mark twain the war prayer

2010.12.31. 13:14 gerillahirek

 

Heart - BlackMark Twain: The War Prayer

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and sputtering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spreads of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpouring of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. 



It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way. 

Sunday morning came - next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their faces alight with material dreams - visions of a stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! - then home from the war, bronzed heros, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation - "God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest, Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!" 

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory. 

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there, waiting. 

With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal," Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!" 

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside - which the startled minister did - and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said 

"I come from the Throne - bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd and grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import - that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of - except he pause and think. 

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two - one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of His Who hearth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this - keep it in mind. If you beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it. 

"You have heard your servant's prayer - the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by God to put into words the other part of it - that part which the pastor, and also you in your hearts, fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory - must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen! 

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle - be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it - for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen. 

(After a pause) 

"Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits." 

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

Szólj hozzá!

wikileaks and assange as cointel

2010.12.30. 13:18 gerillahirek

 

Star of DavidThe Western World's Murder of Logic and Reason

© vaticproject.blogspot.com

Does anyone still not know that 9/11 was done by Mossad and the CIA, along with various parties in certain government agencies and sundry? Most of us are not hackers and we don't deal with secret cables leaked by whistleblowers 'or' deliberately leaked after being sanitized in order to give the appearance of veracity. You would think that someone who is involved in intelligence information would have the intelligence and information to work out the obvious. I did it years ago, though the details are still fleshing themselves out, the names of the ones behind the attacks haven't changed and aren't likely to. 

I measure a person's truthfulness and intelligence according to the way they define what happened on 9/11. Let me make a very clear and unequivocal statement. Everything changed because of 9/11. All the so-called secrets that Assange possesses are influenced by 9/11. Every war since 9/11 has come about, one way or another, because of 9/11. The whole concept of terrorist has been set and sold according to 9/11. 9/11 is the Big Kahuna, period. 

I got a few emails yesterday after my posting about Assange and Foxman. Unfortunately with the death of logic and reason, a number of people were unable to compute that my posting was largely about Foxman's comment about pursuing those who tied Wiki-Leaks and Israel together. I wanted to be known as someone who did. That was the main thrust of my piece, not Assange's, questionably valuable information, of which I have yet to see anything useful or earth-shaking. Interestingly, the emails, along with comments from mostly, never before heard from, contributors, all used the same syntax, buzzwords and arguments. Is this coincidence? All of them were cut from the same cloth, all of them avoided the 9/11 commentary, given in cavalier fashion by media model, Assange. Here is what Assange said, "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." 

I don't need to hear anything else from Assange to be convinced that he is a tool of the PTB. People defending him want me to give him breathing room. They want me to give him six months. Never has time been of such critical importance as it is now so, six months is a lifetime in which to cater to the whimsical possibility that the one who denies the most important aspect of our times, might come up with something worth suspending one's rational faculties for six months. 

No one defending him has come up with any kind of bullet listing of his accomplishments. One person defending him said, when it was mentioned that he was being represented by Rothschild lawyers, that if I was in trouble I would want the best lawyers too. You can't dialogue with people like this. Their reasoning and logical facilities are floating upside down in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Whenever I see a complete tool being defended against all reasonable and logical arguments to the contrary, I suspect enemy action. It was like that with Chomsky but not as much so. People who support the people who deny the truth about 9/11, are engaged in second hand murder. They murdered things in themselves first and then they extrapolated outward. Assange is a murderer because he reinforces the policies that murder. You can argue back and forth as long as you like but that's what it comes down to. 

When you have a public voice you are responsible for what you say and for what results, in your having caused people to believe what you said. Most bloggers with a level of exposure, equal to or larger than mine, are making money from what they do. Some of them are making very good money. I know this. I'm not. There are no adverts on my sites and my output is generally larger than most everyone else's. There's a reason for this. 

I don't recognize the authority of governments or religions. I obey the laws that make sense to me and ignore the ones that don't. Governments that poison their own people are not going to tell me what to put in my body and I don't much care what anyone else thinks about it either, they can kiss my dust. 

Many readers, I'm sure, wish that I would stick with my metaphysical and spiritual writings and I have no doubt that there are some who are disappointed in the things I say and the way I say them. They've got a fixed idea of what spiritual means, as if the material world wasn't spiritual, but it is. Everything is spiritual; taking a shit is spiritual, it's an integral part of your times here. Sex is spiritual. I don't recognize conventions and I don't go out of my way to defy them. It just happens when it happens. I have permission to have sex with anyone I want to any time I want to, with no blame. I wouldn't have it any other way because I don't enjoy lying to myself and others. 

Do I take advantage of this? Or, do I perhaps live a more moral life than those who are convention bound and trumpet their fidelity at every opportunity and then get caught out as the liars and hypocrites that they are? I extend the same freedoms that I demand, not because I intend to exercise them and not because I want others to. If you don't already understand what my reasons are you have no right to be enlightened concerning them. 

I have given a great deal of attention to the Assange affair. I don't think I've ever written about it until yesterday. I didn't feel the need. It was too obvious, for me to have to say anything. However, when Foxman jumped into the mix, I thought I might say a thing or two. I wasn't very nice about it. Well, people are dying because of people like Assange and Foxman. Lots of people are engaged in daily murders that take place via fountain pens and documents. Goldman Sachs murders thousands and thousands of people on a regular basis. No one seems to see this. I see it and I don't like it. 

For some reason, since the death of reason and logic, not to mention, objective reasoning and abstract logic, people can't seem to get from Point A to Point C, much less D. The more one has compromised themselves in the service of materialism, the more their higher faculties close off. It's a quirk of human nature to assume that if you don't possess something, then no one else does either. If you don't see something, it isn't there. People measure the possibilities of life according to their own, without even knowing what their possibilities are. Most lives are determined by how lazy one is and how much determination they do or don't possess. 

People think of war as a glorious affair and citizens of various nations root for their soldiers to kill the others. Men come back from wars and often find that the lies they tell about their time in uniform, come to compose most of the conversations they have, sitting at their neighborhood bar, living in dreams that didn't happen, because the ones that did turned out to be bad enough to drive them to the bar and the need to lie about a life they didn't live. 

I've been following this Assange matter for a long time and there's not the slightest doubt in my mind that he is cointelpro. I don't need the details and he's not important to me. He may turn out to be important to you, because Wiki-Leaks and all the other little mile markers that keep coming up, are all part of something that's eventually going to get personal. It already has. 

Then I see something like this. I hear about what's supposed to be coming and what we're all going to hear about but I haven't seen or heard it yet. Why would you have to wait for six months? Why can't we hear about how Israel murdered Rafik Hariri now? I suspect it's more about the six months wait than it is the information. I'm sure there's an easy explanation like, Assange signed a time contract with the Neo-Pharisee media or something. Promising something in the future, without any details, is not a new gambit and never seeing anything later on, or something so watered down you can't determine what it was originally was, is not a novel ending that we haven't seen before either. 

You believe what you like and you live as you wish too. I have only one authority to answer to and I don't see a problem there. If there was one I would hear about it. I hope your heroes don't disappoint you. It's tougher every time to find a new one. Sooner or later you don't have any heroes at all.

Szólj hozzá!

the propaganda machine behind the american war

2010.12.29. 21:10 gerillahirek

 

FootprintsEdmund Connelly: The Evil Among Us: Liam Neeson in "Taken"

Liam Neeson Taken movie
© 20th Century Fox
Good Film, Bad Intent...Movies As Psyops 

Israel is (in)famous for its "false flag" operations, covert provocations meant to create blame for innocent parties or nations. For instance, in the 1950s Israelis propagated the Lavon Affair, in which Jewish operatives in Egypt attempted to blow up American- and British-affiliated buildings and place the blame on Egyptians. In theory, this would have compelled the Americans and British to take punitive action against Egypt. As it turned out, the agents were captured before the bombs went off. 

A far more subtle technique aimed at achieving goals surreptitiously is called "laying the mental threads" for a form of unconventional warfare employing game theory to get others to fight your enemies for you. Relentlessly, people's minds have been exposed to scenarios of Arab enemies and terrorists, a signal example being the broad attention given to Harvard historian Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" thesis. A major element of that clash is the West's struggle against Muslims. America's (mistaken) response to 9/11,some have claimed, illustrates this. 

In American popular culture, Arabs are the only non-White group that can be openly attacked and vilified. For evidence, Jack Shaheen's The TV Arab (1984) chastised television for creating and perpetuating a noxious image of Muslim Arabs. A second book, Guilty: Hollywood's Verdict on Arabs After 9/11 (2008) shows that Hollywood portrays Arabs as terrorists, corrupt sheiks, or exotic, camel-riding primitives. Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People (2009), canvassed 900 films, "the vast majority of which portray Arabs by distorting at every turn what most Arab men, women, and children are really like." 

The issue is not really whether these images have a substantial element of truth. Muslims are indeed the most likely people on the planet these days to be terrorists. The point is that Hollywood is certainly not prone to providing true images of Blacks, Jews, or Latinos. Rather, it air brushes them to make them appealing to White audiences and paint a reassuring picture of the multicultural future. Hollywood excels at soothing the fears of its largely White audience about their future minority status. Again, Arabs are are the only non-White group that is not given a free pass in the multicultural West. 

Is it possible that such imagery is not only the result of widespread Jewish fear and dislike of Arabs because of Arab hostility to Isarel, but also part of a larger plan to get Americans to fight Israel's wars? After all, in addition to film and TV, we had the myriad neocon think tank studies suggesting that a "new Pearl Harbor" might serve as catalyst for a power reconfiguration in the Middle East. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, suggests that American minds were "prepared" for 9/11. For example, the popular series "The X-Files" had a spin-off called "The Lone Gunmen." Griffin writes that "In March 2001, the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which reportedly had 13 million viewers, was based on a rogue group within the US government crashing a remote-controlled 747 into the World Trade Center.". 

Liam Neeson Taken_still
© 20th Century Fox

An even better example is the big-budget film The Siege (1998). This action-packed thriller stars Denzel Washington as an FBI agent tracking Arab terrorists in New York. If indeed the media has been "preparing the minds" of Americans for future events, then The Siege fits the mold. For instance, Arab terrorists blow up themselves and a busload of innocent passengers in broad daylight (think suicide bombers in Israel). Then comes an attack on a theatre. Finally, we have a scene that is more than suggestive of the airliner crashes into the Twin Towers: Arabs drive a van loaded with explosives into the FBI Counterterrorism Division at One Federal Plaza, raining debris down on New York streets. Here we are now, nearly ten years after 9/11. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet again the calls for an immediate attack on Iran are escalating. And Hollywood (which is, needless to say, a Jewish fiefdom) continues its role in "preparing the minds" of Americans for this attack by churning out horrendous images of Muslims and Arabs. (I know Iranians are not Arabs, but that is a point totally lost on Western people.)

Now, it seems, the French have entered the cultural fray and portrayed Arabs in a fashion more common to Hollywood. The 2008 hit Taken, starring Irish actor Liam Neeson as a retired CIA operative, could have come straight from Tinseltown. Directed by Pierre Morel and produced by "Cinéma du look" prodigy Luc Besson, its style and action fit in seamlessly with Hollywood super-agent flicks such as The Bourne Identity and Mission: Impossible, not to mention Besson's own Nikita. The film was written by Besson and Robert Mark Kamen, author of Growing up Hasidic: Education and Socialization in the Bobover Hasidic Community

Despite considerable French involvement, it is an American film with American characters playing the roles that the audience identifies with. Neeson even nicely Americanizes his Irish accent in the film. It's no accident then that the film performed very well in the North American market, which yielded around $145,000,000 of the worldwide gross of $227,000,000. 

In other words, it's a movie that was successfully designed to appeal to the American market by trading on one of Hollywood's favorite themes: negative stereotypes of Arabs. 

The premise of the film is simple: Neeson plays Bryan Mills, a divorced husband living in Los Angeles who wants to be near his 17-year-old virgin daughter Kim. I need to mention that she is a virgin because that is central to the story: When she and her classmate take a trip to Paris to follow a tour of the Irish rock band U2, they are kidnapped by a prostitution ring. The friend dies but Kim is set to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Bids will be high as Kim is "certified pure." Mills puts to work his spy and martial arts skills and sets off to rescue her. 

Nabil Massad as Shiek Raman

The group that has kidnapped her is the Albanian Mafia, while the buyers are Arabs. We know this because the bidder planning to deflower Kim is one "Sheik Raman." What could be a better motive to find and punish such evildoers? Needless to say, for a father to do all he can to protect his young daughter is both understandable and highly admirable. Morality is fully behind him on this, and no degree of extra-legal behavior need be disallowed. 

The subtext of Taken is unmistakably in the mold of Hollywood's defamation of Muslims.To begin with, the two American teenage girls are abducted from a Paris apartment by vicious Albanians. Two thoughts cross my mind here. First, few Americans are likely to have any knowledge whatsoever of Albanians, so in a sense the filmmakers are given a blank slate on which to draw their image of the bad guys. Second, among the Albanian population, there is a heavy Muslim presence (~70%) so this would support that anti-Muslim aspect of the film. 

If the Albanian kidnappers are uncouth, the Arabs who appear are at least clean. The sheik's underling is even quite suave, with stylishly coiffed hair and fine clothes. The sheik, however, is repulsive. With pockmarked brown skin and a bald pate, he is repulsive. And he was within minutes of deflowering 17-year-old Kim. 

While the storyline of Taken is easily forgettable, the underlying images of the violent, unclean, or lecherous Muslim are reinforced. This is what prompts me to insist that the film is part of the larger Hollywood effort to defame Muslims and Arabs - very useful if your aim is to go to war against pretty much the entire Muslim world. Perhaps a key point comes with the fact that the American distributor of Taken is none other than 20th Century Fox, which is owned by the noted neocon Rupert Murdoch. Fox has a history of denigrating Arabs, as independent scholar E. Michael Jones's showed in the April 2009 and January 2010 issues of his journalCulture Wars. In the article "Abu Ghraib, Torture, and the American Empire," he tied Israelis to the torture of Iraqis by American troops, plus delved into the larger question of how Hollywood has been playing a role in "preparing the minds" of the American public for the mainstreaming of torture. Drawing from a New Yorkerprofile of the co-creator and executive producer of "24," Joel Surnow, Jones quoted a description of the show:
Each season of "24," which has been airing on Fox since 2001, depicts a single, panic-laced day in which Jack Bauer - a heroic C.T.U. agent, played by Kiefer Sutherland - must unravel and undermine a conspiracy that imperils the nation. Terrorists are poised to set off nuclear bombs or bioweapons, or in some other way annihilate entire cities. The twisting story line forces Bauer and his colleagues to make a series of grim choices that pit liberty against security. Frequently, the dilemma is stark: a resistant suspect can either be accorded due process - allowing a terrorist plot to proceed - or be tortured in pursuit of a lead. Bauer invariably chooses coercion. With unnerving efficiency, suspects are beaten, suffocated, electrocuted, drugged, assaulted with knives, or more exotically abused; almost without fail, these suspects divulge critical secrets.
Multitasking, Jewish producer Joel Surnow, whose politics "suffuse the whole show," has also consistently allowed portrayals of Muslims as terrorists to appear. The most egregious image of Muslims probably came with the introduction in season four of the immigrant Araz family, composed of father Navi, mother Dina, and 17-year-old son Behrooz. Though Behrooz dates an American girl, the family is vile and corrupt in almost every other way. The entire family is on a knowing mission to destroy large parts of the United States with nuclear weapons. Father Navi exhibits his vileness by telling his son things such as "I listen to your phone calls, I read your e-mail" and striking him on the face. 

This is nothing, however, compared to the father's decision to murder his own son. Fearing the American girlfriend will expose the terrorist plot, Navi orders Behrooz to cold-bloodedly murder her. Suspecting Behrooz does not have the inner strength to do so, mother Dina poisons the girlfriend by spiking her tea. Dina is at least considerate enough to then shoot the girl's body in an attempt to persuade her husband that Behrooz had carried out orders. Next, as Behrooz and one of his father's henchmen are digging the girlfriend's grave, the henchman tries to kill Behrooz. Incapacitating the attacker, Behrooz demands to know who ordered his death: It is his own father Navi. Jones is right to conclude that "Hollywood has always been a Jewish empire, so it is not surprising that when it merged with government, government would become more Jewish as well." 

Finally, Taken is guilty of the same subterfuge and mind control that many Hollywood movies are: it creates images of non-Jewish evildoers when in fact the crimes are far more representative of Jewish crimes. In this case, egregiously so. Ten years ago, a weekend edition of the Jerusalem Post featured a story about the widespread problem of prostitution and sexual slavery in Israel. Trading in non-Jewish slaves, it seems, is not illegal there. And many of these young women are from Eastern European countries. 

