Archive | December 25th, 2011

The Way to Occupy a Bank is to Own One

By Ellen Brown

The campaign to “move your money” has gotten a groundswell of support. Having greater impact would be to “move our money” — move our local government revenues out of Wall Street banks into our own publicly-owned banks.

Occupy Wall Street has been both criticized and applauded for not endorsing any official platform.  But there are unofficial platforms, including one titled the 99% Declaration which calls for a “National General Assembly” to convene on July 4, 2012 in Philadelphia.  The 99% Declaration seeks everything from reining in the corporate state to ending the Fed to eliminating censorship of the Internet.  But none of these demands seems to go to the heart of what prompted Occupiers to camp out on Wall Street in the first place – a corrupt banking system that serves the 1% at the expense of the 99%.  To redress that, we need a banking system that serves the 99%.

Occupy San Francisco has now endorsed a plan aimed at doing just that.  In a December 1 Wall Street Journal article titled “Occupy Shocker: A Realistic, Actionable Idea,” David Weidner writes:

[P]rotesters in the Bay Area, especially Occupy San Francisco, have something their East Coast neighbors don’t: a realistic plan aimed at the heart of banks. The idea could be expanded nationwide to send a message to a compromised Washington and the financial industry.

It’s called a municipal bank. Simply put, it would transfer the City of San Francisco’s bank accounts—about $2 billion now spread between such banks as Bank of America Corp., UnionBanCal Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co.—into a public bank. That bank would use small local banks to lend to the community.

The public bank concept is not new.  It has been proposed before in San Francisco and has a successful 90-year track record in North Dakota.  Weidner notes that the state-owned Bank of North Dakota earned taxpayers more than $61 million last year and reported a profit of $57 million in 2008, when Bank of America had a $1.2 billion net loss.  The San Francisco bank proposal is sponsored by city supervisor John Avalos, who has been thinking about a municipal bank for several years.

Weidner calls the proposal “the boldest institutional stroke yet against banks targeted by the Occupy movement.”

Responding to the Critics


He acknowledges that it will be an uphill climb.  In a follow-up article on December 6th, Weidner wrote:

Of course, there are critics. . . . They argue that public banks would put public money at risk.  Would you be surprised to know that most of the critics are bankers?

That’s why you don’t hear them talking about the $100 billion they lost for the California pension funds in 2008.  They don’t talk about the foreclosures that have wrought havoc on communities and tax revenues.  They don’t talk about liar loans and what kind of impact that’s had on the economy, employment and the real estate market — not to mention local and state budgets.

Risk to the taxpayers remains the chief objection of banker opponents.  “There is no need for such lending,” they say.  “We already provide loans to any creditworthy applicant who comes to us.  Why put taxpayer money at risk, lending for every crackpot scheme that some politician wants to waste taxpayer money on?”

Tom Hagan, who pays taxes in Maine, has a response to that argument.  In a December 3rd letter to the editor in the Press Herald (Portland), he maintained there is no need to invest public bank money in risky retail ventures.  The money could be saved for infrastructure projects, at least while the public banking model is being proven.  The salubrious result could be to cut local infrastructure costs in half.  Making his case in conjunction with a Maine turnpike project, he wrote:

Why does Maine pay double for turnpike improvements?

Improvements are funded by bonds issued by the Maine Turnpike Authority, which collects the principal amounts, then pays the bonds back with interest.

Over time, interest payments add up to about the original principal, doubling the cost of turnpike improvements and the tolls that must be collected to pay for them. The interest money is shipped out of state to Wall Street banks.

Why not keep the interest money here in Maine, to the benefit of all Mainers? This could be done by creating a state-owned bank. State funds now deposited in low- or no-interest checking accounts would instead be deposited in the state bank.

Those funds would be used to buy up the authority bonds and municipal bonds issued by the Maine Bond Bank. All of them. Since all interest payments would flow into the state treasury, we would end up paying half what we now pay for our roads, bridges and schools.

North Dakota has profited from a state-owned bank for 90 years. Why not Maine?

The state bank could generate “bank credit” on its books, as all chartered banks are authorized to do.  This credit could then be used to buy the bonds.  The government’s deposits would not be “spent” but would remain in the government’s account, as safe as they are in Bank of America—arguably more so, since the solvency of the public bank would be guaranteed by the local government.

Critics worry about the profligate risk-taking of politicians, but the trusty civil servants at the Bank of North Dakota insist that they are not politicians; they are bankers.  Unlike the Wall Street banks that had to be bailed out by the taxpayers, the Bank of North Dakota invests conservatively.  It avoided the derivatives and toxic mortgage-backed securities that precipitated the credit crisis, and it helped the state avoid the crisis by partnering with local banks, helping them with capital and liquidity requirements.  As a result, the state has had no bank failures in at least a decade.

With intelligent use of the ever-evolving Internet, truly effective public oversight can minimize any cronyism.  California’s pension funds might have avoided losing $100 billion if, instead of gambling in the Wall Street casino, they had invested in infrastructure through the state’s own state bank.

The Constitutional Challenge

In Weidner’s Wall Street Journal article, he raises another argument of opponents—that California law forbids using taxpayer money to make private loans.  That, he said, would have to be changed.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has held otherwise.  In 1920, the constitutional objection was raised in conjunction with the Bank of North Dakota and was rejected both by the Supreme Court of North Dakota and the U.S. Supreme Court.  See Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233 (1920), and fuller discussion here.

A municipal bank would be doing with the public’s funds only what Bank of America does now: it would be lending “bank credit” backed by the bank’s capital and deposits.  The difference would be that the local community, not Florida or Europe, would get the loans; and the city of San Francisco, not Bank of America, would get the profits.

California and many other states already own infrastructure banks that use the states’ funds to back loans.  If that use of public monies is legal, and if public funds can be deposited in Bank of America and used as the basis for loans to multi-national corporations, they can be deposited in the Bank of San Francisco and used as the basis for loans to the local community.

Better yet, they can be used to buy municipal bonds.  Investing in municipal bonds would avoid the constitutional issue with “private loans” altogether, since the loans would be to local government.

Sending a Message to Wall Street

The campaign to “move your money” has gotten a groundswell of support, but move your money into what?  Weidner repeats the complaint of critics that private credit unions have gotten too big and threaten commercial banking.  Having greater impact would be to “move our money”—move our local government revenues out of Wall Street banks into our own publicly-owned banks, which could then generate credit for the local economy and public works.

Posted in USAComments Off on The Way to Occupy a Bank is to Own One






In September 2010, 16-year-old Palestinian refugee Mohamad Fahed arrives at London’s Heathrow airport and is taken to Britain’s most prestigious private school, Eton College. Here, thanks to an all-expenses paid scholarship, he will spend the next two years, adopting the mantle of a public schoolboy in an environment that is largely unknown, even to the British.

