accusing India of working to turn Afghanistan against Pakistan, he said: ‘We must not allow this to continue.’

‘We must not begrudge if Pakistan orders ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) to take counter-measures to protect its own interests,’ said Musharraf defending the Pakistani spy agency that US officials have accused of supporting extremists.

‘Now, India is trying to create anti-Pakistan Afghanistan. This is most unfortunate, and I am not saying this because I have some (Indo-centric) – and I’m anti-India. I know this through intelligence; I know this to be a fact,’ he said.

‘Today – and just to give you one proof: Today, in Afghanistan, Afghanistan diplomats, the intelligence people, the security people, the army men all go to India for training,’ Misharraf said.

‘Now they go there, they come back, they get indoctrinated against Pakistan and, may I say, over the years since our independence, Afghanistan always has been anti-Pakistan because Soviet Union and India have very close relation in Afghanistan.’

‘And the intelligence agency, KGB, RAW and KHAD of Afghanistan have always been in cooperation and talking since 1950s,’ Musharraff said.

‘So I think this needs a rapprochement certainly between India and Pakistan and rapprochement also between the two intelligence organizations: the RAW of India and the ISI of Pakistan,’ he said.

Describing current relations between the United States and Pakistan as ‘terrible,’ Musharraf said Afghanistan could plunge into conflict along ethnic lines after 2014, when the United States plans to withdraw its combat troops from Afghanistan.

‘Are you leaving a stable Afghanistan or an unstable Afghanistan? Because based on that, I in Pakistan will have to take my own counter-measures,’ Musharraf said.

The ‘adverse impact will be on Pakistan, so any leader in Pakistan must think of securing Pakistan’s interests,’ he added.

(Arun Kumar can be contacted at arun.kumar@ians.in)

Posted in Geo-Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off on ISI may act if Afghanistan gets too close to India: Musharraf

Gaddafi forces fire Scud missile: U.S. official

Posted by Admin on August 16, 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-tripoli-encircled-u-says-scud-fired-014925794.html

By Robert Birsel | Reuters – 46 mins ago

BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) – Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi fired a Scud missile for the first time in the country’s civil war, a U.S. defense official said, after rebel advances left the Libyan leader isolated in his capital.

Rebels fighting to end Gaddafi’s 41-year rule seized two strategic towns near Tripoli over the past 24 hours, cutting the city off from its supply lines and leaving the Libyan leader with a dwindling set of options if he is to stay in power.

The Scud missile was fired on Sunday morning from a location about 50 miles east of Sirte, Gaddafi’s home town, and landed east of the coastal oil town of Brega where rebels are fighting for control, the official said.

The missile came down in the desert, injuring no one, said the official, who was speaking on condition of anonymity. There was no immediate comment from the government in Tripoli.

In the six months of fighting up to now, Gaddafi’s forces have been using short-range Grad rockets but have not before deployed Scud missiles, which have an estimated range of about 185 miles.

The government in Tripoli has stocks of Scud missiles which were acquired from the Soviet Union in the 1970s, and some bought from North Korea, according to online defense forum globalsecurity.org.

It said many of Libya’s missile systems “are old and likely are suffering from maintenance problems.”

Analysts say the rebels’ strategy now is to isolate the capital and hope the government will collapse, but they say it is possible too that Gaddafi will opt to stage a last-ditch fight for the capital.

In a barely audible telephone call to state television in the early hours of Monday morning, Gaddafi called on his followers to liberate Libya from rebels and their NATO supporters.

“Get ready for the fight … The blood of martyrs is fuel for the battlefield,” he said.

REBEL PUSH

He was speaking as rebels made their most dramatic advances in months of fighting, shifting the momentum in a conflict that had been largely static for months and was testing the patience of NATO powers anxious for a swift outcome.

Rebel forces in the Western Mountains south of Tripoli surged forward at the weekend to enter Zawiyah. The town is about 50 km (30 miles) west of Tripoli and, crucially, straddles the main highway linking the capital to Tunisia.

