Socio-Economics History Blog

Socio-Economics & History Commentary

Mainstream Media Pumping the Illusion of Green Shoots of Economic Recovery !

  • Yup! Green shoots are appearing everywhere. This is because more and more people are kicked out of their houses and living in tents in green fields. Every morning they wake up to alot of green grass and green shoots. Heck, they are turning into sheep and green grass look mighty attractive as food. Michael T Bucci observes :
      
    Is it any wonder why Americans think “green shoots” while the poor, the displaced, the unemployed and the newly indigent and homeless go unnoticed and increase? This is a small but revealing example of how “green shoots” are grown. They are created in the mass mind by the mass media with full knowledge and with full intent.
     
    In truth, why should the public give a damn about how much wealthier the wealthier become, about how much of THEIR present and future earnings are behind the banking profits, when they – the public – are experiencing massive job losses, income reductions and ugly things bordering on catastrophe? GS and JPM may be getting richer but they are getting poorer. Headline writers expect readers to celebrate banks and deny their own predicament. To the investment class and wealthy, the bank profits deserve headlining. But to the general public, especially to the 4% of homeowners who lost homes last month, or to the additional 8% who helplessly weep over notices threatening foreclosure, the media headline should rightfully read: “Record Foreclosures, Poverty, Unemployment and Declining Incomes Accelerate”. Or, “While JP Morgan Surges, Americans Sink”. Or, “People Bankrupted by Bailouts That Lead to Record Profits for Banks”. Or (getting hotter), “Government and Bankers Fleece Americans Again”. Or (my favorite), “Damn Fools, Wake Up!”
      
    Instead, media editors place Goldman and JPM at the top of news pages, and the homeless at the bottom even when the audience itself has never and will never participate in the financials’ earnings flood, but might drown in the foreclosure one that these banks helped create. This is how “green shoots” are created. This is how “bubbles” are created. “Shared sacrifice” always ends at the boss-man’s door. And the “boss-man” owns the media.
     
    (When media fails to delude, war becomes an option.)
     
    But if news editors were to tell the truth, prioritize headlines to fit the “real” gestalt of the country, fearlessly investigate the firms they blindly champion, read background material not written in Washington, a think-tank or PR office, he or she would be summarily fired. In fact, no such person gets to reach the pinnacle of editorialist without possessing the prerequisite understanding that opinion is not his alone, but made for him. Further, no such editor could write objectively on financial matters that affect entire swaths of the population without first experiencing a degree of the pending fears, vulnerabilities, worries and pain those large layers of his readers are undergoing. In the not too distant future many might, but few editors have yet to lose their homes, file for bankruptcy, move in with family or give up on finding work and join the class that he or she ignored while as a professional.
     
    If such were not the case, and journalists had identified themselves – as they once did – with the “common man” (and woman), the tone, import, quality and style of journalism would not be what it is now. Unless you write for a newspaper that has filed for bankruptcy and you fear a sudden pink slip, you do not – indeed, cannot – remotely identify with those who are now quickly sinking from present economic forces. But newspapers are failing and staff insecurity has skyrocketed. The local paper may collapse – even the Boston Globe – but AP remains. That leaves the internet. Should we paraphrase Kissinger and ask, “Whoever owns the internet controls the minds of the people”? So far, we are not yet there. Or are we?
      …
    Growing criticism and outraged are lodged against this arrangement by those “outside the box”, including the independent investment community (e.g., Market Oracle writers). “Seeing through” the facade erected by media often requires personal knowledge that contradicts it. The charts and graphs of professional independent analysts are simply not read or understood by most journalists. Alternative sources for information are being shunned in favor of “talking heads” and paid, sponsored “placed experts”. Reliance for facts behind any story – financial or otherwise – rests upon “authoritative sources”, not from the work of personal research, discovery or independent thinkers. Journalists and editors don’t find stories; stories find them. But with job and income already threatened, journalists have no incentive other than to continue to perpetuate the images, myths and illusions they now do. Goldman IS the top headline because Goldman “pays the bills”. The headline of July 16 about JPM’s surge in profits was not about foreclosures, but neither was it about Henry M. Paulson testifying before and being grilled by Congress that same day.
       
    From one perspective, it appears the Corporate-Government media has the sheep believing anything. And the sheep believing “that” anything. And the sheep have lost sight of who they are and who they are not. The public, in a sense, has taken on the character of the editor – it doesn’t make decisions, it follows them. The people have become cheerleaders for their slave-masters, and enablers of destinies assigned to them (may their own demise not be included). And they will deny this truth vehemently.
     
