Love of profits vs. the Love of the Prophet (part 2)

[moeen yaseen]

IS PAUL WOLFOWITZ DEAD MEAT?
April 13 (LPAC)
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/04/13/dead_meat.sh tml


On the eve of the opening of the International Monetary Fund annual meeting in Washington, D.C., it appears that World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz—the neo-conservative warmonger behind the hoked up lies that led to the Iraq war—could be dumped. And, it appears likely that forces in Britain are behind the current massive effort to oust him.

After Wolfowitz was exposed on April 12 for"fondling" World Bank assets, leading world press, led by the Financial Times published details of his operation which has led the 13,000 member World Bank employees association to call for his resignation. This would be part of a general move over the past weeks by some in the United Kingdom, suggested Lyndon LaRouche, who have decided that they don't want to see a new war on Iran, a war which is now in the early implementation stage under the direction of Wolfowitz's political sponsor, Dick Cheney.

Evidence of LaRouche's hypothesis is plentiful. The battle has been waged to a great extent between the Financial Times of London, which began the leaks about Wolfowitz's corrupt handling of his girlfriend's position and salary from the Bank, and, on the other side, the neocon mouthpiece in New York, the Wall Street Journal, which is defending their boy Wolfy to the hilt. It is of note that the cushy job at the State Department to which his girlfriend Shaha Riza was deployed (while still on the World Bank payroll) was under the direction of mad-woman Liz Cheney, the daughter of Dick (see Liz Cheney's war cry regarding Syria).

The lead editorial in the Financial Times of April 13, is titled: "Wolfowitz must be told to resign now." The same newspaper edition carries with a letter to the editor from Gautam Kaji, an Indian who was a leading Bank official over international affairs under former President James Wolfensohn, which is titled: "Quit or be fired: that should be Wolfowitz's choice."

Further evidence is that the Board of the Bank, after two days of intense discussions, as of Friday afternoon, was postponing a decision on what to do with their corrupt President. Some insiders have told EIR that the Board wants to hear first from the Europeans (including the British), whose delegates to the IMF meeting being held on Saturday will be arriving today.

While the scandal is ostensibly about the personal corruption, the real issues are coming out into the open as part of the ruckus. Since Wolfowitz moved from the Defense Department to the World Bank in June 2005, he has earned the rage of the staff at the Bank by using an "anti-corruption" campaign to cut off aid to countries which were on the U.S. hit-list. The New York Times reported today that aid to Uzbekistan was cut off when they ousted the U.S. troops stationed there in 2005, while similar political motivations led to a cut off of aid to India, Chad, Kenya and others under fraudulent "anti-corruption" auspices. The World Bank Board became so incensed that they changed the rules last month so that Wolfowitz could not use charges of corruption to cut aid without the approval of the Board. Now they are likely to finish off his Bank career altogether.

For the backround on Wolfowitz as a leading Straussian in the Neoconservative circle which gave us the Iraq War, see
the April 2003 EIR article by Jeffrey Steinberg
The`Ignoble Liars' Behind Bush's Deadly Iraq War

[moeen yaseen]

BRITISH ATTACK WOLFOWITZ AT THE IMF/WORLD BANK MEETING

see http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=260&pid=1169#pid1169

[moeen yaseen]

THEY WOULDN’T REALLY ATTACK IRAN, WOULD THEY?

Paul Street
April 18, 2007


Remember the old neoconservative half-joke that “sacking Baghdad is fine but real men go to Teheran?” We are moving into the time when many Washington watchers have thought it possible and even likely that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would order an attack on Iran (1).

They wouldn’t really do it, would they?

God knows there are a large number of reasons for a rational White House NOT to attack. United States and global public opinion is opposed to a U.S. assault on Iran. So are European and other leading and allied governments, the U.S. intelligence community and much of the nation’s military leadership. According to a February 25th London Times report, “most senior [United States] commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a strike against Iran” (1.5).

Key sections of the U.S. foreign policy establishment oppose attacking Iran. The Baker-Hamilton Commission’s Iraq Study Group advocated engaging Iran diplomatically to help de-escalate the mess in Iraq and the Middle East.

Expressing concerns that the administration will manufacture false pretexts for attacking Iran, former National Security Advisor Zgbniew Bzrezinski recently told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Bush’s “imperial hubris” is “undermining America’s global legitimacy,” “intensifying regional instability” and putting the U.S on track for a “quagmire lasting 20 years or more and eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan” (2).

United States troops are overstretched and have been badly bloodied in Iraq. The American Empire’s strung-out, battered and mostly working-class soldiers are increasingly skeptical about Bush’s military adventurism (3).

As Samar Sepehri notes in the latest International Socialist Review, “Iraq is a glaring example for the U.S. (as Hezbollah was for Israel) that superior firepower and the best laid [military] plans are no guarantee of imperial success” (4).

While “Iran cannot [militarily] defend itself against U.S. attack,” Noam Chomsky recently noted, “it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting ever more havoc in Iraq. “Some issue warnings that are more grave,” Chomsky adds, noting British military historian Corelli Barnett’s judgment that “an attack on Iran would effectively launch world war three” (5).

According to ZNet writer Stephen Lendman, citing a CIA assessment, “if the U.S. attacks Iran, South Shia Iraq will light up like a candle and explode uncontrollably throughout the country...expanding the Iraq conflict to a regional one with [unpredictable] consequences that would not be good for U.S. interests. It will inflame the region,” spark “a tsunami of Shia rage” and “unite the Muslim world in fierce opposition to America,” Lendman says (6).

Iran has signaled its readiness to strangle oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz – the crucial and narrow passageway between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean – and thereby to damage the global economy if the U.S. and/or Israel attack its nuclear facilities.

A military strike against Iran would be thoroughly illegal under international law and the U.S. Constitution. It would evoke horror and condemnation across the world, further tarnishing the United States’ fading “moral credentials” (Bzrezinski), especially if it employs (as it likely would) “low yield” nuclear missiles that would (as a senior U.S. intelligence official told Seymour Hersh) produce “mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties and contamination over years”(7).

The administration’s key charges against Iran are without basis. There is little evidence to support U.S. claims that predominantly Shiite Iran has been sparking the Sunni-led Iraq “insurgency” and that Iran poses a reasonably imminent “nuclear danger.”

Also lacking credibility are U.S. claims that Iraq seeks to eliminate Israel –a charge that ignores Iran foreign policy chief Ayatollah Ali Khameni’s repeated statements of support Israel’s continued existence alongside a separate Palestinian state.

As John Pilger notes, “the ‘threat’ from Iran is entirely manufactured, aided and abetted by familiar, compliant media language that refers to Iran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’ just as the vocabulary of Saddam’s non-existent WMD arsenal became common usage”(.

Another public relations fiasco looms, perhaps, for those who would launch yet another mass-murderous assault on a major Muslim state without credible basis for threat claims concocted to justify the brazen violation of international law and civilized norms.

A U.S. attack would likely unite the factions contesting for power inside Iran, to the detriment of the Bush administration’s declared mission of causing regime change there. That mission could be pursued without resort to massive air assault, through the intensified application of methods already being employed: economic and financial sanctions and the related promotion of ethnic, religious, factional and regional strife inside Iran.

And yet, despite all this and more, we really can’t rule out the possibility of the feared U.S. attack sometime this or next year. Bush has been preparing the ground for such an assault by making repeated, high-profile references to the alleged Iran threat. As presented in his January 23rd State of the Union Address (SOUA), the supposed menace of Iran goes beyond alleged nuclear ambitions and support for the Iraqi resistance. It includes the threat of a rising “Shia crescent” led by Iran in alliance with Hezbollah, Hamas and the Syrian state. Bush raised this specter “despite the fact,” as Tom Englehardt notes, “that the Bush administration is officially at war with Sunni extremism in Iraq (and in the more general War on Terror)”(9).

As Seymour Hersh shows in a recent New Yorker article titled “The Redirection,” the Bush administration’s Middle East policies has undergone a “sea change” as the U.S. seeks to enlist the region’s Arab Sunni people and regimes against Persian Iran and the danger of Shia dominance (10).

The administration’s 2006 National Military Strategy claimed that “we may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.” (11). The U.S. may have supported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon last July partly to destroy Iran-linked Hezbollah’s capacity to deter a U.S.-Israel assault on Iran.

The U.S. “Surge” in Iraq is specifically targeting forces allied with Iran, seeking to reduce Iran’s ability to respond to a U.S. attack by sparking retaliation against the U.S in Iraq. As Sepehri notes, “although the surge in U.S. troops will do little to really secure Iraq (an idea which has been ridiculed even by the administration’s supporters), it is designed to pressure, fragment and break away parts of the forces allied with Iran, pulling away forces which can be acquiesced through military pressure, while isolating and destroying those who will not submit. The aim of this is to remove many of Iran’s options to respond to an attack including retaliation against the U.S. forces in Iraq” (12).

U.S. Air Force Planning Groups have been “drawing up lists of targets” (Hersh) in Iran since at least early 2002. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have recently completed contingency plans that will permit Bush to bomb Iran on 24 hours notice.

U.S. Special Ops and CIA teams have been placed in Iran, marking targets for future air assaults, studying the terrain, and fomenting rebellion among ethnic and religious minorities.

The Pentagon has placed two full carrier groups in the Persian Gulf, giving the U.S. the capacity to sustain a month-long bombing and missile campaign against Iran. Even before the Stennis and Eisenhower groups arrived, the U.S. and the United Kingdom possessed a giant naval presence in the Gulf.

Last December, the Pentagon replaced General John Abizaid with Admiral William Fallon as the head of Centcom, the command authority developed by Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan to “guard oil flows” from the Persian Gulf. Abizaid had supported the ISG’s recommendation of diplomatic engagement with Syria and Iraq. The new Centcom chief is an expert coordinator of the sort of combined air and sea operations that would be involved in a confrontation with Iran.

The U.S. has been illegally sending unmanned aerial surveillance drones into Iranian air space. It recently invaded the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq and seized six Iranian nationals.

The U.S. has been stockpiling oil reserves and has pressured its arch-reactionary oil-rich client state Saudi Arabia to increase petroleum production levels.

Thousands of U.S. troops have been moved to the Iraq-Iran border. In February, the Los Angeles Times reported that U.S. Air Force and Navy planes were going to be used more aggressively along that border – the point being to provoke an Iranian response that could be used (ala the Gulf of Tonkin) as a pretext for a U.S. assault.

The U.S. has installed “defensive” Patriot Missiles in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Arab Emirates. This is meant to defend these states against intermediate range (Shihab-3) ballistic missiles that Washington suspects Iran would launch in response to a U.S and/or Israeli attack.

On February 11, the Washington Post reported that Dick Cheney’s new national security advisor John Hanna considers 2007 “the year of Iran.” A central player in the making of the Bush administration’s deceptive case for the invasion of Iraq, Hannah said that a U.S. assault on Iran was “a real possibility” this year (13).

The Bush administration’s recent willingness to accommodate China by cutting a bargain with North Korea may in part reflect a desire to stop China from opposing a U.S. assault on Iran. As David Whitehouse notes, “the North Korea deal raises the stakes for Iran. China has been a potential obstacle to U.S. action against Iran, but progress over North Korea may make the Chinese more willing to accept a military strike…the favor the U.S. is extending to China over North Korea could be returned with Chinese acquiescence to the U.S. police role in the Middle East.”

The Bush administration knows that neither of its two closest military rivals – Russia and China – will back Iran in an armed conflict with the superpower. While they will block a force resolution against Iran at the UN, they will stand clear once U.S. attack becomes imminent (14).

Last December the Bush administration succeeded in persuading the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution imposing economic sanctions on Iran for supposedly threatening international peace with nuclear activities. This has set the stage for Bush to demand that the Security Council sanction the use of force against Iran. When Security Council members Russia and China (inevitably) reject that demand, Bush may well (on the model of the 2002-2003 run to the invasion of Iraq) cite earlier resolutions to justify direct U.S. military action. “We’ve done all we can through the inadequate channels of international law and the UN,” Bush will claim (in essence) “but now the time has come for us to act” against an Evil State that the UN itself has identified as ‘a danger to world peace’” (14.5)

The assault envisioned, it should be noted, is a “Shock and Awe” air attack, not a ground invasion or prolonged occupation that will cause mass U.S. casualties. The problem of GI burnout and casualties will not deter Washington from undertaking a month-long high-tech air war launched mainly from sea-born vessels. The White House is contemplating the use of nuclear weaponry, something that would involve an especially high ratio of “enemy” devastation to U.S. troop loss. As Alenjandro Nadal notes in La Jornada:

“Many people think that an offensive by Washington would be foolish because the Americans can hardly cope with Iraq. How are they going to attack a country that is twice as big and has double the number of inhabitants? But...Washington’s objective is not to invade and occupy Iran. The central purpose is to eliminate it as an obstacle to controlling the resources of Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. And, to achieve that, it is not necessary to invade the country. It is enough to destroy its military capacity, aerial and naval, something that the armed forces of the United States and its few allies can achieve in some week of selective bombardment...In reply, Iran can unleash a nightmare for the Americans in Iraq. But the sacrifice of additional tens of soldiers in Baghdad is not something that is going to stop the...the Bush-Cheney duo...[and] the American people...will be faced with a fait accompli”(15).

The fact that the world economy could be damaged by the disruption of oil flows from the Middle East is of little concern to Washington. U.S. policymakers are concerned first and foremost that the United States continues to bolster its world domination by controlling the strategically hyper-significant energy resources of the Middle East, not that not that they or the rest of the world enjoy unimpeded access to Middle Eastern oil. Iraq’s oil production has fallen from nearly 3 million barrels to about 1.5 billion barrels since the United States invaded – something that has led the major oil companies to jack up their prices (helping them garner record profits) even as increased Saudi production has helped make up the difference (16).

The White House has made its contempt for the relevance of world and domestic opinion (and even much informed elite opinion) on numerous occasions, including the occupation of Iraq. Indifference to public opinion and law is hardly a “novel” stance on the part of U.S. policymakers, “but the statist reactionaries at the helm in Washington,” Chomsky notes, “have set new records in flaunting their credentials as international outlaws” (17).

Asked about the opposition of the Congress and the American people to the U.S. “Surge” (escalation) in (and beyond) Iraq, Darth Cheney was blunt in his response: “it won’t stop us,” he said, leading one concerned U.S. citizen to write the following to the Editors of the New York Times: “What I want to know is, Who is ‘us’? If it's not the American electorate or the United States Congress, which was elected to represent American citizens, who is it? Or maybe the question should be, Who is this administration and what has it done with my country?"(1.

It doesn’t help that the Democratic Party’s leadership and leading presidential candidates are hawkish on Iran – reflecting deeply shared doctrinal assumptions on the United States’ right and “responsibility” to exercise imperial “leadership” (global dominance) in and beyond Middle East (18.5) – even as they criticize the Bush administration’s sorry performance in Iraq. Or that dominant U.S. war and entertainment media has been willing to play much the same role regarding Iran that it played vis-à-vis Iraq in 2002 and 2003. It is dutifully relaying administration propaganda about the mythical Iran threat.

And then there’s the vicious madness of boy-king George. Bush the Second combines profound mental mediocrity with sloppy, dry-drunk Protestant Fundamentalism, an advanced case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and a sneering authoritarianism born of an especially vile and aristocratic upbringing. These toxic features and his life history blind him to his own mistakes and crimes and make him susceptible to the influence of powerful and deranged proto-fascists like Dick Cheney. They push him to respond to his Iraq fiasco by doubling down his bets on Iran - convinced that he can still “hit the jackpot” if he just keeps rambling and gambling in the oil-rich Middle East. They tell him he is endlessly free to transgress without consequence and insulate from the counsel of more rational elites within the imperial establishment. According to Bush’s own brother Jeb, as recounted in Ron Suskind’s book The One Percent Doctrine, “Dubya” appears to enjoy compelling other people to “knuckle under” and doesn’t really care about whether he’s right or wrong. He may actually find it more amusing to be wrong and still force everyone to follows his command.

How much do rational warnings of possible or likely disaster matter to George “The Decider” Bush and his dark overlord Cheney? As their “untidy” (in the lovely description of Donald “* Happens” Rumsfeld) fiasco deepened in Iraq, it is worth remembering, the White House claimed that neither they nor anyone else had good reasons to anticipate the chaos that lay ahead when they invaded that shattered nation. This was completely false. Beyond technically irrelevant predictions of turmoil from within the Middle East and from the U.S. and global Left, numerous key establishment figures advanced serious “elite” warnings about possibly disastrous consequences after a quick military victory over a weak regime. The agents of advance warning (to name just some of the more prominent voices) included George Bush Senior’s National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, retired Air Force Col. John Warden, Marine Corps consultant Frank Hoffman, National Defense University professor Daniel Kuehl, conservative Congressman Ike Skelton (the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee), and the Committee on International Security Studies at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (19).

All of these and other voices within and beyond the foreign policy establishment issued relevant notes of caution and alarm regarding the difficulties inherent in illegally occupying Mesopotamia.

None of if it was worth a pile of West Texas horseshit. The warnings went unheeded by an administration that clung to the notion of quick and easy “victory” (20).

Four years later, to make things yet more dangerous, Bush, Cheney and others in the White House may be caught up in the “wounded predator” syndrome. Figuratively bloodied by an Iraqi quagmire so obvious and humiliating that even Bush can’t completely miss it, the injured monsters in the White House may be driven to act recklessly out of terrible desperation. As Gilbert Achcar noted in early 2006:

“They want to control the energy resources of the region. The problem is what means can they use to achieve that goal? And...they are in real disarray about what to do. When you follow closely what they do on the ground, you have a sense of shifting policies; they are pragmatically trying to react to adversity but the fact is they have no general long-term strategy. The problem is that all this is truly worrying. The Iraqi vox populi is certainly right to be worried about U.S. plans, because the wounded beast could be truly dangerous” (21).

The Iranian “vox populi” also has reasons to worry. As Chomsky noted last July, “Bush planners have created remarkable catastrophes for themselves in the Middle East. And it is conceivable that they might strike out in desperation, hitting the system with a sledgehammer to see if somehow the results will come out in their favor” (22).

The administration’s desperation could be furthered by its awareness of the remarkable strategic stakes at play in the Middle East. Cheney and Bush have sparked events that could end up significantly damaging the United States’ position in the world system. Their incompetent and delusional actions have enabled a potential decisive separation of largely Shiite-inhabited Middle East oil lands from U.S. control, something that would cost the United States critical leverage over world-capitalist rivals and significantly accelerate its demotion to the position of a “second-rate world power.” Seen from the perspective of the American Empire Project, of course, there is nothing irrational about U.S. policymakers’ longstanding obsession with the control of Middle Eastern oil (23).

Other depressing facts are that Bush and Cheney see the historical window closing on their probably cherished desire to attack Iran and could be motivated by their party’s deepening domestic political crisis to “Wag the Dog” (distract the enraged homeland populace with military actions overseas) on a large scale, looking for a domestic political twist on Chomsky’s “sledgehammer.”

If Bush and Cheney can be convinced that bearing their nuclear tipped teeth is combining with other tactics – the fanning of Sunni-Shiite conflicts, external strangulation, and the cultivation of internal Iranian rebellion, etc. – to effectively show Iran and the Middle East who’s boss, then perhaps Washington will stand down from a full-blown assault. The Godfather doesn’t always have to actually kill; sometimes he can be convinced that the demonstration of his capacity for violence was sufficient to enforce proper obedience.

Will they attack Iran sometime this or next year? If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on Washington standing down. It seems like too crazy a proposition even for Bush and Chenet at this point. But who knows? I didn’t think they’d invade Iraq at first and I’m not into prognostication. It’s not about the crystal ball.

The facts that we have to work like Hell just to form educated guesses about what “our” “leaders” might do in our name – not to mention the name of “democracy” – and that the attack is a possibility are indications show the building of a serious anti-imperialist movement is long overdue inside the United States.

It shouldn’t be like this. U.S. citizens should begin building a serious Left and anti-imperial movement aiming to replace dominant domestic structures of Empire and Inequality with egalitarian institutions of justice, equality and peace. Such “radical reconstruction of society” – Martin Luther King Jr.’s declared objective by 1966 (24) – is required, among other reasons, to eliminate the chance for demented war criminals and authoritarian militarists like Bush and Cheney to become structurally super-empowered predators in the first place.

Veteran radical historian, journalist, and speaker Paul Street (paulstreet99@ yahoo.com) is a Left political commentator in Iowa City, IA. Street is the author of Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2004), Segregated Schools: Educational Apartheid in the Post-Civil Rights Era (New York, NY: Routledge, 2005), and Still Separate, Unequal: Race, Place, and Policy in Chicago (Chicago, 2005) and The Empire and Inequality Report. Street’s next book Racial Oppression in the Global Metropolis: A Living Black Chicago History (New York, 2007) will be released next June.

NOTES

1 John Pilger, “Iran: the War Begins,” ZNet Sustainer Commentary, February 3, 2007, available online at www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-02/03pilger.cfm; Michael T. Klare, “Bush’s Future Iran War Speech,” Tomdispatch, reproduced on ZNet, February 26, 2007, available online at http://www. zmag.org/ content/ showarticle.cfm?itemid=12218.



1.5 Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, “U.S. Generals ‘Will Quit’ if Bush Orders Iran Attack,” London Times, 25 February 2007, available online at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece).



2. Bzrezinski is quoted in Stephen Lendman, “George Bush’s Sampson Option,” ZNet March 8, 2007, available online at http://www.zmag.org/content/ showarticle.cfm? SectionID=67&ItemID=12284).



3. Paul Street, “ ‘ Without Question?’ On Growing Military Opposition to the Invasion of Iraq,” ZNet, January 11, 2007, available online at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11825.



4. Saman Sepehri, “The Pressure is On: The U.S. is Gearing Up for a Fight With Iran,” International Socialist Review, (March-April 2007), p. 12.





5. Noam Chomsky, “A Predator Becomes More Dangerous When Wounded,” The Guardian, 9 March 2007, available online at www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ story/0,,2030015,00.html.



6. Lendman, “George Bush’s Samson Option.”



7. Seymour Hersh, “Annals of National Security: The Iran Plans,” The New Yorker, April 17, 2006, available online at http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/ 17/060417fa_fact



8. John Pilger, “Iran: the War Begins,” ZNet Sustainer Commentary, February 3, 2007, available online at www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-02/03pilger.cfm.



9. Tom Engelhardt, “The Seymour Hersh Mystery,” TomDispatch, March 13, 2006, available online at http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=174764



10. Seymour Hersh, “The Redirection,” New Yorker, March 3, 2007, available online at http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022507Z.shtml.



11. Quotation in Lendman, “Bush’s Samson Option.”



12. Sepehri, “The Pressure is On,” p.12.



13. Karen De Young, “U.S. Keeps Pressure on Iran,” Washington Post, 11 February 2007, p. A18.



14. David Whitehouse, “Desperate for a Deal,” International Socialist Review (March-April 2007), p.10; Sepehri, “The Pressure is On.” “The Chinese know the U.S. is in a Middle East quagmire,” Whitehouse adds, “and they might not mind handing Bush a shovel to dig even deeper.”



14.5 Klare, “Bush’s Future Iran War Speech.”



15. Alenjandro Nadal, “Blitzkrieg Against Iran: Bush and Cheney’s Twisted Logic,” La Jornada, Mexico, April 4, 2007.



16. Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar, Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2006], p.58; Mathew Wald, “War and Cheap Oil: A Second Look,” New York Times, 7 January 2007, sec. 4, p. 2.



17. Chomsky and Achcar, Perilous Power, p. 232.



18. Stephanie Nicholas, Letter to the Editor of the New York Times, January 27, 2007.

18.5 On shared doctrinal assumptions, see Tony Smith’s candid commentary, “It’s Uphill for the Democrats: They Need a Global Strategy, Not Just Tactics for Iraq,” Washington Post Sunday, March 11, 2007, p. B1, available online at www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901884_pf.html

19. Paul Street, Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2004), pp. 57-66.



20. Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (New York, 2006), p. 59.



21. Chomsky and Achcar, Perilous Power, p. 114.



22. Chomsky and Achcar, Perilous Power, pp. 230-231. See also Chomsky, “A Predator Becomes More Dangerous When Wounded.” The potential benefits of inflicting chaos through “sledgehammer” assault are suggested by the ironic fact that, as Sepehri notes, “the unfolding disaster in Iraq” has “provided the means for the U.S., Israel and the Arab regimes to combat Iran’s political influence through Sunni/Shiite divisions and sectarianism. While the sectarian violence in Iraq has undermined the U.S. ability to bring security or claim any control over the situation in Iraq,” Sepehri observes, “it has also provided the tool to break apart any united political opposition to the U.S. (and Israel).” See Sepehri, “The Pressure is On,” p. 12.





23. Chomsky and Achcar, Perilous Power, pp. 25-26, 53-55, 57-58, 114, 231.



24. Paul Street, “ ‘ Until We Get a New Social Order:’ Reflections on the Early Radicalism of Martin Luther King, Jr.” ZNet (January 16, 2007), available online at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11871; Paul Street, “The Pale Reflection: Barack Obama, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Meaning of the Black Revolution,” Black Agenda Report (March 21, 2007), available online at http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie w&id= 149&Itemid=34.

[moeen yaseen]

NWO MYTHOLOGY OF ENDING SLAVERY

SLAVERY DIDN'T END 200 YEARS AGO- IT EVOLVED
http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/resources/issues-explained/slavery-didnt-e nd-200-years-ago---it-evolved.html


The 25th March 2007, we’ve been led to believe recently, was two hundredth anniversary of the end of the slave trade. The anniversary was celebrated with reminders of how Britain led the way in abolishing the practice through the ‘Abolition of the Slave Trade Act’ passed on 25th March 1807.

But slavery was an institution that Britain fostered and grew for over three hundred years and on the back of which it expanded and maintained its empire. It was a practice it found very difficult to leave, for it was not for another century after the Slave Trade Act that slavery, in real terms, was banned. Legislation and parliamentary acts aside, many of the practices that made slavery what is was continued, often by its original perpetrators, and are still with us today. To believe that Britain’s legal prohibition of slavery somehow ended the practice is naïve if not dangerous.

The act of 1807 outlawed the slave trade but not slavery. Slavery was made illegal in 1834. But it continued in all but name: former slaves were hired by their former owners in slave-like ‘apprenticeships’. The vacuum created by emancipated slaves eventually led to the need to identify a new labour force. The replacement came in the shape of two and half million Indians who were ‘indentured’ – contracted to work on plantations – but who were treated no better than slaves were. Indentured emigration went on until 1917, demonstrating that slavery certainly wasn’t over when we are led to believe it was.

Today, the NGO ‘Free the Slaves’ believes that we have the largest number of people that has ever been in slavery at any point in world history and are being paid the lowest price that there has ever been for a slave in raw labour terms.

But slavery was marked by a number of practices that have continued and still plague the world, often practiced by the same nations that claim to have brought slavery to an end. The slave trade was built on the belief in the inferiority of those it enslaved, through which it justified appalling treatment, abandonment of rights, strict control of behaviours and practices and the consideration of people as property. These practices still exist as do the underlying beliefs and language upon which slavery was built.

For example, the belief amongst many western politicians and commentators is that the west is a civilising force; that its engagement in the world can only be for the betterment of those under the west’s tutelage. The resurgence of cultural imperialism and liberal interventionism - that the west has the right and indeed moral obligation to interfere and dictate matters for other nations - hark back to the day of the empire and are premised on the inferiority or lesser civilisational status of those it seeks to ‘correct’.

It is upon this premise that the west has and continues to engage with the rest of the world. Economically, the world remains under the grip of aggressive capitalism and western policies that dictate domestic economic policy for a large chunk of the world which often better serve the west than they do the countries themselves. The pernicious use of interest bearing loans, IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programmes, and western manipulation of markets through the use of subsidies have turned natural resource-rich countries poor. With the burden of debt, compliance to the terms of repayment, aid packages and imposed domestic programmes and polices, poverty and unemployment are driving poor countries to measures that are even more desperate. This economic situation still drives forced labour and western multinationals continue to employ workers in third world countries for a pittance and in despicable working conditions; human trafficking and sex slavery, an increasing problem in the west, also highlights the human tragedy of pressures born out of economic slavery. The irony is that the docks in east London which sent ships to colonise huge swathes of South Asia and Africa, enlisting hundreds of thousands of slaves, have now been replaced by the shining towers of global financial institutions which unleash a similar economic stranglehold.

Political slavery is the intricate and careful control of proxies through the perpetual threat of sanctions, war or abandonment, maintains a litany of western supported tyrants in the Muslim world who are unable to act independently or break away from the foreign agendas that sacrifice the progress of their own people. These despots in turn ensure their citizenry do not challenge their master-slave relationship with the west through brutal security measures and archaic laws and political systems. Take Hosni Mubarak’s new legislation that bans parties based on religion in a country that is a huge Muslim majority. The political slavery of the Middle East continues to deny the region the ability to independently move forward, prosper and appoint representative leaderships to govern for not despite them.

The victims of slavery have called for apologies and reparations. The British, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese have blocked an EU apology for the slave trade. The litigation that would follow would certainly be colossal, if the pay-outs from Holocaust cases are anything to go by, and may explain the west’s reluctance. Even if it were to apologise for the past, the present is still plagued by a culture born out of colonialism and slavery. While some argue that modern slavery is perpetrated through private, not governmental, bodies, it is for governments to act not remain silent over these crimes. The challenge is not merely to seek apologies, but to redress a global political and economic situation which is likely only to entrench the debilitating situation in the non-west.

Governments have underplayed this crime in a shameful way. It is easy to see how the memories of the Second World War, the holocaust, terrorist bombings are remembered year after year, ‘lest we forget’. Time has not made this crime, of genocidal proportions, any less disgraceful.

An ideological divide – Islam works against slavery

Slavery is a human problem that has existed for millennia. People were enslaved in war, by piracy and as a punitive sanction for crime. Slaves had no rights; societies did not institutionalise the rights of these people to be treated justly.

When Islam came to the world, slavery was widespread yet Islam created a profound change by laying down laws defining a way of treating slaves justly as human beings as well as affording them rights that were previously unheard of. There were major encouragements to free people from slavery as well as numerous obligations in this regard. The various means through which people came to be enslaved were ended – including during the course of war. Hence, at a systemic level a series of rules came to weaken the institution of slavery, as well as rules to regulate the treatment of slaves.

