Archive | September 29th, 2012


Saturday, 29 September 2012

Greetings my dearest,my name is Maria Yak am 23 years old Girl from Southern sudan.I want to have a common relationship with you, I need to tell you more things, but first I need your help to Stand for me as a trustee. My father Dr. Justin Yak Arop was the former Minister for SPLA Affairs and Special Adviser to President Salva Kiir of South Sudan for Decentralization. My father Dr. Justin YAK, my mother including other top Military officers and top government officials where on board when the plane crashed on Friday May 02, 2008. You can read more about the crash through the below


Some months after the burial of my father, my uncle conspired with my step mother and sold my father’s properties to a Chinese Expatriate. One faithful morning I opened my late father’s briefcase and found documents which my beloved father used and deposit money in a Bank in Burkina Faso , with my name as the next of kin. I travelled to Burkina Faso to withdraw the money so that I can start a better life and take care of myself. The Branch manager of the Bank whom I met in person told me that my present status does not permit me by the local law to clear money or make a transfer of money into an account, he advice me to provide a trustee who will help me and invest the money or I should wait till when I will get married it demand by their Authority.

I have chosen to contact you after my prayers and I believe that you will not betray my trust. But rather take me as your own blood sister and help me. Though you may wonder why I am so soon revealing myself to you without knowing you, well, I will say that my mind convinced me that you are the true person to help me. More so, I will like to disclose much with you if you can help me to relocate to your country because my uncle has threatened to assassinate me. The amount is $5.6Million and I have confirmed from the bank in Burkina Faso . You will also help me to place the money in a more profitable business venture in your Country.

However, you will help by recommending a nice University in your country so that I can complete my studies. It is my intention to compensate you with 35% of the total money for your services and the balance shall be my capital in your establishment As soon as I receive your interest in helping me, I will put things into action immediately. In the light of the above, I shall appreciate an urgent message indicating your ability and willingness to handle this transaction sincerely. Please do keep this only to your self. I beg you not to disclose it till i come over because I am afraid of my wicked uncle who hah threatened to kill me.

Sincerely yours
Maria Justin Yak

Posted in SudanComments Off on WATCH OUT SCAM : I AM INTERESTED IN YOU



Settlers, Members of Israel’s Intelligence Break into Al-Aqsa Mosque

agsa copy


Thursday 6th September, 30 members of Israel’s intelligence community headed by Likud member, Moshe Feiglin, and groups of settlers broke into al-Aqsa mosque since early hours of the morning.

Al Aqsa Institute said in a press release that Moshe Feiglin, escorted by settlers broke into the mosque to perform Talmudic rituals, under the protection of Israeli forces.

Eyewitnesses said that Feiglin and settlers raided al-Aqsa mosque at 8 AM from al-Magharbeh gate and headed to the mosque where they performed their religious rituals and walked in the mosque’s yards.

Al-Aqsa Institute described “Israeli continuous incursions and the profanation of the mosque by leaders of Israeli parties, members of Knesset and settlers,  with very dangerous procedures, in which occupation attempts to implicit Jewish presence daily in al-Aqsa mosque, in a step to impose the decision issued earlier to divide al-Aqsa mosque between Palestinians and Jews.”

Al-Aqsa Institute called on Palestinians, especially Jerusalemites to increase their presence in al-Aqsa mosque to help protecting it from such incursions and profanations.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on WAKE UP ZIONIST ARABS: NAZI’S BREAK INTO AL-AQSA MOSQUE

The Desperate Republican Strategy to Win the Election


by Barb Weir

Republicans desperately seeking ways to overcome their candidate’s statements

It may have been the sight of my old AMC Rambler1, but it was the chance of a lifetime when Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney gave me an exclusive press pass to last weekend’s Republican National Committee strategy session. Here is how it went.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus opened the meeting with a challenge. “We may have a problem with the presidential race,” he said. “There’s no doubt we chose the best, most electable Republican candidate in the field, and we have a shi*load of money from our dozen or so filthy rich donors. But hey, our guy wants to put roll-down windows on aircraft flying at nearly the speed of sound. We’re going to need some help. Any ideas?”

“How about blaming all the ills of society on the Democrats and promising to fix them?” suggested Co-Chairman Sharon Day.

“We always do that and they do the same to us,” replied Priebus. “I think it’s just not enough to do the trick. And by the way, you don’t look much like a co-chairman, Sharon. Perhaps you need a more manly wardrobe.”

“How about concentrating on emotional issues like abortion, illegal immigration and same-sex marriage that distract voters from real issues like food, housing and health?” offered Press Secretary Kirsten Kukowsky.

“We’re doing that, too,” lamented Priebus. “We’ve got to get creative.”

“Suppose we pledge to tax the rich, help people with their mortgages and cover their health while using government leverage to lower the costs of medical care and pharmaceuticals,” said Penin Diaz, Token Minority Representative. “Then we could bring the troops home, cut the defense budget, and end our billions of dollars to Israel each year.”

“Get out and don’t come back!” shouted the rest of the committee. “Whom do you think we represent?”

“Look, our best chance seems to be to prevent people from voting,” said Priebus after order was again restored. “We’re making some headway on requiring special ID. Any further thoughts on that?”

“What if that ID is more difficult to get?” suggested Fundraising Director Koch Adelson.

“You might be on to something,” replied Priebus with interest. “What do you have in mind?”

“I’m thinking about an ID that is issued according to real democratic principles like the ones our nation’s founders intended. We could start with the fact that nearly every state denies the right to vote to felons. If we can get them to also ban those who have been convicted of misdemeanors, it will yank a bunch of potential Obama voters. Furthermore, the cops are almost all on our side. I’m sure they can arrange a few more convictions. Lots of cases come down to the word of a cop against that of a citizen. We all know where that goes.

“Then there are the homeless. If you don’t have an address, in many places you can’t register to vote. If we can get the banks to increase the foreclosure rate, I’m sure we can create more homeless. Bankers love us anyway, and it fits their agenda.

“And what about registration deadlines? Can we get them moved back? We might be able to catch voters before they register.”

How about bringing back the poll tax? … Or literacy tests?

“Speaking of real democratic principles,” interjected Day, “there are some ideas from the past that might serve us well. How about bringing back the poll tax? It discourages the poor, most of whom are not Republican, anyway. Or literacy tests?”

“I’m not so sure the literacy tests will work in our favor, Sharon,” replied Adelson, “but if we can disenfranchise Washington, D.C., that’s three electoral votes that the Dems won’t get.”

