In a very spirited conversation Mark Weber, and Tom Sunic are talking about modern historiography, which in many instances has become delusional. What we are witnessing in modern history writing is a paranoid form of new ‘civic religion’ and a classical form of hagiography – which in fact hides disturbing secrets. This is an indispensable show of significant academic value.
On June 30, the government of Israel committed an act of piracy when the Israeli Navy in international waters illegally boarded the “Spirit of Humanity,” kidnapped its 21-person crew from 11 countries, including former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and Nobel Laureate Mairead MaGuire, and confiscated the cargo of medical supplies, olive trees, reconstruction materials, and children’s toys that were on the way to the Mediterranean coast of Gaza. The “Spirit of Humanity,” along with the kidnapped 21 persons is being towed to Israel as I write.
Gaza has been described as the “world’s largest concentration camp.” It is home to 1.5 million Palestinians who were driven by force of American-supplied Israeli arms out of their homes, off their farms, and out of their villages so that Israel could steal their land and make the Palestinian land available to Israeli settlers.
What we have been witnessing for 60 years is a replay in modern times, despite the United Nations and laws strictly preventing Israel’s theft of Palestine, of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century theft of American Indian lands by US settlers. An Israeli government spokesman recently rebuked the President of the United States, a country, the Israeli said, who stole all of its land from Indians, for complaining about Israel’s theft of Palestine.
I knew the “Spirit of Humanity” would fall to Israeli piracy the minute I received on June 25 from an official of an Israeli peace organization a “public advisory” that the government of Cyprus had withheld permission for the “Spirit of Humanity” to leave for Gaza. The US State Department had advised that “The Israeli Foreign Ministry informed U.S. officials at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israel still considers Gaza an area of conflict and that any boats attempting to sail to Gaza will not be permitted to reach its destination.” The “Spirit of Humanity” obtained permission to leave Cyprus when all aboard signed a waiver absolving Cyprus of all responsibility for the crew’s safety at the hands of the Israelis.
As President Obama has called for humanitarian aid to be sent to Gaza, and as the International Red Cross has damned the inhumanity of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the question that immediately comes to mind is why did not the United States send sufficient US Navy escort to see the “Spirit of Humanity” safely through international waters to Gaza? We send ships against Somalian pirates, why not against Israeli ones?
We all know the answer. The US talks a good “human rights” game, but never delivers–especially if the human rights abuser is Israel. After all, Israel owns the US Congress and President Obama. Israel even has an Israeli citizen and former member of the Israeli Defense Forces as the Chief-of-Staff in Obama’s White House. Israel owns millions of American “Christian Zionists” and “rapture evangelicals.” When it comes to Israel, the American government is a puppet state. It does what it is told.
Macho Americans might stand tall, but not when Israel snaps its fingers.
Israel, of course, will get away with a mere act of piracy. After all, Israel has been getting away with its war crimes and violations of international law for 60 years. If the UN tries to do anything, the US will veto it, as the US has done for decades.
What will happen to the kidnapped foreign nationals? Most likely they will be released and sent back to their respective countries. Israel, of course, will keep the stolen “Spirit of Humanity” to foreclose any further attempts by human rights activists to run Israel’s inhumane blockade of Gaza.
On the other hand, Israel might declare its captives to be terrorists on the ground that the Gazans elected in a free election Hamas as their government. Hamas, unlike Israel, is declared to be a terrorist organization by the puppet American State Department in Washington. Thus the human rights activists onboard the “Spirit of Humanity” are aiding and abetting terrorists by delivering goods to them. The US Department of Justice (sic) prosecutes American citizens and charities for sending aid to Palestinians on the grounds that Palestinians, if not everyone a terrorist, are governed by terrorists.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a Nobel Laureate and a former member of the US House of Representatives, along with the rest of the crew, are handed over to the Americans for indefinite detention and for torturing and waterboarding in the American torture facility at Bagram. I am certain that “Homeland Security” and the US Government are desperate to be rid of all of critics, and knocking off a Nobel Laureate and a member of the House sets a precedent for getting rid of the rest of us.
Meanwhile, California, which has become a failed state, has been denied bailout money from Washington. Israel, which has been a failed state for 60 years, can, unlike the American state of California, always count of Washington to deliver the money and the weapons to keep Israel going.
The same week that “our” government in Washington told the Governor of California “not one red cent,” President Barak Obama handed over $2.775 billion to Israel.
Online Journal (June 29) reported that the handover to Israel of the unemployed Americans’ tax dollars took place in a “tiny Capitol room” to which members of the press were denied access. I mean, really, who wants the media writing about US taxpayer dollars for Israel’s nuclear weapons while Americans are being kicked out of their homes. Not that, of course, the “Christian” supporters of Israel would mind.
Unlike every other recipient of US military largesse, Israel is permitted to bypass the Pentagon and to deal directly with US suppliers. Consequently, the Israel Lobby’s influence multiplies, because military suppliers fight for Israel in congressional committees in order to get Israel’s business. This lets Israel turn the screws on Iran. According to Grant F. Smith writing in Online Journal, Republican US Representative Mark Steven from Illinois has received $221,000 in campaign contributions from Israel political action committees (PACs). Therefore, it was a sure thing that he would introduce legislation preventing the Import-Export bank from providing loan guarantees to countries doing business with Iran.
Americans think that they are a superpower, but in fact they are a stupor-power. A puppet state if truth be known.
There is a great deal of evidence, even in Time magazine that Israel is a child abuser. “God’s Chosen People” routinely abuses captured Palestinian children. The Israelis also abuse Palestinian children by shooting them down in the streets.
Don’t take my word for it. The Geneva-based Defense for Children International says, according to Time Magazine, that “the ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian child prisoners appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized, suggesting complicity at all levels of the political and military chain of command.”
According to Time Magazine, “Often, children suffer lasting traumas from jail. Says Saleh Nazzal from the Palestinian Ministry of Prisoner Affairs, ‘When soldiers burst into a house and drag away a child, he loses his feeling of being protected by his family. He comes back from prison alienated from his family, his friends. They don’t like going back to school or even leaving the house. They start wetting their beds.’ Says Mona Zaghrout, a YMCA counselor who helps kids returning from prison: ‘They come out of prison thinking and acting like they are men. Their childhood is gone.’ And they often turn to another father figure–the armed militant groups fighting the Israeli occupation.’”
And so it goes. There’s no money for California, or for Americans’ health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it. Israel need the Americans’ taxpayers money to that it can create even more enemies, and, therefore, need more American money to spend with the American armament industries to oppress more Palestinians and to make more enemies, requiring more American money to protect Israel from its folly and its evil.
And the brainwashed American public goes along year after year.
On Saturday, the Voice of Reason Broadcast Network streamed the speeches live at the Council of Conservative Citizens conference in Jackson, Mississippi. Special thanks goes to Jamie Kelso for arranging these broadcasts.
The speakers included:
Journalist, President of the New Century Foundation, and editor of American Renaissance
Attorney and CEO of the Council of Conservative Citizens
Dr. Tomislav Sunic
Former professor of political science, diplomat for the Croatian government, author, and radio show host
After two decades of attacks on Iran, the US government holds that the recent Iranian elections were illegitimate. How is this surprising. The CIA has been involved in attempting to manipulate the Iranian government since they sponsored the Shah’s coup against Mossadegh in 1953. But today, a Mossad connected opponent of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Hossein Mousavi, is struggling to be installed as President by Israel and the United States.
In this recent election, the current president, Ahmadinejad, won just over 63% of the vote. In a predictable fashion, the opposition claims fraud. But this is an old tactic: the US backed parties have tried it in Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Serbia and many other places. It is a common tactic. But why should the current president have won the election? It seems if his rule has been just and economically prosperous, then how could he not be reelected? The very fact that Iran has elections is enough to upset the America/Israeli propaganda against the Persian people. But what are the facts?
Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005 without a peep from the west. Since 2005, according tot he CIA itself, Iran has grown economically an average of 6% yearly, very respectable when one considers the US sponsored sanctions which has driven up unemployment to an American level of 12%, though this is currently falling quickly as relations with China continue to grow. In the process, Iran has become the 18th most powerful economy in the world, and importantly, has diversified its economy substantially away from the oil sector, with a 4.5% industrial (non-oil) growth rate per year average since 2005.
Even more, Iran has successfully stood up to Israeli and American threats, including threats of nuclear war courtesy of John McCain. In terms of foreign trade, Iran has developed a foreign trade surplus of over 25 billion US dollars, and also has $100 billion of foreign currency in its banks, much of that is American. Iran has rebuilt its military into a first world fighting force. Like Iraq under Hussein, Iran under Ahmadinejad and his immediate predecessors has taken a third world country and turned it into a first world one, complete with universal schooling and a near 100% literacy rate.
