<<<QUOTE 00:00<<JIM: My guest today is an on-line journalist, a geopolitical analyst, a metaphysical theoretician, or so he claims, he is the editor and presenter of ‘The Next Level’ Internet news at [breakfornews.com], he’s been working with leading scientists in a battle against the ‘big pharma’ model of HIV/AIDS, he wrote the first of two investigative articles on the September 11th attacks released 7 and 21 days after 9/11 — so he has had a keen interest in 9/11, it had a quarter million reads before it was taken off the ‘net in late October of 2001, he’ll have to tell us about that…in August 2005 he produced a series of articles and audios talking about the ‘CIA Fakes’, in which he enumerates those he believes are actually undermining the 9/11 truth movement, even though they appear to be leading it. That’s very intriguing stuff because he has suggested that some people of whom I think very highly, and some organizations that I have a hard time faulting, may in fact be due criticism. His name is Fintan Dunne, Fintan I want to welcome you on to the Dynamic Duo.
FINTAN: It’s great to be on the show Jim, it’s great to relax and take it easy getting interviewed for a change, as well, because I’m usually on the other side.
JIM: I want to work our way up to the disinformation business, because I’m rather fascinated by what you got there, although there’s a case now about this business, you’re saying the Iranian invasion claims or speculations are some kind of drivel, today, Hillary Clinton — you may not have heard this because I think it’s quite fresh news — that Hillary has called Iran a threat to the US and to Israel. And she’s stated, “No option can be taken off the table, that US policy must be clear and unequivocal, we cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.”She told a crowd of Israeli supporters, in dealing with this threat no option can be taken off the table — I’m fascinated with what you have to say here, I recently had six different experts on Iran on the show, I spent a whole week discussing it. And personally I’ve become rather convinced that US is planning to attack Iran, for a whole host of reasons… but I really want to get your take on it, could we open there?
FINTAN: Yeah sure, it’s a good place to start. If we are going to attack Iran then, it’s going to be about the seventh or eight time we’ve been scheduled to attack Iran.I remember the great hooplah there was before the 2004 election, Jim, when we had a whole host of people including Seymour Hersch giving it to us from ‘authoritative sources’ — that George W. Bush is going to save his ass in the upcoming elections by invading Iran or attacking Iran. And we’ve had a continuous stream of these warnings pouring out. What I think they’re up to here, is they’re taking our eye off the ball. Remember, this is a crew who can’t even hold Baghdad. And yet they’re convincing us that they’re going to take on Iran?
I believe that what’s going on here is that, behind the scenes, there has been intelligence involvement in the coup in Iran which displaced the Shah. If you recall, Ayatollah Khomeini was based in Paris at the time, and I think that French intelligence were involved there, and that we ‘had a hand’ in the Iranian Revolution,
We have people on the inside in the Iranian leadership playing a game, the old divide-and-conquer game. And that is substantiated by the fact that when the US invaded Iraq, the South of the country was essentially pretty secure — there was no major problem there — and there has not been a problem. The British forces are in control in the South, against only minor resistance from the hotheads. I believe that’s because the Iranian leadership are keeping the lid on resistance to the US invasion.
That left them only with the problem of the Sunni in the North. So tactically and strategically, I believe they knew they were going onto a winner going into Iraq because they only has to deal with the Sunni, because the Shia leadership in Iran were going to ‘keep the lid’ on things in the South. That’s a potted history of it, I can elaborate on it further Jim, but that’s my angle on it.
JIM: Well my take is that we’ve moved now three carrier task forces into the vicinity of Iran, I think that if there were any military exchange, I think it could be quite a mess for the US. The Iranians have a strong, healthy vibrant country, they aren’t emaciated the way in which Iraq was, look at the terrible fix we’ve found ourselves in Iraq.I believe all of this foreign policy intervention is hopelessly misguided and based on an attempt to develop a ‘worldwide empire’ along the lines of the neoconservative game plan Project for the New American Century. And I just wonder whether the massive assembly of military force around Iran isn’t suggestive that maybe this time it might be different.
FINTAN: Well, you know psychological warfare is something that’s played against an enemy such as Iran — if they were an enemy — and I don’t believe they are, because I believe the leadership is ‘on board’ in the highest level in Iran.But also, psychological warfare can be deployed against us, to take our eye off the ball. I’ve also noticed an awful lot of concentration on stopping this ‘invasion’ of Iran. Which of course takes our eye off the ball of the existing war which is currently ongoing, which is the war in Iraq.
And I think as far as the US administration is concerned, anything that takes our eye off the Iraq ball is useful. It occupies bandwidth in the international media, it keeps people focused in the wrong direction, and I think that Ahmadinejad is playing a clever game — he’s baiting us! He’s baiting us into believing that this is a genuine conflict between the two sides. And I believe it’s a staged conflict.
I think that what’s actually going on — if you take a look at the Muslim world, you see that it spans all the way from Northern Africa straight across into Afghanistan, and I believe that what they’re doing is building a Shia bulwark in the center of the Sunni Muslim world, in order to divide that Muslim world, and prevent it from coalescing into the kind of political union that you see in Europe, the kind of economic power you see in China, et cetera, and I think they’ve had a finger in the Iranian pie for a very long time — and that all this stuff — is just theatrics! Jim, theatrics.
JIM: That’s quite fascinating Fintan. Fascinating. You might have a Middle East union, as it were, that could become something more substantial economically than it’s ever been in the past, apart from its natural resource control of oil.
FINTAN: [music fade up voice clipped] It could, if it wasn’t right bang-smack in the middle of the {?clipped?} Muslim world being manipulated by the US [?]
JIM: [music] We’ll be right back with my special guest Fintan Dunne, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on the Dynamic Duo.
