Archive | November 23rd, 2013

“Zero Dark Thirty”: The deeper, darker truths

NOVANEWS 

 

By Jim Fetzer-PRESS TV

 

A film that may even take the Academy Award for “Best Picture of 2012” raises serious moral issues; glorifies a political stunt and is based on an historical fiction. It is the latest in Obama propaganda.

Osama bin Laden was not killed on 2 May 2011 during the raid on a compound in Pakistan. He actually died in Afghanistan on or about 15 December 2001 — and he was buried there in an unmarked grave.

Local obituaries reported Osama’s death at the time. Even FOX News subsequently confirmed it. He was buried in an unmarked grave in accord with Muslim traditions. He did not die in Pakistan.

Nick Kollerstrom has published about it, “Osama bin Laden: 1957-2001. David Ray Griffin has a book about it, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive. And Scholars for 9/11 Truth has written about it.

The film suggests that torture produces actionable intelligence, when virtually every military and intelligence expert will confirm that you are told what those being tortured think you want to hear to stop the pain.

As TIME and The Huffington Post have reported, the film’s depiction of torture has created a controversy that may affect its chances for an Oscar. Among the most notable commentaries is one by Matt Tiabbi.

A columnist for Rolling Stone, he has raised serious questions:

“[I]f it would have been dishonest to leave torture outof the film entirely, how is it not dishonest to leave out how generally ineffective it was, how morally corrupting, how totally it enraged the entire Arab world, how often we used it on people we knew little to nothing about, how often it resulted in deaths, or a hundred other facts? Bigelow put it in, which was “honest,” but it seems an eerie coincidence that she was “honest” about torture in pretty much exactly the way a CIA interrogator would have told the story, without including much else.”

Osama was “our man in Afghanistan”

Even more importantly, the political context has been all but lost to history. Obama was on the hot seat for an apparently fake birth certificate, having troops in Pakistan and not closing Guantanamo.

By alleging that the tip had come from a prisoner held there and using troops stationed in Pakistan, in a brilliant political stroke, he took his birth certificate off the front page, positioning himself for re-election.

Osama was “our man in Afghanistan.” During the uprising against its occupation by Soviet forces, he was instrumental in securing Stinger missiles, which were used to shoot down their helicopters and planes.

In an earlier film about Afghanistan, “Charlie Wilson’s War”, Osama’s role was conveniently omitted. It would have been embarrassing to have acknowledged “the man behind 9/11” had been working for us.

The demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the military/industrial complex scrambling for some new “boogie man” to justify massive expenditures on military weapons and curtail any “peace dividend.”

Nothing could be more useful than a shadowy “terrorist” threat that has no geographical boundaries, where you can commit a terrorist act any time it’s most politically convenient, as with the Bali bombing.

Australia had been reticent about joining the “war on terror.” What could be a greater inducement than to slaughter many Australians by means of a fabricated attack to motivate its enthusiasm for that war.

Analogously, what could have been more beneficial to Obama than to “take out” a man who was already dead by executing a political stunt that most Americans would not be in a suitable position to contest?

Problems with the “Official Account”

But there were problems. Local residents had never seen Osama. They identified the man in the photo as the compound’s owner, who was not bin Laden. The SEALs performed their task and were gone.

A photograph of the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State was widely circulated as engrossed in watching it go down in real time. But the photo itself would turn out to have been
staged.

Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, let the cat out of the bag by noting that there had been no visual footage of the raid during its first 20-25 minutes, which was more than the lapsed time for the whole event.

The body was allegedly identified by DNA comparisons in less time than scientifically possible — and was then dumped into the sea “in accordance with Islamic practice,” which was a ridiculous contention.

Burial at sea is disrespectful of the body, which can be consumed by sharks, fish and crustaceans. That is not a Muslim tradition, but it conveniently disposed of the most powerful proof of fakery and fraud.

When most of the SEAL team involved in the raid were killed when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan a few months later, it was not implausible to suppose that they might have been silenced.

Osama and al-Qaeda, which was the name given to “our base” in Afghanistan, had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama denied that he was involved in 9/11, implicating a “government within the government.”

Another prominent figure who has acknowledged the existence of a “government within the government” is William Jefferson Clinton, who admitted that this is an entity over which he exercised no control.

Research by experts at The Vancouver Hearings (15-17 June 2012) has vindicated his claim, where US neo-cons — with assistance from the Mossad and the complicity of the Pentagon — orchestrated 9/11.

There are many articles about this, including “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” (with Preston James) and “James H. Fetzer: 9/11 IRAN REVIEW Interview”. Or read “9/11: Have we been bamboozed?” The second death of Osama does not stand alone.

JF/HSN

Via PRESS TV

Dr. James H. Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth. A leading expert on the death of JFK and on the atrocities of 9/11, he has published extensively as a journalist for Veterans Today. He edited ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) on the assassination and chaired or co-chaired four national conferences about it. The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, he has published THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), organized the Madison Conference on “The Science and Politics of 9/11″ and, during 2012, The Vancouer Hearings, which brought together experts on different aspects of the case. The conclusions to emerge include that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that all four of the crash sites were faked or fabricated in different ways, that mini or micro nukes were the most likely explanation for the “collapse” of the Twin Towers, and that Israel and American Neo-Cons planned 9/11 to promote their political agenda. The archives for his radio show, “The Real Deal”, on revereradio.net, at radiofetzer.blogspot.com, include more than 500 interviews on the most complex and controversial issues of our time. His most recent and important articles are accessible via “Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer”.

Posted in USAComments Off on “Zero Dark Thirty”: The deeper, darker truths

‘Going to Tehran’ Challenging Unchallenged Myths

NOVANEWS 

Reflections on the newly published book, Going to Tehran, Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran, by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett.

by Kam Zarrabi

No less than the Leveretts could have possibly tackled and challenged the well-established narratives and portrayals regarding Iran, which are based on a set of myths and negative propaganda that could lead to another unnecessary and this time even more catastrophic engagement in the Turbulent Middle East against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Flynt Leverett served at the National Security Council, State Department and the CIA, and is currently a professor of international affairs at Penn State University. Hillary Mann Leverett also served at the National Security Council and the State Department, and is now a senior professional lecturer at American University. Both Flynt and Hillary served as analysts in Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, focused on the Iran issues.
The Leveretts’ biographies appearing on their blog, www.goingtotehran.com, is quite impressive. In short, we are not dealing here with a couple of featherweights attempting to do some real heavy lifting; they know what they are writing and talking about, without any personal angle or bias to distort their objectivity.
I have also been an Iran observer-analyst for the better part of thirty years and have been a frequent lecturer and writer on the US/Middle East issues with special focus on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I returned to the United States a few months after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, and a few months before the US Embassy hostage crisis.  My own background and experiences, both in business and government, and my interest in international affairs, compelled me to devote the major part of my time to following the developments in the post-revolution Iran and the analysis of US/Iran relations.
After joining the World Affairs Council of San Diego, and serving as the regional council’s president in the mid-80s, there remained no doubt in my mind that there were forces in America’s sociopolitical sphere that were actively involved in deliberate distortion, misinformation and negative portrayal of not only the Islamic Republic of Iran, but the world of Islam as a whole. Any attempt to challenge even the most blatantly obvious distortions of the truths regarding these portrayals or the Iranian regime and its policies or intentions would taint and discredit one as an Iran apologist or worse, a paid agent of the Islamic Republic.
Unfortunately, this knee-jerk reaction was not exclusive to the generally and categorically uninformed American public that is historically oblivious to the machination of global politics. For rather obvious reasons, practically all self-exiled or diaspora Iranians I ever met, with the exception of a mere handful, share in that view, not out of ignorance as is the case for the American public’s naiveté, but for the bitterness and personal angst against the events that had led to their expatriation.
To think back, I also lost as much as or even much more than most diaspora Iranians during the course of the Islamic revolution. I am also a fully “Westernized”, American educated and professionally trained individual, I have spent more years here than perhaps 98 percent of diaspora Iranians, my marriages have been with American women, and all my children and grandchildren have been born and raised right here in the United States.  And at the ripe age of 77, I have no expectation of receiving any favors from the leadership of the Islamic Republic as a motivation to skew the observations, analyses and opinions I express. I consider myself a realist, not an apologist, and that is how I regard Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett.

Groundbreaking work by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett.

I am not praising the Leveretts because I agree with their analyses and conclusions as presented in their new book or expressed in their previous articles posted on their original  race for Iran; site.

I admire them for the time and energy they have devoted to this daunting task, as well as for their objectivity, honesty and courage it must have taken to swim against the turbulent current of misperception regarding the US/Iran relations.