In their June 16, 2000 issue, they wrote: "In Israel it is legal to buy and sell slaves, as long as they aren't Jews. The slave trade is big business in Israel, and it's legal."
Every year hundreds of women, and an unknown number of girls under the age of 18, are bought, sold, drugged, imprisoned, and forced to work as prostitutes in Israel's thriving sex industry. In countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, and Hungary, traffickers prey on desperate women. Facing poverty, the women are lured to Israel with the promise that they will make fabulous salaries working as teachers or caregivers.
Now think about that: "Every year hundreds of women, and an unknown number of girls under the age of 18, are bought, sold, drugged, imprisoned, and forced to work as prostitutes in Israel's thriving sex industry." Then compare it to the plot-line of Taken, where two girls under the age of 18 are kidnapped, drugged, imprisoned and readied for sale to the highest bidder. Further, we see that other girls kidnapped by the Albanian Mafia have already become addicted to heroin and are selling their bodies on the streets of Paris to turn a profit for their masters. 

Marlon Brando, a Hollywood insider if there ever was one, knew about this subterfuge. On Larry King Live he said "Hollywood is run by Jews, it is owned by Jews, but we never saw the kike because they know perfectly well that's where you draw the wagons around." 

This is so true. Name one scene where you see someone who is clearly identified as a Jew committing massive financial fraud or controlling Presidents. Or raping underage non-Jewish girls. Or buying and selling them for the sex trade in Israel. 

Or even throwing lavish parties. Another instance in Taken where stereotypically Jewish behavior is acted out by non-Jews is Kim's lavish 17th-birthday party. We see an opulent L.A. mansion decked out for the affair. Kim's non-Jewish stepfather is fabulously wealthy and gives Kim an expensive horse as a gift. 

The funny thing is, it is Jews who are famous for lavish displays of personal wealth: for throwing extravagant bar mitzvahsbirthday partiesweddings, and just regular parties

One that really caught my attention is the story about the owner of a Long Island firm that specializes in making bulletproof vests for the U.S. military, vests which many critics claim are defective. CEO David Brooks has been in deep trouble, as ABC reports:
A class action lawsuit, which was recently settled for some $35 million, charged Brooks and his top executives with issuing misleading financial statements and then selling over 10 million of their own shares in the company and receiving over $200 million in illegal profits. . . . Following that stock sale, Brooks again raised eyebrows when he threw his daughter a lavish bat mitzvah, which reportedly cost $10 million. The party featured performances by Aerosmith and rapper 50 Cent and took place at the New York's famed Rainbow Room.
This deception is no doubt what so aggravated film critic James Jaeger, prompting him to excoriate Jewish director Paul Haggis for his racial and ethnic depictions in Crash, the 2005 Oscar winner for Best Picture. Echoing Brando, Jaeger notes the film's ensemble of a diverse array of characters "crashing" into each other in a racially tense Los Angeles, but charges that "Nowhere is it shown that Jews also CRASH into Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Iranians, Asians, and Persians and profoundly affect THEIR lives - especially in Hollywood where CRASH is set and Jews comprise a dominating minority in the Los Angeles area." 

Rather, Jaeger sees the same old display of select diversity on-screen but no mention of the lack of diversity behind-the-scenes. "Why doesn't Paul write a feature that is set in the executive suites of say Warner Bros. or Paramount where the dominating minority is properly and accurately acknowledged as Jewish?" 

So what can I finally say about Taken? In one sense, it provides a useful function by again alerting Americans, French and other Westerners to the risk posed by the presence of alien elements among us. While terrorism is one clear risk, it is not the only one, as Taken shows. But I'm still bothered by the fact that it projects the behaviour of evildoers onto enemies of Jewry. That so many Westerners could not only overlook these facts but in essence worship Jews and Israelis is almost impossible for me to understand. Is this because they are taken in by the cagey projection technique employed so often by Jews?

Szólj hozzá!

brave new 1984

2010.12.28. 13:11 gerillahirek

 

Eye 12011: A Brave New Dystopia

too many cameras
© Flickr / Ludovic Bertron
The two greatest visions of a future dystopia were George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavement. Orwell saw the second. 

We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, cheap mass-produced goods, boundless credit, political theater and amusement. While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished. Now that credit is drying up, good jobs for the working class are gone forever and mass-produced goods are unaffordable, we find ourselves transported from Brave New World to 1984. The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy. It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley's feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy. We are moving from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled. 

Orwell warned of a world where books were banned. Huxley warned of a world where no one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear. Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasure. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitored and dissent was brutally punished. Huxley warned of a state where a population, preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about truth or information. Orwell saw us frightened into submission. Huxley saw us seduced into submission. But Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell. Huxley understood the process by which we would be complicit in our own enslavement. Orwell understood the enslavement. Now that the corporate coup is over, we stand naked and defenseless. We are beginning to understand, as Karl Marx knew, that unfettered and unregulated capitalism is a brutal and revolutionary force that exploits human beings and the natural world until exhaustion or collapse. 

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake," Orwell wrote in 1984. "We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." 

The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" in his book Democracy Incorporated to describe our political system. It is a term that would make sense to Huxley. In inverted totalitarianism, the sophisticated technologies of corporate control, intimidation and mass manipulation, which far surpass those employed by previous totalitarian states, are effectively masked by the glitter, noise and abundance of a consumer society. Political participation and civil liberties are gradually surrendered. The corporation state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the tawdry materialism of a consumer society, devours us from the inside out. It owes no allegiance to us or the nation. It feasts upon our carcass. 

The corporate state does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader. It is defined by the anonymity and facelessness of the corporation. Corporations, who hire attractive spokespeople like Barack Obama, control the uses of science, technology, education and mass communication. They control the messages in movies and television. And, as in Brave New World, they use these tools of communication to bolster tyranny. Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, "block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression." 

The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. The culture, under the tutelage of these corporate courtiers, becomes, as Huxley noted, a world of cheerful conformity, as well as an endless and finally fatal optimism. We busy ourselves buying products that promise to change our lives, make us more beautiful, confident or successful as we are steadily stripped of rights, money and influence. All messages we receive through these systems of communication, whether on the nightly news or talk shows like "Oprah," promise a brighter, happier tomorrow. And this, as Wolin points out, is "the same ideology that invites corporate executives to exaggerate profits and conceal losses, but always with a sunny face." We have been entranced, as Wolin writes, by "continuous technological advances" that "encourage elaborate fantasies of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, actions measured in nanoseconds: a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose denizens are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge." 

Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury and stolen billions from small shareholders who had set aside money for retirement or college. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus and protection from warrantless wiretapping, have been taken away. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks. 

Attitudes and temperament have been cleverly engineered by the corporate state, as with Huxley's pliant characters in Brave New World. The book's protagonist, Bernard Marx, turns in frustration to his girlfriend Lenina:
"Don't you wish you were free, Lenina?" he asks. 

"I don't know that you mean. I am free, free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody's happy nowadays." 

He laughed, "Yes, 'Everybody's happy nowadays.' We have been giving the children that at five. But wouldn't you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else's way." 

"I don't know what you mean," she repeated.
The façade is crumbling. And as more and more people realize that they have been used and robbed, we will move swiftly from Huxley's Brave New World to Orwell's 1984. The public, at some point, will have to face some very unpleasant truths. The good-paying jobs are not coming back. The largest deficits in human history mean that we are trapped in a debt peonage system that will be used by the corporate state to eradicate the last vestiges of social protection for citizens, including Social Security. The state has devolved from a capitalist democracy to neo-feudalism. And when these truths become apparent, anger will replace the corporate-imposed cheerful conformity. The bleakness of our post-industrial pockets, where some 40 million Americans live in a state of poverty and tens of millions in a category called "near poverty," coupled with the lack of credit to save families from foreclosures, bank repossessions and bankruptcy from medical bills, means that inverted totalitarianism will no longer work. 

We increasingly live in Orwell's Oceania, not Huxley's The World State. Osama bin Laden plays the role assumed by Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984. Goldstein, in the novel, is the public face of terror. His evil machinations and clandestine acts of violence dominate the nightly news. Goldstein's image appears each day on Oceania's television screens as part of the nation's "Two Minutes of Hate" daily ritual. And without the intervention of the state, Goldstein, like bin Laden, will kill you. All excesses are justified in the titanic fight against evil personified. 

The psychological torture of Pvt. Bradley Manning - who has now been imprisoned for seven months without being convicted of any crime - mirrors the breaking of the dissident Winston Smith at the end of 1984. Manning is being held as a "maximum custody detainee" in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia. He spends 23 of every 24 hours alone. He is denied exercise. He cannot have a pillow or sheets for his bed. Army doctors have been plying him with antidepressants. The cruder forms of torture of the Gestapo have been replaced with refined Orwellian techniques, largely developed by government psychologists, to turn dissidents like Manning into vegetables. We break souls as well as bodies. It is more effective. Now we can all be taken to Orwell's dreaded Room 101 to become compliant and harmless. These "special administrative measures" are regularly imposed on our dissidents, including Syed Fahad Hashmi, who was imprisoned under similar conditions for three years before going to trial. The techniques have psychologically maimed thousands of detainees in our black sites around the globe. They are the staple form of control in our maximum security prisons where the corporate state makes war on our most politically astute underclass - African-Americans. It all presages the shift from Huxley to Orwell. 

"Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling," Winston Smith's torturer tells him in 1984. "Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves." 

The noose is tightening. The era of amusement is being replaced by the era of repression. Tens of millions of citizens have had their e-mails and phone records turned over to the government. We are the most monitored and spied-on citizenry in human history. Many of us have our daily routine caught on dozens of security cameras. Our proclivities and habits are recorded on the Internet. Our profiles are electronically generated. Our bodies are patted down at airports and filmed by scanners. And public service announcements, car inspection stickers, and public transportation posters constantly urge us to report suspicious activity. The enemy is everywhere. 

Those who do not comply with the dictates of the war on terror, a war which, as Orwell noted, is endless, are brutally silenced. The draconian security measures used to cripple protests at the G-20 gatherings in Pittsburgh and Toronto were wildly disproportionate for the level of street activity. But they sent a clear message - DO NOT TRY THIS. The FBI's targeting of antiwar and Palestinian activists, which in late September saw agents raid homes in Minneapolis and Chicago, is a harbinger of what is to come for all who dare defy the state's official Newspeak. The agents - our Thought Police - seized phones, computers, documents and other personal belongings. Subpoenas to appear before a grand jury have since been served on 26 people. The subpoenas cite federal law prohibiting "providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations." Terror, even for those who have nothing to do with terror, becomes the blunt instrument used by Big Brother to protect us from ourselves. 

"Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?" Orwell wrote. "It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself."

Szólj hozzá!

where has all the gold gone?

2010.12.28. 00:21 gerillahirek

 Mon, 27 Dec 2010 05:53 CST

© Unknown
There is a difference between betting in the endgame and betting on the endgame. The former is a fool's avocation whereas the latter is a once in a lifetime opportunity. 

The endgame of capitalism is a uniquely different environment where investors find themselves faced with increasingly dangerous options. In the endgame, proven strategies are improvident, buying and holding becomes a time bomb and speculators are favored over investors because of excessive liquidity and volatility. 

Capitalism, a system of credit and debt that produced 300 years of growth is now dying. The bankers' debt-based money has created such levels of debt that even 0% credit can no longer induce growth. In the endgame, the problem is not the lack of credit - it's the excessive amount of debt.
... sooner or later, too much credit always turns into a giant debit as borrowers crumple under the burden of escalating interest payments... 

Melchior Palyi, economist (1892-1970).
Capitalism's problem has always been debt, the inevitable byproduct of credit-driven expansion. In times of economic growth, merchants of debt, i.e. bankers, sell debt to those seeking returns; but, in the endgame when economies contract, IOUs cannot be repaid as defaulting debt overwhelms the ability to pay what is owed. 

Today, central bankers are caught in a trap of their own making. Removing gold from the international monetary system in 1971 allowed governments and bankers to expand their balance sheets to historic heights. The price, however, was the debasement of their currencies, a price which is now being exacted.
Gold is up 29 percent this year and is heading for a 10th annual gain, the longest winning streak since at least 1920 in London, partly on demand for an alternative asset to protect against the debasement of currencies. 

Bloomberg.com, November 8, 2010.
In 1971, on the advice of Milton Friedman (Ben Bernanke's mistaken mentor), President Nixon ended the convertibility of the US dollar to gold; and, since then, central bankers have been fighting to keep their debt-based paper money functioning without the backing of gold - a fight they are now losing.
Gold ... has risen again today in most currencies and reached new record nominal highs in sterling (877.30/oz) and is targeting record nominal highs in euros . Competitive currency devaluations and currency debasement is seeing all fiat currencies fall in value against gold. 

Goldcore.com, November 9, 2010.
That an economic system based on leveraged debt actually lasted three centuries is a miracle as well as an abomination. Its passing will nonetheless be mourned by those who still believe that bankers are benign wizards of modern finance overseeing orderly and just markets. 

In truth, bankers are self-serving parasites whose dispensation of credit ultimately leaves societies, businesses and nations bankrupt on the gallows of compounding unpayable debt. 

Investors Forced To Take On Risk 

By keeping interest rates low, central bankers are trying to force investors to take on more risk to keep their economies functioning. By so doing, however, central bankers are distorting underlying free market dynamics as investors should be reducing, not increasing risk, in such times. 

The consequences of distorting free-market forces have devastating repercussions in the endgame. This is what happened in 2002 when Greenspan cut interest rates to 1% and in so doing created the catastrophic US real estate bubble whose collapse brought global credit markets to a halt in 2007. 

Capitalism's free markets are only free as long as they serve the bankers' quid pro quo that markets accept the bankers' leveraged debt, i.e. capital, as money. Such markets flourished before gold's complete removal from bankers' bogus money in 1971, setting the endgame in motion; and, now, 39 years later, the endgame is almost over as monetary disarray and defaulting debt take their toll. 

It should be noted that Greenspan's real estate bubble could not have expanded without the collusion of credit-rating agencies and US regulators. As regulators looked the other way, credit agencies such as Moody's, S&P and Fitch fraudulently gave subprime mortgages the highest AAA rating allowing institutional investors, e.g. pension funds and insurance companies, to buy trillions of dollars of high yielding toxic debt extending capitalism's endgame a few more years. 

The critical role that credit rating agencies played in the collapse of markets was predicted by economist Melchior Palyi. In The Wall Street Journal article "The Man Who Called the Financial Crisis - 70 Years Early" (November 6, 2010),the WSJ credited Palyi with having predicted the current financial crisis and its cause in 1936. 

Palyi's Next Prediction 

Palyi later made another prediction about a trend that could eventually cause the collapse of the western banking system. Palyi noted that after 1950 gold was being drained from central bank monetary reserves at an unprecedented rate before disappearing then into private hoards. 

Melchior Palyi first came to my attention in an article titled "Gold Vanishing Into Private Hoards" (May 31, 2007) by Professor Antal E. Fekete, another Hungarian-born economist. In that article, Fekete wrote:
"While doing research in the Library of the University of Chicago in the early 1980's I came across the unfinished manuscript of a book with the title: The Dollar: An Agonizing Reappraisal. It was written in the year 1965. It has never been published (although it has received private circulation). 

The author, monetary scientist Melchior Palyi, a native of Hungary, died before he could finish it. Monetary events started to spin out of control in 1965, culminating in the default on the international gold obligations of the United States of America six years later in August,1971. Palyi had correctly prophesied that event which occurred after he died."
Palyi observed that beginning in 1950, gold bullion began moving out of government reserves into private hoards, a trend that would eventually empty government coffers of the gold that backed their paper currencies. If continued, Palyi predicted this would lead to the breakdown of the entire gold-based monetary setup of the West. 

Palyi was right. Six years later, gold was removed as the foundation of the global monetary system. For the first time in history all money was fiat. The following is excerpted from Palyi's unpublished work, The Dollar: An Agonizing Reappraisal (1965):
"1950 is the watershed year marking the start of a new era in the relationship between gold and paper money. In the twelve-year period ending in 1964 the Western World's gold mines and Russian gold sales (about $1 billion in 1963-64) combined, produced $16 billion worth of gold, but official gold reserves have grown only by $7 billion. More than 50 percent, on average, of the new gold bypassed official reserves and vanished in private hoards. [Emphasis added.] 

On the top of that the prime reserve currency, the U.S. dollar (that is backing many other currencies) had lost close to one-half of its gold reserves. By the end of 1965 our reserves have declined from a peak of $24.7 billion in September, 1949, to less than $14 billion - of which $835 million is a sight deposit of the International Monetary Fund. 

