Archive | January 16th, 2012

“International Zionism Is Strangling The World”: Interview With Jonathan Azaziah

NOVANEWS

by Kourosh Ziabari

Jonathan Azaziah is an Iraqi-American Muslim poet, activist, analyst, writer and journalist from Brooklyn, New York, currently residing in Florida. His articles, poems and music predominantly deal with international Zionism and the cruel effect that it has on the world’s oppressed people. He is also a staff writer for Pakistan’s premier alternative media outlet, Opinion Maker, and a frequent guest and co-host of the Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement’s Ugly Truth radio broadcast.

Jonathan took part in an enlightening, explosive interview with me and expressed his viewpoints regarding the renewed war threats of Israel against Iran, Tehran’s nuclear program, the new allegations of the White House against Iran, the true nature of Israel as a state and what he feels is the greatest threat facing our world today. An excerpt of this interview appeared in the Tehran Times, Iran’s leading international daily. 

Ziabari: Israel possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads, but it has constantly threatened Iran with a military strike over its nuclear program, warning that Iran should be prevented from acquiring nuclear technology. How is it possible to justify this stance?

Azaziah: The nucleus of the Zionist mindset, the energy source that drives those who think in this manner to behave like the inhuman monsters that they are, is Jewish supremacism; the need to destroy all that it is not Jewish, the goyim, in order for “the Jewish people” to survive. The developer of the neutron bomb, Samuel T. Cohen, was a Zionist with a strong Talmudic-Jewish upbringing, as was Robert J. Oppenheimer, the creator of the atom bomb. The supremacist-need to destroy all non-Jewish peoples and cultures was close to the blackened hearts of the early leaders of the usurping Zionist entity, hence why Ben-Gurion, Dayan, Eshkol and Peres collectively came up with the “Samson Option,” the military plan to unleash ‘Israeli’ nukes upon the world if any nation or every nation attempted to confront Zionist power. The polar opposite of this thuggish outlook on existence, is the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran, a nation whose Persian history is rooted in the very essence of creation. The finest poets, artists, mathematicians, scientists and theologians that the world has ever known originate from this great land.

The Zionist entity, in its twisted collective mind, must destroy Iran because the Islamic Republic represents everything that it is not: tolerant, beautiful, non-destructive, non-aggressive and most importantly, Godwary. Iran does not bow down to the feet of the Zionists and their rabbinical overlords, it only bows before Almighty God and for this, it has drawn the ire of the Zionists and their imperial conduit puppets. From the geopolitical perspective, the Zionist entity must not allow any Islamic nation to acquire nuclear weapons because that would neutralize its domination of the region; the annihilation of Iraq, the demolition of Libya and constant assault on nuclear-armed Pakistan are prime examples of this.

The Zionist entity

is something far more cruel,

and far more insidious than

the apartheid regime of

South Africa.

Ziabari: Some political commentators believe that Israel represents the features of an apartheid state. What’s your idea? Do you consider Israel an apartheid regime?

Azaziah: The term “apartheid” is an attempt to make international Zionism seem like it is more innocuous than it actually is or closely related with previous colonial endeavors when in reality, it is something far worse and far uglier. Apartheid is simply one facet of the Zionist regime that it is criminally and disgustingly occupying holy al-Quds and the rest of historic Palestine, as is colonization, and most importantly, they are only temporary; they represent symptoms, they do not represent the disease itself. The true goal of Zionism is to wipe out all non-Jewish peoples in vast parts of Egypt, including most of its north, all of Sinai and Cairo, all of Jordan, all of Kuwait, a gargantuan portion of Saudi Arabia, all of Lebanon, all of Syria, all of Cyprus, an elephantine part of Turkey up to Lake Van and finally, part of Iraq south of the Euphrates River. The expulsion and/or mass murder of these peoples would lead to the creation of the Zionist dream known as Greater Israel. So branding this usurping dragon of an entity simply as an “apartheid state” is not only incomplete, it is deceptive. And this disingenuous injection of language into the vocabularies of Palestine’s supporters is also meant to deflect the attention from the root cause of this 63-year occupation: the age-old Talmudic ideology that gave birth to Zionism, which is an amalgamation of terrorism, racism, barbarism, supremacism, expansionism and imperialism. After all of the massacres committed against our brothers and sisters, all of the babies murdered, women raped, trees uprooted, mosques and churches destroyed, resources confiscated and land usurped, the least we can do is label this extremist enclave what it actually is: a fabricated entity that has no right to exist.

Finally, all persons who represent this entity, all of its occupiers and squatters, must be thrown out immediately so the 8 million Palestinian refugees worldwide can finally return to their homes. Its sayanim across the Western world must be prosecuted for treason. We will not make peace with this usurping Jewish supremacist beast. We will never recognize this filthy entity. We will not share our lands with thieves and thugs, killers and degenerates. There will not be ‘equal rights’ for oppressor and oppressed. There will only be equal rights for Palestinians, the true owners of the land, and whoever that they decide will live with them, chiefly those who respect their dignity and who have fought alongside them from Nakba to Naksa to now, not those who killed them and maimed them; they will be delivered into the clutches of justice for a century of inhumanity and malevolence.

It must also be noted that Apartheid South Africa did not own and control global mass media; Zionism does. Apartheid South Africa did not control global commerce; international Jewry does. Apartheid South Africa didn’t have a worldwide Afrikaner lobby network that dominated governments into submission; the Zionist entity does. And Apartheid South Africa didn’t have a foreign intelligence directorate committing false flag attacks all over the world in order to further its geopolitical objectives; ‘Israel’ does, with its Mossad. International Zionism is strangling the world because its agents think that their “chosen-ness” gives them a free pass to do so. Al-haqq (the truth) is our best weapon against these persons; an awakened globe, armed with information exposing the beast, is what will take the beast down. The past fight against the apartheid of South Africa and the current fight against international Jewish supremacism are two different creatures; just as a matter of intellectual honesty, the two should not, and must not be confused.

The ‘King’ of Saudi Arabia, 

seen here with top

Zionist leaders, is

serving the agenda of

‘Israel’ and will not

help Iran in the face

of an attack.

Ziabari: What will be the consequences of a possible Israeli attack against Iran? Will the Muslim and Arab nations unite to support Iran?

Azaziah: Unfortunately, while the peoples of the Islamic world will indeed stand with the Islamic Revolution if the Zionist regime and its puppets attempt to assault it, the leaders of the Islamic world will not because let us be honest, they represent Islam as much as the idols destroyed by the Holy Prophet (SAWW) during the beginning days of his advent represented Islam. The monarchies of the Arab world are the worst kinds of hypocrites and the GCC, led by the morally-bankrupt and Zionist House of Saud and Al-Thani family, are now serving as the willing and able agents of the Zionist entity and its Anglo allies in America and Europe and if they are ordered to do so, they will participate in the planned onslaught against Iran. The true face of the House of Saud and Qatar can be seen in their participation in the ravaging of Libya and ongoing shadow operations inside Syria. What must be said though is that the Zionists and their marionettes are not ready for a full-brunt military confrontation with the Islamic Revolution, hence why they have chosen to use underhanded methods of subversion, through Mossad, CIA and Israeli-funded terror proxies like the MEK and Jundallah, to conduct a covert war against Iran for three decades. And as multiple authentic ahadith confirm, if the forces of Dajjal enter the lands of Persia, it is there, where they will be buried by the righteous. Insha’ALLAH.

The Zionist regime

and its marionettes

are trying to provoke

the Islamic Republic of

Iran into war.

Ziabari: International pressure on Iran is mounting these days. From one hand, we have the accusations of the U.S. and its cronies against Iran with regards to the human rights issue. From the other hand, we have the Saudi envoy assassination plot allegation, and as the third phase of the project, we have the IAEA’s controversial report on the country’s nuclear program. How do you assess this trilateral attack?

Azaziah: The ludicrous, ridiculous “Saudi assassination plot” has already been debunked as another Mossad false flag and I must say, it was one of the most pathetic that the Zionist regime had concocted in quite some time. The allegations of “human rights violations” in the Islamic Republic are nothing but atrocious attempts by the Zionist-occupied United States government to generate international sympathy for the “poor, suffering Iranian people” so subsequently, there will be a global outcry and support for regime change. We know this to be massively farcical. The people of the Islamic Revolution wholeheartedly and overwhelmingly support the government of President Ahmadinejad and would sacrifice their lives for Ayatollah Sayyed Khamenei. Additionally, there is no larger violator and destroyer of human rights than the United States, which under Zionist direction, has initiated one war after another in the last 100 years and murdered tens of millions of innocents in the process.

How dare these hooligans and monsters criticize Iran for “human rights abuses” after their fire bombing of Tokyo, their nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, their decimation of Dresden, Frankfurt and Hamburg, their concentration camps set up after WW2 that murdered over 1 million innocent Germans, their strafing of Korea, their rape of Vietnam and Cambodia for the expansion of Jewish mob boss Meyer Lansky’s criminal narcotics syndicate, their eradication of Iraq over the last 20 years, their crushing of Afghanistan, their ruining of Libya and their incessant drone bombing of Pakistan, Yemen and occupied Somalia, along with their assistance in the ongoing six-decade-long brutalizations of Palestine and Hindutvadi-Zionist-occupied Kashmir. Their hypocrisy is legendary and sickening. And the IAEA report is such a joke, such a steaming mound of rubbish that it is not even worth analyzing. It is clear that the reason for this ‘trilateral attack’ that you speak of is desperation. The Iranian leadership is cool, calculated and undeterred. They have not taken the Zionist bait in responding to the multiple transgressions that the occupier of Palestine has committed against them and this display of sabr (patience) has infuriated the monsters greatly.

The Zionist-engineered

sanctions against Iran

are taking a terrible toll

on the Iranian people.

Ziabari: What do you think about the increased sanctions of the U.S., EU and the UNSC against Iran? Are these sanctions going to disrupt Iran’s economy? Will these sanctions bring Iran to its knees and force it into surrendering its nuclear rights?

Azaziah: I do not believe for a second that the sanctions will bring the Islamic Revolution to its knees; not even a single second. The Persian people, first and foremost, kneel only before ALLAH (SWT) and this was proven by their triumph over the Shah and the CIA-Mossad-run counter-revolution in 1979. The would-be-invaders and ‘arrogant powers’ that Ayatollah Sayyed Khamenei constantly refers to know that the only way Iran will break is through all-out aggression and as described already, they are not ready for this kind of war at this juncture. This is why we see increased cooperation between the GCC countries, America and the Zionist entity, mainly the excessively large weapons deals between the House of Saud, America and Germany as well as the increased ‘defense’ relations between the House of Khalifa in Bahrain and the Zionist-occupied US government. International Zionism loves nothing more than Muslims killing Muslims and nothing would satisfy its bloodlust quite like a ‘Sunni-Shi’a, Persian-Arab’ war, in which its Israeli occupation forces would not have to lift a single weapon; the goyimwould do all the work for them, eliminating the usurping Jewish supremacist state’s greatest enemy.

The Zionists and the real power behind them, their racist genocidal rabbis, according to their satanic Talmud, view the Arab and Persian peoples as “Ishmaelites” and “Amalekites” who must be destroyed in order to erect a “Jewish Utopia” on earth, in which Jews rule over non-Jews in a sort of supremacist paradise. It is a religious duty for Zionists to murder us, steal our lands and desecrate what it is holy to us and they have the authority in their Talmud to use any and all means to do it, including using our own people against us. Therefore, the sanctions are only a precursor to what the globe holders really have in store for Iran. I think it is an undeniable fact that unfortunately, the sanctions have indeed had a negative effect on the Iranian economy and more importantly, the Iranian people, specifically in the Aero sector, which as you have revealed in some of your previous works brother, has seen thousands of innocents die in airplane crashes since 1996.

The United States and

the Zionist entity:

world’s greatest 

terrorists.

Ziabari: The U.S. has repeatedly accused Iran of violating human rights and sponsoring terrorism. Don’t you think that the U.S. is itself a sponsor of terrorism as it has supported and financed Saddam Hussein in an 8-year war with Iran and has been unconditionally supporting the reactionary regimes of Hosni Mubarak, Al Khalifa, Al Saud and Ali Abdullah Saleh who kill their innocent people ruthlessly?

Azaziah: There is no doubt that the United States, the ‘golem’ of the international Zionist Power Configuration and Jewish banking interests, is the world leader in terrorism. The US is in no moral position to condemn any government or group in the world until it fesses up to its own blood-soaked history. 100 million Native Americans exterminated. 150 million Africans, many of them Muslims, murdered in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, which was dominated by Spanish Jews like Aaron Lopez who had an entire fleet of slaveships and financing from the Rothschild family; these Jews, who were of the extremist and now dominant Talmudic-Kabbalistic school of thought, also introduced the Curse of Ham to their Gentile slave-trading brothers, a horrific, racist story concocted and developed by the rabbis in their Talmud which lowered the rank of our brothers and sisters of beautiful black skin to animals. This Talmudic drivel was used to justify the dehumanization of millions of others and in the greater geopolitical sense, it is now being exercised to justify more Zionist aggression on the African continent.

These two historical atrocities alone show the true face of America, and its support of brutish dictators and monarchical maniacs across the globe is well-known. And while Iran’s millennial history is one of peace and diplomacy with its neighbors, the US has launched hundreds of wars, covert and overt over its short two-century history. There is an old Kufan saying that my uncle once shared with me, which has been around since Al-Mukhtar (RA) launched his rebellion against the Umayyads to defend the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (AS) more than 1,300 years ago, that perfectly sums up the United States’ glorious fraudulence. Loosely translated from Arabic, it goes, “He who spills the most blood, talks of the most peace.” I cannot think of truer words that have been spoken.

The IAEA is

nothing but

an instrument

of international

Zionist propaganda

and psychological warfare.

Ziabari: Israel is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. It is not a NPT signatory and no IAEA inspector has ever investigated its atomic arsenal. How is it possible to justify IAEA’s double standards with regards to Israel’s nuclear program?

Azaziah: First and foremost, the IAEA is not an independent outfit like its public relations stooges would like the world to believe. The IAEA reports directly to the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council and coordinates all of its actions with these two institutions of Zionist power. Therefore, without question, it can be said that the IAEA is nothing but a tool of the UN. The same UN that hasn’t done a damn thing to stop Zionist tyranny in Palestine, scripting hundreds of resolutions against this racist usurping entity but enforcing none of them. The same UN that has done nothing to stop Hindutvadi tyranny in Kashmir, which is intimately aided by the Zionist entity with arms and intelligence, scripting dozens of other resolutions and enforcing none of them. The same UN that introduced Resolution 661 to Iraq, the treacherous ‘sanctions resolution,’ which crippled Iraq, prepared it for the Zionist invasion of 2003 and murdered over 2 million people by starvation including 800,000 Iraqi children. The same UN that paved the way for the mutilation of Libya, in which at least 100,000 have been mass murdered by NATO and its Israeli-advised rebel thugs. The same UN that now seeks to turn Syria into another Iraq or Libya 2.0.

And besides, what is the UN really? As is the case with all matters of history and the revisionism that follows, we must return to the beginning; the origins. The origins of the UN can be found in the financing of the same Zionist banking families, the Rothschilds, Schiffs, Warbugs, Lazards and Oppenheimers, who have financed strife on this earth for centuries. The UN was created to justify the existence of the Zionist entity as a legitimate nation-state, to put a shroud on its hideous supremacist character; this rings true with the fact that the Security Council never even ratified the resolution which proposed the legitimacy of a Jewish ‘state’ in Palestine. Despite this, and despite the illegal Jewish colonization of Palestine financed by the Rothschild family since the 1880s and the horrible Zionist atrocities of the Nakba in 1948, still the UN recognized this fabricated regime, still gave it a name and a seat. Why? Because its godfathers, the Zionist bankers, wanted it that way. The UN is a tool of international Zionist power and by extension, so is the IAEA.

And if the evidence isn’t clear enough, one simply needs to look at the previous IAEA head, Mohamed ElBaradei, who is hailed as a great humanitarian and even a hero, when he is nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a snake in the grass, a two-faced Zionist hypocrite who has condemned the Islamic Resistance of illegally besieged Gaza, who supports the insane ‘right to exist’ of the Zionist entity and who shakes hands with Israeli war criminals. While ElBaradei ran the IAEA, he sat on the board of the International Crisis Group, a highly-influential international Zionist think tank, right next to none other than Shimon Peres, George Soros and Morton Abramowitz, three of the most powerful Zionists on this planet. While ElBaradei ran the IAEA, he did nothing to stop the American-British invasion of Iraq, which was launched under a false “WMDs” pretext engineered by Jewish-Zionist extremists in the Bush administration’s Office of Special Plans. He knew the “intelligence” against Iraq was sheer Zionist falsehood but he watched as Iraq was skewered. There is your ‘IAEA independence,’ yet another Zionist fraud.

In 2000 and 2006, Hezbollah, 

the righteous Lebanese

Resistance led by Sayyed

Hassan Nasrallah, defeated the

Zionist entity; the same result 

awaits the usurping regime if it

dares to engage with Iran.

Ziabari: Will Iran succeed in withstanding the international pressures? Should it give up its nuclear program and get freed from the sanctions and military strike threats? What’s your idea?

Azaziah:For 22 years, South Lebanon was savagely occupied by the monstrous Zionist entity. The righteous Islamic Resistance of Lebanon, Hezbollah, liberated its land, conquering the fourth (some say third) mightiest military in the world and rightfully humiliating it. In 2006, the Zionist entity launched a criminal war against Lebanon to avenge its defeat 6 years earlier. Unleashing cluster bombs, white phosphorus and depleted uranium on the dignified and innocent Lebanese people, the usurping regime murdered nearly 1,500 Lebanese and the unexploded cluster bombs continue killing to this very moment.

Defiantly, and inspired by the steadfastness of the Lebanese people, Hezbollah defeated the Jewish supremacist entity again, crushing its plots to reoccupy Lebanon and upholding their Resistance to global Zionism. How was this small fighting force able to best such a monolithic military power? Because the faith of a people cannot be pierced with bullets or devastated by bombs. Because the dignity of a people cannot be occupied or colonized. The Zionists have no faith; they are godless, satanic supremacists. The Zionists have no dignity, they are the swindlers of humanity.

Comparatively, the Palestinian people have been occupied for 63 years. Still, the Zionists have not been able to expel them to exalt their ‘Greater Israel’ dream. The Kashmiri people have been occupied for 64 years. Still, the Hindutvadis have not been able to crush them to initiate their first phase of ‘Greater Hindutva.’ Why? Because like Hezbollah and the exceptional Lebanese people, the Palestinians’ and Kashmiris’ faith and dignity are weapons that cannot be defeated by their occupiers. And the revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran, is like Hezbollah, the Palestinians and Kashmiris on a greater scale, with more weaponry at its disposal. It will not give up its nuclear program nor will it bow before hollow military threats because it doesn’t take orders from Zionism; Iran does not recognize Zionism or the Jewish supremacists that govern it as legitimate authorities. Iran only takes orders from Al-Hakam (SWT), the supreme Judge of this universe. For us, Allah (SWT) is Al-Mu’izz, because He has honored us with Resistance and martyrdom if we die in our path of Resistance, giving hope to our brothers and sisters still struggling because as the Holy Qur’an says, we are alive though we are not seen. For the monsters, the enemies and the ‘arrogant powers’ though, Allah (SWT) is Al-Moumit, and the day of the Zionists’ doom at His hands is much nearer than they think. Iran and all those who support it will be victorious.

Posted in InterviewComments Off on “International Zionism Is Strangling The World”: Interview With Jonathan Azaziah

PAKISTAN: LEAKED CIA REPORT VEDIO

NOVANEWS

Zaid Hamid’s Interview on Russia Today

by crescentandcross

 

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on PAKISTAN: LEAKED CIA REPORT VEDIO

POLITICAL ECONOMY

NOVANEWS

A. Leontiev

POLITICAL ECONOMY – A Beginner’s Course

First published 1936, reprinted 1940.

Chapter 1 – What Is Political Economy And What Does It Teach?

In its struggle the proletariat is guided by the teachings
of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. These great teachers
and leaders of the proletariat have forged a powerful
weapon. They have created and developed
revolutionary theory of the proletariat.

The MarxistLeninist teaching is a guide for the working class in its
struggle under capitalism.Marxism-Leninism is a

powerful weapon in the hands of the class conscious
workers of all countries who enter the struggle against
capital, and after the triumph of the proletarian
revolution it shows the working class the way to conduct
successfully the further struggle against all enemies of
socialism, it enables them to carry out a correct policy
ensuring the building of a complete socialist society.
In his explanation of the first draft program of the
Bolshevik Party, Lenin wrote more than thirty years ago
that Marxian theory

“… for the first time transformed socialism from a Utopia
into a science, established a firm basis for this science
and indicated the road along which to proceed in
developing and elaborating this science further in all its
details. It uncovered the essence of modern capitalist
economy, explaining how the hiring of labour, the
purchase of labour power, masks the enslavement of
millions of propertyless people by a small group of
capitalists, the owners of the land, factories, mines, etc.
It showed how the entire development of modern
capitalism tends towards the crushing of small
enterprises by large ones, creating conditions which
make possible and necessary the establishment of a
socialist order of society. It taught one to distinguish –
under the veil of established customs, political intrigue,
tricky laws and tangled teachings – the class struggle,
the struggle of propertied classes of all sorts with the
propertyless masses, with the proletariat, which leads all
the propertyless masses.

It made the real task of the revolutionary, socialist party
clear: not the concoction of plans for the reorganization
of society, not sermons to the capitalists and their
henchmen about improving the conditions of the
workers, not the organisation of conspiracies, but the
organisation of the class struggle of the proletariat and
the leadership of this struggle, the final aim of which is –
the capture of political power by the proletariat and ‘ the
organisation of socialist society.” (Lenin. Collected
Works, Vol. II, “Our Program,” p. 491, Russian ed.)
Marxism was the first to give a scientific approach to
the study of the history of mankind. Bourgeois scientists
are powerless to explain the laws of development of
society. They represent the history of society as a
continuous chain of pure accidents in which it is
impossible to find any definite law connecting them.

Marx was the first to show that social development like
natural development follows definite internal laws.
However, unlike the laws of nature, the laws of
development of human society are realised, not
independently of the will and acts of man, but, on the
contrary, through the action of the broad human
masses. Marxism discovered that the capitalist system,
by virtue of the contradictions inherent in it, is
unswervingly advancing towards its own destruction.
Marxism teaches, however, that the destruction of
capitalism will not come of itself, but only as the result
of a bitter class struggle of the proletariat against the
bourgeoisie.

The social-democratic theory that, since
society presumably develops according to definite laws,
the working class can sit down with folded hands and
wait for these laws to bring about socialism in place of
capitalism is a crass distortion of Marxism. The laws of
social development do not realise themselves
automatically. They forge their way through the class
struggle taking place in society.

