Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Idiots Guide

To Wikileaks Latest Document Dump

Eat The Food, But Leave The Poison Behind.

by Michael Rivero at http://whatreallyhappened.com/.

Wikileaks, following much media fanfare (reason for suspicion right there) has just released a huge number of documents supposedly leaked to WikiLeaks and no other websites'. The media is denouncing this as a threat to the United States while US politicians wring their hands and wonder when they will be free of the curse of the First Amendment and all that troublesome nonsense about Freedom of Speech. Many observers think this is a propaganda set up and that neither Julian Assange or WikiLaeks should be taken at face value. After all, Julian Assange keeps insisting there was no 9-11 conspiracy and the 9-11 truth movement a "distraction." Apparently Julian Assange has patented conspiracy and nobody else may expose one except himself!

Of course, there is really not that much that is new in this latest dump. Like prior WikiLeaks dumps, most of it is old news mixed with some rather dubious claims. In his last such dump, Julian Assange included a claim that Osama bin Laden is still alive and controlling Al Qaeda. Of course, it is well documented outside the United States that Osama bin Laden has been dead for many years and that Al Qaeda itself is a fake front group created to hoax Americans into endless wars of conquest, much as the fictional Emmanuel Goldstein was used in George Orwell's "1984."

In yet another infamous propaganda attempt, WikiLeaks tried to claim that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, justifying the invasion. No such weapons were ever found.

As for the present batch of documents, again it is a rehash of stories already known to the blog-o-sphere. Even those people who did not know US diplomats spy on their United Nations counterparts did not find it surprising or in any way a new idea.

So what is the real purpose of Assange's little charade? Propaganda.

Propaganda is like rat poison. 95% of it is tasty, healthy food. But the purpose is to get you to swallow the poison. The same is true of the WikiLeaks document dump. The bait are all these old stories which we already knew about, used to convince us that the entire pile is "tasty, healthy food," except that it isn't. Buried in the pile of delicious, albeit past the expiration date morsels are the bits of poison which the US Government knows you will no longer accept at face value from the controlled media, but hope you will eat if handed to you by a con artist posing as hostile to the government.

So, given that 95% of the current WikiLeaks is really old news, as a public service I will point out the bits of poison that Julian hopes you will eat.

1. Iran is bad so you should all want to kill them.

2. Saudi Arabia is bad because they are funding Al Qaeda so you should all want to kill them.

3. North Korea is bad because they gave really long range missiles to Iran for Iran to put their nuclear warheads in, so you should all want to kill them.

4. China is messing with your computers, so you should all want to kill them.

That about sums it up. Oh yes, there is nothing negative about Israel in all these diplomatic messages, an impossibility given the lethal Israeli attack on the Aid Flotilla last May. That suggests who Assange really works for.

Funny thing about rat poison. After a while the rats learn to eat the food and leave the poison behind.

Two Ways

“There’s Only Two Ways:
The Death of Capitalism
or The Death of Mother Earth”,

Evo Morales said

21 May, 2010

Comunicas.- Bolivian President Evo Morales called indigenous people worldwide to face capitalism, as a single option to save the planet from the devastating impact of climate change.

During a speech at the Parliament of the Sami minority in Karasjok, northern Norway, Morales stated that “there is only two ways: the death of capitalism or the death of Mother Earth”.

The South American statesman, who arrived in Oslo Wednesday on an official visit, said indigenous peoples have the chance to unmask those responsible for the climate change, the effects of which are threatening thousands of peoples, and even, countries.

For Morales, capitalism is the “Earth’s main enemy, because it turns it into goods, when it should be something sacred”.

The Bolivian statesman criticized that model, “which only seeks profits in detriment of nature, and highlighted indigenous people’s collective experiences, based on a life in harmony with environment and taking advantages of its use for the benefit of the community”.


U.S. Seeks Excuse to Meddle in Latin America

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia (Reuters) – Bolivian President Evo Morales on Monday urged Latin America to reject U.S. anti-drug, anti-communist and anti-terror policies, calling them “pretexts for interventionism.”

Morales, one of Latin America’s most strident critics of Washington, told a defense conference attended by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that Washington remained a threat to regional peace and stability.

“Democracy, peace and security can only be guaranteed without interventionism, without hegemony,” Morales said, listing a series of charges against Washington ranging from coup-plotting to interference in the country’s traditional coca leaf farming. Coca is the plant used to make cocaine.

Gates listened to Morales’ comments but did not appear to react to the broadside, which underscored the Obama administration’s uphill battle to put relationships with many of its southern neighbors on a better footing.

The U.S. defense secretary, speaking to the conference later in the day, supported efforts to improve disaster relief coordination to help respond to regional events like the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile this year.

“This initiative will go far to help mitigate the human suffering that results from these tragedies,” Gates said.

He also backed a proposal to promote transparency in regional defense spending, saying openness about military intentions and capabilities would help promote mutual trust in a region where many are still wary of U.S. influence.

Gates said his staff was working with the U.S. State Department to re-evaluate the Inter-American Convention on Transparency in Conventional Weapons Acquisition with a view to submitting it to the U.S. Senate for ratification.


The Obama administration has worked to improve links with Latin America, hoping both to smooth working relationships with emerging powers such as Brazil as well as to counter new players in the region such as China and Iran.

But the way has not always been easy. Relations between Bolivia and the United States have been strained since Morales, a leader of the coca farmers union, was elected in 2005, the country’s first indigenous leader.

The Bolivian government expelled the U.S. ambassador in 2008 along with agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency, accusing them of supporting the conservative opposition.

Washington responded by expelling the Bolivian ambassador, leaving bilateral relations in their worst state ever. Ties have improved somewhat since then.

Morales, an admirer of longtime U.S. critics such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro, nationalized the oil and gas sector in 2006 and speaks out about what he sees as U.S. imperialism.

Morales took particular aim at U.S. military operations in the region, many of which have been aimed both at countering guerrilla operations and at improving cooperation in the fight against powerful drug trafficking networks.

“Countries have a right to decide for themselves about their own democracy, for themselves about their own security,”

Morales said, adding that “while we have interventionist attitudes for whatever pretext surely it is going to slow the liberation of the people.”

“How can there be peace if there are U.S. military bases?” he asked, referring to a U.S. deal with Colombia that would give American forces greater access to Colombian military bases as part of its anti-drug effort. The agreement has been in limbo since a Colombian court suspended it in August.

Morales accused the United States of being behind efforts to undermine the socialist governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Honduras, where a coup unseated the president and democracy was not restored until the end of his term.

“With the United States we are 3-1,” Morales joked.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Is Wikileaks Israel?

Note: This was written by Gordon Duff on October 23, 2010. View it in light of the latest Wikileaks releases of November 28, 2010 and question if they bear out his view.

The new Wikileaks claims the US undereported by 15,000, the deaths of Iraqi “civilians.” With the numbers listed by the military as little as 10% or less of the actual deaths, bumping up the numbers must be a joke. More leaks about torture and killings, Iraqi torture and the US “looking away?” More idiocy. With the US sending “suspects” around the world on rendition flights, sent to secret prisons and obvious to anyone with a brain, to shallow graves, this Wikileak is simply another sideshow, more “chickenfeed.”

Things have already come apart in Iraq. Why leak this now? Regular news stories are actually going much further than these “leaks.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the agenda here, an agenda with absolutely nothing to do with enlightening the world.

What does it prove, any of it? For sure, we see one thing. Everything leaked is carefully screened to have nothing of real value. With Mossad running around Mosul, operating out of Erbil, supplying and advising the terrorist PKK, not a word is mentioned. Instead, poor Iranians are swimming the Euphrates with explosives strapped to their chests.