It will only be a few years until Iran becomes a thriving industrial economy where the oil profits, according to the government, will be plowed into major industrial and trading enterprises, creating a diverse and powerful economy.
But apparently, none of this is enough to warrant any reelection.
The Los Angeles Times wrote the following in late 2007: “In praising the Iranian president, Arabs quickly navigate around historical religious animosities and present-day fears that Iran is undermining Sunnis in Iraq and elsewhere. They prefer to speak of how Ahmadinejad is a rallying voice for Islam at a time the region is bewildered by its powerlessness to fix Iraq, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
And the highly prestigious international news agency, Stratfor, wrote in May of this year, “Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s popularity has risen among Iranian voters, Iran’s Press TV reported May 13. A poll conducted revealed that 58.6 percent would vote for Ahmadinejad in the June 12 presidential elections.” The identical numbers were reported by the neo-con organization, “Stand for Israel,” no doubt with a shudder. Why does this man need to rig elections?
Certainly, food prices have gone up, but Ahmadinejad has also increased spending to assist the poor, and revamped old programs with the same end. It is hard to believe that the average Iranian holds the president responsible for American sanctions or the fallout from the American-created economic crisis that has enveloped the world.
Mir Hossein Mousavi, the man who the west says won the elections, espouses policies that are consonant with his western backers and slick, New York oligarchs, but unpopular with the Iranian people. Mousavi advocates the western line for Iran: free western television and the elimination of Islamic law in the country. Most of all, Mousavi has condemned all forms of “Holocaust revisionism,” as if that is an issue with the Persian population. Such a program was developed in Washington and Tel Aviv, and had no resonance with Iran as a country, especially in the countryside. Mousavi has received millions from the west in recent months to mount an attack on Ahmadinejad. The very fact that the Mousavi campaign is running with English language websites and Facebook pages strongly suggests the work of western operators, since the identical modus operandi was present in the west’s manipulation of both the Serbian and Ukrainian elections in recent years.
Persian journalist Reza Fiyouzat writes that Mousavi has close ties with one Manuchehr Ghorbanifar, former Mossad double agent and leading figure in the arms deals in the Iran/Contra scandals. In Chapter 1 of the Walsh Report on the Contra scandal, we read this paragraph:
On or about November 25, 1985, Michael Ledeen received a frantic phone call from Ghorbanifar, asking him to relay a message from [Mir-Hossein Mousavi] the prime minister of Iran to President Reagan regarding the shipment of the wrong type of HAWKs. Ledeen said the message essentially was "we’ve been holding up our part of the bargain, and here you people are now cheating us and tricking us and deceiving us and you had better correct this situation right away.”
There can be no doubt that Mousavi is CIA and has been created as a shill to fight the Anti-Washington president of Iran, using cliched tactics and fashionable slogans not to win elections, but the next best thing, to receive money and approbation from the west. Mousavi is a part of the globalist plan for Iran and close to the CIA. The very fact that the west is spending this much money trying to manipulate these elections proves just how frightened the American government actually is.
The subject of creating, discovering, or reestablishing spaces outside the domination of the State and capitalism has led authors like Hakim Bey to promote the concept of “autonomous zones(*)”. In their beginning, Bey describes “temporary autonomous zones” as the meeting of a group to partake in a non hierarchical social activity for the benefit of it’s participants without authorization by the government or condoned by the capitalist system of economic mechanics.
Under certain conditions Bey writes that these zones can turn into “permanent autonomous zones” beyond the control of those forces and are for all intensive purposes, liberated. To Bey, this is the highest development of anarchist social organization. Bey has at different times promoted (to various degrees of success) examples of ravers, Burners, Caribbean pirates, Chinese Tong’s, Islamic “Assassin’s”, and Indian Thuggee, as anti-authoritarians archetypes.
In this essay I will argue that creating a national autonomous zone (NAZ) is not just possible but the most likely path of development for communities that either 1) quickly find themselves in a vacuum of State authority structures, or 2) as a community takes it upon themselves the responsibility of living as self-reliantly as possible.
Without a State authority governing it’s existence the national autonomous zone functions like a castle without walls.
A “castle without walls” is not to say “without” laws or regulations concerning behavior. Or that a NAZ is equal tofeudalism in form and function. It’s similarity to feudalism is in respects to it’s pledge of loyalty directly to individuals to whom they serve with (not merely, “for”), and the service that members obligate each other to perform for community survival. That is where the similarities end.
Unlike a fief of feudalism, a NAZ does not exist from the benefit of a monarchy, for the piece of paper called a title or charter, it’s warrior caste, but rather for the desire of all who support it’s continued existence.
The true legal classification of a NAZ when the state is defeated is allodial. Using the Webster’s first dictionary (1825 edition), allodium is a “land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgement to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud.“ For the purpose of this article, the owner of a NAZ is defined solely by the community that inhabits it. Precisely how such a community is to be organized is beyond the scope of this essay(**).
A NAZ can contain several distinct characteristics some of which may contain one or more of the following traits:
* a homogeneous representation of spoken language, culture, religion, and ethnicity.
* the organized delegation of tasks and economy.
* a pre-defined relationship regulating behavior with outsiders of the NAZ.
* a system of standard operating procedures for self-defense.
* collective and informal decision making processes.
Needless to say, the existence of a NAZ is likely to be challenged by a variety of State and non State actors concerning it’s very existence.
In Western countries in this day and age various schemes of government eminent domain preclude any possibility of a NAZ openly forming without coming into direct competition with the State. Furthermore, non State actors may attempt to undermine a NAS due to a variety of motivations.
This reality necessitates a secret, or semi hidden, method of operations until such a time when it is no longer necessary.
To understand why this is so it is necessary to examine the motivations for forming a NAZ.
The first and probably most obvious for some is mutual defense. In times of widespread social and moral decay (of which it is inarguable that such is the case today), the safety of family and kin is paramount to all people. It is the next logical step to believe that security is more likely to be had in a community similar to the one in which an individual most strongly identifies with. In most cases, that will be people who speak the same language and resemble themselves the most (however this author readily admits that this is not the strict case for all people in all times). The liberal (and by extension, anarchist) notion that such a preference is morally indefensible is not tenable with threats to physical existence.
Secondly, small groups of people may see the benefit and economic advantage of pooling their resources to achieve a degree of personal latitude then what would be possible if they pursued their aims separately. With the dismantling of the middle class I expect to see more people consider this as a reasonable choice to pursue (and especially to see the continued development of the twin polarizations of class alienation on the United States of gated (authoritarian) communities and land trusts (libertarian) as society polarizes in this time of crisis).
Thirdly, their may be ideological aims or desires to live the kind of life they wish to live beyond what the capabilities the current socio-economic system is capable of providing. Personally I see this more and more with even basic public services failing with increased regularity.
The last motivation we will consider is that a person or group of individuals who no longer have a choice but must act in concert with a group to because they might not have any other alternatives. Although tragic, this example has happened and will always happen throughout all of history and may be due to natural, man made, or personal disaster from which there is no escape. With widespread environmental degradation and likelihood of other calamities the BANA network regrettably predicts that the frequency of such occurrences will only increase in time.
This begs the question, what would a castle without walls look like? For the answer I will turn to history. Late in World War I, the German forces realized that holding a line of trenches hundreds of miles long was an incredible waste of resources they didn’t have(***). So what they did instead is rebuild their lines into a series of fortified positions spread over space from which each point could aid in the defense of another. When assaulted and no longer able to hold their position they would abandon their positions and trade space for time. In some cases they would allow themselves to be surrounded and escape in the night back to friendly lines. Instead of the makeshift fortifications of the forward lines of an imperialist design, I foresee this castle developing heterogeneously amidst a wide range of space including farms, towns, individual buildings, and geographical features. Decades after WWI the Vietnamese used the same idea and developed it further to include fortified villages. Many of these villages were connected by subterranean tunnels that could protect the people from bombardment and move personal and supplies across space. These tunnels are known to be over a hundred kilometers long in some instances and were completely unknown by the American forces. The Vietnamese perfected a system of concealment and communication that was able to remain hidden and protected from the overwhelming firepower of the American invaders. Extremely similar systems were used by the mujahideen in the 1980s against the invading Russian Soviets and even a couple years ago with the well known case of Tora Bora in Afghanistan.
