Bahraini security forces killed a teenager and injured dozens more protesters on Thursday, an opposition website said, during clashes on the second anniversary of an uprising to demand democratic reforms in the U.S.-allied Gulf Arab state. Several hundred demonstrators, mostly youths from largely Shi’ite villages, blocked roads around the capital Manama and hurled stones and fire bombs at police, who responded with birdshot and tear gas, witnesses said.
Security forces confirmed they had fired warning shots at the crowds and one young man had been killed in the protests, which began in the early morning and lasted almost all day.
The Interior Ministry said a security official was killed in a “terrorist attack” using what it said was an inflammable projectile, according to a statement on its Twitter account.
The clashes were the most violent in recent months and could mar talks that began on Sunday between mostly Shi’ite Muslim opposition groups and the Sunni-dominated government to try to end political deadlock in Bahrain, which is home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
Bahrain has seen almost daily demonstrations in the run-up to the anniversary of the revolt, which has put the kingdom on the front line of a region-wide tussle for influence between Shi’ite Muslim Iran and Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia.
December 6, 2012 (LD) – A conscious, pragmatic movement, as well informed as it is technically competent, pursuing advanced localism, post-scarcity and the reduction of disparity, elitism, insidiously imposed social engineering, and economic interdependency, has little to fear as it moves forward. However, as the paradigm-shift exists now – there lacks any clear vision for the future, or situational awareness of the present.
Makerspaces, hackerspaces, community labs, and open source collaborations of all varieties run the risk of being subtly manipulated, their good intentions and naivety exploited, compartmentalized, and tasked for diabolical endeavors the individual participants could hardly fathom. In “Decentralizing Telecom,” it was noted that D.C. hackerspace, HacDC was part of a crowd-sourced US State Department project to help develop “suitcase Internet” systems for US-backed opposition movements during the US-engineered “Arab Spring.”
Another such scheme was announced by DARPA in a Wired article titled, “Pentagon’s New Factory: Your DNA” which stated:
A recent call for research by the Pentagon’s mad science agency proposes a new program called “Living Foundries.” The idea is to use biology as a manufacturing platform to “enable on-demand production of new and high-value materials, devices and capabilities.”
In other words, let’s engineer life to make stuff we want.
To jumpstart the process, Darpa wants to open the playing field to people from outside the biological sciences, recruiting designers, engineers, manufacturers, computer scientists, academics and anyone else who has an idea. By democratizing the biological design and manufacturing process, they hope to speed up the development of a reliable factory for all sorts of kind-of-living things.
Wired, which has increasingly become a clearinghouse for Pentagon propaganda aimed at “geek” culture – and even hosts corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution “fellows” as contributors, attempts to make DARPA’s plans sound exciting and fun. In reality, DARPA is assembling an arsenal of biotechnology constructed of various individual parts contributed by participants who have no idea what they are involved in or the bigger picture they are helping to shape. These will be biotechnological implements only DARPA understands the true configuration and characteristics of, and implements DARPA and its affiliates alone can wield at will.
This DARPA vacuum has been assimilating the best and brightest the world has to offer in a similar manner across many disciplines, assembling a vast wealth of knowledge and technology to be mixed and matched behind the veil of secrecy. It is a good bet that all these technologies are being used for a handful of specific, unknown objectives, and that cover stories provided by publications like Wired are solely for public consumption. The atomic bomb was assembled in a similar compartmentalized fashion, but at a closed-off facility run top-to-bottom by the US Government. In this new model, entire segments of the population are compartmentalized to fulfill certain objectives, with the final product assembled behind closed doors by DARPA scientists.
Video: James Corbett of the Corbett Report examines DARPA in depth, noting the insidious implications the organization’s work poses, and how many have already been manifested. Corbett warns of the dangers of ignorance and how these projects are often implemented before anything can be done to stop them. He also suggests ways of “crowd-sourcing” our way out of this danger.
Being aware of this potential danger is essential. And the sorts of implements DARPA may already either possess or be working on should give the masses added incentive to become actively involved in stripping the technological-intellectual monopolies being cultivated by the global elite.
