Archive | September 23rd, 2014

When “Jewish Men-Only Streets” Are Okay in London

Global Research

Imagine in one of London’s central districts, a Muslim group representing a significant section of the local community puts up notices before a street event telling women to confine themselves to one side of the road only. The posters, in Arabic and English, state: “Women should please walk along this side of the road only.”

How much coverage in the UK media do you think this would receive? Would we see articles about Muslims trying to bring sharia law to the streets of London? Would commentators fall over themselves to decry Islam as a religion of extremism and intolerance? Would our media and politicians call on Muslim leaders to denounce such primitive practices?

From long experience, we all know the answer.

So how to explain the near-silence about exactly this happening last week in the London district of Hackney, except that religious Jews rather than Muslims were the party responsible. The Shomrim organisation put up the signs in preparation for the Torah procession in Stamford Hill. The posters were removed after local residents complained.

But as the Redress website notes, the official response has been decidedly muted. An online search finds this story apparently of interest – and then only marginally – to local London media, plus one low-key story in the national Independent newspaper. And a police spokesman merely expresses concern about a “potential misinterpretation” of the signs, without explaining in what possible way they might be misinterpreted.

He adds that Shomrim “have agreed that next year they will only be written in Hebrew and will be removed more swiftly after the event.”

As Redress observes:

In other words, as long as the Jewish misogynists confine their hateful practice to Hebrew-reading Jewish women, and do so quickly before anyone has had time to ponder why this is happening on the streets of a British city, everything would be fine.

It is worth bearing this story in mind next time you read an Islam scare story in the western media. What standards are used in assessing the Muslim community and how consistently are they being applied to other religious communities? And if there is an inconsistency, what motivates it? Why are news editors regularly playing up a Muslim threat, but playing down a Jewish or Christian or Hindi or Sikh threat?

– See more at:

Posted in UKComments Off on When “Jewish Men-Only Streets” Are Okay in London

Good News: US-puppet Zio-Wahhabi King Abdullah in Intensive Care Unit


Recent reports say that Zio-Wahhabi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz has been taken to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a Riyadh hospital following surgery.

A Saudi activist on Wednesday announced on microblogging service, Twitter, that the country’s princes have been visiting the National Guard’s King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh along with Zio-Wahhabi King Abdullah’s eldest son Prince Mutaib bin Abdullah.

The activist, identified as al-Motjahem (an Arabic nickname meaning ‘grim’), said that contrary to reports by the country’s media, Zionist King Abdullah is in the ICU.

According to the Saudi Press Agency (SPA),Zio-Wahhabi King Abdullah was admitted to hospital on November 16 to undergo back surgery to tighten a loose ligament.

Failing health, old age as well as the deaths of the king’s half-brothers have raised concerns about the future of the oil-rich country in the face of anti-government demonstrations over the kingdom’s suppressive policies vis-à-vis the populace.

Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz, who was named heir apparent following the death of former Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz in June, normally acts as King Abdullah’s deputy in his absence.

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Good News: US-puppet Zio-Wahhabi King Abdullah in Intensive Care Unit

Good News: Zio-Wahhabi King Abdullah may die in six months


A new report by an opposition research group says Zio-Wahhabi Abdullah bin Abdulaziz has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and may succumb to his illness in six months.

“The King has been told by his medical team he may have as little as six months left to live,” the US-based Institute for (Persian) Gulf Affairs [I(P)GA] quoted US and Saudi sources as saying.

In his meeting with US President Barack Obama last month, Zio-Wahhabi Abdullah was seen wearing a breathing tube.

On March 27, Zio-Wahhabi Abdullah named his half-brother, Prince Muqrin, as the successor to the current Crown Prince Salman should he become king.

On April 15, He also replaced spy chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who spearheaded the kingdom’s mission in the Syria crisis, with Youssef al-Idrisi.

“The recent scramble to designate a line of succession is not surprising given him Abdullah only a few months left, due to advancing age in addition to his terminal illness,” Rachel Hertzman of the I(P)GA said.

Zio-Wahhabi Abdullah is also expected to announce further appointments in the coming days, the report added.

“Observers expect the news of Abdullah’s condition to lead to intense vying for power among the members of the vast ruling family,” it said.

The 90-year-old king’s health has declined over the past few years, during which he has been hospitalized several times.

Failing health, old age as well as the death of the his half-brothers have raised concerns about the future of the oil-rich country in the face of anti-government demonstrations.


Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Good News: Zio-Wahhabi King Abdullah may die in six months

VIDEO: Zionist Saudi King Warns the West: ISIL Will Reach Europe in 1 Month and the US in 2 Months



VIDEO: zionist Saudi King Warns the West: ISIL Will Reach Europe in 1 Month and the US in 2 Months

Posted in USA, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on VIDEO: Zionist Saudi King Warns the West: ISIL Will Reach Europe in 1 Month and the US in 2 Months

After ‘Protective Edge’: What Future for Palestine and I$raHell


The 50-day Israeli military operation that killed over 2100 Palestinians, wounded another 11,000, and undoubtedly traumatized the entire Gazan population of 1.7 million also took the lives of 70 Israelis, of which 65 were soldiers. This last violent encounter has ended without a clear victory for either side. Despite this, Israel and Hamas are each insisting that ‘victory’ was achieved. Israel points to the material results, tunnels and rocket sites destroyed, targeted assassinations completed, and the overall weakening of Hamas capacity to launch an attack. Hamas, for its part, claims political gains, becoming far stronger politically and psychologically in both Gaza and the West Bank than before the fighting began, refusing to give in on the basic Israeli demand of the ‘demilitarization’ of Gaza, as well as further tarnishing Israel’s international reputation.

The UN Human Rights Commission has taken what for it is an exceptional step of appointing a commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of war crimes. The fact that William Schabas, a renowned expert on international criminal law, especially on the crime of genocide, was selected to chair the investigation is of great symbolic significance, and potentially of major relevance to the ongoing legitimacy struggle being successfully waged by the Palestinian people. Some have referred to this new initiative as ‘Goldstone 2.0’ referring back to the earlier high visibility fact finding undertaking of the HRC prompted by the Israeli military operation against Gaza in 2008-09 that had shocked the world by its ferocity and disregard for the international laws of war. Unlike Richard Goldstone, who was an amateur in relation to international law and ideologically aligned with Zionism, Schabas is a leading academic expert without any known ideological inhibitions, and with the strength of character to abide by the expected findings and recommendations of the report that the inquiry produces.

As earlier, the United States will use its geopolitical muscle to shield Israel from censure, criticism, and above all, from accountability. This lamentable limitation on the implementation of international criminal law does not mean that the Schabas effort lacks significance. The political outcome of prior anti-colonial struggles have been controlled by the side that wins the legitimacy war for control of the commanding heights of international law and morality.

This symbolic terrain is so important as it strengthens the resilience of those seeking liberation to bear the burdens of struggle and it deepens the global solidarity movement that provides vital support. In this respect, the Goldstone Report exerted a major influence in delegitimizing Israel’s periodic ‘mowing of the lawn’ in Gaza, especially the grossly disproportionate uses of force against a totally vulnerable and essentially helpless and entrapped civilian population.

The most startling result of this latest onslaught by Israel, which seems less an instance of ‘warfare’ than of ‘orchestrated massacre,’ is strangely ironic from an Israeli perspective. Its ruthless pursuit of a military victory had the effect of making Hamas more popular and legitimate than it had ever been, not only in Gaza, but even more so in the West Bank. Israel’s military operation seriously undermined the already contested claims by the Palestinian Authority (PA) to be the authentic representative of the aspirations of the Palestinian people. The best explanation of this outcome is that Palestinians as a whole prefer the resistance of Hamas, however much suffering it produces, to the passive compliance of the PA with the will of the occupier and oppressor.

For its part, Israel has signaled a less disguised refusal to move toward a negotiated peace under present conditions. Prime Minister Netanyahu has told the Palestinians once again that they must choose between ‘peace and Hamas,’ without mentioning that his use of the word ‘peace’ made it indistinguishable from ‘surrender.’ Netanyahu repeated his often proclaimed position–Israel will never negotiate with a terrorist organization that is committed to its destruction. Putting another nail in what appears to be the coffin of a two-state solution, Israel announced the largest confiscation of land for settlement expansion in more than 20 years, taking nearly 1000 acres of public land near Bethlehem to be added to the small settlement of Gvaot near the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem. Some ask, “Why now?” rather than the more perceptive “Why not now?”

From these perspectives, the real impact of the Gaza carnage may be less the physical devastation and humanitarian catastrophe, imminent dangers of disease epidemic and $12 billion in damage taking at least 20 years to overcome, than the political effects. It looks like the suspension of inter-governmental diplomacy as a means of conflict resolution. Even the PA, seeking its political rehabilitation, is now talking about demanding that the UN establish a three year timetable for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. It is also threatening recourse to the International Criminal Court to empower an investigation of charges that the occupation of the West Bank itself involves the commission of crimes against humanity.

