Ebola - It's the French Again

Now, that's just silly. 

There is "Ebola" in Equatorial Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia (all Anglophone recalcitrant Commonwealth states within striking distance of Libya, Mali and Chad), and also Nigeria ('nuff said). This is the French.

The people of Ghana and Cote d'Irvoie are extremely lucky, able as they are to move around in their private helicopters from place to place.

Oh, Look at that.

 
"The deadly Ebola virus could solve France's immigration problems in three months, Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder and honorary president of France's far-Right Front National, has said in remarks which have shocked the country and the world."

 "FTR 17 This segment sets forth information indicating that the deadly Ebola virus that has emerged in Africa may be a man-made virus that was developed in Western biological warfare programs. Relying on information presented in a German television documentary and accessed in a magazine called The New African, the broadcast notes that the epidemiology of the disease makes little sense and that the institutions dealing with the disease are intimately connected to Western BW institutions. An unnamed military official is quoted as saying that a 1976 outbreak of the disease was "the first time weâve had the bug outside of the lab." 

(Recorded in the spring of 1996.)

https://archive.org/details/For_The_Record_17_The_Ebola_Virus

The French from Spike EP on Vimeo.

"They are the last truly aggressive Colonial power"

When War Games Go Live: “Staging” a “Humanitarian War” against “SOUTHLAND”

Under an Imaginary UN Security Council Resolution 3003

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, April 16, 2011

16 April 2011

Military operations of this size and magnitude are never improvised. The war on Libya as well as the armed insurrection were planned months prior to the Arab protest movement…
Libya, 19 March 2011. “No Fly Zone” under UN Security Council Resolution 1973: A “Humanitarian War” is Launched.

We were led to believe that the protest movement in Egypt and Tunisia had spread to Libya.

The insurrection in Libya was presented as a spontaneous response to a wave of pro-democracy activism which had swept the Arab World. 

In turn, we were led to believe that ”the international community” decided in response to these unfolding events, to “protect the lives of civilians” and refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council.

The media then reported that it was only once the UN Security Council had adopted Resolution 1973, that the US and NATO member countries took the decision to intervene militarily in Libya under the “No Fly Zone”… 

THE WAR ON LIBYA WAS KNOWN AND DECIDED WELL IN ADVANCE.

MILITARY PLANNING WAS IN “AN ADVANCED STAGE OF READINESS”.

UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1973 PERTAINING TO LIBYA WAS ALREADY ON THE DRAWING BOARD, MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ONSET OF  THE “PRO-DEMOCRACY” INSURRECTION IN EASTERN LIBYA. …  

Read carefully  ["   " indicate quotation  from "The Southern Mistral 2011" War Games, Scenario)]
  

On November 02 2010, more than four months prior to the onset of Operation Odyssey Dawn, France and the UK announced the conduct of war games under Operation “SOUTHERN MISTRAL 2011″ against “AN IMAGINARY COUNTRY’ called “SOUTHLAND”, living under a “DICTATORSHIP”  which allegedly “was responsible for an attack against France’s national interests”.  

The Franco-British (humanitarian) air operation against “SOUTHLAND” was to be carried out pursuant to an IMAGINARY “UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO: 3003″.

The war games were scheduled to start on March 21, 2011. THESE FRANCO-BRITISH WAR GAMES  NEVER TOOK PLACE. OPERATION “SOUTHERN MISTRAL” WENT LIVE ON MARCH 19, 2011 (two days prior to the scheduled date).

Below is the exact quote and colors from the Franco-British war games website which is hosted by France’s Air Force: 

“SOUTHLAND : Dictatorship responsible for an attack against France’s national interests.  

FRANCE : Makes the decision to show its determination to SOUTHLAND (under United Nations Security council resolution n°3003).

UNITED-KINGDOM : Allied country as determined in the bilateral agreement. The United Kingdom supports France through the deployment of its air assets.” (Commandement de la défense aérienne et des opérations aériennes,  Southern Mistral 2011:  Scenario)

The war games were scheduled to take place from the 21st to the 25 March 2011.

“Six Royal Air Force Tornado GR4s, one tanker Vickers VC-10 and one Boeing E3D will be deployed together with French Air force Mirage 2000Ds, 2000Ns and 2000Cs operating with a fleet of around thirty aircraft including helicopters, Boeing tankers and Awacs radar aircraft.

Air Raid Southern Storm will be commanded and controlled by the National Air Operations Centre (CNOA) of Lyon Mont-Verdun air base (BA 942).

An Air Operations Cell deployed at Nancy air base (BA 133) will follow in real time all the air missions and reproduce the air raids.

Simultaneously, Paratrooper Commando Air 20 (CPA20) will receive its British counterpart in Dijon: the RAF Regiment. Together they will train for air base protection missions on operational theatres in compliance with what is achieved today in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, RAF Regiment members will train in Captieux to helicopters’ air policing measures. These specific procedures are implemented on a daily basis by the Quick reaction Alert FAF air defence helicopters to intervene against “slow movers”.”Welcome to Southern Mistral 11

“An adapted scenario was developed for the exercise.

Based on Western geography, France mostly, an imaginary country was created: SOUTHLAND. An artificial border was drawn inside France to simulate this country.”

SOUTHLAND : Dictatorship responsible for an attack against France’s national interests.  

FRANCE :Makes the decision to show its determination to SOUTHLAND (under United Nations Security council resolution n°3003).

UNITED-KINGDOM :Allied country as determined in the bilateral agreement. The United Kingdom supports France through the deployment of its air assets.

NAVARRE :Allied country giving clearance to French and British aircraft to overfly its territory.

(See Commandement de la défense aérienne et des opérations aériennes, Operation Southern Mistral:Scenario)

THESE FRANCO-BRITISH WAR GAMES  NEVER TOOK PLACE. OPERATION “SOUTHERN MISTRAL” WENT LIVE ON MARCH 19, 2011 AGAINST “SOUTHLAND”.

“OPERATION SOUTHERN MISTRAL”  =  “Operation Odyssey Dawn”

“SOUTHLAND” = ”Libya”

“Security Council Resolution 3003″   = ”Security Council Resolution 1973″.

“DICTATORSHIP” = “Qadhaffi Regime”

Under the war games scenario Security Council Resolution 3003 was proposed by France, whereas “the real life” UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was proposed by France, the UK and Lebanon.

The only difference of substance is that “SOUTHLAND” (aka Libya), the so-called imaginary Southern country for the war games was inserted inside the territory of Southern France (See Map above THE UK IS GREEN, FRANCE IS BLUE, SOUTHLAND IS RED AND NAVARRE IS ORANGE). (Navarre ‘Navarra” designates a region of  Northern Spain).  

The imaginary location of this imaginary Southern country called “SOUTHLAND” was not really an issue, because the war games were postponed…     

The French Air Force announced (in English) the “Suspension of exercise Southern Mistral 2011 [against SOUTHLAND]… Due to the current international events [BOMBING OF LIBYA], exercise Southern Mistral has been suspended.”  Suspension of exercise Southern Mistral 2011. The French version uses the term Mise en veille which means “put on standby” (Mise en veille de l’exercice Southern Mistral 2011). THE OPERATION WAS NOT “PUT ON STANDBY”: THE BRITISH AND FRENCH WAR PLANES WHICH WERE TO BE DEPLOYED AS PART OF OPERATION “SOUTHERN MISTRAL” INCLUDING FRANCE’S MIRAGE 2000 AND BRITAIN’S TORNADO GR4A WERE SENT TO BOMB LIBYA.