Mohamad is a charismatic and thoughtful boy whose life so far has been spent in the Al Rashidieh Palestinian refugee camp in southern Lebanon. Mohamad’s dream is to become a genetic engineer, but as the third generation of his family to be born in exile, with few educational or job opportunities guaranteed, this dream seemed destined to remain unfulfilled. Winning the scholarship, however, will open up his life in ways he cannot yet imagine.

Witness follows Mohamad through his first year at this extraordinary school – as he gets to grips with the unique uniform, tailcoats and starched white collars, and adapts his taste buds to the very different food served in the school canteen, while dealing with the inevitable homesickness and undertaking the process of making new friends among the privileged college students.

Filmmaker’s view

While travelling in Lebanon in 2010, I heard about a boy from one of the Palestinian refugee camps who had won a scholarship to Eton College, Britain’s most prestigious school. I was intrigued to find out more, attracted by the sharp cultural contrasts his story was likely to reveal. Mohamad Fahed turned out to be a bright, articulate young man, the son of a teacher, whose grandparents had fled Palestine in 1948. Top of his class and with hopes of being a genetic engineer, Mohamad had been given a lucky break. His family and Eton, a school that rarely permits filming, agreed to let me document his story.

There are over 400,000 Palestinians living in Lebanon; many of whom live in one of the 12 official refugee camps, while others inhabit informal ‘gatherings’ or settlements. Living conditions vary but housing is often cramped and with only basic infrastructure. Unemployment figures are high, with Palestinians unable to work in a number of professions, including law, engineering and medicine. Mohamad’s school is funded by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which also provides health and social services to refugees, who cannot claim the same basic rights as either Lebanese citizens or other foreigners living in the country.

The scholarship to Eton has the potential to be life changing for Mohamad, offering a rare chance to fulfill his ambitions. The Horizon Scholarship at Eton is funded by private benefactors and supports an academically gifted boy from the Palestinian territories, enabling him to complete his secondary education at one the best schools in the world and to apply for university during that time. For Mohamad, who had never left Lebanon, it would be a passport to a new life.

I filmed with him in Lebanon, seeing him at school and at home with his family. He showed me the bedroom he shared with his grandmother and two brothers, and I spoke to his parents who were immensely proud of his achievement.

In September, he arrived in the UK for the beginning of term and was thrown straight into school life. To leave his family for a new country would have been daunting in itself, but to join a boarding school like Eton with its distinguished history, facilities and academic reputation was quite something else. Yet Mohamad managed the transition in those early days with surprising ease and enthusiasm, despite a few bouts of inevitable homesickness. He was bemused by Eton’s eccentric events like St Andrews Day complete with bagpipe performance and fencing displays, and took up Kung Fu in his first term. His biggest concern was doing well at school and not falling behind, a particular challenge for someone who had not followed the British GCSE syllabus for sciences and mathematics. I was concerned that he might throw himself into his books entirely and miss out on some of the other experiences that Eton could give him: the extraordinary calendar of outside speakers, concerts and societies.

By the second term, however, Mohamad had found his feet, volunteering to sing in Verdi’s Requiem, tutoring his housemaster in Arabic and avidly following the events of the Arab Spring. His faith remains an important part of his life at Eton but he is open to dialogue about other points of view and other religions. A scene which did not make the final edit saw him visiting Speakers’ Corner in London and marvelling at the freedom people have there to expound on whatever topics they care about. He was amazed at this public expression of different points of view, which for him back home was something to be done behind closed doors.

The film is in some ways as much about Eton’s approach to education, as it is about Mohamad’s own journey. With annual fees of £25,000, it is perhaps not surprising that the school can provide a very rounded education, encouraging students to pursue their niche interests, be they debating or rowing. But Mohamad is one of the 20 per cent of the school who are on some kind of bursary or scholarship; young people for whom this kind of education would never have been possible otherwise.

When I asked Mohamad towards the end of his first year how he thought he had changed, he talked about how he felt he had become more thoughtful about the world and able to see things from other peoples’ perspectives. As his housemaster says at the end of the film: “The most important education that happens in a place like this is by the boys, among the boys.” I have no doubt that Mohamad’s presence in the school has also broadened the minds of many of its pupils.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on MOHAMAD AT ETON

Happy Christmas, O Prisoners Of The Little Town of Bethlehem


O little town of Bethlehem How still we see thee lie Above thy deep and dreamless sleep The silent stars go by Yet in thy dark streets shineth The everlasting Light The hopes and fears of all the years Are met in thee tonight

 by Stuart Littlewood

While carving the turkey for your family and merrily quaffing mulled wine ‘midst happy laughter, remember that the romantic Little Town of Bethlehem at the centre of our childhood Christmases is now “an immense prison” in the words of Michel Sabbah, former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, and entirely surrounded by Israel’s ugly 8-metre separation wall bristling with machine-gun towers.

The good citizens of Bethlehem are cut off from their capital Jerusalem, only six miles away, the rest of the West Bank and the whole world.

Consider that the United Nations, for obvious reasons, designated Jerusalem and Bethlehem a protected international zone under UN administration. Israeli rule was not to be permitted.

Consider also that when Palestine was under British mandate Christians accounted for 20 per cent of the population and how 63 years of terror, illegal occupation, dispossession, interference and economic wrecking tactics have whittled their numbers down to less than 2 per cent.

Consider that, at this rate, there will soon be no Christians left in the land where Christianity was born… thanks to the cowardice and inaction of our political leaders.

How will the 26 bishops sitting around in our House of Lords, doing nothing, explain that to their dwindling congregations?

As usual, many Palestinians in Bethlehem and the other cities and villages throughout occupied Palestine will be unable to reunite with their families or celebrate Christmas at their holy places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem due to cruel Israeli-imposed travel restrictions. Imagine for a moment what sort of Christmas the half-starved children in blockaded Gaza are having this year, and every year… and what New Year prospects face all the other Palestinian children struggling to grow up with the Israeli army’s boot on their necks.

Deep down it is not about religion at all. The struggle is between justice and a criminal conspiracy of huge international proportions, the tentacles of which spread far beyond the Holy Land and impact on all of us, even here in the deepest recesses of England’s green and pleasant land.

In the New Year civil society must resolve to DO SOMETHING about it, one way or another, before the evil spins irreversibly out of control.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Happy Christmas, O Prisoners Of The Little Town of Bethlehem

Has the Syrian intelligence decided to commit suicide?!


by Nadir Izzideen


Translated by Alex with Ping help

We all know that the Syrian regime is based on a fundamental pillar of the security services, mainly on the State security apparatus or “intelligence”, and this pillar has played a key role in the Steadfastness of this resisting regime and in addressing the plot targeting it for nearly 10 months, and this of course does not reduce the importance of the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people supporting Bashar’s regime, And the role played by the Syrian people in responding to this external aggression.

