Archive | April 13th, 2013

Zaney Delaney


by crescentandcross

mike delaney nazi

Yes, ladies and gents, it had to happen eventually. Mentally ill people are by their very nature unstable and are subject to periodic eruptions that are for the most part beyond their control, much like those who suffer from Tourette’s Syndrome or epilepsy.

One such should-be mental patient is Mike Delaney of, pic’d above. An ex-con who styles himself as the leader of the ‘Great White Resistence,’ he is a textbook case for both mental illness and co-optation by groups such as the ADL, SPLC, (to say nothing of federal law enforcement) whose very existence is dependent upon head cases such as him who can always be counted on to use all the right words (nigger, kike, gook, spic, etc, etc, etc) in broadbrushing all groups and individuals working against organized Jewish power as racists, nazis and lunatics.

ed note–self pics of Delaney staring into the camera with a stern look such as this  seem to be his forte’. Whatever he is trying to prove with pics such as these is beyond anyone in the sane world figuring out but we can be rest assured it is no likely an exercise he performs in front of the mirror on a regular basis and is indicative of someone who probably needs to be medicated.

The recent row between Zaney Delaney and yours truly is the result of his recent video ‘exposing’ TUT as a ‘fraud’ over the issue of donations. I only watched a few minutes of the video, so I can’t tell exactly what the entire gist of it is, but what seems to be at play here is the fact that Mr. Should-Be-Committed-to-an-Insane Asylum is trying to hold together his frail coalition of like-minded societal malcontents with a new controversy, similar in many respects to what happened between him and the owner of Zion Crime Factory when Delaney–falling back on the same bad habits that got him thrown into prison before–stole ZCF’s website out from under him and tried to make money off it in the process.

Below is the comment I left on Delaney’s site last night in response to his idiotic video–

‘Hillbilly trailor park trash at its best. You are nothing, a loser, and a non-issue as far as productivity within this movement goes. No one pays any attention to you, and the best you can do is HOPE that you will get some attention by acting like an ex-con on your video and trying to drag down more productive players in this endeavor. The ADL, SPLC and other Jewish groups love idiots like you. Every time morons like you open your mouths, Foxman, Dees & co get new speaking engagements, and in the process hear cash registers opening.

Enjoy your high-water mark. It’ll never get any better for you than it is right now, and you know this is the case, which is why you resort to talking about non-issues such as ‘donations’ rather than any real issues/news that require higher brain functions, which you obviously do not have, jailbird.’

Not only has my original post been removed, but as well Delaney–con man and shyster that he is–is now posting fake comments, using my name and incorporating in these comments the kind of 4-letter language that those who know me well know I do not use.

Nice try Mikey. I guess the lesson to be learned here is that a leopard does not change its spots. Once a crook, always a crook.

Something for those associated with him need to think about, given that he is a prime candidate for some type of ‘official’ action in the near future that is sure to drag a lot of others into it as well.

For the record, given the fact that Delaney is (or is about to be) in full meltdown mode and is spewing nothing but incoherent nonsense on his site concerning yours truly, let the readers understand full well the following–

–I (we) do not broadcast the programs from Starbucks. Never have. Not once. They are all broadcast right from here, except in the cases where I am travelling to attend a conference or give a speech.  How in the world he could come up with something as inane as that  is just additional proof of under-developed cranial innards. Furthermore, indeed we do get internet out here at our ‘big ranch in the hills’ as he described it. He is simply mad.

–His assertion that we/I here at TUT focus only on ‘zionism’ and leave behind the Jewish question is as much a lie as is the flat earth theory. My (our) entire focus is on Judaism and its by-products, as anyone who listens to the program/reads the articles on TUT knows full well. Again, once a liar, always a liar.

–There is no’source’ for him to ‘reveal’ proving that yours truly is ‘Jewish’. No doubt this was exactly the same kind of tactic he employed  when being arrested for grand theft, trying to worm his way out of the situation by babbling a lot of nonsense that he hoped would convince the cops that he was innocent of the crime. No doubt he did the same thing during his trial as well.

As unfortunate and tedious as events such as these are, nevertheless it is required maintenance of sorts and in the long run actually a good thing, as those of us who are serious about what we do need to create as stark a contrast between ourselves and criminals such as Delaney & co as possible.

For the record, I will not be leaving any more comments on his website, so anything ‘popping up’ with my name as the author is either Zaney Delaney or one of his fellow brain-cases posting lies, since they know that they are not going to get anywhere by telling the truth.

Posted in USAComments Off on Zaney Delaney

Gitmo prisoners clash with guards amid hunger strike – US military

Police escort a detainee to his cell at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, this file photograph taken on January 11, 2002.  (Reuters/Shane T. McCoy/Department of Defense)

Police escort a detainee to his cell at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, this file photograph taken on January 11, 2002. (Reuters/Shane T. McCoy/Department of Defense)

The US military says guards have clashed with prisoners at Guantanamo as officers were moving detainees from communal to single cells in attempt to end a hunger strike that started in February.

The detainees used self-made weapons to resist the transfer, thus forcing guards to fire, the US military said in a statement.

Some detainees resisted with improvised weapons, and in response, four less-than-lethal rounds were fired,” Navy Captain Robert Durand said in a news release.

Officials say no guards or detainees have been seriously injured.

The reason for the move was explained because the detainees covered surveillance cameras, windows and partitions, preventing guards from observing them during a hunger strike that has been continuing for more than two months.

Round-the-clock monitoring is necessary to ensure security, order, and safety as detainees continued a prolonged hunger strike by refusing regular camp-provided meals,” Durand said.

Each detainee has reportedly been medically checked after the sweep.

The detention camp at the Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base in Cuba holds 166 men, most of them captured more than a decade ago in different counter-terrorism operations.

Saturday’s early-morning sweep took place in Camp 6, a medium-security building where 80 to 100 detainees lived in cells that open into communal bays where they could eat, pray and watch television together. As part of the hunger strike, prisoners have been refusing to let food carts enter some of the bays.

Lawyers say most of Gitmo inmates are currently participating in the hunger strike. The US administration, however, is only acknowledging 43 cases, including 11 people who are being force-fed liquid nutrients through tubes inserted into their noses and down to their stomachs.

The hunger strike began in February in protest to the seizure of personal items from detainees’ cells. Some prisoners told their lawyers that their Qurans had been mistreated during the cell searches, which the US military denied.

Lawyers say the hunger strike is caused by the fact that most detainees are held there without being charged, overwhelmed by the depressing feeling they may never leave the prison.

Obama pledged to close the facility at the start of his first term, but has failed to do it so far.

Posted in USA, CampaignsComments Off on Gitmo prisoners clash with guards amid hunger strike – US military

Wikipedia: Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist)


Posted By: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr


The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist) is a British Marxist-Leninist political party that is guided by scientific socialist and communist understanding and principles. Their youth wing, Red Youth, is noted to be increasingly active, and has widely circulated its statement of beliefs “We Want Freedom” and platform of action “Build the red bases!”.

The CPGB-ML claims to be the voice of the true interests of the British working class, whom it maintains are the “ruing class in waiting”. It published regular statements and leaflets, and holds public meetings to promote these interests.

The CPGB-ML believes that there is no single British national interest, but that interests of the British working class are entirely different, and in many instances diametrically opposed to those of the ruling British financial and business elite who govern the country. The CPGB-ML maintains, in its publications and video broadcasts, that Britain is therefore not a democratic nation (ruled by the people), but a dictatorship of the financial oligarchy, clothed in a ‘democratic shell’. It upholds Lenin’s teaching on the state and maintains that Britain remains an Imperialist country.

The CPGB-ML states that British imperialism and world capitalism are facing a profound capitalist crisis of overproduction, which is driving them to make mass redundancies, and attack the social conditions of the working people of Britain by destroying the welfare state. It understands that the same crisis is driving British capitalism to war abroad. It campaigns against both these tendencies, claiming that a policy of positive economic construction led by working people in power is the only way to escape the crisis.

For this reason, the CPGB-ML actively opposes legislative attacks made by Labour, Liberal and Tory parties on the welfare state including the NHS, is active in the anti-cuts movement, the anti-war movement and the anti-capitalist movement. Its positive position is that the working class, to solve the problems it faces, must seize state power, which cannot be achieved via the electoral process.

The CPGB-ML stood out as virtually he only party in Britain that did not condemn the youth riots of 2011, but characterised them as a rudimentary form of anti-capitalist resistance that lacked adequate leadership and direction.