France’s Mirage 2000 used in Operation Odyssey Dawn against Libya,

slated to be used in the Southern Mistral war games agains “Southland”.  

Royal Air Force Tornado GR4A slated to be deployed in

the Southern Mistral war games against “Southland”.

What can be said regarding these war games, the attacks on Libya and United Nations Security council resolutions 3003 and 1973?….

We invite our readers to think and reflect on the logic of military planning.

Military operations of this size and magnitude are never improvised. The war on Libya as well as the armed insurrection were planned months prior to the Arab protest movement. In the words of  Rep. Denis Kucinich:

“While war games are not uncommon, the similarities between ‘Southern Mistral’ and ‘Operation Odyssey Dawn’ highlight just how many unanswered questions remain regarding our own military planning for Libya.

The ‘Southern Mistral’ war games called for Great Britain-French air strikes against an unnamed dictator of a fictional country, “Southland.” The pretend attack was authorized by a pretend United Nations Security Council Resolution. The ‘Southern Mistral’ war games were set for March 21-25, 2011.

On March 19, 2011, the United States joined France and Great Britain in an air attack against Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Scheduling a joint military exercise that ends up resembling real military action could be seen as remarkable planning by the French and British, but it also highlights questions  regarding the United States’ role in planning for the war. We don’t know how long the attack on Libya has been in preparation, but Congress must find out. We don’t know who the rebels really represent and how they became armed, but Congress must find out. (Denis Kucinich, Kucinich: President Had Time to Consult with International Community, Not Congress? | Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich, Press Release, March 29, 2011)

 
"The Northern Mali Conflict or Operation Serval is an ongoing French military operation in Mali. The aim of the operation is to oust Islamic militants in the north of Mali."

 

GCHQ from Spike EP on Vimeo.

On the eve of this year’s Bilderberg meeting, the Anglo-French intelligence bosses have clearly shown their hand with two high-profile attacks on Obama. Wednesday, June 5 marked the liberation of Qusayr, the great Stalingrad of the Syrian terrorist death squads deployed by NATO against Assad. With the rout of these terrorists, the main units of the self-styled Free Syrian Army, along with the Nusra branch of al Qaeda, are likely to face annihilation in the short to medium term.


On the same day that Qusayr fell, the British and French governments hysterically demanded that Obama undertake a total bombing campaign against Syria, whatever the consequences in regard to Russia and other powers. To his credit, Obama is continuing to say no to this lunatic Anglo-French neocolonial adventure.

On that same June 5, the London-based daily The Guardian, in an article by the expatriate American Glenn Greenwald, hyped a court order from the secret FISA panel of federal judges showing that the US National Security Agency was routinely monitoring the telephone records (including time, locations, call duration, and unique identifiers, but not the contents of the conversations) of possibly unlimited millions of Verizon phone subscribers. Back in the US, reactionary talk show hosts began screaming

“Obama taps your phones!”

On June 6, again in advance of every other newspaper in the world, The Guardian published another article by Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill revealing that the National Security Agency, under a program called Prism, had obtained direct access to the servers of Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Apple, Youtube, Skype, AOL, and Microsoft, and was busily monitoring the content of e-mails, file transfers, and live conversations. Back in the US, reactionary talk show hosts began screaming,

“Obama reads your e-mail!”

Under George Bush, warrantless wiretaps and similar illegal programs were revealed by various media organs. These revelations had minimal impact on Bush, whose base was indifferent to civil liberties.

Obama’s base, by contrast, cares very much, and has been visibly upset by these new reports.

While strongly condemning these totalitarian programs, we must also not lose sight of who is putting these reports into circulation, and why.

Phone taps are bad, but a general war in the Middle East leading to a possible Third World War is far worse.

The British and French defense and intelligence establishment (they have virtually merged) want Obama and the American people to take the lead and shoulder the risk in a perilous attack on Syria, in time to preserve the death squads so they can fight another day in another country.

London and Paris, of course, see themselves as the principal beneficiaries of the breakup of Syria.

Since Obama is currently blocking their plans, they are bringing up their big guns of scandal, with the center-leftGuardian evidently chosen to take the point, doubtless to obtain more attention among Obama’s leftist supporters.

(During the initial Clinton scandals of Whitewatergate and Troopergate, the flagship of scandal was the reactionary London-based Daily Telegraph, especially through its columnists Peregrine Worthshorne and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.)

Coming as they do on the eve of the yearly Bilderberg conference, these scandals stamped Made in England suggest that the majority of this elitist cabal have maintained their anti-Obama line already evident in last year’s meeting, and are using the current gathering to further their plans.

Death Aid - Prince Philip, the World Wildlife Fund and Those Shady Arms Traders... from Spike EP on Vimeo.

Note: Infamous Saudi Arms Dealer, Adnan Kashoggi is the late Dodi Fayedd's GODFATHER....

(This gets extremely incestuous).

Death Aid: The Winds of Change Bear Bitter Windfalls... from Spike EP on Vimeo.

Death Aid - Hands Off Nigeria from Spike EP on Vimeo.

Mind War Crimes - MH17, MH370 and The Silent War Against Malaysia

The final statement broadcast on-air in New York City in the pre-9/11 era was 

"The Malaysian Prime Minister must be eliminated."

Mind War Crimes - MH17, MH370 and The Silent War Against Malaysia from Spike EP on Vimeo.

"We [Muslims] are actually very strong, 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out.

The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million [during the Holocaust].

But today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.

They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong so they may enjoy equal rights with others.

With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries.

And they, this tiny community, have become a world power."

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad,

Prime Minister of Malaysia, 

1981-2003

A new comedy starring Ben Stiller could be banned in Malaysia because it includes a plot to assassinate the country's prime minister.

The Home Affairs Ministry's Film Censorship Board has viewed the Zoolander and called it "definitely unsuitable".

A spokeswoman for the department said no official ban had yet been imposed but local distributors would be expected to exercise "discretion".

In the film Stiller plays brainless supermodel Derek Zoolander who is talked into killing the Malaysian leader.

The murder is to retaliate against plans to ruin the fashion industry by raising the minimum wage for workers in the country.

The film is due for release in the US on Friday, where it has been given a 13-rating.

But Malaysia's main cinema operator, Golden Screen Cinemas, said they had not picked up the rights to the film.

Malaysia has a history of banning or heavily editing films which it considers offend its political or religious sensibilities.

In 1994, the Oscar-winning Schindler's List was blacklisted, sparking criticism from US Jewish groups.

Steven Spielberg's animated epic The Prince of Egypt was barred so as not to offend the country's majority Muslim population.

Malaysia also outlawed the second instalment of Mike Myers' spoof secret agent Austin Powers.

The international man of mystery was withdrawn because the Censorship Board says The Spy Who Shagged Me contained too much sexual innuendo.

The ban applied to cinemas, television, video compact discs and video tapes.

Jews Rule The World

Says Malaysian Prime Minister

From correspondents in Putrajaya

Daily Telegraph - Australia

10-16-3

Jews rule the world, getting others to fight and die for them, but will not be able to defeat the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has told a major Islamic summit. 

"The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them," Mahathir said, adding, "1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews." The veteran Malaysian premier, who has become notorious for his controversial speeches during his 22 years as leader of this moderate Muslim country, was addressing the opening session of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) summit. 

He told the biggest gathering of Muslim leaders since the 2001 attacks on the United States that all Muslims were suffering "oppression and humiliation", with their religion accused of promoting terrorism. Acknowledging weakness and division in the organisation's ranks, Mahathir said they could at least take a common stand on the Palestinian struggle against Israel and it was time to plan a "counter-attack" against the enemies of Islam who treated Muslims with "contempt and dishonour". 