The proletariat, armed with the Marxist-Leninist
teaching, carries on the struggle for socialism with
certainty. It knows the laws of social development; with
its struggle, its work, its activity, it follows these laws,
which lead to the inevitable destruction of capitalism
and the victory of socialism.

Marxism-Leninism teaches one to lay bare the class
struggle of the disinherited against their oppressors.

Leontiev Political Economy – A Beginner’s Course Chapter 1 2

Marxism-Leninism teaches that the only road to
socialism leads through the determined class struggle
of the proletariat for the overthrow of the rule of the
bourgeoisie and the establishment of its own
dictatorship.

Let us take any capitalist country. Whether it is an
advanced or a backward country, the first thing that
strikes one is class differences. In splendid mansions
on streets lined with lawns and trees – a few rich
people live. In dirty, smoky houses, squalid tenements
or rickety shacks on joyless streets – live the workers,
the creators of the tremendous incomes of the rich.
Under capitalism society is divided into two great
enemy camps, into two opposed classes – the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat.The bourgeoisie has all

the wealth and all the power in its hands; it has all the
plants, factories, mines, the land, the hanks, the
railroads; the bourgeoisie is the ruling class. The
proletariat has all the oppression and poverty. The
contrast between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat –
that is the most important, distinction in any capitalist
country.

The struggle between the working class and
the bourgeoisie – that is what takes precedence over
everything else. The gulf between these two classes
grows ever deeper, ever wider. With the growth of class
contradictions the indignation of the masses of the
working class grows, their will to struggle grows, as do
their revolutionary consciousness, their faith in their
own strength and in their final victory over capitalism.

The crisis brought untold suffering to the proletariat.
Mass unemployment, lower wages, thousands of
suicides of people brought to desperation, death from
starvation, increased mortality of children – these are
the joys of capitalism for the workers. At the same time
the bourgeoisie gets its tremendous incomes as usual.

Thus, for instance, according to German newspapers,
43 directors of the dye trust get 145,000 marks a year
each; 4 directors of the Schubert and Saltzer Firm –
145,000 each; 2 directors of the Use Corporation –
130,000 each: 7 directors of the Mannesman
Corporation – 135,000 each; 22 directors of the Alliance
Insurance Co. – 80,000 each.

M i l l i on s of people go hungry so that a handful of
parasites may live in luxury and idleness. This is the
picture which capitalism presents, this is the picture of
the class contradictions, sharpened to the extreme by
the unprecedented crisis.

The interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are
opposed to each other. The bourgeoisie tries to hold on
to its rule by all the devices of violence and deceit. The
proletariat tries, in proportion to the growth of its class
consciousness, to do away with capitalist slavery and to
substitute the socialist order for it.

The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are the basic
classes in capitalist countries. Their interrelations, their
struggle – these are what determine the fate of capitalist
society. However, in capitalist countries, together with
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, there are other,
intermediate, strata. In many countries these
intermediate strata are fairly numerous.

The intermediate strata consist of the small and middle
peasants (farmers), artisans, and handicraftsmen.
These strata we call the petty bourgeoisie. What makes
them kin to the bourgeoisie is that they own land,
instruments and tools. But at the same time they are
toilers, and this makes them kin to the proletariat.
Capitalism inevitably leads to the impoverishment of
the intermediate strata.They are being squeezed out

under capitalism. Insignificant numbers break through
into the ranks of the exploiters, great masses are
impoverished and sink into the ranks of the proletariat.
Hence, in its struggle against capitalism, the proletariat
finds allies in the broad masses of the toiling peasants.
The bourgeoisie and the proletariat – these are the two
main classes in every capitalist country. The
bourgeoisie rules. But the bourgeoisie cannot exist
without the working class.

The capitalist cannot prosper if hundreds and thousands
of workers will not bend their backs and be drenched in
sweat at his plants and factories. The blood and sweat
of the workers are converted into jingling coin to fill the
pockets of the rich. The growth and strengthening of
bourgeois rule inevitably call forth the growth of the
working class, an increase in its numbers and in its
solidarity. Thus the bourgeoisie prepares its own gravedigger.

As the capitalist system develops, the forces of
the new, socialist society ripen at its core. Classes, their
struggle, the contradictions of class interests – this is
what constitutes the life of capitalist society.
But what are classes? Lenin answered this question as
follows:

“What is meant by classes in general? It is what
permits one part of society to appropriate the labour of
another. If one part of society appropriates all the land,

Leontiev Political Economy – A Beginner’s Course Chapter 1 3
we have the classes of landlords and peasants. If one
part of society owns the plants and factories, shares
and capital, while the other part works in these
factories, we have the classes of capitalists and
proletarians.” (Ibid., Vol. XXV, “Speech at the Third
Congress of the Russian Young Communist League,” p.
391, Russian ed.)

What is the secret, however, which renders it possible
for one part of society to appropriate the labour of
another part of that society? And what are the reasons
for the appearance of whole groups of people who “sow
not, but reap”?

In order to understand this it is necessary to examine
how production is organised in society. Every worker,
every toiling fanner knows very well what production
means. People must have food, clothing and shelter in
order to exist. Every toiler knows very well the labour it
requires to build houses, cultivate land, produce bread,
perform the necessary work in plants and factories to
produce the things man needs – because every worker,
every toiling farmer, himself takes part in this work.
By means of labour, people change objects found in
nature, adapt them for their use and for the
satisfaction of their wants.

In the bowels of the earth
people find coal, iron ore, oil. By their labour they
extract these useful objects and bring them to the
surface of the earth. Here the iron ore is smelted and
made into iron. The iron is in turn converted into the
most diverse things – from a locomotive to a pocket
knife or needle.

Everyone knows that people do not work singly but
together. What could one man, by himself, do with a coal
mine, an iron mine, a plant or a factory? And first of all,
could there be such undertakings altogether without the
united effort of thousands and tens of thousands of
people? However, it is not only on large undertakings
that individual effort is unthinkable. Even the individual
peasant working a small plot of land with the help of
his old mare could not do so if other people would not
furnish him with a whole number of necessary things.
The handicraftsman and artisan who works by himself
could not get very far either without the instruments
and materials which are the product of the labour of
others.

We thus see that production proceeds in society.
Production is social, but it is organised in various ways.
In order to produce, land, factory buildings, machinery
and raw material are needed. All these are called the
means of production. But the means of production are
dead without human labour, without live labour power.
Only when labour power is applied to the means of
production does the process of production begin.

The place and significance in human society of different

classes are determined by the relation of each of these
classes to the means of production. For instance, under
the feudal system the principal means of production –
the land – is owned by the landlord. By means of his
ownership of the land, the landlord exploits the
peasants. Under the capitalist system all enterprises, all
the means of production, are in the hands of the
bourgeoisie. The working class has no means of
production. This is the basis for the exploitation of the
proletariat by the bourgeoisie.

Capitalism was not the creator of classes and class
differences. Classes existed before capitalism, under the
feudal system, and even earlier. But capitalism
substituted new classes for the old. Capitalism created
new methods of class oppression and class struggle.
“Classes are large groups of persons, differing
according to their places in the historically established
system of social production, according to their relations
(mostly fixed and formulated in laws) to the means of
production, according to their roles in the social
organization of labour and consequently according to
their methods of obtaining and the size of the share of
social wealth over which they dispose.

Classes are groups of persons, of which one group is able to
appropriate the labour of another, owing to a difference
in their respective positions in a definite order of social
economy.” (Ibid., Vol. XXIV, “The Great Initiative,” p. 337,
Russian ed.)

Marxism was the first to disclose the laws of
development of human society. Marx showed that
economics lies at the basis of social development and
that the mainspring of social development is the class
struggle. The millions struggle of the oppressed
classes against their oppressors – this is the
fundamental motive force of history.

We have already seen that classes differ according to
the places they occupy in a given system of social
production. We have also seen that the place occupied
by any class is determined by the relation of this class to
the means of production. In the process of production
definite relations are established between people.

Leontiev Political Economy – A Beginner’s Course Chapter 1 4

We already know that social production is variously
organized. In capitalist countries there is one social
system, in the Soviet Union there is a totally different
one. In capitalist countries the proletariat is compelled
to work for the capitalist, is subjected to submission
and arbitrary rule. There the plants, the factories, the
railroads, the land, the banks – all belong to the
bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie has all the means of
production in its hands. This makes it possible for the
bourgeoisie to drain the life sap out of the workers, to
oppress and enslave the working class. The relations
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between
the capitalist oppressors and the exploited workers,
put a decisive stamp on the entire order of any
capitalist country. In the Soviet Union, on the contrary,
the proletariat occupies the ruling position in the
plants, the factories and in the entire state.

In the course of production, definite relations are
established between people, between entire classes.
These relations we call production relations. The
relations between workers and capitalists can serve as
an example of production relations. Every social
system, every system of social production, is
characterised by the production relations dominant in it.
In the Soviet Union production relations are entirely
different from those in capitalist countries. What
determines production relations in society, on what do
they depend? Marx showed that production relations
depend upon the stage of development of the material
productive forces of society. At different stages of its
development a society commands different levels of
productive forces.

At present, production takes place principally in large

plants and factories, by means of
complex machinery. Even in agriculture, where for ages
the ancient wooden plough held sway, complex
machinery is being used to an ever greater extent. In
the past, however, human labour was totally different.
Modern complex machinery was not even dreamt of
then.

In very ancient times a stone and a stick were the
only instruments known to man. Many thousands of
years have elapsed since then. Gradually man
discovered newer and newer methods of work,
learned to make new instruments. Instruments and
machinery are the servants and helpers of man. With
their aid human labour power produces enormous
quantities of things which were undreamt of before. Of
course, with the change of the means of production, with
the introduction of new machinery, the very labour of
man changes.

During the last century to century and a
half, technical progress has been particularly rapid.
About a hundred and fifty years ago people did not yet
know anything about the steam engine; electricity
came into use only about fifty years ago. Railroads
have been developed only during the last hundred
years. Automobiles became common only during the
last few decades, tractors – even more recently. People
still remember very well the first appearance of
aeroplanes – it was only a short time before the war.

The radio was developed only since the war.
However, it is not only man’s tools – his inanimate
assistants – that grow and develop. At the same time
the living productive forces of society develop. The
greatest productive force consists of the toiling classes
themselves, man himself. The ability, the skill and the
knowledge of man increase with the development of
machines and the advances in technique. There could
be no aviators while there were no aeroplanes, there
could be no chauffeurs before the appearance of
automobiles.

Man learns not only to work with the
assistance of complicated machines, first of all he also
learns to create them, to construct them.
Together with the development of the productive forces,
production relations change. Marx says that social
production relations change simultaneously with the
change and development of the material means of
production, with the change in productive forces.
Further, the transition from one form of class
dominance to another is inseparably linked up with the
development of the productive forces of society.

Thus, for example, the development of capitalism is linked up
with the spread of large-scale production and with the
appearance of machines.

We have already seen, for instance, that in primitive
times the state of development of productive forces was
very low. The instruments of labour were not yet
developed. Man could only inadequately struggle with
nature. Primitive tribes could only just manage to feed
themselves on the products of the hunt. There were no
reserves whatever. Therefore there could not be a system
of classes wherein one lives at the expense of the other.
The division of society into classes appears at a higher
stage of development of the productive forces.

Up to a certain point production relations stimulate the
development of the material productive forces. Thus, for
instance, capitalism radically changed the old methods
of labour, evoked and developed large-scale machine
production. But at a certain point in their development,

Leontiev Political Economy – A Beginner’s Course Chapter 1 5
the productive forces begin to clash with the production
relations within which they developed.

“From forms of development of productive forces these
relations turn into their fetters. Then comes the period
of social revolution.” (Marx, Critique of Political
Economy, Preface, p. 12, Charles H. Kerr & Co.,
Chicago, 1908.)

At the present time we are living in such a period of
social revolution. The production relations of capitalist
society have turned into chains hampering the further
development of the productive, forces. Overthrowing the
power of capital, the proletariat breaks these chains.
The proletarian revolution frees the productive forces
from the chains of capitalism and opens up an
unlimited scope for their development.

The capitalist system, resting as it does on the brutal
exploitation of the toiling masses, will not get off the
stage of its own accord. Only the heroic revolutionary
struggle of the working class relying upon its alliance
with the basic mass of peasants and toilers in the
colonies, will bring about the overthrow of capitalism
and victory of socialism the world over.

How is capitalism organised, how is the apparatus
organized by means of which a handful of capitalists
enslave the working masses? It is important to know
this in order to take a conscious and active part in the
great struggle which is now going on all over the world
between capitalism and socialism.

The development of capitalism leads to the victory of
the proletarian revolution, the triumph of the new,
socialist system. This was established by Marx many
years ago. Marx came to this conclusion through a
thorough study of the capitalist system of production,
through discovering the laws of its development and
decline.

From this it is clear what tremendous significance there
is in political economy, which, in the words of Lenin, is
“the science dealing with the developing historical
systems of social production.” This science occupies a
very important place in all the teachings of Marx and
Lenin.

In his introduction to Capital, Marx says:
“… it is the ultimate aim of this work to lay bare the
economic law of motion of modern society,” i.e.,
capitalist society.

Marx set himself the task of discovering the law of
development of capitalist society in order to guide the
proletariat in its struggle for freedom.
“The study of the production relationships in a given,
historically determined society, in their genesis, their
development, and their decay – such is the content of
Marx’s economic teaching,” says Lenin.

(See Lenin, MarxEngels-Marxism, p. 15).

The servants of the bourgeoisie try to “prove” that the
capitalist system, capitalist relations, are eternal and
immutable. Their purpose is perfectly evident. They
would like to convince the workers that there can be no
question of the overthrow of capitalism. The fall of
capitalism, they say, is the fall of humanity. Humanity,
according to them, can exist only on the basis of the
capitalist system. Hence they try to represent all the
basic laws of capitalism, all the most important social
relations of the capitalist system, as eternal laws, as
immutable relations. Thus it has been – thus it will be,
say the hirelings of the bourgeoisie.

The political economy of Marx and Lenin does not leave a
single stone of this dream edifice of the reactionaries
standing. The Marxist-Leninist theory shows how
capitalist relations arise from the ruins of the previous
system, how they develop, and how the development of
the ever sharpening internal contradictions of capitalism
inevitably leads to its destruction, leads to the victory of
the socialist revolution of the proletariat – the gravedigger

of the bourgeoisie.

The history of mankind tells us that man lived on this
earth for thousands of years knowing nothing of
capitalism. This means that the laws which political
economy discloses in capitalist production are neither
eternal nor immutable. On the contrary, these laws
appear only together with capitalism and disappear with
the destruction of the capitalist system which gave rise
to them”

It means, in addition, that political economy cannot
confine itself to the study of only the capitalist order of
society, but must also study the previous epochs in the
development of society.

Marxist-Leninist political economy penetrates deeply into
all the innermost recesses of the capitalist system of
coercion and exploitation. It uncovers the true nature of
class relations which the learned hirelings of the
bourgeoisie try to befog.

Leontiev Political Economy – A Beginner’s Course Chapter 1 6

Marxism-Leninism studies the production relations of
people in capitalist, society in their development, in
motion. The productive forces of human society develop,
as we have already shown, within the framework of
definite production relations. The development of
capitalist society, however, reaches the point where the
productive forces outgrow the limits imposed upon them
by the production relations within the framework of
which they grew and developed for a time. The
contradictions between the productive forces of
capitalist society and its production relations then grow
sharper. These contradictions find their expression in
the class struggle between the bourgeoisie, which
defends the system of exploitation, and the proletariat,
which fights for the abolition of all exploitation of man
by man.

Marxist-Leninist political economy centres its attention
on the developing contradictions of capitalism, which
lead to its destruction and to the victory of the socialist
revolution of the proletariat.

The social revolution is conditioned by the
contradictions between the productive forces and the
production relations under capitalism, which find their
expression in the class struggle. These contradictions
inevitably grow keener as capitalist society develops.
Socialism comes to replace capitalism. Under socialism,
production relations in society are entirely different in
structure from those under capitalism. Must political
economy study these new relations? of course it must.
Lenin has shown that political economy is “the science
dealing with the developing historical systems of social
production.”

Engels – who was Marx’s closest companion-in-arms – has
pointed out that:

“Political economy, in the widest sense, is the science of
the laws governing the production and exchange of the
material means of subsistence in human society”
(Engels. Herr Eugen Duhring’s Revolution in Science
[Anti-Duhring], p. 105).

Consequently, political economy must study not only
capitalism, but also the epochs which preceded it and
the order of society which is coming to replace it.
Does this mean that for all systems of social production
the same laws prevail? Not at all. On the contrary, every
system of social production has its own peculiar laws.
The laws which prevail in the capitalist order lose their
force and their significance under socialism.

At present, when socialism is being victoriously built on a
sixth of the globe, the great practical importance of also
studying the economic structure of socialism and the
transition period from capitalism to socialism is clear.
To us theory is not a dogma (i.e., a dead, religious
doctrine), but a guide to action. Theory is of great
significance to the revolutionary struggle. The greatest
liberation movement in the world of an oppressed class,
the most revolutionary class in history, is impossible
without revolutionary theory, Lenin has stressed
numerous times.

“You know that a theory, when it is a genuine theory,
gives practical workers the power of orientation, clarity
of perspective, faith in their work, confidence in the
victory of our cause. All this is, and must be, of
enormous importance for the cause of our socialist
construction,” says Comrade Stalin. See , Leninism,
“Problems of Agrarian Policy in the U.S.S.R.,” p. 306.
Political economy must give a clear and precise
understanding not only of the laws governing the
development and decline of capitalism, but also of the
laws governing the new socialist order that arises from
the ruins of capitalism. Marxist-Leninist political
economy throws a bright light on the picture of the
decaying capitalist world and also on the picture of the
socialist world under construction in the U.S.S.R.

It is clear that attempts artificially to confine political
economy within the narrow walls of studying only the
capitalist system play into the hands of the enemies of
socialist construction. Such attempts prevent the
theoretical comprehension of the vast experience of the
Soviet Union in economic construction, experience of the
utmost importance for the working class of the entire
world. Such attempts lead to theory lagging behind
practice, to the separation of theory from practice, which
plays into the hands of our enemies. Such a conception
of political economy, as a science dealing exclusively
with the capitalist system, is held by many economists,
on the initiative of one of the theoreticians of social
democracy, Hilferding, who attempts an idealist revision
of Marxism. Lenin came out sharply against such a
conception.

Two worlds – the world of capitalism and the world of
socialism – this is what at present constitutes the centre
of attention in political economy.

Leontiev Political Economy – A Beginner’s Course Chapter 1 7

Unprecedented destruction and disintegration are taking
place in capitalist countries. Beginning with the autumn
of 1929 a crisis of unwonted depth and power has been
devastating these countries This crisis has exceeded any
crisis previously experienced by the capitalist world in its
severity, in its protracted nature and in the distress it
has caused to the toiling masses.

The crisis brought tremendous ruin both to industry and
to agriculture. Because of the lack of markets,
production has been curtailed to an ever increasing
extent, shutting down plants and factories and
throwing millions of workers out of employment. In the
countryside the areas under cultivation were reduced,
and millions of farmers ruined. Great quantities of
goods were simply destroyed: in Brazil coffee was
dumped into the ocean, in the United Slates wheat
was used to fire locomotives, milk was spilled into
rivers, fish thrown back into the sea, cattle destroyed,
harvests ruined – all in order thus to reduce the
quantity of foodstuffs thrown on the market.

At the present time when the lowest depths of the crisis
have already been passed, capitalism has succeeded
in somewhat easing the position of industry by means
of the utmost intensification of the exploitation of the
workers, by increased robbery of the farmers, by still
further pillaging the colonies. Nevertheless, there can
be no talk of any serious economic recovery in capitalist
countries, since capitalism is living through the period
of its decline, its disintegration.

The bourgeoisie seeks a way out of the crisis by increasing

the exploitation of the masses of workers, by paving the way

for a new imperialist war and intervention against the

U.S.S.R. The bourgeoisie is passing to fascist methods of

rule to an ever greater extent, in an attempt to keep the workers
in subjection by means of bloody terror.

During the years of this profound crisis in the
capitalist world, the U.S.S.R. has successfully fulfilled
its First Five-Year Plan of socialist construction in four
years. At the present time, the U.S.S.R. is victoriously
carrying out the even greater task of the Second FiveYear Plan –

the building of classless, socialist society.

The U.S.S.R. has laid the foundation of socialist
economy during the years of the First Five-Year Plan
period. Socialist large-scale industry – the
fundamental base of socialism – has grown
enormously. Dozens of now industries have been
created that had never before existed in Russia In
particular, heavy industry, which is the backbone of
the entire national economy, has made great strides
forward.

During the period of the First Five-Year Plan, the
U.S.S.R. has also accomplished the tremendous task of
reorganising agriculture on socialist principles The new
system of collective farms (kolkhozes), that opened
the door to a well-to-do and cultured lif e for the
millions of peasants, has triumphed in the village. The
basic masses of the peasantry, the collective farmers,
have become solid supports of the Soviet power, and
the last bulwark of capitalism – the kulak (the rich,
exploiting peasant) – has been routed.

The working class has grown enormously. The living
conditions of the broad masses of workers have
improved. The Soviet Union has been transformed into
a land of advanced culture. Universal education has
been introduced and the illiteracy of tens of millions of
people has been done away with. Millions of children
and adults are studying at various schools. Tremendous
success has been achieved in the inculcation of socialist
labour discipline. The energy and activity, the
enthusiasm of the millions of builders of socialism, have
grown tremendously.

“As a result of the First Five-Year Plan, the possibility of
building socialism in one country was for the first time
in the history of mankind demonstrated before
hundreds of millions of toilers of the whole world.” In
the Soviet Union “the worker and collective farmer have
become fully confident of the morrow, and the
constantly rising level of the material and cultural living
standards depend solely upon the quality and quantity
of the labour expended by them.

Gone is the menace of unemployment, poverty and starvation

for the toiler of the U.S.S.R. Confidently and joyfully each

worker and collective farmer looks into his future, and presents
constantly rising demands for knowledge and culture.”
(Resolutions and Decisions of the Seventeenth
Congress of the C.P.S.U., p. 9, Moscow, 1934).

At the same time, in the lands of capital the masses of
toilers suffer untold and unprecedented privations. The
army of unemployed grew with each year of the crisis
until it reached the stupendous figure of fifty million.
This means that the present crisis doomed to all the
tortures of unemployment and hunger a number of
workers who, together with their families, exceed the
population of the biggest capitalist country – the United
States of America. Now that the lowest point of the crisis
has been passed not only is there no improvement in
the conditions of the masses of workers, but, on the

Leontiev Political Economy –

A Beginner’s Course Chapter 1 8

contrary, their conditions are continually growing
worse. The slight increase in production in capitalist
industry is taking place primarily at the expense of the
increased exploitation of the employed workers and
the greater intensity of their labour.