A day later, rebels said they had captured the town of Garyan, which controls the highway leading south from Tripoli and linking it to Sabha, a Gaddafi stronghold deep in the desert.

“Gaddafi has been isolated. He has been cut off from the outside world,” a rebel spokesman from the Western Mountains, called Abdulrahman, told Reuters by telephone.

Early on Tuesday, rebels on the outskirts of Zawiyah said forces loyal to Gaddafi were still on the eastern edge of the town, from where they have been attacking with mortars, Grad rockets and sniper fire.

Medical workers at one of the town’s hospitals told a Reuters reporter that 20 people — a mixture of rebel fighters and civilians — were killed on Monday, and the death toll for Tuesday had already reached one.

PEACE TALKS

Officials in Tripoli deny Zawiyah is under rebel control, but government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim acknowledged on state television that rebel fighters were in Garyan.

“There are still armed gangs inside the city. We are able to drive them out,” he said.

A U.N. envoy arrived in neighboring Tunisia, where sources say rebels and representatives of the government have been holed up on the island resort of Djerba for negotiations.

The envoy, Abdel Elah al-Khatib, told Reuters he would meet “Libyan personalities residing in Tunisia” to discuss the conflict.

Gaddafi’s spokesman denied the Tripoli government was in talks about the leader’s departure, saying reports of such negotiations were the product of a “media war” being waged against Libya.

Talks could signal the endgame of a civil war that has drawn in the NATO alliance and emerged as one of the bloodiest confrontations in the wave of unrest sweeping the Arab world.

Rebels may still lack the manpower for an all-out assault on Tripoli, but are hoping their encirclement of the capital will bring down Gaddafi’s government or inspire an uprising. In the past, however, they have frequently failed to hold gains, and a fightback by Gaddafi troops could yet force them back.

Pro-Gaddafi residents of the capital remain defiant.

Makhjoub Muftah, a school teacher who has signed up as a gun-toting pro-Gaddafi volunteer, like many others seemed to think a rebel advance into Tripoli was a remote possibility.

“I wish they would march into Tripoli. I wish,” he said, daring the rebels. “They will all die.”

(Additional reporting by Phil Stewart in Washington, Missy Ryan in Tripoli, Robert Birsel in Brega, Libya, Ulf Laessing in Ras Jdir, Tunisia, Hamid Ould Ahmed in Algiers; Writing by Peter Graff and Christian Lowe; Editing by Jon Hemming)

Posted in Geo-Politics, Press Releases | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gaddafi forces fire Scud missile: U.S. official

The Hidden Hand that Shaped History

Posted by Admin on August 8, 2011

http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/the-hidden-hand-that-changed-history/

By  | October 20th, 2009

Has the course of History been directed by a small group of people with common interests? The paintings and pictures of the great men of the past centuries reveal a common thread which links them together. Is it a coincidence that many of them hid one of their hands when posing for a portrait? It seems unlikely. We’ll look at the Masonic origin of the “hidden hand” and the powerful men who used the sign in famous portraits.

leadhidden
Stalin and Washington – two opposing ideologies, one hand gesture

“Today’s thinking toward a democratic world state is neither a new trend nor an accidental circumstance; the work of setting up the background of knowledge necessary to the establishing of enlightened democracy among all nations has been carried on for many hundreds of years by secret societies.”
Manly P. Hall, Secret Destiny of America

Is there a hidden force behind the world events of the past centuries? Are the fall of European monarchies, the bringing forth of the Age of Enlightenment and our path towards a world democracy part of a great plan lead by a “hidden hand”? Before the advent of mass media, portraits depicting their leaders in majestic poses were the only artifacts people had. Do these portraits have an occult meaning?