George III

“Nice thought, Koch,” interjected Priebus, “but that means reversing a constitutional amendment. Same thing with women’s suffrage. We’ll never get it done before this election. On the other hand, the states can re-institute property requirements. It used to be three acres in some states.”

“Yes, I know it would be nice to go back to our roots and limit the vote to white male Protestant landed gentry, declared Adelson. But some of this has to wait until we get into office. Besides, it was democracy that started this whole mess. Let’s do what we can to disenfranchise as many voters as we possible for now, and then give the whole place back to King George III. We know he was on our side.”
1Mitt Romney’s father, George, was president of American Motors before becoming governor of Michican.

Posted in USAComments Off on The Desperate Republican Strategy to Win the Election

The Messengers Of Evil


by Daniel Mabsout

As far as the world order is concerned , there is one general plot targeting humanity. What we see as a series of separate events – threatening humanity through a definite social group – is nothing but strands of a wholesome conspiracy whose events are seen separate because we are unable to see the threads that link them together.

Just link all the events of the Arab Spring together, from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya, and don’t forget to pass by the Ivory Coast then again by Mali and Sudan from where all has started . Then link all what you have seen and known and maybe witnessed and experienced; you will see that the Arab Spring and the slandering movie and comic strips are not disconnected. You will see Bernard Henry Levy – the source of inspiration and conspiracy of the Arab Spring – delighted by the thugs of the Arab revolutions and also by the slandering of the Prophet of Islam. These are two faces of the one coin .

The slandering is not an isolated event but a part of a big strategy with definite steps and different scenarios which serve the purpose of the powerful ones , the masters of cheat and deceit.

After picturing Muslims as killers of black Africans and killers of children and slaughterers of families by the dozen- whether in Libya or in Syria – it became high time to expose the Holy Prophet of Islam, just to make this thing look plausible and feasible .

According to the masters of cheat and deceit , this comes in the natural development of things because this slanderous, unruly behavior of the thugs must look as originating from to the nature of their religion and the character of their Prophet (God prevents).

The masters of cheat and deceit of this world are not dormant. They keep full vigilance over their business . They conspire day and night and night and day, from the morning till the evening and then during the whole night they conspire. They will not stop and cannot afford to stop because their lies and cheat and deceit cannot be maintained otherwise , they will crumble once for all.

Is naïve who thinks that the masters of cheat and deceit leave anything to fate or to nature. Not at all , everything is the fruition of deeply calculated operations and minutely arranged. From Palestine to 9/11 to Iraq to Lebanon to Libya and Syria and the fatal Arab Spring, everything has been planned and carried on to the letter .

It is almost a piece of art achieved by the enemies of humanity except for the final outcome that is and will remain alien to them and totally out of their control . This is to say that the friends of humanity are also keeping vigil . The party of God known as Hizbullah is keeping full vigilance and highest awareness and total inspection of the field . With God’s help , nothing can escape its vision or hinder its intuition .Truth has the final say and speaks the last word and even punctuates what has been said

Posted in USAComments Off on The Messengers Of Evil

New Mexico Jews Scream ‘Anti-Semitism!’ Over Sabeel Conference


by Richard Edmondson

It’s getting to be more than just a bit old-hat. A Jew who takes a dislike to something or other screams, “Anti-Semitism!”—and people go running for cover. And tragically cowardly Christians, in far too many cases, are the first to duck down the rabbit hole.

Last week I posted an article about an upcoming conference entitled “Justice: The Path to Peace in Palestine/Israel,” sponsored by the organization Friends of Sabeel-North America (FOSNA). The conference is scheduled to take place this Friday and Saturday in Albuquerque, New Mexico and will feature workshops as well as a number of speakers, each offering their perspectives on how to achieve peace in the bloody and decades-old Palestine-Israel conflict. The speakers will include Palestinians, Israelis, as well as Americans.

Any hope, no matter how slim, of bringing about a resolution to this crisis is worth pursuing, but for a while now the conference has been under attack by local Jews in New Mexico—and on Friday things became especially strident with the publication in the Albuquerque Journal of an op-ed piece entitled “FOSNA Philosophy Just Anti-Semitism.” The piece is co-authored by Sam Sokolove, executive director of the Jewish Federation of New Mexico, and Todd Goldblum, chair of the Israel Action Network-New Mexico, and their animosity toward Sabeel—an ecumenical group founded some ten years ago by Palestinian Christians—is markedly manifest throughout.

Perhaps there should be an “anti-defamation league” having the goal of exposing Jews who attempt to “defame” Gentiles with the anti-Semite label. Not only do Sokolove and Goldblum accuse Sabeel of “spreading vicious propaganda to assault Israel’s legitimacy,” but they also venture into such ticklish topics as the crucifixion of Christ, conveying the notion that the organization’s goals include laying “the ugly deicide charge against all the Jewish people” and may even seek to portray the Zionist state as “a country of Christ killers.”

No documentation is supplied to support these insinuations; they’re simply thrown in there. We also are informed that “Sabeel conferences are notorious for featuring speakers who vilify Israel,” although the authors don’t say when or if they ever attended a Sabeel conference in the past, or what led them to crystalize these conclusions.

Of course some countries on this earth very much merit “vilification,” and in my view Israel is one of them. Illegal settlements, bulldozing of homes, use of white phosphorous and other chemical weapons against a civilian population, and the shooting of Palestinian children—such as Abir Aramin,Iman al-HamsAhmed Samouni, and countless others (for a partial list of Palestinian children killed by Israelis go here )—are among only a few of the sins Israel will one day account for, at least if there is a God of justice in this world.

But achieving peace and an end to the occupation of Palestinian land seems to be FOSA’s only, or at least primary, goal—far more so at any rate than simply “vilifying” Israel. For instance the organizers of this conference did not include a workshop on Israeli involvement in 9/11, although perhaps they should have. Why do I mention it? Because defense and intelligence officials and others are coming forward now inever greater numbers and speaking out on 9/11, people such as Michael Scheuer, who has called the official 9/11 Commission report “a whitewash and a lie from top to bottom,” and Alan Sabrosky, who says it is “100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation.”