Get real.

Thousands of tons of explosives were “mislaid” in Iraq. The US failed to secure Saddam’s weapons depots which were looted. These stockpiles were vast. The idea that anyone would need to bring weapons into Iraq is insane, simply another Israeli ploy to pre-stage an attack on Iran. Any fool can see this in seconds.

In fact, there are more assault rifles in Iraq than people.

While trying to blame Iran, is Wikileaks reporting the hundreds of thousands of weapons bought by the US that simply disappeared in Iraq? It is easier to buy an assault rifle or RPG in Iraq than to get potato chips. This need to blame Iran, the idea that “secret agents” are smuggling ordnance into Iraq, a country loaded with explosives, is insane. Who would believe it? The idiotic controlled press?

What will we see if we watch the stories coming out? Where will the press be told to manipulate the public to look?


“Iran’s Training for Iraqi Militants Outlined in Leaked Pentagon Documents”

Bloomberg and The Guardian start the ball rolling. Imagine Iraq, a country with the 3rd largest military force in the world, needing “trainers” from Iran. Iraq with its elite Republican Guard and one million man army has more people with military training that Britain, a fact The Guardian seems oblivious to. One minute, Iraq is building nuclear weapons and threatening the region with SCUD missiles, the next it is having to turn to “Iranian experts” to build pipe bombs. Has any nation ever suffered such a case of collective amnesia in the area of weapons technology before?

As the days pass, we can expect more and more fanciful accounts of Iranian spies, trainers, kidnappers and terrorists, each story more sensational and fictitious than the last.

There is a more insidious aspect to Wikleaks. Through representing itself as “anti-war” and “public spirited,” it carries forward a globalist agenda, promoting war, promoting regional strife, coincidentally all directly tied to Israel’s “hit list,” the nations Israel openly advocates someone else destroys.

One could easily describe Wikileaks as a Mossad PsyOp.

Thus, Wikileaks is very effective in derailing genuine dialog and meaningful dissent.


Americans proved long ago that they were immune to guilt about torture and killing. In fact, polls show that the more religious an American, the more willing they are to accept brutality, and few countries are as “religious’ as America. No other country in recent times as killed as many people as America, even overshadowing the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and Bosnia or the “situation” in Israel.

As with the earlier “leak,” Wikileaks has the ability to go through hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, carefully eliminating any blackmarket dealings, drug running or, as with Iraq, the massive corruption and theft of oil.

There are dozens of subjects that seem to be carefully screened from any Wikileak. Even the Department of Defense, not so secretly, thanks Wikileaks for holding back really embarrassing information. “Held back” information is, of course, blackmail.

Who is Wikileaks?

Is Wikileaks Israel?

Only Israel has the penetration of the Department of Defense that would allow this kind of spying. Not only can they do it, they also have so many spies in the American chain of command, they could easily prevent it. Who has the facilities to gather and filter this much data? Who would want to?

With the biggest story in Iraq the falsified intelligence on “weapons of mass destruction,” why didn’t Wikileaks get us documents on this? We know that the military had orders to try to falsify documents showing that they found fully operating nuclear, biological and chemical warfare facilities. These would have made good reading along with the thousands of pages of reports about how these stories would be fabricated. Even the “controlled press” wouldn’t touch them although they are still out there.

The lies.

Exposing this real Iraq scandal would so some good, except for one thing, friends of Israel inside the Pentagon were the creators of this program. Is this why Wikileaks dodges the real issues? Is it because the trail for much of what happened in Iraq heads directly to Tel Aviv?

Who even cares about Iraq this many years later?

Look at the watered down reports about American support of Al Qaeda. The US is blamed for accidentally helping Al Qaeda by organizing the Sons of Iraq. In truth, the US actually reorganized the Baathists, something far worse than the imaginary construct “Al Qaeda.” Not a word is said about this.

One of the biggest scams of the Iraq “experience” was the looting of oil resources. Most easily verified is the theft of oil from the Kirkuk fields through the Kirkuk/Ceyhan pipeline, which goes to the Mediterranean through Turkey. Ships that load oil are shown on locator sights run by insurance companies and even the US Coast Guard. Their tonnage is available, how many ships, how long. When doing the math, how much oil is loaded compared to how much is paid for, billions and billions of dollars of oil is missing.

When Americans were paying $4 a gallon for gas, how many knew the oil that made the gasoline was “free” to the oil companies? Who spit the take on this? Who was paid? How much was stolen through Basra? Were the British involved?

Then we have Fallujah. We are told America “carpet bombed” civilians and “ethnically cleansed” the area, as we are now informed, for no reason. The version the Army told is being debunked along with the phony stories of the “embedded” press. Nothing on this hit Wikileaks either.

We are also noting high levels of radiation there and a health crisis that can only be described as shocking. Where is wikileaks on this REAL story?

There is little doubt that Wikileaks is a “sideshow’ run by an intelligence agency with dozens of agents inside the Department of Defense. Only Israel has this capability, having penetrated Defense to such a degree they run it as their own. What is the agenda of Wikileaks? Is it revealing the truth? If so, why is the truth censored and watered down to such a degree as to be “non-news” as the earlier leak had been. In fact, most stories about leaks are simply speculation and most “leaks” are little than “chickenfeed.”

The last leak was an attack on Pakistan. Wikileaks tried to make a case for Pakistan running the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, the Taliban are Pashtun and don’t care much for Pakistan, they are “blood enemies.” Because of this, Israel and India have found them useful allies against Pakistan, the only Islamic nuclear power. Aid of all kinds gets to the Taliban from the Mossad and RAW, something Wikileaks worked hard to keep secret.

Real leaks by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds proved that documents exist showing that rendition flights were used to ferry terrorists around, move drugs and tons of cash. With bales of cash leaving Afghanistan every day, why is it that not one page, not one word of any of this, things we know are in American files, hit Wikileaks?

Why does Wikileaks spend more time hiding things than revealing them? When the story dies down, are the Julian Assange rape allegations going to be dragged out again to give the story more play? Last time they “double dipped” on that one, first charges, then no charges, then charges. It was like a badly written “soap opera.” We have just received reports of Julian Assange fleeing Pentagon death squads. We are told he has virtually disappeared off the face of the planet. We also have a schedule of public appearances and interviews for Assange, who will mysteriously re-materialize when needed. Ah, to have powers such as those.

What about this new “leak?”

This one may be aimed at Iran.

Anyone surprised or shocked to find that Iraqi security forces killed or tortured people is living on their own private planet. These were Saddam’s killers and torturers first. Then they became ours. What do killers and torturers do?

There was one reason for the invasion of Iraq with all the lies, all the killing, all the corruption. Israel wanted Iraq destroyed. Will Wikileaks ever get to something real?

Wednesday, November 24, 2010


Nothing to be Thankful For

It is a deep thing that people still celebrate the survival of the early colonists at Plymouth — by giving thanks to the Christian God who supposedly protected and championed the European invasion. The real meaning of all that, then and now, needs to be continually excavated. The myths and lies that surround the past are constantly draped over the horrors and tortures of our present.

Every schoolchild in the U.S. has been taught that the Pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony invited the local Indians to a major harvest feast after surviving their first bitter year in New England. But the real history of Thanksgiving is a story of the murder of indigenous people and the theft of their land by European colonialists–and of the ruthless ways of capitalism.
In mid-winter 1620 the English ship Mayflower landed on the North American coast, delivering 102 exiles. The original Native people of this stretch of shoreline had already been killed off. In 1614 a British expedition had landed there. When they left they took 24 Indians as slaves and left smallpox behind. Three years of plague wiped out between 90 and 96 percent of the inhabitants of the coast, destroying most villages completely.

