Thursday, February 28, 2008

The Unknown History of America

WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: (Note: Bold and/or underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked postings/articles. Forwarding the postings to relatives and friends, especially in the homeland, is greatly appreciated. To write or read a comment, please go to the bottom of the post and click on "Comments.").

"The HISTORY of an oppressed people is hidden in the lies and the agreed myth of its conquerors." - Meridel Le Sueur, American writer, 1900-1996

"The true Filipino is a decolonized Filipino." – Prof. Renato Constantino (1919-1999)

NOTE: To those who wonder "why dig the past": We engage in revisiting and revising our past, i.e. historical "revisionism", to develop new emphases and raise new questions on assumptions and explanations for key historical issues and policies --given by our former colonial master America, our Americanized government officials and authors of history books, then and now.
In our homeland's case, we can not afford a "balanced" approach to our history since in the continuing past, our homeland's history, as it refers to Philippine-US relationships, has been greatly imbalanced in favor of the Americans, who as far as we baby boomers can remember, are only "the good guys" and "do-gooders" in history. It is time for us, especially for Filipinos-in-the-Philippines to recover our history, a nationalist history, which necessitates uncovering the lies and myths about America; since the American arrival into and its 50-year occupation of our homeland, the constantly played sweet nothings about "Philippine-American Special Relations", etc. perpetuated through our school textbooks, mass media, government pronouncements, and by fellow Filipinos with Americanized minds, etc.

We Filipinos, here and abroad, past and present, rely on and continue to use these official explanations that lead only to our ignorance of such hidden truths and knowledge of untruths, thus perpetuating the post-WW2 neocolonial conditions that brought only worsening impoverishment to the masses; foreign control of the national economy and its plunder of our national patrimony.

The historical and documentary article (the Introduction to the sourcebook) below demonstrates and reminds us that our former master America has skeletons in its closet that it continues to hide from all and its own citizens.

Thus the American people's ignorance of their own miseducation has led to their arrogance and self-righteousness towards the colored peoples of the world --including us Filipino Malay natives (indios or "niggers" to them at the turn of the 20th century) -- as exemplified by its self-proclaimed American gospel of "manifest destiny," its excuse for the 50-year American intervention, occupation and colonization of our homeland.


In the year AD 73, a group of Jewish zealots in the cliff fortress of Masada were besieged by the Romans for months.Finally they realized they could no longer hold out against the superior forces of the enemy. They faced a choice of being captured alive and forced into slavery or dying as a free people.

They chose to die. And the account of their unique suicide pact has become one of the classic documents of history. The description of their deliberations and the manner in which they carried out their death pact was written by Flavius Josephus, the apostate Jew who was a recorder of the Roman conquest. Josephus used two women who had hidden themselves rather than die as his sources for the story. If they had not remained alive, and if Josephus had not been with the Romans at the time, the incredible story of Masada would probably have gone untold.

Documentary material such as Josephus' account provides historians with some sense of the past and its connections to the present and future. But because some societies have no written language nor a tradition of maintaining a written history, the outsider's knowledge of them is limited.

American history certainly does not suffer from shortage of written documents. in fact, anyone undertaking the task of relating the past to the present may be overwhelmed by the amount of material available, some of it dating back to the first day a white man ever set foot on this continent.

In the usual presentation of American history through documents, a special kind of selectivity has prevailed: only those documents that have interpreted American history as a gradual unfolding of progress and democracy have been used. As a result, few Americans know that such ideas as "Black Power" and self-determination, which today are considered new, have historical antecedents. Today's ghetto and barrio politics were not born with "Black Power" or La Raza, but date back to the formation of the first segregated --or self-segregated--communities in America. The ancestors of Malcolm X and Eldridge Cleaver are Nat Turner and Toussaint L'Ouverture, Reies Tijerina, in New Mexico, comes from a long line of Hispano-Indian leaders who organized resistance against the Anglos.

From the start, nonwhite people in this country have had to make decisions forced upon them by the white Europeans' insatiable need to increase their land holdings: should they, the natives, give up the earth on which they have lived and the civilizations associated with it, and accommodate .to the conquerors: should they resist, at the cost of physical annihilation; or should they try to remain as a separate community? The Word plus the Gun forced each nonwhite group to examine its collective sense of self-preservation and explore all the options open to it.

One such option --a racial state-- made familiar in the 1960s by the black separatists, is an integral part of the early American Indian history, although it is rarely discussed in that context. For example, the earliest published Indian Treaty signed by the newly formed United States was with the Delaware Indian tribe in September 1778. It gave an opportunity to the Delawares and "any other tribes who have been friends to the interests of the United States to join the present confederation, and to form a state, whereof the Delaware nation shall be the head and have a representative in Congress.. ." Not until early in the twentieth century, and the dissolution of the Cherokee nation, did Indians formally give up the notion of exercising "Red Power" by forming a separate Indian state with its own representative in Congress.

As far back as 1812, Tecumseh, the Shawnee leader, and Pushmataha, the Choctaw orator, debated fiercely at a Choctaw and Chickasaw council over the issue of how best to deal with the white man. "Are we not being stripped, day by day, of the little that remains of our ancient liberty?"

Tecumseh asked the council. "Do they not even now kick and strike us as they do their blackfaces? How long will it be before they tie us to a post and whip us and make us work for them in corn fields as they do them? Shall we wait for that moment or shall we die fighting before submitting to such ignominy?"

Pushmataha opposed Tecumseh's plea for armed resistance and implored the tribes to accept the white man's good intentions. he urged them " to submit their grievances, whatever they may be, to the congress of the United States according to the articles of the treaty exisitng between us and the American people..."

Such bitter debates among the Indians were paralleled by similar disputes among the Spanish-speaking people. Should we let the white man come in and take our land, they asked, or should we take up arms to fight for our land and our culture? But the records of those quarrels remain buried, untranslated, in the columns of old newspaper and in corridos, or folk ballads.

Only recently, have some young chicanos, the militant Mexican-Americans, rediscovered their folk heroes in reviving the tradition of La Raza. They have discovered that men like Juan Cortina, Gregorio Cortez, Joaquin Murieta, and Tiburcio Vasquez were not bandits, as they are described in most American history books, if they are described at all. They were champions of La Raza, who fought with pistols against the white conquerors, and killed any of their own who accepted the role of conquered people.

A stanza of a Texas corrido begins: "Long live our country, although suffering setback....the mother country is home, that loves son and daughter, for Mexico has fame, military discipline."

But no folk ballad tells the story how some of the proud Polynesian people who lived in the Hawaiian Islands tried to resist the white political and cultural invasion of their shores.

"The Hawaiian people will be trodden underfoot by the foreigners," said the people of Lahaina on the island of Maui in 1845.

"The laws of those governments will not do for us. These are good laws for them, our laws are for us and are good laws for us which we have made for ourselves. We are not slaves to serve them. When they talk in their clever way we know what is right and what is wrong..."

It did no good for the Hawaiians to know what was right and what was wrong. Their country was taken over by the haoles (whites), in the course of only a few decades. The haoles did it with guns and religion. And the native Hawaiians began the slow descent to what they are today --a pitiful small remnant of their race, occupying the lowest rungs on the social and economic ladder of the Islands.

Few haoles know that the Chinese in Hawaii, like the Japanese, argued among themselves about whether to accommodate to the white man's brutal treatment or engage in active resistance to it. Resistance included helping Chinese workers to escape from the slave conditions under which they lived on the white-owned plantations. At one point, in the late 19th century, hundreds of Chinese gathered at a mass meeting in Honolulu to

"solemnly protest against the injustices, degradation and insult threatened to be imposed upon us and our race....while we ask for nothing more than equality with the resident of equally good behavior, we shall be satisfied with and shall support and respect nothing that accords to our race a lesser degree of consideration and justice of other nationalities enjoy."

The white community's response to this protest was made clear by a leading Island newspaper.

The Chinese, it said,

"assume an attitude plainly defiant and closely bordering on the dominant and dictatorial. From the weak and lowly field hand of the time of 1851 and the wage scale of $3 a month, they have, by an unparalleled and alarming evolution, reached the station of an assertive element in the policy of the nation."

Shortly after that arrogant statement was published, the Chinese Hawaiians organized a protective group and purchased rifles to defend themselves and their homes from the whites.

The Japanese immigrant community in Hawaii was torn apart by similar conflicts. Some Japanese, at the turn of the century,sought to resist the brutalities of white plantation owners by organizing for better conditions. These organizers were jailed for their efforts; they were also attacked from within the Japanese community by accommodationists who believed that "certain things" existed in the Japanese that caused them to be "disliked by American people."

In the year before WW2, the argument within the Japanese community in Hawaii had its counterpart on the mainland. many Nisei, or second generation Japanese-Americans, who lived there insisted that the only way to demonstrate their Americanism was to become more American than whites, others insisted on retaining ties with japan; a third group being treated as second-class citizens.