The CPGB-ML therefore opposes social democracy (the Labour Party) and the revisionist ‘communist’ parties that uphold what its chairman, Harpal Brar, describes as “the disastrous program of the British Road to Socialism. The BRS claims that workers can achieve power and a socialist system by voting Labour. The CPGB-ML states that history has disproved this thesis and it should be discarded.

the CPGB-ML opposes all immigration controls as measures to misdirect workers and blame each other for the capitalist crisis. Migration has been a feature of human civilisation since the earliest times, and capitalism produces it on a wider scale than ever before. What is responsible for hardship among workers is crisis and unemployment.

The CPGB-ML is noted for its broad analysis of international affairs and its anti-imperialist stance. It has called for a defeat of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a movement of direct action and non-cooperation among British working people, in order to exert its political influence. The CPGB-ML has publicly campaigned within Stop the War movement, and among working people, for these positions to be adopted.

The CPGB-ML calls for the withdrawal of British troops from Ireland and for a unified 32 county state to be formed. It supports Sinn Feinn’s leadership of the Good Friday Agreement, which it believes falls within this framework. The party also supports the struggle of the Palestinian people against Israeli Zionism, which it characterises an an apartheid state.

The CPGB-ML publicly supports governments around the world which it perceives to be socialist or “anti-imperialist” such as North KoreaZimbabwe and the People’s Republic of China. It was one of the few British parties to consistently oppose NATO war crimes in Libya and Syria, and support the democratically elected, progressive and popular governments of Mummar Gaddafi and Bashar Al Assad.

After careful analysis, the party accepted a position at its 2012 congress, that there are no separate English and Scottish nations, but rather, when those nations were at the point of developing as modern capitalist economies, their ruling classes joined together to form a “British” nation.

The CPGB-ML believes in the widest measures of local democracy, but sees Scottish nationalism as a diversionary movement from building a really powerful working class movement across the whole of the historically constituted nation that is ‘Great Britain’. It therefore opposes the limited measures that are being put forward as ‘Scottish Independence’, which it notes will not break the Union, the British state or the British army in any significant manner.[1]

The party was founded in 2004 after splitting from the Socialist Labour Party (SLP).

The CPGB (ML) publish their own newspaper, Proletarian which comes out six times a year.



The party was founded on July 3, 2004 in London.[2][3] The party effectively is a split from the Socialist Labour Party (SLP) of Arthur Scargill. The split was caused by Scargill’s refusal to accept the positions adopted by the SLP congress, including its support of North Korea to defend itself against US agression by any – including nuclear – means necessary. Arthur Scargill was not prepared for the SLP to adopt what he perceived to be an orthodox Marxist-Leninist line, and therefore expelled the majority of the central committee and the entire Yorkshire region of ‘his’ party. Those comrades went on to form the CPGB-ML. Many of the founding members had previously been members of the Association of Communist Workers or the Indian Workers Association.

The party’s chairman is a retired university law lecturer, writer and businessman Harpal Brar, who has been editor of the Marxist-Leninist journal Lalkar (formerly the organ of the Indian Workers Association) since 1979. Harpal was a national leader of the Indian Workers Association throughout the 1970s – 1990s, which participated in and led many important working class struggles. He and the CPGB-ML, have published many of his and his comrades writings on aspects of Marxism. He is a defender of the record of the Soviet Union under the leadership of the CPSU(B) and Joseph Stalin. He has written extensively and made presentations on the capitalist economic crisis we are currently facing, the Chinese revolution and many other subjects of historical importance to the working class.

Harpal Brar has spoken in debates at the Oxford Union in 2008 (Against the motion ‘capitalism can save the planet‘), and the Durham union on three occasions (in 2010, against the motion ‘the West has a duty to impose democracy‘, in 2011 against the motion this house would fight for queen and country‘; and in 2012 in favour of the motion ‘capitalism has failed’). He was interviewed by Durham Students Union Radio after the last named debate on the record of Soviet Communism.

His books include Perestroika, the complete collapse of revisionismTrotskyism or LeninismSocial democracy – the enemy withinBourgeois nationalism or proletarian internationalism,Imperialism – decadent, parasitic, moribund capitalismChimurenga! The liberation struggle in Zimbabwe60th Anniversary of the victory over fascismImperialism – the eve of the social revolution of the proletariatImperialism and WarNato’s predatory war against YugoslaviaThe British General StrikeCapitalism and Immigration, and Revisionism and the demise of the USSR.

The party’s vice-chairman and international secretary is Ella Rule. Ella rule has been active in the movement for 50 years, and has also written and published extensively. She has written a book entitled “Marxism and the Emancipation of Women”, and cowrote Imperialism in the Middle East, among other works. She has researched and made presentations on class society in Britain, the econmic crisis of capitalism and on the Katyn Massacre and the world food crisis, among others.

The party’s general secretary is Zane Carpenter. He has made presentations on revisionism and the reasons the USSR collapsed.

CPGB-ML contingent at London May Day march in 2008


Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Template:Scientific Socialism


Question book-new.svg
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed(December 2012)

The CPGB-ML adheres to Marxism-Leninism as they perceive it was developed by Karl MarxFriedrich EngelsVladimir LeninJoseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. They consider that, after the death of Stalin, Khrushchev and other revisionists in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union leadership undermine dsocialism to the point where the Soviet Union collapsed.

The CPGB-ML argues there is no separate ideology of Stalinism, which it believes is a term coined by Trotskyists, and used as an ‘insult’ rather than accurate political characterisation. The CPGB-ML is opposed to Trotsky’s petty bourgeois and anti-communist teachings, and to his modern-day trotskyite disciples, who it maintains are the agents of imperialism in the working class movement. Harpal Brar’s book “Trotskyism or Leninism” argues that Stalin and Mao were simply disciples of Marx, Engels and Lenin, who applied their teachings to guide workers’ struggles in the concrete historical conditions they faced, with great distinction. He has presented his work at party schools and can be viewed on line.

The party places particular emphasis on the importance of political education of its members and supporters in the classics of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, and a broad historical understanding of the world, including the achievements of the Soviet Union.

The CPGB-ML is a steadfast supporter of communist states and other perceived anti-imperialist nations, including North Korea, Zimbabwe and People’s Republic of China. Delegations from the Chinese embassy have attended meetings of the CPGB-ML and members of the CPGB-ML and the Red Youth have made visits to North Korea.


It takes a keen interest in international affairs and supports the Irish Republican movement, the Iraqi ResistanceCuba, the People’s Republic of China and North Korea. Many CPGB-ML members were are active in the Stop the War Coalition despite the party’s disaffiliation by the social democrats controlling its leadership faction in October 2011, over its support for Muammar Gaddafi and criticism of StW’s betrayal during NATOs invasion of Libya and Syria, which it terms the Libyan civil war‘,[4] their respective trade unions and pensioners’ campaigns. The CPGB-ML has declared its support for President Bashar al-Assadin the Syrian civil war, and supports the state of Palestine against Israel, believing Israel to be illegally occupying Palestinian land.[5]

[edit]Electoral work

CPGB-ML is also a party front ‘Proletarian’ which was formed in 2008. The party front was formed “to prepare for standing in elections”, although they have not stood any candidates to date. The CPGB-ML’s members spend time leafleting in public and attending marches, but understand that the working class will become a force only when they are organised and united with an advanced communist understanding of the nature of their oppressors and the means of their liberation. This is the main task upon which all their actions centre. [6]


  1. ^ “LALKAR online”. Retrieved 2012-10-13.
  2. ^ “Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist). Retrieved 2011-12-10.
  3. ^ “Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)”. Retrieved 2011-12-10.
  4. ^ “Not so memorable – Communist Party of Great Britain”. Retrieved 2012-10-13.
  5. ^ Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)”. 2012-06-30. Retrieved 2012-10-13.
  6. ^ [1][dead link]

Posted in UKComments Off on Wikipedia: Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist)