After the first colonies were establshed -- the Pequod warThe Europeans landed and built their colony called "the Plymouth Plantation" near the deserted ruins of the Indian village of Pawtuxet. They ate from abandoned cornfields grown wild. Only one Pawtuxet named Squanto had survived–he had spent the last years as a slave to the English and Spanish in Europe. Squanto spoke the colonists’ language and taught them how to plant corn and how to catch fish until the first harvest. Squanto also helped the colonists negotiate a peace treaty with the nearby Wampanoag tribe, led by the chief Massasoit.
These were very lucky breaks for the colonists. The first Virginia settlement had been wiped out before they could establish themselves. Thanks to the good will of the Wampanoag, the settlers not only survived their first year but had an alliance with the Wampanoags that would give them almost two decades of peace.

John Winthrop, a founder of the Massahusetts Bay colony considered this wave of illness and death to be a divine miracle. He wrote to a friend in England, "But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by smallpox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not 50, have put themselves under our protection."

The deadly impact of European diseases and the good will of the Wampanoag allowed the settlers to survive their first year.
In celebration of their good fortune, the colony’s governor, William Bradford, declared a three-day feast of thanksgiving after that first harvest of 1621.

How the Puritans Stole the Land

Original inhabitants -- before the European invasionBut the peace that produced the Thanksgiving Feast of 1621 meant that the Puritans would have 15 years to establish a firm foothold on the coast. Until 1629 there were no more than 300 settlers in New England, scattered in small and isolated settlements. But their survival inspired a wave of Puritan invasion that soon established growing Massachusetts towns north of Plymouth: Boston and Salem. For 10 years, boatloads of new settlers came.

On arrival, the Puritans and other religious sects discussed "who legally owns all this land." They had to decide this, not just because of Anglo-Saxon traditions, but because their particular way of farming was based on individual–not communal or tribal–ownership. This debate over land ownership reveals that bourgeois "rule of law" does not mean "protect the rights of the masses of people."

Some settlers argued that the land belonged to the Indians. These forces were excommunicated and expelled. Massachusetts Governor Winthrop declared the Indians had not "subdued" the land, and therefore all uncultivated lands should, according to English Common Law, be considered "public domain." This meant they belonged to the king. In short, the colonists decided they did not need to consult the Indians when they seized new lands, they only had to consult the representative of the crown (meaning the local governor).
Since then, European settler states have similarly declared god their real estate agent: from the Boers seizing South Africa to the Zionists seizing Palestine.

The European immigrants took land and enslaved Indians to help them farm it. By 1637 there were about 2,000 British settlers. They pushed out from the coast and decided to remove the inhabitants.

The Shining City on the Hill

Where did the Plymouth and Massachusetts colonies of Puritan and "separatist" pilgrims come from and what were they really all about?

A self-serving historical lie -- The myth of coexistance and love promoted by ThanksgivingGovernor Winthrop, a founder of the Massachusetts colony, said, "We shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us." The Mayflower Puritans had been driven out of England as subversives. The Puritans saw this religious colony as a model of a social and political order that they believed all of Europe should adopt.

The Puritan movement was part of a sweeping revolt within English society against the ruling feudal order of wealthy lords. Only a few decades after the establishment of Plymouth, the Puritan Revolution came to power in England. They killed the king, won a civil war, set up a short-lived republic, and brutally conquered the neighboring people of Ireland to create a larger national market.

The famous Puritan intolerance was part of a determined attempt to challenge the decadence and wastefulness of the rich aristocratic landlords of England. The Puritans wanted to use the power of state punishment to uproot old and still dominant ways of thinking and behaving.
The new ideas of the Puritans served the needs of merchant capitalist accumulation. The extreme discipline, thrift and modesty the Puritans demanded of each other corresponded to a new and emerging form of ownership and production. Their so-called "Protestant Ethic" was an early form of the capitalist ethic. From the beginning, the Puritan colonies intended to grow through capitalist trade–trading fish and fur with England while they traded pots, knives, axes, alcohol and other English goods with the Indians.

The New England were ruled by a government in which only the male heads of families had a voice. Women, Indians, slaves, servants, youth were neither heard nor represented. In the Puritan schoolbooks, the old law "honor thy father and thy mother" was interpreted to mean honoring "All our Superiors, whether in Family, School, Church, and Commonwealth." And, the real truth was that the colonies were fundamentally controlled by the most powerful merchants.
The Puritan fathers believed they were the Chosen People of an infinite god and that this justified anything they did. They were Calvinists who believed that the vast majority of humanity was predestined to damnation. This meant that while they were firm in fighting for their own capitalist right to accumulate and prosper, they were quick to oppress the masses of people in Ireland, Scotland and North America, once they seized the power to set up their new bourgeois order. Those who rejected the narrow religious rules of the colonies were often simply expelled "out into the wilderness."

The Massachusetts colony (north of Plymouth) was founded when Puritan stockholders had gotten control of an English trading company. The king had given this company the right to govern its own internal affairs, and in 1629 the stockholders simply voted to transfer the company to North American shores–making this colony literally a self-governing company of stockholders!

In U.S. schools, students are taught that the Mayflower compact of Plymouth contained the seeds of "modern democracy" and "rule of law." But by looking at the actual history of the Puritans, we can see that this so-called "modern democracy" was (and still is) a capitalist democracy based on all kinds of oppression and serving the class interests of the ruling capitalists.

The reality of colonial massacre and enslavementIn short, the Puritan movement developed as an early revolutionary challenge to the old feudal order in England. They were the soul of primitive capitalist accumulation. And transferred to the shores of North America, they immediately revealed how heartless and oppressive that capitalist soul is.

The Birth of "The American Way of War"

In the Connecticut Valley, the powerful Pequot tribe had not entered an alliance with the British (as had the Narragansett, the Wampanoag, and the Massachusetts peoples). At first they were far from the centers of colonization. Then, in 1633, the British stole the land where the city of Hartford now sits–land which the Pequot had recently conquered from another tribe. That same year two British slave raiders were killed. The colonists demanded that the Indians who killed the slavers be turned over. The Pequot refused.

The Puritan preachers said, from Romans 13:2, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." The colonial governments gathered an armed force of 240 under the command of John Mason. They were joined by a thousand Narragansett warriors. The historian Francis Jennings writes: "Mason proposed to avoid attacking Pequot warriors which would have overtaxed his unseasoned, unreliable troops. Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy’s will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk, and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective."
The colonist army surrounded a fortified Pequot village on the Mystic River. At sunrise, as the inhabitants slept, the Puritan soldiers set the village on fire.

William Bradford, Governor of Plymouth, wrote: "Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them."

Mason himself wrote: "It may be demanded…Should not Christians have more mercy and compassion? But…sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents…. We had sufficient light from the word of God for our proceedings."

Three hundred and fifty years later the Puritan phrase "a shining city on the hill" became a favorite quote of conservative speechwriters.
Discovering the Profits of Slavery

This so-called "Pequot war" was a one-sided murder and slaving expedition. Over 180 captives were taken. After consulting the bible again, in Leviticus 24:44, the colonial authorities found justification to kill most of the Pequot men and enslave the captured women and their children. Only 500 Pequot remained alive and free. In 1975 the official number of Pequot living in Connecticut was 21.
Some of the war captives were given to the Narragansett and Massachusetts allies of the British. Even before the arrival of Europeans, Native peoples of North America had widely practiced taking war captives from other tribes as hostages and slaves.