Like me, they also want what is clearly the best course of action for the United States, which is certainly not allowing the persistent difficulties in reaching a meaningful dialogue and rapprochement to lead to a more counterproductive entanglement or even a military confrontation.
Since March of 2003, I have posted almost 700 pages of articles in my own websiteintellectualdiscourse.com, the most recent of which appear on the opening page. These articles have appeared on several national and international websites on a regular basis.
What I have been maintaining persistently is that there are no insurmountable or “civilizational” barriers preventing a rapprochement, meaning a mutually beneficial détente, but not necessarily a love affair, between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, elements of influence that have been preventing such a rapprochement are manifold, as outlined and addressed in the Leveretts’ new book.
In Part III of the book, neoconservatives: philosopher activists of American Empire; liberal internationalists: imperialists with the best of intentions; the Israel lobby: (mis)appropriators of American interests; and, expatriates: native authenticators (and enablers?) are discussed as the forces that inadvertently or deliberately cause the derailment of American policies that would serve the nation’s best interests.
What was not discussed was the influential role that pro-Zionist evangelicals also play in distorting public sentiments in a nation that is perhaps the most religiously oriented among the powerful modern societies.
More significantly, the Jewish and Zionist domination of the American media outlets, which include both the news and the entertainment industries, and its powerful influence in formulating the American mindset, were not adequately addressed under the (mis)appropriation of American Interests section.
I do understand quite well the negative implications of attempting to put the Jewish, Zionist and Israeli factors influencing America’s foreign policies under too large a magnifying glass. We saw the difficulties that Stephen Walt of Harvard University and John Mearsheimer of University of Chicago had in attempting to have their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, published in the United States, and for which they have been relentlessly chastised. I, therefore, do not blame the Leveretts for exercising a degree of prudent reservation in amplifying these groups’ direct and indirect power, not only in the public domain, but also over some of the other foci of influence mentioned above, which result in policies that do not prioritize America’s best interests in global affairs.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist, a racist or a bigot to focus on a certain ethnic, religious or racial group and its disproportionate presence, power or influence in a given society. For example, Black Americans dominate the field of professional sports, and that is a fact. Whether this inordinate presence that is far greater than the percentage of Black Americans in the population is due to their natural physical superiority, their motivation because of economic pressures and limitation of access to better opportunities, or other cultural incentives, etc., is immaterial. These athletes make good money and deserve the admiration and prestige they earn. Their success is in no way detrimental to the general well-being of the nation or a concern for the policy makers in the government.

The Jewish, Zionist or the pro-Israel populations in the United States amount to a tiny fraction of the total American population. However, in the vital organs of America’s social life and body politics, the brain, the heart, liver and lungs and kidneys, so to say,  the presence of these groups are degrees of magnitude greater than their population percentages would warrant.

Well, what’s wrong with that? As the book, Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray (Jan 10, 1996), clearly indicates, the American Jews of European ancestry, the Ashkenazim, are among the minorities that enjoy the highest IQ and the best track record in business, science and academic success. We can easily see this enormously inordinate presence in the fields of finance, law, medicine, entertainment, science and other intellectual endeavors.
To have a problem with these statistics or to complain about the meticulous research done by the authors of the book is, in fact, prejudicial and unfair. However, in this case, unlike the case with Black athletes or other minorities such as the Indian, Pakistani, Iranian or Oriental immigrant groups that do exhibit highest IQs and successes in similar domains as do the American Jews, there does exist a potential source of problem: the Israel connection.
Whether people consider and identify themselves as Jewish, or are Jewish or non-Jewish Zionists, the presence of a Jewish state, a Jewish homeland (a Biblical promised land), regardless of whether the very concept is scientific or has a historical basis or legitimacy, has a natural emotional appeal that cannot be discounted or ignored. I may have never played football, but by virtue of the fact that I am a decades old UCLA graduate, I subconsciously root for the Bruins when they play against any rival; go Bruins!
In the American public domain, where the average citizen cannot correctly point to a country as big as Iran on the world atlas, or believes that Mandarin is only a variety of citrus fruit, sentiments or gut feelings alone determine most decisions and policy directions. The Israel or Zionist lobby, therefore, has an enormous fan club among the most successful and influential segments of the American society.
The lobby and its tentacles, therefore, have an extraordinary multi-faceted outreach to the most influential and consequential elements that formulate policies relating to Israel and its regional agendas. One of these tentacles has long penetrated the US Congress, where America’s elected representatives, those who must count on money and media support as well as the backing of their well-indoctrinated constituents to get elected to high-paying, prestigious jobs, can be coerced to toe the lobby’s line.
I have no doubt that there are exceptions, but I am convinced that for most seekers of congressional seats or government jobs the material benefits that the job ensures far outweigh the prospects of serving the nation with integrity and honesty.
I rather doubt that the “liberal internationalists: imperialists with the best of intentions” referred to in Leveretts’ book are all honest liberal international imperialist who’d prefer enforcing a regime change or a military campaigns of “good intentions” against the Islamic Republic in order to spread freedom, democracy and a better life for the Iranian nation. They cannot all be that stupidly naïve!  I would have a hard time labeling high-profile “liberals” such as Nancy Pelosi or even Hillary Clinton as misguided, well-intentioned, patriotic hawks. Similarly, many “neoconservatives: philosopher activists of American Empire”, who’d supposedly promote any policy, including war against the Islamic Republic, to expand and secure the sphere of America’s hegemony in the Middle East, are not, in my opinion, genuinely in favor of a war regardless of its adverse consequences and potential blowbacks for such action. People like Newt Gingrich, John McCain or Lindsey Graham are not ignorant knuckleheads.
However, most well-intentioned liberal internationalist imperialists and many neoconservative philosopher activists count on and receive huge political endorsements and benefits by aligning themselves with the Israel lobby and flashing their anti-Iran and pro-Israel credentials in order to preserve their personal positions in the American power hierarchy.
Even the Iranian expatriates who have managed to mole their way into the limelight by jumping on the Iran-bashing bandwagon are encouraged and supported by the various arms of the Israel lobby, as long as they express views that are in line with Israel’s perspective of the Islamic Republic. After they are “discovered” by the likes of Benador Associates or other influential individuals or think tanks favored by the lobby, they are vetted and launched as “Iran experts”. They are invited to panel discussions on Iran or as guests in major media outlets. They are plugged into various mostly conservative Washington think tanks, given academic positions and encouraged and helped to write books of fiction in the guise of personal biographies and experiential accounts. Agents of influence can do that for you if you are willing to play the game as scripted. A quick look at the rise to fame, popularity and tenure of one, Azar Nafisi (Reading Lolita in Tehran), would prove rather enlightening.
In short, I believe the Leveretts could have focused a bit more on the broader aspects of pro-Israel or Zionist influences over not only the formulation of public sentiments against the Islamic Republic, but also over the very process of decision making regarding Iran policies at governmental level.
Another area of great importance that was very briefly addressed without questioning the merits of its established historical narratives was the storming of the American embassy and the taking of the embassy staff as hostages in late 1979. This was without doubt the one pivotal event that has most affected the course of US/Iran relations to this day. No detailed analysis has thus far challenged the established accounts of what exactly happened, by whom and for what reasons, not by anyone here, nor by anyone in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Perhaps it is not time yet to open the Pandora’s Box of the hostage crisis, simply because changing the established narratives might do more harm than good!
The Leveretts’ analyses of US/Iran relations and potentials for a rapprochement between the two countries differ with my own analysis in only one major way: They believe that the US Administration and the President are headed for a major confrontation, even if a limited war, with the Islamic Republic, in which the government of Israel is clearly complicit. Their efforts have been to expose the fallacies of such an approach and to warn of its dangerous and counterproductive consequences.
I am certain that the Leveretts are not naïve enough to think that their warnings, a mere sound in the dark, would outdo the roar of the war drums we hear on a daily basis. And I am sure they are not going to claim credit for any rapprochement should the march toward a dangerous confrontation be reversed.
I, on the other hand, have continued to maintain that an actual military confrontation with Iran by the United States, with or without Israel, is not and has not been in the playbook. I also believe that the sanctions imposed against the Islamic Republic have been very carefully implemented by the Administration to appear crippling enough to compel the Iranian regime to bow to the American demands and Israeli wishes, while in actual fact any clear-minded analyst can see that these sanctions won’t result in the professed objectives.

As a parallel, just think about the hunt for the mastermind of the Al-Qa’eda network of international terrorists, one Osama Bin Laden, supposedly our main target in our war on terror. The campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost us close to a trillion dollars a year, which is almost three-billion dollars each day. And just suppose that, instead of mere millions of dollars as a prize for his capture, we had assigned a couple of billion or even a hundred-billion dollars for his head, mere pittance compared with the continuing wars’ annual costs. How long do you honestly believe it would have taken before Bin Laden and his chief advisor and mentor, Al-Zawahiri, would have been captured and turned over to claim such an attractive prize? The hunt for Bin Laden was allowed to continue in order to accomplish other objectives, rightly or wrongly perceived.

I invite the interested readers to check into my more recent writings posted on my website to evaluate my reasoning as to why I believe a military confrontation against the Islamic Republic is not in the books, and why I believe that President Obama’s second term in office is our best chance toward a meaningful rapprochement with Iran.
Finally, I cannot overemphasize the importance of the recent book by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, and encourage everyone interested in the future of US/Iran relations to read and promote their groundbreaking work.

I would encourage the readers to read the following articles:

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on ‘Going to Tehran’ Challenging Unchallenged Myths

Are Zionists now calling the shots in the Anglican Church?

NOVANEWS

Rowan Williams, the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, has stepped down from his post (sigh of relief).

by Stuart Littlewood

Rowan Williams, the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, will be replaced by 56-year-old former oil executive Justin Welby, the Bishop of Durham. (Ben Stansall, AFP/June 5, 2012)

Williams’s role as a figure of unity in the worldwide Anglican Communion, which is represented in over 130 countries, meant that he was in a position to “bring the needs and voices of those fighting poverty, disease and the effects of conflict, to the attention of national and international policy makers and donor agencies”. Or so we were told.