Pearl Harbor, however, decided the fate of the American-Japanese. All Japanese, citizens and aliens, no matter what their attitudes, were taken to relocation camps --"for the sake of internal quiet," said President Franklin Roosevelt. but the debates went on int the camps. They were now accompanied by violence. The "Blood Brothers," a group of Nisei determined to fight against the treatment they were getting, physically and verbally attacked those who were willing to accommodate to relocation.

The "Blood Brothers" called such Japanese inu (dogs). When the Nisei were asked to sign a loyalty oath the the U.S., nearly 50% of them refused to do so out of resentment at the treatment they had received. After the war, some 8,000 of them emigrated to Japan. Ten years later, one congressman admitted that he had been wrong in his attitude toward the Japanese-Americans. But, while making that concession, he retained the concept of color as a gauge of loyalty. "The Japanese-Americans," he said, "were just as loyal as those whose skin was white.

"the direct relationship between skin color and loyalty to America, voiced so openly by that congressman, is an important element in the American character.

Some historians have begun to examine American racism as a product of capitalism and imperialism. The colonizers came to the new World believing that the colored people were inferior, and used that ideology to justify the enslavement of the blacks, the killing of Indians and Mexicans and the importation of Oriental labor for work considered unfit for whites. The identification of colored skin with evil, with the devil, with inferiority, infused the entire culture of the Anglo-Saxons during the first centuries of colonization.

In each case, the racism coincided with economic need for slave labor and for land. At the same time, racist attitudes were institutionalized as laws, religion and everyday practice. Each school child learned, along with the principles of republicanism and democracy, about the inferiority of colored people, ministers explained to their flocks that slavery was God's will.

Racist laws and racist behavior became an integral part of American culture, as much a part of it as democracy, Racist attituded not only made whites feel superior by virtue of their skin color, it also made all colored, colonized people feel inferior because of their skin color. Writings on American history are filled with racist axioms. It is sometimes conceded that the colored peoples have suffered injustices. But their attempts to resist, their politics and debates, were not considered important enough to merit inclusion.

Thus the history that has been and is being written, by its nature, is a racist history, which excludes minorities and women in its pages. And so written American history, along with American culture, law, religion and philosophy, has skewed the attitudes of the American people.

To blacks, Indians, Mexicans and Orientals, George Washington was not the father of the country, but a slaveholder and a racist --as was Jefferson. If the great heroes of the history books were judged by the character of their behavior to the colored peoples, Jackson would be called a bitter racist; Lincoln's belief that blacks were innately inferior would be decried; and Woodrow Wilson would be criticized for writing history that apologized for slavery and favored segregation. But these men remained heroes for most Americans, white and colored, because for more than three centuries, the values, the criteria for judging good and bad, superior and inferior, what is worthy of record and what is not, have not taken racism into account.

The history and struggles of the colored peoples, the losers, have rarely been recorded. Only now are they becoming subjects deemed worthy of investigation. The documents on the colored peoples' resistance, and their anguish, are an indictment not only of America's past but of all those writers who have excluded thee colored peoples' struggle for freedom from their work. Too much of American history has been a celebration of past that merits severe criticism. But the celebration of America was brought to an end for many people in the 1960s. The task of rewriting American history with a new perspective on racism as well as democracy and progress, is just beginning.

Nonwhites have permanent alien status in the white society of America. The documents in this book demonstrates the nonwhites' belief that they are never completely trusted by most whites, and that they are always considered inferior no matter how superior they may be either within their own community or even in the larger world outside it.

Source: TO SERVE THE DEVIL, Volume 1: Natives and Slaves - A Documentary Analysis of America's Racial History and Why it has Been kept Hidden, Paul Jacobs & Saul Landau with Eve Pell (1971)

"Nations, whose NATIONALISM is destroyed, are subject to ruin." - Colonel Muhammar Qaddafi, 1942-Present, Libyan Political and Military Leader

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

False Flag Prospects, 2008 -- Top Three US Target Cities

URL of this article:

Global Research, February 23, 2008

By Captain Eric H. May

The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. As I'll detail below, this is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 "terror" attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on "terrorists."

Although ill health keeps me from working as hard in the area of false flag analysis as I used to, the urging of independent editors and brother intelligence officers has prompted me to write this essay. I'll keep it short for readers with limited time, but I will include invaluable links for those who want to delve deeper and understand better.

My aim, as a former military intelligence officer who spent five years with the U.S. Army 75th Division conducting military war games, is to convince the American people that the "next 9/11" -- constantly promised by officials and the media -- is likely to be carried out under the guise of future military exercises. If the American people are aware of pending exercises and the danger they represent, then the exercises cannot "go live" and effect the very terror events that they are supposed to be rehearsing against.

Military Exercises

The 9/11, 2001 attacks in the United States and the 7/7, 2005 attacks in the United Kingdom both have smoking guns proving that the mass murderers were not foreign terrorists but domestic tyrants. Each country's government was conducting military exercises that simulated the exact events that were to occur.

The US 9/11 Commission stumbled across strong evidence of treason by Dick Cheney when it interviewed Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who was present in Cheney's famous command bunker as Flight 77 sped toward Washington, DC. Cheney was at the center of national military exercises simulating terrorist hijackings of US aircraft -- at the very time that those hijackings were occurring in real life. On May 23, 2003, Secretary Mineta testified:

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

9/11 Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton failed to follow up on the bombshell revelation, and quickly switched the topic Thanks to YouTube, Mineta's astounding revelation and Hamilton's amazing reaction are both viewable on a three minute clip:

In the case of the 7/7 London railway bombings, there is same-day evidence in a BBC interview with former Scotland Yard anti-terrorism agent, Peter Power, who was a contract employee working in government exercises:

POWER: "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now."

BBC HOST: "To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?"

POWER: "Precisely."

For a one minute excerpt containing the statements above, refer to

Mainstream Media

It goes without saying that serious media inquiry would quickly ferret out the facts demonstrating high treason in the cases of 9/11 and 7/7. It also goes without saying, unfortunately, that the traitors behind the two false flag attacks understood this very well, and would not have done what they did without a green light from a collaborative media.

Three World Trade Center buildings collapsed in New York City on September 11, 2001: WTC 1 and WTC 2 (the Twin Towers) in the morning, and WTC 7 (the Salomon Building) at 5:20 p.m. EST. Given that all three buildings were said to be unexpected collapses by all official sources, there is no good reason -- except for complicity -- to explain how it is that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty minutes before it happened:

Fox news damned itself by announcing that WTC 7 had collapsed -- even as it showed a live shot of downtown New York with WTC 7 still standing. A few seconds later the building collapsed, understandably confusing the newscasters:

The owner of all three buildings was Larry Silverstein, who had recently doubled the insurance value of the Twin Towers. Amazingly, "Lucky Larry," later stated in a PBS interview that he and the New York Fire Department agreed to a controlled demolition of WTC 7. Since skyscrapers are not wired for demolition -- unless someone intends to demolish them -- Silverstein's statement is an admission that 9/11 was an inside job:

"The Noble Lie"

I believe that on the strength of the five YouTube links above an objective investigation would have more than enough evidence to warrant impeachment of Bush and Cheney on a charge of high treason, and to summon a grand jury that would indict many others on charges of high treason against Larry Silverstein and other apparent 9/11 collaborators. I believe that the American people, if presented with a single news story containing the five YouTube links above, would demand that the case of high treason be carried to its logical conclusion.

Congress, though, won't impeach the president. The mainstream media, for which I used to write, will not investigate and report the story. The military that was used as a tool to mass murder American citizens will not take action against traitors in uniform who knew exactly what they were doing on 9/11, or the many more uniformed dupes who thought they were conducting military exercises until the events of 9/11 occurred. To this day there have been no adverse actions -- which would require investigation and evaluation -- against any military person involved in what even official apologists call the greatest defense failure in American history. All of this shows that the fix is in, and that we are in a fix.

The high officials, media executives and military officers who are bound by law and ethics to serve the American people have become a textbook example of a grand conspiracy. To look at it from their point of view, they are historic actors who are beyond good and evil, who must stimulate the American people to a necessary geostrategic adventure by any means necessary. To them, the official account of the 9/11 "terror" attacks is what Plato once described as the "noble lie," a necessary falsehood told to a childlike public in order to direct it maturely. The simple fact is that 9/11 has justified an attempt to seize and control the ultimate geostrategic resource: oil. He who controls Middle East oil controls the world.

Top Three US Target Cities

Last year I published "Next 9/11, Summer 2007?" in response to the same kind of requests that have led me to publish this essay as a 2008 update. My 2007 three most likely cities for the next 9/11 were Houston, Chicago and Portland. This year the same three cities are still most endangered, in light of the fact that the US military has designated Texas, Indiana and Oregon as three of its four target states in the 2008 version of its Noble Resolve military exercises. Granted, Chicago is in Illinois, not Indiana, but Indiana is quite close, and has been used to stage forces for terror exercises conducted in Chicago in recent years.