While the German, Communist, or Islamic examples above may not be the entire definition of an anti-authoritarian NAZ conceived by National Anarchism, these are examples used by people to survive and flourish in the face of severe adversity. It is likely that the course of development of a NAZ will be similar to these kinds of developments in time.
A NAZ will always have humble beginnings. This will be in the homes, land, and resources of a group of people whose loyalty to themselves (for whatever reason) will enable them to support each other over various distances and provide for their own own material needs even with the adversity of hostile actors. It is the developmental goal of such a system to be able to trade space (areas of residence) for time (the ability to operate) when hostility is too great(****). When the time, economy, and resources of the NAZ strengthen to the point of controlling local political authority the revolution will be on a non stop course to absolving the political domination of the State and capitalism with the strengthening of the NAZ as it expands into further areas of operations.
To conclude, this is how I believe autonomy amidst adversity can be achieved. It requires a number of actions by people on a regular basis to make it a reality. This includes, in part, the need and acceptance to a large degree of self-discipline, sacrifice, good planning, organization, diplomacy, and a lot of preparation in order to make it happen.
** The theory National Anarchism presents a series of principals and areas of recommendation on how to conduct relations within a community, and with outsiders, but makes no specific demands as to what those formulations should be or that it adhere to a particular political ideology.
*** The Tiger’s Way by H. John Poole
**** It is safe to conclude that the current plight of the FLDS was (is) due to their inability to trade space (area of residence and jurisdiction of the State of Texas) for time (freedom from State oppression) effectively.
Human progress is furthered, not by conformity, but by aberration. -H.L. Mencken
For some time, I have been trying to figure out why the nation and we as individuals are in the fix we are in now. Many reasons manifest themselves. We labor under a government of such monstrous reach and epic incompetence that it makes the Soviets now look like a paragon of efficiency and probity. We suffer under a ruling class that has not simply been a gangster government under Obamunism but has been this way since the defeat of the original Constitution in 1865. With each illegitimate war since 1898, the power of the Federal government has increased exponentially. With each manufactured crisis, liberties and freedoms have withered and died. This is simply the latest and greatest improvement in the ongoing process of our overseers to find emerging ways to increase the output of our slavery.
I have alluded before that we live in the country and have occasion to run across orphaned animals. We have horses and chickens and other assorted animals on the Circle A Ranch. My wife happens to be a fantastic gardener and the reincarnation of Dr. Doolittle. We discovered by following the horrid cacophony of rabbit screams three orphaned cottontails, two of which promptly died. My wife is now nursing the survivor and hoping to brighten his life expectancy in this mortal coil. As is her wont, she is an inveterate researcher and proceeded to go on the ’net and search out advice on care and feeding of a rabbit which is not one of our areas of husbandry expertise. What struck her were the countless admonitions to seek government assistance and report it to wildlife “authorities” or the zoo. I look around and converse with colleagues and associates to find my fellow Americans increasingly frightened or unfamiliar with doing anything without someone’s permission. Whether at work or play, we:
Obey speed limits that have nothing do with safety and simply provide revenue to our rulers
Pay property taxes which inevitably increase the yoke around our necks locally and pay for the intellectual suicide pact call government schooling
Pay extraordinary sales taxes on local and state purchases to subsidize the countless layers of bureaucracy that choke citizen and business productivity everyday
Stop locally at a US Border Patrol checkpoint nearly twenty miles north of the Mexican border to be asked if we are American citizens and a visual check of the interior of our vehicles
Sit idly by while the various levels of government erect observation devices at traffic intersections to increase revenue streams
Receive property tax bills on our real estate which increase in assessment while market prices decrease
Are required to have permission from the US Forest Circus or National Park Service to hunt, play or work on lands expropriated by our betters in government
I have discovered the silver bullet and it is from the University of the Intuitively Obvious: question authority and maintain a skeptical attitude about all facets of government and governance. That’s it…simple. Even those of us who have invested considerable intellectual heavy-lifting in discerning why the government in all its consistent brutality and blood-raged destruction commands such a loyal and slavish quality in men are baffled by the absence of this simple epistemological tool to ask why on a consistent basis from stem to stern. If enough vigilance is maintained at the outset and embryonic stages of so much government mischief, much of the madness could be strangled in its statist cradle through peaceful discourse, non-compliance, shunning and development of innovative strategies to sabotage the government’s machinations. Most government programs start out with promises of nirvana and positive outcomes but the history of man shows that this is essentially iatrogenic and hubristic. The state is a violent actor by necessity to preserve its power and expand it, so inevitably the promises dissolve into a nightmarish brew of incompetence, lethality and baleful societal consequences and we are stuck with the myriad Frankenstein monsters shambling about with the vague promises of eternal goodness and heaven on earth.
One may say that the horse is out of the barn and we are truly stuck with the state of affairs and no amount of reform will fix DC and its loyal minions at this stage of their maturation and dominance and you would be correct. The rub is this: the FEDGOD will fall and it will be in the next 12–24 months and much like the USSR, it will perish of its own internal Marxoid contradictions. Foreign wars, self-induced economic calamity and sheer naked arrogance will force it to fold and dissolve as a ruling elite. This is a window that rarely opens and the opportunities will be tremendous – for both sides. The furloughed politicos will spread their contagion when they flee the ruins of the DC power structure and seek to encourage the usual suspects among government workers and gullible subjects to help resurrect this monstrosity that has been astride our necks like a decomposing albatross. Truth serum will be necessary and that all starts with the kind of skepticism and incredulity that seems to characterize most everything we do except our attitude toward our rulers. Cross-examination is the engine of truth. Question every bit of alleged government authority which emerges from the ashes. This is one reason Thomas Jefferson was agitating for constant revolt for the tree of liberty. Government is a fungal growth that cannot be checked without constantly striking the root and taking whatever measures are necessary to curb its growth.
You won’t find this kind of critical thinking taught in the universities or any facet of the school systems because skepticism and clear thinking will be the end of them and the whole rotting mold growth choking American civilization called government. When was the last time you saw a government sponsored university study which called for the reduction and/or elimination of a statist rule or department? You don’t have to be a philosophy major or graduate to realize that Socratic drilling works. This is simply the process where you repeatedly ask why to a set of explanations until either you are satisfied the meritorious answer has been given or the shoddy intellectual construction is bared for all to see. It bears repeating: the entire artifice of the state is based on the threat or employment of violence to meet its ends, so it is morally illegitimate and reprehensible from the starting blocks. You have the moral high ground because all government for the most part is an elaborate shell game to develop proxy relationships with servant classes who obey at the urging of a lash or worse for the material and power benefit of the ruling class. Wake up, helots!
This is the chance we have. A dozen, fifty or hundreds of resistance and secessionist entities are going to move into the vacuum left by the great sucking abyss of the FEDGOD collapse. Hundreds of laboratories will emerge to test every variant of political collective and ordered enterprise imaginable. I have little hope for the subjects and somnambulant mental zombies that stumble around the cities of the Left Coast and the Northeast (Vermont and New Hampshire excepted) will do anymore other than instantly resurrect facsimiles of DC patterns of rule and other processes of national socialism but between the Marxist coastlines; the life and times of ordinary Americans will take extraordinary turns to develop from scratch freedom-oriented communities and spasms of spontaneous order. People may finally awaken and look at their neighbors and try to do the right thing. They may seek a system that asks, persuades and cooperates instead of bullies, collectivizes and forces through violent means the shape and texture of human relationships. They will be the vanguard of the men and women who finally awaken from the five millennia fever-dream of enabling various strangers the power of life and death over thousands and millions simply because they have surrendered the most basic right of all; leave us the hell alone.
Turn off the television, grab a book(s) and have conversations with family and like-minded friends. Go out and do things. Start a garden, fix your fencing, move to the country and reach out to the community you live in. Open your mind to the possibilities before us. Most of all, question every aspect of your relationship with authority. Does it derive from fear or respect? Does it emanate from first-hand experience or second-hand knowledge? How many times have you truly asked why a certain bureaucratic edict must be followed? More importantly, what is your line in the sand where your servitude stops and your resistance begins? Just say no to big government. Once a man establishes his limitations for tolerance of interference in his life and adopts a resolute stand against the forces buffeting him against his will, the world will change.
If you are still reading this, you are the Resistance.
William Buppert [send him mail] and his homeschooled family live in the high desert in the American Southwest.
Continuing his series of shows on semantic distortion, Dr. Sunic discusses distortions of political concepts by the liberal ruling class. He will be talking in this show about use and abuse of words and qualifiers that European Americans are subject to. In essence modern political discourse is a gigantic scam used to hide political reality and silence serious critics of the system.