    Said one cynic: “They may wave the flag, die in Wars, carry the Bible, persecute the downtrodden, defend the rich and powerful, support the demonization, robbery and murder of nations and peoples, exploit the world’s resources, celebrate those who have lied, cheated and stolen from the wealth of the world, vote into power those who destabilize sovereignties, overthrow political leaders, wage war on rogue countries… and they may champion all of it – “the American Way” – into doomsday, if necessary.” Sadly, this is a view of America and Americans by some in the world. If true, can such a soil sprout “green shoots”?
     
    Answer: “Nay, it can only sprout green bubbles.”

end

July 22, 2009 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | 1 Comment

Fiscal Ruin of the Western World Beckons !

  • Yes, people! Let’s listen to all these Keynesian idiots: Spend, spend, spend… run up massive deficits that will never be repaid. After all: Why worry about tomorrow when you may not survive today! The green shoots are appearing. Yeah! They will shoot you in the ass and laugh hysterically at your stupidity. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard opines :
      
    For a glimpse of what awaits Britain, Europe, and America as budget deficits spiral to war-time levels, look at what is happening to the Irish welfare state.
     
    Events have already forced Premier Brian Cowen to carry out the harshest assault yet seen on the public services of a modern Western state. He has passed two emergency budgets to stop the deficit soaring to 15pc of GDP. They have not been enough. The expert An Bord Snip report said last week that Dublin must cut deeper, or risk a disastrous debt compound trap.
     
    A further 17,000 state jobs must go (equal to 1.25m in the US), though unemployment is already 12pc and heading for 16pc next year.
     
    Education must be cut 8pc. Scores of rural schools must close, and 6,900 teachers must go….Nobody is spared. Social welfare payments must be cut 5pc, child benefit by 20pc. The Garda (police), already smarting from a 7pc pay cut, may have to buy their own uniforms. Hospital visits could cost £107 a day, etc, etc….
     
    No doubt Ireland has been the victim of a savagely tight monetary policy – given its specific needs. But the deeper truth is that Britain, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, the US, and Japan are in varying states of fiscal ruin, and those tipping into demographic decline (unlike young Ireland) have an underlying cancer that is even more deadly. The West cannot support its gold-plated state structures from an aging workforce and depleted tax base.
     
    As the International Monetary Fund made clear last week, Britain is lucky that markets have not yet imposed a “penalty interest” on British Gilts, given the trajectory of UK national debt – now vaulting towards 100pc of GDP – and the scandalous refusal of this Government to map out any path back to solvency.
    “The UK has been getting the benefit of the doubt, both in the Government bond market and also the foreign exchange market. This benefit of the doubt is not going to last forever,” said the Fund.
     
    France and Italy have been less abject, but they began with higher borrowing needs. Italy’s debt is expected to reach the danger level of 120pc next year, according to leaked Treasury documents. France’s debt will near 90pc next year if President Nicolas Sarkozy goes ahead with his “Grand Emprunt”, a fiscal blitz masquerading as investment.
     
    There was a case for an emergency boost last winter to cushion the blow as global industry crashed. That moment has passed. While I agree with Nomura’s Richard Koo that the US, Britain, and Europe risk a deflationary slump along the lines of Japan’s Lost Decade (two decades really), I am ever more wary of his calls for Keynesian spending a l’outrance.
     
    Such policies have crippled Japan. A string of make-work stimulus plans – famously building bridges to nowhere in Hokkaido e_SEmD has ensured that the day of reckoning will be worse, when it comes. The IMF says Japan’s gross public debt will reach 240pc of GDP by 2014 e_SEmD beyond the point of recovery for a nation with a contracting workforce. Sooner or later, Japan’s bond market will blow up.
     
    Error One was to permit a bubble in the 1980s. Error Two was to wait a decade before opting for monetary “shock and awe” through quantitative easing. The US Federal Reserve has moved faster but already seems to think the job is done. “Quantitative tightening” has begun. Its balance sheet has contracted by almost $200bn (£122bn) from the peak. The M2 money supply has stagnated since January. The Fed is talking of “exit strategies”.
     
    Is this a replay of mid-2008 when the Fed lost its nerve, bristling over criticism that it had cut rates too low (then 2pc)? Remember what happened. Fed hawks in Dallas, St Louis, and Atlanta talked of rate rises. That had consequences. Markets tightened in anticipation, and arguably triggered the collapse of Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie and Freddie that autumn.
     