Not only has the richest country [the US] failed to attract any part of the new gold supply; it has actually lost more than $10 billion's worth. If continued, this process would herald the breakdown of the entire gold-based monetary setup of the West, with incalculable consequences [i.e., the endgame]."
Professor Fekete wrote that in 2007 the amount of gold now in private hoards was greater than all the gold produced before 1950:
... gold absorption into private hoards for the 15-year period from 1950 through 1965 was of the same order of magnitude as the U.S. gold reserve at its peak in 1949, the largest gold concentration ever in history. 

This private absorption of gold is unprecedented, both as to its magnitude and to its speed. The total amount of gold absorption for the entire 57-year period 1950-2007 [is] an amount greater than all the gold produced in history before 1950... Fifty percent of all gold in existence has been produced since 1960. The same fifty percent has been withdrawn during the same period of time from the public domain, and disappeared in private hoards. 

There is no way to account for this gold. We do not know the location, the identity of owners, nor their intentions what they wanted to do with it...
The question is: Who has been buying all that gold? 

The Rothschilds 

In the endgame, systemic stress often reveals information that would otherwise never be discovered. One such discovery is an unexpected clue to the identity of those buying the world's gold reserves since 1950. The clue emerged as a consequence of the UK's increasingly perilous finances. 

A clue to the mystery buyers surfaced on November 1st when in a speech in the House of Lords, Lord James of Blackheath revealed that a shadowy group [referred to as Foundation X by Lord James] had contacted him with an offer to help solve the UK's economic problems, a group that possesses more gold than all the world's bullion reserves combined. 

On the basis of these gold holdings - in excess of 30,000 tons - Foundation X is in all likelihood a front for the Rothschilds, the infamous banking family which has a long history with gold. 

The family patriarch, Nathan Rothschild, first began dealing in gold in 1809, in 1840 the Rothschilds were appointed bullion brokers for the Bank of England and from 1919 to 2004 the family firm oversaw the daily fixing of the gold price in London - and, most likely, are now the mysterious buyers who have been purchasing most of the world's gold since 1950.
(Note: Video and transcript of the speech where Lord James revealed Foundation X's offer of aid to the UK can be found HERE and HERE. Prior to his peerage, Lord James had a career as a highly respected banker and corporate director and his reference to "laundering terrorist money" refers to his work for the UK in dissolving bank accounts used by the IRA.)
The multi-billion pound offer of "Foundation X" to aid the UK is an indication of just how serious these times are. The collapse of the global banking system threatens the power of all who have benefited from the systemic indebting of others, a group that certainly includes the Rothschilds. 

It is clearly in the Rothschilds' self-interests to now help England, the nation which made their banking empire possible through its legitimization of debt-based capital as money. The fortunes of England and the Rothschilds have been intertwined for centuries and should England collapse, the power and influence of the Rothschilds would decline as well. 

The endgame is bringing about the end not only of capitalism, but the vast empires of wealth to which it gave rise. That the elites are now worried about the economic stability of sovereign nations is evidence that the endgame is drawing closer to its inevitable end. 

The End 

Debt is the critical issue now facing the world's governments. How it should be approached is the focus of much debate. In a recent exchange of views hosted by the news program, Russia Today, I and others recently discussed the global debt crisis. The discussion can be viewed HERE

The debt crisis is part of capitalism's endgame. In 1981, Buckminster Fuller predicted that the world's power structures would collapse. In 1991 communism fell and today capitalism is following in communism's fatal footsteps. 

Fuller was not the only one who predicted the seriousness of the present crisis. Among them were economists Melchior Palyi, Ludwig von Mises, John Exter, economic historian David Hackett Fisher, American historians William Strauss and Neil Howe and others. Given the severity of this crisis, it is a short list. 

Another unlikely source, however, recently came to my attention; a psychic channeling in 1992 also predicted today's debt-driven economic troubles [note the use of the word monetary in the channeling]:
... In your country [USA] right now you see some signs of economic recovery on some levels. However, it has not reached its full stage of recovery and there will be additional times of turmoil in the monetary sense concerning your country and the world as a whole. The monetary situation is not good as most of you are aware...The debt of the country is phenomenal. If it were a private individual it would have been forced to declare bankruptcy long before now. There will be some financial challenges throughout the world in the years ahead... 

Dr. Blair, channeled message, March 20, 1992.
That a psychic message predicted an event completely missed by the vast majority of trained economists says something about (1) economists, (2) the training of economists and (3) psychics. 

Dr. Blair, channeled by the late medium, Dr. Robert Ireland in Tucson, spoke on many subjects. Some of Dr. Blair's economic predictions are included in a talk I gave at the Temple of Universality on October 31st

The Reasons For The Crisis 

In his channeling in 1992, Dr. Blair explained the reasons for the coming crisis, reasons that bear a close similarity to those given by Buckminster Fuller in the introduction to Fuller's book, the Critical Path.
It will be a spiritual revolution...It will be a time of trials and tribulations but one that brings mankind closer together. Man will come to each other's aid for the purpose of helping and uplifting his brother. 

Dr. Blair, channeled message, March 20, 1992. 

Humanity is moving ever deeper into crisis - a crisis without precedent. First, it is a crisis brought about by cosmic evolution irrevocably intent upon completely transforming omnidisintegrated humanity from a complex of around-the-world, remotelydeployed- from-one-another, differently colored, differently credoed, differently cultured, differently communicating, and differently competing entities into a completely integrated, comprehensively interconsiderate, harmonious whole. 

Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path. St. Martin's Press, 1981, page xvii.
The crisis has not yet brought about the radical transformation of humanity that Buckminster Fuller and Dr. Blair predicted. This is because the requisite level of severity has not yet been reached. It will be. 

Szólj hozzá!

Jesus a Palestinian?

2010.12.28. 00:03 gerillahirek

 

CrusaderJesus Was Palestinian and Why it Matters

Palestinian carver
© MaanImages/Luay Sababa
A Palestinian carver works on wooden figurines near the Church of the Nativity 
in the West Bank city of Bethlehem, Dec. 17, 2010.
Because of modern alarmist reactions to the word "Palestine," many non-Arabs and non-Muslims take offense when it is argued that Jesus was a Palestinian (peace be upon him). 

Jesus' ethnicity, skin color, and culture often accompany this conversation, but few people are willing to acknowledge the fact he was non-European. A simple stroll down the Christmas aisle will show you the dominant depiction of Jesus: a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, white man. 

Islamophobia and anti-Arab propaganda have conditioned us to view Palestinians as nothing but heartless suicide bombers, "terrorists," and "enemies of freedom and democracy." Perpetual media vilification and demonization of Palestinians, in contrast to the glorification of Israel, obstructs us from seeing serious issues such as the Palestinian refugee crisis, the victims of Israel's atrocious three-week assault on Gaza during the winter of 2008-2009, the tens of thousands of homeless Palestinians, and many other struggles that are constantly addressed by human rights activists around the world. 

To speak from the perspective of the Palestinians, especially in casual non-Arab and non-Muslim settings, generates controversy because of the alignment between Palestinians and violent stereotypes. So, how could Jesus belong to a group of people that we're taught to dehumanize? 

When I've spoken to people about this, I've noticed the following responses: "No, Jesus was a Jew," or "Jesus is not Muslim." The mistake isn't a surprise to me, but it certainly is revealing. Being a Palestinian does not mean one is Muslim or vice versa. Prior to the brutal and unjust dispossession of indigenous Palestinians during the creation of the state of Israel, the word "Palestine" was a geographic term applied to Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Christians, and Palestinian Jews. Although most Palestinians are Muslim today, there is a significant Palestinian Christian minority who are often overlooked, especially by the mainstream Western media. 

That dominant narrative not only distorts and misrepresents the Palestinian struggle as a religious conflict between "Muslims and Jews," but consequentially pushes the lives of Palestinian Christians into "non-existence." That is, due to the media's reluctance to report the experiences and stories of Palestinian Christians, it isn't a surprise when white Americans are astonished by the fact that Palestinian and Arab Christians do, in fact, exist. One could argue that the very existence of Palestinian Christians is threatening, as it disrupts the sweeping and overly-simplistic "Muslim vs. Jew" Zionist narrative. To learn about many Palestinian Christians opposing Israeli military occupation, as well as Jews who oppose the occupation, is to reveal more voices, perspectives, and complexities to a conflict that has been immensely portrayed as one-sided, anti-Palestinian, and anti-Muslim. 

Yeshua (Jesus' real Aramaic name) was born in Bethlehem, a Palestinian city in the West Bank and home to one of the largest Palestinian Christian communities. The Church of the Nativity, one of the oldest churches in the world, marks the birthplace of Jesus and is sacred to both Christians and Muslims. While tourists from the around the world visit the site, they are subject to Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli construction of the West Bank barrier also severely restricts travel for local Palestinians. In April of 2010, Israeli authorities barred Palestinian Christians from entering Jerusalem and visiting the Church of Holy Sepulchre during Easter. Yosef Zabaneh, a Palestinian Christian merchant in Ramallah, said: "The Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank doesn't distinguish between us, but treats all Palestinians with contempt." 

Zabaneh's comments allude to the persistent dehumanization of Palestinians, as well as the erasure of Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims. By constantly casting Palestinians as the villains, even the term "Palestine" becomes "evil." There is refusal to recognize, for example, that the word "Palestine" was used as early as the 5th century BCE by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus. John Bimson, author of "The Compact Handbook of Old Testament Life," acknowledges the objection to the use of "Palestine":
The term 'Palestine' is derived from the Philistines. In the fifth century BC the Greek historian Herodotus seems to have used the term Palaistine Syria (= Philistine Syria) to refer to the whole region between Phoenicia and the Lebanon mountains in the north and Egypt in the south... Today the name "Palestine" has political overtones which many find objectionable, and for that reason some writers deliberately avoid using it. However, the alternatives are either too clumsy to be used repeatedly or else they are inaccurate when applied to certain periods, so "Palestine" remains a useful term...
Deliberately avoiding the use of the name "Palestine" not only misrepresents history, but also reinforces anti-Palestinian racism as acceptable. When one examines the argument against Jesus being a Palestinian, one detects a remarkable amount of hostility aimed at both Palestinians and Muslims. One cannot help but wonder, is there something threatening about identifying Jesus as a Palestinian? Professor Jack D. Forbes writes about Jesus' multi-cultural and multi-ethnic environment:
When the Romans came to dominate the area, they used the name Palestine. Thus, when Yehoshu'a [Jesus] was born, he was born a Palestinian as were all of the inhabitants of the region, Jews and non-Jews. He was also a Nazarene (being born in Nazareth) and a Galilean (born in the region of Galilee)... At the time of Yehoshu'a's birth, Palestine was inhabited by Jews-descendants of Hebrews, Canaanites, and many other Semitic peoples-and also by Phoenicians, Syrians, Greeks, and even Arabs.
Despite these facts, there are those who use the color-blind argument: "It does not matter what Jesus' ethnicity or skin color was. It does not matter what language he spoke. Jesus is for all people, whether you're black, white, brown, yellow, etc." While this is a well-intentioned expression of inclusiveness and universalism, it misses the point. 

When we see so many depictions of Jesus as a Euro-American white man, the ethnocentrism and race-bending needs to be called out. In respect to language, for instance, Neil Douglas-Klotz, author of "The Hidden Gospel: Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus," emphasizes the importance of understanding that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not English, and that his words, as well as his worldview, must be understood in light of Middle Eastern language and spirituality. Douglas-Klotz provides an interesting example which reminds me of the rich depth and meaning of Arabic, Urdu, and Farsi words, especially the word for "spirit": 

Whenever a saying of Jesus refers to spirit, we must remember that he would have used an Aramaic or Hebrew word. In both of these languages, the same word stands for spirit, breath, air, and wind. So 'Holy Spirit' must also be 'Holy Breath.' The duality between spirit and body, which we often take for granted in our Western languages falls away. If Jesus made the famous statement about speaking or sinning against the Holy Spirit (for instance, in Luke 12:10), then somehow the Middle Eastern concept of breath is also involved. 

Certainly, no person is superior to another based on culture, language, or skin color, but to ignore the way Jesus' whiteness has been used to subjugate and discriminate against racial minorities in the West and many other countries is to overlook another important aspect of Jesus' teachings: Love thy neighbor as thyself. Malcolm X wrote about white supremacists and slave-owners using Christianity to justify their "moral" and "racial superiority" over blacks. In Malcolm's own words, "The Holy Bible in the White man's hands and its interpretations of it have been the greatest single ideological weapon for enslaving millions of non-white human beings." Throughout history, whether it was in Jerusalem, Spain, India, Africa, or in the Americas, white so-called "Christians" cultivated a distorted interpretation of religion that was compatible with their racist, colonialist agenda. 

And here we are in the 21st century where Islamophobia (also stemming from racism because the religion of Islam gets racialized) is on the rise; where people calling themselves "Christian" fear to have a black president; where members of the KKK and anti-immigration movements behave as if Jesus were an intolerant white American racist who only spoke English despite being born in the Middle East. It is astonishing how so-called "Christians" like Ann Coulter call Muslims "rag-heads" when in actuality, Jesus himself would fit the profile of a "rag-head," too. As would Moses, Joseph, Abraham, and the rest of the Prophets (peace be upon them all). As William Rivers Pitt writes:
The ugly truth which never even occurs to most Americans is that Jesus looked a lot more like an Iraqi, like an Afghani, like a Palestinian, like an Arab, than any of the paintings which grace the walls of American churches from sea to shining sea. This was an uncomfortable fact before September 11. After the attack, it became almost a moral imperative to put as much distance between Americans and people from the Middle East as possible. Now, to suggest that Jesus shared a genealogical heritage and physical similarity to the people sitting in dog cages down in Guantanamo is to dance along the edge of treason.
Without acknowledging Jesus as a native Middle Eastern person - a Palestinian - who spoke Aramaic - a Semitic language that is ancestral to Arabic and Hebrew - the West will continue to view Islam as a "foreign religion." Hate crimes and discriminatory acts against Muslims, Arabs, and others who are perceived to be Muslim will persist. They will still be treated as "cultural outsiders." Interesting enough, Christianity and Judaism are never considered "foreign religions," despite having Middle Eastern origins, like Islam. As Douglas-Klotz insists, affirming Jesus as a native Middle Eastern person "enables Christians to understand that the mind and message" of Jesus arises from "the same earth as have the traditions of their Jewish and Muslim sisters and brothers." 

Jesus would not prefer one race or group of people over another. I believe he would condemn today's demonization and dehumanization of the Palestinian people, as well as the misrepresentations of him that only fuel ignorance and ethnocentrism. As a Muslim, I believe Jesus was a prophet of God, and if I were to have any say about the Christmas spirit, it would be based on Jesus' character: humility, compassion, and Love. A love in which all people, regardless of ethnicity, race, culture, religion, gender, and sexual orientation are respected and appreciated. 

And in that spirit, I wish you a merry Christmas. Alaha Natarak (Aramaic: God be with you).

Szólj hozzá!

1984

2010.12.25. 17:33 gerillahirek

 

Bad GuysUpside Down

upside down baby statue
© Unknown
A message from deceptions filmmaker :
I always seem to find confirming evidence that things are horribly wrong. Nightmares about corruption and control have crept into my consciousness and are now giant objects of reality for me. I firmly believe that by controlling money and media a very small cadre of ultra elites are also controlling an unsuspecting public. They are marching us into a stark Orwellian future, a world of elite rulers and a sea of debt slaves totally dependent upon government for their very existence.
In his book "1984," which was published in 1949, George Orwell was warning us. Sixty-one years ago he saw it coming, a totalitarian world run by the power elite with party slogans of "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and "Ignorance is Strength." Words like doublespeak and doublethink (a willingness to believe contradictory statements when theParty demands it), a Ministry of Truth (an organization to ensure that the Party's version of the past is never questioned), the perpetual surveillance of Big Brother and the specter of Thought Police and Thought Crimes. What were mere novel terms in 1949 now pervade our society. Even the most ignorant and naïve among us cannot fail to see the parallels. 

Doublespeak and doublethink are always in full force whenever the G-20 (Group of Twenty) meets. Massive public austerity was this group's answer when they met in Toronto. Entitlement programs, massive debts and run away government spending had to be curbed. While calls for "belt tightening" sprang from the board room, $1 billion was spent on security for a two day summit to protect these people from the public. Trillion dollar wars and trillion dollar bank bailouts occur at the same time that public benefits and state budgets are slashed. The cost of privatized medical care has escalated beyond belief including the salaries of every health company CEO which are in the millions. Tax cuts have also now been extended to this group of parasites. After all, the masters, the elite, the "inner party," as Orwell would say, must be taken care of. 

This crisis is not about managing the people's money. It is about managing our ability to think, to question authority and to control our reaction to the massive looting and fraud that is taking place. That is vthe real challenge, the real problem and the real tragedy. It's not that people can be evil but that the masses are manipulated into believing that life on the bottom is necessary for our security. The editors of every major news outlet in this country engage in censorship for the elite. They are the real war criminals. They have perpetuated a world that is now firmly controlled by an amoral group of bottom feeders. If we get out of line, if we exercise our right to question, to publicly disagree and to protest, an Orwellian and increasing Gestapo-like police force suppresses us. 

Invasions, constant war, loss of freedom, media control, mass manipulation, the destruction of the constitution and the concentration of wealth and power by an elite group of psychopaths led Germany to commit the most horrific crimes against humanity that history has ever recorded. 

Consider these facts. With 264 jets, UPS is the world's ninth largest air carrier. It handles up to 900,000 next-day air packages each night and another 300,000 to 400,000 second-day air parcels. This is not counting Fed Ex, the US Postal Service and hundreds of independent freight carriers. Between international and domestic parcel shipments on trucks, ships, trains, and aircraft, MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of shipments occur annually. If terrorism were ANYWHERE near as real as we are led to believe hundreds of bombs would be killing thousands of US citizens every year. Yet according to the U.S. State Department in 2009 nine US citizens (worldwide) died from terrorist activity. In 2007 it was 19 and in 2005 it was 56. Prior to 9/11 these numbers were also very low. 

Thousands of dead soldiers and civilians, trillions spent on our war machine, billions for Homeland Security, the loss of our privacy, our freedoms and the destruction of our constitution, this "War on Terrorism" is unquestionably the most effective propaganda campaign ever waged in the history of mankind. 

Coordinated censorship and the failure of media to inform the public, is the real conspiracy. On December 15th the largest mass detention in recent history occurred with 135 arrests. Daniel Ellsberg whose release of the Pentagon papers in 1971 changed the course of the Viet Nam war, Chris Hedges a Pulitzer Prize winner and former war correspondent for the New York Times and Ray McGovern a former CIA analyst were among those placed in jail. Yet this event was blacked out by the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, theLos Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, and even the capital's own, Washington Post. 

These are not young men. Ellsberg is 79 years old. They suffer, they put themselves in harms way because they see what is coming and they hope their example will be a form of shock therapy to millions of brain dead Americans. When will you consumptive zombies wake up? Your freedoms and privacy are gone. You are constantly at war. Your public police have become a private security force for the rich. Your money, your retirement and your benefits have been depleted. Our manufacturing base has been gutted. Our country is vanishing. Yet, the majority of you remain transfixed in escapism, weakness and fear while you huddle around the grey glow of your televisions. 

Come on! All your major networks are saying the same thing! Do you really think this is an accident? "Austerity, we have to stop spending so much", this is what the bankers, the IMF and the World Bank would have you believe. Tighten your belts, discontinue unemployment, cut welfare benefits, extend the retirement age, pay more for health, pay more for education, privatize everything -- our problem is too much government, too many services. Meanwhile TRILLIONS are spent to kill people in multiple wars, TRILLIONS of taxes are eliminated by the richest multinationals and people who have hidden their money in off shore tax havens, TRILLIONS of bail out funds have been handed out to the banks and the multinationals, TRILLIONS of drug dollars are being laundered by the banks, BILLIONS are spent on Homeland Security and MILLIONS more bribing our government and elected officials. Hey, I have an idea; let's give these guys a tax cut. What do you think? 

Our FREE PRESS is about as free as are the editors who censor the news daily for their rich handlers. It is time to put these editor's names and faces on milk cartons and expose these individuals for the war criminals that they truly are. Our country, our priorities and our morals are upside down. It is time to start fighting for America, not with our fists but with our brains, our hearts and our minds. 

Turn off your TV, go to the Internet find some alternative news media in video and in print. Be true to yourself, go deep, deal with reality, make a New Year's resolution to find out what is really going on in this country. Read the newspaper, a magazine or a book, have conversations with people you can learn from and go to the Internet. 

In my estimation the Net is one of the last bastions of free speech left on the planet and it is in serious jeopardy. WikiLeaks has become the rallying cry to SECURE it. The richest among us and their bought and paid for political hit men are already clamoring for cyber security. Watch as political activism and dissent and political accountability becomes blurred with terrorism. Watch as sites like mine and thousands of other bloggers and independent filmmakers are quietly eliminated from cyberspace. Watch as Big Business becomes Big Brother. 

> From this seemingly hopeless landscape a new community of critical thinkers, of independent citizen journalists and of feeling human beings will emerge as a New World Order is born; one that is based in life, integrity and sharing. Perhaps then .. right side up ... will "bob" back to the surface as the power of one is realized.
"It's better to light one candle 
than to curse the darkness." 

- Emily Dickinson
Let's light several.

Szólj hozzá!

Lamarck reborn

2010.12.24. 14:50 gerillahirek

 

CheeseburgerYou are what your father ate: Genetic predisposition, or how diet defines who we are as species

© Unknown
Scientists at the University of Massachusetts Medical School and the University of Texas at Austin have uncovered evidence that environmental influences experienced by a father can be passed down to the next generation, "reprogramming" how genes function in offspring. A new study published this week in Cell shows that environmental cues - in this case, diet - influence genes in mammals from one generation to the next, evidence that until now has been sparse. These insights, coupled with previous human epidemiological studies, suggest that paternal environmental effects may play a more important role in complex diseases such as diabetes and heart disease than previously believed. 

"Knowing what your parents were doing before you were conceived is turning out to be important in determining what disease risk factors you may be carrying," said Oliver J. Rando, MD, PhD, associate professor of biochemistry & molecular pharmacology at UMMS and principal investigator for the study, which details how paternal diet can increase production of cholesterol synthesis genes in first-generation offspring. 

The human genome is often described as the set of instructions that govern the development and functioning of life. It's not surprising, then, that most contemporary genetic research focuses on understanding and cataloging how mutations and changes to our DNA - the basis of those "instructions" - cause disease and impact health. A number of recent studies, however, have begun to draw attention to the role epigenetic inheritance - inherited changes in gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence - may play in a host of illnesses. "A major and underappreciated aspect of what is transmitted from parent to child is ancestral environment," said Dr. Rando. "Our findings suggest there are many ways that parents can 'tell' their children things." 

To test their hypothesis that environmental influences experienced by the father can be passed down to the next generation in the form of changed epigenetic information, Rando and colleagues fed different diets to two groups of male mice. The first group received a standard diet, while the second received a low-protein diet. To control for maternal influences, all females were fed the same, standard diet. Rando and colleagues observed that offspring of the mice fed the low-protein diet exhibited a marked increase in the genes responsible for lipid and cholesterol synthesis in comparison to offspring of the control group fed the standard diet. 

These observations are consistent with epidemiological data from two well-known human studies suggesting that parental diet has an effect on the health of offspring. One of these studies, called the Överkalix Cohort Study, conducted among residents of an isolated community in the far northeast of Sweden, found that poor diet during the paternal grandfather's adolescence increased the risk of diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease in second-generation offspring. However, because these studies are retrospective and involve dynamic populations, they are unable to completely account for all social and economic variables. "Our study begins to rule out the possibility that social and economic factors, or differences in the DNA sequence, may be contributing to what we're seeing," said Rando. "It strongly implicates epigenetic inheritance as a contributing factor to changes in gene function." 

The results also have implications for our understanding of evolutionary processes, says Hans A. Hofmann, PhD, associate professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas at Austin and a co-author of the study. "It has increasingly become clear in recent years that mothers can endow their offspring with information about the environment, for instance via early experience and maternal factors, and thus make them possibly better adapted to environmental change. Our results show that offspring can inherit such acquired characters even from a parent they have never directly interacted with, which provides a novel mechanism through which natural selection could act in the course of evolution." Such a process was first proposed by the early evolutionist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, but then dismissed by 20th century biologists when genetic evidence seemed to provide a sufficient explanation. 

Taken together, these studies suggest that a better understanding of the environment experienced by our parents, such as diet, may be a useful clinical tool for assessing disease risk for illnesses, such as diabetes or heart disease. "We often look at a patient's behavior and their genes to assess risk," said Rando. "If the patient smokes, they are going to be at an increased risk for cancer. If the family has a long history of heart disease, they might carry a gene that makes them more susceptible to heart disease. But we're more than just our genes and our behavior. Knowing what environmental factors your parents experienced is also important." 

The next step for Rando and colleagues is to explore how and why this genetic reprogramming is being transmitted from generation to generation. "We don't know why these genes are being reprogrammed or how, precisely, that information is being passed down to the next generation," said Rando. "It's consistent with the idea that when parents go hungry, it's best for offspring to hoard calories, however, it's not clear if these changes are advantageous in the context of a low-protein diet."

Szólj hozzá!

on antisemitism

2010.12.24. 12:35 gerillahirek

 

Star of DavidThe Antisemitism to Come? Hardly

gaza
Bernard-Henri Levy, the French pop star of philosophy and intellectual elitism, authored an essay that featured my novel, Mornings in Jenin, as one of three distressing developments that led him to ask "is there no end to the demonization of Israel?" It was titled: "The Antisemitism to Come." The other two happenings that concern him, he says, are the growing boycott of Israel and an acclaimed documentary film called Tears of Gaza

First, a look at Mr Levy's targets: 

1) Mornings in Jenin is a work of historic fiction, where fictional characters live through real history; and I encourage anyone to do their own research to verify the accuracy of the historic events that form the backdrop for the novel. 2) Tears of Gaza is a documentary film by Vibeke Lokkeberg, in which she reveals the horrific impact of Israel's bombing of Gaza in 2008 to 2009, especially on children and women. 3) The activists participating in and encouraging an economic boycott of Israel are ordinary citizens all over the world who are heeding the call of their conscience to take a moral stand against a grave injustice that has gone on far too long against the indigenous population of Israel and Palestine; namely, the Palestinian people. 

Rather than offer an intelligent analysis of any one of these three things that trouble him, Levy essentially resorts to name-calling. He simply slaps on the word "antisemitism" to discredit any negative portrayal of Israel. This word -- with its profound gravity of marginalization, humiliation, dispossession, oppression, and ultimately, genocide of human beings for no other reason but their religion -- is so irresponsibly used by the likes of Levy that it truly besmirches the memory of those who were murdered in death camps solely for being Jewish. And I thank Kurt Brainin, a Holocaust survivor who wrote a touching letter expressing exactly that in response to Levy.

Nowhere in Levy's essay does he identify anything truly antisemitic in any of the three elements to which he refers. Because he cannot. If he could, I think he would. In fact, the people who today are being marginalized, humiliated, dispossessed, and oppressed for the sole reason of their religion are Palestinian Christians and Muslims. That is the real antisemitism of today. 

Israel has been wiping Palestine off the map, expelling us and stealing everything we have. All that remains to us is less than 11 percent of our historic homeland, now in the form of isolated Bantustans, surrounded by menacing walls, snipers, checkpoints, settler-only roads and the ever-expanding Jewish-only settlements built on confiscated Palestinian property. We have no control over our own natural resources. The amount of water one receives is based on one's religion, such that Palestinians must share bathing water, while their Jewish neighbors water their lawns and enjoy private swimming pools. According to Defence for Children International, in Jerusalem alone, Israel has imprisoned 1,200 Palestinian children this year, who are routinely abused and forced to sign confessions in Hebrew, which they do not understand. Israel routinely targets Palestinian schools and has created a full generation of lost souls in Gaza, who are growing up knowing only fear, insecurity, and hunger. Documents pertaining to Israel's brutal siege of Gaza and its merciless attacks on that civilian population show the cold mathematical formulas designed intentionally to produce food shortages and hunger in Gaza. Christian Palestinians have all but been wholly removed from the place of Jesus' birth. And on goes the inhumanity -- the constant expulsions, home demolitions, systematic theft, destruction of livelihoods, uprooting of trees -- especially olive trees which are so precious to Palestinian culture -- curfews, closures, institutional discrimination, and on and on. 

Instead of upholding the best of Jewish ideals that champion justice and the uplifting of the oppressed, Mr. Levy rushes to Israel's defense, repeating the tired mantra of "the only democracy in the Middle East." Apartheid South Africa, too, called itself a democracy, while it mowed down little boys in Soweto (with arms, incidentally, supplied by Israel). So did the United States, during a time when at least 20 percent of its population lived as slaves, bought and sold like cattle. 

Equally outrageous is Mr. Levy's wholesale labeling of anyone who criticizes Israel as "antisemitic". For exposing Israel's extensive crimes, we must face the defamation that we are immoral, racist, and hateful. In the case of Vibeke Lokkeberg, Levy makes it a point to inform the reader that she is a former model, ignoring her accomplishments as an experienced filmmaker and author. Apparently, in addition to suggesting she is racist, he perhaps wants readers to think she is also not intellectually qualified to create anything of merit. This tactic of attacking and trying to discredit the messenger rather than address the actual message is an age-old propaganda method. 

Mr. Levy accuses us of "demonizing Israel", when in fact, all we do is pull back the curtain, however slightly, to show a dark truth he wishes to keep hidden. I suspect that Mr Levy feels, as most Jewish supporters of Israel do, that he is more entitled to my grandfather's farms than I am. After all, that is really the foundation of Israel, isn't it? The question that should be asked is "why?" and "how?" Why should Jews from all over the world be entitled to enjoy dual citizenship, both in their own homeland and in mine, while we, the natives of Palestine, languish in refugee camps, a diaspora, or patrolled ghettos and bantustans? How is it that a country with one of the most powerful militaries in the world, that has been committing well-documented war crimes against a principally unarmed civilian native population for six decades now, is depicted as the victim? And worse, the real victims, who are trying to resist their own extinction, are depicted as the aggressors? 

Nelson Mandela once said: "We know all too well, that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians." Now, in addition to such notable personalities speaking out, people all over the world are slowly joining the struggle for justice and freedom for Palestinians; and it seems inevitable that Israel's systematic ethnic cleansing will at last be opposed by a critical mass of people that will compel Israel to abandon its institutional racism, such that the native non-Jewish population might at last live with the same legal and human rights as Jews in the Holy Land. This is clearly what really worries Mr. Levy. 

Susan Abulhawa is the author of Mornings in Jenin (Bloomsbury 2010)

Szólj hozzá!

civil disobedience

2010.12.24. 12:27 gerillahirek

 

PistolBelieve in Violence and Be Saved

afgan war/ child
© unknown
A dozen years ago, before 9/11, before Bush Jr. or the war on terror, Bill Clinton, then in the midst of impeachment hearings, bombed Iraq over a four-day period. Shortly before this act of national distraction, I read an article in the Chicago Tribunediscussing, with the knowing, amoral inanity of the mainstream media, the international implications of the pending action. 

For me, the article was immortalized by the following pull-quote from an anonymous Jordanian official, which crystallized the cynicism of geopolitics and the way nation-states function: "Look, nobody here likes Saddam, but people will not be happy when they see Iraqi babies dying on TV." 

The article was in no way critical of the quote, which seemed to be delivered up merely for our sophisticated consumption. The idea, or so it struck me, was to coyly bring readers into the know so they could pretend to weigh, as important officials do, the troublesome public relations components of an act of war before committing murder in the name of national security. 

If we oppose war, if we stand in horror at every nuance and detail of it that comes to our attention, if we grow less "knowing" and "sophisticated" as the days pass and the machinery of empire grinds on - if we have experienced war first hand and felt the cruelty of industrialized murder disconnected from its justifications - and if we are driven by this horror, let us say, to stand illegally at the White House fence in protest of it and, like Thoreau, Gandhi, King, submit to arrest for our beliefs, this cynicism is our dilemma. 

The 131 people who did so a week ago - members of Veterans for Peace and Code Pink, Daniel Ellsberg, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, former FBI agent Coleen Rowley, journalist Chris Hedges - barely merited news coverage in our sophisticated, dying media, which can purvey knowing cynicism far more easily than they can convey moral outcry. This slows down, coagulates, the dynamic of change. 

Today's supercharged world, the one the media desperately summon for us 24/7, has no spiritual depth. Even so, some 60 percent of Americans, according to a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, are now saying the war in Afghanistan "hasn't been worth it"; that number has jumped 7 percent since July. 

"I'm well aware of the popular concerns and I understand it," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in response to this ebbing of support, "but I don't think leaders, and certainly this president, will make decisions that are matters of life and death and the future security of our nation based on polling." 

While her words sound so rational and sensible, this is when I thought about the "dead babies" quote and how the conceit of representative government is that it prevents the passion of the mob from ruling the day. Yet "the mob" is the reservoir of human empathy and the pulsing ocean of our evolution. When it comes to war, "the mob" may be the only voice of restraint and concern for the common good. The "leaders," isolated in their servitude to the corporate status quo, tempted by the power they command, are the ones who commit acts of inhumanity. Such acts are rational far more often than they are passionate and primal.
"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward."
So wrote Henry David Thoreau in his essay "Civil Disobedience," quoted by Ray McGovern a few days ago in an article discussing his own act of civil disobedience. Our only hope is the human conscience, individual and ungovernable, yet connected to the core of who we are while the decisions of political leaders - who do not "make decisions . . . of life and death . . . based on polling" - are too often connected only to the interests they represent. 

Pondering all this, I also thought about theologian Walter Wink and what he calls the Myth of Redemptive Violence: the simplistic belief in incorruptible good and irredeemable evil, locked in an endless go-around of carnage and collateral damage. This myth, writes Wink, is society's dominant religion, at least as old as ancient Babylon, as current as the Saturday morning cartoons. It's the stand-in for wisdom in politics and pop culture - and it's what the protesters at the White House on Dec. 17, and maybe even the respondents to the recent ABC/Washington Post poll, cried out against. 

In the Babylonian myth, Wink explains, the universe was created in a confrontation between gods, an act of primordial violence. Thus our natural condition is war. And human beings, Wink writes, "are thus naturally incapable of peaceful coexistence. Order must continually be imposed upon us from on high: men over women, masters over slaves, priests over laity, aristocrats over peasants, rulers over people." 

This myth imposes a toxic immunity on all who embrace it - an immunity, you might say, to "dead babies" and all else that is harmed in the name of doing good. It has delivered us to our current crossroads. The time has come to transcend it, one conscience at a time.

Szólj hozzá!

mikrocsip összeesküvés?

2010.12.21. 17:52 gerillahirek

 Megfigyel bennünket a gyógyszerünk

A svájci Novartis AG másfél éven belül engedélyeztetni akarja azt az újszerű gyógyszert, mely mikrocsipet tartalmaz – számol be a Reuters.

nyest.hu|2010. november 10.
|
 
| 
 
 

A tablettát először szervátültetésen átesett betegeknél fogják alkalmazni annak érdekében, hogy elkerüljék a szervek kivetését. Az elsődleges cél az volt, hogy elelnőrizzék: a beteg időben és a megfelelő mennyiségű gyógyszert veszi-e be. Kulcsfontosságú, hogy szervátültetés után a beteg pontosan a szükséges mennyiségű gyógyszert kapja, és az intelligens tabletta segít ennek beállításában.

A tablettában lenyelt, emészthető csipek a gyomorsav hatására aktiválódnak, és a beteg bőrén elhelyezett ragtapaszra továbbítanak információt. A ragtapasztról egy közönséges okostelefonnal is le lehet olvasni a mért adatokat, és az interneten továbbítani az orvoshoz. A tervek szerint a későbbiekben a csipek már komplex biometrikai adatokat fognak gyűjteni, a szívritmustól a lázon át a testmozgásig, így ellenőrizve folyamatosan a beteg állapotát.

Mivel a csipet már létező gyógyszerekbe is be lehet építeni, valószínűleg nem lesz szükség teljeskörű klinikai vizsgálatokra, csupán azokra a gyógyszerészeti ellenőrzésekre, melyek igazolják, hogy a csipes gyógyszerek összetétele megegyezik az eredetiekével. Sokkal nagyobb gondot jelent a páciens személyes, egészségi állapotára vonatkozó, vezeték nélküli hálózaton és Bluetooth technológiával továbbított adatainak védelme.

Szólj hozzá!

nálunk az újságárusok, taxisok, postások voltak besúgók, de lehet, hogy a szemetesek is

2010.12.21. 12:23 gerillahirek

 

ManipulationUS: Trash collectors to serve as eyes and ears in the street for police

© unk
Waste Management workers are out and about when almost everyone else is not. Except someone who might be up to no good. 

A former FBI agent recently trained all Waste Management drivers, helpers and technicians in Rensselaer and Albany Counties to act as a mobile community watch. 

"They're on these routes every day so they're used to the normal situation so they are able to recognize a non-normal situation," explains Ken Bevis of Waste Management. Trucks are now armed with a cell phone, camera and incident reports so they'll have accurate information for police and, possibly, prosecutors. 

"The drivers understand their main job is to observe and report and let authorities do their job," explains Bevis. 

The extra set of eyes and ears in the street is appreciated because even cops know they can't be everywhere, all the time. 

"The old adage is 'where's a cop when you you need one?' Now it will be where's a cop or DGS or Waste Management when you need one," says Albany Police Chief Steve Krokoff. 

"Waste Watch" is free to municipalities and the Capital Region is the first area in New York state to benefit from the program.

Szólj hozzá!

911 documents

2010.12.21. 01:05 gerillahirek

Szólj hozzá!

911 script in advance

2010.12.20. 12:51 gerillahirek

 

Szólj hozzá!

rendőri brutalitás á lá UK

2010.12.18. 17:39 gerillahirek

 WEAPONS OF MASS INFORMATION BY DARRYL MASON

 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2010

 
You don't need to know too much background to get the full horror of what this BBCNews host is doing to a young man with cerebral palsy, who is unable to operate his wheelchair independently, simply because he dared to turn up at a recent student protest in London :


The blood-chillingly unemphatic journalist actually asks a severely disabled man if he was hurling chunks of concrete at police, and asks him again even after Jody says he can't operate his wheelchair without the help of his brother.

Note the way interference or the host manage to cut off Jody every time he starts making valid, vital points about the police brutality inflicted on him and hundreds of other students in the streets of London, some students beaten by police, and charged with horses, were as young as 12 years old.

Note also the way the BBCNews host tries to get Jody to admit on air to things that may prejudice his official complaint later on.

Scary fucking stuff.

Jody is becoming a hero of the what's called the UKUncut student movement, who are opposing massive cuts to education and public services to protect the wealth of England's richest, and for good reason. He has a lot of powerful things to say.

But after that interview, and the powerful reaction from the thousands who found it through Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and began complaining to the BBC, you probably won't be seeing Jody back on BBCNews anytime soon.

They don't like 'student leaders' or 'revolutionaries' to be quite so articulate, and in control of what they're saying.

England under austerity is a powderkeg, and when the public sees police are prepared to assault even people in wheelchairs, well, everything changes.

 

Szólj hozzá!

the case against wikileaks I.

2010.12.18. 16:06 gerillahirek

 

LILA RAJIVA: ZIONIST MINDCONTROL – The Case Against Wikileaks, Part I

December 12, 2010 posted by Lila Rajiva · 41 Comments 

IS WIKILEAKS “SUBLIMINAL PREPPING” BY AN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY?

By Lila Rajiva STAFF WRITER

(Part II of this ongoing series is now also available at Veterans Today).


Let me first say that harassing Julian Assange for having published leaked government documents is completely wrong. There’s no evidence so far that anyone has been injured directly because of the leaks. National security (even as understood by mainstream statists) hasn’t been damaged. As for the embarrassment some officials might be feeling, tough. Governments routinely subject their citizens to much worse for no valid reason.  As for diplomacy, there’s none worth the name.  In high office, all we have are blackmailers, bullies, and bandits. Some outing and shaming of their public actions is in order. Exposing the crimes and blunders of the state is not only a right of citizens, but a duty.

As enough people have argued, Assange is obviously not guilty of treason, since he’s not a citizen of the US. And, although some people think he’s guilty of espionage, that’s doesn’t seem true either.  He didn’t hack any state computer or blow any agent’s cover to get his information. It was mostly given to him voluntarily by whistle-blowers and leakers.  All he did was publish it. And, since New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), US law has protected the right of publishers to publish politically sensitive information without “prior restraints,” as long as it doesn’t cause “grave and irreparable damage” to the public.

Having said that, though, I must admit that for almost a year now, as I’ve blogged, I’ve found the whole Wikileaksoperation strange, if not a bit fishy. Let me recount the ways.

1. Most of the documents seems to cover material already fairly well-known to informed people.  The new material is mostly embarrassing stuff, nothing truly revelatory, say dozens of critics. Now, mainstream critics might just be trying to do damage control, but why would respected alternative investigators who are outspoken critics of war and the police state, people like Wayne Madsen or co-founder John Young or Chris Floyd, among many others, also come to that conclusion? [Floyd seems to have "gone wobbly" since then].

By Assange’s own account in the  The Australian, here are the most important revelations from Wikileaks:

“The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran ‘s nuclear program stopped by any means available.

Britain’s Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect “US interests”.

Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.”

Now, these disclosures would be nothing to scoff at on any activist’s resume.  But is Assange telling us anything  we didn’t already know? What has really been added so far except specifics and details? Then why are the revelations being called a new 9-11 ?

2. An overblown media story is not the only difficulty with Wikileaks.

Consider that in all this welter of damaging information, whatever you think of it, there’s nothing that really damages Israel.

Justin Raimondo, a right-wing libertarian, has tried to suggest there is. He says there’s material in Wikileaks that reveals the sinister activities of the Israeli mafia. Big deal. Everyone knows the Israeli mafia is everywhere, not just in Israel. The Russian mafia is a euphemism for the Russian and Ukrainian Jewish mafia, which has strong ties to Israel. The Colombian drug trade is run by this mafia. So is the Eastern European sex trade. According to Mark Mitchell, Wall Street is run by it. A leak about the world’s most dangerous mafia, that everyone already knows about, doesn’t really damage Israeli foreign policy, does it? It even carries a good guy flavor about it. [Added: No criticism is intended of Raimondo's intentions or his work, which I much admire and regularly read. I just think he's wrong on this one].

That means what we really have in Wikileaks is a document dump slanted a particular way. So says at least one establishment figure, Zbigniew Brzezinski,  former National Security Advisor for President Carter. Say what you will about him, Brzezinski, master-mind of the policy of luring the Soviet Union to its destruction in Afghanistan, is nobody’s fool. He  spots the hand of an intelligence agency in all this.

Could this be a calculated subliminal “prepping” of the collective pysche by a state intelligence outfit, masquerading as an expose of states?

3. Now comes a report that Julian Assange cut a deal with Israeli officials to keep anything damaging to Israel out of  the revelations. I don’t know how well-sourced or credible this report is. But then there’s also Assange’s citation of  Benjamin Netanyahu, the hawkish Israeli prime minister who’s praised Wikileaks. And there’s Assange’s statement in The Australian crediting Rupert Murdoch, a hard-line Zionist and one of the biggest promoters of war with Iraq, as his inspiration. That alone should make people think twice . It’s not just that Israel isn’t damaged by Wikileaks. A lot of the material on the site actually helps Israel’s global objectives.  We now know that neighboring Arab states are alarmed by the idea of a nuclear Iran. We learn that the Saudi rulers are in bed with the Israeli government and are thoroughly corrupt. Pakistan is treacherous and a threat. There’s a hornet’s nest of terror in South India. This is news? And even if you think it is, who benefits?

Doesn’t all this simply amplify Israel’s hardline attitude to the Islamic world and justify the recent introduction of thebiometric ID into India, Afghanistan, and the Af-Pak border? Don’t the revelations reflect most poorly on the Arab states and on America, but not on Israel? Don’t they channel attention away from the global economic collapse master-minded by Zionist financiers and their supremo, the Federal Reserve? Don’t they redirect toward the US anger that was previously directed at Israel, for the slaughter in Gaza, for the massacre on the Mavi Marmara, and for the AIPAC espionage case?  Gordon Duff, at Veterans Today thinks so.  Even liberal commentator Juan Cole writes that Assange is being tarred and feathered for giving to the public what AIPAC routinely gives to Israel.

And what is the ultimate result? Israel now claims that the US is too distracted to broker a deal on settlements.

Again, who benefits from that? Israeli hard-liners, of course.

4.  But maybe all this is just the price Assange has to pay to get wide coverage in the Western mainstream, largely dominated by Zionist editors, writers, and publishers?

Maybe.

Is it also part of the price that he has to bash the 9-11 movement? If you’re against empire and exploitation, as Assange says he is, then shouldn’t you be interested in uncovering the truth about the attack that was the explicit trigger for the unjust war on Iraq, the global war on terror, Homeland Security, and every police state measure since?

And if you’re not, what’s your excuse?

It’s not just that Assange is not interested in 9-11. He’s gone out of his way to mock people who’ve devoted countless unpaid hours of work to investigate it, with none of the media attention that follows every step Assange takes.

5. And that brings me to my fifth point. The fate of whistle-blowers and tellers of dangerous truth is rarely rock-star celebrity. Count them. Mordechai Vanunu, who exposed Israel’s nuclear program – imprisoned for nearly 20 years.Gary Webb, who exposed the CIA connection to the distribution of crack cocaine in the US -  probably murdered. Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who criticized Putin’s policies in Chechnya – assassinated. Lebanese journalists Samir Qassir and Gebran Tueni, who criticized the Syrian government – killed in car bombings. In 90% of such cases, says the Committee to Protect Journalists, the killers are never brought to justice. Yet, Assange, “the most dangerous man in Cyberspace,” according to the faux-alternative magazine Rolling Stone, lives to tell the tale of his persecution from the cover of Time magazine and the podium of TED conferences, weighted down with awards and honors from such establishment worthies as  The Economist,  The New Statesman, and Amnesty International.

And now he is the center of an international man-hunt. Here too, the claims are bizarre. If Wikileaks hasn’t put lives at risk or seriously damaged “national security,” by even the government’s own account, what to make of all these feverish cries for prosecution under the espionage act, for imprisonment and torture, even for execution? Are they for real, or does any one else detect an element of theater?  The Wikileaks disclosures have been called cyber-terrorism by many. When before have we seen an international man-hunt for a rag-tag band of terrorists headed up by a charismatic leader with a striking appearance and a personal life shrouded in mystery? Now we have Osama-bin-Assange and Al-Wikileaks at war with Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin, on one hand, and cheered on by David Frum, on the other. Notice that Frum points out that the disclosures actually support George Bush’s rationale for invading Iraq.

This is box-office gold. As some wide-awake journalist has noted, the big winner in all this is the establishment media. Before, it had one foot in the grave. Deservedly. Now it is a  “truth-teller.” Readership is up, resurrected by proxy. And the major alternative press, the foundation activists, are bolstering the conclusions of the New York Times. How convenient.

I dearly wish Julian Assange were exactly as he seems – a brilliant iconoclast delivering the death blow to imperialism. But my memory is not so dim.  I remember another media circus besides the one around Osama. I recall the mass adulation of  a man who exuded brilliance, youth, hope, and salvation. That was in 2008, and he was a young law professor from Chicago. How did that turn out?

6.  Then again, if Assange’s message is so subversive to the state, why are the state’s most reliable mouthpieces plastering his message everywhere? Why did Assange himself choose the New York Times, The Guardian, andDer Spiegel for his initial exposes? These are left-center outlets, statist to the core.  And Assange, the self-proclaimed libertarian chooses them? Perhaps, one could argue, the left-center is where the most powerful and influential media organs are located. Assange is just being a savvy marketer in picking those outlets.

Perhaps.

But perhaps not.

Perhaps, instead, he could have thrown in one libertarian or conservative newspaper, at least, to show even- handedness? How hard would it have been to send material to, say, the Independent?

7. But he didn’t, so again I ask you,  how libertarian can he really be? And if he isn’t a libertarian, why does he go out of his way to proclaim he is? There’s nothing wrong, after all, with  being a socialist or even a communist, at least in most places outside the US. Why doesn’t Assange just declare himself a left-wing peacenik and leave it at that?

Ah, now things get even more interesting. Dig into Assange’s writings -  most of it very engaging and thoughtful -  and contradictions emerge.

On June 18, 2006, he writes:

“Rights are freedoms of action that are known to be enforceable. Consequently there are no rights without beliefs about the future effects of behavior. Unenforcable general rights exist only insofar as they are argumentation that may one day yield enforcement. Hence the Divine Right of Kings, the right of way, mining rights, conjugal rights, property rights, and copyright. The decision as to what should be enforced and what may be ignored is political. This does not mean that rights are unimportant, but rather, that politics (the societal control of freedom) is so important as to subsume rights.”

I will repeat that. Assange places societal control above the exercise of rights.

This is not libertarian. And it’s not an isolated statement. It’s repeated elsewhere.

“Technical people, good at stacking houses of abstract cards

often look at the law and see rules, but this is a shadow, for law hangs

from the boughs of politics, that branch of behavior involved with the

societal control of freedom of action. Always consider the real politik

of law; who will push for change and who will resist.”

And then about global warming (Assange seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming), he says this:

“The bottom line is, as Benford notes, “we’re going to have to run this planet.”

Some libertarianism.