“Amidst the surging waves of economic shocks and
military-political catastrophes the U.S.S.R. stands out
alone, like a rock, continuing its work of socialist
construction and its fight to preserve peace. While in
capitalist countries the economic crisis is still raging,
in the U.S.S.R. progress is continuing both in the
sphere of industry and in the sphere of agriculture.
While in capitalist countries feverish preparations are
in progress for a new war, for a new redistribution of
the world and spheres of influence, the U.S.S.R. is
continuing its systematic and stubborn struggle
against the menace of war and for peace; and it
cannot be said that the efforts of the U.S.S.R. in this
sphere have been quite unsuccessful.” (See Stalin,
Leninism, “Report on the Work of the Central
Committee to the Seventeenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.
(B.),” p. 471).

After the end of the civil war in Russia, after the
transition to economic construction, Lenin said: “Now
we exert our main influence upon the international
revolution by our economic policy.” Hence the
tremendous international significance of the victory of
socialism in the U.S.S.R. is evident. The workers of
capitalist countries, groaning under the pressure of the
crisis, under the yoke of fascism, regard the U.S.S.R.
as the fatherland of the world proletariat. The success
of the U.S.S.R. encourages the workers of capitalist
countries to struggle. The world-historical triumphs of
socialism in the U.S.S.R. are a tremendous factor in the
world socialist revolution.

The capitalists and their lackeys are beginning to think
with anxiety about the fate of the capitalist system. The
radical difference, the gulf between the turbulent
socialist construction in the Soviet Union and the decay
of capitalism, is all too striking. To whom does the future
belong – to communism or to capitalism – this is the
question which the foes of socialism now put before
themselves ever more frequently.

The struggle of two systems (i.e., social orders) –
capitalism and socialism – that is the central issue of our
times. Two diametrically opposite worlds are facing
each other: the world of labour, the world of the
workers’ government, the world of socialism – in the
Soviet Union; the world of the bourgeoisie, the world of
profit hunting, the world of unemployment and hunger –
in all other countries. The banner of the workers of the
U.S.S.R. carries the slogan: “Those who do not work
shall not eat.” On the banner of the bourgeoisie could
be inscribed: “The worker shall not eat.” It is clear that
the conscious workers of the entire world consider the
Soviet Union their socialist fatherland.

But the capitalist system of violence and oppression
will not vanish by itself. It will perish only as a result of
the struggle of the working class. Only the revolutionary
struggle of the conscious proletariat will push
capitalism, which has become unbearable to the great
masses of workers, into the grave.

Capitalism or socialism? With the establishment of the
Soviet Union this question arose in its full import.
Capitalism or socialism? This question becomes more
acute with the growing successes of the U.S.S.R. and

the growing disintegration of capitalism.

In all capitalist countries power is in the hands of the
bourgeoisie. Whatever the form of government, it
invariably covers the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The
purpose of the bourgeois state is to safeguard capitalist
exploitation, safeguard the private ownership of the
plants and factories by the bourgeoisie, the private
ownership of the land by the landlords and rich
farmers.

For socialism to triumph, the rule of the bourgeoisie
must be overthrown, the bourgeois state must be
destroyed and the dictatorship of the proletariat must
be substituted in its place. The transition from
capitalism to socialism is possible only by means of an
unremitting class struggle of the proletariat against the
capitalists, by means of a proletarian revolution and
the establishment of a proletarian state. Only by
establishing its own state can the working class proceed
with the building of socialism and create a socialist
society.

There is only one road from capitalism to socialism –
and that is the one pointed out by the Communists – the
road of proletarian revolution, of the destruction of the
bourgeois state machinery, of the dictatorship of the
proletariat.

“Between capitalist and communist society,” says Marx,
“lies a period of revolutionary transformation from one
to the other. There corresponds also to this a political
transition period during which the state can be nothing
else than the revolutionary dictatorship of the Leontiev

Political Economy –

A Beginner’s Course Chapter 1 9
proletariat.” (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, p.
44, (Marxist-Leninist Library)).
It was this road, the only correct, the only possible road
to socialism, that the proletariat of Russia took in
1917.

In the Soviet Union the working class won political
power for itself. The October Revolution established the
rule of the proletariat, the dictatorship of the working
class. The working class strives to capture state power
not merely for power’s sake. State power in the hands
of the proletariat is a means for building the new,
socialist society.

“Its purpose is to create socialism, to do away with the
division of society into classes, to make all members of
society workers, to take away the basis for the
exploitation of man by man. This purpose cannot be
realized at once, it requires a fairly long transition
period from capitalism to socialism, because the
reorganization of production is a difficult matter,
because time is required for all the radical changes in
every field of life, and because the enormous force of
petty-bourgeois and bourgeois habits in economic
management can be overcome only by a long,
persistent struggle.

That is why Marx speaks of the  entire period of the

dictatorship of the proletariat as the
period of transition from capitalism to socialism.”
(Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XXIV, “Greeting to the
Viennese Workers,” p. 314, Russian ed.)

The transformation from capitalism to socialism cannot
be accomplished at once. A fairly long transition period
is unavoidable. During this period state power is in the
hands of the working class, which is building socialism.
The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie means the
repression of the vast majority of the population in the
interests of a handful of parasites. The dictatorship of
the proletariat means the repression of a small group of
exploiters in the interests of the vast majority of the
population, in the interests of the entire mass of toilers.

The proletariat uses its dictatorship to destroy all
vestiges of exploitation of man by man. On capturing
political power the proletariat becomes the ruling class:
it manages all socialised production, I crushes the
resistance of the exploiters, guides the intermediate,
vacillating elements and classes. Having become the
ruling class, the proletariat begins the work of creating a
system of society without classes, either ruling or
subordinated, since there will be no classes or class
distinctions whatever.

Under socialism the division of society into classes is
done away with, abolishing class contradictions and the
class struggle, doing away with the division into
exploiters and exploited. But the road to classless,
socialist society lies through a period of the bitterest
class struggle.

Lenin has incessantly stressed the fact that the
dictatorship of the proletariat is a period of long,
persistent class struggle against the exploiters, against
the remnants of the former ruling class. He wrote:
“Socialism is the abolition of classes. The dictatorship
of the proletariat has done everything possible to
abolish these classes. But it is impossible to destroy
classes at once. Classes have remained and will
remain during the period of the dictatorship of the
proletariat.

The dictatorship becomes unnecessary
when classes disappear. They will not disappear
without the dictatorship of the proletariat. Classes have
remained, but each of them has changed its aspect
under the dictatorship of the proletariat; also their
interrelations have changed. The class struggle does
not disappear under the dictatorship of the
proletariat, it only assumes other forms.” (Ibid.,
“Economics and Politics in the Epoch of the Dictatorship
of the Proletariat,” p. 513, Russian ed.)

Having assumed other forms, the class struggle under
the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes more
persistent. And this is only to be expected: the former
ruling classes will do anything to win back their lost
position. The exploiters stop at nothing, are ready to
commit the worst crimes against the interests of the vast
majority of the toilers in order to prevent the end of their
rule.

“The abolition of classes is a matter of a long, difficult
and stubborn class struggle, which, after the overthrow
of the rule of capital, after the destruction of the
bourgeois state, after the establishment of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, does not disappear, but
only changes its form, becoming, in many respects,
more bitter.” (Ibid., “Greeting to the Viennese Workers,”
p. 315, Russian ed.)

The entire history of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R.
brilliantly illustrates the truth of this principle expressed
by Lenin. The tremendous victories of socialist
construction have been achieved in the process of an
unremitting and most bitter struggle against all the
remnants of the old order of exploitation. The Soviet
Union achieved most important and decisive victories over

Leontiev Political Economy – A Beginner’s Course Chapter 1 10
all the forces of the bourgeoisie. But the resistance of the
latter grows stronger. Their methods of struggle against
socialism become more vile. Having suffered total defeat
in open battle, the kulaks, traders, all the remnants of
the previous exploiting classes, try to sneak into Soviet
enterprises and institutions and attempt to undermine the
powerful socialist structure by means of sabotage,
thievery, etc. The most wide-awake vigilance on the part
of the proletariat, the utmost strengthening of the
proletarian dictatorship are therefore essential.

“A strong and powerful dictatorship of the proletariat –
that is what we must have now in order to shatter the
last remnants of the dying classes and to frustrate their
thieving designs.” See Stalin, Leninism. “The Results of
the First Five Year Plan,” p. 437.

Classless society cannot come of itself. It must be won.
For this purpose it is necessary actively to overcome the
tremendous difficulties on the road to socialism. It is
necessary to crush the resistance of all the relics of the
old exploiting system. It is necessary to mobilise the
energy and activity of the millions of builders of
socialism. It is necessary to resist any and all deviations
from the general line of the Party. Unfailing alertness is
necessary with respect to all attempts at distorting the
Marxist-Leninist teaching.

The dictatorship of the  proletariat is that power which

accomplishes the building of classless socialist society.

The dictatorship of the  proletariat is the leading force in

the society that builds  socialism. Therefore, in studying the

transition from capitalism to socialism, in studying the structure of
socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the centre
of attention of political economy.

The bourgeoisie is interested in hiding the laws of the
inevitable decline of capitalism and victory of
communism. Bourgeois professors of economics – these
“learned henchmen of the capitalist class,” as Lenin
expresses it – serve capitalism truly and faithfully, glossing
over and embellishing the system of oppression and
slavery. Bourgeois economists mask and befog the real
laws governing capitalist production. They try to
perpetuate capitalism. They depict capitalism as the only
possible order of social life. According to them the laws of
capitalism are eternal and immutable. By such
falsehoods they try to save capitalism from its inevitable
destruction.

At the head of the revolutionary struggle of the working
class stands the Communist Party. Only firm leadership
on the part of the Communist Party ensures the victory of
the proletariat. All the enemies of communism
venomously hate the Communist Party. They strive in
every way possible to split it, to destroy its unity, and
rejoice at any deviation from its general line within the
ranks of the Party.

Political economy is a sharp weapon in the struggle
against capitalism, in the struggle for communism.
Political economy, like all sciences, and primarily
sciences dealing with human society and the laws of its
development, is a class science.

The proletariat is surrounded by hosts of enemies. A bitter
class struggle is in progress. In this struggle all attacks
upon the general line of the Communist Party, all
attempts to undermine it either in theory or in practice
bring grist to the mill of the enemy. That is why a vigilant
and unrelenting struggle must be maintained against all
deviations from the general line of the Party, a struggle
against open Right opportunism as well as against all
kinds of “Left” deviations.

Counter-revolutionary Trotskyism is of special service to
the bourgeoisie in its struggle against the revolution, in
its preparations for a new intervention against the
U.S.S.R. As one of the varieties of social-democracy,
Trotskyism particularly furnishes the imperialist
bourgeoisie with all sorts of slanderous fabrications
about the revolutionary movement in various countries
and about the Soviet Union.

Trotskyism is an advance post of the counter-revolutionary

bourgeoisie. Stalin in his letter of the autumn of 1931 to the editors
of the Russian magazine, Proletarskaya Revolyutsia
(The Proletarian Revolution) entitled “Questions
Concerning the History of Bolshevism,” [See Stalin,
Leninism, pp. 388-400] called the attention of the
Communist Party to the necessity of a relentless
struggle against all the attempts of an ideology hostile to
Leninism to penetrate into the Communist Party, and
particularly to the necessity of a determined resistance
to all sorts of attempts “to smuggle the disguised
Trotskyist rubbish into our literature.”

The representatives of trends hostile to the proletariat now
try to smuggle in their views subtly, unnoticeably. All
such attempts must be vigorously resisted. Any show of
toleration towards these hostile views, any rotten
liberalism with respect to them, is a direct crime against
the working class and its struggle for socialism.

The class enemies of the proletariat try in every way to
misconstrue political economy and to adapt it to serve
their own interests. Bourgeois and Social-Democrat
economists trump up all sorts of concoctions in an Leontiev

Political Economy – A Beginner’s Course Chapter 1 11
attempt to save capitalism. They also try to make use of
political economy for their own ends in their struggle
against the Soviet Union.

One of the most important tasks in the study of political
economy, therefore, is to conduct a relentless struggle
against all anti-Marxian and deviationist trends.

Review Questions

1. What aim does Marxism-Leninism set before the proletariat?

2. How do the productive forces of society change?

3. In what way do the various systems of social production differ?

4. What are classes?

5. How does the abolition of classes take place?

6. What is the subject of study of political economy?

7. Of what importance is the study of revolutionary theory to the proletariat?

8. Why is political economy a class science?

9. Of what does the Party character of political economy consist?

Posted in EducationComments Off on POLITICAL ECONOMY

Capitalist crisis lurches into a more acute phase.

Proletarian

issue 45 (December 2011)

Eurogeddon

The last few weeks have witnessed the capitalist crisis of overproduction beginning to enter its most destructive stage, where the bourgeoisie itself starts to become aware that its economic system is beyond all control and to tremble at its prospects of survival.

Investors have gone on strike. The Americans are getting their money out as fast as they decently can. British banks have stopped lending to all but their safest eurozone counterparts, and even those have been denied access to dollar funding. The UK hardly has anything to boast of; it’s got its own legion of problems, many of them not so dissimilar to those of the eurozone periphery. 

“But almost anything is going to look preferable to a currency which might soon be assigned to the dustbin of history. All of a sudden, the pound is the European default asset of choice. 

What we are witnessing is awesome stuff – the death throes of a currency [the euro]. And not just any old currency either, but what when it was launched was confidently expected to take its place alongside the dollar as one of the world’s major reserve currencies. That promise today looks to be in ruins.” (‘Death of a currency as eurogeddon approaches’ by Jeremy Warner, Telegraph, 25 November 2011)

The Treasury and Bank of England are making contingency plans for ‘economic armageddon’ if the euro falls apart, business secretary Vince Cable said yesterday as the European commission slashed its growth forecasts and predicted that the continent could be plunged back into recession next year.” (‘UK Treasury prepares for “economic armageddon”’ by Patrick Wintour, David Gow and Nicholas Watt, Guardian, 11 November 2011)

What has brought about this dramatic state of affairs is centred around the growing inability of European countries to pay their debts, which is ultimately a symptom caused by the world crisis of overproduction.

Nothing about the crisis can be understood without understanding that it is a crisis of overproduction

It was Marx who first worked out the inherent mechanisms of the capitalist system and was thus able to develop the understanding that capitalism cannot help but generate completely unavoidable crises of overproduction that periodically bring the whole of capitalist economies to a disastrous standstill.

The fatal flaw in the capitalist system is that the resources necessary to put in train the production of commodities that people need (factories, farms, raw materials and so on) are all the private property of people whose only interest in using them is as a means of increasing their wealth by accumulating capital. In other words, profit is the sole motivator of production. However, maximisation of profit demands the minimisation of the costs of production, including the amount paid in wages and the amount paid in taxes for the provision of public services in any given country. There comes a point therefore, where the working class is too impoverished to buy all that capitalism is producing, and this is where the crisis of overproduction kicks in.

Bourgeois banks and governments take all kinds of steps to avert the crisis, such as lending money to the workers to enable them to keep buying, or even providing the unemployed with paid work. However, none of this resolves the crisis. Lent money, whether lent to individuals or to governments, has to be repaid. If it is lent to individuals, then as debts mount, the proportion of those individuals’ wages that goes into debt servicing gets ever larger, diminishing what is available for the purchase of capitalist commodities, laying the basis for crisis if one has not already started, and aggravating it if it has.

Because bourgeois economic experts do not accept the basic tenets of Marxism they have proved completely unable to predict the course that the crisis will take. If it is seen as simply a debt crisis, or a credit crunch, then one would expect order to be restored once stern measures have been taken to ensure that, as far as possible, debts are repaid. If, however, it is understood to be a crisis of overproduction – of too much production chasing too little purchasing power – then it is obvious that austerity can only make matters worse, since it further reduces the already too low ability of the masses to purchase the glut of goods that the capitalists are desperate to sell.

Experience has shown in the present crisis that austerity has indeed made matters worse. This in itself is proof that the crisis is really a crisis of overproduction. Austerity is simply killing what remains of the market for capitalist products.

In the eurozone, “retailers saw sales drop 0.7 percent in September as households reined in their spending amid the ongoing debt crisis”. (‘Concern as eurozone retail sales fall’ by Emma Rowley,Telegraph, 8 November 2011)

In the US too, “Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 6.7 percent, to $49,909, according to a study by two former Census Bureau officials. During the recession – from December 2007 to June 2009 – household income fell 3.2 percent … The full 9.8 percent drop in income from the start of the recession to this June – the most recent month in the study – appears to be the largest in several decades.” (‘Recession officially over, US incomes kept falling’ by Robert Pear, New York Times, 10 October 2011)

So severe has the fall been that even relatively ‘efficient’ producers (ie, those with the lowest costs of production) are now beginning to join the ranks of those whose future is under threat: “The latest data suggested the German economy could slow sharply in the next three months.” Indeed, already in September German industrial output was down 2.7 percent, while factory orders fell by a whopping 12 percent. Naturally, “Germany’s bleak outlook will make it even less likely to support the eurozone’s most indebted economies in the future, adding to the risk of a eurozone break-up.” (See Emma Rowley, op cit)

Because of austerity, “Industrial output buckled in September with falls of 4.8 percent in Italy … and 1.7 percent in France from a month earlier, as the effects of the debt crisis … finally hit with a vengeance. EU commissioner Olli Rehn slashed growth forecasts from 1.6 percent to 0.5 percent next year, warning ‘that recovery has now come to a standstill and there’s the risk of a new recession unless determined action is taken’.”(‘New recession threatens the globe as debt crisis grows’ by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Telegraph,11 November 2011)

The problem is that nobody can determine what determined action might be possible that wasn’t totally counterproductive! The New York Times has been equally unhelpful in its pronouncements:

In an editorial of 30 September 2011, it bemoaned “Europe’s serial mismanagement of its debt problems”,which “has become a grave threat to global recoveryconcluding that austerity was the reason for the economic deterioration of recent months: “The big picture, in fact, has gotten much worse. Greece’s indebtedness is growing, European bank balance sheets are shakier and investors are increasingly sceptical that Europe has the will to stabilise shaky credit and stock markets. Also conspicuously lacking is any clear plan for generating the economic growth needed to begin paying down those growing debts. Instead, heavily indebted nations are yielding to pressure to embrace more of the austerity medicine that will only make them sicker.” (‘More of the same won’t save Europe’, New York Times, 30 September 2011)

The bad news is that there can be no effective plan for ‘generating economic growth’ outside of ever bigger and more destructive wars (which the imperialists are prosecuting with increasing determination) or the overthrow of capitalism, which one really cannot expect bourgeois governments to espouse – any more than would the New York Times!

It is not only European producers who are suffering as a result of austerity measures being imposed everywhere. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard for instance informs us that “The OECD’s index of leading indicators for China, India, Brazil, Canada, Britain and the eurozone have all tipped below the warning line of 100, with the pace of the decline in Europe exceeding the onset of the Great Contraction in early 2008.” (Op cit)

Yet still austerity remains the prescribed medicine.

France, desperate to retain the AAA credit rating that enables it to service its debts relatively cheaply despite the fact that its banks are facing massive losses as a result of exposure to Greek and Italian bad debt, is responding by announcing a second package of cuts in four months, saving €112bn by increasing tax on big firms, raising VAT on restaurants and construction and cutting pensions, schools, health provision and welfare.

Danny Blanchflower, currently an Economics professor in the US and formerly an external member of the Bank of England’s interest rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee noted the obvious: “It is like the 1930s. Imposing austerity on countries already in recession is the way into a death spiral.” Yet what choice does France have? It would definitely lose its AAA status even sooner without the austerity measures, and in that case it would find itself bleeding increasing proportions of its diminishing resources into the hands of the usurers that are lending it the money to keep going.

Failure of austerity in the UK

The enthusiastic imposition of austerity as the answer to everything on the part of the British government has fallen flat on its face, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer having to admit that public finances have not improved in spite of all the hardship that austerity has visited on the British working class. Liam Halligan elaborated on this recently:

Government spending in August was 7.2 percent higher than in the same month in 2010. During the 12 months to August, public expenditure outstripped that of the year before, even after inflation.

The UK borrowed around £150bn in both 2009/10 and 2010/11 and will borrow £125bn in this fiscal year. These figures are six to eight times average annual borrowing totals during the previous decade.

The entire fiscal debate is couched in terms of ‘paying down the deficit’. But, again, this doesn’t convey reality. The deficit is merely the nation’s annual credit card bill. The real issue is the UK’s mortgage – the national debt. Net public debt, £581bn as recently as 2008/09, is set to reach £940bn by the end of 2011/12, a 62 percent nominal rise in 36 months.

Every year, of course, while the annual deficit falls, the national debt still spirals up. By 2015/16, even with the ‘austerity plan’, net debt will be £1,500bn says the Treasury – all of which will need servicing by continued interest payments – like any mortgage.

Back in 2009, the UK spent £31bn – around 6 percent of total tax receipts – on debt interest. That’s money down the drain. By 2015, debt services costs, according to the 2011 budget document, will be £67bn a year – 10 percent of the tax take. These shocking numbers are also underestimates, given assumptions of future ‘government savings’ and, most crucially, benign gilt rates.

Include the cost of ‘financial interventions’, in other words, bank bail-outs, and public-sector net debt is already £2,266bn, according to the Treasury fine print.” (‘Talking up austerity will never bring down the UK’s debt, Mr Osborne’, Telegraph, 9 October 2011)

The UK’s debt problem won’t go away despite austerity because austerity is strangling the British economy. Austerity is further aggravating the crisis, which means that profits are declining, unemployment is increasing and wages are sinking – all of which lead to a massive reduction in tax revenues. The government may be spending less because of its austerity programme, but it is also taking in less because of its austerity programme – demonstrating the sheer futility of austerity in the face of a crisis of overproduction.

In fact, austerity is causing public debt to escalate rather than reducing it.

Why the crisis of overproduction presents as a debt crisis

Debt starts to mount up as soon as governments and individuals start to mortgage their future incomes in order to pay for current consumption. This is of course fine, so long as the expected future income is forthcoming and the borrower does not borrow more than can affordably be repaid. However, when a crisis of overproduction intervenes, not only do workers find their incomes severely reduced, but governments do too.

As profits and incomes fall, tax income also plummets, while the interest on loans escalates as borrowers become more of a credit risk. The rise in interest rates itself makes default more probable, and before long the system is witness to default after default, bankruptcy after bankruptcy, every one of them exacerbating the crisis of overproduction.

Government debts have risen spectacularly in recent years as the bourgeoisies of various countries have tried to intervene to prevent the worsening of the crisis of overproduction. After all, every one of the prestigious bourgeois schools of economics throughout the world, with all the most venerated professorial geniuses, had proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that Marx had got it wrong – that crisis was not inevitable, but was merely the result of mismanagement. From Keynes on, it was received wisdom that, with government intervention, capitalist crisis could be averted.

Therefore, governments were mobilised to employ people directly as well as to institute public works with a view to keeping the economy constantly ‘stimulated’ – ie, to inject purchasing power into an otherwise flagging economy.