For example, regarding the treatment of slaves, the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) said: “Fear Allah in regards of those whom your right hands possess. They are your brothers whom Allah placed under your hands (authority). Feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear and do not impose duties upon them which will overcome them. If you so impose duties, then assist them” and moved to change the language that have previously subjugated slaves saying, “One of you should not say: My slave (abd) and my slave-girl (amati). All of you are the slaves of Allah and all of your women are the slave-girls of Allah. Rather let him say: My (ghulam) boy and my (jariyah) girl and my (fata) young boy and my (fatati) young girl.” Islam gave the slave the right to marry, divorce, study and to be a witness upon others, in a society where they had no rights.

Regarding the encouragement to free slaves, the Prophet (SAW) said: “Whichever man frees a Muslim man, Allah ta’ala will liberate for each of his organ an organ from the Fire”. Islam further obliged the freeing of slaves under certain circumstances and made the freeing of slaves an expiation for a great number of sins, such as breaking oaths, if one had killed accidentally, incorrectly breaking a fast during Ramadhan as well as many others. Furthermore, the state treasury of the Islamic state, the Bait al-Mal, dedicates a section of its funds to the freeing of slaves, from the words of Allah (SWT) in the Qur’an: “Verily the sadaqat is only for the poor, the indigent, those who work upon it, those whose hearts are to be reconciled, for (riqab), debtors, for the way of Allah and the wayfarer, an obligation from Allah and Allah is knower wise”, the statement “and for (riqab)” referring to freeing slaves.

Islam further prohibited the enslaving of free people in a decisive way including captives of war. The Prophet Mohammed (SAW) said: “Allah ‘azza wa jalla said: Three (persons) I will dispute with them on the Day of Judgement: A man who gave in My name then he betrayed, a man who sold a free man and ate his price, and a man who employed an employee who fulfilled for him but he did not give him his wage”.

By contrast, Capitalism embraced slavery and grew the institution. The value of profit was given a higher status than the value of human life and dignity. The slave trade bred a racism that permeates till today. Never before, whether in Asia, China, Africa, the Middle East or indeed Europe, had slavery been solely associated with one race. The slave traders selected black people viewing them as inferior.

Furthermore, the brutal treatment and the industrial levels of enslaving people were characteristic of the Capitalist system, which invented battery farming. Those who called for the end of the slave trade were individuals out of step with that system which had embraced it. By a similar vein those in the Muslim world who participated in the enslaving of people, and were complicit with the slave traders were individuals out of step with the Islamic system – a system which had legally closed routes to enslavement, and effectively worked against it.

[moeen yaseen]

WE CAN DO IT WITHOUT THE TUTELAGE OF THE IMF AND WORLD BANK
THE SCANDAL AT THE WORLD BANK
see http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=227

[moeen yaseen]

THE WAR ON CONSCIOUSNESS
Paul Levy

We are truly in a war. It is not the war we imagine we are in, which is the way our true adversaries want it. It is not a foreign war against a foreign enemy. It is a war on consciousness, a war on our own minds. The global war on terror that is being fought around the world is an embodied reflection in the material world of a deeper, more fundamental war that is going on in the realm of consciousness itself.

We have the most criminal regime in all of our history wreaking unspeakable horror on the entire planet, while simultaneously waging war on the consciousness of its own citizens - US. If we aren’t aware of this, we are unwittingly playing into, supporting and complicit in the evil that is being perpetrated in our name.

A government’s war on the consciousness of its own citizens is by no means unique to the Bush administration. Abusing power over others so as to limit their freedom is an archetypal process that has been endlessly re-enacted by governments throughout history in various forms. With the Bush administration, however, the pathological aspect of this process has become so exaggerated and amped up to such a degree that it is just about impossible not to notice its staggering malignancy. With the Bush administration, the underlying evil that has played out in our government over many years is becoming overwhelmingly obvious for all to see. With the Bush administration, the underlying evil that informs systems of government that are based on “power over” instead of “liberty for” is coming out from hiding in the shadows. Instead of being acted out underground, our government is acting out this evil above ground, in plain sight for all who are courageous enough to look.

Impeaching Bush and Co. ultimately won’t change anything unless we deal with the corrupt powers which control and direct them. George Bush is just a finger-puppet of the hidden hand which animates him. Bush only has apparent power, as he himself is a minion of far more powerful predator-like forces whose nefarious interests he serves. Whether we call it the illuminati, the global elite, a shadow government, or a secret cabal, there is no doubt that there are darker, self-serving forces that have insinuated themselves into and taken over our government. The terrorists that we should be worried about are domestic terrorists who are actually implementing their agendas from deep within our very system of government itself.

The United States Government itself has become a “front” for the underlying military-industrial-financial crime syndicate that animates it. This is not to say that there aren’t many good, well-meaning people in our government – they are simply prohibited by the very nature of the corrupt system they are in from reforming it. Our system of government is rigged in such a way so that there is no way to transform the system within the system itself.

The underlying core of our government has become rotten such that the entire operation simply feeds into and is an expression of the same underlying corruption. All of the scandals continually coming out are like the superficial skin rash of a much deeper systemic disease, like a cancer that is infecting the greater body politic. Citizens who are not aware of our government’s insidious intrusions into our lives are unwittingly feeding the corruption they are looking away from in their very act of looking away.

The “powers” that have taken over our government have become concentrated and centralized in just a few elite hands, proving how easy it is for the few to control the many. They almost control all the levers of power: financial, political and judicial. In this war on consciousness, these powers-that-be are using the most advanced mind-control technology that our world has ever known to make its takeover complete. The essence of mind-control is information control, which is one thing our overly secretive current administration is very good at.

MIND-CONTROL
The private interests that control our government have an incredible mind-control/propaganda machine at their disposal in the form of the mainstream media, which if not quite fully owned and controlled, is certainly under their “influence” enough to serve their underlying self-serving agenda. George Orwell once said that omission is the greatest form of lie – this perfectly describes the corporate owned media of today which is nothing other than the propaganda organ of the state. The corporate world and our government are becoming indistinguishable, which is one of the hallmarks of fascism, or more accurately – corporatism.

In addition to information, our government is adept at putting out dis-information, whose intention is to create distractions and confusion so as to cover its tracks and hide its true intentions. It will purposely leak stories that are not true simply to cover-up what it is really doing. By putting out misleading information, the government hides behind its self-generated smokescreen like an octopus squirting ink.

Quite often, right at the moment when people’s focus is moving towards some area of criminality in the White House, the administration will even create a diversionary event for the public to put their attention on. Memories of those color-coded terror alerts that always seemed to happen right when something bad was starting to happen for the Bush administration come to mind. In creating distractions, our government is able to steer our collective attention in directions that allow it to successfully accomplish its malevolent goal of grabbing all the power it can get.

In a diabolical ploy, the administration will even feed stories to a compliant press, and then reference these stories as justification for enacting its pre-planned agenda. One glaring example is when the administration fed Judith Miller of the New York Times stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Once this propaganda appeared on the front page of the Times, the administration was only too happy to use it as evidence for why we should go to war.

WMD could easily stand for “Weapons of Mind Deception”, as our own government is continually trying to “Deceive” our “Minds”, which is the battlefield in which the war on consciousness is being fought. We are all on the front lines in the war on consciousness, whether we know it or not. Instead of shooting us, our government is using cutting-edge mind-control technology to psychically emasculate us. In order to be able to deal with the evil that the Bush regime is perpetrating, we first have to become acquainted with that very same potential evil in ourselves so as to be able to recognize it in the outside world. The way to vanquish our adversary is to be found hidden within the very nature of our own awareness, which contains the key to its own freedom.

The corporate-mainstream media “captivates” our attention, capturing a part of our self-reflective, discriminative awareness, thereby restricting the range of our conscious awareness, which is what hypnotism is all about. Once the attention of the masses becomes entranced, the corporate/government media can then “play with” our mind. This unholy trinity of corporate/government/media can create an obsessive fixation on certain superficial events that “seize” the collective psyche. For example, it feeds the masses sensationalized stories such as Anna Nicole Smith ad nauseam so as to divert our attention from the evil that is being done behind the scenes in our name.

Ex-CIA director Allen Dulles used to say that the most effective way to disguise a secret is to pretend to openly share information. The Bush administration isn’t interested in solving problems as much as creating good PR (Public Relations) for itself. With one hand the Bush administration will try to appear like it is openly sharing information and being transparent, while with its other hand it will be actively obstructing the very process it is seemingly supporting. A vivid example is the government’s 9/11 commission, whose aim was allegedly to shed light on what happened on 9/11, while covertly – behind the scenes – the Bush administration was doing everything it could to hinder the commission’s inquiries (see, for example, 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, by David Ray Griffin). All one has to do is investigate the numerous ties to the core cabal of the neocon Bush administration that the members of the 9/11 commission have and the degree to which it was
a
deliberate operation to obscure the truth becomes apparent. It was as if the White House was investigating itself; the foxes truly guarding the henhouse. The 9/11 commission and its report, just like the Warren Commission and its report on the Kennedy assassination, was a façade, a show, a display in which it appeared like our government was giving us what we wanted, while actually being part of a deceptive game of smoke-and-mirrors. It is like a magician has hypnotized us, and is stealing what’s in our pockets while they have us under their trance in which we believe they are serving us.

As if by a perverse Jedi mind-trick, the Bush administration has bewitched us into believing that it controls the national dialogue, when in a democracy the opposite is actually true. One of many examples – when confronted with overwhelming evidence that we have been torturing our adversaries, Bush responds by saying he “rejects” that claim, and the conversation stops right there and moves on to other, more superficial topics. Our government is supposed to represent us, which is to say that they are our employees. Bush has turned this around and put himself in the role of the dictator with us as his subjects. And somehow we have allowed him to get away with this. There is no escaping our individual and collective complicity in this sad state of affairs.

One difference between what is happening in our country and the state-controlled media of the old Soviet Union, is that in the Soviet Union, most people were quite aware that what was being presented to them by their corrupt government as news was nothing but mind-warping propaganda. Many Americans have fallen so under the spell of the Bush regime’s criminal lies that they don’t even know they are being lied to. It is like we are living in a land of state-controlled zombies who think they are free citizens of a free country.

It is as if millions of our fellow citizens have fallen asleep, as if they have become hypnotized and brainwashed by the powers-that-be‘s incessant “managing” and “massaging” of reality. These powers simply manipulate an already gullible and highly suggestible public into a game of “divide and conquer.” They get rich off of other’s blood - they incite conflict, and covertly support both sides, as they themselves reap the benefit of the conflict.

The corporate war machine, which is co-dependently entangled with our government, profits wildly from our invading other sovereign countries. The government-military-industrial complex’s solution to the very problem that they created by instigating wars – more war! It’s completely sick and totally insane. And we, in our dulled denial – like hypnotized sheep - simply go along and allow the whole parasitic enterprise to be fed by offering our sons and daughters as fodder. To the extent that we are not shedding light on the utter criminality and insanity of what the Bush administration is doing and saying “No,” we are all complicit in feeding our own genocide.

Bush and our Congressional leaders are mouthpieces for the advertising campaign of distortion and falsehood that is being “bomb-arded” into our psyches on a daily basis. Our “leaders” repetitive slogans and incantations brand and imprint themselves deep into our unconscious, where many who do not have enough psychic resistance fall under the spell. (please see Chapter 8 – “Breaking Bush’s Spell”, in my book The Madness of George W. Bush: A Reflection of our Collective Psychosis). People’s ability to discern truth from fiction has been rendered inoperative by our own government’s pattern of routinely taking liberty with the truth. Government propaganda has inverted the perception of what is actually happening, as lies are presented as truths, and up is portrayed as down in a truly Orwellian universe of confounding doublespeak. Through the “Big Lie” – which is based on that the bigger the lie, the harder it is for people to see the truth - the government has transformed myth in
to
seeming fact, and has achieved its goal of muddling our minds so as to dis-empower us.

Many of us haven’t developed the psychic immunity to be able to fully ward off the toxic effects of our government’s covert, fear-based psychological warfare. An expression of the success of our government’s psy-ops against US is the fact that there’s so little awareness about the government’s assault on our minds that it’s hardly even a part of our national dialogue. The insidiousness of the government’s covert manipulation of our minds is even found in the very term “Global War on Terror”. “The Global War on Terror” is a crazy-making, self-contradictory statement, as we can never stop terror with a war – on the contrary, wars induce terror! This term carries with it a false and self-negating premise that if we accept we’ve already given away our power. If we leave this underlying assumption unquestioned, we unwittingly allow them to frame the agenda on their terms. We have then already fallen under their spell without knowing it, as our capacity to think and respond creativ
ely is
undermined. Our inability to creatively respond to the war on our consciousness is an expression of being immobilized in fear as if frozen in trauma. The war on terror is really a war on our psyche. The war on terror is ultimately about control – control of our minds.

What Bush and our Congressional leaders are doing is so morally outrageous that it is literally off the charts of accepted, “normal”, ethical, sane human behavior. In the words of French poet Andre Chenier, Bush and Co. are committing “crimes that make the laws tremble,” as they are covertly undermining our very legal and political system itself. The corruption that has infected our body politic is like a virus that is exploiting weaknesses in our political immune system so as to feed and spread its pathology.

Those of us who are somewhat sane can easily lack the imagination for the depth of depravity that the Bush administration regularly acts out in the world. Our lack of imagination works to the government’s advantage, as it allows them to continue to act out the darkness in a manner which is incomprehensible to us. This is why the great doctor of the soul C. G. Jung counseled us to develop an “imagination for evil,” as being able to imagine the scope of evil that human beings can fall prey to and act out empowers us to see it clearly and thereby deal with it more effectively.

Our government’s lying and criminality is so pervasive that we have become desensitized to their corruption. Their evil has become so “normalized,” that just like someone watching TV becomes numb and anesthetized to the violence, we have become desensitized to the horror of what Bush and his cronies are doing right in front of our very eyes day after day. We’ve learned – or, shall I say, become programmed - to accept the fact that the Bush administration is almost always lying, for, as we are told “All governments lie”.

DEFRAUDING US OF THE TRUTH
Bush and Co., with the help of the US Supreme Court and the approval of Congress, rigged the 2000 and 2004 elections (see, for example, Fooled Again by Mark Crispin Miller). Then, with the help of the corporate media which is dependent on the good graces of military and government budgets and operations, Bush and Co. put out mind-numbing propaganda that no such hostile takeover had even taken place, to the point where after a little while most people forgot that anything out of the ordinary had occurred. The government’s propaganda machine plays with our minds, putting us in a somnambulistic state so that we eventually begin to accept the version of reality (in our example, that Bush has been “elected” to be our president) that serves its underlying agenda.

Once the office of “perception management” convinces a critical mass of people of a particular viewpoint, there is a “consensus” or “agreement” that is reached among the masses as to what is objectively true. The agreed upon version of reality takes on a “weight” and becomes the established dogma of what is collectively imagined to be really happening. Like a “religious” truth, it is irrationally believed like an act of faith by its card-carrying members, even if overwhelming evidence points to the contrary. Anyone who doesn’t buy into the arbitrarily established story is marginalized and demonized, and either called crazy, a conspiracy theorist, or even a terrorist (“You’re either with us or you’re with the enemy”).

If only one person believed the propaganda-created consensus version of reality, they’d be thought of as crazy. If a small group of people believed it, they’d be thought of as a cult. When a certain critical mass of people irrationally believe this fictionalized version of reality (in our case, that Bush has been “elected” by the people) to be objectively true, however, they are considered normal.

Mass psychology then becomes the order of the day, as our species, animated and inspired by fear – which Bush and his regime are only too happy to cultivate - reverts to the primitive psychology of the herd. A collective amnesia ensues, continually fed by a self-generating web of endless denial, as the manufactured consent is recreated anew every moment. A field of force which literally resists conscious reflection becomes conjured up around those who have fallen under the seductive spell of the agreed upon and artificially constructed consensus reality. Anyone reflecting back their unconscious condition is considered to be the enemy. Dissociating from their own darkness, they fight with it outside of themselves as it is projected into and reflected back by the world. Believing the agreed-upon fantasy, they collectively fall into their unconscious together and reinforce each other’s delusions in a self-perpetuating feedback loop, which is another way of saying that they have
fallen
into a collective psychosis.

Bush was not elected by the people. The military-industrial-financial crime syndicate’s minions and operatives had already insinuated themselves into key positions of power so as to accomplish their long-planned for covert takeover of the government. Some of their cronies had already infiltrated the Supreme Court, where they literally derailed the democratic process and decided, with no basis in law, to unconstitutionally invest themselves with the authority of bestowing the election upon Bush. Bush’s seeming “election by the people” was in fact a strategically implemented political coup d’etat. Very few even noticed this act of violence because of the criminal syndicate’s control of the mainstream media. Their propaganda machine succeeded in managing our perceptions just the way they wanted, which is a polite way of saying they successfully pulled the wool over most of our eyes, or pulled the rug out from under us without too many of us even noticing.

In a diabolical feedback loop, the underlying crime syndicate, by putting out propaganda (that Bush has been elected president) creates the very situation (Bush becoming president) which confirms the truth of their propaganda, like in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Being in a position of power, they are tapping into how they can shape the world in their own image, which they are imposing on the world through forceful means. They have in some perverse way begun to access how they can seemingly manipulate and create “reality”.

Because of their position of power, these sick few can control the masses by manipulating events in the world, as well as playing with our perceptions. They are tapping into how in managing our perceptions, they can literally create events, and in creating events, they can manage our perceptions. This is a divine secret, but in tapping into it with an impure heart, where power is prioritized over love, it is always destined for failure. In the end, these black magicians will ultimately self-destruct, there is no question about this whatsoever. It is simply a question of mitigating the disaster as they create their own ruin.

Another example of our government’s attack on our consciousness: After the 9/11 attacks, there is only one thing certain – the official story put out by our government, itself a conspiracy theory, is not true. There is no question about this to any thinking person who has even minimally studied the evidence. (see, for example, 911truth.org). The fact that our own government is not telling the truth to us about what happened on 9/11, as well as actively obstructing any investigation into what actually did happen, is a huge red flag – why would our own government be lying, and covering up their lie? Who knows (maybe the shadow?) at this point whether 9/11 was a false flag operation, covertly perpetrated by our own government against us, or whether they knew about it beforehand but simply allowed it to happen so as to gain political advantage? Something’s very fishy about the whole thing. The fact that our country, except on the margins, is not even having an open discussion ab
out what
really happened on 9/11 – the official version put out by the government is blindly accepted by millions of people as the objective truth - is another expression of our government shaping our dialogue, both nationally and within our own minds. The government’s distorted story about what happened on 9/11 is itself an expression of the deeper and more general underlying conspiracy of our government to defraud us of the truth.

The last thing this criminal enterprise wants is for us to see what it is doing. These criminal war lords want us to believe that we live in a democracy. For example, in a diabolical sleight of hand, we are given the illusory stage-show of free elections, while there is overwhelming evidence that the elections were rigged. Even to be in a position to run for president you have to be able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars – this itself is the entrance fee to the game. In addition, the only people who would be allowed by these robber barons to be in a position of power such as “Commander-in-Chief” is someone they control. Barack or Hillary? It’s an illusion of choice, a stage-managed distraction from what’s really going on. We are left with the appearance, and a misguided belief, that we live in a government run “by the people and for the people.” In a very real sense, the Democrats and Republicans are simply various factions who are fighting for the right to represent t
he
underlying military-industrial-financial crime syndicate that owns and operates our government. Those who control “our” government want to keep their operations covert, beneath our conscious awareness. For if enough of us become conscious of the evil and depravity that they are perpetrating in our name on the entire planet, their gig is up.

HOW TO ACHIEVE VICTORY IN THE WAR ON CONSCIOUSNESS
The powers that have taken over our country will do anything in their sorcerer’s bag of tricks to distract us and keep up the illusion that they are protecting us so as to maintain power. These banking and corporate pirates are willing and more than ready to intimidate, buy off, or destroy any and all critics. It is important for us to realize the depth of evil we are dealing with here – they are willing to kill as many people as needed to accomplish their aims. It is shocking to realize that the very entity that is supposed to be protecting us – our government – is the very thing from which we need protection. It is shattering to realize that our leaders are genuine psychopathic criminals who are trying to take over our planet, impose full-spectrum dominance, enact a new world order and centralize power and control. Instead of this being a conspiracy theory, the evidence is all around us, as it is everywhere we look if we have the eyes to see beyond the carefully crafted an
d
disseminated spell that is being perpetually woven all around us.

What is happening in our world has more the “feeling” of an invasion from a parallel universe than a physical coup d’etat. This is because the intrusion is taking place on the plane of mind, and only secondarily on the physical plane. If we could stop this covert incursion into our minds it would be much easier to mitigate the outer wars that plague our world.

These criminals clearly have way more power than we do in terms of guns, tanks, media and technology, but they are no match for us if we activate the inherent brilliance of our consciousness – a force with unlimited potential. Part of the spell they are casting is that there’s nothing we can do, that we are powerless to stop them from doing whatever they want, like when Cheney mentioned it doesn’t make a difference what Congress or the American people want, this administration is not going to be stopped from sending more troops to Iraq.

The Bush regime’s worst nightmare is for us to wake up to how we’ve been manipulated, hoodwinked and played by them like fools. The last thing they want is for us to access the natural intelligence inherent in being consciously aware, and connect with each other through the open-heart of lucidity. The powers-that-be’s greatest fear is for us individually, as well as collectively, to connect with our intrinsic God-given power to create.

Once we clearly see what is being perpetrated in our name, we can come together and “conspire to co-inspire” so as to awaken – and mobilize – our collective genius, which is a power greater than any weapon of mass destruction. In actuality, our connecting in shared lucidity is the antidote to all WMD’s – it is what I call a WMC – a “Weapon of Mass Consciousness”. It is what becomes activated when enough of us come together and see (C – i.e., become conscious of) what is happening.

Connecting with each other is crucially important, as the more of us that consciously associate with each other - as if re-membering (putting our “members” back together to form a unified body) - the stronger the field of unified force that we are able to generate. Once enough of us sync up, we become more able to collectively invoke and channel through our expanded awareness a power that is able to dis-arm any WMD: the power of consciousness infused with wisdom and compassion. Genuine compassion can be very fierce, however, as it both demands and empowers us to come together and say “No” to the evil being done in our name. We can step out of the fear-based reality in which we appear to exist separately from each other in any moment and consciously connect with each other through the open-heart of lucidity. When we are truly serving what is best for the whole – for everyone – a world-changing power becomes available to us.

The solution to winning the war on consciousness is for us to RECOGNIZE the nature of the war we are in, which can only happen through the agency of our consciousness. Realizing that the true war we are in is an assault on our own minds is the expansion of consciousness which is itself simultaneously the solution. From a deeper, more expansive perspective, the war on consciousness is itself the very catalyst and instrument for consciousness to awaken to itself.

It is our turn to come together so as to render powerless these sick criminals who have been terrorizing us. We can help each other to access our intrinsic heart-centered power and collectively turn the light of truth upon them so that they have no where to hide from their lies and corruption. For “truth”, to quote the infamous Nazi Hermann Goerring, is “the greatest enemy of the state.” Bush and the private interests who keep him in power and profit richly from his actions are absolutely terrified of one thing - the truth. As the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.” Like pouring water on the Wicked Witch of the West in “The Wizard of Oz”, when the true light of awareness is shed on what Bush and the real powers behind him are doing, their illegitimate power over us is dis-spelled as the illusion it always was.

[moeen yaseen]

JUDGEMENT DAY
BLIAR AND BETRAYAL OF THE BRITISH AND BRITISH INTERESTS

Blair's resignation speech in full
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6642857.stm


Mr Blair gave his speech to a crowd of people in Sedgefield
Tony Blair has announced his plans to step down as Labour leader and prime minister. He paid tribute to his wife Cherie and election agent John Burton before delivering his formal address at his Sedgefield constituency. Here is his speech in full.

I have come back here, to Sedgefield, to my constituency, where my political journey began and where it is fitting it should end.

Today I announce my decision to stand down from the leadership of the Labour Party. The Party will now select a new Leader.

On 27 June I will tender my resignation from the office of prime minister to the Queen.

I have been prime minister of this country for just over 10 years. In this job, in the world today, that is long enough, for me, but more especially for the country.

Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down.

Great country

It is difficult to know how to make this speech today.

There is a judgment to be made on my premiership. And in the end that is, for you, the people, to make.

I can only describe what I think has been done over these last 10 years and, perhaps more important, why.

I have never quite put it like this before.

I was born almost a decade after the Second World War. I was a young man in the social revolution of the 60s and 70s.

I reached political maturity as the Cold War was ending, and the world was going through a political, economic and technological revolution.

I looked at my own country, a great country - wonderful history, magnificent traditions, proud of its past, but strangely uncertain of its future, uncertain about the future, almost old-fashioned.

I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That's your call


All of that was curiously symbolised in its politics.

You stood for individual aspiration and getting on in life or social compassion and helping others. You were liberal in your values or conservative.

You believed in the power of the state or the efforts of the individual. Spending more money on the public realm was the answer or it was the problem.

None of it made sense to me. It was 20th Century ideology in a world approaching a new millennium.

Of course people want the best for themselves and their families, but in an age where human capital is a nation's greatest asset, they also know it is just and sensible to extend opportunities, to develop the potential to succeed, for all - not an elite at the top.

People are, today, open-minded about race and sexuality, averse to prejudice and yet deeply and rightly conservative with a small 'c' when it comes to good manners, respect for others, treating people courteously.

They acknowledge the need for the state and the responsibility of the individual.

Living standards

They know spending money on our public services matters and that it is not enough. How they are run and organised matters too.

So 1997 was a moment for a new beginning, for sweeping away all the detritus of the past.

Expectations were so high, too high - too high in a way for either of us.

Now in 2007, you can easily point to the challenges, the things that are wrong, the grievances that fester.

But go back to 1997. Think back. No, really, think back. Think about your own living standards then in May 1997 and now.

Visit your local school, any of them round here, or anywhere in modern Britain.

Ask when you last had to wait a year or more on a hospital waiting list, or heard of pensioners freezing to death in the winter, unable to heat their homes.


The room at Sedgefield was filled with Blair's most ardent supporters

There is only one government since 1945 that can say all of the following: 'More jobs, fewer unemployed, better health and education results, lower crime and economic growth in every quarter,' - this one.

But I don't need a statistic. There is something bigger than what can be measured in waiting lists or GSCE results or the latest crime or jobs figures.

Look at our economy - at ease with globalisation, London the world's financial centre. Visit our great cities and compare them with 10 years ago.

No country attracts overseas investment like we do.

Think about the culture of Britain in 2007. I don't just mean our arts that are thriving. I mean our values, the minimum wage, paid holidays as a right, amongst the best maternity pay and leave in Europe, equality for gay people.

Or look at the debates that reverberate round the world today - the global movement to support Africa in its struggle against poverty, climate change, the fight against terrorism.

Britain is not a follower. It is a leader. It gets the essential characteristic of today's world - its interdependence.

This is a country today that for all its faults, for all the myriad of unresolved problems and fresh challenges, is comfortable in the 21st Century, at home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but confident of its future.

I give my thanks to you, the British people, for the times I have succeeded, and my apologies to you for the times I have fallen short



I don't think Northern Ireland would have been changed unless Britain had changed, or the Olympics won if we were still the Britain of 1997.

As for my own leadership, throughout these 10 years, where the predictable has competed with the utterly unpredicted, right at the outset one thing was clear to me.

Without the Labour Party allowing me to lead it, nothing could ever have been done.

But I knew my duty was to put the country first. That much was obvious to me when just under 13 years ago I became Labour's Leader.

What I had to learn, however, as prime minister was what putting the country first really meant.

Ultimate obligation

Decision-making is hard. Everyone always says: 'Listen to the people.' The trouble is they don't always agree.

When you are in opposition, you meet this group and they say: 'Why can't you do this?' And you say: 'It's really a good question. Thank you.' And they go away and say: 'Its great, he really listened.'

You meet that other group and they say: 'Why can't you do that?' And you say: 'It's a really good question. Thank you.' And they go away happy you listened.

In government, you have to give the answer - not an answer, the answer.

And, in time, you realise putting the country first doesn't mean doing the right thing according to conventional wisdom or the prevailing consensus or the latest snapshot of opinion.

It means doing what you genuinely believe to be right.

Your duty is to act according to your conviction.


Mr Blair was given the warmest of welcomes in his constituency

All of that can get contorted so that people think you act according to some messianic zeal.

Doubt, hesitation, reflection, consideration and re-consideration, these are all the good companions of proper decision-making. But the ultimate obligation is to decide.

Sometimes the decisions are accepted quite quickly. Bank of England independence was one, which gave us our economic stability.

Sometimes, like tuition fees or trying to break up old monolithic public services, they are deeply controversial, hellish hard to do, but you can see you are moving with the grain of change round the word.

Sometimes, like with Europe, where I believe Britain should keep its position strong, you know you are fighting opinion, but you are content with doing so.

Sometimes, as with the completely unexpected, you are alone with your own instinct.

Global terrorism

In Sierra Leone and to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, I took the decision to make our country one that intervened, that did not pass by, or keep out of the thick of it.

Then came the utterly unanticipated and dramatic - September 11th 2001 and the death of 3,000 or more on the streets of New York.

I decided we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our oldest ally. I did so out of belief.

So Afghanistan and then Iraq - the latter, bitterly controversial.

Removing Saddam and his sons from power, as with removing the Taleban, was over with relative ease.

But the blowback since, from global terrorism and those elements that support it, has been fierce and unrelenting and costly. For many, it simply isn't and can't be worth it.

For me, I think we must see it through. They, the terrorists, who threaten us here and round the world, will never give up if we give up.

The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth


It is a test of will and of belief. And we can't fail it.

So, some things I knew I would be dealing with. Some I thought I might be. Some never occurred to me on that morning of 2 May 1997 when I came into Downing Street for the first time.

Great expectations not fulfilled in every part, for sure.

Occasionally people say, as I said earlier: 'They were too high, you should have lowered them.'