It is important to get involved locally, but be aware of things unfolding globally. We must remember that by getting organized, having an acute situational awareness, and working pragmatically has given the global elite the immense power they now possess. It will take the masses getting organized, having a collective, acute situational awareness, and working pragmatically, locally, to take that power back.
read more HERE
Many have suspected the so called “Arab Spring” uprisings were a product of the Western powers.
Articles have been written, and interviews given, suggesting revolutionary training schools like Otpor (CANVAS) in Serbia were connected to these uprisings. 
The following short documentary “The Revolution Business – World” should remove any doubt that these so called “revolutions” were contrived uprising by paid “revolution consultants”. 
Otpor provides revolution training and distributes the book “From Dictatorship To Democracy” by Gene Sharp.
Most interesting is the Western corporate created revolution training software called “A Force More Powerful”, also distributed by Otpor.
Author F. William Engdahl, who called the “Arab Spring” a CIA destabilization operation from the very start, is interviewed.
You also get to meet Otpor’s founder Srdja Popovic… he admits it to it all!!
THIS IS A MUST SEE!!!!
 2011.1.28 US Interference In Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, Etc. (RT Interviews F. William Engdahl, CIA Coup Of Egypt) (deadlinelive.info):
 2011.6.9 The Revolution Business – World (youtube.com):
Al Jazeera has supplied Syrian rebels with satellite communication tools to ensure telephone and Internet connection, claims Ali Hashim, a former correspondent of the Qatar-funded channel. The equipment was smuggled from Lebanon, he told RT. The channel paid $50,000 for smuggling phones and other tools across the Syrian border to ensure they would get an inside picture, claims Ali Hashim.
A month ago, Hashim and two other correspondents working for Al Jazeera in Lebanon, stepped down from their jobs over a dispute over how the Arab Spring should be covered. Reporting popular unrest in Bahrain and Syria revealed the acutest differences between the men and their employer.
“The channel was taking a certain stance. It was meddling with each and every detail of reports on the Syrian revolution. At the same time it was almost covering up what was going on in Bahrain,” recalls Hashim.
The journalist says Qatar authorities actually decided the channel’s agenda and created their own version of the Syrian crisis.
“We went to the border between Lebanon and Syria. There it became obvious that militants entered Syria from Lebanon to clash with the Syrian regular army, which was 3 kilometers away from the border,” Hashim told RT.
“We took photos of those people, but the channel declined them. I was asked to forget about the militants and to return to Beirut,” he says.
In an earlier interview with the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, Hashim called Al Jazeera’s policy “informational suicide.”
The Syrian government has repeatedly slammed the unbalanced coverage of the uprising by some Arab news channels. But Hashim remarks that both sides of this conflict are playing dirty: while some media are siding with the rebels, omitting reports of the militants’ atrocities against civilians, the Syrian regime’s media behave as if there were no calls for freedoms and reforms in the country.
Syria has been engulfed by a popular uprising against President Bashar Al-Assad for over a year now. Opposition forces submit daily claims of people killed in fights with regular forces. The reports are hard to verify as the state remains closed to most foreign journalists. Nonetheless, the UN estimates over 9,000 people have died in the conflict. The Syrian authorities maintain they are fighting foreign insurgency, which has taken lives of over 2,000 troops.
We get major-media reports from Syria with increasing frequency. What’s wrong with these reports are that they are generally devoid of power analysis.
This recent New York Times article, for example, headlined “Neighbors Said to Be at Violent Odds in Syrian Crackdown,” is based almost solely on accounts of refugees interviewed in Lebanon. Here’s the lead paragraph:
Sunni Muslims who have fled Syria described a government crackdown that is more pervasive and more sectarian than previously understood, with civilians affiliated with President Bashar al-Assad’s minority religious sect shooting at their onetime neighbors as the military presses what many Sunnis see as a campaign to force them to flee their homes and villages in some sections of the country.