[break]
JIM: Fintan, we’re talking about Iran right now. I am very puzzled by this seeming loss of understanding of history where we have the two nations with the greatest assortment of nuclear weapons in history who were able to live amicably, in relation to those weapons… based on mutually assured destruction, both nations knew that if either attacked the other that they’d be subject to overwhelming retaliation themselves.Which leads me to wonder why we should become so paranoid — and so, exaggerate the threat that would be posed by small states like North Korea or Iraq or Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. I mean, they can only be used for defensive purposes — surely — because they would know that if they ever attempted to attack the United States, that they would face overwhelming destruction! So I don’t understand quite why there should be this complete absence of rationality, particularly when say, Israel — the ostensive threat to nuclear weapons in the Middle East — has over two hundred weapons of its own.
FINTAN: Yeah, and it’s a good point as to why the Iranians would want to bother developing a nuclear capacity in the first place — considering they’re swimming in oil. The Iranians have a problem in refining capacity, that’s their problem, and not in oil supplies. Surely they should be relying on oil. So I think this is a staged confrontation which has been deliberately drummed up, and if you look at the actual motivation here, I think it has more to do with energy warfare than anything else.What has been targeted here is nuclear — anything to do with nuclear. Because if you think about it, nuclear is about the only alternative we have now that’s viable, to the oil business. And the oil business is well controlled internationally by existing geopolitical elite.
JIM: So you’re saying, even if they actually are just trying to develop nuclear energy, that the United States might want to take that out, such that it not set an example for the rest of the world, of nuclear energy supplanting fossil fuel energy.
FINTAN: Yeah exactly. And it also serves, once again, in terms of psychological warfare or ‘perception management’ — it serves to demonize the nuclear industry. And if you look into, in fact, the background as to who was behind the anti-nuclear movement as it developed in the 60s, 70s, and even into the 80s, you’ll find that there are some very interesting links there.I think there has been a game played to try and ‘put us off’ going away from fossil fuels, because, I’ll say again — fossil fuel, the whole business of it, is controlled geopolitically and requires a lot of military power to exercise our control. And existing vested interests have a great need to keep us dependent on fossil fuels and to demonize viable alternatives, and a leading viable alternative is nuclear energy. A psychologically warfare game they’re playing on us all.
JIM: Fin, this is rather fascinating stuff, I want to mention to our listeners that if they go on-line to 911scholars.org and go to the ‘events’ column on the right hand side of the page and scroll down to 7-March-2007 today’s date, three of Fintan’s articles: “Dawn of The G8 New World Order”, “How Black Ops Staged the London Bombs” and “Disinfo: The Iran Invasion Drivel” are posted there for you to get access to some of his work, and we’ll talk about his own website as we continue our discussion.Fintan, I just want to cast this against the broader issue of globalization, the New World Order and all that, my impression has been that what we’re talking about is the idea of having corporations rule the world. In that the World Trade Organization is basically supposed to supplant and override national sovereignty around the globe, for the sake of maximizing profits, where corporations can exploit the natural resources of different states, their cheap labor to provide minimal benefits, violate all kinds of environmental and pollution safeguards, and probably, rapidly, bring about the eradication of the human species, by motives that contribute not only to Global Warming, but to polluting ourselves out of existence.
FINTAN: Yeah, I’m glad you’re taking us into that area because the globalization project is central to what’s going on politically today, and central to 9/11.What is the greatest impediment to the globalization project, in terms of a national sovereignty which needs to be destroyed?
A national sovereignty that’s close to my heart is the national sovereignty of the United States of America, the leading national sovereign power on the planet. So any globalization project has got to tackle the self-identity of the people of the United States, and their right to self-determination.
It’s a right I support, I’ve travelled extensively and been extensively in the US from Massachusetts to San Diego to Seattle to Florida, and I hold in regard the Constitution of the United States, as the greatest civil rights document that’s ever been produced. So I have an interest in defending the sovereign right of the United States and I think these people, through 9/11, and the Iraq war, are playing a game to destroy the sense of national self-determination of the people of the United States –
Through psychological warfare tactics, through the deliberate destruction of their military capacity in a fruitless and pointless war in the Middle East, and through other events which are designed to ‘usher in a new era’ — where you will see the Amero take over from the US Dollar, and where you will see a Canadian-US-Mexican economic unit, which will slowly strengthen into a political unit — it already is, with the current treaties which are being signed — not trade agreements,/i] but [i]treaties.
An essential part of that is to destroy peoples’ faith in the United States as a political entity in its own right. And I think 9./11, the Bush Administration, and all the stuff that’s gone on with the Iraq war, et cetera, has been to bring about that destruction of national self-identity. And I think Hillary Clinton’s the girl who’s going to usher in that new era.
<<<ENDQUOTE ~13:34 <<<
<<<QUOTE ~13:34 <<<JIM: Well this is rather fascinating to me, I’ve been trying to sort out what benefit, political benefit could derive from systematic decimation of the American military, because general after general has observed that we cannot sustain this on-going rotation of forces into Iraq, that it’s breaking the back of the American military — including of course our National Guard, which was never intended to fight wars.It was intended to deal with natural catastrophes, natural disasters, forest fires, earthquakes, floods. It really wasn’t trained or prepared, and psychologically it’s been a nasty blow to those who have been enrolled in the National Guard — with one set of expectations, only to find themselves on the front line facing improvised explosive devices, and the whole bit.
Fintan, I notice in this earlier piece you had on the New World Order — you talk about the agenda that is in the future — of carving up Africa, the rest of the Middle East and continuing genocide policies against the world’s poor, is this, in your view than, part of the globalization strategy, to reduce the world’s population by policies that are going to largely fall heaviest on the poor — as practically all policies do, but I mean in a systematic effort to reduce the world’s population?