One critic has pointed out that at the core of Assange’s philosophy is not openness and freedom so much as a left-leaning concern with “justice.” Nothing wrong with that either. So why the dress-up in American-style libertarianism? At whom is the repackaging, if it is that, directed?

Authoritarianism emerges also in Assange’s own work at Wikileaks, where he is technically the chief editor and spokesman.

His associates complain of egotistic, autocratic behavior, much different from his anarchist professions. Some have left to start their own sites. Others complain about the secrecy he maintains about his work, also at odds with the transparency he advocates for others.

This secrecy might, at first, seem justified. Wikileaks, after all, is a private, not a public outfit. Maybe so. But that distinction hasn’t stopped the site from publishing the secrets of other private organizations, like the Christian Scientists and the Mormons. It’s also published the hacked private emails of Sarah Palin and the financial information of private clients of the Swiss bank, Julius Baer. Wayne Madsen has argued that this ultimately benefits Democrat financier George Soros.

This is a performance that seems not only hypocritical but curiously partisan and parochial, especially when set against the generous intellectual sweep of Assange’s theoretical writing.

And that’s exactly the taste left in your mouth after a sampling of Wikileaks‘ revelations. After all the hype about “scientific journalism,” the conclusions Wikileaks supports are downright provincial: our government lied us into war in Iraq; Hillary Clinton’s a bitch; Arab regimes are corrupt and deserve regime change; private contractors are bilking tax-payers; corporate corruption is the real conspiracy, not 9-11.

This is stuff that could have come out of the computer of any government propagandist.

More to the point, some of us wonder if it did.

(Go to Part II -  The Case Against Wikileaks)

Szólj hozzá!

the real drug maffia

2010.12.18. 16:03 gerillahirek

 

Russian, Ukrainian Crime Groups Set to Corner Global Drug Market

Summary

The Bush administration’s new national counter-drug advertising campaign tells the U.S. public that consumers of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs are financing international terrorism. What the ads don’t say is that most of the professional criminals who increasingly dominate the global narcotics and weapons trade where organized crime and political terrorism cross paths are Russian- or Ukrainian-born citizens of Israel. 

Analysis

Russian and Ukrainian crime syndicates have been deeply involved in drug trafficking and illegal arms deals with militant organizations and insurgent groups around the world for years. However, the U.S. war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the escalation of the Colombian conflict, and the recent fall of several top Mexican drug kingpins have combined to create a window of opportunity for these lesser known syndicates to quickly become the dominant players in the global cocaine and heroin trade

Recent reports from the Western Hemisphere and Central Asia indicate that this process has already begun. Russian mobsters are reportedly increasing their control of drug-smuggling routes from Afghanistan through Turkey and the former Soviet republics into Russia. It appears they are also developing strategic partnerships with drug traffickers in Colombia and Peru to grow poppy and export heroin to the United States and European Union.

As Russian and Ukrainian crime syndicates become the dominant actors in a global drug trade stretching from Central Asia to the Western Hemisphere, the U.S. government will likely be slow to adapt its counterdrug and counterterrorism policies. So far, the Bush administration has not publicly identified Russian and Ukrainian syndicates as targets in the war on terrorism — despite ample evidence that these rings have supplied huge amounts of weapons, armor and explosives to Islamic militants for years, and that they are substantially involved in drug trafficking and multiple other criminal enterprises in dozens of countries (the United States included).

The slow U.S. government response could be a reflection of a creaky American bureaucracy saddled with too many foreign policy crises simultaneously. It is also possible that the U.S. administration has yet to develop a policy for attacking international crime syndicates headquartered in politically difficult countries like Israel, Russia and Ukraine. 

Another possibility is that the Bush administration has not directly addressed the issue of how to deal with these crime syndicates that are supplying weapons to militant groups because the majority of the Russian and Ukrainian crime lords that would be targeted are Jewish citizens of Israel. According to former State Department official Jonathan Winer, all 75 of the top Russian and Ukrainian crime kingpins the U.S. government was tracking worldwide at the end of the 1990s were citizens of Israel. 

Robert I. Friedman — a Ukrainian-American investigative reporter who is also Jewish and has written extensively about the Russian and Ukrainian mafia — claims that efforts by U.S. federal law enforcement officials to investigate suspected mafia leaders have been blocked internally for years by higher-ups in the U.S. government, or have been hindered by negative publicity asserting that the investigations were motivated by anti-Semitism.

NEW CHALLENGES IN FIGHTING CRIME

U.S. policymakers given the task of developing a policy to interdict and dismantle the Russian and Ukrainian syndicates will confront a host of new challenges they have not faced while fighting Colombian and Mexicandrug cartels.

For example, despite these organizations’ international reach, the leaders of the top Colombian and Mexican cartels have always been based in their respective countries. They were able to escape detection and arrest for years by doling out bribes and laying low inside their own borders. However, the Medellin and Cali cartels were dismantled in Colombia during the 1990s, and now the leaders of Mexico’s top rings are also being taken down. 

In contrast, Russian and Ukrainian crime syndicates are borderless. Instead of being geographically confined to a single country, they operate out of multiple hubs in dozens of countries, linked by sophisticated computer and communications technologies and rapid commercial air travel. This broad geographic dispersal and multiplicity of command/control hubs, combined with the demonstrated ability of Russian and Ukrainian mobsters to build and dissolve strategic partnerships at will with other ethnic crime groups, will make it more difficult for U.S. counter-drug and -terrorism agents to track, interdict and dismantle the senior hierarchies. 

Attacking these crime syndicates effectively means the U.S. government would have to negotiate new law enforcement partnerships with the governments of Israel, Russia and Ukraine, for starters. Tel Aviv, Moscow and Kiev are important command/control hubs for the international activities of Russian and Ukrainian mafia, according to U.S. and international law enforcement sources. 

The U.S. government could not pursue these syndicates effectively without the full cooperation of the Israeli, Russian and Ukrainian governments, but securing such cooperation could be difficult. Israel will not extradite citizens, and it is believed that mafia groups are deeply entrenched in the Russian and Ukrainian governments.

DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES

Published U.S. and international reports indicate that other important hub cities in the global organizational map of the Russian and Ukrainian syndicates include Berlin, Budapest, Buenos Aires, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Dublin, Geneva, Glasgow, Karlsbad, London, Los Angeles, Macau, Madrid, Miami, New York, Prague, Quebec, Sydney, Toronto, Vancouver, Warsaw and Washington, D.C. 

The FBI has identified Russian and Ukrainian organized crime syndicates operating in 50 countries and 30 U.S. states. Other mafia experts, including investigative journalist Friedman, estimate that more than 250 major Russian and Ukrainian crime syndicates are operating worldwide today, and at least 30 of the largest are operating from within the United States.

In addition to geographic dispersal, many Russian and Ukrainian syndicates are reportedly led and crewed by individuals with master’s and doctorate degrees in mathematics, physics, economics and engineering. Some are former KGB or military officials with backgrounds in special operations, intelligence and espionage. They are significantly more educated and worldly than their Colombian, Mexican or American counterparts, and they have access to financial and technological resources in Russia and Ukraine not readily available to Colombian, Mexican or Cosa Nostra criminal organizations. Russian and Ukrainian mobsters are also much more violent than their Colombian or Mexican counterparts, according to U.S. law enforcement sources.

Numerous published news reports, congressional testimony in Washington and official statements from governments and law enforcement agencies around the world paint the following picture of the Russian and Ukrainianmafia

In the United States, these groups already have pulled off some the biggest insurance, Medicare and stock frauds in history. They also run sophisticated Internet credit card scams, deal in counterfeit currencies and launder money, traffic narcotics and weapons, run gambling and protection rackets, manage prostitution and sex slave industries, and steal gasoline and other fuels. Ukrainian Jewish mafia kingpins also reportedly laundered about $9 billion through the Bank of New York during Russia’s financial meltdown in 1998, and are believed to be fixing games in the National Hockey League.

Outside the United States, these crime syndicates are supplying weapons to insurgents, paramilitaries and drug traffickers in Colombia, Brazil and the Andean region. For example, Ukrainian mobsters operating from Tel Aviv and Kiev are believed to have participated in the shipment of 10,000 AK-47s to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in 1998 through former Peruvian spy chief Vladimir Montesinos. 

Mafia groups based in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles and Brighton Beach in New York City have also negotiated strategic partnerships with Mexico’s Tijuana cartel in Baja California, and with drugtraffickers in Colombia, to ship hundreds of tons of cocaine to North America. In fact, Russian and Ukrainian syndicates have been swapping weapons for drugs with Colombian drug traffickers, guerrillas and paramilitaries since the early 1990s. 

These groups also have sold huge amounts of weapons — including tanks, armored personnel carriers, field artillery, helicopters and fixed-wing combat aircraft — to clients such as the Taliban in Afghanistan and combatants in Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Sierra Leone, Congo, Rwanda, Angola and Chechnya. There, separatist Chechen rebels use Russian weapons supplied by Russian mobsters to kill Russian soldiers.

Mafia syndicates are said to have also sold cargo aircraft and helicopters to the Colombian drug cartels, provided them with sophisticated weapons and communications equipment and laundered Colombian and Mexican drug money in Russia, where organized crime syndicates are believed to own or control more than 80 percent of the country’s banks. On two occasions, Russian syndicates also tried unsuccessfully to provideColombian drug traffickers with submarines to ship multi-ton loads of cocaine.

In Canada, the mafia completely disrupted the diamond industry with moissanite faux-stones smuggled from Russia that are difficult to distinguish from real diamonds. Crime groups are moving into Vancouver in an effort to corner the city’s booming marijuana industry and build strategic partnerships with ethnic Chinese gangs running criminal rackets along the U.S. West Coast. 

Mafia syndicates reportedly control cigarette-smuggling and prostitution in Britain’s Midlands region, run counterfeit passport operations out of Ireland and are buying up choice real estate on Australia’s Gold Coast while they simultaneously build arms and drug distribution networks in the Asia Pacific region.

Russian organized crime syndicates have also reportedly made drugs-for-weapons business with Islamic extremist groups for years, including with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization. For example, the newspaper Scotland on Sunday reported Sept. 16, 2001 that bin Laden built his fortune in part by working with Russian mafia operations in Qatar and Cyprus. Russian mobsters also reportedly bought weapons for bin Laden in Ukraine and shipped them secretly into the Persian Gulf and Horn of Africa, and laundered money for bin Laden through mafia-owned banks in Central Asia and Eastern Europe.

Additionally, on Oct. 4, 2001, the Ottawa Citizen reported that Russian and Central Asian organized crime syndicates had close ties with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, an extremist Muslim group that allegedly swaps heroin for weapons with the Russians. The IMU is tied to al Qaeda, the newspaper report added. Two weeks later, on Oct. 16, the Czech News agency quoted arms control expert Friedrich Steinhausler saying in an ARD Television interview that al Qaeda tried to obtain nuclear material with the help of Russian organized crime syndicates. 

FOCUS ON ISRAEL

Any concerted global strategy by the United States to take down the most dangerous Russian and Ukrainian crime lords would have to include Israel very early in its execution.

News reports in the United States, Israel, Europe and Russia indicate that many Russian and Ukrainian crime syndicates view Israel as a vital and secure hub from which to conduct their shady international enterprises, including arms smuggling, drug trafficking and money laundering. In fact, Israeli law enforcement officials estimate that Russian and Ukrainian syndicates have invested between $4 billion and $20 billion in the Israelieconomy since the 1970s. Some Israeli law enforcement officials also believe that up to 10 percent of the more than 800,000 Russian Jews who settled in Israel during the past 30 years are involved in organized criminal enterprises, mainly in other countries. 

Moreover, in June 1996, the chief of Israeli police intelligence, Brig. Gen. Hezi Leder, reportedly prepared a classified intelligence assessment in which he concluded that Russian crime groups had become a “strategic threat” to Israel’s existence. 

Investigative journalist Friedman says some of these crime syndicates are so entrenched in Israel’s economic and political establishment that in the mid-1990s they ran several handpicked candidates for local and national office. Mafia leaders are also believed to have contributed more than $1.5 million to former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign in 1996, with introductions arranged by Russian-born Natan Sharansky — leader of the Russian Yisrael Ba-Aliya and interior minister in Ehud Barak’s government.

Sharansky has admitted publicly that he accepted political contributions and aid from Grigori Loutchansky — who, according to the U.S. State Department and CIA, is a longtime bridge between Russian organized crime and foreign governments — in return for resettling Russian Jews. 

Netanyahu denied the allegation that he accepted any contributions from Russian crime figures. However, as prime minister he terminated an investigation of Russian and Ukrainian crime syndicate penetration of Israel’s economy and government, which had been launched as a result of police Chief Leder’s June 1996 intelligence assessment. The investigation has not been revived. 

Szólj hozzá!

the real purpose of wikileaks

2010.12.18. 12:28 gerillahirek

 

LaptopWikiLeaks Sets the Stage for the 'No Send List'

censored monitor
© unknown
Hillary Clinton has called WikiLeaks "an attack on the international community". Coming from her, we must assume that is meant in all seriousness. We must compare it to what we saw on our screens on 9/11: "America under attack". 

When a Secretary of State announces that we are 'under attack', it follows without saying that we can expect some kind of response to that attack. Indeed the word 'attack' is more or less reserved for occasions where a response is planned. Otherwise the statement would be interpreted as reflecting weakness and impotence. 

When America was 'under attack', we got the Patriot Act domestically, and never-ending war internationally - the Constitution was shredded along with international law. That was a very big response. What kind of response can we expect when the 'international community' is declared to be 'under attack', because a website has revealed a few relatively harmless secrets? 

If the State Department really felt that the WikiLeaks operation was a serious threat to national security, or even a serious embarrassment politically, they could have shut it down at any time. They have their ways. And they could have 'gotten to' Assange in one way or another, as they got to David Kelly, who really was a threat, with his testimony that WMDs did not exist, testimony that was never heard about again, after he 'committed suicide'. 

Instead, with WikiLeaks, we have Assange at large flaunting it, and we see the leaks being published in the mainstream media, both in print and online, conveniently indexed. What's wrong with this picture?If the leaks are harmful, why are they doing everything they can to make sure everyone, including any 'potential terrorists', sees them? 

The WikiLeaks affair has become a major dramatic story line on the stage of the global mass media. It's very much like the launch of a new television series. We've got a dramatic personality at the center, seen by some as a super hero and others as a super demon, who is able to reveal a million secrets at a single bound. We've got increasing dramatic tension, as the attack alarms ring, the secrets keep coming out, and... nothing decisive is being done. Something must be done! That's clearly where this story line is leading. 

By doing nothing decisive, and with Assange out on bail, the message between the lines is that new legislation is needed. Perhaps new legislation is already being discussed; I haven't been following that part of the story.But as the dramatic tension mounts in the media, so that it becomes 'obvious' that something must be done, we can be sure we will end up with a draconian Cyber Terrorism Act, akin to the Domestic Terrorism Act. 

Clearly, the provisions of this act will be very far-reaching. That has been the consistent pattern with each of our various 'terrorism' acts. Currently, anyone can be arbitrarily declared a domestic terrorist, and be locked up forever incommunicado. That hasn't been happening on any significant scale, yet, but the provisions are that far reaching. 

Similarly, in a Cyber Terrorism Act, we'll get a provision that any website can be arbitrarily declared 'in aid of terrorism', closed down, and anyone involved with it can be treated as a domestic terrorist. The Act will be that far-reaching, but we probably won't see a lot of such closures happening. Instead, we'll get hit in more subtle ways. Websites will simply be seized, without fanfare, and that's already been happening, under the logo of Homeland Security. 

I think we can take a clue from the TSA experience at airports, as regards what we can expect at 'net ports'. Consider, for example, the 'no fly' list. If you're on the list, you can't fly, they don't give you any reasons, and they even seem to flaunt how arbitrary the list is. They are arbitrarily restricting your ability to connect with people face to face. 

Similarly, from what might be called the Communications Security Administration (CSA), we can expect a 'no send' list. If you're on the list, you can't send or post messages, and no reasons will be given. They will be arbitrarily restricting your ability to connect with people remotely. Already, I've been encountering problems with sending, where my IP address has been mysteriously tagged as a spam source, and my ISP claimed to have no explanation. 

Consider also the invasive screening process at airports. Everyone is treated as a potential terrorist, until they pass the invasive screening process. Similarly, every message anyone tries to send will be treated as a 'potential cyber threat', until it passes an invasive 'threat filter'. Google is already deploying such a filter, and calling it a spam filter. Currently, with manual intervention, you can rescue a message from the filter. The CSA's filter will simply delete your message, end of story, before it even gets to your ISP. 

Air travel and the Internet have been the 'great global connectors', of people and of ideas. The thrust of 'security' measures has had little to do with terrorism, and everything to do with making 'connection' more and more difficult. Same story when you try to cross a border in your car. 