Then, shortly after the subprime crisis broke out, the various imperialist governments agreed among themselves that disaster would be averted provided concerted action were taken by all of them to spend their way out of crisis. Gordon Brown, a brilliant student of modern bourgeois economics and a devotee of its illustrious professoriat, was hailed as the saviour of humanity for championing this cause of universal stimulus and convincing the G20 of the need to implement it.

This brought about a massive leap in the public debt of the various countries concerned and staved off some of the worse effects of the crisis for several months – but Marx had the last laugh when, within a year, the crisis crashed through the barrier of universal stimulus – with all the more force for having been temporarily contained.

Public debt also grew exponentially as a result of governments needing to rescue their bankrupt banks. In times of overproduction crisis, banks find themselves unable to collect money owed to them both by customers who have lost their jobs and/or suffered a fall in income and by the increasing number of businesses that cease to be profitable and collapse.

In the current crisis, this general phenomenon has been aggravated by the fact that for years capitalism was artificially boosting demand for its products by encouraging lending on a massive scale to people who lacked the means to repay even at the time of lending – the subprime mortgagors. Respectable banks were attracted into this business by the rates of interest that could be ‘earned’, and a whole industry grew up round packaging this toxic debt in such a way that even the most cautious lenders could be persuaded that it was a safe loan.

Be that as it may, banks all of a sudden found themselves holding such high levels of bad debt that they themselves became uncreditworthy, making it impossible to carry on providing their banking services. These were the circumstances in which the investment banks Lehmann Brothers and Bear Stearns bit the dust.

However, the catastrophic effect of these failures on the capitalist class and its ability to continue the process of economic production was such that bourgeois governments were terrorised into riding to the rescue of most of the remaining bankrupt banks with billions of pounds to ensure that they could continue in business. The fact is that if banks fail, a fatal blow is dealt to the whole capitalist system of production, since capital needs to circulate uninterruptedly in and out of the ‘money’ form that it takes when deposited in banks.

The bank is like a heart pumping blood through the body, except that what it pumps is ‘liquidity’ to the economy. If the heart stops, death ensues. When a bank fails, it takes with it all the capitalists whose funds are transiting through it at the time, causing abrupt and incalculable disruption to the economic activity of the country.

This is why governments have paid up billions of pounds to save the banks on behalf of the entire capitalist class – but now find that they are facing unpayable debts themselves because, notwithstanding the bank rescue, the economy is still not generating enough wealth to enable government debts to be serviced as per contract. This is how a banking crisis turns into a crisis of sovereign debt.

The sovereign debt crisis in the eurozone

Because of the crisis of overproduction, it has become increasingly likely that country after country is sooner or later going to find itself unable to pay its debts. This is because its domestic producers are not generating the profits that are needed to service each country’s loans – precisely because so much purchasing power has gone out of the economy worldwide. The countries in the eurozone that went down first were those which were least ‘efficient’, ie, those whose production costs were highest, making them the least able to compete in a shrinking market.

The reason for high production costs is mainly relative technological backwardness, although the blame is always directed at any benefits the workers might receive, such as decent pensions, holidays or wages. Other factors may also play a part – Greece is said to have been weakened by tax evasion and Spain by the bursting of the property bubble. Countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal, which are all heavily dependent on tourism, almost certainly also lose out as austerity forces families in other countries to abandon the idea of a foreign holiday.

An added problem for countries in the eurozone is that they could not improve their competitiveness by allowing the exchange rate of their currency to slide, as they would have done in the past, because they were saddled with the euro.

As it becomes clear to those who lend to governments that there is a danger of default, these lenders naturally charge higher and higher rates of interest, which is what is meant when in the coy language of financiers it is said that the yield on government bonds is rising. This means that debt servicing costs are escalating, governments cease to be able to manage their budgets and default becomes even more likely.

And so interest rates go up still higher. Once they hit 7 percent it is generally recognised that they become unserviceable. European sovereign default began to threaten first Greece, then Ireland, then Portugal and now Italy, with Spain not far behind.

Why should it matter that a eurozone country defaults on its sovereign debt?

The main reason sovereign default is feared in the eurozone is that prominent among the creditors that will lose out are the banks of other eurozone countries.

The German or Finnish electorate are indignant about being asked to bail out Greece or Portugal, whose people are portrayed to them as profligates living in idleness and plenty on the backs of industrious and thrifty northern workers. Their prejudices, while being encouraged for the purpose of spreading disunity and confusion about the root cause of and real answer to the crisis, have nevertheless had to be swept aside by their governments, who have dutifully backed proposals for bail-outs of the failing countries.

This has not been done out of concern for the wellbeing of the afflicted countries, however, but only out of concern for the fate of German and Finnish banks, which are major creditors standing to lose billions if and when these countries actually default. But, as ever, avoiding default actually involves lending still more money to countries that are already a serious credit risk, thus endangering still further the economic well-being of the lender country and exacerbating the downward spiral into collapse.

What Europe as a whole has been trying to do is to pool its resources to put together a rescue fund so overwhelmingly large that it is able to guarantee to lend European governments as much as they need to keep afloat at affordable rates of interest. In this way it hopes to ensure that outside lenders will keep lending at these affordable rates and that the fund will not too often be left holding the bankrupt baby. However, since by definition those borrowing from the rescue fund will be bad credit risks, nobody is particularly anxious to contribute to the fund in question.

The various European governments, knowing that their countries’ banks are going to suffer a severe hit if the weaker economies default, are anxious to put in place a firewall to prevent interest rates rising, yet are just as anxious not to have to contribute very much to it. To the extent that their banks are exposed to losses on bad debts, the money markets are now tending to factor in the probable need of rescuing banks when assessing each country’s creditworthiness – with the result that interest rates (bond yields) are rising even for countries whose financial difficulties have not yet become apparent.

As the Financial Times put it recently: “Sometimes a number tells the story best. On Tuesday [4 October] that number seemed to be eurozone bank credit default swaps, or CDS, which show the region’s financial system is closer to breakdown than at any time in recent years.

The iTraxx credit defaults swaps index, which measures the risk of default for eurozone banks, has leapt above levels seen around the time of the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. This highlights worries that many banks are struggling to fund themselves as Europe’s debt crisis deepens.” (‘CDS numbers count against banking system,’ by David Oakley and Tracy Alloway, 5 October 2011)

This inability is manifesting itself very concretely in other ways too. Because Greece is now recognised as likely to default, with a possible 50 percent ‘haircut’ being forced on its creditors, the banks of other EU countries that have lent to the various troubled countries, which now include Italy, are themselves in trouble.

The escalating crisis threatens the rest of Europe through bank exposure. Mediobanca said Europe’s 20 biggest banks hold €186bn of Italian sovereign debt, led by Intesa SanPaolo (€64bn), Unicredit (€39bn), BNP Paribas (€12bn), Dexia (€13bn), Commerzbank (€9bn), and Crédit Agricole (€8bn).” (‘France cuts frantically as Italy nears debt spiral’ by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Telegraph, 9 November 2011)

Franco-Belgian bank Dexia has already had to be rescued by a Belgian nationalisation, its second taxpayer-financed bail-out in three years. Dexia has €3.4bn of Greek loans on its books, but Deutsche Bank too has €1.1bn. The loss of such massive amounts of their cash means that the banks could become unable to pay their debts either to other banks, governments or customers.

Inevitably, countries such as Germany, whose banks are exposed to the bad debt of Europe’s weaker economies, are going to feel constrained to overextend their public finances by rescuing their banks, thus themselves becoming a credit risk. The prospect of this is what is making these countries so anxious to ensure that the rescue fund firewall is put in place – to guarantee as far as possible that debts due to their banks will be paid.

The strategy, however, has been failing dismally, since there is a problem both in creating a fund that is large enough, and in obtaining the necessary consents of national parliaments to its set-up.

The German parliament’s move to expand the eurozone bailout fund … is welcome, but the European debt crisis is no closer to resolution than it was two months ago. Even with Germany’s roughly $287bn increased contribution, the fund is still too small to provide more than a few days of calm to jittery markets

Even if all remaining countries, which include Austria, Slovakia and the Netherlands, vote to strengthen the bailout fund, it will still be limited to roughly $600bn, not nearly enough to quiet the crises building over Italy’s debt, France’s weakened banks and looming trouble elsewhere. Europe needs a completely different approach, like increasing the bailout fund’s lending capacity to $2tr or $3tr …” (Editorial, ‘More of the same won’t save Europe’, New York Times, 30 September 2011)

In order to increase the size of the fund, while bypassing the objections of national parliaments, the eurocrats hit on the wheeze of borrowing a further $1tr rather than raising it from national governments. If the New York Times is right, however, even if it were able successfully to borrow what it needed, the fund would still be insufficient to achieve its purpose.

The result, therefore, was predictable:

Last week’s eurozone ‘agreement’, for all the related fanfare … made western Europe’s grotesque debt crisis even more acute, sowing further infectious spores of confusion.

The deal itself, unveiled dramatically in the early hours of Thursday, was met with the now obligatory ‘relief rally’. The FTSE All-World equity index soared 4.1 percent, helped by signs of renewed US economic growth. European bank shares spiked no less than 12 percent on Thursday, as traders recognised, for all the official obfuscation, the latest dollop of government largesse.

By late Thursday, though, and certainly on Friday, the warning signs were there. Global bond markets, by character more sober and smarter than the excitable equity guys, were voting against the deal [ie, ‘bond yields’ were continuing to rise to unaffordable levels]. This is alarming. For it is only by selling more bonds that the eurozone’s deeply indebted governments can roll over their enormous liabilities and keep the show on the road … 

Let’s be clear – if global bond markets stop lending to a number of large western economies, we are in the realms of unpaid state wages and pensions, transport chaos and closures of schools and hospitals – sparking the prospect of serious civil unrest.” (‘Why the latest eurozone bailout is due to fail within weeks’ by Liam Halligan, Telegraph, 30 October 2011)

The road to civil unrest – the road to revolution

It is becoming more obvious by the minute that this is the destination towards which the major western imperialist powers are all heading.

There are those who think that an imperialist power is such a fierce and powerful enemy that it is hopeless to even dream of overthrowing it. They even imagine that their ability to keep the working class of the imperialist countries behind them through their ability to offer the working masses a higher standard of living than prevails throughout the non-imperialist world will forever paralyse internal opposition to imperialism.

Let those people contemplate what is happening at present and realise that they are simply wrong and appreciate the profundity of Mao Zedong’s dictum that all reactionaries are paper tigers. These are Comrade Mao’s actual words:

“Just as there is not a single thing in the world without a dual nature (this is the law of the unity of opposites), so imperialism and all reactionaries have a dual nature – they are real tigers and paper tigers at the same time.

“In past history, before they won state power and for some time afterwards, the slave-owning class, the feudal landlord class and the bourgeoisie were vigorous, revolutionary and progressive – they were real tigers. But with the lapse of time, because their opposites – the slave class, the peasant class and the proletariat – grew in strength step by step, struggled against them more and more fiercely, these ruling classes changed step by step into the reverse, changed into reactionaries, changed into backward people, changed into paper tigers. Moreover, eventually they were overthrown, or will be overthrown, by the people.

“The reactionary, backward, decaying classes retained this dual nature even in their last life-and-death struggles against the people. On the one hand, they were real tigers; they devoured people, devoured people by the millions and tens of millions. The cause of the people’s struggle went through a period of difficulties and hardships, and along the path, there were many twists and turns.

“To destroy the rule of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism in China took the Chinese people more than a hundred years and cost them tens of millions of lives before the victory in 1949. Look! Were these not living tigers, iron tigers, real tigers? Nevertheless, in the end they changed into paper tigers, dead tigers, and bean-curd tigers.

“These are historical facts. Have people not seen or heard about these facts? There have indeed been thousands and tens of thousands of them! Thousands and tens of thousands! Hence, imperialism and all reactionaries, looked at in essence, from a long-term point of view, from a strategic point of view, must be seen for what they are – paper tigers. On this, we should build our strategic thinking.

“On the other hand, they are also living tigers, iron tigers, real tigers that can devour people. On this, we should build our tactical thinking.” (Speech at the Wuchang Meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 1 December 1958)

There are many people who imagine that, just because imperialism has in the past been able to spread class collaborationism among the working class of the imperialist countries by bribing the leaders and making life relatively comfortable for the majority, these workers have therefore become irretrievably reactionary. But those who think this way are clearly thinking metaphysically and not dialectically.

These people should pay close attention to the above words of Mao Zedong, realise that the ability of imperialism to provide an acceptable standard of living to the masses, or even bribes to their potential leaders, is being swiftly undermined by the crisis, correct their crooked thinking and emerge from the paralysis and hopelessness that their erroneous thinking has imposed on them.

What they need to be doing is not wallowing in hopelessness but helping to prepare the working class for the hard but world-historic struggle ahead to overthrow imperialism and establish socialism.

Contradictory struggle to build a firewall

In the article cited above, Liam Halligan explained that the prospect of ‘haircuts’ now looms over all eurozone sovereign bondholders, many of whom are European banks whose finances are already shaky. Yet it now seems that the proposed European Financial Stability Facility, the rescue fund, is itself to be ‘levered’, ie, it is going to be borrowing in order to lend. Apparently this would enable money to be raised without having to obtain the consent of the various national parliaments.

When the various European governments cobbled together these latest proposals for their rescue fund, however, it was only with the greatest difficulty that consensus could be reached, and in the circumstances “The question of who will lend to the EFSF, on whose collateral, and who will ultimately repay the loans, was barely addressed.” Little wonder, then, that the new super-rescue fund failed to inspire confidence!

The result is that “‘euroquake’ fears, once viewed as outlandish, are gaining pace. Despite Thursday’s deal, and all the reassurances of a ‘durable solution’, the Italian government on Friday paid 6.06 percent for 10-year money, up from just 5.86 percent a month ago and a euro-era high. Such borrowing costs are disastrous, given that Rome must roll over €300bn of its €1,900bn debt in 2012 alone. A default by Italy, the eurozone’s third-biggest economy, and the eighth-largest on earth, would make Lehman look like a picnic.” (Liam Halligan, op cit)

In the event, the EFSF, which was supposed to borrow a trillion euros in order to act as ‘first loss’ insurer of Spanish and Italian bonds, suffered a failed auction, notwithstanding the high interest rates already being demanded. It attempted to borrow just €5bn by issuing bonds, but the issue had to be cut down to €3bn owing to lack of demand. As Ambrose Evans Pritchard commented: “The market has already cast its verdict on plans to leverage the EFSF (version III) to €1 trillion … seeing at once that the scheme concentrates risks in lethal fashion for creditor states, dooms France’s AAA rating, and is likely to contaminate the core very fast.” (‘Europe’s rescue fiasco leaves Italy defenceless’, Telegraph, 7 November 2011)

The failure to set up a credible rescue fund “has caused remaining international confidence in the euro to evaporate, and even German bunds to lose their ‘risk free’ status. The crisis is no longer confined to the sinners of the south. Suddenly, no-one wants to hold euro denominated assets of any variety, and that includes what had previously been thought the eurozone safe haven of German bunds.” On 25 November, Germany suffered the humiliation of seeing its bond yields rise above those of the UK. (Jeremy Warner, op cit)

Given the failure of the EFSF strategy, pressure is now mounting on the European Central Bank to step in to guarantee the debts of the eurozone. However, the funds of the European Central Bank are provided by eurozone members, with the largest share coming from Germany. And Germany has made it quite clear that it will say Nein to any proposal that ECB funds should be put at risk because when the debtors default, as they surely will, it is Germany that stands to lose the most.

Reflection of the crisis on the political front

When caught up in the technicalities of financial manipulation it is easy to lose sight of the one most important fact: “It is at the sharp end of employment and livelihoods, dispossessed homes and broken families that the human impact of financial turbulence is most keenly felt.” (Liam Halligan, op cit)

With the crisis having such life-or-death consequences for the masses of ordinary people, the bourgeoisie is faced with the prospect of workers’ resistance to their sharply deteriorating living standards, a resistance that has already emerged in the form of the Arab spring, and in nascent resistance movements in various imperialist countries as well. The conditions are developing in which the bourgeoisie is no longer going to find it easy to rule under the cover of bourgeois democracy, since the demand of the crisis is that highly unpopular and damaging measures be imposed on the working class and broad masses by those they have supposedly elected to represent them.

George Papandreou, until recently the elected social-democratic prime minister of Greece, tried to square the circle by offering to put proposals for further austerity to the Greek people in a referendum. He apparently thought that Greek people would see the ‘sense’ of further austerity and not only vote in favour in the referendum but also isolate the ‘trouble makers’ who are calling all the demonstrations and strikes.

Whether such calculations would have worked or not in Greece, the rest of bourgeois Europe was appalled by the precedent it would set. You simply cannot democratically ask a debtor if he would like to pay a debt he cannot afford to pay and abide by his decision! As a result, the European bourgeoisie realised that management of the debtor economy needed to be taken away from elected representatives who are dependent on maintaining a certain degree of credibility, however ill deserved, to remain in office and placed in the hands of some reliable bureaucrat.

As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard put in: “The Greeks were ordered to drop their referendum on measures that reduce their country to a sort of Manchukuo, with EU commissars ‘on the ground’, installed in each ministry, drawing up lists of state assets to be liquidated to pay foreign creditors.”(‘The great euro putsch rolls on as two democracies fall’, Telegraph, 13 November 2011)

Papandreou was therefore told to step aside in favour of a financial technocrat whose function will be to act as Greece’s Trustee in Bankruptcy, selling all he can of Greek assets in order to satisfy the bankrupt’s debts in as far as is possible, while reducing Greece and the Greek people to pauperism.

The man chosen for the task was Loukas Papademos, a graduate of the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, who was a professor at Columbia University before becoming economic adviser at Boston Federal Reserve Bank. From 1994 to 2002 he was governor of the Bank of Greece, at the time when Greece ‘qualified’ for eurozone membership largely thanks to extremely misleading accounts fabricated on its behalf by Goldman Sachs. So while the creditor vultures circling Greece squawk in outrage at the supposed faking of its economic prospects that enabled Greece to join the euro, they are inexplicably perfectly happy to have the man mainly responsible for that sleight of hand appointed to represent their interests!

It is hard to avoid the suspicion that Greece was shoehorned into the euro for the benefit of the imperialist banks, and that the same man will now shoehorn Greece out of the euro, yet again for the benefit of the imperialist banks. Mr Papademos will not turn from a poacher to a gamekeeper. He has been and always will be a gamekeeper in the pockets of the super-rich.

It is not only Greece’s social-democratic George Papandreou, however, who has been replaced by an unelected placeman. Silvio Berlusconi of Italy has suffered the same fate after a long campaign of political, financial and sex scandals aimed at having him removed.

Berlusconi, one might have thought, would be ideally suited to represent imperialist interests, being the leader of the People of Freedom political movement, a right-wing party he founded in 2009. As of 2011,Forbes magazine has ranked him as the 118th richest man in the world, and the third richest man in Italy, with a net worth of US$6.2bn. Yet he was positively driven out of office.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard claims that it was the European Central Bank that “engineered the downfall of Silvio Berlusconi by playing the bond markets, switching purchases on and off to enforce compliance with its written dictates … and ultimately allowing 10-year yields to spike to 7.45 percent [anything more than 7 percent being considered unsustainable] to drive him out. Europe’s president Herman Van Rompuy swooped in to Rome to clinch the putsch. ‘Italy needs reforms not elections’, he said.

In replacing Berlusconi in favour of a person considered more suited to playing the role of Italy’s Trustee in Bankruptcy, the European bourgeoisie has again decided to have resort to an unelected technocrat with a similar background to Papademos. Mario Monti is also US-educated, having graduated from Yale. He spent 10 years as a European commissioner, helping to set up the internal European market, and in 2005 became an adviser to … Goldman Sachs.

Interestingly, the head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, has a similar pedigree. He graduated from MIT, was in charge of the Italian privatisation programme from 1993 to 2001, was governor of the Bank of Italy in 2006, and from 2002-06 he was vice president of … Goldman Sachs. And that sulphurous US investment bank was heavily implicated in the creation and marketing of the very financial instruments through which US subprime debt was repackaged as top-rated loans and spread to financial institutions all over the world.

We can be sure that a major part of the preparations being undertaken by the government for the eventuality of the collapse of the euro, which will certainly impact horrendously on jobs, pensions, welfare benefits, schools and hospitals in this country, will be readying the repressive organs of the state – the police, the army, the judiciary, the prison service – for a cruel and decisive response in the face of public resistance that is sure to come.

The possibility that the British ruling class too will conclude that what Britain needs is reforms not elections is very real. With or without elections, we can be sure that ‘reform’ – for the worse – is coming.

The working class too must make its preparations. Capitalism has proved its lethal nature. The only thing that enables the minority class of the filthy rich to continue to rule is lack of understanding among those that it rules of certain basics – in particular the fact that a socialist planned economy is the only possible alternative to capitalism; and that to install such an economic system requires the overthrow of the bourgeois state, which exists only to defend capitalism.

With a socialist understanding and socialist organisation, the victory of the proletariat over capitalism is assured.

Posted in EducationComments Off on Capitalist crisis lurches into a more acute phase.

The Salala Massacre: NATO’s Naked Aggression Against Pakistan And The Hegemonic Israeli-Indo-American Strategy Behind It

NOVANEWS
The Zionist entity,
Hindutvadi India 
and the 
‘Israeli’-controlled 
United States 
want to see Pakistan 
completely and totally 
eviscerated.

by Martin Iqbal and Jonathan Azaziah

NATO’s Bloody Attack On Pakistan: The Motive

In the early morning of Saturday 26 November two NATO Apache helicopters, an AC-130 gunship, and a number of fighter jets perpetrated a sustained and deadly attack on two Pakistani army border posts on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Located high on the Salala mountain ridge, the two army posts were brutally attacked for approximately two hours. In what was evidently a naked act of aggression, the US-led forces bombarded the border posts for forty-five minutes, left for twenty minutes, and subsequently returned – attacking for a further hour. Twenty-four Pakistani soldiers including two officers were murdered in the assault.

The sustained nature of the attack precludes the possibility of it being a mistake, as claimed by the U.S. government. The United States Military would have us believe that, with its world class communications and intelligence infrastructure, it mistakenly mauled an ally repeatedly for two hours, killing dozens. This is an utterly unfeasible theory. Further throwing this theory into question, it has been revealed that Pakistani forces were in constant contact with American forces throughout the attacks – informing them in no uncertain terms that they were attacking a Pakistani military position.(1)

As a direct result of the attack, U.S. forces are now facing an unprecedented crisis in Afghanistan.(2) Pakistan closed off U.S. supply routes to Occupied Afghanistan, leaving thousands of tonnes of NATO military equipment and fuel stranded in Pakistan, unable to reach its destination across the border. Knowing that this eventuality was not only predictable but inevitable, one has to ask why the U.S. chose to perpetrate the deadly attack.