As Keven Barrett relates in a recent article, some officials are now even leaking insider information. “The two biggest recent leaks,” says Barrett, “are revelations by CIA asset Susan Lindauer that the CIA had detailed foreknowledge of 9/11 and attributed the controlled demolitions of the three NYC skyscrapers to ‘those goddamned Israelis’; and the assertion by Gwenyth Todd, who worked beside Richard Clarke on the National Security Council, that Clarke (who was publicly fired from an earlier job for being an Israeli spy) is the top suspect as hands-on controller of 9/11 from the US end.”

All we can do is wait and see how all this plays out. Sabrosky, for his own part, has predicted that, “If Americans ever know that Israel did this, they are going to scrub them off the earth.” The words have a foreboding resonance to be sure, but New Mexico’s discomposed Jewish Federation might take consolation. What we hear from Sabeel—whom Sokolove and Goldblum accuse of being “one-sided,” “inflammatory,” and “destructive” by nature—does not even approach this level of animus. The group is calling for a two-state solution, with a sovereign and independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and with East Jerusalem as its capital, living in peaceful coexistence with Israel—which is precisely what has been mandated in UN resolutions and has even been the position of previous US presidents. So what is it that has Sokolove and Goldblum so hot and bothered?

Well, maybe it’s this:

Israel must admit that it has committed an injustice against the Palestinian people and must accept responsibility for that. This means that reparation must be paid to all Palestinians who have suffered as a result of the conflict since 1948 whether they are Palestinian citizens of Israel, Palestinians living on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or Palestinians living in the Diaspora. The road to healing and reconciliation passes through repentance, forgiveness and redress.

Or perhaps this:

“The people of the region–Palestinians and Israelis–both need and deserve a lasting peace, and security. With peace and security in place, bonds of acceptance and friendship can grow. It is no service to either community to promote a peace which flouts international law, ignores justice, and ultimately cannot endure since this will lead to continued bitterness and violence.”

Could be this:

“Since Israel acquired by force 77% of the land of Palestine in 1948, approximately 20% more than the United Nations had allotted, and established its state there, it is moral and right for Israel to return the whole of the areas captured in 1967, i.e. the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to the millions of Palestinians who need their own small sovereign state.”

Or this:

“Once the principles of an acceptable justice are applied, a peace treaty must be drawn up between the two states of Palestine and Israel guaranteeing the full sovereignty and territorial integrity of each including recognized borders, water rights, and other resources.”

Certainly this no doubt:

Jerusalem’s sovereignty must be shared by the two states of Palestine and Israel. The city must remain open for Palestinians, Israelis, and all. East Jerusalem can be the capital of Palestine while West Jerusalem can be the capital of Israel. Any agreement must protect the sanctity of the holy places and guarantee the rights of the three religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism on an equal basis. All illegal confiscation of land or expansion of areas by Israel within the walled city of Jerusalem since 1967 must be reversed.

All of the above are taken from the Jerusalem Sabeel Document: Principles for a Just Peace in Palestine-Israel, adopted in May of 2006. I challenge Sokolove and Goldblum to point to anything in the entire document that can be construed as “anti-Semitic.” They can’t. No one can. Because there’s nothing anti-Semitic about it. The document even acknowledges “the sufferings and injustices committed against Jews by the West, especially those inflicted in the holocaust,” a codicil which I, personally, would have omitted, but the Palestinian Christians of Sabeel evidently thought it was important to include. So it’s in there. The document also includes a quote from 1 Peter 3:11: “Seek peace and pursue it.”

In addition, if we go to the website of Sabeel’s Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jersalem we find the following vision statement:

“Sabeel affirms its commitment to make the gospel relevant ecumenically and spiritually in the lives of the local indigenous Church. Our faith teaches that following in the footsteps of Christ means standing for the oppressed, working for justice, and seeking peace-building opportunities, and it challenges us to empower local Christians. Since a strong civil society and a healthy community are the best supports for a vulnerable population, Sabeel strives to empower the Palestinian community as a whole and to develop the internal strengths needed for participation in building a better world for all

“Only by working for a just and durable peace can we provide a sense of security and create ample opportunities for growth and prosperity in an atmosphere void of violence and strife. Although remaining political and organizational obstacles hinder the full implementation of programs, Sabeel continues to develop creative means to surmount these challenges. We seek both to be a refuge for dialogue and to pursue ways of finding answers to ongoing theological questions about the sanctity of life, justice, and peace.”

I’ll confess something here: for a while I was strongly—and I domean strongly—considering attending the Sabeel conference myself, but in the end decided against it—largely because Sabeel’s positions on Israel tend to be a little too conciliatory for my own personal taste. In my view, Israel has basically forfeited its right to exist. This is something I stated in an article I wrote last month after an Israeli court issued itsverdict in the Rachel Corrie case. As I put it:

The creation of a Palestinian state—not just in the West Bank and Gaza, but all of Palestine—is the only way forward at this point. The Jewish state’s belligerence has repulsed people around the planet. Continuing to tolerate its disregard for international law will lead to disaster. With the Rachel Corrie verdict the candle flame of its “legitimacy” has finally burned out; Israel has no right to exist.

But this is not the position of Sabeel. Rather than denigrate and “vilify” the interfaith organization, Sokolove and Goldblum should be thankful that relatively moderate groups are still willing to sit down and have a reasonable discussion with them on the issues. Israel has stockpiled nuclear weapons, refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, committed war crimes and atrocities, spied against the US, and waged interminable wars throughout the entire 64 years of its miserable existence. In addition, its lobbyists in America have corrupted not only our Congress but virtually our entire federal government. How would the aforementioned God of justice view such a record? Why, he would of coursethoroughly approve! Or at least that’s what Sokolove and Goldblum seem to believe. “Sabeel,” they inform us, “promotes the idea that Zionism is based on a false reading of the Bible and that it stands for injustice and in opposition to God.” Why, what further proof do we need of Sabeel’s ‘anti-Semitism’ than that!? After all, how on earth could Zionists be doing anything other than God’s will?

As I said above, far too many people still tremble in fear when some Zionist or other takes a notion to start cudgeling people with the ‘anti-Semite’ label, and all too often Christians are among the most weak-kneed in this respect. And apparently Jews in New Mexico have been doing a lot of cudgel-swinging lately, particularly at local Christians. In their op-ed piece, Sokolove and Goldblum mention two Christian organizations which “distanced themselves” from the conference, apparently as a result, and they even go so far as to name them: the New Mexico Conference of Churches and the Episcopal Cathedral Church of St. John.