 He called on Muslims to emulate the Jewish response to oppression, saying the Jews had "survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking". "They invented and successfully promoted socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. "With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. "We cannot fight them through brawn alone, we must use our brains also," he said. "Of late because of their power and their apparent success they have become arrogant. And arrogant people like angry people will make mistakes, will forget to think. "They are already beginning to make mistakes. And they will make more mistakes. There may be windows of opportunity for us now and in the future. We must seize these opportunities." 

Mahathir, however, who has in the past condemned Palestinian suicide bombers as "terrorists", appeared to suggest that it was time for an end to violence against the Israelis. "Over the past 50 years of fighting in Palestine we have not achieved any result. We have in fact worsened our situation." 

He said the Koran "tells us that when the enemy sues for peace we must react positively. True the treaty offered is not favourable to us. But we can negotiate". He said he was aware that this proposal could not be popular and its opponents "would want to send more young men and women to make the supreme sacrifice. But where will all these lead to? Certainly not victory." 

However, he did call on Muslims to match their studies of religion with attention to science and mathematics because "we need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defence". 

This was apparently a reference to what he sees as a broader assault on Muslims by the Western world in the guise of the war on terrorism. He said enemies of Islam "attack and kill us, invade our lands, bring down our governments". 

 Among the more than 30 Muslim leaders present for the summit are Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia and Megawati Sukarnoputri, the president of the world's largest Muslim country Indonesia. 

ECHELON - by Duncan Campbell

Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System 2001 from Duncan Campbell on Vimeo.

The Vanishing AIDS Vaccine - by Duncan Campbell

Scottish Vaccine from Duncan Campbell on Vimeo.

A 1992 IPTV investigation into Professor William Jarrett, a man publically claimed to be on the verge of an AIDS  vaccine which would save countless lives. Jarrett received millions in research grants formt he government.  

But the vaccine did not exist.

Dr Robert Willner Injects HIV into himself on TV

Dr Robert Willner Injects HIV into himself on TV from Spike EP on Vimeo.

"HIV does not cause AIDS.... The point that everyone is missing is that all of those original papers Gallo wrote on HIV have been found fraudulent.... The HIV hypothesis was based on those papers. "

— Peter Duesberg

In 1980, Dr. Robert Gallo, a retrovirologist with the National Cancer Institute, discovered the first human retrovirus (HTLV-I). A retrovirus is distinguished from an ordinary virus by virtue of the fact that its RNA is converted to DNA by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Its replication and survival is totally dependent on the viability of the host cell. If the host cell dies, the virus is finished. Dr. Gallo knew this basic fact; however, he would soon purposely ignore this fact in order to serve his own needs by claiming that the virus was very "mysterious". Somehow it would mysteriously survive while mysteriously slaughtering T-cells by the millions (this has never been observed). He had contended in the past, but failed to prove, that the very same retrovirus (HTLV-I) caused a specific type of leukemia which was occuring in Japan. The power of position, that of being a top government official and scientist, has allowed the erroneous label of "leukemia virus" to remain intact even though it was rejected by the scientific community.

In 1981, it was proposed that an acquired immune deficiency was the basis for a new syndrome of diseases (AIDS) that appeared to be surfacing amongst promiscuous male homosexuals and intravenous drug users. Dr. David Durack, of Duke University, a recognized expert on infectious diseases and the immune system, though admitting the prevalence of drug use (particular "poppers" or amyl nitrites) and repeated multiple infections, ignored these well-known causes of immune deficiency and announced that this "truly new syndrome" must be due to "some new factor". Continuously this group of scientists has resorted to theory, not fact, as to how the AIDS virus supposedly accomplishes its dirty deeds. The words, "it is thought", are constantly used in casual conversations or in the non-scientific articles and popular magazines and books. In the scientific journals or at lectures the theory is presented as established fact although there are no facts involved. It is portrayed as an established truth and therefore is accepted as such by most scientists, including physicians. The so-called HIV virus is still referred to as a "new" virus in spite of the indisputable evidence to the contrary. Incorrectly, the virus has been characterized as "attacking" or "infiltrating" the immune system, when in reality this is impossible because it is not alive and does not invade. Retroviruses are engulfed by the cells and incorporated into the cell's life processes.

In 1983, Dr. Gallo embarked on a mission to convince his fellow scientists, in the absence of any scientific experimental proof whatsoever, that another virus he had discovered caused AIDS. At a widely publicized press conference held in Washington, D.C. on April 23, 1984, Dr. Gallo announced that he had discovered the cause of AIDS. He claimed the unearthing of a new retrovirus which he had named HTLV-III, thus inferring that it was a member of the family of retroviruses he had previously discovered. His claim was bolstered by Margaret Heckler, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, who was under great pressure to come up with some answer to the looming "epidemic". Heckler announced, "Today we add another miracle to the long honor roll of American medicine and science." She also promised that we would have a vaccine within two years, undoubtedly as a result of Dr. Gallo's grandiose urgings. That very day, Dr. Gallo filed a U.S. patent for an HIV test kit which was destined to make him very wealthy. Dr. Gallo, unquestionably very knowledgeable in retrovirology, chose to set aside the facts and became the quintessential intellectual whore. The benefits to Dr. Gallo are money and power; but the costs to humanity are suffering and countless unnecessary deaths. In contrast, street prostitutes are honest – you know what you're getting and you know the risks – and, by the way, AIDS is not one of them.

Margaret Heckler very quickly awarded the lucrative contract for AZT to Burroughs-Wellcome Pharmaceutical Company before the first scientific paper ever appeared in any U.S. journal. AZT was a drug in search of a disease. It had been sitting on the shelves of the National Institutes of Health since the 1960's. It was an experimental drug that had failed as a cancer remedy and had been declared too toxic to use. Retrovirology had gained importance because of Nixon's "War on Cancer" and the belief that a retrovirus might be the cause of cancer in humans. This approach seemed logical at the time, because retroviruses typically prompted cells to multiply – a characteristic of the cancer process. This is directly opposite to the cell destruction that normally occurs in viral infections.

Not only did that war fail, AZT failed, and retrovirologists came up empty-handed after twenty years of intense and arduous research. Alas, a whole group of scientists without a reason d'etre! As you would expect, in 1986, The International Committee of Retrovirologists named HIV the cause of AIDS. By giving credence to the hypothesis in the absence of proof, they became party to the conspiracy. It is just what one would expect when frustrated unsuccessful foxes are left to guard the hen house.

Adding to Dr. Gallo's blatant disregard for all established scientific requirements for validation of his claims, it was eventually discovered that HTLV-III was a retrovirus that had been sent to Dr. Gallo more than a year before by Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. On several occasions, Montagnier had sent samples of the virus he had isolated in the blood of some AIDS patients for Gallo's evaluation. A scandal erupted and a battle ensued over the credit for the discovery and the rights to the patents. It took the intervention of the French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac and U.S. President Ronald Reagan in order to reach an agreement that resulted in the sharing of the proceeds and the credit for the discovery (recently challenged again by the French after Gallo admitted he may have made a mistake). It is truly characteristic of scoundrels to quarrel over the spoils of fraud.

It is important to point out from the beginning that the acronymn AIDS represents the official and scientific designation of the "disease", ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME, which is discussed, examined and critiqued in this book. The inevitable conclusions which a growing number of many prominent scientists have reached, and, which I am sure, you will also, is that AIDS fits neither the definition of a disease, nor of a syndrome. It is merely the lumping together of an ever-increasing number of diseases and symptoms, 25 at the last count (depending on the source), in order to fraudulently create the impression that an epidemic exists.