In other words, ethnic cleansing, perhaps a precursor to the kinds of large-scale horrors we saw in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. The inevitable conclusion is that any decent person would support international efforts to stop this. Based on past history, in Libya, in Iraq, and elsewhere, that would evolve quickly into military intervention. In fact, on Sunday, the pace quickened. In a meeting Sunday in Istanbul, the US and allies began actively moving toward direct intervention. Arab nations agreed to pay $100 million to rebels and the Obama administration to send them communications equipment.
Yet, the Syria coverage tends to focus only on the misery, not the cause: an uprising intended to overthrow a government and a ruling class. If indeed the Syrian government is arming one group in the country, that is because the government is besieged—and those being armed are members of the same minority sect as the ruling Assad clan. Syria managed for decades without internecine warfare. It is the uprising itself that has massively exacerbated animosity and fear between religious groups.
But the Times’s account offers virtually no analysis of the background to the conflict. Instead, we get awkward, rudimentary disclaimers, in case the reporting turns out to be way off-base:
It is hard to evaluate all of the refugees’ claims because in the Syrian conflict, the longest and bloodiest of the Arab revolts, each side blames the other for sectarian division.
That’s a highly misleading statement because it elides the central issue: who is promoting the revolt, and why? The most authoritative and self-confident of the sources quoted tend to be military officers and officials defecting from the government. Their comments should not be taken simply as independent testimony, since they are, de facto, part of an organized rebel effort to justify the coming Western intervention on their side.
Because the conflict in Syria coincided with the wave of uprisings in other Arab countries—the so-called Arab Spring—does it necessarily follow that the nature of the Syrian conflict is identical with the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc.? Although the media, by and large have failed to note any real differences, they are enormous. Tunisia and Egypt were largely authentic, domestic uprisings, reflecting broad dissent, and came about with no foreign military intervention. Libya was a cynical attempt by foreign powers to ride long-simmering tribal animosities and foster a purportedly domestic uprising that was actually planned, managed and staffed covertly by those outside countries’ militaries and intelligence services. See this article we published on that subject.
Clearly, proper media coverage would focus on the history of Syria, the proximal cause of the uprising, the legitimacy or lack thereof of the authorities, the agendas of the various rebel factions. We need to know why, if that country has long been ruled by a minority, only now are we seeing serious anti-government agitation. In short, we need geopolitical context. And we need to ask why some advocates of open revolution are characterized as victims, as in this case, while other rebels elsewhere—in, say, France or Saudi Arabia—are characterized as terrorists?
Besides, while aspirations to greater freedom are right and proper, not all the people trying to overthrow odious regimes are necessarily pure-minded freedom fighters. And the result after the fall is often not what was promised.
As important is that we look at our own system objectively. In the United States, for example, we pay homage to democracy every four years, but isn’t our political system, like that of these Middle Eastern countries, increasingly dominated by a fairly small number of very rich people? The average American, has very little understanding of what is really going on, or why—either in their own country or in their name in distant lands—and tends to respond to propaganda, much of it funded by this same small circle of interests.
But if enough Americans really got the picture, concluded the system was rigged, and began taking to the streets, we know that the authorities would, just like the Syrians, the Saudis, and so on, clamp down with force. Oh, wait: that’s already happened, all over the country, in myriad ways. We could start, for example, with the aggressive response to various Occupy encampments.
As for why the West is suddenly so passionate about human rights in this particular country, while almost totally ignoring the issue in other places, like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, some possible explanations immediately come to mind.
With American troops pulling out of Iraq just as foreign oil companies step up their production, it is of paramount importance to have a military presence nearby to protect those investments. And what country is right next door?
The very fact that Syria does not harbor major oil reserves is exactly what allows the “humanitarian” argument to prevail unchallenged. It is what allows news organizations to act as if no business or strategic concerns are in play. Importantly, Syria has been a longtime ally of Iran, and therefore removing it has been part of the larger plan to weaken the Tehran regime’s regional influence. And because Syria adjoins the strategically crucial Israel, Lebanon and Turkey—it is a dream hub for bases.