In 2010, when the Archbishop announced he was planning a visit to Gaza just a year after the slaughter and devastation of Operation Cast Lead, I asked his Lambeth Palace office for more information. Whom would he meet? Would he see the health minister? Would he sit down and talk with the elected prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, man of God to man of God (for Mr Haniyeh is an imam)?  Would he do Gaza (and all of us) proud by spending a generous amount of his time with senior members of the Islamic faith?

His office didn’t reply.

According to the Archbishop’s website he did none of those things. At least, he didn’t mention them if he did. Unless I’m mistaken he said nothing about Gaza in the House of Lords, where he had the ear of Parliament and the support of 25 other Church of England bishops.

Yet he began his Ecumenical letter that Easter by declaring: “Christians need to witness boldly and clearly”.

A lady wrote to me saying she had emailed Lambeth Palace 18 times asking if the Archbishop’s party could please bring back some deaf children’s art, which should have been picked up by members of a recent Gaza blockade-busting convoy. The Palace eventually declined saying the Israelis wouldn’t allow it.

If he’d been ‘witnessing boldly’ as he exhorted other Christians to do, the Archbishop would surely have instructed his staff to pick up the children’s art and dare the Israelis to confiscate it.

She complained that by not using his position in the House of Lords and elsewhere the Archbishop was failing to improve the situation for Palestinians, quoting the words of Desmond Tutu: “Where there is oppression, those who do nothing side with the oppressor.”

It was later revealed that the Israelis severely restricted the Archbishop’s time inside Gaza.  I asked why such interference with the Church’s pastoral business in the Holy Land, of all places, wasn’t broadcast on the website, in mainstream media and in Parliament.

His office confirmed that the Archbishop had initially been refused access to Gaza but was eventually permitted one-and-a-half hours. This was just enough for a hurried visit to the Ahli hospital and no more. When my questions were forwarded to the Archbishop’s public affairs spokesman, the reply was headed “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”. Suffice to say the Israelis from the start blocked the Archbishop’s visit to Gaza and only at the last minute granted him a piddling 90 minutes.

Was this his idea of ‘witnessing boldly’?

 

The Archbishop’s website joyfully reported how he hobnobbed with the Chief Rabbinate, paid his respects to Yad Vashem and the Holocaust, and talked with the President of Israel – the latter no doubt sniggering up his sleeve at his guest’s frustration at being prevented by Israel’s thugs from seeing what horrors they had inflicted on the Gazans.

Why did he agree to fraternise with Jewish political and religious leaders when his wish to carry out his Christian duty in Gaza was so rudely obstructed? Did Lambeth Palace not realise that meekly accepting such insults only served to legitimise the Israelis’ illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and gave a stamp of approval to the vicious siege of Gaza, the ongoing air strikes against civilians, the persecution of Muslim and Christian communities and the regime’s utter contempt for international law and human rights?

There was no mention of a get-together with senior Islamic figures, leaving a question-mark over Williams’s real commitment to inter-faith engagement.

Earlier, while the Jewish State was putting its finishing touches to Operation Cast Lead (the infamous blitzkrieg launched over Christmas-New Year 2008/9 against Gaza’s civilians including the Christian community there), the Archbishop joined Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in a visit to the former Nazi camps of Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland to demonstrate their joint solidarity against the extremes of hostility and genocide.

“This is a pilgrimage not to a holy place but to a place of utter profanity – a place where the name of God was profaned because the image of God in human beings was abused and disfigured,” said the Archbishop. “How shall we be able to read the signs of the times, the indications that evil is gathering force once again and societies are slipping towards the same collective corruption and moral sickness that made the Shoah possible?”

Read the signs? Surely they were plain to see. The forces of evil had already pushed some societies into the moral cesspit. He needed to look no further than the hell-hole that the Holy Land had been turned into by the Israeli occupation, with good old England’s blessing. If ever there was a place where “the name of God was profaned” this is it.

Who will step forward and save it? The Holy Land is the well-spring of the Christian faith, but you wouldn’t think so from the don’t-give-a-damn attitude among senior churchmen.

Open door for the bully-boys

 

The multitude of inter-faith committees and Christian-Jewish councils has opened the door to the Zionist lobby and made it easy for them to meddle in Church business and bully Christians into submission. There’s even a propaganda outlet calling itself Anglican Friends of Israel. A few weeks ago Zionists, no doubt emboldened by the Church’s appeasement policy, put the squeeze on the Bishop of Newcastle, Martin Wharton. The Representative Council of North-East Jewry wrote to him complaining that he voted for a motion at the General Synod which supported the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) despite their “grave concerns… that it would encourage anti-Semitism”. His action, said the letter, “makes any further contact with the Jewish community in the North-East impossible”.

So be it, would seem an appropriate response. But oh no. What brought this on, according to the Church Times http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2012/2-november/news/uk/bishop-avoids-conference-after-jewish-complaints, was Bishop Wharton’s agreement to speak at a conference, ‘Peace & Justice in the Holy Land’, organised by a group of people who had taken part in the EAPPI programme. Its sponsors included Christian Aid, CAFOD, and Friends of Sabeel UK.

The chief executive of the Council of Christians and Jews (CCJ), the Revd David Gifford, said that the conference had “the potential of becoming yet another anti-Jewish meeting, creating more anxiety and distrust between the north-east Jewish community and the Church”. Then the Board of Deputies of British Jews chimed in saying that the EAPPI was “partisan” and “anti-Israel”.

Let’s be clear what the EAPPI is actually about:

“The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) brings internationals to the West Bank to experience life under occupation. Ecumenical Accompaniers (EAs) provide protective presence to vulnerable communities, monitor and report human rights abuses and support Palestinians and Israelis working together for peace. When they return home, EAs campaign for a just and peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict through an end to the occupation, respect for international law and implementation of UN resolutions.” http://www.eappi.org/ 

The EAPPI programme was set up by the World Council of Churches in response to a call by the churches of Jerusalem. Its mission includes engaging in public policy advocacy and standing in solidarity with the churches and all those struggling against the illegal occupation. Few people except those who support the brutal Israeli regime would disagree with the programme’s principles and objectives. And few, surely, would condemn the humanitarian work the EAPPI carries out with great courage in the face of criminal hostility. Nevertheless its success has whipped the usual suspects into an orchestrated frenzy.

As reported in the Jewish Chronicle, John Dinnen whose motion sparked the Synod debate pointed out that well-known Jewish groups such as Jews for Justice for Palestine and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition [ICAHD] are entirely supportive of EAPPI, and that five per cent of EAPPI volunteers are Jewish “which is a higher ratio than the number of Jews in England”.

But despite having the moral high ground Wharton caved in and decided not to attend the conference “for the sake of good relations between all the faith communities in Newcastle”. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Hexham & Newcastle, Seamus Cunningham, also decided not to attend. He told the Jewish Chronicle that he had become aware “that many Jewish people in the north-east were angry and upset”. Perhaps the angry and upset should go themselves to the West Bank and experience the behaviour of their brethren towards Palestinian women and children and the EAPPI volunteers.

Throughout his time on the Archbishop’s throne Williams was mad-keen on inter-faith dialogue, for what good it has done, and spent an inordinate amount of time with Chief Rabbi Sacks. At one point the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=297844 suggested that the chief rabbi had “in some respects eclipsed the archbishop as the religious voice of the country”.

Chart-topper: Sir Cliff Richard leaves the Pope trailing — BBC

This is the UK, remember, where Jews comprise just 0.5% of the population and Muslims are 8 times greater in number.

Nor was the Archbishop the best-known Christian according to a survey 3 years ago. Harry Webb (aka Cliff Richard) beat him into second place http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/552504.stm. The survey made Cliff even “bigger than the Pope”, who trailed in seventh place.

Now we hear that the squeaky-clean, born-again-Christian megastar is to perform in Israel in July, and the Israeli media are making a meal of it. Does none of these pious dudes understand the appalling, inhuman situation out there?

I’m not sorry to see the back of Rowan Williams – a good guy but not the right man at this time. And what are we to make of his replacement, Archbishop number 105, who will be enthroned at Canterbury Cathedral in March?  Justin Welby is touted as an expert in conflict resolution, but he comes from nowhere and is not known for his concern about the Holy Land. His grandfather was a Jewish immigrant and Welby was Bishop of Durham for barely five minutes before landing this top job.

Justin Portal Welby is a bishop in the Church of England. He is currently the Bishop of Durham and Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Jewish Chronicle reported that Welby last year helped mount a Holocaust Memorial Day exhibition in Liverpool Cathedral and… wait for it… abstained in last summer’s vote at the Anglican Synod which endorsed the EAPPI.

In my view, anyone who cannot bring himself to give wholehearted backing to a worthy humanitarian project like EAPPI shouldn’t be leading a great Christian church.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, CampaignsComments Off on Are Zionists now calling the shots in the Anglican Church?

You must not tell the truth! And chutzpah defined

NOVANEWS

By Alan Hart

Some of us do not believe what our politicians say especially when the subject is Israel’s behaviour – its ongoing colonization of the occupied West Bank for the purpose of making peace impossible except, perhaps, on terms which require the Palestinians to surrender to Zionism’s will.

The responses of some Jewish supporters of Israel right or wrong to one British MP who did dare to tell the truth illustrate why most politicians throughout the Western world won’t. That’s yesterday’s story but I am driven to comment by the hypocrisy on display, hypocrisy which takes chutzpah to wild extremes.