The brazen and bloody assault on the Pakistani army can only be understood in light of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and the CIA’s ongoing war to destabilise the country. The TTP is a militant-terrorist group fostered by the CIA and India’s RAW, being used as a proxy force against the Pakistani nation as part of a ‘fourth generation war’.(3) The history of the TTP will be revisited in this piece.

Due to offensives mounted by the Pakistani Army and Air Force in the last 8-9 months the TTP had largely been pushed out of its relatively comfortable position in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas’ villages. As a result, the TTP terrorists fled to neighbouring Afghanistan’s mountainous border region; dwelling in caves and camps in far less favourable conditions. A series of Pakistani border posts were subsequently set up in the border region in order to prevent the TTP terrorists from re-entering from Afghanistan.(4)Uprooted from their bases in Pakistan and caught up amid Afghanistan’s savage, merciless winter, these precious CIA-RAW assets were being ‘decimated’, according to well-connected Pakistani analyst Syed Zaid Hamid.

The Pakistani people

are infuriated by

NATO’s naked

aggression against

their nation’s army.

Through their strategically-placed border posts, Pakistani forces were holding a line and preventing the TTP from re-entering Pakistan. The calculated and bloody U.S-led attack on these Pakistani border posts was nothing more than a pre-planned attempt to forge a path back into Pakistan for the withering CIA-RAW TTP terrorists.

Just as we have seen in the criminal, genocidal attack on Libya, NATO forces are providing military and logistical support to their ground-based proxy armies – in this case TTP terrorists. This is the essence of the strategy of ‘fourth generation warfare’(3)that is being used on Pakistan, in tandem with media manipulation, and the installation and maintenance of a corrupt puppet government.

Less than a month after the bloody 26 November attack on Pakistan’s border posts, NATO’s deadly support of its proxy terror army began to bear fruit. Several serious incidents tied to the TTP occurred in Pakistan’s border region. Notably the TTP bombed a Pakistani Rangers’ vehicle on December 9,(5) killing three Rangers and wounding four others.

On Friday, December 23, fifteen Pakistani soldiers were abducted from the Mulazi area of the northwestern Tank district. A local Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan commander confirmed that the soldiers were being held by TTP militants.(6)

The following day the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan carried out a suicide bombing in Pakistan’s north-western border region, wherein it rammed an explosives-laden vehicle into an Army camp. Nine Pakistani soldiers were killed in the attack, and nineteen were wounded when a building collapsed due to the blast. At the time of writing, more bodies are feared to be under the rubble.

On New Years Eve, one week after the abduction of 15 Pakistani soldiers from Mulazi, the TTP carried out one of its most animalistic attacks yet since its NATO-sparked ‘comeback’, blowing up a boys’ primary school in the Shahabkhel area of the Nowshera district in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province at dawn. The TTP has launched hundreds of attacks like this one, especially on female institutions, depriving thousands of Pakistani children from getting an education due to their parents’ fear of sending them to school and never seeing them again.(7) On the same day, taking a page straight out of the (to be discussed shortly) Zionist-Hindutvadi Dragon Policy, masked gunmen on motorcycles shot dead influential Shi’a religious leader Syed Muhammad Askari Raza in Karachi, causing a wave of protests against what demonstrators called “target killings”,(8) a clear indication that the articulately-awake Pakistani people were cognizant of ‘Israeli’ hands perpetrating the murder. The same motorcycle killers were responsible for the murder of beloved Sunni Mufti Abdul Samad Soomro in Gulbahar, respected Shi’a chief of the Sajjadia Scouts, Nayyar Zaidi in Orangi Town, and Dr. Saleem Kharal of Jinnah Hospital.(8)

Sources close to Syed Raza revealed that the killers and harbingers of chaoswere none other than the TTP.(9) The motive was clearly to trigger sectarian war, a long-time goal of ‘Israeli’ policy-makers in the Knesset and Herzliya. Thankfully, the Pakistani people have rejected these cynical and orientalist attempts by the saboteurs to generate Muslim-on-Muslim bloodshed. Five days after the bombing and its attempts at provoking communal war in and around Karachi, in an act of pure, uncut, inhuman savagery, the TTP monstrously executed all of the soldiers that it had kidnapped on December 23rd, vowing to continue its aggression against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan until further notice.(10)

Zionist-run BBC

has been integral

to the propaganda

campaign against 

Pakistan and the

Afghan Taliban.

The Afghan Taliban and The Tehrik-I-Taliban Pakistan: Cut From A Completely Different Cloth

Psychological warfare being a central pillar of the ‘fourth generation warfare’ model, is now being unleashed on Pakistan and Afghanistan. Manipulation on the part of the Zionist-dominated mass media skews the facts surrounding these events in order to buttress the Anglo-American-Zionist narrative. This is demonstrated in the coverage of the December 24 attack. The Press Trust of India,(11)CNN,(12) and several other(13)Zionist news outlets manipulated the facts and attributed the attack to ‘The Taliban‘ rather than the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan.

The BBC was even more astounding in its dishonest attempts to mislead readers. A 24 December piece published on the BBC website(14) reported the fact that the suicide attack had occurred, and that nobody had thus far claimed responsibility. The sheer barefaced audacity of the BBC’s disingenuous reportage is revealed when one sees what the editor has chosen to directly connect with this story. Beneath the piece we see a section titled, ‘More on This Story’, wherein the reader is provided with a wealth of hyperlinks pertaining to the Afghan Taliban (including the standard Sunni-Shia sectarian rhetoric).

Startlingly, if the reader follows the link “Who are the Taliban?”, they are taken to a page(15) which unequivocally claims that the Taliban is “active in both Afghanistan and Pakistan“, and it “threatens to destabilise Pakistan, where they control areas in the north-west and have been blamed for a wave of suicide bombings and other attacks.

This crude method of disinformation serves to delegitimise the righteous resistance in Afghanistan by blurring the line between the Afghan Taliban, and the CIA-RAW Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan – two completely separate groups. In geopolitical terms the Afghan Taliban has only domestic ambitions; it is fighting a war of liberation to free Afghanistan from foreign occupation. Conversely, the TTP is literally a proxy army of the American-Indian-Israeli nexus now seeking to destabilise and ‘soften-up’ Pakistan.

The American government has struggled to publicly justify its illegal, morally inexcusable occupation of Afghanistan due to the fact that ‘Al Qaeda’ – the ostensible enemy – is simply not there. Senior U.S. generals have admitted this in no uncertain terms. By pegging such terror attacks on ‘The Taliban‘ rather than the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Zionist media demonises the Afghan Taliban, and portrays it as a terrorist group with extra-territorial ambitions. Thus for the Afghan war theatre the ostensible enemy morphs from ‘Al Qaeda’, into the Taliban resistance movement. This is the only way the criminal and utterly baseless war on Afghanistan can remain politically tenable.

The Tehrik-I-Taliban 

of Pakistan (TTP)

is a powerful proxy

of the CIA, RAW and

Mossad.

Tehrik-I-Taliban: Monstrous Creation Of Mossad, RAW and CIA

Created in 2004 to coincide with the inauguration of the CIA’s genocidal drone program, the Tehrik-I-Taliban of Pakistan (TTP) is the perfected product of an ongoing, incestuous relationship between the Zionist entity’s Mossad, Hindutvadi India’s RAW and the CIA itself. One month after Mossad’s false flag attack on September 11th, 2001,(16) and just three days after the criminal invasion of Afghanistan, two Israeli’ agents with Mossad and IOF connections were apprehended inside the Mexican Congress building of Mexico City with 9mm handguns, nine grenades, C-4 explosives, three detonators, 58 bullets and fake Pakistani passports. Their mission was to destroy the Mexican Congress.(17)This false flag operation was intended to be phase II of 9/11, triggering a NATO invasion of Pakistan. When the mission failed, the Zionist entity activated its contingency plan: the Dragon Policy, an updated version of the Oded-Yinon-strategy of balkanizing Islamic states on ethno-sectarian lines.

Following the failure in Mexico City, the upper echelons of Zionist and Hindutvadi intelligence erected four new clandestine agencies solely dedicated to the destruction of Pakistan, which would immediately be followed by the originally-intended aggression to denuclearize the bulwark of Islamic Resistance to international Zionism. The highest ranking figures of Pakistan’s financial, political, military and religious sectors were on the hitlist and every successful attack was meant to soften up Pakistan for the imminent invasion.

Using funds from the unlimited bank accounts of Mossad and Aman, the Zionism-Hindutva intelligence nexus established 57 training camps across the northern frontiers of India and occupied Kashmir, kidnapping and blackmailing Resistance fighters to fight against their own comrades while simultaneously forging alliances with mafia bosses and narcotics tycoons and training them in the finer arts of black ops. These various elements served as the perfect quislings as any rebellion whatsoever would be punished with imprisonment in the harshest of dungeons. These puppets would be deployed into the field under Mossad-RAW guidance and once an attack was completed, the Zionist media would report as an ‘act of Islamic terrorism.’ If a ‘checkout’ was not secured, senior operatives of the ‘Israeli’-Indian nexus would finish the job.(18)

The CIA and its corporate offshoot, Blackwater (also known as Xe and Academi), a festering bubble of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim hatred and deep pro-Israel sentiments, joined the Dragon Policy in 2004. Blackwater agents became integrated with the ordnance units of Mossad and RAW. The CIA took a more proactive role by absorbing past recruits of the Zionist-Hindutvadi intelligence training camps and cultivated them into a powerful proxy force that specialized in guerilla tactics and sectarian warfare: the Tehrik-I-Taliban.

The name was chosen for a very sinister, deceptive and specific reason: to despicably smear the real Taliban in occupied Afghanistan, a Resistance force fighting a ‘7arb el 7uriyeh (war of liberation)’ against NATO invaders. It is classic psychological warfare. The Taliban, not surprisingly, has rightfully maintained its innocence and condemned Blackwater for being behind bombings and other provocations in Pakistan.(18) Since its birth, the Tehrik-I-Taliban has murdered or wounded more than 100,000 Pakistanis and caused more than $50 billion in damage to Pakistan’s economy. The Pakistani army has fought back with vigor and has arrested hundreds of Tehrik-I-Taliban militiamen, revealing the nature of this thuggish group of murderers; proxy agents detained in Waziristan, Karachi and Baluchistan have been caught with sophisticated, military-grade weaponry manufactured by the Zionist entity.(19)

Do let the beauty

of Kashmir fool you;

it is the most militarized

place on earth and

subjugated by cruel,

cruel oppressors.

Occupied Kashmir: 65 Years Of Barbarity Forgotten By The World

On a relatively small patch of land in one of the most strategically important regions on the face of the planet, there exists a people who have lived under a punishing, criminal occupation for more than six decades. No, it is not holy Palestine struggling against the cruel occupier of Zionism but breathtakingly-beautiful Kashmir, seeking “azadi,” the Kashmiri word for freedom, from Hindutva, the supremacist ideology that guides the political leadership of India. There is a Pashtun proverb that says, “Every man takes his home as Kashmir; the paradise of this earth.” This simple, eloquent language indicates that Kashmir, commonly referred to as ‘Heaven on earth’ even in Western circles, is a gem of a place rooted in the most astounding beauty. Beneath the gorgeousness however, is something violently grotesque: 65 years of barbaric occupation and a plethora of unspeakable human rights abuses that have largely been forgotten by the world.

The Vale of Kashmir, an independent nation with its own language, its own natural resources which provided self-sustaining autonomy for centuries, and its own rich, ancient, distinct and beautiful culture, one completely separate from India, is a bleeding wound of Rothschild-financed British colonialism. Even prior to the establishment of the British Raj in 1858, the colonialists of the Crown had brutalized and occupied vast parts of the Southeast Asia Subcontinent, including Kashmir. The British empire installed alien rulers in Kashmir, the savage Dogra dynasty, ending indigenous governance and inaugurating over 100 years of monarchical oppression, massacres and other atrocities. The goal was to disconnect the Kashmiri people from their strong faith in Islam, strip them of their history, westernize them and absorb them as subjugated peoples of the empire. The collapse of the dynasty and Britain’s imminent partition of the Indian territory left the Kashmiri people wide open to a new form of oppression: military occupation.(20)

The Dogra dynasty only vanished in title however, as the rulers simply exchanged their puppet kingship over Kashmir for puppet premiership. Britain set up the Radcliffe Commission for the purpose of allotting territory to India and Pakistan and immediately focused on the Vale. Heading it was Britain’s Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, who manipulated the Radcliffe Commission in India’s favor because the Crown did not trust the Pakistan leadership, which was seeking full freedom from colonialism. The Gurdaspur district of the Punjab region should’ve been assigned to Pakistan as it was overwhelmingly Muslim but was nonsensically assigned to India instead. Gurdaspur connected India to Kashmir via an easy-to-reach land route. Without Gurdaspur, India would have no access to Kashmir. Kashmir became a casualty of Lord Mountbatten’s meddling. Dozens of UN resolutions would pass in favor of Kashmiri self-determination after the partition that left Kashmir in limbo but like resolutions regarding Palestine, they would never be implemented. Now, 750,000 Indian troops march through Kashmir at all times, making the Vale the most militarized zone on planet earth.(20)

In defiance of the brutal

Hindutvadi occupation,

the Kashmiri people

still resist and demand

“Azadi.”

The Indian occupation has been even more barbaric and more slaughterous than its Dogra predecessors. The most deranged and sadistic forms of torture,including electroshock and sexual abuse, are a norm in Kashmir and used by the Hindutvadi occupiers often.(21) Since 1989 alone, Hindutva has murdered at least 93,712 Kashmiri civilians, leaving 22,762 women widowed and 107,434 children orphaned. Indian occupation troops have raped over 10,021 Kashmiri women, arrested 119,752 persons and destroyed more than 105,936 homes and structures.(22) Laws have been institutionalized by the Hindutvadi government to protect its killing machine in Kashmir. The AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) allows the Hindutvadi occupation army to kill with impunity. The PSA (Public Safety Act; an Orwellian name if there ever was one) allows the occupiers to arrest anyone in Kashmir without charge, without warrant. Section 144 bans the gathering of more than 5 persons in a single area, thus outlawing protests and political workshops. In fact, dogs have more fundamental rights than human beings in Hindutvadi-occupied Kashmir.(23)

Despite the genocide and draconian laws of the occupation’s rule, the brave Kashmiris have launched numerous intifada-like uprisings over the years and are now on the verge of erupting again after the recent killing of yet another Kashmiri youth, 18-year old Altaf Ahmad Sood, who was gunned down on January 2nd, 2012 by Indian internal security thugs in a protest against the power shortages throughout the Vale that are manipulated by the occupation as collective punishment,(24) much like how ‘Israel’forcibly causes blackouts in the illegally besieged Gaza Strip.(25) It is chilling that the young man’s martyrdom came just days before the 19th anniversary of the one of the worst massacres in the history of the Hindutvadi occupation: January 6th, 1993’s Sopore massacre, in which Indian paramilitary forces murdered at least 57 Kashmiris, burning many of them alive, wounding hundreds of others and destroying over 295 shops.(26) No different than the Zionist entity is the Hindutvadi regime in its lust for blood.

Zionism and Hindutva

are concretely united

against the oppressed 

peoples of Pakistan and

occupied Kashmir.

Hindutva and Zionism: Ideological Twins, Partners In Occupying Kashmir

The real reason why the horrors that are experienced daily by the indigenous in occupied Kashmir aren’t reported by the Zionist media actually makes all of the sense in the world once the veil of ignorance is removed from one’s eyes: India’s occupation of Kashmir has been guided, assisted, financed and supported by the usurping Zionist entity from its inception. Not surprisingly, multiple research studies and polls conducted by the ‘Israeli’ regime’s foreign ministry found India to be the most pro-Zionist country in the world.(27)

Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna just completed a trip to occupied Palestine, where he met with genocidal war criminals Benjamin Netanyahu (real name: Benjamin Mileikowsky), Avigdor Lieberman (real name: Evet Lvovich Liberman) and Shimon Peres (real name: Szymon Perski) to laud the ties between Zionism and Hindutva and sign a free trade agreement. Due to hundreds of ‘Israeli’ and Indian companies in the fields of security, agriculture, technology, alternative energy, real estate, pharmaceuticals and telecommunications entering partnerships over the last decade, Zionist-Hindutvadi trade skyrocketed to over $5 billion in 2011 and it is expected to triple with the free trade agreement. ‘Israeli’ Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz stated unequivocally that, “Israel views its ties with India as its second most important relationship after the United States.”(28) In godfather of the Zionist entity’s criminal nuclear program and butcher of Qana Shimon Peres’ meeting with Krishna, he called India “the greatest democracy on earth.” Additionally, the Zionist entity sells more arms to Hindutva than any other country on earth, and the bilateral defense trade between the two occupations amounted to $9 billion in 2011.(29)

These nauseating and telling statements however, coupled with the landmark meeting, are mere drops in the bucket. The alliance between ‘Israel’ and India is an abyssal ideological one that began with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, better known as Veer Savarkar, founder of Hindutva, a rabid anti-Muslim, anti-Christian supremacist and agent of British colonialism. Savarkar believed that the entire Southeast Asia Subcontinent belonged to the ‘Hindus,’ and that the nation of Hindutva was preordained to rule over all other groups across the globe for its people were genetically superior. Savarkar was also a Zionist, and his affinity and admiration for international Jewry and its dream of colonizing and cleansing Palestine inspired him to concoct the Hindutvadi ideology to begin with. He and his followers called on the international community to grant ‘the entire restoration of Palestine as a Jewish holy land and fatherland.’ It was the pressure of Savarkar and his vast network of supremacist foot soldiers that forced the Indian nation to switch its initial anti-Zionist stance to the recognition of the Zionist entity on September 17, 1950.(30)

Extremists United:

Hindutvadis view

the Jewish ‘state’ as their 

natural ally in their

war against the Muslims

of the Southeast Asia

Subcontinent.

Like a cancer, Hindutva slowly spread throughout the Indian political sphere, transforming rational foreign policy into radicalized, expansionist extremism over the course of 30 years, finally rising to prominence in the 1980s through the pro-Zionist, pro-US, pro-war and anti-Muslim Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), an entity fully funded by ‘Israel’ that established deep, deep military, economic and intelligence ties with the Zionist regime upon taking hold of the Indian government. A Hindutvadi Lobby has also been cultivated in the US with the brotherly guidance of AIPAC, the ‘Israeli’ entity’s subversive foreign policy weapon, for the purpose of cutting out American political opposition to Indian hegemony in the region as well as to mask India’s barbarous occupation of Kashmir as ‘national security’ policy.(30) Zionist and Hindutvadi lobby groups are also currently and actively collaborating in silencing voices critical and damning of their respective entities’ crimes on college campuses throughout the US.(31)

The corrosive penetration of Indian military, intelligence and political circles by Hindutva and its need to frame the nation-state world’s view through a Zionist lens was evident as early as 1962 when the Zionist regime came to India’s aid with arms, ammo and military hardware as it fought a war with China. ‘Israel’ would repeat the gesture in India’s wars with Pakistan over occupied Kashmir in 1965 and 1971. Hindutva would reciprocate by sending military equipment to the Zionist regime during al-Naksa (the 1967 war).

India’s security forces began getting shipped to the Zionist entity in the 1980s for training with the rise of BJP and multiple times throughout this decade, ‘Israel’ and the Hindutvadi regime worked together to undermine Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. After heavy, covert Zionist lobbying from 1986-1992, India and ‘Israel’ began open relations with the opening of a Zionist embassy in New Delhi and a Hindutvadi embassy in Tel Aviv. Since then, ‘Israel’ has transferred laser guided missiles, tanks, submarines and other naval craft, an anti-ballistic missile system, electronic warfare systems, and hi-tech surveillance equipment to Hindutva, as well as ‘Israeli’-designed Tavor rifles which were given to brutal occupying forces in Kashmir.(32) 

The Kargil War between India and Pakistan, fought in occupied Kashmir, would not have been a triumph for India without the Zionist entity rushing military support and intelligence to the Indian army at the height of war. Ravager of Qibya and butcher of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, Ariel Sharon (real name: Ariel Scheinermann), and leading Hindutvadi war criminal of Kargil, Prime Minister of India at the time Atal Bihari Vajpayee, signed the ‘Delhi Statement on Friendship and Cooperation between India and Israel’ in 2003 to take cooperation between the two occupiers into a higher dimension, making Zionist training of Hindutvadi paramilitary forces a public spectacle and bringing Mossad and Shin Bet officials to India a year after the Vajpayee-Sharon agreement was inked to train the Kashmir-based Indian army in torture and repression techniques.(32)

Close cooperation

between Indian and ‘Israeli’

intelligence has been 

brought murderous chaos 

to occupied Kashmir.

Nowhere has the Indian-‘Israeli’ relationship been more dangerously and murderously fruitful than the intelligence sector. Mossad and RAW have been in close contact and linked with one another since the early 1970s. ‘Israeli’ tourists that have been visiting occupied Kashmir for decades upon decades have been revealed to be Mossad surveillance squads and just one year after the heinous Kargil War, IOF commander Eli Katzir was sent to occupied Kashmir with an elite Zionist death squad to assist Indian occupation forces in crushing Kashmiri Resistance. Dozens of Mossad-Aman-Shin-Bet-IOF-

linked companies are operating in India with the purpose of tracking and oppressing the Kashmiri people, including Ness Technologies, Magic Software Enterprises, Check Point Software Technologies, RAD Data Communications, Veraz Networks and NDS Group. Mossad has also erected an electric barrier fence with thermal imaging devices on the border of the Indian Punjab region and occupied Kashmir, effectively imprisoning people living on the border and cutting them off from family members. RAW and Mossad also deploy ‘journalists’ throughout independent Asian and Western media outlets to misreport, propagandize and outright lie about the happenings in Kashmir.(33)

In January 2008, the Hindutvadi-dominated Indian government launched the ‘Israeli’-made Tecsar satellite into orbit at Mossad and RAW’s request. The Zionist entity would use the highly-advanced piece of machinery to spy on Iran while India would use it for further repressive means in occupied Kashmir.(33) The penultimate pinnacle of the Mossad-RAW nexus is the aforementioned Dragon Policy and at the very heart of it is occupied Kashmir. One of the key revelations that emerged from the now-infamous ‘Raymond Davis affair’ was that Davis was attempting to entrap Kashmiri Resistance fighters and link them to the Tehrik-I-Taliban. Davis himself is directly linked to the proxy terror outfit and an exposed agent of the Zionist-Hindutvadi Dragon Policy.(34)

Azadi activists and fighters in occupied Kashmir have confirmed to these writers that Mossad is “all over Kashmir, like sand in the desert,” according to one 25-year old fighter named Jamal Zaffar Khan of Sopore, who lost his brother, 17-year old Maqbool, in the summer intifada of 2010 to Indian bullets, or rather, ‘Israeli’ bullets from an ‘Israeli’ gun in Indian hands. A Srinagar activist who asked to be identified only as “Zubair Zubair” quipped that, “In the Vale, one cannot tell where RAW ends and Mossad begins.” Another activist, who asked to be identified by his kunya, “Abu Ghulam,” from Kupwara, chillingly stated, “We would rather be killed by the Hindutvadis here. They kill us and drag us into big dirt graves. The Mossad people shoot you, disfigure you and take your organs.” The testimonies mirror those of Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis and others who have faced down the cruel and deranged methods of Zionism.

