Archive | October 11th, 2012

Theory: the dictatorship of the proletariat


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem

What kind of state will the workers need after the socialist revolution?
The question of the state is almost certainly the most widely misunderstood and misrepresented aspect of Marxism. Marx’s critique of capitalist economics is more or less acceptable to social democrats, anarchists, Trotskyites and various strands of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia; however, his critique of the capitalist state and his understanding of what must replace it have been rejected or – more commonly – swept under the carpet.In this article, we shall attempt to shed some light on Marx’s teaching on the state, in particular the theory of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, which is the cornerstone of that teaching. We will also attempt to show how the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat distinguishes revolutionary Marxism from anarchism, social democracy and pacifism.Dictatorship of the proletariat = working-class democracy. 

The expression ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ sounds entirely offensive to most people who have been brought up and educated in capitalist societies. In Britain, our schooling leaves us with a most narrow view regarding the questions of democracy and dictatorship. We are taught that democracy and dictatorship are mutually exclusive and that there is a straight line from ‘most democratic’ (multi-party parliament) to ‘most dictatorial’ (fascism and communism lumped together).

This education deliberately obscures the fact that the much-revered British democracy is, in reality, democracy for the capitalist class alone. Yes, there are multiple parties (for fairly specific historical reasons that are beyond the scope of this article), but these all represent the capitalist class: the policies of Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat are the policies of business, of private property, of exploitation, of imperialism.

The working class has not the slightest say in how the country is run. In fact, the whole state is geared towards the armed suppression of the working class. This is difficult to appreciate in times of relative social peace, but it is all too clear during times of unrest (think, for example, of the role played by the police and the army during the general strike of 1926 or the great miners’ strike of 1984/85).

Therefore, British democracy can be considered as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It is democratic to the extent that there is democracy for the capitalist class (via parliament and various extra-parliamentary bodies), and it therefore differs from the total bourgeois dictatorship of a Franco or a Hitler; however, it is dictatorial in the sense that the bourgeoisie maintains its exploitative relationship with the proletariat (the working class) through means of repression.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, on the other hand, means democracy for the working class combined with the violent suppression of the overthrown capitalist class. For example, the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin was democratic for the working class, whose interests were represented by the various bodies of the state and who had an exceptionally high level of involvement in the running of the country (via soviets, trade unions, factory committees, farm committees, school committees, neighbourhood committees, etc); however, it was dictatorial towards the former ruling class, the capitalists, who never gave up on their bid to restore the old, backward, exploitative, brutal order.

Similarly, modern Cuba is a workers’ democracy – through the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution and other structures, ordinary Cubans have a level of democratic participation that we in Britain can only dream of; however, the Cuban state is set up to firmly rebuff any person or organisation attempting to revert to the old capitalist/neo-colonial order.

Lenin described the dictatorship of the proletariat as “a stubborn struggle – bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative – against the forces and traditions of the old society”. (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky)

He continues: “In the transition, the class struggle grows more intense. The transition from capitalism to communism represents an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch has terminated, the exploiters will inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope will be converted into attempts at restoration. And after their first serious defeat, the overthrown exploiters … will throw themselves with tenfold energy, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundred-fold, into the battle for the recovery of their ‘lost’ paradise.”

Elsewhere, he wrote that “The dictatorship of the proletariat is a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production.

For, unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and desperate war of life and death, a war demanding perseverance, discipline, firmness, indomitableness and unity of will.” (‘Left-Wing’ Communism, an Infantile Disorder)

To summarise: the dictatorship of the proletariat is the form taken by the state after the working class has overthrown the capitalist state but before the bourgeoisie has been finally defeated.

The final defeat of the bourgeoisie has not yet been achieved anywhere in the world (and, realistically, there will be no ‘final defeat’ until capitalism has been overthrown in at least the overwhelming majority of the world’s countries).

Cuban socialism is firmly established, but the Miami mafia and the US state are still actively trying to subvert the revolution (this is amply demonstrated by the dozens of assassination attempts on Fidel Castro); therefore, the Cuban state cannot afford to rest – indeed, with the growth of tourism (introduced to aid economic recovery), the Cuban state has to be more vigilant than ever.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) faces constant US interference and the presence of 37,000 US troops and several hundred nuclear warheads across the border in south Korea.

The USSR had to defend itself in the war of intervention (1918-21) waged by all the imperialist countries together in league with the tsarist White Guard and the ostensibly ‘revolutionary’ Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries; it then faced a number of plots, sabotage and assassinations, again the work of a combination of internal and external reactionary elements; and it then had to protect itself from the onslaught of German imperialism in World War II.

Thus the whole history of socialism, from the Paris Commune onwards, demonstrates that socialism cannot be maintained without the forcible suppression of the overthrown capitalist class and its foreign allies.

Approaching the question from the opposite direction, you find a number of examples of socialist or progressive movements that failed to survive precisely because they did not establish a sufficient force for the repression of their class enemies.

This is the theme of Marx’s classic study of the Paris Commune, The Civil War in France. Another famous example is the progressive but pacifistic government of Salvador Allende in Chile, which was overthrown in a brutal CIA-backed coup led by the notorious General Pinochet (a close personal friend of Margaret Thatcher).

Marxism vs social democracy

Revisionists and social democrats try to sweep Marx’s analysis of the state under the carpet. Some of them even claim that socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are not central to Marxism but simply represent Lenin’s application of Marxism to Russian conditions.

These claims are made in spite of such clear statements as the following: “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” (Critique of the Gotha Programme)

To this day, revisionists and social democrats deny the need for (or stay quiet about) the dictatorship of the proletariat. Britain’s Road to Socialism, the political programme of the revisionist Communist Party of Britain (CPB), envisages a parliamentary path, whereby communists exert so much influence on the Labour party that it drops its enthusiastic support for imperialism and starts implementing socialism.

Of course, nothing is said about how the bourgeois state would respond to such an unexpected and unlikely turn of events – such a discussion would only serve to disrupt the CPB’s lovely daydream about ‘collaborating’ towards socialism. Ultimately, these revisionist dreams reduce Marxism to pure reformism.

In the words of Lenin: “Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeoisie. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested.

“And it is not surprising that when the history of Europe brought the working class face to face with this question as a practical issue, not only all the opportunists and reformists, but all the ‘Kautskyites’ [people who vacillate between reformism and Marxism] proved to be miserable philistines and petty-bourgeois democrats who repudiate the dictatorship of the proletariat.” (The State and Revolution)

Marxism vs anarchism

Another political trend that Marx and Engels fought with over the question of the state is anarchism.