It may come as a surprise to people not acquainted with military preparations that the same cities remain on the list even though analysts like me have publicized them widely. There are considerable difficulties in setting up the political, police, military and media players necessary to support a false flag attack. While many in the 911 truth movement believes that national military forces can simply hit any city at any time, it's not so easy -- thank God. Fortunately, this means that those of us who study false flag prospects and focus on most likely targets; regrettably, this means that target cities can't breathe easy just because they have detected, exposed and preempted a single false flag attempt.

Here is a brief target analysis of the top three cities:

Primary Target: Houston. Over the past four years military and police veterans like me have been alerting the public to government exercises aiming at the nuclear destruction of Houston petro-suburbs. Five times in those four years we were able to predict to within a day major petrochemical explosions in those petro-suburbs. The odds against this kind of accuracy are astronomical. As the center of Big Oil and the Bush Family, Houston remains the most endangered city in America. Any patriotic group, like mine, trying to alert its home city to the dangers of a false flag attack should read my recent article, "The 1/31 Nuke: Proof for Ron Paul" about the successful interdiction of a 2006 attempt against Texas City:

Secondary Target: Chicago. While Houston is the most endangered city, the most endangered building -- the best candidate to be the next World Trade Center -- is the Sears Tower. Official sources have pronounced it just that ever since the original 9/11 attack, when they said it was on the Al Qaeda hit list. Larry Silverstein, who bought the Twin Towers two months before 9/11, led a group that purchased the Sears Tower on 3/11, 2004, the day of the Madrid bombings. Federal officials have been pointing to Chicago and its Sears Tower as Al Qaeda targets since the original 9/11 attacks, and have repeated the threat ever since. In May 2006,, the government scheduled secret 9/11-type exercises in Chicago, while Chicago Mayor Daley was docked conveniently away in Israel for his first visit there. I sent a widely read communiqué to Illinois Governor Blagojevich as part of a successful Internet attempt to shut down the pending false flag attack:

Tertiary Target: Portland. Portland, called "Little Beirut" by Bush cronies because of its enmity to Bush 41 and Bush 43, only made my top three list last summer, when it was designated as a target for a nuclear attack by successive exercises Noble Resolve and TOPOFF. The language in an official press release stated the case plainly enough: "Noble Resolve will coordinate with officials in Oregon to model a nuclear attack on Portland." In the course of researching Portland for a series of articles I wrote about the city and its exercises. I discovered that Stanford and Harvard had prepared a detailed nuclear fallout map for it, that national military commanders and state National Guard commanders were telling different stories about what the exercises were trying to accomplish, and that Portland's The Oregonian newspaper was doing everything it could to avoid investigating the frightening anomalies. I wasn't at all surprised that the last day of the exercises found the Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff in downtown Portland, which was largely closed down by an "unexpected" bomb threat. For another professional perspective on how great the danger was -- and may be again -- I refer the reader to the analysis of my colleague, Major William B. Fox (USMC):


"Good morning. At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison." -- George W. Bush, Feb. 13, 2008

I can't think of a more important question than the one of where the next 9/11 will be attempted. Common sense dictates to all of us who understand the truth about 9/11 that its perpetrators must strike again. Indeed, every directive, act and decision of our post-9/11 unitary executive, cowards Congress and Judas judiciary has increased the power of the federal government to wage the Global War and impose the Homeland State.

Why on earth would those already guilty of high treason, mass murder and war crimes fail to follow up on their earlier efforts? They understand quite well that the Global War is going badly and the Homeland State is becoming onerous, and that only a reapplication of false flag terror will force the American people to proceed with our post-9/11 national insanity.

Still, for every one person who republishes or constructively comments on this essay, there will be another who employs division, abuse and ridicule against me or anyone else who asserts the common sense point that false flaggers will continue to false flag, just as murderers will continue to murder and robbers will continue to rob. It's Newtonian in its simplicity: things continue to drift the way they are drifting until they are stopped.

We can only stop the deadly drift of America by understanding 9/11 and anticipating the next 9/11. Many of the vociferous voices impeding our understanding and anticipation are performing a vital service for treason. The federal government once used counterintelligence programs (COINTELPRO) against the Vietnam era antiwar and civil rights movement, and common sense would suggest that they are using it again in the post-9/11 era, this time against the antiwar and 911 truth movement. The most dangerous voices of all our those from false friends who have infiltrated us to confuse us until the traitors who carried out 9/11 can repeat their performance.

Captain May is a former Army military intelligence and public affairs officer, as well as a former NBC editorial writer. His political and military analyses have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle and Military Intelligence Magazine.

For more information, or his interview schedule, refer to his homesite:

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Kosovo's 'Independence'

By Sara Flounders

In evaluating the recent "declaration of independence" by Kosovo, a province of Serbia, and its immediate recognition as a state by the U.S., Germany, Britain and France, it is important to know three things.

First, Kosovo is not gaining independence or even minimal self-government. It will be run by an appointed High Representative and bodies appointed by the U.S., European Union and NATO. An old-style colonial viceroy and imperialist administrators will have control over foreign and domestic policy. U.S. imperialism has merely consolidated its direct control of a totally dependent colony in the heart of the Balkans.

Second, Washington's immediate recognition of Kosovo confirms once again that U.S. imperialism will break any and every treaty or international agreement it has ever signed, including agreements it drafted and imposed by force and violence on others.

The recognition of Kosovo is in direct violation of such law-specifically U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244, which the leaders of Yugoslavia were forced to sign to end the 78 days of NATO bombing of their country in 1999. Even this imposed agreement affirmed the "commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Serbia, a republic of Yugoslavia.

This week's illegal recognition of Kosovo was condemned by Serbia, Russia, China and Spain.

Thirdly, U.S. imperialist domination does not benefit the occupied people. Kosovo after nine years of direct NATO military occupation has a staggering 60 percent unemployment rate. It has become a center of the international drug trade and of prostitution rings in Europe.

The once humming mines, mills, smelters, refining centers and railroads of this small resource-rich industrial area all sit silent. The resources of Kosovo under NATO occupation were forcibly privatized and sold to giant Western multinational corporations. Now almost the only employment is working for the U.S./NATO army of occupation or U.N. agencies.

The only major construction in Kosovo is of Camp Bondsteel, the largest U.S. base built in Europe in a generation.Halliburton, of course, got the contract. Camp Bondsteel guards the strategic oil and transportation lines of the entire region.

Over 250,000 Serbian, Romani and other nationalities have been driven out of this Serbian province since it came under U.S./NATO control. Almost a quarter of the Albanian population has been forced to leave in order to find work.

Establishing a colonial administration

Consider the plan under which Kosovo's "independence" is to happen. Not only does it violate U.N. resolutions but it is also a total colonial structure. It is similar to the absolute power held by L. Paul Bremer in the first two years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

How did this colonial plan come about? It was proposed by the same forces responsible for the breakup of Yugoslavia and the NATO bombing and occupation of Kosovo.

In June of 2005, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed former Finnish President Marti Ahtisaari as his special envoy to lead the negotiations on Kosovo's final status. Ahtisaari is hardly a neutral arbitrator when it comes to U.S. intervention in Kosovo. He is chairman emeritus of the International Crisis Group (ICG), an organization funded by multibillionaire George Soros that promotes NATO expansion and intervention along with open markets for U.S. and E.U. investment.

The board of the ICG includes two key U.S. officials responsible for the bombing of Kosovo: Gen. Wesley Clark and Zbigniew Brzezinski. In March 2007, Ahtisaari gave his Comprehensive Proposal for Kosovo Status Settlement to the new U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon.

The documents setting out the new government for Kosovo are available at A summary is available on the U.S. State Department's Web site at

An International Civilian Representative (ICR) will be appointed by U.S. and E.U. officials to oversee Kosovo. This appointed official can overrule any measures, annul any laws and remove anyone from office in Kosovo. The ICR will have full and final control over the departments of Customs, Taxation, Treasury and Banking.

The E.U. will establish a European Security and Defense Policy Mission (ESDP) and NATO will establish an International Military Presence. Both these appointed bodies will have control over foreign policy, security, police, judiciary, all courts and prisons. They are guaranteed immediate and complete access to any activity, proceeding or document in Kosovo.

These bodies and the ICR will have final say over what crimes can be prosecuted and against whom; they can reverse or annul any decision made. The largest prison in Kosovo is at the U.S. base, Camp Bondsteel, where prisoners are held without charges, judicial overview or representation.

The recognition of Kosovo's "independence" is just the latest step in a U.S. war of reconquest that has been relentlessly pursued for decades.

Divide and rule

The Balkans has been a vibrant patchwork of many oppressed nationalities, cultures and religions. The Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia, formed after World War II, contained six republics, none of which had a majority. Yugoslavia was born with a heritage of antagonisms that had been endlessly exploited by the Ottoman Turks, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and interference by British and French imperialism, followed by Nazi German and Italian Fascist occupation in World War II.