The absolute summit of the Mossad-RAW confederacy is most certainly, false flag terrorism; the intelligence agencies have launched a plethora of attacks since their working relationship began, with the two biggest game-changers being the heartbreaking Babri Masjid demolition of 1992 and the 26/11 ‘masterpiece’ attack in 2008.(30) Both are integral to the hegemonic endgame that the Zionists and Hindutvadis hope will not only bring about the fall of Pakistan as a sovereign nation but the destruction of Kashmir’s autonomy as well.

A terrible horror has been

planned for occupied Kashmir;

a Hindutvadi-Zionist ‘Nakba’

to ethnically cleanse the Vale

of its indigenous Muslim 

population.

Operation Kurukshetra: Hindutva’s ‘Nakba’-Style Ethnic Cleansing Plan For The Vale

The NATO bloodshed in the mountains of Salala was an assault that was meant to restart the Israeli-American-Indian 4th Generation Warfare which has ravaged Pakistan for the last 7 years in hopes of eventually leading to denuclearization. There is one more level to this intricate geopolitical plot that has been kept under wraps for years but which will be exposed for the first time in this paper: Operation Kurukshetra, the final phase of India’s ‘Cold Start Doctrine.’ Cold Start is a strategy that is meant to work hand-in-glove with the US Af-Pak doctrine, sending Indian troops into Pakistan as a crushing invasion force while American brigades would form a corridor to Afghanistan by occupying Gwadar Port, thuseliminating a vital Pakistani lifeline and landing a death-blow to Chinese energy interests.(35) Cold Start however is not only a directive to launch a surprise offensive war of aggression, it is a directive to launch a war of expansion. It was designed to capture patches of Pakistani land, much like the Zionist entity’s preemptive expansionist-aggression against Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the rest of occupied Palestine in 1967.(36)

The move towards Cold Start was initiated by then-Chief of Staff of the Indian Army, General Sundararajan Padmanabhan on April 28th 2004, to interlock with the creation of the Tehrik-I-Taliban and the CIA’s drone program. General Padmanabhan’s plan was to essentially eliminate defensive tactics, harnessing the full offensive strength of the Indian army by combining the might of the Indian Navy, Indian Air Force and multiple Indian army battle groups to target Pakistan.(37) Militarily, Cold Start was designed to “destroy” the Pakistani army and “enslave” Pakistan, eroding its Islamic character and chaining it to a system of Western-based colonial ‘democracy’. Much of Cold Start was based on the usurping Zionist entity’s strategy for Lebanon, which failed thanks to the efforts and steadfastness of the righteous Islamic Resistance of Hezbollah.(38)

Former Indian

Chief of Staff, 

General 

Sundararajan 

Padmanabhan: 

war criminal, 

murderer,

architect of the

Cold Start Doctrine.

The US government has pressed Indian political and military officials to renounce the idea of Cold Start and as a matter of Indian ‘national security,’ in New Delhi, Cold Start doesn’t even officially exist. Stephen P. Cohen, a rabid Zionist, anti-Pakistan hasbaranik and anti-Muslim hatemonger that propagandizes for the Brookings Institute, one of the biggest and most powerful Zionist think tanks in the US, has suggested that Cold Start is a myth that the Pakistani army is obsessed with so they can “delay or drag out doing a serious reorientation of their military.(39)This would figure, as Cohen is the one who coined the phrase ‘Cold Start’ and has ‘predicted’ numerous crises on the Southeast Asia Subcontinent that have been all magically come to fruition, all of which of course come from a Zionist-Hindutvadi point of view.(39)

Adding further fuel to the fire, Wikileaks, the false whistleblower and long-exposed hydra operation of the CIA and Mossad that has been caught time and time again waging psychological warfare against the enemies of Zionism,(40) published information that stated, “Cold Start is not a plan for a comprehensive invasion and occupation of Pakistan. Instead, it calls for a rapid, time- and distance-limited penetration into Pakistani territory with the goal of quickly punishing Pakistan, possibly in response to a Pakistan-linked terrorist attack in India, without threatening the survival of the Pakistani state or provoking a nuclear response.”(41) In Orwellian Newspeak, it is in fact, just that: a plan of comprehensive invasion and occupation of Pakistan.

Cold Start’s godfather, General Padmanabhan, came to be well-liked by the Hindutvadi extremist portions of Indian society and government because of his role as a commander in occupied Kashmir during the opening years of the (ongoing) major intifada that began in 1989. His brutality and monstrous tactics are legendary to the Kashmiri people, he is known for crushing Resistance of all kinds with any and all means of collective punishment available and is a specialist in mountainous warfare as well as psychological ops.(42) Sources close to the ISI have revealed to these writers that the ‘good general,’ a devoted Hindutvadi himself with close ties to BJP and lesser ties with other extremist parties like RSS, is also one of the two architects of Operation Kurukshetra.

Padmanabhan’s counterpart is none other than Eli Katzir, the Zionist ‘counter-terrorism’ commander who has been wreaking havoc on occupied Kashmir for over a decade now. As mentioned earlier, Kurukshetra is the final phase of India’s Cold Start Doctrine. It is named after the Kurukshetra War discussed in the epic Sanskrit poem and Hindu text known as the Mahabharata. This war was an aggressive one, in which cousins fought cousins; in which the ‘righteous’ cleansed the ‘unrighteous’ from holy lands as per the will of ‘the gods.’

Operation Kurukshetra

is the pinnacle of

Hindutvadi supremacism

and extremism.

Like the Zionists, the Hindutvadis name their military operations according to their religious texts because they genuinely believe that Hindutva will reign supreme over the lands allotted to them by ‘the gods’. When applied to the current geopolitical chessboard, the ‘unrighteous’ to be cleansed from the ‘promised lands’ are the indigenous people of occupied Kashmir. Kurukshetra is the Hindutvadi equivalent of the Zionist entity’s “Plan D”, which was implemented by the Zionist militias and Jewish terror gangs that ethnically cleansed historic Palestine from 1947-1948, driving nearly 800,000 Palestinians from their homeland.

The Padmanabhan-Katzir plan would come on the back of Cold Start; as Indian forces are hammering key Pakistani army installations, half a dozen Indian black ops brigades integrated with Israeli paramilitary specialists will sneak into Azad Kashmir, the Pakistani side of the Vale, and begin the terror en masse, ethnically cleansing all persons in sight. The brigades would then split up, with three moving north towards Kupwara, Baramullah and the Kashmiri capital of Srinagar, and three moving south towards Kishtwar, Doda and Jammu.

The terror will continue until Kurukshetra is complete, which won’t be until every indigenous Muslim is removed from Kashmir. Whatever Resistance that assuredly will come into existence with the execution of such barbarous tactics is not only to be crushed and tormented according to the methods of Padmanabhan in the early 1990s, but humiliated and mutilated, to discourage any acts of intolerance to oppression in the future, according to Zionist methods during the Nakba and in occupied Lebanon. It is called the ‘Mughrabi Doctrine,’ and it is not surprising that Eli Katzir is a protégé of ‘Israeli’ Defense Minister and 9/11 false flag architect Ehud Barak,(43) the ruthless murderer of Palestinian heroine and legend, Dalal Mughrabi, who Barak maimed, tortured, sexually abused and murdered on live television nearly 34 years ago.

Strategically, Operation Kurukshetra is not only meant to expand the Hindutvadi empire, but to open the doors for its Zionist-run allies in the West to station huge troop deployments in Kashmir to eventually bring about the ultimate endgame: the destruction of Russia and China for the sake of inaugurating the real ‘New World Order’, the ‘Jewish Utopia,’ in which every facet of everyday life on this planet is subject to scrutiny by the Zionists and their Talmudic overlords. Resource-rich Kashmir provides easy access into key ‘hotbed points’ in China, making it the perfect launching point for any future conflict. While he didn’t mention Operation Kurukshetra by name, Indian National Congress President and Hindutvadi extremist Sanjeva Reddy certainly and most blatantly alluded to it in a recent statement meant to intimidate Pakistan, “India will liberate that part of Kashmir not under Indian rule.”(44) Once again applying the rules of Newspeak, “liberation” in this case, translates to Hindutvadi ethnic cleansing. It is also vital to note that the groundwork for Operation Kurukshetra was laid out long before the Cold Start Doctrine was even born, making its exposure in this paper all the more crucial.

The Kashmiri Pandits

were driven from their 

homes into atrocious

refugee camps by the

Hindutvadi occupation.

It began with the expulsion of the Kashmiri Pandits, indigenous Hindus of the Vale, at the onset of the 1989 intifada. The Hindutvadi regime blames the “Islamic insurgency” for driving the indigenous from their ancestral homelands but this is mere psychological warfare to fit the Zionist-created ‘War on Terror’ narrative that Islam is intolerant of all other religions and even hostile towards them; this is not the case by any stretch of the imagination as Muslims and Hindus fought together against British colonialism in both India and Kashmir and Islamic scholars even recognized Hindus as “people of the book”, granting them protection under Islamic law.(30) What the evidence actually suggests is that the Hindutvadi regime itself, through occupation administrator Governor Jahmohan, encouraged and engineered the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits. Kashmiri eyewitnesses testify that they saw transports of the Indian government forcibly taking Kashmiri Pandits from their homes.(45)

It was Padmanabhan however, who was the real force behind this policy of dispossessing the Pandits. It is well-known amongst the Kashmiri Resistance and Pakistani intelligentsia that the ‘good general’ had an obsession with Zionist literature and a particular favorite of his was ‘Israeli’ foreign policy advisor Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s.” Padmanabhan saw this plan as something that absolutely could be integrated into Indian foreign policy and the perfect place to start with in his opinion was Kashmir, where communal war between Muslims and Hindus could be triggered.

Padmanabhan, with help from Mossad assets in Jammu and Kashmir, orchestrated dozens of false flag attacks against the Pandits of Kashmir, including bombings and home-burnings, to incite hatred and distrust of the Muslim majority. Once clearing out the Pandits from the Vale, Padmanabhan then hoped to “cleanse the unrighteous” from the “holy lands of Hindutva” before resettling the Pandits in Kashmir in colonies. But the Kashmiri Resistance, led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, and the Pandits themselves who still somehow maintain peace of mind after 23 years of terror and exile that they’ve endured at the hands of the Hindutvadi regime, have rejected this premise entirely,(46) foiling ‘India’s Yinon Plan.’

Hindutva, like Zionism,

seeks to control the world.

Kashmir, like Palestine, just

is only the first step. Hence,

why Hindutvadis and Zionists

‘work together’ so well.

This plan was modified in the summer of 2008 when Hindutva concocted a plot to settle Indian Hindus from India in occupied Kashmir under the pretext of ‘protecting religious sites’, no different than what the Zionist entity does on a daily basis in occupied al-Quds and the West Bank. The plot was scrapped when massive protests broke out, which the Hindutvadi regime typically replied to with live ammunition, tear gas and barbarity.(47) The latest and most dangerous phase of bringing Operation Kurukshetra to fruition is the “Dogra certificate” affair. In the first week of April of 2011, Indian Revenue Minister Raman Bhalla proposed an identification method known as the “Dogra certificate” for the Hindu residents of Jammu Province in occupied Kashmir to make it easier for them to join the Indian occupation army. Interestingly enough, Indian army officials categorically denied this. What is most telling is that Bhalla, in a classic invocation of the Yinon plan, suggested that India introduce Kashmiri, Rajput and Ladakhi certificates to the Valley as well, completing dividing the nation-state on ethno-sectarian lines.(48)Due to pressure from the Kashmiri people and the Resistance, the Dogra certificate plot was shelved just a few weeks later.(49)

But the damage was already done. Indeed, a subplot of introducing the Dogra certificates was to divide the Vale, making it easier to conquer, if the people were to go along with it, but the real intention was to simply identify those districts, towns and cities that wouldn’t be touched when the hellfire of Cold Start rains on Pakistan and Operation Kurukshetra follows in Kashmir. Cold Start and Operation Kurukshetra are not fantasies festering in the minds of a paranoid Pakistani army and aggravated Kashmiri people as the Zionist media would like the world to believe. They are imminent realities of a complex geopolitical ‘great game’ that looks to remap the entire Southeast Asia Subcontinent in favor of Hindutvadi primacy. The only hope for the region is sustained righteous Resistance and as the Kashmiris have demonstrated over the last century and a half of oppression, colonialism and occupation, their will to fight for liberation is a force that cannot be deterred.

Pakistani President

Asif Ali Zardari is

a puppet of the highest

order; he is the proverbial

‘ragdoll’ of the 

Israeli-Indo-American nexus.

Conclusion: The Resumption Of Drone Strikes, The Zardari Memo Scandal and Cold Start’s Abortive Birth

The plot to paralyse, balkanise and denuclearise Pakistan is a multilayered plan that involves a number of foreign actors employing converging strategies. Israeli interests seek to denuclearise and balkanise Pakistan in line with long-standing Zionist policy to divide all Muslim and Arab states. Converging on this strategy is the Hindutvadi plan to aggressively invade Pakistan under the Cold Start doctrine, and ethnically cleanse Kashmir of its Muslim population through a campaign of terror, murder and intimidation. This mirrors Israel’s murderous past and in fact these Hindutvadi strategies have been developed with the close cooperation of Israeli military and intelligence advisors.

The American ‘AfPak’ war effort is equally central to this Israeli-Indo-American ‘endgame’ plot. It is intended that American forces will pressure and distract the Pakistani military from the west (Afghanistan) and south (landing at Gwadar), allowing Indian forces to more easily launch their surprise attack from the east. The final piece to the puzzle is the fourth generation warfare being levied at Pakistan in order to ‘soften it up’. This includes the deployment of weaponised CIA drones and CIA-RAW-Mossad assets such as the TTP. Both of these elements are designed to cause instability and foment division and insurrection, as they have been doing since 2004.

Since NATO’s heinous attack of November 26, the activities of the CIA-RAW-Mossad proxy Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan have accelerated and a spate of terror attacks have occurred. The last few days alone have seen multiple signature TTP attacks in northwest Pakistan – the TTP’s stomping ground.deadly attack on a police station resulted in 9 being killed,(50) and in a separate attack 7 Pakistani soldiers were killed in an ambush.(51) If we look to other recent events within and without Pakistan, we can see clear indications of startling attempts to kick-start the endgame plan into action, and eviscerate Pakistan from all sides.

The CIA’s genocidal

drones have returned

to terrorize Pakistan after

a near 2-month hiatus.

On Tuesday 10th January, CIA drone strikes (the aerial phase of the 4GW operation)resumed after a two month hiatus.(52) Prior to this event the last CIA drone strike in Pakistan was carried out on the 17th November. NATO’s subsequent attack on the Salala border posts ushered in a moratorium on drone strikes as Zardari struggled with the CIA to save his Quisling office. The CIA’s resumption of drone strikes on January 10th was characteristically bloody, with at least 4 Pakistanis so far reported killed. Over 2,600 Pakistanis have been murdered in these drone strikes thus far.

On January 13, 2012, corrupt Pakistani President Asif Zardari returned to Islamabad after his second visit to Dubai in quick succession. Previously on Tuesday 6 December, 2011, Zardari had flown to Dubai ostensibly for hospital treatment after suffering a ‘heart attack’.(53) His second and most recent visit was, we are told, a private visit for a wedding.(54) Though Zardari’s office attempts to fool the Pakistani nation into believing nonsensical fantasies about his health and social life, the real reason for these visits to Dubai indicates a much darker and treacherous reality.

In the wake of the staged bin Laden raid of May 2nd 2011, Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. Husain Haqqani (who subsequently resigned on November 22, 2011) drafted a treasonous memo at the request of President Asif Zardari. In the memo delivered to Admiral Mike Mullen, Zardari requested that the CIA help to eliminate the leadership of the Pakistani military establishment. In return for this act of grave treachery, Zardari assured the U.S. that pliant Pakistani military leaders would be installed, and the U.S. would gain full control of the leadership, and of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Interestingly within the memo, Zardari also agreed to hand over to India the alleged perpetrators of the 26/11 Mossad-RAW false flag, and to close down a central branch of the ISI.(55)

Former Pakistani 

Ambassador to the

US Husain Haqqani:

Zionist traitor.

In an explosive revelation(56) by Pakistani analyst Syed Zaid Hamid, we learn that Husain Haqqani had actually worked with Washington in order to draw up a list of over 350 targets within Pakistan. These targets consisted of the entirety of the Pakistani military command and control infrastructure structure – targets that would have to be destroyed as part of a three-pronged AfPak/Cold Start/4GW endgame strategy for Pakistan.

In effect, Zardari & Haqqani, in cahoots with the CIA, are actually trying to surrender Pakistan’s sovereignty as they push for one of Cold Start’s central objectives to be realised: the decapitation of the Pakistani military leadership and decimation of the military command and control structure. Working feverishly for the dissolution of Pakistan, Zardari & Haqqani are essentially acting as agents of foreign interests and as such should be arrested and tried immediately.

For the time being, the Pakistani army, air force, and people, have managed to fend off these covert foreign plots. As a further blow to Israeli-Indo-American interests, the CIA has been forced to vacate Shamsi airbase in southern Pakistan – a strategically important base that the CIA had used for drone strikes within Pakistan as well as surveillance on Iran and Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. Shamsi was also used as a base from which to support and surveil CIA-RAW-Mossad aligned separatist groups in southern Pakistan.

In the face of the 

powerful Zionist-led enemy,

 Pakistan remains a robust

force of Resistance.

The loss of the Shamsi airbase is a rebuff to the United States without precedent, and is a significant blow to Israeli-Indo-American designs. There are dark actors now attempting to crush Pakistan from all sides with renewed vigour; Pakistan must maintain this momentum and remain ever vigilant in order to counter this threat. Despite the perfidiousness of British colonialism that disconnected Pakistan from most of the Vale and with respect to the definitive call of the Kashmiri people for self-determination, Pakistan and Kashmir are intimately linked as one bulwark of Resistance against these dark actors and their strategy for regional dominance. If anything good is to come out of NATO’s crude massacre in the Salala mountains which martyred 24 unsuspecting Pakistan soldiers, taking them away from their families, it will be that this Resistance is stronger and more unified than ever. And this, is very, very bad news for the Israeli-Indo-American nexus and whatever plot for hegemony that it may concoct next.

~ The End ~

Notes & Sources:

(1) Syed Zaid Hamid speaking on The Ugly Truth podcast – 16 December, 2011 (57 minutes in)

(2) Game-changing and decisive events unfold at breakneck pace in Pakistan, by Martin Iqbal, Empire Strikes Black

(3) ‘Fourth generation warfare’ – Wikipedia

(4) The Ugly Truth podcast – 16 December, 2011 (55 minutes and 10 seconds in)

(5) Taliban claim revenge for death of propagandist – Dawn.com

(6) Militants attack paramilitary base, 15 soldiers abducted – Dawn.com

(7) Militants Explode School In NW Pakistan by Press TV

(8) Protesters Burn Buses After Attack On Shias In Karachi by Dawn News

(9) Pakistani Shia Leader Askari Raza Martyred By Wahhabi Terrorists in Karachi by Ahlul Bayt News Agency

(10) Pakistani Militants Kill 16 Soldiers by Press TV

(11) Nine killed in Pakistan suicide attack – Press Trust of India

(12) Taliban claim suicide bombing that killed 6 in Pakistan – CNN

(13) Taliban suicide bomber kills 6 Pakistani soldiers – CBS News

(14) Six killed in Pakistan suicide car bombing – BBC News Asia

(15) Who are the Taliban? – BBC News Asia

(16) The 9/11 Delusion: Israel’s False Flag, Jingoism And Inhumanity by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(17) Who Did 9/11 – OBL, Bush Or Mossad? The Evidence by Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq, Ascertain The Truth; Zionist Terrorists Arrested Inside Mexican Congress by Ernesto Cienfurgos, La Voz de Atzlan

(18) Israel’s Fission Field Warfare: Pakistan, Iraq And Egypt: Section – Hostile Environment I: Humiliation In Pakistan by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(19) How The Weapons From Israel Are Arranged For Karachi by Syed Haroon Haider Gilani and Aaron Lion, HaroonHaider.com

(20) Israel And India: Brothers In Occupation Of Kashmir; Section – Criminal Partition And The Armed Forces Special Powers Act by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(21) Israel And India: Brothers In Occupation Of Kashmir; Indian Crimes Against Humanity and US Support by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(22) Kashmir Media Service – Violence Update

(23) Dogs Legally Enjoy More Rights Than Humans In IHK by Kashmir Media Service

(24) Student Killed In Power Protest by Altaf Baba and Muddasir Ali, Greater Kashmir

(25) Unexplained Gaza Communications “Blackout” Highlights Israeli Control Of Networks by Benjamin Doherty, The Electronic Intifada

(26) Jan 6, 1993: 57 Killed, 295 Shops Set Ablaze: Sopore Massacre by Ghulam Muhammad, Greater Kashmir

(27) From India With Love by Itamar Eichner, Ynet

(28) Israel, India Present: Economic Love Affair by Aimee Ginsburg, Ynet

(29) Israel Now India’s Top Defense Supplier by Yaakov Katz, The Jerusalem Post; India And Israel Hail Their Warm Relationship by BBC News

(30) 26/11: Mossad Terrorizes Mumbai by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(31) Speaking Out On Kashmir And Palestine In The US by Yasmine Qureshi, The Electronic Intifada

(32) Israel And India: Brothers In Occupation Of Kashmir; Section – Israel: India’s Occupation Advisor by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(33) Israel And India: Brothers In Occupation Of Kashmir; Section – The Alliance Between Mossad and RAW by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(34) 26/11 Revisited: Raymond Davis And A Travesty Of Justice; Section – Conclusion: Another Tragedy and Occupied Kashmir by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(35) Game-Changing And Decisive Events Unfold At Breakneck Pace In Pakistan by Martin Iqbal, Empire Strikes Black

(36) Killing India’s Hidden Cold Start Strategy by Pak Alert Press

(37) India’s New “Cold Start” War Doctrine Strategically Reviewed by Dr. Subhash Kapila, South Asia Analysis Group

(38) India’s Cold Start Strategy: Limited Strikes Against Targets Vs Hot War Leading To Nuclear Armageddon by Moin Ansari, Pak Alert Press/Rupee News

(39) Obama Is Not Likely To Push India Hard On Pakistan by Lydia Polgreen and Mark Landler, The New York Times

(40) Wikileaks Is Zionist Poison II: Deconstruction Of The Myth by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(41) Wikileaks: US On Indian Army’s Cold Start Doctrine by NDTV

(42) Lt. Gen. Padmanabhan, New Army Chief by The Hindu

(43) India’s Reckless Road To Washington Through Tel Aviv by Vijay Prashad, Peace and Justice Post

(44) Azad Kashmir Is Not Goa, India Warned by Dawn News

(45) Kashmir: The Pandit Question by Azad Essa, Al-Jazeera English

(46) India Trying To Suppress Liberation Movement Forcefully: Syed Ali Gilani by The Nation (Pakistan)

(47) Protests Rock Indian Kashmir Over Fear Of Hindu Settlements by The New York Times

(48) Dogra Certificate: Move To Divide The State by The Kashmir Dispatch

(49) Dogra Certificate Issue Resolved by The Press Trust Of India

(50) Pakistan police station attack kills 9 – Press TV

(51) Militant ambush kills 7 Pakistani troops – Press TV

(52) Drone strikes resume amid U.S.-Pakistan strains – Reuters India

(53) Pakistan president in Dubai for heart treatment – Reuters

(54) Zardari returns to Islamabad; not worried about political crisis: Spokesman – The Nation (Pakistan)

(55) The Buck Stops Here – NDTV report, 22 November, 2011

(56) Syed Zaid Hamid speaking on The Ugly Truth Podcast – 16 December, 2011 (1 hour, 6 minutes and 45 seconds in)

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on The Salala Massacre: NATO’s Naked Aggression Against Pakistan And The Hegemonic Israeli-Indo-American Strategy Behind It

Martin Luther King, Jr.