The Islamic Emirate of Syriastan

A direct consequence of the divide and rule, Sunni-against-Shi’ite games the Americans have been encouraging for 10 years now; the next stage is set for a civil war, Syria-style, in Iraq
By Pepe Escobar
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at
PARIS – And now some breaking news coming from the Islamic Emirate of Syriastan. This program is brought to you by the NATOGCC corporation. Please also tune in for a word from our individual sponsors, the United States government, Britain, France, Turkey, the House of Saud and the Emir of Qatar.
It all started early this week, with a proclamation by the elusive leader of al-Qaeda Central, Ayman “The Doctor” al-Zawahiri, hidden somewhere in the Pakistani tribal areas; how come Double O Bama with his license to kill (list) and prime drone fleet cannot find him?
Al-Zawahiri called for all the Islamist brigades in the Jihad Inc business fighting the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to found an Islamic emirate, the passport du jour leading to an Islamic caliphate.
Two days later, the Islamic State of Iraq – for all practical purposes al-Qaeda in Iraq – announced, via a video starring its leader Abu Bakr al-Husseini al-Qurashi al-Baghdadi, a mergers and acquisition spectacular; from now on, it would be united with the Syrian jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra, and be referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
But then, the next day, the head of Jabhat al-Nusra, the shady Abu Muhammad al-Joulani, said that yes, we do pledge our allegiance to al-Qaeda Sheikh, Doctor al-Zawahiri; but there has been no M&A business whatsoever with al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Puzzled infidels from Washington to Beijing may be entitled to believe this is straight from Monty Python – but it’s actually deadly serious; especially as the House of Saud, the Emir of Qatar, the neo-Ottoman Erdogan in Turkey and King Playstation from Jordan – vastly supported by Washington – continue to weaponize the Syrian “rebels” to Kingdom Come. And one of the top beneficiaries of this weaponizing orgy has been – who else – the M&A gang now known as the Islamic State of the Iraq and Levant.
Let’s hit them with our option
Every grain of sand in the Syrian-Iraqi desert knows that the “rebels” who really matter in fighting terms in Syria are from Jabhat al-Nusra – hundreds of transnationals fond of beheading and suicide bombings.
They control, for instance, a few important suburbs of Aleppo. They’ve perpetrated scores of kidnappings, torture and summary executions. Crucially, they killed a lot of civilians. And they want to impose no-compromise, hardcore Sharia law. No wonder middle-class, educated Syrians fear them more than anything lethal the government might resort to.
Al-Baghdadi admitted the obvious: Syrian jihadis are an annex to Iraqi jihadis, from whom, crucially, they have been receiving on-the-ground battle experience. After all, it was these hardcore Iraqis who fought the Americans, especially from 2004 to 2007. The plum tomato in the kebab is that al-Nusra itself was founded by Sunni Syrians fighting alongside Sunni Iraqis in Iraq.
Then there’s what the House of Saud is up to. The Saudis are competing in a regional marathon against al-Qaeda to see who enrolls more Sunni fanatics to fight those apostate Iranians, both in Iraq and the northern Levant. The House of Saud loves any jihadi, local or transnational, as long as he does not raise hell inside Saudi Arabia.
The alphabet soup of US intel agencies should know all that by now; otherwise suspicion that they spent all this time watching Monty Python reruns will be proven correct. Reason seemed to have prevailed when a puzzled State Department, via Secretary John Kerry, reversed Hillary Clinton’s Artemis syndrome and last month called for the Assad regime and the “rebels” to negotiate – anything – although he also had the temerity to proclaim there are “moderates” among the jihadis.
But then, earlier this week in Jerusalem, just as the jihadi merger and acquisition was about to be announced in Syria/Iraq, Kerry insisted that for the Obama administration “no option is off the table” in terms of a US attack on – Iran.
Abandon all hope all you geopolitical dwellers in this valley of tears. The State Department does remain as puzzled as ever, as no rational adults seem to be able to distinguish between hardcore Sunni jihadis – of the 9/11 kind – and “axis of evil” Iranians.
The Europeans at least seem to be having second thoughts. The French announced this week they want to convince the European Union and the UN Security Council to brand Jabhat al-Nusra as a “terrorist organization”. Yet everybody runs for cover when the question of what happens to the weaponizing of the Syrian “rebels” arises; it’s obvious that Jabhat al-Nusra is having a ball with the status quo.
And still, next week, they will meet again – the main producers of this ghastly Z-movie, Regime Change Special Ops, plus some marginal players. It will be the US, the Brits and the French, Turkey, Germany, Italy, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They will agree to keep the weaponizing going – and actually turbo-charge it.
So what is the CIA doing in all this mess? Well, hoping it gets messier, by supporting Baghdad-approved Shi’ite Iraqi militias to go after the jihadi superstars of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki even asked for CIA drones to bomb them to paradise. No luck – for now.
Baghdad has seen the writing on the wall – a direct consequence of the divide and rule, Sunni-against-Shi’ite games the Americans have been encouraging for 10 years now; the next stage is set for a civil war, Syria-style, in Iraq. Iraqi intelligence is seriously infiltrated by Islamic State of Iraq jihadis. There are no desert borders to speak of; Anbar province is watching what’s unfolding in Syria as a dress rehearsal for what will happen in Iraq.
It’s as if the brand new Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant cannot wait for Iraq to be back to that sinister, gruesome period between 2004 and 2008, when the body count could make Bruce Willis cringe. So what’s a Pentagon in retreat to do? Shock and awe them all over again? Oh, no; this option is not for Iraq or the Islamic Emirate of Syriastan; it’s only on the table for Iran.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The Islamic Emirate of Syriastan

BDS movement and the Palestinian Principles

by Sameh Habeeb






Palestine, (Pal Telegraph) – The inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are the basic pillars for constructing a legitimate movement seeking justice, peace and reconciliation. Any departure from them or attempts to jettison any part of it is certainly a shameful u turn and an insult against the entire Palestinian people. It insults Palestinians who sacrificed their lives, the many hundreds of thousands that are imprisoned, the millions that live in squalor and degradation as refugees and indeed the entire Palestinian cause.

As the last two decades have shown, concession of fundamental rights is not the road to peace and reconciliation. Under Oslo Palestinian Authority compromised their inalienable rights to no avail.

At the core of Palestinian cause is justice for Palestinian refugees including the Right of Return of all refugees who were forcibly expelled from their homes. Many shameful attempts were made by Israel and America to suppress the just cause of the refugees by settling them in their Diaspora or proposing to allow not more than 150,000 to return not to their original homes but the future Palestinian state in Gaza and West Bank. Previous attempts to dissolve the right of return were proposed by Mark Etheridge, at Lausanne Conference, Gordon R. Clapp and many others. But all failed and Palestinian refugees in the camps remain resolute in their desire to return.
Bluntly speaking, Palestinian Authority –through its officials- implicitly affirmed a fair and just solution to the refugee issue without any reference to the rights of the refugees as stated under international law, and without any frame of reference to suggest what justice for refugees constitutes. This misconceived position leaves an inalienable right of the Palestinian people subject to a process of unequal and unfair negotiations.
BDS Movement and Mission Statement Change
Contrastingly, civil organisations and solidarity movements are closer to Palestinian rights. However few have adopted the PA track of two-state solution based on 1967 borders, which in my view has damaged the – one state solution, is the most appropriate way out for peace– cause of peace and justice in Palestine. It should be clear to any movement or active organisations that their struggle should be built only on the basic rights of Palestinian people. There should be no wavering of rights of the Palestinian people by organizations claiming to stand up for justice for the Palestinians.
It is noticeable that the BDS movement is achieving a resounding success in isolating Israeli apartheid. The movement is drawing assimilation between Israeli apartheid and the South Africa which is totally valid.
Looking at the BDS website, the movement seems to have compromised the most fundamental of Palestinian rights:  In an entirely underhanded way the BDS National Committee had changed the wording of its mission statement from

demanding that Israel ends Its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands


Its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on BDS movement and the Palestinian Principles



By Gilad Atzmon
Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

In his new book, “The Invention Of The Land of Israel”, Israeli academic Shlomo Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of the far fetched nature of the Zionist historical narrative – that the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.

Yet, Sand and many others fail to address the most important question: If Zionism is based on myth, how do the Zionists manage to get a way with their lies, and for so long?

If the Jewish ‘homecoming’ and the demand for a Jewish national homeland cannot be historically substantiated, why has it been supported by both Jews and the West for so long? How does the Jewish state manage for so long to celebrate its racist expansionist ideology and at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples?

Jewish power is obviously one answer, but, what is Jewish power? Can we ask this question without being accused of being Anti Semitic? Can we ever discuss its meaning and scrutinize its politics? Is Jewish Power a dark force, managed and maneuvered by some conspiratorial power? Is it something of which Jews themselves are shy? Quite the opposite – Jewish power, in most cases, is celebrated right in front of our eyes. As we know, AIPAC is far from being quiet about its agenda, its practices or its achievements. AIPAC, CFI in the UK and CRIF in France are operating in the most open manner and often openly brag about their success.