But, to be frank, I would not have wanted it any other way. I was, and remain, as a person and as a prime minister, an optimist. Politics may be the art of the possible - but at least in life, give the impossible a go.

So of course the vision is painted in the colours of the rainbow, and the reality is sketched in the duller tones of black, white and grey.

High hopes

But I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That is your call. But believe one thing if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country.

I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future. I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future.

This is a country that can, today, be excited by the opportunities not constantly fretful of the dangers.

People often say to me: 'It's a tough job' - not really.

A tough life is the life the young severely disabled children have and their parents, who visited me in Parliament the other week.

Tough is the life my dad had, his whole career cut short at the age of 40 by a stroke. I have been very lucky and very blessed. This country is a blessed nation.

The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth.

It has been an honour to serve it. I give my thanks to you, the British people, for the times I have succeeded, and my apologies to you for the times I have fallen short. Good luck.

[TonyGosling]

found this amongst the dust and the dirt of Bliar's speech

[moeen yaseen]

Hi Tony,

Your sentiment is shared however, if EVERYONE really disbelieved
the BLIAR he would not last a minute never mind 10 years. In this context some of the insights of Paul Levy may be relevant as he asks us to break the vow of silence. Too many people have let themselves be trapped and let their consciousness go astray. However, just a word of caution he does not pay much attention in his diagnosis of the human condition in terms of analysing the evil financial and economic foundations of the NWO as well as the hidden forces manipulating it.
Your call for pledging for a TRUTH documentary is supported as it will awaken the 9/11 membership to realise their power and enable TRUTH to speak to POWER.


BREAKING THE VOW OF SILENCE
Paul Levy

Certain events play out in our individual lives that reflect back to us situations that are happening in the collective life of our nation or world. One such event happened many years ago in the very synagogue in which I was Bar-Mitzvahed. In what today seems like a dream, I was with my parents on the holiest night of the entire Jewish year, “Kol Nidre”, the night before “Yom Kippur”, the day of atonement. I probably hadn’t been to a synagogue since my Bar-Mitzvah, which was years before. For the sermon, the rabbi gave an impassioned talk about how everybody hates the Jews, and that we all needed to band together against the world. His words were filled with hatred and venom. He was literally preaching fear and separation. His vision had nothing to do with love and compassion, and was certainly not based in wisdom.

I was outraged by the rabbi’s talk. Much to my dismay, when I expressed my feelings to my parents, they not only felt differently but also were very angry with me for having the nerve to be critical of their rabbi. They felt that I was being dis-respectful and sacrilegious by questioning the wisdom of the rabbi, who was, after all, the leader of their congregation.

A couple of months later, the rabbi got fired. Why? It was because he was consistently giving fear-inducing and hate-filled talks to his congregation. My parents told me about the rabbi being fired, and asked me, totally incredulous “How did you know”?

The underlying, unconscious psychological process that played out between my parents and the rabbi is very revealing, in that it is isomorphic (similar in structure) with what is playing out in our country today with people who are unquestioningly supporting the Bush regime and its criminal policies. Though the overwhelming majority of Americans now see through the current administration’s web of lies, there are still enough people who, like my parents blindly supporting the rabbi, either continue to unquestioningly support Bush in his madness, or recognizing the madness, remain silent. Each of these reactions allows the madness to enact itself unabated. The underlying psychological process that played out with the rabbi and his congregation was like a fractal that is presently reiterating itself en masse in our country as well as in numerous permutations throughout the world. Contemplating what was being symbolically revealed in the process with the rabbi can help us
understand how to better deal with the madness that is currently being acted out in the body politic of our nation and our world at large.

Because the rabbi was an unquestioned authority figure who was assumed by my parents to know what he was talking about, they fell under his spell. In blindly believing what the rabbi was saying, they naively invested their own power into his hands. In doing so, they forfeited their own right to think for themselves, to see out of their own eyes, to have their own experience, and gave it away to the rabbi, who gladly accepted all the donations of his follower’s minds. The rabbi then abused his rank, privilege, power and authority, as he manipulated the compliant minds of his congregation in order to feed his paranoid delusions. He was creating a dream of fear, hatred, separation, and violence, and was enlisting all of the followers he could entice.

For some reason, my parents weren’t able to recognize the craziness – and malevolence - of what the rabbi was doing. They had projected their own inner fantasy image of a positive leader and authority figure who could guide them wisely and protect them from evil onto the rabbi. In the process, my parents became entranced by their own hallucination of who they imagined the rabbi was, and had become convinced that their inner imagination was objectively true. Bewitched by their own unconscious projections, my parents weren’t seeing the rabbi as he truly was, as if they were suffering from a form of psychological blindness. Anyone who questioned their delusion was experienced as a threat and demonized.

In unthinkingly trusting and following the rabbi, my parents’ critical faculty of discernment, of being able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, had been disabled. Strangely, there was no talking to my parents about this situation with reasoning or logic. Any evidence which was contrary to my parent’s projections was either ignored and dismissed out of hand, as if it didn’t exist, or perversely integrated into their psyche to further confirm and validate the very projection that these facts actually disproved (this is also a perfect description of a dynamic which occurs in the minds of people who are supporting Bush in his madness).

Like a hypnotist, the rabbi had “captivated” a part of my parent’s self-reflective awareness, “hooking” my parents through their unconscious blind spot. Like a black magician in disguise, the rabbi had preyed on, played into, worked with, and fed off of my parent’s needs and fears so as to drain their power and co-dependently entangle them in his web of deceit. Like my parents, the rest of the congregation that supported the rabbi were also suffering from a form of psychological blindness, as if they had become infected with a contagious psychic epidemic, a collective madness. I don’t mean to be impolite when I say this, but is there a more apt way to describe people who, cult-like, are following a deranged person?

In supporting the rabbi in his deluded world-view, my parents were literally spellbound in fear, which was freely offered in abundance by the rabbi. Once they gave away their power to the rabbi, what kept them stuck in denial was the overwhelming painfulness of the shock that would necessarily ensue if they were to see how they had given away their power to someone who was mis-using their trust. They then became invested in sustaining their denial so as to protect themselves from the awfulness of consciously experiencing the lie that they had been living, a dis-illusion-ment that would have been “too much” for them to bear. Seeing the truth of their situation would have been so overwhelmingly traumatic that it had built into it a counter-incentive to fully experience itself, which the rabbi continually strengthened by creating guilt, fear – and terror - so as to keep his flock in line.

TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN
To understand the underlying psychological process that was being unconsciously played out in this scenario, it is important to realize that the psychological blindness that my parents had fallen into cannot be contemplated separately from the figure of the rabbi. In their mutual interaction, the roles of my parents on the one hand, and the rabbi on the other are intimately linked and bound together. Their roles don’t exist in static isolation from each other but rather, in dynamic co-relation to each other. These two roles never exist one without the other, as they are always found together, simultaneously and reciprocally co-arising in the same moment, inseparably united parts of a deeper process. To say this differently: my parents and the rabbi are aspects of a deeper process that is playing itself out, and revealing itself, through their interplay. To see this is to have an expansion of consciousness in which we snap out of arbitrarily and artificially thinking that we e
xist
separate from each other, and get into focus and feel into the deeper, underlying unified and unifying field of consciousness which connects us and is giving shape to and in-forming what is playing out in our world.

The rabbi had fallen under a self-created spell in which he had entranced himself to think that the enemy was outside of himself. He had projected his own shadow, his own darkness outside of himself, where the dreamlike universe simply supplied all the evidence he needed to prove to himself the seemingly objective truth of his projections in a self-generated, self-confirming feedback loop that was of the nature of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, there really are people who want to destroy Israel, but being unconsciously identified with the role of the passive and righteous victim, the rabbi didn’t realize the role that he, or the state of Israel, collaboratively play in evoking the very response from others to which they then react (please see my article Middle East Madness http://awakeninthedream.com/mideast.html). Entranced by his own mind, the rabbi was relating to an inner, spiritual problem as if it existed outside of himself. In splitting off from and projecting out
his shadow, the rabbi was reacting against an enemy that he himself was actively calling forth. This is a very peculiar form of madness that is all too common in our world today.

When, like the rabbi, one falls into the depraved state of believing one’s own lies, a certain charisma is emanated that is very charming and convincing to people who are not sufficiently in touch with themselves to have developed their own “center” of discrimination and are therefore highly suggestible. The rabbi’s delusion had a sufficient energy charge or field-of-force to attract, like iron filings aligning themselves around a magnet, members of the congregation into his viewpoint. Like my parents, other worshipers in the synagogue, in agreeing with the rabbi’s locating the evil outside of themselves, had created a very convenient receptacle to seemingly get rid of and project out their own darkness. This process safeguarded them from having to look at and thereby deal with the darkness within themselves. Having an enemy to collectively scapegoat and project the shadow onto was a great relief, though the fact that this process was based on a lie and was guaranteed to ulti
mately
create nothing but guilt, fear, and violence went unnoticed by the members of the congregation. Rather they felt united in self-righteousness, convinced by their mutually reinforcing delusions that the evil was to be found outside of themselves. By collectively projecting out their shadow, the rabbi and his followers had become unconsciously possessed by the very shadow they were fighting against in the outside world. Fighting against one’s own reflected shadow on the world stage is not only a battle that can never be won; it is nothing other than madness itself.

By supporting the rabbi in his paranoia, my parents and the congregation were unwittingly feeding the rabbi’s madness in a self-perpetuating feedback loop that simultaneously reinforced their childish need to give away their power and have someone protect them. By giving away their power to the rabbi, they became like children dependent on a parental authority figure. By giving away their power and following the rabbi, they actually confirmed the rabbi’s delusions, reinforcing his conviction that he must be a real leader, as people were, in fact, following him.

The rabbi and his congregation were joined together in a co-dependent and pathological feedback loop that had developed enough momentum or energy to continually self-generate, like a Frankenstein monster, an autonomous life of its own. As if enclosed in a bubble, the rabbi and the congregation became seemingly cut off and separate from others, as well as dis-connected from any reflection or co-evolutionary, in-forming influences from the outside world. A situation of “group narcissism” was created between the rabbi and his followers, as they fed into and off of each other’s unconscious, narcissistic wounds, needs and fears. Avoiding self-reflection at all costs, they reciprocally reinforced and colluded in each other’s unconscious madness. An impenetrable field of un-consciousness became conjured up around them which literally resisted self-reflective consciousness. When this situation happens in a family, a community, a nation, or a species, it is nothing other than a form o
f
collective psychosis (see my book The Madness of George W. Bush: A Reflection of our Collective Psychosis; to see the first chapter, click http://awakeninthedream.com/georgew.html).

When the rabbi and his congregation are seen as an interconnected, whole system, there is recognized to be a certain “stasis,” or non-fluidity to the system’s dynamics. The system was not organically growing and evolving by allowing other voices to be heard, but had a self-reinforcing rigidity to its structure. In any system like this, there is, however, at each and every moment a potentially novel role in the field which can spontaneously emerge within the system and “catalyze” (which in chemistry means to “hasten a reaction”) a change in the entire system.

In our example of the rabbi and his followers, this role in the system manifested itself when the people who saw what was getting destructively acted out in the community broke the vow of silence, connected with each other, accessed their inherent power, and then mobilized themselves by speaking up and acting in a way that made a difference. From the point of view of the whole, interrelated system, this new voice was the instrument through which the system evolved and autopoetically recreated itself into a higher-order of coherence, integration, health, and wholeness.

The key to up-leveling the system and breaking the spell – in this case, when the rabbi got fired – was when a “tipping point” was reached and enough people in the community, a certain critical mass, saw the abuse that was happening and, as if in a play or a dream, stepped into their roles as empowered agents of change and collectively acted. Like T cells uniting to fight a cancer in the body politic, they joined together as one voice, activated their inherent power and authority as the true body of the synagogue, and co-operatively configured and organized themselves so as to resolve the underlying dysfunction in their community.

A DREAMING PROCESS
Seen as a dreaming process – in which the outer situation, just like a dream, is expressing the inner state of the psyche – the rabbi was “dreamed up” into fully materialized form as an expression of an unconscious process that existed within each member of the congregation and vice versa. Becoming caught in the spell that the rabbi was casting was ultimately of the congregation’s own making, their own “doing” (which is the meaning of the word “karma”), as their dis-empowered situation was an outer expression of their inner state of unconsciousness. Their subservient, sheep-like condition was a state in which they were actually victimizing themselves, and for which they were ultimately responsible.

From the dreaming point of view, in embodying a figure who abused his position of power, the rabbi was getting dreamed up to reflect back to the congregation their dis-association from their own God-given power. An externalized reflection of an inner process, the rabbi stepped into a role and became a living embodiment of the figure who exists in potential inside not only each member of the congregation, but ourselves as well. Revealing an archetypal figure who exists deep within the collective unconscious of humankind, the rabbi is re-presenting the inner/outer figure who at each and every moment tries to “entrance” us to give away our power. This figure’s attempt to deceive us is an expression of its own fear, its own lack, and the extent of its own self-deception.

When we lack insight, connection, and fluency with our own power, we invariably constellate our power to turn against us, both internally and in the seemingly outer world. From the dreaming point of view, the rabbi was simply getting dreamed up to play out a role that existed in the field; if this particular person wasn’t around to play this role, “central casting” would simply send someone else. The rabbi and the congregation were colluding with and enabling each other to enact an unconscious, collective decision to abrogate the community’s power to creatively and consciously invent their world.

Seen symbolically, the outer situation with the rabbi actually helped activate the congregation’s intrinsic power, which clearly hadn’t been consciously realized up until then, otherwise the figure of the rabbi would not have been dreamed up to abuse his power in the first place. Contemplating this situation as a dreaming process, the figure of the rabbi is a secret ally, his secret being secret even to himself, as through his abuse of power he is unwittingly helping - make that demanding - the congregation to connect with their genuine power (though his “help” to the congregation was not in the way he imagined).

Once a sufficient number of people in the congregation snapped out of their spell and saw the rabbi’s madness, which they were only able to do if they themselves had stepped into sanity, they were able to collectively act and remove the rabbi from his position of power. Just like a dream, an inner change in the consciousness of the congregation become reflected in the outer world, as their inner realization was creatively expressed in their outer situation by skillful action. The fundamental change originated from an inner transformation, which was then acted upon, and given shape and form in the outside world. Incarnating our inner realization in the outside world is the very act which in turn further stimulates our inner realization, which then makes us more able to effect change in the outside world, ad infinitum. This is a positive, “creative” feedback loop in which, instead of continuing to unconsciously destroy each other, our world, and ourselves, we can connect with a
nd
empower each other through the open-heart of lucid awareness and consciously create the world in which we want to live.

It is important to emphasize: It is not enough just to see what is going on and do nothing. The outer world becomes the medium or canvas, so to speak, in which we actualize and make real our inner realization, as the two, the inner and the outer, are recognized to be interconnected reflex-ions of each other and inseparable aspects of a greater whole. We deepen our inner realization by expressing it in the outer world. Reciprocally, we change the outer world by deepening our inner realization.

FINDING OUR VOICE IS TO WAKE UP
The situation with the rabbi and his congregation is analogous to the situation in our country with George Bush and those who see his abuse and remain silent. It should be noted that the problem in the congregation wasn’t resolved by convincing people like my parents, who having taken the rabbi’s toxic bait hook, line, and sinker had become fixated on a point of view that lacked reflective awareness, as if frozen in trauma. Just like it was futile for me to try to convince my parents of their delusion, we are wasting our creative energy if we attempt to convince people who are following Bush of how they are following a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is like trying to convince a mad person of their madness, which if we persist in our efforts is an expression of our own madness (i.e., our lack of insight into the nature of the situation that we are trying to address). On the contrary, the situation in the community got healed when enough people who saw the abuse broke through t
heir
inertia and resistance and courageously spoke up in a way that made a difference.

An abuser in a family system such as a spiritual community or a nation can only get away with perpetrating abuse if enough people collude with the abuse by staying silent. Remaining silent in the presence of abuse is to marginalize our own power and unwittingly nourish the unconscious culture which allows the abuse to flourish. Connecting with each other, investing in the power of our collective voice and speaking up as one is the leverage point through which we can intervene in the existing system so as to transform it.

Abuse can only take place if enough people are silent about it, which is to say that those who are silent about the abuse are complicit in it. Evil can only play itself out without restraint when good people see what is happening and do nothing. Staying silent in the presence of abuse, though seemingly a passive role, is to unwittingly play an active role enabling our own victimization.

Just like in the situation with the rabbi, however, when a critical mass of people who see the evil that is playing out through our government come together and break the vow of silence and act, they step out of the role of helpless victims who are enabling and calling forth the abuse, and empower themselves to transform the dynamics of the entire system. It is said that the deepest place in hell is reserved for people who, seeing evil being acted out, stay silent, not wanting to rock the boat. Presently, our ship of state, to point out the obvious, is sinking from not being “rocked” enough. To quote the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”.

[moeen yaseen]

BRITISH AUTHOR TARIQ ALI ON THE RESIGNATION OF TONY BLAIR:
"THE FACT THAT HE 'S LEAVING IS BECAUSE HE'S SO HATED
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/11/1531215

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced his plans to resign next month after more than a decade in power. British author Tariq Ali talks about Blair’s legacy, his fatal decision to follow the Bush administration into Iraq, and his likely successor, finance minister Gordon Brown.

Blair made the announcement on Thursday in a speech to Labour Party members in his Sedgefield constituency. He will stay on in Downing Street until the Labour Party elects a new leader - widely expected to be finance minister Gordon Brown. In his address, Blair defended his decision to send British troops to war in Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Blair, President Bush’s closest ally, invoked 9/11 to defend his staunch backing of US foreign policy. British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Back in Washington, President Bush paid tribute to Tony Blair at a Pentagon news conference.

We go to London to speak with British author Tariq Ali.

Tariq Ali. Historian, one of the editors of the New Left Review as well as the author of many books, including “Rough Music: Blair Bombs Baghdad London Terror.”


PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR: Today, I announce my decision to stand down from the leadership of the Labour Party. The party will now select a new leader. On the 27th of June, I will tender my resignation from the office of prime minister to the Queen.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Blair made the announcement on Thursday in a speech to Labour Party members in his Sedgefield constituency. He will stay on in Downing Street until the Labour Party elects a new leader, widely expected to be Finance Minister Gordon Brown. In his address, Blair defended his decision to send British troops to war in Iraq.

PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR: But I ask you to accept one thing: hand on heart, I did what I thought was right.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Blair, President Bush’s closest ally, invoked 9/11 to defend his staunch backing of US foreign policy.

PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR: And then came the utterly unanticipated and dramatic September the 11th, 2001, and the death of 3,000 or more on the streets of New York, and I decided we should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our oldest ally, and I did so out of belief. And so, Afghanistan and then Iraq, the latter bitterly controversial. And removing Saddam and his sons from power, as with removing the Taliban, was over with relative ease. But the blowback since from global terrorism and those elements that support it has been fierce and unrelenting and costly. And for many, it simply isn't and can't be worth it. For me, I think we must see it through. They, the terrorists who threaten us here and around the world, will never give up, if we give up. It is a test of will and of belief, and we can't fail it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Back in Washington, President Bush paid tribute to Tony Blair at a Pentagon news conference.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: First of all, I’ll miss Tony Blair. He is a -- he is a political figure who is capable of thinking over the horizon. He's a long-term thinker. I have found him to be a man who has kept his word, which sometimes is rare in the political circles I run in. When Tony Blair tells you something, as we say in Texas, you can take it to the bank. We've got a relationship, such that we can have really good discussions. And so, I’m going to miss him. He's a remarkable person, and I consider him a good friend.

AMY GOODMAN: We return now to London to Tariq Ali, historian and one of the editors of the New Left Review, as well as author of many books, including Rough Music: Blair, Bombs, Baghdad, London, Terror. He joins us from a London studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Tariq.

TARIQ ALI: Hi, Amy. Good to be with you again.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Talk about Blair resigning.

TARIQ ALI: Well, it was classic New Labour spin, well-orchestrated, designed for the global media networks, a self-serving speech, a carefully hand-picked audience so that there would be no trouble at all, and, actually, for him, a very bad speech. I mean, and I’ve always regarded Blair as a second-rate politician with a third-rate mind, but he's had better speech writers than this, and I wondered whether he had written it himself. I mean, it's sort of full of contradictions and half-truths. I mean, if he was going to see the so-called war against terror through, why quit?

We had no real accounting of why he's leaving as prime minister. And the fact is he's leaving is, because he's hated. And the reason he’s hated is because he joined the neocons in Washington and went to war against Iraq, which now 78% of the population in this country oppose. And when people are being asked what will Blair’s legacy be, a large majority is saying Iraq. And I think that's what he will be remembered for, as a prime minister who took a reluctant and skeptical country into a war designed by Washington and its neoconservative strategists, all of whom are in crisis.

And you listen to Blair now and his successor, Brown, and they sound much worse than any Democrat in the Senate or the House, because they realize the war's unpopular. These guys carry on living in a tiny bubble, media bubble, which they construct. And I think the BBC's sycophancy, the way in which they portrayed him yesterday as if he was a sort of dead Princess Diana, doesn’t do them proud. It was a low point in BBC journalism, with one of their political correspondents saying, “Gosh, look at him. Isn't he a winner?” Well, he isn't a winner, which is why he's leaving. And a reluctant party is saying farewell to him, because they think they’ll lose the next election if he’s in charge. That's what's going on.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Tariq, he did try in his speech to point to the continued prosperity, economic prosperity, of the British under his tenure. Your response to that?

TARIQ ALI: Well, I mean, you know, it is prosperous for some people and some regions of the country. But if you look, for instance, at various regions in the north and northeast, you have a tiny proportion of the population which is relatively well-off, and you have people who are not so well-off, people who are dependent on social welfare, which is constantly under attack. You have a two-tier health system now, which you never used to, where if you have money, you can go in a hospital and get treatment any minute, but if you don't, you have to stand in queues. You have lots of hospitals who he sold to private finance initiatives, which are now saying they can't fund their hospitals anymore. The failures, the domestic failures, are not being talked about.

And you have large-scale corruption. I mean, recently a mega-scandal with a British arms company, which had paid massive bribes to leading Saudis, including probably members of the royal family. This came up. Blair put a stop to it. His attorney general, not unlike Gonzales, said we can’t sue, because the country’s future interests are at stake, so corruption is fine. It's a total mess. Something is rotten in this kingdom. And a very sycophantic media rarely talks about it. It's left to small indie media outlets or satirical magazines like Private Eye, basically, to carry on regular reporting of what is going on.

I don't think his legacy is anything new. He tried to carry on what Margaret Thatcher did, and the results have not been too dissimilar. He's had a bloodier reign than Thatcher. He has taken Britain into more wars and actually antagonized, as I point out in a number of recent articles, large swathes of the British establishment, who feel very ashamed that they are being led by a leader who is so totally and completely and a sort of favored attack dog in the imperial kennel.

AMY GOODMAN: Tariq Ali, President Bush in Washington, D.C., said he'll miss Tony Blair and that he's ready to work with his presumed successor, Gordon Brown, confident that he, quote, “understands the consequences of failure in Iraq.” Talk about that statement and also who Gordon Brown is.

TARIQ ALI: Well, I think Bush is right. He will miss Blair. I mean, you can't have a more loyal politician in Europe than Blair. I mean, he's done virtually everything the United States has asked for, and not just after 9/11. Even prior to that, he was extremely pro-Washington in everything. He never raised any questions. So I think Washington will miss him. Mercifully, very few people in this country will.

Now, as to his successor, Gordon Brown, he backed the war in Iraq, as he himself said yesterday, and it was felt it was necessary. He backed the war in Afghanistan, felt that that was completely necessary -- and think that they wiped out all the problems with this. But they're completely wrong. On all the central issues of the day, there is no difference between Blair and Brown. The tone Brown adopts will probably be marginally less aggressive, but in terms of substance, there's nothing to choose between them.

And this is essentially yet another New Labour trick: OK, we’ve got rid of the big bad war monger, and we’ve got a decent prime minister again. But this guy is also a war monger. The difference is he is more intelligent than Blair. If I were to say that Blair is a second-rate politician with a third-rate mind, I’d say Brown is a second-rate politician with a second-rate mind, which makes him a bit better than Blair. But he's no different, and he is going to carry on in Britain in exactly the same old way. They've already lost Scotland, which is a Labour stronghold. They are declining in Wales. And they will lose England at the next election. So essentially they will hand the countries back to the Tories, and that, too, will be no different. So it's a grim prospect which faces us here.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I wanted to ask you that: in terms of the political prospects for progressive-thinking people within Britain, for the labor movement, for the racial minorities that are increasingly under attack in your country, what are the alternatives that those folks have?

TARIQ ALI: Well, interestingly enough, you know, the Nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales are the only alternatives in those countries which are more progressive than Labour, Conservative or Liberal. I mean, they're against nuclear weapons in Scotland, against Trident missiles, against the war in Iraq, want more money spent on public services, health, education, etc. So the progressive voices at the moment exist only in Scotland and Wales. In England, which has the bulk of the money and is the largest chunk of the country, there is no real alternative, and that is a big tragedy.

Of course, there is Ken Livingston, the Mayor of London, who is probably the only Labour politician respected by sections of the population. He has been very, very strong in defending racial minorities, in attacking Islamophobic trends in British culture, and in staunchly attacking the war in Iraq. He came out very hard against that war when it first started and warned prophetically that it would put the citizens of London at risk. But he, after all, is a mayor of a large city -- that's all. On a national level, the alternatives at the moment are very limited. And I think we will likely -- we will carry on in this way ’til New Labour is defeated, as it probably will be in the next elections, which might then open up some possibilities of new forces emerging. But at the moment, it's grim.


BUSH's ZOMBIE SHUFFLES OFF, ADIEU, BLAIR, ADIEU
TARIQ ALI

05/10/07 "Counter Punch" -- -- Tony Blair's success was limited to winning three general elections in a row. A second-rate actor, he turned out to be a crafty and avaricious politician, but without much substance; bereft of ideas he eagerly grasped and tried to improve upon the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. But though in many ways Blair's programme has been a euphemistic, if bloodier, version of Thatcher's, the style of their departures is very different. Thatcher's overthrow by her fellow-Conservatives was a matter of high drama: an announcement outside the Louvre's glass pyramid during the Paris Congress brokering the end of the Cold War; tears; a crowded House of Commons. Blair makes his unwilling exit against a backdrop of car-bombs and mass carnage in Iraq, with hundreds of thousands left dead or maimed from his policies, and London a prime target for terrorist attack. Thatcher's supporters described themselves afterwards as horror-struck by what they had done. Even Blair's greatest sycophants in the British media: Martin Kettle and Michael White (The Guardian), Andrew Rawnsley (Observer), Philip Stephens (FT) confess to a sense of relief as he finally quits.

A true creature of the Washington Consensus, Blair was always loyal to the various occupants of the White House. In Europe, he preferred Aznar to Zapatero, Merckel to Schroeder, was seriously impressed by to Berlusconi and, most recently, made no secret of his desire that Sarkozy was his candidate in France. He understood that privatisation/deregulation at home were part of the same mechanism as the wars abroad. If this judgement seems unduly harsh let me quote Sir Rodric Braithwaite, a former senior adviser to Blair, writing in the Financial Times on 2, August, 2006:

"A spectre is stalking British television, a frayed and waxy zombie straight from Madame Tussaud's. This one, unusually, seems to live and breathe. Perhaps it comes from the Central Intelligence Agency's box of technical tricks, programmed to spout the language of the White House in an artificial English accent...

Mr Blair has done more damage to British interests in the Middle East than Anthony Eden, who led the UK to disaster in Suez 50 years ago. In the past 100 years--to take the highlights--we have bombed and occupied Egypt and Iraq, put down an Arab uprising in Palestine and overthrown governments in Iran, Iraq and the Gulf. We can no longer do these things on our own, so we do them with the Americans. Mr Blair's total identification with the White House has destroyed his influence in Washington, Europe and the Middle East itself: who bothers with the monkey if he can go straight to the organ-grinder?..."

This, too, is mild compared to what is said about Blair in the British Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. Senior diplomats have told me on more than one occasion that it would not upset them too much if Blair were to be tried as a war criminal. More cultured critics sometimes compare him to the Cavaliere Cipolia, the vile hypnotist of fascist Italy, so brilliantly portrayed in Thomas Mann's 1929 novel 'Mario and the Magician'. Blair is certainly not Mussolini, but like the Duce he enjoyed to simultaneously lead and humiliate his supporters.

What much of this reveals is anger and impotence. There is no mechanism to get rid of a sitting Prime Minister unless his or her party loses confidence. The Conservative leadership decided that Thatcher simply had to go because of her negative attitude to Europe. Labour tends to be more sentimental towards its leaders and in this case they owed so much to Blair that nobody close to him wants to be cast in the role of Brutus. In the end he decided to go himself. The disaster in Iraq had made him a much hated politician and slowly support began to ebb. One reason for the slowness was that the country is without a serious opposition. In Parliament, the Conservatives simply followed Blair. The Liberal-Democrats were ineffective. Blair had summed up Britain's attitude to Europe at Nice in 2000:

"It is possible, in our judgement, to fight Britain's corner, get the best out of Europe for Britain and exercise real authority and influence in Europe. That is as it should be. Britain is a world power."

This grotesque, self-serving fantasy that 'Britain is a world power' is to justify that it will always be EU/UK. The real union is with Washington. France and Germany are seen as rivals for Washington's affections, not potential allies in an independent EU. The French decision to re-integrate themselves into NATO and pose as the most vigorous US ally was a serious structural shift which weakened Europe. Britain responded by encouraging a fragmented political order in Europe through expansion and insisted on a permanent US presence on the continent.

Blair's half-anointed, half-hated successor, Gordon Brown, is far more intelligent (he reads books) but politically no different. There might be a change of tone, but little else. It is a grim prospect with or without Blair and an alternative politics (anti-war, anti-Trident, defence of public services) is confined to the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales. Its absence nationally fuels the anger felt by substantial sections of the population, reflected in voting (or not) against those in power.

[moeen yaseen]

ONE WAR CRIMINAL DOWN, A FISTFUL TO GO

Paul Craig Roberts

05/11/07 "ICH" -- -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair, or more accurately, George W. Bush’s lap dog, has resigned to England’s relief.