Generally speaking, anarchists support the idea of a revolution against capitalism (although they vary widely in their level of confidence in the working class); however, they believe that, once the revolution has succeeded in its initial aims of overthrowing capitalism, there is no longer a need for a state and that ‘the people’ will simply be able to manage their own affairs.

Engels explained the deficiencies of this theory very clearly:

“Since 1845 Marx and I have held the view that one of the ultimate results of the future proletarian revolution will be the gradual dissolution of the political organisation known by the name of state. The main object of this organisation has always been to secure, by armed force, the economic oppression of the labouring majority by the minority which alone possesses wealth. With the disappearance of an exclusively wealth-possessing minority there also disappears the necessity for the power of armed oppression, or state power. At the same time, however, it was always our view that in order to attain this and the other far more important aims of the future social revolution, the working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the state and by its aid crush the resistance of the capitalist class and organise society anew. This is to be found already in The Communist Manifesto of 1847, Chapter II, conclusion.

“The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organisation of the state. But after its victory the sole organisation which the proletariat finds already in existence is precisely the state. This state may require very considerable alterations before it can fulfil its new functions. But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and in a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris Commune.” (Letter to Philipp Van Patten, 18 April 1883)

Marxism vs pacifism

The last objection to the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat that we shall deal with here is that put forward by the pacifists, who hold that all violence is objectively wrong, regardless of whether it is perpetrated in a just or unjust cause, by exploited or exploiters.

In the following passage, Lenin makes it abundantly clear why the working class cannot dispense with violent means in its struggle against capitalism and for socialism:

“An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves. We cannot forget, unless we become bourgeois pacifists or opportunists, that we are living in a class society, that there is no way out of this society, and there can be none, except by means of the class struggle.

“In every class society, whether it is based on slavery, serfdom, or, as at present, on wage labour, the oppressing class is armed. Not only the modern standing army, but even the modern militia – even in the most democratic bourgeois republics, Switzerland, for example – represent the bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat. This is such an elementary truth that it is hardly necessary to dwell upon it.

“It is sufficient to recall the use of troops against strikers in all capitalist countries.

“The fact that the bourgeoisie is armed against the proletariat is one of the biggest, most fundamental, and most important facts in modern capitalist society. And in face of this fact, revolutionary social democrats are urged to ‘demand disarmament’! This is tantamount to the complete abandonment of the point of view of the class struggle, the renunciation of all thought of revolution. Our slogan must be: the arming of the proletariat for the purpose of vanquishing, expropriating and disarming the bourgeoisie. These are the only tactics a revolutionary class can adopt, tactics which follow logically from the whole objective development of capitalist militarism, and dictated by that development. Only after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisie will it be able, without betraying its world-historical mission, to throw all armaments on the scrap heap; and the proletariat will undoubtedly do this, but only when this condition has been fulfilled, certainly not before.” (‘The military programme of the proletarian revolution (1916)’)


It goes without saying that, in a short article, we cannot do more than give the briefest of overviews. To get a deeper understanding of the issues presented, the reader is advised to study Lenin’s classic The State and Revolution, as well as Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme and The Civil War in France (particular attention should be paid to Engels’ preface to the second edition).

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Theory: the dictatorship of the proletariat

Resistance is Gentile with Dana Antiochus

Resistance is Gentile with Dana Antiochus

by crescentandcross


Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on Resistance is Gentile with Dana Antiochus

Without the people, I am nothing!


by jodymcintyre

Election reflections from the New Internationalist:

Emotions can be difficult to summarize with words. How does one portray the atmosphere of thousands of grassroots political activists (at least, that is how I would describe Venezuelan voters) flooding into the streets and celebrating, before the election results have even been announced? How does one convey the scene of ordinary people waking up at 3.00am, queuing to vote at polling stations from 4.00am for an election that doesn’t even open for another two hours?

In last Sunday’s Venezuelan presidential election, people queued in the sunshine for hours; they voted in their millions – over 80 per cent of the voting population – and then they celebrated throughout the night. The experience could not be more different from that of those of us in places like Britain, more used to the form of ‘representative’ democracy that we, erm…enjoy?

There are positives and negatives to be taken, from the point of view of those who voted for Hugo Chavez’s successful re-election, although you would have had trouble discerning that from the dancing crowds who pushed into Miraflores, the presidential residence in Caracas, and heard Chavez speak for over an hour from the ‘People’s Balcony’, late on Sunday night.

Chavez won in 22 of the 24 states in Venezuela, and his 8,133,952 voteswere more than he has received in previous elections. However, the opposition did manage to close the gap to 11 per cent, far closer than the 26 per cent Chavez won by in 2006. Nevertheless, to win by over 1.5 million votes would, in many other countries, be considered a huge feat, a landslide even, and only in comparison with previous, astounding election results in recent times in Venezuela does the term ‘closer’ seem appropriate.

There is one thing which Sunday’s figures fail to convey, however. The majority of Venezuelan people, the poorest sections of society – single mothers, black people, disabled people (who were helped to the front of voting queues!), young people, indigenous people – feel that there is something to defend here in Venezuela. It is all well and good to take a back seat and dismiss the Bolivarian Revolution as all rhetoric and cult of personality, but there is clearly something more profound taking place.

At every polling station I visited on Sunday morning, long queues twisted and turned their way up streets and around corners as people waited to vote, often for up to two hours. Their vote means something here. Old people and young came out with their little finger stained in purple ink – one of the precautions used to prevent anyone from voting more than once – and held it proudly in the air. Even after voting had closed, some hours after the official end time of 6.00pm due to continuing queues, people’s determination and passion for these elections continued. How could I forget, as we swelled into the grounds of Miraflores amidst near-crushing crowds, struggling just to stay on our feet, the heavily pregnant woman who turned to my younger brother and asked if he needed a hand lifting my wheelchair?

It was during those moments, when the celebration turned into a march and a late-night presidential speech, that I got a sense of the people leading this process. Speaking from the balcony, Hugo Chavez could not have been clearer in his sentiment: ‘Without the people, I am nothing!’

