Archive | June 17th, 2015

The Two Contending Visions of World Government


The Origin and Broader Context of Obamas “Trade” Deals

Global Research
Image result for WORLD GLOBE PHOTO

U.S. President Barack Obamas proposed Trade deals are actually about whether the world is heading toward a dictatorial world government a dictatorship by the hundred or so global super-rich who hold the controlling blocks of stock in the worlds largest international corporations or else toward a democratic world government, which will be a global federation of free and independent states, much like the United States was at its founding, but global in extent. These are two opposite visions of world government; and Obama is clearly on the side of fascism, an international mega-corporate dictatorship, as will be documented here in the links, and explained in the discussion.

Also as a preliminary to the discussion here is the understanding that if Obama wins Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, then all of his trade deals will be approved by Congress and then be able to be considered seriously by other governments, and that if he fails to receive this Authority, then none of them will.

Fast Track, as will be explained in depth here, is, indeed, the open Sesame for Obama, on the entire matter. Without it, his deals dont stand even a chance of passage.

I previously wrote about why its the case that Fast Track Violates the U.S. Constitution. The details of the case are presented there; but, to summarize it here: Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority,” which was introduced by the imperial President Richard M. Nixon in the Trade Act of 1974, violates the U.S. Constitutions Treaty Clause the clause that says The President … shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. (In other words:otherwise, the President simply doesnt have that power, the President cannot make treaties. Nixon wanted to make treaties without his needing to have two-thirds of the Senate vote Yea on them.) Fast Track abolishes that two-thirds requirement and replaces it by a requirement such as that for normal laws, of only a majority of the Senate approving, 50%(+1, which would be Vice President Joe Biden, so all that will actually be needed would be just that 50%). Obamas trade deals dont stand a chance of receiving the approval of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

What follows here will continue from that case, by providing the history of the U.S. Constitutions Treaty Clause, and of the successful modern movement, during the Twentieth Century, for its legislative overthrow, something (the legislated overthrow of a provision thats in the Constitution) that in-itself is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution an Amendment, or else a Constitutional convention, is instead required, in order to overthrow any provision of the U.S. Constitution) but which the Trade Act of 1974 said can be done by means of a mere Legislative-Executive Agreement, to carve out an exception to the Constitutions Treaty Clause (The President … shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.), whenever the President and 50%+1 members of the Senate decide to do so.

Now, of course, each and every formalized international agreement, including agreements about trade, is a treaty and therefore it falls under this two-thirds rule. Furthermore, until 1974, every nation in the world, including the United States, accepted and did not challenge the view that every international agreement is a treaty, and that every treaty is an international agreement. In fact, even right up to the present day, every dictionary continues to define treaty as an international agreement. An international agreement is a treaty, and a treaty is an international agreement. Throughout the world, except in the United States starting long after the Constitution was written (i.e., starting in 1974), treaty = international agreement. It was always quite simple, until recently. However, after the Trade Act of 1974, starting in 1979, five such treaties have been set by the President and the Senates Majority Leader on Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority under the Trade Act of 1974, which provision of that law requires only 50%+1 Senators to vote Yea in order for the proposed treaty to be able to become U.S. law. The question is whether thats Constitutional. (Well show: its not.)

Americas Founders

America’s Founders instituted this Constitutional treaty-requirement, for any treaty to win two-thirds of the Senators instead of the mere majority (50%+1) thats required for passing normal laws (such as the Trade Act of 1974 itself is), because the Founders recognized that an international agreement cannot be undone by simply passing a new law that reverses it. An international agreement that is to say a treaty cannot be undone unless all nations that are parties to it are willing to change it in a way which will allow one of the signatories to depart from that group. Each signatory had signed it partly because the others did. There are at least two sides to any agreement, including to any international agreement or treaty. The member-nations are thus an intrinsic part of the agreement (or “treaty) itself (unlike the case with any normal, merely national, law), and so the agreement itself is changed whenever one of them departs from it. This fact distinguishes any treaty from any regular law which can be cancelled at will by the single nation that passes it, because that nation is the only party to it.

Americas Founders were wise, and were extraordinarily learned about history; and the U.S. Constitution (the first-ever constitution for a democracy) embodies this wisdom and learning; the Treaty Clauses two-thirds requirement exemplifies that. It is a crucial part of their determination to prevent any President from having too much power from becoming a dictator (something that becomes even worse if the dictator has rammed through not only mere laws, but also treaties, since those are far harder to undo). For example: it was intended to block any President from making a treaty with a foreign nation if that treaty would be so bad that he couldnt get two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to support it. (Thats tough, but a treaty is far more difficult than any other law is to cancel; so, passing it is passing a law thats virtually permanent and virtually impossible to modify.) And their wisdom is why our constitution remains the worlds longest-lasting one.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote on 9 January 1796, defending the new Constitution, and especially its Treaty Clause: I aver, that it was understood by all to be the intent of the provision [the Treaty Clause] to give to that power the most ample latitude to render it competent to all the stipulations, which the exigencies of National Affairs might requirecompetent to the making of Treaties of Alliance, Treaties of Commerce, Treaties of Peace and every other species of Convention usual among nations and competent in the course of its exercise to controul & bind the legislative power of Congress. And it was emphatically for this reason that it was so carefully guarded; the cooperation of two thirds of the Senate with the President being required to make a Treaty. I appeal for this with confidence.

He went further: It will not be disputed that the words Treaties and alliances are of equivalent import and of no greater force than the single word Treaties. An alliance is only a species of Treaty, a particular of a general. And the power of entering into Treaties, which terms confer the authority under which the former Government acted, will not be pretended to be stronger than the power to make Treaties, which are the terms constituting the authority under which the present Government acts. So: there can be no doubt that the term treaty refers to any and all types of international agreements. This was the Founders clear and unequivocal intent. No court under this Constitution possesses any power to change that, because they cant change history.

Furthermore, George Washingtons famous Farewell Address asserted that, It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world; and the third President Thomas Jefferson said in his equally famous Inaugural Address, that there should be “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none. Jeffersons comment there was also a succinct tip-of-the-hat to yet another major concern that the Founders had regarding treaties that by discriminating in favor of the treaty-partners, they also discriminate against non-partner nations, and so endanger peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, which was the Founders chief goal in their foreign policies. But, the Founders chief concern was the mere recognition that treaties tend to be far more permanent and entangling than any purely national laws. This was the main reason why treaties need to be made much more difficult tobecome laws. Though this thinking was pervasive amongst the creators of Americas democracy (or peoples republic), Americas aristocracy subsequently targeted this dilution of the Presidents treaty-making power as being an impediment toward their re-establishing the aristocracy that the American Revolution itself had overthrown and replaced by this peoples republic. And, the big chance for the aristocracy to restore its position via an imperial President, and so to extend their empire beyond our shores, came almost two hundred years later.

Americas Post WW II Counter-Revolution

In order to understand why President Richard Nixon was able in 1974 to obtain the support of both of the then-solidly Democratic two houses of Congress to pass into law the unConstitutional Fast-Track-initiating Trade Act of 1974, notwithstanding the then-ongoing investigations by Democrats regarding Nixons Watergate scandal, one must go back actually to the first meeting of the extremely secretive elite fascistic international Bilderberg group, in1954Here from wikileaks is a 1955 status report from Bilderbergs, on their early-stage results; and the man who wrote that report and hypocritically praised in it the quintessence of democratic life was actually a former Nazi, Prince Bernhard, who went all the way to his grave in 2004 as a champion of global rule by the American and European aristocracies. (The group was subsequently expanded by Bilderbergers David Rockefeller and the Polish nobleman Zbigniew Brzezinski to include Japan in their Trilateral Commission.) Within just three years, the 1957 membershipof the Bilderberg organization became far more American, far less European, but David Rockefeller and his Wall Street friend George W. Ball were two of the leading Bilderberg members from the very start.

The Bilderberg group turned away from the former Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelts international goal for the post-WW II world (conceived in conjunction with Rexford Guy Tugwell, FDRs chief policy-advisor), which international goal, building upon an already-existing grassroots movement, and entirely alien to the artificial concept of top-down aristocratic global control that the Bilderbergs promote, had been instead the gradual natural evolution, bottom-up, toward a democratic world government: a global confederation of free and independent states, not corporate at all but instead a United States of the World, in which the types of imperial international aggressions that the fascist powers had perpetrated and which had produced WW II would be outright banned, and this aggression-ban would be backed up by an international military force which would have the participation of each one of the worlds states. In other words: FDRs co-conception, and his enduring goal, was of a democratic federal world government, not of a fascist or any other dictatorial and non-federal world government. It envisioned an international democracy, consisting of the worlds nations as its federal units, even if some of those nations might still be dictatorships, in which case the democracy at the federal level (and the pressure from the democratic nations of the world) would then encourage any dictatorial nations to change or evolve in the direction of democracy. This was Franklin Delano Roosevelts hope. It was a reasonable one. And it was rooted not only in an existing grassroots American movement but in a conception of how future history could evolve toward peace as naturally as possible, and with a minimum of command-and-control from the top no aristocracy in control. This was a vision that was fully in keeping with the goals of Americas Founders. But it sought to extend that vision to the international sphere, in the modern age. The concept of a United States of the World was based on that. And the U.N. was to be the first step towards it.

Rex Tugwell was very active while teaching at the University of Chicago right after WW II, promoting democratic world government as being key to the establishment of peace on a more secure institutional basis. Thus, in 1946, Albert Einstein wrote an essay, Toward a World Government, which was published in his Out of My Later Years, (pp. 131-33), and it opened: A conversation I had with three students of the University of Chicago has made a strong impression on me. He then expressed his conviction that A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it is ready to cede its military force to the international authorities and to renounce every attempt or even the means, of achieving its interests abroad by the use of force. Einstein was specific: This [world] government must be based on a clearcut constitution which is approved by the governments and the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive weapons. In other words: it must represent ultimately the people who elect the leaders of the various nations of the world, not international corporations, which answer instead to the families that hold the controlling blocks of stock in them. Einstein was anti-fascist, never pro-fascist. He was 100% in the FDR mold. He was 100% a democrat, small-d. Thats what this statement of his reflected; and as he understood, there must ultimately be both a global democracy, and also a global monopoly by that democracy on the control of all nuclear weapons. Otherwise, there will emerge a global dictatorship, and perhaps a nuclear war, which would destroy all civilization. He understood.

