Ever since World War I, fear of foreign invasions has been an obsession in the American collective consciousness. It is no coincidence that major U.S.corporations have profited from this fear, at the expense of massive death and destruction worldwide.

"Every country , every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent.

The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens' attitudes' toward minority/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence."

Dr. Zoltan Grossman

In the midst of all the fear-mongering that has been generated by the commercial media, what has not been reported are the CEOs of military contractors who are paid more than their overpaid counterparts in the financial sector. Of course, many of these so-called news outfits are heavily bankrolled by the same military contractors. Therefore, 'fair and balanced' journalism is totally out of the question.

What's even worse, is that all of these predatory companies are buying off politicians and 'retired' generals to systematically rob our national treasury and place our sons and daughters, once again, in the line of fire.." CNN pundit, Frances Townsend, a former Bush administration official, has appeared on television calling for more military engagement against the so-called Islamic State. As the Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) reported, Townsend holds positions in two investment firms with defense company holdings, MacAndrews and Forbes, and Monument Capital Group, along with serving as an advisor to defense contractor, Decision Sciences."

Remember that time the Supreme Court ruled that our DNA is basically just like our fingerprints, and cops can snatch it from us subsequent to arrest? Remember the giant biometrics project the FBI has been spending at least a billion dollars of our money building (with many of the details kept secret), called 'Next Generation Identification'? With those powers and monies combined, the FBI this week announced its plans "to accelerate the collection of DNA profiles for the government's massive new biometric identification database." Like with other biometrics collection schemes, the FBI aims to get local police to do the groundwork.

What could go wrong?

Mass graves with bodies bearing signs of violent death, and grieving relatives of those who were identified: That was the blood-curdling scene witnessed by an RT crew in a village near the city of Donetsk, in eastern Ukraine.

Four bodies were found in two shell craters behind a burned-out coal mine near the village of Nyzhnia Krynka, 35 kilometers northeast of Donetsk. RT's Maria Finoshina reported from the burial site. "All the facilities you can see here were abandoned a long time ago. It's a very remote area and apparently those who did this didn't want these corpses to be found," Finoshina reported. Among the four victims was 21-year-old Nikita Kolomiytsev, a local resident, whose grieving mother arrived at the scene of mass graves to identify her son. "I couldn't stand for him to be killed and thrown like a dog somewhere - I had to come and identify him," Nikita's mother, Galina, told RT.

Galina said she fled to central Ukraine to take her younger 16-year-old son out of harm's way, but she felt she'd "failed to protect" her elder son. "The Ukrainian army took [Nikita] away... my husband went there and told them - take me instead of my son. But they said they had taken him for a further prisoner swap." Galina was waiting for him to be exchanged and brought home, but he never returned to his mother. "No one exchanged anybody for anybody. They just shot them dead here outside the village and threw them into the ground... like dogs," she added, sobbing.

President Obama's neo-Cold War is not about ideology or respect for borders. It is about money and global power. The current battle over control of gateway nations - strategic locations in which private firms can establish the equivalent of financial boots-on-the-ground - is being waged in the Middle East and Ukraine under the auspices of freedom and western capitalism (er, "democracy"). In these global gateways, private banks can infiltrate resource-rich locales fortified by political will, public aid and military support to garner lucrative market advantages. ISIS poses a threat to global gateway control that transcends any human casualties. That's why Congress decided to authorize funds to fight ISIS despite the risk.

The common thread of today's global gateway nations appears to be oil. But even more valuable are the multitude of financing deals that would accompany building new pipelines, arming allies, and reconstructing civil-war-torn countries. Indeed, hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake in America's wars of "principle."

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's first Chief of Staff - who also served as Obama's Israeli Mossad handler - famously said: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Individuals, groups, whole industries, even nations sometimes take advantage of crises and catastrophes. Big bankers, for example, love war because it forces governments to borrow vast sums of money at compound interest. Arms manufacturers also make huge profits. And the big government always gets bigger during wartime as it confiscates people's wealth and scales back their rights.