The Serbian people suffered great losses in that war. A powerful communist-led resistance movement made up of all the nationalities, which had suffered in different ways, was forged against Nazi occupation and all outside intervention. After the liberation, all the nationalities cooperated and compromised in building the new socialist federation.

In 45 years the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia developed from an impoverished, underdeveloped, feuding region into a stable country with an industrial base, full literacy and health care for the whole population.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the Pentagon immediately laid plans for the aggressive expansion of NATO into the East. Divide and rule became U.S. policy throughout the entire region. Everywhere right-wing, pro-capitalist forces were financed and encouraged. As the Soviet Union was broken up into separate, weakened, unstable and feuding republics, the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia tried to resist this reactionary wave.

In 1991, while world attention was focused on the devastating U.S. bombing of Iraq, Washington encouraged, financed and armed right-wing separatist movements in the Croatian, Slovenian and Bosnian republics of the Yugoslav Federation. In violation of international agreements Germany and the U.S. gave quick recognition to these secessionist movements and approved the creation of several capitalist ministates.

At the same time U.S. finance capital imposed severe economic sanctions on Yugoslavia to bankrupt its economy. Washington then promoted NATO as the only force able to bring stability to the region.

The arming and financing of the right-wing UCK movement in the Serbian province of Kosovo began in this same period. Kosovo was not a distinct republic within the Yugoslav Federation but a province in the Serbian Republic. Historically, it had been a center of Serbian national identity, but with a growing Albanian population.

Washington initiated a wild propaganda campaign claiming that Serbia was carrying out a campaign of massive genocide against the Albanian majority in Kosovo. The Western media was full of stories of mass graves and brutal rapes. U.S. officials claimed that from 100,000 up to 500,000 Albanians had been massacred.

U.S./NATO officials under the Clinton administration issued an outrageous ultimatum that Serbia immediately accept military occupation and surrender all sovereignty or face NATO bombardment of its cities, towns and infrastructure. When, at a negotiation session in Rambouillet, France, the Serbian Parliament voted to refuse NATO's demands, the bombing began.

In 78 days the Pentagon dropped 35,000 cluster bombs, used thousands of rounds of radioactive depleted-uranium rounds, along with bunker busters and cruise missiles. The bombing destroyed more than 480 schools, 33 hospitals, numerous health clinics, 60 bridges, along with industrial, chemical and heating plants, and the electrical grid. Kosovo, the region that Washington was supposedly determined to liberate, received the greatest destruction.

Finally on June 3, 1999, Yugoslavia was forced to agree to a ceasefire and the occupation of Kosovo.

Expecting to find bodies everywhere, forensic teams from 17 NATO countries organized by the Hague Tribunal on War Crimes searched occupied Kosovo all summer of 1999 but found a total of only 2,108 bodies, of all nationalities. Some had been killed by NATO bombing and some in the war between the UCK and the Serbian police and military. They found not one mass grave and could produce no evidence of massacres or of "genocide."

This stunning rebuttal of the imperialist propaganda comes from a report released by the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte. It was covered, but without fanfare, in the New York Times of Nov. 11, 1999.

The wild propaganda of genocide and tales of mass graves were as false as the later claims that Iraq had and was preparing to use "weapons of mass destruction."

Through war, assassinations, coups and economic strangulation, Washington has succeeded for now in imposing neoliberal economic policies on all of the six former Yugoslav republics and breaking them into unstable and impoverished ministates.

The very instability and wrenching poverty that imperialism has brought to the region will in the long run be the seeds of its undoing. The history of the achievements made when Yugoslavia enjoyed real independence and sovereignty through unity and socialist development will assert itself in the future.


Sara Flounders, co-director of the International Action Center, traveled to Yugoslavia during the 1999 U.S. bombing and reported on the extent of the U.S. attacks on civilian targets. She is a co-author and editor of the books: "Hidden Agenda-U.S./NATO Takeover of Yugoslavia" and "NATO in the Balkans."

Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008


by Captain A.H.M. Ramsay
(A Side of History not seen in the History books) -- 38KB

Australia, the victim (just one of many) of international thuggery
Silencing truth
Christians say . . .
Jews say . . .
"The Jewish Chronicle"
"The Daily Worker"

Protocols of Zion -- No. 7.
Protocols of Zion -- No. 1.
list showing the number of vital positions held by Jews behind the iron curtain.


Usury forbidden to the Jews
Distress for Jews
Their badge
Their tax
Conveyance of land, etc., by Jews
Magna Carta
The Statute of Jewry passed
Edward I banished the Jews from England
Amsterdam Jews financed the rebellion against King James II
The Bank of "England" set up and the National Debt instituted
Economic and political union forced upon Scotland
Seneca B.C. 4 to A.D. 5
St Justin 116 A.D.
Mohammed 570
Martin Luther 1483
Clement VIII Pope 1592
Voltaire 1694
Napoleon 1805
Benjamin Franklin 1789
Changing LINKS

Friday, February 15, 2008

An Electronic Concentration Camp: Big Brother in the Sky

By John W. Whitehead

Short of hiding out in a cave, far removed from any trace of modern technology, it would seem that there is no longer any escaping the electronic concentration camp in which we live.

Whether we’re crossing the street, queuing up at the ATM or picnicking in the park, we’re under constant scrutiny—our movements monitored by cameras, tracked by satellites and catalogued by a host of increasingly attentive government agencies. No longer does the idea of an omnipresent, omniscient government seem all that far-fetched. And as technology becomes ever more sophisticated, the idea of a total surveillance society moves further from the realm of George Orwell’s science fiction fantasy into an accepted way of life.

In fact, surveillance has become an industry in itself, with huge sectors having sprung up devoted to developing increasingly sophisticated gadgets to keep American citizens under surveillance, with or without their cooperation. The science behind the gadgetry is particularly brilliant. For example, human motion analysis, a pet project of researchers at the University of Maryland, aims to create an individual “code” for the way people walk—researchers refer to it as “finding DNA in human motion.” Dubbed Gait DNA, this surveillance system works by matching a person’s facial image to his gait, height, weight and other elements—all captured through remote observation, thereby allowing the computer to identify someone instantly and track them, even in a crowd.

Soon there really will be no place to hide. Oceanit, a Hawaii-based company that has been working with the Hawaiian National Guard in Iraq, is preparing to roll out sense-through-the-wall technology next year that can “see” through walls by picking up on sensitive radio signals emitted by the human body to determine vital signs such as breathing and heart rates. As Ian Kitajima, the marketing manager for Oceanit pointed out, in addition to telling users whether someone is dead or alive on the battlefield, the technology “will also show whether someone inside a house is looking to harm you, because if they are, their heart rate will be raised. And 10 years from now, the technology will be much smarter. We’ll scan a person with one of these things and tell what they’re actually thinking.”

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the central research and development agency for the Department of Defense, is credited with ensuring that the U.S. remains ahead of the game when it comes to such far-reaching technology. According to a recent BBC news report, “Back in the 70s, while we were working with typewriters and carbon paper, Darpa was developing the Internet. In the 90s, while we pored over maps, Darpa invented satellite navigation that many of us now have in our cars.” DARPA is currently working on technology that will enable users to understand any language spoken to them, as well as fine-tuning the prototype for an unmanned airplane with surveillance cameras that would be able to stay airborne for up to five years.

And on October 1, the government will launch its latest assault on privacy by making data from U.S. satellites available to federal agents. These satellites, which orbit the earth 24 hours a day and have historically provided high-resolution photographs to track climate changes and foreign military movements, will now be used to watch for terrorist activity and drug smuggling, among other things. Yet they are a far cry from the satellite imagery many Americans have become acquainted with through Google Earth and MapQuest. These spy satellites not only take color photos, they also use more advanced technology to track heat generated by people in buildings.

In fact, as the Wall Street Journal points out, “The full capabilities of these systems are unknown outside the intelligence community, because they are among the most closely held secrets in government.” Moreover, the technology is expected to be made available to state and local law enforcement agencies within the year, which raises serious concerns about the deepening ties between domestic law enforcement agencies and the military.

This latest citizen surveillance program comes draped in the familiar government mantra that it will keep us safe from terrorists. As Charles Allen, the chief intelligence officer for the Department of Homeland Security, explained to the Washington Post, “These systems are already used to help us respond to crises. We anticipate that we can also use it to protect Americans by preventing the entry of dangerous people and goods into the country, and by helping us examine critical infrastructure for vulnerabilities.”

Yet despite the government’s best efforts to sell the program, it is nothing less than “Big Brother in the sky,” as Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, aptly termed it. Indeed, since 9/11, the U.S. government has been building an arsenal of surveillance tools aimed directly at American citizens, largely paid for by American taxpayers and fueled by our fears.

For too long now, the American people have been ruled by fear. We are afraid of terrorists, afraid of crime, even afraid of our next-door neighbors. More than anything else, Americans want to feel safe. According to the BBC News, opinion polls show that approximately 75% of Americans want more, not less, surveillance. But there is wisdom in the adage to “be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.”