FINTAN: Well, reduce it as much as possible… Essentially, they do not want the resources of the Middle East and of Africa going to those people, they want to be able to exploit those resources. And it’s interesting that the US CENTCOM Central Command extends all the way from Africa, through the Middle East and into Afghanistan.And they’re making their move in Africa already; and designating that as a ‘new zone’ for concentration of the US military. But you’ve raised a very interesting point there, Jim, about what they were at in Iraq. I mean, when they went into Iraq they brought in Tommy Franks to run the operation in Iraq, to run the invasion phase, and they did everything you could possibly do wrong. Or, right — in order to build up a resistance! They allowed the situation, the security situation in Baghdad to totally deteriorate. They allowed civil society to collapse, they allowed the power systems to fall apart…
JIM: And they disbanded the [Iraqi] Army…
FINTAN: And they disbanded the Army! Which, just — you couldn’t do a crazier thing than to throw a couple hundred thousand people out onto the streets! Who would naturally, eventually begin to turn to guerrilla warfare to oppose you.So everything you could possibly do to engender and foster a long term resistance to the American occupation — was actually done. And the only benefit to that could be as part of this globalization project — to mire, and bog down and destroy the morale of the United States Army — and destroy the morale of the American people, in a way that it was destroyed at the time of the Viet Nam war.
And so that’s the game they’re playing out. It’s very duplicitous, and it uses psychological warfare techniques of which the 9/11 attack was the key psychological component: to strike a blow at US national self-identity, and its sense of being a successful nation.
JIM: Would Katrina then compound that by taking this natural disaster — which for all I know — we may have aggravated using sophisticated Tesla technology, HAAP, or whatever, to make it a more powerful force… I mean the Administration had five days to anticipate, did nothing, allowed the situation to fester and grow worse, then sent in the 82nd Airborne which was a manifest absurdity, here we have the Louisiana National Guard off in Iraq fighting a war it wasn’t prepared to fight, the 82nd Airborne in Louisiana taking care of a natural disaster for which it was not prepared to deal, so the situation seemed to me absurd on its face.
FINTAN: Yes, and I mean you didn’t even have to deal with ‘Scalar’ technology to strike a blow, you blow the levees — and there have been reports of explosions heard at the time the levees blew…
JIM: Yes…
FINTAN: …and even in the event of, if that isn’t the case, they clearly, deliberately failed to act, and then sacrificed “Brownie”… [Michael Brown]
JIM: My speculation as part of that was to dissipate the concentrated Black vote in New Orleans, and get it distributed so it might be easier to control Louisiana as a so-called ‘red state’ where Republicans have control.
FINTAN: Hm. And I think another part, an essential part of the psychological warfare campaign was the so-called “stolen election of 2004″, where in order to decimate the resistance there was to the Bush Administration policies, and also to decimate the 9/11 Movement as a psychological warfare tactic, we had ’skull and bones’, or John Kerry — who went all the way, and yet then failed to go the rest of the way — in challenging the stolen election. Despite having given indications — misleading indications — that he was prepared to legally challenge what had just happened.And to the horror of the Democratic Party activists, who were screaming and hollering for something to be done… what they and others saw as the deliberate stealing of the election… by around about 3-4 per cent. Clearly Bush lost that election, I think…
JIM: Oh yes, and in Ohio it was especially outrageous… the actions by the then-Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell not putting the right number of voting machines, and of course the machines were tilted anyway in favor of the Republicans, and then, you know, all kinds of abuses were taking place — I mean it’s stunning, the inventory, and for John Kerry, who had always given us the impression he’d ‘watch our backs’, to immediately concede, even after his vice presidential team-mate came out and suggested they were going to come out and fight this thing… to me it was so appalling,I wouldn’t support John Kerry today for dogcatcher!
FINTAN: Yup. And it was very cleverly done, because the ’stolen election’ thing was a huge issue on the Internet. And was a huge issue among the radical Democratic activists in the Democratic Party — but it was totally boxed in to that arena.The rest of America though Bush had won! The rest of America was sold a package — whereby conservative Christians had defeated them. No, they hadn’t.
John Kerry had defeated them, by leading them all up the garden path and then abandoning them. And that had devastating psychological consequences on left-wing opposition to the Bush Administration policies — and on the opposition to the 9/11 event — those who felt it was a deliberately engineered event, and did not buy the ‘official’ story. They were also decimated, and to be honest, only now in the last, say, sic to nine months — recovering — from the damage that was inflicted by that psychological warfare tactic. Of a totally ‘fake’ and contrived 2004 election.
JIM: I’ve been trying to sort out why the traditional Republicans, who believe in balanced budgets and non-interventionist foreign policy, and Constitutional government, in keeping the government out of our personal lives, and States’ rights — why they have been supporting this administration which so blatantly and massively violates all of those principles.I mean, there used to be a respectable political entity known as the Republican Party, now we have this ‘renegade’, rogue atrocity full of extremists who are embarking on wars in violation of international law, the UN Charter, the US Constitution.
They’re re-fashioning the American political system into a kind of dictatorship, where the President, using the ’signing statements’ can usurp unto himself the powers of the Legislature and the Judiciary as well as the Executive, running up these astounding deficits, and of course providing $100 billion dollar no-bid contracts like Halliburton for feeding our troops garbage…
To me it’s just appalling, and just don’t understand how the traditional republicans can rubber-stamp everything this man has ever asked for for the last six years… it’s just been an appalling legacy in performance.
FINTAN: Well yeah… partly, and I’ll take your point fully on board, partly it’s the same kind of dynamics which apply to when we ended up rubber-stamping Kerry — because we felt he was all we had to defend ourselves against a rabid neocon Bush Administration… so I mean, what choice? You just gotta go for the guy — same trick on the Republicans, boxing them into a corner, on ‘hot’ red-button issues — such as abortion for example. And the so-called ‘liberal media’, and all the threat that represents, to the point where they feel, heck, all we’ve got to do is just vote Republican — we can’t vote for these goddamned liberals. So this ‘dividing strategy’ [?music over, words clipped?] run [?] one party State, it is a ‘one party’ ….