Furthermore, we are by now accustomed to watch our democratically elected leaders shamelessly queuing to kneel before their pay-masters. Neocons certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to hide their close Zionist affiliations. Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League (ADL) works openly towards the Judification of the Western discourse, chasing and harassing anyone who dares voice any kind of criticism of Israel or even of Jewish choseness. And of course, the same applies to the media, banking and Hollywood. We know about the many powerful Jews who are not in the slightest bit shy about their bond with Israel and their commitment to Israeli security, the Zionist ideology, the primacy of Jewish suffering, Israeli expansionism and even outright Jewish exceptionalism.

But, as ubiquitous as they are, AIPAC, CFI, ADL, Bernie Madoff,‘liberator’ Bernard Henri Levy, war-advocate David Aaronovitch, free market prophet Milton Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Haim Saban, Lord Levy and many other Zionist enthusiasts and Hasbara advocates are not necessarily the core or the driving force behind Jewish Power, but are merely symptoms. Jewish power is actually far more sophisticated than simply a list of Jewish lobbies or individuals performing highly developed manipulative skills.Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not ‘right wing’ Zionists who facilitate Jewish power, It is actually the ‘good’, the ‘enlightened’ and the ‘progressive’ who make Jewish power the most effective and forceful power in the land. It is the ‘progressives’ who confound our ability to identify the Judeocentric tribal politics at the heart of Neoconservatism, American contemporary imperialism and foreign policy. It is the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist who goes out of his or her way to divert our attention from the fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and blinds us to the fact that its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. It was the Jewish Left intellectuals who rushed to denounce Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, Jeff Blankfort and James Petras’ work on the Jewish Lobby. And it is no secret that Occupy AIPAC, the campaign against the most dangerous political Lobby in America, is dominated by a few righteous members of the chosen tribe. We need to face up to the fact that our dissident voice is far from being free. Quite the opposite, we are dealing here with an institutional case of controlled opposition.

In George Orwell’s 1984, it is perhaps Emmanuel Goldstein who is the pivotal character. Orwell’s Goldstein is a Jewish revolutionary, a fictional Leon Trotsky. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious anti-party organization called “The Brotherhood” and is also the author of the most subversive revolutionary text (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). Goldstein is the ‘dissenting voice’, the one who actually tells the truth. Yet, as we delve into Orwell’s text, we find out from Party’s ‘Inner Circle’ O’Brien that Goldstein was actually invented by Big Brother in a clear attempt to control the opposition and the possible boundaries of dissidence.

Orwell’s personal account of the Spanish Civil War “Homage To Catalonia” clearly presaged the creation of Emmanuel Goldstein. It was what Orwell witnessed in Spain that, a decade later, matured into a profound understanding of dissent as a form of controlled opposition. My guess is that, by the late 1940’s, Orwell had understood the depth of intolerance, and tyrannical and conspiratorial tendencies that lay at the heart of ‘Big Brother-ish’ Left politics and praxis.

Surprisingly enough, an attempt to examine our contemporaneous controlled opposition within the Left and the Progressive reveal that it is far from being a conspiratorial. Like in the case of the Jewish Lobby, the so-called ‘opposition’ hardly attempts to disguise its ethno-centric tribal interests, spiritual and ideological orientation and affiliation.

A brief examination of the list of organisations founded by George Soros Open Society Institute (OSI) presents a grim picture – pretty much the entire American progressive network is funded, partially or largely by a liberal Zionist, philanthropic billionaire who supports very many good and important causes that are also very good for the Jews. And yet, like staunch Zionist Haim Saban, Soros does not operate clandestinely. His Open Society Institute proudly provides all the necessary information regarding the vast amount of shekels it spreads on its good and important causes.

So one can’t accuse Soros or the Open Society Institute of any sinister vetting the political discourse, stifling of free speech or even to ‘controlling the opposition’. All Soros does is to support a wide variety of ‘humanitarian causes’: Human Rights, Women’s Rights. Gay Rights, equality, democracy, Arab ‘Spring’, Arab Winter, the oppressed, the oppressor, tolerance, intolerance, Palestine, Israel, anti war, pro-war (only when really needed), and so on.

As with Orwell’s Big Brother that frames the boundaries of dissent by means of control opposition, Soros’ Open Society also determines, either consciously or unconsciously, the limits of critical thought. Yet, unlike in 1984, where it is the Party that invents its own opposition and write its texts, within our ‘progressive’ discourse, it is our own voices of dissent, willingly and consciously, that are compromising their principles.

Soros may have read Orwell – he clearly believes his message – because from time to time he even supports opposing forces. For instance, he funds the Zionist-lite J Street as well as Palestinian NGO organisations. And guess what? It never takes long for the Palestinian beneficiaries to, compromise their own, most precious principles so they fit nicely into their paymaster’s worldview.

The Visible Hand

The invisible hand of the market is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behaviour of the marketplace. In contemporary politics. The visible hand is a similar metaphor which describes the self-regulating tendency of the political-fund beneficiary, to fully integrate the world view of its benefactor into its political agenda.

Democracy Now, the most important American dissident outlet has never discussed the Jewish Lobby with Mearsheimer, Walt, Petras or Blankfort – the four leading experts who could have informed the American people about the USA’s foreign policy domination by the Jewish Lobby. For the same reasons, Democracy Now wouldn’t explore the Neocon’s Judeo-centric agenda nor would it ever discuss Jewish Identity politics with yours truly. Democracy Now will host Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, it may even let Finkelstein chew up Zionist caricature Alan Dershowitz – all very good, but not good enough.

Is the fact that Democracy Now is heavily funded by Soros relevant? I’ll let you judge.

If I’m correct (and I think I am) we have a serious problem here. As things stand, it is actually the progressive discourse, or at least large part of it.  that sustains Jewish Power. If this is indeed the case, and I am convinced it is, then the occupied progressive discourse, rather than Zionism, is the primary obstacle that must be confronted.

It is no coincidence that the ‘progressive’ take on ‘antisemitism’ is suspiciously similar to the Zionist one. Like Zionists, many progressive institutes and activists adhere to the bizarre suggestion that opposition to Jewish power is ‘racially motivated’ and embedded in some ‘reactionary’ Goyish tendency. Consequently, Zionists are often supported by some ‘progressives’ in their crusade against critics of Israel and Jewish power. Is this peculiar alliance between these allegedly opposing schools of thoughts, the outcome of a possible ideological continuum between these two seemingly opposed political ideologies? Maybe, after all, progressiveness like Zionism is driven by a peculiar inclination towards ‘choseness’. After all, being progressive somehow implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. It is those self-centric elements of exceptionalism and choseness that have made progressiveness so attractive to secular and emancipated Jews. But the main reason the ‘progressive’ adopted the Zionist take on antisemitism, may well be because of the work of that visible hand that miraculously shapes the progressive take on race, racism and the primacy of Jewish suffering.

We may have to face up to the fact that the progressive discourse effectively operates as Israel’s longest arm – it certainly acts as a gatekeeper and as protection for Zionism and Jewish tribal interests. If Israel and its supporters would ever be confronted with real opposition it might lead to some long-overdue self-reflection. But at the moment, Israel and Zionist lobbies meet only insipid, watered-down, progressively-vetted resistance that, in practice, sustains Israeli occupation, oppression and an endless list of human rights abuses.

Instead of mass opposition to the Jewish State and its aggressive lobby, our ‘resistance’ is reduced into a chain of badge-wearing, keffiyeh-clad, placard-waving mini-gatherings with the occasional tantrum from some neurotic Jewess while being videoed by another good Jew. If anyone believes that a few badges, a load of amateur Youtube clips celebrating Jewish righteousness are going to evolve into a mass anti-Israel global movement, they are either naïve or stupid.

In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that current Americans’ sympathy for Israel has reached an All-Time High. 64% of Americans sympathise with the Jewish State, while only 12% feel for the Palestinians. This is no surprise and our conclusion should be clear. As far as Palestine is concerned,  ‘progressive’ ideology and praxis have led us precisely nowhere. Rather than advance the Palestinian cause, it only locates the ‘good’ Jew at the centre of the solidarity discourse.

When was the last time a Palestinian freedom fighter appeared on your TV screen? Twenty years ago the Palestinian were set to become the new Che Guevaras. Okay, so the Palestinian freedom fighter didn’t necessarily speak perfect English and wasn’t a graduate of an English public school, but he was free, authentic and determined. He or she spoke about their land being taken and of their willingness to give what it takes to get it back. But now, the Palestinian has been ‘saved’, he or she doesn’t have to fight for his or her their land, the ‘progressive’ is taking care of it all.