Long before Sunday’s meeting in Istanbul, we had constant hints that the leading NATO countries, along with key allies such as the Saudis (closely tied to the Syrian Sunni opposition), were deeply involved in priming the pump behind this uprising. To continue to pretend, as the media has now done for many months, that this is simply a one-sided tragedy to be ameliorated through eventual military action (which if recent history is any guide will only lead to much more human misery)—well, is that anything less than journalistic malpractice?
(04-02) 00:04 PDT BEIJING, China (AP) –
Dozens of Tibetans have set themselves on fire over the past year to protest Chinese rule, sometimes drinking kerosene to make the flames explode from within, in one of the biggest waves of political self-immolations in recent history.
But the stunning protests are going largely unnoticed in the wider world — due in part to a smothering Chinese security crackdown in the region that prevents journalists from covering them.
While a single fruit seller in Tunisia who lit himself on fire in December 2010 is credited with igniting the Arab Spring democracy movement, the Tibetan self-immolations have so far failed to prompt the changes the protesters demand: an end to government interference in their religion and a return of the exiled Dalai Lama.
Still, experts describe self-immolations as, historically, a powerful form of protest, and the ones in Tibet might yet lead to some broader uprising or stir greater international pressure on Beijing.
Soros leverages “human rights” for personal gain – as does his global NGO empire.
by Tony Cartalucci
March 28, 2012 – Bloomberg’s report, “Soros Loses Case Against French Insider-Trading Conviction,” indicates that an appeal based on a “human rights” violation against Wall Street speculator George Soros has been rejected by the “European Court of Human Rights.” Soros, who was convicted and fined for insider trading in 2002 regarding French bank Société Générale shares he bought in 1988, has built an empire out of obfuscating global criminal activity with the cause of “human rights.”
Image: Soros runs a global empire of NGOs leveraging “human rights” to cover up institutional criminality just as he himself just attempted to use “human rights” to excuse criminal insider-trading. Soros’ disingenuous use of “human rights” is not a strategy he holds an exclusive monopoly over, but rather one he executes in concert with very unlikely allies – Neo-Conservatives of the US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy and its various subsidiaries.
The court’s decision in rejecting the appeal was based on Soros being “a famous institutional investor, well-known to the business community and a participant in major financial projects,” and thus should have been “particularly prudent” regarding insider-trading laws. The contents of Soros’ appeal, based on “human rights” was not heard, and the details of the appeal not yet made public, however, it is an illustrative example of how Soros and global elitists like him leverage the legitimate cause of human rights and freedom as a means to execute and defend both individual and institutional criminal behavior.
Soros has built a global empire of networked nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) allegedly promoting “human rights,” “freedom,” “democracy,” and “transparency.” His Open Society Institute funds amongst many others, Amnesty International (page 10), Global Voices, and Human Rights Watch. In reality these NGOs constitute a modern day network of imperial administrators, undermining national governments around the world and replacing them with a homogeneous “civil society” that interlocks with “international institutions” run from and on behalf of Wall Street and London. And contrary to popular belief, Soros has built this empire, not against “conservative” ambitions, but with their full cooperation.
It is difficult to find a cause Soros’ Open Society Institute supports that is not also funded, directed, and backed by the US State Department-funded, Neo-Conservative lined National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI).
The Arab Spring
It would be almost four months after the beginning of the so-called “Arab Spring” before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but “spontaneous,” or “indigenous.” In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” it was stated:
“A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.”
The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):
“The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. “
George Soros and his Open Society Institute also played a leading role in the unfolding unrest. Soros, in addition to fully supporting many of the NGOs in tandem with NED and the US State Department, also funded opposition groups working well in advance to produce new “constitutions” for collapsed nations.
In “George Soros & Egypt’s New Constitution,” it was reported:
“It turns out that the new Egyptian Constitution has already been drafted, not by the Egyptian people, but by the very US-backed protesters who brought about regime change in the first place. A Reuters report quoted an opposition judge, who had been hiding-out in Kuwait until Mubarak’s ousting, as having said civil society groups had already produced several drafts and a new constitution could be ready in a month.