Boris Johnson at the Daily Telegraph wrote that “Blair cannot escape the blame for a disaster in which at least 60,000 (and possibly 10 times as many) Iraqis have died, and which is causing 40,000 Iraqis to flee the country every month.”

The Daily Mail’s Piers Morgan wrote that Blair’s complicity in the invasion of Iraq transformed England “into a more dangerous, paranoid, despised and ridiculed country. Blair’s reign will be remembered for one disaster of epic proportions, one appalling legacy.”

Claire Short, a former Blair minister, said, “I think Tony’s place in history is Iraq and the deceit and the desperate mess and it’s sad. It’s going to be a very bad place in history.”

Many wonder why Blair destroyed his reputation and that of his country, put himself at risk of being hauled before the International Criminal Court, and squandered his time as prime minister providing cover for George Bush’s war of aggression. The answer must be money. We will see which US corporate boards take Blair as a director and which groups pay him six-figure honorariums for speeches.

Bush will have an even worse place in history. There is no longer any doubt that Bush deceived Congress and the American people. At great financial and human cost, Bush took America to war and destroyed Iraq for a hidden agenda. After years of swallowing Bush’s lies, the American people finally caught on. Bush’s approval rating is at 28 percent, but the TV and print media are still sycophantic.

Bush’s approval rating has collapsed despite a favorable press. The people are no longer fooled, but Bush’s favorable press intimidates the Democrats, who have failed to bring accountability to the Bush Regime.

People damn Bill Clinton for many reasons. Perhaps his greatest failure was in permitting the media concentration that destroyed the independence of the “mainstream media.” The American media is no longer in the hands of journalists. It is controlled by advertising executives and corporate bosses who will never put their empires at risk by offending government and advertisers. They believe readers and viewers want to be entertained, not challenged by truthful news.

Journalism schools now teach students how to spin the news away from uncomfortable truths. Reporters and editorial writers are being turned into shills for those in power.

Democracy is handicapped without the press. When news is spun, falsely reported, and not reported, the people are deprived both of information and of voice. The American people disapprove of Bush, but the American corporate press supports him.

Because of Blair’s support for the European Union, Blair could find himself hauled before the International Criminal Court. The US government has been careful to keep itself outside international law. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and a number of others are regarded as outlaws, but there is no marshall with the authority to arrest them and hold them accountable. Only Congress can do that.

Leaving Bush in office is extremely dangerous. He has proven himself to be a deceitful and hair-brained leader. Bush has one and one-half years remaining in which to attack Iran, start a nuclear war, stage a
9/11 type event and declare a national emergency.

It is extreme folly to keep fanatics in office who have no respect for the US Constitution, civil liberties, and the separation of powers. The Bush Regime values nothing but power. Every day that Bush remains in office diminishes America and erodes its founding principles.

[moeen yaseen]

THIS PERFECT STORM WILL FINALLY DESTROY THE NEOCON PROJECT

Geoffrey Wheatcroft

05/11/07 "The Guardian" -- - Now and again people have found themselves in places where the course of history was dramatically changed: Paris in 1789, Petrograd in 1917, Berlin in 1989. Sometimes the feeling of momentous change is illusory. When Tony Blair won his first election 10 years ago, perfectly sane people proclaimed that "these are revolutionary times". As most of us realised long before his ignominious departure, that was just what they weren't.

And yet to visit the US at present, as I have done, is to experience an overwhelming sensation of drastic impending change. It's not merely that President Bush, to whom Blair so disastrously tethered himself, is "in office but not in power". Most Americans can't wait for him to go, Congress is beyond his control, and the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, has told him that the war in Iraq is lost - for which statement of the obvious Reid was accused of "defeatism" by the vice-president, Dick Cheney.

Besides that the portents range from Paul Wolfowitz's travails at the World Bank to the Senate interrogation of Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, and the trial of Conrad Black. This might sound like the "succession of small disasters, oh trifling in themselves", in Alan Bennett's Forty Years On ("a Foreign Secretary's sudden attack of dysentery at the funeral of George V, an American ambassador found strangled in his own gym-slip...") And yet there really is an observable pattern.

Along with the collapse of Bush's authority, all these episodes are connected to the great disaster in Iraq. And all illustrate the hubristic, impenitent arrogance of the people who have been guiding America's destiny - as well as ours, alas - for the past six years. What one senses so acutely are the conditions building for a political perfect storm, which will engulf and destroy the whole neoconservative project.

In Washington I took part in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, my old sparring partner and drinking companion (mots justes, all of them), who supports Bush with a defiance worthy of a better cause. He surpassed himself by insisting that his friend Wolfowitz is a wronged man. A World Bank committee reportedly disagrees, and has found that Wolfowitz did violate the bank's rules in the matter of his lady friend's salary.

But in any case everyone else in Washington says the same thing: Wolfowitz cannot survive. His appointment was widely resented in the first place - the German, French, Dutch and Scandinavian governments have warned that they might withhold funds if he stays in office; and severe damage is being done to the organisation he claims to have at heart by his refusal to accept reality.

Then again, detachment from reality is perhaps to be expected from one of the architects of the war, a man who thought that the Iraqis would rise up to greet the American army as liberators. As the Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said, Wolfowitz and his cabal "do not seem to understand that being president of the World Bank is a privilege, not an entitlement".

Gonzales was just a Texan hack lawyer who acted as Bush's consigliere, but he made his contribution to the great enterprise when he ruled that torture could be justified in the "war on terror". His Senate hearing provided a little comic relief, what with his acute amnesia followed by the deathless admission that "I now understand there was a conversation with myself and the president". One day Blair may understand that there was a conversation between himself and the president about the invasion of Iraq, and that his commitment to the war took place much earlier than he has ever admitted.

While Lord Black has never worked for the Bush administration, he was aligned with the neocon elite through the National Interest, the journal he used to publish, and he brought some of its members, such as Richard Perle, on to the board of his companies. Perle seems to have taken his fiduciary duties as lightly as he and his colleagues took the problems that would arise in Iraq as a result of the invasion. What has struck me about Black's trial was that we were hearing another version of the arrogance and denial we have heard from Wolfowitz and many others. It will give me no particular pleasure if my former employer is banged up, but his downfall is another grave blow for the neocons.

All of which has vital implications for British politics. Nicolas Sarkozy has been called "an American neoconservative with a French passport", which he is not. But Blair really is an American neoconservative with a British passport. He revealingly and accurately said that "there isn't a world of difference" between himself and the neocons politically, and his party must now, as it shakes off the burden of these past years, ask itself what, in that case, he was doing as Labour leader.

The Tories have questions of their own. Even the stupidest have grasped that the war and the American alliance are unpopular with the electorate, but they should now ask if sceptical, pragmatic Conservatism ever had anything in common with neoconservatism and its vast revolutionary scheme. One who did understand is Matthew Parris, the former Tory MP. Before the 2004 presidential election he said he wanted Bush re-elected: his presidency was halfway through an "experiment whose importance is almost literally earth-shattering" and should be played out to its inevitable failure.

But that failure must be demonstrated beyond contradiction. "The theory that liberal values and a capitalist system can be spread across the world by force of arms... should be tested to destruction ... The president and his neoconservative court should be offered all the rope they need to hang themselves."

His wish has come true; neocons are dangling all around us. In a flicker of self-knowledge, Wolfowitz told a recent World Bank meeting: "I understand that I've lost a lot of trust, and I want to build that trust back up." But it's too late, for him and all the other courtiers. They never really enjoyed the trust of most Europeans, let alone Africans and Asians, and they have now lost the trust of the American people.

All the readings on the barometer and the wind gauge say the same thing. The perfect storm is gathering. Unfortunately the collapse of the neocon project comes at a very heavy cost, not only to the people of Iraq but to all of us.

[moeen yaseen]

ADIOS, WORLD BANK!
Nadia Martinez
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/09/adios_world_bank.php


Nadia Martinez was born and raised in Panama. She co-directs the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies and is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

As the controversy around Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz’s uncertain future as president of the World Bank intensifies, the financial institution is not only losing supporters. It’s also losing victims. In Latin America, countries are paying off their World Bank loans early, cutting off ties with the Bank, and creating their own financing instruments to replace the world’s oldest multilateral lending agency.

Unfortunately, the latest corruption scandal involving questionable promotions and outrageous salary increases for Wolfowitz’s girlfriend, Shaha Riza, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to doubts about the World Bank’s credibility, legitimacy and capacity to fulfill its stated mission of eradicating world poverty.

Poor countries throughout the world should follow Latin America’s lead and desert the planet’s biggest hypocrite.

Breaking the Debt Ties

Since its creation over 60 years ago, the World Bank has provided trillions of dollars in loans to poor countries. In Latin America, in recent years World Bank financing –though diminishing—accounts for about 20 percent of multilateral lending, excluding loans to the private sector as well as political insurance and guarantees extended by its private sector and insurance arms. In addition to providing financial resources, the World Bank—along with the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—took the lead in making policy prescriptions to poor governments, which it ensures are adopted by making them “conditions” for lending. Throughout the developing world, debt seriously hinders countries’ abilities to provide for the basic needs of their citizens, and imposed “conditionality” interferes with governments’ rights to make sovereign decisions.

At the same time, persistent poverty in Latin America has barely budged. A report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that poverty and inequality in Latin America increased between 1980 and 2005, when compared with the prior 20-year period. The United Nations’ Economic Commission on Latin America drew similar conclusions. Their figures show that between 1960 and 1980, per capita income in Latin America experienced an 82 percent increase in real terms, whereas between 1980 and 2000 it only grew by 9 percent.

As a result, there has been a clear backlash to the disastrous financial failure of the neo-liberal, “Washington Consensus” economic model, promoted and often imposed by institutions such as the World Bank in the last two decades. In 2006, presidential elections were held in 12 Latin American countries. In six of them, the left-wing candidates won and in another four, left parties made considerable progress. Economic policy was a dominant theme in all of the election campaigns. Candidates who were critical of the conservative, pro-business, free market economic policies of their predecessors fared much better than supporters of the Washington-favored status quo.

For example, countries like Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela have made efforts to break themselves free from the debt chains that tie them to these financial culprits. In April, Venezuela announced that it was paying off all its outstanding debt with the World Bank—totaling $3.3 billion and dating from before President Hugo Chavez took office in (1999)—five years ahead of schedule. Venezuelan Minister of Finance Rodrigo Cabezas said that because of this, “Venezuela is free ... and thank God, neither today’s Venezuelans nor children yet to be born will owe one single cent to those organizations.” Later that month, in the wake of the Wolfowitz scandal, President Chavez declared that Venezuela was withdrawing its membership in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Likewise, Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador have paid off their debts to the World Bank’s sister institution—the IMF—and others have expressed a desire to do the same. Symbolically, Venezuela’s recent decision could help strengthen the efforts of other developing countries seeking reform at the World Bank by demonstrating to the institution that choosing not to be part of it is a real option.

Persona Non Grata

At the same time that Venezuela announced it would pull out of the World Bank and IMF, Ecuador expelled the Bank’s representative in that country, declaring him persona non grata . Ecuador’s new President, Rafael Correa, accused the World Bank of blackmail, announcing that, “because a sovereign country decided to reform a national law—for misbehaving—they withheld the check.” He was referring to a $100 million loan that was cancelled by the World Bank in 2005, when Correa was finance minister. At the time, the matter ended with his resignation.

Ecuador is the second largest oil exporter in Latin America, after Venezuela. Nearly 40 percent of its export earnings and one-third of its income are derived from oil. Yet, more than half of its 13 million inhabitants live in poverty. In an attempt to address this imbalance, in 2005 Correa, then Minister of Finance, urged Ecuador’s congress to modify a fund that was established in 2002 at the behest of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to collect and distribute part of Ecuador’s oil revenue. The fund was initially structured to allocate 70 percent of its resources to service Ecuador’s foreign debt—debt to international lenders including the World Bank. The remaining 30 percent was destined toward stabilizing oil revenues (20 percent), and to improve health and education (10 percent). The World Bank estimated that from 2003 to 2007, the Fund would be able to generate over $1.5 billion for foreign debt payment.

Congressional reform of the oil revenue fund increased the amount used for health and education to 30 percent and consequently lowered that for debt repayment to 50 percent. The change was hardly a radical shift, as the largest portion of the fund continued to go to Ecuador’s creditors. But that was not acceptable to the World Bank, who responded to Ecuador’s action by canceling the previously approved loan.

The World Bank’s arm-twisting tactics aren’t new, and its motivation was clearly to ensure that Ecuador continued to produce oil to generate resources to pay its debt. Bringing development to the country, and its people out of poverty takes a far second place. The World Bank has shown its true colors not only in Ecuador but also in the rest of the poor, indebted and resource-rich world. This was going on long before Wolfowitz’s misdeeds and is a far more serious problem.

Meanwhile, Ecuador’s Correa has stated that his country reserves the right to bring official charges against the World Bank for damages caused by the cancellation of the $100 million loan. His government plans to look more closely at World Bank loans taken out by previous administrations.

Bank of the South

The increasing frustration with traditional multilateral financing options has led some governments to begin thinking about alternatives to fulfill their financing needs, while at the same time breaking their dependence on capital—and influence—from the United States and Europe. At the same time that the World Bank is suffering its most damaging scandal to date, plans for an alternative regional bank are advancing quickly.

Earlier this year, Venezuela and Argentina launched the new “Banco del Sur” (Bank of the South), pledging more than $ 1 billion to get the institution up and running in the next few months. Although the details are currently being worked out (a 90-day deadline has been established to define some basic operating rules) several other countries have agreed to join: Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay will also be founding members. Additionally, Nicaragua, several Caribbean countries and even a few Asian nations have expressed interest in participating in the new multilateral institution.

The Bank of the South’s creation underscores the severity of the disenchantment with the traditional U.S.-dominated instruments for development finance. From the World Bank to the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) (which provides financing exclusively in Latin America and the Caribbean), voting privileges are based on financial contribution, which makes the U.S. Treasury the single largest shareholder, bringing with it the largest share of the vote. In the IDB, the U.S. not only “owns” a whopping 30 percent of the vote, but it also holds veto power—an advantage to which no other member is privy.

In a clear departure from this undemocratic and paternalistic governance structure, Banco del Sur promoters assure, as Cabezas has said, that in the new institution “no one will be the sole owner.” Although not fully defined, there has been indication that voting power will be based on financial need, rather than monetary contribution or political weight. But beyond the critical structural and political delineation, the real challenge will be to create an institution that does not only look different than its predecessors but that it actually thinks and acts differently. This means that member countries will need to think long and hard about how development will be defined and how it will best be achieved.

Beyond the Hypocrisy

Regardless of what happens to Wolfowitz or his girlfriend, the World Bank will continue in its downward spiraling crisis of legitimacy, at least in Latin America. As countries are able to mobilize the necessary resources to free themselves from financial obligations with the institution, they are likely to make this a priority. So too, will they continue to collaborate in finding new ways to solve the region’s poverty and other plights without turning to the World Bank—but rather by devising innovative arrangements such as bartering (i.e. oil for doctors, as in the case of Venezuela and Cuba), and by catalyzing existing resources through the Bank of the South and other regional institutions.

[moeen yaseen]

CHILDREN OF SATAN
The ignoble liars behind Bush's no exit wars
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=132&page=2


WORLD BANK SCANDAL
Paul Wolfowitz's Fatal Weakness
Juan Cole
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,482945,00.html

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz is in trouble.
The executive board of the World Bank mulled a possible vote of no confidence in the leadership of its president, Paul Wolfowitz, this weekend. How did the renowned neoconservative and former deputy secretary of defense, a primary architect of the Iraq war, come to these straits? Is he, as he claims, the victim of a smear campaign by those who dislike his politics? Or do the charges of favoritism and nepotism reflect genuine character flaws?

The small morality play unfolding at the World Bank tells us something significant about how the United States became bogged down in the Iraq quagmire when Wolfowitz was highly influential at the Department of Defense. The simple fact is that Wolfowitz has throughout his entire career demonstrated a penchant for cronyism and for smearing and marginalizing perceived rivals as tactics for getting his way. He has been arrogant and highhanded in dismissing the views of wiser and more informed experts, exhibiting a narcissism that is also apparent in his personal life. Indeed, these tactics are typical of what might be called the "neoconservative style."

Soon after becoming head of the World Bank, Wolfowitz lapsed into his typical favoritism, even while he was, ironically, decrying the technique as practiced by governments of the global South. Instead of having an open search for some key positions and allowing for promotions from within, Wolfowitz simply installed Republicans from the Bush administration in high positions with enormous salaries. He brought Kevin Kellems from Dick Cheney's office (where he had been communications director) and gave him a tax-free salary said to have been as high as $250,000 a year. As Wolfowitz's new senior advisor, Kellems was leap-frogged over hundreds of officials with serious credentials in development work, something about which he knew little. When representing Cheney, Kellems went to great lengths to defend the vice president's implausible conspiracy theory linking Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Another controversial Wolfowitz appointment was Robin Cleveland, whom he made his assistant. She had been an aide to Sen. Mitch McConnell and then associate director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. She had been implicated in a corruption and nepotism scandal at the Pentagon, but the Department of Defense had determined it did not have jurisdiction to investigate her. In 2003, while at the OMB, she had lobbied then Secretary of the Air Force James Roche to get her brother a job at defense contractor Northrop Grumman, where Roche had been an executive. Though, like Kellems, she lacked experience in international development, she also received a reported quarter of a million dollars a year in compensation at the World Bank. And also like Kellems, she is alleged to have been an abrasive and abusive boss.

Wolfowitz appointee Juan José Daboub quietly began changing World Bank policy on contraception, presumably as a favor to the Bush administration, which depends heavily on the Christian right for support. Daboub, who had been close to the right-wing government of El Salvador, ordered all references to family planning removed from a strategy document for Madagascar. Bank officials were said by the Financial Times to have been afraid that the World Bank's long-standing focus on contraception in forestalling disease was being changed by Daboub, and that poor women would suffer as a result. When the story surfaced, Wolfowitz told National Public Radio that the bank had made no changes in policy on contraceptives.

Experienced, high-level World Bank officials began resigning in droves as they saw Wolfowitz institute a reign of cronies with little development experience and massive salaries. The management style of the newcomers, cliquish among themselves and harsh toward outsiders, alienated those who remained.

None of these appointments, however unpopular, proved Wolfowitz's undoing. It was the provisions he made for his girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, that finally blew up in his face. She had been working at the bank since the late 1990s, and the two had become involved when she divorced her husband and he became estranged from his wife. Wolfowitz made his relationship with Riza public when it became clear Bush would nominate Wolfowitz to head the bank. Bank ethics rules did not allow him to oversee a lover and set her salary, though he initially insisted that he could recuse himself from such decisions while functioning as her superior. The bank's ethics officials said no to this proposed arrangement. He then had her transferred to the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau of the State Department to work with Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the vice president. He arranged such extraordinary salary increases for her that she ended up being better paid than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

This spring, the World Bank Group Association, which represents the institution's 13,000 employees, sent around a memo pointing out that the pay raises received by Riza were twice what bank rules allowed. Charges of nepotism and corruption flew. Then renewed attention was given to a 2003 incident in which Douglas Feith, at the time Wolfowitz's deputy, had briefly detailed Riza to a Defense Department contractor as a consultant on Iraq democratization, and arranged for her to receive $17,000 for a month's worth of work.
A special subcommittee of the executive board of the bank found late last week that Wolfowitz had in fact broken ethics rules. He has been insisting that he will not resign, even though large numbers of his own employees are openly signing petitions against him. The aide he brought in from Cheney's office, Kellems, did resign. Few think that he is a big enough sacrificial lamb to feed such a large and hungry party. The full executive board will make its decision on Tuesday. Although member states may be reluctant to simply fire Wolfowitz, given President Bush's backing for him, they might engineer a vote of no confidence as a way of making it difficult for him to stay on.

The management techniques that got Wolfowitz in trouble at the World Bank mirrored those he used at the Pentagon to get up the Iraq war. Without cronyism, tag-teaming, and running circles around opponents of the war such as Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet, the pro-war cabal could never have persuaded Bush to launch the conflict or persuaded the American public to support it. State Department officials have complained bitterly to me about meetings called by Wolfowitz and others on Iraq in 2002, to which some relevant officials were pointedly not invited, or where the agenda was prearranged and rigidly stage-managed so as to ensure that only neoconservative points of view were heard. Other officials have spoken of being spied on by the neocons at the Department of Defense, to the point where they were reprimanded for cartoons or posters that they had hung on their office doors.

THE ARCHITECT OF HIS OWN COLLAPSE
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wilkerson18may18,0,4307190.s tory?coll=la-opinion-center

By Lawrence Wilkerson, Retired Col. LAWRENCE WILKERSON served 31 years in the Army and was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005. He is now a visiting professor at the College of William .

WHEN I WAS ASSIGNED to the U.S. Pacific Command in the mid-1980s, we military officers would often discuss the ambassadors in our theater of operations — a huge area embracing more than 30 countries and most of the Pacific and Indian oceans. One name came up constantly as one of the best of the best: then-U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Paul Wolfowitz. He understood the culture, the people and the special circumstances of the world's most populous Muslim country, and he did a superb job in dealing with that country within the context of U.S. national security interests.

Understand, then, my wonder over the last few years at Wolfowitz's fall. From my position, first at the Pentagon, then at the State Department, I watched the talented Wolfowitz self-destruct. How could such a successful, intelligent ambassador transmogrify into the petulant old man I watched fighting unsuccessfully to keep his job as president of the World Bank?

There were early signs. In 1990, when both of us were at the Pentagon — I worked for Colin Powell, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Wolfowitz for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney — I discovered that Wolfowitz was geared entirely to conceptual thinking and not to practical action, planning and detail and the disciplined routine that government requires.

But there was more. Powell was certain that the Soviet Union was expiring. Wolfowitz, Robert Gates at the CIA, Cheney and a host of retired military officers were certain the Soviets would be back. In Wolfowitz's stand, however, I saw something different from the others: a stubborn refusal to see beyond the evil of the "evil empire." For Wolfowitz, it was an ideological blind spot and that made it all the more obscuring.

I also saw more stark evidence of what a poor manager Wolfowitz was. He had no idea how to make the trains run on time — and seemed to have no inclination to do so. Talented people left his shop saying they could get nothing accomplished. Papers sat in in-boxes for ages with no action, and the need to deal with daily mini-crises was supplanted by the desire to turn out hugely complicated but elegantly expressed "concepts" and "strategies." The rest of the workaday Pentagon largely ignored Wolfowitz's policy shop as irrelevant.

When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld picked Wolfowitz in 2000 as his deputy — to make all the trains in the Pentagon run on time — those of us who were familiar with Wolfowitz knew a train wreck would occur. It did, almost immediately, as nothing got through the roadblock of the deputy's office.

Later, as post-invasion planning for Iraq was called for, Wolfowitz and the No. 3 man in the department, Douglas Feith, proved their administrative ineptitude. By that time, I was working for Secretary of State Powell, and there was increasing friction between us and the Pentagon. We watched Rumsfeld, in the arrogance of his power and the hubris of his brilliance, totally ignore the chaos beneath him, working with now-Vice President Cheney to drive all trains to Baghdad.

Then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who had worked at the Pentagon for years before going to the State Department, once told me that Wolfowitz had to telephone him to discover what was happening in Wolfowitz's own department. When Wolfowitz left the Pentagon under somewhat of a cloud because of the deteriorating situation in Iraq, the bureaucracy breathed a sigh of relief — not because the architect of the war had departed but because we longed for a deputy who could get the trains unscrambled (half a trillion dollars worth of crashing trains at the center of the federal bureaucracy is a hell of a problem).

But when we heard that Wolfowitz was going to the World Bank as its president, we knew that it would be only a matter of time before disaster struck again — that Wolfowitz's lack of administrative, managerial and leadership skills would derail him once more. Now it has happened.

Powell used to say that dreamers rarely succeed unless they build firm foundations beneath their dreams. But to do that, you need help and a willingness to get your hands dirty in the real world. That, though, was always beneath Paul Wolfowitz. And that is what undid him.

[moeen yaseen]

GORE's NEW BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY: PRIVATIZED WORLD EMPIRE DECIDES WHO LIVES OR WHO DIES

http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=108&pid=1219#pid1219

DEMOCRATS WAKE UP!
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=132&page=2

[moeen yaseen]

WHY CONGRESS CAVED TO BU$H
Patrick J. Buchanan

The anti-war Democrats are crying betrayal – and justifiably so.

For a Democratic Congress is now voting to fully fund the war in Iraq, as demanded by President Bush, and without any timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal. Bush got his $100 billion, then magnanimously agreed to let Democrats keep the $20 billion in pork they stuffed into the bill – to soothe the pain of their sellout of the party base.

Remarkable. If the Republican rout of 2006 said anything, it was that America had lost faith in the Bush-Rumsfeld conduct of the war and wanted Democrats to lead the country out.

Yet, today, there are more U.S. troops in Iraq than when the Democrats won. More are on the way. And with the surge and retention of troops in Iraq beyond normal tours, there should be a record number of U.S. troops in country by year's end.

Why did the Democrats capitulate?

Because they lack the courage of their convictions. Because they fear the consequences if they put their anti-war beliefs into practice. Because they are afraid if they defund the war and force President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops, the calamity he predicts will come to pass and they will be held accountable for losing Iraq and the strategic disaster that might well ensue.

Democrats are an intimidated party. The reasons are historical. They were shredded by Nixon and Joe McCarthy for FDR's surrenders to Stalin at Tehran and Yalta, for losing China to Mao's hordes, for the "no-win war" in Korea, for being "soft on communism."

The best and the brightest – JFK's New Frontiersmen – were held responsible for plunging us into Vietnam and proving incapable of winning the war. A Democratic Congress cut off aid to Saigon in 1975, ceding Southeast Asia to Hanoi and bringing on the genocide of Pol Pot.

Democrats know they are distrusted on national security. They fear that if they defund this war and bring on a Saigon ending in the Green Zone, it will be a generation before they are trusted with national power. And power is what the party is all about.

Yet, not only does the situation in Iraq appear increasingly grim, with rising U.S. and Iraqi casualties, other shoes are about to drop that will reverberate throughout the region.

Support for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with his war in Lebanon a debacle and his leadership denounced by a commission he appointed, is in single digits. Waiting in the wings is Likud super-hawk "Bibi" Netanyahu, the most popular politician in Israel, who compares today to Munich 1938 and equates Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Hitler.

If and when Bibi comes to power, he will use every stratagem to provoke us into attacking "Hitler."

Also drumming for war on Iran are the floundering neocons and the Israeli lobby. Under orders from the lobby, Nancy Pelosi stripped from a House bill a stipulation that Bush must come to Congress for authorization before launching an attack on Iran.

With Democratic contenders reciting the mantra "All options are on the table," and Iran defying U.N. sanctions, pursuing nuclear enrichment and detaining U.S. citizens, Bush has a blank check to launch a third war.

Lebanon is ablaze. Gaza is ablaze. The Afghan war is not going well. The Taliban have a privileged sanctuary. The NATO allies grow weary.

In Pakistan, the most dangerous country on earth – one bullet away from an Islamic republic with atom bombs – our erstwhile ally, President Musharraf, is caught in a political crisis over his ouster of the chief justice.

Presidents Musharraf in Islamabad, Kharzi in Kabul and Siniora in Beirut, and Prime Minister Maliki in Baghdad, sit on shaky thrones. No one knows what follows their fall. But it is hard to see how it would not be crippling for America's position.

With such volatility in this crucial region of the world, with such uncertainty, it is easy to see why Democrats prefer to be the "dummy" at the bridge table and let Bush play the hand.

The congressional Democrats are cynical, but they are not stupid. If the surge works and U.S. troops are being withdrawn by fall 2008, they do not want it said of them that they "cut and ran" when the going got tough, that they played Chamberlain to Bush's Churchill.

And if the war is going badly in 2008, they know that the American people, in repudiating the party of Bush and Cheney, have no other choice than the party of Hillary and Pelosi and Harry Reid.

That is why congressional Democrats are surely saying privately of the angry anti-war left what has often been said by the Beltway Republican elite of the right: "Don't worry about them. They have nowhere else to go."

And that is why the anti-war left was thrown under the bus.

[/b]

[moeen yaseen]

THE "JEWISH" CONSPIRACY IS BRITISH IMPERIALISM
Henry Makow Ph.D.
http://www.savethemales.ca/000447.html
see also http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=108&pid=1227#pid1227

Conspiracy theorists like myself believe modern history reflects a long-term conspiracy by an international financial elite to enslave humanity.

Like blind men examining an elephant, we attribute this conspiracy to Jews, Illuminati, Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons, Black Nobility, and Bildersbergs etc.

The real villains are at the heart of our economic and cultural life. They are the dynastic families who own the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and associated cartels. They also control the World Bank and IMF and most of the world's Intelligence agencies. Their identity is secret but Rothschild is certainly one of them. The Bank of England was "nationalized" in 1946 but the power to create money remained in the same hands.

England is in fact a financial oligarchy run by the "Crown" which refers to the "City of London" not the Queen. The City of London is run by the Bank of England, a private corporation. The square-mile-large City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. As the "Vatican of the financial world," the City is not subject to British law.

On the contrary, the bankers dictate to the British Parliament. In 1886, Andrew Carnegie wrote that, "six or seven men can plunge the nation into war without consulting Parliament at all." Vincent Vickers, a director of the Bank of England from 1910-1919 blamed the City for the wars of the world. ("Economic Tribulation" (1940) cited in Knuth, The Empire of the City, 1943, p 60)

The British Empire was an extension of bankers' financial interests. Indeed, all the non-white colonies (India, Hong Kong, Gibraltar) were "Crown Colonies." They belonged to the City and were not subject to British law although Englishmen were expected to conquer and pay for them.

The Bank of England assumed control of the U.S. during the T.R. Roosevelt administration (1901-1909) when its agent J.P. Morgan took over 25% of American business. (Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 1964)

According to the "American Almanac," the bankers are part of a network called the "Club of the Isles" which is an informal association of predominantly European-based royal households including the Queen. The Club of the Isles commands an estimated $10 trillion in assets. It lords over such corporate giants as Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials; and deploys these assets at the disposal of its geopolitical agenda.