For those readers who might not be fully familiar with chutzpah, let’s begin with a definition of it.

Chutzpah is a Talmudic word that means many similar things, chief among them being shameless audacity,impudence and arrogance, each and all laced with incredible self-righteousness.

In the context of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, chutzpah represents an Israeli (Jewish) way of saying to the world without actually saying it something like: “We know we shouldn’t have done this. We know it’s wrong. But we’ve done it because we also know there’s nothing you can do about it.”

As I say in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, if there is one single word that sums up the whole Zionist enterprise, it is chutzpah.

Sunday 27 January is Holocaust Memorial Day and this year marks the 68th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp where more than one million people, mostly Jews, died. As this day approached, the Holocaust Educational Trust placed a Book of Commitment in the House of Commons to give MPs the chance to sign it and honour those who were slaughtered during the Nazi holocaust and subsequent other genocides, and commit themselves to encouraging constituents “to work together to combat prejudice and racism today.”

Among those who signed the book and pledged his commitment (I’d be somewhat surprised if there was a single available MP who didn’t sign) was David Ward, the Liberal Democratic member for Bradford East, a 59 year-old new comer to the House, elected in 2010.

On his web site he then said this:

Having visited Auschwitz twice – once with my family and once with local schools – I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.

Then, in an update after he was condemned by his party and reviled by Jewish supporters of Israel right or wrong, he added this:

For my entire political career I have fought prejudice. I have just returned from Bradford’s Holocaust Memorial event where people across cultures and faiths joined together to say, “We bear witness to the horrors of the Holocaust and will never forget its lessons.”

In the words of the Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, as quoted in the booklet Holocaust Memorial Day – Learning Lessons from the past to create a safer, better futureI swore never to be silent whenever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

The response of Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, included this: “We are outraged and shocked at these offensive comments about Jewish victims of the Holocaust and the suggestion that Jews should have learned a lesson from the experience.”

If that means the Jews have nothing to learn from the Nazi holocaust – the slaughter of Jews and others by Europeans NOT Arabs or other Muslims – I am more than amazed.

It was, however, the response of Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust that took my breath away. She said she was “deeply saddened” that the MP had “deliberately abused the memory of the Holocaust.”

In my view that’s chutzpah taken to its wildest extreme. Why?

There is no power on Planet Earth that has used and abused the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust more than Zionism.

It has used the guilt of Europeans and the West as a whole to blackmail politicians and the mainstream media into silence on the matter of Zionism’s crimes and justify everything it did and does in defiance of international law and a string of UN Security Council resolutions.

Footnote:

I sent the following e-mail to MP David Ward:

“You have my utmost respect and admiration, not only for your truth telling but for refusing to back down under fire, including fire from your own party which, like all others and the mainstream media, is terrified of offending Zionism.”

At the time I sent my message to him, he had apparently received 80 unsolicited supportive e-mails and only two from detractors.

But he must watch his back. He won his election to the House of Commons by the narrow margin of 365 votes. It will be interesting to see if he becomes a target for an organized Zionist campaign to defeat him at the next election.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on You must not tell the truth! And chutzpah defined

Targeting Chavismo

NOVANEWS

Dark Washington forces never quit. Nor do media scoundrels. Chavez is fair game. Since 1999, he’s been maliciously targeted and maligned. Ill or well makes no difference.

Alberto Barrera Tyszka and Cristina Macano are unapologetic. They represent neoliberal corporate views. They got feature New York Times op-ed space.

They headlined “Chavez, the missing President,” saying:

Venezuela is “experiencing the very odd circumstance of being both with and without its leader; he is not here, but his voice endures.”

He “gives orders and sends kisses to children. This is what his vice president says. According to the Supreme Court, the Congress cannot consider him absent, for no matter how ill he is, only Mr. Chávez himself has the authority to declare himself absent.”

Fact check

Venezuela’s Supreme Court said nothing of the kind. It postponed his inauguration. It did so unanimously. A future date will be named. When doesn’t matter. Democracies work that way.

Popular leaders aren’t unelected. Subverting them is out of the question. The will of the people matters most. Things work that way in Venezuela. Doing so mocks America’s sham democracy. It exists in name only.

Venezuela’s National Assembly extended Chavez’s absence. It did so unanimously. When Chavez fully recovers, he’ll return. Swearing in is ceremonial only.

He could do it in absentia and be inaugurated. Parliamentarians and Supreme Court justices have final say. Democratic governance matters most. Venezuela prioritize it.

Tyszka and Macano said opposition figures demand “fe de vida.” They want proof he’s alive. If not, it’d be public knowledge. Both writers know but didn’t say.

He “controls all public powers: the legislative body, the Supreme Court, the public prosecutor’s office, to say nothing of the oil industry.”

From his first election, “he knew that he had not made it to the presidency in order to run a sound government. He (came) to change the course of history.”

He “revived the ghost of the South American military caudillo.” He “creat(ed) a new version of that traditional strongman….As president, he deftly combines power with melodrama.”

Times columnists, editors, and contributors duck vital truths. They’re pro-war, pro-business, pro-privilege, pro-super wealth, pro-neoliberal, anti-progressive, anti-dissent, anti-freedom, and anti-government of, by, and for everyone equitably and fairly.

Tyszka and Macano marched in lockstep. Chavez took full advantage of what he inherited, they said. An “oil boom” won him popularity.

His “21st century socialism is a populist, patronage-oriented model that depends less on ideology than” the price of crude. He “revive(d) the illusion of a sustainable society that distributes rather than creates wealth.”

Doing so lets him “maintain his ironclad grip on power.”

Fact check

Chavez believes all Venezuelans matter. National resources help everyone.

Venezuelans gets free education to the highest levels, quality healthcare, subsidized food and housing, land reform, respect for indigenous rights, job training, micro credit, affordable electricity and cooking gas, gasoline at 7 cents a gallon, and other social, economic, and political benefits.

Americans, Europeans, and Israelis get force-fed austerity, growing poverty, high unemployment, unaddressed homelessness and hunger, and a government beholden solely to business and privileged elitism.

Venezuela’s wealth is distributed equitably. All boats are lifted. Chavez is targeted for doing the right thing. Media scoundrels assail him relentlessly.

“Venezuelans today are less poor than” earlier, admitted Tyszka and Macano. “But they are also far more dependent on the state, and more susceptible to a propaganda machine that attributes this ‘miracle’ to Mr. Chavez.”.

Fact check

Chavez is head of state. His policy initiatives benefit everyone. He’s Bolivarianism’s public face. Chavismo matters. It’s institutionalized.

It works. He cut poverty, increased employment, lowered inflation, bettered the lives of millions, and made Venezuela prosperous. Its economy is one of the region’s most successful. Lifting all boats responsibly works that way.

Venezuelans want it no other way. Tyszka and Macano call his leadership “authoritarian” and “messianic.” Proof they claim is Venezuelans saying “We are all Chavez.”

He’s progressive, populist and caring. Venezuelans love him for what he is and what he’s done. Doing so doesn’t reflect personality cultism. It’s real. Western leaders can’t imagine it.

Times editors deplore it. So do Tyszka and Macano. He’ll “leave behind a country plagued by problems,” they claim. Americans wish they had similar ones.

Don’t expect Times editors or contributors to explain. According to Tyszka and Macano, “absence might be just what Hugo Chavez needs to save him from his own failure. Myths survive only when they rise above the miseries of reality.”

Times editors have to explain why this type rubbish gets published. All the news fit to print is verboten. The record of the newspaper of record is self-explanatory. It’s deplorable.

It substitutes managed news misinformation for truth. It prioritizes imperial and corporate interests. It spurns populist ones. It ignores Western social decay. It targets leaders for doing the right thing.

Chavez and likeminded ones shame the American way. It never was beautiful and isn’t now. Don’t expect Times editors or contributors to explain.

Eva Golinger interviewed Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro. She did so for Russia Today’s Behind the News.

Chavez designed a Plan of the Nation, he said. It has “five historic objectives.” It prioritizes “real democracy.” It follows Simon Bolivar’s model.

It “balance(s) respect for our region and the right to development in a world at the time of empires deeply aggressive, with great military powers.”</blockquote>

It calls for building a “multicenter multipolar world, a world without empires.” Lots more needs to be done, said Maduro. Forming strategic alliances, ending colonialism, and preventing US hegemonic control matter. So does defeating poverty.

Venezuela made great strides under Chavez. So much was accomplished in a short time. Many challenges remain.

Maduro discussed internal debate about Chavez’s absence. He was popularly reelected overwhelmingly. The will of the people matters. “Venezuela has a (duly constituted) government.”

<blockquote>”In any case, this is a debate already settled.” Bolivarianism “won 17 elections in 14 years.” It has “greater legitimacy” now than earlier.

“It would be impossible to maintain a socialist revolution for independence in Latin America, with the constant threat of American empire, (without) strong support, clear, explicit, conscious of a people, and a people that massively supports the exercise of democratic political Venezuela.”

Venezuela was collectively transformed. “Chavez is closing the cycle post-operatively.” His surgery was “long” and “difficult.” He’s recovering well. He’s fully aware of what’s going on at home.

Fidel Castro extended his family great support. “We have to acknowledge his great humanity and humanism.” Raul joined him in offering help.