This immediate post-WW-II vision of an ultimate world government in the FDR democratic mold lasted unchallenged until Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (who chose Nixon as Vice President) came into office in 1953, and (now that FDR and his power-heir Truman were gone) Americas large international corporations, and their tax-exempt foundations including think-tanks, started pressing for a world government in the Bilderberg mold, one that would be comprised instead mainly of international corporations which would help shape and would become subject to the same rules and laws and regulations in each and every democratic country that is, in each and every non-communist country. International corporations during the Cold War championed the goal of a bi-polar, capitalist-versus-communist, world, in which the international corporations would, themselves, ultimately become the world government on our side (the free worlds side), dictating not only international environmental rules, and international product-safety rules, and international labor-rules, and international rules on banking and finance, but also international rules on immigration and on the rights of refugees.

But, then, the Soviet Union and its communism ended, and yet the fascist Bilderberg groups thrust for globalized international-corporate control continued on, even after the Cold Wars end, as also did what became their military extension, NATO the international corporations’ global enforcement-arm. NATO continued on, even after the Soviet Unions Warsaw Pact disappeared in 1991. NATO became, then, instead of an anti-communist alliance, an anti-Russian alliance, an alliance to conquer Russia. The imperial focus continued; but it had underlain the ideological gloss even during the early Cold War years. The 1955 summary by Prince Bernhard of the 1954 Bilderberg meeting mentioned that Article 2 of the 1949 founding document of NATO, the Atlantic Treaty, had been discussed there. That portion of NATOs treaty said: The Parties will … seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them. This was an early harbinger of the aristocracys thrust for what finally became U.S. policy, the Trade Act of 1974 and its results in such international treaties as NAFTA and, now, as Obama hopes, his TPP, TTIP, and TISA, treaties. Bernhards summary also devoted an entire section to European Unity, including passages such as:

A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority. A participant, speaking as a German industrialist, said that, having fought for integration before, German industry was still determined to pursue the same purpose, but he expressed considerable doubt as to the functional approach to integration by moving from one economic sector to another. In his view, the common problems of differences in labour standards and currencies and the various elements entering into the common market must be brought nearer to parity as a condition of further progress.

A major thrust of the early Bilderberg meetings was to establish uniform economic, environmental, and labor, regulations, and a common currency, throughout Europe: this goal of transferring to an ultimate European Union a substantial portion of each Euronpean nations sovereignty, started being realized in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, but some features of the Bilderberg plan were enacted only much later, such as the common currency, the euro, which began in 1999.

Another section of the 1955 Bilderberg summary was titled Economic Problems, and it opened: A United States rapporteur, defining convertibility as a state of affairs in which there is a minimum of restriction on international trade, believed that a good deal of progress had been made in that direction since the war. … The increase in trade and prosperity both in Europe and the United States, however, was due in no small part to the steps which had been taken to reduce restrictions on trade. So: both the U.S. aristocracy, and the various European aristocracies, aimed to transfer at least some of their individual nations sovereignty to supra-national treaties; but there was no discussion of how this was to be achieved whether via democratic processes, or by dictatorial ones, or some mixture of the two.

Among the leading members of the Bilderberg group since its inception were David Rockefeller and George Ball. The latter was the first person on the Democratic side of American politics who championed as an ideal an anti-democratic, pro-aristocratic world government. Matt Stoller, on 20 February 2014, bannered, NAFTA Origins, Part Two: The Architects of Free Trade Really Did Want a World Government of Corporations, and he reported, from his study of theCongressional Record, that:

After the Kennedy round [international-trade talks] ended [in 1967], liberal internationalists, including people like Chase CEO David Rockefeller and former Undersecretary of State George Ball, began pressing for reductions in non-tariff barriers, which they perceived as the next set of trade impediments to pull down. Ball was an architect of 1960s U.S. trade policy he helped write the Trade Act of 1962, which set the stage for what eventually became the World Trade Organization.

But Balls idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasnt about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for the benefit of mankind. It was a weird utopian vision that you can hear today in the current United States Trade Representative Michael Fromans speeches. …

In the opening statement [by Ball to Congress in 1967], before a legion of impressive Senators and Congressmen, Ball attacks the very notion of sovereignty. He goes after the idea that business decisions could be frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations, and lauds the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind.

As for David Rockefeller, he wrote in the 1 February 1999 Newsweek an essay Looking for New Leadership, in which he stated (p. 41) the widely quoted (though the rest of the article is ignored): In recent years, there’s been a trend toward democracy and market economies. That has lessened the role of government, which is something business people tend to be in favor of. But the other side of the coin is that somebody has to take governments’ place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it. (Of course, by business there, hes referring only to international corporations, but he doesnt say that; hes tactful enough not to make it explicit.) This has been his clearest statement endorsing the emergence of a future world government by international corporations, which will possess a sovereignty higher than that of any national government, which he says that he endorses because a lessening of the role of democratic government is something business people tend to be in favor of. (Of course, those business people are only the hundred or so who actually control the major international corporations; theyre not mom-and-pop-type business people; but hes tactful enough not to make that explicit, either. The whole endeavor is a con.)

This was the basis upon which Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority was actually accepted by congressional Democrats in 1974. George Ball was the key person, but he was chosen for this role because he could be paraded as being a Democrat, so that support for the position would be bi-partisan, not merely Republican. (Similarly, the Wall Street Democrat Bill Clinton in 1999 derailed and subverted FDRs Glass-Steagall and other financial regulations.)

After the end of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO became the military arm of a hoped-for future no-longer bipolar world instead a monolithically uni-polar global empire, which set out to conquer the former communist nations (first by corrupting their transitions into capitalism, but then increasingly by military means including NATO itself.) The ideological gloss was now gone, but the purpose of global domination by the international aristocracy didnt go away. NATO became, far more clearly, simply the military arm of the global aristocracy, whose brain is located in Washington as to politics, and in Wall Street as to finance. Americas aristocracy would thus rule Europes and Japans. The great investigative historian F. William Engdahl recently presented a superb summary of how In the early 1990s, Dick Cheneys company, Halliburton, had surveyed the offshore oil potentials of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and the entire Caspian Sea Basin.

They estimated the region to be another Saudi Arabia worth several trillion dollars on todays market. The US and UK were determined to keep that oil bonanza from Russian control by all means. The first target of Washington was to stage a coup in Azerbaijan against elected president Abulfaz Elchibey to install a President more friendly to a US-controlled BakuTbilisiCeyhan (BTC) oil pipeline. And that was all part of this operation: Not long after the CIA and Saudi Intelligence-financed Mujahideen had devastated Afghanistan at the end of the 1980s, forcing the exit of the Soviet Army in 1989, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself some months later, the CIA began to look at possible places in the collapsing Soviet Union where their trained Afghan Arabs [headed by Osama bin Laden] could be redeployed to further destabilize Russian influence over the post-Soviet Eurasian space. In other words: after the Cold War against communism had already ended by the collapse of the communist economies, the Bilderbergers and their agents continued the war as being merely a war of conquest and exploitation of the formerly communist nations and especially of resource-rich Russia an anti-Russia war that has recently been intensified by Democratic President Barack Obama.

The U.S. aristocracy, and, to a lesser extent, the European and Japanese aristocracies, within the Trilateral Commission which had been set up by the Bilderbergers (especially under Bilderberger David Rockefeller), all continue their international-corporate aim for unitary corporate global power, and for the crushing of democracy within all of the member-nations. President Obamas proposed international treaties, the TPP, TTIP, and TISA, would replace national democratic laws and regulations regarding the environment, consumer protection, workers rights, and investor protection, by means of international-corporate control of those regulations, via panels of three arbitrators, all of whom will be selected by or otherwise beholden to the international corporations that are being regulated; and, if any nation then tries to legislate stronger laws to protect the public than those panels approve under the given treaty, that nation will be fined by any corporation whose rights, under these treaties (TPP, TTIP, and TISA), have been ruled by those panels to have been infringed by that violating nation. The basic idea is that the rights of the owners of the controlling blocks of stock in the international corporations take precedence over the rights of any mere nation, or of the public in any nation that participates in these vast American-dominated trade deals. (The underlying ideology behind this is discussed in my 2015 book, Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.)

This new system, called Investor State Dispute Resolution, or ISDS, is only just starting to be employed and applied, from NAFTA and the few other such international agreements that are already in force. The following is from a Congressional Research Service report (which is generally heavily biased in favor of ISDS), in which is described one of the biggest cases yet that has been resolved by such panels:

A tribunals inability to change the laws or regulations of the United States directly does not mean that arbitration awards cannot be substantial. For example, in Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Ecuador, the tribunal ordered Ecuador to pay Occidental $1,769,625,000over 1 billion dollarsin damages.63 The tribunal rendered that award, which is one of the largest awards in favor of a claimant under ISDS arbitration, after finding that Ecuador violated an investment agreement by expropriating Occidentals property in response to Occidental transferring some of its economic interests under an oil production contract in contravention of Ecuador law.64 Therefore, although a tribunal lacks authority to alter a U.S. statute directly, some commentators believe that the possibility for such large monetary damages potentially could influence lawmakers and regulators when they consider proposed laws or regulations that may run afoul of IIA obligations.65

The arbitrators said that the Ecuadorean laws, and even the Ecuadorean Constitution, were irrelevant, because Ecuadors signing on to ISDS was their signing away Ecuadors sovereignty over these matters. Occidental sued and won against Ecuadors enforcing Ecuadors laws. Occidentals stockholders won; Ecuadors public lost. If this isnt a warning to all subsequent signators to a treaty that has ISDS in it, nothing is.

Another case pits the tobacco company Philip Morris against Uruguay. Philip Morris is saying that the percentage of warning labels that are required on cigarette packs in Uruguay goes beyond what is reasonable to protect people from the harmful effects of smoking. Perhaps Uruguay wont have the money to contest the allegation, and will thus be forced to eliminate the requirement and Uruguayans wont have the money to take care of the additional cancer and heart-attack cases.

This is what a fascist instead of a democratic world government is like. In the final years of Barack Obamas U.S. Presidency, its what he turns out to be pushing with more intensity than he has pushed anything before, even his Obamacare.

Andrew Gavin Marshall posted an article on 16 June 2011 which provided a remarkably well-documented history of the Bilderberg group and of their plan to supplant the rule by national democracies, and to replace it with an international government by the owners of the controlling blocks of stock in the worlds largest international corporations. He notes there that the large foundations and think tanks already represent the large international corporations, and that they operate as tax-exempt extensions of them. One person that he cites sums this up well:

Foundations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosive influence on a democratic society; they represent relatively unregulated and unaccountable concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, promote causes, and, in effect, establish an agenda of what merits societys attention. They serve as cooling-out agencies, delaying and preventing more radical, structural change. They help maintain an economic and political order, international in scope, which benefits the ruling-class interests of philanthropists and philanthropoids a system which… has worked against the interests of minorities, the working class, and Third World peoples.

Barack Obamas Role In This

As the great independent investigative journalist Wayne Madsen has reported, in depth, in his many articles, such as (and these are repostings of originals from Madsens subscription-only website) Obamas CIA Pedigree and “Details revealed about Obama’s former CIA employer and “The Story of Obama: All in The Company, and in his 2012 book The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House,Obamas parents and grandparents were in the pay alternately of the U.S.-aristocracy-controlled CIA and of the U.S.-aristocracy-controlled Ford Foundation; and the boss of Obamas mother at the Ford Foundation was none other than Peter Geithner, who was the father of Timothy Geithner, the Wall Street operative who ran the U.S. Treasury Department in Obamas first term and who bailed out the investors in the megabanks while he refused to bail out the uneducated and poor mortgagees they had suckered with excessive loans, and the pension funds and other outside investors in the fraudulent resulting AAA-rated Mortgage Backed Securities (MBSs, which the Federal Reserve is still buying up and transferring onto the backs of future U.S. taxpayers).

So, Obama was deep into service to Americas aristocracy, ever since he was in college; and his parents even raised him with money from the CIA and the Ford Foundation. Furthermore, Obamas first employment was with the CIA front firm, Business International Corporation, in 1983 and 1984, though he might have been recruited by the CIA even as early as around 1980. (Going back even farther than Madsen, some terrific independent investigators, such as Joseph Cannon and the libertarian Robert Wenzel, were already exploring Obamas CIA connections within mere months of his having won the U.S. Presidency in 2008. And, then, after Madsen, Andrew Krieg, in his 2013 blockbuster Presidential Puppetry, brought all of this together into a much broader, well documented, recent history of the U.S. as being an oligarchic instead of a democratic nation.)

So: Obama represents (not just in his policies, but even in his background) the U.S. aristocracy (or oligarchs), and he aspires to bring to ultimate fruition his predecessors dream, the dream of Bill Clinton, who did the largest previous Fast-Track-approved treaty, NAFTA, and, before him, of Richard Nixon, who created Fast Track (and before everything, there was the Bilderberg group): the goal of a fascist world government designed in Washington and signed by the aristocracies of the worlds countries that are subservient to the U.S. aristocracy trade agreements that are actually a signing-away of democratic national sovereignties to this U.S.-aristocracy-dominated global international-corporate sovereign, which is both the treaty and its implementation a world-government in the fascist style.

Other countries dont have the U.S. Constitutions two-thirds requirement to contend with; and, so, they dont necessarily need to rape their constitutions in order to achieve this fascist conquest of their nation. Only the U.S. does; and this is the reason why, even the five international treaties that were passed via Fast Track are called, in every country that signed them, treaty, except in the United States, where they are instead called (in accord with Fast Track) merely an international trade agreement.

On 20 April 2015, InfoWars headlined, “Is Jeb Bush Going to Bilderberg 2015? and reported that:

Infowars correctly predicted in 2007 that former Texas Gov. Rick Perry would run for president in 2012 after traveling to the Bilderberg conference in Istanbul, Turkey. Barack Obama also also reportedly visited the Bilderberg conference just prior to becoming the presidential frontrunner after he infamously disappeared to a secret location with Hillary Clinton in June 2008 in Northern Virginia, at precisely the same time and location the Bilderberg Group were convening in Chantilly, noted Infowars Paul Joseph Watson.

Basically, FDRs post-WW-II agenda was highjacked by the fascists against whom FDR had led this country in order to defeat them; and, now, our Presidential candidates are needing to obtain the fascists approvals in order for them to be able to receive the campaign-funding thats necessary in order to become a serious candidate.

Consequently, any Democrat who says, like the Democratic operative Michael Wessel did headlining in Politico on May 19th, “Ive Read Obamas Secret Trade Deal. Elizabeth Warren Is Right to Be Concerned, that, secretary [and shes not secretary, any more than she is First Lady] Clinton … should be commended … for raising a note of caution about Obamas proposed trade-deals (Wessel is implicitly recognizing there that she is trying to avoid having to say publicly that she supports Obamas trade deals, just like shelong had avoided saying publicly that she had supported her husbands), is merely sucking her up for a job in her campaign and/or in the White House (if she becomes President). Clinton is 100% sold already, to the highest bidders, just like every overtly Republican Presidential candidate is.

Trusting her word on what her policies would be if she were to win, would be ridiculous, because shes not nearly as skilled a liar as Obama and her husband were, and she has a much lengthier career in public life than either of them did, and that career amply displays both her incompetency and her cravenousness. As a servant of the people, shed be a bad joke, not even a skilled con-artist, such as her husband and Obama were and are.

And, the only people who support any one of the Republican candidates are the 0.01% of them who are aristocrats, and the 99.99% of them who are their aristocrats’ suckers. And the only people who support the obviously fake Democratic presidential candidates, the ones who havent already made clear to the public their intense opposition to the fake Democrat Obamas trade deals (since they have no such intense opposition to them) candidates such as Hillary Clinton are are the Democratic Partys mega-donor aristocrats, and their mass of suckers on the Democratic-Party side.

But thats the way you get the money to be a serious Presidential candidate in todays America.

In other words: the origin of the unConstitutional Fast Track is the war against the public that the aristocracy (both the Republican and the Democratic wings of it) has been waging, and increasingly winning, since 1953.

The Main U.S. Constitutional Issue

In June 1954, Morris D. Forkosch headlined in Chicago-Kent Law ReviewTreaties and Executive Agreements, and summarized the status of this issue up into the start of the Eisenhower Administration. It was a different nation then. He noted:

“Suppose, however, that a treaty conflicts with a provision of the United States Constitution or contradicts the terms of a federal statute. Which, then, governs? In the first of these situations, the United States Supreme Court has indicated, albeit the language is obiter, that the treaty would be ineffective.29 (His footnote included: DeGeofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258 at 267, 10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 at 645 (1890), and Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525 at 541, 5 S. Ct. 995, 29 L. Ed. 264 at 270 (1885).)

So: according to U.S. Supreme Court decisions up till at least 1954, any one of the five Fast-Tracked international trade agreements that has been passed since the Fast-Track law, the Trade Act of 1974, was passed, would have been blocked by the Supreme Court, were it not for the Trade Act of 1974 a mere law that, supposedly, has changed the Constitution without amending it, but that did this simply by asserting that when the Founders said treaty they werent referring to any and all forms of international agreement which they clearly were referring to, in their era. Obviously, the power to interpret the Constitution rests solely with the U.S. Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the words that are in the Constitution as closely as possible to the way the Founders who wrote it intended those terms to be understood to mean. Thats just basic, to any constitutional democracy.

In February 2001, Michigan Law Review published John C. Yoos January 2000 article, Laws as Treaties: The Constitutionality of Congressional-Executive Agreements, in which Yoo, the lawyer who subsequently provided to George W. Bush the rationalization for Bushs authorization to use torture after 9/11, argued that the two-thirds Senate rule needs, for practical purposes, to be nullified for certain types of international agreements, including for the five that had already been Fast-Tracked. Rather than his dealing with the question of whether the Executive and the Legislative branches possess Constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, he wrote there the argument that he would present to the Judicial branch, at the U.S. Supreme Court, if he were to be the attorney arguing there for the Constitutionality of Fast-Track. (Perhaps this paper was even one of the reasons why he was selected by Bush.) His entire argument was pragmatic as he saw it, such as, this: Today, however, the Senate has about fifty percent more members than the first House of Representatives envisioned by the Constitution, suggesting that the Senate no longer has the small numbers that the Framers believed necessary for successful diplomacy. This sort of thing constituted his argument for why treaties that dont concern national security and so fall under the Presidents Commander-in-Chief authority, shouldnt be considered to be treaties, but only Congressional-Executive Agreements.

However, even Yoo noted, at the time, that the most-prominent scholarly argument in favor of the Constitutionality of Fast-Track, Is NAFTA Constitutional? by Bruce Ackerman and David Golove, in the February 1995 Harvard Law Review, was a provocative and idiosyncratic theory of unwritten constitutional amendments, whereas Yoo didnt have the nerve to demean, but only to note, the article in that same publication by Laurence Tribe, which demolished the Ackerman-Golove article. In December 1998, Golove came forth in New York University Law Review, with a 152-page treatise, Against Free-Form Formalism, trying to overcome Tribes case. But, more recently, Michael Ramsey posted online his 13 August 2012 review of all of that, Laurence Tribe on Textualism (and Congressional-Executive Agreements), where he devotes most of his attention to the two original pro-and-con articles in the 1995 HLR, and says that Tribes case was far more persuasive than Ackerman-Goloves; and, then, he notes parenthetically near the end: (David Golove makes an attempt, in a reply article published at 73 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 1791 (1998), but I dont think he makes much headway against them [Tribes points]). Goloves 152-page treatise failed to impress anyone. Among the legal scholars, its pretty much a settled matter.

Thus: the current academic status of the issue is: The Supreme Court would have little choice but to overturn the Fast-Track provision of the Trade Act of 1974, if the matter were to be accepted by the Court for adjudication, unless the high Court were willing to be despised not only by the public but especially by legal scholars. If the Court were to decline to consider the case, then it would be accepting the authority of the Executive branch in conjunction with some members of the Legislative branch, to interpret the meaning of treaty in the U.S. Constitution and, in the entire history of the United States, the Supreme Court has never done that.

Well, in a sense, thats not entirely correct: the 2001 appeals-court case, Made in the USA Foundation v. U.S., was the only case to deal with this issue, and it concluded, citing as its chief authority a non-dispositive Supreme Court decision that was written by Justice William H. Rehnquist, in the 1979 case Goldwater v. Carter, which said that a certain action that President Jimmy Carter had done under both his treaty authority and his Commander-in-Chief authority could not be Constitutionally challenged by Senator Barry Goldwater.

But that Supreme Court decision, which was the supposed authority for this, concerned not international trade, but instead the Presidents authority as Commander-in-Chief, and so it wasnt even a trade case at all; it wasnt relevant, and thus really shouldnt have been cited, because it dealt with different Constitutional provisions regarding what does and what does not reside within the Presidents authority namely, as Commander-in-Chief, and as the negotiator on mutual-defense treaties. So, there wasnt even a question in this matter as to whether it concerned a treaty. On that shoddy basis, the appeals court said: “We nonetheless decline to reach the merits of this particular case, finding that with respect to international commercial agreements such as NAFTA, the question of just what constitutes a ‘treaty’ requiring Senate ratification presents a nonjusticiable political question. It said this even despite denying that the meaning of the Constitutional term treaty should be determined by the Executive and the Legislative branches, instead of by the Judicial branch:

It is true that the Supreme Court has rejected arguments of nonjusticiability with respect to other ambiguous constitutional provisions. In Munoz-Flores, the Court was confronted with the question of whether a criminal statute requiring courts to impose a monetary “special assessment” on persons convicted of federal misdemeanors was a “bill for raising revenue” according to the Origination Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 7, cl. 1, in spite of the lack of guidance on exactly what types of legislation amount to bills “for raising revenue.” The Court, in electing to decide the issue on the merits, rejected the contention that in the absence of clear guidance in the text of the Constitution, such a determination should be considered a political question.

To be sure, the courts must develop standards for making[such] determinations, but the Government suggests no reason that developing such standards will be more difficult in this context than in any other. Surely a judicial system capable of determining when punishment is ”cruel and unusual,” when bail is “[e]xcessive,” when searches are ”unreasonable,” and when congressional action is “necessary and proper” for executing an enumerated power, is capable of making the more prosaic judgments demanded by adjudication of Origination Clause challenges.

So: even that appeals court was not saying that the Legislative and Executive branches, working in concert, should determine what a treaty is and what it isnt, but instead that court reaffirmed the exclusive authority of the Judicial branch to make such determinations. It simply refused to exercise the authority. Its argument on this was:

We note that none of these cases [the cited ones on the Supreme Courts determinations regarding the meanings of specific terms and phrases in the Constitution], however, took place directly in the context of our nation’s foreign policy, and in none of them was the constitutional authority of the President and Congress to manage our external political and economic relations implicated. In addition to the Constitution’s textual commitment of such matters to the political branches, we believe, as discussed further below, that in the area of foreign relations, prudential considerations militate even more strongly in favor of judicial noninterference.

So, why didnt those jurists even make note of the fact that their chief citation, Goldwater v. Carter, concerned military instead of economic matters, and not the meaning of treaty, at all? Stupidity, or else some ulterior motive because no reason at all was cited by them.

Their decision closed by saying:

We note that no member of the Senate itself has asserted that body’s sole prerogative to ratify NAFTA (or, for that matter, other international commercial agreements) by a two-thirds supermajority. In light of the Senate’s apparent acquiescence in the procedures used to approve NAFTA, we believe this further counsels against judicial intervention in the present case.

This assertion totally ignored that the Senates apparent acquiescence had occurred, and been measured, only according to the 50%+1 Fast-Track standard, never according to the Constitutions two-thirds standard. According to the Constitutions standard, which was applied nowhere in the process along the road toward approval of any of the five Fast-Tracked treaty-bills into law, the Senate never actually acquiesced in any of them. This court was simply accepting the Constitutional validity of that acquiescence, so as to determine whether or not it was Constitutionally valid. Circular reasoning prejudice.

However, in order to assist blockage of Fast Track for Obamas proposed trade treaties, it would greatly help if one or more of the very vocal opponents in the U.S. Senate,against Fast-Tracking these treaties Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, and Harry Reid, for examples would petition the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of the provision in the Trade Act of 1974 that introduced Fast Track, and thus on Fast Tracks abolition of the Constitutions two-thirds rule. Perhaps the case might become titled something like, Warren v. United States, where Warren stands for Americas public, and United States stands for Americas aristocracy.

The Bottom Line

Whats at stake here is nothing less than whether the future of the United States, and perhaps even of the world, will be democracy, or else fascism. Thats a lot.

Obama, in his trade-deals, aims to culminate the American aristocracys victory. If he wins all his trade-deals, then the Obama Library and the other Obama-operations will become enormous with the billions pouring in, even as hell go down in history as perhaps the worst President, probably (due to those trade-agreements) worse even than George W. Bush, or Harding, or Buchanan, or Grant, and with a far lengthier catastrophic result trailing after his Presidency, because those trade-deals will be very long-term catastrophes, which might end up destroying the hopes for democracy, not just internationally, but also nationally here in the U.S. The approval and resulting largesse from Americas aristocracy doesnt come cheap, these days.

The American aristocracy has spent billions for these deals since 1953, and now they demand their trillions on that investment. Obama aims to give them the orgasms of power and money that theyve been investing in, during many decades. This has been a lengthy rape, and theyll be very grateful to Obama if he delivers this climax of it, to them handing to them the world, as it were, on a golden platter, reeking from corruption, which is the sweetest smell they know, and which is by far the most profitable of all fragrances, in their nostrils, as they inhale it deep, and receive from it, this jolt, of sheer joy.

Alfred de Zayas is the U.N.s Special Rapporteur on Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable World Order, which is the U.N.s official who speaks for the global institution regarding current issues that are of concern to the achievement of the U.N.s founding objectives. A report in Britains Guardianon 4 May 2015, titled UN Calls for Suspension of TTIP Talks, quoted him as saying that the reason why the U.S.-EU negotiations must be suspended is that, We dont want a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots. But the international aristocrats do want that. De Zayas, the institutionalized spokesperson for the vision of FDR and of RGT, spoke for the great progressive leaders who were committed to the defeat of fascism. However, Obama, the Clintons, all Republicans, and most of the leadership around the world, are now again within the fascist camp.

In the long view of history, this matter is, on the global level, a continuation of WW II between democracy versus fascism; but, on the purely American national level, it is a continuation of the American Revolutionary War between democracy and aristocracy. Either way, what had been thought to have been a decisive victory for democracy has turned out to have been not so decisive after all; and the aristocratic, fascistic, forces have regrouped, and, at least up till June 12th, appeared to be heading for victory. But, this time, if they win, it might be final, because it truly would be a global victory for the aristocracy, and a global defeat for the public everywhere. This is what de Zayas warned of as a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots.

This is a global war, which has been waged since at least 1954, and Obama is aiming to negotiate the surrender of FDR and the Allies who had won WW II. But theyd be surrendering to him. One might call it WW II, round 2. But its also The American Counter-Revolution. By either name, its the same war, and the earlier victories for democracy are on the line, to be determined now, by our generation or, perhaps, only by the aristocrats in our generation (if those few people will be its winners). If they win it, then what could a round 3, or an American counter-counter-revolution, conceivably be like or would it be simply inconceivable? Or, perhaps, just inconceivably violent? All the worlds a prison might sound peaceful for the aristocracy, who would be luxuriously outside those prison-walls in their own gated compounds, and far from earshot of the explosions within; but, for the global public, what would there be left to lose in a global revolution? The aristocracy already own almost everything. (And here is another way of looking at this.) Thats not enough for them, but maybe it will finally become too much for everybody else. This type of global warming could thus become a global conflagration, even before the environmental one destroys everything.

This is not biblical-doomsday stuff, at all. In fact, any doomsday that could actually come, wouldnt be at all mythological. Myths are designed to misinform people. Science is designed to inform them. One wont find out what the real threats are, by reading myths. Myths are shaped by the aristocracy, to control the public. Myths helped cause todays problems; theyre no solution to the problems. Theyre part of the problems. Myths are propaganda. They do their jobs, for the deceivers, who generate them.

Posted in USAComments Off on The Two Contending Visions of World Government

Is the Middle East America’s to Lose?


Map of Middle East

I was appalled by the embedded colonialism of a recent issue of The Economist [June 6-12, 2015], boldly proclaiming its mood of geopolitical angst on its cover titling its featured story “Losing the Middle East.” Any glimmer of doubt about the intent of the magazine’s editors is removed by displaying a somewhat bedraggled American flag on the cover accompanied by the sub-title “Why American must not abandon the region.” The rationale offered for this political imperative within this most revered journal of intelligent establishment guidance strikes me as even more appalling than this provocative packaging giving the plot away before we even begin reading the story.


What The Economist Proposes

The argument set forth rests on the colonialist assumption that the Middle East is America’s to lose, although not quite, as the lead editorial ends with an enigmatic distinction: “The idea has taken root that America no longer has what it takes to run the Middle East. That it ever could was an illusion. But America has a vital part to play. If it continues to stand back, everyone will be worse of—including the Americans.” We are never told whether the catchall ‘everyone’ includes the people of the region, and whether they even matter in the calculations of this organ of elite opinion primarily concerned with the wellbeing of the West, which is linked seamlessly to the operations of the neoliberal world economy. The strong implication of this lead editorial, never adequately explained, is that America should intervene more throughout the Middle East to reverse, or at least contain, present disruptive trends. Why this is so is never really explored beyond the misleading supposition that American military capabilities can improve the situation if brought more directly to bear and without explaining why, insisting that existing alignments with political actors in the region, regardless of their character, should be reinforced and strengthened.

The pragmatic side of what The Economist seems to be proposing is two-fold:First, a militarist prescription for the pursuit of America’s regional interests, which are identified as counter-terrorism, oil, and preventing nuclear proliferation; secondly, a willingness to accept contradictions in protecting these interests, such as siding with Iran against IS [Islamic State] in Iran and opposing Iran in Syria. It is within this framing that “[t]he Middle East desperately needs a new, invigorated engagement from America. That would not only be within America’s power, it would also be in America’s interest.” Its central critique is that President Obama’s policy is too weak and wavering to be effective, which is clarified by the insistence that “[h]e must be ready to use force. Mr. Obama’s taboo about deploying American soldiers against IS in Iraq has led to a self-defeating shortage of special forces to guide air strikes to their targets.” In their view, Obama’s approach has created a ‘vacuum’ that has “exacerbated the strife and disorder.” The fuller story in the body of the magazine also welcomes the prospect that either Hilary Clinton or any of the Republican presidential hopefuls seem determined to be far readier than Obama to intervene forcibly throughout the region.

Behind this scathing criticism of Obama is the evident belief that America’s geopolitical muscle if applied with skill, militarily and diplomatically, could have lessened the chaos and violence that now pervades the region. Such an argument seems deeply flawed. To begin with, it is hardly accurate to portray Obama as standing aloof from the struggles going on in the Middle East. It is actively militarily engaged against IS and Syria and is in the process of becoming militarily reengaged in Iraq at the present time. It was a strong advocate of the regime changing NATO intervention against Qaddafi’s dictatorial rule in Libya, and it has quietly gone along with the counter-revolutionary shift in Egypt that destroyed the hopes of humane governance, at least temporarily, that surfaced with such excitement in early 2011 throughout the region. My own view is that this degree of American military and diplomatic engagement brought more, not less, chaos to the Middle East. And now, as if to take the critique of The Economist immediately to heart the U.S. Government has announced plans to pre-position heavy weaponry and military personnel in several points in the region so as to be in a better position to intervene rapidly should further crises emerge.


Criticizing the Obama Approach

In my view, the burden of persuasion should always be upon those who favor greater reliance on military force whether in the Middle East or elsewhere. Without acknowledging any inconsistency, The Economist concedes that the Bush invasion of 2003 and subsequent occupation of Iraq was a disaster, illustrative of imprudently intervening in a massive fashion. As every major effort at intervention by the United States has revealed, upping the ante by intervening a bit more, is a slippery slope that has eventually led to defeat after defeat, most vividly evident in the trajectory and outcome of the Vietnam War. This unquestioning militarization of the political imagination, which is what comes through in this sharp criticism of Obama’s approach, does not even pause to consider the benefits of allowing the dynamics of self-determination to control political outcomes in the 21st century.

An unlearned lesson of geopolitics in the post-colonial world is that the power balance has decisively shifted as between intervention by the West and national forces of resistance. These forces have learned to be more effective in their combat tactics, but above all, have come to understand that time is on their side, that a foreign intervener will give up the quest at some point implicitly acknowledging that military dominance is not able to impose a political outcome at acceptable costs. This is not just a matter of democratic societies becoming impatient in the face of a drawn out distant wars with questionable justifications, which causes death and injury to its young citizens, but the deeper realization that the post-colonial politics of resistance over time subverts the will and morale of the intervener. This happened as clearly to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan as it did to the United States in Vietnam, or later in Afghanistan and Iraq, and is more of a reflection of the structure of shifting power relations than of a weakening of ideological resolve.

The central metaphor of ‘losing the Middle East’ presupposes that it was America’s to lose rather than an acknowledgement of the empowerment of the peoples of the region and their governments with respect to the control of national and regional destinies. The metaphor of winning and losing is a colonialist framing of geopolitics that amorally vindicates hegemonic ambitions, especially the virtues of Western control. It gives priority to Western interests in a non-Western geographic domain, and pretends that such an orientation conveniently also happens to be an expression of fidelity to Western values, including democracy and human rights, and of benefit to the affected societies. No where in the extensive article are doubts raised about the unconditionality of support for Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies that oppress their populations and subject women to humiliating social constraints or to Israel that has dispossessed most Palestinians from their own homeland, and held the rest captive.

The Economist has the temerity to couple its sharp criticism of Obama’s allegedly soft diplomacy by anticipating what is misleadingly described as a “return to the center” that is expected to occur after the U.S. presidential elections in 2016: “The next American president may well be warmer towards Israel, and more willing to turn a blind eye to new settlements in the occupied territories. He or she might do more to reassure Gulf monarchies and speak more sternly to Iran.” What a strange set of hopeful expectations! Obama turned a pretty blind eye to Israeli settlement expansion during the last several years, even instructing his representatives to vote in isolation to shield Israel from UN censure over settlement expansion. His administration has also gone along with the basic approach of the Gulf monarchies, although timidly voicing some recent doubts about the wisdom of respected Saudi air strikes directed against the Houthis in Yemen.

And it is astonishing to note that the Obama presidency is situated by The Economist in the political spectrum as left of center? The idea of returning to the center implies that American regional policy these last six years had somehow veered toward the left. And therefore, for me what The Economist calls the center would more accurately be described as the right, or even the hard right. In most respects, including policy toward Iran, Iraq, and Israel, Obama’s essential approach has been to sustain continuity with the policies of the George W. Bush presidency. There was the same willingness to threaten Iran with a military attack if seen to be crossing the nuclear threshold, a similar stance toward supporting the Shia governing process in Iraq, and the same endorsement of Israel’s defiance of international law, as well as insulating its nuclear weapons capability from even a whispered challenge.

There are more fundamental deficiencies in this analysis by The Economist of what has gone wrong in the region and what to do about it. There is a seemingly blind eye toward the relevance of the history of Western responsibilities for the unfolding political ordeal that is being enacted throughout the Middle East. This perspective overlooks such defining antecedents as the playing out of British and French overt colonial ambitions in the aftermath of World War I and of the statist goals of the Zionist Movement as abetted by British policies during its period of mandate administration. Imposing arbitrary boundaries on the region by Europe meant establishing unnatural political communities that could be held together (or broken apart) only by violence from above (or below). In a revealing respect Lebanon is a poster child of this era of Sykes-Picot diplomacy, having been carved out of Ottoman Syria to satisfy France’s egocentric craving at the time for a colonial possession in the region with a Christian majority.

The Economist’s policy prescriptions are also notable for their failure even to mention international law or the United Nation. These normative sources of authority and constraint are evidently seen as of utterly no concern to the geopolitical optic through which the magazine’s august editors perceive policy options for the region. But if China were to assess its approach to the sovereignty disputes involving the Spratly Islands with the same cavalier attitudes toward the relevance of normative authority, the West would be up in arms, persuasively contending that such behavior is dangerously destructive of a moderate political order in the Pacific.


The Old Geopolitics versus the New Geopolitics

Even when it comes to the pragmatic level of analysis, I find that The Economist’s sense of editorial guidance is woefully shortsighted. Let’s accept their focus on terrorism, oil, and nuclear proliferation even accepting as accurate their portrayal of American interests. Surely, the best way to combat jihadism is a measured withdrawal from the region. As for oil, the Arab producers in the region have shown through the years that their policies are market-driven with scant attention to ideology as shown by their readiness to throw the Palestinians under the bus. Most persuasive of all, nuclear proliferation would be best prevented by establishing a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, which all governments except Israel favor, and have done so for several years. In other words, the idea of trying to fill the so-called vacuum following the European retreat, which began during World War II and was consummated by the 1956 Suez War, with American military power and diplomatic muscle epitomizes the ‘old geopolitics’ of Western hegemony rather than relying on a potential ‘new geopolitics’ of self-determination.

There is, of course, little assurance that the outcome of the interplay of domestic and regional forces in the Middle East will be ethically satisfying or politically stable, but there is at least some likelihood that going with the post-colonial historical flow will produce better results than further reliance on the United States to continue battling the strong currents of nationalism. This clarion call for enhanced trust in the nostalgic imaginary of the old geopolitics seems historically tone deaf. It represents a reliance on the old geopolitics of militarism that should have been discredited long ago by its record of failure and its incredibly high opportunity costs. At the very least, adopting this new geopolitics of self-determination might enable the politicians and citizenry of the United States to take a much needed and long overdue look within its own borders, and devote much more of its imaginative and material resources to creating a humane society at home, starting with its physical and moral infrastructure.

One good starting point for such a program is with the language of political discourse. This idea of the West ‘losing’ a country or, as with The Economist’s cover story, losing a whole region, should be banished from the 21st century political imaginary, and with it the realization that such a concept of winning and losing is worse than anachronistic, it is obsolete. It might be helpful to recall that for many years the American political right accused the U.S. Government of ‘losing China’ only to discover later in the Cold War that China had become a valuable geopolitical ally in the core struggle with the Soviet Union, and still later, that China as much as any country, keeps the world economy from unraveling.

Posted in Middle East, USAComments Off on Is the Middle East America’s to Lose?

Zionist race to economic – and moral – bankruptcy

Israel's economic and moral bankruptcy

By Jonathan Cook

Two recent reports suggest that Israel could face catastrophic consequences if it fails to end the mistreatment of Palestinians under its rule, whether in the occupied territories or in Israel itself.

The Rand Corporation’s research shows that Israel could lose USD 250 billion over the next decade if it fails to make peace with the Palestinians and violence escalates. Ending the occupation, on the other hand, could bring a dividend of more than USD 120 billion to the nation’s coffers.

Meanwhile, the Israeli Finance Ministry predicts an even more dismal future unless Israel reinvents itself. It is likely to be bankrupt within a few decades, a report by the  ministry says, because of the rapid growth of two groups who are not productive.

Shrinking middle class

By 2059, half the population will be either ultra-Orthodox Jews, who prefer prayer to work, or members of Israel’s Palestinian minority, most of whom are failed by their separate education system and then excluded from much of the economy.

Both reports should be generating a tidal wave of concern in Israel but have caused barely a ripple. The status quo – of occupation and endemic racism – still seems preferable to most Israelis.

The explanation requires a much deeper analysis than either the Rand Corporation or Israel’s Finance Ministry appear capable of.

The Finance Ministry report points out that with a growing population not properly prepared for a modern, global economy, the tax burden is falling increasingly heavily on a shrinking middle class.

The fear is that this will rapidly create a vicious cycle. Wealthier Israelis tend to have second passports. Overwhelmed by the need to make up the revenue shortfall, they will leave, plunging Israel into irreversible debt.

Despite this doomsday scenario, Israel seems far from ready to undertake the urgent restructuring needed to salvage its economy. Zionism, Israel’s official ideology, is predicated on core principles of ethnic separation, Judaisation of territory and Hebrew labour. It has always depended on the marginalisation at best, exclusion at worst, of non-Jews.

Any effort to dismantle the scaffolding of a Jewish state would create a political crisis. Reforms may happen, but they are likely to take place too slowly and incrementally to make much difference.

The Rand report also raises the alarm. It notes that both peoples would benefit from peace, though the incentive is stronger for Palestinians. Integration into the Middle East would see average wages rise by only 5 per cent for Israelis, compared to 36 per cent for Palestinians.

But, while its economists may have found it easy to quantify the benefits of ending the occupation, it is much harder to assess the costs in shekels and dollars.

Occupation economy

Over the past six decades, an economic elite has emerged in Israel whose prestige, power and wealth depends on the occupation. Career military officers earn large salaries and retire in their early forties on generous pensions. Nowadays many of these officers live in the settlements.

The army top brass are the ultimate pressure group and will not release their grip on the occupied territories without a fight, one they are well placed to win.

Backing them will be those in the hi-tech sector who have become the engine of the Israeli economy. Many are former soldiers who realised the occupied territories were the ideal laboratory for developing and testing military hardware and software.

Israel’s excellence in weaponry, surveillance systems, containment strategies, biometric data collection, crowd control and psychological warfare are all marketable. Israeli know-how has become indispensible to the global appetite for “homeland security”.

That expertise was on show this month at a Tel Aviv armaments expo that attracted thousands of security officials from around the world, drawn by the selling point that the systems on offer were “combat proven”.

To end the occupation would be to sacrifice all this and revert to the status of a tiny anonymous state with no resources or notable exports.

Divisive squatters

And finally the settlers are among the most ideologically committed and entitled sector of Israel’s population. Were they moved out, they would bring their group cohesion and profound resentments back into Israel.

No Israeli leader wants to unleash a civil war that could rip apart the already-fragile sense of unity among the Jewish population.

The reality is that most Israelis’ perception of their national interests, both as a Jewish state and as military superpower, are intimately tied to a permanent occupation and the exclusion of Israel’s Palestinian minority from true citizenship.

If there is a conclusion to be drawn from these two reports it may be a pessimistic one.

Israel’s internal economy is likely to grow gradually weaker, as the ultra-Orthodox and Palestinian labour forces are under-utilised. As a result, the focus of Israel’s economic interests and activity is likely to shift even more towards the occupied territories.

Far from Israelis rethinking their oppressive policies towards the Palestinians, the ideological blinkers imposed by Zionism could push them to pursue the benefits of the occupation even more aggressively.

If the watching world really wants peace, economic wishful thinking will not suffice. It is past the time simply for carrots. Sticks are needed too.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zionist race to economic – and moral – bankruptcy

Progress of the Operation Zarb-e-Azb


Map of Pakistan

By Sajjad Shaukat

The ongoing military operation Zarb-e-Azb which started on Jun 15, 2014 against the militants

in North Waziristan Agency (NWA) is successfully achieving its objectives.

On June 10, this year, Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Raheel Sharif, while recounting the successes

of security forces in the Zarb-e-Azb said, “Terrorists have been cleared and dislodged from their

strongholds in North Waziristan and Khyber Agency and fight now is moving into last few

pockets close to Afghan border.” He laid emphasis on “continuation of the operations till

elimination of the last expected and probable terrorists groups and sanctuaries.”

When the Pakistan Government decided to launch this operation, Pakistan’s Prime Minister

Nawaz Sharif took the nation into confidence through parliament, asserting that Pakistan would

not be allowed to become safe havens of terrorists. Earlier, DG, ISPR Directorate, Major-Gen.

Asim Saleem Bajwa had stated, “Armed forces of Pakistan have launched the operation against

foreign and local terrorists…who had been waging a war against the state of Pakistan by

disrupting our national life in all its dimensions, stunting our economic growth and causing

enormous loss of life and property…with the support of the entire nation, these enemies will be

denied space across the country.”He further stated that military operation would continue till

achievement of ultimate objectives.

On June 16, 2014, Gen. Raheel Sharif also pointed out, “Operation Zarb-e-Azb has been

launched with the objectives of rooting out terrorists, eliminate their sanctuaries in NWA and rid

the country of terrorism.”

After the militants of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) massacred 132 school children at

Army Public School and College in Peshawar on December 16, 2014, while emphasizing

national unity against terrorists, Gen. Raheel had repeatedly stated, “Our resolve has taken new

height”, and added “We will continue to go after the inhuman beasts, their facilitators till their

final elimination.”

And Gen. Raheel Sharif has himself started supervising the military action against terrorists as

part the operation, Zarb-e-Azb.

However, since June 15, 2014, the jets of Pakistan Air Force have bombed militants’ hideouts in

North Waziristan, and killed thousands of insurgents including foreign militants, while Pak

Army has also killed several terrorists through ground offensive and many of them surrendered

before the Army.

Undoubtedly, the noble cause followed by troops enabled them to eliminate terrorists, destroyed

their strongholds/sanctuaries, demolishing tunnels and factories producing IED (Explosives),

while drying the sources of their funds and sinking their public support.

In fact, the different war between Pakistan’s Armed Forces and the TTP insurgents is simply a

‘clash of wills’ between two entities. Military thinkers agree that although the physical force will

determine the type and scale of war, yet it is the ‘will to fight’ or ‘moral force’ that determines

the outcome of war. Clausewitz puts it this way, “One might say that the physical force seems

little more than the wooden hilt, while moral factors are the precious metal, the real weapon.”

In his book, “Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945”, Creveld

identifies the elements of ‘moral force’, whom he calls “fighting power, the willingness to fight

and the readiness, if necessary, to die.” The greater these elements, the less vulnerable an armed

force will be to demoralization. ‘Moral force’, then, is the crucial factor in determining the

combat power of any belligerent.

During the successful military operation, Zarb-e-Azb” retreat of the Taliban from North

Waziristan has proved that such elements like ‘will to fight’ and ‘moral force’ have been more

found in Pakistan’s Armed Forces then the Taliban militants.

Nevertheless, there are other causes which demoralized the insurgents of the TTP and their

affiliated militant outfits. Firstly, strong determination and cohesiveness as noted in Pakistan’s

Armed Forces played a key role in expelling terrorists from North Waziristan Agency. In this

regard, airstrikes by Pakistan Air Force targeted their strongholds. And during street to street

fighting, without bothering for their lives, and by air-dropping commandos at the risky places,

our forces made a great headway in disrupting the Taliban supply routes. They besieged them at

various hotspots, rendering them unable to send reinforcements to their fighters. Secondly,

morale of Pak Army was very high. Thirdly, local people started denying the Taliban

sanctuaries, and disrupted their links with each other. Fourthly, general masses of the area

opposed the brutal acts of these terrorists which compelled them to leave their houses. They

came to know that under the cover of Islamic laws—terror, not Sharia was these militants’ real

agenda. Hence, they were misusing Jihad which does not allow suicide attacks in killing their

own Muslim brethren.

Undoubtedly, Pakistan’s Armed Forces have successfully broken the backbone and organized

capability of terrorists to launch well thought-out attacks against the government assets and on

innocent people. They have met serious setbacks in operation Zarb-e-Azb, and shall finally be

totally eliminated from Pakistan. It appears, as if the militants of TTP have lost major grounds,

and in severe frustration, they are trying to create some kind of so-called pressure on the

government and the Armed Forces through some terror-activities which are due to external

support of Indian RAW and other anti-Pakistan powers to these terrorists. But, Armed Forces

have castigated them to put up strong resistance.

It is notable that the North Waziristan Agency was the largest tribal agency with difficult and

complicated topography. But, by sacrificing their own lives, Armed Forces successfully cleared

the region. Therefore, the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) have been returning to North

Waziristan, and Pak Army helped them in their resettlement.

As terrorists had accelerated their anti-social, undemocratic and un-Islamic practices, while they

had challenged the writ of the state, and had frightened the entire nation by their terror-acts.

Therefore, leaders of various political and religious parties including all segments of society and

media anchors—particularly commentators of TV channels, who wanted that a handful of

terrorist elements must not be allowed to dictate their agenda and to impose their self-perceived

ideology on the majority of Pakistanis are admiring the successes, achieved during the operation

Zarb-e-Azb. Now, the whole nation is united against terrorism and is backing the military

operation against these brutal militants.

No doubt, the progress of the operation Zarb-e-Azb is very encouraging, as it is fruitfully

advancing towards its logical end. At present, especially Pakistan’s media need to show sense of

hope and optimism by indicating that the present broad-based military operation will annihilate

the terrorists.

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Progress of the Operation Zarb-e-Azb

How the “Holocaust” was faked

Illustration from a children's book. The headlines say "Jews are our misfortune" and "How the Jew cheats."  Germany, 1936.
By:The Realist Report
The alleged “Holocaust” of “6 million Jews” at the hands of Adolf Hitler and National Socialist Germany during WWII is the biggest lie ever foisted upon humanity. The very idea that the Germans organized and executed a complex conspiracy involving “homicidal gas chambers” and other barbaric, sadistic forms of mass murder designed to exterminate European Jewry during WWII is laughable on its face when you stop and objectively think about it.National Socialist Germany and her allies were fighting a multi-front war against some of the most powerful nations in the world at the time, including the United States, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union. The idea that they would divert their precious and extremely scarce resources and manpower towards implementing a systematic campaign of mass murder specifically designed to annihilate European Jewry is absurd.

There was no German conspiracy to systematically genocide and destroy European Jewry during WWII. There were no “homicidal gas chambers” utilized to murder Jews and other “undesirables”. The system of concentration camps throughout much of Europe developed and administered by the Germans and their allies during WWII was simply a network of labor, transit, industrial and detention facilities – not “death camps”. Jews, political prisoners and Communist subversives (many of whom were in fact Jewish), homosexuals and many others were detained and either put to work or imprisoned in German-administered concentration camps and industrial facilities throughout Europe.

These forced laborers and prisoners were well-cared for, at least until the end of the war when Germany’s supply lines broke down and chaos ensued as a result of the Soviet and Anglo-American invasion of German territory. They were well-fed, well-provided for, and given medical treatment and entertainment. They were allowed to attend concerts, organize plays, make music and play sports. If the Germans were hell bent on murdering these people, why would they provide medical care for them and allow them to entertain themselves?

The entire WWII narrative, especially the fake “Holocaust” story, is basically the exact opposite from what we’ve been told and taught.

The Jewish Bolshevik terrorists who overthrew the Russian monarchy during WWI and their allies – the USA and the UK, primarily – committed the real atrocities and genocides against the German people and their sympathizers during and after WWII. The British and Americans engaged in a systematic fire-bombing campaign specifically targeting German industrial and urban areas for destruction. Major cities all throughout Germany were fire-bombed on a regular basis, resulting in the horrific death for millions of innocent German civilians – men, women and children.

The Allies sunk German civilian ships escaping the rampaging Soviet Red Army towards the end of the war, ending the lives of countless innocent civilians including, ironically enough, many Eastern European Jews fleeing from the advancing Red Army. The barbaric, out-of-control Red Army was encouraged to rape, pillage, torture and murder Germans as they advanced into German territory, and they did. Hundreds of thousands of German POWs and civilians were starved and murdered after the war, often suffering gruesome deaths from exposure, thirst and torture at the hands of the victorious and ruthless Allies. The National Socialist political, cultural and educational establishment was systematically dismantled and destroyed, with many top officials and leaders murdered, tortured, robbed, imprisoned and otherwise mistreated.

Jewish propagandists have entirely reversed the reality of the situation using their control of the media, and have blamed the Germans for starting the war and committing all the alleged atrocities, when in reality the Germans and their allies were the most disciplined, honorable and righteous forces fighting in that fratricidal Jewish-instigated war. The German people and their allies were the ones who experienced a genuine holocaust – a real genocide – during WWII, not the Jewish population of Europe.

The simple fact of the matter is that the “Holocaust” narrative – 6 million Jews persecuted, abused, and systematically exterminated by “those evil Nazis” during WWII – endlessly promoted and perpetuated by the Jewish-owned mass media, Hollywood and “entertainment” complex, and educational and political establishment is 100% bogus in virtually all respects. The Germans simply wanted the Jews out of Germany, clearly and correctly recognizing them as an alien, hostile and treacherous force working to subvert, pollute and destroy the German nation and Western civilization.

Jews were encouraged to leave Germany, and many did. Others were imprisoned or detained in the various labor and concentration camps established and administered by National Socialist Germany, and were well provided for. They were certainly not killed using “homicidal gas chambers” and other sadistic forms of murder in a systematic campaign to eliminate European Jewry.

But how exactly was such a monstrous hoax manufactured and presented to the public as if it actually happened? What follows is a brief overview identifying the primary means in which the alleged Jewish “Holocaust” during WWII was faked and sold to the public as if it were a genuine aspect of our collective history in order to advance certain geopolitical, cultural and economic agendas.

The role of Allied propaganda before, during and after WWII

The fake Jewish “Holocaust” narrative is really just an extension of an on-going anti-German propaganda campaign going back to WWI. During WWI, Western (often Jewish) propagandists targeted Germany and her armed forces with ridiculous “atrocity propaganda”, alleging in their newspapers and other media outlets that the Germans were engaging in barbaric, ruthless behavior, including raping and murdering innocent civilians.

Typical anti-German propaganda: the Germans were the most honorable and righteous fighting force during WWI and WWII.


This propaganda would be true if it depicted a Soviet Bolshevik Jew Commissar rather than a German.

The fabricated idea that “millions of Jews” in Europe were being exterminated by the Germans and other “fascists” was regularly promoted by Jewish propagandists and their allies in the West beginning in 1915 during WWI. This slanderous, entirely false accusation had been and continues to be endlessly promoted to the often gullible and susceptible Western public, resulting in extremely negative anti-German sentiment, not to mention the widespread belief that the Germans did in fact commit these outrageous (although quite ridiculous) atrocities. The following video demonstrates this point perfectly:

During and immediately following WWII, deceitful propagandists continued to level this “atrocity propaganda” against the Germans in order to demonize them and prepare the Western world for the institutionalization of the myth of “6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis”. Western and Soviet propagandists, including psychological warfare specialists in the United States Army and individuals connected to Hollywood, were involved in manufacturing “evidence” – including fake, altered or otherwise misrepresented photographs and videos, “human lampshades”, “shrunken heads” and other absurd props – which was used to “demonstrate” to the world that the Germans did in fact commit outrageous atrocities during the war, particularly at the various concentration camps and industrial facilities under their administration. Dave Mansfield and Mike King of recently collaborated and produced the following video underscoring the points I am making here:

The propaganda used to sell the idea of a “Jewish Holocaust” is extremely emotionally and psychologically exploitative, resulting in psychological trauma and an inability for the broad masses to objectively evaluate the information they are being presented with. This will be discussed in more detail as we continue.

The role of the Nuremberg show trials

Following Germany’s defeat in WWII, the Allied countries organized a series of military tribunals often referred to simply as the Nuremberg Trials. The trials consisted of the International Military Tribunal and the Nuremberg Military Tribunal. The Nuremberg Trials were a total sham – “show trials” if there ever were any.

The trials were essentially organized to not only demonize, vilify and falsely blame the Germans for initiating the war and committing all of the “atrocities” and “war crimes”, but also to whitewash and cover up the very real crimes committed by the Allies in addition to officially institutionalizing the fake Jewish “Holocaust” narrative.

Fabricated evidence and false testimony was introduced by the Allies, and many of the German defendants were physically and psychologically tortured or otherwise coerced into making false confessions during the trials.

The role of fabricated, altered or otherwise misrepresented imagery associated with the “Holocaust” and alleged “Nazi death camps”

Virtually all of the iconic imagery associated with the alleged Jewish “Holocaust” turns out to be either entirely fabricated, altered or extremely misrepresentedand taken out of context.

The imagery associated with the “Holocaust” – photographs of piles of dead bodies, emaciated prisoners, Jews being “rounded up”, train cars filled with dead people, etc. – has been used to psychologically traumatize the masses, rendering them vulnerable to manipulation and facilitating the fake narrative of “6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis” to be literally implanted in their minds.

A prime example is this iconic photograph, which a simple Google search for “Buchenwald concentration camp” turned up:

Or this one:

Images like this showing piles of dead, emaciated bodies have been shown to unsuspecting audiences, inducing psychological trauma and fear in their minds, in order to sell the idea that the Germans systematically murdered millions of people (especially Jews) in “death camps”. The fact of the matter is that when the war was ending, the German-administered labor and industrial camps were not supplied and many people did in fact perish in horrible conditions. But that does not prove that the Germans were systematically murdering people in these camps. It simply demonstrates how deceitful, brazen and ruthless the Western and Soviet propagandists were in their efforts to demonize and slander the Germans.

Also, some of the iconic imagery associated with the Jewish “Holocaust” turns out to be photographs of dead German civilians murdered in Allied fire-bombing campaigns, which were presented to the masses as “proof” of German atrocities. Again, the shameless, deceitful behavior of the Western Allies and their Soviet Communist partners knows no bounds.

The iconic “Holocaust” imagery shown repeatedly to mass audiences is never put into context. The images are simply shown, and we are expected to believe that the “Holocaust” was a real event.

The aforementioned Dave Mansfield of produced the following short video highlighting some of the more brazenly fabricated photographs that have been used to demonize the Germans and support the fake Jewish “Holocaust” narrative:

The vast majority of people have never objectively investigated the claims being made about the alleged “Holocaust” simply because of the psychological trauma and fear induced by the imagery (and “Holocaust survivor” and other “eye witness testimony”, which is also extremely traumatic and psychologically and emotionally exploitative).

The role of “Holocaust survivors” and other “eye witnesses” of “Nazi atrocities”

In addition to the iconic imagery associated with the fake Jewish “Holocaust”, which as we’ve seen has been either taken out of context or entirely fabricated, the testimony of alleged “Holocaust survivors” and other “eye witnesses” of “Nazi atrocities” has been used to effectively psychologically and emotionally exploit the masses in order to instill in their minds the entirely fabricated and deceitfully manufactured narrative of “6 million Jews murdered at the hands of the National Socialists” during WWII.

The courageous historical revisionist and film producer Eric Hunt has done a masterful job not only debunking the claims about the fake Jewish “Holocaust”, but also demonstrating how entirely ridiculous and absurd the “testimony” alleged “Holocaust survivors” have given truly is.

In virtually all cases, the alleged “Holocaust survivors” are either entirely fabricating or outrageously embellishing their experience during WWII or they are providing testimony that actually discredits and disproves certain aspects of the official “Holocaust” narrative (particularly as it relates to the alleged “extermination camps” in the East often referred to as the “Aktion Reinhard death camps” or “death factories”). I recently interviewed Eric Hunt on The Realist Report, which you can download here. Be sure to take the time and watch The Last Days of the Big Lie and The Jewish Gas Chamber Hoax, both of which were produced by Eric.

The role of Jewish Hollywood and the organized international Jewish community

Since WWII, an entire industry relating to the fake “Holocaust” has arisen in the West. Disgusted by the outrageously brazen corruption emanating from the deceitful, exploitative leaders and representatives of “Holocaust survivors”, Jewish academic Norman Finkelstein wrote a book discussing and exposing what he callsThe Holocaust Industry. Organized Jewish interests and their lobbies have successfully created an extremely lucrative financial and sympathy racket based on their false, entirely fabricated narrative of “6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis” during WWII.

“At the end of the twentieth century, the ‘Holocaust’ is being bought and sold,” wrote Tim Cole, a Professor of History specializing in the “Holocaust” at Bristol University, in his book Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler, How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold“In short, ‘Shoah [Hebrew word for Holocaust] business’ is big business.” (See here and herefor more.)

The “Holocaust” is indeed an industry at this point – a commodity endlessly pushed and promoted by academia, politicians, government officials, international political organizations such as the UN, media moguls, Hollywood producers, organized Jewish groups, the Jewish state of “Israel” and others connected to the “Holocaust” racket.

Hollywood and the “entertainment” complex in the West – which is virtually entirely owned and dominated by Jews with deep ties to the Jewish state of “Israel” and the “Holocaust” industry – have produced countless propaganda films masquerading as objective depictions of experiences of European Jews during WWII. These films and documentaries have served to perpetuate, reinforce and even expand upon the false, entirely fabricated narrative of “6 million Jews systematically genocided by the Nazis” which has been manufactured and sold to the public during and after WWII.

There are countless “Holocaust” museums and memorials all across the globe, many of which receive official state funding and endorsement, including the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. Not a day goes by without a mention of the fake “Holocaust” story in the mass media, entertainment complex, or political establishment. This false narrative is constantly being reinforced and perpetuated to the public on a daily basis, often in the most crass, deceptive, and emotionally exploitative ways imaginable.The fake “Holocaust” narrative has advanced a number of important geopolitical, cultural and economic agendas primarily benefitting international Jewry and the illegitimate Jewish state of “Israel”, including:

  1. Elevating the alleged “suffering and persecution” of the Jewish people during WWII specifically, and all throughout history generally, over all others;
  2. Covering up the crimes committed by Jewish terrorists, Communists and propagandists prior to, during and after WWII by projecting those crimes (and even fabricating new ones) on to the German armed forces and their allies;
  3. Creating an extremely lucrative financial and sympathy racket, netting the Jewish state of “Israel” and the organized international Jewish community billions of dollars annually;
  4. Serving as a basis for the creation of the Jewish state of “Israel”, while excusing and justifying the genocidal, illegal policies she has pursued since her founding;
  5. and demonizing the one man – Adolf Hitler – and his political movement who stood up for their country and race against the Talmudic forces of internationalism and globalism seeking the subjugation and ultimate destruction of the White race and all genuine nationalities, ethnicities and cultures.
That is how the “Holocaust” was faked, and what agenda this fabricated, insidious and deceitfully manufactured narrative has and continues to advance on a daily basis.Writing in Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler described the Jews as having an “unqualified capacity for falsehood,” and would go on to explain the concept of the Big Lie technique of psychological warfare and propaganda, which organized Jewry has used masterfully throughout history and to this very day, especially concerning the alleged “Holocaust” narrative, in order to falsify history and psychologically exploit mass audiences:

[…] in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

Keep these profound insights in mind the next time you are exposed to the endless barrage of “Holocaust” propaganda emanating from Jewish Hollywood, the mass media and the educational and political establishment in America and around the world.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on How the “Holocaust” was faked

Balochistan: Anti-Punjab and Anti-Army Propaganda


By Sajjad Shaukat

The ink on Pak-China agreements related to China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) was

barely dry when some western media, especially Indian secret agency RAW started playing up

the Baloch insurgency. In this regard, the director of The Second Floor (T2F), a social activist

Sabeen Mahmud was shot dead by unidentified gunmen in Karachi on April 24, 2015, followed

by a bomb blast in Sibi, which killed several persons on April 26. However, she had left T2F

after attending the session on Balochistan province, when she was targeted. She was likely to

conduct a seminar at LUMS in Lahore about Balochistan. Earlier, on April 11, gunmen killed 20

laborers at a dam construction site in the Turbat district of Baluchistan. On May 29, 2015, 20

people were killed when unknown militants opened fire at the kidnapped passengers in Mastung

area of Balochistan—after abduction of two buses. Particularly, on May 13, 45 people were

killed when gunmen brutally opened fire on a bus of the Ismaili community in Karachi. Ahmed

Marwat, a spokesman for Jundullah which is the affiliated group of the Tehreek-e-Taliban

Pakistan (TTP), claimed responsibility for the bus attack.