Implemented with virtually no oversight from Congress, this particular surveillance program will be overseen by the Homeland Security Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is a little like letting the foxes guard the chicken coop. And while some might argue that we at least live in a benevolent surveillance state, one that seemingly has our best interests at heart, I beg to differ. Whether we choose our prison or have it foisted upon us, the end is still the same: a lack of freedom.

WC: 969

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at

Thursday, February 14, 2008

What the Future Holds: It’s much worse than your worst nightmare

Note: Additional articles on politics can be found in the center column of this site approximately one-third down the page. The articles are broken down into General Politics and country specific politics. A selection of these articles that are specifically related to this post available at: Additional Information: Related articles from

Everything is politics, from what we eat to what we drink, from what society deems acceptable behavior to what it considers a criminal offence, from who we interact with to how we interact with them. Politics decides if we are free or if we will live as slaves in bondage. Politics determines what our children are taught in school, how we treat the ecosystem, what theories scientists investigate, how art is perceived, what version of history we recall, and how the future will remember us.

In essence, politics governs our thoughts, our understanding of reality, and how we and our society evolve, which is why for the last year the main focus of has been the analysis of our political status, laying down a foundation for our next phase of dialogue, which is now set to begin.

In the next few months information presented on this site will change focus. It will include more detailed discussion and analysis of topics such as Salvia Divinorum, health and environment, economics, The language of Mathematics, psychedelics and alternate realities, the future structure of communities, science and technology, time and light speed, life and death, and of course games, music and entertainment.

As a result the frequency of posts will be reduced, however specific articles will now, in large part, be self-contained. When necessary, political articles will be posted to provide information about certain events that will most likely unfold in the next few months (see below).

Before moving on from the realm of politics, I have prepared the following summary and forecast of what we can expect in the future. Since specific issues have been previously discussed in detail on this site I have tried to keep this summary brief and on topic. The perspective presented should make it clear that the opening of Pandora's box with the US-led invasion of Iraq has, beyond a reasonable doubt, kick started World War III.

This information is being presented in three parts: The first begins with an analysis of a recent BBC news report that thousands of Pakistanis are fleeing into Afghanistan; second is a graphical presentation of what the West is planning to do in the Muslim world; and third is why it is crucial that the use of Nuclear and Scalar weapons be avoided at all costs.

In addition, I have also supplied links to articles from that are essential reading, further discussing in detail what is presented in this post.

1) How Bad It Is: Pakistanis flee into Hell, while Hell comes to Africa (permalink)

2) Target is still Iran: Clear Cutting the Middle East and the coming Blood Bath (permalink)

3) Avoiding Armageddon: Why the use of Nuclear and Scalar weapons must be avoided at all costs (permalink)

4) Other Triggers of WWIII: Net Neutrality and 2012 Prophecies

5) Additional Information: Related articles from

7 of the Most Important Economic Events of the Last 7 Years: Collapsing the Economy in the Buildup to World War III

Since the year 2000, the following seven events have either caused or been the symptom of the present economic crises:

  1. Year 2000: Iraq dumps the US dollar and switches to the Euro - The following article,"The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq", which was written before the US invasion of Iraq, lays forth an argument that the war in Iraq was not just about oil but about the currency in which oil is traded. It is mandatory reading for anyone who wants to understand the basic concepts of American foreign policy, economics, and its military operations around the world. This article states that the principle reason why the United States invaded Iraq was because Saddam Hussein in the year 2000 went "ahead with its plans to stop using the U.S. dollar in its oil business" and start using the Euro.

    Iraq switching from the US Petro-dollar to the Euro meant that countries would no longer be obligated to buy oil in US dollars, so they would no longer have to maintain their US dollar reserves.

    Since reaching a double top in the year 2001/02, the US dollar has been devalued approximately 35%.

    click to enlarge

    Even though Iraq dumping the US currency is no longer an issue because the United States is now occupying Iraq, many countries continue to sell the dollar, converting their reserves to other currencies. Some of these countries include: Sweden, Cuba, U.A.E., China, Russia, India, Indonesia, North Korea, Venezuela, and many more. If the tipping point has been reached, it would explain the dollars dramatic devaluation.

  2. Year 2005: Rewriting the U.S. Bankruptcy Law - After years of lobbying, the “dream bill for credit card and financial service companies” finally came into effect in the United States. Two years ago the financial institutions that were preparing for the coming crash were able to lobby Congress to pass the ‘Bankruptcy Bill’. This law that took effect in 2005 created what is now widely refereed to as Debt Slavery and is “the biggest rewrite of U.S. bankruptcy law in a quarter century”.

    The Bill was conveniently introduced at a time when US household debt was at an all time high.

    click to enlarge

    Those who were wise enough to realize what the implications of the Bill would be declared bankruptcy before it took effect. Those unfortunates to have been caught unaware are now just realizing that corporations, who’s debts are wiped clean when they declare bankruptcy, have more rights then they do. Unfortunately, since personal bankruptcies have been surging, many people are finding out about their slave status the hard way.

  3. Year 2006: Discontinuance of M3 - “On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System” ceased publishing the M3 monetary aggregate. The M numbers (M1, M2, and M3) are “components of the United States money supply”, which “show the amount of dollars in circulation”.

    click to enlarge

    “M1 is the most volatile, equivalent to cash on the loose. M2 is less volatile, equivalent to savings account deposits. M3 is least volatile, equivalent to Rich Folks Money which they park.” One of the most important things that the M numbers are used for is to measure inflation. Clearly, the data indicates that “there has been substantial money growth since 2000”.

    If there is more money in circulation then it becomes devalued. The downside of devaluing a currency is that it can cause inflation and force the government to increase interest rates, but there are positive effects.

    As the Federal Reserve states, “A key effect of devaluation is that it makes the domestic currency cheaper relative to other currencies. There are two implications of a devaluation. First, devaluation makes the country's exports relatively less expensive for foreigners. Second, the devaluation makes foreign products relatively more expensive for domestic consumers, thus discouraging imports. This may help to increase the country's exports and decrease imports, and may therefore help to reduce the current account deficit.”

    However, not knowing how much money the Banks are printing means that there is no longer an accurate indication of how much currency is in circulation. This basically means that we are playing Monopoly with people who can take money out of the bank anytime they want, because they are the bank. This should be raising alarm bells across the United States the way it has done across the world, as the dumping of the US dollar by most countries indicates. After all, why would anyone want to hold on to a currency that has lost more than 67 percent in five-years relative to its peers?

  4. Year 2006: Iran moves from US dollars to the Euro - At the end of 2006 Iran announced that they would “use the euro instead of the US dollar in the country's budget for the next Iranian year”. This announcement is at least an order of magnitude more significant than Saddam Hussein saying that Iraq would start selling oil in Euros.

    If the United States was willing to invade Iraq to prevent oil from being traded in any other currency then the dollar, then it would be logical to assume that they will also confront Iran regarding their plans to permanently and absolutely phase out the US dollar. The United States now finds itself between a rock and a hard place, because they will either need to invade, bomb, or enforce sanctions against Iran along with any other country that decides to stop using US dollars in their oil exports, or they will have to watch the complete collapse of their economy and the devaluing of the Federal Reserve currency known as the US dollar.

    click to enlarge

    Where this will lead is yet to be determined but we now know that the United States is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives, both American and foreign, and is willing to execute the leaders of sovereign countries to prevent them from switching from US dollars to the Euro.

  5. Year 2006/07: Subprime Market Collapses - “Subprime lending , also called B-paper, near-prime, or second chance lending, is the practice of making loans to borrowers who do not qualify for the best market interest rates because of their deficient credit history. The term also refers to paper taken on property that cannot be sold on the primary market, including loans on certain types of investment properties and certain types of self-employed individuals. Subprime lending is risky for both lenders and borrowers due to the combination of high interest rates, poor credit history, and adverse financial situations usually associated with subprime applicants.”

    In the US the competition between these lenders became so fierce that “when the rates were getting too low, they switched to competing by way of advance ratio versus selling price.”

    “In other words, if lender ‘A’ was offering 90% financing, lender ‘B’ would go to 100% financing, then lender ‘C’ would advance 100% of selling price plus costs, then to 105%, etc. We have seen the U.S. equity lenders now go to 130% of selling price, giving back 10-15% to the purchasers to help buy furniture, large electronic products, groceries, while the remaining 15-20% was eaten up in fees.”

    Why would a lender risk giving someone 130% of the value of a property, especially if the people are considered to be high risk? Fractional-reserve banking of course: A system that has been established to allow financial institutions to “loan their customers many times the sum of the credit reserves than they hold”. It’s a pyramid scheme in which everything continues to work until the bottom falls out, and the bottom has fallen out in the United States where “States have subprime exposure between 18% to 30%” and early payment defaults are rising. This problem with the subprime mortgage market is intensifying with the US and UK housing market crashes.

    The following animated documentary contains further information on our present monetary system, and is a great introduction to fractional reserve banking: Money As Debt (47:07)

    With this kind of banking system where money is created from debt, is it any wonder that the International Monetary Fund is warning that “house prices in the UK are overpriced by as much as 40 per cent and the bubble might burst” in Britain as well as several other European markets as it has in the United States.

  6. Year 2007: Run on The Bank in the UK - “A bank run is a type of financial crisis. It is a panic which occurs when a large number of customers of a bank fear it is insolvent and withdraw their deposits,” and this is exactly what happened in Britain, the financial capital of the world, in September of this year.

    “The queues that formed outside Northern Rock, the country's fifth-biggest mortgage lender, represented the first bank run in Britain since 1866. The panic was prompted by the very announcement designed to prevent it. Only when the Bank of England said that it would stand by the stricken Northern Rock did depositors start to run for the exit. Attempts by Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the exchequer, to reassure savers served only to lengthen the queues of people outside branches demanding their money. The run did not stop until Mr Darling gave a taxpayer-backed guarantee on September 17th that, for the time being, all the existing deposits at Northern Rock were safe.”

    This banking crisis is not an anomaly that just became realized in the UK. Banks in the rest of Europe are also facing a crisis and all indications are that this “Force 5 economic-hurricane that just touched ground in Great Britain is headed for America and gaining strength on the way.”

    The following documentary is worth viewing to fully understand the causes and implications of what is taking place: ZEITGEIST, The Movie: Part 3 of 3 (47:05)

  7. Year 2007: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran - In the most recent Zogby Poll released October 29, the “majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election.”

    Why would an attack on Iran be considered an economic event? Because war is the perfect consuming machine and a racket. “It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” (Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC)

    The US economy was on the verge of collapse before 911 and again before the invasion of Iraq, but it was saved thanks in large part to the wars. “What do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economic recovery in the United States have in common? More than one might expect, to judge from the last couple of rounds of US growth figures (2004).”

    How much did the Iraq war contribute to boasting the economy? “During the second quarter of 2003, when the war in Iraq was in full swing, some 60 per cent of the 3.3 per cent GDP growth rate was attributable to military spending.”

    “The war has been a large part of the justification for the Bush administration to run ever-widening budget deficits, and those deficits, predicated largely on military spending, have in turn pumped money into the economy and provided the stimulus that low interest rates and tax cuts, on their own, could never achieve.”

    This however has run its course and the American economy has taken a serious downturn. As it is the case with delaying the inevitable, the present economic crisis is much graver than it was pre-Iraq, hence a bigger intervention is required to rejuvenate the American economy with its cannibalistic corporate structure.

    Thanks to these wars, US debt is at historic levels, $9 trillion and counting, and all indications are that it is going to go a lot higher.

    click to enlarge

    So what is this ever-widening budget deficits mean? The above chart is a “projection of the US budget” for the near future. “These are the US government’s own projections—and we all know they have every incentive to accent the positive. If this is the best they can do at this point, then you know things are not just bad, they are calamitous.

    “This glimpse at the future clearly shows that the debt of the US will, in the foreseeable future, go from being a troubling yet manageable fraction of the economy to being several times the size of economy. That can’t happen without serious repercussions.

    “The US government will be spending money they don’t have, which means creating more of it out of thin air and diluting the value of all the dollars that came before. It doesn’t take a Harvard MBA to know that the kind of deficits projected above guarantee a persistently weak dollar, higher inflation and higher interest rates going forward.”

    So how does a collapsing empire as large as the United States recover from such disastrous fiscal policy? If history is any indication, a World War is the only solution. “The Great Depression ended as nations increased their production of war materials at the start of World War II. This increased production provided jobs and put large amounts of money back into circulation.” Hence in large part, WWII helped to bring about the end of the great depression.

    Unfortunately however it was not the general public that benefited from the war. “World War II spending often required a conversion of plants designed for civilian good production into military factories and back again over the 9 year period. Substantially higher federal tax rates that were paid by the majority of households imposed much stronger fiscal drags on the benefits of the spending. Finally, less of the military spending was earmarked for wages and use of locally produced inputs, which reduced the direct stimulus to the local economy.” In essence, World War II just helped to consolidate corporate assets for the privileged few.

    This attack on Iran will be nothing short of World War III which happens to be the mantra of the neocons who, with their corporate connections, would have everything to gain while the human race would have everything to lose, specially considering that this global war to save the American Empire is about to begin with the use of Nuclear weapons.

    Unwittingly, the American populace is beginning to support the Bush administration’s plans to attack Iran, but they fail to realize that the decision to start World War III is solely an economic one to prevent the banking institutions from collapsing.

So what are the implications of all this?

In a recent lecture, Seymour Hersh, an American Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, stated that he feared what would happen if American citizens began to believe the propaganda from the Bush administration now that the rhetoric to attack Iran has changed from preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons to stopping them from killing American troops in Iraq. He states that this change in tactics by the US administration seems to be working and Americans are starting to support an attack on Iran. As the Zogby Poll indicates, Hersh’s fears are becoming realized.

The US economy is showing signs that it is in a recession and heading for a hard landing, due in large part to the subprime crisis and the inevitable end to fractional reserve banking. Unfortunately economists believe that the short term solution to saving the banking theocracies from completely collapsing, with a crisis of this magnitude, is to wage war. However this strategy has the reverse effect, and completely collapses an economy if the war drags on by mushrooming the national debt and depleting the resources of the warring nations. This kind of economic lifeline has two major consequences: First it devastates the populace and the environment, and second it consolidates assets for the elite.

There is also one major setback to this proposal of a war with Iran: An attack on Iran would be nothing less then World War III. But then again maybe that is what the US economy needs to stay alive, a World War: The Perfect Consuming Machine. After all it was World War II that decisively ended the great depression, and since most economic indicators are worst now then they were then, it would be reasonable to assume that the United States will start World War III for nothing else then to continue the American lifestyle, maintain the banking plutocracy, and consolidate world assets into the corporate coffer.

If World War III, the minimum expected death toll for which is 200 million, is allowed to take place to save the banking institutions from collapse, then it is a true sign of corporate economic intelligence and control, however this well not resonate well with humanity, but then again, corporations are anything but human and war is everything but humane.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The Mediterranean Union: Dividing the Middle East and North Africa

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, February 10, 2008

The Middle East and North Africa are in the process of being divided into spheres of influence between the European Union and the United States. Essentially the division of the Middle East and North Africa are between Franco-German and Anglo-American interests. There is a unified stance within NATO in regards to this re-division.

While on the surface Iraq falls within the Anglo-American orbit, the Eastern Mediterranean and its gas resources have been set to fall into the Franco-German orbit. In fact the Mediterranean region as a whole, from Morocco and gas-rich Algeria to the Levant is coveted by Franco-German interests, but there is more to this complex picture than meets the eye.

Unknown to the global public, several milestone decisions have been made to end Franco-German and Anglo-American squabbling that will ultimately call for joint management of the spoils of war. Franco-German and Anglo-American interests are converging into one. The reality of the situation is that the area ranging from Mauritania to the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan will be shared by America, Britain, France, Germany, and their allies.

These spheres of influence are really spheres of responsibility in a long campaign to restructure the Middle East and North Africa. The services agreement between Total S.A. and Chevron to jointly develop Iraqi energy reserves, NATO agreements in the Persian Gulf, and the establishment of a permanent French military base in the U.A.E. are all results of these objectives. Militant globalization and force is at work from Iraq and Lebanon to the Maghreb.

Redrawing European Security Borders: The Road to Redrawing the Map of the Middle East

“The politics [foreign policy] of a state are in its geography.

-Napoleon Bonaparte I, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, and Mediator of the Helvetic (Swiss) Confederation

Before NATO’s Riga Summit it was agreed upon that the western periphery of the “Arc of Instability” would be manned by NATO and fall under Franco-German responsibility. [1] Signs of the consensus reached between the Anglo-American and Franco-German sides had emerged through Franco-German representatives a month prior to NATO’s conference in Riga, Latvia. While lecturing at Princeton University in October 2006, Joschka Fischer the former German Foreign Affairs Minister, a member of the Green Party of Germany, and a representative of the Franco-German entente gave a profound revelation about the direction of the foreign, security, and defence policy that Germany and France were heading towards.

The direction according to Joschka Fischer was “eastward,” with both the Middle East and its Eastern Mediterranean waters being named as the new borders of Europe. This region would be part of the new security sphere of the E.U. and Europe. The former German minister stated that the terrorist bombings in London, Britain and Madrid, Spain showed that the Middle East “is truly our [Europe’s] backyard, and we in the E.U. must cease our shortsightedness and recognize that.” [2]

Furthermore, Joschka Fischer warned that Europe needed to shift its attention to the Middle East and Turkey — a member of NATO and one of the “gateways” or “entrances” into the Middle East. It is not coincidental that The New York Times also argued for the expansion of NATO into the Middle East just months after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003. [3] By 2004 and through the joint Anglo-American and Franco-German coordination in Lebanon it was clear that France and Germany had agreed to be America’s bridgeheads in Eurasia. This is what brought about the leadership of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy in Berlin and Paris.

The statements of Joschka Fischer reflected a broader attitude within the leading circles of France and Germany. They are not coincidental remarks or innovative in nature or isolated statements. They are part of long-standing objectives and policies that have existed for decades. Fischer’s lecture foreshadowed the drive towards the harmonization of foreign policy in the Middle East between France, Germany, Britain, and the United States. What Joschka Fischer said marked the rapprochement of the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance and foreshadowed the greater role the E.U. and NATO would play in U.S. foreign policy.

The Daily Princetonian, Princeton’s school/university newspaper, quoted the former German official as making the following statements: [4]

.1. “Europe’s security is no longer defined on its [Europe’s] eastern borders, but in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.

.2. “Turkey should be a security pillar for the European community, and the efforts to derail that relationship are impossibly shortsighted.

Joschka Fischer’s statements also foreshadow Nicolas Sarkozy’s public campaign in the Mediterranean region. Franco-German policy is also exposed in regards to Turkey; before Nicolas Sarkozy was elected in France, Chancellor Angela Merkel intensified her calls for the inclusion of Turkey within the framework of the E.U. through a “special relationship,” but not as part of the actual European bloc. [5] This also foreshadowed what Nicolas Sarkozy would later propose to the Turks.

This could mean one of two things: Franco-German policy is part of a continuum regardless of leadership and party politics or that the outcome of the 2007 French presidential elections were known in Berlin or decided beforehand. Whatever the case, the German statements expose a calculated agenda in Paris, Berlin, and other European circles for expansion linked to the Anglo-American march to war.

Paris and Berlin act in tandem regardless as to whosoever is leading their respective govemments. It is Franco-German policy at its core depends on powerful economic interests. The latter call the shots and override the elected politicians. These economic interests determine in both France and Germany, as well as at the level of the E.U., the nature of government policy.

The Mediterranean Union: Expanding the E.U. into the Middle East and North Africa

The whole Mediterranean is slated to eventually fall within the European Union’s sphere of influence. This initiative is being spearheaded by France and was officially kicked off by Nicolas Sarkozy on a tour of the Mediterranean that started in Algeria. [6]

The idea of a
“Mediterranean Union” was presented to Europeans with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy, but this idea is not as new as the mainstream media presents it. Zbigniew Brzezinski acknowledged in 1997 that “France not only seeks a central political role in a unified Europe but also sees itself as the nucleus of a Mediterranean-North African cluster of states that share common concerns.” [7] An extension of the E.U. sphere of influence will also result in an extension of Anglo-American influence and the economic diktats of the Washington Consensus. In this case the question is how much Anglo-American influence will there be within the Mediterranean Union?

The E.U. is a shared body which support both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests. It is through America
’s “special relationship” with Britain and NATO that America has a foothold in the European Union. However, the E.U. is still predominately managed by Paris and Berlin. Thus, the Mediterranean littoral will be brought largely under Franco-German influence when the E.U. model is fused onto the Mediterranean.

The mechanism and structure established by the extension of the E.U. in the Mediterranean will determine the level of Anglo-American influence within the Mediterranean littoral. If the E.U. creates an overlapping mechanism in the Mediterranean where the nations of the Mediterranean littoral are linked only directly with E.U. members bordering the Mediterranean and indirectly with other E.U. members, then Anglo-American influence will be much weaker than it would be in the case of full integration between the E.U. and Mediterranean. This type of relationship would greatly empower Paris and Berlin within the Mediterranean.

Hypothetically, this arrangement could exclude Britain, as well as America. The Mediterranean could strictly fall into the Franco-German orbit, but this seems to be an unlikely scenario. Anglo-American control and influence will be maximized if the Mediterranean is wholly amalgamated into the European Union. However, this could damage the E.U. and hurt Anglo-American and Franco-German interests for different reasons, including demographics, if it is not done at a proper pace. If amalgamation is not achieved gradually, the E.U. could face internal instability. In reality, it is in the interests of the Anglo-American and Franco-German sides to share the Mediterranean.

This is another case where cooperation with the Franco-German entente, is in the interest of both and Britain and America. To insure a strong Anglo-American role, NATO has been involved, and Israel has been integrated into the framework for a Mediterranean Union.

’s role in this process also hinges upon its bilateral relationship with Turkey.

The role of Turkey as a Mediterranean country is considered pivotal in the creation of a
“union in the Mediterranean region,” as one of its backbones. What has been created is an extensive network of relationships and links that will make the whole structure of a Mediterranean Union easy and quick to formalize. The far-reaching economic and military ties between Turkey and Israel will ensure that Israel is well integrated into the proposed Mediterranean entity.

Dual membership for Turkey within the E.U. and the Mediterranean Union, but without full E.U. benefits, would also benefit Anglo-American interests. This may explain why Britain and America publicly support the direct entry of Turkey into the European Union. The roles of Turkey and Israel in the Mediterranean are also topics that must be touched upon to themselves.

Establishing a Mediterranean Free Trade Zone and Sharing the Spoils of Libya’s Oil Wealth

Both the Franco-German and Anglo-American sides are sharing the spoils in Libya, one of the targets of threats of war through the “Global War on Terror.” After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, Libya surrendered peacefully to demands from the “Western Powers.” The Washington Consensus made its breakthrough into Libya.

Tripoli was on a blacklist of nations, which included Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. It was also in 2003 that construction of the Greenstream Pipeline was made to supply the E.U. with Libyan natural gas via a route running through the Mediterranean Sea to the Italian island of Sicily.

It seems just like yesterday when Libya was categorized as a
“rogue state” and vilified as a supporter of international terrorism. Its status changed almost overnight with the opening up of its markets. A country’s economic policy is what determines its status in the eyes of Washington and London.

There have been no political or ideological changes in Libya nor has there been any change in leadership, but Libya is no longer seen as a rogue state. The only thing that has changes is that Libya has flung its doors open to U.S. and E.U. economic interests.

The economic, energy, and weapons deals signed with Libya in 2007 reveal the ultimate economic intent of the
“Global War on Terror.” Moreover, Libya has committed itself to a program of “national reform.” [8] The media has picked up on this, but fails to talk about the real shape of reform in Libya.

The reforms are being presented as merely
“democratic reform.” In practice, Libya has also accepted to undertake a “free market” program of economic restructuring in accordance with the demands of the U.S., Britain, France, and Germany. Additionally, Colonel Qaddafi the ruler and Libya’s authority can not be challenged, which exposes the true cosmetic face of these so-called democratic reforms.

Moreover, the Barcelona Declaration of 1995 that calls for a Euro-Mediterranean Partnership stands in the backdrop of the neo-liberal economic reforms, which will open up the Libyan economy to foreign investors.

The Barcelona Declaration was intended to establish a European dominated free trade zone in North Africa, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean region by 2010. Everything is on track, in regards to the objectives of the Barcelona Declaration. The U.S. Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) is also a parallel to this. The E.U.
’s Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), an aggressive free trade agreement being imposed under economic threats on former European colonies, also has similar templates in regards to the ACP States in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific.

Justifying ties to Libya: The Bulgarian Nurses and a Shameless E.U. Public Relations Campaign

It is no accident that a group of Bulgarian nurses were freed by Libya in connection with the visit of President Sarkozy while he was on a Mediterranean tour to talk about the establishment of the Mediterranean Union. [9] The whole event was an E.U. public relations stunt. Nicolas Sarkozy arrived in Libya on July 25, 2007 to sign five major deals with Libya just one day after his former wife, Cécilia Ciganer-Albéniz, shuttled out of Tripoli on board a French presidential jet with the five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor that France and the E.U. had negotiated for.

The Bulgarian nurse ordeal has been used as a justification for improving economic ties with Libya, a nation otherwise demonized as an international rogue, despite the E.U. claims of commercial relationships being tied to human rights. The whole affair was stage managed and was an attempt to hide the underlying economic interests that dictate foreign policy in the E.U. and America. At the time, it was also reported that Libya blackmailed the E.U. for economic benefits in regards to the freedom of the Bulgarian nurses. However, in reality it is the E.U. that benefiting from the economic arrangements with Libya and not the other way around.

The mainstream press in the E.U. attempted to make it look like President Sarkozy was acting on his own in regards to Libya and started calling him a maverick, but nothing could be further from the truth. The French government claimed that their business deals with Libya were part of an effort to bring Libya into the light of
“respectability” and that human right issues were also discussed between the French President and Colonel Qaddafi. However, Colonel Qaddafi stated at UNESCO Headquarters, in Paris, that human rights were never even talked about between the French President and himself. [10] This was during a highly reported five-day state visit made by Colonel Qaddafi to France where the Libyan leader was welcomed by President Sarkozy on December 10, 2007. [11]

The freedom of the Bulgarian nurses also came after major Anglo-American arms and energy deals were announced with Libya. [12] Both Anglo-American and Franco-German economic interests were being served in Libya. In May of 2007, in a state of irony, the British prime minister at the time, Tony Blair, announced a major Anglo-American arms and energy deal while visiting Libya and Colonel Qaddafi. [13] The French, with the knowledge and support of their German partners, also announced an arms deal between the European Aeronautics and Defence Space Company (EADS) and Libya. [14] France also announced a major nuclear deal with Libya. France, like Britain and the U.S., has coddled Libya in pursuit of economic interests and this should dispel for once and for all the mirage that the U.S. and the E.U. are defenders of democracy and human rights.

In a related event Colonel Qaddafi has also told African leaders that if plans for an African Union were delayed that Libya would divert billions of dollars worth of investments from the African continent to the Mediterranean region and become its most influential player. [15] Pertaining to the Mediterranean Union Qaddafi also stated that the fates of Libya and North Africa are tied to Europe. [16]

Exposing Paris and Berlin at their game: Germany
’s role in the Mediterranean Union

It has been reported in the mainstream media that the weapons and nuclear agreements between France and Libya have upset Berlin, but German officials have denied this as untrue. [17] Chancellor Angela Merkel has also claimed that France
’s idea of a Mediterranean Union threatens the E.U. and its institutions. German leaders are playing a game of on-and-off-again opposition to Paris in regards to Libya and the Mediterranean Union. Berlin makes critical statements of French actions, but then denies them to create a shroud of confusion.

Media reports and Berlin
’s statements are utterly false and intended to deliberately mislead the public. Germany had to approve the French deals with Libya, because EADS is a Franco-German company that has both private and governmental interests and representation from both Paris and Berlin. The contracts with Libya could never have been formalized without the okay of the German government.

Germany is fully involved in the creation of the Mediterranean Union, as are America and Britain. The hypocrisy of the whole act that is being played out in Paris, Berlin, and E.U. capital cities is part of a tactic to mislead the public opinion. In Britain, The Financial Times called attention to the fact that Angela Merkel really wants Germany and the E.U. to be fully involved in the creation of the Mediterranean Union:
“Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, pointedly told France’s ruling UMP [Union pour un Mouvement Populaire/Union for a Popular Movement] party yesterday that the future stability of the Mediterranean region affected the whole European Union and that all 27 [E.U.] member states should be involved in the engagement process. [18]

The context of the German Chancellor
’s speech was for the creation of something going beyond the Barcelona Process of 1995, which she called too “bureaucratic,” that would fully include all E.U. members. Frau Merkel emphasized that the Mediterranean was vital for Germany and northern E.U. members and not just France and Mediterranean E.U. members like Spain and Italy: “‘Germany wants to assume its responsibilities in the Mediterranean and we want to offer to all [E.U.] member countries the possibility to participate,’ she said. ‘We should have a reinforced co-operation [between the E.U. and Mediterranean]. I am convinced that all European countries are interested in this.’” [19]

In her speech, Frau Merkel stated that she was convinced that all E.U. members would be interested in having roles in the creation of the Mediterranean Union, but this is an untruthful statement
— Frau Merkel knows that the entire E.U. was slated from the start to be a part of that process. The issue is not about interest, but about a calculated long-term arrangement.

Nicolas Sarkozy has moved forward with the staged act of presenting a compromise by saying that Germany and any other non-Mediterranean E.U. members (e.g. Britain) that want to participate in the creation of the Mediterranean Union are welcome. This is all a complete act. This is part of the commencement of publicly making the Mediterranean Union into what it already was, which is an E.U. initiative.

It should also be noted that German representatives were also in West Africa in connection to the French initiatives in the Mediterranean region. [20] The Germans are also preparing for the road ahead when the Mediterranean Union would economically link Africa to Europe and set the stage for further expansionism.

E.U. Declarations of support for the Mediterranean Union

The Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, has also announced Spain
’s support for the creation of a Mediterranean Union and for new migration laws during a meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy. [21] Although it is not being tied to the creation of the Mediterranean Union, the rationale for a drive to establish new migration laws is precisely because of the Mediterranean Union and the influx of migrants that could arrive into the E.U. from the poorer countries of the Mediterranean. Italy has also signalled its support for the Mediterranean Union and new migration laws in the E.U. during the same meetings between Prime Minister Zapatero and President Sarkozy, which involved Prime Minister Prodi. [22]

All the Mediterranean members of the E.U., also called the “Olive Group,” have also declared their support for the creation of a Mediterranean Union at a two-day conference (January 17-18, 2008) held in Paphos, Cyprus. [23] The Cypriot Foreign Minister, Eros Kazakou-Marcoullis told the international press that the Mediterranean members of the E.U. fully back the creation of a Mediterranean Union: “We reaffirmed our support to all efforts which have as an objective the strengthening of the cooperation between European and Mediterranean countries and reiterated the importance of the Mediterranean region for the security, stability and prosperity of the European Union.” [24]

The Annapolis Conference and the Arab-Israeli Conflict were also discussed in Paphos because of their deep relevance to the integration of the Arab World and Israel with the European Union. A forced agreement on the Arabs would pave the way for the political and economical restructuring of the Arab World. Without mentioning it directly, the Mediterranean Union has also been inferred to as a solution to the issue of unifying Greek and Turkish Cypriots by Gerhard Schröder (Schroeder), the former federal chancellor of Germany. [25]

PART II - The Mediterranean Union: NATO’s Role in Conquering the Middle East and North Africa

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).


[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Europe and America: Sharing the Spoils of War, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), July 26, 2007.

[2] Fischer warns of a
“blind” Europe on Mideast, Deutsche Presse-Agentur/German Press Agency (DPA), October 25, 2006.

[3] Thomas L. Friedman, Expanding Club NATO,
The New York Times, October 26, 2003.

[4] Fisher warns,
Op. cit.

[5] Merkel calls for progress in Turkey
’s EU membership talks, Xinhua News Agency, April 16, 2007.

[6] Jill Carroll, In Algeria, Sarkozy condemns colonialism, pushes Mediterranean Union, Christian Science Monitor, December 5, 2007.

[7] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.42.

[8] Gaddafi son unveils reform plan,
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), August 21, 2007.

[9] Lionel Laurent, Gadhafi
’s Diplomatic Dice With Europe, Forbes Magazine, July 27, 2007.

[10] Elaine Sciolino, French Officials Hounded by Criticism Over Qaddafi Visit,
The New York Times, December 14, 2007.

[11] Elaine Sciolino, Libyan leader makes grand entrance in Paris, International Herald Tribune,
December 10, 2007.

[12] Daniel Dombey and James Boxel, Britain closer to arms deal with Libya,
Financial Times, May 30, 2007.

[13] Britain and Libya unveil energy and arms deals,
Reuters, May 30, 2007.

[14] France and Libya sign arms deal,
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), August 3, 2007.

[15] Kadhafi threatens to turn back on Africa,
Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 29, 2008; Libya’s Gaddafi says may pull Africa investments, Reuters, January 31, 2008.


[17] Germany denies rift with France over Libyan nuclear deal,
IRNA, July 30, 2007.

[18] Bertrand Benoit and John Thornhill, Merkel Refuffs Sarkozy on Mediterranean Union plan, The Financial Times (U.K.), January 31, 2008.


[20] Germany refuses to criticise France over Libya arms deal, Agence France-Presse (AFP), August 3, 2007.

[21] France, Spain close ranks on ETA, Mediterranean Union, migration,
Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 10, 2008.

[22] Sarkozy: Italy, Spain seek to join forces with France on expelling illegal immigrants,
Associated Press, January 8, 2008.

[23] Jiang Yuxia, FMs of Mediterranean EU states to meet in Cyprus on co-op,
Xinhua News Agency, January 15, 2008; Cypus: EU Mediterranean foreign minister to hold talks on Kosovo, Middle East, Associated Press, January 17, 2008; the Mediterranean members of the E.U., such as Greece, Italy, Spain, and Cyprus are called the Olive Group because of the olive tree that is found in all the lands of the Mediterranean and is analogous to the Mediterranean region from Iberian Peninsula to the Aegean coast and the Levant.

[24] Mediterranean EU members back creation of Mediterranean Union,
Xinhua News Agency, January 18, 2008; also refer to Joschka Fischer’s 2006 statements at Princeton and compare the similarities.

[25] Schroeder visit signals Germans more attentive to plight of Turkish Cypriots,
The New Anatolian, February 3, 2008; Schröder is quoted as saying “We will do our best to improve peace and cooperation milieu between peoples of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece as well as to make [the] Aegean and [the] Mediterranean a peace and cooperation zone within integration process with Europe [meaning the E.U.].


[1] European Union map with modifications; Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya,
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).