Keep in mind that Gallo and his cohorts have been getting away with the most elementary and unscientific ploy one could imagine. They have avoided performing scientific controlled studies that would be universally accepted as proof. Such studies would unmask their fraud. They have instead relied on fear, intimidation, sensationalism, greed, ambition, envy and the need for recognition. In this way they have coerced and stupefied an army of followers into believing what, in the past, would have been laughed at, or dismissed as coincidence and/or "anecdotal". HIV has been made the scapegoat for incompetence, and a gateway to the lifestyle of the rich, famous and powerful, for unscrupulous, immoral and incompetent scoundrels. The blitzkrieg of misinformation has obliterated from consideration even the most elementary knowledge, logic and evidence in research and disease.

We have known for more than half a century that we co-exist with many bacteria and viruses. We are well aware that potentially deadly organisms reside within us at all times, waiting only for the balance of health to be tipped in favor of "disease". Streptococcus, tuberculosis, and Pneumocystis carinii, the most common "components" of AIDS, are but a fraction of the infectious organisms that the majority of us live with constantly. Pneumocystis carinii are present in the lungs of virtually every individual on the surface of our planet. Yet, precious few of us ever get the disease they cause: pneumocystis pneumonia. This is just one of the most obvious examples of the basic and pervasive flaws in the guiding premises of "modern" medicine.

Consider, for the moment, the following questions:

When the great flu of 1919 took the lives of millions of people in the United States, Why didn't the entire population succumb?

When the great bubonic plague destroyed one-third of the population of Europe, Why didn't the other two-thirds die also?

Why didn't everyone die?

The answer:

When an epidemic destroys its susceptible population, it ceases to exist. In other words, it is the inability of the individual's immune system that determines the degree to which an individual "falls ill" or whether or not he becomes ill at all. As Pasteur is purported to have exclaimed on his deathbed, "It is not the organism; it is the terrain!" If this were not true, then everyone, in the examples cited above, would have gotten the plague or the flu and all would have died. In fact, the first disease on earth would have been the last! The deceivers of infamy have succeeded in creating a chain of events that have destroyed logic and common sense, and in their place, established the following "Commandments" for science, government, the press and the public:

The Ten Commandments of Fraud

Coincidence is proof of cause and effect.

Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence.

One example proves the rule.

One guess supported by another guess creates a fact.

Saying it is so, makes it so.

Don't confuse the issue with facts.

Proof is unncessary and should be avoided.

Lie, lie, lie, and they'll believe it.

Silence, ignore and suppress the truth.

Replace reason with dogma, fraud and blindfolded fear.


The repeated use of these commandments by the conspirators prompted T. C. Fry to comment in his book, The Great AIDS Hoax, "...the presence of what they call HIV in the disease [AIDS] is no more proof of cause than the presence of flies in garbage proves that the flies are the cause of garbage." There could be an exception however, if you consider that the "AIDS Gang": Robert Gallo, Anthony Fauci, William Haseltine, Max Essex, James Curran, Flossie Wong-Staal, Dani Bolognesi, Margaret Fischl, Margaret Heckler, et al., are the flies; then indeed, the garbage was created by them!

A Glimmer of Light

Character assassination in response to challenge is tacit evidence of an indefensible position. — Robert Willner

In 1987, the light of truth had begun to pierce their facade. For these conspirators, it was the harbinger of their downfall (if justice prevails). It began when Dr. Peter Duesberg, an international authority on retroviruses, published an article in Cancer Research which shook the very foundations of the HIV/AIDS theory. Many scientists were stunned by his position, but impressed by its truth. 

Others were relieved that someone had the courage to finally speak up. The powerbrokers and vested interests counter-attacked, not with scientific argument and fact, but with name-calling, character assassination, vitriolic insinuations, denigration, and political and economic reprisal. Their actions and their words only verified their guilt. Then, in February 1989, Dr. Duesberg submitted a masterful comprehensive analysis to The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This prestigious group has ignored this document and taken no action. In the political and scientific worlds, this is usually the safest way of covering your assets. If you are eventually found out, you can always claim that there wasn't convincing evidence. Meanwhile, millions have died!

During the past four years, the classical AIDS combination of characteristic featrues has been reported in individuals who tested negative for HIV, and the number is growing steadily. Of course, the charlatans were quick to "hypothesize" that there must be another "virus" causing it, lest their gambit be discovered. Still another attempt to divert attention from the most important and obvious, scientifically established causes – DRUGS.

They concede now that the virus can't do it alone; that the "co-factors" are necessary. However, we have known that the "co-factors" have caused immunodeficiency for many decades, by themselves, long before HIV was discovered. It is HIV that is not necessary for AIDS.

How Could They Get Away With This Incredible Fraud?

How could this happen? Surely, it's not possible that a fraud of this magnitude could ever escape the scrutiny of the thousands of scientists throughout the world who have been researching the many avenues of investigation into this "modern day plague". It all began with the retrovirologists whose area of expertise is so arcane that most scientists in other fields are quite unfamiliar with it. I, myself, read with complete acceptance the early articles in the medical journals, newspapers, and popular magazines. Who could doubt the declarations of the powerful and influential governmental departments, agencies, and scientific enclaves? Although the many claims made for the virus did not sit easily with me, it was several years before I, almost instinctively, began to doubt what I was reading. I guess it was because of two and a half decades of practicing medicine, that the gradual exposure to the failures and inconsistencies of establishment medicine and its resistance to deviation from the mandated dogmatic approach to disease, I learned to question the pabulum I had been trained to digest.

At first it was the insane, irrational, and contradictory therapy that I could not accept. But then, when I attended a dinner at which Dr. Margaret Fischl described her infamous "double-blind" study on AZT, the first drug presented for the treatment of AIDS, I knew something foul was going on. Finally, when I travelled to a meeting in Los Angeles during February 1989, dealing with alternative approaches to AIDS, at which I heard Dr. Peter Duesberg speak, I ultimately questioned the validity of the disease itself. I had finally become educated about retroviruses by the most knowledgeable man in the field. Until that time, I had been presented theory as fact. Like the rest of my colleagues, I assumed that what I had been taught was proven and therefore believed it to be true. The truth became apparent: AIDS was all supposition, theory, pseudo-scientific, and a scam. Because it was all based on less-than-scientific papers, the most fragile type of circumstantial evidence and self-serving hypotheses, HIV had been indicted, convicted and "sentenced" falsely of a "crime" it could not possibly have committed. What about the retrovirologists themselves? How could they have been fooled? In an article written for the magazine The Truth Seeker (September/October 1989), Dr. Duesberg explained the reasons:

"After a frustrating 20-year-long search for a human cancer virus, the club [the retrovirologists] was craving for some clinical relevance for the retrovirus and hence, happily adopted HIV – the AIDS virus – as the cause of AIDS." He went on to explain the impact of the powerful promotion that made the AIDS hypothesis "instant national dogma". The billions of dollars in funding, the economic interests of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies and the tremendous notoriety from the press which was too much to resist. In wondering why only a handful of scientists questioned the AIDS hypothesis, he cited, "...the conformist pressures on scientists, particularly young, untenured scientists, in the age of biotechnology. Their conceptual obedience to the establishment is maintained by controlled access to grants, journals, and positions, and rewarded by meeting engagements, personal prizes, consultantships, stocks and co-ownership in companies."

The National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Food and Drug Administration have all seriously jeopardized their credibility and motives by their active participation or silence in the face of such an obvious fraud. In view of the fact that it is hard to believe that individuals at that level are that stupid (although anything is possible), one must assume that incredible government pressure was brought to bear. The most obvious and usual pressures are funding, perks, and the fear of dismissal. Take your choice: incompetence or corruption.

