saw a television programme a few years ago about research into animalbehaviour and it featured a rather unpleasant experiment in which a mouse wasplaced in a network of glass tubes. Every few seconds it came to a junction and hada choice of going left or right. The mouse thought it was free to go wherever itwished, but in fact the choices were strictly controlled. Its freedom was an illusion.The human race today has allowed itself to be like that mouse in the tubes. Themultidimensional manipulators are very clever in their use of buzz words. Theylink them together to create an accepted meaning, which is often the opposite of thereal situation. If you say something often enough, people will believe it. The word’freedom’ has been equated with ‘democracy’, and democracy is equated with theparliamentary systems of government in the ‘free world’. We are programmed tosee the three elements of freedom-democracy-parliament as the same thing. Theyare not. The ‘democratic’ systems are part of the smokescreen designed to fool us. Ifyou know you live in an authoritarian regime which controls your thoughts andbehaviour, the media, and the economic highs and lows, the desire for freedom inthe human heart will eventually rebel against this. People are much easier to controland suppress if this is done while they go on thinking they are free. Such is thenature of our ‘democracy’.We can take the example of Westminster, this Mother of Parliaments, to see whata phoney democracy we have. Most Members of Parliament are not elected by thepeople, but by the committee or members of their constituency party! The UnitedKingdom parliamentary system is made up of constituencies which return an MP toparliament at the General Election. But only a relative few of these constituenciesare ‘marginal’ in that the outcome is in doubt. Most are either overwhelminglyConservative or Labour. The public are mind-controlled to believe that their incomeshould decide whom they vote for. The Conservatives have the ‘image’ of lowtaxation and voting Conservative is, for many – depressingly many – just anotherpart of their social status. Detached house, two cars, vote Tory. In the poor anddeprived areas, many of which have been devastated by the people-are-numbershousing policies of Labour governments and councils, the majority vote Labourbecause they’re the party of the working classes. Yes, they are the party whichsees economic success as more people standing for eight hours a day next to afactory machine, or a mile underground in a coal mine. These rigid mindsets meanthat constituencies which are mostly affluent return Conservative MPs, no matterhow competent or otherwise the person with the blue rosette may be; and in the poor areas, the one with the red rosette, whoever he or she may be, will become theMember of Parliament.In these constituencies – the overwhelming majority – the would-be MP only hasto persuade the local party members to select him or her to stand at the election andthey are virtually certain to be elected to Parliament. It is what they call beingselected to stand in a safe seat. So if the Elite want someone to be elected tofurther the New World Order, it is no problem. Find them one of the endless safeseats and they are in. Even if an MP with his or her own mind slips through the net,they will be told how to vote by their party or face sanctions against them, like ablock on their advancement or, as in the case of the Conservative MPs opposed tofurther integration into the European Union, suspension from the party. This isdemocracy, Elite-style, because it was they who created the parliamentary structureafter the power of the monarchies was curtailed or removed by the ‘people’s’revolutions. If our new MP does as he or she is told, they may advance intogovernment or even be Prime Minister. More than that, if they are clones of theElite, the advancement can be very quick.In the United States, I understand, there are still some people who believe thatthe public select the president. If only it were true. Two things select the president:money and the media. The Elite controls both. You need fantastic amounts ofmoney to run for the presidential nomination within your own party, never mindthe presidency itself. To do that you need silly money. Only the banking/businessestablishment has those resources and their money goes to the one they want.Sometimes it also goes to a candidate they know has no chance of winning becausethat makes sure that his opponent – the one they really want – will be the nextoccupant of the White House. Add to this the media coverage which supports onecandidate and undermines the other, and you have a rigged election promoted asthe democratic process. Once the candidate is elected, it is pay back time. They whopay the piper call the tune.Certain legislation and an agreement to select certain people in the mainpositions within the administration are arranged before the election funds begin toflow. Give David Rockefeller a call and ask him who the next president is going tobe. He’ll know by now. The background staff are far more powerful than a primeminister or president if they work in concert. They don’t have to be popular becausethe public don’t know they exist or what they do. But the politicians do have tocourt popularity, particularly at election time. This makes them easy prey for thosein the background. We have a television comedy programme in the UK called Yes,Minister, which involves a civil servant manipulating a minister to do exactly as hewants. It is very funny, but in the reality of the political system, such manoeuvringis deadly serious.The politicians