This ‘progressive’ voice speaks on behalf of the Palestinian and, at the same time, takes the opportunity to also push marginal politics, fight ‘Islamism’ and ‘religious radicalisation’ and occasionally even supports the odd interventionst war and, of course, always, always, always fights antisemitism. The controlled opposition has turned the Palestinian plight into just one more ‘progressive’ commodity, lying on the back shelf of its ever-growing ‘good-cause’ campaign store.

For the Jewish progressive discourse, the purpose behind pro-Palestinian support is clear. It is to present an impression of pluralism within the Jewish community. It is there to suggest that not all Jews are bad Zionists. Philip Weiss, the founder of the most popular progressive pro-Palestinian blog was even brave enough to admit to me that it is Jewish self -interests that stood at the core of his pro Palestinian activity.

Jewish self-love is a fascinating topic. But even more fascinating is Jewish progressives loving themselves at the expense of the Palestinians. With billionaires such as Soros maintaining the discourse, solidarity is now an industry, concerned with profit and power rather than ethics or values and it is a spectacle both amusing and tragic as the Palestinians become a side issue within their own solidarity discourse.

So, perhaps before we discuss the ‘liberation of Palestine’, we first may have to liberate ourselves.


Facts About the U.S. Drone Program


prepared by the ANSWER Coalition

View and print a one-page PDF with this fact sheet.

There has been a vast expansion of the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (drones) around the world by the U.S. military as part of the so-called “war on terror,” a war which is great for the military-industrial corporations, the big banks and oil companies. The expansion began during the Bush administration but has increased exponentially under the Obama administration.

As of March 2011, the U.S. Air Force was training more pilots for advanced unmanned aerial vehicles than for any other single weapons system.

Then Air Force Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley proudly said: “We’ve moved from using [drones] primarily in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance roles before Operation Iraqi Freedom, to a true hunter-killer role with the Reaper.”

President Obama and his top advisers, including new CIA director John Brennan and Attorney General Eric Holder, have outrageously asserted the administration’s “right” to target and kill anyone they decide to, including U.S. citizens both inside and outside the United States. Meetings are reportedly convened by the White House on Tuesdays to review “kill lists” of potential victims with the targeted assassinations approved by the president and other top officials.

The Obama administration claims that they only target “operational leaders” of al-Qaeda. Even if this were true, launching a military attack on another country with which the United States is not at war is a war crime.

Furthermore, it is clearly not true that this is the extent of their drone attacks. The Pentagon and CIA have two categories of drone attacks, “personality strikes” and “signature strikes.” “Personality strikes” are aimed at assassinating a particular individual. In the case of “signature strikes,” the drone operators simply target anyone who looks like they might fit a “signature” or pattern of a “terrorist.” According to the Washington Post, “most attacks are now ‘signature strikes.’”

A “senior U.S. intelligence official” told the Associated Press that “large groups of armed men” could constitute a “signature” in Pakistan. Other unnamed officials said it could be “groups of armed militants traveling by truck toward the war in Afghanistan.”

According to an ongoing Pro Publica report titled “What We Know About Drones So Far,” former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair echoed this, saying that “armed men who we see getting into pickup trucks.”

In the frontier provinces in Pakistan, where most of the drone strikes take place, a large part of the adult male population carry weapons and pick-up trucks are a common means of transportation. USA Today reported that “most men” in those areas consider their rifle a necessity.

In a November 2012 Daily Beast interview, former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter revealed the actual targeting criteria: “A male between the ages of 20 and 40.”

One official told the New York Times of a “joke” making the rounds at the CIA that “three guys doing jumping jacks” constituted a terrorist training camp. According to a May 2012 article in the same newspaper, the White House has found a way to downsize civilian casualties by simply classifying all males of “fighting age” killed in drone attacks as “militants.”

While the government works hard to cover it up, the vast majority of those killed by drone strikes are non-combatant civilians. A 2012 joint study by New York University and Stanford titled “Living Under Drones” begins:

In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the United States safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorist, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.

This narrative is false.

Later the study reports:

The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2 percent.

That drones are instruments not just to kill but also to terrorize the population is made clear by another section of NYU/Stanford report:

Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims.

Drones are lethal weapons of war, but what makes them particularly important to the Pentagon and the government as a whole is their political value:  All the casualties are all on one side. The drone operators are far from the “battlefield.” They direct the attacks sitting in front of computer screens in darkened rooms at bases in the United States and secret locations around the world.

On April 13, 2013, people will be marching in Washington, D.C., and in cities throughout the country. Join an action in your area.

Make an urgently needed financial donation to support the anti-Drone protests by clicking this link.

View and print a one-page PDF with this fact sheet.

Posted in USAComments Off on Facts About the U.S. Drone Program

What’s annoying the North Koreans?


How Obama is creating a crisis on the Korean Peninsula

By Gregory Elich

This article was originally published on

Relations between the United States and North Korea have reached a nadir, and in most Western media reports it is the seemingly irrational harsh rhetoric emanating from North Korea that is to blame. Inexplicably, we are told, North Korea has chosen to raise tensions.

What is missing from this image of hostile North Korean behavior and blameless American victimhood is context. As is often the case, the media present events in an isolated fashion as if arising suddenly and without cause.

One does not have to look very far back in time to discern what is troubling the North Koreans. In recent months, the Obama Administration has taken a number of steps that the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the official name for North Korea) has perceived as threatening.

The first step on the path to worsened relations came in October 2012, when the United States granted South Korea an exemption under the Missile Control Technology Regime, permitting it to extend the range of its ballistic missiles so that they could cover the entire territory of the DPRK. i As a result, there was one set of terms that applied to every nation which had joined the treaty, and a different set applying only to South Korea, clearly for the purpose of targeting its neighbor to the north.

That same month, U.S. and South Korean military officials met for the annual Security Consultative Meeting, where they agreed to sweeping changes in their alliance. Most importantly, they developed a plan that they termed “tailored deterrence,” which calls for joint South Korean-U.S. military operations against North Korea in a number of scenarios, including minor incidents. Any “provocation” by North Korea is to be met with disproportionate force, and according to a South Korean military official, “this strategy will be applied in both peacetime and wartime.” ii

An essential component of tailored deterrence is a “kill chain” for tracking and striking North Korean missile sites, in which American satellites and drones detect targets and South Korean missiles and warplanes take them out. The plan calls for a preemptive attack based on the perception of an imminent launch of North Korean missiles. Deputy Commander of the UN Command Korea Lt. General Jan-Marc Jouas explains that North Korean missiles could be rapidly targeted “before they are in position to employ.” iii To put it plainly, an attack could be launched on missile sites based on supposition, even when North Korean missiles are not in a position to fire.

On December 12, 2012, the DPRK launched an earth observation satellite into orbit, triggering condemnation by the Obama Administration, which charged that the flight was a disguised ballistic missile test. UN resolutions forbade North Korea from testing ballistic missiles, but Pyongyang argued that sending a satellite into space is not the same thing as testing a ballistic missile test. Missile technology experts tend to agree, pointing out that the missile the DPRK launched lacked the performance to serve as an ICBM and its flight path took a sharp turn to avoid flying over Taiwan and the Philippines, an action that is counter-productive for a ballistic missile test. iv

South Korean naval vessels managed to salvage debris from the North Korean missile. Analysis showed that a small engine with a low 13 to 14-ton thrust powered the second stage. Munich-based aerospace engineer Marcus Schiller reported that a low-thrust, long-burn time second stage, such as the North Koreans used, is precisely the design needed for a satellite launcher. Such a design is needed to attain a high enough altitude to place a satellite into orbit. That design, however, is inappropriate for a ballistic missile test, as it would cost more than 1,000 kilometers in range. To test a ballistic missile, the second stage should have the opposite design, having a high-thrust and short burn-time. Schiller concludes that Western media reports that North Korea’s satellite launch served as a ballistic missile test “are not true.” v

Michael Elleman, security analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, notes that the results of a satellite launch “have limited application to ballistic missiles,” as only a fraction of issues can be tested. “Other requirements, most notably re-entry technologies and operational flexibility requirements, cannot be adequately addressed by satellite launches.” Elleman reports that for these and other reasons, North Korea’s satellite missile launches “are not a substitute for ballistic missile testing.” vi

Interestingly, on the same day that North Korea lofted its satellite into space, India, another nuclear power, test fired a ballistic missile without American officials voicing a complaint. vii The United States is not lacking in aerospace engineers, and U.S. officials were surely aware that North Korea’s satellite launch could not be technologically construed as a disguised ballistic missile test. It appears that the Obama Administration deliberately chose to misrepresent the nature of the launch in order to further its own political ends.