Duesberg is a good example of what can happen to one of the most respected scientists in the field. He is world-renowned, an elected member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, and recipient of the distinguished NIH "Outstanding Investigator Grant" (only 23 in the country). He also discovered the genes which cause cancer (oncogenes), and was recommended for a Nobel Prize. He is an international authority on retroviruses, and a Professor of Molecular Biology at the University of California at Berkeley. It is rumored that his $350,000 research grant was to be terminated last year, and his appeal is to be judged by a committee that includes Gallo's mistress, Dr. Flossie Wong-Staal; and Dr. Dani Bolognesi, now a wealthy patent-holder on HIV tests. These individuals have the ability to rob us of great talent.

Intimidation has been unrelenting and vicious. Duesberg wrote that he had been "...labelled a bigot for considering [the] daily administration of psychoactive and immunosuppressive chemicals more likely to be the cause of AIDS than a chronically dormant and almost chemically undetectable retrovirus. The nation's leading AIDS researcher accused me of being an advocate of promiscuity [to paraphrase it politely] for questioning the viral etiology of AIDS." Could it be that our scientists were more interested in fostering Puritan values than in presenting scientific truth? The facts will speak for themselves.

Instead of answering the sea of questions that shook the very foundations of the AIDS hypothesis, the vested establishment insulted their opponents, barred debate, and even cancelled a White House meeting, refusing to participate in order to demonstrate the "insanity" of even questioning HIV and AIDS. Their criminal arrogance is an affront to all of humanity. Initially, Gallo and his co-conspirators could have possibly been exonerated on the basis of ignorance and stupidity. However, to block open scientific discussion, to use political and economic power to silence opposing points of view, and to suppress or ignore basic scientific fact and logic, is irrefutable evidence of their criminal intent.

To be pious while blaspheming another is merely a reflection of one's own character. — Robert Willner

Although an impressive cadre of well-known scientists has formed the "Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis", which was started by Dr. Charles A. Thomas, Jr., a Harvard biologist, it is necessary that there be an outcry from the public demanding an investigation. Several Congressmen have taken interest in this matter; amongst them are William Dannemyer and Ron Dellums. Send a copy of this book to your Senator and Congressman. Their names and addresses are available at your local library or through your newspaper. These courageous, honorable and incorruptible scientists have earned, and need, your support!

When you have finished reading the evidence, I am convinced that you will feel relieved in knowing that we are not all doomed to die AIDS, unless, of course, we all start taking AZT based on Gallo's scam and his fraudulent followers. If you are HIV positive, there is one thing you can be sure of: your body has successfully defended intself against an insignificant virus. So read on, and if you agree with the evidence, I ask you to pick up your pen and shout through the mails:

I'VE HAD IT!
I WON'T BE DECEIVED ANYMORE!
INDICT THE PERPETRATORS!

© 1994 by Robert Willner

THE PROOF THAT SEX AND HIV ABSOLUTELY DO NOT CAUSE AIDS
The shocking truth is at last revealed in...
DEADLY DECEPTION
By Robert E. Willner, M.D., Ph.D.


Other Books by Robert E. Willner, M.D., Ph.D.
The Cancer Solution Published by Peltec Publishing Co., Inc.
The opinions expressed in this book are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher, printer, distributors or any establishment in which it may be sold.

However, the facts speak for themselves!

The informal ion in this book is based on published and unpub­lished sources. The purpose is for the dissemination of knowledge and should not be construed as giving medical advice. Your choice of health care and my right to express opinions based on experience and documentation are protected by the constitution. It is my intention to provide the reader with knowledge not being made readily available, in order to be sure that the doctrine of informed consent is being fulfilled, and that freedom of information is exer­cised.

Robert E. Willner, M.D., Ph.D.
DEADLY DECEPTION
by Robert E. Willner, M.D., Ph.D.
Copyright © 1994 Peltec Publishing Co., Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the U.S.A.


...IN MEMORIAM
To the victims of all drugs, especially AZT, who have died because they weren't informed that drugs cause the diseases of immune deficiency. I dedicate my life to exposing the "Deadly Deception," that you will not have died in vain.

...A MESSAGE OF LIFE

To all these who have suffered the terrible fear, despondency and devastation that comes withbeing told "You are HIV-positive"—
You have been victimized by the "Deadly (cruel) Deception"
You will live!

Hopefully you will read this book
before you start the conventional deadly therapy.
Remember, however, it is never too late!
Peltec Publishing Co., Inc.
4400 North Federal Highway
Suite 210
Boca Raton, FL 33431
1-800-214-3645


More than five hundred of the world's most
prominent scientists are questioning the AIDS hypothesis.
Their number is growing daily — This book tells the story.


THE FACTS AND THE PROOF
THERE IS NO EPIDEMIC AIDS IS NOT CONTAGIOUS
WHY BEING HIV POSITIVE IS NOT A DEATH SENTENCE.
WHAT REALLY CAUSES AIDS
HOW AIDS CAN EASILY BE PREVENTED
HOW AIDS CAN BE CURED.
YOU ARE THE VICTIM OF A MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR FRAUD.

An incredible story of the arrogance, ignorance, corruption, and deception of establishment medicine, the pharmaceutical industry and agencies of the U.S. Government. A factual account, com­pletely documented, of the most horrendous and deadly scientific fraud in history.


LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN
Because of the efforts of some very special people, the mos important medical message of the century has already reached th< minds of millions of people.

Deepest thanks to:
MARISA CASARES SAYTOS
Indispensable Advisor, Public Relations Manager,
and Incredible Instantaneous Translator

ANDRES PALLARES (Editor)
and the staff of LANCELOT
The incredible weekly magazine of Lanzarote in the Canary Islands, Spain

ANTONIO COLL GONZALES (President)

JORGE M. COLL GONZALES (Director)

GLORIA ARTILES (Columnist)

and the photos of JOSE LUIS CARRASCO

THE STAFF OF ONDA CERO RADIO, FM CANAL 28 (Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain)
and to Pepe Navarro whose popular television show was the first to air the story


PROSPECTUS
When you have read this book completely, you must come to the conclusion that the following are basic facts and truths:

AIDS IS NOT CONTAGIOUS
AIDS IS NOT A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE AIDS CAN EASILY BE PREVENTED AND CURED

Dr. Gallo (the "discoverer" of the AIDS virus) and his cohorts are guilty of a conspiracy to intentionally commit criminal negligence.
They are guilty of fraud and manslaughter.

The so-called "AIDS test" is unreliable, invalid, and completely misleading; it inaccurately and undependably tests for immunity to an innocent virus.

On the basis of a meaningless test, individuals are subjected to the killer drug AZT.

All of the studies on AZT are fraudulent and misleading, including the first study which resulted in the licensing of this drug.

The Food and Drug Administration of the United States, which licensed AZT, is aware of this fact and has not recalled it; they are guilty of criminal negligence and genocide.

The AIDS hypothesis, its diagnostic tests, and its treatment are the..
DEADLY DECEPTION.


REFLECTIONS — BEFORE

When we were children ...
Our mothers and fathers said there was a Santa Claus, an Easter bunny, and a tooth fairy. Of course, we all believed it. After all, it was mom and dad who said they existed. And besides, we were only children. The evidence seemed so convincing: there were presents under the tree, colorful eggs hidden in strange places, and money under the pillow. It took maturity and facing the facts of life to make us cognizant of the truth. Most of us painfully gave up the myth.