and the media perpetuate an illusion and so divert attention fromthose who truly run the world. The politicians give the impression that they havethe power, and the media supports this gigantic myth by reporting events anddecisions as if the politicians were the ultimate sanction. Hour by hour we have thepresidents, prime ministers, and their underlings, pictured and quoted. We see them meeting at ‘summits’ and issuing statements about events over which theyhave little or no power. But the public have to be persuaded by the media that’elected’ politicians are the global decision makers. If we don’t accept that illusion,we start to ask questions about who does, therefore, control events. The mediareport the world as if politicians are at the top of the pyramid, when they are onlythe puppets, trigger-pullers, and mouthpieces for those who are really at the top. Asa result, those who control our lives can stay in the shadows while those who onlyappear to be in power are constantly in the spotlight. The diversion is brilliantlyorchestrated.It is vital for those of us who live in the ‘democracies’ to realise that we do, intruth, live in a One Party State. When we appreciate that, we will stop looking topoliticians to tell us what to do and start thinking and acting for ourselves. We willstop believing that by voting for a different party at election time we will changeanything of substance. Politicians of whatever party are not going to change theworld because they are just pawns. We all have to take that responsibility and stophanding it over to them, the politicians, economists, and anyone else who willhave it. The illusion that we have a ‘choice’ of who governs us will continue topersuade us to give our responsibility away unless we get wise to the fact that wedon’t have that choice.All political movements are controlled by the same force (Figure 15). If you havetwo main parties from which the government is chosen each time and they vote thesame way on all the legislation that really matters, there is no ‘choice’ for the elector.This is the case with the Democratic and Republican Parties in America. The USA,this home of ‘freedom’ as the presidents are constantly telling us, is a One PartyState. So is the United Kingdom. There is no fundamental difference between theLabour and Conservative Parties. It is impossible to vote for a party in Britain which has any chance of forming a government that is not in favour of furthercentralisation of power in Europe, with one currency and a central bank. I am sureyou will find the same themes all over the world. When people point to other,smaller, parties, offering an apparent alternative, they are missing the point. If theparties who have any chance of winning agree on the fundamentals, electionsbecome an irrelevance, a farce.What confuses people is the way that politicians who are working to the sameends appear in public and even privately among their colleagues and friends, to bepromoting very different, sometimes opposite, attitudes to life. This allows them toappear to be opponents when they are really on the same side. Dr Kitty Little, aresearcher into the infiltration of British politics and intelligence agencies for morethan 50 years, explained the technique in her booklet, Treason At Westminster:It is probable that some of those infiltrators who have in the last 20 years reached thetop of the Labour and Conservative parties, had training in the art of concealing theirtrue opinions. Fuchs the German physicist who worked on the atomic bomb projecthas described his formal instruction in what he called ‘controlled schizophrenia’, andeven boasted that when drunk he could retain his assumed character with the politicalopinions of those with whom he worked. Similarly another member of the subversiveorganisation, Philby Kim Philby, the spy wrote: ‘I will conclude by mentioning a factorwhich has unnecessarily puzzled some western commentators on my case. That wasthe liberal smokescreen behind which I concealed my real opinions. One writer whoknew me in Beirut has stated that the liberal opinions I expressed in the Middle Eastwere ‘certainly’ my true ones. Another comment from a personal friend was that I couldnot have maintained such a consistently liberal-intellectual framework unless I hadreally believed in it. Both remarks are very flattering. The first duty of an undergroundworker is to perfect not only his cover story, but his cover personality.1When we look at the apparently ‘different’ political views, we are so often lookingat a facade. A series of people wearing masks to hide their real intentions andopinions. Behind the mask are the Global Elite and the All-Seeing Eye, and it is this’democratic’ masquerade2 which acts as the smokescreen for the One Party States.America’s One Party StateNothing makes this more obvious than the example of George Bush and BillClinton, two apparent ‘opponents’. One is a Republican, the other a Democrat, butboth are controlled by the same group. Both are frontmen for the One Party Stateand they are connected by the Council on Foreign Relations, the TrilateralCommission, Freemasonry, drugs, murder, Iran-Contra, the Bank of Credit andCommerce International (BCCI), their support for the invasion of sovereign states,centralised institutions, the GATT agreement, the North American Free Trade Area(NAFTA), the Gulf War.. .on and on it goes.Bush swept to victory against Michael Dukakis in 1988 on a tidal wave of Elitemoney. Henry Kissinger’s presence was again at the heart of the Bush government with two members of his company, Kissinger Associates, taking leading roles. Theywere Brent Scowcroft, head