And his words were true. Without the people of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez would never have been restored to power after the 48-hour coup d’état of April 2002. His defeated electoral opponent, Henrique Capriles, actually took part in that coup, but that didn’t stop Chavez from tweeting, the day after his re-election: ‘Believe me! I just had a pleasant phone conversation with Henrique Capriles! I invited him to national unity, to respect our differences…’

Yes, without the Venezuelan people who voted on Sunday to defend their revolution, for socialism, and against imperialism, recent history would be very different.

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Without the people, I am nothing!

Zio-Nazi Lawmaker: ‘Obama Is No Friend of Israel’


A lawmaker from the Israeli prime minister’s party is in the United States ahead of the presidential election and has said that President Barack Obama has “not been a friend of Israel.”

Danny Danon, chairman of Likud’s international outreach branch, said in Chicago on Tuesday that Obama’s policies have been “catastrophic.”

Danon said he will also travel to Florida and New York to promote his new book and to meet with Republican and Democratic leaders.

He says he is not interfering in the presidential race but merely stating his personal opinion. He has previously praised Mitt Romney.

But his comments could be embarrassing to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been trying to shed accusations that he favors his longtime friend Romney in the race for the White House.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zio-Nazi Lawmaker: ‘Obama Is No Friend of Israel’

“Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall“…Pathological Narcissism as the Sparkplug of Armageddon




Mark Glenn

“Famous is thy beauty majesty, but behold, a lovely maid I see…Rags cannot hide her gentle grace…Alas, she is more fair than thee…”

–The Magic Mirror in Walt Disney’s Snow White

We have to assume–given the incalculable suffering presently taking place–that had He (the Almighty) to do over again He would probably leave out all the “I will bless those who bless thee and curse those who curse thee” nonsense and get right down to business with the “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots“.

After all, He is considered a wise and merciful creator, is He not? Not just wise and merciful, but the shrewdest of all investors as well, and what has His (supposed) aggrandizement of this tiny microbe of “chosen people” profited Him and His business interests?

Well, if we are to go by the “official records”–meaning the Bible–ever since these people pushed and elbowed their way into 1st place ahead of their contemporaries it has been nothing short of disastrous, both then and now. War, exploitation, deception, greed, envy, assassination, genocide, despoilment, enslavement–all these and more–the same bitter fruits our forefathers dealt with yesterday that we are dealing with today. The only real difference between then and now is that 4,000 years ago the Chosenites had neither nuclear weapons nor control of the world’s economy as they do today.

And yet, the lone individual responsible for bringing this venture about–both past and present-is supposed to be pleased with this? Are we really to believe (as some think) He gets some kind of sick pleasure seeing his priceless merchandise–meaning the innocent men, women and children in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, Lebanon and elsewhere–squandered and wasted (literally in the millions) and that He wants even more of it in places such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere? That He fantasizes about seeing entire swaths of stable, productive civilizations being turned into caldrons of misery or that He shrieks with glee at the sight of maimed children–the same children He created with a mere thought–robbed of their legs, arms, faces, etc, by psychopaths who believe this is all part of the “Divine Plan”?

Well of course, there are plenty of nutcases these days who would say “yes” to the above questions and who maintain with the same kind of fervency as yesteryear’s flat-earthers that indeed the Big Guy sits up there, beer in one hand and a wad of popcorn in the other as He reclines and watches the light show down below.

After all, these nutcases say, He DID make that promise to His “Chosen“ people that He will “bless those who bless thee and curse those who curse thee“ and therefore, logically, He is more than ready, willing and able to bring about Armageddon and the consummation of the entire world for the benefit of this the tiniest of minorities…That He sits up there with an itchy trigger finger, growling through clenched teeth “Go ahead punks, make my day…” and is just waiting for an excuse to run everything–vegetable, animal, mineral or what not–through the great divine paper shredder…

…and just so He can make good on His word to this same microscopic group of people who have been so much a welcome addition to mankind’s various civilizations that they have been kicked out of every decent country in the world throughout history shortly after their arrival.

Of course, the one question not asked in the 4,000 years since this concept of “chosenness“ (said to be the definitive bird’s-eye view into the mind of the Almighty) was first introduced is whether or not there is a shred of truth in any of it. On its face, the idea certainly seems to defy all logic, that the creator responsible for all life and order in the universe would pick one guy–ONE GUY–stick a blue “First Prize” ribbon on him (as well as on his kith-n-kin) before the beauty contest even got underway, give everyone else in the competition the boot and declare that all future contests had been decided already by this one decision.

And yet this is how we are supposed to believe it all went down, and more so, that to this day, the creator of all things STILL favors them heads and shoulders above all else…That there is something organically and ontologically different about them–meaning the Jews–making them better and rendering the rest of us inferior, or, as Jewish writer Ariel Natan Pasko wrote in his article “This War Is For Us“

“Simply put another way, if all the world is a stage, then the Jews-and especially those in the Land of Israel-are the lead actors on the stage of history, and the goyim (the gentiles) have supporting roles…As our tradition states, G-D – the great playwright – created the world for the sake of the Jewish People, and it is our responsibility to implement the Torah – absolute morality and the blueprint of creation – in it…”

It is so farcical, so non-sensical and irrational on its face that in this the modern age it should be rejected with all other notions rooted in madness and illogic such as the aforementioned flat-earth theory or the practice of drilling holes in the heads of the mentally ill so the demons afflicting them could escape.

And yet, unbeknownst to so many, it is not. Rather, it is swallowed whole hog by entire swaths of people, so much so that it is now THE dominant ideology driving world events today and yet which threatens to destroy all life on earth if its aims are not met.

For those who have not put 2 and 2 together in this matter, what we are of course discussing is the present “clash of civilizations” being waged Israel’s proxies in the “Christian” West against those in the Middle East and elsewhere. Whether recognized as such or not, nevertheless it is a billion+ on one side vs. a billion+ on the other and all engineered by this covetous, envious third party in the interests of seeing the two succumb to the inevitable mutual assured destruction, leaving what is left on the carcass free for picking and pecking on the part of Jewish interests, and all fueled by a mindset that cannot tolerate fair competition, because with fair competition comes the possibility of defeat, which is unthinkable.

Of course some, carefully placed throughout the various podiums and soapboxes around the globe will say it is more complicated than simple narcissism on the part of Jewish interests, that there are other factors with long, complicated names, pronunciations and definitions that the rest of us are too stupid to understand. Themes such as “jihad” and “72 virgins” and “anti-Semitism” and “fatwa” and “Islamo-fascism” and a whole host of others that Merlin and his fellow magicians have conveniently conjured up and stored away in their little black bag of dirty tricks.