Now as adults ...
For ten years we have been told by our scientists, our government and the media that there is a contagious epidemic called AIDS, and of course we all believe it. After all, it is the "authorities" that say so. Besides, now we are adults and we know better, it must be the truth — the evidence is so convincing; there are millions with the disease, they found the virus, and they even have a test for it!
but...

What if it is a myth?

What if AIDS is 25 old diseases which are given a new name?

What if the facts are against the viral theory and there is no
proof the virus causes anything? 

What if the numbers are only predictions that have proven to be
91% wrong during the first ten years? 

What if the test is completely unreliable? 

What if the causes of acquired immune deficiency have been
known for over sixty years?

What if those causes are more prevalent now than ever before? 

What if the drug used to treat AIDS causes AIDS? 

What if the evidence is overwhelming that sex has nothing to do

with AIDS? 

What if giving up this myth may save your life?

US participating in international Eager Lion exercise in Jordan - News - Stripes

AMMAN, Jordan — Eager Lion, a 12-day annual military exercise involving 8,000 personnel from 19 countries, is underway as the civil war rages next door in Syria.

About 5,000 Americans from all services are participating in the Jordanian-led exercise, which will focus on “issues such as integrated air and missile defense and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to address current and future conflicts’ security issues,” said Maj. Gen. Awni al Adwan of the Jordanian army and chairman of the joint task force.

Jordanian and U.S. officials played down any link between the exercise and the crisis in Syria, which has raised concerns that the civil war could spill over the border. More than 250,000 Syrians have fled to Jordan, according to the U.N. refugee agency.

US participating in international Eager Lion exercise in Jordan - News - Stripes

Sarajevo & the Serbian Black Hand : Synthetic Terror - Made in the British Foreign Office

Sarajevo & the Serbian Black Hand : Synthetic Terror - Made in the British Foreign Office from Spike EP on Vimeo.

"The colossal bloodletting of World War I began in Sarajevo, Bosnia with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Serbian nationalist fanatic named Gavrilo Prinkip, an activist of the group called the Black Hand, a Mazzini-style Serbian underground national liberation group. But the Black Hand was controlled by Serbian military intelligence. Colonel Apis of Serbian military intelligence was in turn an asset of the Okhrana, the Russian intelligence, through the Russian military attaché in Belgrade, and he and Prinkip may also have been under the influence of the British-backed Grand Orient freemasons, which had been working towards a general European war since about 1906-7."

Webster Tarpley, 

9/11 : Synthetic Terror - Made in USA

"Unbelievable that old Biff could have chosen that particular date!!

It could mean that that point in time inherently contains some sort of cosmic significance..... Almost as if it were the temporal junction point for the entire space-time continuum.... 

On the other hand, it could just be an amazing coincidence."

Webster Tarpley on Ariel Sharon, Abu Nidal, the ADL and International Terrorism (1986) from Spike EP on Vimeo.
"General Ariel Sharon has two members on the Council of the Abu Nidal Organisation"

(People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), anti-Arraffat guerrillas.)

The Dog that Did not Bark: American Airlines Flight 587 - by WebsterG.Tarpley

The Dog That Did Not Bark - American Airlines Flight 587 from Spike EP on Vimeo.

The Dog that Did not Bark

"Two months after 9/11, American Airlines Flight 587 -- an Airbus 300-600 -- left John F. Kennedy International Airport en route to the Dominican Republic. Less than three minutes after takeoff, the aircraft crashed in a blazing inferno in the heart of a Queens neighborhood. All 265 people aboard perished. According to the NTSB, the tail fin and rudder of the plane sheared off as it accelerated. This was the second deadliest crash in U.S. history, but it also "was the first example where we had an in-flight failure of a major structural component of an aircraft that in fact was made of composite materials," said National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chairwoman Marion Blakey.

In the case of American Airlines Flight 587, federal officials seemed interested in avoiding the question of terrorism, and so they released detailed information about the cockpit voice recorder within less than 36 hours. (Philadelphia Daily News, November 15, 2001) While this crash also remains very suspicious, and exhibits some technical parallels to Egyptair 890, it appears impossible to come to a definite conclusion at this time as to what causes were involved."

Flight 587, circled in white, can briefly be seen in this video still moving downward with a white streak behind the aircraft. This video, released by the NTSB, was recorded by a toll-booth camera located on the Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge.

Still from a security camera taken at a tollbooth showing American Airlines Flight 587 (circled in white) falling to the ground and on fire shortly after taking off from JFK International airport on November 12, 2001.

9/11 and Global Terrorism - A Dialogue with Jacques Derrida

The Deconstructionist Agenda from Spike EP on Vimeo.

No mo' po-mo.

"Derrida is the kind of philosopher that gives bullshit a bad name"

Foucault

"In the winter of 1989, during Bush’s first hundred days in office, Fukuyama delivered a lecture to the Olin Foundation which was later published in The National Interestquarterly under the title of “The End of History?” Imperial administrator Fukuyama had studied under the reactionary elitist Allan Bloom, and was conversant with the French neo-enlightenment semiotic (or semi-idiotic) school of Derrida, Foucault, and Roland Barthes, whose zero degree of writing Fukuyama may have been striving to attain. Above all, Fukayama was a follower of Hegel in the interpetation of the French postwar neo-Hegelian Alexandre Kojeve." - Tarpley

Giovanna Borradori: September 11 [le 11 septembre] gave us the impression of being a major event, one of the most important historical events we will witness in our lifetime, especially for those of us who never lived through a world war. Do you agree?

Jacques Derrida: Le 11 septembre, as you say, or, since we have agreed to speak two languages, "September 11." We will have to return later to this question of language. As well as to this act of naming: a date and nothing more. When you say "September 11" you are already citing, are you not? You are inviting me to speak here by recalling, as if in quotation marks, a date or a dating that has taken over our public space and our private lives for five weeks now. Something fait date, I would say in a French idiom, something marks a date, a date in history; that is always what's most striking, the very impact of what is at least felt, in an apparently immediate way, to be an event that truly marks, that truly makes its mark, a singular and, as they say here, "unprecedented" event. I say "apparently immediate" because this "feeling" is actually less spontaneous than it appears: it is to a large extent conditioned, constituted, if not actually constructed, circulated at any rate through the media by means of a prodigious techno-socio-political machine. "To mark a date in history" presupposes, in any case, that "something" comes or happens for the first and last time, "something" that we do not yet really know how to identify, determine, recognize, or analyze but that should remain from here on in unforgettable: an ineffaceable event in the shared archive of a universal calendar, that is, a supposedly universal calendar, for these are—and I want to insist on this at the outset—only suppositions and presuppositions. Unrefined and dogmatic, or else carefully considered, organized, calculated, strategic—or all of these at once. For the index pointing toward this date, the bare act, the minimal deictic, the minimalist aim of this dating, also marks something else. Namely, the fact that we perhaps have no concept and no meaning available to us to name in any other way this "thing" that has just happened, this supposed "event." An act of "international terrorism," for example, and we will return to this, is anything but a rigorous concept that would help us grasp the singularity of what we will be trying to discuss. "Something" took place, we have the feeling of not having seen it coming, and certain consequences undeniably follow upon the "thing." But this very thing, the place and meaning of this "event," remains ineffable, like an intuition without concept, like a unicity with no generality on the horizon or with no horizon at all, out of range for a language that admits its powerlessness and so is reduced to pronouncing mechanically a date, repeating it endlessly, as a kind of ritual incantation, a conjuring poem, a journalistic litany or rhetorical refrain that admits to not knowing what it's talking about. We do not in fact know what we are saying or naming in this way: September 11, le 11 septembre, September 11. The brevity of the appellation (September 11, 9/11) stems not only from an economic or rhetorical necessity. The telegram of this metonymy—a name, a number—points out the unqualifiable by recognizing that we do not recognize or even cognize that we do not yet know how to qualify, that we do not know what we are talking about.