From these perspectives, the situation seems hopeless. The Palestinian prospects for their own state, which was the hope of moderates on both sides for many years, now seems irrelevant. Only the two-state template, however enacted, could reconcile the conflicting claims of Israeli Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. Of course, increasingly Palestinian critics questioned whether Zionism was consistent with the human rights of the Palestinian minority and its large refugee and exile communities, and tended to view the two state outcome as a triumph for the Zionist project and a sugar-coated defeat for Palestinian national aspirations. Now that it is ‘game over’ for the two-state solution, and the real struggle is more clearly being waged between competing versions of a one-state solution.

What can we expect? Even a sustainable ceasefire that allows the people of Gaza to recover somewhat from the dreadful ordeal of a cruel regime of collective punishment seems unlikely to persist very long in the present atmosphere. There is every reason to suppose that Israeli frustrations with the failure of its attack to subdue Hamas, and Hamas’ refusal to accept without acts of resistance the harsh realities of its continuing subjugation.

And yet there are flickers of light in the darkened skies. The stubbornness of Palestinian resistance combined with the robustness of a growing global solidarity movement is likely to exert intensifying pressure on the Israel public and some of its leaders to rethink their options for the future, and from an Israeli point of view, the sooner the better. The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) campaign is gaining political and moral traction by the day. The kind of nonviolent international movement that unexpectedly helped cause the abrupt collapse of the apartheid regime in South Africa seems as though it might at some point push Israelis toward reconsidering whether an accommodation is not in Israel’s interest even if it requires a rethinking of what is the core reality of ‘a Jewish homeland,’ and even if it falls short of a complete reconciliation. As the experience in South Africa, and also Northern Ireland suggest, the side with the upper hand militarily does not acknowledge mounting political pressure until it is ready for a deal with its enemy that would have seemed inconceivable just shortly before it was made.

The outcome of the Israel-Palestine struggle is presently obscure. From the territorial perspective it appears that Israel is on the verge of victory, but from a legitimacy struggle perspective the Palestinians are gaining the upper hand. The flow of history since the end of World War II suggests a hopeful future for the Palestinians, yet the geopolitical strength of Israel may be able to withstand the intensifying pressure to acknowledge the fundamental Palestinian right of self-determination.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on After ‘Protective Edge’: What Future for Palestine and I$raHell

Heading Toward Failure: A Coalition of the ‘Reluctantly Willing’


As the Obama administration is busy forming a coalition to fight-eradicate the Islamic State (IS) or (ISIS/ISIL), the evolving coalition that gathered last week in Paris was a far cry from the one put together by George H. W. Bush in 1991 to fight and expel Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait. Today’s participants of the coalition of the “reluctantly willing” are probably thinking, but not voicing, that defeating the IS will be a difficult, if not impossible, challenge for a variety of reasons.

While the Sunni Arab states of the Persian/Arabian Gulf reluctantly agreed to participate in this budding coalition, disagreements between Saudi Arabia and Qatar over support of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and their respective involvement in the Syrian crisis, seems to have been swept under the rug at the insistence of the United States. Much to the resentment of the Saudis, tiny Qatar has been punching way above its weight for quite awhile, and the Persian/Arabian Gulf region has been feeling the effects of those punches. Since the United States values the support of Riyadh and Doha for the effective functioning of this new coalition, the Obama administration remains concerned over the possible flare-up of the political differences between the two Arab states.

Even though Iran was not invited to the meeting of the 30 members of the anti-IS coalition, at the insistence of Saudi Arabia and the UAE (they threatened to boycott the meeting if Iran were to attend), its presence was very much noted by US Secretary of State John Kerry and by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. While the Arab opponents of Iran noted that they oppose its participation in that coalition because of its backing of the Bashar Assad regime – through the insertion of Hezbollah (of Lebanon) and other Shia militias – Lavrov reminded the participants that Syria and Iran are “natural allies” of Russia. As such, he said, Iran’s engagement in any military action against the IS is required for its success.

The fact that Kerry did not wish to debate that issue with Lavrov served as an important indication of the precariousness of the situation faced by all of the participants for different reasons. Any military action against the IS means that the Assad regime will be strengthened. That was the last thing that either the United States or its other Western and Arab allies wanted. However, none of them has any clue how to implement their respective strategies in such a way that would weaken the Assad regime and, at the same time, expedite the demise of the IS.

The very fact that Russia participated in that conference also underscored how unsettled America’s entire anti-IS strategy really remains. Russia is determined to do anything to weaken the IS. In fact, its continued support of the Assad regime – along with the fact that an anti-Assad Islamist coalition has remained highly divisive and lacks the wholehearted support of the United States – has already palpably improved the stability of that regime. Thus, the best Russian strategy would be to continue its present modus operandi in Syria.

