Paul Craig Roberts

Ironic, isn’t it? - The United States, the “indispensable nation,” now stands before us as the likely candidate whose government will be responsible for the collapse of the West.

The US financial system and, probably, the financial system of Europe, like the police, no longer serves a useful social purpose.

In the US the police have proven themselves to be a greater threat to public safety than private sector criminals. I just googled “police brutality” and up came 183,000,000 results. (Here are two recent brutal assaults, one deadly, by police on hapless individuals: 1 and 2 )

The cost to society of the private financial system is even higher. Writing in CounterPunch, Rob Urie reports that two years ago Andrew Haldane, executive Director for Financial Stability at the Bank of England (the UK’s version of the Federal Reserve) said that the financial crisis, now four years old, will in the end cost the world economy between $60 trillion and $200 trillion in lost GDP. If Urie’s report is correct, this is an astonishing admission from a member of the ruling elite.

Try to get your mind around these figures. The US GDP, the largest in the world, is about 15 trillion. What Haldane is telling us is that the financial crisis will end up costing the world lost real income between 4 and 13 times the size of the current Gross Domestic Product of the United States. This could turn out to be an optimistic forecast.

In the end, the financial crisis could destroy Western civilization.

Even if Urie’s report (or Haldane’s calculation) is incorrect, the obvious large economic loss from the financial crisis is still unprecedented. The enormous cost of the financial crisis has one single source–financial deregulation. Financial deregulation is likely to prove to be the mistake that destroys Western civilization. While we quake in our boots from fear of “Muslim terrorists,” it is financial deregulation that is destroying us, with help from jobs offshoring. Keep in mind that Haldane is a member of the ruling elite, not a critic of the system like myself, Gerald Celente, Michael Hudson, Pam Martins, and Nomi Prins. (This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of critics.)

More »

Gilad Atzmon

The Dictator - A Film Review

On the face of it, Baron Cohen’s The Dictator is a horrid film. It is vulgar, it isn’t funny and if it has five good jokes in it, they appear in the two minute official trailer. In short, save your time and money – unless of course, you are interested in Jewish identity politics and neurosis.

Similar to Cohen’s previous work, The Dictator is, once again, a glimpse into Cohen’s own tribal morbidity. After all, the person and the spirit behind this embarrassing comedy is a proud self-loving character who never misses an opportunity to express his intimate affinity to his people, their unique comic talent and their beloved Jewish state. But let’s face it, Cohen isn’t alone, after all, he has created The Dictator together with a Hollywood studio. So, it’s reasonable to say that what we see here is just one more Hollywood-orchestrated effort to vilify the Arab, the Muslim and the Orient.

I guess that Arab rulers, regimes and politics are an ideal subject for a satirical take, still, one may wonder what exactly does Sacha Baron Cohen know about the Arab World? As far as the film can tell, not much. Instead, Cohen projects his own Zionist and tribal symptoms onto the people of Arabia and their leaders.

In the film, Cohen plays 'General Hafez Aladeen,' the Arab ruler of the oil-rich North African rogue state Wadiya. On the face of it, he is the satirical version of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, but in reality, Aladeen’s actions are no less than a vast amplification of the crimes committed by Israel and its war criminals such as Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni.

More »

Stephen Lendman

In May 1948, Israel's independence was Palestine's Nakba. In June 1967, Jerusalem Day for Jews was Nakba 2.0 for Palestinians.

In 1948, Israelis stole 78% of historic Palestine. In 1967, they took the rest. In the process, they deprived Palestinians of their historic capital even though the UN declared Jerusalem an international city.

Israel transformed Jerusalem from a multi-cultural, multi-religious metropolis into a predominantly Jewish one. On July 30, 1980, the Knesset introduced the Jerusalem Law. It annexed the city as Israel's unified capital.

On March 1, 1980, Security Council Resolution 465 declared that:

"all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant (Fourth Geneva) violation....and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development (and) have been established in breach of international law."

Israel spurns international law and UN resolutions unfavorable to its interests with impunity. As a result, Palestinians have suffered grievously for decades.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Photo: A protester sits in front of Chicago police officers on State Street during a NATO summit demonstration in downtown Chicago, Saturday, May 19, 2012. Security has been high throughout the city in preparation for the summit, where delegations from about 60 countries will discuss the war in Afghanistan and European missile defense.