•  •  •

Borradori: Where were you on September 11?

Derrida: I was in Shanghai, at the end of a long trip to China. It was nighttime there, and the owner of the cafe I was in with a couple of friends came to tell us that an airplane had "crashed" into the Twin Towers. I hurried back to my hotel, and from the very first televised images, those of CNN, I note, it was easy to foresee that this was going to become, in the eyes of the world, what you called a "major event." Even if what was to follow remained, to a certain extent, invisible and unforeseeable. But to feel the gravity of the event and its "worldwide" implications it was enough simply to mobilize a few already tested political hypotheses. As far as I could tell, China tried during the first few days to circumscribe the importance of the event, as if it were a more or less local incident. But this organized interpretation, informed by the current state of U.S.-China relations (diplomatic tensions and incidents of various sorts), ended up having to yield to other exigencies: CNN and other international media outlets have penetrated Chinese space, and China too, after all, has its own "Muslim" problem. It thus became necessary to join in some way the "antiterrorist" "coalition." It would be necessary to analyze, in the same vein, the motivations and interests behind all the different geopolitical or strategico-diplomatic shifts that have "invested," so to speak, "September 11." (For example, the warming in relations between Bush and Putin, who has been given a freer hand in Chechnya, and the very useful but very hasty identification of Palestinian terrorism with international terrorism, which now calls for a universal response.) In both cases, certain parties have an interest in presenting their adversaries not only as terrorists—which they in fact are to a certain extent—but only as terrorists, indeed as "international terrorists" who share the same logic or are part of the same network and who must thus be opposed, it is claimed, not through counterterrorism but through a "war," meaning, of course, a "nice clean" war. The "facts" clearly show that these distinctions are lacking in rigor, impossible to maintain, and easily manipulated for certain ends.

Borradori: A radical deconstruction of the distinction between war and terrorism, as well as between different types of terrorism (such as national and international), makes it very difficult to conceive of politics in a strategic sense. Who are the actors on the world stage? How many of them are there? Isn't there here the risk of total anarchy?

Derrida: The word "anarchy" risks making us abandon too quickly the analysis and interpretation of what indeed looks like pure chaos. We must do all that we can to account for this appearance. We must do everything possible to make this new "disorder" as intelligible as possible. The analysis we sketched out earlier tried to move in that direction: an end of the "Cold War" that leaves just one camp, a coalition, actually, of states claiming sovereignty, faced with anonymous and nonstate organizations, armed and virtually nuclear powers. And these powers can also, without arms and without explosions, without any attacks in person, avail themselves of incredibly destructive computer technologies, technologies capable of operations that in fact have no name (neither war nor terrorism) and that are no longer carried out in the name of a nation-state, and whose "cause," in all senses of this word, is difficult to define (there's the theological cause, the ethnic cause, the socioeconomic cause, and so on). On no side is the logic of sovereignty ever put into question (political sovereignty or that of the nation-state—itself of ontotheological origin, though more or less secularized in one place and purely theological and nonsecularized in another): not on the side of the nation-states and the great powers that sit on the Security Council, and not on the other side, or other sides, since there is precisely an indeterminate number of them. Everyone will no doubt point to existing international law (the foundations of which remain, I believe, perfectible, revisable, in need of recasting, both conceptually and institutionally). But this international law is nowhere respected. And as soon as one party does not respect it the others no longer consider it respectable and begin to betray it in their turn. The United States and Israel are not the only ones who have become accustomed to taking all the liberties they deem necessary with UN resolutions.

To answer your question more specifically, I would say that the United States is perhaps not the sole target, perhaps not even the central or ultimate target, of the operation with which the name "bin Laden" is associated, at least by metonymy. The point may be to provoke a military and diplomatic situation that destabilizes certain Arab countries torn between a powerful public opinion (which is anti-American if not anti-Western, for countless reasons stemming from a complex, centuries old history, but then also, in the aftermath of an era of colonialism or imperialism, from poverty, oppression, and ideologico-religious indoctrination) and the necessity of basing their nondemocratic authority on diplomatic, economic, and military ties with the United States. First on the list here would be Saudi Arabia, which remains the privileged enemy of everything that might be represented by a "bin Laden" (a name I use always as a synecdoche) or a Saddam Hussein. Yet Saudi Arabia (an important family and an important oil-producing power), while maintaining its ties with its American "protector," "client," and "boss," fuels all the hotbeds of Arab Islamic fanaticism if not "terrorism" in the world. This is one of the paradoxical situations, once again autoimmunitary, of what you called "total anarchy": the movements and shifts in the strategic oil alliances between the United States (self-styled champion of the democratic ideal, of human rights, and so on) and regimes about which the least that can be said is that they do not correspond to this model. Such regimes (I used the example of Saudi Arabia, though it would be necessary to speak of the equally serious case of Pakistan) are also the enemies or targets of those who organize so-called "international terrorism" against the U.S. and, at least virtually, their allies. That makes for more than one triangle. And with all the angling going on between these triangles, it is difficult to disentangle the real from the alleged motivation, oil from religion, politics from economics or military strategy. The "bin Laden" type of diatribe against the American devil thus combines such themes as the perversion of faith and nonbelief, the violation of the sacred places of Islam, the military presence near Mecca, the support of Israel, and the oppression of Arab Muslim populations. But if this rhetoric clearly resonates with the populations and even the media of the Arab and Muslim world, the governments of Arab Muslim states (the majority of which care about as much for human rights and democracy as bin Laden does) are almost all hostile in principle, as "governments," to the "bin Laden" network and its discourse. One thus has to conclude that "bin Laden" is also working to destabilize them…

Borradori: Which would be the standard objective of terrorists, to overturn but not take over, to destabilize the current situation.

Derrida: The most common strategy consists always in destabilizing not only the principal, declared enemy but also, at the same time, in a kind of quasi-domestic confrontation, those much closer. Sometimes even one's own allies. This is another necessary consequence of the same autoimmunitary process. In all wars, all civil wars, all partisan wars or wars for liberation, the inevitable escalation leads one to go after one's rival partners no less than one's so-called principal adversary. During the Algerian War, between 1954 and 1962, what sometimes looked like "fratricidal" acts of violence between different insurrectional forces proved sometimes just as extreme as those between these groups and the French colonial forces.

This is yet one more reason not to consider everything that has to do with Islam or with the Arab Muslim "world" as a "world," or at least as one homogeneous whole. And wanting to take all these divisions, differences, and differends into account does not necessarily constitute an act of war; nor does trying to do everything possible to ensure that in this Arab Muslim "world," which is not a world and not a world that is one, certain currents do not take over, namely, those that lead to fanaticism, to an obscurantism armed to the teeth with modern technoscience, to the violation of every juridico-political principle, to the cruel disregard for human rights and democracy, to a nonrespect for life. We must help what is called Islam and what is called "Arab" to free themselves from such violent dogmatism. We must help those who are fighting heroically in this direction on the inside, whether we are talking about politics in the narrow sense of the term or else about an interpretation of the Koran. When I say that we must do this for what is called Islam and what is called "Arab," I obviously mean that we must not do any less when it comes to Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Asia!

Borradori: Earlier you emphasized the essential role of international organizations and the need to cultivate a respect for international law. Do you think that the kind of terrorism linked to the al- Qaeda organization and to bin Laden harbors international political ambitions?