But in the end, in the final analysis where the rubber meets the road and where the bottom line speaks with the same authority as an auctioneer’s gavel on the podium, it is this indeed, this “love thyself above all others” that is the bedrock of the Jewish mindset and–more importantly–which acts as THE sparkplug for the impending Armageddon the entire world is facing.

In short, pathological narcissism that obliterates any sense of morality or conscience on the part of those afflicted and–much like the latter stages of rabies–renders the infected animal mad and, just as former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan once described the Jewish state–”too dangerous to bother.”

“Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?” asks the wicked Queen in Snow White. She isn’t asking this because she is curious, but rather–

(1) Because her identity is wrapped up in her unchallenged beauty and superiority. Rather than just accept she is a typical woman subject to fleeting beauty, meaning age, gray hair, wrinkles, weight gain, etc and that she must compete fair and square with her competitors on the great catwalk of life, instead she insists on being numero uno, FOREVER, and the possibility she might be bumped from 1stplace as a result of another’s beauty is a nightmare too horrible to contemplate.

(2) In the event the mirror drops the bomb and breaks her the bad news that indeed she has been replaced as Grand Champion she needs to know who the lucky lady is so she can be eliminated from the scene, thus replacing the balance of her own private universe and not unlike what took place years back between 2 Olympic figure skaters Tanya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan, where the one sent her boyfriend on a mission with a crowbar to break the other’s legs.

And so it is with Jewish thinking. Much like the legend concerning Lucifer’s fall from heaven, where the celestial being saw himself as the most beautiful of all the angels (the realization of which destroyed him, leading him to declare he would not serve another) and thus took as many of his fellow angels to hell with him as possible, so too has this self-awareness on the part of those held prisoner by Jewish thinking done likewise. For those who imagine themselves as the apple of God’s eye, the idea that such will not jibe with reality–and worse–that someone else, some other group of people, may surpass them in beauty, virtue and culture is terrorism in its purest sense, the only solution to which is war, despoilment, genocide, enslavement et al.

Which is why Iran MUST be destroyed, and why Iraq, Palestine and other places HAVE been destroyed. This is the reason for this thing, this “Clash of Civilizations”, a ten-shekel word describing in effect a campaign of extermination against the same Islamic world that refuses to bow down and worship the bitch in front of the mirror and declare her to be the fairest of them all.

The obvious proof this entire business of one microscopic, seemingly insignificant group of people being sifted out of the rest of humanity and made into race of supermen of sorts by an entity no less in importance than the creator Himself did not spring forth from the mind of a wise, merciful and rational being but rather from the organically-criminal narcissism of those who stand to benefit from this “chosenness” is the fact it has failed everywhere it went. From Egypt to Canaan in the Old Testament to Palestine and Iraq today, EVERYWHERE this idea has been implemented the results have been the same–devastation, war, misery, on and on for those who find themselves within its clutches. Like a highly radioactive element that destroys everything in its immediate vicinity, the pathological narcissism known as Judaism has never blossomed into anything of any benefit for mankind.

Rather, as we are witnessing today, it has been and continues to be like a single lit match dropped on the forest floor resulting in a wildfire devastating millions of acres, thousands of homes and everything else in its path, and it is this single factor–Jewish pathological narcissism–that has brought the world to the brink of extinction today.

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root…”as Henry David Thoreau once wrote…

And indeed, it is now our lot, as well as that of our children, to suffer the disastrous consequences of pruning this tree (in the form of all the ghettos, expulsions, pogroms and “persecutions“) rather than destroying it root and all by declaring this pathology of the spirit and mind to be what it is–an outlaw, criminal mentality.

Indeed, if there be a 2nd chance in the future, let us hope that wise men recognize this fact and finish what their forefathers were unable or unwilling to do, which is to toss the tree–root and all–into the great bonfire of history and to never weep over its demise.

Then, and only then, will peace on earth flourish, where the “fairest of them all” do not spend so much time in front of the mirror but instead choose to live in peace with their fellow men as equals.

Mark Glenn

Posted in USAComments Off on “Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall“…Pathological Narcissism as the Sparkplug of Armageddon

Syrian Rebels Threaten Attacks in Lebanese Capital


To Take Battle to Beirut’s Southern Suburbs

by Jason Ditz

Leaders of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) have announced that they captured 13 suspected members of Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia around the Syrian city of Homs, and threatened to launch full scale attacks against the Lebanese capital city of Beirut if Hezbollah doesn’t withdraw entirely from the region.

The FSA statement said that Hezbollah is “deeply involved” in the ongoing civil war, and suggested that it was up to the field commanders whether to keep the captives or just execute them.

It is the second time this month that Hezbollah has come up in ongoing fighting, after the FSAreported that it killed a Hezbollah commander, Ali Hussein Nassif, in a bombing attack in Homs.

Hezbollah MP Kamel Rifai denied the FSA allegations of involvement in the civil war, saying that Hezbollah’s charter forbids them from participating in battles with anybody except for Israel, whose invasion of southern Lebanon was the impetus for their founding.

Posted in Lebanon, SyriaComments Off on Syrian Rebels Threaten Attacks in Lebanese Capital

Mother’s battle to get daughter’s illness diagnosed

Kelly Moss
Kelly has been diagnosed with Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome Photo: ITV Anglia

A teenager from Great Dunmow in Essex has spoken of her mother’s nine year battle to convince people that she was ill.

Kelly Moss has been in and out of hospital since she was 9 but it was only this year that doctors finally managed to diagnose she was suffering from Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

It means her heart rate can rise by 30 beats per minute when she stands.

But it’s taken a long time to get to this diagnosis. For the past 9 years Kelly’s mum Lorraine has fought to get people to believe her daughter really is ill.

“I was accused of harming my own child, that I was creating her ill health, I was accused of allowing a child to run rings around me and act like she was ill when she was not. I’ve been accused of everything, from crazy to misguided by a psychiatrist.”

Lorraine Moss
Mum Lorraine fought to get Kelly’s illness diagnosed Credit: ITV Anglia

Kelly says the prospect of being taken away from her parents was frightening

“I didn’t have a childhood. I had to grow up very quickly at the age of 9 with the things I had to deal with. Intermittently, I was at school when I wasn’t at school or in hospital. But it was never the same because of all of my experiences, I was an adult from the age of 9.”

