Speaking to students at Harvard's John F. Kennedy Forum Thursday, US Vice President Joseph Biden committed what the US media characterizes as a "gaffe." In other words, he told an embarrassing truth about US government policy, one that is usually obfuscated in the remarks of government officials and the commentaries of media pundits.

Asked about US policy in Syria, Biden touched on the dirty secret of the current US-led war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. ISIS (or ISIL as the Obama administration terms it) is essentially the creation of the United States and its allies who fomented civil war in Syria against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Referring to Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Biden said, "They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad - except that the people who were being supplied were al Nusra and al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world."

"Now you think I'm exaggerating," he continued, to emphasize his point. "Take a look! Where did all of this go?" Biden claimed that the US opposed arming these al Qaeda-linked groups, which included ISIS, adding, "We could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them."

1997 witnessed the birth of one of the most pivotal American think tanks in modern times, whose ideas and objectives would come to shape the foreign policy of the United States (U.S.) for decades to come. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was founded by William Kristol, the chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush senior administration, and Robert Kagan, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The PNAC group's stated objectives included the desire to "shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests" along with challenging "regimes hostile to U.S. interest and values".

Prominent individuals who belonged to the think tank include some of the most influential politicians in America's recent history, including the former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the Vice President of the U.S. during the George W. Bush administration, Dick Cheney, the ex President of the World Bank and former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs under Ronald Regan. In September 2000, the PNAC group released a document titled: 'Rebuilding America's Defenses - Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century', in which the group discusses the need for the U.S. to assert its military authority around the globe to secure its strategic objectives:

Today's headlines are filled with reports of the imminent fall of the Syrian city of Kobani to forces of the Islamic State (ISIS). There are terrifying descriptions of an imminent massacre and the looming threat to Turkey as Islamic State forces move ever closer to the Turkish-Syrian border. Turkish President Erdogan waxes poetic about how he "warned the West" about the threat IS would pose and the dangers of inaction. It seems that everyone, including security experts and pundits, agree that the situation is critical and that US bombardment alone is powerless to protect the town or halt IS.

And yet, somehow lost amid the din of cries for intervention is the simple fact that it is US policy and the actions of the aforementioned Erdogan along with his counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and Israel that created ISIS, nurtured it in its infancy, promoted its development, and unleashed it on Iraq and Syria. And now, for those same leaders, along with a chorus of interventionist voices in the media establishment, to sound the alarm is not only cynical and utterly disingenuous, it is a shining example of the arrogance of empire.


Kobani and the Story Not Being Told

As fighters of the Islamic State (IS) continue their charge towards the mostly Kurdish town of Kobani on the Turkish-Syrian border, deep cracks in the edifice of the US-led coalition against IS have begun to emerge. Diplomatic infighting has shattered the illusion of a cohesive and unified coalition cobbled together by Washington. Not only have a number of countries been apprehensive about getting deeply involved in yet another unwinnable war in the Middle East led by the US, some ostensible allies have used the crisis as an opportunity to achieve political objectives. Perhaps the world leader in cynical opportunism this week is Turkish President Erdogan who has thus far refused to involve his forces in the war on Syria unless that war has as its ultimate aim the toppling of Syrian President Assad.

On October 7th, the NY Times ran a story with the headline Turkish Inaction on ISIS Advance Dismays the US which quoted a senior Obama administration official saying, "There's growing angst about Turkey dragging its feet to prevent a massacre less than a mile from its border...After all the fulminating about Syria's humanitarian catastrophe, they're inventing reasons not to act to avoid another catastrophe...This isn't how a NATO ally acts." While the obvious implication is that Erdogan could cost the US the chance at a successful anti-terror operation, there is a subtle subtext that has gone almost entirely unnoticed; Turkey sees in ISIS an opportunity, not a threat.

And this is precisely the point. IS is in fact a creation of NATO intelligence agencies (including Turkey), and it is achieving by force and propaganda what Washington, London, Riyadh, Doha, Tel Aviv, and Ankara never could - the expansion of the war in Syria.

In transmitting President Richard Nixon's orders for a "massive" bombing of Cambodia in 1969, Henry Kissinger said, "Anything that flies on everything that moves". As Barack Obama ignites his seventh war against the Muslim world since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the orchestrated hysteria and lies make one almost nostalgic for Kissinger's murderous honesty.

As a witness to the human consequences of aerial savagery - including the beheading of victims, their parts festooning trees and fields - I am not surprised by the disregard of memory and history, yet again. A telling example is the rise to power of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who had much in common with today's Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). They, too, were ruthless medievalists who began as a small sect. They, too, were the product of an American-made apocalypse, this time in Asia.

According to Pol Pot, his movement had consisted of "fewer than 5,000 poorly armed guerrillas uncertain about their strategy, tactics, loyalty and leaders". Once Nixon's and Kissinger's B52 bombers had gone to work as part of "Operation Menu", the west's ultimate demon could not believe his luck.

The Americans dropped the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on rural Cambodia during 1969-73. They levelled village after village, returning to bomb the rubble and corpses. The craters left monstrous necklaces of carnage, still visible from the air. The terror was unimaginable. A former Khmer Rouge official described how the survivors "froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days. Terrified and half-crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told... That was what made it so easy for the Khmer Rouge to win the people over."

Cuban revolutionary leader and former president Fidel Castro has slammed NATO, referring to recent statements by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, for making incredible efforts to promote war against Russia.

"Yesterday I listened to the statements of the new Secretary-General of NATO, a former Prime Minister of Norway, who took office six days ago. How much hatred he has in his face! What incredible efforts to facilitate a war against the Russian Federation! Who can be more extremist than the IS [Islamic State] fanatics? What religion do you practice? After all this, would you be able to enjoy eternal life in God's hands?" Castro said in his latest article published in Spanish on Tuesday.