Through Monday, downtown residents live in occupied Chicago.

Secret Service agents, NORTHCOM and National Guard forces, as well as thousands of state and local police seem everywhere.

Getting around feels hazardous. Anyone may be stopped, searched, interrogated, even arrested.

Residents were advised to hunker down and stay out of harm's way as best as possible. For many, it's not easy. More on a city under siege below.

NATO is the world's first global war-making alliance. Largely a US imperial tool, it's a killing machine. Its 28 members and dozens of partner states comprise about one-third of the world's nations.

More »

Glen Ford

The administration imposed the most draconian police state legal structures in U.S. history before summoning the heads of NATO to Chicago. NATO accounts for 70 percent of military spending on the planet – combining the capacities of yesterday’s imperialists and the current superpower. “The Black man in the White House is seen, ironically, as the last best hope of the old colonial racial order and the rule of capital.”

More »

Stephen Lendman

A $100 million NATO invasion is coming. Low intensity conflict may follow. The "City of Broad Shoulders" may get more than it bargained for. Nelson Algren once called Chicago the "City on the Make." NATO's May 20/21 "on the make" invasion isn't welcome. Chicago NATO.org announced an Obama-hosted "diplomatic summit." Thousands plan protests against it.

More »

Paul Craig Roberts

In response to the question in the title I can report that most of my readers are. Almost everyone got the point of the last column. They see the absurdity of the government’s claim that the identity of the tough, macho Navy Seals, who allegedly murdered Osama bin Laden, has to be kept secret in order to protect our fierce warriors from reprisals from Muslim terrorists, while those government officials responsible for the torture and deaths of large numbers of Muslims can walk around, identity known, unprotected and safe.

After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story
ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to
believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show
you how deep the rabbit hole goes. ~ Morpheus, The Matrix

A few members of Congress are also awake, but not very many. Indeed, we are losing two of the most aware–Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Kucinich was redistricted in order to get rid of his independent voice. He carried 75% of the votes from that part of his old district that was included in his new one, but the new voters lacked the intelligence to vote for him. Ron Paul, in our time of tribulation, tried for the Republican presidential nomination on a platform of saving the US Constitution, but those who voted in Republican primaries weren’t interested in saving the US Constitution.

Now we are down to US Rep. Walter Jones. Initially, Jones was a member of the warmonger crowd. He was angered when the French government cast doubt on the George W. Bush regime’s reasons for the need for war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Jones said at that time that he was renaming French Fries “Freedom Fries.”

Jones unplugged from the Matrix and has been sentient for some time. Recently the tyrant Obama and the government operative Panetta, a political whore who has been in a variety of government positions and is currently Secretary of Warmongering, announced publicly that, the US Constitution notwithstanding, the executive branch no longer needed the authority of Congress to go to war. In our globalist existence, the authority for the US to initiate hostilities against another country comes from the UN, declared Obama and Panetta. If the executive branch can persuade or bribe the UN to give a war OK, Congress is no longer relevant.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

Description of Images on Edward Said Mural

Our solidarity with Palestine can now become a true force of genuine empathy. We don’t now just put ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, we actually wear them. We all strive for the same liberty. We are one.

Postcolonial, feminist and gay studies share many similarities to the extent that some academics regard these fields as theoretically and ideologically complementary. These fields of study are primarily concerned with politics, the structure of hegemony, the oppressed and the mechanism that brings about injustice. It is only natural then, that these realms of thought, primarily concerned with prejudice and injustice, would become key instruments in our understanding of Zionism and Israeli oppression.

Without questioning the intellectual validity and the theoretical substance of the postcolonial spectrum of thought, it is clear that some contemporary leading trends within this realm of studies emphasize the role of ‘White male’ and the ‘phallus’ as being at the core of contemporary Western society’s malaise. So the next question is almost inevitable –Where does it leave the ‘White male’? Or more anecdotally, am I, a person who happens to be wrapped in pale skin and is also attached to a white phallic organ, do I bear responsibility for centuries of European genocides? Would my responsibility lessen once I decide to chop my male organ off? Am I, or any other White male, left with any authentic ethical role? Or are we biologically doomed to be the epitome of every wrongdoing of the Western society for generations? The astute postcolonial theorist may suggest that ‘Masculinity’, ‘Whiteness’ and the ‘Phallus’ are mere symbolic representations rather than ‘things in themselves’.