These “civil society” groups include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information openly funded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the Neo-Con lined NED funded Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. It appears that while the International Crisis Group may be turning out the strategy, and their trustee ElBaradei leading the mobs into the streets, it is the vast array of NGOs their membership, including Soros, fund that are working out and implementing the details on the ground.”
Myanmar (Burma) & Aung San Suu Kyi
The entire opposition in the Southeast Asia nation of Myanmar, still known by its colonial nomenclature in the West as “Burma,” is a creation of Wall Street and London. This includes the growing personality cult of “democracy icon” Aung San Suu Kyi. And again, just as we saw during the Western-engineered “Arab Spring,” it is a tandem effort made by “right-wing” Neo-Cons within the confines of NED, and Soros’ Open Society Institute.
Image: The 2006 Burma Campaign UK report, “Failing the People of Burma?” (.pdf) reveals the entire “pro-democracy” movement, including Aung San Suu Kyi herself, is a product of US and British funding and the building of neo-imperial networks designed to overthrow and replace the government of Myanmar.
In “Burmese “Pro-Democracy” Movement a Creation of Wall Street & London,” it was reported:
The most telling information begins on page 14 of 36 of the report’s .pdf. Titled, “Failing the People of Burma?” the report enumerates the vast resources the West has invested in building a “pro-democracy” movement, in tandem with similar disingenuous movements throughout the region, and indeed throughout the world, and insists that even more support be given to initiate a “transition” in Burma. It states:
“The restoration of democracy in Burma is a priority U.S. policy objective in Southeast Asia. To achieve this objective, the United States has consistently supported democracy activists and their efforts both inside and outside Burma…Addressing these needs requires flexibility and creativity. Despite the challenges that have arisen, United States Embassies Rangoon and Bangkok as well as Consulate General Chiang Mai are fully engaged in pro-democracy efforts. The United States also supports organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society Institute (nb no support given since 2004) and Internews, working inside and outside the region on a broad range of democracy promotion activities. U.S.-based broadcasters supply news and information to the Burmese people, who lack a free press. U.S. programs also fund scholarships for Burmese who represent the future of Burma.
The United States is committed to working for a democratic Burma and will continue to employ a variety of tools to assist democracy activists.”
The report continues with a vast array of evidence exposing the tandem roles of both “liberals” and “conservatives” in executing a singular goal of undermining a foreign government and replacing it with neo-imperial administrators that interlock directly with “international institutions” that answer directly to Wall Street and London.
Wall Street’s Thai Proxy, Thaksin Shinawatra
Like in neighboring Myanmar, efforts have been long underway to undermine the nationalist elements within Thailand and install a proxy government as well as a proxy system of governance to implement the global agenda of Wall Street and London. The proxy of choice is billionaire and long-time associate of the Bush family, Thaksin Shinawatra.
As we’ve seen in the previous two examples, Shinawatra’s association with America’s Neo-Conservative establishment in no way inhibits the “liberal” George Soros from supporting movements that facilitate not only his re-installation into power, but the expansion of his globalist “neoliberal” brand of politics – which of course benefit once again Wall Street and London in general, not any particular political persuasion.
In the example of Thai propaganda front “Prachatai,” Soros’ Open Society Institute and the Neo-Cons’ National Endowment for Democracy have heaped annual funding as well as ongoing political support to the outfit’s mission of leveraging “human rights” and disingenuous aspirations for “democracy” to mask Shinawatra and his movement’s criminal activities. NED subsidiary, Freedom House, is in fact chaired by Neo-Con Kenneth Adelman who served as Shinawatra’s lobbyist and also serves as a trustee on the Soros-funded and chaired International Crisis Group. Prachatai’s spinning of their collective agenda as “progressive” rather than one wrought of foreign corporate-fascist funding is a perfect example of Soros’ modus operandi.