September 15 report in the Albuquerque Journal delves into this issue further, informing us that the Cathedral Church of St. John had originally been the site chosen for the conference, and that FOSA organizers had even paid $1,000 to secure rights to hold the event there. However, following a meeting with a local rabbi, what did church leaders do? Pulled out of the deal and refunded the payment, the story says.

Christians who cave into pressure like this are a sad lot. Had Jesus been this cowardly, there would have been no Christian faith to follow.


Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on New Mexico Jews Scream ‘Anti-Semitism!’ Over Sabeel Conference

Radio Free Palestine: A Story of Betrayal – 3


by Stuart Littlewood

Part of the serialisation of ‘Radio Free Palestine’ as featured on My Catbird Seat

A Story of Betrayal – 3

Kofi Annan, Former UN Secretary General

UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, told reporters in Madrid in April 2006:

The whole world is demanding that Israel withdraw. I don’t think the whole world… can be wrong.

The whole world, that is, except America. The US has used its veto over 40 times to protect Israel from UN Security Council draft resolutions criticizing its conduct.

Why does America consistently back this rogue state? Sharon himself supplied part of the answer when he allegedly bragged:

We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.

Whether or not he actually said this, it is no idle boast. US presidents know which side their fundraising bread is buttered at election time, and the White House is constantly under pressure from the likes of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), whose website proclaims:

“Through more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress – at home and in Washington – AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro- Israel legislative initiatives a year. From procuring nearly $3 billion in aid critical to Israel’s security, to funding joint US-Israeli efforts to build a defense against unconventional weapons, AIPAC members are involved in the most crucial issues facing Israel.”

AIPAC lobbyists meet every member of Congress and cover every hearing on Capitol Hill that touches on the US-Israel relationship.

So powerful is AIPAC that a counter-campaign, organized by the Council for the National Interest Foundation (CNIF), was  recently launched to constrain the Israel lobby, which it accuses of shutting down all rational debate. “The many organizations that make up the Israel lobby include several whose main effort is to intimidate editors and producers in the media and prevent an open discourse about Israeli policies and our uncritical support for those policies.”

“The present government of Israel,” says the CNIF, “is undermining long-term American interests and the war on terror.”

A senior US diplomat, speaking at a lecture in London on US foreign policy, was “highly resentful” when someone in the audience asked about the Jewish lobby. He called the question “an ethnic slur”. Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, observes: “

The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal, and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic.”

Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat

One of the greatest propaganda lies circulated by the Israeli regime and its supporters is how Arafat  turned down former Israeli prime minister Barak’s so-called “generous offer” in 2000 – another of the myths Israel loves to peddle.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, seized by Israel in 1967 and occupied ever since, comprise just 22% of pre-partition Palestine. When the Palestinians signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993 they agreed to accept the 22% and recognize Israel within ‘Green Line’ borders (i.e. the 1949 Armistice Line established after the Arab-Israeli War). Conceding 78% of the land that was originally theirs was an astonishing compromise.

But it wasn’t enough for Barak. His generous offer required the inclusion of 69 Israeli settlements within that 22% remnant. It was plain for all to see on the map that these settlement blocs create impossible borders and already severely disrupted Palestinian life in the West Bank. Barak also demanded the Palestinian territories be placed under “Temporary Israeli Control”, meaning Israeli military and administrative control indefinitely. His generous offer also gave Israel control over all the border crossings of the new Palestinian State. What nation in the world would accept that?

The truth contained in Barak’s maps was disguised by propaganda spin. At Taba, he produced a revised map. The Palestinians considered it a basis for negotiation but Barak repudiated it after his election defeat. You don’t have to take my word for it. The facts behind this gross deception are well documented and explained by organizations such as the Israeli peace movement Gush Shalom.

Israel still tries to pin the blame for the continuing peace breakdown on the Palestinians’ refusal to accept Barak’s oh-so-generous terms, a PR lie that goes unchallenged in mainstream media.

Research confirms that the media over-report Israeli deaths and under-report Palestinian deaths. Investigations into civilian deaths by the Israeli army are rare and only carried out under pressure. One soldier was sentenced to 20 months’ prison for shooting dead a Palestinian man as he adjusted his TV aerial, the longest penalty yet for killing a civilian and less than an Israeli conscientious objector gets for refusing to serve in the army.

This lack of accountability encourages a trigger-happy attitude among soldiers and promotes a “culture of impunity”, a view shared by the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which describes army investigations of civilian killings as a “sham” that allows soldiers to think they can literally get away with murder.

Daniel Day-Lewis reported in The Sunday Times, 20 March 2005,that he had read the transcript of this IDF (Israeli Defence Force) radio communications exchange, which took place in Gaza in October 2004…

Soldier on guard: “We have identified someone on two legs [code for human] 100 metres from the outpost.”

Soldier in lookout: “A girl about 10.” (By now, soldiers in the outpost are shooting at the girl.)

Soldier in lookout: “She is behind the trench, half a metre away, scared to death. The hits were right next to her, a centimeter away.”

Captain R’s signalman: “We shot at her, yes, she is apparently hit.”

Captain R: “Roger, affirmative. She has just fallen. I and a few other soldiers are moving forward to confirm the kill.”

Soldier at lookout: “Hold her down, hold her down. There’s no need to kill her.”

Captain R (later): “…We carried out the shooting and killed her… I confirmed the kill… [later]… Commanding officer here, anyone moving in the area, even a three year-old kid, should be killed, over.”

A military inquiry, said Day-Lewis, decided that Captain R had “not acted unethically”.

Six months earlier (on 14 October 2004) The Guardian had reported that the Israeli army “yesterday suspended an officer who is accused of firing up to 20 bullets into a 13-year-old Palestinian as she lay on the ground after having been shot from an army outpost.

“Another schoolgirl died yesterday after being shot while sitting at her school desk.”

“The deaths were in the southern Gaza Strip, some miles away from an ongoing army operation which has seen more than 100 Palestinians killed, including many civilians.”

“The Israeli army suspended the platoon commander when several soldiers threatened to refuse to serve under him if he was not removed. The soldiers told Israeli media that the officer ignored warnings that a person approaching an army outpost last week was a schoolgirl.”

“After she was shot, he approached Imam al Hamas, 13, as she lay on the ground and fired two bullets at her body before emptying the contents of his rifle magazine into her, the soldiers said.”

The Guardian, 16 November 2005, reported that the court cleared Captain R of illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident.