In a statement Essex county council said:

“…We take our statutory responsibilities to child protection very seriously and have a duty to take appropriate action and intervention when concerns about children and young people are raised. Any action taken will always have the child’s interests at the heart of the decision…”

Kelly says she’s determined to get a medical degree so she can use her knowledge to prevent this from happening again.

Her mother wants to take Kelly abroad she so can get proper treatment which she believes has been denied her here.



Posted in UKComments Off on Mother’s battle to get daughter’s illness diagnosed

US Military Planners Sent to Jordan With Eye on Syrian War


150-Man Task Force Discusses Invasion to Establish ‘Buffer Zone’

by Jason Ditz

In another sign that the Obama Administration may be moving closer to intervention in Syria, it is revealed that the Pentagon has secretly deployed a “task force” of around 150 military planners, including an unnamed “senior” officer, to Jordan.

The force has been deployed to a military training center on the outskirts of Amman, and is already discussing the possibility of an invasion of the border region of Syria to establish a “buffer zone.”

The prospect of “humanitarian corridors” or other buffer zones has been raised several times, usually with the assumption it would be around Turkey. Today’s news suggests there could be one in the southeast as well, with Jordanian troops serving as the US proxy.

Pentagon officials declined comment on the exact state of the mission, but the deployment points to a more serious involvement than has yet been admitted to by administration officials, who insist they oppose foreign intervention at the moment.

Posted in USA, JordanComments Off on US Military Planners Sent to Jordan With Eye on Syrian War

Iran Sanctions Now Causing Food Insecurity, Mass Suffering


Yet again, the US and its allies spread mass human misery though a policy that is as morally indefensible as it is counter-productive

The Economist this week describes the intensifying suffering of 75 million Iranian citizens as a result of the sanctions regime being imposed on them by the US and its allies [my emphasis]:

“Six years ago, when America and Europe were putting in place the first raft of measures to press Iran to come clean over its nuclear ambitions, the talk was of “smart” sanctions. The West, it was stressed, had no quarrel with the Iranian people—only with a regime that seemed bent on getting a nuclear bomb, or at least the capacity for making one. Yet, as sanctions have become increasingly punitive in the face of Iran’s intransigence, it is ordinary Iranians who are paying the price.

“On October 1st and 2nd Iran’s rial lost more than 25% of its value against the dollar. Since the end of last year it has depreciated by over 80%, most of that in just the past month. Despite subsidies intended to help the poor, prices for staples, such as milk, bread, rice, yogurt and vegetables, have at least doubled since the beginning of the year. Chicken has become so scarce that when scant supplies become available they prompt riots. On October 3rd police in Tehran fired tear-gas at people demonstrating over the rial’s collapse. The city’s main bazaar closed because of the impossibility of quoting accurate prices. . . .

“Unemployment is thought to be around three times higher than the official rate of 12%, and millions of unskilled factory workers are on wages well below the official poverty line of 10m rials (about $300) a month.”

Pervasive unemployment, inflation, medicine shortages, and even food riots have been reported elsewhere.

That sanctions on Muslim countries cause mass human suffering is not only inevitable but part of their design. In 2006, the senior Israeli official Dov Weisglass infamously described the purpose of his nation’s blockade on Gaza with this candid admission: “‘The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman justified the Iran sanctions regime this way: “Critics of sanctions argue that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.”

Even more infamously, the beloved former Democratic Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – when asked in 1996 by 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl about reports that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of US-imposed sanctions on that country – stoically replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” So extreme was the suffering caused by sanctions in Iraq that one former UN official, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest, saying that the sanctions policy met the formal definition of “genocide”:

“We are now in there responsible for killing people, destroying their families, their children, allowing their older parents to die for lack of basic medicines. We’re in there allowing children to die who were not born yet when Saddam Hussein made the mistake of invading Kuwait.”

In an excellent Op-Ed for Al Jazeera last week, Murtaza Hussain extensively documented the devastation wrought on 26 million Iraqis by that sanctions regime – the one Albright declared as “worth it” – and argues: “that tragedy is being willfully replayed, only this time the target is the population of Iran”. He explained:

“Intensifying sanctions against the country have sent the Iran’s rial into an unprecedented free-fall, causing it to plummet in value by 75 per cent since the start of the year; and, stunningly, almost 60 per cent in the past week alone.

“Ordinary Iranians completely unconnected to the government have had their lives effectively ground to a halt as the sudden and unprecedented collapse of the financial system has rendered any meaningful form of commerce effectively impossible. In recent weeks, the price of staples such as rice and cooking oil have skyrocketed and once ubiquitous foods such as chicken have been rendered completely out of the reach of the average citizen.”

That is a fact that should be deeply disturbing to any decent person. In 2001, the writer Chuck Sudetic visited Iraq and then wrote in Mother Jones about what he saw: namely, that the US-led sanctions regime “killed more civilians than all the chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons used in human history”.

Yet as Hussain notes, the decade-long suffering of Iraqis was all futile when viewed next to the ostensible goal of sanctions: “the sanctions failed to remove Saddam from power and by many accounts helped him solidify his grip on the country by keeping the overwhelming majority of the population focused purely on subsistence.” Some isolated exceptions notwithstanding, the very idea that a regime can be undermined by severely weakening the population that would otherwise oppose it – literally weakening them physically through food and medicine deprivation – is not only intuitively absurd and morally grotesque but also empirically disproven.

As Mohammad Sadeghi Esfahlani and Jamal Abdi recently documented in Foreign Policy, the sanctions regime, while devastating ordinary Iranians, is having virtually no effect on their leaders – other than to strengthen their grip on power:

“Instead of speculating from afar, we should listen to the Iranians on the ground who are actually struggling for democracy firsthand. The leaders of the Green Movement and Iranian human rights and democracy defenders have adamantly opposed broad sanctions and warned that confrontation, isolation and broad economic punishment only undermine the cause of democracy and rule of law in Iran. A new report by the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) documents how sanctions are destroying the sources of societal change in Iran. ‘The urban middle class that has historically played a central role in creating change and promoting progress in Iran are key casualties of the sanctions regime,’ according to the report.

“As documented by the report’s firsthand account on the ground, sanctions are not driving the working class to join Iran’s democracy movement, they are doing the opposite – decimating the Iranian middle class, that has been at the center of the democracy movement, by intensifying their economic struggles. The greatest impediment for Iran’s pro-democracy movement – as we saw at the height of the Green Movement protests in 2009 – has been that working class Iranians who are preoccupied with immediate financial struggles are unable to enlist in a struggle for political freedoms.”