Beyond Vietnam — A Time to Break Silence

Delivered 4 April 1967, Riverside Church, New York City

[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio. (2)]

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, and some of the distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it’s always good to come back to Riverside church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it is always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and this great pulpit.

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I’m in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.

And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: “Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?” “Why are you joining the voices of dissent?” “Peace and civil rights don’t mix,” they say. “Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people,” they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church — the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate — leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.

Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.

Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor — both black and white — through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years — especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask — and rightly so — what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, “Aren’t you a civil rights leader?” and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: “To save the soul of America.” We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath —
America will be!

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be — are — are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 19541; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for “the brotherhood of man.” This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I’m speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men — for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

And finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation’s self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls “enemy,” for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954 — in 1945 rather — after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China — for whom the Vietnamese have no great love — but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States’ influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem’s methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing — in the crushing of the nation’s only non-Communist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon, the only solid — solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call “fortified hamlets.” The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call “VC” or “communists”? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of “aggression from the North” as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy’s point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight hundred — rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called “enemy,” I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak of the — for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism (unquote).

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.

I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do [immediately] to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.

Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement.

Part of our ongoing — Part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary. Meanwhile — Meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation’s role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality…and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing “clergy and laymen concerned” committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala — Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.

And so, such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin…we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. “The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light.”2 We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when “every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain.”3

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing — embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate — ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: “Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.” “If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us.”4 Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says:

Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word (unquote).

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood — it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, “Too late.” There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: “The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.”

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message — of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever ‘twixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet ‘tis truth alone is strong
Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when “justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”5


 

Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008)

Posted in USAComments Off on Martin Luther King, Jr.

My Rabbi, What BIG Teeth You Have…


Mark Glenn

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com

I suppose that as someone who looks favorably upon the person and teachings of Jesus that I should be at least a little grateful.

After all, TALK ABOUT A ONE-FREAKING-EIGHTY–One minute (2,000 years’ worth, to be near-precise) there He is–Jesus, the cursed carpenter from Nazareth–wretched, despised (‘may his name be blotted out’ as it says in the Talmud) traitor to the Jewish nation who ‘got what He deserved’ after being framed by the Jewish leadership of His day, nailed to a tree, consigned to hell by rabbinic decree to boil ad eternum in a vat of His own bodily fluids, and next thing you know, after a pinch of ‘Mazel Tov’ and a–

ABRACADABRA/ALLAHKAZZAM

–He becomes the hero of a new book, published in (of all places) Israel and written by (of all people) a Chabad Lubavitch rabbi…

The Chinese have an old saying—‘May you live in interesting times…’

Yeah, I’d say this one qualifies as a bona fide ‘Been there, done that.’

The scribbler in question, one Shmuley Boteach (‘America’s Rabbi,’ as he affectionately refers to himself) apparently has–with the effortless wave of his magic wand (and a little help from his Jewish publisher–transformed the formerly-cursed, wretched, despised “Jesus F***ing Christ” (as Jews generally like to refer to Him) into “Jesus Christ Superstar”, prodigal son and “great patriot” to the Jewish state and her people.

No, fellow earthlings, you are not hearing things, so no need adjusting your dial. It’s true–a died-in-the-wool Talmudic rabbi had something sort-of/kind-of/almost nice to say about Jesus…

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves and get ‘caught up’ in the moment here ladies and Gentilemen. Remember, as is typical when dealing with those of the non-goyische persuasion amongst us, there is definitely more to all this than meets the eye. As Jesus Himself once quipped (and what most likely sealed the deal as far as His death sentence was concerned) playing fast and loose with the truth–in other words–

LYING

–was (is) the rabbis’ ‘native tongue’.

You know what that means, don’t you? That means telling the truth for them is like speaking a FOREIGN LANGUAGE. Therefore anytime circumstances arise requiring that they raise their right claw—I mean hand–and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them G-d, suddenly—

… ‘it’s all Greek’ to them.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic, what more can we say concerning the central thesis of Boteach’s book other than–

BOY OH BOY, TALK ABOUT YOUR EXTEME MAKEOVERS…

Jesus as a 1st century version of ‘Braveheart’…Sure didn’t see THAT ONE coming. And to think, the rest of us in the civilized world were just getting used to all the hissing, pissing, moaning and groaning that organized Jewish interests display whenever Jesus’ name comes up for discussion in anything OTHER than the typically-spiteful, vindictive, derisive, mocking and abusive manner that we regularly see on the Jewish mainstream media, hereafter referred to simply as ‘JMSM’.

And now, some 20 centuries later, a Judeo-Christian ‘love-in’ as big as Alan Dershowitz’ reservoir of unlikable, obnoxious behavior, led by (again, of all people) a Chabad rabbi, the spiritual/political equivalent of a Sith Lord with marching orders to seek-and-destroy Christianity and all its precepts until nothing of it remains.

Beam me up Scotty, I have now seen it all.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, pickled to the gills in a vat of the most briny, bitter witch’s brew of Jewish supremacism/Jewish elitism and plain old ghetto-variety Jewish abrasiveness throughout his whole life…Member in good standing of the most racist, Gentile-hating sect within Judaism (Chabad Lubavitch) suddenly having a ‘Saul on the road to Damascus’ moment and rejecting all that Talmudic teaching he received about Jesus’ place in human history as a sorcerer, a sex pervert and a traitor to the Jewish nation?

Please excuse the brief stroll down Brothers Grimm Lane here fellow humanfolk, but why do I suddenly feel like I’ve just landed on one of the pages of that storybook featuring some innocent girl staring into the face of a large canine predator who’s using every verbal enticement he can think of to get her neck as close as possible to his mouth so that he can tell her how he REALLY feels about her?

I’d just LOVE to do it, fellow Gentiles…REALLY, I would…What a joy to be able to go along with this one and for once just say ‘What the hey, maybe things are turning in our favor…’

The problem with it all is that particular odor that just won’t leave my nostrils…Sulfuric, pungent, caustic, like death warmed over, rotten eggs or old battery acid…

And not just the smells, but the sounds as well…Laughter (more like snickering, actually) faintly but distinctly distinguishable, taking place in locales where Boteach and his confreres gather when discussing the thesis of his book.

And so, in the midst of this, I can only conclude that the nose knows…Me schnaz thinketh something stinketh and from this fact my mind not shrinketh…

In other words, there is simply no getting ‘round it. I smell a rat and that is that.

I mean, why so late coming to such conclusions? The Jews—and more importantly, the spiritual intelligentsia responsible for providing them with their religious instruction—have had 2,000 years to study ‘The Jesus Question’, and up to this point they have been in unanimous agreement that He should occupy the unenviable position previously described in the aforementioned Talmud. Furthermore, as we are told on a daily basis, the rabbis are next to GOD HIMSELF and endowed with an intelligence FAR superior to that of mere Gentiles. Therefore, WHY NOW, of all times, when powerful Jewish interests DESPERATELY need Christian money, Christian military power and Christian political support in fighting (slaughtering) the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims for the benefit of the Jewish sta–

Uh oh…Hold on…I think we just put our foot into something here ladies and Gentilefolk. A possible explanation into the timing and motive of it all…

Sigh…

In the interests of journalistic fairness, I’ll state right off the bat that have not read the book nor do I plan to line rabbi Shmoozy Shmuley’s pockets by buying one. The fact that at least part of the $30 million a day his country—Israel–receives from America comes out of my pocket should suffice for now…

However, for purposes of this discussion, we can assume that Haaretz (one of the biggest mainstream news sources in Israel) more likely than not got it right in the story they ran concerning the book. In a piece entitled “New book by U.S. rabbi depicts Jesus as a ‘Jewish patriot’” we reads as follows–

‘Kosher Jesus,’ the first book by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to be published in Israel, draws praise from Glenn Beck but raises others’ eyebrows.

“Kosher Jesus,” Boteach’s first book published in Israel, asserts that because Christians no longer consider Jews to be their enemies, it is therefore time to recognize Jesus as a Torah-abiding Jewish patriot.”

Ok, let’s stop right there. “Because Christians no longer consider Jews to be their enemies…” is definitely worth noting and discussing.

Firstly, the fact that a particular group of sheep no longer view the wolves as their enemies doesn’t mean the wolves AREN’T. All it means is that now it will be easier for the wolves when supper time rolls around as the sheep will not be as skittish as they were before.

But more important than this is HOW Christians can come to such a conclusion, in and of itself a paralyzingly amazing phenomenon…How can any Christian—THESE DAYS, IN PARTICULAR—in his or her right mind entertain such  notions? The war on Jesus and Christianity is in full swing, and NOT being waged by space aliens, Druids or MOOZLIMS, but rather by powerful Jewish interests in near-total control of media, politics, law and every other function available to them. The last century—THE JEWISH CENTURY, as Jewish writer Yuri Slezkine put it–has been a tsunami of mocking, derision, and all-too-obvious contempt for the person of Jesus and the plans for society He advocated.

And as a result, the ENTIRE Christian character of the West has been transformed into something perverse and sterile of any proactive properties, DEFINITELY something more to the Jews’ liking. All one need do is turn on the TV at any time of day to see what has become of the ‘Christian’ character of the West to see it has gone the way of the dinosaur.

And so we can safely conclude that Boteach’s assertion concerning ‘Christians not viewing Jews as their enemies’ is something unnatural and unhealthy, no different than a body’s immune system no longer raising a fever or any other self-defense mechanism when threatened by an invading virus. Such a body will not live long.

Next, Jesus as a “Torah-abiding Jewish patriot.”

Complete and utter hogwash, proven (not the least of which) by the fact that Jesus’ “Torah avoidance” was something His enemies cited TIME AND AGAIN as “proof” that He was dangerous to the “traditions” of the Jewish state. He healed on the Sabbath (A BIG nyet-nyet as far as the Torah was concerned), cavorted with “sinners”, did not do the ceremonial washing before eating, picked grains of wheat on the Sabbath, did not pay the temple tax, and in one instance, prevented a mob of 1st century JDL-types from stoning a woman to death for adultery, a penalty mandated by the same Torah that Boteach claims Jesus ‘abided’. When asked which of the 600+ Torah laws were the most important in order to be a ‘good Jew’, Jesus REALLY threw a monkey wrench into the whole thing by saying they could all be reduced to only 2—Loving God and loving your neighbor. And if THIS was not bad enough, when asked to qualify the term ‘neighbor’, He made the mistake—some might say ‘fatal’–of saying it included ALL PEOPLE, INCLUDING NON-JEWS.

But, as we said earlier, being that this is a discussion driven by Talmudic “logic” means there is much more to this than meets the eye.

When Boteach talks about Jesus being a ‘Torah abiding Jewish patriot,’ the post-hypnotic suggestion he is really trying to plant in the minds of gullible Christians is of Jesus as the war-junkie/Fox News addict/personal friend of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders/regular speaker at Tea Party rallies screeching about the dangers of ‘Islamo-Facism’ and ‘Sharia law’ and financial contributor to creatures such as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich et al. Doing thus, Boteach and the rest of his fellow warlocks and black magicians are in effect painting Jesus up in the same bloody war paint worn by worshippers of Israel found in every corner of America today. Ecce, Jesus the warrior, out there on the front lines, whooping it up and cheering on the murder of innocent people in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Lebanon, etc, etc, etc.

Why? Because that is what Torahism is, folks…Blood, guts, gore, despoilment, usury, rape, enslavement (and a few more things we’ll leave out here for the sake of brevity) and all of it for the Jewish state and her people. It is the seed from which the ugly, thorny tree of Jewish supremacism springs, a tree producing the bitter, rancid fruit of Jewish hatred for Gentiles in all its forms history has come to know. It is THE blank check Jewish interests—organized or not–have used for thousands of years in making war against innocent people, stealing their wealth and mass murdering them in the process.

Not convinced? Let us then consider just ONE PASSAGE (out of hundreds we could cite) from the same Torah that supposedly “Jesus the Jewish patriot” revered and which today is used in justifying all the bloodshed we see taking place in the Middle East on Israel’s behalf—

“When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are to possess and casts out the many peoples living there, you shall then slaughter them all and utterly destroy them…You shall make no agreements with them nor show them any mercy…You shall destroy their altars, break down their images, cut down their groves and burn their graven images with fire. For you are a holy people unto the LORD thy God and He has chosen you to be a special people above all others upon the face of the earth…”

–Book of Deuteronomy, 7:1-8

In the event the reader finds the previous passage just a tad on the salty side, remember, there are dozens (hundreds?) more just like it.

Mystery solved then as to why Boteach & co are so hip to the idea of Jesus being a Torah head-case like them. In effect, it is putting the ultimate seal of approval on that process of Jewish ritual murder taking place right now known as the ‘war on terror’.

Yeah, we can just see Boteach’s version of it now…Jesus as an IDF general, instructing His troops to show ‘no mercy on Amalek,’ exactly as took place in Operation Cast Lead. Innocent men, women and children—sometimes entire families—ripped to shreds and incinerated when bombs (blessed by rabbis just like Boteach) are dropped on their homes. There He is, Jesus, side-by-side with armed-to-the-teeth thugs born and raised in places such as Brooklyn and Berkley, high as a kite after being schooled on how their Old Testament forefathers went into non-Jewish villages and slaughtered ‘everything that breatheth’…Next we have Jesus dancing the Hora with fellow Israelite warriors in celebration of the burning white phosphorous that was just dropped on the same innocent children whom Jesus Christ loved…Next is Him getting in front of the news cameras and lying through His teeth saying that ‘no civilians’ were targeted in the massacre, that the IDF is the ‘most moral army’ in the world, that ‘great pains’ were taken to avoid ‘unnecessary suffering’ and that any news reports saying different are nothing more than ‘conspiracy theories’ dreamed up by Jew haters and anti-Semites.

As we said earlier, DEFINITELY ‘interesting times’ we are living in

The Haaretz article continues—

“This book is telling the Jews to reclaim Jesus, the authentic Jesus, the historical Jesus, the Jewish Jesus” and to be inspired by his “beautiful” teachings, the U.S.-born author and TV show host told Anglo File this week in Jerusalem. “It’s asking Christians to make an effort to enrich their Christianity through an understanding of the Jewishness of Jesus.”

The ‘Jewishness of Jesus’… Does Boteach mean ‘Jewish’ in the same sense as some of the following non-goyische luminaries–

Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik revolution who personally oversaw the murder of  20 million Gentiles?

Or perhaps ‘Jewish’ like ‘comedienne’ Sarah Silverman, famous for saying “I hope the Jews did kill Christ…I’d do it again, I’d f***ing do it AGAIN in a second.’

Or maybe ‘Jewish’ like Bernie Madoff and the rest of his cousins on Wall Street who have robbed hundreds of millions of Americans of their hard-earned wealth, kicked them out of their homes and left them penniless, as the Jews did to the Egyptians in the book of Exodus?…

Maybe Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu who—with barely-contained glee–said in an interview that the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 was ‘good’ because it would generate ‘immediate sympathy’ for Israel…

Jonathon Pollard—That must be what Boteach is talking about. Gave away a million pages of the most sensitive national security secrets America possessed at that time to the Jewish state who in turn passed them along to America’s enemies, resulting in the deaths of as many as 1,000 American intelligence assets/agents and endangering every single American TO THIS DAY…

Al Goldstein, mega porn-king who once said Jesus Christ sucks…Is that it?

Or ‘Jewish’ like rabbi Ovadiah Yusef of Israel who recently compared Gentiles to donkeys and said that their only purpose on this earth was to serve the Jews…

God, we could go on and on with this, but there is not enough time and there are not enough trees for all the paper that would be needed to list it all.

Suffice it to say, Jesus would have NOTHING whatsoever to do with any of the aforementioned ‘Jewish’ characters, nor with those not mentioned but who should be.

Jesus was ‘Jewish’ like the earth is flat—an often-repeated but poorly-founded lie meant to delude people into supporting certain pre-conceived policies that benefit only a few profligate individuals. In this line of ‘reasoning’, Boteach is doing what rabbis do best—lying through his teeth.

And if the aforementioned aspect of the ‘Jewish’ Jesus is not reflective of the intellectual arrogance and dishonesty Boteach & co display as their calling cards, the other aspect of Jews ‘reclaiming’ the ‘authentic’ Jesus and ‘being inspired’ by his ‘beautiful’ teachings just about takes the cake. This is not just ordinary run-of-the-mill ‘hogwash’ but rather ‘industrial strength’ that would cause the pain to peel off the walls…

All sane persons residing on planet Earth can ABSOLUTELY FORGET about Jews ‘being inspired’ by Jesus’ ‘beautiful’ teachings. They weren’t interested then and they DEFINITELY AREN’T interested now. What does Jesus have to offer them in this that they find valuable to themselves both individually and collectively?

 NADA.

Being part of His team means embracing things such as temperance, humility, (LOL!!!) self-sacrifice, forbearance, compassion and impoverishment. There is NO ROOM for any of the ‘Chosen people’ BS. He was/is not a warmonger like Moses, David, Joshua or any of the other Old Testament heroes Jews have come to love. He did not/does not promise gold, silver, diamonds, power and Wall Street…He preached neither Jewish nationalism nor any “make footstools of your enemies” war-sermons. He never reveled in the past thievery, dishonesty and criminality of the Jewish patriarchs but instead held up a mirror to the collective Jewish personality and showed the victims of this delusion what an ugly people they had become as a result of the teachings and traditions they followed, and as a result

THEY KILLED HIM FOR IT.

And make no mistake, if He came back today, the Jews would deal with Him in EXACTLY the same manner that they dealt with him 2,000 years ago for the simple reason that what He is offering runs in complete contradiction to what they have been taught to embrace and practice through their religion and traditions.

Therefore, the snake oil Boteach & co are trying to sell here is the ‘Barabbas’ Jesus—violent, nationalistic, unrepentant, and fanatical. The obvious proof that Jesus was not like Barabbas is the fact that when given the choice, the Jews chose the warmonger Barabbas INSTEAD of the peacemonger Jesus.

Haaretz continues–

“Suddenly we have evangelical Christians emerging as the foremost supporters of the state of Israel,” he said. “We have this political alliance. What is lacking is a theological bridge.”

And, VOILA, there you have it, ladies and Gentilemen…It’s not enough that the Jewish state gets $30 million big ones a day from the US, nor that Christian sons and daughters are fighting the Jews’ Goddamned wars for her. Not content with merely taking our money and the blood of our loved ones, the Jews have to take our religion as well.

The reasons for this are obvious and yet, at the same time, not. Obvious in the sense that they—Boteach & co–want to make sure that Jewish interests are successful in preventing Christians from recognizing the obvious disparity between the teachings of Jesus and the foreign policy actions of their respective governments to the point they might actually do something REALLY CRAZY like take an interest in politics and eventually stop feeding the big war machine with their money and political support…

But equally as important is this, and it cannot be discounted or underestimated—Judaism and the personhood/teachings of Jesus are as disparate from each other as heaven and hell…They are locked in interminable, perpetual and mortal combat. There can be no ‘peaceful co-existence’ between the two. Jews recognize this fact, Christians do not.

Thus, part of what Boteach & co are trying to accomplish in this latest masterpiece in Judaic subterfuge is the ULTIMATE corporate takeover of Christianity for the purposes of ultimate liquidation.

By changing the fundamentals of the corporation, what these takeover interests hope to affect is a complete re-ordering of the board of directors and eventually the product it makes, in many ways mimicking what was done to Disney after it was taken over by Jewish interests—what was once pure and innocent became a fountainhead for every conceivable form of moral filth once control of the venture switched hands.

And, finally, Haaretz concludes with the following–

Christian scripture “doesn’t add up” when it portrays Jesus as a self-hating Jew, or when it lists sins that allegedly led Jews to condemn him, Boteach said. Jesus never declared himself God or meant to abolish Jewish law, he asserts.

Boteach said he regrets that Jews allowed Jesus “to be ripped away from them without even a fight.”

“We just accepted a Christian interpretation of his life and narrative,” he said. “One of the most influential people of all time is seen as a Christian who loved the Romans and said the Jews are all the children of the devil.”

But “Christian ideas of Jesus as divine messiah emerged as a savvy adaptation following the destruction of the Second Temple,” Boteach explained. Once Jews understand that, he writes that they “can take inspiration from Jesus’ often beautiful ethical teachings and appreciate Jesus as a devoted Jewish son who became martyred while trying to lift the Roman yoke of oppression from his beloved people.”

Indeed, in his new book – which he expects will become “seminal” – he writes that Pope Benedict XVI asked him for an autographed photograph. Glenn Beck, the controversial U.S.-Christian media personality, hailed “Kosher Jesus” as a “must-read for everyone willing to venture slightly out of their comfort zone.”

“Christians are our best friends today,” says Boteach. “There has to be a discussion of the theology. You can’t have this 600-pound gorilla in the room and just ignore it.”

Again, the typically-Jewish arrogance is as suffocating as the stink from an outhouse in the middle of August…

Christian scriptures ‘don’t add up?’ For whatever faults they may have, nevertheless the Christians have been at this for 2,000 years, and yet this arrogant, haughty, lying rabbi is going to come and ‘teach us a thing or 2’ about Jesus, the same man whose religion depicts Jesus—OUR JESUS–as a sex freak, sorcerer and bastard son of a prostitute.