of the Kissinger Associates Washington office, andLawrence Eagleburger, the president of the company. Scowcroft was director of thenational security council and Eagleburger, the undersecretary at the StateDepartment. A founding board member of Kissinger Associates, Lord Carrington,was Secretary-General of NATO from 1984 to 1988. Quite a line up for onecompany! Bush also promoted the Elite strategy of ‘saving’ the environment, just asBill Clinton (CFR, TC, Bil) and Al Gore (CFR) would do. On the other side of theAtlantic, exactly in tandem, Margaret Thatcher (Bil), turned a mental somersaultand began to proclaim the need to protect the environment after once callingenvironmental campaigners the enemy within. The word drugs is also aconstant theme which links the Bush and Clinton presidencies. Drugs are a massiveform of income for the Elite and a front-line weapon in the destabilisation of society.We shall look first at the Republican wing of the One Party State in the form of MrGeorge Bush.The Invasion of PanamaThe Bush attack on Panama on December 20th 1989, was connected with drugs,though not in the way it was portrayed by the government and the media. This isanother fine example of how the truth of a situation is submerged in politicalrhetoric and media camouflage. We are told that American troops invaded Panamaand abducted President Manuel Noriega because of his drug running activities andto save American children from the evil of drugs. There is a chance that the veryopposite is the case. Noriega was on the payroll of the CIA while Bush was theDirector and he was being paid some $110,000 a year for his ‘services’, whichincluded running drugs. When Bush was challenged about this after the invasion ofPanama, he said he had never met Noriega, but then suddenly remembered themeeting. Noriega was involved in the drugs market and rigged elections, but theAmerican government and the CIA knew that when they employed him. The 1984Panama election was won by Arnulfo Arias, but Noriega took power with a mixtureof extreme violence and fraud. President Ronald Reagan then dispatched Secretaryof State George Shultz (CFR, TC, Bil, Comm 300), to give legitimacy to Noriega andeven to declare that Panama’s democratic principles were a lesson to the Sandinistagovernment in Nicaragua!The Bush-Noriega relationship began to change during the Iran-Contra period,according to Noriega, when he was visited by Admiral John Poindexter, the head ofthe National Security Council, on December 17th 1985. Poindexter was prosecutedfor his part in Iran-Contra. Noriega told CBS reporter Mike Wallace that Poindexterdemanded that he support the US war against the Sandinista government inNicaragua. When he refused, Poindexter threatened economic warfare and thedestabilisation of Panama. What Poindexter wanted was for Panama to invadeNicaragua with American support, Noriega said.3 At no point was Noriega’salleged involvement in drugs mentioned. But the US Drug EnforcementAdministration (DEA) did contact him about drugs. They wrote to congratulate him on helping them to stop Panama being used as a drug and drug-money-launderingcentre!4 Just one month later, the Reagan-Bush administration demanded thatNoriega be removed on the grounds of drugs, corruption, and lack of democracy.The need for ‘democracy’ in Panama is an insult. Again Noriega was certainly nosaint, but the CIA have supported, and imposed, some of the most grotesque farRight dictatorships across the world to suit their own agenda, including thefinancing of terrorists to murder women and children by the thousands.It is not easy working out the motivations of the Drug EnforcementAdministration, because within it are people committed to stopping the flow ofdrugs into America and others equally determined to increase it. A number of DEAand CIA operatives have described how some officials of the Drug EnforcementAdministration are involved in expanding the availability of hard drugs in theUnited States. Noriega’s former chief advisor, Jose Blandon, has claimed that theDEA has protected the biggest players in the drug empires and that DEA officialspaid Noriega $4.7 million to keep quiet. In February 1988, Noriega was indicted ondrugs charges, all but one of which related to activities before 1984, when he was onthe CIA payroll! Economic sanctions against Panama followed – the economicwarfare which Poindexter had promised. If Noriega had agreed to support the USwar with Nicaragua, or hadn’t fallen out with Bush in some way, he would still bedictator of Panama instead of being in a US jail.When Bush became president, he made the ludicrous statement that Panamaposed an unusual and extraordinary threat to US national security and foreignpolicy. US News And World Report said on May 1st 1989 that Bush had authorised$10 million in CIA expenditure on projects against the Panamanian government.Some of the money was delivered by the CIA’s Carlos Eleta Almaran, who hadrecently been arrested for drug trafficking. Those charges were ordered to bedropped by Bush after Noriega was ousted. By December 20th 1989, with Noriegastill there despite the CIA’s best efforts, US forces invaded Panama. Hundreds,perhaps thousands of civilians, including children, were killed. Noriega wasabducted to America for trial and sentence on drug charges. The rest of the ‘free’world, including Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, offered not a word of protest. Thejudge at his trial refused to allow any CIA documents to be seen in his defence andhe was sentenced to 40 years for running drugs.What would the government and CIA officials get if they came to trial!