Attempted Overthrow of Russia’s Government
In a fourth and final example, Soros and his Neo-Conservative counterparts can be found behind Russia’s motley opposition and their “Arab Spring-like” attempt to overthrow the government of Vladimir Putin.
The entire grounds justifying Wall Street and London’s street mobs were calls of a “rigged” Russian election. Those making such accusations included National Endowment for Democracy-funded GOLOS and the Soros Open Society-funded Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) (.pdf page 125).
And while the lion’s share of support for Russia’s multiple opposition groups comes from the National Endowment for Democracy and its subsidiaries including Freedom House and the International Republican Institute chaired by John McCain, jailed Russian oligarch and opposition leader Mikhail Khodorkovsky fashioned his entire “Open Russian Foundation” after Soros’ Open Society Institute. It should be noted that Khodorkovsky had both Jacob Rothschild and Henry Kissinger chairing his contrived “foundation.”
Clearly there is more behind Soros’ funding of NGOs globally than mere “liberal philanthropy.” That he carries out this funding in concert with notorious warmongers, corporate fascists, and confessed Neo-Conservatives indicates a very malicious and disingenuous agenda driving not only his “charity” but also the maintaining of his deceptive “liberal” persona.
Soros’ most recent attempt to leverage “human rights,” not for a global campaign of achieving economic and geopolitical hegemony, but rather on behalf of defending his own criminal behavior, lends further evidence to the fact that the West, through its vast networks of NGOs and “international institutions,” is merely hiding immensely depraved, craven criminal activity behind the facade of “humanitarian concerns” and “progress.” With Soros’ latest appeal being rejected and his criminal conviction upheld, let us resist the temptation of resorting to “left-right” bickering and recognize the grander plot that has been exposed.
In a wide-ranging talk about the Internet and government, Al Gore urged the techie crowd at South By Southwest to use digital tools to improve government.
The former vice president sat for a conversation with Napster co-founder and Web entrepreneur Sean Parker on Monday at SXSW in a flashy tete-a-tete that drew an audience of thousands at the Austin Convention Center and more viewers via a live stream.
“Our democracy has been hacked,” said Gore, framing Washington gridlock and the effects of special interest money in digital terms.
To fix what he called a no-longer functional U.S. government, Gore urged the audience to begin a new “Occupy Democracy” movement. He pushed for the creation and implementation of digital tools and social media to “change the democratic conversation.”
Parker, who was famously portrayed by Justin Timberlake in “The Social Network,” has gotten into politics by investing in Votizen, an online network of voters that leverages social networks to campaign for their issues. He also sits on the board of NationBuilder, which also seeks to organize political change.
Parker said he believes social media is only its infancy of what it can do to spur action. He cited the Internet rally against the Stop Online Piracy Act as a hint of the power of social networks. He called the protest “Nerd Spring,” alluding to the Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East.
Both Gore and Parker derided the dominant role of television in elections and political dialogue. Change, Parker said, won’t come from within the political system.
To applause, Gore added; “I can confirm that.”
DAVID ICKE (davidicke.com) 1st Interview of 2012. How deep does the rabbit hole go? David discusses his new book” “Remember who you are”, reflecting on his 2011 world tour, occupy movement. What is Consciousness, fear based mind control? // Self imposed thought camps…norms of religion as control, getting past dogma and controlled belief systems…allowing yourself to be you!
David’s predictions for 2012 (mass awakening of the sheeple) // 2012 Rockefeller bird flu. Predictive programming / internal freedom…fake Arab spring…Rothschild controlled social networking and new speak //
Also: Violence in America 2012…Using non-violence, non-cooperation to challenge the system. Being “street wise”…David also weighs in on the 2012 election and Ron Paul.
Part 2 will be posted next week. David discusses Jesse Ventura and Bill Maher and offers solutions to a myriad of problems. We’ll have that up next week………PLEASE REMEMBER TO SUPPORT “BLOOD BYTES WORLD” BY CONTRIBUTING TO OUR CHIP-IN –> BELOW. THANK YOU. STAY BOLD.