The United States knows how crucial the support and even the participation of Iran is for the success of the US’ anti-IS strategy. Without Iranian consent, formation of the new government in Iraq would have been impossible. However, Iran’s long-standing involvement in supporting the Assad regime was a major obstacle to the development any US-Iran rapprochement. One crucial, but unstated, factor is that Iran’s support can be extracted, but only if the Obama administration agrees to pay a hefty price for it. If the US-Iran nuclear issue were resolved, then Iran would be tempted to support Washington. Of all of the countries in the world, Iran would be one of the first to declare that there are no permanent friends and enemies in the global arena; only countries’ national interests are permanent. However, the Obama administration – even if it wanted to – cannot play that game with Iran. Israel is watching, along with all of its powerful supporters in the US Congress, to ensure that no deal can be cut between the Obama administration and Iranian officials that would undermine Israel’s utmost commitment to ensure that Iran never emerges as a nuclear weapons power.

As an old practitioner of realpolitik – notwithstanding the wrongheaded observation recently made by Henry Kissinger that Iran is a bigger problem than ISIS – Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, was leaning toward finding common ground for cooperating with the US to eradicate the IS. However, also being fully discerning about how Israel and its lobby maneuvers and control over US foreign policy, Khamenei preempted Kerry’s refusal to invite Iran to the Paris conference by stating that his country would not participate.

The Obama administration is doing its best to overlook the long-standing sectarian-based antipathy from Saudi Arabia and Iran. The participants of the Paris meeting, I am sure, did not forget that the IS and Saudi Arabia have one thing in common: they both regard the Shias infidels, except that the IS goes to an extreme in expressing its hatred of the Shias. The question of the hour is what would/should be the basis for any type of cooperation from Riyadh and Tehran to eliminate the bloodthirsty IS.

Given all of these problems, I wonder whether the Islamic State was laughing while watching the “diplomatic correctness” with which some of the most obdurate problems dividing the Sunni Arab states, Shia Iran, and Shia-dominated Iraq were being swept under the rug. Unfortunately, the IS seems to have reason to conclude that the evolving coalition of the “reluctantly willing” is headed toward certain defeat.

Posted in Iraq, SyriaComments Off on Heading Toward Failure: A Coalition of the ‘Reluctantly Willing’

It Was Meant To Be


Just a quick post folks so I don’t forget how.  Of course the message is important, it just won’t be dolled up with lots of cool stuff.  Just the bottom line.

The excellent “” website is featuring an article entitled “Heading Toward Failure. . .” which on the surface passes pretty much for common sense among those who think US Middle East policy is incredibly fucked up.

And to think that is to miss the point entirely.  The current situation on the whole, if not in some of the details, is pretty much what has been the plan for some time and Americans are just to stupid to realize it, including pundits with whom we here at Mantiq al-Tayr often agree.

The whole point is for everything to be fucked up while Israel will be a principle beneficiary along with a host of other abominable folks whom we know by position and often by name.

And now the US, and I use the term US loosely, Senate has “unanimously” approved a bill which says that Israel is a “major strategic partner”.  Fortunately in the US, and I use the term US loosely yet again, House of Reprehensibles there was serious opposition and the bill only barely made it through with 410 representatives of the State of Israel voting for it and one representative voting against it.  The bill didn’t include the espionage waiver that Israel wanted, but that will come down the pike soon, don’t worry.

As long as Americans do not understand that the desired status quo is a string of endless wars for Israel and it’s buddies then they will continue to blindly support this insanity, irrespective of an occasional awaking produced by Israeli fits of mass murderso  obvious that even the MSM has to report them – knowing full well that Americans will soon forget while the MSM also does everything it can to color their reports with Zionist paint brushes.

What is happening now is what the elites have intended to happen, not some aberration that is somehow inexplicable.

You can go back to sleep now.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on It Was Meant To Be

A Public Bank Option for Scotland

Global Research

Scottish voters will go to the polls on September 18th to decide whether Scotland should become an independent country. As video blogger Ian R. Crane colorfully puts the issues and possibilities:

[T]he People of Scotland have an opportunity to extricate themselves from the socio-psychopathic global corporatists and the temple of outrageous and excessive abject materialism. However, it is not going to be an easy ride . . . .

If Alex Salmond and the SNP [Scottish National Party] are serious about keeping the Pound Stirling as the Currency of Scotland, there will be no independence. Likewise if Scotland embraces the Euro, Scotland will rapidly become a vassel state of the Euro-Federalists, who will asset strip the nation in the same way that, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain have been stripped of their entire national wealth and much of their national identity.

To achieve true independence, Crane suggests the following, among other mandates:

  • Establish an independent Central Bank of Scotland.
  • Issue a new Scottish (Debt Free) Currency.
  • Settle any outstanding debt with new Scottish Currency.
  • Take Scotland out of the EU.
  • Take Scotland out of NATO.
  • Establish strict currency controls for the first 3 years of independence.
  • Nationalize the Scottish oil & gas industry.
  • Re-take control of the National Health Service.
  • Establish a State Employment Agency to provide work/training for all able-bodied residents.

Arguments against independence include that Scotland’s levels of public spending, which are higher than in the rest of the UK, would be difficult to sustain without raising taxes. But that assumes the existing UK/EU investment regime. If Scotland were to say, “We’re starting a new round based on our own assets, via our own new bank,” exciting things might be achieved. A publicly-owned bank with a mandate to serve the interests of the Scottish people could help give the newly independent country true economic sovereignty.

I wrote on that possibility in December 2012, after doing a PowerPoint on it at the Royal Society of Arts in Edinburgh. That presentation was followed by one by public sector consultant Ralph Leishman, who made the proposal concrete with facts and figures. He suggested that the Scottish Investment Bank (SIB) be licensed as a depository bank on the model of the state-owned Bank of North Dakota. I’m reposting the bulk of that article here, in hopes of adding to the current debate.

From Revolving Fund to Credit Machine: What Scotland Could Do with Its Own Bank

The SIB is a division of Scottish Enterprise (SE), a government body that encourages economic development, enterprise, innovation and investment in business. The SIB provides public sector funding through the Scottish Loan Fund. As noted in a September 2011 government report titled “Government Economic Strategy”:

[S]ecuring affordable finance remains a considerable challenge and further action is needed to ensure that viable businesses have access to the funding they require to grow and support jobs. The recovery is being held back by limited private sector investment – indeed, overall investment in the UK remains some 15% below pre-recession levels. Evidence shows that while many large companies have significant cash holdings or can access capital markets directly, for most Small and Medium-sized companies bank lending remains the key source of finance. Unblocking this is key to helping the recovery gain traction.

The limitation of a public loan fund is that the money can be lent only to one borrower at a time. Invested as capital in a bank, on the other hand, public funds can be leveraged into nearly ten times that sum in loans. Liquidity to cover the loans comes from deposits, which remain in the bank, available for the use of the depositors. As observed by Kurt Von Mettenheim, et al., in a 2008 report titled Government Banking: New Perspectives on Sustainable Development and Social Inclusion from Europe and South America (Konrad Adenauer Foundation), at page 196:

[I]n terms of public policy, government banks can do more for less: Almost ten times more if one compares cash used as capital reserves by banks to other policies that require budgetary outflows.

In 2012, according to Leishman, the SIB had investment funds of £23.2 million from the Scottish government. Rounding this to £25 million, a public depository bank could have sufficient capital to back £250 million in loans. For deposits to cover the loans, the Scottish Government then had £125 million on deposit with private banks, earning very little or no interest. Adding the revenues of just 14% of Scotland’s local governments would provide another £125 million, reaching the needed deposit total of £250 million.

The Model of the Bank of North Dakota

What the government could do with its own bank, following the model of the Bank of North Dakota (BND), was summarized by Alf Young in a followup article in the Scotsman. He noted that North Dakota is currently the only U.S. state to own its own depository bank. The BND was founded in 1919 by Norwegian and other immigrants, who were determined, through their Non-Partisan League, to stop rapacious Wall Street money men foreclosing on their farms.

Young observed that all state revenues must be deposited with the BND by law. The bank pays no bonuses, fees or commissions; does no advertising; and maintains no branches beyond the main office in Bismarck. The bank offers cheap credit lines to state and local government agencies. There are low-interest loans for designated project finance. The BND underwrites municipal bonds, funds disaster relief and supports student loans. It partners with local commercial banks to increase lending across the state and pays competitive interest rates on state deposits. For the past ten years, it has been paying a dividend to the state, with a quite small population of about 680,000, of some $30 million (£18.7 million) a year.

Young wrote:

Intriguingly, North Dakota has not suffered the way much of the rest of the US – indeed much of the western industrialised world – has, from the banking crash and credit crunch of 2008; the subsequent economic slump; and the sovereign debt crisis that has afflicted so many. With an economy based on farming and oil, it has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the US, a rising population and a state budget surplus that is expected to hit $1.6bn by next July. By then North Dakota’s legacy fund is forecast to have swollen to around $1.2bn.

With that kind of resilience, it’s little wonder that twenty American states, some of them close to bankruptcy, are at various stages of legislating to form their own state-owned banks on the North Dakota model. There’s a long-standing tradition of such institutions elsewhere too. Australia had a publicly-owned bank offering credit for infrastructure as early as 1912. New Zealand had one operating in the housing field in the 1930s. Up until 1974, the federal government in Canada borrowed from the Bank of Canada, effectively interest-free.

. . . From our western perspective, we tend to forget that, globally, around 40 per cent of banks are already publicly owned, many of them concentrated in the BRIC economies, Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Banking is not just a market good or service. It is a vital part of societal infrastructure, which properly belongs in the public sector. By taking banking back, local governments could regain control of that very large slice (up to 40 per cent) of every public budget that currently goes to interest charged to finance investment programs through the private sector.

Recent academic studies by von Mettenheim et al. and Andrianova et al. show that countries with high degrees of government ownership of banking have grown much faster in the last decade than countries where banking is historically concentrated in the private sector. Government banks are also LESS corrupt and, surprisingly, have been MORE profitable in recent years than private banks.

Young wrote:

Given the massive price we have all paid for our debt-fuelled crash, surely there is scope for a more fundamental re-think about what we really want from our banks and what structures of ownership are best suited to deliver on those aspirations? . . .

As we left Thursday’s seminar, I asked another member of the audience, someone with more than thirty years’ experience as a corporate financier, whether the concept of a publicly-owned bank has any chance of getting off the ground here. “I’ve no doubt it will happen,” came the surprise response. “When I look at the way our collective addiction to debt has ballooned in my lifetime, I’d even say it’s inevitable”.

The Scots are full of surprises, and independence is in their blood. Recall the heroic battles of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce memorialized by Hollywood in the Academy Award winning movie Braveheart. Perhaps the Scots will blaze a trail for economic sovereignty in Europe, just as North Dakotans did in the U.S. A publicly-owned bank could help Scotland take control of its own economic destiny, by avoiding unnecessary debt to a private banking system that has become a burden to the economy rather than a pillar in its support.

Posted in UKComments Off on A Public Bank Option for Scotland

Climate Change, Manufactured Dissent and “Foundation-funded Doomsayers”

Global Research

The earth’s climate is changing. Sea levels are rising. We are all at risk. The role of humans in climate change is undeniable. Capitalism is to blame. Governments must fix the problem.

These are the mantras of the environmental movement on display at the People’s Climate March being held on September 21.

The talking points of foundation-funded doomsayers reverberate in unison because their financing is dependent on publicizing a specific message and agenda. The otherwise critical minds supporting what passes for rebelliousness overlook the sponsorship and tacit control wielded by powerful private interests.

Scratching the surface, one finds that the most salient proponents of the carbon-centric global warming worldview are largely dependent on such funding. For example, Bill McKibben, a principal organizer of the People’s Climate March, has built a career around the false notion that minuscule increases in carbon dioxide are a principal cause of “extreme weather” events.

[Image Credit:]


As this author has noted,

McKibben’s project is the public face of his 501(c)(3) 1Sky Education Fund, which between its founding in 2007 and 2009 took in close to $5,000,000 in foundation money and “public contributions.” In 2010 the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave 1Sky $200,000. The key “scientific” paper McKibben points to as support for his dire warnings on climate change, “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim,” coauthored by NASA scientist James Hansen, was partially funded through Rockefeller Foundation money.[1]

A seemingly radical, anti-establishment veneer is helpful in lending the environmental movement some degree of legitimacy. Canadian journalist and author Naomi Klein is the most recent voice of climate alarmism. Klein’s previous works, No Logo (2000) and The Shock Doctrine (2007), have afforded her with considerable notoriety and some degree of credibility, particularly among those on the progressive-left.

Klein’s most recent book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate, suggests that drastic measures must be taken to save the environment from destructive human activities. This Changes Everything is published by Simon & Schuster, a subsidiary of the publicly-traded CBS Corporation, which boasted revenues of $15.284 billion in 2013 alone.[2] Like McKibben’s Rockefeller sponsors, Simon & Schuster and CBS are typically uninclined toward promoting genuinely anti-establishment thought and discourse.

Klein is one of the few in the progressive-left cavalcade to recognize that geoengineering and weather manipulation pose extreme threats to the environment. “Well, so, one of the geoengineering methods that gets taken most seriously is called ‘solar radiation management,’” Klein remarks on the foundation-fundedDemocracy Now! news hour,[3] another promoter of the People’s Climate March.

Solar radiation management, managing the sun. So, what you—so the idea [sic] is that you would spray sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere, then they would reflect some of the sun’s rays back to space and dim the sun and cool the Earth. So, climate change is caused by pollution in the lower atmosphere, and so they’re saying that the solution to that pollution is pollution in the stratosphere. And, you know, it’s really frightening when you look at some of the modeling that is being done about what the possible downsides of this could be [sic].[4]

In fact, there is substantial evidence–patents, government documents, and scientific papers–that such organized contamination projects have been underway since at least the late 1990s and are almost certainly a major factor in the “extreme weather events” pointed to with such alarm by figures like McKib



Yet Klein deceptively suggests that geoengineering is still in the planning stages and has not begun. Indeed, to acknowledge that such plans are well-advanced and now fully operational would call into question the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis she and her adherents proclaim as the rationale for opposing “capitalism.” It would also likely jeopardize a lucrative publishing contract with a global media conglomerate.

[Image Credit:]

Foundation-funded and corporate-promoted environmentalism is notable not only for its hypocrisy, but also for what it leaves obscure to its well-intentioned devotees.

With this in mind, the purpose of such artificial dissent is arguably to repackage the threat of extreme weather that has been manufactured by military and government programs over the years as the basis for strategic socio-political and economic changes to which the public would never freely submit.

To curb humankind’s environmental excesses, today’s state-backed corporatism mistakenly decried as capitalism must further expand into the everyday lives of individuals, where an “internet of things” will inevitably catalog, regulate and control all consumable resources and biological entities.

“A really efficient totalitarian state,” Aldous Huxley once observed, “would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.”[5]

Along these lines, establishment environmentalism’s continued feigned urgency and spectacle of protest ingeniously disguises the deeper belief that humanity’s salvation lies in its own subservience to technocratic control.


[1] James F. Tracy, Chemtrails: The Realities of Geoengineering and Weather Modification,” Global Research, November 8, 2012.

[2] “CBS CORP 2013 Annual Report Form (10-K)” (XBRL). United States Securities and Exchange Commission. February 14, 2014.

[3] James F. Tracy,Manufactured Dissent: The Financial Bearings of the Progressive-Left Media,”Global Research, August 3, 2012.

[4] Amy Goodman,Naomi Klein on Motherhood, Geoengineering, Climate Debt & the Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement,” Democracy Now! September 18, 2014.

[5] Aldous Huxley, Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited, Harper Perennial, 2005.

Posted in HealthComments Off on Climate Change, Manufactured Dissent and “Foundation-funded Doomsayers”

End “booming military trade” between EU and I$raHell, say Palestinian rights groups

Submitted by Michael Deas


Children in Gaza light candles to mark World Peace Day yesterday: Palestinian rights groups have called on the EU to stop aiding Israeli weapons firms.

The European Union’s key trade and political agreement with the European Union should be suspended in response to the recent attack on Gaza, according to 24 Palestinian campaign groups.

In a letter to Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, the groups also demand that the Union impose an arms embargo on Israel until such time as it complies with international law.

The letter is signed by representatives of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Defence for Children International – Palestine Section, the Palestinian NGO Network and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, among others.

It underscores that the EU-Israel association agreement commits both sides to respecting human rights. Entering into force in 2000, that accord facilitates largely unrestricted trade between the EU and Israel and allows Israel to participate in more EU programs and projects than most other non-European countries.

Because the human rights clause in the agreement has not been invoked, Israel enjoys many of the benefits of EU membership without being required to live up to its legally binding commitments on human rights.

Recent mainstream coverage of EU-Israel relations has focused on the EU guidelines announced  in June 2013, in response to pressure by the Palestine solidarity movement. These guidelines prevent the EU from recognizing Israeli sovereignty in the occupied West Bank.

The guidelines prevent, too, a limited number of firms and institutions based in Israeli settlements in the West Bank from receiving EU funding and have led to the EU announcing that it will no longer allow the import of products from settlements if they require certification by Israeli government ministries. Dairy, meat and poultry are among the products to be excluded. Yet the majority of EU trade with Israeli settlements will continue, even though those settlements are illegal under international law.

But this focus on limited action against settlements risks hiding the extent to which the EU-Israel association agreement continues to provide Israel with the political, economic and military support it needs to carry out its massacres.

“Massacres will be tolerated”

European leaders made some of their strongest criticisms of Israel to date during the recent Gaza attack, with French President François Hollande going as far as to describe Israel’s bombing of a UN school as a “massacre.”

But empty rhetoric aside, the EU continues to apply a gross double standard to Israel. The EU suspended its association agreement with Sri Lanka in 2010 and has applied heavy sanctions to Russia and a host of other states judged to have violated human rights and international law in recent years.

Yet the agreement with Israel remains in place despite Israel’s widely acknowledged war crimes. Israel enjoys closer relations with the EU than ever before.

As the Palestinian civil society letter sent to Ashton explains, this double standard “sends a clear message to Israel that its massacres of Palestinians will be tolerated and will not result in any meaningful impact on its intimate relations with the EU.”