    The Fed’s doctrine – New Keynesian Synthesis – has let it down time and again in this long saga, and there is scant evidence that Fed officials recognise the fact. As for the European Central Bank, it has let private loan growth contract this summer.
     
    The imperative for the debt-bloated West is to cut spending systematically for year after year, off-setting the deflationary effect with monetary stimulus. This is the only mix that can save us.
     
    My awful fear is that we will do exactly the opposite, incubating yet another crisis this autumn, to which we will respond with yet further spending. This is the road to ruin.

end

July 22, 2009 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Comments Off on Fiscal Ruin of the Western World Beckons !

EU666 Biodefense Stockpile and US666 Biodefense Stockpile

  • I am not sure what to make of this. But it is interesting. If you trust Big Pharma or the Illuminati ruling elite, you may want to go for a lobotomy. The signs are there: Depopulation! Cryptogon reports :
      
    This one is absolutely exploding around the intertubes this morning. I don’t know where it started but someone found a datasheet about a vaccine called Prepandrix that’s made by GlaxoSmithKline. This thing contains the following entries:
     
    Regulatory/Status Index:
     
    biodefense stockpile (U.S.)
    biodefense stockpile, European countries
    controlled/gov’t distribution in European counties
    controlled/gov’t distribution in U.S.
    EU200 Currently Approved in EU
    EU666 Biodefense stockpile
    UM100 Controlled/Gov’t Distribution in US
    US666 Biodefense stockpile
    EM160 Controlled/Gov’t Distribution in EU
     
    Now, I’m not taking any vaccine regardless of what number sequences are associated with it, but let’s clear something up: PREPANDRIX IS A BIRD FLU VACCINE. Bird flu. H5N1. Not swine flu, H1N1.
     
    The EU666 and US666 status codes are also associated with a
    smallpox vaccine, and on a more individual basis, about two dozen other substances.
     
    Maybe it’s interesting that vaccines that are stockpiled for “biodefense” purposes carry the 666 designation, but for purposes of the swine flue H1N1 vaccination that will be coming out in a few months, this US666 and EU666 wouldn’t apply because it hasn’t been stockpiled; it’s new.
     
    Out of curiosity, I tried to determine what EU666 and US666 mean beyond the phrase “Biodefense stockpile” that appears next to the entries.
     
    This is the reference for the Regulatory/Status index codes.
    Here are the entries for biodefense stockpiles for the U.S. and European countries:
     
    biodefense stockpile (U.S.) — 104; 105; 321; 392; 393; 394; 395; 396; 446; 447; 448; 450; 451; 452; 573; 574; 575; 618; 619; 650
     
    biodefense stockpile, European countries — 312; 392; 393; 449; 452
    There’s no reference for 666 listed. I don’t know why the 666 code isn’t listed here, but when you click on any of those codes above and then look down, though the text, it says US666 Biodefense stockpile, or EU666 Biodefense stockpile or both on all of those. I don’t know what the implications of all of that are, but there you have it.

end

July 22, 2009 Posted by | Medicine & Health | , , , | 1 Comment

Global Power and Global Government: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System – Part 1

  • This is an insightful and interesting article by Andrew Gavin Marshall. It gives us an understanding on the New World Order, the history of the central banking cartel and the drive towards a One World Government by the central banksters: The soon to be upon us global fascist police state –> 666 .
      
    Introduction
    Humanity is on the verge of entering into the most tumultuous period in our history. The prospects of a global depression, the likes of which have never been seen before; a truly global war, on a scale never before imagined; and societal collapse, for which nations of the world are building totalitarian police states to control populations; are increasing by the day. The major global trend forecasters are sounding the alarms on economic depression, war, a return to fascism and a total reorganization of society.   Through crisis, we are seeing the reorganization of the global political economy, and the transformation of capitalism into a totalitarian capitalist world government. Capitalism has never stayed the same through its history; it has always changed and will continue to do so. Its changes are explained and analyzed through political-economic theory, both mainstream theory and critical. The changes are undertaken over years, decades and centuries. The next phase of capitalism is one in which the world moves to a state-controlled economic system, much like China, of totalitarian capitalism.
                 
    The global political economy itself is being reorganized into a world government body, consisting of one center of global power where the socio-political-economic power of the world is centralized in one institution. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is a reality. Nor is this a subject confined to the realm of “internet conspiracy theorists,” but in fact, the concept of world government originates and evolves throughout the history of capitalism and the global political economy. Mainstream and critical political-economic theory has addressed the concept of world government for centuries.
                 