The remaining captives were sold to British plantation colonies in the West Indies to be worked to death in a new form of slavery that served the emerging capitalist world market. And with that, the merchants of Boston made a historic discovery: the profits they made from the sale of human beings virtually paid for the cost of seizing them.

One account says that enslaving Indians quickly became a "mania with speculators." These early merchant capitalists of Massachusetts started to make genocide pay for itself. The slave trade, first in captured Indians and soon in kidnapped Africans, quickly became a backbone of New England merchant capitalism.
Thanksgiving in the Plymouth Community
In 1641 the Dutch governor Kieft of Manhattan offered the first "scalp bounty"–his government paid money for the scalp of each Indian brought to them. A couple years later, Kieft ordered the massacre of the Wappingers, a friendly tribe. Eighty were killed and their severed heads were kicked like soccer balls down the streets of Manhattan. One captive was castrated, skinned alive and forced to eat his own flesh while the Dutch governor watched and laughed. Then Kieft hired the notorious Underhill who had commanded in the Pequot war to carry out a similar massacre near Stamford, Connecticut. The village was set fire, and 500 Indian residents were put to the sword.

A day of thanksgiving was proclaimed in the churches of Manhattan. As we will see, the European colonists declared Thanksgiving Days to celebrate mass murder more often than they did for harvest and friendship.
The Conquest of New England
By the 1670s there were about 30,000 to 40,000 white inhabitants in the United New England Colonies–6,000 to 8,000 able to bear arms. With the Pequot destroyed, the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonists turned on the Wampanoag, the tribe that had saved them in 1620 and probably joined them for the original Thanksgiving Day.
In 1675 a Christian Wampanoag was killed while spying for the Puritans. The Plymouth authorities arrested and executed three Wampanoag without consulting the tribal chief, King Philip.

As Mao Tsetung says: "Where there is oppression there is resistance." The Wampanoag went to war.

The Indians applied some military lessons they had learned: they waged a guerrilla war which overran isolated European settlements and were often able to inflict casualties on the Puritan soldiers. The colonists again attacked and massacred the main Indian populations.
When this war ended, 600 European men, one-eleventh of the adult men of the New England Colonies, had been killed in battle. Hundreds of homes and 13 settlements had been wiped out. But the colonists won.
In their victory, the settlers launched an all-out genocide against the remaining Native people. The Massachusetts government offered 20 shillings bounty for every Indian scalp, and 40 shillings for every prisoner who could be sold into slavery. Soldiers were allowed to enslave any Indian woman or child under 14 they could capture. The "Praying Indians" who had converted to Christianity and fought on the side of the European troops were accused of shooting into the treetops during battles with "hostiles." They were enslaved or killed. Other "peaceful" Indians of Dartmouth and Dover were invited to negotiate or seek refuge at trading posts–and were sold onto slave ships.

It is not known how many Indians were sold into slavery, but in this campaign, 500 enslaved Indians were shipped from Plymouth alone. Of the 12,000 Indians in the surrounding tribes, probably about half died from battle, massacre and starvation.
After King Philip’s War, there were almost no Indians left free in the northern British colonies. A colonist wrote from Manhattan’s New York colony: "There is now but few Indians upon the island and those few no ways hurtful. It is to be admired how strangely they have decreased by the hand of God, since the English first settled in these parts."
In Massachusetts, the colonists declared a "day of public thanksgiving" in 1676, saying, "there now scarce remains a name or family of them [the Indians] but are either slain, captivated or fled."
Fifty-five years after the original Thanksgiving Day, the Puritans had destroyed the generous Wampanoag and all other neighboring tribes. The Wampanoag chief King Philip was beheaded. His head was stuck on a pole in Plymouth, where the skull still hung on display 24 years later.
The descendants of these Native peoples are found wherever the Puritan merchant capitalists found markets for slaves: the West Indies, the Azures, Algiers, Spain and England. The grandson of Massasoit, the Pilgrim’s original protector, was sold into slavery in Bermuda.

Runaways and Rebels
But even the destruction of Indian tribal life and the enslavement of survivors brought no peace. Indians continued to resist in every available way. Their oppressors lived in terror of a revolt. And they searched for ways to end the resistance. The historian MacLeod writes: "The first `reservations’ were designed for the `wild’ Irish of Ulster in 1609. And the first Indian reservation agent in America, Gookin of Massachusetts, like many other American immigrants had seen service in Ireland under Cromwell."

The enslaved Indians refused to work and ran away. The Massachusetts government tried to control runaways by marking enslaved Indians: brands were burnt into their skin, and symbols were tattooed into their foreheads and cheeks.

A Massachusetts law of 1695 gave colonists permission to kill Indians at will, declaring it was "lawful for any person, whether English or Indian, that shall find any Indians traveling or skulking in any of the towns or roads (within specified limits), to command them under their guard and examination, or to kill them as they may or can."

The northern colonists enacted more and more laws for controlling the people. A law in Albany forbade any African or Indian slave from driving a cart within the city. Curfews were set up; Africans and Indians were forbidden to have evening get-togethers. On Block Island, Indians were given 10 lashes for being out after nine o’clock. In 1692 Massachusetts made it a serious crime for any white person to marry an African, an Indian or a mulatto. In 1706 they tried to stop the importation of Indian slaves from other colonies, fearing a slave revolt.


Looking at this history raises a question: Why should anyone celebrate the survival of the earliest Puritans with a Thanksgiving Day? Certainly the Native peoples of those times had no reason to celebrate.

The ruling powers of the United States organized people to celebrate Thanksgiving Day because it is in their interest. That’s why they created it. The first national celebration of Thanksgiving was called for by George Washington. And the celebration was made a regular legal holiday later by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war (right as he sent troops to suppress the Sioux of Minnesota).
Washington and Lincoln were two presidents deeply involved in trying to forge a unified bourgeois nation-state out of the European settlers in the United States. And the Thanksgiving story was a useful myth in their efforts at U.S. nation-building. It celebrates the "bounty of the American way of life," while covering up the brutal nature of this society.

What Am I Thankful for on this Day of Thanks.

I am thankful for my ancestors who were wise enough to see that the redman was not worthy of this land. Even thought if not for the Redman they would have died the first year in this land.

I am thankful that my more recent ancestors were wise enough to understand that the Blackman was destined by God to be our slaves,even though the blackman was on the earth and civilized long before my people came out of the caves.

I am thankful that God saw fit to save the oil, coal ,diamonds, and all other natural good resources for us white americans.

Most of all I am thankful the days of this most evil nation is about to come to it's end.

(a Thanksgiving contribution found in our chatroom)

Dollar Rejected

Premier Wen Jiabao shakes hands with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin
on a visit to St. Petersburg on Tuesday.ALEXEY DRUZHININ / AFP

China, Russia Quit Dollar

By Su Qiang and Li Xiaokun
(China Daily) 2010-11-24

St. Petersburg, Russia - China and Russia have decided to renounce the US dollar and resort to using their own currencies for bilateral trade, Premier Wen Jiabao and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin announced late on Tuesday.

Chinese experts said the move reflected closer relations between Beijing and Moscow and is not aimed at challenging the dollar, but to protect their domestic economies.

"About trade settlement, we have decided to use our own currencies," Putin said at a joint news conference with Wen in St. Petersburg.

The two countries were accustomed to using other currencies, especially the dollar, for bilateral trade. Since the financial crisis, however, high-ranking officials on both sides began to explore other possibilities.

The yuan has now started trading against the Russian rouble in the Chinese interbank market, while the renminbi will soon be allowed to trade against the rouble in Russia, Putin said.