The girl’s father said the army never intended to hold the soldier accountable. “They did not charge him with Iman’s murder, only with small offences, and now they say he is innocent of those even though he shot my daughter so many times. This was the cold-blooded murder of a girl. The soldier murdered her once and the court has murdered her again. What is the message? They are telling their soldiers to kill Palestinian children.”

Following the verdict, Captain R burst into tears, turned to the public benches and said: “I told you I was innocent.”

And what of the United Nations in all this? The UN’s website charts the organization high-sounding but ineffectual attempts to deal with the many injustices… how, in 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed the “inalienable rights” of the Palestinian people to “self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and to return to their lands and homes”… how, the following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People… how, in 1983, the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, adopted the Geneva Declaration to oppose and reject “the establishment of settlements in the occupied territory and actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem”.By 2006 none of it amounted to a row of beans. Palestinians are left with only a small fraction of their land, much of it practically worthless thanks to deliberate separation and blockade.

Israelis play football internationally, without hindrance; not so the Palestinians. In 2004 Israel refused travel permits for some team members in the World Cup qualifying rounds and even bombed the National Football Stadium in Gaza in 2006, destroying the pitch. So they still play in the street. [photo: Stuart Littlewood]

Up until his stroke in January 2006, Ariel Sharon devoted himself to ensuring permanent Israeli control over the whole ‘Land of Israel’ and preventing the emergence of a viable Palestinian state by establishing, contrary to international law, irreversible “facts on the  ground” that made a mockery of any roadmap to peace. In the process he oversaw the establishment of nearly 400 Jewish settlements and outposts on stolen land, with a result that 29 newly-built highways now incorporate those settlements into the fabric of the Israeli state and almost half a million Israelis live on the Palestinian side of the 1967 border.

At the same time 96% of West Bank Palestinians are literally imprisoned in tiny enclaves behind the Separation Wall and rendered incapable of running any half-baked Palestinian state that might be tossed like a crumb from the peace-talks table.

Dividing and isolating communities. The road to Jericho runs smack into the evil Wall. There is no convenient way round for Palestinian traffic…. [photo: Stuart Littlewood]

And here is what’s on the other side. [photo: Stuart Littlewood]

In bringing his criminal enterprise to such an advanced stage Sharon was able to count on the support of the Clinton and Bush administrations and an unquestioning Congress, and on an almost equally supine EU.

The UN has conspicuously failed the Palestinian people, even in respect of its most basic Charter aims, and the 1983 “Question of Palestine” still goes unanswered.

No other minority in American history has ever hijacked so much money from the American taxpayers in order to invest in a ‘homeland’. It is as if the American taxpayer had been obliged to support the Pope in his re-conquest of the Papal States simply because one third of our people are Roman Catholic.

Had this been attempted, there would have been a great uproar and Congress would have said no. But a religious minority of less than two per cent has bought or intimidated seventy senators (the necessary two thirds to overcome an unlikely presidential veto) while enjoying support of the media.~ American author Gore Vidal

And the betrayal continues even today. The EU, under the presidency of Britain, refused to publish its own findings on Israeli government action against non-Jews in and around Jerusalem. EU ministers in Brussels, on 12 December 2005, shelved the report for fear of alienating Israel and reducing the EU’s influence. Next day Israel announced, in violation of its Road Map obligations, the building of 300 new homes in the Maale Adumim settlement, the largest in the occupied territories.

The report, however, was leaked, and 30- plus Jewish and Palestinian organizations around the world decided to publish it anyway on their websites.

Pierre Galand, Senator in the Belgian Parliament and Chairman of the European Co-ordinating Committee of NGOs, is reported to have said:

European diplomats in East Jerusalem and Ramallah had the courage to stress the alarming situation in East Jerusalem. Their report corroborates the ICJ advisory opinion ruling on the Wall and the illegal settlements, which led the ECCP to initiate the European Campaign for Sanctions against the Israeli Occupation. In order to force EU member states to respect their own commitment to International Law and Human Rights, we will publish the report on East Jerusalem on our website, despite the EU refusal to do so.

Denied justice, their hope for the future is pinned on Palestinian pride and an indomitable spirit. [photo: Stuart Littlewood]

Dan Judelson, Secretary of European Jews for a Just Peace said:


The EU are burying their heads in the sand and are thus co-responsible while East Jerusalem residents face repeated violations of international law and of simple standards of humanity, all at the hands of the Israeli state. This is not a time for thumb twiddling or inaction; if the EU sits on this report, we see it as our duty to make it as widely available as we can.

Betty Hunter, General Secretary of the UK Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, added:

It is 17 months since the International Court of Justice declared the apartheid Wall to be an illegal act by an occupying force and that settlement building should end. While Israel defies this decision, Palestinians are losing their homes, land and livelihood in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. If European countries continue to collude with this, they are also guilty of oppressing the Palestinian people.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Radio Free Palestine: A Story of Betrayal – 3

Jew Peak or Not Yet?


by Ariadna Theokopoulos

(The video shows Haim Saban proudly describing what amounts to his financing a fresh crop of future sayanim.)

A recently coined expression likely to be gaining currency among analysts and commentators in the alternative media, “jew peak,” and meant to signify that jewish power (jp) has crested in the US, is a speculation based primarily on Obama’s refusal to set a “red line” in the timetable of attacking Iran.

Today’s “event” at the UN, where the Israeli delegation did its usual walkout when Ahmadinejad was speaking but the US delegation did not follow suit as usual will also be read as further symbolism of Jewdammerung.

Kevin McDonald, to whom the paternity of the phrase “jew peak” might be attributed, argues in his article elaborating on jew peak that the relatively weak response to Maureen Dawd’s recent criticism of neocons directing American foreign policy (with Senor as prime example) is another proof:

“Simply saying that a Jew has such influence crosses the line—even though Dowd never mentions that Senor is a Jew.

But there is something else in Dowd’s column that one would think would send the ADL into a tizzy. Describing the foreign policy advocated by Senor, she writes:

‘A moral, muscular foreign policy; a disdain for weakness and diplomacy; a duty to invade and bomb Israel’s neighbors; a divine right to pre-emption — it’s all ominously familiar.’

So an American Jew is demanding a foreign policy where the U.S. has “a duty to invade and bomb Israel’s neighbors.”

‘What happened to all the blather about promoting democracy and freedom that has been the staple of neocon rationales for rearranging the politics of the Middle East in Israel’s favor? You know the line: It’s not about the interests of Israel. It’s about doing good for all humanity.’

