The Anglo-Saxon Mission Part I
Interview transcript – Project Camelot January 2010
BILL RYAN (B): I want to thank you for coming forward with what was immediately clear to me, once I'd read your written debrief, that you have some highly significant information that needs to be shared. And it's our job at Project Camelot to assist you in reaching people who are aware enough to understand what you're saying, why it's important, and to put it in perspective with other information that they may have.
And to introduce all of this, I wonder if you could say what it is that you're prepared to say on record about your background, about your history... just in general what you think is okay to share about how it is that you've actually been positioned to get a hold of the information that you're going to be reporting.
WITNESS (W): Okay. Well, the information I've shared with you already, I feel, it's not Earth-shattering. I feel it's something that a lot of people will already have grasped with the amount of information that is getting put out on the internet already.
If there's any uniqueness within the information that I'm providing to you, that I feel should be shared, is that it's first-hand information and it's given to you freely for those who wish to use it and to inform themselves. I think that that's my initial position on this.
For my part, I've spent a long time in the military and then held a senior position in the City of London, and within both institutions I became very intimate with events that were being manufactured secretly, covertly, on behalf of a group of people – I can't say it's on behalf of a nation or a community because it's certainly none of that – but it's certainly something is to do with a group of people whose interests lie within themselves and what they're doing to coerce a series of events to happen.
Looking back with hindsight now, I can see quite clearly they're being most successful in doing what they're doing. And I feel, because of what I know, that time is running out for these people.
So the timeline that I'm going to describe is somehow ... and that's an apt title, really, because a timeline starts somewhere and it ends somewhere and these people are very well aware of it.
We're coming up to a critical time now, which everybody's discussing at the moment. I'm very well aware of that. But the information I've brought may put some flesh on the bones for other people to consider themselves.
And as for the veracity of it, I can only tell you that what I'm going to tell you is truthful, albeit lots of people may think it's a perception. I'm quite happy with that, too. But it's been my experience, and it's that experience that I'm going to share.
B: Yes. What would be great is if you can differentiate between information which came at you first-hand when you were physically in meetings with some of these people, and other information that you've got that was through more subjective means, which you may feel very confident in. It's important to separate out the provenance of the information. But for you, of course, and for many other people who will be reading this, it actually forms a coherent picture. Right?
W: Yes. I think that's important. I think anything like this has to be coherent. And of course there is a subjective element to it; I mean, I can't deny that. But, you know, all of it could be looked at as being subjective, but it's also from a witness point of view. Hopefully, how I'm going to describe it, people will be able to see through any subjective feelings I've got about it and get to the core of what's going on.
B: Right. Now, if you could just add a little bit of detail about the group that you referred to. Does this group have any kind of name that they're calling themselves? Is this a group that other people reading this would recognize when cross-referencing information?
W: I've had difficulty myself in trying to describe these people. I've called them like a "Band of Brothers." I've also called them an "over-government". There's also other names I could call them, some of them derogatory, and that would be deserved. [laughs] But I think the best way, the most sensible way to describe these people so that people can understand what they're like, is they're like an over-government, because that's what they're doing.
B: Are you talking about British people here, or international people?
W: The meeting that I will refer to later, it was all British, and some of them are very well known characters who people in the United Kingdom will recognize immediately. Those who are international who might read this might have to do bit of research on them. But they are national figures, some of them.
B: Are they political figures? Or are they figures in the "noble classes", so to speak?
W: Yes, there is a bit of aristocracy there, and some of them come from quite aristocratic backgrounds. There's one who I identified at that meeting who is a senior politician. Two others were senior figures from the police, and one from the military. Both are known nationally and both are key figures in advising the present government -- at this present time.
B: And inasmuch as there's a political component to this, does this political component go across both parties?
W: No, this senior political component belongs to the right-wing party in Britain, the Conservative Party.
B: Okay. For the benefit of American readers, that would be the equivalent of the Republicans.
B: All right. So, it's an insider group that functions in Britain as many American readers of this transcript would recognize by analogy -- it's like the American secret government. You're talking about politicians behind the scenes who are still very influential, links with the police, links with the military. Are there also American military links in there?
W: One significant military figure, now retired, but active in advising government.
B: Okay. Are you aware of or did you hear any discussion of any participation by church authorities or the Vatican or any of the religions of the world? Was this mentioned as part of their strategic planning for all of this?