"That has forged an important step in bilateral trade and it is a result of the consolidated financial systems of world countries," he said.

Putin made his remarks after a meeting with Wen. They also officiated at a signing ceremony for 12 documents, including energy cooperation.

The documents covered cooperation on aviation, railroad construction, customs, protecting intellectual property, culture and a joint communiqu. Details of the documents have yet to be released.

Putin said one of the pacts between the two countries is about the purchase of two nuclear reactors from Russia by China's Tianwan nuclear power plant, the most advanced nuclear power complex in China.

Putin has called for boosting sales of natural resources - Russia's main export - to China, but price has proven to be a sticking point.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, who holds sway over Russia's energy sector, said following a meeting with Chinese representatives that Moscow and Beijing are unlikely to agree on the price of Russian gas supplies to China before the middle of next year.

Russia is looking for China to pay prices similar to those Russian gas giant Gazprom charges its European customers, but Beijing wants a discount. The two sides were about $100 per 1,000 cubic meters apart, according to Chinese officials last week.

Wen's trip follows Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's three-day visit to China in September, during which he and President Hu Jintao launched a cross-border pipeline linking the world's biggest energy producer with the largest energy consumer.

Wen said at the press conference that the partnership between Beijing and Moscow has "reached an unprecedented level" and pledged the two countries will "never become each other's enemy".

Over the past year, "our strategic cooperative partnership endured strenuous tests and reached an unprecedented level," Wen said, adding the two nations are now more confident and determined to defend their mutual interests.

"China will firmly follow the path of peaceful development and support the renaissance of Russia as a great power," he said.

"The modernization of China will not affect other countries' interests, while a solid and strong Sino-Russian relationship is in line with the fundamental interests of both countries."

Wen said Beijing is willing to boost cooperation with Moscow in Northeast Asia, Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific region, as well as in major international organizations and on mechanisms in pursuit of a "fair and reasonable new order" in international politics and the economy.

Sun Zhuangzhi, a senior researcher in Central Asian studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the new mode of trade settlement between China and Russia follows a global trend after the financial crisis exposed the faults of a dollar-dominated world financial system.

Pang Zhongying, who specializes in international politics at Renmin University of China, said the proposal is not challenging the dollar, but aimed at avoiding the risks the dollar represents.

Wen arrived in the northern Russian city on Monday evening for a regular meeting between Chinese and Russian heads of government.

He left St. Petersburg for Moscow late on Tuesday and is set to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday.

Agencies and Zhou Wa contributed to this story.

The Truth Of It

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Bad Apples

- The Whole Basket

What the U.S. now does in Afghanistan and Iraq it has done repeatedly around the world for over a hundred years.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Thanks America!

Bay Area billboards ‘thank’ the US for Israel’s blank check

President Obama Would Rather Kill Palestinians than Feed American Children

By Mohamed Khodr

President Obama, your outrageous acceptance of Israel’s extortion of $3 Billion worth of F-35 fighter planes along with other security and political guarantees for the mere acceptance of a 90 day “freeze” of settlements in the West Bank, which excludes East Jerusalem, is a slap to the honor and dignity of this nation, the sole superpower. That a rogue illegitimate small war crime of a nation can bring this superpower to its knees is proof that our leaders, government, institutions, media, and academia can be bought, sold, and intimidated by a few hundred thousand rich and powerful American Jews.

Pity the American people who ignorantly pay and die for Israel’s wars while believing the lies and fear mongering chants of the Pro Israel criminal cabal that the Muslims and Iran seek to destroy this nation.

“No matter what happens “the Arabs will be blamed….American cowardice – in the face of the immensely powerful Jewish lobby in the US – has produced a situation in which Washington remains supinely silent while Mr. Netanyahu, according to the Israeli paper Yediot Ahronot, threatens to “burn Washington”, should President Bill Clinton attempt to force Israel to accept a 13 per cent withdrawal from occupied Arab land.”
–Robert Fisk, The Independent, June 1, 1998

Shockingly, Mr. President, you have no political choice but to accept what Netanyahu dishes out against your person or against this nation having proclaimed that he has the ability to “move” this nation in the direction he sees fit.

Netanyahu during Bill Clinton’s time threatened to “burn Washington” if Clinton continued to press him for small land concessions Israel already agreed to. In total exasperation Clinton said of Netanyahu: “he thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires.”

Clinton is right. No U.S. President (brief exception President Eisenhower) has had the audacity of courage to stand up to Israel.The “special relationship” between Israel and the U.S. is summarized as followes: “Israel Demands, America Caves”

Several American, European, and world leaders have publicly stated that ending Israel’s bloody and inhumane occupation and treatment of millions of Palestinians will go a long way to ending terrorism. But not even the loss of American lives, both civilian and military, due to terrorism is enough to stiffen the cowardly spine of our political leaders.

Since 1948 U.S. Jews and Israel have “threatened”, yes, threatened our national leaders electorally, via withholding campaign donations, or using the media to smear and harass them to ensure Israel’s continuous extortions are met. Mr. Obama,despite your hollow and hypocritical rhetoric that resolving the Israeli Palestinian conflict is in our national interest, Israel has continued to insult and thumb its nose at you which inexplicably you submit to in silence.

No, Mr. President, on Israel your policy thus far has been of “can’t” and no “change”. As long as our government keeps Americans uninformed about Israel’s detriment and high cost to our national interest and deficits, we will continue paying for Israel’s wars and withdrawals.

Everyone now realizes that freeing the Palestinians from Israel’s brutal occupation will undermine the main cause of terrorism and animosity against this nation.

Israel as its custom will never live up to any agreement or withdrawal commitment It will continue to drag any so called peace process until it completes annexation and ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians. It will continue to demand more tax dollars, more weapons for more wars, and expect our nation to continuously block any criticism of its inhuman policies. How much will it cost the American people for the next 90 days and the succeeding 90 days? If there is ever a peace agreement how much will that cost our nation in debt?

In Israel’s hands F-35 fighter jets, the most modern fighter planes, can only serve one purpose— Kill more Palestinian and Lebanese children. These are killing machines given as a bribe for Israel to meet its International obligations of halting construction of illegal settlements and cooperate in serving its sole benefactor’s national interest in the Middle East and the Muslim world as it continues to fight two wars.

Israel has never given a damn about a single American life, should anyone be so foolish and stupid to believe it cares about an Arab child?

Listen to its racist leaders across the political and religious spectrums who believe that the sole purpose of Gentiles is to serve the interest of Jews or die.

Does our constant caving in to Israel honor our nation, our national interest, our killed soldiers in the region, our Constitution, or we the people of this nation? Let us feed America’s hungry and not feed Israel’s appetite for genocides.

President Obama, your submissiveness to the stronger Netanyahu is of your own making. You are owned by America’s powerful Jewish cabal. You surrounded yourself by appointing U.S. Jews with dual loyalties, primarily to Israel, to every important governmental post. Jews in Congress control the most powerful Committees that deal with foreign affairs, homeland security, and intelligence Eric Cantor (R-VA), like his congressional tribesman and akin to former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich, met with Netanyahu to assure him that he can count on Congressional allegiance to Israel to thwart any potential presidential policy that Israel rejects.

The funny thing about such an allegiance is that it’s unwarranted given, Mr. Obama, your own deep personal allegiance to Israel and kosher Wall Street.

You would rather send billions of dollars of killing weapons that offensively violate America’s laws than send such money to feed hungry American children blocks from your resident.

Israel has much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.

Dr Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

This is Israel

Peace activist Tristan Anderson was critically injured when Israeli soldiers fired a high-velocity tear gas canister directly at his head in 2009. Anderson was taking part in a weekly nonviolent protest against Israel’s separation wall in the West Bank.

Amerikans Pay

For Israel's West Bank Occupation

These USAID adverts can be seen all around West Bank.
(Photo by Lysistrate)

According to a June 2010 fact sheet on the USAID Internet site, last year American taxpayers funded the paving of 63 kilometers of asphalt roads in the West Bank.

By Akiva Eldar
November 16, 2010

Travelers along the "original" West Bank roads, the ones enabling drivers to bypass Palestinian villages, can see signs declaring "USAID from the American People."

The roads are one of the initiatives of the United States Agency for International Development for building infrastructure in underdeveloped countries. Israel has already proudly left the club of developing countries and is not among the clients of USAID. Nevertheless, it appears the Smith family of Illinois is making the occupation a little less expensive for the Cohen family of Petah Tikva.

According to a June 2010 fact sheet on the USAID Internet site, last year American taxpayers funded the paving of 63 kilometers of asphalt roads in the West Bank. It also says completion of a road in the southern part of the West Bank dramatically increased the amount of trade between Dahriya and Beer Sheva.

What the site doesn't say is that a significant segment of the road goes through Area C - the 60 percent of the West Bank under exclusive Israeli civilian and military control and responsibility under the interim agreement of 1995 (the second Oslo agreement ). The agreement states: "Territorial jurisdiction includes land (and ) subsoil."

This is not the only occupation-perpetuating road funded by American money. Dror Etkes, an expert on the settlements, noticed a few days ago USAID workers energetically laying asphalt on two roads in the Samaria region (northern West Bank ) that crosses Area C. Israelis haven't been traveling these roads for years now because the taxpayer (in this case, the Israeli taxpayer ) has already paved separate, wide, modern roads for them.

Etkes wondered how it is possible that the Obama administration, which is vociferously opposed to the continuation of the status quo in the West Bank, continues to subsidize the road for Israel. "If the state of Israel is insisting on continuing to hold on and de facto annex the West Bank," he says, "it should also be allocating the money needed to take care of the infrastructure."

I asked an American official why the administration isn't demanding of Israel that it fulfill its obligations and pay the price of the occupation out of its own pocket.

"Who told you we aren't demanding that?" replied the official. "We are also demanding a construction freeze in the settlements and you know at least as well as anyone else what is happening on the ground."

It is worth mentioning that the when the Palestinians sought permission to pave a short road in Area C to enable access to the planned town of Rawabi, Israel pulled out the Oslo accord and kicked them down the stairs. The USAID tractors don't have access to the area either.

However, when it suits his interest, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a stickler for Oslo. A few days ago he announced that unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state would be considered a violation of the agreement. Tomorrow, incidentally, will mark the eighth anniversary of Foreign Minister Netanyahu's statement on Israel radio that "all the Oslo agreements are null and void."

A USAID spokeswoman responded that the program's infrastructure projects "respond to the needs of the Palestinian people and are implemented in response to requests from the Palestinian Authority. Many of the USAID funded projects cross from one area to another in accordance with the needs of the Palestinian communities and the specific project. There are roads and water pipelines that cross through Area C or are adjacent to Area C as designs require and agreements with Civil Authorities allow."

No way home

The Oslo agreement, which is so close to Netanyahu's heart, also states that both sides see "the West Bank and Gaza Strip territory as a single territorial unit."

Nevertheless, since the outbreak of the second intifada, Israel has cut off almost entirely the connection between these two areas.

Security authorities make a point of expelling Gazans from the West Bank and they do not allow residents of Gaza to reunite with their families in the West Bank.

A year ago, in response to a petition to the High Court of Justice by the Hamoked Center for the Defense of the Individual, the State Prosecutor's Office said the policy does not apply to individuals who took up residence in the West Bank before the year 2000 and "about whom there exists no negative security material."

Be that as it may, during this past year a number of Palestinians have been expelled from the West Bank even though they arrived their prior to the cut-off date, and had no "negative security material" against them. Several have applied to Hamoked for help.

One of them, M.N., 29, went to Gaza in 2004 to participate in the mourning for his father. Since then he has been stuck and is in hiding from Hamas, which has issued an arrest warrant for him.

The coordinator of permits at the Coordination and Liaison Office in the Israel Defense Forces has recommended that M.N.'s request to return to the West Bank be granted. In the opinion appended to the recommendation, the aforementioned response by the prosecutor to the High Court of Justice is cited.

But the High Court of Justice is one thing and the reality is another. The Liaison Office's legal adviser rejected the recommendation and wrote that it is necessary "to be strict about consistency, paying attention to the fact that approving the request might be a precedent for approving similar requests." In another case handled by Hamoked, the adviser wrote that G.J. entered the West Bank in 2000 and should not be expelled under the guidelines. So why has G.J. been sent to Gaza and not allowed back in the West Bank?

"The aforementioned is a bachelor and he has no family connection in Judea and Samaria," was the response. Truly an excellent reason. The time has come for him to find a bride in Ramallah and marry.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Food Safety???

S 510 is Hissing in the Grass

By Steve Green

S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act*, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.

“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.” ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower

It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.

Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes. S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.


In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.

S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.

1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.

2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:


Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.

4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.

5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.

6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.

7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production - put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.

8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.

9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.

10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review. It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the U

China Power

President Barack Obama (left) meets Chinese President Hu Jintao for a bilateral meeting in Seoul ahead of the start of the G20 summit Photo: AFP/GETTY IMAGESBy Telegraph View 7:01PM GMT 12 Nov 2010
China believes its economic success reflects its superior culture.
A lesson from China in where power lies

The leaders of the G20 group of rich and developing nations met in Seoul this week for what might reasonably be described as their first post-crisis summit. But it also had the feeling of the first post-Western summit. China, the world’s second richest nation and its rising power, believes that the financial crisis was actually a “North Atlantic crisis”. Now that the worst of it is over, Beijing sees little reason to swallow the medicine for someone else’s sickness. The summit therefore broke up – none too amicably – without really addressing the trade imbalances that were one of the root causes of the crisis, or America’s worry that Beijing is gaining an unfair advantage by artificially keeping its currency weak. Instead, China flexed its muscles and got what it wanted: a watered-down statement that will not force it to change course. If President Obama hoped that the G20 would burnish his image as a world statesman after the disaster of the midterm elections, those hopes were disappointed.

It is inescapable that we are witnessing a historic shift of economic power from West to East. David Cameron has certainly taken this on board, judging by the caution with which he and his Cabinet members treated China during their visit earlier this week. The Prime Minister approached the subject of human rights far more obliquely than he did as leader of the Opposition. Whether this was wise judgment or a failure of nerve is difficult to say. Although China treats dissidents with gross inhumanity, the more it is lectured on the subject, the more intransigent it becomes. In a sense, that is convenient for Mr Cameron: if protesting about repression makes the situation worse, then Britain can concentrate on trade with a fairly clear conscience.

Certainly, China is leaving Seoul with even more of a swagger in its step. Its regional ambitions are unchecked: if anything, they have been further provoked by America’s insistence that the resolution of territorial disputes in the South China Sea is a “national interest”.

Tuesday, November 09, 2010


As Obama Arrives in Jakarta,
Secret Docs Show U.S.-Backed Indonesian Special Forces Unit Targets Papuan Churches, Civilians

November 9, 2010 uruknet.info اوروكنت.إنفو

CLICK HERE for Video

President Obama arrived in Indonesia today on the second stop of a 10-day trip to Asia. It’s Obama’s first state visit to Indonesia after having lived there for four years as a child. We go to Jakarta to speak with investigative journalist and activist Allan Nairn, who has just released secret documents from Kopassus—the feared Indonesian special forces—which has been responsible for human rights abuses since the 1950s. Earlier this year, the Obama administration lifted a 12-year funding ban for the training of Kopassus. While Obama talks about human rights, the documents indicate that Kopassus targets churches and civilians and includes a Kopassus enemies list topped by a local Baptist minister in West Papua.