The satellite launch provided the Obama Administration with an opportunity to tighten the noose around North Korea, and after extensive negotiations it managed to push a resolution through the United Nations Security Council. As U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland explained it, the Obama Administration’s intent was “to continue to increase the pressure on the North Korean regime. And we’re looking at how best to do that, both bilaterally and with our partners going forward. Until they get the message, we’re going to have to continue to further isolate this regime.”viii

With the passage of UN Security Council resolution 2087 on January 22, 2013, new sanctions were imposed on North Korea, despite the fact that the international outer space treaty grants the right to explore space to “all states without discrimination of any kind.” ix

North Korea reacted angrily to being singled out as the only nation on earth denied the right to launch a satellite. The DPRK was disinclined to acquiesce in the imposition of additional sanctions, when its economy was already reeling from existing sanctions. A DPRK Foreign Ministry spokesman pointed out that by ramming the resolution through the Security Council, the United States had violated the UN Charter, which states “the Organization isbased on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”

Speaking at the United Nations, DPRK delegate So Se Pyong declared, “There were no less than 2,000 nuclear tests and at least 9,000 satellite launches in the world since the UN came into existence, but never has there been even a single resolution of its Security Council that banned nuclear test and satellite launch.” Adding that the United States has carried out more nuclear tests and satellite launches than any other nation, the delegate said that the United States should not be allowed to block North Korea from exercising its right “to use space for peaceful purposes,” nor to use the United Nations “as a tool for executing its hostile policy toward the DPRK.” x

To no one’s surprise, North Korea chose to express its resistance to the aggressiveness of U.S. policy by conducting its third nuclear test on February 12, 2013. Several days later, in an apparent reference to Iraq and Libya, North Korean media recalled the fates that had befallen those nations that had abandoned their nuclear weapons programs in response to U.S. pressure. Those examples, it added, “teach the truth that the U.S. nuclear blackmail should be countered with substantial countermeasures, not with compromise or retreat.” xi

One day after the nuclear test, the South Korean Ministry of National Defense announced that it had deployed cruise missiles capable of striking anywhere in North Korea and that it would accelerate development of ballistic missiles of similar range. Furthermore, implementation of the kill chain would be sped up. xii Originally planned for completion in 2015, the kill chain is now on track to be in place by the end of this year. xiii

While discussions were underway in the United Nations Security Council on imposing additional sanctions on North Korea, the European Union forged ahead with its own set of measures, including a prohibition on trade with North Korean public entities and trade in DPRK public bonds. It also placed a ban on European banks opening in the DPRK and North Korean banks establishing a branch in the EU. xiv

It took more than three weeks to negotiate a United Nations Security Council resolution in response to the North Korean nuclear test. The most contentious issue was whether or not to include Chapter 7, Article 42, which would have authorized military enforcement. The United States and South Korea both argued strongly for its inclusion. Another difficult issue was inspection of North Korean cargo ships, and there was extensive discussion before the United States and China agreed on the extent of inspections. xv

The Chinese refused to agree to military enforcement, rightly fearing that it would increase the risk of war. Nor would they go along with some of the harsher measures that the United States had included as a wish list in its draft. xvi Military enforcement would have been particularly dangerous, given the history of how Article 42 has served as a path for the United States to wage war.

Although the United States did not get everything it wanted, the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2094 on March 7, 2013 saw it achieve many of the aims it had advocated. The resolution requires all nations to inspect North Korean ships and planes that are suspected of carrying prohibited goods. Strong restrictions are placed on North Korean banking operations. Nations are ordered to prevent North Korean individuals from transferring bulk cash, including diplomatic personnel, who are to be subjected to “enhanced vigilance” in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. xvii By targeting North Korean diplomats for surveillance, searches and detention, the United States aims to cut off one of the few remaining means the DPRK has for engaging in international monetary transactions. UN and United States banking sanctions have made most international banks unwilling to transact with North Korea, forcing the DPRK to conduct much of its foreign trade on a cash basis.

It is the measure restricting business with North Korean banks that promises to inflict the most harm on the North Korean economy. “Going after the banking system in a broad brush way is arguably the strongest thing on the list,” observes former U.S. State Department official Evans J. R. Revere. “It does begin to eat into the ability of North Korea to finance many things.” xviii Primarily normal trade, it should be noted.

Just days later, the U.S. Department of Treasury followed up with its own sanctions, prohibiting transactions between North Korea’s Foreign Trade Bank and U.S. individuals and businesses, and placing a freeze on assets held under U.S. jurisdiction. The Foreign Trade Bank, the Treasury Department points out, is “North Korea’s primary foreign exchange bank.” xix The ban effectively prevents banks and businesses in other nations from trading with the Foreign Trade Bank, lest they be excluded from contact with the U.S. financial system. “When there’s a foreign bank that U.S. banks aren’t doing business with, banks in other countries start to avoid transactions with it,” remarks a financial specialist. “They’re worried about suffering the consequences themselves.” Typically, international trade is based on the dollar, requiring transactions to process through the U.S. financial system. For that reason, “Chinese banks aren’t going to be able to help North Korea out,” adds the financial analyst. xx

For its part, South Korea has adopted policies that increase the danger of war. According to a South Korean military official, “Commanders have been given the authority to act first at discretion in the event of a North Korean provocation to inflict a retaliation that is more than ten times as harsh as the level of provocation.” xxi Director of Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Kim Yong-hyon states that in response to an incident South Korean armed forces “will resolutely punish not only the origin of the provocation but also its commanding forces.” xxii It does not require much imagination to recognize how such a policy has the potential of transforming a minor skirmish into a war.

The United States and South Korea have recently signed a counter-provocation plan, in which U.S. forces are pledged to provide support when South Korean forces attack a North Korean target. The plan spells out actions that are to be taken in response to various scenarios. According to a South Korean military official, it takes into account the South Korean policy “which calls for launching counterstrikes at not only the origin of provocation, but also forces supporting it and its commanders.” In some scenarios “U.S. weapons could be mobilized to strike back at North Korea’s territorial waters and soil.” xxiii The counter-provocation plan requires South Korea to consult with the United States before taking action, but if Seoul requests assistance the United States cannot refuse to take part in military operations. xxiv

In a mighty demonstration meant to intimidate North Korea, the United States and South Korea began their annual Key Resolve military exercise on March 11, overlapping with the two-month Foal Eagle military exercise that began on March first. During the exercise, nuclear-capable B-52 bombers took off from Guam and dropped practice munitions in South Korea. xxv U.S. commanders knew this action would inflame North Korean sensibilities, given the stinging memory North Koreans have of the Korean War, when U.S. bombers carried out a scorched earth policy and razed every North Korean town and city to the ground.

The United States further ratcheted up pressure on the DPRK by sending the nuclear-powered submarine USS Cheyenne, equipped with Tomahawk missiles, to participate in Foal Eagle. xxvi Soon thereafter, B-2 Stealth bombers flew over South Korea in military exercises. “As the B-2 has radar-evading stealth function, it can penetrate the anti-aircraft defense to drop conventional and nuclear weapons,” commented a military official. “It is the strategic weapon most feared by North Korea.” xxvii The B-2, it should be noted, is the only plane capable of delivering the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, which can bore through 200 feet of concrete before detonating. The plane can also carry multiple nuclear weapons. Continuing to escalate the show of force, the United States next sent advanced F-22 Stealth fighter planes to South Korea. xxviii The South Korean government asked the United States not to show the planes in public because it would be an unneeded provocation to North Korea. That request went unheeded by the United States. xxix

In a boost to South Korea’s arsenal, the United States has approved the sale of 200 bunker buster bombs, suitable for targeting North Korean underground facilities. Plans call for the bombs to be deployed by the end of the year. xxxSouth Korea also plans to purchase 200 air-launched Taurus cruise missiles from Europe, which are capable of penetrating up to six meters of reinforced concrete. xxxi

As part of its planning for future contingencies, the United States has formed a military organization responsible for entering North Korea and seizing nuclear facilities and weapons in the event of a crisis in the DPRK. In that scenario, U.S. forces would also arrest “key figures” and gather classified information. Which North Korean individuals would be subject to arrest by U.S. forces has not been disclosed. The force would be comprised of U.S. armed forces, intelligence operatives and anti-terrorism personnel. A mock drill implementing the plan was part of the recently concluded Key Resolve exercises. xxxii

Having done everything to provoke the North Koreans, the Obama Administration has seized the opportunity to point to their reaction as justification for deploying a wish list of anti-missile hardware. The Pentagon announced that it would station an additional 14 interceptor missiles at Fort Greely, Alaska and would proceed with its plan to place a second anti-missile radar in Japan. xxxiii A Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery is slated to be trotted out on Guam for its first deployment, xxxiv and the sea-based SBX-1 X-Band Radar platform is moving closer to the western Pacific, in what the Navy says may be the first of other naval deployments.xxxv

The Wall Street Journal reports that the show of military force was planned in advance, in what the Obama Administration termed “the playbook.” The United States acted with the deliberate intention of threatening North Korea. According to the article, the administration decided to place the playbook on “pause” only when the media revealed the deployment of two guided missile destroyers to the western Pacific, and it was felt that perhaps this news risked pushing the North Koreans too far. The deployment of destroyers, it was said, was not meant to be publicized. The next steps in the playbook have been put on hold for the time being. xxxvi It has also been reported that the United States will delay a test flight of a Minuteman ICBM by one month, in order not to raise tensions.