McDonald further observes:

“Dowd clearly crossed a line here, not even mentioning how Senor himself would propagandize his policy recommendations. Instead she implies that Senor is simply trying to advance Israel’s interests. This is a flagrant example of the loyalty issue—that Senor’s main loyalty is to Israel even though he has a powerful position in American politics.

This is exactly the sort of thing that the ADL goes after tooth and nail.”

Yet they did not. Perhaps they are just reloading?

This is McDonald’s conclusion:

“But it may be that the ADL is hoping the entire thing will just go away. Sometimes the ignoring strategy is best. Since everyone who is paying attention knows full well that in fact Senor and other prominent Jewish neocons are promoting foreign policy that is in their ethnic interest, at some point they lose credibility. And the incredible chutzpah of Netanyahu in more or less demanding that the U.S. go to war with Iran makes it pretty difficult to maintain that Israel has nothing to do with it. Plus the fact that Dowd is notoriously liberal and thus generally on the same side as the Jewish community on domestic issues.

And some people are just too big to bring down easily, so there is a certain risk in attacking Dowd—that such attacks will result in a loss of credibility. There’s definitely an art to continually lying through your teeth that black is white and expecting people to fall in line when the results are completely contrary to their interests. You have to pick your battles and hope that things don’t get too out of control.

But having said that, the fact that they avoided this battle may be a sign that the organized Jewish community is on the defensive on the role of Jews in U.S. foreign policy. It’s about time.” [emphasis added].

One may also read too much in the recently published articlein the Washington Post seeming to acknowledge Israel’s nuclear weapons.

The premise of the jew peak diagnosis – I assume – is that the jp went too far, their machinations (banking meltdown, wars for Israel) are no longer hidden from plain view as they once were, so the belatedly percipient natives are restive, that some journalists are brazenly brave, and even the hired help (the White House) have become uppity enough to say “no” (or at least “not yet”), and that, finally, the jp’s domination of American policy is on the wane – is debatable.

The natives are not restive against jp, at least not in the US. You have to go as far as Hungary to see some audacity of revolt against jp, i.e., Hungary demanding reimbursement for Holocaust reparations paid, for which Israel refuses to provide accounting.

Holocaust reparations do seem to be a peaked resource, a fact which, combined with the likely intent of muting any reference to the exiled Palestinian rights to reparations, may explain the incredible chutzpah of Israel declaring the Arab countries their new reparations market.

But what does “jew peak” mean anyway? Perhaps it means that, just as might be the case with reparations, the US resources have been tapped and the rigs may have to stop drilling here.

Madoff may have been an emblematic case. His $50 billion fraud lasting for decades, sheltered from scrutiny by SEC itself, unraveled eventually for lack of “hosts” and shocked the jewish world mostly because towards the end he had been stealing from jews as well. No shock has been registered with Goldman Sachs’, or JP Morgan Chase’s depredations. Maddof may have gone cannibalistic because he had no choice and felt, like Willie Sutton that “that’s where the money is.”

A pessimistic alternative is that there is no “jew peak” and what we are witnessing is merely an internal jewish squabble between two competing strategies and tactics and that jp is safe and working on a change of cast and a new script for Israel.

After all, what is the difference between “Democrat” billionaire Haim Saban and “Republican” billionaire Sheldon Adelson? Tactics only.

What is interesting is the state of mind and attitude revealed by the concept of “jew peak.” It suggests huddles masses waiting for the tsunami waters to recede, peering cautiously out and wondering “Has it crested yet?”

It is a sad testimony to the success of long decades of brain washing, deliberate fragmentation in fake specialty interests and “multiculturalism” to prevent cohesion, and intimidation, that the fear of naming the culpable group out loud is almost akin to the medieval superstitious fear of saying Satan’s name out loud.

Kevin McDonald has been branded an “anti-semite” and “white ethnocentric” for studies like this one and for being one of the voices to utter it out loud:

“The rise of a Jewish elite in the US is problematic for a great many reasons — most obviously because the Jewish elite remains motivated by ethnic paranoia and hostility toward Western cultural traditions, particularly Christianity. [emphasis added] However, the behavior of the financial elite in the case of the recent meltdown is not something one would expect to see in a healthy society. Quite a few of the details remain unknown, so that it is difficult to get a clear image of how individual Jews and Jewish networking contributed to the meltdown. (By all accounts …Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Alan Greenspan were instrumental in getting rid of regulations on trading derivatives that would have prevented the meltdown.) The indications that Goldman Sachs was at the center of the meltdown strongly suggests that the Jewish role was important. GS has not commented on Issa’s document or the Bloomberg article.

Nevertheless, at this point there is a strong suggestion that the financial elite behaved much more like an organized crime syndicate than as an elite with a sense of civic responsibility or commitment to the long term viability of the society. Whereas organized crime stems from the lower levels of society, this meltdown was accomplished at the very pinnacle of society — the Ivy League grads mentioned by Brooks, the wealthy financial firms and investment rating agencies, the strong connections with government that facilitated the bailout and failed to provide scrutiny while it was happening. It seems highly doubtful that all this would have happened with the former elite — the people whom Brooks disdainfully describes as “well-connected blue bloods who drank at lunch and played golf in the afternoons.”

That is the problem going ahead. The US has sacrificed wealth-production in favor of finance, and this has doubtless resulted in huge financial rewards to a few people at the very top. But it’s really hard to see how most of us are going to benefit from this transformation in the long run. A society without a healthy, civic-minded elite is doomed.” [emphasis added]

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jew Peak or Not Yet?

Regarding the proposed al-Awda withdrawal of endorsement from BDS


by Paul Larudee

Below is a message that I posted to the al-Awda USA listserve concerning a proposed al-Awda withdrawal of its endorsement from the statement currently appearing on the BDS website of the BNC, which is not the same statement that it originally signed.  Since receiving wider distribution, my message has been misinterpreted and criticised for statements and assertions that were neither made nor intended.  Furthermore, since my motives for making the statement have been questioned, as well, I will preface the message with some explanation.