Direct support for I$raHell crimes

The letter also draws Ashton’s attention to the ways in which the EU provides “direct support for Israeli violations of international law.”

Israel participates in a raft of EU programs. These include scientific research actitivites, the satellite navigation project Galileo and the Erasmus academic exchange program. Israel’s participation in these programs often provides financial and other forms of support to Israeli bodies that are at the heart of Israeli oppression of Palestinians.

Since 2007, Israeli weapons companies Elbit Systems and Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) have been allowed to participate in EU funded research projects worth €244 million ($313.6 million).

Several of projects involving these firms were directly related to the development of drones. Elbit and IAI are the two main providers of drones used by the Israeli military to commit deliberate attacks on Palestinian civilians.

It seems highly probable that this summer’s massacre in Gaza was carried out using technology that the EU directly helped to develop.

The Israeli police force, which is headquartered in East Jerusalem and is deeply involved in maintaining Israel’s occupation and committing Israeli human rights violations, has taken part in a number of activities coordinated by Europol, the EU’s police agency, over the past few years.

The EU has also failed to take adequate action to tackle the participation of European businesses in Israel’s settlement enterprise or to curb trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

Again, this is in stark contrast to the EU’s stance on other countries: the EU recently banned all products from Crimea unless they are accompanied by a certificate of origin from the Ukrainian authorities.

Deep economic ties

More generally, the EU-Israel agreement has led to a rapid growth in trade and economic cooperation.

The agreement provides Israel with preferential access to European markets. Israeli exports to the EU were worth €12.5 billion ($16 billion) during 2013, accounting for 33 percent of all Israeli exports and making the EU the single biggest market for Israeli goods.

The EU and many of its governments dedicate significant resources to encouraging growth in trade and economic cooperation with Israel, often disregarding the role the Israeli participants in business exchange programs play in Israel’s crimes.

A recent EU “mission for growth” to Israel involved Ahava, the cosmetics company based in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, and a subsidiary of the Israeli arms company Elbit Systems.

Besides trade, Israel’s participation in EU programs also provides its economy with a major boost.  Some of the most important areas of cooperation are jointly-funded by the EU and Israel. But Israel has proven adept at receiving more from EU-coordinated programs than it pays into them.

According to the Israeli government, Israel contributed €535 million ($687.5 million) to the budget for the EU’s scientic research program between 2007 and 2013. But Israeli firms and institutions received funding worth €840 million ($1 billion) from that program.

The EU plays a key role in the growth of Israel’s militarized economy, helping Israel to cover the cost of its occupation and military actions in the process. Any EU criticism of Israel remains in effect meaningless while such strong links remain in place and are being continually deepened.

Arming I$raHell

The letter from 24 Palestinian organizations to Ashton also calls for a European military embargo on Israel:

the vast military trade and cooperation that take place between Israel and EU member states directly provide Israel with the material and political support that it requires to carry out its regular massacres of Palestinians and its systematic violations of international law. In the period 2005-09, EU countries granted arms exports licenses to Israel worth €7.47 billion [$9.6 billion]. Weapons exports from the EU to Israel during 2012 were worth €613 million [$788 million], up 290 percent on the previous year. This booming military trade amounts to the aiding and abetting of Israel’s grave violations of international law.

In addition to military trade, European countries also participate in joint research and training exercises with the Israeli military.

As David Cronin reported for The Electronic Intifada recently, the EU also collaborates with the agencies responsible for building and maintaining Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

While Spain announced a partial suspension of arms sales to Israel during the recent attack on Gaza, the EU should do more collectively to address how the arms trade with Israel clearly violates the Union’s own rules.

A “common position” agreed in 2008 states that EU governments should deny an export license “if there is a clear risk that the military technology or equipment to be exported might be used in the commission of serious violations of inter­national humanitarian law.”

Clearly, all military exports to Israel violate this principle.

Ending European complicity

EU officials have consistently argued that its association agreement and close ties with Israel put it in a better position to engage in “dialogue” with Israel regarding its violations of international law and human rights.

Given the scale of Israel’s recent massacres in Gaza and Israel’s decision to announce new settlement constructution despite public pleas from the EU not to do so, it is clear that this “dialogue” — if it ever really existed in a meaningful sense — has failed.

What’s needed now more than ever is popular pressure on the EU and its governments to take meaningful action that raises the price Israel has to pay for its decades-old system of colonialism and apartheid.

As the letter from Palestinian groups to the EU argues, “Israel’s war crimes and its sabotage of every effort to reach a just peace based on UN resolutions must lead to effective and substantial, not just cosmetic, consequences.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, GazaComments Off on End “booming military trade” between EU and I$raHell, say Palestinian rights groups

Shoah’s pages


September 2014
« Aug   Oct »