So horrific is the human suffering brought about by such sanctions regimes that some are beginning to argue that killing Iranians with an air attack would be more humane. That was the argument advanced several days ago by the managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, Blake Hounsehll, who mused that he was “beginning to wonder if limited airstrikes on Iran may actually be the more morally sound course of action.” He was contemplating airstrikes, he then explained, because “a couple thousand deaths” might be worth it to avoid “the livelihoods of 75 million people destroyed”.

Part of Hounshell’s announcement is simply the way America’s foreign policy elites so casually call for actions that they know will end the lives of large numbers of innocent human beings: it may be time to cause “a copule thousand deaths”, he suggested with an almost audible yawn. And part of it is what Council on Foreign Relations president emiritus Leslie Gelb candidly described as “the disposition and incentives” among America’s foreign policy professionals “to support wars to retain political and professional credibility”. In other words, supporting military action is what America’s influential foreign policy commentators, by definition, reflexively do in order to advance their own career and make themselves relevant.

But part of Hounshell’s statement reflects the difficult-to-dispute recognition on his part that the sanctions regime causes such intense, widespread human misery that – in the warped Washington world in which airstrikes and sanctions are the only two cognizable options – extinguishing the lives of “a couple thousand” innocent Iranians may actually be the more humanitarian outcome when weighed against the ongoing suffering of 75 million people from the sanctions regime. That is how devastating sanctions are.

What’s most extraordinary about all of this is that the extreme human suffering caused by US-led sanctions is barely acknowledged in mainstream American political discourse. One reason that Americans were so baffled after the 9/11 attack (why do they hate us?) is the same reason they continue to be so baffled by anti-American protests in the Muslim world (what are they so angry about?): namely, most Americans literally have no idea, because nobody ever told them, that their government’s imposition of sanctions in Iraq led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, and they similarly have no idea that the suffering of ordinary Iranians is becoming increasingly substantial.

People in the Muslim world (who are relentlessly depicted as propagandized) are well aware of the human devastation US sanctions have caused, while Americans (who think of themselves as the beneficiaries of a free and vibrant press) have largely had those facts kept from them. That dynamic in part, is what often explains the irreconcilable worldviews among people in those two parts of the world.

As usual, don’t look for Democratic partisan to object to any of this. To the extent that they talk about the sanctions regime at all, it is typically to celebrate it: as proof of Barack Obama’s “toughness” and his fealty to Israeli interests. So just as was true during the Clinton years, when very few Democratic partisans even bothered to acknowledge (let alone oppose) the lethal devastation wrought on Iraqi civilians, few now even consider the notion that sanctions are strategically unwise and morally indefensible, and when they discuss it at all, they praise Obama for putting the clamps on the Iranian economy.

In essence, the same mentality that drives Democratic support for drones sustains Democratic support for sanctions: they tacitly embrace the unexamined assumption that the US is inevitably going to engage in aggression and kill Muslims, and then pat themselves on the back for cheering for the way that kills the fewest (I support drones because they’re better than full-scale invasions; I support sanctions because they’re better than air strikes). They are seemingly incapable of conceiving of a third alternative: that the US could or should refrain from killing innocent people in predominantly Muslim countries.

Democratic support for sanctions on Iran shares another attribute with the pro-drone mentality. No matter how many times it is documented that drones do not decrease the threat of terrorism but rather increase that threat – by generating the anti-American hatred that drives terrorism – drone advocates insist: we must do this to stop the terrorists.

Identically, no matter how many times it is documented that Iraq sanctions actually strengthened Saddam’s regime by literally starving the opposition and making them more reliant on regime support, sanctions advocates insist: we must impose sanctions, and harm ordinary Iranians, in order to remove Iran’s regime. It is exactly like showing a lung cancer patient studies that prove that smoking causes lung cancer, and then sitting back while they insist that they will increase their cigarette intake in order to combat their cancer.

Even if it were true that sanctions produces less civilian harm than all-out air strikes on Iran, that would not justify sanctions. But as evidence of the sanctions-caused human suffering in Iran mounts, even the premise of that claim, irrelevant though it is, seems less and less convincing.

Drone terrorism

Pakistan’s most popular politician, Imran Khan, was joined yesterday by 32 brave Americans in an anti-drone march to Waziristan, at which Khan said: “The war on terror has become a war of terror.” Khan also vowed that if elected Prime Minister, he would shoot down US drones that invaded Pakistani air space. To see why the US drone campaign is appropriately deemed one of terror, see this excellent analysis from Digby.


I have one other question: if “terrorism” means the use of violence aimed at civilians in order to induce political change from their government, what is it called when intense economic suffering is imposed on a civilian population in order to induce political change from their government? Can those two tactics be morally distinguished?

Posted in IranComments Off on Iran Sanctions Now Causing Food Insecurity, Mass Suffering

American Radio Host Calls Iranian President Source of Inspiration, Hope


One of the main programs of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while visiting New York to attend the 67th annual UN General Assembly session, was holding meetings with different groups of Americans, including the leaders of Abrahamic religions.

Interview by Kourosh Ziabari

American journalist, radio host and activist Mark Glenn was among tens of religious figures who attended the meeting with the Iranian President.

Speaking of his viewpoints about the Iranian President, Mark Glenn said, “during dark times such as these in which we all find ourselves today, he has been a great source of personal inspiration and hope for me. When we consider what passes as “statesmen” these days, whether it is war criminals such as George Bush or Barack Obama, how does someone watching all of this not find reasons for hope when men such as Ahmadinejad stand up against the tyrants and murderers of the world fearlessly?”

Mark Glenn is the host of the Ugly Truth Radio Show and a religious author and activist based in Idaho. Glenn who leads the Cross and Crescent Solidarity Movement is a strong supporter of Iran and believes that Iran is a country which the Almighty God has selected for a special mission: “it is my strong personal belief that God has touched the Iranian nation and her people for a very special, we might even say divine task, for these dark days.”

What follows is the text of Fars News Agency’s interview with Mark Glenn to whom we have talked about his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the viewpoints the Iranian President raised in the meeting.

Q: Mark; what’s your assessment of your meeting with Iranian President? What impression did you get of him? How much different is the reality of Mr. Ahmadinejad from what the Western mainstream media portray of him?