  • I have never criticised but rather have encouraged the practice of, and a movement for, boycott, divestment and sanction against Israel.  Although some do not wish to apply BDS to all things Israeli, I do not wish to discourage them from their partial application of BDS, because all forms of BDS are helpful.
  • I do not wish to cause a split within the movement, nor tell Palestinians what should or should not be their objective or their means.  Not all Palestinians agree about such matters, and I consider my role to be that of solidarity with allPalestinians, regardless of their political beliefs or affiliations.  I am only responsible for my own beliefs and actions.
  • I am in pursuit – as we all are – of truth and justice, although our interpretations of such may be different and our commitment varying.  However, I do not abide the avoidance of truth for the sake of expediency, nor hypocrisy or inconsistency with respect to principle.  Sadly, some would rather apply principle only when it serves their purpose and abandon it when it is no longer convenient.  I believe that the truth sets us free, but that freedom is not gained without sacrifice.  However, freedom is an illusion without justice, and no one is free until we all are free.  Similarly, justice cannot be gained for some at the cost of injustice to others.  This is why none of us should accept a Jewish state, least of all Jews.
  • My message was addressed to al-Awda members with respect to al-Awda endorsement of a particular BDS Campaign referenced in the message, and not the idea of a BDS movement nor the BDS tactics and actions that have been applied with success on many occasions.  My reference point for what may or may not be acceptable in that context are the al-Awda USA principles of unity (with which I happen to agree).
  • This message is specifically addressed to the practice ofretroactively revising a statement after it has been endorsed, without the consent of the endorsers.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  This is the only matter that should be considered.  If Al-Awda and other signatories wish to accept the revision or to opt out, that is their business.  However, they must be given the choice and an approval procedure must be followed.  Please.  That is all that I am saying.  All the rest is analysis.
  • I tried for more than two months prior to this message to gather information and to get questions answered through more private inquiries.  A more public message was a last resort.

I hope we can keep these matters in perspective.

Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:44 AM
Subject: [AL-AWDA] Proposal for al-Awda to withdraw its endorsement from BDS

Dear friends,

It is with great sadness that I must propose withdrawal of al-Awda endorsement from the BDS Campaign led by the BNC until the change in its mission statement has been corrected and until a public explanation is provided for the reasons for the change as well as the procedure by which the change was implemented.  A more transparent public explanation of BNC finances is also recommended.

Obviously, this is not a proposal to stop boycott, divestment and sanctions.  However, BDS actions and practices do not require endorsement of a particular movement.  Everything that undermines the racist Zionist state deserves our support.  Nevertheless, under no circumstances can we support any statement or action that legitimates such a state, which is the problem with the BNC-led BDS Campaign.

As I reported on July 10, the original BDS mission statement reads:

“1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab landsand dismantling the Wall”

In fact, it still reads that way on one part of the website:  Unfortunately, that part of the website is historical, and reports what the original mission statement was when it was issued in 2005 (when al-Awda endorsed it), and not what it is todaywhich is found at, which reads:

“1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall” (emphasis added)

When did this wording change?  By what procedure was it amended?  Were endorsers like al-Awda consulted or even notified about the change?  What was the reason for the change?

1.  When did the wording change?

Sorry, but I have no idea about this, and I doubt that anyone else on this list does, either.  This is problematic.  How can a change of this magnitude be made without the permission of its endorsers?  How can endorsers be made to say something that they never endorsed?  This is deception at its worst.

2.  By what procedure was the statement amended?

One would think that such a change would require a proposal to and ratification by the governing committee of the BNC.  However, there is no evidence that such a procedure was observed.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, we must conclude that it was amended unilaterally by someone with control over the website.

3.  Were endorsers like al-Awda consulted or even notified about the change?

Again, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it appears that the change in language was introduced in the most surreptitious way possible, so as to avoid notice.  One is reminded of the way the British territory of Gibraltar was enlarged by moving the boundary stones at night.

4.  What was the reason for the change?

This is the most troubling part of the problem.  A clue may be found in the following video, posted by Gilad Atzmon:

Another clue comes from BDS Campaign founder Omar Barghouti’s book, Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights. In the introduction, Barghouti describes the goal as “ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands [occupied in 1967] and dismantling the wall” (p. 6).  On page 49, Barghouti says that “BDS calls for ending Israel’s 1967 military occupation of Gaza, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and other Arab territories in Lebanon and Syria.”

Obviously, Omar Barghouti is entitled to his views.  Perhaps heis genuinely convinced that the ‘Zionist colonization’ of ‘all Arab Land’ applies only to land invaded in June 1967.  However, is he the one behind the unauthorized changes in the BDS mission statement?  This is a question that needs to be answered, and I believe that the similarities between his statements and the amendment of the BDS mission statement justify the asking of that question without prejudice to the possibility that a satisfactory explanation might exist.  Justice must presume innocence until proven otherwise.

Finally, according to Gilad Atzmon, some Zionist right wing sources name George Soros and his Open Society Institute as helping to fund BDS and some of its member organizations.  We know that Soros is a “soft” Zionist and wants to preserve a Jewish state.  Is his funding or that of any other funding organizations a reason for the change in the mission statement?  A full disclosure of funding sources and amounts, as well as any and all conditions of funding is needed.  In addition, the use of those funds, including line item amounts, is needed in order to demonstrate accountability.

I again wish to express my sorrow at bringing these matters to your attention.  I hope that my concerns are unjustified.  However, I also hope that you will agree that this is an issue that must be addressed.

Paul Larudee

Further to this, below is the full current mission statement on the website.  Please note that it claims that “The BDS call was endorsed by over 170 Palestinian political parties, organizations, trade unions and movements” (including al-Awda).  The fact is that none of these organizations endorsed the statement as revised, but rather the original statement, without the amendment.

What, then is the meaning of item three in the mission statement?  It appears to be a statement of the Right of Return, but where exactly are the refugees going to return if ending the occupation and colonization applies only to territories occupied in June, 1967?

This is clearly an accommodation to Zionists who want to be part of the BDS movement (or, more accurately, want to control it).  Fine.  Let them have their movement, but let the organizations that do not agree to this amendment opt out of it, in which case all of the endorsers should be contacted and allowed to make their own choice.  However, under no circumstances should false claims be made that more than 170 groups endorsed a statement that they plainly did not.

  1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab landsoccupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
  2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
  3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

The BDS call was endorsed by over 170 Palestinian political parties, organizations, trade unions and movements. The signatories represent the refugees, Palestinians in the OPT, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Regarding the proposed al-Awda withdrawal of endorsement from BDS

Congo Week: Commemorate The Tragedy, Celebrate the Culture


Posted By: Sammi Ibrahem

Dear Friends,

I greet you in the midst of these very trying times for my country. Since April, nearly a half million Congolese have been displaced and rendered homeless by a Rwandan-backed rebel movement in the east of our country. A United Nations Group of Experts report says Rwanda is training, arming and financing rebels that have destabilized the east of the Congo.

