By Paul Joseph Watson | prisonplanet.com

Ed note: Leonid Ivashov's comment about 'the atlantists' is very interesting. To me, this implies at least to some extent that Ivashov is aware that there is something more going on behind mainstream politics, and is conveying that message with his choice of words. Is he trying to inform us, in a subtle way, about an ongoing occult agenda for world domination and that there are two fighting factions: Eurasia and Atlantis (the two brotherhoods?) It's a bit below the surface of "normal politics" (whatever "normal" is) to make a comment like this, well at lest in public. Still, I guess that if you go far enough up the pyramid, you would discover that even these two brotherhoods are connected at the very top, as so many other organisations are. I find it interesting nonetheless. See the related articles for more info on Eurasia and America the New Atlantis .

General Leonid Ivashov with journalist Christopher Bollyn from American Free Press

General Leonid Ivashov, Russia's armed forces Chief of Staff when 9/11 occurred, recently went public with astounding comments concerning the destruction of the World Trade Center and the war on terrorism.

Ivashov made clear his conviction that the entire war is a manufactured ruse and that 9/11 was an inside job carried out by the new world elite, who he calls 'the Atlantists', designed to light the touch paper for a global government and the elimination of sovereign borders.

On the face of it this is another highly credible whistleblower and one who would be in a position to know exactly what he’s talking about.

Ivashov goes in depth about the modern face of terrorism and its symbiosis with how the media report it. This is key because an act only becomes terrorism if it's defined as that by the media. If we can define killing innocent people in the pursuit of a political agenda as terrorism then what do you call slaughtering innocent people in their own homes in recent US government orchestrated bombing raids in Pakistan and Iraq?

Ivashov elaborates on the fact that the secret service and intelligence elements of any major power always control the high echelons of any extremist movement.

From Operation Gladio, to the Neo-Nazis in Germany, to the London bombing mastermind Aswat being an MI6 asset, to Israel’s creation of Hamas. This pattern has been consistently proven.

However, Ivashov's solutions to the problem of worldwide engineered chaos are ambiguous and their wording should raise alarm bells for those who understand the long term agenda of the Illuminati.

As his solution to global dictatorship, Ivashov encourages the creation of a pseudo-world government, run under UN auspices.

In essence he is offering a Hobson's choice, a left-wing world government to counter the advance of the right-wing world government. The end result is the same, a world government which is unelected and not representative of the people of any sovereign nation.

Then the General states his desire to, "associate (under the United Nations) the scientific elites in the design and promotion of the philosophical concepts of the Human Being of the 21st Century."

That reads like secular humanism and it wouldn't be out of place in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. So without the luxury of the general going into any further depth on this, at face value what he is proposing appears to be something quite distasteful.

Ivashov then outlines his wish to, "organize the interaction of all religious denominations in the world, on behalf of the stability of humanity's development, security and mutual support."

Again, this is too ambiguous not to rule out the possibility that he’s advocating a global religion as the savior of mankind, which again is another mechanism whereby power could be centralized under a world government that is completely unelected and not representative of the people.

Does he just mean religious figureheads getting together and talking? We know that when powerful people have get togethers, they set policy. They don’t waste each other’s time by partaking in talking shops.

In the absence of further clarification, a certain healthy dose of skepticism needs to be afforded to the General's comments. If Ivashov's solutions are just a mirror image of the problems he clarifies, then with how much credibility should he be bestowed?

Article from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/
january2006/250106generalscomments.htm