Chavez “enter(ed) a new phase.” More information will be forthcoming. Maduro plans returning to Cuba to see him. He’s experiencing his “best days after surgery.”

Maduro’s optimistic about his return. His medical team will decide when. They want him in the “best condition.” Their primary goal is assuring his full recovery.

Maduro said Chavez is Venezuela’s leader, its mentor, its teacher. He reflects Bolivarian fairness. Venezuelans are greatly indebted. They’re better off because of him.

January 23 is Democracy Day in Venezuela. It commemorates 1958 on that date. It’s when a civil/military rebellion ended Marcos Perez Jimenez’s dictatorship.

On Wednesday, hundreds of thousands rallied supportively nationwide. Estimates ranged up to a million. Roundtable of Democratic Unity (MUD) leaders urged supporters out on the same day. Small numbers responded.

Bolivarianism had its day. It wasn’t to be denied. America and other Western societies can’t imagine this type support. It happens often.

Venezuelans appreciate Chavismo and show it.

The ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and supportive organizations rallied under the slogan “The people will never be betrayed again.”

Maduro addressed them in Caracas. Responsively they chanted “We’re all Chavez.” Placards, banners, and t-shirts displayed popular sentiment.

Dark forces never quit. Opposition hardliners distributed a document. It’s called “Manifesto to democratic Venezuelan society and the National Armed Force.”

Venezuelans call them Bolivarian Armed Forces. They serve popular interests. They perform services when needed. They partner with regional militaries.

They don’t threaten or attack neighbors. They don’t depose or assassinate popular leaders. Secret prisons don’t exist.

They have no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Torture isn’t used. They’re a force for good, not ill.

Opposition elements addressed Venezuela’s military. Dozens of hard-right extremists signed the document. They favor destabilizing Chavez’s government. Washington provides generous support.

Their manifesto said government officials “violated the constitution.” It’s “subordinate” to Castro’s Cuba.

“Cubans have slowly and progressively taken control of our registers, system of identification, our foreign policy, and important sectors of the national economy.”

“Castro’s communism” manipulates Venezuela’s electoral process and national finances. Doing so “finance(s) the expansion of Castro-communism.”

Venezuela is a “colony of Cuba.” Its military was urged to impede further “dissolution of the fatherland.”

Maduro said government officials uncovered a plot to attack him, National Assembly President Diosdada Cabello, and other senior leaders. “(G)roups infiltrated the country,” he said.

“Don’t be surprised by the actions that will be taken in the coming days,” he added.

Expect Washington’s dirty hands to be involved. Destabilization efforts are prioritized. State terrorism is official policy. Chavez long believed dark US forces want him ousted or dead. Loyal supporters are targeted.

A Final Comment

On January 24, Hands Off Venezuela headlined “Spanish paper El Pais makes a fool of itself,” saying:

It published a “front page headline screaming ‘the secret of Chavez’s health.’ ”

It was “accompanied by a picture of a man, eyes closed, lying in a hospital bed with tubes coming out of his mouth.”

It covered over a third of a page. A caption read:

“President Chavez during medical treatment in Cuba.” When reports said he shows clinical improvement, it was intended to demoralize supporters. It added:

“Venezuela President Chavez’s illness has been shrouded in opacity since he travelled to Havana on December 10 and has created a political polemic in his country.”

“El Pais offers an unpublished and exclusive picture, taken a few days ago, showing an initial moment of his medical treatment in Cuba.”

El Pais is one of Spain’s worst. It supported Washington’s aborted 2002 coup. It backs neoliberal harshness. It deplores Bolivarian populism.

Its photo and story were fake. The man shown wasn’t Chavez. Al Pais pulled them from its website. A tongue in cheek apology followed. Hands Off Venezuela commented, saying:

“Here is yet another example of the type of lies, half truths and slanders which the capitalist mass media will not hesitate in using in their disgusting campaign against the Bolivarian revolution.”

“These are the same media which have waged a noisy campaign about the so-called ‘attacks on freedom of the media’ in Venezuela.”

“What is really at stake is the right to truthful information, as shown by this example. Once more we say, as loudly as we can: Hands Off Venezuela!!”

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Targeting Chavismo

American Patriots Escape and Renounce Citizenship

NOVANEWS

Tina Turner: America Loses Another High Profile Citizen

by Johnny Punish

Should you leave the U.S. and renounce your citizenship? Many Americans ponder this question as the benefits begin to outweigh the costs. Some of the those benefits are lower taxes, lower administrative costs, and even getting away from bad governance and cultural stresses.

But what about patriotism? How far would you go? Or is Nationalism just for the modern day peasant populations to adhere to while the rich just do what’s in their best interest?

Take the case of Tina Turner, the 73-year-old American-born singer whose career has spanned more than half a century. She has lived in Switzerland since the mid-1990s and was officially granted citizenship by the Swiss government on Friday.

The Tennessee native, who was born Anna Mae Bullock, plans to surrender her US passport once she receives her Swiss one. The local Swiss council’s decision still requires formal approval from cantonal and federal authorities.

Turner resides in the Zurich suburb of Küsnacht, where she has lived in a lake house called Chateau Algonquin since 1995. She has been in a relationship with German music executive Erwin Bach since 1986 and moved to the Zurich suburb to be with him after his job sent him to Switzerland.

Although the eight-time Grammy Awards winner has other residences in London, Cologne, Germany and the French Riviera, she chose to live in Switzerland for 20 years and applied for citizenship in early 2013.

“I’m very happy in Switzerland and I feel at home here. … I cannot imagine a better place to live,” she told the Swiss newspaper Blick.

The pop star has been learning German for years and told the local paper that she loves the country’s cleanliness, the countryside, and its people. She said she also enjoys the privacy she experiences while living in Switzerland.

But her home state in the US appears less enthusiastic about the decision. The mayor of Brownsville, Tenn., said she was “surprised” to hear about Turner’s decision to give up her US citizenship and said it might be time to think about why someone would do that.

“I think anytime a person, whether they’re world-renowned or the most meek and mild, makes a decision to change their citizenship we need to step back and think what causes that decision,” Mayor Jo Matherne told FOX411. But even though the mayor expressed concern about the singer’s US abandonment, she said Turner still keeps in contact with her hometown.

“Tina Turner – as she has gotten worldwide fame – has never forgotten her roots,” Matherne said. “We’ve been in recent contact with some of her people talking about some projects we have in Brownsville.”

Although Turner is estimated to be worth about $200 million and says she wasn’t motivated by taxes, keeping her US citizenship would have forced her to continue paying the IRS, even if she never returns to the US.

For 150 years, Switzerland has also offered tax breaks for foreign millionaires to boost tourism, making them exempt from an income tax and allowing them to pay a flat fee. More than 5,000 foreigners have been using the tax breaks, but opponents of the deal have been gathering signatures to scrap the breaks, putting it up for a
popular vote to take place within the next two years.

Four of Switzerland’s 26 cantons – including Zurich – have already scrapped the tax breaks for wealthy foreigners.

During most of her 20 years in Switzerland, Turner benefited from the tax breaks. Although she will now be paying Swiss taxes as a citizen, which are high, she will no longer have to pay American taxes in addition.

“There’s little to suggest taxes motivate the decision, and Swiss rates are high. Yet filing tax returns in multiple nations and claiming foreign tax credits is an imperfect process that often results in tax mismatches,” writes Forbes contributor Robert W. Wood.

Even though the multimillionaire doesn’t have to worry about her finances, giving up her US citizenship will at least reduce the paperwork – and save her a million or two.

And Turner isn’t the first one to give up her citizenship. Scrapping US passports is becoming more common each year. At least 1,788 Americans gave up their US citizenship in 2011, which exceeded totals from 2007, 2008 and 2009 combined. A number of prominent and wealthy Americans have already done so, including Facebook co-founder and billionaire Eduardo Saverin.

The US requires Americans to pay taxes even while living abroad. Both US citizens and resident aliens are required to file income, estate and gift tax returns and file estimated taxes no matter where they are living. Their worldwide income is also subject to US income tax.

And a few lawmakers are trying to subject Americans to taxes even after giving up their citizenship. Sens. Charles Schumer and Bob Casey last year suggested that Congress vote for a law that would force former US citizens to pay taxes for years after renouncing their citizenship – as well as ban them from every returning to the US.

If millionaires and billionaires like Turner and Saverin kept their US citizenships even while living abroad, they would continue to pay large sums of money to the IRS for a passport that they aren’t even using.

In situation’s like Turner’s, it is easier to give up US citizenship than continue to pay the IRS for years, even though her intent is to keep living in Switzerland.

Posted in USAComments Off on American Patriots Escape and Renounce Citizenship

Sunni Shia conflict and the ‘continuum’ of an ideology

NOVANEWS
 Shabana Syed

Sectarian conflict is not only tearing Muslim countries apart like Iraq and Pakistan but also brewing under the surface in London and European cities.

Sunni and Shia groups view each other suspiciously across a widening gap of misunderstanding propagated by Saudi financed British Sunni Mosques and madras’s attempt to label Shias as kafirs or heretics. On the surface there is a form of coexistence, but when the owner of a media group with the ability to influence thousands states “the biggest threat to world peace is Iran and Shias” it becomes a worrying fact.

It’s even more worrying when many Muslims suffering discrimination and treated as the enemy within cannot comprehend that Shia Sunni bloodshed is one of the many aims of the un- ending war on terror unleashed against Islam and Muslims after 9/11.

The west has reduced occupation forces in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, as they watch the rise of sectarian bloodshed which is a far worse weapon, fuelled by CIA and Mossad mercenary groups and drone attacks.

Daniel Mabsout writes in ‘A world called Israel’ “Now the Sunnis are mobilized against Shi’as in a conflict that had no precedent in the history between Sunnis and Shi’as. The Sunnis are mobilized by the world Order to defend Israel under the cover of sectarianism and anti Shi’ism; the war we witness between the two groups is but a sparkle of what is happening actually and daily on the ground.”

The attacks against Hazara Shias in Quetta, Pakistan early January killed nearly a 100 are part of systematic campaign against the community whose particular look and the fact they speak Farsi has made them easy targets for Sunni terrorists like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, known to have CIA and Mossad links.

Ali Dayan Hassan of Human Rights Watch warned: “Last year was the bloodiest year for Pakistan’s Shia community in living memory and if this latest attack is any indication, 2013 has started on an even more dismal note.”

Last year Dr Ismail Salami in his article “who’s behind the Shia Massacres in Pakistan” wrote “…more than 250 Shia Muslims were maimed and killed in broad daylight. Around 150 pairs of Shias’ eyes were cut out of their sockets; many of them died while their faces had been smashed with stones or sprayed with acid…. the Wahhabi attackers were void of any mercy; the criminals are now free and keep on partaking in their feast of blood.”

The war on terror manufactured and implemented by a cabal of Israel first politicians including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Richard Myers and Paul D Wolfowitz is the same group behind the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which according to Dr Alan Sabrosky, a US strategic analyst, “wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as a catalytic event that ensured the US would fight Israel’s wars” and have been funding sectarian strife and regime change in the Middle East.

General Wesley Clarke, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander between 1997 and 2000 confirmed in 2007 that the US Secretary of Defense’s Office just after 9/11 had already outlined the destruction of seven governments including Iran and Syria that would take place in the subsequent five years.

The main task to create fear and bloody divisions had been assigned to Al Qaeda, which is a combination of Wahabi Salafi groups and mercenaries controlled by the CIA and Mossad.

In 2009 Press TV revealed that Qari Zainuddin was killed days after he revealed that TTP or Pakistani Taliban under Hakeemullah Mehsud alongside with their affiliates such as Ilyas kashmiri 313 Brigade are CIA and Mossad recruits.

Zaki Khalid a Pakistani security analyst highlights how the “CIA brand of Taliban come with tattoos” and how Islamic terrorists have been caught with American style tattoos on their bodies arguing “ if Jewish American Adam Pearlman alias Adam Yahya Gadahn was successful in presenting himself as an Arab militant, why is it not possible that others can follow his example”?

Prince Harry recently confirmed that ‘he killed Taliban insurgents during his latest tour of Afghanistan as a gunner in Apache attack helicopters, with his fingers on the triggers of deadly rockets…’ Maybe Prince Harry should have checked who he had bombed if we are to go by the number of CIA Mossad men dressed up as Taliban?

It was the Raymond Davis incident that highlighted to what extent CIA and Mossad were involved in creating bloodshed in Pakistan.

Jonathan Aziza in an article ‘26/11 Revisited Raymond Davis and a Travesty of Justice’ explained that Davis was “tied to infamous hunter-killed mercenary firm Blackwater (Xe)” and was “acting head of the CIA in Pakistan” carrying out “a long-running false flag terrorism operation known as the ‘Dragon Policy,’ run by the Zionists and its confederates inside RAW the CIA and Blackwater.”

He argues “This highly sophisticated operation is a multi-faceted cohesion between intelligence, military, media and politics, all for the purpose of fragmenting nations that are seen as threats to the global agenda of international Zionism. Excluding occupied Iraq, no nation has been hit more ruthlessly than the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. “

The blame also lies with Pakistani politicians and its elite who are linked to International business and Jewish owned multinationals aiding and abetting as they suck the blood of the poor to fill their Swiss coffers.

The PNAC group has not changed their agenda but changed its name to FDD ‘ The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ and released a new document calling once again  for an attack on Iran. Pakistan is an important cog in the wheel as Iran cannot be attacked unless Pakistan is sufficiently destabilized and its nuclear capabilities neutralized.

It is argued that Israel’s territorial ambitions are dependent on war with Iran to distract Muslim attention away from Al Aqsa Mosque which Netanyahu and Likudists are in a hurry to destroy so they can build the Third Temple on its site in order to make way for the expected Jewish Messiah who will take the ‘chosen people’ to world domination.

 

The war with Syria and Iran is also the Saudi/ Qatar agenda and as a result Saudi and the Gulf states are funneling large sums of money and weapons to militias inside Syria, and killing Shias is part of that agenda.

Franklin Lamb in Damascus writes:”It is their “agents,” the jihadist groups, who have turned on the Syrian civilian population increasingly resorting to theft, kidnapping for ransom, rape, sale of children and killing hundreds according to UN agencies

Journalist Alastair Crooke in ‘Putting Match to Tinder’ highlights how the Gulf States ambitions “. . .clearly extend well beyond the mere destruction of Iranian political power to a much wider ambition not only to subvert real reform in the region, but to restore a Sunni conservative primacy throughout much of the Arab world…….”

As the bloodshed continues in Syria what has become of Islam, which is supposed to be a religion of mercy and justice, contrary to what the Zionist media would have us believe through thousands of Hollywood films and dramas?

Writer Daniel Mabsout asks the same essential question that Muslims also need to ask if we are to prevent a path of sectarian blood bath.

“What is happening to Islam? Who is Muslim and who is not? Why so many crimes are being committed under the banner of Islam? Hideous crimes in Lebanon, in Syria, in Libya ….Slaughters happening in Syria where entire families are killed by sectarian Muslims, by armed thugs who say there is no god but God!”

Gilad Atzmon attempted to ask a similar question about humanity when he said: “If Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and drops bombs on civilians from airplanes decorated with Jewish symbols then it’s our moral duty to question what this Jewishness is all about”. In his book ‘The Wandering Who?’ Atzmon unravels many sensitive issues regarding Jewish Power.

One of the most interesting analyses that Muslims and Christians could also learn from is about the ‘continuum’ of an ideology.’ In a past interview when the Mavi Marmara was attacked by Israel he explained: “The ideology that carried out execution-style killings on the Gaza aid flotilla the ‘Mavi Marmara’ is the same ideology that carried out the massacres at Deir Yassin, Qibya, Sabra and Shatilla, Qana, Gaza, Jenin and the murder of Rachel Corrie — more than that it is the same ideology that killed Christ.”

He continues: “there is no biological, racial or ethnic continuum between the ancient Israelites and the contemporary Israelis. The attack on the aid convoy is a continuum of the same ideology that killed Christ. Christ’s killing is a symbol of a brutal assault against goodness, in the same way the attack on the aid convoy was against humanity and compassion.”

Muslims also need to ask how the message and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad changed, where we have groups roaming around as jihadists killing and beheading other Muslim’s without humanity and compassion.

Prophet Muhammad prohibited torture and urged equal treatment for prisoners of war at a time where enslavement, beheadings and mutilation of corpses was the norm.

If we look closely at Atzmon’s analyses we may reach an understanding of how the real message of Islam also changed or became subverted.

This continuum of an ideology dates back to the continuum of evil forces of oppression and tyranny that reared their ugly head as soon as the Prophet Mohammad died.

These forces ignored the fact that the Prophet stood at Ghadder O Qum in front of thousands and declared that his cousin Imam Ali was his successor, a fact that was later suppressed and misinterpreted.

Imam Ali was no ordinary man he was known for justice and his courage was legendary; this is the same man the Jews never forgave for breaking down the doors of the impregnable Jewish fort called Khaybar and for defeating them in every conflict and confrontation which led them to vow revenge against him and his progeny.

Imam Ali did not fight for his inheritance as he did not want divisive conflict amongst Muslims. However Muawiyah the corrupt tyrannical ruler known for debauchery and oppression proceeded to kill and torture anyone who openly supported Imam Ali.

Muawiya a respected figure amongst Sunni’s killed Mohammed Al Bakr the son of Abu Bakr because he supported Imam Ali’s legitimate right to rule. In revenge Muawiya then proceeded to put his cut up body into the stomach of a donkey and roasted it on a spitfire. Imam Ali was also eventually killed.

Yazid took over after Muawiya’s death, he was a cruel and depraved character, far worse than his father he continued to change not only the message of Islam but also its practices. It was becoming clear to Imam Hussein who was Imam Ali’s son that he had to stand against his tyranny or Islam will become a religion of corruption and decadence. Imam Hussein with his family and supporters numbering 72 were ambushed at Karbala by Yazids army of 10,000 and brutally killed.

He was beheaded and his head was paraded around in Yazd’s court. Imam Hussein became a symbol of truth and justice against oppression and Shias have kept his message and teachings alive.

It is this message that has inspired millions over the centuries to fight against oppressors. It led Iran in1979 to overthrow American Zionist imperialism and regain their dignity from enslavement and also inspired a spirit of resistance that led Hezbollah to throw nuclear armed Israel out of Lebanon.

Over the centuries every Imam who was from the line of Prophet Muhammad has been killed, tortured and silenced, as well as anyone who followed the teachings of the Imams. At the time of Muawiya it was mandatory to curse Imam Ali after every Friday prayers.

