Rev. Jeremiah Wright had his �historic� speech at the fund raising dinner for thousands of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) delegates in Detroit, extensively publicised and enthusiastically promoted by the flagship of the corporate media, CNN.

Canada Watch will be on line for approximately one more month. I am retiring from politics. I have had it!

�I am not here for political reasons, I am not a politician,� said Rev. Wright. I heard this in 1980, when �Solidarity� was first born out of the protest of the Lenin Shipyard workers in Gdansk, Poland. The protest quickly spread across the country and transformed into a massive political movement.

Sixteen months later, �Solidarity� had 10 million members out of 14 million employed adults, had issued, as a resolution of its First National Convention, the �Appeal to the Workers of Eastern Europe,� and had issued a call for a Workers` Self-Government in state-run companies and political grassroots self-government throughout the territory of the country. Consequently, �Solidarity� was suspended and outlawed, with the implementation of General Jaruzelski�s martial law in December of 1981.

Eight years later, �Solidarity� was reinstated. Shortly after that, it won the national election and formed the first non-communist government in Poland in 50 years.

Eleven years later, the Soviet Union was no more. The European Union could expand and include former Soviet satellites. Polish national economy was gradually dismantled as international investors moved in.

Yet, when the �Solidarity� movement was just starting, a great majority of its leaders, including Lech Walesa, were publicly declaring that we had nothing to do with politics, that we were just a �trade union.� We did not want to change the system, we wanted to fix it, to eliminate the corruption, the mistakes, and the abuse of power in order to rescue �pure communism,� a �communism with a human face.� Today, not too many former or current �Solidarity� leaders remember these declarations, as their privileges and benefits now depend on the loyalty to the new system � capitalism. It would not be politically correct to do so.

�Solidarity� was a revolution. It actually began in 1976, when 11 people, mostly Jewish, started the KOR, a committee defending workers who were repressed by the communists in the aftermath of their protests in Radom and Lublin. The KOR activists were arrested and interrogated many times, but were always released unharmed. The system that had killed millions during its rise, suddenly became tolerant. When �Solidarity� was born in 1980, the KOR members became so-called experts, advisers to its Initiating Committee, and later, to the National Committee. Under the new capitalist system, many of them became senators and gained responsible positions in subsequent governments.

Rev. Wrights call for change was commented on by media mostly in context of his support, or lack of it, for the presidential candidate Barak Obama.

But maybe there is a much broader agenda behind the enthusiastic publicity that Rev. Wright received from the corporate media, the same media that brought him to the public view by criticising him earlier.

I don�t believe that the technically well prepared live broadcast, with commentators and guests already aligned, was a pure coincidence. CNN does not normally film services in the country�s churches or fund raising dinners of organizations like the NAACP. Hypocritically, the CNN commentators stressed that nobody expected such a radical speech by Rev Wright. If this is true, then what were the CNN cameras doing there?

Rev. Wright's one-hour speech was run �live� and re-run in its entirety by CNN a few times, afterwards. Well prepared comments and discussions during and immediately after the speech, euphoric tone of the hosts and �guests,� . . . am I wrong in assuming that this looked like a precisely prepared and deliberately orchestrated �coincidence�?

The discussions, that followed, focused on one topic � how badly Rev. Wright damaged Barak Obama�s campaign. Nobody noticed that this kind of �threat� will actually mobilize the African American community even more.

What does it mean? Is Rev. Wright radicalising the African-American community? Is Barak Obama being supported for the same reason? Is someone, who controls CNN, trying to use these people as a vehicle to ignite a �controlled revolution?� If a trade union and workers could be used as a hat and body, why not churches and visible minorities?

These are all questions and I have no answers to prove that this might be happening again. However, many elements, or pre-conditions of a revolution are actually falling in place around the world, as we speak. All you now need is a spark.

So, how do you incite a revolution? You have to make many people angry.

• First and foremost is always the economic recession.  Prices are rising, essential necessities are unavailable, people don�t have enough money to support their families, people lose their savings, houses, or prospects for the future, people are starving. That makes people angry.
  