    The notion of a world government has such a long history, as the forces driving the world into such a structure intertwine with the history of the modern global political economy itself. The purpose of this report is to examine the history of the global political economy in taking steps toward forming a world government, in both theory and practice. How did we get here and where are we going?
      ….
    Central Banking           
    Thus, liberal economic theory came to the forefront, championed by the global hegemonic power of the day, Great Britain, which was firmly under the control of the banking dynasties. In 1694, the Bank of England was formed as a private central bank, which would issue the currency of the nation, lending it to the government and industry at interest, which would be paid back to the Bank of England’s shareholders, made up of these private banking dynasties.[3] The 16th to the 19th centuries was the period in which both the nation-state and capitalism emerged, soon followed by central banking in the late 1600s. This is when the origins of what was known as a “world economy” took place. Mercantilist economic theory dominated this period, in which the economy was secondary and submissive to the political structure of nations.
       ….
    The European banking interests quickly learned their lesson regarding not falling under the imperial hubris of believing people of a given region or nation could never defeat imperial might and armies. Revolution had become a great threat to the entrenched capitalist, and particularly, banking interests. 
                 
    Within a decade of the American Revolutionary War, which ended in 1783, another nation was going down the road of revolutionary zeal, in part inspired by the American example. However, this nation was no colony, but rather a mercantilist imperial power, and thus, its loss would be too great a loss to allow. In 1788, the French Monarchy was bankrupt, and as tensions grew between the increasingly desperate people of France and the aristocratic and particularly monarchic establishment, European bankers decided to pre-empt and co-opt the revolution. In 1788, prominent French bankers refused “to extend necessary short-term credit to the government,”[4] and they arranged to have shipments of grain and food to Paris “delayed” which triggered the hunger riots of the Parisians.[5] This sparked the Revolution, in which a new ruling class emerged, driven by violent oppression and political and actual terrorism. However, its violence grew, and with that, so too did discontentment with the Revolutionary Regime, and its stability and sustainability was in question. Thus, the bankers threw their weight behind a general in the Revolutionary Army named Napoleon, whom they entrusted to restore order. Napoleon then gave the bankers his support, and in 1800, created the Bank of France, the privately owned central bank of France, and gave the bankers authority over the Bank. The bankers owned its shares, and even Napoleon himself bought shares in the bank.[6]
                 
    The bankers thus sought to control commerce and government and restore order to their newly acquired and privately owned and operated empire. However, Napoleon continued with his war policies beyond the patience of the bankers, which had a negative impact upon commercial activities,[7] and Napoleon himself was interfering in the operations of the Bank of France and even declared that the Bank “belongs more to the Emperor than to the shareholders.”[8] With that, the bankers again shifted their influence, and remained through regime change.[9]
                 
    The Rothschilds ascended to the throne of international banking with the Battle of Waterloo. After having established banking houses in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Naples, they profited off of all sides in the Napoleonic wars.[10] The British patriarch, Nathan Rothschild, was known for being the first with news in London, ahead of even the monarchy and the Parliament, and so everyone watched his moves on the stock market during the Battle of Waterloo. Following the battle, Nathan got the news that the British won over 24 hours before the government itself had news, and he quietly went into the London Stock Exchange and sold everything he had, implying to those watching that the British lost. A panic selling ensued, in which everyone sold stock, stock prices crumbled, and the market crashed. What resulted was that Rothschild then bought up the near-entire British stock market for pennies on the dollar, as when news arrived of the British victory at Waterloo, Rothschild’s newly acquired stocks soared in value, as did his fortune, and his rise as the pre-eminent economic figure in Britain.[11]
                 
    As Goergetown University History professor, Carroll Quigley wrote in his monumental Tragedy and Hope, “The merchant bankers of London had already at hand in 1810-1850 the Stock Exchange, the Bank of England, and the London money market,” and that:
     
    In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other.[12] 
      ….
    Retaking America            
    The history of the United States from its founding through the 19th century to the early 20th century, was marked by a continual political battle revolving around the creation of a central bank of the United States. Mercantilists such as Alexander Hamilton, who was the first Treasury Secretary, were in favour of such a bank, and his advice won over George Washington, much to the dismay of Thomas Jefferson, who was a strong opponent to central banking. However, “[Alexander] Hamilton, believing that government must ally itself with the richest elements of society to make itself strong, proposed to Congress a series of laws, which it enacted, expressing this philosophy,” and that, “A Bank of the United States was set up as a partnership between the government and certain banking interests,”[20] which lasted until the charter expired in 1811.
                 
    Again, during the tenure of Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), the primary political struggle was with the entrenched financial interests both domestic and from abroad (namely Western Europe), on the issue of creating a central bank of the US. Andrew Jackson stood in firm opposition to such a bank, saying that, “the bank threatened the emerging order, hoarding too much economic power in too few hands,” and referred to it as “The Monster.”[21] Congress passed the bill allowing for the creation of a Second Bank of the United States, however, Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill, much to the dismay of the banking interests.
                 
    It was in the later half of the 1800s that “European financiers were in favor of an American Civil War that would return the United States to its colonial status, they admitted privately that they were not necessarily interested in preserving slavery,” as it had become unprofitable.[22] The Civil War was not based upon the liberation of slaves, it was, as Howard Zinn described it, a clash “of elites,” with the northern elite wanting “economic expansion – free land, free labor, a free market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, [and] a bank of the United States. [Whereas] The slave interests opposed all that.”[23] The Civil War, which lasted from 1861 until 1865, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, during which, “Congress also set up a national bank, putting the government into partnership with the banking interests, guaranteeing their profits.”[24]
                 
    As Lincoln himself stated:
    The money powers prey on the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes.
     
    I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. As a most undesirable consequence of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.[25]
     
    Throughout much of the 1800s and into the 1900s, the United States suffered several economic crises, one of the most significant of which was the Great Depression of 1873. As Howard Zinn explained:
     
    The crisis was built into a system which was chaotic in its nature, in which only the very rich were secure. It was a system of periodic crises – 1837, 1857, 1873 (and later: 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929) – that wiped out small businesses and brought cold, hunger, and death to working people while the fortunes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, kept growing through war and peace, crisis and recovery. During the 1873 crisis, Carnegie was capturing the steel market, Rockefeller was wiping out his competitors in oil.[26] 
             
    Massive industrial consolidation by a few oligarchic elites was the rule of the day, as J.P. Morgan expanded total control over railroad and banking interests, and John D. Rockefeller took control of the oil market, and expanded into banking. Zinn explained that, “The imperial leader of the new oligarchy was the House of Morgan. In its operations it was ably assisted by the First National Bank of New York (directed by George F. Baker) and the National City Bank of New York (presided over by James Stillman, agent of the Rockefeller interests). Among them, these three men and their financial associates occupied 341 directorships in 112 corporations. The total resources of these corporations in 1912 was $22,245,000,000, more than the assessed value of all property in the twenty-two states and territories west of the Mississippi River.”[27]
                 
    These banking interests, particularly those of Morgan, were very much allied with European banking interests. On the European side, specifically in Britain, the elite were largely involved in the Scramble for Africa at this time. Infamous among them was Cecil Rhodes, who made his fortune in the diamond and gold mining in Africa, as “With financial support from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, he was able to monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa as De Beers Consolidated Mines and to build up a great gold mining enterprise as Consolidated Gold Fields.”[28] Interestingly, “Rhodes could not have won his near-monopoly over South African diamond production without the assistance of his friends in the City of London: in particular, the Rothschild bank, at that time the biggest concentration of financial capital in the world.”[29] As historian Niall Ferguson explained, “It is usually assumed that Rhodes owned De Beers, but this was not the case. Nathaniel de Rothschild was a bigger shareholder than Rhodes himself; indeed, by 1899 the Rothschilds’ stake was twice that of Rhodes.”[30]
      ….
    In the early 20th century, European and American banking interests achieved what they had desired for over a century within America, the creation of a privately owned central bank. It was created through collaboration of American and European bankers, primarily the Morgans, Rockefellers, Kuhn, Loebs and Warburgs.[35] After the 1907 banking panic in the US, instigated by JP Morgan, pressure was placed upon the American political establishment to create a “stable” banking system. In 1910, a secret meeting of financiers was held on Jekyll Island, where they planned for the “creation of a National Reserve Association with fifteen major regions, controlled by a board of commercial bankers but empowered by the federal government to act like a central bank – creating money and lending reserves to private banks.”[36] President Woodrow Wilson followed the plan almost exactly as outlined by the Wall Street financiers, and added to it the creation of a Federal Reserve Board in Washington, which the President would appoint.[37] The Federal Reserve, or Fed, “raised its own revenue, drafted its own operating budget and submitted neither to Congress,” while “the seven governors shared power with the presidents of the twelve Reserve Banks, each serving the private banks in its region,” and “the commercial banks held stock shares in each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks.”[38] 
                 