A: Well, the first thing that needs to be established in contextualizing my answer is that I did not go to New York as an “unbiased journalist,” if such a thing could actually exist. I am a big supporter of President Ahmadinejad and have been for many years. During dark times such as these in which we all find ourselves today, he has been a great source of personal inspiration and hope for me. When we consider what passes as “statesmen” these days, whether it is war criminals such as George Bush or Barack Obama, how does someone watching all of this not find reasons for hope when men such as Ahmadinejad stand up against the tyrants and murderers of the world fearlessly?

Having said that, my personal estimation of the man was not raised or lowered as a result of the meeting. He was exactly what I have come to know of him over the many years I have watched him on TV and read what he has had to say in the printed media, both in the West and in Iran. He is decent, humble, intelligent, and above all else, fair.

The difference in the way he is portrayed in the western media owned and controlled by organized Zionist interests is of such a stark nature that it probably cannot even be measured. It is the motto of Israel intelligence/assassination agency Mossad that “by way of deception we shall make war,” and the manner by which Ahmadinejad has been portrayed in the Western Zionist media is but one manifestation of this motto. Everything he has been described being he is not, and by contrast, everything he is contradicts what has been said and written about him.

The best way I could sum up and compare the media-driven hysteria about him is to recall how the Jews of Jesus’ day were raising riots against Him in order to destroy His character and His message, and that is the way I would describe the 3 days I was in New York watching the insane behavior on the part of the Zionist media and the hooligans on the street-Good Friday, 33 A.D. in Jerusalem.

Q: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is among the few political leaders in the world whose statements, speeches and interviews always include religious overtones and allusions. He always talks about the apocalyptic return of the last Savior to fulfill the historic mission which has been entrusted to him by the Almighty God, and that Jesus Christ will be accompanying Imam Mahdi when he returns. What’s your take on that? What do you make of Iranian President’s religious views?

A: I will admit as a Christian that my faith has been strengthened and deepened as a result of studying what Islam has to say about Jesus and His teachings. As I indicated in the speech that I gave at the banquet honoring President Ahmadinejad, I purchased a book on Islam shortly after 9/11 for a mere 50 cents (half a US dollar) and it was a life changing event for me. It is the reason I wound up at the gathering in New York and why you and I are doing this interview right now.

Having said that, I am intrigued with the Islamic and particularly the Shiite understanding of Jesus and His return. My first encounter with this theme of the Islamic return of Jesus was coincidentally when President Ahmadinejad granted me the honor of sitting down in front of a video camera and recording a short speech a few years ago that was then played at a conference I was helping to put together entitled “No More Wars For Israel” out in California. You can imagine how honored and humbled I was that he would grant me such a request, but the truth is that I was much more moved by what he had to say concerning Jesus’ return than I was by the honor he bestowed upon me.

And in many ways, it is this notion-that both Muslims and Christians are awaiting the return of Jesus for the great battle between good and evil, that I use now in trying to bring the 2 peoples together against their common enemy, meaning organized Zionist interests.

Q: One of the issues which President Ahmadinejad raised in his speech to your meeting was the release and distribution of a sacrilegious movie which insulted Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). What’s your idea about this movie, the people behind it and similar attacks on the sanctities of Muslims which can be seen in light of a growing wave of Islamophobia in the West?

A: I think it is important that we understand this blasphemous movie for what it is-an intelligence operation originating out of Israel that has but one express motive-to throw a bucket of gasoline on an already out of control fire.

Organized Zionist interests desperately want to see the Christian and Islamic worlds at war with each other for the next 100 years, something that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu made expressly clear in a speech he recently made at an event honoring Shimon Peres. Christianity and Islam represent the other two Abrahamic faiths which organized Zionist interests consider to be pagan in nature, and therefore must be destroyed. That is the goal behind the Israeli-engineered “clash of civilizations”, to see Judaism’s two main competitors wipe each other out through a century or more of apocalyptic wars.

The other item that deserves mention here is the hypocrisy of it all. In these same western nations where Islam and Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) are blasphemed with impunity, a person is thrown into prison for as much as 7 years for questioning the “official” (meaning Zionist) narrative as far as the Holocaust is concerned. And yet the west lectures other countries such as Iran on what it means to be a “free” and “enlightened” country. How backwards things have become.

Q: What do you think about President Ahmadinejad’s comments on Israel and the Holocaust? Drawing upon his comments with regards to Israel, many American critics of Iranian President have accused him of propagating anti-Semitic sentiments, while there are several Western scholars who have questioned the official accounts of the Holocaust and sided with Iranian President. What’s your idea?

A: Again, my position is the same as that of President Ahmadinejad-why must we have laws protecting the truth? Why threaten people with prison for questioning the official narrative of the Holocaust if the facts are there to support it? What are the guardians of this strange, relatively new religion afraid of? Is this not intolerance, threatening people with prison if they refuse to believe this strange new religion blindly? Is this not “conversion by the sword,” exactly what organized Zionist interests allege about Islam?

“Anti-Semitism” is the hollow, empty cry that organized Zionist interests use in shutting down a discussion that threatens to reveal them for the criminals they are. They know that their argument cannot withstand an open, honest application of facts and reason, and this is the reason why no discussion of this topic is permitted.

And the reasons for this are obvious. For these organized Zionist interests the Holocaust is like the goose that lays the golden egg, over and over and over. It is like a winning lottery ticket that never expires and is redeemable every day, week after week for eternity. By always claiming victim status, organized Zionist interests have succeeded in robbing the world more effectively than an armada of Pirates sailing the seas pillaging everything in sight.

And as far as the President being an “anti-Semite,” they might as well accuse him of being a little green man from outer space, as this is actually more believable. Iran is home to the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel. If he truly were the “anti-Semite” as organized Zionist interests claim, why has he not rounded up all Iran’s Jews and sent them to the gas chambers? Again, remember the motto of Israel’s intelligence service Mossad-By way of deception (lying) we shall do war…

Q: How can Iran play an effective role in fostering inter-faith dialogue? Iran has always been considered as a country where the followers of divine religions co-exist with each other in a peaceful manner and equally contribute to social progress of the country. Iranian leaders have always called for the integrity and solidarity between the followers of Abrahamic religions. What’s your viewpoint in this regard?