W: No. Not at all, but I know the Church of England, especially, is complicit in everything that's going on, totally complicit.
B: Okay. And you know this because of the close relationship between senior figures in the Church of England and the group that you met with in the City of London?
W: Absolutely. You don't need a forensic expert to find that one out. That's quite open.
B: Okay. Is this all fundamentally Masonic?
W: Absolutely. There's no question about that. Everybody is vetted through that process, through the Masonic process, and then they get to meet one another.
That's something that people need to understand. There are levels in Masonry. You know, most Masons don't really know anything at all, and they're out there doing good work for the most part and they get the benefit of a kind of "club," as it were. But that goes through various levels. Some people call it by "degrees" or whatever. But it's a Who's Who. That is -- who can be trusted, who can be brought together, who's holding power, who's likely to develop more power.
And these people attract one another and they get together because they all have a single cause. But it's not exactly like a Masonic cause, you know. It's something that can be likened to it, but not the same as it.
B: Could you explain that a little more clearly?
W: Well, I think the best way to explain this is: Masonry, is to my knowledge, is just a vehicle for these people. It allows them to come together quietly, in secret, behind closed doors, get to know one another, feel safe and secure knowing confidently that what's said in these meetings go no further than those meetings. So it's got that Masonic element to it, but this goes to an entirely different level altogether.
Now, the meeting that I'm talking about, I don't even consider these people to be a significant level – significant enough for me at the time – but they were discussing things that were already agreed upon and planned and dictated. They were really getting together to share information, to find out how well it was going and what was needed to keep it on track.
B: So things had already been decided at an even higher level than this. Is that what you're saying?
W: That was very clear. From what I heard, they weren't a decision-making group. They were like an action group. They were people who needed to come together now and then to discuss together what needs to be done, or what is getting done, and what should be getting done. And then they disperse and go back and do what they need to do, as a result of these meetings.
B: Okay. And you attended one meeting?
W: Only one.
B: And in what capacity did you attend this meeting?
W: By sheer accident! I thought it was a normal three-monthly meeting because I looked at the e-mail list, which had familiar names on it, and I was on it. But by that time, because of the senior position I held within the City, I just thought it was quite normal for me to be earmarked for this kind of meeting.
So when I went to the meeting, it wasn't the same venue as before. It was a livery company venue, which is quite unusual, but not too unusual to wonder why. I went to this meeting and it was not the meeting that I was expecting. I believe I was invited... it was because of the position I held and because they believed that, like themselves, I was one of them.
B: So you were included because they already knew you. You were regarded as a safe pair of hands.
W: Absolutely. Yes. I was a safe pair of hands. I was a do-er. I was one of the people who, at my level within the organization, got things done.
W: And I was regarded as that. Lots had known me for some time, even the most senior figures within them. I mean, it was first-name terms, that sort of thing. And I'd also been regularly invited to various functions, social functions, and things like that where I became familiar with some of them and some of them became very familiar with me.
So it was easy-going, quite professional, nothing out of the ordinary, although bells started to ring about what they were up to and what they were doing and the kind of decisions that they were making, which by and large, I ignored. It seems unusual, but there was a part of me that wanted to ignore what was going on.
B: Are you saying that in this particular meeting we're talking about, the people who attended the meeting were familiar to you, largely, and you'd attended other meetings with them before; but this was a meeting with a difference because it was in a different location and with a different agenda, although the delegates to the meeting were basically the same group? Is that what you're saying?
W: No, not exactly. I knew most of the attendees at the meeting, but not all. There were about 25 or 30 people were at the meeting. And it was looked rather informal, you know, people getting to know one another, re-acquainting themselves as people do. There was nothing unusual about that. It was when the subjects started to come up that my astonishment started to rise at what was being said.
B: Was it like a formal chaired meeting around a table, with notes and water glasses, and all of that kind of stuff?
W: None of the sort. There were no notes taken – nothing. It was really a behind-closed-doors meeting with people talking over one another, some people holding the audience, spelling out what their concerns were, catapulting onto other things that they thought were of concern to them.
And then describing, which I can only say is the "timeline of events" that they had anticipated to be happening, to be on course, and lots of concerns because it wasn't. And what was meant to happen on the timeline that hadn't happened, and what actions were going to be taken for it to happen.
And this is where things started to get quite surreal – because I'd never been in the company of people like this, talking like that.