WikiLeaks is indeed the 9/11 of the Internet. The leaks themselves are an inside job, just like the Twin Towers, with the leaks carefully selected to avoid anything really damaging, or anything embarrassing to Israel. And just as they didn't scramble the interceptors, they didn't close down the WikiLeaks site. They let both events play out, down on Highway 61, and then they splashed them all over the media. Such things are always done for a purpose.

Szólj hozzá!

a fidesz betiltja a sztrájkot

2010.12.17. 20:57 gerillahirek

 

Jogellenes lesz a sztrájk, ha nincs megállapodás az elégséges szolgáltatásról

2010. december 17., péntek 17:04

Az elégséges szolgáltatás mértékéről kötött megállapodás, ennek hiányában pedig az erről döntő munkaügyi bíróság határozata esetén tenné lehetővé a jogszerű sztrájkot két fideszes képviselő azoknál a cégeknél, amelyek a lakosságot alapvetően érintő tevékenységet végeznek.

Kara Ákos és Kontur Pál javaslata - amelyet pénteken tettek közzé a parlament honlapján - megismétli, hogy az érintett vállalatoknál, így különösen a közforgalmú tömegközlekedés és a távközlés terén, továbbá az áram-, a víz-, a gáz- és egyéb energiaszolgáltatást végző szerveknél, csak úgy gyakorolható sztrájk, hogy az a még elégséges szolgáltatás teljesítését ne gátolja.

A hatályos szabályozás szerint az elégséges szolgáltatás mértékéről és feltételeiről a munkabeszüntetést megelőzően egyeztetni kell.

A kormánypárti politikusok ezen úgy változtatnának, hogy kimondanák: a még elégséges szolgáltatást törvény állapíthatja meg. Törvényi szabályozás hiányában sztrájk csak akkor tartható, ha a felek előzetesen megállapodtak az elégséges szolgáltatásról. Amennyiben ez nem jön létre, a sztrájk akkor lenne megtartható, ha a felek bármelyikének kérelmére a munkaügyi bíróság jogerős határozata megállapította a még elégséges szolgáltatás mértékét és feltételeit. A munkaügyi bíróságnak öt napon belül, nemperes eljárásban, szükség esetén a felek meghallgatása után kellene döntenie. A határozat ellen a közléstől számított öt napon lehetne fellebbezni, a másodfokú bíróság pedig ugyancsak öt napon belül döntene.

hirdetés

A törvényjavaslat a kihirdetését követő napon lépne hatályba, rendelkezéseit pedig már a hatálybalépésekor folyamatban lévő egyeztető eljárás során is alkalmazni kellene.

Kara Ákos és Kontur Pál indoklásukban azt írják, hogy az elégséges szolgáltatásról szóló megállapodás elmaradása jogbizonytalansághoz vezet a munkabeszüntetés jogszerűségét illetően, ezért tették meg javaslatukat. Az indítvány egyértelművé teszi, hogy megállapodás vagy bírói döntés hiányában a sztrájk jogellenes - hangsúlyozzák, hozzátéve: a rövid bírósági határidők biztosítják, hogy ne lehetetlenüljön el a sztrájkjog gyakorlása.

Szólj hozzá!

NASA pushing the extra-terrestrial story again, even after the "arsenic-based new life form" fiasco

2010.12.17. 16:49 gerillahirek

 

MeteorLife's Building Blocks Discovered on Surprising Meteorite

meteor graphic
© Rex Features
Scientists have identified amino acids, a fundamental building block of life, in a meteorite where none were expected. 

"This meteorite formed when two asteroids collided. The shock of the collision heated it to more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough that all complex organic molecules like amino acids should have been destroyed, but we found them anyway," said Daniel Glavin of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. 

"Finding them in this type of meteorite suggests that there is more than one way to make amino acids in space, which increases the chance for finding life elsewhere in the Universe," he said. 

Previously, scientists at the Goddard Astrobiology Analytical Laboratory have found amino acids in samples of Comet Wild 2 from NASA's Stardust mission, and in various carbon-rich meteorites. 

Finding amino acids in these objects supports the theory that the origin of life got a boost from space-some of life's ingredients formed in space and were delivered to Earth long ago by meteorite impacts. 

Because of an unusually violent collision in the past, this asteroid's ingredients for life were a "culinary disaster" and now mostly in the form of graphite. The small asteroid, estimated at six to fifteen feet across, was the first to be detected in space prior to impact on Earth on October 7, 2008. 

A meteorite sample was divided between the Goddard lab and a lab at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. 

The extremely sensitive equipment in both labs detected small amounts of 19 different amino acids in the sample, ranging from 0.5 to 149 parts per billion. The team had to be sure that the amino acids in the meteorite didn't come from contamination by life on Earth, and they were able to do so because of the way amino acids are made. 

The sample had various minerals that only form under high temperatures, indicating it was forged in a violent collision. It's possible that the amino acids are simply leftovers from one of the original asteroids in the collision-an asteroid that had better conditions for amino acid formation. 

However, the team thinks its unlikely amino acids could have survived the conditions that created the meteorite, which endured higher temperatures more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (over 1,100 Celsius) over a much longer period. 

Instead, the team believes there's an alternate method for making amino acids in space. 

"Previously, we thought the simplest way to make amino acids in an asteroid was at cooler temperatures in the presence of liquid water. This meteorite suggests there's another way involving reactions in gases as a very hot asteroid cools down," said Glavin. 

The study was published in the Meteoritics and Planetary Science.

Szólj hozzá!

total control closing up on us

2010.12.17. 12:01 gerillahirek

 Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:06 CST

fingerprint scanner 2
© unknown
Wisconsin will spend $1 million to install fingerprint scanners at child care facilities that receive state subsidies as a way to prevent fraud. 

The state wants to make sure it's only paying for children who actually attend day care. An investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinellast year exposed widespread fraud in the $296 million Wisconsin Shares subsidy program. 

The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee approved the expenditure Tuesday. The fingerprint scanners will be installed at 10 facilities in February as a pilot project, then expanded statewide around July. 

Source: Associated Press

Szólj hozzá!

They are preparing

2010.12.17. 11:44 gerillahirek

 

NukeHow to Survive a Nuclear Attack

Nuclear Blast
© Associated Press

Touching on a subject most people prefer to avoid, the Obama administration is planning to educate the public about dealing with the effects of a nuclear bomb. 

"We have to get past the mental block that says it's too terrible to think about," W. Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, told theNew York Times. "We have to be ready to deal with it." 

Martin Hellman, professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford and co-inventor of public key cryptography, who has been focusing on nuclear deterrence for the past 25 years, said that a baby born today, with an expected lifetime of 80 years, faces a greater than 50-50 chance that a nuclear weapon attack will occur unless the number of weapons and available weapons-grade material is radically reduced. 

A nuclear attack would most likely come from a terrorist group. "Al Qaeda is especially notable for its longstanding interest in weapons of useable nuclear material and the requisite expertise that would allow it to develop a yield-producing improvised nuclear device," John Brennan, White House chief counterterrorism adviser, said in April. 

Crude bombs could be made without classified knowledge, but they would have a higher probability of success if they had someone who knows how to machine uranium for bomb parts, said Matthew Bunn, an associate professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and an expert on nuclear proliferation and terrorism. "They don't need an Oppenheimer," he added. J. Robert Oppenheimer was the scientific director of the Manhattan Project that developed the first nuclear weapons. 

The Department of Homeland Security has published a guide, "Nuclear Detonation Preparedness: Communicating in the Immediate Aftermath," which offers the following advice:
  • Find the nearest building, preferably built of brick or concrete, and go inside to avoid any radioactive material outside.

  • If better shelter, such as a multi-story building or basement can be reached within a few minutes, go there immediately.

  • If you are in a car, find a building for shelter immediately. Cars do not provide adequate protection from radiation from a nuclear detonation.

  • Go to the basement or the center of the middle floors of a multi-story building (for example the center of the 5th floor of a 10-story building or the 10th to 20th floors of a 30-story building).
"Shelter in place. That's the single biggest message," L.A. County health director Jonathan Fielding advised. "That's the best way to save lives and prevent radiation-related illnesses. It runs counter to your basic instinct to get away and reunite with family members. If their kids are in school or in day care, that's where they should stay," he added. 

Brooke Buddemeier, Certified Health Physicist (Radiation Safety Specialist) in the Global Security directorate of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, studied the impact of nuclear bomb blast in six U.S. cities for the Department of Homeland Security. "You can't outrun a fallout cloud," Buddemeier said in a presentation in Los Angeles, "and fatalities from fallout are 100 percent preventable." 

An estimated 285,000 people, a mile away and unsheltered from a detonation in Los Angeles, would be sick or die from radiation exposure, Buddemeier said. "Even with a poor shelter, like a wood frame house, you would save 160,000 people from significant exposure," he maintained. "If people were to find shelter in a shallow basement or a multistory apartment or commercial building, 240,000 out of that 285,000 would be saved from significant exposure. If you can get into an underground parking garage or the core of an office building, you'd have no significant exposure at all," he said. 

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to pass a treaty that would modestly reduce the number of nuclear arms held by Russia and U.S., who control the vast majority of nuclear material. But slowing down nuclear proliferation, and keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists, doesn't appear to be getting any easier.

Szólj hozzá!

arresting 12 y.o. for protest plans

2010.12.15. 15:08 gerillahirek

 

LaptopUK Government Moves Against 12-year-old Dissident

Nicky Wishart
© Unknown
Nicky Wishart’s "crime" was to complain on Facebook about an upcoming plan to close his local youth centre

Pointing to the Cameron government's growing impatience over student protests, British officials have reportedly moved against 12-year-old Nicky Wishart, henceforth known as the Notorious Nicky of Oxfordshire, threatening him with arrest for threatening the public peace. 

Nicky's crime was to complain on Facebook about an upcoming plan to close his local youth centre, because "it's a fantastic place to go and there isn't much else for us to do round here," and a plan to protest in front of his local MP's office, which in this case is Prime Minister David Cameron's office, sparked harsh police action. 

Notorious Nicky was pulled from his class by police and warned that he was under investigation by the Anti-terrorist squad. He was repeatedly warned by the police that he ought not attend the protest and that police intended to hold him personally responsible for anything that happened at the protest. Theyalso warned him thatarmed police would be on hand in case the protesters got out of hand. They also warned him that they would be monitoring his future Facebook postings. 

Nicky's mother was called by the school and told that police had "taken an interest in something Nicky's posted on FB," but was not allowed to be present at the police interrogation of her child. 

The protest went off without a hitch, however, with a dozen students being watched menacingly by six police officers. Police insisted the "warning" to Nicky was appropriate and to "ensure his safety." Nicky's school said they are dealing with the matter "internally." 

Szólj hozzá!

duck taping 4 y.o.

2010.12.15. 13:25 gerillahirek

2 + 2 = 4Illinois: School Defends Restraining 4-Year-Old with Duct Tape

© unknown
Boy had hands bound because he'd struck staffers, school says 

A Chinatown school official said Tuesday that a 4-year-old student had his hands bound by tape because the boy struck two staff members and acted out of control. 

Harold Irving said he was "stunned," according tothe Chicago Sun-Times, when he arrived at the Pui Tak Center last Wednesday to pick up his son and found "him standing there with his hands duct-taped together." 

Irving, a former police officer, said he filed a complaint with police alleging unlawful restraint and contacted the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. 

The Executive Director of the center, David Wu, defended the action and said the vice principal of the school "loosely taped [the boy's] long sleeve shirt sleeves together to restrain his hands" in an effort "to keep him from injuring himself and others." 

In a statement, he said the school is fully cooperating with DCFS. 

The Pui Tak Christian School, at 2216 S. Wentworth, has about 170 students.

Szólj hozzá!

Capitalism is dead, but we still dance with the corpse

2010.12.14. 16:38 gerillahirek

 

Waltzing at the Doomsday Ball

Capitalism is dead, but we still dance with the corpse

By Joe Bageant
Ajijic, Jalisco, Mexico

Joe7-5As an Anglo European white guy from a very long line of white guys, I want to thank all the brown, black, yellow and red people for a marvelous three-century joy ride. During the past 300 years of the industrial age, as Europeans, and later as Americans, we have managed to consume infinitely more than we ever produced, thanks to colonialism, crooked deals with despotic potentates and good old gunboats and grapeshot. Yes, we have lived, and still live, extravagant lifestyles far above the rest of you. And so, my sincere thanks to all of you folks around the world working in sweatshops, or living on two bucks a day, even though you sit on vast oil deposits. And to those outside my window here in Mexico this morning, the two guys pruning the retired gringo's hedges with what look like pocket knives, I say, keep up the good work. It's the world's cheap labor guys like you -- the black, brown and yellow folks who take it up the shorts -- who make capitalism look like it actually works. So keep on humping. Remember: We've got predator drones.

After twelve generations of lavish living at the expense of the rest of the world, it is understandable that citizens of the so-called developed countries have come to consider it quite normal. In fact, Americans expect it to become plusher in the future, increasingly chocked with techno gadgetry, whiz bang processed foodstuffs, automobiles, entertainments, inordinately large living spaces -- forever.

We've had plenty of encouragement, especially in recent times. Before our hyper monetized economy metastasized, things such as housing values went through the sky, and the cost of basics, food etc. went through the basement floor, compared to the rest of the world. The game got so cheap and fast that relative fundamental value went right out the window and hasn't been seen since. For example, it would be very difficult to make Americans understand that a loaf of bread or a dozen eggs have more inherent value than an iPhone. Yet, at ground zero of human species economics, where the only currency is the calorie, that is still true.

Such is the triumph of the money economy that nothing can be valued by any other measure, despite that nobody knows what money is worth at all these days. This is due in part to the international finance jerk-off, in which the world's governments print truckloads of worthless money, so they can loan it out. The idea here is that incoming repayment in some other, more valuable, currency will cover their own bad paper. In turn, the debtor nations print their own bogus money to repay the loans. So you have institutions loaning money they do not have to institutions unable to repay the loans. All this is based on the bullshit theory that tangible wealth is being created by the world's financial institutions, through interest on the debt. Money making money.

As my friend, physicist and political activist George Salzman writes,

"Everyone in these 'professional' institutions dealing in money lives a fundamentally dishonest life. Never mind 'regulating' interest rates," he says. "We must do away with interest, with the very idea of 'money making money'. We must recognize that what is termed 'Western Civilization' is in fact an anti-civilization, a global social structure of death and destruction. However, the charade of ever-increasing debt can be kept up only as long as the public remains ignorant. Once ecological limits have been reached the capitalist political game is up."

You can see why I love this guy.

Boomers and Doomers and XXL bloomers

Capitalism wouldn't be around today, at least not in its current pathogenic form, if it had not caught a couple of lucky breaks. The first of course, was the expansion of bloodsucking colonialism to give it transfusions of unearned wealth, enabling "investors" to profit by artificial means (death, oppression and slavery). But the biggest break was being driven to stratospheric heights by inordinate quantities of available hydrocarbon energy. Inordinate, but never the less finite. Consequently, the 100-year-long oil suckdown that put industrial countries in the tall cotton, now threatens to take back from subsequent beneficiary generation everything it gave. The Hummers, the golf courses, the big box stores, cruising at 35,000 feet over the Atlantic -- everything.

You'd never know that, to look around at Americans or Canadians, who have not the slightest qualms about living in that 3,500 square foot vinyl sided fuck box, if they can manage to make the mortgage nut, or unashamedly buying a quadruple X large Raiders Jersey because, hey, a guy's gotta eat, right? Why don't I deserve a nice ride, a swimming pool and a flat screen? I worked for it (sure you did buddy, your $12,000 Visa/MasterCard tab is proof of that).

The doomers and the peak oilers gag, and they call it American denial. Personally, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that most Americans and Canadians are in denial. They simply don't have a fucking clue about what is really happening to them and their world. Everything they have been taught about working, money and "quality of life" constitutes the planet's greatest problem -- overshoot. Understanding this trashes our most basic assumptions, and requires a complete reversal in contemporary thought and practice about how we live in the world. When was the last time you saw any individual, much less an entire nation, do that?

Compounding our ignorance and naiveté are the officials and experts, politicians, media elites, and especially economists, who interpret the world for us and govern the course of things. The go-to guys. They don't know either. But they've got the lingo down.

Somehow or other, it all has to do with the economy, which none of us understands, despite round the clock media jabbering on the subject. Somehow it has to do with this great big spring on Wall Street called "the market" that's gotta be kept wound up, and interest rates at something called The Fed, which have got to be kept smunched down. The industry of crystal gazing and hairball rubbing surrounding these entities is called economics.