Like these terror attacks which continue in some way or the other, Karachi bus incident was also

handy work of RAW to sabotage the CPEC by showing that if Pakistan government is not able to

provide security to its citizens, how it can protect CPEC. Ismailis belong to Hunza

(Gilgit/Baltistan) or have a spiritual linkage with this area, are Pakistanis. The CPEC would also

originate from the same region.

Similarly, RAW was behind the assassination of Sabeen Mahmud-a well thought-out plan not

only to try to harm Pak-China CPEC project, but also to accuse Pakistan’s Inter-Services

Intelligence (ISI). Another aim was also to drive a wedge between Balochistan and rest of

Meanwhile, Indian high officials themselves proved that India is sponsoring terrorism in various

regions of Pakistan, particular in Balochistan. In this respect, Indian Defence Minister, Manohar

Parrikar, while using the Hindi phrase “kante se kanta nikalna’ (removing a thorn with a thorn)

assertively said, on May 23, 2015, “We have to neutralise terrorists through terrorists only…why

does my soldier have to do it…the issue could not be discussed beyond this…there are certain

things that I obviously cannot discuss here.”

Indian External Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj recognized, on June 1, this year that India

strongly “opposes $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project.”

In this respect, while addressing a ceremony during his Bangladesh tour, Indian Prime Minister

Narendra Modi Modi openly admitted on June 7, this year that Indian forces helped Mukti

Bahini to turn East Pakistan into Bangladesh. He elaborated that former prime minister Atal

Bihari Vajpayee had played an active role in separating Bangladesh from Pakistan, and he had

also come to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh

as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members.

In the recent past, Indian former Army Chief Gen. VK Singh openly confessed that during his

tenure, he supervised special army unit, Tactical Support Division (TSD) on the instructions of

the then defence minister to sponsor subversive acts in Pakistan, especially in Balochistan.

These blatant admissions by New Delhi endorsed that RAW has well-established its network in

Afghanistan, and with the tactical assistance of some anti-Pakistan secret agencies, it is fully

backing cross-border incursions and terror-activities particularly in Balochistan so as to

destabilize Pakistan. It has continuously been assisting the Baloch separatist elements and anti-

Pakistan groups like BLA, Jundullah and TTP including their affiliated outfits with logistic

support—the militants kidnapped and killed many innocent people and the security personnel in

the province through suicide attacks, bomb blasts, targeted killings and sectarian violence. They

also abducted and killed many Chinese and Iranian nationals. Therefore, they are responsible for

dumped bodies and extrajudicial killings and the missing persons in the province. On a number

of occasions, these insurgent groups claimed responsibility for their acts of sabotage, but India

and some external powers have been shifting the blame game of human rights violations in

Balochistan towards Pak Army.

In this context, these entities continue a deliberate propaganda campaign against Pakistan Army

by always making Army role controversial. They indicate that Punjabi Army never killed people

in Punjab; carried out military operations in other provinces like Balochistan. Their main aim is

to create resentment among the Baloch against Punjab and Army. In this connection, those who

are building Sabeen Mehmood murder case as a campaign for Baloch rights are in fact more

interested to demonize Army and ISI rather than helping the poor masses of Balochistan.

Whereas Army has not only been successful in uprooting the anti-state elements, but also

contributed a lot in socio-economic development of Balochistan. It is mentionable that besides

protecting mega projects, and promoting other developments works, Pak Army set up a number

of institutes in Balochistan, which have been providing especially technical training to thousands

of Balochis. Pak Army has also been imparting military training to the Baloch youth. The

purpose is to bring them in the mainstream of the country.

As a result of the general elections 2013, the government led by a nationalist leader Chief

Minister Balochistan Dr Abdul Malik Baloch was established. And on December 7, 2013; local

bodies elections were largely held in a peaceful manner in Balochistan. The successful elections

have greatly negated the cause of terrorist groups, who always claim to enjoy the majority

support. These elections also proved that majority of the Baloch are loyal to the federation, as

they have rejected the case of separatists, being projected by India and other major countries.

And a Gallup survey of the UK official body, DFID, conducted on July 20, 2012 had disclosed

that the vast majority of the Baloch people oppose the idea of an independent Balochistan.

It is notable that CPEC is to be economic game changer in whole the region, which is badly hit

by below average living conditions, while people of Balochistan would be the main beneficiaries

of the CEPC project. Two decades down the timeline, Gwadar would be a thriving metropolitan

providing economic opportunities to the youth of Balochistan.

But, RAW University New Delhi is continuously conducting research and destabilizing the

region through its political and terrorist assets located in UK, Sweden, Karachi, Balochistan and

It is mentionable that with the inception of new political governments both at the center and the

province, a meaningful negotiation with all the armed separatist groups have been initiated by a

high level reconciliation and negotiation committee, comprising seasoned Baloch, Pashtoon and

Sindhi leaders to initiate dialogue with Baloch separatists.

Open offers to negotiate issues have been made to armed Baloch groups who have owned the

responsibility to kill many innocent persons. On the instruction of New Delhi and some foreign

anti-Pakistan entities, these groups continue to deny such offers on various reasons.

In this connection, as part of propaganda, all these anti-Pakistan entities are linking Balochistan

with dismemberment of East Pakistan and Kashmir struggle which is nothing, but a deliberate

effort to twist the facts. The Kashmir liberation movement is a rightful struggle and is the UN

stature—unresolved agenda item. Likewise, the separation of East Pakistan was not based purely

on indigenous movement or the policies of West Pakistan; it was in fact India who exploited the

situation by promoting militancy in East Pakistan, and then militarily occupied it to install

government of their choice. The involvement of RAW in Balochistan is the continuation of the

same Indian policy to cause maximum damage to Pakistan.

As a matter of fact, during its operations, natural calamities and humanitarian services, Pak

Army never discriminated between Punjabis and non-Punjabis. It was due to uncontrolled violent

events in Sindh, Balochistan and FATA that Army was compelled to conduct military

operations, but with the public support of every segment of society including provincial and local

people of those areas.

Nonetheless, our media entities must indicate that terrorists, operating in Balochistan are against

Pakistan and pursuing the agenda of the vested interests of their foreign masters, especially

pointing out Indian support to Baloch separatists.

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Balochistan: Anti-Punjab and Anti-Army Propaganda

Nazi Peres Reacts to the Turkish Elections


Image result for Shimon Peres CARTOON

Israel’s Shimon Peres Reacts to the Turkish Elections

By: Dr Richard Falk

Newspapers reported on June 9th that former Israeli president Shimon Peres (2007-2014) was pleased by the outcome in Turkey. He is quoted as saying “I am happy about what happened in Turkey – Erdoğan wanted to turn Turkey into Iran, and there is no room for two Iran’s in the Middle East.”

It is worth recalling that the downward spiral in relations between Turkey and Israel started in a real way when Erdoğan attacked Israel and Peres personally for defending Israel’s massive attack on Gaza at the 2009 World Economic Forum in the course of a panel in which both he and Peres were members. Erdoğanresponded to Peres’ contention that Hamas was responsible for violence against Israeli civilians. His words were undiplomatically blunt: “Mr. Peres, you are a senior citizen and you speak in a loud tone. I feel that your raised voice is due to the guilt you feel. But be sure that my voice will not be raised as yours is. When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill. I know very well how you struck and killed innocent children on the beaches.” So piercing the haze that separates these polite evasions of such international events from the cruel realities under discussion was a welcome rarity: on this occasion Erdoğan was confronting the naked face of power with a truth that needed to be heard. After

interference from the chair, Erdoğan strode off the stage announcing that he was through forever with the World Economic Forum, not for allowing Peres to speak, but for the attempting to stifle a response.

The deterioration in Turkish/Israeli relations climaxed the following year when Israeli commandos boarded the Turkish passenger ship, Mavi Marmara, the lead vessel among six in a freedom flotilla containing peace activists bringing humanitarian supplies to Gaza and seeking to break the Israeli blockade. The incident on May 31, 2010 resulted in the death of nine Turkish nationals, and created an enduring rupture in the political relations between the two countries that continues despite efforts by the American president, Barack Obama, to encourage normalization. Turkey is prepared to compromise on the issues raised by the Mavi Marmara attack, but to its credit will not accept normalization until Israel lifts its blockade of Gaza and ceases its use of massive force against the totally vulnerable Gazan civilian population.

Erdoğan’s departure from diplomatic protocol at the World Economic Forum illustrated his impulsive tendency to vent his feeling in public places without the usual filters of self-censorship that is second nature for most politicians. Of course, assessing such outbursts generally depends on the context and on whether what is being said so forthrightly has merit or not. Erdoğan’s public venting in relation to policies that were sensitive for secular Turks became particularly frequent, intensifying polarization, especially after the AKP’s one-sided victory in the 2011 general election after which the Turkish leader did seem to embrace a more majoritarian view of democracy (acting on the mandate of themajority of voters), and abandoning the pragmatism of his earlier posture based on an acceptance of republican democracy (that is, respect for minority values and views, checks and balances on the exercise of state power).

Reverting to the recent Peres assertion, it is certainly inflammatory and deeply misleading to link Turkey under the AKP with Iran, and to contend that Erdoğan’s hidden project is to convert Turkey into a second Iran. This is both false and insulting, as if Turkey is incapable of self-determination according to the declared will of its own public and elected leaders. There exists no credible evidence that Turkey has in any way endorsed the defining feature of the Islamic Republic of Iran, namely, a theocratic mode of governance.

Peres also essentializes Iran, refusing to acknowledge its recent evolution as a result of Hassan Rouhani’s election as president in 2013 and Iran’s forthcoming nuclear diplomacy that went the extra mile in search of a formula that would normalize its regional and global relations, which if accepted by the West and put into practiced, will almost certainly be viewed as a major contribution to regional and world peace. Peres speaks as if Iran is the hermetically sealed embodiment of political evil rather than a country that has struggled to overcome its autocratic past under the Shah, and managed to be stable during this period of exceptional regional turmoil with its theocracy displaying a willingness to indulge a limited democracy despite threats and provocations from the United States and Israel. There is much to criticize in Iran, but for such criticism to be responsible, it should be responsive to actualities, especially in the Middle East where there are such scant grounds for stability, let alone justice.

In important respects, the outcome of the Turkish elections is far better interpreted as a Kurdish HDP victory rather than an Erdoğan AKP defeat. Time will tell whether the Kurds will be constructive and creative in this phase of their political engagement within Turkey and in relation to Kurdish political developments in neighboring countries. It will also determine whether Erdoğan is statesmanlike and creative in shaping the political future of the country, taking to heart the electoral message that any shift to a presidential system is not now in the interests of the country.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, TurkeyComments Off on Nazi Peres Reacts to the Turkish Elections

Shoah’s pages