Since the beginning of the events in Syria, the political actors controlling the Arab and international media claims that what is happening is a peaceful movement demanding freedom and democracy, the media used all legal and unlawful means to convince the people. So it completely denied the presence of militants killing and civilians and security forces and carry out sabotage operations in Syria, When exposed, the media claimed that they are renegade troops from the army!

If we added up the numbers of those troops we conclude single soldier remained with the regime

All this was not important and, does not require a response, especially as events have proved themselves contrary to the allegations. But fooling the minds of people reached a level that Saad Hariri and some politicians and analysts, to claim that the regime in Syria is behind yesterday’s terrorist operations against Central Intelligence in Damascus, this is no longer acceptable in any way!

The silly analysis we heard and we read between yesterday and today requires addressing the Arab and world public opinion,

The first question is whether the Hariri’s hatred level of gloating Syrians as it was clear yesterday at its homepage on the “Twitter Web site “? And to say that what happened was a failed attempt by the regime to cover what is happening in Syria?! Or is it an attempt by Hariri and his followers to cover their complicity in the plot planned by their masters?

With prior our knowledge, to the size of the plot, we will answer the question raised immediately after the event, which is: what is wrong in saying the regime stand behind the bombings?

If the regime wants to prove his theory about the terrorists, does it require sending suicide bombers to attack its main intelligence centre themselves?! Wasn’t enough to attack other target here and there?! At the end any bombing whether big or small is a terrorist attack

So, why the regime would detonate the main centre and a branch? Wasn’t enough to blow one to prove its theory? Does it require approximately half a ton of explosive material?

It is no secret that the Syrian regime in the beginning of the crisis sought to mitigate its importance, perhaps it was the biggest mistake the regime committed against itself and its people. Or perhaps it may be the result of lack of knowledge of the size of the actual plot.

In both cases it demonstrates the flaw in the structure of the security apparatus, not feeling the water flowing at the bottom of its feet, have no prior knowledge about preparing and smuggling armed terrorist groups across borders, which calls for a serious investigation to address this security flaw. But even after revealing the conspiracy, the regimes media persist in its highlighting the calm and stability in the major cities, especially Damascus to plant confidence and creating confusion among the Syrian people, while the opposition was persisting to show the contrary.

So why would the Syrian regime commit such a terrorist act?! Why now not since the very beginning, or several months ago, and use it to justify exterminating all armed manifestations in the country?

How funny is that the regime took advantage of the arrival of the observer mission to prove his theory! As if targeting one of the most important pillars is the only way to prove it

Historically, the bombings and assassinations in any country in the world, is a primarily intelligence specialty. Did the Syrian intelligence decided to commit suicide twice to prove its conspiracy theory?!! It’s not a theory but a realistic plot and Syrians are paying bloody price as every moment pass without stopping it.

For information only yesterday the Syrian regime supporters were invited to demonstrate in Damascus and everywhere as an expression of their support for the regime, to prove to the Arabs that the majority of people are still loyal, but after this criminal operation, would the Syrians dare to take to the streets in support of the Syrian regime? Is it, the bombing, the best way to show the volume of popular support to the Observer’s Mission?!

More importantly, how the regime will be able to react to what happened in the presence of observers, following agreement with Russia not to enter Homs and other places, and to avoid military docking, so that Moscow may passed its project in the Security Council?

It’s an illusion to think that the United States and some Arab followers would care for the bombings, in case they are not involved in it. After all the exposed and discredited schemes and their public support for the armed groups in Syria, are they going to stop at what happened? Or they will promote Hariri’s theory?

If we want to be realistic, we really should bear in mind that this form of criminal acts do not any fingerprints other than Takfiri’s fingerprints. Such groups have publicly expressed via electronic media means and the sites calling for “Jihad” against “infidels”, and to carry out suicide operations against security services …

This is the last horror option to be used against the recalcitrant regime in Syria rather than a war, the West can’t afford

Who would triumph the extremists or the will of the Syrians?

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Has the Syrian intelligence decided to commit suicide?!



Outfoxed examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, have been running a “race to the bottom” in television news.


This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public’s right to know.


[The first minute of this video is in Dutch – The remainder is in English]

OUTFOXED Rupert Murdoch´s War on Journalism



Presentation of Veterans Today’s “Murdoch Notes”


Written by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

Produced by Heretic Productions, Malmsbury, Wiltshire, UK


Who is Rupert Murdoch? VIDEO

 “Through espionage, blackmail,bribery and propaganda,his organizations have been controlling politicians”



Editing Debbie Menon

Related article:

Posted in UKComments Off on Media OUTFOXED

Groveling for Campaign Money Isolates America


Picking Up the Last of His 30 Pieces of Silver

America’s growing isolation


By Alan Hart


A longer headline would have added the words because of President Obama’s grovelling for Jewish campaign funding and votes.

On 19 December, in the Jewish Daily Forward, Josh Nathan-Kazis wrote this:

“Top-level Jewish fundraisers from President Obama’s 2008 campaign are sticking with the president in 2012.

“Despite reports that President Obama faces a loss of Jewish funders due to his Middle East policy, analysis of a list of elite bundlers from his 2008 race shows no defections among the president’s top Jewish supporters in 2012.”

That’s not good news for the would-be presidents on the Republican side who are grovelling for Jewish campaign funds and votes.

On the same day, in what the BBC’s Barbara Plett called “a highly unusual move”, all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council sharply criticised Israeli settlement activities. They said in their statements that “continued settlement building threatened the chances of a future Palestinian state.” They also expressed dismay at rising settler violence. (“They” were the envoys representing the European Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab Group and a loose coalition of emerging states known as IBSA).

It was UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant who read the statement of the EU group.

“Israel’s continuing announcements to accelerate the construction of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, (1000 new housing units tendered for last week), send a devastating message. We believe that Israel’s security and the realisation of the Palestinians’ right to statehood are not opposing goals. On the contrary they are mutually reinforcing objectives. But they will not be achieved while settlement building and settler violence continues.”

As Barbara Plett noted, “Despite the unanimity of views, the envoys did not try to draft a single Security Council statement because they knew the US would veto it.” She also noted that the Obama administration’s stance was that “anything to do with Israeli-Palestinian peace talks belongs in a US-led bilateral process, not at the UN.” (In my opinion that’s hypocrisy of the highest order).

It could be said, and I do say, that such criticism of Israel’s settlement activities is 44 years too late. So what, really, is its significance?

My answer is in three parts.

The first is that it’s a strong indication of America’s growing isolation because of the Obama administration’s unconditional support for Zionism’s monster child.

The second, related, is that it seems to confirm what I have been saying and writing for several months – that behind closed doors almost all of the governments of the world, European governments in particular, are more than fed up with Israel’s contempt for and defiance of international law.