One of those poses is the “hiding of the hand”. I remember my history teacher trying to explain why Napoleon was often shown with a hand inside his shirt. The common explanation went along these lines:

“Many theories have been presented as to why Napoleon is traditionally depicted with his hand in his waistcoat. Some of these theories include: he had a stomach ulcer, he was winding his watch, he had an itchy skin disease, in his era it was impolite to put your hands in your pockets, he had breast cancer, he had a deformed hand, he kept a perfumed sachet in his vest that he’d sniff surreptitiously, and that painters don’t like to paint hands”
-Tom Holmberg

Unless all the individuals discussed in this article had stomach ulcer or deformed hands, the gesture of hiding one’s hand simply has to have a specific meaning. It does. Most of the people using this sign are proven (and often enthusiastic) members of the Freemasons. Considering the great importance of this gesture in Masonic rituals and the fact that all of the elite were either part of Freemasonry or knew of it, it is simply impossible that the recurrence of this sign could be the result of a coincidence. The “hidden hand” can, in fact, be found in the rituals of the Royal Arch Degree of Freemasonry and the world leaders that use this sign are subtly saying to other initiates of the order: “This is what I’m part of, this is what I believe in and this is what I’m working for”.

The Royal Arch Degree

tripleTau
The Triple Tau

The Royal Arch Degree (the 13th degree of the Scottish Rite or the 7th degree of the York Rite) is also known as the Mason of the Secret. During this Degree, initiates are said to receive great Masonic truths.

“The members of this Degree are denominated companions, and are “entitled to a full explanation of the mysteries of the Order”; whereas in the former Degrees they are recognized by the common, familiar appellation of brothers, and kept in a state of profound ignorance of the sublime secret which is disclosed in this Chapter. This accords with the custom of Pythagoras, who thus distinguished his pupils. After a probation of five years, as stated before, they were admitted into the presence of the preceptor, called his companions, and permitted  to converse with him freely. Previous to the expiration of that term he delivered his instructions to them from behind a screen”
-John Fellows, Fellows’s Inquiry into the Origin, History, and Purport of Freemasonry

“If we pass on to the Royal Arch, we receive a wonderful accession of knowledge, and find every thing made perfect; for this is the nec plus ultra of Masonry, and can never be exceeded by any human institution.”
-George Oliver, Lectures on Freemasonry

It is during this degree that the initiate learns the sacred name of God.

“A Degree indescribably more august, sublime, and important than any which precede it, and is, in fact, the summit and perfection of ancient Masonry. It impresses upon our minds a belief in the being of a God, without beginning of days or end of years, the great and incomprehensible Alpha and Omega, and reminds us of the reverence which is due to His Holy NAME.”
-George Oliver, Historical Landmarks

This holy name is Jahbulon, a combination of words meaning “god” in Syriac, Chaldaic and Egyptian.

“JEHOVAH. Of the varieties of this sacred name in use among the different nations of the earth, three particularly merit the attention of Royal Arch Masons:

1. JAH. This name of God is found in the 68th Psalm, v. 4.

2. BAAL OR BEL. This word signifies a lord, master, or possessor, and hence it was applied by many of the nations of the East to denote the Lord of all things, and the Master of the world.

3. ON. This was the name by which JEHOVAH was worshiped among the Egyptians.”
-Malcolm C. Duncan, Duncan’s Masonic Ritual and Monitor

The initiation ritual to this degree re-enacts the return to Jerusalem of three Most Excellent Masons who were held captive in Babylon. I won’t go through the whole ceremony and symbolism but at one point, the initiate is asked to learn a secret password and a hand sign in order to go through a series of veils. The following image depicts the hand sign required to go through the second veil, as documented in Duncan’s Masonic Ritual and Monitor:

second_veil

“Master of Second Veil: “Three Most Excellent Masters you must have been, or thus far you could not have come; but farther you cannot go without my words, sign, and word of exhortation. My words are Shem, Japhet, and Adoniram; my sign is this: (thrusting his hand in his bosom); it is in imitation of one given by God to Moses, when He commanded him to thrust his hand into his bosom, and, taking it out, it became as leprous as snow. My word of exhortation is explanatory of this sign, and is found in the writings of Moses, viz., fourth chapter of Exodus”:

“And the Lord said unto Moses, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow”
-Malcolm C. Duncan, Duncan’s Masonic Ritual and Monitor

As stated above, this hand gesture is said to be inspired by Exodus 4:6. In this biblical verse, the heart (“bosom”) stands for what we are, the hand for what we do. It can thus be interpreted as :What we are is what we ultimately do. The symbolic significance of this gesture might explain the reason why it is so widely used by famous Masons. The hidden hand lets the other initiates know that the individual depicted is part of this secret Brotherhood and that his actions were inspired by the Masonic philosophy and beliefs. Furthermore, the hand that executes the actions is hidden behind cloth, which can symbolically refer to covert nature of the Mason’s actions. Here are some of the famous men who used this hand signal.