    The retaking of the United States by international banking interests was achieved with barely a whimper of opposition. Where the British Empire failed in taking the United States militarily, international bankers succeeded covertly through the banking system. The Federal Reserve also had the effect of cementing an alliance between New York and London bankers.[39]
     
  • See also:
     
    Central Banksters Final Moves for Total Control –> ‘666′ ?
    The Great Bank Robbery: How the Federal Reserve is Destroying America!
    Banksters’ Takeover of America Almost Complete!
    Ron Paul: The Obama Administration Wants To Give More Power To The Federal Reserve, The Institution That Caused Our Problems !
    Obama’s “Financial Regulatory Reform Plan” is Banksters Consolidating Their Power!
    Marc Faber: Geithner and Bernanke are 2 Mad Men Running The Economy Towards Hyper-Inflation
    FedRes Would Be Shut Down If It Were Audited, Expert Says
    US Senator: Banksters “Own” the Congress!
    Illuminati Banksters Implementing State of Permanent Siege!
    Financial Dictatorship of the Federal Reserve and Treasury
    Geithner’s ‘Dirty Little Secret’: The Entire Global Financial System is at Risk
    Banksters Rule America !
    Collapse of America to Lead to New World Order?
    UN & IMF Back Agenda For Global Financial Dictatorship
    A World Currency Moves Closer After Geithner’s Slip
    Ron Paul – I See No Purpose for the Federal Reserve!
    Banksters Rule America !
    The Federal Reserve: Secretive And Incompetent Organization ! The Creature From Jekyll Island.
    History of Money & Fractional Reserve Banking System
    How International Bankers Gained Control of America!
    Federal Reserve is a Private Company. 
    Ron Paul – Federal Reserve is the Culprit!

end

July 22, 2009 Posted by | Economics, GeoPolitics, History | , , , | 2 Comments

Did Ahmadinejad Really Called for Israel To Be ‘Wiped Off the Map’?

  • This is pure, mad Zionist propaganda! Keep in mind that the majority of the western media is owned and controlled by the Illuminati ruling class. Their intent is a global fascist police state. One of the key to it, is natural resources like OIL. In the coming months they will be ratcheting up their propaganda, building an Axis of Evil, to prepare the world for the coming war. They will try to paint linkages and alignments when there are non. For eg. trying to link Iran, North Korea, Myanmar… together… Al Qaeda (which is really Al CIAda).. terrorism…etc.. There is a likely hood that they will use Al CIAda to attack their targets like China for example. After all Al CIAda is really pissed with China over XinJiang right? Over the deaths of their Muslim brethren right? This is total bull!
     
  • The Guardian UK reports :
     
    Experts confirm that Iran’s president did not call for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.
      
    My recent
    comment piece explaining how Iran’s president was badly misquoted when he allegedly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” has caused a welcome little storm. The phrase has been seized on by western and Israeli hawks to re-double suspicions of the Iranian government’s intentions, so it is important to get the truth of what he really said.
     
    I took my translation – “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” – from the indefatigable Professor Juan Cole’s
    website where it has been for several weeks.
     
    But it seems to be mainly thanks to the Guardian giving it prominence that the New York Times, which was one of the first papers to misquote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came out on Sunday with a defensive piece attempting to justify its reporter’s original “wiped off the map” translation. (By the way, for Farsi speakers the original version is available
    here.)
     
    Joining the “off the map” crowd is David Aaronovitch, a columnist on the Times (of London), who
    attacked my analysis yesterday. I won’t waste time on him since his knowledge of Farsi is as minimal as that of his Latin. The poor man thinks the plural of casus belli is casi belli, unaware that casus is fourth declension with the plural casus (long u).
     
    The New York Times’s Ethan Bronner and Nazila Fathi, one of the paper’s Tehran staff, make a more
    serious case. They consulted several sources in Tehran. “Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say ‘wipe off’ or ‘wipe away’ is more accurate than ‘vanish’ because the Persian verb is active and transitive,” Bronner writes.
     
    The New York Times goes on: “The second translation issue concerns the word ‘map’. Khomeini’s words were abstract: ‘Sahneh roozgar.’ Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as ‘map’, and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not ‘Sahneh roozgar’ but ‘Safheh roozgar’, meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word ‘map’ again.”
     
    This, in my view, is the crucial point and I’m glad the NYT accepts that the word “map” was not used by Ahmadinejad. (By the way, the Wikipedia entry on the controversy gets the NYT wrong, claiming falsely that Ethan Bronner “concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map”.)
     
    If the Iranian president made a mistake and used “safheh” rather than “sahneh”, that is of little moment. A native English speaker could equally confuse “stage of history” with “page of history”. The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem.
     
    Two other well-established translation sources confirm that Ahmadinejad was referring to time, not place. The version of the October 26 2005 speech put out by the Middle East Media Research Institute, based on the Farsi text released by the official Iranian Students News Agency, says: “This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.” (NB: not “wiped”. I accept that “eliminated” is almost the same, indeed some might argue it is more sinister than “wiped”, though it is a bit more of a mouthful if you are trying to find four catchy and easily memorable words with which to incite anger against Iran.)
     
    MEMRI (its text of the speech is available
    here) is headed by a former Isareli military intelligence officer and has sometimes been attacked for alleged distortion of Farsi and Arabic quotations for the benefit of Israeli foreign policy. On this occasion they supported the doveish view of what Ahmadinejad said.
     
    Finally we come to the BBC monitoring service which every day puts out hundreds of highly respected English translations of broadcasts from all round the globe to their subscribers – mainly governments, intelligence services, thinktanks and other specialists. I approached them this week about the controversy and a spokesperson for the monitoring service’s marketing unit, who did not want his name used, told me their original version of the Ahmadinejad quote was “eliminated from the map of the world”.
     
    As a result of my inquiry and the controversy generated, they had gone back to the native Farsi-speakers who had translated the speech from a voice recording made available by Iranian TV on October 29 2005. Here is what the spokesman told me about the “off the map” section: “The monitor has checked again. It’s a difficult expression to translate. They’re under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be “eliminated from the page of history”.
     
    Would the BBC put out a correction, given that the issue had become so controversial, I asked. “It would be a long time after the original version”, came the reply. I interpret that as “probably not”, but let’s see.
     
    Finally, I approached Iradj Bagherzade, the Iranian-born founder and chairman of the renowned publishing house, IB Tauris. He thought hard about the word “roozgar”. “History” was not the right word, he said, but he could not decide between several better alternatives “this day and age”, “these times”, “our times”, “time”.
     
    So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times’ experts through MEMRI to the BBC’s monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.
     
    A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option – the elimination of “the regime occupying Jerusalem” – with the fall of the Shah’s regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970’s he surely did not favour Iran’s removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out.
     
    The same with regard to Israel. The Iranian president is undeniably an opponent of Zionism or, if you prefer the phrase, the Zionist regime. But so are substantial numbers of Israeli citizens, Jews as well as Arabs. The anti-Zionist and non-Zionist traditions in Israel are not insignificant. So we should not demonise Ahmadinejad on those grounds alone.
     
    Does this quibbling over phrases matter? Yes, of course. Within days of the Ahmadinejad speech the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was calling for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations. Other foreign leaders have quoted the map phrase. The United States is piling pressure on its allies to be tough with Iran.

end

July 22, 2009 Posted by | GeoPolitics | , , , | 19 Comments

Globalist Think Tank Trots Out Iran Attack Scenario

  • There are way too many mad men running America. All these people are intent on starting the greater middle east war with no regard for lost of lives and based on false pretenses. Americans must wake up and stop these nonsense. Otherwise, America will pay dearly with the needless deaths of her children. Remember the many young American lives lost in Iraq. Remember also the well over 1 million civilian Iraqis lives lost because of the corporate fascist American government. Kurt Nimmo reports :
      
    In a hare-brained nightmare scenario dreamed up by the Center for Strategic and International Studies — home-base for neocon crackpots such as Michael Ledeen and war criminals of Madeleine Albright’s caliber — Iran manages to produce a nuclear weapon and drops it on Israel, ultimately killing 800,000 people. “Retaliatory Israeli nuclear strikes, with higher-yield bombs and accurate rocket delivery systems, would be far more destructive,” writes Peter Goodspeed for the National Post. “A full-fledged Israeli nuclear response, using some, but not all, of its 200 nuclear weapons, would target most major Iranian cities and major military bases. It would kill 16 million to 28 million people within three weeks.”
      
    It is estimated Israel has around 400 nuclear weapons. As Israeli arms technician
    Mordecai Vanunu revealed in 1986, the Israelis have produced 100 to 200 advanced fission bombs and have mastered a thermonuclear design. In 1986, it appeared to have a number of thermonuclear bombs ready for use. According to the Institute for Defense Analyses, Israel’s facilities at Soreq and Dimona have the same mission as the Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories in the United States. More than twenty years ago, Israel was developing the computer “codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs.”
     