Over the centuries Shias Sunni’s have learnt to live with each other and built on their similarities united in their love for the Koran. Unlike Christianity the only thing that has not been changed is the Koran (though there is evidence that Zionist have been busy setting up Islamic websites misrepresenting beliefs and manufactured hadiths while printing Korans with changed meanings). If anyone thinks this is not possible just look at the fake Islamic terrorist videos with Israeli’s dressed up claiming death to all westerners or the Wikipedia Jews rewriting their version of events and meaning on the internet, supported by Google and face book.

It is the continuum of these evil forces that have attempted to weaken Islam and are reflected in the practices of modern day Saudi Arabia, perpetuated in Muslim countries through Saudi financed schools, mosques, and learning centres.

Over time the Koran could not be meddled with but hadiths which are based on practices of the prophet were misconstrued. The main hadiths followed by the Sunni’s are from Bokhari a man who was born a 100 years after the prophet, while the hadiths from the family of the Prophet, people who had spent years with him have been destroyed or suppressed kept alive by the Shias.

The Saudi’s who revere Muawiya and Yazid have destroyed nearly every historic relic connected to the Prophet, for example turning his beloved wife Khadija’s house into a public toilet while building gleaming Las Vegas style shopping malls giving Zionist owned businesses like Starbucks prime positions.

Every anti Islam film has got most of its material from Bokhari’s book, a book that does not make clear that when the prophet married Aisha she was 20 not 9 and is a book that prefers the prophet to be weak and fallible and portrays the rightly guided Caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar bin Khattab and Uthman bin Affan as the infallibles.

The true message of Islam has been subverted, through the promotion of distorted hadiths, in the same way that Gordon Duff senior editor at Veterans Today asks about the real message of Christianity in “American Slaves our real destiny” questioning the validity of the bible when he states: “……Were many to have a clue where that document came from, the editing, the mistranslating, the bizarre things in it….

Any group that followed the original teachings was wiped out in centuries of slaughter, human pyres, mass burnings, executions, hundreds of sites all over Europe and the Near East.”

This continuum of an evil ideology may explain why Atzmon a tireless supporter of the Palestinians cause is not only attacked by Zionists but by the Palestinian activists living in the West with their bellies and bank accounts full signing documents labelling Atzmon an “anti Semite”. These so called activists are more worried about who is an anti Semite than about 10 year old Palestinian children held in Palestinian jails suffering mental, physical and sexual abuse.

Over the centuries Sunni Shias coexisted peacefully most of the time, often intermarrying. However the evil forces that led Muawiya and Yazid to set a precedent for future generations to warp and suppress the teachings of the Imams found a new lease of life through Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahab, who was paid by a British government spy to distort Islam by labelling those Muslims who resisted as heretics, kafirs and should be killed.

David Livingstone’s ‘Terrorism and the illuminate’ a three thousand year history’ he explains how “the British devised a method that would create a new interpretation of Islam that would sanction murder under the guise of “Jihad”. He explained how British spy Hempher worked with Abdul Wahab to implement a strategy that will further subvert Islam, by encouraging “…sex, sports, alcohol, gambling, and interest banking” a penchant of the Arab sheikhs and the Pakistani elite.

Wahab also made a pact with Ibn Saud pledging British financial assistance and arms for his military support in the enforcement of Wahabism. Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth made it possible for them to spread Wahabism through religious propaganda and finance to mosques and schools in Pakistan India Indonesia Philippines and western countries.

In London most of the media outlets, mosques and learning centres have been financed by Saudi Arabia. The funding of many organizations to propagate a Wahabi style of Islam has resulted in tension and discrimination, with Shia’s feeling they are a minority under attack. If a Shias whose method of prayers differs slightly attempts to pray in a Sunni mosque, he will have to take the risk being attacked or abused.

Saudi Arabia is aiming to build a huge $100 million dollar Islamic centre in Afghanistan; we can imagine what its real purpose will be, intolerance and churning out more foot soldiers for the Taliban.

The purpose of this article has not been to create a sectarian divide but rather Muslims need to take a factual look at history in the same way that Americans are now waking up to all the false propaganda fed to them throughout history about the Red Indians being savages; about who was really behind the slave trade?; and who really killed JF Kennedy?; who did 9/11 and who really runs Wall Street and Congress?.

The Muslim world has to also wake up and prevent this march into sectarianism that is tearing communities apart, a trap set by the advocates of the New World Order to divert attention while they steal their land and their civil liberties.

It’s also about the unspoken alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel and how both are carrying out a continuum of a philosophy which under different names and methods has one aim, to subvert all that is good in religion, while glorifying evil, oppression corruption and enslavement of humanity for the benefit of the few – and those who think they are the ‘chosen ones’

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Sunni Shia conflict and the ‘continuum’ of an ideology

UK Liberal Democrats in a Funk Over Free Speech (Again)

NOVANEWS 

by Stuart Littlewood

A Liberal Democrat MP in the UK, David Ward, is in hot water for his “use of language” in condemning Israelis for atrocities against the Palestinians while the horrors of their own suffering at the hands of the Nazis were still fresh in their memory.

He wrote on his website a few days before Holocaust Memorial Day: “Having visited Auschwitz twice – once with my family and once with local schools – I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.”

Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust and Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews lost no time in protesting.

According to a BBC report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21194991 Pollock said Ward “deliberately abused the memory of the Holocaust” and his remarks were “sickening” and had no place in British politics.

Benjamin was outraged and shocked by Ward’s “offensive” comments. He complained: “For an MP to have made such comments on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day is even more distasteful…”

But is there ever an ‘acceptable’ moment for mentioning Israel’s atrocious conduct? And what about that other holocaust, Israel’s Operation Cast Lead against Gaza’s civilians (Muslim and Christian) launched over Christmas-time and New Year 2008/9? It was not on the same scale admittedly but was evil and unforgivable nonetheless.

And before anyone dismisses the death-roll as relatively insignificant, let’s remember that statistics from Israel’s B’Tselem show that between 2000 and the start of Israel’s ‘Cast Lead’ assault the Israelis’ vast standing army, equipped with the most advanced American-funded weaponry, killed 4,790 Palestinian civilians in their homeland. Of these, 952 were children.

Yes, 952 young Palestinian lives horribly snuffed out and their parents desolated… In response the Palestinians, with their primitive weapons, killed 490 Israeli civilians, including 84 children. That’s a slaughter rate of 11 to 1 by the Israelis. Their score has been further improved by the Cast Lead and more recent Pillar of Cloud operations, and the many air strikes in-between.

LibDem leaders have ‘form’ when it comes to stabbing good people in the back for criticising the racist state. The well-known human rights campaigner Baroness Jenny Tonge has felt the knives of Kennedy, Campbell and Clegg for speaking her mind. Now she’s safely out of their clutches and sits as a crossbencher in the House of Lords.

Again, on this occasion, instead of defending their MP from unjust accusations the Liberal Democrats announced that they “deeply regret and condemn the statement issued by David Ward and his use of language which is unacceptable”. He has been summoned to a meeting with the party whips next week. This means a dressing-down at least, possibly disciplinary action and even the end of his political career.

And for what? Speaking the truth?

No disrespect

Ward told the BBC: “I don’t feel bad about it in any way. They consider my comments regrettable; I consider their reprimand regrettable.” He said any further disciplinary action would be “a sad reflection on the values we all hold so dearly, particularly on free speech”.

Yes indeed. On the LibDem website under the tab ‘What We Stand For’ there’s an item which says: “Protecting freedom of speech – We are protecting freedom of speech through our Defamation Bill and by ending the restrictive situation where it is an offence to ‘insult’ someone.”

Furthermore the party’s Constitution says: “We will at all times defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely… Our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries; we are committed to fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services. Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a durable system of common security.”

It also declares that Liberal Democrats “are supporters of international law… welcome the extension of international law to hold individuals to account for crimes against humanity. If governments engage in large-scale violations of human rights, or are unable or unwilling to protect their populations from catastrophes, then this responsibility must be fulfilled by the international community…”

Fancy words. But put them to the test and they fly out the window. The LibDems’ track record is one of gutlessness and hypocrisy. They have the oldest Friends of Israel setup in the British parliament and now are in coalition with the Conservative Party, 80 percent of whose MPs are said be signed-up Friends of Israel. What an appalling bunch of people, this admiration society who promote the ambitions of some of the worst criminals on the planet.

No-one in this affair has shown disrespect for the Holocaust and its memorial, and certainly not David Ward who has said and done all the right things, even to the extent of signing a Book of Commitment. OK, you might argue with his timing. But the only people to have “abused the memory of the Holocaust”, as Karen Pollock put it, are the Israeli regime itself (which dispossessed and drove into exile some 700,000 Palestinians in 1947/8 and has had its boot on the necks of those remaining for the 64 years ever since) and its supporters – including some who lurk in the Liberal Democrat party. The abiding message of the Holocaust, that such cruelty must never be allowed to happen again, seems to have eluded them.

As has the fact, apparently, that Israel outlaws commemoration of the Palestinians’ corresponding ‘Nakba’, the catastrophe of the 1948 mass expulsion, ethnic cleansing and massacres.

To give David some words of support for standing up to the bullies, you can write to him at david@davidward.org.uk .