After two smugglers were stopped last week with what at first appeared to be $134bn in US state bonds, the tension and paranoia surrounding the fate of the dollar hit a new high.
Border guards in Chiasso see plenty of smugglers and plenty of false-bottomed suitcases, but no one in the town, which straddles the Italian-Swiss frontier, had ever seen anything like this. Trussed up in front of the police in the train station were two Japanese men, and beside them a suitcase with a booty unlike any other. Concealed at the bottom of the bag were some rather incredible sheets of paper. The documents were apparently dollar-denominated US government bonds with a face value of a staggering $134bn (£81bn).
How on earth did these two men, who at first refused to identify themselves, come to be there, trying to ride the train into Switzerland carrying bonds worth more than the gross domestic product of Singapore? If the bonds were genuine, the pair would have been America’s fourth-biggest creditor, ahead of the UK and just behind Russia. No sooner had the story leaked out from the Italian lakes region last week than it sparked a panoply of conspiracy tales. But one resounded more than any other: that the men were agents of the Japanese finance ministry, in the country for the G8 meeting, making a surreptitious journey into Switzerland to sell off one small chunk of the massive mountain of US bonds stacked up in the Japanese Treasury vaults.
In the event, late last week American officials confirmed that the notes were forgeries. The men, it appeared, were nothing more than ambitious scamsters. But many remain unconvinced. And whether fake or otherwise, the story underlines one important point about the world economy at the moment: that the tension and paranoia surrounding the fate of the US dollar has hit a new high. It went to the heart of the big question: will the central bankers in Japan, China and elsewhere continue to support the greenback even in the wake of the worst financial crisis in modern history, or will they abandon it as America’s economic hegemony dissipates?
Dollar obituaries are nothing new. The currency has been presumed dead more times than Shane Macgowan. But like the lead singer of The Pogues, the greenback has somehow withstood repeated knocks and scrapes over the years and lived on, battered, bruised and a couple of teeth the lighter, to fight another day. In the 1970s and 1980s there were plenty predicting its demise, although at that point the main challenger was the Japanese yen. And in the years preceding this crisis, economists and investors including Peter Schiff and George Soros were lining up to declare the dollar’s demise as the world’s reserve currency. In the late 1990s, the creation of the euro gave dollar sceptics another stick to beat the currency with, and no doubt the European currency has claimed some of the prominence in its first decade.
Now, following the collapse of the global financial system, those warnings have become louder still, and ever more difficult to dismiss – because this time around there are threatening noises coming from those who actually have the power to do something about it. First came a paper from Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), a couple of months ago, positing the idea of introducing the special drawing right (SDR) – a kind of internal currency at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – as an international reserve currency. These calls were then repeated, with more force, by the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, who last week declared that the world needed new reserve currencies in addition to the dollar.
And this time around, the dollar is most certainly suffering. Since 2002 its trade-weighted strength – calculated against a basket of other currencies – has fallen by more than a quarter, from 112 to 81 points. In the same period, the proportion of dollars held by reserve managers in leading central banks has also taken a dive. According to figures from the IMF, confirmed holdings of dollars in government vaults, from Beijing and Tokyo to London and Paris, fell from 71pc of reserves to 64.5pc between 2002 and 2008.
However, detecting what is really happening in the world of foreign exchange reserves is notoriously closer to an art than a science. For instance, figures from April seemed to suggest a fall in China’s holdings of US Treasuries – something ‘dollapocalypticists’ pounced on at the time. But according to Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations, the country was merely rejigging its Treasury portfolio rather than liquidating parts of it. In such an opaque world it is little wonder the conspiracy theories over those two Japanese smugglers show little sign of dissipating.
Nonetheless, for US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who has inherited his predecessors’ role as dollar wallah-in-chief, the currency’s travails have made it all the more difficult for him to repeat the mantra that he “believes in a strong dollar” while keeping a straight face. Indeed, when he tried to insist at a university lecture in Beijing earlier this month that “Chinese financial assets are very safe,” it drew floods of laughter from the audience.
He wasn’t playing for laughs, but the irony of the situation is plain to see. If there were a textbook list of actions one could take to weaken a currency, the US (alongside most other developed nations) would be following it to the letter. It has cut interest rates to a whisker above zero; it has engaged in quantitative easing, pumping cash directly into the economy; it has committed to spending trillions of dollars on a fiscal stimulus package designed to pull the country out of recession; it has pledged tacitly to support its stricken banks so that no major institution is allowed to collapse. In any normal circumstances, actions like these would hammer a currency.
According to Stephen Jen of BlueGold Capital Management: “People are having second thoughts not simply because they don’t like the dollar, but they are having second thoughts about whether US assets are obviously the strongest assets to own.”
Like everything else, the currency’s fate depends on how well the US authorities manage the crisis. The US is balanced on a knife-edge between possible Japan-style deflation as the weight of all its debts bear down on it and potential inflation as the force of all its powerful stimulus measures take root. No one knows for sure which way it will fall, but neither would be particularly good for the currency, and by extension for those who hold much in the way of dollar assets.
And China and all other major central banks which have trillions of dollars in their vaults, face something of a dilemma. Any fall in the greenback will cause the value of their investments to slide. Even if they wanted to exit, there seems no easy way of doing so without provoking some serious self-harm. Indeed, according to Olivier Accominotti, a PhD economist at Paris’s Sciences Po university, the situation is not unlike that faced by France in the 1920s, as it sought to reduce its massive sterling reserves. The Bank of France found itself in a “sterling trap” in which it “could not continue selling pounds without precipitating a sterling collapse and a huge exchange loss for itself”.
Neil Mellor, of Bank of New York Mellon, said: “We’ve got a situation where Geithner is smiling and has no choice but to stress the credibility and stability of the US financial and economic system, while the creditors [such as the Chinese] smile back and say they believe him, while at the same time giving hand signals to their reserve managers to get rid of these things.”
Rather like the brinksmanship on display throughout the Cold War, it is a dilemma which applies itself to game theory. Both sides know that the dollar is set to weaken, but both could be set to suffer if they both allowed it to collapse at the same time. “If you are the Chinese it is in your interest to play the game – you’ve got a lot of dollars at stake – but in the long run you surely want to reduce your holdings and diversify them at the margins,” says Mellor.
Still, with every passing week, the conjunction of different warning signals for the US currency seems to evolve and intensify. Recently, the alarm bell ringing most loudly has been the increase in yields on US Treasuries – a sign, some fear, of acute nervousness among institutional investors about the sheer scale of the cash the Obama administration is planning to borrow in coming years. The Federal Reserve’s meeting next week is likely to be watched attentively by everyone with a stake in the game, as the central bank indicates whether it is planning to plough more dollars of newly-created cash into the economy.
But while the debate fixates on the greenback, the issues at heart here go far deeper. The dollar’s fate is intertwined with that of the global economy. America is on the brink of losing its economic superpower status, which it will have to share with China at least, if not others, in the coming years. Holding such a position confers important responsibilities, none of which is more symbolic than providing the world’s reserve currency – the currency against which all major commodities are denominated, and the de facto international unit of exchange in trade and finance.
It was a position enjoyed by UK sterling during the first waves of globalisation in the Victorian era and the final decades of the British Empire. Eventually, around the time of the Second World War, the dollar inherited the mantle. At first this was something enshrined in the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944, which fixed world currencies to the dollar, but although that system broke down in the 1960s and 1970s, it has remained the de facto currency of choice.
In a globalised world, with trade being carried out between hundreds of different nations by thousands of different companies, having an international standard makes sense: it enables traders to exchange goods more quickly and efficiently than they would have done otherwise. It may be invisible to us, but the vast majority of foreign exchange transactions – particularly those between smaller nations – involve the dollar. Exchange your sterling for Thai baht and you’re actually swapping pounds for dollars for baht, whatever the exchange booth says. Even the much-vaunted exchange arrangements by the Brazilian and Chinese are designed not to disrupt these foundations, but merely to smooth things over for importers and exporters.
But a by-product of the dollar’s dominance has been the skewing of the world’s monetary system. By dint of having this blessed position, the US has been able to finance ever-larger current account and fiscal deficits, with both the government and the public borrowing from overseas, at cheap rates of interest. It has been able to sell US Treasuries at interest rates that other countries can only dream of because of this position as reserve currency. It has had a captive consumer – both because its government bonds are something of a safe haven and because those wishing to peg their currencies against the dollar and enhance their trade flows have little choice but to buy US Treasuries.
And this mutated international monetary system that has evolved since the 1960s is largely responsible for the crisis into which the world has tipped. Because it was able to borrow off other countries at such low rates without enduring the market punishment – in other words higher interest rates – America was able to build up massive current account deficits which poured a record amount of debt throughout its economy, which manifested itself in the financial crisis.
Indeed, as Mervyn King said in a speech earlier this year: “At the heart of the crisis was the problem identified but not solved at Bretton Woods – the need to impose symmetric obligations on countries that run persistent current account surpluses and not just on countries that run deficits. From that failure stemmed a chain of events, no one of which alone appeared to threaten stability, but which taken together led to the worst financial crisis any of us can recall.”
When the PBoC’s Zhou referred to the SDRs he was not merely questioning the dollar’s pre-eminence. He was indicating something far more radical – that China supports plans for a new Bretton Woods-style agreement to manage the flows of cash around the world. At that seminal conference in 1944, John Maynard Keynes’s original idea, which was watered down by Harry Dexter White of the US Treasury, was for an international reserve currency, Bancor, fixed against a basket of 30 currencies, and that countries would be penalised if their current accounts swung too far into surplus or deficit. It is an idea which is now being dusted off from history books by officials in finance ministries around the world, including in China.
Such a radical shake-up would cause earthquakes in the currency markets, a prospect which perhaps makes it unlikely. So in the absence of such a deal, how is the dollar’s role likely to evolve in the coming years? The short answer is that no one should expect it to lose its reserve currency status any time soon. It took around half a century for Britain to cede this position to the US, even after being overtaken in true economic might.
One possibility is that the SDR may be used increasingly as a means of denominating assets in accounts, but this is something which would take place gradually, over a course of some years. But even if that is a bridge towards a multi-polar world, in which other currencies vie with the dollar for influence, it will take some time – perhaps 30 years or more, according to Stephen Jen. “People should look at history,” he said, referring to sterling’s pre-eminence in the first part of the 20th century. “There’s a real incumbency advantage.”
Jim O’Neill, chief economist at Goldman Sachs, sees the next few years as something of a “vacuum period”.
“The BRIC countries [Brazil, Russia, India and China] are becoming so much more important, while the G7, including the US declines, which raises issues about the degree of dominance of the dollar. The problem is that the currencies of the BRICS are the ones that matter, but they won’t let you export or use their currencies.
“Until we see another five years’ of evidence over whether China is a more consumer-driven economy, becoming bigger and bigger, and whether the euro can have a successful second decade, the dollar looks set to remain dominant.”
China has made some hints about loosening its hold over the yuan in recent months, but these are only early manoeuvres. A second step would be to allow the yuan to become a part of the SDR – whose own value is determined by those of a basket of currencies including the dollar, pound and euro. As Jen adds, there are certain prerequisites any contender to the crown of world reserve currency needs in its pocket.
“We have to ask this question: is Russia going to provide asset market that will be as liquid, reliable property rights, the rule of law, currency convertibility and so on? Will we see the same from the likes of China? Their task is very daunting.”
Referring to the forged Treasury bonds picked up on the Japanese smugglers on the Swiss border, he adds: “There is a message here: we haven’t heard much about anyone counterfeiting roubles. That is probably telling you something.”
President Obama called on the Iranian government to allow protesters to control the streets in Tehran. Would Obama or any US president allow protesters to control the streets in Washington, D.C.?
There was more objective evidence that George W. Bush stole his two elections than there is at this time of election theft in Iran. But there was no orchestrated media campaign to discredit the US government.
On May 16, 2007, the London Daily Telegraph reported that Bush regime official John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”
We are now witnessing in Tehran US “attempts to foment a popular revolution” in the guise of another CIA-orchestrated “color revolution“.
It is possible that splits among the mullahs themselves brought about by their rival ambitions will aid and abet what the Telegraph (May 27, 2007) reported were “CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.” It is certainly a fact that the secularized youth of Tehran have played into the CIA’s hands.
The Mousavi protests have set up Iran either for a US puppet government or for a military strike. The mullahs are in a lose-lose situation. Even if the mullahs hold together and suppress the protests, the legitimacy of the Iranian government in the eyes of the outside world has been damaged. Obama’s diplomatic approach is over before it started. The neocons and Israel have won.
The US intervention and the orchestrated disinformation pumped out by the western media are so transparent that it is impossible to believe than any informed person or government is taken in. One cannot avoid the conclusion that the West wants the 1978 Iranian Revolution overthrown and intends to use deception or violence to achieve that goal.
It has become increasingly difficult to believe that facts and truth motivate the western news media. For the record, I would like to point out a few of the most obvious oversights, to use a euphemism, in the Iran reporting.
According to a wide variety of news sources (for example, London Telegraph, Yahoo News, The Globe and Mail, Asbarez.com, Politico), “Before the polling closed Mr. Mousavi declared himself ‘definitely the winner’ based on ‘all indications from all over Iran.’ He alleged widespread voting irregularities without giving specifics and hinted he was ready to challenge the final results.”
Other news sources, which might not have been aware that the polls were kept open several hours beyond normal closing time in order to accommodate the turnout, reported that Mousavi made his victory claim the minute polls closed.
Mousavi’s premature claim of victory before polling was over or votes counted is clearly a preemptive move, the purpose of which is to discredit any other outcome. There is no other reason to make such a claim.
In Iran’s system, election fraud has no purpose, because a small select group of ruling mullahs select the candidates who are put on the ballot. If they don’t like an aspiring candidate, they simply don’t put him on the ballot.
When the liberal reformer Khatami ran for president, he won with 70% of the vote and served from 1997-2005. If the mullahs didn’t defraud Khatami of his win, it seems unlikely they would defraud an establishment figure like Mousavi, who was foreign minister in the most conservative government, and is backed by another establishment figure, Rafsanjani.
As Mousavi was seen as Rafsanjani’s man, why is it “unbelievable” that Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi by the same margin that he defeated Rafsanjani in the previous election?
Neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman let the cat out of the bag that there was an orchestrated “color revolution” in the works. Before the election, Timmerman wrote: “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” Why would protests be organized prior to a vote and announcement of the outcome? Organized protests waiting in the wings are not spontaneous responses to a stolen election.
Timmerman’s organization, Foundation for Democracy, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) for the explicit purpose of promoting democracy in Iran. According to Timmerman, NED money was funneled to “pro-Mousavi groups who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.”
The US media has studiously ignored all of these highly suggestive facts. The media is not reporting or providing objective analysis. It is engaged in a propagandistic onslaught against the Iranian government.
We know that the US funds terrorist organizations inside Iran that are responsible for bombings and other violent acts. It is likely that these terrorist organizations are responsible for the burning buses and other acts of violence that have occurred during the demonstrations in Tehran.
A writer on pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election. He investigated, he says, and he reports that each of the new highly active accounts were created on Saturday, June 13th. “IranElection” is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers to the most persistent: @StopAhmadi @IranRiggedElect @Change_For_Iran. He researched further and found that on June 14 the Jerusalem Post already had an article on the new Twitter.
He concludes that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.
One wonders why the youth of the world, who do not protest stolen elections elsewhere, are so obsessed with Iran.
The unexamined question is Mousavi and his motives. Why would Mousavi unleash demonstrations that are obviously being used by a hostile West to discredit the government of the Iranian Revolution that overthrew the US puppet government? Are these the actions of a “moderate”? Or are these the actions of a disgruntled man who kept his disaffection from his colleagues in order to gain the opportunity to discredit the regime with street protests? Is Mousavi being manipulated by organizations funded with US government money?
John Bolton laid out the US strategy. First we try to destabilize the regime. Failing that, we strike them militarily.
As this strategy unfolds, Iranians will pay in lost independence or in blood for the naiveness of its secularized youth and for the mistake the mullahs made in trusting Mousavi.
The June 2009 elections for the European Parliament were held against the backdrop of global recession and a serious economic crisis. The behavior of voters in Western Europe was also influenced by a large number of non-European residents whose number now exceeds 20 million people. Given these circumstances, it was expected that nationalist parties from 27 member states would score major gains. In fact, they won 30 parliamentary seats in Brussels. The worst nightmares of establishment Euro politicians and their well-paid scribes came true.
Despite an uncivilized media smear campaign against “rising neo-fascist parties,” accompanied by non-stop stories of the “danger of anti-Semitism,” and despite taxpayer-funded advertising against the so-called right-wing radicalism, the prose and the sermons of EU insiders did not have much effect on the behavior of a sizable chunk of the European population.
In addition, the entire EU election was a joke as the voter turnout all across Europe did not exceed 30 percent. With more than 70 percent of voters not showing up at the polls, the credibility of the EU is now in serious jeopardy.
Jobbik: The Movement for a Better Hungary
In Eastern Europe, nationalist parties, such as the Jobbik in Hungary and the PRMin Romania, are quite happy after securing two seats each respectively in the EU parliament. Their constituency is finally discovering that the answer to former communist mind control is not the Western pipe dream about the end of history or quick Hollywood-like prosperity. Unlike docile West Europeans, voters in Slovakia, Hungary and Romania were less constrained by the canons of ethnic sensitivity training and media self-censorship. Many of them want to keep their countries racially and culturally homogenous and appear to have had enough of Western prattling about free market miracles.
Krisztina Morvai, the attractive Christian nationalist lawyer and head of the Hungarian Jobbik, did not hesitate to reply to a comment by a “proud Hungarian Jew” that she fomented hatred and should be banned from politics:
I would be greatly pleased if those who call themselves proud Hungarian Jews played in their leisure with their tiny circumcised dicks, instead of besmirching me. Your kind of people are used to seeing all of our kind of people stand to attention and adjust to you every time you fart. Would you kindly acknowledge this is now OVER. We have raised our head up high and we shall no longer tolerate your kind of terror. We shall take back our country.
Communist terror in post-WWII Hungary, whose main ringleader was a communist strongman of Jewish origin, Mátyás Rosenfeld aka Rákosi, is still too fresh in the collective memory of the Hungarian people, making the country less susceptible to being intimidated by the pc vernacular, which has become a trademark of Western Europe.
The following description gives a flavor of the public perception of the Jewishness of Hungary’s post-WWII government (links added):
Beginning in 1953 but increasingly since Khrushchev’s Secret Speech, some Hungarian communists claimed that the mood in Hungary was increasingly anti-Semitic, and that it was necessary for a non-Jew (or as they put it delicately someone of “Hungarian nationality”) to replace Rákosi (and later Gero). Much hatred among the Hungarian population was directed against the “big four” Hungarian communist leaders who dominated Hungary in the postwar period, who all happened to be Jewish: Mátyás Rákosi (Róth), Mihály Farkas (Wolf ), József Révai (Lederer), and Erno Gero (Singer). During the June 1953 meeting in Moscow, Beria had derisively alluded to Rákosi as a “Jewish king.” According to a telegram written during his visit to Budapest in June, Suslov also considered the number of Jews in the top leadership to be a real problem. [Vladimir] Kryuchkov, too, reported the issue as a problem …. [János Kádár told [Yuri] Andropov that only during Rákosi’s arbitrary rule did Jewishness become associated with the regime, implying that once Rákosi was dismissed, anti-Semitism would dissipate.
Europeans without Europe
The founding myths of the European Union are the credo of the free market coupled with the civic religion of multiculturalism and antifascism. The chief architect of this ideology of “Europeism” was the late Jean Monnet, a French-British agent and a big-time arms peddler, who helped secure the Allied invasion in Normandy in 1944. The dominant idea behind the creation of the European Union was to keep Germany harnessed while tapping into its Prussian work ethic and financial largesse. One-third of the EU budget tab is footed by German taxpayers. Seen from perspective of international law, Germany is still at war with the Allies. It is certainly no accident that, unlike any other member state in the European Union, including the other big two — the UK and France — Germany has no privilege of holding a referendum when rejecting or endorsing EU treaties. Germany has no choice but to accept the decisions of the European Commission, with the obligatory nodding of its nondescript parliament, the Bundestag.
On the institutional level the European Union is shaped very much like the multi-ethnic former Soviet Union or ex-Yugoslavia. European Parliament apparatchiks, whose number has skyrocketed to 736 deputies, all of them paid about $120,000/year and enjoying a multitude of perks, are proportionally elected according to the size of their countries. The EU Parliament resembles the Supreme Soviet, while its powerful 27-member executive body known as the European Commission, mirrors the former Soviet Politburo.
In 1992, shortly after the launching of the founding EU document known as theMaastricht Treaty, and shortly after the beginning of the break-up of Yugoslavia, the European Commission did not hide its unhappiness at the dissolution of the artificial and multi-ethnic Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was cherished for decades as a role model of multicultural conviviality for the never-ending growth of the EU.
The proto-totalitarian nature of the European Union was already depicted by the former Soviet dissident Vladmir Bukovsky who saw in it the exact replica of the Soviet Union: “The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries.”
There is no such thing as “economic integration,” which the EU likes to brag about on all wavelengths. East European member states sell their goods and services for ridiculously low prices. They also provide low salaries to their domestic workers — between a half and a quarter of the level of Western Europe. The corporate taxes in East Europe are much lower than in Western European member states, where they average between 20 percent and 30 percent.
But the Western European economy is not in much better shape. The European Union is witnessing a new wave of relocations, especially the outsourcing of jobs. This penalizes the West with more unemployment, while transforming the East European states into cheap workshops.
Bad news appears daily. In 2007 the EU enacted harsh “hate speech” laws patterned on the German Criminal Code and its dreaded Section 130, known under the bizarre doublespeak compound noun Volksverhetzung (mistranslated as popular incitement), which can get a scholar or a journalist in jail if he questions the viability of multiracialism, let alone voices doubts about the veracity of the Jewish WWII victimology. By 2010 all EU member states are mandated to apply hate speech legal provisions, which will in practice mean that a European citizen, if convicted of a verbal violation in country A of the European Union can land in jail in country B of the European Union. In fact, this is already the case. Such laws also apply to US and other non-European citizens who show too much curiosity about the details of contemporary history.
The enactment of hate speech laws in the EU is reminiscent of the communist Criminal Code in ex-Yugoslavia. The communist judiciary of this now-defunct artificial state had for decades resorted to similar legal meta-language, best visible in the paragraph highlighting “hostile propaganda” found in Article 133. This Yugoslav communist verbal and legal abstraction — “hostile propaganda” (neprijateljska propaganda) — could mean everything and nothing. It could apply to any suspect — regardless of whether a suspect committed acts of physical violence against communist Yugoslavia or simply cracked a joke critical of communist hacks.
Constitution without Constituency
There are problems with the Euro semantics too. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as “Europeans” or the “European people,” given that most Europeans define themselves by their own genius loci, by their tribe, or by their nation — Irish, Flemings, Brits, Germans, Croats etc. What does the Portuguese EU Commissar, Manuel Barroso, the head of the European Commission, or the forever-unshaven EU “foreign minister” Xavier Solana, who stutters his ukases in broken English, know about the plight of fishermen on the Greek island of Rhodes? A Romanian shepherd from Transylvania could not care less about the Brussels bureaucracy. No wonder that in such an environment huge scams and money embezzlement are not exceptions but the rule — already well reported by many mainstream media.
In America, by contrast, given the linguistic unity of its population and the absence of inter-European squabbles, White American nationaIism has an advantage over different European nationalisms, which are often at loggerheads with each other. American constitutionalism, despite its often hypermoralistic verbiage, is well-anchored in the heritage of the Founding Fathers and has been barely subject to change, as exemplified by the concise wording of the crucial First Amendment. On top of this, the fact that one single language is spoken in America — however much it can lead to cultural leveling and academic mediocrity — provides an ideal tool for racial unity among all Euro-Americans. By contrast, each attempt to frame a pan-European constitution for all nations in Europe, even if the intention may be good, is well nigh impossible. It would require that the EU ruling class learn of 30 different European languages and develop a sense of empathy for dozens of distinctly different national mythos.
Without a well defined parliament which is fully accountable to an informed constituency, the European constitution turns into an oxymoron. Alain de Benoist writes that European nations are unable to relate to EU elected representatives, which means that there cannot be a European constitution: “The term ‘constitutional treaty’ is already contradictory. A constitution is a text of a particular type deemed necessary for everyone, while a treaty is a simple contract between states.”
This explains why EU bureaucrats over the last 5 years have been obliged to constantly revamp the first constitution drafted in 2004, often couching this in fancy names or using verbal dissimulations to further con European peoples into a poorly defined entity known as the EU. The new version of the old revamped constitution, presented a few years ago as the “Treaty of Nice” — in an attempt to better lure recalcitrant member states — bears now another pompous code name: the Treaty of Lisbon. Several issues keep delaying its adoption by all EU member states. Under EU rules, a treaty cannot come into force unless all 27 member states ratify it. Constant reshuffling of the verbiage of the draft constitution carried out by Eurocrats is unconstitutional and very undemocratic indeed.
Which European Union?