Some postcolonial and feminist theoreticians would argue that imperialism, like patriarchy is, after all, a ‘phallo-centric’, ‘supremacist’, ‘White’ ideology that subjugates and dominates its subjects. This is an interesting and even intriguing statement, yet I am not so sure that it is valid or at all relevant to our understanding of Zionism and the crimes committed by the Jewish state. Zionism and Israel are clearly supremacist ideologies, yet is AIPAC’s push for a war against Iran ‘phallo-centric’? Is the Zionist appetite for Palestinian land ‘patriarchal’, or inspired by any form of ‘phallic’ enthusiasm or even ‘Whiteness’? Is the ‘War against Terror’ that left about one and a half million fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan, ‘phallicly’ orientated or is it the White male again?

More »

Yves Smith

Barack Obama swept into office on a tide of giddy enthusiasm. His “Hope and Change” was a pledge to reverse Bush era policies, including socialism for the rich, adventurism in the Middle East, and attacks on civil liberties. He announced his intention to serve as a transformational leader, invoking Abraham Lincoln, FDR and Ronald Reagan as role models. Despite the frigid temperatures, people poured into Washington, DC to hear his inauguration speech, wanting to be part of a remarkable passage.

It wasn’t simply that Obama was the first black president, but also that the economic devastation of the financial crisis opened up a historic opportunity to remake the social contract, to punish the reckless and greedy, no matter how lofty, and to build new foundations and safeguards for ordinary citizens. Obama, with his youthful vigor, his technocratic command of policy details, his “no drama” steadiness, his mastery of oratory, seemed uniquely suited to this time of need. His personal history of repeatedly breaking new ground fed optimism that he could do so for the nation as a whole.

Those times of heady promise are now a cruel memory. Again and again, Obama has shown his true colors. It isn’t simply that Obama lied. Politicians lie. But there are norms for political lying. The depth and dependability of Obama’s misrepresentations constitute a difference in kind.

More »

Stephen Lendman

A trip to the Middle East made by Ziyad Yaghi (left) and
Omar Aly Hassan was the focus of terrorism-related char-
ges against the two North Carolina men.

Post-9/11, America declared war on Islam. Wars rage abroad. At home, innocent victims are wrongfully charged, prosecuted, convicted by intimidated and pressured juries, and imprisoned.

Ziyad's one of many hundreds serving long prison terms in America's gulag. His crime is being Muslim in America at the wrong time.

On July 27, 2009, dozens of heavily armed Swat and hostage rescue team members arrested seven North Carolina men on terrorist-related charges.

A same day Justice Department press release cited Daniel Patrick Boyd, his two sons, Zakariya and Dylan, Hysen Sherifi, Anes Subasic, Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan, and Ziyad Yaghi.

Charges claimed "conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and conspiring to murder, kidnap, main and injure persons abroad," despite no plot, no crime, or intention to commit one.

Allegations only were provided. Precise details were omitted. Spurious accusations also suggested wanting to attack US Marines at Quantico, VA.

More »

Bill Van Auken

While publicly insisting that it is only providing “non-lethal” aid to elements seeking the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria, Washington is coordinating the shipment of arms into the country and working to expand the deadly conflict.

This was the thrust of a lead article in the Washington Post Tuesday. The Syrian “rebels,” the Post reported, “have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States according to opposition activists and US and foreign officials.”

The growing role played by Washington in organizing the arming of elements attacking Syrian government forces is linked to a perspective that “an expanding military confrontation is inevitable,” according to the newspaper. While formally supporting the cease-fire and political transition plan brokered by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the administration is stoking a violent confrontation with the obvious aim of scuttling this plan and opening the way to more direct military intervention.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both among Washington’s closest allies in the region, openly called for arming the anti-Assad forces and have poured millions of dollars into this effort. The Post article indicates that the decisions as to who receives these weapons are being made in Washington, which “has expanded contacts with opposition forces to provide the gulf nations with assessments of rebel credibility and command-and-control infrastructure.”