In heaven, there are no jobs

The following may be old news to some who studied economics in college. However, I did not. And, for me at least, this gets at the heart of our dilemma (if dilemma is the right word for economic, environmental and species collapse). Here goes:

The human economy is made up of three parts: nature, work and money. But since nobody would pay people like Allen Greenspan or Milton Friedman millions of dollars if they talked just like the rest of us, economists and academics refer to these three parts as the primary, secondary and tertiary economies.

Of these, nature -- the world's ecosystems and natural capital -- is by far the most important. It comprises about three quarters of the total value of economic activity (Richard Costanza et al. 1997). To western world economists, nature -- when it is even give nature a thought -- is considered to be limitless.

The second part, work, is the labor required to produce goods and services from natural resources. Work creates real value through efficient use of both human and natural resource energy. A potato is just a potato until people sweating over belt lines and giant fryers turn it into Tater Tots.

The third economy, the tertiary economy, is the production and exchange of money. This includes anything that can be exchanged for money, whether it is gold, or mortgages bundled as securities, or derivatives. In short, any paperwork device that can be rigged up in such a fashion that money will stick to it. Feel free to take a wild-assed guess which of the three economies causes the most grief in this world.

To an economist, work -- the stuff that eats up at least a third of our earthly lives, is merely a "factor" called labor. Work is considered an unfortunate cost in creating added value. Added value, along with nature's resources, is the basis for all real world profits. Without labor, the money economy could not gin up on-paper wealth in its virtual economy. Somewhere, somebody's gotta do some real-world work, before bankers and investment brokers can go into their offices and pretend to work at "creating and managing wealth."

Paying the workers in society to produce real wealth costs money. Capitalists hate any sort of cost. It represents money that has somehow escaped their coffers. So when any behemoth corporation hands out thousands of pink slips on a Friday, Wall Street cheers and "the market" goes up. No ordinary mortal has ever seen "the market." But traders on the floor of 11 Wall Street, people who've deemed themselves more than mortal by virtue of their $110 Vanitas silk undershorts, assure us the market does exist. No tours of the New York Stock exchange are permitted, so we have to take their word for it.

In any case, in the money economy, eliminating costs, even if those costs happen to be feeding human beings, citizens of the empire, is sublime. That is why economists in the tertiary economy can declare a "jobless recovery" with a straight face. By their lights, the perfect recovery would necessarily be 100% jobless. Human costs of generating profit would be entirely eliminated.

Say what you will about the tertiary "money economy," but one thing is certain. It's virulent. Right now finance makes up 42% of GDP, and is rising. Traditionally that figure has been around 9%. Fifty eight percent of the economy is "services." When it comes to the service economy, most people think of fried chicken buckets and "customer service," call centers harassing debtors or selling credit cards. However, much of the so-called service economy consists of "services" sub-corporations and entities owned and operated by monopolies in communications, electronic access and energy. They are designed for the sole purpose of robbing the people incrementally. Borrow a microscope and read the back side your cable and electric bill. Billing you is a "service" for which you pay. So is the guy who cuts off your lights if you don't.

And manufacturing? Ten percent. Mostly big ticket items such as salad shooters, as near as I can tell.

What nature?

Still though, the foundation of the world, including our entire economic structure, is nature. This is clear to anyone who has ever, planted a garden, hiked in the woods, gone fishing or been gnawed on by chiggers. In vis est exordium quod terminus.

Yet, not one in a thousand economists takes nature into account. Nature has no place in contemporary economics, or the economic policy of today's industrial nations. Again, like the general American public, these economists are not in denial. They simply don't know it's there. Historically, nature has never been considered even momentarily because economists, like the public, never figured they would run out of it. With the Gulf oil "spill" at full throttle, the terrible destruction of nature is becoming obvious. But no economist who values his or her career wants to start figuring the cost of ecocide into pricing analysis. For god sake man, it's a cost!



With industrial society chewing the ass out of Mama Nature for three centuries, something had to give, and it has. Capitalists, however, remain unimpressed by global warming, or melting polar ice caps, or Southwestern desert armadillos showing up in Canada, or hurricanes getting bigger and more numerous every year. They are impressed by the potential dough in the so-called green economy. In fact, last night I watched an economist on CNN say that if the government had let the free market take care of the BP gulf catastrophe, it would not be the clusterfuck it is now. Now THAT might qualify as denial. In the mean time, anthropogenic ecocide and resource depletion, coupled with the pressures of six billion mouths and asses across the globe, have started to produce -- surprise surprise, Sheriff Taylor! -- very real effects on world economies. (How could they not?) So far though, in the simplistic see-spot-run American mind, it's all about dead pelicans and oiled up hotel beaches.

Monkey with the paper

When the U.S., and then the world's money economy started to crumble, the first thing capitalist economists could think of to do was to monkey with the paper. That's all they knew how to do. It was unthinkable that the tertiary virtual economy, that great backroom fraud of debt manipulation and fiat money, might have finally reached the limits of the material earth to support. That the money economy's gaming of workers and Mother Nature might itself might be the problem never occurred to the world's economic movers and shakers. It still hasn't. (Except for Chavez, Morales, Castro and Lula). Jobs disappeared, homes went to foreclosure, and personal debt was at staggering all time highs. America's working folks were taking it square in the face. Not that economists or financial kingpins cared much one way or the other. In the capitalist financial world, everything is an opportunity. Cancer? Build cancer hospital chains. Pollution? Sell pollution credits. The country gone bankrupt?

"Nothing to do," cried the mad hatters of finance, "but print more money, and give gobs of cash to the banks! Yes, yes, yes! Borrow astronomical amounts of the stuff and bribe every fat cat financial corporation up and down The Street!" All of which came down to creating more debt for the common people to work off. They seem willing enough to do it too -- if only they had jobs.

Along with the EU, Japan and the rest of the industrial world, the US continues to flood the market with cheap credit. That would be hunky dory, if was actually wealth for anybody but a banker. The real problems are debt and fraud, and tripling the debt in order to cover up the fraud. And pretending there no natural costs of our actions, that we do not have to rob the natural world to crank up the money world through debt.

No matter what economists tell us abut getting the credit industry moving again, papering over debt with more debt will not pollinate our food crops when the last honeybee is dead. I suggest that we put the economists out there in the fields, hand-pollinating crops like they do in China. They seem to know all about the subject, and have placed a monetary value of $12 billion on the pollination accomplished by bees in the US. Can you imagine the fucking arrogance? All bees do is make our fruit and vegetable supply possible. Anyway, if we cannot use the economists for pollinators (odds are they are too damned whacked to do that job), we could also stuff them down the blowhole of the Deepwater Horizon spill. For the first time in history, economists would be visibly useful.

Speaking of China: Since there is no way to pick up the turd of American capitalism by the clean end, much less polish it, American economists have pointed east, and set up a yow-yow about China as "the emerging giant." The "next global industrial superpower." Many Chinese are willing to ride their bicycles 10 miles to work through poisonous yellow-green air, and others in the "emerging middle class" are willing to wade into debt up to their nipples; this is offered as evidence of the viability of industrial capitalism. All it proves is that governments and economists never learn. In the quest of getting something for nothing, China follows the previous fools right into the smog and off the cliff.

Sumthin' fer nuthin'

The main feature of capitalism is the seductive assertion that you can get something for nothing in this world. That you can manufacture wealth through money manipulation, and that it is OK to steal and hold captive the people's medium of exchange, then charge them out the ass for access. That you can do so with a clear conscience. Which you can, if you are the kind of sleazy prick who has inherited or stolen enough wealth to get into the game.

Even so, to keep a rigged game going, you must keep the suckers believing they can, and eventually will, benefit from the game. Also, that it is the only game in town. Legitimizing public theft means indoctrinating the public with all sorts of market mystique and hocus-pocus. They must be convinced there is is such a thing as an "investment" for the average schmuck drawing a paycheck (and there is, sort of, between the crashes and the bubbles). It requires a unified economic rationale for government and industry policies, and it is the economist's job to pump out this rationale. Historically, they have seldom hesitated to get down on their knees and do so.

It ain't robbery, it's a business cycle

Capitalism is about one thing: aggregating the surplus productive value of the public for private interests. As we have said, it is about creating state sanctioned "investments" for the workers who produce the real wealth. Things like home "ownership" and mortgages, or stock investments and funds to absorb their retirement savings. That crushing 30-year mortgage with two refis is an investment. So is that 401K melting like a snow cone the beach.

As the people's wealth accumulates, it is steadily siphoned off by government and elite private forces. From time to time, it is openly plundered for their benefit by way of various bubbles, depressions or recessions and other forms of theft passed off as unavoidable acts of nature/god. These periodic raids and draw downs of the people's wealth are attributed to "business cycles." Past periodic raids and thefts are heralded as being proof of the rationale. "See folks, it comes and goes, so it's a cycle!" Economic raids and busts become "market adjustments." Public blackmail and plundering through bailouts become a "necessary rescue packages." Giveaways to corporations under the guise of public works and creating employment become "stimulus." The chief responsibility of economists is to name things in accordance with government and corporate interests. The function of the public is to acquire debt and maintain "consumer confidence." When the public staggers to its feet again and manages to carry more debt, buy more poker chips on credit to play again, it's called a recovery. They are back in the game.

Dealer, hit me with two more cards,. I feel lucky.

Does it hurt yet?

To anyone who is paying attention, things look doomed. Fortunately for American capitalism, nobody is paying attention. They never have. Even given the unemployment numbers, foreclosures and bankruptcies, most Americans are still not feeling enough pain yet to demand change. Not that they will. Demand change, I mean. We haven't the slightest idea of any other options, outside those provided by the corporate managed state. So in a chorus well-schooled by the media the public demands "reform," of the present system, the systemic pathogenic system based on exploitation of the many by the few, the one presently eating our society from the inside out. How do you reform that?

We are clueless, and the state sees to it that we stay that way. Take the price of gas, about which Americans are obsessive. In one way or another, petroleum is the subject of much news coverage, nearly as much as pissing matches between egomaniacs in Hollywood or o Capitol Hill. So one might think that by now Americans would have a realistic grasp of the petroleum business and things like oil and gasoline prices.

Hah, think again! This is America, this is Strawberry Fields, where nothing is real and the skies are not cloudy all day. We're stewed in a consumer hallucination called the American Dream and riding a digital virtual money economy nobody can even prove exists.

Is there an economy out there or not?

If we decide to believe the money economy still exists, and that debt is indeed wealth, then we damned sure know where to go looking for the wealth. Globally, forty percent of it is in the paws of the wealthiest one percent. Nearly all of that one percent are connected to the largest and richest corporations. Just before the economy blew out, these elites held slightly less than $80 trillion. After the blowout/bailout, their combined investment wealth was estimated at a little over $83 trillion. To give some idea, this is four years of the gross output of all the human beings on earth. It is only logical that these elites say the only way to revive the economy, which to them consists entirely of the money economy, is to continue to borrow money from them.

However, the unasked question still hangs in the air: Does the money economy even exist anymore? Is it still there? (was it ever?) Or are we all blindly going through the motions because:

A: we do not understand that, for all practical historical purposes, it's over;

B: we do not know how to do anything else so we keep dancing with the corpse of the hyper-capitalist economy;

C: the right calamity has not come down the pike to knock us loose from the spell of the dance,

or D: we're so friggin brain dead, commodities engorged and internally colonized by capitalist industrialism that nobody cares, and therefore it no longer matters.

This is multiple choice, and it counts ten points toward survival, come the collapse.

If there is no economy left, what the hell are we all participating in? A mirage? The zombie ball? The short answer is: Because the economy is a belief system, you are participating in whatever you believe you are. Personally, I believe we are participating in a modern extension of the feudal system, with bankers as the new feudal barons and credit demographics as their turf. But then, I drink and take drugs. Whatever it is, the money economy is the only game in town until the collapse, after which chickens and firewood may become the national currency. The Masai use cattle don't they?

At the same time, even dumb people are starting to feel an undefined fear in their bones. When I was back in the States last month, an old high school chum, a sluggard who seldom has forward thought beyond the next beer and Lotto scratch ticket, confides in me:

"Joey, I can't shake the feeling that something big and awful is going to happen. And by awful I mean awful."

"Happen to what?"

"Money, work, our country. Shit, I dunno."

"Probably all three," I opined. "Plus the environment."

"Cheerful fuck, ain't ya?"

"That's what they pay me for, Bubba."

Some in the herd are starting to feel a big chill in the air, the first winds of the approaching storm. Yes, something is happening, and you don't know what it is, dooooo yew, Mistah Jones?

However, the most adept economists and other court sorcerers are going along as if nothing too unusual is happening -- calling it a recession, or more recently a double-dip recession (don't you love these turd-balls, making it sound as harmless as an ice cream cone -- gimme a double dip please!) or even a depression. But no matter what it is, they smugly assure us, there is nothing happening that the world has never seen before. Including the insider scams that ignited the catastrophe. It's just a matter of size. Extent.

OK, it's a matter of scale. Like the Gulf oil spill. We've seen spills before, just not this big. But over the next couple of years as the poison crud circulates the world's oceans, the Deep Horizon spill will prove to be a global game changer, whether economists and court wizards acknowledge it or don't. Anything of global scale, whether it is in finance, energy, foreign aid, world health or war contracting, is accompanied by unimaginable complexity. That makes it perfect cover for criminal activity. Particularly finance, where you are always close to the money.

Jim Kunstler, never at a loss to describe a ludicrous situation, sums up the paper economy's engineering of our collapse nicely:

"Wall Street -- in particular the biggest 'banks' -- packaged up and sold enough swindles to unwind 2500 years of western civilization. You simply cannot imagine the amount of bad financial paper out there right now in every vault and portfolio on the planet … the people fabricating things like synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) had no idea what the fuck they were doing -- besides deliberately creating documents that nobody would ever understand, that would never be unraveled by teams of law clerks ... and were guaranteed to place in jeopardy every operation of the world economy above the barter level."

Phew!

So, for $5,000 and an all expense paid trip to Rio: What does a good capitalist do after having stolen all there is to steal from the living, then stolen the nation's future wealth from the unborn through debt both public and private?

Tick tock, tick tock. The wheel spins.

Blaaaaaamp!

"Your answer please."

"A good capitalist would 'invest' his haul in some other racket, some other scam in the money economy."

"Vanna, a pie in the kisser for this guy, please."

The problem with the answer is that economy is now toxed out. Radioactive. Crawling with paper vermin and all manner of vermin, especially toxic derivatives -- about $1.4 quadrillion worth (even as we are still trying to get used to hearing the term trillions), according to the Bank of National Settlements. That is 1,000 trillion, or $190,000 for every human being on the planet. There is not now, and never will be, enough wealth to cover that puppy -- because there is not enough natural world under the puppy to create it. Not the way capitalism creates wealth.

Defenders of capitalism who say it can and must be saved must also admit that there is not enough money left to work with, to invest. There is only debt. Oh, yeah, we forgot; debt is wealth to a banker. Well then, all we gotta do is collect $190,000 per head from people in Sudan and Haiti and the rest of the planet.

Naw, that's too hard. Elite capital's best bet is a good old fashioned money raid on the serfs; create another bubble that will buy enough time before it pops to make the already rich a few billion richer. To that end, the G-8 is blowing one last bounder out there in the hyperspace where the economy s alleged to be surviving. Naturally, they are doing it in order to "save the world economy." The tough part is figuring out what to base the next bubble on.

May I suggest Soylent Green?

Under God, with fees and compound interest for all

From the outset, capitalism was always about the theft of the people's sustenance. It was bound to lead to the ultimate theft -- the final looting of the source of their sustenance -- nature. Now that capitalism has eaten its own seed corn, the show is just about over, with the nastiest scenes yet to play out around water, carbon energy (or anything that expends energy), soil and oxygen. For the near future however, it will continue to play out around money.

As the economy slowly implodes, money will become more volatile stuff than it already is. The value and availability of money is sure to fluctuate wildly. Most people don't have the luxury of escaping the money economy, so they will be held hostage and milked hard again by the same people who just drained them in the bailouts. As usual, the government will be right there to see that everybody plays by the rules. Those who have always benefited by capitalism's rules will benefit more. That cadre of "money professionals" which holds captive the nation's money supply, and runs things according to the rules of money, can never lose money. It writes the rules. And rewrites them when it suits the money elite's interests. Capitalism, the Christian god, democracy, the Constitution.

It's all one ball of wax, one set of rules in the American national psyche. Thus, the money masters behind the curtain will write The New Rules, the new tablets of supreme law, and call them Reform. There will be rejoicing that "the will of the people" has once again moved upon the land, and that the democracy's scripture has once again been delivered by the unseen hand of God.

Szólj hozzá!

süti beállítások módosítása