A: I believe interfaith dialogue is one of the most effective weapons at our disposal in defeating the forces of organized evil. As I stated earlier, as a Christian my life was permanently changed by reading what Islam had to say about Jesus. I am confident that this would be the same with other Christians if they were to come to realize how they are being seduced by organized Zionist interests into believing these lies about Islam. Islam is not responsible for defaming Jesus Christ and destroying, denigrating the Christian character of the West. Are Muslims in control of the mass media? Are Muslims in control of Hollywood? Are Muslims destroying the moral fiber of the West? No, it is not Muslims, and we all know who it is.

So in that regard, Iran is the place for bringing about this interfaith dialogue you mention. In Iran all faiths are protected by law. Israel certainly cannot make this claim, as Christian churches and Islamic mosques are set on fire everyday, where clerics from these two faiths are spat upon by those claiming to be God’s chosen people. It certainly cannot be any of the western countries that are under the domination of organized Zionist interests who make it a point to insult Islam on a daily basis. The Arab countries are in too much tumult and are suffering from deliberate sectarianism.

Therefore, Iran should be the player in all this to begin a rational, reasonable discussion of this type. What I envision is an international conference along the same lines as the Holocaust conference that took place in Tehran a few years ago, and where major figures from the Christian and Islamic faiths can meet, greet and speak like rational men of good will. The alternative to this is what we see taking place right now; organized Zionist interests pitting the two faiths against each other and all the suffering and mayhem that it has produced.

Q: I read that in your meeting, President Ahmadinejad talked about the threats issued by the Israeli regime against Iran over its nuclear program. He said that Iran doesn’t take such threats seriously, and that Israel is not powerful enough to confront Iran militarily or politically. What do you think about Israel’s intensified war rhetoric against Iran?

A: I think that Israel is desperate and that this desperation is evident. As the history of the last half century has proven, Israel must have war every 10 years or so in order to hold together what is an organically-fractured society. If there were no war, Israel would disintegrate. That is the reason that it is so important to her that the region be in a state of constant turmoil and upheaval.

At the same time, it is important for Israel that she maintain the notion that the US is her private attack dog, and the fact that the US is dragging her feet in launching this war against Iran as Israel has demanded is causing the Jewish state a lot of embarrassment, and especially with the whole world watching.

The reason Israel demands Iran’s destruction is simple. Iran is a free, sovereign state that dares to oppose Zionist lies and oppression. Iran is not in turmoil and upheaval, like the other countries of the region, and Israel fears that eventually these other countries will begin to see Iran as a role model in the region and begin allying themselves with her, and in the process, peace, order and tranquility will return to the region, resulting in Israel’s disintegration.

I agree with the president’s assessment as well concerning Israel’s military capacity in destroying Iran. As Israel has demonstrated time and again, she can only win wars when the people she is attacking are defenseless men, women and children.

Q: What do you think about the efforts made by Iranian President to reach out to the American public? He gave several interviews and held different meetings with groups of American journalists, religious figures, academicians and students while in New York. Given the unending animosity of the US against Iran and the biased portrayal of Iran affairs by the American media, are such efforts effective in presenting to the American public a realistic and fair image of Iran?

A: I think that there are some people in America who understand the nature of the game being played here and for them, it is effective. However, what must be understood is that when it comes to the propaganda dished out by organized Zionist interests, the American people are in large part like drug addicts who cannot be reasoned with. Zionism is a drug for them and they love it and don’t want to part with it. And remember, they have been injecting this poison into their intellectual veins now for almost half a century. Therefore, President Ahmadinejad’s outreach through use of the American media, as noble an attempt as it is, nevertheless will fall on a lot of deaf ears. Unfortunately the American people are going to have to learn the hard way, when they wake up one morning and find their country has been destroyed as a result of a century of Zionist-led wars that have bankrupted the nation. Then, and sadly, only then, will they come to realize the error of their ways.

This is not to say however that neither the President nor his successor should try. As I said in the speech I gave in his presence, miracles happen everyday. I bought a book for a mere 50 cents and it changed my life. We cannot underestimate God’s power and providence in all of this, and as Jesus Himself said in one of his many teachings, the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, the tiniest of all seeds, that then grows into the mightiest of trees.

Q: How do you see the future of Iran in the light of war threats, economic sanctions and media propaganda directed by the United States, Israel and their European allies? Can Iran withstand the pressures and realize its objectives?

A: It is my strong personal belief that God has touched the Iranian nation and her people for a very special, we might even say divine, task for these dark days. As I pointed out in a personal letter I sent to President Ahmadinejad this past summer, it was the Iranian people who first paid official homage to Jesus Christ when He was visited by the three kings from the East who honored Him with gifts of Frankencense and Mirrh shortly after His birth, giving the rest of the world the celebration of Christmas that so many know today.

I believe this, as well as many others, is the reason Iran was blessed with victory in her revolution of 1979 and why she remains a stable, viable political and cultural entity today in a part of the world where stability is as scarce as water.

At the same time however, I cannot but be honest in admitting my concerns and fears for Iran in the coming months and years. Israel is a mad dog and is beyond rational behavior. She is not only capable of doing the worst, she is inclined towards such, and we can dismiss the notion that she is simply going to walk away from all this and admit defeat if she does not get the war she demands. For Israel, this is worse than death itself.

It is for this reason therefore that I foresee Israel doing something crazy, and I mean really crazy, in order to get this fire lit.

Therefore, let us not play games here. We know Israel was intimately involved in bringing about the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that started this present clash of civilizations. We know that Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to the deaths of 3,000 Americans was one of glee, saying that the attacks were “good,” because they would bring “immediate sympathy for Israel.” We know as well that Netanyahu’s Defense Minister right now-Ehud Barak, was within minutes of the attacks of 9/11, calling for a full scale war against Israel’s enemies throughout the world.

Therefore, it is not that difficult for thinking men to envision what lengths Israel in the persons of Netanyahu and Barack is willing to go to in getting the war started. But instead of hijacked airliners, what will it be instead? An Israeli nuclear weapon smuggled into the US under diplomatic pouch detonated in a major American city that is then blamed on Iran? A series of coordinated attacks across the country? The assassination of the American President or of many American officials that is then blamed on Iran? The list is endless.

So it is then in these dark days that we must do what we can in shedding the light of truth on this situation and hope that God, the merciful and compassionate, will look upon our meager efforts and reward us with His protection and defeat of the present evil, reminding ourselves along the way what it says in the Holy Koran concerning the machinations of the evil doers: “They plot, but God is the wisest of plotters.”

Posted in IranComments Off on American Radio Host Calls Iranian President Source of Inspiration, Hope

Shoah’s pages