Now, the group of people who I was most familiar with, the people who do the work within the City, they belong to various well known financial committees; some of them quite diverse committees, but they all belong to the same organization. These are people who go unseen; most people don't know who they are. I know them. I know them by sight, know them by name. I know them by what they do.
It was the other people who were there at the time that surprised me. Three others in particular. There were more people there who were at their type of level as well who I couldn't really identify, but three of significance, certainly.
B: Okay, now when was this meeting? Let's put a date on it.
W: Okay. We're talking 2005. It was after the May general election -- that's when Blair was voted back in again. That meeting definitely took place some time in June of that year.
B: It is okay to put on record that it was in June?
W: June 2005 is fine. Yes.
B: All right. Now I wonder then if you could spell out what it was that was discussed at that meeting.
W: Well, as I mentioned, I was quite surprised to see the amount of people who were there. The meeting ranged from several discussions covering several items or things that were happening at the world in the time, so there was quite a big discussion about security within the country. And one of those three key persons there has now assumed the role over this... is actually doing it now. He's there now. He's in that position right now.
The big thing at the time was Iraq . That was on their agenda, but also, surprisingly, there was lots of conversation and talk about Iran. And what surprised me and really raised my eyebrows, was mention, open mention – this was people talking comfortably to one another, not arguing or shouting – but talking comfortably about the Israeli reluctance to strike and provoke Iran into armed action. That was something that really raised the hairs on the back of my neck.
And it seemed as if the Israeli government was tied onto what was going on here and had a role to play which was being dictated outside Israeli borders. A year later, Israel attacked Iranian-backed Hezbollah bases in Lebanon.
And then the second thing that came out that I recall quite clearly was mention of Japanese reluctance to create havoc within the Chinese financial sectors.
I really couldn't understand why they were talking about that and why that had any importance. What I picked up from this seemed to be the Japanese government, or those in Japan, being coerced or ordered into doing something that would wreck or slow down the Chinese rise to financial power.
It was mentioned that China was growing too quickly and the main beneficiary of that growth was the Chinese military, which was getting modernized, mostly through the money that they were getting from the world market.
And then things... and this is where I can't help but be subjective, Bill. Because at the time I recall I started to feel quite sick about what was being spoken about, and very anxious about what being said.
I was on the periphery of this meeting and I could feel the anxiety just rise up inside me because this was stuff that was getting spoken about off the cuff. It wasn't getting announced to anybody. This was things that they already knew about.
So then there was open talk about the use of biological weapons, where and when they would be used, and the timing. And timing always appears to be crucial.
And then there was more talk centered on how Iran must be engaged militarily in order to provoke the desired military response from China.
There was a clear expectation of goading Iran into some sort of armed conflict with the West, with China coming to the aid of Iran. Through this goading, either China or Iran would use a tactical nuclear weapon of some sort.
And, as I mentioned, these people weren't making decisions. They were discussing something that already been planned, so they were simply sharing their information between themselves. And it became clear as these discussions went on that the central issue of this meeting was when the balloon would go up – when all this would happen.
Other talk centered on dealing with finances, resources, protection of assets, and a control of these resources and bringing in outlying assets. And I can go through this chain of events with you now, Bill, if you like.
B: I'd be really happy to go into as much detail as you feel you can.
W: Okay. Now, as I previously mentioned, they needed either the Chinese or the Iranians to be guilty of the first use of nuclear weapons in order to justify the next stage.
Now, I've already added, and this is anecdotal, so it can't be confirmed. But my information coming through in this meeting, and from elsewhere, positively indicates that the Iranians do indeed have a tactical nuclear capability right now. They're not developing it. They've got it.
B: Some say they might have got it from the Russians, maybe. Do you have any idea about that?
W: I believe it's from the Chinese.
B: From the Chinese... okay.
W: It's because the Chinese technology has been, for many years, used in their missile systems. They're getting missile technology also from the Russians as well, but this is mostly ground-to-air missile systems, that sort of thing – defensive weapons. Tactical missile weaponry – that technology is coming via China.
B: Do you have some expertise in this subject from your own military background?
W: Yes, I do.
B: Okay, so this means that in this meeting where you were hearing this information, you were able to hear this wearing your military hat, with your military experience, and understand strategically and tactically what it was they were talking about and why.
W: Oh, absolutely. I could have even stepped in and corrected their terminology because I believe they were getting it wrong, but they were just describing it the best way they could.
W: So yes, I do have quite a deep knowledge of those types of weapons, and weapons systems in general.