Derrida: What appears to me unacceptable in the "strategy" (in terms of weapons, practices, ideology, rhetoric, discourse, and so on) of the "bin Laden effect" is not only the cruelty, the disregard for human life, the disrespect for law, for women, the use of what is worst in technocapitalist modernity for the purposes of religious fanaticism. No, it is, above all, the fact that such actions and such discourse open onto no future and, in my view, have no future. If we are to put any faith in the perfectibility of public space and of the world juridico-political scene, of the "world" itself, then there is, it seems to me, nothing good to be hoped for from that quarter. What is being proposed, at least implicitly, is that all capitalist and modern technoscientific forces be put in the service of an interpretation, itself dogmatic, of the Islamic revelation of the One. Nothing of what has been so laboriously secularized in the forms of the "political," of "democracy," of "international law," and even in the nontheological form of sovereignty (assuming, again, that the value of sovereignty can be completely secularized or detheologized, a hypothesis about which I have my doubts), none of this seems to have any place whatsoever in the discourse "bin Laden." That is why, in this unleashing of violence without name, if I had to take one of the two sides and choose in a binary situation, well, I would. Despite my very strong reservations about the American, indeed European, political posture, about the "international antiterrorist" coalition, despite all the de facto betrayals, all the failures to live up to democracy, international law, and the very international institutions that the states of this "coalition" themselves founded and supported up to a certain point, I would take the side of the camp that, in principle, by right of law, leaves a perspective open to perfectibility in the name of the "political," democracy, international law, international institutions, and so on. Even if this "in the name of" is still merely an assertion and a purely verbal commitment. Even in its most cynical mode, such an assertion still lets resonate within it an invincible promise. I don't hear any such promise coming from "bin Laden," at least not one for this world.

Borradori: It seems that you place your hopes in the authority of international law.

Derrida: Yes. In the first place, as imperfect as they may be, these international institutions should be respected in their deliberations and their resolutions by the sovereign states who are members of them and who have thus subscribed to their charters. I mentioned just a moment ago the serious failings of certain "Western" states with regard to these commitments. Such failings would stem from at least two series of causes.

First, they would have to do with the very structure of the axioms and principles of these systems of law and thus of the charters and conventions that institutionalize them. Reflection (of what I would call a "deconstructive" type) should thus, it seems to me, without diminishing or destroying these axioms and principles, question and refound them, endlessly refine and universalize them, without becoming discouraged by the aporias such work must necessarily encounter.

But second, such failings, in the case of states as powerful as the United States and Israel (which is supported by the U.S.), are not subject to any dissuasive sanctions. The United Nations has neither the force nor the means for such sanctions. It is thus necessary to do everything possible (a formidable and imposing task for the very long term) to ensure that these current failings in the present state of these institutions are effectively sanctioned and, in truth, discouraged in advance by a new organization. This would mean that an institution such as the UN (once modified in its structure and charter—and I'm thinking here particularly of the Security Council) would have to have at its disposal an effective intervening force and thus no longer have to depend in order to carry out its decisions on rich and powerful, actually or virtually hegemonic, nation-states, which bend the law in accordance with their force and according to their interests. Sometimes quite cynically.

I'm not unaware of the apparently utopic character of the horizon I'm sketching out here, that of an international institution of law and an international court of justice with their own autonomous force. Though I do not hold law to be the last word in ethics, politics, or anything else, though this unity of force and law (which is required by the very concept of law, as Kant explains so well) is not only utopic but aporetic (since it implies that beyond the sovereignty of the nation-state, indeed beyond democratic sovereignty—whose ontotheological foundations must be deconstructed—we would nonetheless be reconstituting a new figure, though not necessarily state-related, of universal sovereignty, of absolute law with an effective autonomous force at its disposal), I continue to believe that it is faith in the possibility of this impossible and, in truth, undecidable thing from the point of view of knowledge, science, and conscience that must govern all our decisions.

Borradori: It might be said that this terrorist attack was, in one sense, an attack against the principle of sovereignty that the United States has over its own land, yet also an attack on the sovereign role the United States plays vis-à-vis the Western world, at once politically, economically, and culturally. Have these two attacks destabilized the concept of sovereignty as it has been developed by Western modernity?

Derrida: Those called "terrorists" are not, in this context, "others," absolute others whom we, as "Westerners," can no longer understand. We must not forget that they were often recruited, trained, and even armed, and for a long time, in various Western ways by a Western world that itself, in the course of its ancient as well as very recent history, invented the word, the techniques, and the "politics" of "terrorism." Next, one has to divide, or at least differentiate, all the "wholes" or "groups" to which we might be tempted to attribute responsibility for this terrorism. It's not "the Arabs" in general, nor Islam, nor the Arab Islamic Middle East. Each of these groups is heterogeneous, filled with tensions, conflicts, and essential contradictions, with, in truth, what we have been calling self-destructive, quasi-suicidal, autoimmunitary processes. The same goes for the "West." What is, to my eyes, very important for the future, and I will return to this later, is also a difference, indeed up to a certain point and within certain limits, an opposition, between the United States (or let's say, more honestly, so as not to be too unfair to American society, what dominates and even governs in the United States) and a certain Europe. And precisely in relationship to the problems we are discussing. For the "coalition" that has just formed around the United States remains fragile and heterogeneous. It is not only Western, and the "front" without front of this "war" without war does not pit the West against the East or against the Far East (indeed China ended up joining, in its own way, the coalition), or the Middle East, where every country condemned, more or less sincerely, the terrorism and agreed to fight it. Some are doing so with rhetoric alone, others by providing military and logistical support. As for the European nations and NATO, their commitment to the so-called "coalition" remains very complex; it varies from one country to the next and public opinion is far from being won over to the American initiatives. The shifts in these alliances, the warming in relations between Putin's Russia and Bush's United States, the at least partial solidarity of China in the same struggle, are changing the geopolitical landscape and strengthening, though also complicating, the American position, which needs all these agreements in order to act.

What would give me the most hope in the wake of all these upheavals is a potential difference between a new figure of Europe and the United States. I say this without any Eurocentrism. Which is why I am speaking of a new figure of Europe. Without forsaking its own memory, by drawing upon it, in fact, as an indispensable resource, Europe could make an essential contribution to the future of the international law we have been discussing. I hope that there will be, "in Europe," "philosophers" able to measure up to the task (I use quotation marks here because these "philosophers" of European tradition will not necessarily be professional philosophers but jurists, politicians, citizens, even European noncitizens; and I use them because they might be "European," "in Europe," without living in the territory of a nationstate in Europe, finding themselves in fact very far away, distance and territory no longer having the significance they once did). But I persist in using this name "Europe," even if in quotation marks, because, in the long and patient deconstruction required for the transformation to come, the experience Europe inaugurated at the time of the Enlightenment (Lumières, Aufklärung, Illuminismo) in the relationship between the political and the theological or, rather, the religious, though still uneven, unfulfilled, relative, and complex, will have left in European political space absolutely original marks with regard to religious doctrine (notice I'm not saying with regard to religion or faith but with regard to the authority of religious doctrine over the political). Such marks can be found neither in the Arab world nor in the Muslim world, nor in the Far East, nor even, and here's the most sensitive point, in American democracy, in what in fact governs not the principles but the predominant reality of American political culture. This final point is complex and tricky. For such a philosophical "deconstruction" would have to operate not against something we would call the "United States" but against what today constitutes a certain American hegemony, one that actually dominates or marginalizes something in the U.S.'s own history, something that is also related to that strange "Europe" of the more or less incomplete Enlightenment I was talking about.