The current ISIL crisis is making certain people very rich. According to LiveLeak.com the US government is spending 200 million dollars per week to bomb Iraq and Syria. If the overall cost of the anti-ISIL campaign reaches its $500 billion projection, LiveLeak estimates that the US would be spending $30 million dollars per member of ISIL. It might be cheaper to simply pay them $20 million each to simply go away.

Since at least the end of the Second World War, the US has been directly and indirectly fostering, aiding, funding and training fighting militias and groups in different regions of the world to further its own interests. However, the irony of this policy is that in most of the cases, the US ended up fighting, in the name of establishing peace, these very forces of destruction. History is replete with such examples. As the 'sole' super power of the world, it has actually been fighting the war of its own survival, that is, to continue to survive as the 'sole' super power. As such, not only does it 'invent' enemies, but also reasons to fight them. Let's have a look at some of these 'invented' wars.

A number of examples can be given from history to justify this proposition. For example, the emergence of the Taliban is most directly the result of the CIA's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War. Not only did CIA provide all possible funding, but also established camps across Pakistan-Afghan border which were extensively used to train people to do "Jihad" against the Soviet Union. And, the fact that the Americans joyfully disseminate information about different aspects of this war in the form of Hollywood movies shows the extent of acknowledgement the US has publicly made regarding once supporting the Taliban when they were hailed and glorified as the "defenders" of the "free world." Given that, now it looks remarkably amazing how that very Taliban later on turned into enemies and dragged the US into the longest war of its history.

Nothing can explain this fundamental transition except the fact that the US first needed the Taliban to use them against its cold war rival, and then to use, as a pretext to go to war, the Taliban's refusal to allow the US a free way to build oil and gas pipelines from the Central Asia to the India Ocean. The force that the US once 'proudly' created thus turned into the most pernicious enemy of the world - hence the war against "terrorism." In other words, the most important reason of this longest war is nothing but the US' own created group of fighters.

On the other hand, the US could still have 'invented' any reason to launch attack on Afghanistan even if the Taliban had not refused to accept American plans; after all, extensive militarization of the entire region around Afghanistan was, and still is, one of the cardinal policy objectives of the US' twenty-first century grand strategy. The fact that the US wanted to militarize the entire region in order for controlling the flow of energy from here to many parts of the world becomes quite evident when we look at the very location of the key military bases of the US in Afghanistan. All of the key bases have been built on the proposed route of the TAPI pipeline.

In a dramatic stroke of luck for the Kremlin, this morning there is hardly a person in the world who is happier than Russian president Vladimir Putin because overnight state-run OAO Rosneft announced it has discovered what may be a treasure trove of black oil, one which could boost Russia's coffers by hundreds of billions if not more, when a vast pool of crude was discovered in the Kara Sea region of the Arctic Ocean, showing the region has the potential to become one of the world's most important crude-producing areas, arguably bigger than the Gulf Of Mexico. The announcement was made by Igor Sechin, Rosneft's chief executive officer, who spent two days sailing on a Russian research ship to the drilling rig where the find was unveiled today.
Well, one person who may have been as happy as Putin is the CEO of Exxon Mobil, since the well was discovered with the help of America's biggest energy company (and second largest by market cap after AAPL). Then again, maybe not: as Bloomberg explains "the well was drilled before the Oct. 10 deadline Exxon was granted by the U.S. government under sanctions barring American companies from working in Russia's Arctic offshore. Rosneft and Exxon won't be able to do more drilling, putting the exploration and development of the area on hold despite the find announced today."

Having recently published a report into the (literally) incredible Scottish independence referendum result, your hosts this week discussed some of their findings, and provided further analysis illustrating just how unlikely it is for Scots to have turned down the opportunity to separate from the British government and the City of London's casino capitalism.