Napoleon Bonaparte

key-147-651
Napoleon, a known Mason in his study at the Tuileries, 1812

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) was a military and political leader of France whose actions shaped European politics in the early 19th century. He was initiated into Army Philadelphe Lodge in 1798. His brothers, Joseph, Lucian, Louis and Jerome, were also Freemasons. Five of the six members of Napoleon’s Grand Councel of the Empire were Freemasons, as were six of the nine Imperial Officers and 22 of the 30 Marshals of France. Bonaparte’s association with Masonry has always been played down in historical records. Masonic researcher J.E.S. Tuckett addresses the situation:

“It is strange that evidence in favor of the Great Napoleon’s membership of the Masonic Brotherhood has never been examined in detail, for the matter is surely one of interest, and – seeing the remarkable part that remarkable men played in the affairs of Europe, at a time when Continental Freemasonry was struggling out of chaos into regular order – it cannot be without an important bearing upon Masonic history”

In his essay on Napoleon and Masonry, Tuckett claims:

“There is incontestable evidence that Napoleon was acquainted with the nature, aims and organization of Freemasonry: that he approved of and made use of it to further his own ends”
-J.E.S. Tuckett, Napoleon I and Freemasonry (source)

Napoleon was also said to be aided by occult powers. In 1813 he was defeated at Leipzip and behind him was  a “Cabinet of Curiosities” in which a Prussian officer discovered his Book of Fate and Oraculum. Originally this Oraculum was  discovered in one of the Royal tombs of Egypt during a French military expedition of 1801. The emperor ordered the manuscript to be translated by a famous German scholar and antiquarian. From that time onward, the Oraculum was one of Napoleon’s most treasured possessions. He consulted it on many occasions and it is said to have “formed a stimulus to his most speculative and most successful enterprises.”

Napolean's Book of Fate 002

Karl Marx

marx2

Karl Marx is known today to be the founder of modern Communism. Despite being denied by some Masons, Marx is said to have been a 32nd degree Grand Orient Freemason. Marx became the spokesman of the atheist and socialist movement of Europe. He planned the replacement of monarchies with socialist republics, with the next step conversion to communist republics.

George Washington

wahing

George Washington was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and is considered to be the “most important American Mason”. Charles Willson Pealed produced this painting when Washington was 52 years old. Notice the position of Washington’s feet: they form an oblong square. The position of the feet are of utmost importance in Masonic symbolism. Compare this with this excerpt from Duncan’s Ritual Monitor:

masonicstpes

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Mozart_c.1777

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is considered to be one of the most prolific and influential composers of music ever. He also was a Freemason and was initiated in the Austrian lodge Zur Zur Wohltatigkeit on Dec. 14th 1784. Mozart’s creations often incorporated important Masonic elements. The Magic Flute opera was mainly based on Masonic principles.

“The music of the Freemasons contained musical phrases and forms that held specific semiotic meanings. For example, the Masonic initiation ceremony began with the candidate knocking three times at the door to ask admittance. This is expressed musically as a dotted figure: meanings. For example, the

DottedFigure.jpg

This figure appears in Mozart’s opera The Magic Flute in the overture, suggesting the opening of the Masonic initiation.”
– Katherine Thompson, The Masonic Thread in Mozart

The musical progression of The Magic Flute was based on the Golden Ratio (1,6180…), the proportion of everything that is considered divine by Mystery Schools.