B: Weapons systems in general; sure. Okay, back to where we were, that was a little footnote that you put in there, saying that you felt, anecdotally, but you're also confident in that opinion, that Iran did actually have a current nuclear capability.
W: Yes, if I can put this in here, Bill, before this escapes me... it's anecdotal in the sense that the discussion didn't mention that Iran didn't have them. The discussion leant toward the Iranians having that type of weapon and not having them. I think the distinction would have been made there -- if they didn't have them. It wasn't mentioned that they DIDN'T have them. It leant towards them having such weapons already.
B: I understand. Now, I don't want to get you off track, but there's the potential analogy with the Iraqi situation, where Western governments and military, whether they really knew the truth or not, were certainly telling the public that the Iraqi military capability was far greater than it really was. Is it possible that there was some delusion here with respect to Iran's capability? Or do you think they really did know what the Iranians have and could do?
W: Making a comparison with Iraq is a natural thing to do. However, in this context, I think it could mislead.
The backing that Iraq got during the Iran-Iraq War was mostly Western. And of course "Western" we must include Israel, so the likelihood of Iraq getting a nuclear weapon that they haven't produced themselves, but getting it imported to them, would be extremely low.
Now, the other side of the coin is Iran. Now, Iran is being continuously backed by China and then later by the Russians; and also by other countries too. The military market is quite an open one and in that we can even include the French who quite independently export their weapons out wherever they can.
W: Even in defiance of conventions in place about the sale of weapons abroad. But this goes a bit beyond that. We're talking about a country that's being used quite well by another country throughout the revolutionary period – where they have been seen as an enemy of all the Western states, and also the Gulf states as well.
B: You mean, you're referring to Iran being used by China?
W: China. Yes. They're both using each other, of course. China's economy is skyrocketing. I don't know if it's reached its plateau now or not, and I'm not talking about that. But the amount of weaponry and the level of technical expertise that Iran is receiving from the Chinese military – it seems inconceivable that nuclear weapons haven't been included within any package that goes there; whether that comes under the direct control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards or jointly by the Iranians and the Chinese. One can't be sure.
But I go back to what I said before, that at that meeting, the assumption was -- and it was quite clear -- that the Iranians HAD such weapons in their possession because it wasn't mentioned to the contrary.
B: Understood. And what you're going to go on to talk about is how this cooperation between Iran and China was going to be used as a way to get at China – because China's the main target. Is this correct?
W: That's correct. China has been the main target since at least the mid 70s -- and again, this information it's through third parties so I can't give you any direct first-hand evidence of this – but it's always been China. It's was always China that is to be the big one in this timeline.
B: Mm hm.
W: It's China that they're after right now, and it's all about how to coerce and create the scenario where this type of – well, it's going to be war, Bill; there's going to be a war – how this can be realized and how it can be made credible to everybody here living in the West?
And the way it's going to be made credible is by a state like Iran being used as a patsy to use a nuclear weapon in order to elicit an exchange.
B: And the whole justification of this, then, is to provide or to trick China into a war, with what reason?
W: China will then come to the aid of Iran, very quickly. And what we're talking about is these "Roads to Jerusalem," as it were. And it should be no surprise that the Chinese have got their own "Road to Jerusalem," so to speak, because that's where the oil is – their lifeline – and that's where their power could be extended far more than where it is at the moment.
B: I didn't understand what you meant there by Jerusalem. Was that a metaphor, talking about Iran?
W: Yes. It was my metaphor. Although I haven't mentioned it to you previously, you know, they talk about "the road to Jerusalem," as it were. People like Benjamin Netanyahu use it quite a lot. Obama has used it. The Chinese president has actually used it, I believe, too. Hu Jintao, his name is. They've actually used this metaphor.
B: I didn't know that.
W: Yes, they have. It's where that road lies. Does it lie through Tehran, going one way? Or does it lie through Tehran again, coming the other way?
B: Okay, so you're using it basically as a metaphor for a desired goal, something that's reached and attained.
W: That's right.
B: Okay. So what you're saying, then, is that there's a long-term plan which has being decided quite a while ago to set up the situation, to set up the chessboard, the global chessboard, so that there will be a war with China. This is what you're saying.
W: Yes, in a nutshell. You've got it. It's a whole series of events, and a lot of them have been realized. And again I can only emphasize that time seems to be critical.