Posted in UKComments Off on UK Liberal Democrats in a Funk Over Free Speech (Again)

On the Warning Track Broadcast

On the Warning Track Broadcast Nov 23, 2013

by crescentandcross

otwt–november-23-2013.mp3

Download Here

THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM

Posted in InterviewComments Off on On the Warning Track Broadcast

An Orgy of Thieves

NOVANEWS
by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR and ALEXANDER COCKBURN

All through the 1980s and 1990s, professorial mountebanks like James Q. Wilson and Charles Murray grew plump from best sellers about the criminal, probably innate, propensities of the “underclass,” about the pathology of poverty, the teen predators, the collapse of morals, the irresponsibility of teen moms.

There was indeed a vast criminal class coming to full vicious potential in the 1990s: a group utterly vacant of the most elementary instincts of social propriety, devoid of moral fiber, selfish to an almost unfathomable degree. The class comes in the form of our corporate elite.

Given a green light in the late 1970s by the deregulatory binge urged by corporate-funded think tanks and launched legislatively by Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, by the 1990s, America’s corporate leadership had evolved a simple strategy for criminal self-enrichment.

First, lie about your performance, in a manner calculated to deceive investors. This was engineered by the production of a “pro forma” balance sheet freighted with accounting chicanery of every stripe and hue, willingly supplied by Arthur Andersen and others. Losses were labeled “capital expenditures”; losing assets were “sold” to co-conspirators in the large banks for the relevant accounting period.

Later, using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, slightly more realistic balance sheets would be presented to the SEC and the IRS.

Flaunting the “pro forma” numbers, corporations would issue more stock, borrow more money from some co-conspiratorial bank, buy back the stock for the chief executives, who would further inflate its value by dint of bogus accountancy, sell the stock to the chumps and bail out with their millions before the roof fell in, leaving pension funds like CalPERS holding the bag. The fortunes amassed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are vivid illustrations of the technique.

The scale of looting? Prodigious. This orgy of thievery, without parallel in the history of capitalism, was condoned and abetted year after year by the archbishop of the economy, Alan Greenspan, a man with a finely honed sense of distinction between the scale of reproof merited by the very rich and those less powerful. When Ron Carey led the Teamsters to victory way back in 1997, Greenspan rushed to denounce the “inflationary” potential of modestly improved wage packets. Even though declared innocent by a jury of his peers, Carey was forbidden ever to run in a union election again. And so it goes now with the drumbeats about raising the minimum wage.

Where were the sermons from Greenspan or his successor Ben Bernanke about the inflationary potential of stock-option fortunes lofted on the hot air of crooked accountancy and kindred conspiracies?

Let someone die in a gang-banger crossfire in South Central, and William Bennett will rush to indict an entire generation, an entire race. Where are the sermons from Bennett, Murray and the Sunday Show moralists about the CEOs scuttling off with their swag, leaving their employees to founder amid wrecked pensions and destroyed prospects? A street kid in Oakland is in the computer by the time he’s 10. No “criminal propensity” profiles for grads of the Wharton or Harvard business schools.

You have to go back to Marx and Balzac to get a truly vivid sense of the rich as a criminal elites. But these giants did bequeath a tradition of joyful dissection of the morals and ethics of the rich, carried on by Veblen, John Moody, C. Wright Mills, William Domhoff, and others. But by the mid-1960s, disruptive political science was not a paying proposition if you were aiming for tenure. A student studying Mills would be working nights at the soda fountain while the kid flourishing Robert Dahl and writing rubbish about pluralism would get a grad fellowship.

Back in the 1950s, people were reading stuff about the moral vacuum in affluent suburbia by writers like Vance Packard and David Riesman. Presumably, inner loneliness soon became inner joy. There was nothing wrong about putting one’s boot on a colleague’s neck and cashing in. Where are the books now about these proving grounds for the great corporate criminal cohort of the 2000s, who came of age in the Reagan years?

In fact, it’s nearly impossible to locate books that examine the class of corporate executives through the lens of cool, scientific contempt. Much of the current writing on CEO culture is published in magazines likeFortune, Businessweek or Forbes. And though there are a few authors — like Robert Monks (Power and Accountability) — who focus their attention on executive culture, nowhere will you find empirical studies on the sociobiological roots of the criminal tendencies of the executive class.

Why? The rich bought out the opposition. Back in the mists of antiquity, you had communists and socialists and populists who’d read Marx, and who had a pretty fair notion of what the rich were up to. Even Democrats had a grasp of the true situation. Then came the witchhunts and the buyouts, hand in hand. Result, a Goldman Sachs trader could come to maturity without ever once hearing an admonitory word about it being wrong to lie, cheat and steal, sell out your co-workers, defraud your customers.

The finest schools in America educated a criminal elite that stole the store in less than a decade. Was it all the fault of Ayn Rand, of the Chicago School, of Hollywood, of God’s demise?

This essay is adapted and updated from an article in the November 2000 edition of The New Statesman.

by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR and ALEXANDER COCKBURN

All through the 1980s and 1990s, professorial mountebanks like James Q. Wilson and Charles Murray grew plump from best sellers about the criminal, probably innate, propensities of the “underclass,” about the pathology of poverty, the teen predators, the collapse of morals, the irresponsibility of teen moms.

There was indeed a vast criminal class coming to full vicious potential in the 1990s: a group utterly vacant of the most elementary instincts of social propriety, devoid of moral fiber, selfish to an almost unfathomable degree. The class comes in the form of our corporate elite.

Given a green light in the late 1970s by the deregulatory binge urged by corporate-funded think tanks and launched legislatively by Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, by the 1990s, America’s corporate leadership had evolved a simple strategy for criminal self-enrichment.

First, lie about your performance, in a manner calculated to deceive investors. This was engineered by the production of a “pro forma” balance sheet freighted with accounting chicanery of every stripe and hue, willingly supplied by Arthur Andersen and others. Losses were labeled “capital expenditures”; losing assets were “sold” to co-conspirators in the large banks for the relevant accounting period.

Later, using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, slightly more realistic balance sheets would be presented to the SEC and the IRS.

Flaunting the “pro forma” numbers, corporations would issue more stock, borrow more money from some co-conspiratorial bank, buy back the stock for the chief executives, who would further inflate its value by dint of bogus accountancy, sell the stock to the chumps and bail out with their millions before the roof fell in, leaving pension funds like CalPERS holding the bag. The fortunes amassed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are vivid illustrations of the technique.

The scale of looting? Prodigious. This orgy of thievery, without parallel in the history of capitalism, was condoned and abetted year after year by the archbishop of the economy, Alan Greenspan, a man with a finely honed sense of distinction between the scale of reproof merited by the very rich and those less powerful. When Ron Carey led the Teamsters to victory way back in 1997, Greenspan rushed to denounce the “inflationary” potential of modestly improved wage packets. Even though declared innocent by a jury of his peers, Carey was forbidden ever to run in a union election again. And so it goes now with the drumbeats about raising the minimum wage.

Where were the sermons from Greenspan or his successor Ben Bernanke about the inflationary potential of stock-option fortunes lofted on the hot air of crooked accountancy and kindred conspiracies?

Let someone die in a gang-banger crossfire in South Central, and William Bennett will rush to indict an entire generation, an entire race. Where are the sermons from Bennett, Murray and the Sunday Show moralists about the CEOs scuttling off with their swag, leaving their employees to founder amid wrecked pensions and destroyed prospects? A street kid in Oakland is in the computer by the time he’s 10. No “criminal propensity” profiles for grads of the Wharton or Harvard business schools.

You have to go back to Marx and Balzac to get a truly vivid sense of the rich as a criminal elites. But these giants did bequeath a tradition of joyful dissection of the morals and ethics of the rich, carried on by Veblen, John Moody, C. Wright Mills, William Domhoff, and others. But by the mid-1960s, disruptive political science was not a paying proposition if you were aiming for tenure. A student studying Mills would be working nights at the soda fountain while the kid flourishing Robert Dahl and writing rubbish about pluralism would get a grad fellowship.

Back in the 1950s, people were reading stuff about the moral vacuum in affluent suburbia by writers like Vance Packard and David Riesman. Presumably, inner loneliness soon became inner joy. There was nothing wrong about putting one’s boot on a colleague’s neck and cashing in. Where are the books now about these proving grounds for the great corporate criminal cohort of the 2000s, who came of age in the Reagan years?

In fact, it’s nearly impossible to locate books that examine the class of corporate executives through the lens of cool, scientific contempt. Much of the current writing on CEO culture is published in magazines likeFortune, Businessweek or Forbes. And though there are a few authors — like Robert Monks (Power and Accountability) — who focus their attention on executive culture, nowhere will you find empirical studies on the sociobiological roots of the criminal tendencies of the executive class.

Why? The rich bought out the opposition. Back in the mists of antiquity, you had communists and socialists and populists who’d read Marx, and who had a pretty fair notion of what the rich were up to. Even Democrats had a grasp of the true situation. Then came the witchhunts and the buyouts, hand in hand. Result, a Goldman Sachs trader could come to maturity without ever once hearing an admonitory word about it being wrong to lie, cheat and steal, sell out your co-workers, defraud your customers.

The finest schools in America educated a criminal elite that stole the store in less than a decade. Was it all the fault of Ayn Rand, of the Chicago School, of Hollywood, of God’s demise?

 

Posted in USAComments Off on An Orgy of Thieves

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

November 2013
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930