The third is that the governments of most of the member states of the UN have come to terms with the fact thatZionism’s assertion that a Palestinian state on the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip could and would pose a threat to Israel’s existence is propaganda nonsense of the highest order. (This, of course, is only of academic interest because the two-state solution has long been dead if not yet buried).

When I am thinking about Obama’s grovelling, my memory recalls a comment made to me by Dr. Hajo Meyer, the passionate anti-Zionist Nazi holocaust survivor and author of An Ethical Tradition Betrayed, The End of Judaism.

We had shared a platform in London and over breakfast the following morning I asked him a question. I said: “Hajo, you’re well into your eighties and you are being vilified by Zionism’s verbal hit-men for your efforts to unmask the Zionist monster. Why are you continuing with your truth-telling? Why don’t you sit back in peace and quiet and enjoy what’s left of your life?”

He replied with nine little words. “The first person I see every morning is me,” meaning “I have to live with myself.”

It’s more than reasonable to assume that Obama looks in the mirror from time to time. I wonder if he can live with himself.

Footnote: My comments on Israel’s response

Israel’s response as delivered by Karean Peretz, spokeswoman for Israel’s UN Mission, included this: “The main obstacle to peace, has been, and remains, the Palestinians’ claim to the so-called right of return and its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,”

That, too, is Zionist propaganda nonsense of the highest order.

Israel is not a Jewish state. How could it be when about a quarter of its citizens are Arabs and mainly Muslims? Israel could only be a Jewish state after it had resorted to a final round of ethnic cleansing. Israel is a Zionist state.

Because Arafat kept them informed through a secret channel, Israel’s leaders have long known that in the event of a two-state solution, the PLO was reluctantly reconciled to the reality of the right of return being confined to the territory of the Palestinian state, which would mean that only about 100,000 refugees would be able to return, with the rest having to accept financial compensation for the loss, theft, of their land and rights.

As I explain in my book Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews, when they decided they had no choice but to be pragmatic, Arafat and his leadership colleagues took a degree of comfort from two hopes. One was that all Palestinian refugees everywhere could and would have a Palestinian passport. The other was that if there was a two-state solution, it could evolve over one or two generations into one state for all – i.e. because in peace and partnership enough Israeli Jews would say something like, “We don’t need two states”. In the event of a one-state solution coming about by mutual consent, it was assumed on the Palestinian side at leadership level that, over time, all Palestinians who wanted to return would be able to return. So in theory the two-state solution was not necessarily the end-game on the right of return.

Posted in USAComments Off on Groveling for Campaign Money Isolates America

Pakistan: Gen Pervez Musharraf Vying To Return


“Some live in fool’s paradise and think that they are indispensables.” Raja Mujtaba


By Brig Asif Haroon Raja


Gen Musharraf came in the limelight when he was appointed Army chief by Nawaz Sharif in October 1998. He gained prominence when he launched the ill-conceived Operation in Kargil in summer of 1999 at his own, which led to ouster of Nawaz and take over by Musharraf on 12 October 1999. His Kargil venture and the coup launched by a group of general officers to dethrone a democratically elected heavy mandate government were illegal acts.

]During his over nine-year rule, Musharraf made many blunders but his biggest blunder was the sacking of chief justice Iftikhar in March 2007, which triggered lawyer’s movement. There on, his graph kept plummeting till he had to first shed his Army chief’s cap in November 2007 and handing over the baton to Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, and then his president’s cap in August 2008 and paving the way for Asif Ali Zardari to replace him.

Zardari had secretly made an agreement with UK and USA not to impeach or try him and to provide him safe exit in return for helping him in becoming the next president. He had committed to his mentors that Musharraf would be given a choice whether to stay in Pakistan or proceed abroad and that he would be allowed to retain the Army House till the completion of his house in Chak Shezad and provided full security as long as he stayed in Pakistan. He was allowed to proceed abroad with full honours and to carry with him security guards including serving commandoes, personal assistant and a batman. He retained security staff for quite sometime.

During his rule, seven attempts were made on his life; two of which were deadly. He subverted the Constitution twice, which as per Article 61 of the Constitution is a treasonous act. He is accused of getting Nawab Akbar Bugti murdered in August 2006. An FIR to this effect has been registered in Quetta and based on the petition filed; the court has issued his warrants of arrest. Afghan Taliban must not have pardoned him for his betrayal. The Baloch and Pashtuns of FATA hate him since he had initiated military operations against them. Religious groups also bear a grudge against him since he had oppressed them. Victims of Guantanamo Bay Prison as well as family of Dr Aafia Siddiqui who had been handed over by him to USA cannot forgive him.

Sharif brothers also carry a deep rancour against him. Nawaz Sharif has not forgotten the humiliation he suffered at the time of his arrest on the evening of 12 October 1999 and his fifteen months lock up in Attock jail. He would like to reopen Kargil case, which he strongly maintains was undertaken by Gen Musharraf, Lt Gen Aziz (CGS), Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmad (Commander 10 Corps), Maj Gen Javed Hasan (Commander FCNA) and Maj Gen Tauqir Zia (DGMO) without taking him into confidence. During his meeting with Sardar Attaullah Mengal in Karachi on 19 December, in order to mollify the highly emotional and aggrieved Sardar, Nawaz vowed to address the injustices of Balochistan and to take the murderers of Akbar Bugti to task. It was an open threat to Musharraf, cautioning him to beware of the impending dangers he will have to face upon his arrival.

Irrespective of all the threats to his life, like Benazir he is also vying to return to Pakistan and try his luck in politics. It seems Musharraf has not learnt any lesson from the fate of Benazir. He is leading a comfortable life in London and receives heavy payments for his lectures in various educational institutes in USA and western countries. He has accumulated so much of wealth during his stint in power that he can live a lord’s life in London where he has an expensive flat in elitist constituency. The magnitude of his wealth can be measured from the fact that he managed to establish a political party which he has named as All Pakistan Muslim League (APML). He first announced to return back by 23 March 2012 but now has advanced his date to January. The APML will spend Rs117 million for publicity campaign to welcome him. Rs 629 million will be spent on transport and other arrangements for his public meeting upon his arrival. The reason why he is so keen to comeback is that the kind of perks and privileges he can enjoy in Pakistan are unavailable in the west.

The heat generated by political parties and growing demand for mid-term elections is a clear sign that 2012 will be election year. His fans have led him up the garden path that owing to poor performance of the present regime, he will receive a hero’s welcome on arrival. They rightly feel that in terms of governance, economic management, competence and results obtained, Musharraf’s rule was much better. However, they must bear in mind that the compromises he made to please USA impinged upon security and national interests and Pakistan is suffering on account of those secret agreements.