Here are compositions created by Mozart for use in Masonic lodges:

  • Lied (song) “Gesellenreise, for use at installation of new journeymen”
  • Cantata for tenor and male chorus Die Maurerfreude (“The Mason’s Joy”)
  • The Masonic Funeral Music (Maurerische Trauermusik)
  • Two songs to celebrate the opening of “Zur Neugekrönten Hoffnung”
  • Cantata for tenor and piano, Die ihr die unermesslichen Weltalls Schöpfer ehrt
  • The Little Masonic Cantata (Kleine Freimaurer-Kantate) entitled Laut verkünde unsre Freude, for soloists, male chorus, and orchestra

Marquis de Lafayette

lafayette

Marquis de Lafayette was a 33rd degree Freemason. According to Willam R. Denslow’s 10,000 Famous Freemasons, Lafayette was a French military officer who was a general in the American Revolutionary War and a leader of the Garde Nationale during the bloody French Revolution. Lafayette was also made an honorary Grand Commander of  the Supreme Council of New York. More than 75 Masonic bodies in the U.S. have been named after him, including 39 lodges, 18 chapters, 4 councils, 4 commanderies, and 7 Scottish rite bodies.

Salomon Rothschild

Salomon_Rothschild

Salomon Rothschild was the founder of the Viennese branch of the prominent Mayer Amschel Rothschild family. The most powerful family in the world has greatly influenced the policies of Germany, France, Italy and Austria. The Rothschilds are also the main players behind the creation of Zionism and the state of Israel.

The power of the Rothschilds went way beyond the confines of the Masonic lodge. They are said to be part of the 13 “Illuminati Bloodlines”. An analysis of the recently built Supreme Court of Israel (see article here) confirms the Rothschild’s embrace of Masonic symbolism.

Simon Bolivar

Simon_Bolvar

Known as “El Libertador” (the Liberator), Bolivar is considered to be the “George Washington of South America”. He joined Freemasonry in Cadiz, Spain, received the Scottish Rite degrees in Paris and was knighted in a Commandery of Knights Templar in France in 1807. Bolivar founded and served as master of Protectora de las Vertudes Lodge No. 1 in Venezuela. The country of Bolivia is named after him. Bolivar also served as the president of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia in the 1820′s. He belonged to the Order and Liberty Lodge No. 2 in Peru.

Notice in the image above the position of his feet (oblong square) and the checkerboard pattern of the floor, also Masonic. His stance might have been inspired by the Knights of Christian Mark Degree as depicted below in Richardson’s Monitor of Freemasonry:

conclave

Joseph Stalin

Posterstalin
Stalin’s reign of terror in the Soviet Union  lead to the deaths of millions of his own countrymen. He is often shown in pictures using the  hidden hand gesture. No official records have been found that prove Stalin’s initiation into Masonry. Of course, dictators such as Stalin tightly controlled  all information concerning themselves and their affairs, making it difficult to prove anything one way or the other. The hiding of his hand, however,  provides an initiate’s clue to his possible allegiance to an occult brotherhood.
stalin12

After being shot in 1940, the young man on the right has been
edited out by Stalin’s people.

In Conclusion

As seen above, thee leaders using the “hidden hand” gesture had a great influence on world history and many were confirmed Masons. This gesture is an obvious yet widely overlooked detail which hints at the leader’s embrace of occult philosophy. By understanding this fact and by recognizing the IMMENSE influence these leaders had on the course of History, we can begin to realize the hidden force which is currently steering the world toward international democracy.

Members of these brotherhoods might have maintained different opinions and even adhered to different factions (communism vs. capitalism), but the fundamental philosophy, beliefs and ultimate goals are still the same: the coming of an “Age of Reason and Enlightenment”. Of course, any serious researcher is already aware of the role of Masonry in the unfolding of world history. The “hidden hand” gesture, so often used by historical figures is simply the outward expression of this little known fact. As  Confucius said, “Signs and symbols rule the world, not words nor laws.” These people’s words and policies will eventually be twisted and forgotten, but their image will remain for the ages.

Posted in Conspiracy Archives, Geo-Politics, Global Research, Truthout Articles | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Hidden Hand that Shaped History