JIM: (?) legs, people who would have been dead in previous conflicts, but because of body armor, coming back, missing arms and legs and of course, now we’re discovering that the Veterans Administration had been providing hopelessly inadequate care… directly undermining of course George W. Bush’s protestations that he is supporting the troops, when of course he’s been de-funding the Veterans Administration, he’s been leading them over a cliff.I like to observe that how can you support the troops — you know, what’s the best way to support the troops if the Commander in Chief is marching them off a cliff. So certainly it cannot be by supporting the Commander in Chief. What you’re suggesting is that these various events may actually be part of a broader scheme to, as it were, humiliate the United States — so that in our own minds, we lose confidence in our own country.
FINTAN: Well yeah. And if Americans are sort of reeling, and wondering “Who the hell is doing this to us?” you don’t have to look very far, you just have to look back as the guy who announced the New World Order, and to my mind, the current so-called President of the United States, George W. Bush, is, a ‘failed entity’. Who was recruited in by ‘Poppy’ Bush to act as the fall guy for the decimation of the United States.I imagine a conversation that went, “Come on in, George. I’ve got a job for you.” — “Yes, Daddy?” — “Well you’re a total failure… so what I want is for you to be President of the United States because we need a President who’s a total failure. Because we’re gonna destroy the confidence of the American people in their own country… and you’ll do a great job.”
And we’ve had the tents of the Baker-Bush-boys being on the sidelines… and maybe George will listen to them, maybe he won’t, what a crock… that is …dung.
JIM: His first act was to use telescoping, projecting future surpluses as if they were already cash on hand, which is of course just how Enron telescoped its profits, by treating money it might collect ten years’ hence as though it was already on hand — and led to the collapse of that entity. Bush seems to be, through the massive tax cuts for the rich, and for corporations, and for gas and oil companies which are making the largest profits in the world.I mean, if the case to be made for any entities that don’t deserve ‘tax breaks’ but ought to be suffering from war-profiteering taxes with the gas and oil industry, he’s doing so many things that are leading the United States into a precarious financial situation that — if it’s all deliberate, it makes a great deal more sense than if its somehow simple in confidence. [?]
FINTAN: I think the roots of this are laid in an area of which you’ve got considerable expertise, the [?] in the Kennedy assassination in which George Bush Sr. had a role… and the ‘George Bush’ which was referred to in various documents that were circulating has been confirmed recently, we know that…But I think the seeds were laid then, then the outright ‘coup’ took place when the Reagan-Bush era came in; and we had of course, George Bush announced the ‘New World Order’, and we also have him rolling around in a golfing cart with Bill Clinton, as if they’re great buddies — working together on the Tsunami relief issue. And of course they are great buddies. I believe that in essence, George Bush Sr. has been in de-facto effective control of the presidency since the day he assumed the presidency of the United States, himself.He’s been in control of the United States. And he would have been in control sooner if he had knocked Ronald Regan out, we know there was a bid on Regan’s life.
So he couldn’t wait to get his hands on power, and I don’t believe he ever relinquished hands on power. I believe that the power in the United States is a global corporate power, which is fully supported by the elite in Washington, which are ad idem with each other, at the highest level. And that is evidenced by this cozy relationship between Clinton, male Clinton, and Bush Sr… and I think you’re about to see another Clinton presidency to ‘usher us’ into this ‘new era’ where American sovereignty will be finally dismantled.
JIM: Well I’m very troubled by the things you’re saying, principally because I can’t deny their plausibility.If Reagan had been taken out in that very strange shooting, then of course Bush would become President of the United States, and there’s an awful lot of circumstantial evidence to support your allegation that he was involved in the assassination of Jack Kennedy, and of course his son ‘W’ has prevented the Presidential papers of the Regan Administration from being accessible to historians — I think primarily, because they would reveal that his father was coordinating the Iran-Contra business to give this money to the Nicaraguan resistance…
And by trading arms with the Iranians, and it was such a blatant matter — anyone who thinks a Lieutenant Colonel, even if he’s a Marine, and as capable as Ollie North — had been running this operation, just doesn’t understand it!
You’ve got a former Director of the CIA in the Vice President’s office, it’s just as Richard Nixon when he was Vice-President to Eisenhower, he was actually coordinating the effort to attack Cuba… the abortive ‘Bay of Pigs’ operation was really a Nixon scheme that didn’t pan out.
So there’s an awful lot of what you’re saying that troubles me tremendously, and I do think that this whole project for a North American union is going to come as a colossal shock and affront to the American people…
Because Fintan, there has been no discussion of that in Congress, in fact there’s been only a few isolated voices that have been speaking out about this — Lou Dobbs on CNN or MSNBC, and then Phyllis Schlafly, who’s an extreme right-winger, she’s been speaking out about it, but it’s only been a very few voices.
The national media are just ignoring it completely and yet, it poses the prospect of completely reorienting the nature of this country.
FINTAN: It does indeed, and what I believe they have in mind is to complement the political, and military, and psychological destruction which we saw in the Iraq war, and the 9/11 event, with an economic ‘pulling of the plug’.And they’re gonna pull the plug on you economically, in order to drive the dollar down, then turn to the American people and say, “Hey, look: George Bush has totally wrecked the country… economically we’re wrecked… we’ve no choice now but to abandon the dollar, and to move into a combined currency, the ‘Amero’.
And what’s really disturbing to me as well is that we have somebody who is in an extremely powerful position, he is a former Director of the CIA, George Bush Sr… and right across the other side of the world — we have Vladimir Putin –.who also is an intelligence guy. Vladimir Putin, he’s running Russia.
And I think the intelligence people have taken over, all over. And what are intelligence people really good at? They’re really good at deception, and they’re good at psychological warfare tactics. Except — usually, these were developed for external use but they’re now directing those psychological warfare tactic internally at their own populations, in pursuit of this globalization agenda.
And I think you ain’t seen nothing yet, ’till they pull the plug on you, economically. It will be portrayed to the American people as if — we’ve got no choice now — and so this devastation of the American psyche will be complete, and they will try and roll you into the North American union.