    Meanwhile, Iran is not up to speed, never mind the scary science fiction story weaved by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Iran did manage to enrich a small amount of uranium using a cascade of 164 centrifuges that spin uranium hexafluoride gas at supersonic speed. The enriched uranium that Iran produced cannot be used in a nuclear weapon because it contains just 3.5% U-235, whereas a nuclear weapon typically requires highly-enriched uranium that contains more than 90% U-235.
     
    Never mind highly-enriched uranium – Iran has problems with low-enriched uranium. Earlier this year, the
    International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had badly underestimated previous assessments of how much low-enriched material it had produced. The IAEA stressed that technical constraints and equipment inefficiencies would prevent Iran from further refining the low-enriched uranium into an adequate supply of weapon-grade material.
     
    However, this has not stopped Israel and the neocons from hysterically claiming Iran has “enough enriched uranium fissionable material to manufacture at least one or two atom bombs of the Hiroshima type,” as
    Uri Dan wrote for the Jerusalem Post in early 2006. If it didn’t have the nuclear material for a couple crude bombs, “Iranian President Ahmadinejad would not have dared come out with his declaration that Israel should be wiped off the map,” claims Rafi Eitan, key architect of Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and the Mossad (the operative motto for Mossad is: “By way of deception, thou shalt do war,” according to Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent).
     
    As it turns out, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” as Eitan, the neocons, and most of the corporate media (most notably the New York Times) repeatedly and dishonestly claim. Ahmadinejad’s speech was deliberately mistranslated by MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, a Mossad front masquerading as a news service. “Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times’ experts through MEMRI to the BBC’s monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps,”
    Jonathan Steele wrote for the Guardian in June, 2006. Ahmadinejad did not talk attacking Israel. He made a vague wish for the end of political Zionism — which is, of course, for some the same as attacking Israel with a nuclear bomb.
      ….
    In the real world, the only nuclear threat in the Middle East is the one posed by Israel. If Israel follows through on its threat — increasingly likely with the passing of each week — to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, the result will be catastrophic. In the aftermath of an attack, “huge amounts of radioactive material will be lofted into the air to contaminate the people of Iran and surrounding countries,” explains
    Dr. Helen Caldicott, who consulted with an eminent international authority on nuclear weapons. “This fallout will induce cancers, leukemia, and genetic disease in these populations for years to come, both a medical catastrophe and a war crime of immense proportions,” she writes in her book, “Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer,” published in 2007. She cites the example of Chernobyl.
     
    Finally, as analysts note, conventional weapons will not be effective against Iran’s underground nuclear materials storage site and uranium conversion plant at Isfahan and the underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. “Iranian officials have acknowledged the Isfahan facility is specifically designed to be impervious to conventional attack, making it a prime nuclear target. The Natanz plant is buried between 18 and 23 meters below the surface, making it a difficult target for conventional attack. For this scenario, we modeled attacks, each with three B61-11 earth-penetrating nuclear weapons set to explode with a yield of 340kt. Meteorological models in the HPAC were used to determine the distribution pattern of fallout,” write
    Physicians for Social Responsibility
     
    “From our map …we can see that within 48 hours, fallout would cover much of Iran, most of Afghanistan and spread on into Pakistan and India. Fallout from the use of a burrowing weapon such as the B61-11 would be worse than from a surface or airburst weapon, due to the extra radioactive dust and debris ejected from the blast site. In the immediate area of the two attacks, our calculations show that within 48 hours, an estimated 2.6 million people would die.” In the wider area, over 10.5 million people would be exposed to significant radiation from fallout. “In the immense fallout zone, very few people would have access to adequate medical care, increasing the potential number of casualties of an attack. From studies conducted after the use of nuclear weapons against Japan we know that there would also be a severe psychological trauma for the affected population, which would further exacerbate negative health outcomes for attack victims.”
     
    The Saudis are taking the threat seriously. In 2008, the Saudi Shura Council — comprised of an elite group making decisions for the autocratic inner circle — prepared “national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts’ warnings of possible attacks on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactors,” according to the kingdom’s leading newspaper,
    Okaz. In September of 2008, Israel also began preparing civilians for the inevitability of radiation exposure.
     
    Israel and the United States are ready to accept this massive death toll and radioactive contamination in order to “send a message” to Iran. In addition to millions of initial deaths, an Israeli attack – naturally conducted with U.S. participation — would deal a death blow to the global economy and kick off a third world war (the neocons like to call this the “fourth world war,” the third being the so-called Cold War).

end

July 22, 2009 Posted by | GeoPolitics | , | Comments Off on Globalist Think Tank Trots Out Iran Attack Scenario