B: What has happened, and what is yet to happen, and what is the eventual roll-out plan that they want to happen if everything that they wanted were to occur?
W: Well, the plan is for the fuse to be set off in the Middle East again, in a way that would make the previous conflicts in the Middle East look like playground scraps.
It will involve the use of nuclear weapons and, again, it's to create an atmosphere of chaos and extreme fear, not just in the West but throughout the world, and to put in place what I've mentioned as unified totalitarian Western governments; and to do this China needs to be taken out, politically and socially, for this to happen.
B: So what they're doing here, they're killing two birds with one stone. They're using this as a justification to create what many on the internet have called the One World Government, except that's not including China. You're talking about the Western nations in lockdown alliance against this new threat.
W: It's specifically the Western nations, but I think we've also got to include Japan in this too.
B: And how about Russia? Where does Russia stand?
W: I believe Russia is a player, but I've got no evidence. For some reason or other Russia really doesn't get a look in here; and it's just an assumption of mine that that Russian government that's in place at the moment is hand-in-hand with the controlling players that are here in the West.
B: Hm. So you're saying that because in this meeting that you attended, Russia wasn't mentioned as a major factor.
W: No, none at all. The only way it was mentioned is that the whole idea is to create a condition of chaos throughout the world. It would mean the later use of biological weapons, widespread food shortages, which will affect vulnerable countries across the globe, followed by mass starvation and disease.
The only mention that Russia gets in here is an odd one which I can't explain and maybe someone else can. I can't really get my head around this. But within this meeting it was mentioned: "to cause the Chinese military to attack Eastern Russia". Now, I can't qualify that and why that was mentioned at the meeting -- I just don't know.
B: Okay. So just to go back to what I mentioned a minute ago, about two birds with one stone. One goal here, then, is to establish a united alliance of Western countries with a kind of totalitarian "emergency war footing", heavy control aspect to it. And the other aspect is actually to light the fire of this war, which will result in all kinds of chaos and presumably an enormous number of people dying somewhere.
B: The Chinese population? Or everyone on the planet? Is this part of the population reduction plan? What did they say?
W: Well, there was talk about biological agents being used, described as being flu-like and it would spread like wildfire. Now, they didn't mention it at this meeting, but I know now that it will attack people genetically, not everybody together. How that would happen... I'm not a geneticist, I really don't know. One can only assume that it's linked to DNA in some way.
B: Mm hm.
W: And the differences that are found in DNA. These differences have been identified and the viruses can be made that could kill a person off and do it quite quickly.
B: And so the viruses are genetically targeted is what you're saying?
B: Genetically targeted for racial type, or more specific even than that?
W: Racial type. I can be quite definite on that. They're talking about extinction of a whole part of the human race, doing so genetically.
B: Really? Did they mention that in this meeting, in those terms?
W: Not exactly. Those are my terms. But this is how it was mentioned, and this is my recall of it and how this came out and how I've interpreted it.
W: But that's what it most definitely alluded to.
B: Are they talking about getting the Chinese out of the way because they're an inconvenient major group that's not playing ball with the global plans? Or are they talking about this as an excuse to thin down the entire world's population, including that in the Western countries?
W: Well, it's a very good question and as far as I can see, it's a hypothetical one. Again, I can't give you an answer to that one. From a personal point of view, it definitely appears to be a thinning of the world's population and it's getting it down into a controllable size for this government that's going to come, in order for them to have the control that they wish for. Otherwise, they wouldn't have it.
It even sickens me to speak about this now, it really does. It sickens me no end that they would go ahead and do this sort of thing; that such things have actually been spoken about. They're bringing the population down to what they coldly believe to be a "manageable level".
B: Can you reference in this meeting that you attended to those levels, or the numbers, or the percentages, or anything tangible that you can remember?
W: Yes. They're talking about half.
B: Wow. That's a lot of people.
W: Yes. It is.
W: That's bringing it back down by half.
B: So that's more than the Chinese, then. That answers that question, doesn't it?
W: Well, in a nuclear exchange – and I believe there will be a limited nuclear exchange – there will be some sort of ceasefire. That was spoken about; they anticipated a quick ceasefire, but not before millions had already died, principally in the Middle East.
So we're probably talking about Israel here, the population in Israel being sacrificed. Also places like Syria, Lebanon, possibly Iraq, definitely Iran, you know, the towns and major cities, power plants and so forth, that sort of thing. And then a ceasefire before it goes full-out.