Sunday, November 07, 2010

Weapons Business

The Real Reason For Obama's Trip To India:
The Sixth Biggest Arms Deal In U.S. History

Anika Anand Nov. 6, 2010

President Obama is traveling to India this weekend to make a $5 billion sale for 10 of Boeing's C-17 cargo planes. If India signs the contract, this would be the sixth biggest arms deal in U.S. history.

This and the pending $60 billion deal with Saudi Arabia will certainly help to jump-start the economy, as they have for the past fifty years.

We've identified the biggest sales since 1973 with help from William Hartung at the Arms and Security Initiative at New America Foundation.

"There's no question it's big business," he said. "But relative to the overall size of our economy and other things we export it's not like these deals will make or break us."

Click Here To See The Biggest Sales

Saturday, November 06, 2010

In Preperation

The Insane Prelude
To The Corporate Takeover Of
The Planet

By Siv O'Neall

03 November, 2010
Axis of Logic

“The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission – founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller – and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens.”

Preparing for World Dominance

The planning for the days of the Unites States asserting itself comfortably as the lone global power, influencing trade, resources, and living conditions all over the world, is anything but recent history. Still, you often read words implying that the U.S. began its serious role as the Predator of other nations’ resources, altering their way of life and taking over the running of their economies, after the end of the old colonialist era. The arrogant U.S. takeover of nations became institutionalized with the PNAC(2) conspiracy, which made their openly imperial ambitions known to the whole world.

The underground mafia that began its devilish scheming during the reign of the Hollywood actor president with the friendly people’s smile, was doing its secret planning for the century to come. The man with the smile was the label man who was covering up the cold calculations of the think tank that was going to twist the world into obedience, with money or with bombs. What the U.S. couldn’t buy up or steer into their own galaxy, they figured they could always get at with military might.

The Project for A New American Century was certainly a clear signal to the world that ‘Here we come – throw away your hand plows. We are bringing you the real tools to dig up the goods and to teach you how to live the good life.’ That was the open message. What it actually stood for was just plain greed and determination to own the world. Nothing less.

After this presumptuous beginning of taking over the world had gotten under way – in modern times taking a good head start during the Reagan era – living conditions in the countries concerned just went down and down. Human rights as well as justice and equality in general deteriorated badly.

US Imperial Planning to ‘Control’ the ‘Grand Area’

However, conscientious planning by the U.S. imperialists began long before the era we usually call the neoliberal era. While the focus is now on trade and multi-national corporatism, it was, in the previous decades, rather on geopolitical domination.

In a book entitled ‘Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy’ (by Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter – published in 1977), the authors explain how extensive studies were conducted by the Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department during the period of 1939 - 1945.

An excerpt from a "Marxist" analysis of the power and influence of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR):

“Over fifty years ago, in the wake of the First World War, a group of wealthy and influential Americans decided to form an organization. The Council on Foreign Relations, as it was subsequently named, was designed to equip the United States of America for an imperial role on the world scene. Great Britain had dominated world politics during the nineteenth century, not only through its colonial empire, but also through an even wider informal sphere of influence. In a similar fashion, so felt these American leaders, the United States would play a dominant role in the years following the war.”

However, by 1919, it was found that the United States was not yet adequately prepared for world leadership. The project was put on ice, but it re-emerged during World War II – as documented in the report entitled: ‘The Council on Foreign Relations and the US State Department: Studies of American Interests in the War and Peace (1939-1945)’(3)

Now was the time when the United States was clearly going to emerge as the world-dominant power. The conclusions drawn by the Council on Foreign Relations planners are hair-raisingly rational and have one goal only in its field of vision – imperial domination at whatever the price might be. No sentimental by-thoughts of compassion, no presence of any admission of the suffering that will inevitably be caused by U.S. intervention in the ‘Grand Area’.

The most amazing thing has been the lack of attention paid to these records which were all the time public, just not paid attention to.

Says Horhey, commentator, who has put together a selection of quotes from the book ‘Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy’ at Political Forum.com:

“US planners were virtually unanimous in the view that the nation should claim a dominant position in the post World War II world. The planners and analysts concluded that in the postwar world the United States would seek “to hold unquestioned power.””

Among Horhey’s quotes from ‘Imperial Brain Trust’ – Shoup and Minter(4):

“The foremost requirement of the United States in a world in which it proposes to hold unquestioned power is the rapid fulfillment of a program of complete re-armament.”

“the United States must accept world responsibility. The measure of our victory will be the measure of our domination after victory.”

Council President Norman Davis, asserted in May 1942 that it was probable that:

“the British Empire as it existed in the past will never reappear and that the United States may have to take it's place.”

General George V. Strong expressed the opinion that:

“the United States must cultivate a mental view toward world settlement after this war which will enable us to impose our own terms, amounting perhaps to Pax-Americana.”

In this context, let’s not forget that Pax Americana is and has always been a benevolent-sounding slogan, meaning exactly the opposite, namely eternal war and huge profits for the U.S. economy – that is a war that profits U.S. and multi-national Big Corporations and turns its back on any thought of moral rights and the effects of this never-ending war on people at home and in the invaded countries. While always aiming at the enrichment of the Big Corporations and making the rich richer, Washington is always careful to try to convince the U.S citizens – in the first place, and then the rest of the world – of the boundless magnanimity and concern for its people’s well-being that will allow the government to continue its destructive policies without interference from the U.S. citizens.

USians are more or less generally convinced that their government does what is good for them and good for the people who are being invaded and whose countries are being destroyed, because leaving the running of the resources and the economy in general to the United States is for the good of the people. It is, in fact, for the benefit of all the people in the world that U.S. culture, democracy and freedom should be spread all over the planet. U.S. generosity is boundless and without the U.S. government shoring up the rest of the world, there would be a general collapse of peaceful living, sound business and essential law and order.

To convince its own people and much of the rest of the world of the inherent goodness of the United States government, a carefully planned system of misinformation has been put in place, involving the corporate takeover of the mass media and the government-run ‘ministry of propaganda’ (far more efficient than anything Goebbels could ever have dreamed of) that works non-stop on convincing people that The United States is inevitably the one superior nation with the best intentions and that it should, for the benefit of the rest of the world, run the business of the planet. World dominance is the natural right and the moral duty of the colossus in the West.

Back to ‘Imperial Brain Trust’ – Shoup and Minter, returning to the era of World War II.

Memorandum E-B19 concluded with a statement on the essentials of United States foreign policy, summarizing:

“the component parts of an integrated policy to achieve military and economic supremacy for the United States in the non German world. (Remember this was taking place during World War II)

Horhey’s comment:

“The conception that they developed is what they called "Grand Area" planning. The Grand Area was a region that was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy.”

As one planner put it, it was to be the region that is:

“strategically necessary for world control.”

Here we must draw a parallel with the imperial ambitions that have been highly visible in today’s contest for world domination. The ‘Imperial Brain Trust’ (Shroup and Minter) says “strategically necessary for world control”, stating quite clearly that the U.S. has the power and the implicit right to take control of whatever region it considers strategically important. Such as the Middle East/Central Asia region where it is at this time entangled in unwinnable wars. For Washington it’s a given that the reins must be in their hands. The conscientious and long-time effort for the Unites Sates is to convince the rest of the world that this is an undeniable fact. The center of gravity is the Big Corporations in the West, most of them run by U.S. companies, essentially in a Siamese twin relationship to the U.S. government and all its various agencies (EPA, FDA, anti-trust laws, etc.)