The idea of a united Europe is as old as Europeans themselves. Caesar toyed with the idea, as did subsequent Roman emperors. In the ninth century the Germanic-European king Charlemagne tried to unite all European tribes from the North Sea all the way to the Danube basin and further down to the Black Sea in an attempt to create a common European bulwark against invading Arabs and Asians. In the sixteenth century the Spanish-Flemish-Germanic King Charles V assessed the apocalyptic Turkish onslaught against central Europe well, and worked desperately to strengthen the united Christian European homeland.
Stalin and his communists had their idea of a united Europe too. So did German Nationalist Socialists and their European allies. Over 400,000 non-German European SS volunteers, from Finland to Albania, from Spain to Belarus, including dozens of Americans and several hundred Brits fought in Waffen SS uniforms. On May 1, 1945, in the Berlin inferno, the remnants of the French Waffen SS division Charlemagne were the last to put up resistance against incoming Bolshevik troops. The French battalion had 320 to 330 men. The high command was held by the French Hauptsturmführer (Captain) Henri Fenet (1919–2002), holder of the Croix de Chevalier de la Croix de Fer (Ritterkreuzträger). Along with the French fighters, there were a few hundred other European Waffen SS fighters, including several dozen Latvians, as well as 350 Spanish Waffen SS under the command of theSturmbannführer Miguel Ezquerra Sanchez.
The fighting for the National Socialist version of a united Europe stopped on the breezy night of May 1, 1945 at 11pm at the corner of Wilhelmstrasse and the Prinz-Albrecht Strasse, near the headquarters of the RSHA, which was only a few hundred yards from Adolf Hitler’s bunker. The last shot in the European capital of Berlin was fired by a drunken Soviet soldier, killing the young French Waffen SS volunteer Roger Albert Brunet — on May 2, 1945.
The city of Yekaterinburg, Russia’s largest east of the Urals, may become known not only as the end of the road for the tsars but of American hegemony too; as the place not only where US U-2 pilot Gary Powers was shot down in 1960, but where the US-centered international financial order was brought to ground.
Challenging America is the prime focus of extended meetings in Yekaterinburg, Russia (formerly Sverdlovsk) today and tomorrow (June 15-16) for Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and other top officials of the six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The alliance is comprised of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrghyzstan and Uzbekistan, with observer status for Iran, India, Pakistan and Mongolia. It will be joined on Tuesday by Brazil for trade discussions among the so-called BRIC nations –Brazil, Russia, India and China.
The attendees have assured American diplomats that it is not their aim to dismantle the financial and military empire of the United States. They simply want to discuss mutual aid – but in a way that has no role for the United States, for NATO or for the US dollar as a vehicle for trade. US diplomats may well ask what this really means, if not a move to make US hegemony obsolete. After all, that is what a multipolar world means. For starters, in 2005 the SCO asked Washington to set a timeline to withdraw from its military bases in Central Asia. Two years later the SCO countries formally aligned themselves with the former CIS republics belonging to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), established in 2002 as a counterweight to NATO.
Yet the Yekaterinburg meeting has elicited only a collective yawn from the US and even European press despite its agenda — nothing less than the replacement of the global dollar standard with a new financial and military defense system. A Council on Foreign Relations spokesman has said he hardly can imagine that Russia and China can overcome their geopolitical rivalry, suggesting that America can use the divide-and-conquer that Britain used so deftly for many centuries in fragmenting foreign opposition to its own empire. But George W. Bush (“I’m a uniter, not a divider”) built on the Clinton administration’s legacy in driving Russia, China and their neighbors to find a common ground when it comes to finding an alternative to the dollar and hence to the US ability to run balance-of-payments deficits ad infinitum.
What may prove to be the last rites of American hegemony began already in April at the G-20 conference, and became even more explicit at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 5, when Mr. Medvedev called for China, Russia and India to “build an increasingly multipolar world order.” What this means in plain English is: We have reached our limit in subsidizing the United States’ military encirclement of Eurasia while also allowing the US to appropriate our exports, companies, stocks and real estate in exchange for paper money of questionable worth.
The artificially maintained unipolar system,” Mr. Medvedev spelled out, is based on “one big center of consumption, financed by a growing deficit, and thus growing debts, one formerly strong reserve currency, and one dominant system of assessing assets and risks.” At the root of the global financial crisis, he concluded, is the fact that the United States makes too little and spends too much, particularly its vast military outlays, such as the stepped-up US military aid to Georgia announced just last week, the NATO missile shield in Eastern Europe and the US buildup in the oil-rich Middle East and Central Asia.
The sticking point for all these countries is the ability of the United States to print unlimited amounts of dollars. Overspending by U.S. consumers on imports in excess of exports, U.S. buy-outs of foreign companies and real estate, and the dollars that the Pentagon spends abroad all end up in foreign central banks. These banks then face a hard choice: either to recycle these dollars back to the United States by purchasing US Treasury bills, or to let the “free market” force up their currency relative to the dollar – thereby pricing their exports out of world markets and hence creating domestic unemployment and business insolvency.
When China and other countries recycle their dollar inflows by buying US Treasury bills to “invest” in the United States, this buildup is not really voluntary. It does not reflect faith in the ability of the U.S. economy to enrich foreign central banks for their savings. Nor does it represent any calculated investment preference. It is simply a matter of a lack of alternatives. U.S.-style “free markets” hook countries into a system that forces them to accept dollars without limit. Now they want out.
This means creating a new alternative. Rather than making merely “cosmetic changes as some countries and perhaps the international financial organisations themselves might want,” said Mr. Medvedev at the end of his St. Petersburg speech, “what we need are financial institutions of a completely new type, where particular political issues and motives, and particular countries will not dominate.”
When foreign military spending forced the US balance of payments into deficit and drove the United States off gold in 1971, central banks were left without the traditional asset used to settle payments imbalances. The alternative was to invest their subsequent inflows of US dollars in US Treasury bonds, as if these still were “as good as gold.” Central banks now hold $4 trillion of these bonds in their international reserves. These loans have financed most of the US Government’s domestic budget deficits for over three decades now! Given the fact that about half of US Government discretionary spending is for military operations – including more than 750 foreign military bases and increasingly expensive operations in the oil-producing and transporting countries – the international financial system is organized in a way that finances the Pentagonand also US buyouts of foreign assets expected to yield much more than the Treasury bonds that foreign central banks hold.
The main political issue confronting the world’s central banks is therefore how to avoid adding yet more dollars to their reserves and thereby financing yet further US deficit spending – including military spending on their borders.
For starters, the six SCO countries and BRIC countries intend to trade in their own currencies so as to get the benefit of mutual credit that the United States until now has monopolized for itself. Toward this end, China has struck bilateral deals with Argentina and Brazil to denominate their trade in renminbi rather than the dollar, sterling or euros, and two weeks ago China reached an agreement with Malaysia to denominate trade between the two countries in renminbi. Former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad explained to me in January that as a Muslim country, Malaysia wants to avoid doing anything that would facilitate US military action against Islamic countries, including Palestine. The nation has too many dollar assets as it is, his colleagues explained. Central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan of the People’s Bank of China put an official statement on the bank’s website, explaining that the goal is now to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations.” This is the aim of the discussions in Yekaterinburg.
Aside from no longer financing the U.S. buyout of their own industries and the U.S. military encirclement of the globe, China, Russia and other countries would no doubt like to enjoy the same kind of free ride that America has been getting. As matters stand now, they see the United States as a lawless nation, financially as well as militarily. How else to characterize a nation that proclaims a set of laws for others – on war, debt repayment and treatment of prisoners – but flouts them itself? The United States is now the world’s largest debtor yet has avoided the pain of “structural adjustments” imposed on other debtor economies. U.S. interest-rate and tax reductions in the face of exploding trade and budget deficits are seen as the height of hypocrisy in view of the austerity programs that Washington forces on other countries via the IMF and other Washington vehicles.
The United States tells debtor economies to sell off their public utilities and natural resources, raise their interest rates and increase taxes while gutting their social safety nets to squeeze out money to pay creditors. And at home, Congress blocked, on grounds of national security, China’s CNOOK from buying Unocal, much as it blocked Dubai from buying US ports and blocked other sovereign wealth funds from buying into key infrastructure. Foreigners are invited to emulate the Japanese purchase of white elephant trophies such as Rockefeller Center, on which investors quickly lost a billion dollars and ended up walking away.