Its goal: to reduce the human population from its current level of over 5 billion people to below 1 billion people within the next two to three generations; to literally ``cull the human herd'' in the interest of retaining their own global power and the feudal system upon which that power is based.

Historian Jeffrey Steinberg could be referring to the US, Canada and Australia when he writes, "England, Scotland, Wales, and, especially, Northern Ireland, are today little more than slave plantations and social engineering laboratories, serving the needs of ...the City of London...

These families constitute a financier oligarchy; they are the power behind the Windsor throne. They view themselves as the heirs to the Venetian oligarchy, which infiltrated and subverted England from the period 1509-1715, and established a new, more virulent, Anglo-Dutch-Swiss strain of the oligarchic system of imperial Babylon, Persia, Rome, and Byzantium....

The City of London dominates the world's speculative markets. A tightly interlocking group of corporations, involved in raw materials extraction, finance, insurance, transportation, and food production, controls the lion's share of the world market, and exerts virtual ``choke point'' control over world industry."

Steinberg belongs to a group of historians associated with economist Lyndon Larouche. They have traced this scourge to the migration of the Venetian mercantile oligarchy to England more than 300 years ago.

Although the Larouche historians do not say so, it appears that many members of this oligarchy were Jews. Cecil Roth writes: "The trade of Venice was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the Jews, the wealthiest of the mercantile class." (The History of the Jews in Venice, 1930)

As William Guy Carr points out in Pawns in the Game, both Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange were funded by Jewish bankers. The English Revolution (1649) was the first in a series of revolutions designed to give them world hegemony. The establishment of the Bank of England by William in 1694 was the next crucial step. Behind the facade, England has been a "Jewish" state for over 300 years. (pp.20-24)

The Jewish banking families made it a practice to marry their female offspring to spendthrift European aristocrats. In Jewish law, the mixed offspring of a Jewish mother is Jewish. (The male heirs marry Jews although the Victor and Jacob Rothschild are exceptions .) For example, in 1878 Hannah Rothschild married Lord Rosebery. who later became Prime Minister. In 1922 Louis Mountbatten, the uncle of Prince Philip and cousin of the Queen married the granddaughter of Jewish banker Ernest Cassel, one of the wealthiest men in the world. Winston Churchill's mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish. By the beginning of the 1900s, there were very few English aristocrat families left that hadn't intermarried with Jews. It was said that, when they visited the Continent, Europeans were surprised to see Jewish looking persons with English titles and accents.

According to L.G. Pine, the Editor of Burke's Peerage , Jews "have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual. So closely linked are the Jews and the lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also." (Tales of the British Aristocracy1957, p.219.)

If they aren't Jewish by intermarriage, many European aristocrats consider themselves descendents of Biblical Hebrews. The Hapsburgs are related by marriage to the Merovingians who claim to be descendents of the Tribe of Benjamin.

In addition, many aristocrats belong to the "British Israel" Movement that believes the British soveriegn is the head of the Anglo Saxon "Lost Tribes" of Israel and that the Apocalyse will see the full reconstitution of the British Empire.

According to Barbara Aho, Rosicrucians and Freemasons, who believe in British Israelism, have a plan to place one of their bloodline on the throne of the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. This positioning of a false messiah whom the world will worship as Christ has been carefully planned and executed over many centuries.

According to Barry Chamish, "there would be no modern state of Israel without British Freemasonry. In the 1860s, the British-Israelite movement was initiated from within Freemasonry. Its goal was to establish a Jewish-Masonic state in the Turkish province of Palestine...Initially, British Jewish Masonic families like the Rothschilds and Montefiores provided the capital to build the infrastructure for the anticipated wave of immigration. However, luring the Jews to Israel was proving difficult. They, simply, liked European life too much to abandon it. So Europe was to be turned into a nightmare for the Jews."

CONCLUSION

I wasted much of my life getting a conventional education, so I feel I am beginning my education anew.

It appears that a vampire-like clique directs the world. This secretive cabal is represented by our dominant political, economic and cultural institutions. Western society has been subverted and western culture is bankrupt. Democracy is a form of social control and the mass media/ education are systems for indoctrination.

Essentially the problem boils down to whether we believe man was made in God's image and has an obligation to lift himself to a higher level of truth, beauty and justice. Naturally monopolists have no use for this and want to define reality to suit their own interests. They have taught us that God is dead and man is just a fancy animal without a divine soul. Culture today tends to deny standards, ideals and goals of any kind. Instead, we are fed an endless diet of trivia and degradation.

Certain elite Jews are an integral part of this elite neo feudal conspiracy. Throughout history they have had a symbiotic relationship with the aristocracy. But ordinary Jews like the serfs were manipulated and persecuted by their elites.

True Judaism like Islam and Christianity affirms the supremacy of God as a moral force. A real Jew, like a true Christian or Muslim cannot perform an immoral act. It's time to reaffirm our belief in God.

[moeen yaseen]

DELETED

[moeen yaseen]

DELETED

[moeen yaseen]

On the night of December 23, 1913 the United States Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act and thereby committed the greatest act of TREASON in history. It surrendered this nation's sovereignty and sold the American people into slavery to a cabal of arch-charlatan international bankers who proceeded to plunder, bankrupt, and conquer this nation with a money swindle.

The "money" the banks issue is merely bookkeeping entries. It costs them nothing and is not backed by their wealth, efforts, property, or risk. It is not redeemable except in more debt paper. The Federal Reserve Act forced us to pay compound interest on thin air. We now use worthless "notes" backed by our own credit that we cannot own and are made subject to compelled performance for the "privilege".

From 1913 until 1933, the United States paid the "interest" with more and more gold. The structured inevitability soon transpired: the Treasury was empty, the debt was greater than ever, and the United States declared bankruptcy. In exchange for using notes belonging to bankers who create them out of nothing on our own credit, we are forced to repay in substance (labor, property, land, businesses, resources - life) in ever-increasing amounts. This may be the greatest heist and fraud of all time.

When a government goes bankrupt, it loses its sovereignty. In 1933 the United States declared bankruptcy, as expressed in Roosevelt's Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933, confirmed in Perry v. United States, (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 L.ed 912, as well as 31 USC 5112, 5119, and 12 USC 95A. (...)




JFK, THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 11110

Cedric X
From The Final Call, Vol. 15, No.6, On January 17, 1996
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.

After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, ifso, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so?

Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289

AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-

By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):


(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption

and --

Byrevoking subparagraphs (b) and © of paragraph 2 thereof.

Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963.

Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met the the same end is a mere coincidence.

Abraham Lincoln's Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)

Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.

Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.

Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.

No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.

The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.

The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and creditof the Nation.

Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.

Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and creditas money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issueing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity.

By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.

Some information on the Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve, a Private Corporation One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability to pay it's bills?" As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.

Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves."

Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors.

Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:

Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).

The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:

The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine.It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.

As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is.

No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:

Mr. Chairman,we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enoughmoney to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the UnitedStates; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who camehere from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.

The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book, Crossfire:

Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.

Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.

A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.

The point being made is that the IRS taxes you pay aren't used for government services. It won't hurt you, or the nation, to legally reduce or eliminate your tax liability.

[moeen yaseen]

HEAL THE MONEY : HEAL SOCIETY
Suzanne Phillips
http://www.federal-reserve.net/part2.htm

Money For The Scottish Distillers

"Mr. Chairman, if a Scottish distiller wishes to send a cargo of Scotch whiskey to these United States, he can draw his bill against the purchasing bootlegger in dollars and after the bootlegger has accepted it by writing his name across the face of it, the Scotch distiller can send that bill to the nefarious open discount market in New York City where the Fed will buy it and use it as collateral for a new issue of Fed Notes. Thus the Government of these United States pay the Scotch distiller for the whiskey before it is shipped, and if it is lost on the way, or if the Coast Guard seizes it and destroys it, the Fed simply write off the loss and the government never recovers the money that was paid to the Scotch distiller.

"While we are attempting to enforce prohibition here, the Fed are in the distillery business in Europe and paying bootlegger bills with public credit of these United States. "Mr. Chairman, by the same process, they compel our Government to pay the German brewer for his beer. Why should the Fed be permitted to finance the brewing industry in Germany either in this way or as they do by compelling small and fearful United States Banks to take stock in the Isenbeck Brewery and in the German Bank for brewing industries? "Mr. Chairman, if Dynamit Nobel of Germany, wishes to sell dynamite in Japan to use in Manchuria or elsewhere, it can drew its bill against the Japanese customers in dollars and send that bill to the nefarious open discount market in New York City where the Fed will buy it and use it as collateral for a new issue of Fed Notes- while at the same time the Fed will be helping Dynamit Nobel by stuffing its stock into the United States banking system.

"Why should we send our representatives to the disarmament conference at Geneva- while the Fed is making our Government pay Japanese debts to German Munitions makers?

"Mr. Chairman, if a German wishes to raise a crop of beans and sell them to a Japanese customer, he can draw a bill against his prospective Japanese customer in dollars and have it purchased by the Fed and get the money out of this Country at the expense of the American people before he has even planted the beans in the ground. "Mr. Chairman, if a German in Germany wishes to export goods to South America, or any other Country, he can draw his bill against his customers and send it to these United States and get the money out of this Country before he ships, or even manufactures the goods.

"Mr. Chairman, why should the currency of these United States be issued on the strength of German Beer? Why should it be issued on the crop of unplanted beans to be grown in Chili for Japanese consumption? Why should these United States be compelled to issue many billions of dollars every year to pay the debts of one foreigner to another foreigner? "Was it for this that our National Bank depositors had their money taken out of our banks and shipped abroad? Was it for this that they had to lose it? Why should the public credit of these United States and likewise money belonging to our National Bank depositors be used to support foreign brewers, narcotic drug vendors, whiskey distillers, wig makes, human hair merchants, Chilean bean growers, to finance the munition factories of Germany and Soviet Russia?

The United States Has Been Ransacked

"The United States has been ransacked and pillaged. Our structures have been gutted and only the walls are left standing. While being perpetrated, everything the world would rake up to sell us was brought in here at our expense by the Fed until our markets were swamped with unneeded and unwanted imported goods priced far above their value and make to equal the dollar volume of our honest exports, and to kill or reduce our favorite balance of trade. As Agents of the foreign central banks the Fed try by every means in their power to reduce our favorable balance of trade. They act for their foreign principal and they accept fees from foreigners for acting against the best interests of these United States. Naturally there has been great competition among among foreigners for the favors of the Fed.

"What we need to do is to send the reserves of our National Banks home to the people who earned and produced them and who still own them and to the banks which were compelled to surrender them to predatory interests.

"Mr. Chairman, there is nothing like the Fed pool of confiscated bank deposits in the world. It is a public trough of American wealth in which the foreigners claim rights, equal to or greater than Americans. The Fed are the agents of the foreign central banks. They use our bank depositors' money for the benefit of their foreign principals. They barter the public credit of the United States Government and hire it our to foreigners at a profit to themselves.

"All this is done at the expense of the United States Government, and at a sickening loss to the American people. Only our great wealth enabled us to stand the drain of it as long as we did.

"We need to destroy the Fed wherein our national reserves are impounded for the benefit of the foreigners. "We need to save America for Americans.

Spurious Securities

"Mr. Chairman, when you hold a $10.00 Fed Note in your hand, you are holding apiece of paper which sooner or later is going to cost the United States Government $10.00 in gold (unless the Government is obliged to go off the gold standard). It is based on limburger cheese (reported to be in foreign warehouses) or in cans purported to contain peas (but may contain salt water instead), or horse meat, illicit drugs, bootleggers fancies, rags and bones from Soviet Russia (of which these United States imported over a million dollars worth last year), on wines whiskey, natural gas, goat and dog fur, garlic on the string, and Bombay ducks.

"If you like to have paper money- which is secured by such commodities- you have it in Fed Note. If you desire to obtain the thing of value upon which this paper currency is based, that is, the limburger cheese, the whiskey, the illicit drugs, or any of the other staples- you will have a very hard time finding them.

"Many of these worshipful commodities are in foreign Countries. Are you going to Germany to inspect her warehouses to see if the specified things of value are there? I think more, I do not think that you would find them there if you did go.

"On April 27, 1932, the Fed outfit sent $750,000 belonging to American bank depositors in gold to Germany. A week later another $300,000 in gold was shipped to Germany. About the middle of May $12,000,000 in gold was shipped to Germany by the Fed. Almost every week there is a shipment of gold to Germany. These shipments are not made for profit on the exchange since the German marks are blow parity with the dollar.

"Mr. Chairman, I believe that the National Bank depositors of these United States have a right to know what the Fed are doing with their money. There are millions of National Bank depositors in the Country who do not know that a percentage of every dollar they deposit in a Member Bank of the Fed goes automatically to American Agents of the foreign banks and that all their deposits can be paid away to foreigners without their knowledge or consent by the crooked machinery of the Fed and the questionable practices of the Fed.

[Ed. Note- Problem with next paragraph in original] "Mr. Chairman, the American people should be told the truth by their servants in office. In 1930, we had over a half billion dollars outstanding daily to finance foreign goods stored in or shipped between several billion dollars. What goods are these on which the Fed yearly pledge several billions of dollars. In its yearly total, this item amounts to several billions of dollars of the public credit of these United States?

"What goods are those which are hidden in European and Asiatic stores have not been seen by any officer of our Government but which are being financed on the public credit of the United States Government? What goods are those upon which the 17 United States Government is being obligated by the Fed to issue Fed Notes to the extent of several billions of dollars a year?

The Bankers' Acceptance Racket

"The Fed have been International Banks from the beginning, with these United States as their enforced banker and supplier of currency. But it is none the less extraordinary to see these these twelve private credit monopolies, buying the debts of foreigners against foreigners, in all parts of the world and asking the Government of these United States for new issues of Fed notes in exchange for them. "The magnitude of the acceptance racket as it has been developed by the Fed, their foreign correspondents, and the predatory European born bankers, who set up the Fed here and taught your own, by and of pirates, how to loot the people: I say the magnitude of this racket is estimated to be in the neighborhood of 9,000,000,000 per year. In the past ten years it is said to have amounted to $90,000,000,000.00. In my opinion it has amounted to several times that much. coupled to this you have to the extent of billions of dollars, the gambling in the United States securities, which takes place in the same open discount market- a gambling on which the Fed is now spending $100,000,000.00 per week.

"Fed Notes are taken from the U.S. Government in unlimited quantities. Is is strange that the burden of supplying these immense sums of money to the gambling fraternity has at last proved too heavy for the American people to endure? Would it not be a national [calamity to] again bind down this burden on the backs of the American people and by means of a long rawhide whip of the credit masters, compel them to enter another seventeen years of slavery?

"They are trying to do that now. They are trying to take $100,000,000.00 of the public credit of the United States every week, in addition to all their other seizures and they are sending that money to the nefarious open market in a desperate gamble to reestablish their graft as a going concern.

"They are putting the United States Government in debt to the extent of $100,000,000 a week, and with the money they are buying our Government securities for themselves and their foreign principals. Our people are disgusted with the experiences of the Fed. The Fed is not producing a loaf of bread, a yard of cloth, a bushel of corn, or a pile of cordwood by its check-kiting operations in the money market.

"Mr. Speaker, on the 13th of January of this year I addressed the House on the subject of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. In the course of my remarks I made the following statement: In 1928 the member banks of the Fed borrowed $60,598,690,000. from the Fed on their fifteen-day promissory notes. Think of it. Sixty billion dollars payable on demand in gold in the course of one single year. The actual amount of such obligations called for six times as much monetary gold as there is in the world. Such transactions represent a grant in the course of one single years of about $7,000,000 to every member of the Fed.

"Is it any wonder that American labor which ultimately pays the cost of all banking operations of this Country has at last proved unequal to the task of supplying this huge total of cash and credit for the benefit of the stock market manipulators and foreign swindlers? "In 1933 the Fed presented the staggering amount of $60,598,690,000 to its member banks at the expense of the wage earners and tax payers of these United States. In 1929, the year of the stock market crash, the Fed advanced $58,000,000,000 to member banks.

"In 1930 while the speculating banks were getting out of the stock market at the expense of the general public, the Fed advanced them $13,022,782,000. This shows that when the banks were gambling on the public credit of these United States as represented by the Fed currency they were subsidized to any amount they required by the Fed. When the swindle began to fall, the bankers knew it in advance and withdrew from the market. They got out with whole skins- and left the people of these United States to pay the piper. "My friend from Kansas, Mr. McGugin, has stated that he thought the Fed lent money on rediscounting. So they do, but they lend comparatively little that way. The real discounting that they do has been called a mere penny in the slot business. It is too slow for genuine high flyers. They discourage it. They prefer to subsidize their favorite banks by making them $60,000,000,000 advances and they prefer to acquire assistance in the notorious open discount market in New York, where they can use it to control the price of stocks and bonds on the exchanges.

"For every dollar they advanced on discounts in 1928, they lent $33.00 to their favorite banks for whom they do a business of several billion dollars income tax on their profits to these United States.

The John Law Swindle

"This is the John Law swindle over again. The theft of Teapot Dome was trifling compared to it. What King ever robbed his subject to such an extent as the Fed has robbed us? Is it any wonder that there have been lately ninety cases of starvation in one of the New York hospitals? Is there any wonder that the children are being abandoned?

"The government and the people of these United States have been swindled by swindlers deluxe to whom the acquisition of American or a parcel of Fed Notes presented no more difficulty than the drawing up of a worthless acceptance in a Country not subject to the laws of these United States, by sharpers not subject to the jurisdiction of these United States, sharpers with strong banking "fence" on this side of the water, a "fence" acting as a receiver of a worthless paper coming from abroad, endorsing it and getting the currency out of the Fed for it as quickly as possible exchanging that currency for gold and in turn transmitting the gold to its foreign confederates.

Ivar Kreuger, the Match King!

"Such were the exploits of Ivar Krueger, Mr. Hoover's friend, and his rotten Wall Street bakers. Every dollar of the billions Kreuger and his gang drew out of this Country on acceptances was drawn from the government and the people of the United States through the Fed. The credit of the United States Government was peddled to him by the Fed for their own private gain. That is what the Fed has been doing for many years.

"They have been peddling the credit of this Government and the [signature of this] Government to the swindlers and speculators of all nations. That is what happens when a Country forsakes its Constitution and gives its sovereignty over the public currency to private interests. Give them the flag and they will sell it.

"The nature of Kreuger's organized swindle and the bankrupt condition of Kreuger's combine was known here last June when Hoover sought to exempt Krueger's loan to Germany of $125,000,000 from the operation of the Hoover Moratorium. The bankrupt condition of Krueger's swindle was known her last summer when $30,000,000 was taken from the American taxpayers by certain bankers in New York for the ostensible purpose of permitting Krueger to make a loan to Colombia. Colombia never saw that money.

"The nature of Krueger's swindle was known here in January when he visited his friend, Mr. Hoover, at the White House. It was known here in March before he went to Paris and committed suicide.

"Mr. Chairman, I think the people of the United States are entitled to know how many billions of dollars were placed at the disposal of Krueger and his gigantic combine by the Fed, and to know how much of our Government currency was issued and lost in the financing of that great swindle in the years during which the Fed took care of Krueger's requirements.

"A few days ago, the President of the United States with a white face and shaking hands, went before the Senate of behalf of the moneyed interests and asked the Senate to levy a tax on the people so that foreigners might know that these United States would pay its debt to them.

"Most Americans thought it was the other way around. What does these United States owe foreigners? When and by whom was the debt incurred? It was incurred by the Fed, when they peddled the signature of the Government to foreigners- for a Price. It is what the United States Government has to pay to redeem the obligations of the Fed.

Thieves Go Scot Free

"Are you going to let these thieves get off scot free? Is there one law for the looter who drives up to the door of the United States Treasury in his limousine and another for the United States Veterans who are sleeping on the floor of a dilapidated house on the outskirts of Washington?

"The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad is here asking for a large loan from the people, and the wage earners and the taxpayers of these United States. It is begging for a handout from the Government. It is standing, cap in hand, at the door of the R.F.C. where all the jackals have gathered to the feast. It is asking for money that was raised from the people by taxation and wants this money of the poor for the benefit of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., the German International Bankers.

"Is there one law for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and another for the hungry veterans it threw off its freight cars the other day? Is there one law for sleek and prosperous swindlers who call themselves bankers and another law for the soldiers who defended the flag? "The R.F.C. is taking over these worthless securities from the Investment Trusts with United States Treasury money at the expense of the American taxpayer and the wage earner.

"It will take twenty years to redeem our Government. Twenty years of penal servitude to pay off the gambling debts of the traitorous Fed and to vast flood of American wages and savings, bank deposits, and the United States Government credit which the Fed exported out of this country to their foreign principals.

"The Fed lately conducted an anti-hoarding campaign here. They they took that extra money which they had persuaded the American people to put into the banks- they sent it to Europe- along with the rest. In the last several months, they have sent $1,300,000,000 in gold to their foreign employers, their foreign masters, and every dollar of that gold belonged to the people of these United States and was unlawfully taken from them.

Fiat Money

"Mr. Chairman, within the limits of the time allowed me, I cannot enter into a particularized discussion of the Fed. I have singled out the Fed currency for a few remarks because there has lately been some talk here of "fiat money". What kind of money is being pumped into the open discount market and through it into foreign channels and stock exchanges? Mr. Mills of the Treasury has spoken here of his horror of the printing presses and his horror of dishonest money. He has no horror of dishonest money. If he had, he would be no party to the present gambling of the Fed in the nefarious open discount market of New York, a market in which the sellers are represented by 10 discount corporations owned and organized by the very banks which own and control the Fed.

"Fiat money, indeed!

"What Mr. Mills is fighting for is the preservation, whole and entire, of the banker's monopoly of all the currency of the United States Government.

"Mr. Chairman, last December, I introduced a resolution here asking for an examination and an audit of the Fed and all related matters. If the House sees fit to make such an investigation, the people of these United States will obtain information of great value. This is a Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Consequently, nothing should be concealed from the people. The man who deceives the people is a traitor to these United States.

"The man who knows or suspects that a crime has been committed and who conceals and covers up that crime is an accessory to it. Mr. Speaker, it is a monstrous thing for this great nation of people to have its destinies presided over by a traitorous government board acting in secret concert with international usurers.

"Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers- but the truth is- the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here and it controls all of our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.

"No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operated the Fed. What National Government has permitted the Fed to steal from the people should now be restored to the people. The people have a valid claim against the Fed. If that claim is enforced the Americans will not need to stand in the bread line, or to suffer and die of starvation in the streets. Women will be saved, families will be kept together, and American children will not be dispersed and abandoned.

"Here is a Fed Note. Immense numbers of the notes are now held abroad. I am told that they amount to upwards of a billion dollars. They constitute a claim against our Government and likewise a claim against our peoples' money to the extent of $1,300,000,000 which has within the last few months been shipped abroad to redeem Fed Notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Fed. The greater part of our money stock has been shipped to other lands.

"Why should we promise to pay the debts of foreigners to foreigners? Why should the Fed be permitted to finance our competitors in all parts of the world? Do you know why the tariff was raised? It was raised to shut out the flood of Fed Goods pouring in here from every quarter of the globe- cheap goods, produced by cheaply paid foreign labor, on unlimited supplies of money and credit sent out of this Country by the dishonest and unscrupulous Fed.

"The Fed are spending $100,000,000 a week buying government securities in the open market and are making a great bid for foreign business. They are trying to make rates so attractive that the human hair merchants and the distillers and other business entities in foreign land will come her and hire more of the public credit of the United States Government to pay the Fed outfit for getting it for them.


World Enslavement Planned

"Mr. Chairman, when the Fed was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here which would make the savings of the American school teacher available to a narcotic-drug vendor in Acapulco. They did not perceive that these United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country which has nothing but raw material and heart, that Russia was destined to supply the man power and that this country was to supply the financial power to an "international superstate". A superstate controlled by international bankers, and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure?

"The people of these United States are being greatly wronged. They have been driven from their employments. They have been dispossessed from their homes. They have been evicted from their rented quarters. They have lost their children. They have been left to suffer and die for lack of shelter, food, clothing and medicine.

"The wealth of these United States and the working capital have been taken away from them and has either been locked in the vaults of certain banks and the great corporations or exported to foreign countries for the benefit of the foreign customers of these banks and corporations. So far as the people of the United States are concerned, the cupboard is bare.

"It is true that the warehouses and coal yards and grain elevators are full, but these are padlocked, and the great banks and corporations hold the keys.

"The sack of these United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history.

"Mr. Chairman, a serious situation confronts the House of Representatives today. We are trustees of the people and the rights of the people are being taken away from them. Through the Fed the people are losing the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Their property has been taken from them without due process of law. Mr. Chairman, common decency requires us to examine the public accounts of the Government and see what crimes against the public welfare have been committed.

"What is needed here is a return to the Constitution of these United States.

"The old struggle that was fought out here in Jackson's time must be fought our over again. The independent United States Treasury should be reestablished and the Government should keep its own money under lock and key in the building the people provided for that purpose.

"Asset currency, the devise of the swindler, should be done away with. The Fed should be abolished and the State boundaries should be respected. Bank reserves should be kept within the boundaries of the States whose people own them, and this reserve money of the people should be protected so that the International Bankers and acceptance bankers and discount dealers cannot draw it away from them.

"The Fed should be repealed, and the Fed Banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately. Faithless Government officials who have violated their oaths of office should be impeached and brought to trial.

"Unless this is done by us, I predict, that the American people, outraged, pillaged, insulted and betrayed as they are in their own land, will rise in their wrath, and will sweep the money changers out of the temple.

"Mr. Chairman, the United States is bankrupt: It has been bankrupted by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. It has repudiated its debts to its own citizens. Its chief foreign creditor is Great Britain, and a British bailiff has been at the White House and the British Agents are in the United States Treasury making inventory arranging terms of liquidations!

Great Britain, Partner in Blackmail

"Mr. Chairman, the Fed has offered to collect the British claims in full from the American public by trickery and corruption, if Great Britain will help to conceal its crimes. The British are shielding their agents, the Fed, because they do not wish that system of robbery to be destroyed here. They wish it to continue for their benefit! By means of it, Great Britain has become the financial mistress of the world. She has regained the position she occupied before the World War.

"For several years she has been a silent partner in the business of the Fed. Under threat of blackmail, or by their bribery, or by their native treachery to the people of the United States, the officials in charge of the Fed unwisely gave Great Britain immense gold loans running into hundreds of millions of dollars. They did this against the law! Those gold loans were not single transactions. They gave Great Britain a borrowing power in the United States of billions. She squeezed billions out of this Country by means of her control of the Fed.

"As soon as the Hoover Moratorium was announced, Great Britain moved to consolidate her gains. After the treacherous signing away of American rights at the 7-power conference at London in July, 1931, which put the Fed under the control of the Bank of International Settlements, Great Britain began to tighten the hangman's noose around the neck of the United States.

"She abandoned the gold standard and embarked on a campaign of buying up the claims of foreigners against the Fed in all parts of the world. She has now sent her bailiff, Ramsey MacDonald, here to get her war debt to this country canceled. But she has a club in her hands! She has title to the gambling debts which the corrupt and dishonest Fed incurred abroad.

"Ramsey MacDonald, the labor party deserter, has come here to compel the President to sign on the dotted line, and that is what Roosevelt is about to do! Roosevelt will endeavor to conceal the nature of his action from the American people. But he will obey the International Bankers and transfer the war debt that Great Britain should pay to the American people, to the shoulders of the American taxpayers.

"Mr. Chairman, the bank holiday in the several States was brought about by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. These institutions manipulated money and credit, and caused the States to order bank holidays.

"These holidays were frame-ups! "They were dress rehearsals for the national bank holiday which Franklin D. Roosevelt promised Sir Ramsey MacDonald that he would declare.

"There was no national emergency here when Franklin D. Roosevelt took office excepting the bankruptcy of the Fed- a bankruptcy which has been going on under cover for several years and which has been concealed from the people so that the people would continue to permit their bank deposits and their bank reserves and their gold and the funds of the United States Treasury to be impounded in these bankrupt institutions.

"Under cover, the predatory International Bankers have been stealthily transferring the burden of the Fed debts to the people's Treasury and to the people themselves. They the farms and the homes of the United States to pay for their thievery! That is the only national emergency that there has been here since the depression began.

"The week before the bank holiday ws declared in New York State, the deposits in the New York savings banks were greater than the withdrawals. There were no runs on New York Banks. There was no need of a bank holiday in New York, or of a national holiday.


Roosevelt and the International Bankers

"Roosevelt did what the International Bankers ordered him to do!

"Do not deceive yourself, Mr. Chairman, or permit yourself to be deceived by others into the belief that Roosevelt's dictatorship is in any way intended to benefit the people of the United States: he is preparing to sign on the dotted line! "He is preparing to cancel the war debts by fraud!

"He is preparing to internationalize this Country and to destroy our Constitution itself in order to keep the Fed intact as a money institution for foreigners. "Mr. Chairman, I see no reason why citizens of the United States should be terrorized into surrendering their property to the International Bankers who own and control the Fed. The statement that gold would be taken from its lawful owners if they did not voluntarily surrender it, to private interests, show that there is an anarchist in our Government.

"The statement that it is necessary for the people to give their gold- the only real money- to the banks in order to protect the currency, is a statement of calculated dishonesty!

"By his unlawful usurpation of power on the night of March 5, 1933, and by his proclamation, which in my opinion was in violation of the Constitution of the United States, Roosevelt divorced the currency of the United States from gold, and the United States currency is no longer protected by gold. It is therefore sheer dishonesty to say that the people's gold is needed to protect the currency.

"Roosevelt ordered the people to give their gold to private interests- that is, to banks, and he took control of the banks so that all the gold and gold values in them, or given into them, might be handed over to the predatory International Bankers who own and control the Fed.

"Roosevelt cast his lot with the usurers. "He agreed to save the corrupt and dishonest at the expense of the people of the United States.

"He took advantage of the people's confusion and weariness and spread the dragnet over the United States to capture everything of value that was left in it. He made a great haul for the International Bankers.

"The Prime Minister of England came here for money! He came here to collect cash!