Stoltenberg, a former Norwegian prime minister, took office as NATO chief October 1.

Kiev would not let the German convoy with humanitarian aid into southeastern Ukraine because of fears that foreign staff will see the real situation in the region, Deputy Prime Minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic Andrei Purgin said Wednesday.

"Kiev authorities will not let them in. As previously they did not let in the Malaysian experts [at the crash site of flight MH17] - they then had to literally run away from Kiev, and arrive at our checkpoint by taxi. The next time 30 Malaysian experts had been sitting in Kiev for a week, but still did not reach us, they flew back," Purgin told RIA Novosti.

On Tuesday, Kiev said that the humanitarian convoy from Germany, which has entered Ukraine from Poland on Tuesday, was expected to arrive in Kiev Tuesday night, and the aid would be distributed and sent to the Ukrainian regions by October 12.

Globalist blitzkrieg signals largest geopolitical reordering since WW2.

Beginning in North Africa, now unfolding in the Middle East and Iran, and soon to spread to Eastern Europe and Asia, the globalist fueled color revolutions are attempting to profoundly transform entire regions of the planet in one sweeping move. It is an ambitious gambit, perhaps even one born of desperation, with the globalists' depravity and betrayal on full display to the world with no opportunity to turn back now.

To understand the globalists' reasoning behind such a bold move, it helps to understand their ultimate end game and the obstacles standing between them and their achieving it.

The End Game

The end game of course is a world spanning system of global governance. This is a system controlled by Anglo-American financiers and their network of global institutions ensuring the world's consolidated nations conform to a singular system they can then perpetually fleece. As megalomaniacal oligarchs, their singular obsession is the consolidation and preservation of their power. This will be achieved through a system of population control, industrial control, and monetary control, which together form the foundation of their Malthusian policies.

These policies are on full display in the UN's Agenda 21, and by policy wonks like the current White House Science Adviser John Holdren in his book titled Ecoscience.

Malthusian as their policies may be, they surely do not believe the world is in danger due to over-population or the environmental hazards posed by industrial progress. Instead, like all tyrants in history, they are establishing a convincing narrative to defend the immense concentration of undue power within their elitist hands and the implementation of measures to ensure such power stays in their hands indefinitely.

Britain's UK Independence Party - which campaigns for the country to leave the European Union - has won its first ever seat in parliament with the election of Douglas Carswell in Clacton. An arch-Euro-sceptic, he defected from David Cameron's Conservative party in August, triggering the by-election. Carswell vowed to fight "cosy cartel politics" in Westminster.

Carswell took the Clacton seat in 2010 for the Conservatives with a majority of 22,867 - a 53% share - in 2010, and increased his share to 60% standing for UKIP this time, with a convincing majority of 12,404. Carswell polled 21,113 this time against the Conservatives 8,709. That represents a huge vote against Cameron's Conservative Party is what had previously been considered a 'safe' Tory seat. The vote showed a 44% swing to UKIP.

The result proves UKIP's ability to split the Conservative Party's vote and puts doubt over its re-election prospects in the 2015 general election. Labour polled 3,957 and the Liberal Democrats took only 483 votes.

Carswell won, largely because of his local popularity as a constituency MP. However, it reflected a dissatisfaction over immigration, benefits and the powers of Brussels. But it also reflected a feeling that the major parties in Westminster have fallen out of touch with British people in general.

In has victory speech, Carswell vowed to fight for "government of the people by the people, for the people" - evoking Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

"Those were not his words," said Carswell, "Those were the words of that greatest of Englishmen, John Wycliffe, translator of the bible. Wycliffe's words were a precursor to an extraordinary transformation. Change in technology that re-defined the relationship between the governing and the governed.

"So too in our own time. Whether you sit astride a mass of power in Westminster, or in banking, in Whitehall or in Brussels, Wycliffe's words will become ever more insistent.

"The governing can no longer presume to know what is right for the governed. Crony corporatism is not the free market. Cosy cartel politics is not meaningful democracy. Change is coming with the realisation that things can be better," he said.

In a second by-election, the Labour Party held Greater Manchester seat of Heywood and Middleton with a much reduced majority - down from 5,971 to only 617 - because of a huge surge in UKIP votes. Liz McInnes, for Labour, won 11,633 votes, against John Bickley (UKIP), who polled 11,016. While Labour's overall share of the vote increased from 40% to 41%, UKIP went from 3% to 39% and the Conservatives fell from 27% to 12%. The result represents an 18% swing from Labour to UKIP.

There's a mysterious phenomenon that keeps happening to alternative media journalists lately, and it seems to be a side effect of Ebola.

Mainstream stories are being removed from the internet without a trace.

The first I heard of this was when a colleague, Mac Slavo, of SHTFplan wrote an article entitled "Disaster Teams Were Notified Months Ago They Would Be Activated in October". The article was based on a twitter exchange with a large government supplier of emergency response products specializing in "high risk events".

As momentum in Hong Kong's US-backed so-called "Occupy Central" protest falters, attempts to escalate chaos and provoke or perpetuate violence is generally the next step in any given US-engineered "color revolution." Not only is this a matter of simple observation, but a matter of documented fact as well. As such, observers must remain vigilant for such an escalation.

Iran as a Documented Precedent

It was the 2009 Brookings Institution document titled, "Which Path to Persia?" (full document here) that stated unequivocally in regards to toppling the government of Iran, that (emphasis added):

Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it. This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the "velvet revolutions" that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred. Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime's leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it."

The policy document would also openly conspire to fund and arm listed terrorist organizations including the notorious Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The document would state: