Category Archives: Politics

A „TURKEY SHOOT“ FOR ERDOGAN

We all have to be courageous, despite all of this, and defend the freedom of the press and the freedom to information.”

Can Dündar, May 2016 ( a lone voice)

Dündar sentenced GuardianIf any doubts still existed about the allegation that our „churnalists“ have lost their capacity (or will) to think for themselves, the recent reporting about the conviction of two courageous Turkish journalists is the proof that you no longer need a functioning brain to work for the media.

I am referring here to the Guardian but you might pick any other more or less reputable newspaper or TV-News in Europe (including RT), it does not really matter since they all „report“ the same story anyway.

So what are the facts?

  • Two Turkish journalists were sentenced to several years in prison last week
  • One of them is Can Dündar, editor-in-chief of the Turkish daily Cumhuriyet (5 years and 10 month); the other is Erdem Gül, chief of Cumhurriyet’s Ankara bureau (5 years)
  • The court ruled that their crime was: „procuring and revealing state secrets that could harm the security of the state or its domestic or foreign interests“ (both were acquitted on espionage and terrorism charges)
  • The greatest joke of it all is that wannabe Sultan Erdogan joined the trial with the complaint that (reporting the inconvenient truth about a criminal state) amounts to „an attempt to undermine Turkey’s global standing / international reputation“.

If you take a closer look how the Guardian has presented the story  you might note the following:

The last paragraph is supposed to be evidence for the Guardian’s „balanced“ reporting which works like this:

First you mention the „revelations“ of Cumhurriyet which „PURPORTED to show Turkey’s state intelligence agency ferrying weapons into Syria in 2014“. This phrasing implies of course that there is no proof for these allegations. They might or might not be true.

Then you dutifully „report“ what the accused has to say (in this case of course President Erdogan):

Regarding the video, the president has acknowledged that the lorries, which were stopped by Turkish paramilitary forces and police officers en route to the Syrian border, belonged to the intelligence agency, but he said they were CARRYING AID to Turkmen rebels in Syria. Turkmen fighters are battling against the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and Isis.“

But this is not quite accurate.

THE CHANGING DENIALS

The fact of the matter is that the official response to the revelations by Cumhurriyet changed several times and this inconsistency is (as every criminal investigator knows) a clear sign that someone is lying.

The Turkish newspaper TODAY’S ZAMAN (English version) reported this on May 31, 2015 (the site has since been shut down – no big surprise):

„Turkish government officials have often provided conflicting accounts on the contents of intercepted Syria-bound trucks.

When the news broke in January 2014 that the Turkish military intercepted three trucks and searched their contents under the order of the lead and district prosecutors in Adana province, the government immediately dismissed the claims that the trucks were carrying arms. Prime Minister Davutoğlu, who was foreign minister at the time of the incident, asserted that the cargo was humanitarian aid destined for the embattled Syrian Turkmens on the other side of the border.

 Then-Prime Minister and now President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said on television programs as well as during his public speeches that the trucks were carrying aid to Turkmens. Then-Interior Minister Efkan Ala also said the aid was for Turkmens and a public statement by MİT also claimed the same.

Testimonials by gendarmerie intelligence officers who were involved in the interception confirmed, however, that the shipment’s destination was not an area that included any Turkmen group. The destination on the Syrian side of the border, as disclosed by the drivers, was often a target of reconnaissance by Turkish military personnel who secured the border.

However, the gendarmes said the area was populated by radical groups including al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Syrian Turkmens also refuted claims that they had received either arms or humanitarian aid from Turkey at the time. Syrian-Turkmen Assembly Vice Chairman Hussein al-Abdullah said in January 2014 that no such trucks arrived from Turkey.

Earlier this month, Yasin Aktay, the AK Party’s deputy chairman responsible for foreign affairs, admitted that the trucks were in fact transporting arms, but said that the receiver was the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is fighting against the Syrian government, not ISIL.

On the other hand, İbrahim Kalın, spokesman and adviser to President Erdoğan, claimed Turkey has never sent any weaponry to Syria.“

TELEGRAM-STYLE SUMMARY OF STATEMENTS

  • GOVERNMENT (#1): NO ARMS IN TRUCKSONLY „AID“ – FOR TURKMEN TRIBE
  • GOVERNMENT (#2): YES, ARMS IN TRUCKS BUT FOR TURKMEN ONLY (DAVUTOĞLU )
  • GOVERNMENT (#3): YES, ARMS IN TRUCKS BUT FOR FSA ONLY (AK party chairman)
  • GOVERNMENT (#4): NO, NEVER ANY WEAPONS SENT TO SYRIA (Erdogan spokesman)
  • GENDARMERIE (which searched the trucks): DESTINATION OF CARGO AN AREA WHERE NO TURKMEN ARE FOUNDAREA UNDER CONTROL OF  JIHADIS (IS and Al Nusra)
  • TURKMEN LEADER: NO AID OR ARMS RECEIVED AT THAT TIME („NO SUCH TRUCKS ARRIVED“) FROM TURKEY

So the editors of the Guardian conveniently ignored these conflicting  assertions. It makes life as a journalist so much easier.

Besides, the material Cumhurriyet published on May 29 clearly demonstrates that these lorries DID actually CARRY weapons for war (and lots of them): It showed gendarmerie and police officers opening crates on the back of the trucks on the way to Syria in January 2014. The officials first opened cardboard boxes marked as “fragile” and full of antibiotics. But what did they find hidden under those boxes?

According to the paper, the trucks were carrying six steel containers, with 1,000 artillery shells, 50,000 machine gun rounds, 30,000 heavy machine gun rounds and 1,000 mortar shells. The arms were reportedly delivered to extremist groups fighting against the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad, whom Ankara wants ousted from power.“ (Source: RT)

How did the Erdogan Government react to the „accusation“? (sending weapons to brutal Jihadis in Syria)

 „The Turkish government has vehemently denied claims that it is arming rebels fighting in Syria and accused dozens of prosecutors, soldiers and security officers involved in searching the trucks of attempting to bring it down through such claims.

[Why is the stigma-word „crazy conspiracy theory“ not used for Erdogan here when it is perfectly applicable ?]

Turkey accused of arms smuggling  to Syria

 Earlier this month, Turkey arrested four prosecutors who ordered the search of the vehicles near the Syrian border in January 2014 and they are now in prison pending trial.

 More than 30 security officers involved in the interception also face charges including military espionage and attempting to overthrow the government. The footage published on the opposition Cumhuriyet daily’s website on Friday shows inspectors searching a metallic container watched by security officers, a prosecutor and sniffer dogs.“ (Daily Mail)

Sultan ErdoganThat the megalomaniac Erdogan („a great friend“ of the US according to Joe Biden) would harass journalists who exposed his crimes comes as no surprise.  That the abuse of power of this narcissistic wannabe „Sultan“ goes so far that even prosecutors and police officers will be gagged and threatened with ridiculous charges is even more scandalous  but apparently our press does not care …(they just focus on the journalists).

THERE IS MASSIVE EVIDENCE FOR TURKEYS ROLE IN SUPPORTING TERRORIST GANGS IN SYRIA

Two reports from German media  (2014) show that hundreds of lorries cross the border between Turkey and Syria every day and a truck driver confirmed: „most of the freight here does go to the regions under IS control“ („to Ahmed in Raqqa“). Conclusion of the German journalists:  „It seems Islamic state does not have to worry about its supply lines“ (Deutsche Welle).

The second video clip (How Turkey arms and sends Wahabi Jihadis to Syria) is even more explicit, among its key findings:

Turkish locals confirm that their government provides medical treatment for the Jihadis, allows them to enter Syria freely, and that there are direct weapons deliveries to Syria

  • Turkish opposition in parlament also condemns Erdogan for „bringing thousands of foreign fighters from 40 countries to Syria“. (Erdogan’s response : „Spreading lies will be punished“)
  • „German soldiers are there (with Patriot missiles – in the meantime they have been removed) to protect a state* which is fuelling the conflict in Syria.“ Does the German government know this? (Of course, they do … Sykes-Picot 2.0 has apparently become Sykes-Merkel-Picot)
  • ( * the „analysis“ of Turkey’s intention by the ICC shown in the video is BS as was the absurd notion that the aggressor Turkey needs protection from Syria  )

There are hundreds of other reports corroborating the „allegation“  that Turkey plays a key role in supporting Al Nusra, IS and other artificial Jihadis (see LINKS at the end of this article) so the material Cumhurriyet published fits perfectly into this political context.

BidenEven Vice-President Joe Biden confirmed in his Harvard speech (lamenting the problems with US-allies in the region)  that „his great friends“ in Turkey (aided and abetted by the insufferable Saudis and of course with Washington „leading -to the slaughter- from behind“)

were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war – what did they do?“

They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, THOUSANDS OF TONS OF WEAPONS into anyone who would fight gainst Assad — except THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE BEING SUPPLIED, WERE AL-NUSRA, AND AL-QAEDA, and the extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world.“

So there is no doubt at all that the „allegations“ of Cumhurriyet are in fact revelations based on facts.  Are our journalists suffering from political autism or do they just not care? (People are dying because the press covers-up for crimes against humanity in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, etc.)

Even more bizarre is the zigzag line of argumentation used by Erdogan to justify his crackdown on the two journalists who are not under his control:

  • „Slander“: claim that footage and information published by Dündar are „not factual“: „fabricated evidence
  • Illegitimate operation against the MIT“ = espionage and „violating confidentiality“ (!)
  • Clandestine collaboration with (former ally and CIA protegé) Fetullah Gülen to „create the impression“ that Turkey helps terrorist organisations
  • Original charges: Espionage and Treason

„The Turkish authorities denied the allegations, saying that the trucks were carrying aid to Syrian ethnic Turkmen tribespeople and labeled their interception an act of “treason” and “espionage“. (RT)

This is of course practically the same silly „refutation“ the Guardian published as context for the recent verdict (see my comments above). But if the trucks carried only „aid“ why is there a need for secrecy?

And if the evidence is allegedly „fabricated“ (the original claim by Erdogan and the state prosecutor in Istanbul) then how can you justify a verdict of „revealing a state secret“?

The fact that members of the local gendarmerie (who had been involved in the operation and were therefore eyewitnesses) were also charged with „espionage“ and even four district attorneys were deposed (put into custody) to stop any independent investigation in Adana province tells the whole story …(What has happened to them? Does anybody care?) …

Turkey IS flagsIn fact everybody with half a brain (and basic knowledge of geopolitics) has figured out by now that Turkey DOES support “Islamist” terror-gangs (not only) in Syria (Russia has provided additional evidence) but the Guardian editors prefer to look the other way. This shameful behaviour by our journalists is not new  and one could rant for hours about it but my point here is the following:

If you use basic logic you will see that the verdict actually PROVES that the story Cumhurriyet published is TRUE. Why?

By charging them for „revealing state secrets“ they inadvertently admit that the story about transporting weapons  clandestinely to Syria  (under the protection of the MIT, Turkish intelligence and under the guise of „humanitarian relief“ ) must be true.

This is precisely  the „state secret“ the world was not supposed to know.

If the lorries had only transported „aid“ then how could that be a „state secret“ in the first place? The whole thing is completely absurd.

Turkeys Killing Machine synthetic Gladio terror(On the criminal role of the MIT  (a creature of the CIA) and the „Gladio“ context see this article and  Daniele Ganser)

In order to divert attention from this logical conclusion the Erdogan cabal arranged for a „shooting“ outside the court shortly before the verdict was announced.

This way they could be sure that all „news“ would concentrate on the spectacular violent event instead of understanding what the verdict really confirmed: the guilt of the Erdogan government as a major supporter of terrorist gangs in Syria.

So wordings like these are no longer justified

The journalists were prosecuted over a report ALLEGING Turkey had tried to ship arms to Islamists in Syria.“ (CPJ)

The case, which is widely viewed as a test for press freedom in Turkey, relates to the pair’s reports on ALLEGED government arms smuggling to Syria.“ (AP

but  the „churnalists“ use them because they do not have the courage to print the truth while lamenting the loss of „press freedom“ in Turkey.

They do not have the guts to show real solidarity with Cumhuriyet journalists by insisting on the truth (although they do not have to go to jail for it).

It makes you sick.

Press freedom

LINKS to more Information about

  1. Erdogan’s autocratic rule

2. The criminal role of Turkey in the destruction of Syria

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/business/2013/09/syria-factories-dismantled-resold-turkey.html

https://youtu.be/uOSUh87WA20 (Plundering Syrian factories)

through artifical „Islamist“ terror  (the ludicrous distinction between „moderate rebels“ and the head-choppers is of course a complete farce):

EXKLUSIVE: Secret Turkish Nerve Center leads aid to Syria rebels

NATO member Turkey harboring Terrorists

 “Most of the fighters who joined us in the beginning of the war came via Turkey, and so did our equipment and supplies.”

ISIS-Commander to Washington Post, August 2014; here is an excerpt from this article:

 REYHANLI, Turkey — Before their blitz into Iraq earned them the title of the Middle East’s most feared insurgency, the jihadists of the Islamic State treated this Turkish town near the Syrian border as their own personal shopping mall.

And eager to aid any and all enemies of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Turkey rolled out the red carpet.

In dusty market stalls, among the baklava shops and kebab stands, locals talk of Islamist fighters openly stocking up on uniforms and the latest Samsung smartphones. Wounded jihadists from the Islamic State and the al-Nusra Front — an al-Qaeda offshoot also fighting the Syrian government — were treated at Turkish hospitals. Most important, the Turks winked as Reyhanli and other Turkish towns became way stations for moving foreign fighters and arms across the border.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100159613/syrian-rebels-say-turkey-is-arming-and-training-them/

 

(Next: Part 2 of „What is Zionism“?)

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Europe, Foreign Policy, Politics, Uncategorized

when words become weapons

(A plea of “Not guilty”for Ken Livingstone)

Myths Rose„Zionism“ is a word that is never mentioned in the German media  but „Anti-Semitism“ is always present in the public domain, like an invisible landmine, ready to be used against people who tread the forbidden path (defending Palestinian rights and seeking justice based on „clinging to truth“, a basic principle of Gandhi in his resistance against British rule).

The sordid history of Zionism (supposedly an emancipatory movement striving for freedom and self-determination of Jews in a “national home”), how it signed up to Western imperialism , its core elements of racism and religious superstition,  is constantly being blacked out, erased from our minds.

Anybody daring to mention the collaboration between Zionists and Hitler’s Third Reich will get hammered by the Thought-Police and our fawning media is happy to help them with the job.

HOW “ANTI-SEMITIC” IS THE LABOUR PARTY?  (wrong question)

A shocking example for this is the recent treatment Ken Livingstone received from David Mellor on LBC Radio who treated him like a naughty child and demanded repeatedly an apology for mentioning Hitler and Zionism in the same breath.

The British media immediately joined the Zionist bandwagon by doing nothing to question the claim of “antisemitism” , calling Livingstone’s words “inflammatory” and  agreeing that the Labour party has been “tainted” by his remarks.

Greenslade on Livingstone Apparently fuelled by moral indignation and the illusion of intellectual superiority, Roy Greenslade  (a professor of journalism!) wrote a scathing comment in The Guardian:

“Has Ken Livingstone lost the plot? Can he not see that what he said about Hitler and Zionism was utterly barmy? Does he not realise that his remarks were an historical nonsense?”

No Sir, Ken Livingstone has not „lost it“ and his remarks were not „historical nonsense“ either.  He did not say that Hitler was a Zionist but meant that Nazi-Germany and Zionism had overlapping interests which may sound shocking but is no surprise for those who stick to the historical facts.

I think the man deserves a lot of respect for having the guts to stand up for the (forbidden) truth even if  the British fawning media (while enabling mass murder in Syria, Yemen and Iraq) come down on him like a ton of bricks.

Why should anyone be sorry “for mentioning Hitler”?  Because “he is such a toxic person”? This is the most absurd notion I have heard on public radio.

 I’m not going to apologise for telling the truth“  (Ken Livingstone on LBC Radio)

Instead of checking what the historical facts about the relation between Zionism and the Third Reich really are, the “churnalists” eagerly focus on the “anti-semitic” label and how it will damage Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party, knowing full-well that Livingstone’s claim  about a „well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israel policy as antisemitic” is true.

 „You are a disgusting racist, a Nazi apologist…“.

(John Mann reprimanding Ken Livingstone in front of a film crew which “happened” to be there …)

This heavily publicized display of moral outrage (staged by Labour MP John Mann for “bringing the party into disrepute”) against Ken Livingstone was even more proof of how subservient British politicians have become to Zionism and the quasi-fascist Israeli government.

Claiming Hitler was a Zionist is not only a huge historical perversion, but it directly equates Nazism and Zionism. It suggests they share objectives and values; it is guilt by association. It is hard to think of a more offensive linkage.“

(Rabbi Danny Rich, member of the Labour party, quoted in the Guardian)

Zionism BrennerBut the historical record is clear on this: Yes, the Zionists DID collaborate with Nazi-Germany for their political goals (even when the Holocaust became evident in 1941).  Here are a few examples:

ZIONISM DID NOTHING TO FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTS OF JEWS  (AS EQUAL CITIZENS)

The following statements (excerpts) are from the Zionist federation of Germany, published on June 21, 1933 shortly after Hitler came to power. In it it proposes to help the state with the “solution of the Jewish question” and finds that Nazi-Germany and Zionism have common interests:

ZIONISM  ACCEPTED  THE RACIST  DISCRIMINATION  IN  NAZI-GERMANY (and found it useful)

 “Zionism believes that a rebirth of national life, such as is occuring in Germany through  adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life.“

 They offer proposals  “on the regulation of the situation of the Jews in the new German state .. which pave the way for a real solution of the Jewish question that will satisfy the German state. […] We are not concerend with the fate of individual jews who have lost their  economic and social positions as a result of Germany’s profund transformation. […] On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race, we wish so to fit our community into the total structure .. so that for us too, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible.” (They go on to say that they believe  in “the bold resoluteness of the new Germany in handling the Jewish question,  in “taking decisive steps toward overcoming the Jewish problem” …)

 Under the header “relationship to the German people” one can read:

 “We, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group and reject any trespasses of the cultural domain … we believe in the possibility of an honest relationship of loyalty between a group-conscious Jewry and the German state”.

[To this day “mixed marriage” is illegal in Israel as it was under Hitler in Germany …. where is the moral outrage?]

So it should come as no surprise that under “Emigration” we find the following statement:

“For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question not sentimentalities are involved but a real problem, whose solution interests all peoples … especially the German people.

 The realization of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda (then being carried out in the US) is in essence un-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle …”

 (Yet it was clear from the beginning that the colonization of Palestine was impossible without massive violence against the native Arab population as Vladimir Jabotinsky openly admitted in his “Iron Wall” and as we have now seen for decades.)

They then go on to say that their “solution” to the Jewish question would “entail important advantages for the German people” .. and that the idea of nationhood would “undergo a decisive deepending by a statesmanlike action on the part of the new Germany”.

ZIONISM  CREATES  THE  MYTH  OF  A  JEWISH NATION  (BASED ON  THE BLOOD & SOIL IDEOLOGY OF THE NAZIS)

If the position of the Jews in Germany should be “regulated through recognition of their special character” this would “advance the German principles of nationality”.  The Zionists even go so far as to acknowledge that “the abnormal situation of the Jews” lead to “scarcely tolerable conditions for other peoples” (!).

They end with the hope that the German Government will have “full understanding” for their “clear posture” (regarding the Jewish question) because it “harmonizes with the interests of the [fascist] state”.

At the September 1935 National Socialist Party Congress, the Reichstag adopted the so-called “Nuremberg laws” that prohibited marriages and sexual relations between Jews and Germans and, in effect, proclaimed the Jews an „alien“ minority nationality. A few days later the Zionist Jüdische Rundschau was not outraged but editorially welcomed the new measures:

Germany … is meeting the demands of the World Zionist Congress when it declares the Jews now living in Germany to be a national minority. Once the Jews have been stamped a national minority it is again possible to establish normal relations between the German nation and Jewry. The new laws give the Jewish minority in Germany its own cultural life, its own national life. In future it will be able to shape its own schools, its own theatre, and its own sports associations. In short, it can create its own future in all aspects of national life …“

MILITANT ZIONISTS  OFFER  TO FIGHT  FOR  THE  THIRD  REICH

Stern com stampEven more shocking is a letter from underground Zionist terrorist leader Avraham Stern (received by the German embassy in Ankara) proposing in January 1941 (when the “Endloesung” was already in sight and  the “Stern Gang” now regarded Britain as their main enemy) “the active participation of the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany in exchange for Nazi help in creating a “Jewish state.”

Here are the most appalling statements:

The Zionist military leaders acknowledge that  “solving the Jewish question” once and for all  means a “Jew-free” Europe:

However, the only way this can be totally achieved is through settlement of these masses in the homeland of the Jewish people, Palestine, and by the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries.

The NMO, which is very familiar with the good will of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program, takes that view that:

  1. Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO.
  2. Cooperation is possible between the New (fascist) Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry [Hebräertum].
  3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.“ […]

Brenner 51 DocumentsTalk about sucking up to Hitler. For more documents proving Zionist collaboration with the Nazis try these books)

N.B. These Zionists DO NOT CONDEMN the grave injustices the Third Reich imposed on Jews (and political opponents). On the contrary, they see these measures as conducive for their own plans: to “encourage” (even coerce) as many Jews a possible to emigrate to Palestine (thus loading the “Jewish question” on the Palestinian Arabs who were going to suffer extreme injustices for decades as a result).

 “If I knew that it was possible to save all the [Jewish] children of Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second.”

(future Israeli President David Ben-Gurion, quoted by  Israeli historian Tom Segev)

ZIONISM IS OBSESSED WITH CREATING A JEWISH MAJORITY IN PALESTINE (using criminal and immoral means to get there)

But the majority of educated European Jews (especially in the West) did not want to leave their home countries since their national identity was German, French, etc. and they lead  a fairly good life (until the Nazis arrived).  The situation of the Eastern Jews was totally different: many of them lived in poverty, in filthy ghettoes and under the command of the “Talmudic” rabbis who encouraged the segregation from the inferior “goyim”.  These people became the nucleus of “Israel” and even after the Holocaust most Western, liberal Jews wanted to go to the US, not Israel so the Zionists had to use brutal methods of intimidation (and deception) to get the “human material” they needed for their artificial “homeland”.

shadow holocaust GrodzinskyThey infiltrated the DP-camps after the war in order to “persuade” survivors to emigrate to Palestine.  A recruitment campaign in these camps (to get enough fighters for  the planned assault against the Palestinians) resulted in only 0,3 % of  the male DPs as volunteers.  So a compulsory draft was necessary.

 This bizarre project – in which a non-nation state imposed compulsory military service on people who had never even lived in the land for which they were required to fight – was enforced through a number of mechanisms, including publishing black lists of “draft evaders”, firing them from jobs, evicting them from dwellings, withdrawing their food rations, and beating them. These tactics were also at times used on their relatives.”

 (Source: Alison Weir, Against our better Judgement, p. 79  with reference to Grodzinsky: Shadow of the Holocaust – see also the quote below)

This is a shocking affair. Several thousand sick, malnourished, and vulnerable orphans, still at great risk, were forced by the Zionists to stay in the [German] camps, even though arrangements were made for them to arrive to safety in England and France. The rest of this tragedy constitutes chapter 4 of my book.”

They also “retrieved” Jewish children (often against their will, in tears) who had been rescued by compassionate people during the war and put them into orphanages run by the “Jewish Brigade”.  A search for relatives was not allowed to avoid the risk that the children might want to stay in Europe.  They needed to be turned into good little Zionists so they had to learn (and speak only) Hebrew and  internalize the myth of the “promised land”.

WHAT  JEWISH  PEOPLE?

Shlomo Sand InventionAs Shlomo Sand has shown in his book, the idea of a “Jewish people” is a complete fantasy. The ancestors of most “Israelis” (immigrants from Eastern Europe and Russia) were the Khazars, a Mongolian tribe* who collectively converted to Judaism (by decree of its ruler) in the 8th century. They never set foot on the “Holy Land” and had absolutely no connection to biblical “Juda” or “Israel”.

(*Names like “Kagan”, “Kahane” or “Cohen”  are variations of the Mongolian word for ruler: Khan )

ZIONISM IS OBSESSED WITH RACIAL PURITY

Keep that in mind when you read about Jabotinsky’s emphatic insistence on  “preserving racial purity” as an absolute condition for saving “the special, national character” of Jews.  Accoding to  him, this must be done “at all costs” which means (planned) racial segregation and ethnic cleansing are “necessary” so that the “Jewish bloodline” will not be “diluted” by mixed marriages and in order to make “Jews” the majority “race”  in Palestine / Israel.

So we already see, that this is a mirror-image of the “blood and soil” ideology of the Nazis and Hitler did the Zionists a huge favour by fostering the myth that “Jews” are a race when there is only Judaism as a religion. Since Jews are not a “nation”, they do not need a “national home” either. This was just another devilish exercise of “divide et impera”.

ZIONISM IS BASED ON A BIG LIE

The whole thing (“Jewish national integrity” and “spiritual energy” bound to the “promised land”) was completely fabricated and part of a sinister political game which included support for the Nazis and the Bolsheviks by the same power circles  in order to destroy  geo-political rivals Germany and Russia by turning them (twice) against each other.  (Britain’s role in this diabolical game –  see Preparata: Conjuring Hitler)

Opponents of Zionism  fought for the rights of Jews in their different countries but rejected the idea of putting thousands of Jews in a foreign Muslim country, like a dagger into the heart of the Arab world.

Gandhi articulated this attitude in 1938 with the following  words of wisdom:

My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice.The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine.

Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.

The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred.”

ZIONISM: THE FORBIDDEN MEMORY (COMPARISON WITH  FASCISM AND HITLER)

By looking at the assessments of contemporary witnesses, who experienced the growing political power of Zionism (especially in the US and Britain), the creation of Israel and who were appalled by the  unscrupulous  behaviour of its leaders, we gain further insight into the true spirit of Zionism:

Sir John Munro Troutbeck (1894-1971), head of the British Middle East Office in Cairo and later ambassador to Iraq, wrote in a letter to Churchill on May 18, 1948 – shortly after the creation of “the state of Israel”:

 “It is difficult not to see that Zionist policy is anything else than unashamed aggression carried out by methods of deceit and brutality not unworthy of Hitler”

Quoted by William Roger Louis in The British Empire in the Middle East 1945-1951, p.576 (1986)

So Ken Livingstone has no reason to apologize for putting Zionism and Nazism in a moral context (not as morally “equal” but as dangerous ideologies with a racist, supremacist core) . Even the most horrific Nazi atrocities cannot and must not serve as a moral fig-leaf for Zionist crimes (committed so soon after the “Holocaust”).

On 2 June 1948, Sir John Troutbeck sent another diplomatic message, this time to the British foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin. In it he complains that

the Americans are responsible for the creation of a gangster state“ headed by “an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders“.

REMORSELESS  ZIONIST TERRORISM: „FREEDOM FIGHTERS“ IN ACTION

Bernadotte murderThe context for these condemnations were of course the numerous attacks committed by Zionist terrorists against British officials:  e.g. the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo (November 6, 1944) or the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946. The assassination of UN-envoy Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948 is perhaps the most despicable political murder the Zionist gangs committed at that time. (Regarding the abominable crimes against the Palestinians – see below)

While the British government and military have not been unfamiliar with terrorist methods for their own purposes, it must be pointed out that the most famous Zionist terrorist „masterminds“ are unique in one respect: they have never been held to account for their crimes and later even became Prime Minister of Israel (Menachim Begin and Yitzak Shamir).

The remains of two Jewish assassins (hanged in 1945 for the murder of Lord Moyne) were brought to Israel in 1975 and received a state funeral with full military honors. They are considered to be national heroes until this day. (No apologies required and demanded by our presstitutes in this case …!)

Why did Churchill support the creation of a „Jewish homeland“ in Palestine? Perhaps this paragraph (written by him and published in 1920) can offer a clue:

 „Of course, Palestine is far too small to accomodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews want to go there (!). But if such a state should come into existence in our lifetime .. an event would have been created … which would … be especially in harmony with the truest interest of the British empire.“

Well, as it turned out, the immorality and cunning of the British Empire was more than matched by the Zionists …

Lord MoyneWinston Churchill was a close friend of Lord Moyne  but at the same time a supporter of the Zionist ambitions in Palestine. So how did the react to the cold-blooded murder in Cairo?

 If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of the assassin’s pistol and our labors for the future are to produce a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, then many like myself would have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past. If there is to be any hope of a peaceful and successful future for Zionism, these wicked activities must cease, and those responsible for them must be destroyed root and branch”.

(Quote from an article by Winston Churchill, New York Times, November 18, 1944)

So we must keep all that in mind every time the Israeli government says it cannot negotiate with Hamas or Hezbollah „because they are terrorists“.  (Possible links between „IS“ and Israel need to be further examined ….)

against our better judgement WeirThe web of political intrigue spun by the Zionist organisations entangled more and more US-politicians (being no less dangerous than terror attacks in Palestine)  but they were not visible to the public.  A good primer for understanding the political machinations of Zionists in the US is this book:

Watch the author, the courageous Alison Weir talking about the book in this video:

Today the secrecy is no longer necessary as American current and future „leaders“ have accepted that they must kneel down before AIPAC/  Israel in order to advance their political career. (Just look at Hilary Clinton and try not to throw up …)

DARK FORCES & BLACK HOLES: EINSTEIN EXPOSES THE ZIONIST CRIMES

Albert EinsteinHere is one more contemporary (this time Jewish) 1940s-witness, appalled at the brutality of the Zionist terrorist-gangs whose job was to ethnically cleanse the newly created „Israel“ from the unwanted native Arab population. In their own self-serving language this terror was called  „encourage them to leave“. (Remember this happened only 3 years after the „Holocaust“ had ended and was meticulously planned  by the „chosen people“ …)

Albert Einstein’s (originally a supporter of the Zionist project) famous letter to the New York Times  (published on December 4, 1948 with the support of other prominent Jews) is still highly relevant, especially the exposé of the fascist nature of the Zionist military doctrine and the deception the Likud party practised to hide its true character (represented by Begin then and by Netanyahu now). Here are some excerpts:

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Ha Herut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.  It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit.  It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

[…] The public avowels of Mr. Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state.  It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of theFreedom Party“

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin.  This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base.  On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants—240 men, women, and children—and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem.  Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan.  But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

[A more detailed description of the Zionist crimes and schemes in Palestine during the 1930s and 40s can be found in Ilan Pappe’s excellent historical analysis: THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE].

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of  ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority.  [this could also serve a description of the NSDAP in the 1930s…]

Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions.  In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

[ZIONISTS ALSO USE TERROR-METHODS AGAINST NON-COMPLIANT JEWS]

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community.  Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them.  By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.  

[…]

It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed about Mr.Begins political record, could lend their names and support to the movements he represents. Before irreparable damage [..] is done,… and the creation of the impression in Palestine that a large segment of America support fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objective of Mr. Begin and his government.

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party.  This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal. “

(Einstein was supposed to become the second president of Israel but said No, thanks ….)

CONFESSIONS IN A DIARY

The first foreign minister of Israel, Moshe Sharett was often shaken by the ruthlessness of the military establishment and worried about the moral deterioration in Israeli society in the 1950s. Here are just a few observations from his diary:

“… the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, and so many clashes we have provoked ….

“… the narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness of our military leaders” [who] “seem to presume that the State of Israel may-or even must-behave in the realm of international relations according to the laws of the jungle.”

Source:Israel’s Sacred Terrorism

The picture that emerges, is of an Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death and anguish on civilian populations in a mood reminiscent of regimes which neither Mr. Begin nor I would dare to mention by name.”

Source: Israel’s UN Ambassador and Foreign Minister Abba Eban in 1981, cited in Edward Herman, The Real Terror Network, 1982), p. 77.

FASCIST ROOTS DO NOT GO AWAY

Avi Shlaim 2009In January 2009 (when Gaza was suffering under „Operation“ Cast Lead)  the Guardian published an important article by Professor Avi Shlaim which is still worth reading because it exposes the lies, falsification of history and moral hypocrisy of the Israeli government. Here are some very revealing passages:

(Shlaim also uses the “gangster state” quote mentioned above and states that he no longer considers it a „too harsh“ judgement on Israel)

[…] „Israel likes to portray itself as an island of democracy in a sea of authoritarianism. Yet Israel has never in its entire history done anything to promote democracy on the Arab side and has done a great deal to undermine it. Israel has a long history of secret collaboration with reactionary Arab regimes to suppress Palestinian nationalism. Despite all the handicaps, the Palestinian people succeeded in building the only genuine democracy in the Arab world with the possible exception of Lebanon. In January 2006, free and fair elections for the Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority brought to power a Hamas-led government. Israel, however, refused to recognise the democratically elected government, claiming that Hamas is purely and simply a terrorist organisation.“

[…] „The brutality of Israel’s soldiers is fully matched by the mendacity of its spokesmen. Eight months before launching the current war on Gaza, Israel established a National Information Directorate. The core messages of this directorate to the media are that Hamas broke the ceasefire agreements; that Israel’s objective is the defence of its population; and that Israel’s forces are taking the utmost care not to hurt innocent civilians. Israel’s spin doctors have been remarkably successful in getting this message across. But, in essence, their propaganda is a pack of lies.“

How is it possible that the whole history of a state and its dangerous core ideology  become “a pack of lies” that persists for decades?

(Our journalists know the answer …)

THE  SHADY ROLE OF BRITAIN

Considering that it was the British government  that had issued the “Balfour Declaration” in the first place which enabled the Zionists to claim Palestine as their phony “homeland”, that deranged British military officers (like Orde Wingate) trained the Zionist fighters in what can only be considered terrorist methods against civilians, and that it was Britain that betrayed both the Arabs and the Jews (with false promises), the one-sided accusation against the US (“creating a gangster state in Israel” – though not unfounded) can only be regarded as the result of “selective historical amnesia”.

So when PM David Cameron today puts on a show of moral indignation about the “anti-semitism” of the Labour Party he obviously suffers from the same mental affliction:  ignoring Britain’s (Dr. Frankenstein) role in creating the Zionist monster …

 

Coming Soon – Part 2:   WHAT IS WRONG WITH ZIONISM?

“I will never forgive the Arabs for FORCING US to kill them.  (Golda Meir)

 To understand the endless controversy of Israel it is inevitable to examine what Zionism really is (from a psychological perspective) and how the label “Anti-Semitism” is being used to stigmatize and ostracize critics of the Israeli state to avoid any real public debate about the moral bankruptcy of its leaders …

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Uncategorized

Greenspan and Market Morals

This is a reply to an article by David Corn about Alan Greenspan testifying before a Congressional Committee about his role in the “financial crisis”

The basic assumption of the “self-regulating market” ideology is, that bad products will be driven out because

“It is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product.”

But this is only valid if the buyer has ACCURATE INFORMATION about the quality, (long term) consequences of  buying / using the products and the real intentions of the seller. Only if the participants have access to the same information, will there be any chance of an informed judgement by the “market”.  In this context it is no surprise, that the PR-industry is booming…..

In the case of Wall Street this assumption is absolutely laughable: hedge funds and other derivative and commodity traders are gambling with the livelihoods of other people: whether they bet on the prices of food, energy or the risk of default, the very essence of the game is to deceive and to manipulate, to drive prices down or up, whatever is profitable for the moment. The long term consequences for farmers, consumers and society as a whole did not bother them. They played a combination of poker, charade and a pyramid scheme.. always trying to find a new sucker they could cheat on… pity, that in the end, they screwed each other.

So it is hilarious to hear politicians lament “the loss of confidence” in the banking industry which they seek to restore by handing out trillions to professional con-men….. Let´s rescue the swindlers because they are “too big too fail” – and create even bigger financial conglomerates in the process! How stupid can you get? (We need to break up the financial supermarkets and separate commercial from investment banking and insurance companies as Roosevelt did with the Glass-Steagall Act.

Hey, let´s commit the ultimate blasphemy and ask why banking is not a public service?  Why do banks have to be private businesses? Why go on being slaves of a system of perpetual debt? Why not curtail interest rates for productive loans and mortgages (for family homes)? Why not stop the debt trap for developing countries by providing alternative loans with very little or no interest at all? (just paying back the principal and a small adminstrative fee – the real return for society would be that more capital for infrastructure, housing, health care and education would be available; instead of giving “aid” we could give them self-determination for a change … Is this just a fantasy?

If a trader can make millions in a few hours, days or weeks – why should he care about his “reputation”?  Yes, an important factor for moral behaviour is the acceptance and respect of our fellow citizens but in this environment, “respect” and recognition increases with your ability to create huge profits out of thin air, basically by cheating others. The more opaque and less accountable to the public a business becomes,  the smaller is the incentive for the players to behave “morally” or responsibly. In the long run investment bankers, hedge fund managers and the like seem to live  in a parallel universe and they have even managed to create their own black hole! (which absorbs all the “market efficiency” Greenspan was talking about..)

In the end “making money” (with no real productive value behind it) becomes an obsession and every new record profit by the other trader  is an incentive to strive for more….

This is no support for the attempt to biologize the problem ( “greed” as part of human nature, there we go again…) but proof of Erich Fromm`s assessment that in order to function and expand, the capitalistic economic system must fuel greed and selfishness until  finally “economic behaviour” became separated from ethics and human values. The total victory of the economic machine, which was supposed to run according to its own laws  was only a matter of time.

E. F. Schumacher wrote in his classic “Small is Beautiful that capitalism is doomed to fail because it contains no limiting principle…..The “growth” and profits are never enough… so people and the environment have to be exploited more and more .. until the system collapses.

Greenspan (who was called an idiot in the online forum) is only an idiot in the sense that all classic economists are idiots because they are blinded by ideology and, totally ignoring environmental imperatives,  promote an economic system that is incompatible with nature´s laws and human well-being. A system that has to grow incessantly in order to function is self-destructive (like a cancer grows until it kills the host organism).

He pumped all that cheap money into the derivatives system because otherwise the ongoing decline (depression?) of the US economy would have been obvious years ago, so creating speculative bubbles was all that was left to boost “growth” rates and maintain the illusion that the US is still the “engine” of the global economy (only with Wall Street betting and military expenditure). From his (and his cronies) point of view they did the right thing because the top 1% of Americans did extremely well and the top 20% now own 85% of the national wealth…. Perhaps some of them have lost a couple of zillions lately, so what? Paulsen´s rescue money may find its way to their pockets, who knows?

The majority of US-citizens though, must be content with higher debt (substituting higher income) and greater “volatility” (insecurity) as these factors are symptomatic for the current “financial system”.

The ugly truth is exposed here: What the hell is going on?

Final words must go to MILTON FRIEDMAN – the godfather of free markets –

“If I’m going to do good with other peoples’ money, I first have to take it away from them. That means, that the welfare state philosophy of doing good with other peoples’ money (…) is a philosophy of violence and corrosion. It’s against freedom, because I have to use force to get the money. In the second place, very few people spend other peoples’ money as carefully as they spend their own.”

(He meant social welfare of course, corporate and banking welfare is of course OK….)

and a Canadian Prime Minister:

“Until the control for the issue of currency and credit is restored to government

And recognized as its most conspicous and sacred responsibility,

All talk of sovereignity of parliament and democracy is idle and futile.

Once a nation parts with control of its credit, it matters not who makes the nation`s laws,

Usury once in control will wreck any nation.”

William L. M. King, fmr. Prime Minister of Canada (who nationalized the Bank of Canada)

Source: Money as Debt

By the way, did you notice, that Canada appears to have hardly any  problem with the “financial crisis”?

Leave a comment

Filed under Change, Economy, Politics, Society

Bailout Party for the Sharks

Hearings of the House Oversight Committee revealed  that  shortly after the $85 billion taxpayer bailout last month, AIG executives spent more than $ 400.000 on a “conference” in a luxury resort in California. The bill included $200.000 for hotel rooms, almost  $150.000 on catered food banquets and $ 25.000 for salon and spa-treatment…. Not to forget the 10.000 Dollars for booze…. According to recent reports AIG has already used up $61 billion of its $85 billion government loan.

Former CEO Martin Sullivan, who has already pocketed a $ 15 million severance package, was admonished by the committee for behaving as if he had no part in the home-made calamity. Expressions like “financial tsunami” were used to insinuate that we are dealing with a kind of natural disaster which is nobody´s fault.

Sullivan said that “the most respected financial institutions crumbled one after another” (respected by whom and for what, one wonders?) He received special scorn at the hearing because he “went before the board of directors and specifically asked them to ignore the huge losses for the purpose of the compensation plan” .

Do you know what a “Credit Default Swap” is?

No ?  And really don´t care?

Well, neither did I until the “global crisis” unravelled and the panic wave began to spread. We are talking about a global double digit (or more)  trillion dollar business with no oversight and no limiting principle. A simple explanation of the CDS-system can be found in this video:

All I can say is:  there is a method in madness. Whoever dreamed up this insane system where financial institutions can act as seller and buyer of “debt insurance”  at the same time, and bet against each other on the risk of default, these people need psychiatric help. With no transparency or accountability, no containment of any sort, the web got so big that thousands of banks and other financial institutions all over the world are apparently now entangled in it and nobody seems to have a clue about the exact figures or real values of these deals.  Even George Orwell would have been impressed to find that these strange transactions robbed the word “insurance” of its meaning and transformed into another version of “ignorance is strength”.

The idea of a collateral or an “asset backed” loan has been turned on its head because these guys played with debt as if it was some kind of party game: perhaps a mixture between poker and charade….

All these fancy names  and acronyms  like ABS, LBO, CDO, SIV, etc. Most of us did not have a clue what these things are and only now, when the shit has hit the fan, are we learning that these  “innovative instruments” are the “financial weapons of mass destruction” Warren Buffet was talking about years ago…

Le Monde Diplomatique (British Edition) published an article in 2006, warning about the consequences of a deregulated banking system:

” More importantly, deregulation and financial innovation have led to forms of crucial data that cannot be collected and quantified, leaving both bankers and governments in the dark about reality. We may or may not live in a new era of finance, but we certainly are flying blindfolded.”

“On 24 April Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley’s chief economist, wrote that a major financial crisis seemed imminent and that the global institutions that could forestall it, including the IMF, the World Bank and other mechanisms of the international financial architecture, were utterly inadequate. Hong Kong’s chief secretary deplored the hedge funds’ risks and dangers in June, and at the same time the IMF’s iconoclastic chief economist, Raghuram Rajan, warned that compensation structures encouraged those in charge to take risks, endangering the whole financial system. Soon after Roach was even more pessimistic: “a certain sense of anarchy” dominated academic and political communities “unable to explain the way the new world is working”. In its place, mystery prevailed. By last month the IMF predicted that the risk of a severe slowdown in the global economy was greater than at any time since 2001, mainly because of the sharp decline in housing markets in the US and much of western Europe; it also included the decline in US labour’s real income and insufficient consumer purchasing power. Even if the current level of prosperity endures through next year, and all these people are proved wrong, the transformation of the global financial system will sooner or later lead to dire results.”

Gabriel Kolko rightly concludes that “Financial deregulation has produced a monster, and resolving the many problems that have emerged is scarcely possible for those who deplore controls on making money. The Bank for International Settlement’s (BIS) annual report, released in June, discusses these problems and the triumph of predatory economic behaviour and trends “difficult to rationalise”. The sharks have outflanked more conservative bankers. “

In my view, it is precisely those sharks that have now been “rescued” by the government… The final paragraph of the article (written in 2006) should remind us that the “rescued” are not the victims but the perpetrators here…

“There is now a growing consensus among financial analysts that defaults will increase substantially in the near future. Because there is money to be made in the field, there is now great demand on Wall Street for experts in distressed debt and in restructuring companies in or near bankruptcy.”

Another thought-provoking piece in LMD can be found here: (talk about  foresight….)

“Don’t Turn The World Over To The Bankers” by Kenneth Galbraith

How all legislative mechanisms to prevent such a crisis were eliminated in the US is explained here:

This is anything but a “financial tsunami”: it´s another euphemism for neoliberal policies: Planned Misery

Leave a comment

Filed under Economy, Managing Perceptions, Politics

Economic Guru: Wall Street Rescue Plan is Wrong

(The identity of the economic expert is revealed at the end of the interview….)

Q: In view of the current crisis, don`t you think that corporations, especially banks have a social responsibility?”

A: “So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is, no they do not”

Q: Under the circumstances it seems obvious that “leave the markets alone” is no longer tenable and that the government is after all the only reliable institution to turn to…

A: “The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.”

Q: Many people think that the main cause of this crisis is unbridled greed of bankers and investors. What is your response to these allegations?

A: “What kind of society isn’t structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of a system”

Q: The government aims to prevent a further spread of the crisis and to restore confidence in the banking system (the banks don´t trust each other anymore..) So is public critisicm about the rescue of “arrogant bankers” really justified?

A: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

Q: “Do you think the accusations, that President Bush, Sec. Paulson and others have exaggerated the crisis to stampede congress into accepting the  hastily produced “rescue plan” at the expense of taxpayers are justified?

The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority.”

Only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.

Q: Is it morally acceptable to let the taxpayers pay for the recklessness of Wall Street? To force them to act as guarantors for an astronomical amount of debt,  toxic loans and practice a kind of banking welfare?

A: “If I’m going to do good with other peoples’ money, I first have to take it away from them. That means, that the welfare state philosophy of doing good with other peoples’ money (…) is a philosophy of violence and corrosion. It’s against freedom, because I have to use force to get the money.

In the second place, very few people spend other peoples’ money as carefully as they spend their own.”

This imaginary interview was conducted with Milton Friedman, the “most prominent economist of the 20th century” and greatest advocate of deregulation (this translates into government is the source of all evil.. – lets drown it in the bathtub…)

The quotations are attributed to Friedman, I just used them as “answers” to show that these principles can only survive by applying them very selectively and are rather like the absurd claim of US militarists: it´s not the weapons, it´s who has them…..

For a deeper analysis of Friedmanite / Friedmanesque or even Friedmaniac policies see also

Leave a comment

Filed under Economy, Managing Perceptions, Politics, Society, US

Money As Debt: The Economic Dictatorship nobody talks about

Money as Debt: Please watch this video

to understand how the debt system really works

This presentation seems very simple, even childish at the beginning (as it is a cartoon) but gets better all the time and ends up as a real eye-opener at the end…. Here are some quotations from the video:

“Until the control for the issue of currency and credit is restored to government

and recognized as its most conspicous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignity of parliament and democracy is idle and futile.

Once a nation parts with control of its credit, it matters not who makes the nation`s laws,

Usury once in control will wreck any nation.”

William L. M. King, fmr. Prime Minister of Canada (who nationalized the Bank of Canada)

“All of the perplexities, confusions and distress in America arises not from the defects of the constitution, not from lack of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of credit and ciculation.”

John Adams, father of the US Constitution

“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled one way or the other by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told, how periods of depressions originate.”

James Garfield, (assassinated US Pres.)

“I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by it´s concentrated system of credit… We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, a government by conviction and the role of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

Woodrow Wilson, US Pres.1913-1921

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented.

Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and with the flick of a pen they will create enough money to buy it back…

Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes, like mine, will disappear, and they ought to disappear for than the world would be a better and happier world to live in.

But if you want to continue to be slaves of banks and pay the cost of your own slavey, then let the bankers continue to control credit (and create money).”

Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England 1928-1941 (reputedly the 2nd richest man in England at the time)

“The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently, out of the hands of George III and the international bankers, was the prime reasong for the revolutionary war.”

Benjamin Franklin

“Money is the new form of slavery and distinguishable from the told simply by the fact that it is impersonal, there is no human relations between master and slave.”

Leo Tolstoy

Leave a comment

Filed under Economy, Managing Perceptions, Politics

European Viewpoint: Russia Is Not Our Enemy

PROLOGUE: I was raised in fear of “the Russians” because my mother (as a small child) was one of the thousands of German refugees  who fled in the winter of 1944/ 1945 from Eastern Prussia and Pommerania when the Red Army advanced. She told me (during the Cold War) about Russian atrocities and how they had dressed up my then young grandmother as an old woman so she would not be raped…. (My grandfather died in Stalingrad). Although I was only 7 years at the time, I still remember how shocked my mother was when Soviet Tanks rolled into Prague in 1968.

I grew up adoring fake American war movie “heroes” like John Wayne and William Holden….But by growing up and understanding the historical context, perceptions change dramatically…..

There are still many Americans I admire: courageous journalists and intellectuals and thousands of ordinary Americans form high school protesters to the “Raging Grannies” who defend their open society and democratic achievements against Wall Street, the Pentagon, increasing corporate power and a bunch of insane imperalists….

The former US ambassador to Russia , Jack Matlock said in “Conversations with History” in 1997 and later in an interview with the Carnegie Council for an Ethic Foreign Policy in July 2008 that one of the most important foreign policy objectives after the cold war should be “a major effort to bring Russia into the European security system and not treat it as a defeated country, … as if they did not count any more.…”. He also warned that mishandling NATO expansion would further national chauvinism and create greater insecurity around Russia´s borders and that the West should signal that “Russia´s security is also important to us”. Matlock also stressed that without Russia´s cooperation the big problems cannot be solved (nuclear disarmament, energy policy, Middle East, relations to China, etc.) and indicated that insulting and patronizing Russia was a rather stupid thing to do…..

I share his assessment and find the media coverage of the conflict in the “Eurasian Balkans” (Brzezinski  parlance), the lack of background analysis and geopolitical context rather disturbing. I also confess that I am sick and  tired of the commentaries by Timothy Garton Ash, who keeps lecturing us about the noble principles of the EU, and his apologetic and incredibly naive interpretations of US actions: Encouraging Saakashvili was very likely not “characteristic incompetence” of the Bush administration but a deliberate ploy, because even if the operation failed, Russia could be portrayed as the new “threat” (Evil Empire re-loaded…) and aggressive US policy in the region as the classic “defending democracy and freedom” scam…

Joining in the ongoing demonization of Russia, he first informs us about “the ethnic cleansing” in Georgia and puts the blame on the Russian troops. On The Independent´s website a reader comments on this: “Now, knowing how Ossetians are, the looting and vendetta attacks were to be expected. Saakashvili knew it. He calculated well: either he would capture the territory, or if Russia retaliated, he could scream for help and refer to vendetta attacks as ethnic cleansing.” But of course, the author of these lines may well be one of those ignorant Europeans who “know nothing about this faraway country…”

TGA then pontificates about Russia´s “deliberate challenge to the whole late 20-century way of doing international relations that the EU represents” and admonishes us for “finding fault with the US” which he describes as “a sport at which we (Europeans) excel”.

To call the US led militarization of Eastern Europe, (provocation and isolation of Russia)  “fault in Washington” or “rearranging the furniture” –  in a recent editorial comment – shows how biased these comments are since this language serves to downplay reckless US actions and broken promises.

If TGA (along with Chris Patten) is shaking his head in disbelief about Europe´s failure to punish Russia for behaving “like 19 th century tsars, want(ing) a sphere of influence around their borders” then why on earth isn`t the EU doing something about their “transatlantic partner”, who in true hegemonic fashion is demanding and enforcing not only a global sphere of influence but “full spectrum dominance”?!

Why is there no outrage about “reserving the right to act unilaterally to protect vital American interests” by “convincing potential competitors that they need not …. pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests? ..about the neocon fantasy  of “… a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role…” [1] Seen in this context, only an idiot would not respond to the Eastern expansion of NATO and the latest US provocation in Georgia…(whose troops were trained by US and Israeli forces…)

Russia did not build more than 800 military bases around the world and claims no devine right to global dominance  yet we are subjected to this ridiculous propaganda that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Empire….

Then we are informed about “the New European Way of doing things” with regard to “territoral integrity”. So who is going to determine if a case is “exceptional”, if a region is allowed to secede or not? “Globocop” in Washington, I presume since the UN has now become a farce? The US supports secessionist movements in countries it cannot control to discourage anyone “from challenging our leadership” or not accepting the economic and political order of the “Washington Consensus” .

So the “How” is more important, eh? ..always by peaceful means .. like NATO (with EU support) did in Yugoslavia and Kosovo.…?!  The naive  notion of  the EU´´s “fundamental claim” of “negotiation and consent”, with the “sanction of national and international law”  – did it disappear when the US invaded Iraq? Why is the EU pretending that the war crimes of the US never happened? (see Pinter´s Nobel Prize speech)  Why is Germany fighting in Afghanistan? (in violation of the German constitution) Why are there no EU sanctions against Israel? Why was there no big outrage when Russia committed atrocities in Chechnya?

Because in those days Russia was considered a “friend” of the US and too weak to compete with “US interests” in the region? Or because that was part of the US sanctioned “War on Terror” in which anything goes? Why doesn´t the EU demand that all member states must refrain from allowing permanent foreign (US) military installations or troops on their territory? We don´t need US “protection” against “rogue states”,  we need protection from their arrogant foreign policy and their war of terror…..

But the most outrageous display of double standards and selective indignation is Mr. Garton Ash´s complaint about “Russia´s (alleged) message (to the EU) that the unilateral use of force in the advancement of national interests is part of what great powers do“. He does mention briefly the ridicule the US earned when lecturing Putin about adherence to international law but perpetuates the myth that it was the Iraq war that ruined US credibility when the rest of the world understands that America (its ruling class, not the thousands of honest and intelligent Americans who fight for what is left of their democracy….) had no moral authority long before 9/11 as US historian Howard Zinn recently confirmed in an interview with Al Jazeera: “The US has never been a benign power”….

If the EU is so concerned about its mulilateral, law-based order – and TGA, too – why do they not demand sanctions against the greatest violator of these principles the world has ever seen, the USA? Why call the insane and destabilizing US policies “faults”? Why don´t they see that not Russia is their enemy but US hegemony?

Garton Ash´s rant about “the ruthless great power” which wants to “establish it own 19th century style sphere of influence in the post Soviet space”, “prepared to use violence, intimidation and extortion to realise its national interests” (the hallmarks of US foreign policy!) is laughable when put in the historical and political context of US world dominance, and its successful plans to destabilize Europe`s relations with Russia and gain increasing control of Eurasian energy.

Divide et impera is still working well, and so are US plans “to prevent the emergence of European only security arrangements which would undermine NATO” 1

In my view, NATO is the Trojan Horse of the US but the EU seems to be blind to it….

The BBC rightly observed that Russia has to improve its ability to manage perceptions – here it can really learn a lot from the US, who is master of  the media game:   Evil Russia does  “20th century style war” with tanks and the like, but the noble US does “military intervention” and in collaboration with the fawning EU, even “humanitarian intervention”, meaning heavy bombing for a “just” cause like in Kosovo or Afghanistan…. or “special operations”,  – they must have “all options” available….(whereas Putin´s option is “you are free to do what we want”….)

The US (responsible for the death and mutilation of hundreds of thousands people and a new arms race) makes “mistakes” “miscalculations”, has “faults” but Russia, the “ruthless power” which is slowly being encircled by US military bases and US client states like Georgia and Ukraine,  commits “crimes” and (does not stop) “ethnic cleansing” (US allies like Israel or Turkey “transfer” and kill only in self-defense of course…) and  even the concept of territorial integrity is now applied very selectively…..Russia has no right to support secessionist movements in countries in which the US has “a deep and profound interest” (Cheney) although they are thousands of miles away, yet Putin is not even allowed to show the same “interest” in his neighbours…. Perhaps to make the point, he should install a “missile shield” in Cuba? “Directed at no-one”, of course… just in case same rogue state gets out of control…..

How long will this game go on? John Pilger said in one of his speeches that “professional journalism” now mostly means “amplifying and echoing the official truth instead of challenging and exposing the propaganda and lies….(see Iraq and Kosovo coverage and now Georgia?)

According to The Independent, Putin said in his latest press conference:  “Please do not instigate an arms race in Europe” and that “there is no Soviet threat but they are trying to resurrect it”.

Is this the language of a would-be-21st century czar? Putin deserves criticism in several ways but this time he is not the “bad” guy…. Given US interest in the region and the insane “full spectrum dominance” strategy  behind it, his assessment is a lot more credible than the constant propaganda we have been exposed to in recent weeks. In my view, Timothy Garton Ash has it completely wrong: we don´t need deterrence against Russian “aggression” and there is no “rollback of Western influence“, we are talking about a sort of self-defense against dangerous US meddling in Russia´s backyard. This is a massive threat to the national interests of Russia (the US trying to marginalize and isolate Russia in the region) – let´s imagine the roles were reverse here: “all hell would break loose”, as the Americans say…..

Russia is more our natural ally, than the (current state of the) US (as Gerhard Schröder understood). The end of the Cold War was a great chance for a new world order (not based on force) but the US, under neocon ideology, did not give it a chance and Europe, indoctrinated with US “market” ideology, did not see what was going on…..

The publication of this one-sided comment of Mr. Garton Ash reminds me of a statement by Mark Curtis: They (the media) do not yet tell us what to think, but what to think about……


[1] Defense Planning Guidance, 1992 (excerpts printed in the NYT on March 8, 1992)

Leave a comment

Filed under Europe, Foreign Policy, Managing Perceptions, Russia, Uncategorized