The perception that the Obama Administration wishes to convey to the American and world public, then, is that the United States is acting responsibly in order to defuse the situation. A high-ranking defense official, however, says, “There was no White House secrecy order” regarding the deployment of the destroyers. Furthermore, recently deployed military hardware are not withdrawing, while the large-scale combined U.S.-South Korean Foal Eagle military exercise on North Korea’s doorstep continues without letup. xxxvii

Despite claims that it is toning down its actions, the Obama Administration is doing the opposite. U.S. officials say they do not intend to reengage with the DPRK. xxxviii Tailored deterrence and the kill chain are on accelerated schedules, placing the Korean Peninsula on the knife edge of war. Meanwhile, the United States is working hard to persuade other nations to sanction the DPRK’s Foreign Trade Bank and is considering other ways in which it can bring about North Korea’s economic collapse. An unnamed U.S. State Department official remarked that there was still room for enlarging sanctions. “I don’t know what will succeed, but we haven’t ‘maxed out’; there is headroom, and we have to give it a try.” xxxix

U.S. officials have asked the European Union to sanction the Foreign Trade Bank, and further discussions are expected along those lines. xl Japan and Australia have already agreed to join the United States in sanctioning the bank, and Treasury Department official David Cohen and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have both asked China to do the same. xli President Obama made a personal phone call to Chinese President Xi Jinping, urging him to sanction the Foreign Trade Bank, and U.S. officials continue to pressure China, insisting that if China does not “crackdown” on North Korea, the U.S. will increase its military forces in Asia. xlii

That outcome, the Chinese surely recognize, would be aimed at them as well as North Korea. The choice that the Obama Administration is offering is that the Chinese can either watch the United States expand its militarization of the region and tighten its encirclement of China, or cave in to American pressure and cooperate in bringing economic ruin to North Korea. It is probable that in choosing the latter option, the Chinese would discover that the United States has no intention of slowing down its Asia pivot and its military presence in the region would grow regardless.

A diplomatic source reveals that whether or not China agrees to go along with U.S. demands, the effect on North Korea’s economy may be the same. “What the U.S. government is seeking is to put psychological pressure on Chinese banks. If U.S. banks avoid transactions with Chinese banks that have ties with blacklisted North Korean banks or other entities, it could lead to effects similar to those from secondary boycott sanctions.” xliii

Without question, North Korean officials and media have been issuing fire-breathing proclamations, and they have taken actions such as severing the military hotline with South Korea, announcing their intention of restarting the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, and temporarily closing the Kaesong Industrial Complex, which appear to recklessly exacerbate tensions. Yet, there is logic to their behavior. The Obama Administration has never been willing to negotiate with North Korea, and it clearly aims to effect regime change as it piles sanctions upon sanctions and develops military plans that threaten the DPRK’s existence. In effect, U.S. actions have encouraged North Korea to develop a nuclear weapons program as its only realistic deterrent against attack, given the outmoded technology of its conventional weaponry.

However, North Korean officials know that the U.S. knows that they do not yet have a usable nuclear weapon, nor do they have a suitable delivery vehicle. The DPRK has limited options, and for now North Korean officials apparently feel they have only two choices. They can either meekly accept round after round of punishment while helplessly witnessing the mounting damage to their economy and threats to their nation, or they can ramp up their rhetoric as a means of sending a message to the United States. That message is that if the United States hits North Korea it will get a stronger response than it expects, and it should think twice before striking, and the more the United States applies pressure, the more the DPRK will resist.

Unfortunately, this produces a feedback loop, where the more the United States punishes the DPRK, the stronger the North Koreans resist, and the more they resist, the more punishment comes their way. The only apparent way out of this impasse is a peace process, but the Obama Administration remains adamantly opposed to negotiations.

International Affairs analyst Chen Qi of Tsinghua University points out that the United States “did not respect the security concerns of the DPRK and that is the reason why the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula has not been solved.” Chen suggests, “Washington may not want Pyongyang’s nuclear issue to be solved because it offers an excuse for the U.S. to deploy anti-missile systems and hold military drills in the region, which are in line with its military rebalance to East Asia.” xliv U.S. officials, it should also be kept in mind, have never hidden their desire to bring about regime change in North Korea, regardless of the dangers of that policy.

A change in U.S. policy may never come about unless South Korea firmly leads the way, and that is an unlikely prospect at the present. Such a change may have to wait five years, when the next presidential election takes place in South Korea. That is a long time, given U.S. plans to heighten tensions on the Korean Peninsula. If South Korea does not show leadership for an alternative approach before then, the question is how long tensions can simmer without boiling over into a dangerous crisis.

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and on the Advisory Boards of the Korea Policy Institute and the Korea Truth Commission. He is the author of the book Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit.


v David Wright, “Markus Schiller’s Analysis of North Korea’s Unha-3 Launcher,” All Things Nuclear, February 22, 2013.

vi Michael Elleman, “Prelude to an ICBM? Putting North Korea’s Unha-3 Launch into Context,” Arms Control Association, March 2013.

x “DPRK Delegate Makes Speech at UN Special Committee Session,” KCNA, February 23, 2013.

Stephanie Nebehay, “North Korea Blames U.S. for Tension on Peninsula,” Reuters, February 27, 2013.

xi “Nuclear Test, Part of DPRK’s Substantial Countermeasures to Defend its Sovereignty: KCNA Commentary,” KCNA, February 21, 2013.

xii Kim Eun-jung, “S. Korea Beefs Up Integrated Air and Missile Defense,” Yonhap, February 13, 2013.

Kim Hee-jin, “Military Deploys Cruise Missiles in Reaction to North,” JoongAng Ilbo, February 14, 2013.

xiii “S.Korea, US to Discuss Stopping NK’s Nuclear Program,” Dong-A Ilbo, February 21, 2013.

xiv Adrian Croft, “EU to Tighten Sanctions on North Korea after Nuclear Test,” Reuters, February 15, 2013.

xv Lee Chi-dong, “’Strongest Sanctions’ on NK, Output of Artful U.N. Diplomacy,” Yonhap, March 8, 2013.

“S. Korea Seeks U.N. Resolution with Military Means Against N. Korea,” Yonhap, February 15, 2013.

Park Hyun and Park Min-hee, “US and China Butting Heads over North Korea,” Hankyoreh, February 15, 2013.

xvi Peter Ford, “China Agrees to Sanction North Korea, but How Far will it Go?,” Christian Science Monitor, March 6, 2013.

xvii Security Council SC/10934, “Security Council Strengthens Sanctions on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in Response to 12 February Nuclear Test,” UN Security Council, March 7, 2013.

Park Hyun, “UN Expected to Pass Exceptionally Tough Sanctions on North Korea,” Hankyoreh, March 7, 2013.

xviii Rick Gladstone, “U.N. Resolution to Aim at North Korean Banks and Diplomats,” New York Times, March 5, 2013.

xix Press Release, “Treasury Sanctions Bank and Official Linked to North Korean Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs,” U.S. Department of Treasury, March 11, 2013.

xx Park Hyun, “New Unilateral US Sanctions Target North Korean Banks,” Hankyoreh, March 14, 2013.

xxi Kim Kui-kun, “North’s Threat Offensive…Signing of ‘ROK-US Counter Provocation Plan’ Delayed,” Yonhap, March 12, 2013.

xxii Yi Yong-chong, “Secures Coordinates for a Commander’s Office of the North; If Missile Launched Against It,” JoongAng Ilbo, March 11, 2013.

xxiii Song Sang-ho, “Korea, U.S. Set Up Plan to Counter N.K. Provocation,” Korea Herald, March 24, 2013.

xxiv Hong Jin-su, “U.S. Military Will Intervene Under Certain Conditions Following North Korean Provocation,” Kyunhyang Shinmun, March 25, 2013.

xxv Lee Chi-dong, “B-52 Bombers in Korea Show U.S. Defense Commitment: Pentagon,” Yonhap, March 19, 2013.

xxvi Kang Seung-woo, “Nuclear Sub Joins ROK-US Joint Naval Drill,” Korea Times, March 20, 2013.

xxvii Kim Eun-jung, “U.S. B-2 Stealth Bomber Conducts First Drill in Korea,” Yonhap, March 28, 2013.

xxviii Paul Eckert, “U.S. Stealth Jets Join South Korea Drills Amid Saber-Rattling,” Reuters, March 31, 2013.

xxix “F-22 Stealth Jets Join Drills in S.Korea,” Chosun Ilbo, April 2, 2013.

xxx Kim Eun-jung, “U.S. B-2 Stealth Bomber Conducts First Drill in Korea,” Yonhap, March 28, 2013.

