By William Markiewicz

Killing is the issue. North Korea provokes but doesn't have enough power to cause a reaction. The NWO decides on its own who the next victims will be. World resistance angers Bush to white heat; he doesn't think that somebody with his power has to tolerate it. If it weren't for the resistance focussed in Europe, the killing spray would already have extended far beyond Iraq. Now the UN, to accommodate the US, repeats the vain warning that Iraq must disarm. How can one disarm after being disarmed already? The NWO has its ways to prove the existence of non-existent weaponry. The truth has lost its importance; the verdict was decided long ago. How can I be sure that Iraq didn't disarm? I'm sure of nothing, the important thing is that it's the most immoral trick to drop an ultimatum on anybody forcing them to prove or disprove something out of the range of proofs. Could the Jews "prove" to Hitler that they were not inferior devils? No, they needed power not arguments! Could the 'witches' prove to the Inquisitors that they were not witches? No, they had to die first and make the problem irrelevant. That's how the NWO "policy" operates toward Iraq. The whole question is put wrongly; it isn't important what Iraq has but what it can do with it and, as a matter of fact, that goes for everybody. If Iraq were strong, it could have as many weapons of mass destruction as it desired and nobody would touch it. With weapons or not, Iraq wouldn't be crazy enough to use them arbitrarily.

Back to the index of the Vagabond
© Copyright 2003 E-mail to: William Markiewicz