The good news is that the magic spell Boteach & co are attempting to cast is easily neutralized. A blind man can see through it in an instant, once he plugs the teachings of Jesus concerning the rabbis into the equation…

The bad news is that most Christians DON’T know about these teachings. Thanks in large part to Jewish interests having penetrated organized Christianity—including the Vatican itself—the awareness concerning Jesus as an anti-Zionist/anti-Judaic freedom fighter is almost non-existent, and as a result, Christians today are more likely than not going to swallow Boteach’s bait hook, line and sinker and will not realize they have been snookered until they hit the frying pan. Hell, even the Pope himself has asked for an autographed copy, and no doubt he will praise this pack of lies written by a representative of the same class of people who revel in the dirty tricks they played in having Jesus killed 20 centuries past.

Now, are we, on this Sunday morning, going to go so far as to use the same kind of language Jesus used in describing men such as Boteach, calling him and his associates a ‘den of vipers’ and ‘children of the devil’? Are we going to damn them in the exact same manner Jesus Himself did when He asked rhetorically‘How will you escape going to hell?’

Well, I think that on this Sunday morning, the day that Christians worldwide celebrate the utter failure of Jewish interests in  their attempt at eradicating the ‘beautiful teachings’ of Jesus, that perhaps we can take a page from His book, to ‘love’ our enemies and to ‘not return evil for evil’ and instead, simply make our feelings for Boteach and his most recent ‘kiss of Judas’ on the cheek of the Christian community known by simply saying—

My rabbi, what BIG teeth you have…

Posted in Education4 Comments

America on IsraHell’s Altar

NOVANEWS

by Paul Balles

 

The Boston Globe called U.S. presidential candidate Ron Paul a “Republican maverick”.

The label has been attached to Paul primarily because he differs from the other Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy. Said The Globe after the presidential debate In Des Moines, Iowa on December 10th:

“While most of the Republican candidates are open to military action against Iran, Paul advocates diplomacy. While several of the candidates oppose cutting the defence budget, Paul wants to slash it. Paul was one of the only candidates in the debate to oppose extending the Patriot Act.”

For those unfamiliar with the Patriot Act, it was enacted presumably to help fight terrorism after 9/11 while sacrificing individual rights.

According to The Globe, “Dean Spiliotes, an independent political analyst from New Hampshire, said Paul’s foreign policy contradicts core Republican tenets of strong national security and defence. But it appeals to Americans who are tired of war and focused on economic issues.”

The foreign policy differences between Ron Paul and his adversaries make him an ideal candidate for those tired of America’s war hawks bankrupting the country.

During the Republican candidates’ debate, Paul didn’t believe Israel would actually strike Iran–but if it did, “we need to get out of their way,” he cautioned.

“When they want to have peace treaties, we tell them what they can do because we buy their allegiance and they sacrifice their sovereignty to us,” admonished Paul.

“They decide they want to bomb something?” asked Paul. “That’s their business, but they should suffer the consequences. Israel has 200–300 nuclear missiles and they can take care of themselves.”

For an American politician to make comments like that took courage. The one that followed would certainly upset American Israeli supporters:

“We don’t even have a treaty with Israel. Why do we have this automatic commitment that we’re going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel?”

In the debate, the other candidates were falling all over themselves, attempting to show their dedication to Israel. The leading candidate, Mitt Romney groaned:

“There’s no price which is worth an Iranian nuclear weapon. And the right course is to show that we care about Israel, that they are our friend; we’ll stick with them.”

This is the same pre-emptive war hawk rubbish that Bush and Cheney and the Zioncons fed the public as the way to combat terrorism when, in fact, they were telling Israel and its lobbies that America will eternally fight Israel’s wars.

Promised Romney, “If I’m president of the United States, my first foreign trip will be to Israel to show the world we care about that country and that region.”

The Republican candidates, except Ron Paul, all go overboard in their attempts to prove to the supporters in America that they will serve the interests of Israel at any cost.

Of course, the rest of the world doesn’t need to be shown that the U.S. cares about Israel. The only politician unwilling to sacrifice America for Israel is Ron Paul.

The American Arab Anti-discrimination Committee (ADC) recently illustrated the problem with Republicans’ unabated support for Israel:

“Among politicians, Newt Gingrich called the Palestinian people an ‘invented people’, Eric Cantor said that Palestinian culture was ‘infused with hatred and resentment,’ and Mitt Romney said that he would consult with Benjamin Netanyahu in making U.S. policy toward Palestinians because, apparently, Israel does not have enough say in U.S. policy toward the Middle East.”

If Ron Paul miraculously receives continuing strong support, his voting public will be tired of sacrificing America on Israel’s altar.

Posted in USAComments Off on America on IsraHell’s Altar

The Wars We Fight To Protect Freedom Have Lead Us To The Big Decline

NOVANEWS

by Ed Mattson

 

 They are the issues that must be addressed if we are to turn our ship of state around. There are obligations that go with being a citizen in a free society, and to quote an old axiom, “freedom isn’t free”.

It is easy to take our liberties for granted. No place else on earth can you find a country in which its people grant specific powers to the government so that they may govern. In most countries their constitutions are based on the government granting certain freedoms to their people. The people may feel they are free, but a government which has the power to grant freedom to its citizens also has the power to take away specific freedoms. America is truly an experiment in government and was founded on the unique principal that all freedom comes from God. It is so stated in our earliest documents that lead to our nation’s formation.

Over the years many have tried to convince the citizenry that the Constitution of the United States is a living document, with interpretation bending with the times…Not true! The Founding fathers did not envision a Constitution that would be wishy-washy or simply a matter that the government in power can read into it what it wants. They were smart enough to understand that power given to any person or group of persons has the ability to corrupt and as so aptly put by Lord Acton when he said, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

A free country is government without secrecy

The Constitution can be changed as the needs of the country change by a procedure that was so unique that most have no idea of how it is suppose to work. There are specific checks and balances that would govern any such changes, and that the procedure would not be one that would be easy. In short, for those who do not understand the procedure, it is not as simple as everyone raising their hands to an idea when someone decides things need to be changed.

In a representative, democratic republic such as we have where our elected officials vote for those who elected them as their representatives, the first step in the process is to get the idea down on paper (draft the legislation in the form of a “Bill”). The Bill must then be passed by both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each (a so-called super-majority). Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years to work its way through each state) for the bill to be approved as an amendment before it becomes enacted.

To show the difficulty of amending the Constitution, there have been only 17 times in which the process has been used in 237 years, but there are a total of 27 such amendments. The first ten came with the Constitution and are known as The Bill of Rights.

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about. Many today are calling for such a Constitutional Convention, but they have no idea how such a procedure would affect the very freedoms we enjoy in this country.

Again, most people like “spur-of-the-moment” decisions that positively affect themselves, and most often never realize that there are consequences to everything we do in life. Our government has perpetually shielded them from the responsibility for their actions by insulating them with “government programs”…drop out of school…don’t worry, the government will find a social program to give you the barest of essentials on which to live. Abuse substances…don’t worry, the government will provide the tools so you can kick the habit. Smoke and get respiratory illness, don’t worry we’ll get you treated at a hospital even if you can’t pay for it. The examples are endless. We have the freedom to make these choices, but seldom want to bear responsibility for our choices.

To those hankering for a Constitutional Convention, I say you are opening a can of worms and from that open can, all freedoms that we currently enjoy become subject to the whims of those who may not have your best interests at heart. Remember, our freedoms are ordained from God and we give the government certain powers to protect and govern our country. The Constitution was made difficult to amend because the wisdom of those who wrote it knew there will always be those who wish to enforce their views on others. Lord Acton was brilliant in his thinking and fortunately we have a Constitution which protects us from ourselves, for as Lord Acton noted “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. EVERY class is unfit to govern.”

The Constitution can be changed as the needs of the country change by a procedure that was so unique that most have no idea of how it is suppose to work. There are specific checks and balances that would govern any such changes, and that the procedure would not be one that would be easy. In short, for those who do not understand the procedure, it is not as simple as everyone raising their hands to an idea when someone decides things need to be changed.

In a representative, democratic republic such as we have where our elected officials vote for those who elected them as their representatives, the first step in the process is to get the idea down on paper (draft the legislation in the form of a “Bill”). The Bill must then be passed by both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each (a so-called super-majority). Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years to work its way through each state) for the bill to be approved as an amendment before it becomes enacted.

To show the difficulty oamending the Constitution, there have been only 17 times in which the process has been used in 237 years, but there are a total of 27 such amendments. The first ten came with the Constitution and are known as The Bill of Rights.

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about. Many today are calling for such a Constitutional Convention, but they have no idea how such a procedure would affect the very freedoms we enjoy in this country.

And that brings us to the point of fighting for what we believe, whether amongst ourselves or those who wish to enforce their will upon us. This dates back to our war of independence which gave birth to the nation. Some wars are inevitable if we truly believe in our freedom. There are those who call themselves pacifists and declare that no war can be justified. That thought is totally naive. To me it is like a country declaring itself neutral in a global conflict.

Can a country really be “neutral”? The answer is, not easily. Though 27 countries originally declared neutralit yin World War II, only Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Vatican City and Switzerland were able to maintain neutrality over the course of the war, while Sweden, also declared neutrality but sometimes breached its nation’s neutrality in favor of Germany at one point and the Western Allies at another. Portugal and Spain, though neutral with fascist governments. had policies favoring Hitler’s Germany, and the Swiss became the haven for most of the Nazi loot stolen from those they subjugated. All the others neutral countries, ourside of Ireland, Portugal, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Vatican City were swallowed up in the war.

Patrick Henry – The perils of secrecy in government were know long before modern politics

Bullies, aka tyranny, like nothing better than to subjugate neutral countries knowing the effort will go unchallenged by the subjugated countries, and who will be there to stop the subjugation, the United Nations?

Can the Jainist, Quakers, Amish, Mennonite, really be free to be pacifists if there isn’t someone willing to die for their right to make that choice? I think the concept ofpacifism (including pacifist religion) is a word without meaning to most people. How would you reply to the question, “what would you do if you saw a rapist trying to violate your sister”? 99.9% or more of the pacifists, would honestly answer, “I’d try to get between them”, setting aside the neutral belief they profess. It defies believability to suppress the natural instinct most people have to fight for their loved ones if need be. Pacifists are lucky to live in a country like the United States, because we have brave volunteers willing to die for their right to practice pacifism.

Our country was founded on the basis of freedom…freedom for ourselves and freedom for others. Millions of our military personnel have died to keep us free and to insure the freedom of countries around the world. Wars are often fought against tyranny, yet some wars, because of the scoundrels of elected politicians, are fought not just for freedom but for goods and services that insure a free way of life. The first, fighting for freedom, makes sense to most everyone who has ever put on a uniform and picked up a gun to go fight. The latter, to fight for goods and services to insure our free way of life, is entering into a gray area which has become the center point of much controversy in recent decades.

World War II was a just war in the eyes of many, including myself. Not only were we attacked at Pearl Harbor, but the world needed to be protected from the likes of Adolph Hitler, who felt ethnic cleansing was the answer to create a master race. But to fight over oil, when we have enough petroleum reserves in this country to cover our needs the next 400 years without new finds that may be discovered, is simply a war that needs to be questioned.

America’s entry into World War II was a challenge to the American willingness to defend our freedom and the freedom of the world. It was our nation’s manufacturing and production capabilities, which enabled us to fight a war of two fronts thousands of miles apart, produce munitions, ships, planes, and vehicles not only for ourselves but to fulfill the needs of the Allies as well, that astounded our enemy and our partners as well. No other country could have produced so much, and then, by the end of the war, much of the collective debt accumulated was forgiven. Such is the nature of Americans.

It is unfortunate that not everyone paid attention to the resolve of the United States. Stalin, in his lust for power, took it upon himself to subjugate not only the Russian people, but each and every country his troops marched through fighting Hitler on the Eastern front, which were powerless to stop the formation of the Soviet Union. To the south of the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communists who had just freed itself from the grips of Japanese expansion, couldn’t wait to enforce it own brand of domination over its estimated 500 million people. Thus following World War II, the world entered into the Cold War, as the Soviets and the Chinese, formed a vale of governance and secrecy over their people.

We have seen The Big Decline in American since the end of World War II and the start of the Cold War. Two quotes which address secrecy in government, the likes of which have been employed by the Soviets, Chinese, and even in the US (under the guise of protecting ourselves from totalitarian rule), are self-explanatory and are at the root of the problems we face today.

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.”
John Fitzgerald Kennedy

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”

Posted in USAComments Off on The Wars We Fight To Protect Freedom Have Lead Us To The Big Decline

The Turbulent 2011 At A Glance

NOVANEWS

By Kourosh Ziabari

2011 was a turbulent year for the world. With chained revolutions in the Arab world, mounting financial crisis in Europe and the unprecedented wave of protests and mass demonstrations in the U.S. against the corporate system of the government which has long swallowed the rights of the defenseless majority of the people voraciously, one can call 2011 the year of global unrest and tumult.

For Iran, 2011 was also a challenging year. Benefiting from the all-out backing of the Western mainstream media, the apartheid regime of Israel for several times renewed its hawkish war threats against the Islamic Republic and repeatedly used an aggressive rhetoric against the people of Iran, threatening them with various military options which the United States and certain European governments embraced willingly and enthusiastically.

It’s not too exaggerative if we claim that the Arab Spring was a legacy of Mohamed Bouazizi who with his painful self-immolation before a municipality office in Tunis in protest at the ill treatment and corruption of the police, sparked the rage and irritation of the Arab nations in the Middle East and North Africa and somehow invited them to rise up and stand against their corrupt, authoritarian governments which were mostly equipped and supported by the U.S. and its European allies.

In Tunisia and after Bouazizi burnt himself before the mayor’s office, people started to sympathize with him and his family and held funeral processions for him. These small gatherings began to expand explosively and after a short time, turned into massive demonstrations against the uncontested 23-year rule of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali whose accumulation of illegitimate wealth and what his opponents called his family’s Mafia rule had infuriated the oppressed, pauperized people.

According to The Daily News Egypt, “President Ben Ali’s extended family is often cited as the nexus of Tunisian corruption,” the U.S/ embassy in Tunis said in a June 2008 cable recently revealed by the WikiLeaks website and widely read in Tunisia.

The Egyptian paper’s report titled “Ben Ali’s hated in-laws looted Tunisia’s wealth” adds that the family of Ben Ali’s second wife Leila Trabelsi is considered as a quasi-mafia by the Tunisian people. Leila Trabelsi has 10 siblings and several nieces and nephews and along with Ben Ali’s own 7 brothers and sisters, they accumulated a large amount of capital since the ousted Tunisian ex-president married Leila in 1992. As said by Nicolas Hibou, a researcher at the National Scientific Research Centre (CNRS) in Paris, the Family used a variety of methods to build a stranglehold on Tunisian economic life.

Daily Telegraph reported on January 9, 2011 that according to independent inspectors who investigated Ben Ali’s family wealth, it was revealed that he had hoarded USD 5 billion for his family during his 23-year rule, along with other luxury properties including a sumptuous villa in Westmount, Quebec, an apartment worth Euro 37 million in the famous Paris street of Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré and a lavish apartment in Courchevel ski resort in the Alps. Le Monde Diplomatique reported that Leila Ben Ali, before fleeing to Saudi Arabia with his husband, referred to the Tunisian Central Bank and received a 1.5-ton ingot of gold worth Euro 45 million. It’s also said that Ben Ali owns a Falcon 9000 jet in the Geneva International Airport.

At any rate, the Tunisian people joined their efforts and put an end to Ben Ali’s corrupt regime, toppling him after a set of massive demonstrations and this marked the beginning of what was later popularly called the Arab Spring.

The next phase of revolutionary wave in the Arab world took place in Egypt, where the browbeaten people, overfed with the three-decade rule of Hosni Mubarak stormed into the streets and brought into existence an impeccable revolution. The empty-handed Egyptian people were at one side of the conflict and the stronghold of Hosni Mubarak, the U.S.-backed dictator on the other side.

There were rumors that Mubarak intended to hand over the seat of presidency to his son, Gamal, after stepping down as the fourth president of Egypt and this was something intolerable for the people of Egypt who were surprisingly not directed and guided by a specific revolutionary leader in their popular uprising. 18 days of incessant massive demonstrations which resulted in the formation of 2011 Egyptian Revolution marked the closing stages of Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule whose government’s cordial ties with Israel and the United States was a source of anger and dissatisfaction for the ordinary Egyptians.

Police brutality, state of emergency laws, lack of free elections and freedom of speech, unrestrained corruption of the ruling elite, unemployment, food price inflation and low wages were among the other grievances of the demonstrators who, inspired by the people of Tunisia, wanted to draw an end to Mubarak’s dictatorship.

After Mubarak officially resigned on February 11 amid the rage and fury of the revolutionary people and transferred power to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, people found one of their main objectives realized, that was the overthrowing of Hosni Mubarak, the U.S.-backed dictator of Egypt. Based on the decree of a general prosecutor who ordered the detainment of Mubarak and his sons on April 13, the trial of Egypt’s ex-president on charges of premeditated murder of peaceful protesters during the revolution, financial corruption, abuse of power and his alleged role in the assassination of his predecessor Anwar Sadat began.

During the course of revolution when the Egyptian people gathered in the Tahrir Square of Cairo, the forces of Mubarak killed at least 846 people and injured more than 6,000, committing an unmistakable act of violence and crimes against humanity.

It was very interesting that the Egyptian revolutionaries were not simply dissatisfied with the domestic policies of Mubarak, his family corruption and his seemingly unending rule, but his foreign policies including a close alliance with the United States and supporting the Israeli regime in its suppression of the Palestinian people, especially through continuing the blockade of Gaza Strip were challenged by the angry protesters. On September 9, 2011, thousands of Egyptian protesters gathered outside the Israeli embassy in the Giza district of Cairo, broke down a wall protecting the embassy compound and brought down an Israeli flag installed atop the embassy building, setting it alight. Following the attack, 85 staff members of the embassy and their families returned to Israel and the Egyptian army declared a state of emergency.

This incident marked a new phase in the bilateral relations between Egypt and Israel, and a growing apprehension that the new government of Egypt may revoke the Camp David Accords and stop selling gas to Tel Aviv began to occur among the Israeli politicians. At any rate, the revolution of the Egyptian people is still underway with people demanding the dissolution of the military junta which rules the country and the people believe is a remnant of the Mubarak’s era. The Egyptian revolution was among the most important events taking place in 2011 and attracted the attention of international community, media, political figures and academicians to a great extent.

Other countries in the Middle East experienced revolutionary protests in 2011 as well. In Yemen, a popular uprising against the tyrannical rule of Ali Abdullah Saleh who has been the unchallenged President of Yemen since 1978 emerged which was responded by the forceful and violent reaction of the mercenaries of Saleh. According to Allvoices.com, the forces of Ali Abdullah Saleh killed more than 1,870 people in the streets of different cities in Yemen, and this bloody massacre of the protesters who demanded the resignation of Ali Abdullah Saleh received the passive and inert reaction of the international community, especially the relevant parties such as Arab League, the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council and the United Nations Security Council.

No single resolution was passed in the UN to condemn the crackdown on the peaceful protesters and the U.S., a close ally of Ali Abdullah Saleh, hypocritically turned a blind eye to the mass killing of the innocent, unarmed civilians in Yemen which is continuing up to now.

Another important event in 2011 was the capturing and killing of Muammar Gaddafi, the unflappable and unbeatable dictator of Libya who finally succumbed to the armed forces of the National Transitional Council of Libya and was killed on October 20, 2011 after 9 months of bloody battle in the Libyan Civil War of 2011. This was actually a tragic end to four decades of ruling over a country whose people didn’t want the dictator anymore. Civil war in Libya was followed by the wave of revolutionary protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain and started with peaceful demonstrations and rallies in the major cities such as Benghazi, Sirte and Tripoli.

The forces of Gaddafi responded to the protests aggressively and killed fourteen protesters during the first day of the protests on February 18. Clashes between the protesters unhappy with the despotic rule of Gaddafi continued and with the increasing of the number of deaths, UNSC authorized a no-fly zone over Libya and NATO military coalitions began to intervene. There are varying figures as to the number of total deaths in the civil war, but the National Transitional Council believes that the forces of Gaddafi and NATO killed more than 25,000 Libyans from the beginning of the uprising in the North African country.

The Bahrain revolution was the other remarkable news of the year 2011. The Shiite people of Bahrain who had been subject to state discrimination for many years and were deprived of their rudimentary rights such as the right of holding religious congregations or attending mosques, took the example of Tunisia and Egypt and revolted against the dictators ruling their country to demand reforms and changes in the way the Al Khalifa regime was handling the country’s affairs.

The Bahraini dictators couldn’t tolerate the upheaval of the people and reacted frantically. They invited armed forces from Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirate to help them in cracking down on the protesters and in a short period of time, arrested hundreds of peace activists, killed tens of innocent and unarmed civilians and blocked national access to internet in order to prevent the revolutionaries from finding a way to get united and organize demonstrations and protests. Bahrain, home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Persian Gulf, received the tacit support of the U.S. and UK and is still continuing its belligerent clampdown on the protesters. Now, hundreds are in prisons, several others have lost their jobs and many others have been sentenced to execution, life-term prison and heavy fines.

But the repercussions of the Arab Spring were not only felt in the Middle East and North Africa, but the United States and Europe as well. In what many political experts consider a replication of the Arab Spring by the American people, the Occupy Wall Street movement was shaped to protest the inadequacy and insufficiency of the capitalist system in the United States and the government’s accumulation of the capital, its failure in creating jobs for the jobless and eradicating the growing poverty.

OWS movement can be called the Western version of the Islamic awakening in the Middle East in which thousands of annoyed, exasperated Americans took part. The protesters selected the slogan “We are the 99%” for themselves to express their dissatisfaction with the domination of the ruling 1% over the financial resources of the country and their mismanagement of the economy which resulted in the most devastative economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Since September 17 that the protests and gatherings in the Zuccotti Park started, every day tens of protesters were arrested and beaten by the U.S. police forces and today, there’s no reliable source showing the total number of arrests; however, according to some unofficial figures, more than 5,000 American protesters have been incarcerated up to now. Some political commentators believe that the Occupy Wall Street movement brought the U.S. government to the brink of downfall and was more of an anti-government revolution in which people protested not only the economic policies of the White House, but the warmongerings of their government in different parts of the world, as well.

Public intellectuals and authors such as Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Margaret Atwood, Neil Gaiman, Alice Walker and Jimmy Wales were among the famous people supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Other important incidents also took place in 2011 which are worthy of mention. The United Kingdom anti-austerity protests and the brutal, repressive crackdown of the police on the peaceful protesters, the economic crisis in the Eurozone and the unprecedented fluctuations of the price of gold and oil can be considered as the other remarkable events in 2011.

For Iran, also, 2011 was a tough year. The mischievous alliance of the U.S., UK and Israel designed various scenarios and plots for Iran to debase the Iranian government and demoralize the Iranian people. The Saudi envoy assassination plot allegation, repeated threats of military strike and consecutive rounds of economic sanctions against Iran’s banking and oil sec

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on The Turbulent 2011 At A Glance

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

January 2012
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031