Song Sang-ho, “B-2 Stealth Bombers Conduct Firing Drills on Peninsula,” Korea Herald, March 28, 2013.

xxxi “S.Korea to Buy Bunker-Buster Missiles from Europe,” Chosun Ilbo, April 4, 2013.

xxxii “Pres. Park Urges Preventing NK from ‘Daring’ to Launch Attack,” Dong-A Ilbo, April 3, 2013.

“’US Organ to Take Over NK Nuke Facilities in Case of Crisis,” Dong-a Ilbo, March 7, 2013.

xxxiii Kate Brannen, “North Korea Sparks Missile Defense Upgrade in Alaska,” Politico, March 15, 2013.

Phil Stewart and David Alexander, “U.S. to Bolster Missile Defenses to Counter North Korea Threat: Hagel,” Reuters, March 15, 2013.

xxxiv Julian E. Barnes and Adam Entous, “With an Eye on Pyongyang, U.S. Sending Missile Defenses to Guam,” Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2013.

xxxv Barbara Starr, Jethro Mullen and K.J. Kwon, CNN, April 1, 2013.

xxxvi Adam Entous and Julian E. Barnes, “U.S. Dials Back on Korean Show of Force,” Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2013.

xxxvii Kevin Baron, “Who Exactly Ordered Those Destroyers Against Korea?,” The E-Ring (Foreign Policy), April 4, 2013.

xxxviii Jay Solomon and Julian E. Barnes, “North Korea Warned,” Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2013.

xxxix Adrian Croft, “U.S. Wants EU to Put North Korean Bank on Sanctions List,” Reuters, March 25, 2013.

xl Adrian Croft, “U.S. Wants EU to Put North Korean Bank on Sanctions List,” Reuters, March 25, 2013.

xli Antoni Slodkowski and Warren Strobel, “Japan, Australia to Sanction North Korean Bank as Part of U.S.-Led Crackdown,” Reuters, March 26, 2013.

“U.S. Urges Nations to Cut North Korea’s Financial Link,” CBS News, April 5, 2013.

xlii Mark Landler, “Detecting Shift, U.S. Makes Case to China on North Korea,” New York Times, April 5, 2013.

xliii Lee Chi-dong, “U.S. Officials Discussing Iran-Style Sanctions on N. Korea: Source,” Yonhap, March 20, 2013.

xliv Scott Murdoch, “Beijing Tells US to Tone Down North Korea Threats,” The Australian, February 19, 2013.

Posted in North KoreaComments Off on What’s annoying the North Koreans?

Zionist Lunacy Taking World to Hell in Handbasket



By Prof. Rodney Shakespeare

Zionism. Of course, you can be forgiven for thinking it’s extreme lunacy. Extreme lunacy is beyond nightmares; beyond the ravings of perverted murderers; beyond grotesque, drug-induced hallucinations; beyond that which could be conceived by a drunken Nero; beyond something thought up for Caligula’s birthday party.

Or, put another way, it’s what the USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, UK, the CIA, Mossad and a few others are up to in Syria. Yes, claiming that they are responsible and rational, these self-righteous, corrupt countries and organizations are engaged in financing, training and arming the very Wahhabis, Jihadists, Salafists and al-Qaeda rebels who wish to destroy not only Syria but them as well.

Claiming they are promoting democracy (and if Saudi Arabia is a democracy then I am Caligula’s horse) they are financing, training and arming those who would destroy democracy as well as life, liberty, human rights, tolerance, decency, standard of living, female integrity – you name it. And, oh yes, the Wahhabis, Jihadists, Salafists and al-Qaeda want to kill all Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and, in particular, Shia Muslims.

Of course, the West is claiming that it is only financing and arming the ‘good’ terrorists in Syria but the facts on the ground are that the ‘bad’ ones (e.g., the Jabhat al-Nusra [Victory Front] of throat-slitting, choking gas bent) are, one way or another, getting more and more weapons.

Moreover, they are bragging about it. That is the significance of al-Qaeda in Iraq admitting that it is al-Qaeda; of Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria merging with al-Qaeda in Iraq; and of the leader of Jabhatal-Nusra in Syria proclaiming his fealty to the global leader of al-Qaeda (Ayman al-Zawahiri). The whole lot of them – al Qaeda, Wahhabists, Jihadists and Salafists – are joining up to fight for the “Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham,” encompassing, for starters, Iraq, Syria and the Levant but going much wider in due course.

By financing and arming these gas ghouls and macabre murderers, the West, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and Qatar are shooting themselves in the foot, leg, back and mouth because they are creating something that they cannot control.

Of course, the Arab League (run by a group of vicious plutocrats), has done the West’s bidding by giving Syria’s seat at the League meetings to the foreign-backed Syrian opposition. However, the time will come when League member states are going to find themselves face to face with those very same ‘bad’ rebels. This is because the League is making the mistake of arming its enemies whilst thinking, at the same time, that it can control them.

What an error! The League, Saudi Arabia in particular, will find that it has made an egregious blunder in trying to destroy Syria. Give a gun to an enemy and he will use it on you. And it should never be forgotten that Osama bin Laden’s first enemy (and so al-Qaeda’s) was his homeland (Saudi Arabia) and not the USA.

But why is the West creating something that will eventually destroy its allies like Saudi Arabia, and Qatar and could also come to threaten the West itself?

The answer is that Western foreign policy in the Middle East is controlled by Zionist Israel which wants every Islamic society and every Arab state smashed into pieces. It is the intent of the Zionist entity to eliminate all resistance to the continual expansion of Israel into the lands of others from Syria in the north, to Egypt in the south across to the River Euphrates in the east.

Small Islamic and Arab entities will then be controlled by airborne attacks and Israel’s ultimate threat of being able to blast them apart with two or three of its four hundred atomic and hydrogen bombs.

The Saudis, for example, go along with Israel’s plan because the West backs the kleptomaniac, vicious Persian Gulf autocracies in suppressing the democratic desires of their populations. In exchange for that backing, the autocracies are only required, in practice, to allow the continual expansion of Israel.

The expansion of Israel lies behind the arming of the Jihadist, Salafists, etc., in order to destroy Syria, because it is an ally of Iran. Iran is the strongest opponent of Israel’s Nazi creeping genocide in Palestine.

So the extreme lunacy of arming throat-slitters and gas ghouls who, apart from destroying democracy, want to kill everybody else, is really happening because it is a way to smash up the Middle East societies for the benefit of Zionist Israel and a way that the West and Israel think that they can control the world.

But have a think for a minute.

Would a Wahhabist/Salafist regime in Damascus really be to Israel’s benefit?

Would the “Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham” be a compliant friend whose only desire is to please?

In life we have to be careful about what we wish. Israel is getting much too cocky for its own good and will one day get its comeuppance.

Prof. Rodney Shakespeare is a visiting Professor of Binary Economics at Trisakti University, Jakarta, Indonesia. He is a Cambridge MA, a qualified UK Barrister, a co-founder of the Global Justice Movement , a member of the Christian Council for Monetary Justice. His main website is http://www.binaryeconomics.netV . Shakespeare is also Chair of the Committee Against Torture in Bahrain

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zionist Lunacy Taking World to Hell in Handbasket

Wake Up America: Deir Yassin


Wake Up America April 12, 2013

By: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr

Deir Yassin, a quiet village in Palestine invaded by Zionist terrorist groups 65 years ago that resulted in the butchering of over 100 men, women and children.

Sammi is joined by activist Paul Eisen from the UK to discuss this.

Download Here


Posted in Palestine Affairs, Human Rights, InterviewComments Off on Wake Up America: Deir Yassin

Shoah’s pages