They’re trying it in Europe… but the French and the Danes [?music clipping words?] holding out…
JIM: [music] Stand by we’ll be right back…
<<<ENDQUOTE ~30:45 <<< AS MY GUITAR GENTLY GENTLY WEEPS
Jim Fetzer: Today my special guest is Fintan Dunne, from Ireland. Fintan, for those of you just joining for the second hour, is an online journalist, a geo-political analyst, describes himself as a metaphysical theoretician and as a philosopher. I’d have to ask him about that. He’s the editor of an internet radio show Break For News and he maintains a website at FintanDunne.com
Fintan, tell me a little bit about your education, how you came to this point of being involved with radio and geo-political analysis, and I take it you have some interest in philosophy. Fintan Dunne: Yeah, well the philosophy stuff is sort of the science of the early physics of the universe, and of course that is a metaphysics. Metaphysics has been boxed off into a corner where it’s sort of pure academic philosophy, but really metaphysics is the physics of how we all got here, so that’s been a long-term interest of mine, but really ever since the day of 9/11 I have been pretty much full time on that issue, writing the first article seven days after the event, pointing out that most of the fuel had exploded outside of the second tower and therefore it was a bit funny that that was the tower which collapsed first, if fire was the cause, and following that up another fourteen days later by an article examining the role of Larry Silverstein, and the fact that the towers had changed hands in the sweetheart deal with the Port Authority just weeks before they fell. And they have stood there in the hands of the Port Authority since they had been built and an insurance deal had been taken out by Larry Silverstein just prior to the collapse of the towers. That got me thinking and ever since then I’ve been on this issue, and I’ve learned a lot. I’ve become, I suppose, an expert more in the area of psychological warfare and the psychological aspect of all of this, and that has informed me greatly, besides just the pure political analysis, and looking at how these people play psy-war, and I’ve become a much more educated observer. I think we’ve all learned, Jim, in the last few years, and it’s been a rough experience, but we’re there for the long haul - you know that on the Kennedy issue - and so are these people, and I believe they’re playing very clever games with us. An essential part of the games which they’re playing is that they want us to buy into the weakest possible case that we could make on the 9/11issue, to contaminate the evidence pool so to speak, so that when they eventually get to us big time in the mainstream media, they will cherry-pick the weakest aspects of our argument, present that as if it is our full and substantive argument, and use them, the weak points which they’ve selected out of the evidence pool, in order to destroy us in the mainstream.
Jim Fetzer: Well Fintan, listen, there are so many issue I want us to discuss, that I’d already like to invite you to join me again a week from today to continue our conversation because I don’t want us to rush. I think there’s so much to discuss, so I’d like to know if you could return on the 14th to be my guest again, so we can continue this conversation, just so you will know that we’re going to have that additional time to discuss these matters. Can I book you?
Fintan Dunne: Yeah sure, I’d love to do that and I think it’d be a very fruitful discussion because I know that you’re experienced in this area yourself, in terms of having to evaluate evidence and going up against the mainstream on very complicated issues, so I’m sure that’d be a fruitful, discussion, Jim.
Jim Fetzer: Exactly, and because I want us to work from the more, you know, the global situation backward to why 9/11 was such a pivotal event, and I think you’re the perfect person for this conversation to take place. I want to continue some with the geo-politics of globalization before we get into the nitty gritty of 9/11 and some of your views about * information and disinformation which intrigued me greatly, not that I necessarily find them terribly plausible on their face but because I’m very interested in knowing your reasons. I really like the way you’re thinking things through and I expect I will have things to learn from you.
Let’s go back for a bit to the defamation of the American military in Iraq. I mean, it seems to me it’s so obvious that the military is being weakened, that there has to be a very deep reason for doing this. You talked about the chaotic situation we’ve created in Iraq, essentially fomenting a resistance, more or less you’re implying deliberately, so that there would be a long term war there. Of course we all know there are fourteen permanent bases under construction and that the American embassy that’s going up is going to run something like a billion dollars, it’s going to be the biggest American embassy in the world - that certainly suggests we have no plan to exit - and the more recent conversations I’ve heard about the idea of getting out of Iraq, such as from Peter Pace, who is for the first time as a Marine Corps officer, become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is that our plan B is to make a plan A, which was for victory in Iraq, work, which means there isn’t actually any plan B even now after this last election, when in spite of the slant given by the electronic voting machines without paper trails, with so much dissatisfaction with Bush, so many things were going wrong that last two weeks, that the Democrats prevailed and took control of Congress nevertheless. And I just wonder, you know, how this all fits together. We’ve had events going on in the United States that are very troubling and very subtle. There have been additions to bills past essentially at midnight with no discussion whatsoever that are making a huge potential difference in the authority of the President, to take control of the National Guards of the various states. Every governor of every state opposed this. Nevertheless it was slipped into legislation such that right now, the President of the United States can essentially take control of the National Guard for any of the states for basically any reason whatsoever, and I’m wondering, you know, how these fit together. Many of us of course have been concerned that another false-flag operation, another 9/11,would be invoked in order to suspend the Constitution and impose military law, and I’m just wondering if you think that that’s the scenario that’s most likely to unfold.
Fintan Dunne: Ok, well a number of points you raised there. I just want to respectfully pick up on one of them and that’s the issue of the 9/11 and the analysis I’ve done there. I think it would be wrong of me to expect that people would agree with me on each individual or website that I think is not spreading good information but is spreading bad information, so I’d rather concentrate on just the tactical and strategic -
Jim Fetzer: - I want us to, I want us to defer that issue for later, yeah, ’cause it’s very interesting, I’m very interested in what you have to say, but I want to just sort of set that to the side for the moment.
Fintan Dunne: Yeah sure, so just picking up on, you know, these troubling events that have been going on, the destruction of state sovereignty within the United States of America. If you’re looking to demobilize the national sovereignty of the United States, one of the greatest threats you would have there would be conservative opinion in the U.S., of which the U.S. military would be one example of a group of people who are dedicated to the preservation of the Constitution of the United States, something which I hold very dear and which many people around the world hold dearly, so clearly you would want to target those with your psychological warfare tactics and techniques. I believe that an early ambush on resistance from conservatives to this agenda, of dismantling the United States into a broader political union, is what the Oklahoma event was about, of which there are many questions, and I believe that a follow-on from that, having struck a blow at those who support the Constitution, through the Oklahoma event - which put people off the process of political opposition to what they saw as Washington, to give it a capital W -was this follow-on destruction of another core group which is the U.S. military. And the U.S. military has been devastated psychologically. The psychological effects of pursuing this campaign in Iraq are considerable.