Running Time: 01:56:00

Download: MP3

The context: a double declaration of war

Listening to Poroshenko a few days ago and then to Obama at the UNGA can leave no doubt whatsoever about the fact that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with Russia. Yet many believe that the Russian response to this reality is inadequate. Likewise, there is a steady stream of accusations made against Putin about Russia's policy towards the crisis in the Ukraine. What I propose to do here is to offer a few basic reminders about Putin, his obligations and his options.

First and foremost, Putin was never elected to be the world's policeman or savior, he was only elected to be president of Russia. Seems obvious, but yet many seem to assume that somehow Putin is morally obliged to do something to protect Syria, Novorussia or any other part of our harassed world. This is not so. Yes, Russia is the de facto leader of the BRICS and SCO countries, and Russia accepts that fact, but Putin has the moral and legal obligation to care for his own people first.

Second, Russia is now officially in the crosshairs of the AngloZionist Empire which includes not only 3 nuclear countries (US, UK, FR) but also the most powerful military force (US+NATO) and the world's biggest economies (US+EU). I think that we can all agree that the threat posed by such an Empire is not trivial and that Russia is right in dealing with it very carefully.

Sniping at Putin and missing the point

Now, amazingly, many of those who accuse Putin of being a wimp, a sellout or a naive Pollyanna also claim that the West is preparing nuclear war on Russia. If that is really the case, this begs the question: if that is really the case, if there is a real risk of war, nuclear or not, is Putin not doing the right thing by not acting tough or threatening? Some would say that the West is bent on a war no matter what Putin does. Okay, fair enough, but in that case is his buying as much time as possible before the inevitable not the right thing to do?!

Third, on the issue of the USA vs ISIL, several comment here accused Putin of back-stabbing Assad because Russia supported the US Resolution at the UNSC.

And what was Putin supposed to do?! Fly the Russian Air Force to Syria to protect the Syrian border? What about Assad? Did he scramble his own air force to try to stop the US or has he quietly made a deal: bomb "them" not us, and I shall protest and do nothing about it? Most obviously the latter.

In what is more proof that the NATO operation against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is merely Libya 2.0, the Obama administration is now stating that it is open to the possibility of establishing a "no-fly zone" over Syria.

The statements, made by both Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and General Martin E. Dempsey, are supposed to hinge upon an agreement with Turkey, that is itself calling for a "buffer zone," one of the wishes of NATO since the very beginning of the Syrian crisis.

According to the New York Times , Hagel stated that "We've discussed all these possibilities and will continue to talk about what the Turks believe they will require."

Dempsey added that "a buffer zone might at some point become a possibility" although he also stated that it should not be considered imminent.

A "buffer zone" and/or a "no-fly zone," of course, is tantamount to war and an open military assault against the sovereign secular government of Syria since the implementation of such a zone would require airstrikes against Assad's air defense systems.

Turkey is now whining and groaning over an influx of Syrian refugees as a result of a humanitarian crisis that it helped create with its support and facilitation of Islamic fundamentalist death squad forces funded by the West and allowed to travel into Syria through Turkey's borders. The most recent influx of refugees came from the city of Kobani, where ISIS fighters were herded by American airstrikes for the purposes of reinforcing the fighters already battling Kurdish and Syrian forces there.
Keep in mind that with the terrorists evacuating Deir al-Zor, cities and towns such as Kobani (Ayn El Arab) have seen a dramatic rise in the presence of IS fighters. In short, IS may have reduced the amount of fighters in Deir al-Zor but it reinforced its positions at Ayn El Arab, a smaller town but one located on the Turkish border. Significantly, the Turkish border has facilitated tens of thousands of death squad fighters in their access to Syria over the last four years making it a main artery for the influx of Western-backed foreign jihadis into Syria.

The Huffington Post reported the situation in Ayn El Arab by recording the statement of a Syrian Kurd who had fled into Turkey with his family to escape IS. The report is revealing as to how the situation in Ayn El Arab disintegrated after the bombing of Deir al-Zor and the "escape" of terrorists from that city and region. The article reads,