Developing the concept of ‘The Grand Area’

A major element was:

“the coordination and the cooperation of the United States with other countries to secure the limitation of any exercise of sovereignty by foreign nations that constitutes a threat to the minimum world area essential for the security and economic prosperity of the United States and the Western Hemisphere.”

Here we get into the reasoning behind the Monroe Doctrine (introduced on December 2, 1823 by US President, James Monroe), where Washington high-mindedly declares that any European interference with countries in the Americas would be considered as Aggression against the United States, requiring US intervention.(5)

Horhey’s clarifying comment:

“Of course, when we talk about "economic prosperity", we don't necessarily mean the people of the United States; we mean whoever dominates and controls, owns and manages the American economy.”

Yes, let’s by all means make it clear that we are not talking about economic prosperity for the people of the U.S. or of the rest of the world. This is the most essential point that we must all understand correctly. It’s not the people who are at the receiving end of the cornucopia of goodies that are siphoned into the United States and the Corporations via world domination and eternal war.

The ‘Grand Area’ was considered a core region, which could always be extended to include more countries. As one of the planners said in May 1941:

“It would be the aim of American policy to spread the organization of the Grand Area.”

Says Horhey –

“the Grand Area was also to include Southeast Asia, Western and Southern Europe and the oil-producing regions of the Middle East; in fact, it was to include everything, if that were possible. Detailed plans were laid for particular regions of the Grand Area and also for international institutions that were to organize and police it, essentially in the interests of this subordination to U.S. domestic needs.”

So here we are. The enormous importance of the Middle East/Central Asia region was already crystal clear, as well as the economic importance of monopolizing the riches of South-East Asia for the valuable raw materials produced in The Philippine Islands, the Dutch East Indies, and British Malaysia. The creation of these international financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank(6) (institutions set up at the Bretton Woods Conference in July 1944) also followed as part of the parcel to assure the proper functioning of the world economy. These worldwide financial institutions were necessary for the purpose of:

“stabilizing currencies and facilitating programs of capital investment for constructive undertakings in backward and underdeveloped regions.”

How quaint. ‘Constructive undertakings in backward and underdeveloped regions’. And thus, neo-colonialism was born. The facilitators of this grand project were to be the IMF and the World Bank. These men with demonstrably no sense of the human being as someone with needs and demands for justice and equality, but exclusively as a cog in the production chain, have developed into a most powerful group of conscientious plundering machines the world has ever seen.

In ‘The Council on Foreign Relations and the US State Department: Studies of American Interests in the War and Peace (1939-1945)’ it was made explicitly clear that the dominance over those strategic areas, now called the Grand Area, must at all costs be secured to keep other powers at bay. The planners warned that:

“the interests of America would be gravely prejudiced should Southeast Asia be controlled by an unfriendly or monopolistic nation, because of the need for access to rubber, tin and other resources.”

So there is the true reason for the never-ending war in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, unambiguously stated already during World War II, as well as, long before that, the taking over of The Philippines from Spain during the Spanish-American war in 1898. This war was of course also intended to be the opening of the gates to Latin America, which from then on would be seen by Washington as ‘America’s backyard’.

However, today more than ever, the United States is centering in on keeping Russia and China from obtaining too big a piece of international dominance. It is watching with a great sense of unease the spreading influence of those countries in the critically important Central Asia region, as well as on other continents, such as Africa and Latin America.

Propaganda is born

However – back to the World War II era – for the unending wars that were already seen as essential for the domination of the ‘Grand Area’ (which in the following decades grew to include more and more territories not included in the first version of the project), there was one big imperative: The American people had to be convinced of the necessity for these wars and the ability of the U.S. military to win them.

Thus the propaganda industry was born – actually a concept heralded and developed as a quasi-scientific method by Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, a resident of the United States, who coined the term ‘the engineering of consent’ which he saw as ‘the very essence of the democratic process’. The term ‘propaganda’ was first used in 1922. Edward Bernays’ carefully developed theories were of great use to the warmongers during and following World War II.(7)

In ‘Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy’ Shoup and Minter point to the importance of spreading the message of the benign influence of the United States to all corners of the planet. Not only Anglo-American imperialism must be propagandized, but also …

“The interests of the other peoples should be stressed, not only those of Europe, but also of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This would have a better propaganda effect.”

Zbignew Brzezinski, one of the founders, along with David Rockefeller, of the trilateral commission (the executive arm of the Council on Foreign Relations) wrote the book 'The Grand Chessboard’ to lay out the main lines for controlling the ‘Grand Area’. No attempt at obfuscation here. The objectives are clearly laid out. 'The Grand Chessboard’ equals ‘How to Conquer the World – and barely being noticed’.

Horhey’s concluding comments:

“The trilateral commission, an executive arm of the CFR controls this administration. Obama, as soon as he took office appointed 11 members, and it was one of the top censored news stories of the year.”

“The Trilateralist Commission is international ...[and]... is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.”


What we can hope for today is that exactly the thing Washington fears the most is actually going to come true. Other powers, far from negligible on the international scene, such as China and Russia, but also Brazil – particularly considering its recent alliance with Turkey, and also Iran – have, from the U.S. point of view, fearful means of counteracting U.S. global dominance and thus seriously cutting short its monstrous ambitions to own and control the planet.

From a crass military/economic point of view these new power houses are extraordinarily important geopolitically.

However, we must leave behind us the quasi-religious belief that the one thing that matters is controlling the planet (and why not outer space, while we are at it?). The enormous fight we are up against in the world today is the psychopathic and deep-rooted misconception that PROFIT and CONTROL are the supreme goals of all powerful nations. This twisted and inhuman belief has to go. The one and only important issue in the world is the fate of human beings and of course the environment. Equality and justice for all is the one big goal.

In today’s world, beside the big powers that are competing with the United States for global dominance, first and foremost there is Latin America, a huge continent where hope is being reborn, hope that we will one day soon live in a world where the people are going to count as a reality factor in political planning, a world where they will at last count as human beings with lives that matter, where living is what life is all about, not profit.

There is no way the Unites States will once again be able to consider this enormous continent as their own backyard, where they could play their game unopposed by the needs and desires of simple human beings. Where human dignity and pride were to them unknown qualities that will, in the end, never be quashed.

In all of Latin America, definitely including Central America, Washington thought it could pose and depose dictators and enemies of the people at their own will. Colombia and some other temporary victories set aside, Washington will never again play on those strings. Colombia is a pawn that will fade away the day the power of the United States begins to crumble. And that day is here now.

The United States is already far from being the lone superpower, the monolith, the role that it has forever had such colossal ambitions to play. The Über-nation that no other nation could even begin to assail or ever doubt its unbeatable power. The ‘superpower’ is in its death throes, even though on its surface it still keeps the looks of a giant. Underneath the veneer, the country is collapsing. We have seen the signs again and again. Its politics are in a tumultuous meltdown. The politicians who were crying out loudly for law and order have now lost all control. There is only confusion and lawlessness in the big country in the West.

Dona nobis pacem. Give us peace and let us live like human beings. Let the monstrous robots see that it is time for them to be put in their graves, as the criminal offenders that they have been, all along. Life is not a chess game. Life is living. We will take our lives back.

Siv O'Neall is an Axis of Logic columnist, based in France. Her insightful essays are republished and read worldwide. She can be reached at siv@axisoflogic.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?