B: A cease...? Wow. Sorry, I'm interrupting you, I do apologize. A ceasefire before it goes full-out?
W: Yes, it's like some sort of game of poker where they already know what hands are going to be dealt. They know what's going to be dealt. They know that scenario could be brought about and that scenario can be ended again with a ceasefire. So we'll have the ceasefire, and it's during this time of the ceasefire that events will start to really take off.
B: Do you know how?
W: Yes. This is when biological weapons will be used.
W: This will create the conditions where biological weapons can be used. And here you've got to imagine a world, now post-nuclear war, or limited nuclear war, in chaos, financial collapse, totalitarian governments coming into place.
B: And a lot of damage to infrastructure.
W: People living in total fear and panic -- this is what's going to happen next. You'll have a scenario... and this again was talked about, and I can go into some detail about how people will become more controllable with no one coming out in contention about what's going to happen because their own safety and security has now being placed firmly in the hands of those who are saying they can protect it best.
And in it's in this ensuing chaos of a post-nuclear exchange that these biological weapons will be deployed in such a fashion where there will be no structure, no safety-nets, for anybody to counter this type of biological onslaught.
And it should be mentioned, for those who are not aware, that biological weapons are just as effective as nuclear ones; it just takes a while longer – that's all.
B: Yes. Now, the deployment of the biological weapons following the ceasefire, is that something that happens covertly, like all of a sudden people will start getting ill and no one knows where it came from? Or is this an overt weapon deployment that would be very obvious?
W: I don't think it would be overt, because the Chinese people are going to be hit by the flu! So there'll be a worldwide flu epidemic, perhaps, with a country like China – or China, because China is mentioned – being the one that's going suffer most.
B: Okay. Now, if you were a Chinese military commander, what would you do in this situation? Presumably you would retaliate.
W: Yes indeed. The type of retaliation the Chinese armed forces could provide is not the same as those that are held in the West. The type of weapons that the West can deploy very, very quickly far outstrips anything that's within the technological grasp of the Chinese armed forces at the moment -- although they're getting better as time goes on.
But when I'm talking about China, we're talking about the Peoples Liberation Army, the Peoples Army, getting together quite quickly, and you're talking about mass movements of troops somehow into zones where they can engage with their opposite number.
And in this type of exchange that's going to be nuclear... that's why I mentioned right at the very beginning... there will be a conventional war to begin with, then it will quickly go to nuclear with either Iran or the Chinese being provoked into first use, is because they won't be able to be in a position to defend themselves properly against what the West can deliver conventionally without going nuclear first.
B: Okay. So the Chinese are going to be obliged to go into a preemptive strike.
W: Yes, all their options will be taken away from them... the retaliatory options will be taken away from them quite quickly and they wouldn't have time to recover.
B: Okay, now, what you were describing there was the situation before the ceasefire, when China was going to be provoked into using nuclear weapons.
W: I think it's best to look at this in stages. So we're talking about a conventional war of sorts; that war then eliciting the use of a nuclear weapon either by the Chinese or by the Iranians.
W: Probably more likely by Iran, to stop it going any further. Then we're talking about an exchange of weapons and then a ceasefire before we have something that's no longer confined to a geographical area.
B: What does that look like? Is this global? For instance, are you talking nuclear weapons on American territory, in Europe, and so forth?
W: No. Global nuclear war wasn't mentioned.
W: It was just purely geographical, Middle East.
B: Okay. So actually some people would refer to this as the Armageddon war, the war that's been prophesied.
W: Yes. That's right. For those who are looking down those roads, you know, it certainly highlights a time where this sort of thing is going to occur,. But probably not the way they thought, because I can't emphasize this too much: people in general are going to be placed into such a state of panic and fear that they're going to wish for a strong government everywhere.
They won't call them totalitarian governments; they'll be military governments with the civil government still there but in a redundant mode. The military will call the shots – the same way as a general does in Afghanistan, or previously in Iraq. The general in command takes over the scene. He makes the calls.
So we have to imagine the same sort of thing within a country where you've got a military based civil government, calling the shots, with the so-called elected government almost redundant. The military based government will provide the security for the people who are living in these countries who have yet to be affected by this type of onslaught.
B: Okay. What's the timing for this series of events, as best you know?
W: As best I know... 18 months. It's definitely before 2012.
W: Or around 2012, sometime in that year.
Continues in Part II...
Last updated 01/03/2010