"He came here with Fed Currency and other claims against the Fed which England had bought up in all parts of the world. And he has presented them for redemption in gold.

"Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of compelling the Fed to pay their own debts. I see no reason why the general public should be forced to pay the gambling debts of the International Bankers.

Roosevelt Seizes the Gold

"By his action in closing the banks of the United States, Roosevelt seized the gold value of forty billions or more of bank deposits in the United States banks. Those deposits were deposits of gold values. By his action he has rendered them payable to the depositors in paper only, if payable at all, and the paper money he proposes to pay out to bank depositors and to the people generally in lieu of their hard earned gold values in itself, and being based on nothing into which the people can convert it the said paper money is of negligible value altogether.

"It is the money of slaves, not of free men. If the people of the United States permit it to be imposed upon them at the will of their credit masters, the next step in their downward progress will be their acceptance of orders on company stores for what they eat and wear. Their case will be similar to that of starving coal miners. They, too, will be paid with orders on Company stores for food and clothing, both of indifferent quality and be forced to live in Company-owned houses from which they may be evicted at the drop of a hat. More of them will be forced into conscript labor camps under supervision.

"At noon on the 4th of March, 1933, FDR with his hand on the Bible, took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S. At midnight on the 5th of March, 1933, he confiscated the property of American citizens. He took the currency of the United States standard of value. He repudiated the internal debt of the Government to its own citizens. He destroyed the value of the American dollar. He released, or endeavored to release, the Fed from their contractual liability to redeem Fed currency in gold or lawful money on a parity with gold. He depreciated the value of the national currency.

"The people of the U.S. are now using unredeemable paper slips for money. The Treasury cannot redeem that paper in gold or silver. The gold and silver of the Treasury has unlawfully been given to the corrupt and dishonest Fed. And the Administration has since had the effrontery to raid the country for more gold for the private interests by telling our patriotic citizens that their gold is needed to protect the currency.

"It is not being used to protect the currency! It is being used to protect the corrupt and dishonest Fed. "The directors of these institutions have committed criminal offense against the United States Government, including the offense of making false entries on their books, and the still more serious offense of unlawfully abstracting funds from the United States Treasury! "Roosevelt's gold raid is intended to help them out of the pit they dug for themselves when they gambled away the wealth and savings of the American people.

Dictatorship

"The International Bankers set up a dictatorship here because they wanted a dictator who would protect them. They wanted a dictator who would protect them. They wanted a dictator who would issue a proclamation giving the Fed an absolute and unconditional release from their special currency in gold, or lawful money of any Fed Bank.

"Has Roosevelt relieved any other class of debtors in this country from the necessity of paying their debts? Has he made a proclamation telling the farmers that they need not pay their mortgages? Has he made a proclamation to the effect that mothers of starving children need not pay their milk bills? Has he made a proclamation relieving householders from the necessity of paying rent?


Roosevelt's Two Kinds of Laws

"Not he! He has issued one kind of proclamation only, and that is a proclamation to relieve international bankers and the foreign debtors of the United States Government.

"Mr. Chairman, the gold in the banks of this country belongs to the American people who have paper money contracts for it in the form of national currency. If the Fed cannot keep their contracts with United States citizens to redeem their paper money in gold, or lawful money, then the Fed must be taken over by the United States Government and their officers must be put on trial.

"There must be a day of reckoning. If the Fed have looted the Treasury so that the Treasury cannot redeem the United States currency for which it is liable in gold, then the Fed must be driven out of the Treasury.

"Mr. Chairman, a gold certificate is a warehouse receipt for gold in the Treasury, and the man who has a gold certificate is the actual owner of a corresponding amount of gold stacked in the Treasury subject to his order.

"Now comes Roosevelt who seeks to render the money of the United States worthless by unlawfully declaring that it may No Longer be converted into gold at the will of the holder.

"Roosevelt's next haul for the International Bankers was the reduction in the pay of all Federal employees.

"Next in order are the veterans of all wars, many of whom are aged and inform, and other sick and disabled. These men had their lives adjusted for them by acts of Congress determining the amounts of the pensions, and, while it is meant that every citizen should sacrifice himself for the good of the United States, I see no reason why those poor people, these aged Civil War Veterans and war widows and half-starved veterans of the World War, should be compelled to give up their pensions for the financial benefit of the International vultures who have looted the Treasury, bankrupted the country and traitorously delivered the United States to a foreign foe.

"There are many ways of raising revenue that are better than that barbaric act of injustice.

"Why not collect from the Fed the amount they owe the U.S. Treasury in interest on all the Fed currency they have taken from the Government? That would put billions of dollars into the U.S. Treasury.

"If FDR is as honest as he pretends to be, he will have that done immediately. And in addition, why not compel the Fed to disclose their profits and to pay the Government its share?

"Until this is done, it is rank dishonesty to talk of maintaining the credit of the U.S. Government. "My own salary as a member of Congress has been reduced, and while I am willing to give my part of it that has been taken away from me to the U.S. Government, I regret that the U.S. has suffered itself to be brought so low by the vultures and crooks who are operating the roulette wheels and faro tables in the Fed, that is now obliged to throw itself on the mercy of its legislators and charwomen, its clerks, and it poor pensioners and to take money out of our pockets to make good the defalcations of the International Bankers who were placed in control of the Treasury and given the monopoly of U.S. Currency by the misbegotten Fed. "I am well aware that the International Bankers who drive up to the door of the United States Treasury in their limousines, look down with scorn upon members of Congress because we work for so little, while they draw millions a year. The difference is that we earn, or try to earn, what we get- and they steal the greater part of their takings.


Enemies of the People They Rob

"I do not like to see vivisections performed on human beings. I do not like to see the American people used for experimental purposes by the credit masters of the United States. They predicted among themselves that they would be able to produce a condition here in which American citizens would be completely humbled and left starving and penniless in the streets.

"The fact that they made that assertion while they were fomenting their conspiracy against the United States that they like to see a human being, especially an American, stumbling from hunger when he walks. "Something should be done about it, they say. Five-cent meals, or something! "But FDR will not permit the House of Representatives to investigate the condition of the Fed. FDR will not do that. He has certain International Bankers to serve. They not look to him as the man Higher Up who will protect them from the just wrath of an outraged people.

"The International Bankers have always hated our pensioners. A man with a small pension is a ward of the Government. He is not dependent upon them for a salary or wages. They cannot control him. They do not like him. It gave them great pleasure, therefore, to slash the veterans.

"But FDR will never do anything to embarrass his financial supporters. He will cover up the crimes of the Fed.

"Before he was elected, Mr. Roosevelt advocated a return to the earlier practices of the Fed, thus admitting its corruptness. The Democratic platform advocated a change in the personnel of the Fed. These were campaign bait. As a prominent Democrat lately remarked to me; "There is no new deal. The same old crowd is in control."

"The claims of foreign creditors of the Fed have no validity in law. The foreign creditors were the receivers- and the willing receivers- of stolen goods! They have received through their banking fences immense amounts of currency, and that currency was unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the Fed.

"England discovered the irregularities of the Fed quite early in its operations and through fear, apparently, the Fed have for years suffered themselves to be blackmailed and dragooning England to share in the business of the Fed. "The Fed have unlawfully taken many millions of dollars of the public credit of the United States and have given it to foreign sellers on the security of the Debt paper of foreign buyers in purely foreign transactions, and when the foreign buyers refused to meet their obligations and the Fed saw no honest way of getting the stolen goods back into their possession, they decided by control of the executive to make the American people pay their losses!

Conspiracy of War Debts

"They likewise entered into a conspiracy to deprive the people of the U.S. of their title to the war debts and not being able to do that in the way they intended, they are now engaged in an effort to debase the American dollar so that foreign governments will have their debts to this country cut in two, and then by means of other vicious underhanded arrangements, they propose to remit the remainder.

"So far as the U.S. is concerned, the gambling counters have no legal standing. The U.S. Treasury cannot be compelled to make good the gambling ventures of the corrupt and dishonest Fed. Still less should the bank deposits of the U.S. be used for that purpose. Still less should the national currency have been made irredeemable in gold so that the gold which was massed and stored to redeem the currency for American citizens may be used to pay the gambling debts of the Fed for England's benefit. "The American people should have their gold in their own possession where it cannot be held under secret agreement for any foreign control bank, or world bank, or foreign nation. Our own citizens have the prior claim to it. The paper [money men] have in their possession deserves redemption far more than U.S. currency and credit which was stolen from the U.S. Treasury and bootlegged abroad.

"Why should the foreigners be made preferred creditors of the bankrupt U.S.? Why should the U.S. be treated as bankrupt at all? This Government has immense sums due it from the Fed. The directors of these institutions are men of great wealth. Why should the guilty escape the consequences of their misdeeds? Why should the people of these U.S. surrender the value of their gold bank deposits to pay off the gambling debts of these bankers? Why should Roosevelt promise foreigners that the U.S. will play the part of a good neighbor, 'meeting its obligations'?

"Let the Fed meet their own obligations.

"Every member of the Fed should be compelled to disgorge, and every acceptance banker and every discount corporation which has made illegal profits by means of public credit unlawfully bootlegged out of the U.S. Treasury and hired out by the crooks and vultures of the Fed should be compelled to disgorge.


Federal Reserve Pays No Taxes

"Gambling debts due to foreign receivers of stolen goods should not be paid by sacrificing our title to our war debts, the assets of the U.S. Treasury- which belong to all the people of the U.S. and which it is our duty to preserve inviolate in the people's treasury.

"The U.S. Treasury cannot be made liable for them. The Fed currency must be redeemed by the Fed banks or else these Fed banks must be liquidated.

"We know from assertions made here by the Hon. John N. Garner, Vice-President of the U.S. that there is a condition in the [United States such] would cause American citizens, if they knew what it was, to lose all confidence in their government.

"That is a condition that Roosevelt will not have investigated. He has brought with him from Wall Street, James Warburg, the son of Paul M. Warburg. Mr. Warburg, alien born, and the son of an alien who did not become naturalized here until several years after this Warburg's birth, is a son of a former partner of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., a grandson of another partner, a nephew of a former partner, and a nephew of a present partner.

"He holds no office in our Government, but I am told that he is in daily attendance at the Treasury, and that he has private quarters there! In other words, Mr. Chairman, Kuhn, Loeb and Company now has control and occupy the U.S. Treasury.

Preferred Treatment for Foreigners

"The text of the Executive order which seems to place an embargo on shipments of gold permits the Secretary of the Treasury, a former director of the corrupt, to issue licenses at his discretion for the export of gold coin, or bullion, earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign government or foreign central bank for international settlement. Now, Mr. Chairman, if gold held in trust for those foreign institutions may be sent to them, I see no reason why gold held in trust for American as evidenced by their gold certificates and other currency issued by the U.S. Government should not be paid to them. "I think that American citizens should be entitled to treatment at least as good as that which the person is extending to foreign governments, foreign central banks, and the bank of International Settlements. I think a veteran of the world war, with a $20.00 gold certificate, is at least as much entitled to receive his own gold for it, as any international banker in the city of New York or London.

"By the terms of this executive order, gold may be exported if it is actually required, for the fulfillment of any contract entered into prior to the date of this order by an applicant who, in obedience to the executive order of April 5, 1933, has delivered gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates. "This means that gold may be exported to pay the obligations abroad of the Fed which were incurred prior to the date of the order, namely, April 20, 1933.

"If a European Bank should send 100,000,000 dollars in Fed currency to a bank in this country for redemption, that bank could easily ship gold to Europe in exchange for that currency. Such Fed currency would represent "contracts" entered into prior to the date of the order. If the Bank of International Settlements or any other foreign bank holding any of the present gambling debt paper of the Fed should draw a draft for the settlement of such obligation, gold would be shopped to them because the debt contract would have been entered into prior to the date of order.

Crimes and Criminals

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of constitutional privilege.

"Whereas, I charge. . .Eugene Meyer, Roy A. Young, Edmund Platt, Eugene B. Black, Adolph Casper Miller, Charles S. Hamlin, George R. James, Andrew W. Mellon, Ogden L. Mills, William H. Woo W. Poole, J.F.T. O'Connor, members of the Federal Reserve Board; F. H. Curtis, J.H. Chane, R.L. Austin, George De Camp, L.B. Williams, W.W. Hoxton, Oscar Newton, E.M. Stevens, J.S. Wood, J.N. Payton, M.L. McClure, C.C. Walsh, Isaac B. Newton, Federal Reserve Agents, jointly and severally, with violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and whereas I charge them with having taken funds from the U.S Treasury which were not appropriated by the Congress of the United States, and I charge them with having unlawfully taken over $80,000,000,000 from the U.S. Government in the year 1928, the said unlawful taking consisting of the unlawful creation of claims against the U.S. Treasury to the extent of over $80,000,000,000 in the year 1928; and I charge them with similar thefts committed in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, and in years previous to 1928, amounting to billions of dollars; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally with having unlawfully created claims against the U.S. Treasury by unlawfully placing U.S. Government credit in specific amounts to the credit of foreign governments and foreign central banks of issue; private interests and commercial and private banks of the U.S. and foreign countries, and branches of foreign banks doing business in the U.S., to the extent of billions of dollars; and with having made unlawful contracts in the name of the U.S. Government and the U.S. Treasury; and with having made false entries on books of account; and

"Whereas I charge them jointly and severally, with having taken Fed Notes from the U.S. Treasury and with having put Fed Notes into circulation without obeying the mandatory provision of the Fed Act which requires the Fed Board to fix an interest rate on all issues of Fed Notes supplied to Fed Banks, the interest resulting therefrom to be paid by the Fed Banks to the government of the U.S. for the use of the Fed Notes, and I charge them of having defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S. of billions of dollars by the commission of this crime, and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having purchased U.S. Government securities with U.S. Government credit unlawfully taken and with having sold the said U.S. Government securities back to the people of the U.S. for gold or gold values and with having again purchased U.S. Government securities with U.S. Government credit unlawfully taken and with having again sold the said U.S. Government security for gold or gold values, and I charge them with having defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S. by this rotary process; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully negotiated U.S. Government securities, upon which the Government liability was extinguished, as collateral security for Fed Notes and with having substituted such securities for gold which was being held as collateral security for Fed Notes, and with having by the process defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S., and I charge them with the theft of all the gold and currency they obtained by this process; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully issued Fed currency on false, worthless and fictitious acceptances and other circulating evidence of debt, and with having made unlawful advances of Fed currency, and with having unlawfully permitted renewals of acceptances and renewals of other circulating evidences of debt, and with having permitted acceptance bankers and discount dealer corporations and other private bankers to violate the banking laws of the U.S.; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired to have evidences of debt to the extent of $1,000,000,000 artificially created at the end of February, 1933, and early in March 1933, and with having made unlawful issues and advances of Fed currency on the security of said artificially created evidences of debt for a sinister purpose, and with having assisted in the execution of said sinister purpose; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having brought about the repudiation of the currency obligations of the Fed Banks to the people of the U.S. and with having conspired to obtain a release for the Fed Board and the Fed Banks from their contractual liability to redeem all Fed currency in gold or lawful money at the Fed Bank and with having defrauded the holders of Fed currency, and with having conspired to have the debts and losses of the Fed Board and the Fed Banks unlawfully transferred to the Government and the people of the U.S., and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully substituted Fed currency and other irredeemable paper currency for gold in the hands of the people after the decision to repudiate the Fed currency and the national currency was made known to them, and with thus having obtained money under false pretenses; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having brought about a repudiation of the notes of the U.S. in order that the gold value of the said currency might be given to private interests, foreign governments, foreign central banks of issues, and the Bank of International Settlements, and the people of the U.S. to be left without gold or lawful money and with no currency other that a paper currency irredeemable in gold, and I charge them with having done this for the benefit of private interests, foreign governments, foreign central banks of issue, and the bank of International Settlements; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with conniving with the Edge Law banks, and other Edge Law institutions, accepting banks, and discount corporations, foreign central banks of issue, foreign commercial banks, foreign corporations, and foreign individuals with funds unlawfully taken from the U.S. Treasury; and I charge them with having unlawfully permitted and made possible 'new financing' for foreigners at the expense of the U.S. Treasury to the extent of billions of dollars and with having unlawfully permitted and made possible the bringing into the United States of immense quantities of foreign securities, created in foreign countries for export to the U.S. and with having unlawfully permitted the said foreign securities to be imported into the U.S. instead of gold, which was lawfully due to the U.S. on trade balances and otherwise, and with having lawfully permitted and facilitated the sale of the said foreign securities in the U.S., and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully exported U.S. coins and currency for a sinister purpose, and with having deprived the people of the U.S. of their lawful medium of exchange, and I charge them with having arbitrarily and unlawfully reduced the amount of money and currency in circulation in the U.S. to the lowest rate per capita in the history of the Government, so that the great mass of the people have been left without a sufficient medium of exchange, and I charge them with concealment and evasion in refusing to make known the amount of U.S. money in coins and paper currency exported and the amount remaining in the U.S. as a result of which refusal the Congress of the U.S. is unable to ascertain where the U.S. coins and issues of currency are at the present time, and what amount of U.S. currency is now held abroad; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having arbitrarily and unlawfully raised and lowered the rates of money and with having arbitrarily increased and diminished the volume of currency in circulation for the benefit of private interests at the expense of the Government and the people of the U.S. and with having unlawfully manipulated money rates, wages, salaries and property values both real and personal, in the U.S. by unlawful operations in the open discount market and by resale and repurchase agreements unsanctioned by law, and

"Whereas I charge them jointly and severally, with having brought about the decline in prices on the New York Stock Exchange and other exchanges in October, 1929, by unlawful manipulation of money rates and the volume of U.S. money and currency in circulation: by theft of funds from the U.S. Treasury by gambling in acceptances and U.S. Government securities; by service rendered to foreign and domestic speculators and politicians, and by unlawful sale of U.S. gold reserves abroad, and

"Whereas the unconstitutional inflation law imbedded in the so-called Farm Relief Act by which the Fed Banks are given permission to buy U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and to drew forth currency from the people's Treasury to the extent of $3,000,000,000 is likely to result in connivance on the part of said accused with others in the purchase by the Fed of the U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 with U.S. Government's own credit unlawfully taken, it being obvious that the Fed do no not intend to pay anything of value to the U.S. Government for the said U.S. Government securities no provision for payment in gold or lawful money appearing in the so-called Farm Relief bill- and the U.S. Government will thus be placed in a position of conferring a gift of $3,000,000,000 in the U.S. Government securities on the Fed to enable them to pay more on their bad debts to foreign governments, foreign central banks of issue, private interests, and private and commercial banks, both foreign and domestic, and the Bank of International Settlements, and

"Whereas the U.S. Government will thus go into debt to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and will then have an additional claim of $3,000,000,000 in currency unlawfully created against it and whereas no private interest should be permitted to buy U.S. Government securities with the Government's own credit unlawfully taken and whereas currency should not be issued for the benefit of said private interest or any interests on U.S. Government securities so acquired, and whereas it has been publicly stated and not denied that the inflation amendment of the Farm Relief Act is the matter of benefit which was secured by Ramsey MacDonald, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, upon the occasion of his latest visit to the U.S. Treasury, and whereas there is grave danger that the accused will employ the provision creating U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and three millions in currency to be issuable thereupon for the benefit of themselves and their foreign principals, and that they will convert the currency so obtained to the uses of Great Britain by secret arrangements with the Bank of England of which they are the agents, and for which they maintain an account and perform services at the expense of the U.S. Treasury, and that they will likewise confer benefits upon the Bank of International Settlements for which they maintain an account and perform services at the expense of the U.S. Treasury; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having concealed the insolvency of the Fed and with having failed to report the insolvency of the Fed to the Congress and with having conspired to have the said insolvent institutions continue in operation, and with having permitted the said insolvent institutions to receive U.S. Government funds and other deposits, and with having permitted them to exercise control over the gold reserves of the U.S. and with having permitted them to transfer upward of $100,000,000,000 of their debts and losses to the general public and the Government of the U.S., and with having permitted foreign debts of the Fed to be paid with the property, the savings, the wages, and the salaries of the people of the U.S. and with the farms and the homes of the American people, and whereas I charge them with forcing the bad debts of the Fed upon the general public covertly and dishonestly and and with taking the general wealth and savings of the people of the U.S. under false pretenses, to pay the debts of the Fed to foreigners; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with violations of the Fed Act and other laws; with maladministration of the h evasions of the Fed Law and other laws; and with having unlawfully failed to report violations of law on the part of the Fed Banks which, if known, would have caused the Fed Banks to lose their charters, and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with failure to protect and maintain the gold reserves and the gold stock and gold coinage of the U.S. and with having sold the gold reserves of the U.S to foreign Governments, foreign central banks of issue, foreign commercial and private banks, and other foreign institutions and individuals at a profit to themselves, and I charge them with having sold gold reserves of the U.S. so that between 1924 and 1928 the U.S. gained no gold on net account but suffered a decline in its percentage of central gold reserves from the 45.9 percent in 1924 to 37.5 percent in 1928 notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. had a favorable balance of trade throughout that period, and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired to concentrate U.S. Government securities and thus the national debt of the U.S. in the hands of foreigners and international money lenders and with having conspired to transfer to foreigners and international money lenders title to and control of the financial resources of the U.S.; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having fictitiously paid installments on the national debt with Government credit unlawfully taken; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the loss of the U.S. Government funds entrusted to their care; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having destroyed independent banks in the U.S. and with having thereby caused losses amounting to billions of dollars to the said banks, and to the general public of the U.S., and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the failure to furnish true reports of the business operations and the true conditions of the Fed to the Congress and the people, and having furnished false and misleading reports to the congress of the U.S., and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having published false and misleading propaganda intended to deceive the American people and to cause the U.S. to lose its independence; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with unlawfully allowing Great Britain to share in the profits of the Fed at the expense of the Government and the people of the U.S.; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having entered into secret agreements and illegal transactions with Montague Norman, Governor of the Bank of England; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with swindling the U.S. Treasury and the people of the U.S. in pretending to have received payment from Great Britain of the amount due on the British ware debt to the U.S. in December, 1932; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired with their foreign principals and others to defraud the U.S. Government and to prevent the people of the U.S. from receiving payment of the war debts due to the U.S. from foreign nations; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having robbed the U.S Government and the people of the U.S. by their theft and sale of the gold reserves of the U.S. and other unlawful transactions created a deficit in the U.S. Treasury, which has necessitated to a large extent the destruction of our national defense and the reduction of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy and other branches of the national defense; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, of having reduced the U.S. from a first class power to one that is dependent, and with having reduced the U.S. from a rich and powerful nation to one that is internationally poor; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the crime of having treasonable conspired and acted against the peace and security of the U.S. and with having treasonable conspired to destroy constitutiona

[moeen yaseen]

CRIMES AND CRIMINALS
http://www.federal-reserve.net/part2.htm

[b][color=red]"Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of constitutional privilege.

"Whereas, I charge. . .Eugene Meyer, Roy A. Young, Edmund Platt, Eugene B. Black, Adolph Casper Miller, Charles S. Hamlin, George R. James, Andrew W. Mellon, Ogden L. Mills, William H. Woo W. Poole, J.F.T. O'Connor, members of the Federal Reserve Board; F. H. Curtis, J.H. Chane, R.L. Austin, George De Camp, L.B. Williams, W.W. Hoxton, Oscar Newton, E.M. Stevens, J.S. Wood, J.N. Payton, M.L. McClure, C.C. Walsh, Isaac B. Newton, Federal Reserve Agents, jointly and severally, with violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and whereas I charge them with having taken funds from the U.S Treasury which were not appropriated by the Congress of the United States, and I charge them with having unlawfully taken over $80,000,000,000 from the U.S. Government in the year 1928, the said unlawful taking consisting of the unlawful creation of claims against the U.S. Treasury to the extent of over $80,000,000,000 in the year 1928; and I charge them with similar thefts committed in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, and in years previous to 1928, amounting to billions of dollars; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally with having unlawfully created claims against the U.S. Treasury by unlawfully placing U.S. Government credit in specific amounts to the credit of foreign governments and foreign central banks of issue; private interests and commercial and private banks of the U.S. and foreign countries, and branches of foreign banks doing business in the U.S., to the extent of billions of dollars; and with having made unlawful contracts in the name of the U.S. Government and the U.S. Treasury; and with having made false entries on books of account; and

"Whereas I charge them jointly and severally, with having taken Fed Notes from the U.S. Treasury and with having put Fed Notes into circulation without obeying the mandatory provision of the Fed Act which requires the Fed Board to fix an interest rate on all issues of Fed Notes supplied to Fed Banks, the interest resulting therefrom to be paid by the Fed Banks to the government of the U.S. for the use of the Fed Notes, and I charge them of having defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S. of billions of dollars by the commission of this crime, and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having purchased U.S. Government securities with U.S. Government credit unlawfully taken and with having sold the said U.S. Government securities back to the people of the U.S. for gold or gold values and with having again purchased U.S. Government securities with U.S. Government credit unlawfully taken and with having again sold the said U.S. Government security for gold or gold values, and I charge them with having defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S. by this rotary process; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully negotiated U.S. Government securities, upon which the Government liability was extinguished, as collateral security for Fed Notes and with having substituted such securities for gold which was being held as collateral security for Fed Notes, and with having by the process defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S., and I charge them with the theft of all the gold and currency they obtained by this process; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully issued Fed currency on false, worthless and fictitious acceptances and other circulating evidence of debt, and with having made unlawful advances of Fed currency, and with having unlawfully permitted renewals of acceptances and renewals of other circulating evidences of debt, and with having permitted acceptance bankers and discount dealer corporations and other private bankers to violate the banking laws of the U.S.; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired to have evidences of debt to the extent of $1,000,000,000 artificially created at the end of February, 1933, and early in March 1933, and with having made unlawful issues and advances of Fed currency on the security of said artificially created evidences of debt for a sinister purpose, and with having assisted in the execution of said sinister purpose; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having brought about the repudiation of the currency obligations of the Fed Banks to the people of the U.S. and with having conspired to obtain a release for the Fed Board and the Fed Banks from their contractual liability to redeem all Fed currency in gold or lawful money at the Fed Bank and with having defrauded the holders of Fed currency, and with having conspired to have the debts and losses of the Fed Board and the Fed Banks unlawfully transferred to the Government and the people of the U.S., and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully substituted Fed currency and other irredeemable paper currency for gold in the hands of the people after the decision to repudiate the Fed currency and the national currency was made known to them, and with thus having obtained money under false pretenses; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having brought about a repudiation of the notes of the U.S. in order that the gold value of the said currency might be given to private interests, foreign governments, foreign central banks of issues, and the Bank of International Settlements, and the people of the U.S. to be left without gold or lawful money and with no currency other that a paper currency irredeemable in gold, and I charge them with having done this for the benefit of private interests, foreign governments, foreign central banks of issue, and the bank of International Settlements; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with conniving with the Edge Law banks, and other Edge Law institutions, accepting banks, and discount corporations, foreign central banks of issue, foreign commercial banks, foreign corporations, and foreign individuals with funds unlawfully taken from the U.S. Treasury; and I charge them with having unlawfully permitted and made possible 'new financing' for foreigners at the expense of the U.S. Treasury to the extent of billions of dollars and with having unlawfully permitted and made possible the bringing into the United States of immense quantities of foreign securities, created in foreign countries for export to the U.S. and with having unlawfully permitted the said foreign securities to be imported into the U.S. instead of gold, which was lawfully due to the U.S. on trade balances and otherwise, and with having lawfully permitted and facilitated the sale of the said foreign securities in the U.S., and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully exported U.S. coins and currency for a sinister purpose, and with having deprived the people of the U.S. of their lawful medium of exchange, and I charge them with having arbitrarily and unlawfully reduced the amount of money and currency in circulation in the U.S. to the lowest rate per capita in the history of the Government, so that the great mass of the people have been left without a sufficient medium of exchange, and I charge them with concealment and evasion in refusing to make known the amount of U.S. money in coins and paper currency exported and the amount remaining in the U.S. as a result of which refusal the Congress of the U.S. is unable to ascertain where the U.S. coins and issues of currency are at the present time, and what amount of U.S. currency is now held abroad; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having arbitrarily and unlawfully raised and lowered the rates of money and with having arbitrarily increased and diminished the volume of currency in circulation for the benefit of private interests at the expense of the Government and the people of the U.S. and with having unlawfully manipulated money rates, wages, salaries and property values both real and personal, in the U.S. by unlawful operations in the open discount market and by resale and repurchase agreements unsanctioned by law, and

"Whereas I charge them jointly and severally, with having brought about the decline in prices on the New York Stock Exchange and other exchanges in October, 1929, by unlawful manipulation of money rates and the volume of U.S. money and currency in circulation: by theft of funds from the U.S. Treasury by gambling in acceptances and U.S. Government securities; by service rendered to foreign and domestic speculators and politicians, and by unlawful sale of U.S. gold reserves abroad, and

"Whereas the unconstitutional inflation law imbedded in the so-called Farm Relief Act by which the Fed Banks are given permission to buy U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and to drew forth currency from the people's Treasury to the extent of $3,000,000,000 is likely to result in connivance on the part of said accused with others in the purchase by the Fed of the U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 with U.S. Government's own credit unlawfully taken, it being obvious that the Fed do no not intend to pay anything of value to the U.S. Government for the said U.S. Government securities no provision for payment in gold or lawful money appearing in the so-called Farm Relief bill- and the U.S. Government will thus be placed in a position of conferring a gift of $3,000,000,000 in the U.S. Government securities on the Fed to enable them to pay more on their bad debts to foreign governments, foreign central banks of issue, private interests, and private and commercial banks, both foreign and domestic, and the Bank of International Settlements, and

"Whereas the U.S. Government will thus go into debt to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and will then have an additional claim of $3,000,000,000 in currency unlawfully created against it and whereas no private interest should be permitted to buy U.S. Government securities with the Government's own credit unlawfully taken and whereas currency should not be issued for the benefit of said private interest or any interests on U.S. Government securities so acquired, and whereas it has been publicly stated and not denied that the inflation amendment of the Farm Relief Act is the matter of benefit which was secured by Ramsey MacDonald, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, upon the occasion of his latest visit to the U.S. Treasury, and whereas there is grave danger that the accused will employ the provision creating U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and three millions in currency to be issuable thereupon for the benefit of themselves and their foreign principals, and that they will convert the currency so obtained to the uses of Great Britain by secret arrangements with the Bank of England of which they are the agents, and for which they maintain an account and perform services at the expense of the U.S. Treasury, and that they will likewise confer benefits upon the Bank of International Settlements for which they maintain an account and perform services at the expense of the U.S. Treasury; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having concealed the insolvency of the Fed and with having failed to report the insolvency of the Fed to the Congress and with having conspired to have the said insolvent institutions continue in operation, and with having permitted the said insolvent institutions to receive U.S. Government funds and other deposits, and with having permitted them to exercise control over the gold reserves of the U.S. and with having permitted them to transfer upward of $100,000,000,000 of their debts and losses to the general public and the Government of the U.S., and with having permitted foreign debts of the Fed to be paid with the property, the savings, the wages, and the salaries of the people of the U.S. and with the farms and the homes of the American people, and whereas I charge them with forcing the bad debts of the Fed upon the general public covertly and dishonestly and and with taking the general wealth and savings of the people of the U.S. under false pretenses, to pay the debts of the Fed to foreigners; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with violations of the Fed Act and other laws; with maladministration of the h evasions of the Fed Law and other laws; and with having unlawfully failed to report violations of law on the part of the Fed Banks which, if known, would have caused the Fed Banks to lose their charters, and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with failure to protect and maintain the gold reserves and the gold stock and gold coinage of the U.S. and with having sold the gold reserves of the U.S to foreign Governments, foreign central banks of issue, foreign commercial and private banks, and other foreign institutions and individuals at a profit to themselves, and I charge them with having sold gold reserves of the U.S. so that between 1924 and 1928 the U.S. gained no gold on net account but suffered a decline in its percentage of central gold reserves from the 45.9 percent in 1924 to 37.5 percent in 1928 notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. had a favorable balance of trade throughout that period, and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired to concentrate U.S. Government securities and thus the national debt of the U.S. in the hands of foreigners and international money lenders and with having conspired to transfer to foreigners and international money lenders title to and control of the financial resources of the U.S.; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having fictitiously paid installments on the national debt with Government credit unlawfully taken; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the loss of the U.S. Government funds entrusted to their care; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having destroyed independent banks in the U.S. and with having thereby caused losses amounting to billions of dollars to the said banks, and to the general public of the U.S., and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the failure to furnish true reports of the business operations and the true conditions of the Fed to the Congress and the people, and having furnished false and misleading reports to the congress of the U.S., and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having published false and misleading propaganda intended to deceive the American people and to cause the U.S. to lose its independence; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with unlawfully allowing Great Britain to share in the profits of the Fed at the expense of the Government and the people of the U.S.; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having entered into secret agreements and illegal transactions with Montague Norman, Governor of the Bank of England; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with swindling the U.S. Treasury and the people of the U.S. in pretending to have received payment from Great Britain of the amount due on the British ware debt to the U.S. in December, 1932; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired with their foreign principals and others to defraud the U.S. Government and to prevent the people of the U.S. from receiving payment of the war debts due to the U.S. from foreign nations; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having robbed the U.S Government and the people of the U.S. by their theft and sale of the gold reserves of the U.S. and other unlawful transactions created a deficit in the U.S. Treasury, which has necessitated to a large extent the destruction of our national defense and the reduction of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy and other branches of the national defense; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, of having reduced the U.S. from a first class power to one that is dependent, and with having reduced the U.S. from a rich and powerful nation to one that is internationally poor; and

"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the crime of having treasonable conspired and acted against the peace and security of the U.S. and with having treasonable conspired to destroy constitutional Government in the U.S.