In this respect the US has given China and other payments-surplus nations no alternative but to find a way to avoid further dollar buildups. To date, China’s attempts to diversify its dollar holdings beyond Treasury bonds have not proved very successful. For starters, Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs steered its central bank into higher-yielding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities, explaining that these were de facto public obligations. They collapsed in 2008, but at least the U.S. Government took over these two mortgage-lending agencies, formally adding their $5.2 trillion in obligations to the national debt. In fact, it was largely foreign official investment that prompted the bailout. Imposing a loss for foreign official agencies would have broken the Treasury-bill standard then and there, not only by utterly destroying US credibility but because there simply are too few Government bonds to absorb the dollars being flooded into the world economy by the soaring US balance-of-payments deficits.
in late 2007, seeking more of an equity position to protect the value of their dollar holdings as the Federal Reserve’s credit bubble drove interest rates down, China’s sovereign wealth funds sought to diversify. China bought stakes in the well-connected Blackstone equity fund and Morgan Stanley on Wall Street, Barclays in Britain, South Africa’s Standard Bank (once affiliated with Chase Manhattan back in the apartheid 1960s) and in the soon-to-collapse Belgian financial conglomerate Fortis. But the US financial sector was collapsing under the weight of its debt pyramiding, and prices for shares plunged for banks and investment firms across the globe.
Foreigners see the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization as Washington surrogates in a financial system backed by American military bases and aircraft carriers encircling the globe. But this military domination is a vestige of an American empire no longer able to rule by economic strength. US military power is muscle-bound, based more on atomic weaponry and long-distance air strikes than on ground operations, which have become too politically unpopular to mount on any large scale.
On the economic front there is no foreseeable way in which the United States can work off the $4 trillion it owes foreign governments, their central banks and the sovereign wealth funds set up to dispose of the global dollar glut. America has become a deadbeat –a militarily aggressive one — as it sruggles to hold onto the immense power it once earned by economic means. The problem for the rest of the world is how to constrain its behavior. Yu Yongding, a former Chinese central bank advisor now with China’s Academy of Sciences, suggested that US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner be advised that the United States should “save” first and foremost by cutting back its military budget. “U.S. tax revenue,” he said, “is not likely to increase in the short term because of low economic growth, inflexible expenditures and the cost of ‘fighting two wars.’”
At present foreign savings are what finance the US budget deficit by buying most Treasury bonds. The consequence is taxation without representation for foreign voters as to how the US Government uses their forced savings. It therefore is necessary for the financial diplomats to broaden the scope of their policy-making beyond the private-sector marketplace. Exchange rates are determined by many factors besides “consumers wielding credit cards,” the usual euphemism that the US media cite for America’s balance-of-payments deficit. Since the 13th century, war has been a dominating factor in the balance of payments of leading nations – and of their national debts. Government bond financing consists mainly of war debts, as normal peacetime budgets tend to be balanced. This links the war budget directly to the balance of payments and exchange rates.
Foreign nations see themselves stuck with unpayable IOUs under conditions where, if they move to stop the US free lunch, the dollar will plunge and their dollar holdings will fall in value relative to their own domestic currencies and other currencies. If China’s currency rises by 10 per cent against the dollar, its central bank will show the equivalent of a $200 million loss on its $2 trillion of dollar holdings as denominated in yuan. This explains why, when bond ratings agencies talk of the US Treasury securities losing their AAA rating, they don’t mean that the government cannot simply print the paper dollars to “make good” on these bonds. They mean that dollars will depreciate in international value. And that is just what is now occurring. When U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner assumed an earnest mien and told an audience at Peking University in early June that he believed in a “strong dollar” and China’s US investments therefore were safe and sound, he was greeted with derisive laughter.
Anticipation of a rise in China’s exchange rate provides an incentive for speculators to seek to borrow in dollars to buy renminbi and benefit from the appreciation. For China, the problem is that this speculative inflow would become a self-fulfilling prophecy by forcing up its currency. So the problem of international reserves is inherently linked to that of capital controls. Why should China see its profitable companies sold for yet more freely-created US dollars, which the central bank must use to buy low-yielding US Treasury bills or lose yet further money on Wall Street?
To steer round this quandary it is necessary to reverse the philosophy of open capital markets that the world has held ever since Bretton Woods in 1944. On the occasion of Mr. Geithner’s visit to China, Zhou Xiaochuan, minister of the Peoples Bank of China, the country’s central bank, said pointedly that this was the first time since the semiannual talks began in 2006 that “China needed to learn from American mistakes as well as its successes” when it came to deregulating capital markets and dismantling controls.
So an era is winding to its end. In the face of continued US overspending, de-dollarization threatens to force countries to return to the kind of dual exchange rates common between World Wars I and II: one exchange rate for commodity trade, another for capital movements and investments, at least from dollar-area economies.
Even without capital controls, the nations meeting at Yekaterinburg are taking steps to avoid being the unwilling recipients of yet more dollars. Seeing that U.S. global hegemony cannot continue without the spending power that they themselves supply, governments are attempting to hasten what Chalmers Johnson has called “the sorrows of empire” in his book by that name – the bankruptcy of the US financial-military world order. If China, Russia and their non-aligned allies have their way, the United States will no longer live off the savings of others in the form of its own recycled dollars, nor have the money for unlimited military expenditures and adventures.
US officials wanted to attend the Yekaterinburg meeting as observers. They were told No. It is a word that Americans will hear much more in the future.
In a new anti-Israel, anti-U.S. video, an American al Qaeda member makes reference to his Jewish ancestry for the first time in an official al Qaeda message.
In the video, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, also known as Azzam the American, discusses his roots as he castigates U.S. policies and deplores Israel’s offensive in Gaza that started in late December 2008 and continued into January.
“Let me here tell you something about myself and my biography, in which there is a benefit and a lesson,” Gadahn says, as he elicits support from his fellow Muslims for “our weapons, funds and Jihad against the Jews and their allies everywhere.”
“Your speaker has Jews in his ancestry, the last of whom was his grandfather,” he says.
Growing up in rural California, Gadahn embraced Islam in the mid-1990s, moved to Pakistan and has appeared in al Qaeda videos before.
He was indicted in the United States in 2006 on charges of treason and material support to al Qaeda, according to the FBI. Gadahn is on the FBI’s Most Wanted List, with a reward of up to $1 million leading to his capture. FBI records show Gadahn’s date of birth as September 1, 1978.
The video — in which Gadahn speaks Arabic, with English subtitles — surfaced on Saturday. This account is based on an English transcript provided by As-Sahab Media, the media production company used by al Qaeda.
Gadahn’s Jewish ancestry has been reported in the news media. But terrorism analyst Laura Mansfield says it is the first time Gadahn acknowledged his Jewish ancestry in an official al Qaeda message.
Gadahn says his grandfather was a “Zionist” and “a zealous supporter of the usurper entity, and a prominent member of a number of Zionist hate organizations.”
“He used to repeat to me what he claimed are the virtues of this entity and encouraged me to visit it, specifically the city of Tel Aviv, where relatives of ours live,” says Gadahn, referring to Israel.
He says his grandfather gave him a book by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called “A Place Among the Nations” — in which the “rabid Zionist” sets out “feeble arguments and unmasked lies to justify the Jews’ rape of Muslim Palestine.”
But Gadahn says that despite his youth at the time, he didn’t heed his grandfather’s words.
“How can a person with an ounce of self-respect possibly stand in the ranks of criminals and killers who have no morals, no mercy, no humanity and indeed, no honor?” he says in reference to Zionists and Israel.
“Isn’t it shameful enough for a person to carry the citizenship of America, the symbol of oppression and tyranny and advocate of terror in the world?”
Mansfield thinks the video may have been made between late April and mid-May, before President Obama’s speech in Cairo, Egypt, addressing U.S. relations with Muslims.
Gadahn notes Obama’s inauguration, Netanyahu’s election in February, and Obama’s speech in Turkey in April.
Specifically mentioning the Gaza offensive and citing other hot spots such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Somalia, where the “Zio-Crusader alliance” is fighting his “brothers,” he says “this open-faced aggression” comes as Obama has risen to power.
He scorns Obama’s statements in his inaugural address and in Turkey that America isn’t and won’t be at war with Islam, and “other deceptive, false and sugarcoated words of endearment and respect.” He says Obama’s language is similar to words Netanyahu uttered in the Knesset in 1996.
Gadahn also backs the idea of targeting “Zio-Crusader” interests anywhere in the world, not just “within Palestine.”
The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin — greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election.
While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad’s principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The breadth of Ahmadinejad’s support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents’ reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians — including most Ahmadinejad supporters — said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran’s supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly “politically correct” responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.
Indeed, and consistently among all three of our surveys over the past two years, more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. And 77 percent of Iranians favored normal relations and trade with the United States, another result consistent with our previous findings.
Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator, the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal — rather like a Persian Nixon going to China.
Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.
Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The groups’ May 11-20 polling consisted of 1,001 interviews across Iran and had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.