Great majority of people are of the view that Musharraf’s flawed policies and issuance of NRO to prolong his rule are responsible for the current deplorable state of affairs of the country. The NRO was issued by Gen Musharraf on 5 October 2007 as a consequence to a power sharing deal with Benazir struck in Dubai in July 2007 at the behest of USA and UK. Condoleezza Rice in his recently published book has given graphic details of her personal efforts in making the two agree to the deal. The NRO helped in absolving the top leaders of PPP and thousands of MQM leaders and party activists involved in corruption and heinous crimes, and in facilitating homecoming of Benazir in October 2007.

He must remember that ground situation has radically changed. In 2008, the grip of the US over Pakistan’s internal affairs was so strong that it had managed to influence the outcome of 2008 elections. Rating of the PPP and Zardari was high. Today Pak-US relations are at its lowest ebb and new terms of engagement are being formulated. PPP has become highly unpopular because of its poor performance and corrupt practices while Zardari has lost his credibility. He is under substantial strain since the Supreme Court is exerting pressure to implement its 16 December 2009 verdict on NRO and to revive money laundering cases pending against him in foreign countries. Memogate scandal is under purview of the Supreme Court, while Abbottabad Commission is investigating 2 May incident. Possibility of its linkage with memo affair is being determined.

Tehrik-e-Insaf (TI) under Imran Khan has emerged as a third force and well-known figures from all political parties are drifting towards it. Biggest defections are taking place from PML-Q in which APML had attached lot of hopes. Imran has become a leading crowd puller and seems to have outshined all politicians. If Musharraf thinks he will also be able to attract crowds like Imran Khan and will become as popular as him, he is sadly mistaken. Even PML-N is feeling threatened of TI. Under the changed circumstances and security threats, wisdom demands that Musharraf should postpone his arrival plan and let the tempers of his adversaries cool down. His recent demand for security guarantees from Pak Army is similar to the one made by Benazir Bhutto. If he comes in January, it means he has been cleared by the government and Establishment to create a bigger circus. Indications are that if TI performs well in Karachi on 25 December, the rate of defectors joining TI would accelerate which would further deepen misgivings of the old hands within TI.

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Pakistan: Gen Pervez Musharraf Vying To Return

Islam and liberty: Contradictory or Complementary?


by Kevin Barrett


In his classic On Liberty, John Stuart Mill observes: “Wherever the (religious) sentiment of the majority is still genuine and intense, it is found to have abated little of its claim to be obeyed.”*

More than 150 years later, Mill’s dictum holds true. In irreligious Europe, as in the great coastal metropolitan centers of the USA, there is little legal or social pressure to obey religious dictates; whereas in the Islamic world, and parts of the American heartland, where deeply religious majorities exist, religious opinion demands obeisance on important matters.

Is religion, then, an impediment to liberty? Can liberty flower in societies of fervent religiosity? Is the so-called Arab Spring, whose twin banners are Liberty and Islam, doomed to collapse under the burden of a contradiction?

To begin to address this question, we must revisit Mill’s argument. The basic problem that On Liberty addresses is not despotism, but the rise of democracy. Mill correctly points out that under traditional despotisms, the population views the government as a powerful Other if not an outright enemy. The despot is tolerated because his power allows him to occasionally suppress pettier despots, thereby maintaining a modicum of social order and a degree of justice for the many. Under such conditions, custom and practice if not law limit the range of situations into which the government may stick its nose. The result is a fair amount of de facto liberty.

Democracy, according to Mill, threatens to actually reduce liberty. Why? Because once the people feel the government is an expression of their own will, rather than the will of some distant despot, they are tempted to use it to enforce their own preferences and opinions on other people, whose liberty is thereby violated. One cannot imagine a traditional despot of yore, for example, ordering an ordinary citizen to mow his or her lawn to a certain length. Yet in today’s USA, stories of the judicial enforcement of “law’n order” abound. Indeed, American zoning codes probably restrict people’s freedom to do what they like with their property far more than any king, nobleman, emperor, caliph, or other potentate ever did in the pre-Enlightenment era.

Keeping this in mind, we see that the central contradiction of the Arab Spring is not “Islam vs. liberty” or “Islam vs. democracy,” but rather the same dilemma Mill addressed: democracy versus liberty. This dilemma, however, is not widely recognized. The people of the Middle East, like people everywhere, have been conditioned by the propaganda apparatus of modernity to imagine that liberty and democracy are the same thing, or at least that they go together.

Muhammad Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor whose self-immolation set off the chain of Arab revolutionary dominoes, was not frustrated simply by the fact that he lived under a dictatorship. He was frustrated that the government bureaucracy made it difficult for him, through permit requirements, red tape, and harassment, to sell his wares freely on the street. But if Arab street vendors imagine that American-style democracy will solve that problem – well, I invite them to come try and make a living selling things on the streets of Madison, Wisconsin. The traditional Islamic concept of the “free and open market” – nobody “owns” retail real estate, and anybody is free to show up and sell anything anywhere, first-come first-served – represents a kind of extreme liberty that contrasts sharply with the tyranny of the propertied classes, and their brainwashed “majority,” that reigns under so-called American democracy. Indeed, traditional Islamic markets are paradises of freedom compared to the muzak-infested air-conditioned inferno of most of the American retail sector.

Sartre’s line “l’enfer, c’est les autres” (hell is other people) sums up the root of the problem: It is other people who encroach on our liberty, other people who are the bars of our cage. Empowering “the people” through democracy just puts more bars on the cage, and makes those bars that much more unbreakable, absent a socially-agreed-upon insistence on some modicum of liberty. Mill’s polemic for liberty is a necessary response to the tyranny of democracy.

It might also be a necessary response to the kinds of tyrannies that have governed the Middle East since the fall of the Ottomans. These tyrannies are basically European colonial bureaucracies on steroids, made even more monstrous by unchecked despotism. The government’s intrusion into every nook and corner of life, which developed in relatively democratic Euro-America and frightened John Stuart Mill, became as monstrous under neo-colonialism as it did under communism and fascism. Take Ben Ali’s Tunisia – please!

So how does Islam fit into this picture? Traditionally, Islam restricted and guided the behavior of both rulers and ruled. The ruler was expected to uphold God’s law, behave justly and generously, and seek counsel from the people (or at least the wisest among them). The ruled were also supposed to follow God’s law as best they could: Pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan, give alms and pay the annual tax on wealth AND income, attend Friday services, conduct business with complete honesty and integrity…and (preferably) free slaves, donate surplus wealth to charity, pious endowments and interest-free loans, and so on.

When both rulers and ruled followed Islamic precepts, harmony reigned. People who ritually face and submit to God five times a day are less likely to behave badly than people who don’t; and this tenet, and others like it, holds for rulers as well as ruled.

But what about liberty? Under the traditional Islamic system, liberty was both limited and enabled by Islam. It was limited in that serious violations of Islamic law were viewed as threats to the social order, and therefore largely suppressed from the public sphere. (What happened in private, of course, was between the individual and God.)

While restricted by shariah, liberty was in other ways enabled, in that the tyranny of both the ruler AND the people was limited by Islamic precept. Tyrants could not act arbitrarily, because Islamic law set boundaries on the scope of their actions. And ordinary people, those lesser tyrants, were likewise restricted in their encroachments on the liberty of their fellows. Property owners, for example, could not eliminate the free and open Islamic market; slave-owners could not abuse their slaves in certain ways, such as forcing them into prostitution; businessmen could not establish monopolies; would-be usurers could not charge interest; and so on. (Ones “freedom of contract” to be victimized by usury is more than negated by the debt slavery that results.)

The overall result, in many cases at least, was an impressive flowering of relative liberty and equality. With no corporations to limit individual risk, no lending at interest to guarantee bankers’ tyranny over the market, and indeed no “wealth insurance” of any kind – alongside a sort of “Islamic potlatch ethic” against piling up wealth – social mobility in the Early and Middle Periods of Islam may have been the highest ever experienced anywhere.** Any slave could realistically hope to be freed, and any poor person could come sell in the free and open market, or set off on trading voyages, and realistically hope to grow rich (and then be obliged to give away most of his wealth or be reviled as a hoarder); while those who did strike it rich had moderately poor prospects for retaining their wealth for very long, given the vagaries of the free market as well as the aforementioned potlatch ethic and absence of wealth insurance. Slaves regularly became wealthy potentates, while wealthy potentates regularly were reduced to impoverishment or even enslavement. (If you don’t believe me, check out the history of the Mameluke slave dynasty.)

Whether you see Islamic societies, whether of the past or future, as “high-liberty” or “low liberty” societies depends on which kind of liberties you emphasize. Any Islamic society, excluding imaginary utopian ones, must necessarily lack the absolute religious liberty that has been the hallmark of the post-Enlightenment West. Those who truly believe that all religions are equal obviously care little or nothing for religion; they also may be deficient in their ability to discriminate (in the word’s positive sense). Anyone who equates the Catholicism of Mother Theresa, the Protestantism of David Ray Griffin, or the Islam of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi with, say, the Satanism of Anton Szandor LaVey, giving all of these “religions” the same rights and the same value, is obviously suffering from an inability to make crucial distinctions.

Granted that religious minorities would lose legal equality***, it seems to me that whatever liberties would be lost under Islam would be more than made up for by other, more important liberties gained. Our rights to be sexually profligate, sire children out of wedlock, abort millions of unborn children, vaunt our proclivities for unnatural acts, spread venereal diseases, dress provocatively in public, profess Satanism, hoard extreme wealth, monopolize market space, form corporations to absolve ourselves of responsibility, subject ourselves to alcohol poisoning in public places, charge interest on loans, blaspheme established religions, advertise our wares deceptively, and so on might be restricted. But in return we would have much more freedom to buy and sell as responsible individuals in the open market, live in a public sphere unpolluted by excesses of crime and vice, and still do pretty much what we want in private.

After many decades of reflection, I have concluded that the most important freedom is the freedom to flourish spiritually, not just economically or expressively. And to flourish spiritually, our souls need a peaceful and harmonious environment. The post-Enlightenment West, and those societies that imitate it, are incapable of providing such an environment. Today’s West is saturated by images of lust, violence, greed, inebriation, and other provocations – images that ought to be arrested for disturbing the spiritual peace, and removed from the public sphere. (John Stuart Mill, who argued that the only valid reason to restrict an individual’s liberty was to defend others against harm, might approve, or at least defer judgment of, Muslims’ attempts to protect themselves, their religion, their societies and their values from the harms inflicted by Western neo-colonialism, by restricting certain “liberties” in their lands.)

In the end, the real question is not “will the Arab Spring bring freedom and democracy, or will it bring Islamism?” Instead, it is: Will the people of the Middle East restore Islam, and the liberty to spiritually flourish, to their societies? Or will they follow the West into the abyss of materialist pseudo-liberty – whose final destination is a hellhole of Orwellian absolute slavery?

*Mill, On Liberty, Norton Critical Edition, p. 9

** See Hodgson’s The Venture of Islam, v.1 and 2

*** The real test of Islamic rule is: Will sensible, just people from the religious minorities welcome it? If not, then it probably isn’t being applied properly.

Posted in EducationComments Off on Islam and liberty: Contradictory or Complementary?

IsraHell Under Retaliatory Threat?


Russia Prepared for Conflict Over Iran If Necessary, Sources Confirm


by Dr. George Krasnow


Dear Friends of the Russia & America GoodWill Association (RAGA)!  The RAGA stays away from politics, except when peace is threatened.

Below is my translation of a report about Russian troops being put on high alert, as it appeared on Russia’s site.

The Kremlin is being updated about the upcoming US-backed Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, according to “Nezavisimaya Gazeta”, citing sources in the Defense Ministry. Strike will be sudden and inflicted very soon.

A full-scale war is possible. This issue was discussed at the Russia-EU summit in Brussels with the participation of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Russia’s permanent representative to the EU Vladimir Chizhov stated that the Israeli / the U.S attack on Iran. would lead to “catastrophic development of events.”

According to the newspaper, the military preparations of Russia to minimize the loss resulting from such a military action against Tehran were launched a year ago and are now almost complete. According to sources in the Defense Ministry, Russian 102nd military base in Armenia was fully optimized during October-November 2011.

Military families were evacuated to Russia; Russian garrison stationed near Yerevan was reduced in size; military units stationed there were transferred to the district of Gyumri, close to the Turkish border. U.S. strikes on the targets in Iran are expected from Turkey’s territory.. Since December 1, 2011 Russian forces at military bases in South Ossetia and Abkhazia’ have been put on high alert combat readiness; and Black Sea Fleet ships now cruise near the border with Georgia, which in this conflict may take the side of anti-Iranian forces.

Hans Blix

Today, Hans Blix, former Head of International Atomic Energy Agency (1981 – 1997), told RT from Stockholm, Sweden, that:

“Threats by hawks in Israel and the US will not succeed in scaring the Iranians.”

Former Chief of the UN Inspections Commission on WMD in Iraq (2000 – 2003), Blix sees ominous similarities with the fake search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Yesterday Sergei Ryabov, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, warned against US constantly increasing pressure on Iran; Russia favors a diplomatic solution, as we are trying to convince our Israeli friends of the enormous risks Israel would be taking, said Ryabov.

The Israeli public is far from being united behind the Right-Wing’s plans for a “pre-emptive” attack.

In addition to Ephraim Halevy, former Mossad chief, Israeli Minister of Finance Yuval Steinitz, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Interior Minister Eli Yishai, Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor and Minister-without-Portfolio Benny Begin remain firmly opposed to any action against Iran. 

Why don’t we know this from US mass media? Read:

A Younger Mark Bruzonsky

“How Zionism infiltrated the US” with Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish-American activist who has been a key member behind the Israeli Palestinian peace initiative in the 1980s.

In essence, he confirms the thesis of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a 2007 book published by two leading US scholars, Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer.

According to Bruzonsky, The US has prevented a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict because the Israelis set up such powerful institutions, lobbies, publications, personalities, and their control of political parties and of the media make it impossible for American leaders to do what they knew they should do to solve this cancer.

Read more in How Zionism infiltrated the U.S.

The questions about ill-informed Americans remain: Why the Arab Spring protesters were hailed as heroes whereas our own OWS activists are condemned as villains?

Am I mistaken that– in order to obtain a better information about the USA- one has to go to foreign sources, BBC, Aljazeera and, yes, RT? Malice Toward None. Good Will to All. Peace to the World. And–Peaceful Christmas!

From RAGA site:

“We are an association of Americans who believe it is in the U.S. national interests to foster friendship with Russia on the basis of mutual Good Will and non-interference in each other’s affairs. RAGA is a gathering of people who share common interests in Russia’s history, culture, religion, economy, politics and the way of life.

We feel that Russian people have made outstanding contributions to humankind and are capable of greater achievements. We envision Russia as a strong, independent, proud and free nation and as a partner in achieving peace in the world.”

Feedback is always welcome. Please share with us your ideas on peace.

Sincerely, W George Krasnow (Vladislav Krasnov)   President, RAGA Facebook

[Editors Note: I have included Dr. Krasnow’s Press TV Show… How Zionism Infiltrated The United States…   Jim W. Dean]

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Posted in RussiaComments Off on IsraHell Under Retaliatory Threat?

Rupert Murdoch, 9/11, and the Leveson Investigation of the Media-Police Complex


by Anthony Hall


Mrs. Shami Chakrabarti,
The Leveson Inquiry into Media Ethics
Court 73
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London


Dear Mrs. Chakrabarti;

Lord Justice Brian Henry Leveson has been charged to investigate the collaboration between police and media agencies

I am taking this step to intervene in the work of the Leveson Inquiry on the advice of my friend and colleague, human-rights lawyer Paul Warburton. As I understand it, Mr. Warburton’s contribution to the work of Lord Justice Leveson and his staff flows consistently from the former’s longstanding complaint about a very serious and ongoing instance of disinformation and fraud perpetrated for over a decade by the BBC and many other media venues whose credibility has quite properly been tarnished by revelations concerning the collaboration between police and the communications empire of Rupert Murdoch.

The Leveson Inquiry and the Role of the Police-Media Complex in the Subversion of Peace, Order and Good Governance

As Mr. Warburton and I see it, there is already much on the public record to indicate that the media-police collaboration exposed in the phone-hacking scandal goes far higher in the chain of command than anything that has been publicized so far in the revelations giving rise to the work of the Leveson Inquiry. This media-police collaboration pollutes the mental environment in ways that in many instances reduce electoral processes to cynical exercises in “public relations.” The term, “public relations,” was created decades ago by Edward Bernays to make more acceptable the investment of vast resources into the manipulative enterprise that until the era of Nazi thought control was openly identified in the West as “propaganda.”

In our current system, where the work of police officials and media manipulators sometimes becomes virtually indistinguishable from one another, most of our elected officials have been reduced to the role of actors playing out dramas concocted for them by operatives of both state-owned and corporate-owned info-entertainment cartels. These vehicles for the manufacturing of public opinion are integral agencies of the well-funded lobbies that have occupied and perverted our parliaments, legislatures and congresses.

The influence of these lobbies, but especially those representing the interconnected activities of the financial sector and the war machine, has become so immense that they have robbed our governments of legitimacy. I believe I speak for many when I assert that the corporate sponsors funding so much of the work of our dominant political class have overwhelmed the capacity of average men and women to exercise genuine self-determination through the agencies and individuals that are supposed to represent us. This stripping of legitimacy from our shared instruments of public governance has helped fuel the transformation of the Arab Spring into the worldwide Occupy Movement during the American Fall.

The convergence of police and media activities has interacted with particularly deliterious effects on the public interest and common good at the highest levels of the so-called “national security” apparatus. As first highlighted in the 1970s by revelations concerning the covert hiring by “national security” officials of many thousands of journalists to become agents of censorship, distortion and outright disinformation in Project Mockingbird, the media-police complex tends to operate in society as a force whose directors are essentially above the law.

Their functioning as officials to whom the laws do not apply often extends to licenses to murder and steal with impunity, frequently on behalf of those powerful corporate clients that exist at the core of what US President Dwight D. Eisenhower once labelled the military-industrial complex. This pattern has intensified with the post-9/11 emergence of the privatized terror economy. The viability of the privatized terror economy depends most heavily on the commodification and political manipulation of fear, a specialty integral to the media-police collaborations that the Leveson Inquiry is charged to investigate.

On the tenth anniversary of 9/11 CBC’s Michael Enright interviewed Jonathan Kay who has attempted to treat the quest for 9/11 Truth as a manifestation of mental illness. See Hall’s article “CBC and Pacifica Disgraced by Kay.”

Any informed student of what Canadian professor Peter Dale Scott has referred to as “deep politics” need only scan the contents of so-called news reporting in much of the print and broadcast media to see how landscapes of public perceptions are regularly constructed in ways that do not conform with landscapes of empirically-verifiable reality. This pattern is especially pronounced when the stakes are highest; when questions of war and peace, life and death, are front and centre in the formulation of public policy. Closely connected to justifications for the unbridled militarism of our

times are issues about who will benefit and who will lose from the activities of the Anglo-American war machine, the planet’s most lethal agency of mass destruction as well as the world’s most lucrative source of corporate profits.

The “public relations” branches of this war machine act through agencies like the BBC in Great Britain, the CBC in Canada, as well as the busy mind-manipulation factories disguised as news-reporting agencies epitomized by, but certainly not limited to, the Murdoch propaganda empire. In order to direct the increasingly privatized activities of the Anglo-American war machine, which frequently acts in conformity with the military objectives of the Israeli state, patsies are regularly smeared and criminalized even as those officials are lionized who most aggressively promote the expanded violence of our increasingly militarized and transnational police state. In the process the public’s attention is diverted from grappling with the huge and mounting evidence on the public record of the most obvious cases of international criminality– of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against the peace.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Documentary: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism

Because of the distortions regularly presented as fact by operatives of the media-police complex whole populations, but especially Arab and Muslim peoples these days, are dehumanized and demonized with the aim of averting concerted public outcries when the manufactured enemies are targeted for illegal incarceration, prohibited torture or for collective attacks. Increasingly these murderous attacks are advanced through drones whose robotic nature obscures issues of legal accountability for acts of aggressive warfare, acts which the Nuremberg Tribunal defined as the supreme international crime. Increasingly the drone and missile attacks deliver “pay loads” that are radioactive in nature, generating cancer epidemics and genetic deformities that will be with us in perpetuity.

The purposeful promotion of Islamophobia by so-called think tanks, media spin doctors and their police-state extensions was recently the subject of a major meeting in which I took part on October 11 at the Westminster Parliament. Hosted by MP Simon Danczuk, The Middle East Monitor, and the Cordoba Foundation, the meeting focused on the contents of a report by Prof. David Miller et. al. entitled “Cold War on British Muslims.”

Event Review: The Cold War on British Muslims – The Instigators and Funders

The systemic media cover-up of the vast and many-faceted citizens’ investigation into the existing evidence of what did or did not happen on September 11, 2001 forms the most glaring example of media-police malfeasance aimed at giving specious justifications to the domestic and international incursions of the Anglo-American/NATO/Israeli war machines. While we have learned much about the collaboration between media and government in generating a litany of lies about weapons of mass destruction alleged to have been developed by the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, there is a vast body of evidence on on public record to demonstrate that the lying does not end there, not by a long shot.

Evidence of Systemic Malfeasance by the Media-Police Complex 

Even the most rudimentary research on the part of your staff will easily bring to light information demonstrating that the media-police complex supposedly under investigation by Leveson Inquiry is a major party to the cover-up of information concerning the originating acts used to justify the invasions, regime change and illegal occupations that have taken place in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as in other sites of the ongoing 9/11 Wars. Moreover, there is an ample body of evidence brought to light by Professor Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed and others to indicate that similar genres of misrepresentation surrounding the 9/11 debacle apply also to the 7/7 debacle in London.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

9/11 and the BBC Conspiracy: A Documentary by MI5 Whistle-Blower David Shayler and Adrian Connock 

Earth into Property (2010), which situates the 9/11 wars within the context of the imperial history of Anglo-America, was selected by the UK Independent as “one of the best history books of 2010”

This autumn I have made two major presentations on the havoc wrought by tens years of systematic misrepresentation of what is known and not known about the events of September 11, 2001. I presented the first of these papers in San Francisco California on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. It is entitled “When War is Promoted as a Remedy for Terror.” The text is available on several sites on the Internet including at Facts

I delivered the second paper on related subjects in London England on October 15. It was during my time in the Commonwealth’s capital that I was able to attend the important discussion in parliament on the sources of Islamophobia. It was also during this period that I was able to take part in the Occupy London event on the sacred grounds of St. Paul’s Cathedral. The text of my London presentation is entitled, “Cheney in the Bunker; Cheney in Canada.” Please find it at In The Bunker; Cheney in Canada and also Cheney in The Bunker Cheney in Canada

In both these texts I draw upon the research I have done in primary and secondary sources on 9/11 and the so-called 9/11 truth movement. Some of the fruits of this research appear in my peer-reviewed book published in Canada by McGill-Queen’s University Press. That book is entitled Earth into Property: Colonization, Decolonization, and Capitalism (2010). It was chosen by The Independent in the UK as one of the best history books of 2010. The best books for Christmas: Our pick of 2010

Diagnosis and Recommendations

The Murdoch media empire’s propaganda for the aggrandizement of police powers accompanied by the worldwide expansion of aggressive war since 9/11 has set the standard for depravity in journalism. But the radical extremism evidenced in this pollution of the mental environment by the media-police complex centred on the Murdoch media empire is just one aspect of a larger phenomenon mirrored across a broad spectrum of media venues including by the Crown-owned BBC and CBC. The hard line maintained by both public broadcasters in repressing the results of the citizens’ investigation on 9/11, including the very solid findings brought to light in the ten books on 9/11 scepticism authored by Professor David Ray Griffin, demonstrates the cohesiveness of a tight media monopoly when it comes to core issues of war and peace, life and death.

The unrelenting tenacity of the 9/11 cover-up across many domains of the media-police complex epitomizes the negative outcome of a generation of business deregulation that has allowed for enormous concentrations of ownership and control over the instruments of mass communication. The Faustian bargains made to advance this process of deregulation and media concentration have often provided the quid pro quo that facilitated the ascent of many Anglo-American politicians. The rise of Tony Blair with the backing of the Murdoch propaganda empire is of course the superlative example of the Anglo-American-Israeli war machine’s capacity to subvert in its own interests the political culture of the trans-Atlantic world.

The failure of truth and pluralism in reporting in so many media arenas has become intolerable to millions. The failure of so many media venues to deal with the contested ground of 9/11 studies brings to light the need for the public to take collective action in order to regain some measure of collective control over what is in theory, but clearly not in fact, our own instruments of public governance. The centrality of the media-police complex in the activities of the Murdoch media empire help to underline the need to assert public control as opposed to corporate control over our key instruments of mass communication. The revelations that are coming to light help underline to need for government to intervene in order to help balance the power of wealth with the power of people.


Accordingly, monopolies of ownership and interpretive power must be broken up in the so-called private sector even as Crown-owned media venues such as the BBC and CBC must be brought back to their underlying missions of genuine public broadcasting.

As a tenured and full professor in the system of Canadian university education I find it necessary to include in the curriculum of my courses illustrations of how dramatically our democratic aspirations have been been betrayed not only by for-profit media venues such as those of Rupert Murdoch but also by our own public broadcasters. I find it necessary to incorporate illustrations of the extent to which the media-police complex dominating so many venues of mass communication is capable of outright lies when it comes to justifications for state violence and the cover-up of the kleptocratic practices that maintain the influence of some of our most powerful elites.

The litany of public misrepresentation concerning the lies and crimes of 9/11 form the essential case study that demonstrates the strength of both propensities. The failure to bring to light new knowledge on what did and did not happen on 9/11 perverts the accuracy of reporting every day of every week of every year because the original disinformation presented on day one has been made the basis of a sacred myth used to justify the ongoing deluge of military and police incursions that are made to seem normal rather than extraordinary.

I draw on this experience in the classroom and in the fulfillment of my academic responsibilities to research and publish the truth to the best of my abilities with the hope that this intervention will assist the work of your inquiry, one invested by the British government with such a broad and important mandate.

Yours Sincerely,

Anthony J. Hall

Professor of Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge
Alberta Canada

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Edward Bernays on Propaganda and Public Relations 

Posted in Human RightsComments Off on Rupert Murdoch, 9/11, and the Leveson Investigation of the Media-Police Complex

Shoah’s pages


December 2011
« Nov   Jan »