"Resolve, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized and directed as a whole or by subcommittee, to investigate the official conduct of the Fed agents to determine whether, in the opinion of the said committee, they have been guilty of any high crime or misdemeanor which in the contemplation the Constitution requires the interposition of the Constitutional powers of the House. Such Committee shall report its finding to the House, together with such resolution or resolutions of impeachment or other recommendations as it deems proper.

"For the purpose of this resolution the Committee is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times and places in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed or has adjourned, to hold such clerical, stenographic, and other assistants, to require of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, to take such testimony, to have such printing and binding done, and to make such expenditures as it deems necessary."

After some discussion and upon the motion of Mr. Byrns, the resolution and charge was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.




"Attacks on McFadden's Life Reported"

Commenting on Former Congressman Louis T. McFaddens's "heart-failure sudden-death" on Oct. 3, 1936, after a "dose" of "intestinal flu," "Pelley's Weekly" of Oct. 14 said:


Now that this sterling American patriot has made the Passing, it can be revealed that not long after his public utterance against the encroaching powers of Judah, it became known among his intimates that he had suffered two attacks against his life. The first attack came in the form of two revolver shots fired at him from ambush as he was alighting from a cab in front of one of the Capital hotels. Fortunately both shots missed him, the bullets burying themselves in the structure of the cab.
"He became violently ill after partaking of food at a political banquet at Washington. His life was only saved from what was subsequently announced as a poisoning by the presence of a physician friend at the banquet, who at once procured a stomach pump and subjected the Congressman to emergency treatment."

Robert Edward Edmondson (Publicist-Economist)


President Andrew Jackson stated in reference to the bankers at the state of his administration:

"You are a den of vipers and thieves.
I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out."

[moeen yaseen]

MEET BU$H's WORLD BANK NOMINEE
PNAC Member, Bilderberg Attendee, CFR Member, Trilateral Commission Member, NAFTA Architect and Enron Advisor
Robert Zoellick is a Globalist all rounder

Steve Watson
http://infowars.net/articles/may2007/310507Zoellick.htm

President Bush's reaction to the loss of close ally, ultra globalist and PNAC war hawk Paul Wolfowitz as President of the World Bank has been to nominate one of his best friends, closest allies and ultra globalist PNAC war hawks, Robert Zoellick for the position.

Zoellick is the Crème de la Crème of Washington's elite. His wikipedia entry reveals him to be a globalist all rounder who has worked his way into the upper echelons of every shadowy body and organisation of thinkers and power-brokers you can think of.

Like Wolfowitz, Zoellick is a member of the hawkish neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) who pushed hard to invoke the notion that evil foreign enemies who hated America should be preemptively dealt with.

Zoellick and PNAC famously wrote a letter to former President Clinton asking him to go to war with Iraq in 1998, and later in 2000 predicted a "catastrophic and catalyzing New Pearl Harbor like event" would help shape U.S. military interventionism in the middle east and allow for global domination for the next century.

Zoellick is also a member of the unelected policy makers and rampant globalization advocate groups the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. He is also a regular at the powerful global policy defining Bilderberg Group meetings, having attended in 1991, 2003 and 2006 and currently attending the 2007 Bilderberg meeting which begins today in Istanbul, Turkey.

Zoellick has served under Bush Sr as White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President and also worked under Bush family lawyer and big oil playboy James Baker during his tenure as Secretary of State.

While serving in the Bush Sr. administration, Zoellick was also instrumental in sealing the NAFTA accord with Mexico, serving as a special assistant to Bush in his relations with President Salinas of Mexico who had serious reservations on the deal but was eventually strong armed into acceptance by constant pressure from Zoellick.

He was also instrumental in promoting the Central American Free Trade Agreement as U.S. Trade Representative between 2001 and 2005 and has consistently pushed the "free trade" agenda (i.e., legalized robbery and looting and the monopolization of the global economy).

Zoellick also played a key role in the U.S.-W.T.O. dispute against the European Union over genetically modified foods. The move sought to force genetically modified crops and food on the EU, which would not otherwise accept them, or be slow to do so.

Zoellick also has key ties with the corporate elite having serving as an executive at Goldman Sachs and also as a paid consultant on the Enron advisory board, owning Enron shares worth between $15,000 and $50,000, which he sold before the energy giant went bankrupt. Zoellick also served on the boards of such corporations as Alliance Capital, Jones Intercable, Said Holdings, and the Precursor Group.

Currently Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick is expected to be ratified by the Bank's board as the new President later this month after the formal nomination puppet theatre show procedure ends.

That's that little problem over at the World Bank solved for the globalists then.

[moeen yaseen]

FUNDING THE IRAQ OCCUPATION WITHOUT TIMELINES OR DEADLINES IS A TRAVESTY

Reid & Pelosi: traitors and turncoats to our troops, the voters, the constitution

Rob Kezelis
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5757

In the face of a petulant, pig-headed, pertinacious President, for weeks both Reid and Pelosi claimed the moral high ground. They promised to insist on timelines for the withdrawal of our troops, currently stuck like fish in a barrel. Let's review what is happening in today's IraqNam. General David Howell Petraeus was appointed to take over command after four years of lies and misreporting, after four years of worsening conditions and growing turmoil and death. His prior success in a small region was his biggest selling point. Anyone who could actually make friends and earn the trust of several factions, despite the brain-damaged policies of Bremer, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Feith, Wolfowitz, had to have something going for him. Congress approved his promotion by an overwhelming majority.

Three years ago, President Bush called for the first surge (a rose by any other name still has thorns). Six months later, he increased troops again, (many thorns), and a year ago, there was a fourth, perhaps fifth surge. Each surge had a minor, temporary impact. For example, people forget that we re-invaded Baghdad no less than three times, AFTER we invaded the very first time. Each time resulted in a slight lowering of the kidnapping, death and torture rates, while there was a noticeable increase in violence and death outside of the capital.

In December, as violence levels rose across the country of 24,000,000 disenchanted, suffering, unhappy, occupied people, Bush proposed his latest surge as a Final Solution. Despite generals and experts claiming that 20,000 troops would have little or no impact, Bush and his spin team painted his many critics as being unpatriotic, intent on losing and more intent on playing political games than doing the right thing. As usual, his oration was filled with half-truths, half-assed cliches, and half-brained arguments.

Were it not for the blogs, the liberals, the moderates – the true patriots, the Democratic majority would have caved in back then. Instead, the hue and cry from the grassroots caused the Democratic leaders to take a step back and reconsider their standard, spineless, yellow-belly response to a power-hungry, fascist White House. Even though Bush got his surge, the Democrats seemed willing to stand up for the first time in six years.

We learned that the 20,000 quickly grew to 29,000. Then we learned that 50,000 additional support troops were needed to supply, arm and support the new targets. This week we learned that another 50,000 might be necessary and that the military plans to stay in Iraq for at least 10 years.

So much for a Final Solution, unless you happen to be one of the 386 dead US soldiers, including 15 over the weekend, 2 on Monday and 9 more wasted lives today.

So what happened to those brave, smart, politically savvy Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Where was the long missing spine that 70% of the US population wants to see in action? How will these two bravely stand up to an abusive, misguided and arrogant administration that lies as a matter of practice, and deceives out of habit? And what sort of timelines, deadlines and demands for withdrawal would the pass, in the face of a second presidential veto?

“For heaven's sake, look where we've come. It's a lot more than the president ever expected he'd have to agree to,” chirped the brave Harry Reid, explaining why he and Pelosi caved in like a poorly regulated and uninspected Virginia coal mine.

You are right, Harry. He did not expect you to cave in so quickly, removing the best chance our soldiers had.

Just last week, that center of integrity, Nancy Pelosi promised that timelines were an integral part of the funding package. Yesterday, she cravenly explained that she might not support the entire bill, sans timelines, yet the reality is that she stood up to the president about as strongly as a mature, white dandelion bud to a tornado.

But, they argue, WE HAVE STRONG BENCHMARKS, SIXTEEN OF THEM! Yeah, except by the bill's own language, the president can waive each one of them on a whim. Some benchmark.

There is just one way to describe the actions of Pelosi and Reid. Turncoat comes to mind. Traitor to our troops also springs forth. Negligent, lacking, and dilatory in upholding their oath to the constitution might work, too. Your choice.

The problem with Harry and Nancy meeting George on his terms is that 70% of America has been figuratively stabbed in the back. Instead of removing the funding, saving our troops by getting them home, and leaving a quagmire of our own making, the Democrat Party leadership has just signed on as co-owners of Bush's war. From this day forward, every US death is as much on their hands as the president's. From now on, every drop of blood spilled by our boys and girls is a stain on the Democratic leadership as much as on this administration.

Shame seems to be a missing emotion inside the Bloatway. Must be something in the water. It is time for a voters' revolution. Unless and until the will of the people is expressed by our elected officials, it is our duty to work on replacing the miscreants, the turncoats, the persons responsible for getting our soldiers killed and maimed.

[moeen yaseen]

WHY I AM ASHAMED TO BE AN AMERICAN

Doug Soderstrom
"Thomas Paine's Corner" -- -

Having grown up in a small town in Central Kansas I was taught to believe that my country, the United States of America, was a land committed to justice and peace, a nation that one could count on to do the right thing, a country of civilized folks who had but one thing in mind…….. that of doing the will of God. I also began to realize that there is nothing wrong with feeling ashamed for having done something wrong, that such a response is a rather natural consequence of having violated one’s conscience, a voice from deep within that is no doubt a reliable guide for how a man (or woman) of true integrity ought to live his (or her) life. However, for those who seem to lack the capacity to feel ashamed, one can only wonder what must be wrong with them.

As I began to emerge into manhood there was an ever, ongoing flow of hints, subtle suggestions that things were not as I had been told. However, it wasn’t until our country vented its awful wrath upon a post 9-11 world that I began to realize that I had been misled. At that point I had no choice but to take a long, hard look at the history of our country, a thorough examination of what turned out to be a past drenched in the blood of our foes, foreign lands raped of their natural resources, democratically elected governments overthrown, an outrageous succession of egregious arrangements with tyrants and dictators from around the world, along with the fact that our nation is the only developed country in the world that utilizes the death penalty to kill its own people, and that we imprison more of our own people than any other nation in the world…… all of such having enabled me to gain a better understanding of why there are so many folks around the world who have become upset by our nation’s apparent willingness to abuse and exploit our fellow man. As a result of what I found, I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of the American public is out of touch with reality, that such folks have unwittingly allowed themselves to have become mercilessly entangled in a world of fabrication and make-believe, a nation dominated by sheepish yes-men unwilling to face the fact that we, as a nation, are, and for some time have been, caught in a downward spiral of moral decline.

I have found it rather common for folks to become a bit upset with people like myself who occasionally pass judgment upon our country. In fact some have even told me that if I don’t like my country then perhaps I ought to consider leaving it. Such folks seem to believe that criticizing one’s country (one that has attained such a high standard of living…… as if such a thing should make a difference) is somehow unpatriotic. However, the last time I checked there seemed to be no relationship whatsoever between a nation’s quality of life and that of its moral standards. I have also found that individuals that tend to equate criticism of one’s country with that of being unpatriotic either do not understand the postulates upon which democracy is based or that their identity is so terribly intertwined with that of their nation that they have seemingly lost the capacity to reason in an objective manner. Finally, based upon my experience of having debated with such folks, it has become rather clear to me that most of these quislings have little or no education as well as being relatively uninformed as to what is going on in the world.

Now, if you don’t mind, allow me to take a look at a few things that tend to bother me regarding the country in which I just happen to have been born……. the United States of America.

I never cease to be amazed at how terribly ethnocentric the typical American tends to be. It is almost as if having been born in the United States confers upon one the right to think of himself as a privileged person, a contrived sense of status that no doubt lies at the very heart of everything that I will discuss in this paper. For example, consider religion…… the fact that the majority of Americans look upon Christianity as the one and only road that leads to salvation, every other faith a blind alley leading to the unending fires of Hell. Next is that of capitalism, a system having apparently received the blessing of God as the universally correct way of doing business. And then democracy, a political system that apparently no one in their right mind has a right to question. Of course there can be no doubt that democracy is certainly a stellar way of running a country, but must everyone in the world agree? Besides if the religious right (just as Moslems in Iraq) were to seize control, don’t you think that they (as fundamentalists) might be tempted to set up Christianity as the official religion in our country rather than that of running a democracy based upon the separation of church and state? Think about it……. fundamentalists are no doubt fundamentalists regardless of the color of “their stripes!” On the other hand, one must ask what right we (as citizens of a nation that is a mere 231 years from its own inception) have to tell folks living in countries not more than a hop, skip, and a jump from the “Garden of Eden” how they ought to live their lives. Ethnocentrism yes, but perhaps even worse than this is that which such narrow-mindedness almost always brings to pass; an unreasoning sense of arrogance generally referred to as that of the arrogance of ignorance!

Due to what appears to have been a rather serious lapse of judgment on the part of tens of millions of Americans, the voters, for whatever reason (perhaps it was a matter of fear), chose to place into power a President (a presidential administration) that: may well have laid the groundwork for 9-11 (the “new Pearl Harbor”) that, according to PNAC (Project for the New American Century) was needed in order to pave the way for our country’s military/economic takeover of the world; is in the preparatory stages of going to war with Iran (a conflict that will no doubt reign havoc upon our nation as well as that of the world); lied to the American people in regards to why we went to war with Iraq; lied to citizens in that our government has no intention of leaving Iraq given the fact that it is in the process of building as many as fourteen “Enduring Military Bases” (enough to house at least 100,000 soldiers) along with that of having built the world’s largest Foreign Embassy located in Baghdad (a 592 million dollar, 104-acre, 21-building complex); committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, as well as high crimes and misdemeanors for which several of our leaders should be impeached; condoned the systematic use of torture against prisoners; violated the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution by intentionally choosing to interfere with the free flow of information to the American people; enacted laws (such as that of the Patriot Act) that are seriously eroding our freedoms; through the use of the Military Commissions Act, granted the President the right to arbitrarily detain, imprison, and torture U.S. citizens at that of his own discretion (and without the right of Habeas Corpus!); allowed the President to disobey more than 750 U.S. laws through the use of so-called “signing statements”; through the passage of the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 set the stage for, essentially creating the likelihood that, our country might one day become a military dictatorship; allowed the United State’s military to develop an extremely sophisticated, website-based video game (America’s Army) to be used as a recruitment device that is teaching millions (perhaps as many as nine million) of our children to kill human beings with an increased degree of efficiency, all of such having desensitized our teenagers to kill others with little, or no, psychological pain; has enabled politicians to profit immensely from funds awarded to corporate enterprises associated with the military-industrial complex; bankrupted the nation by allowing the national debt to rise to nine trillion dollars in spite of the fact that the nation’s actual debt is a little over 59 trillion dollars due to the government’s use of unorthodox (essentially unethical if not illegal) accounting practices that intentionally disregard (essentially misinforming the American people with respect to) unfunded promises to reimburse (that is to repay) Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and an assortment of federal retirement programs; and has been absolutely unwilling to take responsibility for the fact that we, as a nation, have done more to destroy the ecosystem of our planet than anyone else on Earth.

For anyone who has taken the time to study the history of the human race, there can be no doubt that one of the primary, if not the primary, cause of harm is that of people taking up arms in the name of God. No one in their right mind can deny that Jesus, the Buddha, Mohammad, Confucius, or Lao Tse were men of good will. However, over the centuries the simple yet profound truths taught by these wonderfully wise men have been perverted beyond recognition. And, as far as the West is concerned, the greatest perversion has been that of the religious right’s willingness to accommodate the needs of neoconservatives in Washington D.C., a well-thought-out, although no doubt surreptitious, plan to allow the Bush-Cheney presidential administration to utilize their faith (a plan of salvation that rather conveniently ignores the teachings of Jesus, the fact that we should love rather than kill others) as a theologically-based (no doubt divinely inspired) justification for a cadre of militants all to ready to go to war in order that they might one day rule the world……. and all of such in exchange for political presence, an increased opportunity for the religious right to publicize a gospel of family values (a rather fabricated attempt to “sugarcoatedly-disguise” an undoubtedly well-documented ideology of out-and-out social-political conservatism). Looking back at history, there can be little doubt that much the same occurred in the 1980’s when Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority decided to align itself with Ronald Reagan’s tenure as President, and, before that, when Germanically-oriented Christians decided to go along with, and therefore to support, Adolph Hitler’s Nazi inspired efforts to rule the world.

Concerning the education (or shall I say the mis-education) of our children it is high time that we do the right thing, that we stop lying to our kids and begin telling them the truth. The school’s job is not to make “good citizens” of our children, for in doing such a thing our children end up being duped, conditioned, slowly but surely brainwashed, into becoming truckling sycophants, bootlicking followers of the status quo. As one who has taught college students for the past 41 years, the only task worthy of a teacher is that of teaching our kids how to think for themselves, critical thinking skills that might perhaps enable them to counter the outrageous mendacity of those in power, chauvinistic jingoes who would, through the use of propaganda, have our children believe a lie rather than that which is true.

Regarding our economy, a capitalistic enterprise focused upon one, and only one, thing (the enrichment of the rich euphemistically referred to as that of “the American Dream”), we, as Americans (those of us who are rather well-to-do), should be ashamed of ourselves, ashamed of having become an island of enormous wealth stationed in the midst of a poverty-ridden world (not to mention an ever-expanding proportion of our own people who are poor) in that we go to bed every night with a willingness to anesthetize ourselves to the needs of billions of folks whose lives are inextricably mired in an absolutely desperate attempt to simply survive. And then due to what appears to be a rather natural correlate of capitalism (activities that no doubt follow capitalism wherever it goes), the American people (folks so terribly possessed by that which they possess) have developed an apparently insatiable appetite to be rich (the capacity to consume anything and everything they want), the need to be constantly entertained, a near addictive fascination with sex, drugs, gambling, pleasure, power, and violence, and all of such no doubt nullifying any legitimate interest in the “finer things of life” such as that of developing a meaningful philosophy of life, a desire to understand what it means to be a human being, and that which might perhaps be worthy of our time here on Earth.

And then based upon the laws of our nation, lobbyists (highly paid representatives of the corporate world) have been granted the right to converge upon our elected officials for no other reason than to coerce them into conducting business in a manner that more often than not benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. We, as a people, have been led to believe that our votes count when in fact our ballots far too often elect congressmen, the majority of which, wait in hiding for a handout (a bribe) that will serve to fill their “electoral coffers,” and all of such in exchange for a simple promise to use their congressional powers to expedite the needs of their benefactors who in turn are far too likely to reward their compatriots with a well-paid, “post-retirement” position the purpose of which is to use their “congressional knowledge” to bribe those who have now taken their place; a revolving door of immense corruption that is no doubt destroying the foundations of a once democratic republic!

The final, and perhaps most important, reason why I am ashamed to be an American is due to the fact that we, more than any other people, have used our accumulated wealth (part of which comes from money earned from having sold more weapons of war to the rest of the world than the rest of the world combined) along with having developed the largest, most destructive military force (larger than the accumulated defense budgets of the rest of the world combined) since the beginning of time (next year’s defense budget will be nearly 700 billion dollars!), all the while realizing that if we had proven our love for God by using such funds to feed the hungry, medicate the sick, clothe the poor, house the homeless, and liberate the oppressed, we would have become a nation loved and revered by all…… rather than, as things have turned out, having become a land hated by nearly everyone in the world.

In conclusion, in order that you might understand where I am coming from, you need to realize that I do in fact have a bit of respect for my country, or at least for that which was envisioned by our forefathers, the founders of, what has turned out to be, a once great nation. However, just as we would with someone we love, we have no choice but to call attention to weakness, since in doing such a thing we give our loved ones an opportunity to address the problem. It is, and must be, the same with that of the land in which we have been born. If we truly care about our country, if we really do want our nation to flourish, then we should realize that we have not only the right, but, much more importantly, the responsibility, perhaps even, one might say, a moral responsibility to point out its deficiencies in order that it might once again be revived. For we must remember, as our nation goes, so do we……. in its flourishing we, as a people, will no doubt thrive, but in passing away, we, as a collective society, might well cease to exist.

[moeen yaseen]

WELCOME TO BROWN'S BRITISH POLICE STATE
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6715885.stm

Intercept evidence rules could change under a Brown premiership
Gordon Brown is planning a raft of new anti-terror laws when he becomes prime minister this month, it has emerged. He wants new powers for police and a fresh look at whether material from telephone tapping can be used in court.

The chancellor also wants to revive proposals to increase the time terror suspects can be held without charge from 28 to 90 days.

But he accepts any new powers should include more parliamentary and judicial scrutiny to protect civil liberties.

According to The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Brown would promise to give the courts and Parliament "greater oversight" over his proposed counter-terror measures, in order to prevent clashes with the judiciary of the kind seen repeatedly in recent years.

He is reported to be intending to ask the cross-party Privy Council to review the case for allowing intercept evidence in court.

The move has until now been rejected by the government amid opposition from the security services.

Mr Brown is said to believe there could be a case for allowing it if a way could be found to protect intelligence sources.

Every time you have to strengthen the security measures that are necessary to protect our country, you also have to strengthen the accountability

Judges might also be allowed to take account of links to terrorism as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

And police could be given new powers to continue questioning suspects after they have been charged.

But it is the proposal to extend detention without charge that is likely to prove the most controversial.

Liberal Democrat justice spokesman Simon Hughes said Mr Brown would have a "fight on his hands" if he tried to get it through Parliament again.

And he warned: "Gordon Brown must start seeking cross-party support, because if he doesn't do that, there'll be rows and parliamentary defeats in his early days for the new prime minister."

Tony Blair's attempt to introduce 90-day detention without charge in 2005 was opposed by Tories, Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers.

Twenty-eight days is already the longest period to hold a person without charge in the free world. If you go beyond 28 days it is internment

Shami Chakrabati, Liberty


And Conservative sources say there is no new evidence to suggest that police need more than 28 days.

But Constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman, one of six Labour MPs vying to be Mr Brown's deputy, said she thought MPs would back new laws - including 90 day detention - if Mr Brown could prove they were needed.

"I don't think there will be a huge problem if there is a proper debate about it - if evidence is brought forward about why current powers are inadequate and what the safeguards will be," she told BBC One's Sunday AM.

In a speech on Saturday, Mr Brown said stronger measures would have to be put in place to give the authorities the power to intervene at earlier stages of an investigation.

He said: "That's why I support, for terrorists suspects, post-questioning interviewing.

"That's why we will need to strengthen the policing resources available. But at every stage I would say this.

"Because we are a country that believes in civil liberties of the individual, every time you have to strengthen the security measures that are necessary to protect our country, you also have to strengthen the accountability to parliament and the independent oversight of what police and other authorities are doing."

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, for the Conservatives, criticised the timing of Mr Brown's announcement.

He said: "It is extraordinary that the chancellor has chosen to publicise these proposals five days before the home secretary announces his counter-terrorism plans in Parliament.

"It does not auger well for cross-party attempts to build a consensus for counter-terrorism measures which the whole country needs to get behind."

Shami Chakrabati, director of pressure group Liberty, welcomed the phone intercept proposals but said Mr Brown was making "a grave mistake" in proposing to extend questioning without charge beyond 28 days.

"Twenty-eight days is already the longest period to hold a person without charge in the free world. If you go beyond 28 days it is internment," she told BBC News.

[moeen yaseen]

FROM WHERE I STAND


Recently we have seen several anniversaries come and go by including the 1857 Indian Revolt referred to in Eurocentric narratives as the Indian Mutiny. Delhi under the last Mughal King Bahadur Shah Zafar became the centre of the greatest anti colonial uprising in history but which on defeat was reduced to a battered empty ruin. The 19th century continued to be the British century on which the sun never set but it could easily have become a ghost like all other empires but sooner. Many lessons are to be learnt including the fact that most of the soldiers fighting for the Raj circa 70% were infact Indians prepared to betray their homeland for a ruthless imperial power and it's perks. The barbarism and brutality shown by the British victors is another black mark on the pages of British and European imperialism and the massacre of the genealogy of the ruling Mughal royal family is unforgiveable.
If this was not bad this year we have seen the commemoration of the abolition of slavery another evil which was live and kicking until it's abolition in 1807. The reality is that under globalisation and the postwar financial architecture of the IMF, World Bank , WTO and the imperial dollar acting as the global reserve currency a majority of the world's population still languish living on a fistful of dollars per ANNUM whilst the fruits of their labour are taken away to be devoured by the consumerist societies in the West. If this is not slavery I do not know what is. Even on more stricter definitions of slavery it is reckoned that there are 27 million slaves in our era. The bottom line is that this world is not working for the majority and is not designed to do so. The least we can do is not fall for the propaganda unleashed on us. There was also an apology which was establishment sponsored and issued in London at St.Pauls Cathedral for this crime against humanity yet it is hollow unless reparations running into billions is given to Africa to reconstruct itself and get out of the dire straits it finds itself. If Jewish victims of the Holocaust can get reparations why can't Africans?
It is clear that the City of London is not built on trade only but what is whitewashed is that from 1688 Anglo-Dutch originated financial usurious capitalism worked hand in glove with pro slavery and imperialist forces. The British have a moral responsibility to cleanse themselves of the crimes of the past and that begins by not colluding with the current illegal wars and status quo in free trade and globalisation which is geared towards Western interests.
More recent and closer to home has been the announcement by Blair of his resignation as the Prime Minister. Looking back at the media coverage and hype on Blair's arrival at No.10 it was expected that he would deliver us from the Thatcher era wherein profit came before people. Blair brought Labour out of the political wilderness on the basis of persuading the British people of what new Labour was not. As Tennyson stated "Ring out the old, Ring in the New". Yet the voters were not clear what New Labour was for. His ambitions for a more cohesive society, sense of community and remoralisation of the nation have gone with the wind. After 10 years the shocking truth is that we have seen his evolution from the promised messiah from Thatcherism who transmutes New Labour into BLATCHERISM as there is not much to differentiate the two except the spin. More ghastly we realise that we have seen the evolution of a lawyer into a war criminal in power who is only leaving because of his unpopularity for misleading the nation into an illegal and unjust war. In particular he stated during the Iraq war's early days that History will forgive him for the war even if no WMDS were found. It is time to let these people know that history will not be forgotten in another whitewash nor will their crimes until they are made to account. Anything less will be an insult to the memory of those innocents who are dead, killed, injured, displaced or in exile. They can not and must not be dismissed as the collateral damage or price to be paid for phoney liberty and democracy which is a figment of the imagination of our media cheerleaders.
We also have now have Gordon Brown taking over the reins of power and he is already referring to introduce the politics of fear by intensification of the anti-terror legislation and moving the country towards a police State. With the SNP taking power in Edinburgh it will be interesting to see how Brown who is a globalist handles the Nationalist challenge. It appears that he will resort to waving the Union Jack and playing the politics of fear. That indeed will cause true Scottish patriots such as Robert de Bruce and William Wallace turn in their graves seeing Gordon Brown selling his soul to Mammon.
In the USA we have seen the US Congress trying to exercise it's constitutional duty to cut funding for the war . Yet the Democrats have caved into Bush as there are no deadlines to get the US army of occupation out. More disturbingly Bush has passed the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential directive signed on May 9 2007. This would effectively place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish checks and balances in the Constitution. If another, "catastrophic emergency" occurs like 9/11 which is now deemed to be a State sponsored false flag terror operation by all truthseekers one can say good bye to "democratic" USA as the unitary dictatorship of King George will be inaugarated. Then there will be a real struggle for liberty and freedom but will it be too late for the citizenry? This means that the Bush regime has put into place measures which could suspend elections in the run up to the 2008 US elections. We are not living in exciting but very dangerous times.
The militarisation of the USA continues and as the US economy is bankrupt it is only a matter of time when there is a dollar crisis and economic collapse. The point is clear that working within the democratic framework is a deadend and the sooner we learn this the better. That is not to advocate isolationism or some dead end militantism but other means of engagement with society and institutions needs the attention of the best minds of our generation and across communities. Also the sooner we break free from the official media a handmaiden of the State or less politely the media whores of the day spinning webs of deceit the better. Only with independence of thought and action can we address the unfinished business of the last century and break free from prisonplanet with an Universal Paradigm shift.
Meantime the Bilderberg meet in Istanbul discussing their plans for the manipulation of Turkish elites and Turkey into the EU and also the option of resurrecting modern Turkey as a successor to the Ottoman Khilafate but manipulated for Western interests and control. This would make sense as those seeking World Government would need a solution to the "Islamic question" as it is clear that Islam will not disappear from the horizon and it is making a powerful global reassertion. In the postcolonial post independent era it is clear there is unfinished business from the 20th century to be dealt with. The legacy of artificial boundaries and Nation States created by Sykes-Picot and Durrand in the greater Middle East/ SW Asia region needs urgent attention as it is clear that the status quo will not suffice.
The recent annual Milad un Nabi celebrations on the birthday of Prophet Muhammad reveal that we have the inspiration and model exemplar to regain our forfeited role in the modern world. However, what is lacking is creativity in interpretation and application of his successful model for contemporary times. This is the task of the intelligentsia and must be executed and more effort and resources need to be devoted to this enterprise. The good thing is that Muslims are realising that they are being challenged in a concerted attack at different levels is being recognised and they are responding from Community Cohesion events locally to the OIC level focussing on Knowledge and Unity.
Also the Global situation reveals that the global economy is becoming even more unequal and unjust with various reports highlighting the concentration of wealth among the elite and the poverty of the masses. This is not surprising in a world where Might is Right and White is Right and wherein free market liberal economics prevails. Wherein the trinity of Globalisation, Privitisation and secularism rules supreme. On the otherhand all the signs are that of a systemic crisis of global capitalism will break out as the unsustainable multitrillion US debt, deficit budgets and draining war will and can only lead to a collapse of the imperial dollar. The crisis whilst being painful provides an opportunity for a new Global Breton Woods to take centre stage with a new holistic sustainable paradigm and world order as nothing else will do.