-break-
Jim Fetzer: Fintan, please continue. Before we came to our break you were talking about why the destruction of the American military is an important element of a plan to destroy the sense of national pride of citizens of the United States.
Fintan Dunne: Yeah, it’s in particular because of the strong adherence and commitment of the U.S. military to defending the U.S. Constitution, and it is the sovereignty of the United States at stake here and the Constitution itself here that’s being decimated by some of the ridiculous legal maneuvers of the Bush administration (inaudible, possible break in audio) the Constitution, things like Habeas Corpus rights for example, which are central. So, getting them and getting their eyes off the ball has been an essential part of this because they would be a core support group for defense of the Constitution against this kind of threat, and they’re not going to be in any position to offer that kind of central core of political resistance when they’re totally destroyed by their experiences in Iraq, and when the moral and the sense of identity of the Army itself has been totally destroyed, and the planners who have implemented this ridiculous invasion tactic in Iraq have a lot to answer for -
Jim Fetzer: Something I’m noticing too is the Posse Commitatas inhibition on the military from performing police functions has been eroded if not erased completely, and I take it these National Guard units that are being rotated in and out of Iraq, are leaving their weapons behind which is also of course then depleting the military strength of the United States, where I’m not quite sure but whether there’s the principle source of power from what would emerge or may emerge as a new police state may not be the police forces themselves. Maybe there’s a scheme afoot, or what one could interpret as such a scheme, to weaken the National Guard and the military on behalf of police forces, ordinary police forces.
Fintan Dunne: Yeah, and to also blur the lines between policing National Guard and Army which has been successfully done to essentially redefine the role of the Army and begin to, as you say, through Posse Commitatas dilution, to move them into some kind of militaristic type roll within the United States itself - not to say that I’m expecting them to raise the temperature, Jim. You mentioned earlier on whether there would be some new event on the scale or similar to 9/11. I don’t think so. I think they’ve done their bit on that, and to be honest, if they were going to raise that kind of temperature, an awful lot of people who’ve been disillusioned by the events of the last few years would get very very politically active very quick and you would see the kind of political foment they don’t want. I think they’re going to try and achieve their goals using psychological tactics, then using economic tactics in order to force the U.S. people into this North American Alliance.
Jim Fetzer: Well, we know that at the very least Congress has funded the construction of some kind of detention camps being constructed by Haliburton to the tune of some three hundred million dollars and I take it there are quite a few others out there, so that there’s actually a whole array apparently of these facilities. They’re scattered around the United States. It seemed to me what’s so odd to close bases at a time when the United States was engaged in so much military action that I have surmised that possibly the reason was to make those facilities also available for detention purposes should it become appropriate or necessary to do so, and under the guise of something called operation Falcon the police forces across the country have been acting in coordination with the federal authorities to conduct sweeps gathering together some ten thousand or so mostly petty felons, some sex offenders, drug addicts and the like at one time, which could be the harbinger of the practice drills for actually rounding up political dissidents and opponents of the administration.
Fintan Dunne: Well yeah there’s always that danger. I’m sure these people engage in contingency planning, Jim, just in case things go badly wrong for them, but they’re not expecting it to and as I say I expect them to achieve their goals using methods which do not raise the political temperature too high.
Jim Fetzer: Well the control of the mass media has to be a crucial element. Just as I’ve been stunned by the incapacity of the New York Times to do any serious investigation of 9/11, I mean if you have three college-age kids who can a DVD called Loose Change that does a better job of exposing the realities of our nation’s newspaper of record, something is seriously wrong.
Fintan Dunne: Well, yeah, you know I mean personally I go to our own forum on BreakForNews.com where we have a very active membership, and you get more real information in forums such as that than you do in the mainstream media who are sticking to a corporate agenda and who’s news cycle is pretty much determined by these people. They’re experts in managing the news cycle on a day to day basis so that you never actually get spontaneous information about where the country is going, you merely get reaction to the generated news cycle of this political media alliance which we see rolling all around us.
Jim Fetzer: Well I’m sure Fintan you’re aware of this discovery from the archives of the BBC where it turns out that the BBC was announcing the collapse of building 7 twenty-three minutes before it actually happened. You can see the reporter, a young woman who’s reading from a teleprompter about this event and yet over her shoulder you can see building 7 standing in the background. I thought that was a stunning illustration of the extent to which the intelligence agencies and the mass media are intertwined and linked together.
Fintan Dunne: Well yeah, although I have some skepticism about what they’re really at there. Remember what I was talking about earlier, about them cherry-picking information. See we’ve got some really good structural analysis of the collapse of the World Trade 7, World Trade Center number seven . We know that the reasons that it fell don’t make sense. We know that the official report doesn’t make sense, and we’ve got good sound physics reason why we can argue the case of what happened there. What they’re going to do though is, if they can sucker us into making a big deal about this error by the BBC presenter, in a year’s time, that’s all they’ll talk about.
-break-
Jim Fetzer: Some points just slipped by that are important enough to return to. I was a bit disconcerted with your suggestion that Vladimir Putin is part of the broad scheme of things because I like to think that Russia and China at least can provide counter-weights opposing the efforts of the United States to extend it’s influence around the world, but here we get this question of the relationship between an expansionist foreign policy on the part of, say, the neo-cons, vs. globalization. I’m interested in how you see those as fitting together or working in opposition.
Fintan Dunne: Well if you take a look at some of the stuff that’s gone down in Russia, it’s very similar I think in dynamics to what’s happened here in the West. You’ve also had terrorism, you’ve had the siege in Moscow, for example, you’ve had the Bezlan school tragedy, which deeply affected people, so I think that what Putin has been doing is using the same tactics. He’s got the Chechen separatists acting as his Al Qaeda, and every move they make simply reinforces his dictatorial rule over Russia and enables him to take legislative moves, which affects civil liberties in the same was as what’s happening in the West, so I think that both Vladimir Putin and the intelligence agency people who are running things in the United States and in the West are using the same tactics. You notice also that Russia also has essentially rolled over in terms of opposition to NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, and I believe there is a quid pro quo there, a deal worked out behind the scenes, and you saw a lot of posturing around the time the U.S. went into Iraq - opposition from Russia, opposition from France, opposition from the German government - but when it came right down to it, in Dayton, Ohio, all these people sat down and carved Iraq up together. They passed G-8 agendas, which essentially carved up Iraq. So I think you’re looking at a power structure which is essentially a G-8 power structure, so what could the game be then?
The G-8 game, I think, is that they’re in business together to defend they’re existing colonial and imperial interests worldwide, against the emerging countries, the developing world, and they are engaged in a resource warfare tactic where they are putting together their collective weight in order to defend their position against the rest of the world. The Chinese, I think, are on board with that agenda, Jim, I’m afraid, and if you look at the potential money which is on offer as the Chinese economy develops, I think you’ll see that there’s good reason why they’re on board, because there’s some terrific money been made by the Chinese, the top of the establishment in China as well. So it’s not a very happy picture I’m painting but I do believe that a G-8 agenda is rolling out here and if you’re looking for a hand behind the scenes, it’s a G-8 hand. I think that’s also evidenced by the fact that the London 7/7 bombings took place against the backdrop of a G-8 meeting in Glen Eagles, which gave the G-8 leaders the opportunity to come out on the world stage and offer to defend us all against this terrorism, terrorism which many people who are better informed know has been covertly fostered by those very leaders.
Jim Fetzer: I think that’s an astute connection. That wouldn’t surprise me at all. I mean, what we need are props, we need sets, we need events that we can use for propagandistic purposes. It’s very clear that the 7/7 attacks were staged and that the use of a terrorist drill was a subterfuge and exactly the same routes that were being invoked for the terrorist drill were the very routes and stations like King’s Cross where the explosions took place, and of course you have reports from conductors who were on the train in that case., the explosion actually came, the metal was bent upward which is inconsistent with the backpack having been the source since then the metal would have been blown downward from the force of the explosion, and of course there were a lot of interesting players who happened to be in and around the vicinity at the time, like Rudy Giuliani and I take it, Benjamin Netanyahu. Fintan Dunne: Yeah, that really was a double whammy, and the point you make about the floor being bent upwards is a very (acute?) one. Bruce Lait, who’s a dancer, says that as he departed the train following the bombing, the policeman who was in the carriage with him said: “Mind that hole, that’s where the bomb was, ” and he says that the metal was bent upward also, so there are big questions as to the nature of the 7/7 attacks. But it was a double whammy, because not only - and this is consistent with the globalization agenda - not only did it enable the G-8 leaders to stand there, strutting on the world stage, offering to defend us from a terrorism which many suspect they are fostering for their own political agenda, but they also decimated the Live-Aid campaign, which was a debt relief and fair and equitable deal for the third world, because the Live-Aid concerts and campaign was ongoing at the same time and was totally sidelined by this huge security threat -
Jim Fetzer: And of course that would have made it very hazardous to travel on the tube, I mean people would have been hesitant to get in the subway and go and attend the event.
Fintan Dunne: Exactly, and they were just driven off the political agenda., because a serious matter had arisen and it enabled these G-8 leaders to assume a role on the world stage.
Jim Fetzer: And that was for aid for Africa, was it not?
Fintan Dunne: It was for aid to Africa and it was for a continuation of the original Live-Aid agenda, which was for a fair deal for the developing world. And the showdown was supposed to take place where the Live-Aid campaigners would confront these G-8 leaders and demand a fair deal for the developing countries of the world, and they were completely knocked off that agenda by this security issue which arose.
Jim Fetzer: And if we pursue your perspective, I would take it, if we’re going to look at Africa as the next resource rich continent to be divided among the great powers and exploited for the sake of major corporations, you can prefer that they would not be receiving an infusion of money or support or funds or even medicine, and you can also, I take it, condone genocide and tribal rivalries and other kinds of mayhem in Africa because it weakens the population, it reduces their number and it makes the whole continent more vulnerable to takeover.
Fintan Dunne: It does indeed, and once again harkening back to the psychological warfare aspect, one of the most devastating psychological warfare campaigns has been this campaign to convince us all that Africa is suffering a huge aids problem. I remember not too long ago that Africa was suffering a huge nutrition, sanitation and starvation problem, and suddenly that’s disappeared. These people aren’t starving to death anymore, they’re dying of aids, for which the only solution is pharmaceutical drugs supplied by giant western corporations, so I’m not buying that campaign either and I think there’s an agenda playing out there also. They’re ready to carve up Africa and the recent signals by the U.S. administration to set up a military focus, purely focused on Africa indicates that that is the next target for these people. And they’re picking on the two weak areas of the world that they can get away with it in. They can’t get away with it in South American any more because the people in South American are on to them, but however, they can get away with it in the Muslim world and in Africa.
Jim Fetzer: Fintan, let me just make a couple of observations to see if I have the sense of the way in which you’re looking at the world from a geo-political perspective. One, I would presume you take it that it’s the mega corporations, the trans-national corporations are really the center of, uh, what is, the power structure of the world, I mean the political powers following economic powers, that they have the greatest economic power and that the G-8 is really a political representation for the mega-corporations, that the time of the nation state, in the view of the mega-corporation, has come and gone, that it’s no longer useful for there to be geographical boundaries on nations or for them to have a strong sense of national sovereignty. They can after all pass all kinds of laws that may be idiosyncratic, some may have concerns about the environment, others may want to protect workers rights, some women’s rights, human rights, and that all can be a problem, a hassle, an annoyance for the corporations which simply want to maximize profits. They can maximize profits by taking advantage of natural resources around the world where ever they can find them, apart from any national sovereignty might seek to oppose their exploitation, with cheapest labor, with the fewest benefits, with the lowest price they can maximize their profits while ignoring the necessity to restore the land to it’s proper condition by polluting and not cleaning up. All those things that can go together to increase profit margins, even though it’s at the expense of the environment, at the expense of human rights, at the expense of everything else we might hold near and dear. Actually it’s a mode of operation where morality simply doesn’t figure, where human beings are treated in terms of their net worth to a corporation, which may be either as producers - as workers which they can get all the cheaper as consumers, where we’re basically reduced to what it is, we have the resources we can spend on the products that the corporations can provide, and that’s the way in which they look upon us. Is this a broad characterization of the way you’re looking at the world?
Fintan Dunne: Yeah, pretty much I’m looking at it in terms of the G-8 being a conglomeration of economic interests, more than a political entity, and posing as a political entity but really it’s an economic power -
Jim Fetzer: The G-8 and the WTO are virtually synonymous in many ways. Would that not be the case?
Fintan Dunne: Absolutely, yeah, and I think that their determination is to move forward into a world which was painted very accurately by Robert Reich, former Clinton era labor secretary, and he has written about a world where essentially the middle classes of the world have been decimated and there are low level and low economic-earning groups which are controlled by a technological elite, and think that’s what they’re attempting to implement, and God help us if they succeed, because the danger is that the entities that they’re trying to create will lack any national identity and will lack any national protection. See at the end of the day if you don’t like what’s happening in your country you can go out an protest, and you can vote, and even in the United States people can get sick of the big two parties and go vote for somebody else, but when it comes to corporations being in power you don’t have a vote there. Money controls what happens -
Jim Fetzer: When Robert Reich was describing this vision, I seem to recall an op-ed piece he wrote for the New York Times, but did he actually have a book that defined it?
Fintan Dunne: I wish I could remember the title off the top of my head, but if you Google Robert Reich, you will find I’m sure a reference to that book, and he lays out a world where essentially a technological elite are in control, (where there are some?) he calls symbolic analysts, and he’s also got these things called in-person servers, who are people you’ve got to have to sort of stand behind the store counters and do the cleaning and sweeping up and stuff, but the world has been completely changed in that vision, and this new technological era has been ushered in -
Jim Fetzer: Is this a nightmare or a utopia? I always thought that Robert Reich was very much in favor of labor and unions and working people.
Fintan Dunne: Well, um, maybe so. I just didn’t like the vision I saw him articulating there, and another danger I think that we have is that they will not follow, and I don’t think they’ve been following for many years, the best interests of people in terms of our energy needs and how we develop our energy needs and fulfill those needs. They are keeping us dependent on fossil fuels and that gives them leverage because of the existing vested interests, control structures which are delivering the fossil fuel. You’ll notice for example, that despite the so-called peak oil stuff that’s going on, the oil companies are making record profits, so this is another aspect of the future which these corporations are painting for us, that they will be milking us for everything that we’re worth, and not delivering value, not delivering the true productivity gains which we should be accruing. I’m sure you’re sort of an age and era that I am, you‘ll remember that we foresaw two day weeks, three day weeks, when we were considering the productivity gains we would get from technology and yet somehow these people have engineered us into five-day weeks and both people working in a family in order to sustain one family in a decent livelihood. So, not only will we not have political representation, we won’t be getting, you know, a good return for our labor because it’s not in their interests to give a good return.
Jim Fetzer: That’s a pretty depressing scenario. You know, when you tie the Bushes and the Clintons together, what I see as a kind of anomaly about that is that in the Clinton era we were actually moving from massive national deficits to massive national surpluses. The quality of life was improving, relationships between blacks and whites were better, the wage gap and the income gap was closing. We didn’t have, of course, attempts to stack the courts with right-wing judges. We were devoted to programs of what I took to be disarmament, and the Kyoto accords and a lot of progressive - in terms of the environment - attitudes and legislation, so I just wonder if there’s anything anomalous in your view about tying them so closely together.
Fintan Dunne: Well, yeah, I think here’s what they were up to, and we’ve had some good analysis of this by people who are more economically astute than I am in BreakForNews.com in the forum. What they did during that era was they hyper-inflated, or they began the process - let me say that - they began the process of hyper-inflation where they built up the value of the dollar in order to engage in economic expansion, and it has been timed, and if you look at it historically, you’ll find that during the democratic administrations they do that, and then what happens is when the Republicans get in we get a war and everything collapses, so they used the dollar as an economic lever that caused the world to expand and extend the influence of the United States and then that process has been continued to destruction by the Bush administration where we will now have an implosion of the dollar, deliberately constructed in order to engineer us into this new North American Union. So it wasn’t just benevolence, Jim, there was a clever tactic at play there.
Jim Fetzer: And of course he was advocating the WTO and NAFTA agreements and so forth, so that was certainly a crucial part of putting this broader scheme of things together. What are going to be the key features of the implosion of the dollar, Fintan? What are going to be the most important consequences?
Fintan Dunne: Well, clearly the Chinese can’t keep playing the game that they’ve been playing, in fact they don’t need to. Essentially the Chinese have been underwriting the U.S. economy and the difficulty for the U.S. now is the Chinese have reached the point now where they’re ready to start fulfilling their own needs for economic development internally, without the need to maintain the current ratio between the Chinese yuan and the U.S. dollar, so you’re going to see effectively a period of stagflation take hold - (music starts) Thank you.
Jim Fetzer: Fintan, I can’t begin to thank you for coming on and I’m glad we’re going to be continuing this conversation next week. My special guest Fintan Dunne, breakfornews.com, check it out, and Fintandunne.com, we’re going to continue our conversation next week. This is Jim Fetzer, your host on the Dynamic Duo.
END