  
• A growing gap between the rich and the poor. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Unfair taxation. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Monopoly instead of competition and market mechanisms. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Deregulation that results in gouging and exploitation of the population. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Restructuring of work places and employment policies, the �do more for less� requirement, replacement of full time jobs with part time and temporary jobs, shrinking holidays, benefits and pensions. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Outsourcing and off shoring. Loss of jobs, unemployment, poverty, and frequent necessity to re-qualify.  Lack of financial stability and security. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Lack of personal security, terrorism, the threat of a world war, environmental degradation, natural disasters and cataclysms, clandestine government experiments endangering the health of the population (chemtrails?), depopulation policy, threats from �extraterrestrials,� repressive governments, governments that invade citizens� privacy and break human rights, police brutality, martial law. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Unjust wars and oppressive occupations, the mass killing of innocent populations in our name or with our governments� support, the ignorance of international law. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Totalitarian governments, fake elections, governments that are elected based on specific promises but once in office, do exactly the opposite, governments that ignore public opinion and the democratic process. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Corruption, both political and economical. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Destruction of public education and health care. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Destruction of culture, promotion of primitive TV programming, art, and entertainment, magazines and newspapers full of pathetic ads, political propaganda, and irrelevant information. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Indoctrination and manipulative propaganda, lying, hiding the truth, selective reporting. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Destruction of family, religion, and all institutions that traditionally preserved moral values and human solidarity. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Destruction of family by forcing multiple careers, reducing family time, relaxing family laws, and popularizing alternatives. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Destruction of nationalism, national identity, and patriotism, promotion of internationalism, multiculturalism and economically unfair immigration policies. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Support for many political parties and/or minorities, the more the better. After all, "Nobody is deficient." When many different groups divide the power, nobody has enough power to put up an effective political resistance or to bring about a change. Democracy is dead, the real leaders behind the scenes have full control. That makes people angry.
  
  
• Fashion trends and social attitudes that focus public attention on worthless extravagancy, meaningless entertainment, and unwise priorities in order to turn it away form relevant and important issues. That makes (some) people angry.
  
  
• Green light for opposition activists, their organizations, and publications. Sporadic and symbolic repressions to increase their credibility. Infiltration, creation and funding of �fake� opposition organizations and/or publications. This does not make people angry because most are unaware of it, but it is a necessary element of revolutions.

When all of this is in place, you then need an eloquent and euphoric leader, supported by popular celebrities and well organized network of media, to promise change, mobilize the masses, and ignite the fire.

Sounds familiar? Most people have already heard or read about it. Just look around and see - most of the above pre-conditions have been already put in place. And remember that the level of mass frustration is paramount in building a revolutionary readiness of the masses.

Now, who and why would want a �revolution�?

The most obvious answer is, �The world�s financial elites and their stooges.� A controlled revolution would make several of their reported goals easier to achieve.

Firstly, the One World Government. We already have the European Union, the North American Union and African Union are in the making. The next logical step is the World Government. International consolidation of political and military power would lead the elites to a full and unrestricted control of the world�s markets, as well as its natural and human resources. Those who are opposed to globalization face military aggression, assassination, a coup d'�tat, or starvation.

The level of public awareness and opposition to this idea would make forcing it upon various nations very difficult. Revolutions bring new order, why not the New World Order? The leader will emerge, when the people are ready.

Secondly, changing the system, especially the financial and monetary system, back to one based on gold, would give the only real power to the top banker families who have already put their hands on the world�s reserves of gold. Secretly leading the Revolution would allow them to get away with the theft of the treasures of the nations and to avoid a real revolution that would bring them to justice.

Thirdly, a "new political reality" would allow the introduction of the Amero as well as re-definition of the national deficit and national debt. With the implementation of the North American Union and a new currency, the new government will be able to impose a "consumer proposal" on national and international parties to whom we owe, and later, to cancel our debts all together, when the World Government takes over. The bankers will keep their gold, the debt will be worthless.

Is this really the plan, the script? I don�t know. But I know that it would logically answer many questions.

I would like to end this article with a few personal conclusions.

I have nothing against the concept of a One World Government, if it is a truly democratic one and if it respects human rights. I think, this would be a fantastic achievement in our human and social development. But I am also aware of history. Systems controlled by financial, industrial or military elites have never produced positive social outcomes. Instead, they produced poverty, exploitation, and oppression. I am afraid that a revolution led by the bankers would change the Earth into a one huge Gaza.

I have also nothing against depopulation. The Earth is overpopulated and we are running quickly out of resources that sustain our civilizations and our very lives. Overpopulation is also responsible for the environmental degradation. The question is not about numbers, the question is about methods. Who, if anybody, has the right to decide what needs to be done, who is to survive, and who it to die? Murder is murder, no matter what methods and tools are used. Apparently, the �educational option� did not work as expected.

I have some reservations along the communism vs. capitalism debate. I lived half of my adult life in a communist country. I am now beginning my 24th year in Canada. I remember bad and good things under the communist system. I now see good and bad things under capitalism.

Canada Watch was my baby during the last few years. I will miss it dearly, but I can no longer do it. Rev. Jeremiah Wright�s speech has, one more time, turned a red light in my head.

Are the elites creating conditions for a global revolution in order to implement the One World Government?

Am I unconsciously helping them in achieving this goal?

I have witnessed the script that was implemented in Eastern Europe at the end of the 20th century. Today, I see the same script being played on a larger scale.