The reason we host Congo Week in the month of October is because it was in October 1996 that mainly Rwanda and Uganda first invaded the Congo and triggered the catastrophic crisis that we have endured for the past 16 years. Since we began Congo Week in 2008, sixty countries and over 300 communities have joined us to demonstrate their support and value for Congolese lives.

Due to your support along with others throughout the globe, world leaders are finally listening to Congolese voices and applying pressure to the dominant source of the instability in the east of our country. The United States, Netherlands, Sweden and a number of other donor nations are finally holding the Rwandan government accountable by withholding aid as a result of Rwanda’s support for rebel groups inside the Congo.

As youth and future leaders of our country, we are clear that Congo’s challenge is both external and internal. Young people will gather throughout the country during Congo Week (October 14 – 20, 2012) to discuss and examine the path that Congo took to arrive in its current condition and build on strategies for realizing peaceful and lasting change.

We call on you to join us in addressing our external challenges as we face and tackle the various internal forces that have rendered our country dependent, impoverished and unstable.

This is an historic opportunity for you to be a part of the global movement to bring an end to what is described as the greatest humanitarian crisis at the dawn of the 21st century and the deadliest conflict since World War Two.

We encourage you to seize the moment and become a part of a noble pursuit for justice and human dignity in the heart of Africa, my home, the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Samya Lugoma
Student Coordinator
Friends of the Congo

Sign-up for Congo Week!

Support Congo Week!

Remember to post your event on the events calendar:

Share the Congo Week promotional video:

Download Congo Week Organizers Tool Kit and Materials:

Screen our film Crisis in the Congo: Uncovering the Truth

Participate in the CELL-OUT, on October 17, 2012. The CELL-OUT is a one-hour digital moment of silence in support of the Congolese people. 

Follow us on Twitter @congofriends and tweet your support using hashtags #CongoWeek and #CW2012 leading up to and during Congo Week.

Posted in AfricaComments Off on Congo Week: Commemorate The Tragedy, Celebrate the Culture

Dollar Hegemony in the Empire of the Damned

Global Research

Many commentators and economists wonder if the US is able to turn its ailing economy around. The reality is that it is bankrupt. However, as long as the dollar remains the world currency, the US can continue to pay its bills by simply printing more money. But once the world no longer accepts the dollar as world reserve currency, the US will no longer be able to continue to pay its way or to fund its wars by relying on what would then be a relatively valueless paper currency.

And the US realises this. Today, more than 60 per cent of all foreign currency reserves in the world are in US dollars, and the US will attempt to prevent countries moving off the dollar by any means possible. It seems compelled to do this simply because its economic infrastructure seems too weak and US corporate cartels will do anything to prevent policies that eat into their profits or serve to curtail political influence. They serve their own interests, not any notional ‘national interest’.

Pail Graig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, notes that much of the most productive part of the US economy has been moved offshore in order to increase corporate profits. By doing so, the US has lost critical supply chains, industrial infrastructure, and the knowledge of skilled workers. According to Roberts, the US could bring its corporations back to America by taxing their profits abroad and could also resort to protective tariffs, but such moves would be contrary to the material interests of the ruling oligarchy of private interests, which hold so much sway over US politics.

So, with no solution to the crisis in site, the US is compelled to expand its predatory capitalism into foreign markets such as India and to wage imperialist wars to maintain global allegiance to the dollar and US hegemony. And this is exactly what we are seeing today as the US strategy for global supremacy is played out.

Over the past two decades, the US has extended its influence throughout Eastern Europe, many of the former Soviet states in central Asia and, among other places, in the former Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan. But with each passing year and each new conflict, the US has been drawing closer and closer to direct confrontation with Russia and China, particularly as it enters their backyards in Asia and as China continues to emerge as a serious global power.

Both countries are holding firm over Syria. Syria plays host to Russia’s only naval base outside of the former USSR, and Russia and China know that if the US and its proxies topple the Assad government, Tehran becomes a much easier proposition. Ideally, the US would like to install compliant regimes in Moscow and Beijing and exploiting political and ethnic divisions in the border regions of Russia and China would be that much easier if Iran fell to US interests.

A global US strategy is already in force to undermine China’s growth and influence, part of which was the main reason for setting up AFRICOM: US Africa Command with responsibility for military operations and relations across Africa. But China is not without influence, and its actions are serving to weaken the hegemony of the US dollar, thereby striking at a key nerve of US power.

China has been implementing bilateral trade agreements with a number of countries, whereby trade is no longer conducted in dollars, but in local currencies. Over the past few years,China and other emerging powers such as Russia have been making agreements to move away from the US dollar in international trade. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China,South Africa) also plan to start using their own currencies when trading with each other. Russia and China have been using their own national currencies when trading with eachother for more than a year.

A report from Africa’s largest bank, Standard Bank, recently stated:

“We expect at least $100 billion (about R768 billion) in Sino-African trade – more than the total bilateral trade between China and Africa in 2010 – to be settled in the renminbi by 2015.”

Under Saddam, Iraq was not using the dollar as the base currency for oil transactions, neither is Iran right now. Even Libya’s Muammar Gadhaffi was talking about using a gold backed dinar as the reserve currency for parts of Africa. Look what happened to Libya and Iraq as a result.

In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions to euros. When U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the dollar. Little surprise then that we are currently watching the US attempt to remove the Iranian regime via sanctions, destabilization, intimidation and the threat of all out war.

In the meantime, though, Iran is looking east to China, Pakistan and central Asia in order to counteract the effects of US sanctions and develop its economy and boost trade. In order to sustain its empire, US aggression is effectively pushing the world into different camps and a new cold war that could well turn into a nuclear conflict given that Russia, China and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons.

The US economy appears to be in terminal decline. The only way to prop it up is by lop-sided trade agreements or by waging war to secure additional markets and resources and to ensure the dollar remains the world reserve currency. Humankind is currently facing a number of serious problems. But, arguably, an empire in decline armed to the teeth with both conventional and nuclear weapons and trapped in a cycle of endless war in what must surely be a futile attempt to stave off ruin is the most serious issue of all.

Posted in USAComments Off on Dollar Hegemony in the Empire of the Damned

Shoah’s pages


September 2012
« Aug   Oct »