Moeen Yaseen



RECENT POSTS

Globalisation and the globalists agenda
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=108&page=2

Larouchepac
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=132&page=2

Demise of the Imperial Dollar
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=30&page=4

Capitalism and War
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=249&page=3

Economics A clandestine religion masquerading as a science
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=55

Cabal will use staged terror attacks
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=319

Authoritarianism and Dictatorship
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=309

Muslim Solidarity
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=126&pid=1196#pid1196


BOOK REVIEWS

Christian Fascism
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=307

Blackwater
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=308

America's Financial Reckoning
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=297

[moeen yaseen]

Deleted

[moeen yaseen]

THE IMPENDING GLOBAL LIQUIDITY CRISIS
Mike Whitney
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17821.htm

Stock markets across the world have been skyrocketing lately. In fact, Forbes reported on Tuesday that: “all 22 of the developed-world markets tracked by Morgan Stanley Capital International are in positive territory year-to-date. …Emerging markets are looking just as flush. Of the 29 emerging market countries that MSCI tracks, only four--Argentina, Sri Lanka, Russia and Venezuela--are in negative territory.”

Yahooo! The markets are soaring and we’ve entered a new “globalized” Age of Prosperity.

Sounds great doesn’t it?

There’s just one little problem; the Commerce Department announced yesterday that that GDP in the first quarter was revised downward to a measly .6%.

Are you kidding me? Economic growth is underwater and yet the stock market is still flying-high? What gives?

It’s easy. The markets are just responding to the growth in the money supply which is in double-digits just about everywhere around the world. When there are more dollars chasing the same number of assets---stocks go up. It’s just that simple. What we’re seeing isn’t the result of investor confidence or industrial output. Heck no! Stocks are rising because our $800 billion current account deficit is recycling into the stock market. What we are really seeing is the first signs of inflation---galloping inflation which will soon spill over into the broader economy.

If we eliminate the “frothy” exuberance of America’s trade deficit, then the stock market would be sucking air through a tube right now. And, you can bet that as soon as our foreign creditors wise-up and start raising interest rates the Dow Jones will quickly become the Dow Doldrums and the economy will nosedive into a 1929-type Depression.

Does that sound overly pessimistic?

At present, the “don’t worry, be happy” crowd still thinks the good times will roll on forever. They don’t see that the US consumer is running out of gas and won’t be able to sustain his gluttonous spending spree much longer. He’s already stopped siphoning the equity out of his home ($600 billion last year) and now he’s has started to max-out his credit cards. (Credit card debt increased 9.2% last month alone!) Now, US consumers are facing a blizzard of bad economic news---rising prices at the gas pump, a 6.7% increase in food prices, and a sickly dollar that keeps losing ground on the currency exchange. (Kuwait is the latest country to announce they will be dumping the dollar for a basket of currencies)

Currently, the US gobbles up two-thirds of the world’s credit each year with no conceivable way of paying it back. That won’t last much longer. Central banks around the world are increasingly hesitant to accept are our flaccid greenbacks and the Chinese are the only ones who are still buying our Treasuries. That’s mainly because it gives them power over political decision-making in Washington. The truth is the Chinese are planning to send the US into receivership and take over as the world’s bank. With dollar-backed reserves of $1.3 trillion, their plan appears to be going “full-steam ahead”.

The bottom line is that we are buried beneath a $9 trillion mountain of debt and there’s no way to dig out. If there’s a break in the liquidity-flows to our stock market---stocks will crash, unemployment will soar, and we’ll be pulled into a deflationary downspin.

Economic soothsayer Elaine Supkis puts it like this:

“World wealth isn't growing, world DEBTS are growing and the place they are growing the fastest is the US which is the sole terminus of world trade at this point. The biggest growth industry today is selling debt instruments. The entire existence of hedge funds, for example, is to funnel profits from uneven trade with the US back into the US via dumping debts onto the backs of any corporations that can run up more debts!” (http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/money_matters/)

Get it? It’s all just recycled dollars---debt piled on debt piled on debt piled on debt-- repeat ad infinitum. America’s equities portfolio = 1% assets, 99% pure helium.

This may explain why Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has been frantically beating the bushes for “foreign investment” to keep the stock market bubble afloat. He has no interest in rebuilding America’s industries or increasing our competitiveness. No way. What he’s looking for is a quick liquidity-fix to keep the over-bloated stock market sputtering along while more wealth is shifted to mega-rich corporations. In fact, no one in Washington is even talking about renovating America’s battered manufacturing sector. What do they care if we turn into a nation of busboys and bed-pan cleaners? They’re just hanging around long enough to sell off whatever’s left of our national assets then it’s “off to new markets in the Far East”.

And, they are doing a great job, too! The United States is handing over 1.5% of its national wealth every year to foreign investors while the American public continues to snooze away.

We’re having a giant garage sale and everything must go---roads, water, mineral rights, natural gas etc. We’re getting “picked clean” and no one seems to care.

The boys in Washington and Wall Street don’t work for you and me. They’re destroying the currency and selling everything that isn’t bolted to the floor. Then, they’ll pack-off to Asia and Europe where they can begin the scavenging-cycle all over again.

How bad will it get in the USA?

Consider these comments from Princeton University economist Alan Blinder, who recently attended the business summit at Davos, Switzerland: (summarized by Rep. Ron Paul)

“Word has it that there may be plans yet again to “outsource” highly skilled American jobs to other countries. Approximately 40-million American jobs could be at stake and yet US workers have not been told or consulted about it, until now. Just to put the number of 40 million into perspective, that is more than twice the amount of people that are employed in manufacturing. (According to Alan Blinder) The ‘choice’ jobs of skilled Americans could be lost and given to foreign countries within the next decade or two.”

40 million high-paying US jobs will be outsourced to lower-wage countries within the decade?!?

This is a blueprint for the economic destruction of America!

Maybe this will finally convince the dozy American public that the corporatists who run Washington are a disloyal gaggle of traitorous swine. “Globalization” is public relations swindle designed to steal jobs, plunder the economy, and shift wealth to ruling elites.

The name of the game now is to keep the stock market flying-high for as long as possible while the transfer of wealth continues unabated. That means the hucksters on Wall Street will have to devise even better scams for expanding debt---increasing margin limits, escalating derivatives trading, loosening accounting standards, inflating the booming hedge fund industry, and---the new darling of Wall Street---increasing the mega-mergers, the biggest swindle of all.

These over-leveraged mergers create boatloads of new credit, but add nothing to GDP. They reflect the basic disconnect between the stock market and the real economy. May is on track to be the biggest month for global mergers ever recorded. Marketwatch reports:

“For the year to date, companies have announced at least $2.2 trillion in deals worldwide. Of these, US companies have engaged in $830 billion”.

But look at the figures---Do they sound familiar?

Once again, the insightful Elaine Supkis makes this observation:

“Note that the 'deals' roughly equal our trade deficit. This isn't accidental. They are one and the same! And I will never see this fact stated so baldly in our media. No one dares say it in public.”

Wow; she’s right. Our trade deficit is being concealed by these gargantuan mega-deals in the markets.

And there’s something else we need consider about these mergers; they’re not producing growth in the economy. In fact, GDP keeps falling while stocks keep going higher.

Why?

Because the mergers do not increase productivity; they’re an indication of “asset inflation”. As Thorsten Polleit says, “the government-controlled paper money systems have decoupled credit expansion from the from the economy’s productive capacities.” The link between the stock market and GDP has been broken by inflation.

Henry C K Liu explains it like this in his article “Liquidity Boom and Looming Crisis” in the Asia Times:

“The five-year global growth boom and four-year secular bull market may simple run out of steam, or become oversaturated by too many late-coming imitators entering a very specialized and exotic market of high-risk, high-leverage arbitrage. The liquidity boom has been delivering strong growth through asset inflation (property, credit spreads, commodities, and emerging-market stocks) WITHOUT ADDING COMMENSURATE SUBSTANTIVE EXPANSION OF THE REAL ECONOMY. Unlike real physical assets, virtual financial mirages that arise out of thin air can evaporate again into thin air without warning. As inflation picks up, the liquidity boom and asset inflation will draw to a close, leaving a hollowed economy devoid of substance. …A global financial crisis is inevitable”.

Liu’s right. There’s no “expansion in the real economy”—no increase in output; no boost in GDP. It’s all recycled credit which will “evaporate” at the first sign of trouble.

Greenspan’s low interest rates and currency deregulation have set us up for “global liquidity crisis”.

The basic problem is that credit growth has been outpacing GDP for some time now. That means that debt has been building up faster than the rate of growth in the economy. Eventually those imbalances will have to work themselves out by way of a steep recession or perhaps another Great Depression. There’s a price to pay for low interest rates and, inevitably, we will end up paying it.

Thorsten Polleit of the Mises Institute explains it like this in his article “The Dark Side of the Credit Boom”:

“Today's government-controlled paper-money systems have decoupled credit expansion from the economies' productive capacities: "circulation credit" feeds a "credit boom" that is doomed to end in severe economic, social and political crisis. Austrian economists of the Mises Institute fear that the collapse of the credit boom will lead to the destruction of the currency through a deliberate policy of (hyper-)inflation, destroying the free-market order.”

“Destruction of the currency”; is that too strong?

No. In fact, the United Nations issued this gloomy statement just last week:

“The United States dollar is facing IMMINENT COLLAPSE in the face of an unsustainable debt”. America’s current account deficit is now a matter of international concern.

Polleit says that “the increase in debt-to-GDP ratios ….can actually be observed in all major currency areas, not only in the United States”. This is true. Most of the industrial countries in the world have increased their money supplies to dangerous levels to avoid strengthening against the dollar. It is a prescription for disaster.

If the Fed chooses to lower interest rates now; (to ease the slumping housing market) they will only aggravate “existing disequilibria”. In fact lowering of interest rates will only perpetuate “the fateful expansion of circulation credit that must end in a collapse of the monetary system”.

So, why would the Fed engage in such reckless behavior when it violates fundamental laws of economics? According to Polleit, “the ongoing lowering of interest rates and the accompanying rise in circulation credit and debt-to-GDP ratios — the characteristic features of today's state-controlled paper-money systems — is driven by a deep-seated anti-capitalist ideology.”

This is also true. The serial “bubble-makers” at the Federal Reserve secretly hate the free market system; that’s why they are engaged in plutocratic social engineering. They're using interest rates as a means for shifting wealth from one class to another and creating a centrally-controlled economy. There actions are essentially anti-free market and “anti-capitalist” as Polleit says. We can see this trend even more clearly in US foreign policy where the pretense of “free markets” has been abandoned altogether and America is securing its resources with gunboats and missiles rather than with a checkbook.

The current credit bubble is bigger than anything we’ve ever seen before. For example “The total market volume of credit derivatives outstanding was an estimated US $20.2 trillion in 2006, amounting to around 1.5 times annual nominal US GDP….The market is expected to grow further to US$33.1 trillion until 2008. In fact, the credit derivative market has become the biggest market segment of the international banking business already. The problem, however, is that the “credit derivative markets have emerged on the back of a government-controlled credit and money supply system. And as the latter is assumed to be crisis prone, credit derivative markets might be seen as a multiplier of the crisis potential inherent in today's monetary system”.

In other words, the whole $20 trillion derivative’s market is at risk because it is built on a shaky foundation of hyper-inflated currency. Once again, if money supply exceeds GDP there’ll eventually be a day of reckoning. We expect that derivatives and hedge funds will get hammered once the huge imbalances begin rumble through the markets.

So, what should we be looking for now?

Any break in the liquidity chain will send markets into downward spiral. The likely catalyst for such a crash could be contagion from the housing bubble creeping into the stock market, a sudden downturn in the Shanghai stock market, (which is up nearly 300% in just 2 years) or an increase in Japan’s interest rates. Any one of these could potentially trigger a massive sell-off on Wall Street.

Today’s stock market needs a steady flow of cheap capital to stay aright. That’s why Paulson is desperately looking for new investors. But there’s a basic problem which the markets cannot escape. Inflation is surfacing in all the countries where the stock markets are soaring because of their increases in the money supply. When the central banks are finally forced to raise interest rates; money will tighten up, it’ll be harder for creditors to make their payments or for banks to issue additional loans. As credit dries up more people will default on their loans, demand will drop off for consumer goods, prices will fall, and we will go into deep recession.

Once this process begins, speculators will be forced to abandon their positions, liquidity will continue to evaporate and the market will go into freefall.

Markets are self-correcting. Eventually the overleveraged debt-instruments, which pushed the Dow to historic highs, will be expelled from the system, but not without considerable pain for everyone involved.

Here’s an excerpt from Paul Lamont’s excellent article “Credit Collapse—May 10” which provides a compelling description of what happens a credit bubble begins to unwind:

“On May 10, 1837, the banks of New York suspended gold and silver payments for their notes. Fear of a bank run spread throughout the United States. The young country fell into a 7 year depression. How could two decades of prosperity end so suddenly? According to America: A Narrative History: “monetary inflation had fueled an era of speculation in real estate, canals, and railroad stocks.” Cracks in the dam were visible much earlier, as the stock market peaked in inflation-adjusted value three years prior. According to Rolf Nef, debt levels in the private sector rose to 150% of GDP. In late 1836, the Bank of England concerned with inflation raised interest rates. As rates rose in England, credit tightened, and U.S. asset prices began to fall.

On May 10, investors panicked and scrambled for cash. “By the fall of 1837 one third of the work force was jobless, and those still fortunate to have jobs saw their wages fall 30-50% within 2 years. At the same time, prices for food and clothing soared.”

We can expect a similar scenario in the very near future. When interest rates are kept below the rate of inflation for an extended period of time; enormous equity bubbles arise and threaten the entire system. The stock market is undergoing a period of asset inflation. It has broken free from the real economy and is headed for a crash. As Edward Chancellor, author of “Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation” says: “The growth of credit has created an illusory prosperity while producing profound imbalances” in the American economy….At some point the system will have to adjust “to face a new reality. The process of adjustment is likely to be painful. It may well end in either an extraordinary deflation...or an extraordinary inflation."

[moeen yaseen]

SIR BIN LADEN Vs SIR RUSHDIE http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=118243093 7340&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout


"In response to this step, Muslims should confer the title of Sir to bin Laden and Mullah Omer," Senator Haq told IOL.

KARACHI — While Christian and Hindu leaders joined their Muslim countrymen in protesting a British decision to knight controversial author Salman Rushdie, some scholars suggested honoring Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as a counter action.

"Any protest against the British government is useless. They will not listen to any logic," Maulana Sami-ul-Haq, a prominent scholar and chairman of the Senate religious affairs committee, told IslamOnline.net.

He suggested that instead of protesting the British decision world Muslims should confer the title of "Sir" on Bin Laden and Taliban's leader Mullah Omer.

"In response to this step, Muslims should confer the title of Sir to bin Laden and Mullah Omer," he opined.

"The world will see the reaction of western countries if Muslims honor Bin Laden and Mullah Omer as British government did with Rushdie."

Indian-born Rushdie,59, was knighted by Britain's Queen Elizabeth II earlier this week. His official title now is Sir Salman.

Knighting Rushdie has triggered angry protests across Pakistan and other countries.

The Pakistani parliament has unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the award and asking London to withdraw the title.

Islamabad and Tehran summoned the respective British ambassadors to receive complaints about the Rushdie award.

Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda of Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, said the "timing of the British award to Rushdie has not created a conducive situation" for understanding between religions.

The Egyptian parliament criticized the award, describing it as a worse error than the Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Malaysian Muslims held a rare noisy demonstration on Wednesday outside the British High Commission to oppose Rushdie's knighthood.

Iraq has also condemned the award.

Rushdie, who turned 60 on Tuesday, has spent the last 18 years living in the shadow of the Iranian fatwa calling for his death, which has never been formally revoked.

Shedding Titles


Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim, the Chief Minister of Sindh, one of the four provinces of Pakistan, confirmed Thursday giving back the "Sir" and "Khan" titles awarded by the British rulers to his grand father and uncle respectively.

"I announce to give back these titles in protest to the British government," he told a crowded press conference.

"In a situation where a person like Rushdie has been conferred the title of knighthood, I, being a Muslim and the head of Arbab family, cannot keep these titles," Rahim insisted.

His grandfather Arbab Mir Mohammed was knighted on May 12, 1937, by King George-VI while his uncle Arbab Toghachi was given the title of Khan on January 1, 945.

"This is a matter of shame for my family to keep the titles given by a government which has honored a person who desecrates our Holy Prophet," the chief minister said.

"I am giving back these titles to let the British government know about the sentiments of Muslims. I know that my step may cause problems for me, and my family but I am ready to face them being a lover of the Holy Prophet.

Rahim urged other Pakistanis to follow his example.

"I appeal to the people of Pakistan, especially [former premier] Benazir Bhutto to give back the title of Sir conferred by the British government on her grandfather (in 1940s)."

Christian Solidarity


"We strongly condemn the British government's decision and demand its immediate withdrawal," Bishop Rehmat told IOL.


Pakistani Christian leaders joined the growing chorus of criticism against Rushdie's knighthood.

"We are equally shocked over the British government's decision and condemn that," Ejaz Enayat, Bishop of the Protestant Church of Pakistan, told IOL.

"I want to propose to the British government that if knighting Salman Rushdie was so important, then he must have been given the title of Devil Sir, which suits him," he said sarcastically.

"Rushdie has hurt the feelings of millions of people, including Muslims and Christians," agreed Ashraf Rehmat, Bishop of Catholic Church of Karachi.

"We strongly condemn the British government's decision and demand its immediate withdrawal."

He called for joint Muslim-Christian demonstrations in front of the British high commissions to send a strong message to British government.

Bishop Enayat insisted that in awarding the honor to controversial Rushdie Blair was not acting on behalf of Christians.

"I want to tell my Muslim brothers that there is a difference between Blair, and Christians. Tony Blair doesn't represent the Christians. He represents the non-religious forces," he stressed.

"As there is a difference between a so-called Muslim like Salman Rushdie and other Muslims, there is a difference between Christians and people like Tony Blair."

Bishop Enayat thinks the real motive behind knighting Rushdie is to create differences among the followers of divine religions.

"This is a calculated conspiracy to create differences between Muslims and Christians," he said.

"This is a time for Muslims to show patience as they have done in past."

Although the cleric anticipated a backlash against Pakistani Christians over the issue, his fears proved to be unfounded.

"The people of Pakistan have understood this conspiracy and didn't react wrongly.

"Muslims in Pakistan have always shown patience, and never resorted to violence against Christians and other minorities despite the fact their brothers are being subjected to violence in different parts of the world."

Robin Das, a senior leader of Karachi's Hindu community, agreed.

"The Hindu community of Pakistan strongly condemns this decision," he told IOL.

"To us, this is a conspiracy hatched by the vested interest to fan the minor differences between different religions."

He insisted that people like Rushdie "who present the wrong picture of religion, and sow the seeds of hatred among followers of different religions."


The self-styled Pakistani Ulema Council, which claims a membership of 2,000 scholars, said it had given Bin Laden the title "Saifullah", or Sword of Allah, its top accolade.

"We are pleased to award the title of Saifullah to Osama bin Laden after the British government's decision to bestow the title of 'Sir' on blasphemer Rushdie," Council Chairman Maulana Tahir Ashrafi told Agence France-Presse (AFP).

"This is the highest title for a Muslim warrior."

IS MODERN WORLD IN GRIP OF CLASH OF CIVILIZATION
Amjad Malik
http://www.icssa.org/article_detail_parse.php?a_id=1127&rel=1046,961,3 83

Britain is in the grip of latest stir caused by the knighthood status granted to ‘Satanic Verses’ fame writer Salman Rushdie which has created an uproar in the Islamic world though the stalwarts of Ummah are quietly observing these developments. Several organizations have expressed dismay at the blatant disregard shown to the 2 million Muslims sensitivities in the UK and over a billion around the world whilst granting a Knighthood to a writer and questioned the wisdom of Tony Blair for such recommendations on the occasion of Queen Elizabeth’s birthday and have called for withdrawal as this honour is given at a time when Muslims are on the edge to bridge the gap between two communities after the events of September 11th and 7 July. Muslims of Britain as well as the Western World are already subject to victimization via various heavy handed laws and at this junction honouring those will contribute to widen the gulf between two cultures and will alienate the main stream Muslim community.



Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) of 1860 dates from the British colonial period: Sections 295 to 298 of the PPC dealing with religious offences dates back to that period and were intended to prevent and curb religious violence. The offences listed are: defiling a place of worship (s.295), acts insulting religion or religious beliefs (s.295 A), disturbing a religious assembly (s.296), trespassing on burial grounds (s.297), and utterances wounding religious feelings (s.298). These sections have a lot in common including the intention of the offender to hurt the religious susceptibilities of others which is considered integral to the offence; they also share a universal application, whereby hurting the religious feelings or any group is made an offence. In particular S. 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code says, “ whoever by words either spoken or written or by visible representations or in any manner whatsoever, or by any imputation, innuendo or institution, directly or indirectly defiles the sacred name of the holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.”. Islamic Shariat Bench later declared that imprisonment can not be granted in Blasphemy proven cases and only death sentence is the right sentence for the convicted.



However these offences have little value to the West who take freedom of expression as a superior force to all other political and religious compulsions. Their Blasphemy law though covers Christianity but does not cover Islam. Article 10 of European Convention of Human Rights 1950 which is a bit similar to Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 says as following: “1. Every one has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinion and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the Licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.” During the Salman Rushdie affair in 80’s after writing a book ‘Satanic Verses’ Britain never prosecuted Salma Rushdie under Blasphemy Laws of Britain for defiling the Prophet of Islam as British laws only covers Christianity. Under Ex Parte Choudhary, private prosecution was not allowed either by British Courts due to lack of legal provisions. Britain since has introduced the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which intends to curb preaching religious violence, however it still does not address the core and causes of igniting religious hatred albeit blasphemy .



However in the west denial of holocaust as to whether or not Jews were oppressed by Hitler’s Nazi regime is a criminal offence in most part of Europe. Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries: In Austria (article 3h Verbotsgesetz 1947) punishable from 6 months to 20 years, Belgium (Belgian Holocaust denial law) punishable from Fine to 1 year, the Czech Republic under section 261 punishable from 6 months to 3 years, France (Loi Gayssot) punishable from Fine or 1 month to 2 years, Germany (§ 130 (3) of the penal code) also the Auschwitzlüge law section 185 punishable from Fine or 1 month to 5 years, Lithuania, The Netherlands under articles 137c and 137e punishable from Fine or 2 years to 10 years, Poland, Romania, Slovakia,and Switzerland (article 261bis of the Penal Code) punishable from 6 months to 3-5 years. In addition, under Law 5710-1950 it is also illegal in Israel and punishable from 1 year to 5 years. Italy enacted a law against racial and sexual discrimination on January 25, 2007 punishable from 3 years to 4 years.



Now we see no Islamic countries in this list which outlaw holocaust denial as if you wish to enact the law in those countries you are called to scratch their back too and amend your home blasphemy laws to include the respect for Islam and its Prophet. Now looking at this tendency the way the West is showing insensitivity to the Muslim World’s feelings, It will be quite illogical if Islamic countries in a fit start awarding Saddam Hussain a highest bravery award for saying ‘God is one’ on the Gallow or Mullah Omer ‘the sword of Ali award’ for combating the foreign oppressor. These sentiments though exist which call for serious consideration by OIC and West to sit together and find a solution to this hugely charged issue as common man of each society calls for peace and harmony between ancient civilizations.



The awarded writer’s contribution is disputed too and it is not only conflicting but has caused hurt to scores of human souls around the world. British Government must have gauged the fall outs as a result of such an honour announcement and the assessment seems faulty over this knighthood and gives rise to the contention whether it is intentional to stir worldwide outcry to secure public support for aggression or an unintended lapse. Queen’s regiment has already been insensitive to the public pulse at the death of Lady Diana, the princess of Wales and here too showing little regret over this episode where thousands of Muslim protestors are on the streets.



There is further fuel on the fire by careless statements of politicians, one of which is of Mr. Ejaz Ul Haq a Minister of Religion of Pakistan trying to justify suicidal attacks on the writer which has no basis in Islamic teachings and in law here and abroad. In particular his call is not wise when 1 million Pakistanis reside in Britain and contribute heavily in national economy including his own clan. Whilst urging communities to remain calm and use their right to protest in a maximum peaceful manner, I feel the time has come for two ancient civilization to sit together and try to form a group of countries to have a joint ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ to identify and not to allow harbouring each other’s common criminals who defile each others religious faith. Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) did something similar 1400 years ago and made a pact with his opponents known as ‘Hudabiya Pact’ and here too the Western world must have a dialogue to secure interfaith harmony in order to bring two extremes to the middle to avoid future conflict.



There is no point that blasphemy law in Pakistan, Iran and Saudi is punishable to death and writers of such books walked free in British run India for writing ‘Colourful Prophet’ around 100 years ago, and now for writing ‘Satanic Verses’ and publishing ‘Danish Cartoons’ ridiculing the Prophet. Similarly denying holocaust, that Nazis did or did not oppress the Jews, is a criminal offence in the West but in the Islamic world if not penalized then it does not carry international validity and criminals of one society will keep seeking refuge in other’s protection indefinitely and may cause a mayhem one day. If a joint attempt to ‘give and take’ policy is not adopted, I am afraid a chain of uncalled events may emerge from within this episode which will be regrettable but will be disastrous to the efforts of bringing the unity in this global village. When law does not address public anxiety and no forum on which a complaint can be lodged is available then those who mutilate public feelings on the name of freedom will deepen the gulf further and clash of civilization begins as was quoted by the US president wrongly or rightly at the time of 9/11 referring to crusades.



We must all discourage any attempt to use or stir violence on religious basis, however realizing the nature of situation OIC and Western World including European Union, US, Russia, China, and India must consider setting up a forum to adjudicate such matters and give serious thought to the calls of Muslim countries & West for interfaith harmony. Islamic countries jointly must come up with a unanimous unstinted resolution as to where no negotiation is possible and where there is a compromise possible on the name of freedom of thought and expression and or to include protection to Western belief. Little late and there was no dearth of individuals like Ghazi ilam Din then in India, or Amir Cheema now in Germany in this day an age who were and are willing to take law into their own hands on the name of love for their religion and their Prophet when no law or legal forum is available to address their concerns instead countries show blatant disregard to their sentiments. The decision is simple, its one man’s freedom against 1.5 billion Muslims sensitivities. Muslim world unanimously banned the film ‘Passion of Christ’ which fantasized Jesus Christ in a fiction, same reciprocal concession must be offered from the West which does not cost them a penny. Why both societies do not act together to fill the lacuna so that any frenzy writer may not stir religious sentiments and defile each others sacred belief as current law does not address those common grouses of each community. This way we can save the clash of civilization and nip the evil in the bud in order to save the humanity as one man’s unnatural death is the death of the whole of humanity.

Amjad Malik is a Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court (England), an expert of human rights law and Chair of Association of Pakistani Lawyers: