Afişare Mesaje

Aici puteţi vedea mesajele acestui utilizator. Sunt afişate doar mesajele făcute în secţiuni în care aveţi acces.

Mesaje - DamChrist169

Pagini: [1] 2 3
Video [legaturi] / Raspuns: Link-uri pentru 2+ ochi
« : 20 Aprilie 2009, 06:01:51 »
Goerge Green

Gerald Celente

Peter Schiff

Jim Rogers

Bob Chapman

Chris Maternson

Corporatocratia - asasinarea economica

The Zeitgeist Movement: Orientation Presentation

Sistemul Federal De Rezerve Documentar ( subtitrare romana )

Nassim Haramein - Teoria unificata a campului - Conceptul de dimensiune

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve

The Long Emergency: Surviving Catastophies of the 21st Century

Video [legaturi] / Raspuns: Link-uri pentru 2+ ochi
« : 06 Octombrie 2008, 01:49:52 »


Fabled Enemies (Super High Quality, full movie)


Extreme Celebrity Ayahuasca

Joe Rogan talks about DMT

DMT Ayahuasca


Jaguar trips on DMT and Reindeer eat Amanita mushrooms

DMT: The Shamanic Colonic

DMT: A Glimpse Of It's Magnificent Beauty


Dr Rick Strassman DMT The Spirit Molecule

Terence Mckenna DMT trip explained part 1of2

Terence Mckenna DMT trip explained part 2of2

Video [legaturi] / Raspuns: Link-uri pentru 2+ ochi
« : 05 August 2008, 18:56:17 »
Now, could there be a bigger lie than that ? Could there be a bigger lie than
that ?
And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the
television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the
pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language
... so naturally you'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You
wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And
nobody could blame you.
Now, that is one of the great lies... that is the foundation of all the misery
that has befallen the world. Because after two wars fought in Europe --
World War I and World War II -- if it wasn't possible for them to live in
peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living
in the United States, what were the two wars fought for ? Did they have to --
like you flush the toilet -- because they couldn't get along, did they have to
say, "Well, we're going back to our homeland and you Christians can help
us" ?
I can't understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that
dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that
I'm telling you. But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money,
stuffed their mouths with money, and now... I don't care whether you know
all this or not. It doesn't make any difference to me whether you know all
these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me. I've got, in my family,
boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don't want them to go and
fight and die... like they died in Korea. Like they died in Japan. Like they've
died all over the world. For what ?
To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had
been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for
hundreds and maybe thousands of years ? Is that why the United States must
go to war ? Because the Democratic Party wants New York State -- the
electoral vote? Illinois, the electoral vote ? And Pennsylvania, the electoral
vote ?... which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists ?... the
balance of power ?
In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all
Zionists and their co-religionists. And New York State went for Kennedy by
400,000 votes. Now, I don't blame Mr. Kennedy. I'm fond of Mr. Kennedy. I
think he's a great man. I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we
get the facts to him. And I believe he knows a great deal more than his
appointments indicate he knows. He's playing with the enemy. Like when
you go fishing, you've got to play with the fish. Let 'em out and pull 'em in.
Let 'em out and pull 'em in. But knowing Mr. Kennedy's father, and how
well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his
father, I don't think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.
But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian ,
every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that
they communicate -- not with their congressman, not with their senator, but
with President Kennedy. And tell him, "I do not think you should send my
boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and
under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to
help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen". I think
everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends
to write.
Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I
have just asked you to do. But I don't think it's necessary to do that. You're
above the average group in intelligence and I don't think it's necessary to
impress this any more.
But... I want to tell you one more thing. You talk about... "Oh, the Jews.
Why the Jews ? Christianity. Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and
the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion". But do you know
that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that
day... and I was one of them ! This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a
rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts.
When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first
prayer that you recite, you stand -- and it's the only prayer for which you
stand -- and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that
prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow,
or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months -- any oath, vow
or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and
The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall
not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.
And further than that, the Talmud teaches: "Don't forget -- whenever you
take an oath, vow, and pledge -- remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you
recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that".
How much can you depend on their loyalty ? You can depend upon their
loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.
And we're going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the
same reason. You can't depend upon something as insecure as the leadership
that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge. Now I could go on and
recite many other things to you, but I would have a little respect for your
time, and you want to really, uh, get through with all of this. Tomorrow's
going to be a long day.
Now I want to say one thing. You ask me... well, you think to yourself: "well
how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it."
Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and
tried to tell the American people what I'm telling you. And one newspaper
after another refused the advertisement. And when I couldn't find a
newspaper to take them -- I paid cash, not credit -- what happened ? My
lawyer told me, "There's an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take
your announcement". So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and
that's how I met him.
So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son of the
Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: "Well, I think he's a little anti-
Semitic. I don't know whether I can get him over here. So he brought him
over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then.
Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications. I say it without any
reservations. And I say it without any hesitation. . . if it wasn't for the work
that Mr. Conley McGinley did with "Common Sense" -- he's been sending
out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year -- if it wasn't for the work he's
been doing sending those out for fifteen years now, we would already be a
communist country. Nobody has done what he did to light fires. Many of the
other active persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through
"Common Sense".
Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could. I'm not as flush as I
was. I cannot go on spending the money... I'm not going to take up a
collection. Don't worry. I see five people getting up to leave. (laughter)
I haven't got the money that I used to spend. I used to print a quarter of a
million of them out of my own pocket and send them out. Mr. McGinley,
when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally.
So I said, "With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good
job". So I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, a
quarter of a million, and paid for them. Well, there's always a bottom to the
barrel. I suppose we've all reached that at times.
I'm not so poor that I can't live without working and that's what worries the
Anti-Defamation League. I can just get by without going and asking for a
job or getting on the bread line. But Mr. McGinley is working. He's sick and
he's going at this stronger than ever. And all I want to say is that they want
to close up "Common Sense" more than any other single thing in the whole
world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive.
So I just want to tell you this. All they do is circulate rumors: "Mr. Benjamin
H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of 'Common Sense'." The reason they do
that is to discourage the people in the United States: don't send any money to
Common Sense. They don't need it. The've got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as
a backer. That all has strategy. They don't want to advertise me so that
people that have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me.
They just want people to lay off "Common Sense". And all I'm telling you is,
I do try to help him, but I haven't been able to. And I will be very honest.
One thing I won't do is lie. In the last year I've had so much sickness in my
family that I could not give him one dollar.
How he's managed to survive, I don't know. God alone knows. And he must
be in God's care because how he's pulled through his sickness and with his
financial troubles, I don't know. But that press is working... and every two
weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-thousand of "Common Sense" go
out with a new message. And if that information could be multiplied... if
people that now get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them
around. Plow that field. Sow those seeds, you don't know which will take
root, but for God's sake, this is our last chance.
[Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary
purchases to 'buy more stuff', play golf, etc., and use the money to keep
"Common Sense" going. He explains that the paper is going in debt; could
be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent
some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the information to the American
public and elected officials. He then asks for questions from the audience.]
{Question inaudible]
Freedman: All right, I'll comment on that. This is rather deep, but you all
have a very high degree of intelligence, so I'm going to make an attempt. In
the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea
was a province of the Roman Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was
known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius.
Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.
Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as 'j', and the first syllable of
Judaeus and Judaius starts 'ghu'. Now, when the Bible was written, it was
first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic... all those languages.
Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn't exist. Judea
was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only
as a Judean. I've seen those early... the earliest scripts available.
In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time
to translate the Bible into English. There was no English edition of the Bible
because who the Devil could read ? It was only the educated church people
who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages.
Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. And he did. But in it, he
had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.
There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence.
There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first
translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', "jew". At the
time, there was no printing press.
Now, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that
word passed through so many changes... I have them all here. If you want I
can read them to you. I will. That word 'gyu' which was in the Wycliffe
Bible became. . . first it was ' gyu ', then ' giu ', then ' iu ' (because the ' i ' in
Latin is pronounced like the ' j '. Julius Caesar is ' Iul ' because there is no 'j'
in Latin) then ' iuw ', then ' ieuu ', then ' ieuy ', then ' iwe ', then ' iow ', then '
iewe ', all in Bibles as time went on. Then ' ieue ', then ' iue ', then ' ive ', and
then ' ivw ', and finally in the 18th century... ' jew '. Jew.
All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now,
there was no such thing as 'Jew', and any theologian -- I've lectured in maybe
20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in
Europe -- there was no such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus
was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to
describe him was 'gyu' -- Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus,
just the same as we call a laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas'... a tendency to
short up. [A few words are missing here]
But [a few words are missing here] in England there were no public schools;
people didn't know how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they
made a short word out of it. Now for a theologian to say that you can't harm
the Jews, is just ridiculous. I'd like to know where in the scriptures it says
that. I'd like to know the text.
Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews. What would you, as
a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called
Jews -- the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers -- they weren't Jews, as I just
explained to you. They were Eastern Europeans who'd been converted to
Talmudism. There was no such thing as Judaism. Judaism was a name given
in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible].
No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism. It didn't exist. They
pulled it out of the air... a meaningless word.
Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about
people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-
Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew
who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european
Jews. So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this
reverend who told you these things, I'll convince him and it'll be one step in
the right direction. I'll go wherever I have to go to meet him.
Yes, ma'am. Well... I can answer that. First of all, your first premise is
wrong. Your first premise that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong.
Because, the Eastern European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that
they create the impression that they are the Jewish 'race'; that they are the
Jewish nation; that they are the Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow
it like a cream puff.
But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over
the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of
Atonement religious ceremony. In Brunswick, Germany, where that
conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot. A civil war.
The Eastern Europeans said, "What the hell. We should give up Kol Nidre ?
That gives us our grip on our people. We give them a franchise so they can
tell the Christians, 'Go to hell. We'll make any deal you want', but they don't
have to carry it out. That gives us our grip on our people". So, they're not so
united, and if you knew the feeling that exists.
Now, I'll also show you from an official document by the man responsible
for. . . uh, who baptized this race. Here is a paper that we obtained from the
archives of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the
manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who -- on behalf of the British
Cabinet -- negotiated the deal with these Zionists.
And in here he says that all the jews in England were against it. The Jews
who had been there for years, the [inaudible - probably Sephardim], those
who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry... who were monotheists
and believed in that religious belief. That was while the Eastern European
Jews were still running around in the heart of Asia and then came into
Europe. But they had no more to do with them than. . . can we talk about a
Christian 'race' ? or a Christian religion ?... or are the Christians united ?
So the same disunity is among the Jews. And I'll show you in this same
document that when they went to France to try and get the French
government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France
who was for it. That was Rothschild, and they did it because they were
interested in the oil and the Suez Canal.
[Question inaudible] Freedman: You know why ? Because if they don't,
they're decked up. They come around and they tell you how much you must
give, and if you don't . . . oh, you're anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends
will have anything to do with them, and they start a smear campaign... and
you have got to give.
In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in
the building. And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United
Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and
opposite them, as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a
gold star after the name. Then, the buyers are told, "When you come into
that building to call on someone and they haven't got a gold star, tell them
that you won't buy from them until they have the gold star". BLACKMAIL.
I don't know what else you can call it.
Then what do they do ? They tell you it's for 'humanitarian purposes' and
they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible. So if
they hadn't sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would
have gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax. So what happens ? That
seven billion dollars deficit -- that air pocket -- the gullible Christians have
to make up.
They put a bigger tax on gas or bread or corporation tax. Somebody has to
pay the housekeeping expenses for the government. So why do you let these
people send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their
ancient homeland ? And you say, "Oh, well. The poor Jews. They have no
place to go and they've been persecuted all their lives". They've never been
persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to
challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for
their religion.
Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England ? King Edward the
First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell
Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds. For four-hundred years
there wasn't a Jew. But do you know why they were driven out ? Because in
the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it's a sin to charge 'rent' for the use
of money. In other words - what we call interest [usury] is a sin.
So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest,
and when the Lords and Dukes couldn't pay, they [Jews] foreclosed. And
they were creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made
himself their partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of
these dukes bumped off the Jews. . . the money-lenders. So the king finally
said -- and this is all in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the
History of the Jews in England; two books you can find in your library.
When the king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much
money they were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the
money lenders. Edward the First. And for many years, one-third of the
revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest in
money-lending by the Jews.
But it got worse and worse. So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes
kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, "I declare myself the heir
of all the money-lenders. If they're killed you have to pay me, because I'm
his sole heir". That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out
and collect the money with an army, so he told the Jews "get the hell out of
here". There were 15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went
across to Ireland, and that's how Ireland got to be part of the United
When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take
Ireland for himself before someone else did. He sent Robert Southgard with
a mercenary army and conquered Ireland. So, show me one time where a
Jew was persecuted in any country because of his religion. It has never
happened. It's always their impact on the political, social, or economic
customs and traditions of the community in which they settle.
[Question inaudible] Freedman: Yes, sir. Well, they say most of those things
themselves. It was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to say it. Most of
those things they say themselves. But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by
hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe.
When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar
Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to
Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you object
and I object and a lot of other people object. The customs, the habits, the
instincts with which they were endowed.
Now, when Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that's the
name that they went by. Thats the name that they took. And the Christians,
when they first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia -- who
they were -- that they had practiced this Talmudic faith -- the Christians in
Western Europe said, "They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!"
And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that -- and he's
probably as good an authority on that subject as there is. So when Ben
Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of
what these people had done after they left their homeland. And every word
of it is true... they themselves say it. I can give you half a dozen books
they've written in which they say the same thing: When they have money
they become tyrants. And when they become defeated, they become ruthless.
They're only barbarians. They're the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and
they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.
What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did ? The Czar
had abdicated nine or ten months before that. There was no need for them. . .
they were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn't want that.
When the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they
mowed them all down and established the Soviet Union.
There was no need for that. But they thought, "Now is the time", and if you
you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word 'Bolshevism',
you'll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful
revolution. One of them is, "Wait for the right time, and then give them
everything you've got". It would pay you to read that.
You'd also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the
Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and
cultivated the Communist movement. And that their energy made them the
spearhead of the movement. Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew
more about Communism than he. And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25
years has been printing it.
[Question inaudible] Freedman: Well, I can't advocate that you do anything
that's criminal, but I can tell you this. You can start what I call an endless
chain. If you can get your friends to write, objectively, here is the statement:
Mr. Kennedy's office gave me this himself. Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr.
Kennedy, took over his office -- was in his office -- and gave me this. He
delivered this on the 25th, and it says here:
"For release to AM (that means morning papers), August 25th". "Israel is
here to stay. It is a national commitment, special obligation of the
Democratic Party. The White House must take the lead. American
intervention. We will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the
Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both
Israel and the Arab states our guarantee that we will act with whatever force
and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation".
Well, do you call the return of people to their homeland [the Arab
Palestinians] aggression ? Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that ? Suppose three
million Mexicans came into Texas and drove the six million Texans into the
deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Suppose these Mexicans were slipped
in there armed -- the Texans were disarmed -- and one night they drove them
all out of Texas and declared themselves the Republic of the Alamo. What
would the United States say ?
Would we say it's aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back
from the Mexican thieves ? Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly
armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites
into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out
completely, and declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic
of something-or-other. Would we call it aggression if these people, the
whites of Alabama, tried to go back to their homes ?
Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, "No, those
Negroes now occupy them ! Leave them there!", or "No, those Mexicans are
in Texas. they declared themselves a sovereign state. Leave them there. You
have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada. Settle somewhere else".
Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to
go back to their homes ? So now, you've got to write to President Kennedy
and say, "We do not consider it aggression in the sense that you use the
word, if these people want to return to their homes as the United Nations --
fifteen times in the last twelve years -- called upon the Zionists in occupation
of Palestine to allow the Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes
and farms".
[End of transcript of Benjamin Freedman speech, given in 1961 at the
Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic
newspaper of that time, Common Sense.]

Video [legaturi] / Raspuns: Link-uri pentru 2+ ochi
« : 05 August 2008, 18:54:31 »
Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn't know what to do, so they
called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world
attended in July 1933. And they said to Germany: ?You fire Hitler! And you
put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist,
no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way! And we, the Jews of the
world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you.? Well, the
Germans told them... you can imagine. So what did they [the Jews] do?
They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to
people here... (You want to ask a question? --- Uh, there were no
Communists in Germany at that time, they were called 'Social Democrats.)
Well, I don't want to go by what they were called. We're now using English
words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but
they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over
Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a
group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days. In fact,
when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the
Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that
he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and
went to Holland for safety and for security.
Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it
was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former --
their status -- and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without
hurting a hair on anyone's head. The same as one group, the Prohibitionists,
fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn't fight one
another with pistols, they did it every way they could.
Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And, at that
time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only
460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews.
And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the
economy, because they had come in and with cheap money -- you know the
way the Mark was devalued -- they bought up practically everything.
Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World
Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr. Untermeyer came
back to the United States -- who was the head of the American delegation
and the president of the whole conference -- and he went from the steamer to
ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he
"The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are
now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to
starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against
them, that will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export
And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported,
and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. Their
labor. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population
would have to starve. There just was not enough food for more than one
third of the population.
Now in this declaration, which I have here, it was printed on page -- a whole
page -- in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer
boldly stated that: "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense.
President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the NRA" . [National Recovery
Administration] -- which some of you may remember, where everybody was
to be boycotted unless they followed the rules laid down by the New Deal,
which of course was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that
Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and
it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in
the world with the words "made in Germany" on it.
In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to
dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that
their stores were boycotted. If anyone came in and found a dish marked
"made in Germany," they were picketed with signs: "Hitler", "murderer",
and so forth, and like -- something like these sit-ins that are taking place in
the South.
R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen
to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz,
marked "made in Germany". Well, they were cotton stockings. They may
have been there 20 years, because since I've been observing women's legs in
the last twenty years, I haven't seen a pair with cotton stockings on them. So
Macy ! I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with
signs saying "MURDERS" and "HITLERITES", and so forth.
Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in
Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no
murder, there was nothing.
Now, that... naturally, the Germans said, "Why, who are these people to
declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our
industries come to a standstill ? Who are they to do that to us?" They
naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by
Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was
part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the
Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor
was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
That continued for some time, and it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew
from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the
officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with
the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and
having street fights and so forth.
Now, for anyone to say that -- I don't like to use the word 'anti-Semitism'
because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to
use it -- the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews
was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number
two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three -- did I say for World
War One, they were responsible? For the boycott -- and also for World War
II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for
the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to
In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had
decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in
between. It's going to be Christian or it's going to be Communist. And the
Germans decided: "We're going to keep it Christian if possible". And they
started to re-arm.
And there intention was -- by that time the United States had recognized the
Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 -- the Soviet Union was
becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: "Well, our turn is going to
come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying
today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong."
And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for
defense, they say.Defense against whom ? Defense against 40,000 little Jews
in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over
control of many other governments of the world.
Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from
which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my
imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons.
A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. One million
tons of TNT is a megaton. Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10
megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT. That was when they were first
developed five or six years ago. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being
developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many
megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.
So, what do we face now ? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a
nuclear war, humanity is finished. And why will it take place ? It will take
place because Act III... the curtain goes up on Act III. Act I was World War
I. Act II was World War II. Act III is going to be World War III.
The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are
determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them
permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government.
Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read
it, but many here have read it, and it's known all over the world.
Now, what are we going to do ? The life you save may be your son's. Your
boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don't know it any
more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with
the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it
at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't
permitted to know it.
Who knew it ? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other 's
knew it. Did I know it ? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was
liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President
Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.
I was 'confidential man' to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the
Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the
treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the
table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain
the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also
indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.
Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers
on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when
it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. And that's
how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys
over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as
their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know
whether you're coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness that
you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." That is
correct. I don't know from what state you come, but in New York state that
is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness said one lie, disregard his
Now, what are the facts about the Jews ?
The Jews -- I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't
call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they
are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those
people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I
can prove that.
Now what happened ? The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of
the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were
originally Khazars.
They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were
so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe
-- and to reduce this so you don't get too confused about the history of
Eastern Europe -- they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square
miles. Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the
Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so
powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars
would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.
Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy. I don't want to go into
the details of that now. It was their religion the way it was the religion of
many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king
became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to
adopt a so-called monotheistic faith - either Christianity, Islam -- the moslem
faith -- or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By
spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out socalled
Judaism. And that became the state religion.
And he sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and
brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up
synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people -- 800,000
thousand square miles -- and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they
became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them that had an ancestor
that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but
back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the
Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by
"Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God's chosen people to their
Promised Land, their ancestral homeland, It's your Christian duty. We gave
you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on
Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews."
Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the
Irish [were converted]. And it's just as ridiculous to call them "people of the
Holy Land," as it would be... there are 54 million Chinese Moslems. Fifty
four million ! And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54
million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief.
Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of
Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born... imagine if the 54 million
Chinese called themselves 'Arabs'. Imagine ! Why, you'd say they're lunatics.
Any man that believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be
crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin
in Mecca, in Arabia.
The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped
them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of
inhabitants that were Christians. That were christians of flesh and blood.
They weren't different people. They were the same people, but they had
accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns... they were a
Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. They
likewise, because their king took the faith -- Talmudic faith -- they had no
choice. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to
be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So everybody -- they lived
on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the
land under their feudal system -- so they [Khazars] all became what we call
today, Jews !
Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians... for the great Christian
countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power, our prestige to
help repatriate God's chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their
Promised Land."

Video [legaturi] / Raspuns: Link-uri pentru 2+ ochi
« : 05 August 2008, 18:52:38 »
Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were
the absolute monarchs of this country.
Now, you say, 'well, that's a very broad statement to make', but let me show
what happened while you were -- I don't want to wear that out --- let me
show what happened while WE were all asleep. I'm including myself with
you. We were all asleep. What happened ?
World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and
fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few
people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one
side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany,
Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened ?
Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally,
but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the
world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain
stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's
food supply facing her -- and after that, starvation.
At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower
of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army
was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't
want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army
had collapsed.
Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an
enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was
Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated
peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's
call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started."
Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously !
They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that
Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and
being totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the
Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am
going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to
prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe
what I'm saying is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the
British war cabinet and they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war.
You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace
offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States
will come in as your ally."
The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were
young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: "We
will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight
with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the
In other words, they made this deal: " We will get the United States into this
war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won
the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey."
Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the
United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason
whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain -- that never had any
connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine --
should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the
United States into the war.
However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen
hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here
remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German --
totally pro-German -- because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews,
the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country
were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in
the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany
lick the Czar.
The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So
the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big
banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to
the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: &"As long as
France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent ! " But they poured
money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to
lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine,
they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything
changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the
newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people
of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain
commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no
good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross
nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.
Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.
The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice
Brandeis: "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England
what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President
Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's
how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we
had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead
of in this room.
Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States participated
had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there -- we were
railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war
merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is
something that the people in the United States have never been told. They
never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened ?
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said:
"Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in
writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us
Palestine after you win the war." Because they didn't know whether the war
would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a
receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very
cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all
about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.
the Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the
Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United
States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much
about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it
more emphatic than that.
Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war.
The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You
know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went
to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there,
as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was
there: I ought to know. Now what happened ?
The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and
parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part
of European territory, the Jews said, ?How about Palestine for us?? And
they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this
Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, ?Oh, that
was the game! That's why the United States came into the war.? And the
Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this
terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted
Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.
Now, that brings us up to another very interesting point. When the Germans
realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never
been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.
You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in
industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr.
Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's
and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the
banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg,
who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews
were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. Now, the
Germans felt: ?Well, that was quite a sellout.?
It was a sellout that I can best compare -- suppose the United States was at
war today with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the
Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the
whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of
the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat.
A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination
cannot encompass.
Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in
this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were
loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and
that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us.
How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese ? I don't think that
one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be
lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. "We've been so nice
to them"; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia
failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to
Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very
nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other
than they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."
Now, Nahum Sokolow -- all the great leaders, the big names that you read
about in connection with Zionism today -- they, in 1919, 1920, '21, '22, and
'23, they wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their
statements -- that "the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact
that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession
and bringing the United States into the war against them."
The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919
discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or
Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment
against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all
political. It was economic. It was anything but religious.
Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the
shades and said ?Shema' Yisrael? or ?Our Father.? No one cared in
Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that
developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the
Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because
World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they
[Germans] were responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being
successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.
You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the
French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300 -- three
hundred ! -- small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three
hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the
period of... between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into
one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world's
great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain's, they were doing
business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better
products. And what happened? What happened as a result of that ?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: "We
must slap down Germany", because there isn't one historian in the world that
can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany
off the map politically. Now, what happened after that ?
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they
naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not
a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access
to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and
quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a
Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called
camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very
fine condition.
They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled
with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened
to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there
were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others
who had international affiliations.
Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact. They didn't want the
world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the
Germans resented that.
So they did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews]. They. . .
shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could ? They shunned
them. The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics,
or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought
about our defeat.

Video [legaturi] / Raspuns: Link-uri pentru 2+ ochi
« : 05 August 2008, 18:47:51 »

Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times. The Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C., speech was given before a patriotic, Christian audience (NOT before Nazis as some have suggested) in 1961 on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.

Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the West -- is more urgent than ever before.

Benjamin Freedman Speech

(ce se aude in film e cuprins in textul subliniat mai departe...)

Transcript of Freedman's Speech
Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening speech. This
speech is an explanation of the plans now being laid to throw the United
States into a third world war. It was made a short time ago before a large
group in the Congressional `Room of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Both the speech and the question and answer period later so electrified the
audience that a group of patriots has transferred it to two long-playing
records to play for friends, clubs, and your church group in your community.
The speaker is Mr. Benjamin Freedman, noted authority on Zionism and all
of its schemes.
Mr. Freedman is a former Jew, and I mean a FORMER Jew.

He has fought the Communist world conspiracy tooth and nail, and stands
today as a leading American patriot. We now take you to the speaker's
platform to present Benjamin Freedman.
[Freedman's speech]
What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able
to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only
you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity. I'm
not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I'm
here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the
most sacred things in the world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right
to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to
pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as
Now, first of all, I'd like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 -- that was
shortly before elections -- Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the
United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist
Organization of America. In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form,
he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve
the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now
in occupation of that area.
In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes,
away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the
Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And
these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent
[Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions
passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the
Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes.
Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the
Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted
from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were
transplanted there from Eastern Europe... when that happens, the United
States will trigger World War III.
You say, when will that take place? The answer is, as soon as the difficulty
between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place. As soon as
France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France
and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem
world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move
these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President
kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to
what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger
World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from
that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one
nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a
I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United
Nations -- and of the ninety-nine nations there, I've consulted with maybe
seventy of them --and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves
retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people we're
not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally.
And who will these people have supporting them, you ask. Well, four days
after President Kennedy -- or he was then Senator Kennedy -- made that
statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon
and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of
Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed
insurrection by the Zionists.
Not only that... they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are
now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead
these people back to theirhomeland. With them, they have as their allies all
the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group. That includes
the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite. It includes Red China; it
includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of
the world's total population. Eighty percent of the world's population. Four
out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war
with us. And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the
face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and
they are the non-Caucasians... the non-white nations of the world, and that's
what we face.
And what is the reason ? The reason is that here in the United States, the
Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government.
For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this -- time
I'll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement -- ...(MAI DEPARTE)

Video [legaturi] / Raspuns: Link-uri pentru 2+ ochi
« : 25 Iulie 2008, 07:26:56 »
Mindwalk by Bernt Capra -

The Century Of The Self(azi, e valabil la nivel global !) - Part 1 of 4 -

The Century of the self 2 of 4 -

The Century of the Self 3 of 4

The Century of the self 4 of 4 -

Ramtha on Emotional Addictions 1 of 3 -

Ramtha on Emotional Addictions 2 of 3 -

Ramtha on Emotional Addictions 3 of 3 -

Ramtha - The Spiritual Journey. Finding the Face of Truth -

Ramtha - Be Your Own Savior -

Ramtha - Initiation and Knowledge -

Clash of the Worlds (Episode 1 of 3): Mutiny -

Clash of the Worlds (Episode 2 of 3): Sudan -

Clash of the Worlds (Episode 3 of 3): Palestine -

Always Coca-Cola - India -

Mark Thomas on Coca-Cola -


9/11 Ultimate Coincidence (Incredibly freaky!) -

Video [legaturi] / Raspuns: Link-uri pentru 2+ ochi
« : 12 Mai 2008, 03:56:56 »
19061 videos  :rainbow:

Video [legaturi] / Raspuns: Link-uri pentru 2+ ochi
« : 09 Aprilie 2008, 18:08:06 »
Cum a devenit Iisus un Christos - prima parte(subtitrare romana)

Cum a devenit Iisus un Christos - a doua parte(subtitrare romana)

Noua Ordine Mondiala (NOM/NWO) / Raspuns: Noam Chomsky
« : 03 Martie 2008, 09:04:37 »

"Noam Chomsky: Why is Iraq Missing from 2008 Presidential Race?

In a major address, Noam Chomsky says there has been little change in the conventional debate over a US invasion abroad: from Vietnam to Iraq, the two main political parties and political pundits differ only on the tactics of US goals, which are assumed to be legitimate. On the other hand, public opposition to war has also remained consistent, Chomsky says, but, whether Iraqi or American, ignored. Noam Chomsky, Professor of linguistics at MIT for over half a century, Chomsky is the author of dozens of books on US foreign policy. His most recent is called Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy.

AMY GOODMAN: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will face off tonight in their final debate before the crucial primaries in Ohio and Texas next week. Over the past few days, the two Democratic candidates have traded barbs over trade, foreign and domestic policies, as the rhetoric from both campaigns heats up.

Since the presidential race began well over a year ago, Iraq has been one of many topics of debate. However, the war has not been the central issue of the campaign as it was in the midterm elections in 2006, and there are still more than 160,000 US troops deployed in Iraq. Why is this?

That was the subject of a recent talk by Noam Chomsky. A professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for over a half-century, Noam Chomsky is the author of scores of books on US foreign policy. His most recent is called Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. We spend the rest of the hour with Noam Chomsky. He recently spoke before a packed audience in Massachussetts at an event sponsored by Bikes Not Bombs.

      NOAM CHOMSKY: Not very long ago, as you all recall, it was taken for granted that the Iraq war would be the central issue in the 2008 election, as it was in the midterm election two years ago. However, it’s virtually disappeared off the radar screen, which has solicited some puzzlement among the punditry.

      Actually, the reason is not very obscure. It was cogently explained forty years ago, when the US invasion of South Vietnam was in its fourth year and the surge of that day was about to add another 100,000 troops to the 175,000 already there, while South Vietnam was being bombed to shreds at triple the level of the bombing of the north and the war was expanding to the rest of Indochina. However, the war was not going very well, so the former hawks were shifting towards doubts, among them the distinguished historian Arthur Schlesinger, maybe the most distinguished historian of his generation, a Kennedy adviser, who—when he and Kennedy, other Kennedy liberals were beginning to—reluctantly beginning to shift from a dedication to victory to a more dovish position.

      And Schlesinger explained the reasons. He explained that—I’ll quote him now—“Of course, we all pray that the hawks are right in thinking that the surge of that day will work. And if it does, we may all be saluting the wisdom and statesmanship of the American government in winning a victory in a land that we have turned,” he said, “to wreck and ruin. But the surge probably won’t work, at an acceptable cost to us, so perhaps strategy should be rethought.”

      Well, the reasoning and the underlying attitudes carry over with almost no change to the critical commentary on the US invasion of Iraq today. And it is a land of wreck and ruin. You’ve already heard a few words; I don’t have to review the facts. The highly regarded British polling agency, Oxford Research Bureau, has just updated its estimate of deaths. Their new estimate a couple of days ago is 1.3 million. That’s excluding two of the most violent provinces, Karbala and Anbar. On the side, it’s kind of intriguing to observe the ferocity of the debate over the actual number of deaths. There’s an assumption on the part of the hawks that if we only killed a couple hundred thousand people, it would be OK, so we shouldn’t accept the higher estimates. You can go along with that if you like.

      Uncontroversially, there are over two million displaced within Iraq. Thanks to the generosity of Jordan and Syria, the millions of refugees who have fled the wreckage of Iraq aren’t totally wiped out. That includes most of the professional classes. But that welcome is fading, because Jordan and Syria receive no support from the perpetrators of the crimes in Washington and London, and therefore they cannot accept that huge burden for very long. It’s going to leave those two-and-a-half million refugees who fled in even more desperate straits.

      The sectarian warfare that was created by the invasion never—nothing like that had ever existed before. That has devastated the country, as you know. Much of the country has been subjected to quite brutal ethnic cleansing and left in the hands of warlords and militias. That’s the primary thrust of the current counterinsurgency strategy that’s developed by the revered “Lord Petraeus,” I guess we should describe him, considering the way he’s treated. He won his fame by pacifying Mosul a couple of years ago. It’s now the scene of some of the most extreme violence in the country.

      One of the most dedicated and informed journalists who has been immersed in the ongoing tragedy, Nir Rosen, has just written an epitaph entitled “The Death of Iraq” in the very mainstream and quite important journal Current History. He writes that “Iraq has been killed, never to rise again. The American occupation has been more disastrous than that of the Mongols, who sacked Baghdad in the thirteenth century,” which has been the perception of many Iraqis, as well. “Only fools talk of ‘solutions’ now,” he went on. “There is no solution. The only hope is that perhaps the damage can be contained.”

      But Iraq is, in fact, the marginal issue, and the reasons are the traditional ones, the traditional reasoning and attitudes of the liberal doves who all pray now, as they did forty years ago, that the hawks will be right and that the US will win a victory in this land of wreck and ruin. And they’re either encouraged or silenced by the good news about Iraq.

      And there is good news. The US occupying army in Iraq—euphemistically it’s called the Multi-National Force–Iraq, because they have, I think, three polls there somewhere—that the occupying army carries out extensive studies of popular attitudes. It’s an important part of counterinsurgency or any form of domination. You want to know what your subjects are thinking. And it released a report last December. It was a study of focus groups, and it was uncharacteristically upbeat. The report concluded—I’ll quote it—that the survey of focus groups “provides very strong evidence” that national reconciliation is possible and anticipated, contrary to what’s being claimed. The survey found that a sense of “optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups…and far more commonalities than differences are found among these seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis” from all over the country and all walks of life. This discovery of “shared beliefs” among Iraqis throughout the country is “good news, according to a military analysis of the results," Karen de Young reported in the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago.

      Well, the “shared beliefs” are identified in the report. I’ll quote de Young: "Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the US military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of [what they call] ‘occupying forces’ as the key to national reconciliation.” So those are the “shared beliefs.” According to the Iraqis then, there’s hope of national reconciliation if the invaders, who are responsible for the internal violence and the other atrocities, if they withdraw and leave Iraq to Iraqis. That’s pretty much the same as what’s been found in earlier polls, so it’s not all that surprising. Well, that’s the good news: “shared beliefs.”

      The report didn’t mention some other good news, so I’ll add it. Iraqis, it appears, accept the highest values of Americans. That ought to be good news. Specifically, they accept the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal that sentenced Nazi war criminals to hanging for such crimes as supporting aggression and preemptive war. It was the main charge against von Ribbentrop, for example, whose position was—in the Nazi regime was that of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. The Tribunal defined aggression very straightforwardly: aggression, in its words, is the “invasion of its armed forces” by one state “of the territory of another state.” That’s simple. Obviously, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are textbook examples of aggression. And the Tribunal, as I’m sure you know, went on to characterize aggression as “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself all the accumulated evil of the whole.” So everything that follows from the aggression is part of the evil of the aggression.

      Well, the good news from the US military survey of focus groups is that Iraqis do accept the Nuremberg principles. They understand that sectarian violence and the other postwar horrors are contained within the supreme international crime committed by the invaders. I think they were not asked whether their acceptance of American values extends to the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor for the United States at Nuremberg. He forcefully insisted that the Tribunal would be mere farce if we do not apply the principles to ourselves.

      Well, needless to say, US opinion, shared with the West generally, flatly rejects the lofty American values that were professed at Nuremberg, indeed regards them as bordering on obscene, as you could quickly discover if you try experimenting by suggesting that these values should be observed, as Iraqis insist. It’s an interesting illustration of the reality, some of the reality, that lies behind the famous “clash of civilizations.” Maybe not exactly the way we like to look at it.

      There was a poll a few days ago, a really major poll, just released, which found that 75 percent of Americans believe that US foreign policy is driving the dissatisfaction with America abroad, and more than 60 percent believe that dislike of American values and of the American people are also to blame. Dissatisfaction is a kind of an understatement. The United States has become increasingly the most feared and often hated country in the world. Well, that perception is in fact incorrect. It’s fed by propaganda. There’s very little dislike of Americans in the world, shown by repeated polls, and the dissatisfaction—that is, the hatred and the anger—they come from acceptance of American values, not a rejection of them, and recognition that they’re rejected by the US government and by US elites, which does lead to hatred and anger.

      There’s other “good news” that’s been reported by General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker that was during the extravaganza that was staged last September 11th. September 11th, you might ask why the timing? Well, a cynic might imagine that the timing was intended to insinuate the Bush-Cheney claims of links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. They can’t come out and say it straight out, so therefore you sort of insinuate it by devices like this. It’s intended to indicate, as they used to say outright but are now too embarrassed to say, except maybe Cheney, that by committing the supreme international crime, they were defending the world against terror, which, in fact, increased sevenfold as a result of the invasion, according to a recent analysis by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank.

      Petraeus and Crocker provided figures to explain the good news. The figures they provided on September 11th showed that the Iraqi government was greatly accelerating spending on reconstruction, which is good news indeed and remained so until it was investigated by the Government Accountability Office, which found that the actual figure was one-sixth of what Petraeus and Crocker reported and, in fact, a 50 percent decline from the previous year.

      Well, more good news is the decline in sectarian violence, that’s attributable in part to the murderous ethnic cleansing that Iraqis blame on the invasion. The result of it is there are simply fewer people to kill, so sectarian violence declines. It’s also attributable to the new counterinsurgency doctrine, Washington’s decision to support the tribal groups that had already organized to drive out Iraqi al-Qaeda, to an increase in US troops, and to the decision of the Sadr’s Mahdi army to consolidate its gains to stop direct fighting. And politically, that’s what the press calls “halting aggression” by the Mahdi army. Notice that only Iraqis can commit aggression in Iraq, or Iranians, of course, but no one else.

      Well, it’s possible that Petraeus’s strategy may approach the success of the Russians in Chechnya, where—I’ll quote the New York Times a couple of weeks ago—Chechnya, the fighting is now “limited and sporadic, and Grozny is in the midst of a building boom” after having been reduced to rubble by the Russian attack. Well, maybe some day Baghdad and Fallujah also will enjoy, to continue the quote, “electricity restored in many neighborhoods, new businesses opening and the city’s main streets repaved,” as in booming Grozny. Possible, but dubious, in the light of the likely consequence of creating warlord armies that may be the seeds of even greater sectarian violence, adding to the “accumulated evil” of the aggression. Well, if Russians share the beliefs and attitudes of elite liberal intellectuals in the West, then they must be praising Putin’s “wisdom and statesmanship” for his achievements in Chechnya, formerly that they had turned into a land of wreck and ruin and are now rebuilding. Great achievement.

      A few days ago, the New York Times—the military and Iraq expert of the New York Times, Michael Gordon, wrote a comprehensive review, first-page comprehensive review, of the options for Iraq that are being faced by the candidates. And he went through them in detail, described the pluses and minuses and so on, interviewing political leaders, the candidates, experts, etc. There was one voice missing: Iraqis. Their preference is not rejected; rather, it’s not mentioned. And it seems that there was no notice of that fact, which makes sense, because it’s typical. It makes sense on the tacit assumption that underlies almost all discourse on international affairs. The tacit assumption, without which none of it makes any sense, is that we own the world. So, what does it matter what others think? They’re “unpeople,” nice term invented by British diplomatic historian [Mark] Curtis, based on a series of outstanding volumes on Britain’s crimes of empire—outstanding work, therefore deeply hidden. So there are the “unpeople” out there, and then there are the owners—that’s us—and we don’t have to listen to the “unpeople.”

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Noam Chomsky speaking in Arlington, Massachusetts. We’ll come back to that speech in a minute here on Democracy Now! And you can get a copy of this speech at Stay with us.


AMY GOODMAN: We return to Professor Noam Chomsky, teaches linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology for over half-a-century. Noam Chomsky is the author of more than a hundred books on US foreign policy. He was speaking before a packed audience in Arlington, Massachusetts.

      NOAM CHOMSKY: Last month, Panama declared a Day of Mourning to commemorate the US invasion—that’s under George Bush no. 1—that killed thousands of poor Panamanians when the US bombed the El Chorillo slums and other poor areas, so Panamanian human rights organizations claim. We don’t actually know, because we never count our crimes. Victors don’t do that; only the defeated. It aroused no interest here; there’s barely a mention of the Day of Mourning. And there’s also no interest in the fact that Bush 1’s invasion of Panama was a clear case of aggression, to which the Nuremberg principles apply, and it was apparently more deadly, in fact possibly much more deadly, than Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, happened a few months later. But it makes sense that there would be no interest in that, because we own the world, and Saddam didn’t, so the acts are quite different.

      It’s also of no interest that, at that time of the time of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, the greatest fear in Washington was that Saddam would imitate what the United States had just done in Panama, namely install a client government and then leave. That’s the main reason why Washington blocked diplomacy in quite interesting ways, with almost complete media cooperation. There’s actually one exception in the US media. But none of this gets any commentary. However, it does merit a lead story a few days later, when the Panamanian National Assembly was opened by President Pedro Gonzalez, who’s charged by Washington with killing two American soldiers during a protest against President Bush no.1, against his visit two years after the invasion. The charges were dismissed by Panamanian courts, but they’re upheld by the owner of the world, so he can’t travel, and that got a story.

      Well, to take just one last illustration of the depth of the imperial mentality, New York Times correspondent Elaine Sciolino, veteran correspondent, writes that “Iran’s intransigence [about nuclear enrichment] appears to be defeating attempts by the rest of the world to curtail Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.” Well, the phrase “the rest of the world” is an interesting one. The rest of the world happens to exclude the vast majority of the world, namely the non-aligned movement, which forcefully endorses Iran’s right to enrich uranium in accordance with the rights granted by its being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But they’re not part of the world, even though they’re the large majority, because they don’t reflexively accept US orders, and commentary like that is unremarkable and unnoticed. You’re part of the world if you do what we say, obviously. Otherwise, you’re “unpeople.”

      Well, we might, since we’re on Iran, might tarry for a moment and ask whether there’s any solution to the US-Iran confrontation over nuclear weapons, which is extremely dangerous. Here’s one idea. First point, Iran should be permitted to develop nuclear energy, but not nuclear weapons, as the Non-Proliferation Treaty determines.

      Second point is that there should be a nuclear weapons-free zone in the entire region, Iran to Israel, including any US forces that are present there. Actually, though it’s never reported, the United States is committed to that position. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, it appealed to a UN resolution, Resolution 687, which called upon Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. That was the flimsy legal principle invoked to justify the invasion. And if you look at Resolution 687, you discover that one of its provisions is that the US and other powers must work to develop a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, including that entire region. So we’re committed to it, and that’s the second element of this proposal.

      The third element of the proposal is that the United States should accept the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position which happens to be supported by 82 percent of Americans, namely that it should accept the requirement, in fact the legal requirement, as the World Court determined, to move to make good-faith efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether.

      And a fourth proposal is that the US should turn to diplomacy, and it should end any threats against Iran. The threats are themselves crimes. They’re in violation of the UN Charter, which bars the threat or use of force.

      Well, of course, these four proposals—again, Iran should have nuclear energy, but not nuclear weapons; there should be a weapons-free zone throughout the region; the US should accept the Non-Proliferation Treaty; there should be a turn to diplomacy and an end to threats—these are almost unmentionable in the United States. Not a single candidate would endorse any part of them, and they’re never discussed, and so on.

      However, the proposals are not original. They happen to be the position of the overwhelming majority of the American population. And interestingly, that’s also true in Iran; roughly the same overwhelming majority accepts all of these proposals. But that’s—the results come from the world’s most prestigious polling agency, but not reported, as far as I could discover, and certainly not considered. If they were ever mentioned, they would be dismissed with the phrase “politically impossible,” which is probably correct. It’s only the position of the large majority of the population, kind of like national healthcare, but not of the people that count. So there are plenty of “unpeople” here, too—in fact, the large majority. Americans share this property of being “unpeople” with most of the rest of the world. In fact, if the United States and Iran were functioning, not merely formal, democracies, then this dangerous crisis might be readily resolved by a functioning democracy—I mean, one in which public opinion plays some role in determining policy, rather than being excluded—in fact, unmentioned, because, after all, they’re “unpeople.”

      Well, while we’re on Iran, I guess I might as well turn to the third member of the famous Axis of Evil: North Korea. There is an official story—read it right now—is that the official story is this, that after having been compelled to accept an agreement on dismantling its nuclear weapons and the facilities, after having been compelled to agree to that, North Korea is again trying to evade its commitments in its usual devious way. So the New York Times headline on this ten days ago reads “The United States Sees Stalling by North Korea on Nuclear Pact.” And the article then details the charges of how North Korea is not going through with its responsibility. It’s not releasing information that it’s promised to release. If you read the story to the last paragraph—and that’s always a good idea; that’s where the interesting news usually is when you read a news story—but if you manage to get to the last paragraph, you discover that it’s the United States that has backed down on the pledges made in the agreement. The United States had promised to provide a million tons of fuel and—

      What do I do? I couldn’t see you. I’m sorry.

      MODERATOR: Ten minutes.

      NOAM CHOMSKY: I should hurry up? Yeah, OK. Alright, just start screaming at me if I go on too long.

      The US just refused to supply it. It’s refused only—it’s supplied only 85 percent of the fuel that it promised, and it was supposed to improve diplomatic relations, of course not doing that. Well, that’s quite normal.

      If you want to find out what’s going on in the US-North Korea nuclear standoff, it’s better—you have to go to the specialist literature, which is uniform on it, nothing hidden, and in fact sort of sneaks out into small print in the press reports, as I mentioned. What you find is that North—I mean, North Korea may be the most hideous state in the world, but that’s not the point here. Its position has been pretty pragmatic. It’s kind of tit-for-tat. The United States gets more aggressive, they get more aggressive. The United States moves towards diplomacy and negotiations, they do the same.

      So when President Bush came in, there was an agreement—it was called the Framework Agreement that had been established in 1994—and neither the US nor North Korea was quite living up to it. But it was more or less functioning. At that time, North Korea, under the Framework Agreement, had stopped any testing of long-range missiles. It had maybe one or two bombs worth of plutonium, and it was verifiably not making more. Now, that was when George Bush entered the scene. And now it has eight to ten bombs, long-range missiles, and it’s developing plutonium.

      And there’s a reason. The Bush regime immediately moved to a very aggressive stance. The Axis of Evil speech was one example. Intelligence was released claiming that North Korea was carrying out—was cheating, had clandestine programs. It’s rather interesting that these intelligence reports, five years later, have been quietly rescinded as probably inadequate. The reason presumably is that if an agreement is reached, there will be inspectors in North Korea, and they’ll find that this intelligence had as much validity as the claims about Iraq, so they’re being withdrawn. Well, North Korea responded to all of this by ratcheting up its missile and weapons development.

      In September 2005, under pressure, the United States did agree to negotiations, and there was an outcome. September 2005, North Korea agreed to abandon—quoting— “all nuclear weapons and existing weapons programs” and to allow international inspection. That would be in return for international aid, mainly from the United States, and a non-aggression pledge from the US and an agreement that the two sides—I’m quoting—would “respect each other’s sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize relations.”

      Well, the United States, the Bush administration, had an instant reaction. It instantly renewed the threat of force. It froze North Korean funds in foreign banks. It disbanded the consortium that was supposed meet to provide North Korea with a light-water reactor. So North Korea returned to its weapons and missile development, carried out a weapons test, and confrontation escalated. Well, again, under international pressure and with its foreign policy collapsing, Washington returned to negotiations. That led to an agreement, which Washington is now scuttling.

      There’s an earlier history, an interesting one. You recall a couple of weeks ago, there was a mysterious Israeli bombing in northern Syria, never explained, but it a sort of hinted that this had something to do with Syria building nuclear facilities with the help of North Korea. Pretty unlikely, but whether it’s true or not, there’s an interesting background, which wasn’t mentioned. In 1993, Israel and North Korea were on the verge of an agreement, in which Israel would recognize North Korea and in return North Korea would agree to terminate any weapons-related—missile, nuclear, other—any weapons-related activity in the Middle East. That would have been an enormous boon to Israel’s security. But the owner of the world stepped in. Clinton ordered them to refuse. Of course, you have to listen to the master’s voice. So that ended that. And it may be that there are North Korean activities in the Middle East that we don’t know about.

      Well, let me finally return to the first member of the Axis of Evil: Iraq. Washington does have expectations, and they’re explicit. There are outlined in a Declaration of Principles that was agreed upon, if you can call it that, between the United States and the US-backed, US-installed Iraqi government, a government under military occupation. The two of them issued the Declaration of Principles. It allows US forces to remain indefinitely in Iraq in order to “deter foreign aggression”—well, the only aggression in sight is from the United States, but that’s not aggression, by definition—and also to facilitate and encourage “the flow of foreign investments [to] Iraq, especially American investments.” I’m quoting. That’s an unusually brazen expression of imperial will.

      In fact, it was heightened a few days ago, when George Bush issued another one of his signing statements declaring that he will reject crucial provisions of congressional legislation that he had just signed, including the provision that forbids spending taxpayer money—I’m quoting—“to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of [United States} Armed Forces in Iraq” or “to exercise [United States] control of the oil resources of Iraq." OK? Shortly after, the New York Times reported that Washington “insists”—if you own the world, you insist—“insists that the Baghdad government give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations,” a demand that “faces a potential buzz saw of opposition from Iraq, with its…deep sensitivities about being seen as a dependent state.” It’s supposed to be more third world irrationality.

      So, in brief, the United States is now insisting that Iraq must agree to allow permanent US military installations, provide the United—grant the United States the right to conduct combat operations freely, and to guarantee US control over the oil resources of Iraq. OK? It’s all very explicit, on the table. It’s kind of interesting that these reports do not elicit any reflection on the reasons why the United States invaded Iraq. You’ve heard those reasons offered, but they were dismissed with ridicule. Now they’re openly conceded to be accurate, but not eliciting any retraction or even any reflection.

      Well, there’s a lot more to say about good news, but I was told to shut up, so I will just say that thinking about these things really does give some insight into the famous “clash of civilizations” and its actual substance, topics that really ought to be foremost in our minds, I believe. Thanks."

Video [legaturi] / Raspuns: Link-uri pentru 2+ ochi
« : 01 Martie 2008, 16:31:28 »
ESOTERIC AGENDA  (la fel de important ca Zeitgeist !!!!!!!!!!! )

Noua Ordine Mondiala (NOM/NWO) / Raspuns: Noam Chomsky
« : 08 Februarie 2008, 04:00:01 »

                                                                 We Own The World

Noam Chomsky
ZNet, January 1, 2008

You all know, of course, there was an election -- what is called "an election" in the United States -- last November. There was really one issue in the election, what to do about U.S. forces in Iraq and there was, by U.S. standards, an overwhelming vote calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces on a firm timetable.

As few people know, a couple of months earlier there were extensive polls in Iraq, U.S.-run polls, with interesting results. They were not secret here. If you really looked you could find references to them, so it's not that they were concealed. This poll found that two-thirds of the people in Baghdad wanted the U.S. troops out immediately; the rest of the country -- a large majority -- wanted a firm timetable for withdrawal, most of them within a year or less.

The figures are higher for Arab Iraq in the areas where troops were actually deployed. A very large majority felt that the presence of U.S. forces increased the level of violence and a remarkable 60 percent for all of Iraq, meaning higher in the areas where the troops are deployed, felt that U.S. forces were legitimate targets of attack. So there was a considerable consensus between Iraqis and Americans on what should be done in Iraq, namely troops should be withdrawn either immediately or with a firm timetable.

Well, the reaction in the post-election U.S. government to that consensus was to violate public opinion and increase the troop presence by maybe 30,000 to 50,000. Predictably, there was a pretext announced. It was pretty obvious what it was going to be. "There is outside interference in Iraq, which we have to defend the Iraqis against. The Iranians are interfering in Iraq." Then came the alleged evidence about finding IEDs, roadside bombs with Iranian markings, as well as Iranian forces in Iraq. "What can we do? We have to escalate to defend Iraq from the outside intervention."

Then came the "debate." We are a free and open society, after all, so we have "lively" debates. On the one side were the hawks who said, "The Iranians are interfering, we have to bomb them." On the other side were the doves who said, "We cannot be sure the evidence is correct, maybe you misread the serial numbers or maybe it is just the revolutionary guards and not the government."

So we had the usual kind of debate going on, which illustrates a very important and pervasive distinction between several types of propaganda systems. To take the ideal types, exaggerating a little: totalitarian states' propaganda is that you better accept it, or else. And "or else" can be of various consequences, depending on the nature of the state. People can actually believe whatever they want as long as they obey. Democratic societies use a different method: they don't articulate the party line. That's a mistake. What they do is presuppose it, then encourage vigorous debate within the framework of the party line. This serves two purposes. For one thing it gives the impression of a free and open society because, after all, we have lively debate. It also instills a propaganda line that becomes something you presuppose, like the air you breathe.

That was the case here. This is a classic illustration. The whole debate about the Iranian "interference" in Iraq makes sense only on one assumption, namely, that "we own the world." If we own the world, then the only question that can arise is that someone else is interfering in a country we have invaded and occupied.

So if you look over the debate that took place and is still taking place about Iranian interference, no one points out this is insane. How can Iran be interfering in a country that we invaded and occupied? It's only appropriate on the presupposition that we own the world. Once you have that established in your head, the discussion is perfectly sensible.

You read a lot of comparisons now about Vietnam and Iraq. For the most part they are totally incomparable; the nature and purpose of the war, almost everything is totally different except in one respect: how they are perceived in the United States. In both cases there is what is now sometimes called the "Q" word, quagmire. Is it a quagmire? In Vietnam it is now recognized that it was a quagmire. There is a debate of whether Iraq, too, is a quagmire. In other words, is it costing us too much? That is the question you can debate.

So in the case of Vietnam, there was a debate. Not at the beginning -- in fact, there was so little discussion in the beginning that nobody even remembers when the war began -- 1962, if you're interested. That's when the U.S. attacked Vietnam. But there was no discussion, no debate, nothing.

By the mid-1960s, mainstream debate began. And it was the usual range of opinions between the hawks and the doves. The hawks said if we send more troops, we can win. The doves, well, Arthur Schlesinger, famous historian, Kennedy's advisor, in his book in 1966 said that we all pray that the hawks will be right and that the current escalation of troops, which by then was approaching half a million, will work and bring us victory. If it does, we will all be praising the wisdom and statesmanship of the American government for winning victory -- in a land that we're reducing to ruin and wreck.

You can translate that word by word to the doves today. We all pray that the surge will work. If it does, contrary to our expectations, we will be praising the wisdom and statesmanship of the Bush administration in a country, which, if we're honest, is a total ruin, one of the worst disasters in military history for the population.

If you get way to the left end of mainstream discussion, you get somebody like Anthony Lewis who, at the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, wrote in retrospect that the war began with benign intensions to do good; that is true by definition, because it's us, after all. So it began with benign intentions, but by 1969, he said, it was clear that the war was a mistake. For us to win a victory would be too costly -- for us -- so it was a mistake and we should withdraw. That was the most extreme criticism.

Very much like today. We could withdraw from Vietnam because the U.S. had already essentially obtained its objective by then. Iraq we can't because we haven't obtained our objectives.

And for those of you who are old enough to remember -- or have read about it -- you will note that the peace movement pretty much bought that line. Just like the mainstream discussion, the opposition of the war, including the peace movement, was mostly focused on the bombing of the North. When the U.S. started bombing the North regularly in February 1965, it also escalated the bombing of the South to triple the scale -- and the South had already been attacked for three years by then. A couple of hundred thousand South Vietnamese were killed and thousands, if not tens of the thousands, had been driven into concentration camps. The U.S. had been carrying out chemical warfare to destroy food crops and ground cover. By 1965 South Vietnam was already a total wreck.

Bombing the South was costless for the United States because the South had no defense. Bombing the North was costly -- you bomb the North, you bomb the harbor, you might hit Russian ships, which begins to become dangerous. You're bombing an internal Chinese railroad -- the Chinese railroads from southeast to southwest China happen to go through North Vietnam -- who knows what they might do.

In fact, the Chinese were accused, correctly, of sending Chinese forces into Vietnam, namely to rebuild the railroad that we were bombing. So that was "interference" with our divine right to bomb North Vietnam. So most of the focus was on the bombing of the North. The peace movement slogan, "Stop the bombing" meant the bombing of the North.

In 1967 the leading specialist on Vietnam, Bernard Fall, a military historian and the only specialist on Vietnam respected by the U.S. government -- who was a hawk, incidentally, but who cared about the Vietnamese -- wrote that it's a question of whether Vietnam will survive as a cultural and historical entity under the most severe bombing that has ever been applied to a country this size. He was talking about the South. He kept emphasizing it was the South that was being attacked. But that didn't matter because it was costless, therefore it's fine to continue. That is the range of debate, which only makes sense on the assumption that we own the world.

If you read, say, the Pentagon Papers, it turns out there was extensive planning about the bombing of the North -- very detailed, meticulous planning on just how far it can go, what happens if we go a little too far, and so on. There is no discussion at all about the bombing of the South, virtually none. Just an occasional announcement, okay, we will triple the bombing, or something like that.

If you read Robert McNamara's memoirs of the war -- by that time he was considered a leading dove -- he reviews the meticulous planning about the bombing of the North, but does not even mention his decision to sharply escalate the bombing of the South at the same time that the bombing of the North was begun.

I should say, incidentally, that with regard to Vietnam what I have been discussing is articulate opinion, including the leading part of the peace movement. There is also public opinion, which it turns out is radically different, and that is of some significance. By 1969 around 70 percent of the public felt that the war was not a mistake, but that it was fundamentally wrong and immoral. That was the wording of the polls and that figure remains fairly constant up until the most recent polls just a few years ago. The figures are pretty remarkable because people who say that in a poll almost certainly think, I must be the only person in the world that thinks this. They certainly did not read it anywhere, they did not hear it anywhere. But that was popular opinion.

The same is true with regard to many other issues. But for articulate opinion it's pretty much the way I've described -- largely vigorous debate between the hawks and the doves, all on the unexpressed assumption that we own the world. So the only thing that matters is how much is it costing us, or maybe for some more humane types, are we harming too many of them?

Getting back to the election, there was a lot of disappointment among anti-war people -- the majority of the population -- that Congress did not pass any withdrawal legislation. There was a Democratic resolution that was vetoed, but if you look at the resolution closely it was not a withdrawal resolution. There was a good analysis of it by General Kevin Ryan, who was a fellow at the Kennedy School at Harvard. He went through it and he said it really should be called a re-missioning proposal. It leaves about the same number of American troops, but they have a slightly different mission.

He said, first of all it allows for a national security exception. If the president says there is a national security issue, he can do whatever he wants -- end of resolution. The second gap is it allows for anti-terrorist activities. Okay, that is whatever you like. Third, it allows for training Iraqi forces. Again, anything you like.

Next it says troops have to remain for protection of U.S. forces and facilities. What are U.S. forces? Well, U.S. forces are those embedded in Iraqi armed units where 60 percent of their fellow soldiers think that they -- U.S. troops, that is -- are legitimate targets of attack. Incidentally, those figures keep going up, so they are probably higher by now. Well, okay, that is plenty of force protection. What facilities need protection was not explained in the Democratic resolution, but facilities include what is called "the embassy." The U.S. embassy in Iraq is nothing like any embassy that has ever existed in history. It's a city inside the green zone, the protected region of Iraq, that the U.S. runs. It's got everything from missiles to McDonalds, anything you want. They didn't build that huge facility because they intend to leave.

That is one facility, but there are others. There are "semi-permanent military bases," which are being built around the country. "Semi-permanent" means permanent, as long as we want.

General Ryan omitted a lot of things. He omitted the fact that the U.S. is maintaining control of logistics and logistics is the core of a modern Army. Right now about 80 percent of the supply is coming in though the south, from Kuwait, and it's going through guerilla territory, easily subject to attack, which means you have to have plenty of troops to maintain that supply line. Plus, of course, it keeps control over the Iraqi Army.

The Democratic resolution excludes the Air Force. The Air Force does whatever it wants. It is bombing pretty regularly and it can bomb more intensively. The resolution also excludes mercenaries, which is no small number -- sources such as the Wall Street Journal estimate the number of mercenaries at about 130,000, approximately the same as the number of troops, which makes some sense. The traditional way to fight a colonial war is with mercenaries, not with your own soldiers -- that is the French Foreign Legion, the British Ghurkas, or the Hessians in the Revolutionary War. That is part of the main reason the draft was dropped -- so you get professional soldiers, not people you pick off the streets.

So, yes, it is re-missioning, but the resolution was vetoed because it was too strong, so we don't even have that. And, yes, that did disappoint a lot of people. However, it would be too strong to say that no high official in Washington called for immediate withdrawal. There were some. The strongest one I know of -- when asked what is the solution to the problem in Iraq -- said it's quite obvious, "Withdraw all foreign forces and withdraw all foreign arms." That official was Condoleeza Rice and she was not referring to U.S. forces, she was referring to Iranian forces and Iranian arms. And that makes sense, too, on the assumption that we own the world because, since we own the world U.S. forces cannot be foreign forces anywhere. So if we invade Iraq or Canada, say, we are the indigenous forces. It's the Iranians that are foreign forces.

I waited for a while to see if anyone, at least in the press or journals, would point out that there was something funny about this. I could not find a word. I think everyone regarded that as a perfectly sensible comment. But I could not see a word from anyone who said, wait a second, there are foreign forces there, 150,000 American troops, plenty of American arms.

So it is reasonable that when British sailors were captured in the Gulf by Iranian forces, there was debate, "Were they in Iranian borders or in Iraqi borders? Actually there is no answer to this because there is no territorial boundary, and that was pointed out. It was taken for granted that if the British sailors were in Iraqi waters, then Iran was guilty of a crime by intervening in foreign territory. But Britain is not guilty of a crime by being in Iraqi territory, because Britain is a U.S. client state, and we own the world, so they are there by right.

What about the possible next war, Iran? There have been very credible threats by the U.S. and Israel -- essentially a U.S. client -- to attack Iran. There happens to be something called the UN Charter which says that -- in Article 2 -- the threat or use of force in international affairs is a crime. "Threat or use of force."

Does anybody care? No, because we're an outlaw state by definition, or to be more precise, our threats and use of force are not foreign, they're indigenous because we own the world. Therefore, it's fine. So there are threats to bomb Iran -- maybe we will and maybe we won't. That is the debate that goes on. Is it legitimate if we decide to do it? People might argue it's a mistake. But does anyone say it would be illegitimate? For example, the Democrats in Congress refuse to put in an amendment that would require the Executive to inform Congress if it intends to bomb Iran -- to consult, inform. Even that was not accepted.

The whole world is aghast at this possibility. It would be monstrous. A leading British military historian, Correlli Barnett, wrote recently that if the U.S. does attack, or Israel does attack, it would be World War III. The attack on Iraq has been horrendous enough. Apart from devastating Iraq, the UN High Commission on Refugees reviewed the number of displaced people -- they estimate 4.2 million, over 2 million fled the country, another 2 million fleeing within the country. That is in addition to the numbers killed, which if you extrapolate from the last studies, are probably approaching a million.

It was anticipated by U.S. intelligence and other intelligence agencies and independent experts that an attack on Iraq would probably increase the threat of terror and nuclear proliferation. But that went way beyond what anyone expected. Well known terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank estimated -- using mostly government statistics -- that what they call "the Iraq effect" increased terror by a factor of seven, and that is pretty serious. And that gives you an indication of the ranking of protection of the population in the priority list of leaders. It's very low.

So what would the Iran effect be? Well, that is incalculable. It could be World War III. Very likely a massive increase in terror, who knows what else. Even in the states right around Iraq, which don't like Iran -- Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey -- even there the large majority would prefer to see a nuclear armed Iran to any U.S. military action, and they are right, military action could be devastating. It doesn't mean we won't do it. There is very little discussion here of the illegitimacy of doing it, again on the assumption that anything we do is legitimate, it just might cost too much.

Is there a possible solution to the U.S./Iran crisis? Well, there are some plausible solutions. One possibility would be an agreement that allows Iran to have nuclear energy, like every signer of the non-proliferation treaty, but not to have nuclear weapons. In addition, it would call for a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. That would include Iran, Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and any U.S. or British forces deployed in the region. A third element of a solution would be for the United States and other nuclear states to obey their legal obligation, by unanimous agreement of the World Court, to make good-faith moves to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely.

Is this feasible? Well, it's feasible on one assumption, that the United States and Iran become functioning democratic societies, because what I have just quoted happens to be the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the populations in Iran and the United States. On everything that I mentioned there is an overwhelming majority. So, yes, there would be a very feasible solution if these two countries were functioning democratic societies, meaning societies in which public opinion has some kind of effect on policy. The problem in the United States is the inability of organizers to do something in a population that overwhelmingly agrees with them and to make that current policy. Of course, it can be done. Peasants in Bolivia can do it, we can obviously do it here.

Can we do anything to make Iran a more democratic society? Not directly, but indirectly we can. We can pay attention to the dissidents and the reformists in Iran who are struggling courageously to turn Iran into a more democratic society. And we know exactly what they are saying, they are very outspoken about it. They are pleading with the United States to withdraw the threats against Iran. The more we threaten Iran, the more we give a gift to the reactionary, religious fanatics in the government. You make threats, you strengthen them. That is exactly what is happening. The threats have lead to repression, predictably.

Now the Americans claim they are outraged by the repression, which we should protest, but we should recognize that the repression is the direct and predictable consequence of the actions that the U.S. government is taking. So if you take actions, and then they have predictable consequences, condemning the consequences is total hypocrisy.

Incidentally, in the case of Cuba about two-thirds of Americans think we ought to end the embargo and all threats and enter into diplomatic relations. And that has been true ever since polls have been taken -- for about 30 years. The figure varies, but it's roughly there. Zero effect on policy, in Iran, Cuba, and elsewhere.

So there is a problem and that problem is that the United States is just not a functioning democracy. Public opinion does not matter and among articulate and elite opinion that is a principle -- it shouldn't matter. The only principle that matters is we own the world and the rest of you shut up, you know, whether you're abroad or at home.

So, yes, there is a potential solution to the very dangerous problem, it's essentially the same solution: do something to turn our own country into a functioning democracy. But that is in radical opposition to the fundamental presupposition of all elite discussions, mainly that we own the world and that these questions don't arise and the public should have no opinion on foreign policy, or any policy.

Once, when I was driving to work, I was listening to NPR. NPR is supposed to be the kind of extreme radical end of the spectrum. I read a statement somewhere, I don't know if it's true, but it was a quote from Obama, who is the hope of the liberal doves, in which he allegedly said that the spectrum of discussion in the United States extends between two crazy extremes, Rush Limbaugh and NPR. The truth, he said, is in the middle and that is where he is going to be, in the middle, between the crazies.

NPR then had a discussion -- it was like being at the Harvard faculty club -- serious people, educated, no grammatical errors, who know what they're talking about, usually polite. The discussion was about the so-called missile defense system that the U.S. is trying to place in Czechoslovakia and Poland -- and the Russian reaction. The main issue was, "What is going on with the Russians? Why are they acting so hostile and irrational? Are they trying to start a new Cold War? There is something wrong with those guys. Can we calm them down and make them less paranoid?"

The main specialist they called in, I think from the Pentagon or somewhere, pointed out, accurately, that a missile defense system is essentially a first-strike weapon. That is well known by strategic analysts on all sides. If you think about it for a minute, it's obvious why. A missile defense system is never going to stop a first strike, but it could, in principle, if it ever worked, stop a retaliatory strike. If you attack some country with a first strike, and practically wipe it out, if you have a missile defense system, and prevent them from retaliating, then you would be protected, or partially protected. If a country has a functioning missile defense system it will have more options for carrying out a first strike. Okay, obvious, and not a secret. It's known to every strategic analyst. I can explain it to my grandchildren in two minutes and they understand it.

So on NPR it is agreed that a missile defense system is a first-strike weapon. But then comes the second part of the discussion. Well, say the pundits, the Russians should not be worried about this. For one thing because it's not enough of a system to stop their retaliation, so therefore it's not yet a first-strike weapon against them. Then they said it is kind of irrelevant anyway because it is directed against Iran, not against Russia.

Okay, that was the end of the discussion. So, point one, missile defense is a first-strike weapon; second, it's directed against Iran. Now, you can carry out a small exercise in logic. Does anything follow from those two assumptions? Yes, what follows is it's a first-strike weapon against Iran. Since the U.S. owns the world what could be wrong with having a first-strike weapon against Iran. So the conclusion is not mentioned. It is not necessary. It follows from the fact that we own the world.

Maybe a year ago or so, Germany sold advanced submarines to Israel, which were equipped to carry missiles with nuclear weapons. Why does Israel need submarines with nuclear armed missiles? Well, there is only one imaginable reason and everyone in Germany with a brain must have understood that -- certainly their military system does -- it's a first-strike weapon against Iran. Israel can use German subs to illustrate to Iranians that if they respond to an Israeli attack they will be vaporized.

The fundamental premises of Western imperialism are extremely deep. The West owns the world and now the U.S. runs the West, so, of course, they go along. The fact that they are providing a first-strike weapon for attacking Iran probably, I'm guessing now, raised no comment because why should it?

You can forget about history, it does not matter, it's kind of "old fashioned," boring stuff we don't need to know about. But most countries pay attention to history. So, for example, for the United States there is no discussion of the history of U.S./Iranian relations. Well, for the U.S. there is only one event in Iranian history -- in 1979 Iranians overthrew the tyrant that the U.S. was backing and took some hostages for over a year. That happened and they had to be punished for that.

But for Iranians their history is that for over 50 years, literally without a break, the U.S. has been torturing Iranians. In 1953 the U.S. overthrew the parliamentary government and installed a brutal tyrant, the Shah, and kept supporting him while he compiled one of the worst human rights records in the world -- torture, assassination, anything you like. In fact, President Carter, when he visited Iran in December 1978, praised the Shah because of the love shown to him by his people, and so on and so forth, which probably accelerated the overthrow. Of course, Iranians have this odd way of remembering what happened to them and who was behind it. When the Shah was overthrown, the Carter administration immediately tried to instigate a military coup by sending arms to Iran through Israel to try to support military force to overthrow the government. We immediately turned to supporting Iraq, that is Saddam Hussein, and his invasion of Iran. Saddam was executed for crimes he committed in 1982, by his standards not very serious crimes -- complicity in killing 150 people. Well, there was something missing in that account -- 1982 is a very important year in U.S./Iraqi relations. That is the year in which Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the list of states supporting terrorism so that the U.S. could start supplying Iraq with weapons for its invasion of Iran, including the means to develop weapons of mass destruction, chemical and nuclear weapons. That is 1982. A year later Donald Rumsfeld was sent to firm up the deal. Well, Iranians may very well remember that this led to a war in which hundreds of thousands of them were slaughtered with U.S. aid going to Iraq. They may well remember that the year after the war was over, in 1989, the U.S. government invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to come to the United States for advanced training in developing nuclear weapons.

What about the Russians? They have a history too. One part of the history is that in the last century Russia was invaded and practically destroyed three times through Eastern Europe. You can look back and ask, when was the last time that the U.S. was invaded and practically destroyed through Canada or Mexico? That doesn't happen. We crush others and we are always safe. But the Russians don't have that luxury. Now, in 1990 a remarkable event took place. I was kind of shocked, frankly. Gorbachev agreed to let Germany be unified, meaning join the West and be militarized within a hostile military alliance. This is Germany, which twice in that century practically destroyed Russia. That's a pretty remarkable agreement.

There was a quid pro quo. Then-president George Bush I agreed that NATO would not expand to the East. The Russians also demanded, but did not receive, an agreement for a nuclear-free zone from the Artic to the Baltic, which would give them a little protection from nuclear attack. That was the agreement in 1990. Then Bill Clinton came into office, the so-called liberal. One of the first things he did was to rescind the agreement, unilaterally, and expand NATO to the East.

For the Russians that's pretty serious, if you remember the history. They lost 25 million people in the last World War and over 3 million in World War I. But since the U.S. owns the world, if we want to threaten Russia, that is fine. It is all for freedom and justice, after all, and if they make unpleasant noises about it we wonder why they are so paranoid. Why is Putin screaming as if we're somehow threatening them, since we can't be threatening anyone, owning the world.

One of the other big issues on the front pages now is Chinese "aggressiveness." There is a lot of concern about the fact that the Chinese are building up their missile forces. Is China planning to conquer the world? Big debates about it. Well, what is really going on? For years China has been in the lead in trying to prevent the militarization of space. If you look at the debates and the Disarmament Commission of the UN General Assembly, the votes are 160 to 1 or 2. The U.S. insists on the militarization of space. It will not permit the outer space treaty to explicitly bar military relations in space.

Clinton's position was that the U.S. should control space for military purposes. The Bush administration is more extreme. Their position is the U.S. should own space, their words, We have to own space for military purposes. So that is the spectrum of discussion here. The Chinese have been trying to block it and that is well understood. You read the most respectable journal in the world, I suppose, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and you find leading strategic analysts, John Steinbrunner and Nancy Gallagher, a couple of years ago, warning that the Bush administration's aggressive militarization is leading to what they call "ultimate doom." Of course, there is going to be a reaction to it. You threaten people with destruction, they are going to react. These analysts call on peace-loving nations to counter Bush's aggressive militarism. They hope that China will lead peace-loving nations to counter U.S. aggressiveness. It's a pretty remarkable comment on the impossibility of achieving democracy in the United States. Again, the logic is pretty elementary. Steinbrunner and Gallagher are assuming that the United States cannot be a democratic society; it's not one of the options, so therefore we hope that maybe China will do something.

Well, China finally did something. It signaled to the United States that they noticed that we were trying to use space for military purposes, so China shot down one of their satellites. Everyone understands why -- the mili- tarization and weaponization of space depends on satellites. While missiles are very difficult or maybe impossible to stop, satellites are very easy to shoot down. You know where they are. So China is saying, "Okay, we understand you are militarizing space. We're going to counter it not by militarizing space, we can't compete with you that way, but by shooting down your satellites." That is what was behind the satellite shooting. Every military analyst certainly understood it and every lay person can understand it. But take a look at the debate. The discussion was about, "Is China trying it conquer the world by shooting down one of its own satellites?"

About a year ago there was a new rash of articles and headlines on the front page about the "Chinese military build-up." The Pentagon claimed that China had increased its offensive military capacity -- with 400 missiles, which could be nuclear armed. Then we had a debate about whether that proves China is trying to conquer the world or the numbers are wrong, or something.

Just a little footnote. How many offensive nuclear armed missiles does the United States have? Well, it turns out to be 10,000. China may now have maybe 400, if you believe the hawks. That proves that they are trying to conquer the world.

It turns out, if you read the international press closely, that the reason China is building up its military capacity is not only because of U.S. aggressiveness all over the place, but the fact that the United States has improved its targeting capacities so it can now destroy missile sites in a much more sophisticated fashion wherever they are, even if they are mobile. So who is trying to conquer the world? Well, obviously the Chinese because since we own it, they are trying to conquer it.

It's all too easy to continue with this indefinitely. Just pick your topic. It's a good exercise to try. This simple principle, "we own the world," is sufficient to explain a lot of the discussion about foreign affairs.

I will just finish with a word from George Orwell. In the introduction to Animal Farm he said, England is a free society, but it's not very different from the totalitarian monster I have been describing. He says in England unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force. Then he goes on to give some dubious examples. At the end he turns to a very brief explanation, actually two sentences, but they are to the point. He says, one reason is the press is owned by wealthy men who have every reason not to want certain ideas to be expressed. And the second reason -- and I think a more important one -- is a good education. If you have gone to the best schools and graduated from Oxford and Cambridge, and so on, you have instilled in you the understanding that there are certain things it would not do to say; actually, it would not do to think. That is the primary way to prevent unpopular ideas from being expressed.

The ideas of the overwhelming majority of the population, who don't attend Harvard, Princeton, Oxford and Cambridge, enable them to react like human beings, as they often do. There is a lesson there for activists.

Cu parere de rau, cu fiecare an ce trece realizez ca si in Romania, ca mai peste tot, o situatie de criza si putreziciune o rezolvi prin crize si mai mari. Astea fiind spuse, se pare ca ne mai pot scoate din [***] situatiile mai tragice decat ceea ce este acum in Romania: cataclisme si tragedii asa de mari incat oamenilor sa le ajunga"cutitul la os" in asa hal incat sa iasa si sa ceara socoteala indiferent de urmari. Drepturile nu se cer(ca nu ti le da nimeni) ci se dobandesc, se obtin.
Ce mari miscari civile avem in Romania?
Cati ani de "calareala" ne mai trebuie sa ne hotaram sa ne miscam si sa-i scuipam in fata pe cei care ne scuipa de atatia ani?
Imi aduc aminte de intregi generatii de femei(inainte de '89 si dupa) care-si luau bataie golaneasca de la "iubitii lor soti" pe scuza ca "ce sa fac, asa-i femeia, trebuie sa indure". Cateodata mai e cazul sa mai te si scuturi si sa ai atitudine. [***] Miorita si caracteristicile ei [***]!
Taxa auto, cozi sa-ti platesti impozitul, manipulare si sictir venit de sus, sfidare si dezinteres...etc - prima data a fost vina lor ca ne-au fraierit, dar restul de alte mii si mii de ori este vina noastra. Ia sa apara asociatii civile care refuza sa mai plateasca "dari" si care sa contina cateva milioane de oameni(s-ar inscrie destui). Or sa bage la puscarie populatia Romaniei in final?
Cu ce ocazie cei care sunt la putere in ultimii 30 de ani(sunt aceiasi) sa o cedeze?
Cat de naivi si ignoranti suntem sa avem pretentia ca ei sa se auto-submineze?
Wake [***] up and take a deep breath of [***] you're living in!
Orice sistem se impute sau se curata din interior.
Miscarile civile in masa, vocea populatiei saturate si meeting-uri de protest ar fi ceva...
Gandhi a reusit sa invinga un imperiu strain prin nesupunere pasnica , iar noi nu suntem in stare sa daramam niste magari obositi in tara noastra...
Puterea pe care o au este doar puterea pe care le-o dam noi, sau pe care am permis sa ne-o fure ei. Nu exista noi si ei ci exista indolenta si nesimtirea noastra. Sa o recunoastem ar fi un prim pas sanatos si util.
Sa simtim bine, zic !

Te rog sa vorbesti civilizat orice ai incerca sa spui. Pe acest forum limbajul vulgar este interzis. Am cenzurat mesajele nepotrivite. Ark

Video [legaturi] / Raspuns: Link-uri pentru 2+ ochi
« : 09 Decembrie 2007, 08:30:17 »
The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News

War Made Easy - How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death (2007)

Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire

Deadly Persuasion: The Advertising of Alcohol & Tobacco

Constructing Public Opinion - Politicians & Media Misrepresent the Public (Exce)

Rich Media, Poor Democracy

The opportunity crisis

No Logo Brands Globalization Resistance

Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine" & "No Logo" interview

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Euroslaves - The seigniorage's fraud and the secrets of public debt

Advertising & the End of the World

Money For Nothing: Behind the Business of Pop Music

Pagini: [1] 2 3