The Post also revealed that Obama administration officials hosted talks this week with representatives of the Kurdish opposition centered in eastern Syria, who have so far refrained from joining the armed revolt against Assad. This is in large part due to their distrust of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Sunni sectarian elements which dominate the leadership of the opposition, and who are hostile to Kurdish demands.

More »

Nil Nikandrov

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta listens at left as Joint Chiefs
Chairman Gen. Martin E. Dempsey speaks during a briefing
at the Pentagon, Thursday, May 10, 2012. (Susan Walsh/AP)

While UNASUR is gradually moving towards the creation of an autonomous regional security system, Washington's perspective on integration initiatives of such scale is well-known: the U.S. typically frowns on the projects unless it gets the controlling stake. It might seem surprising in the light of the above that the recent UNASUR moves in the security sphere received no hammering from Washington. Since one can hardly expect the Pentagon with its perpetual open and clandestine wars in Asia and Africa to lose interest in its own "backyard", there must be a profound explanation behind the unusual tolerance of the Empire which, in the majority of cases, is quick to punish defiance.

Apart from the routine anti-Iranian rhetoric, the Pentagon's chief Leon Panetta generously dispensed expressions of friendship and peace-loving during his recent Latin America tour, in which he visited Colombia, Brazil, and Chile. Predictably, Panetta talked about fighting against drug cartels and slammed Venezuela at media briefings, citing, in particular, the U.S. concerns over its rearmament assisted by Russia and China. Panetta's point - a fairly ridiculous one - was that the policy looked suspicious when pursued by a country facing no external threat. It is completely natural, though, that the U.S. wars for oil prompt the military buildup in Venezuela where the administration realizes that sooner or later the U.S. attack will follow.

More »

Philip Giraldi

U.S. Marines training at an Israeli Army Urban War-
fare Training Center. (The Jewish Policy Center)

Go to Google and type in “H.R. 4133.” You will discover that, apart from a handful of blogs and alternative news sites, not a single mainstream medium has reported the story of a congressional bill that might well have major impact on the conduct of United States foreign policy. H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, was introduced into the House of Representatives of the 112th Congress on March 5 “to express the sense of Congress regarding the United States-Israel strategic relationship, to direct the president to submit to Congress reports on United States actions to enhance this relationship and to assist in the defense of Israel, and for other purposes.” The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) reportedly helped draft the bill, and its co-sponsors include Republicans Eric Cantor and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Democrats Howard Berman and Steny Hoyer. Hoyer is the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives, where Cantor is majority leader. Ros-Lehtinen heads the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The House bill basically provides Israel with a blank check drawn on the U.S. taxpayer to maintain its “qualitative military edge” over all of its neighbors combined. It requires the White House to prepare an annual report on how that superiority is being maintained. The resolution passed on May 9 by a vote of 411–2 on a “suspension of the rules,” which is intended for non-controversial legislation requiring little debate and a quick vote.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Israel's long known open secret is its formidable nuclear arsenal. Less is known about its chemical and biological weapons (CBW) capability. More on that below.

In 1986, Dimona nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu revealed documents showing what many long suspected. Israel had been secretly developing, producing and stockpiling nuclear weapons for years.

Experts called his information genuine. They revealed sophisticated technology able to amass a formidable nuclear arsenal. Today it's more potent than ever.

In his 1991 book titled "The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and America Foreign Policy," Seymour Hersh discussed its strategy to launch massive nuclear counterattacks in response to serious enough threats.

In his 1997 book titled "Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies," Israel Shahak said Israel won't hesitate using nuclear or other weapons to advance its "hegemony over the entire Middle East."

In 2006, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Germany's Sat. 1 channel:

"Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?"

Later he denied what viewers clearly heard him say. Calls for him to step down followed. So did accusations of ineptitude for acknowledging Israeli nuclear weapons publicly.

More »

Kourosh Ziabari

Just a few days ago, Google removed the name of 'Persian Gulf' from its online maps and Google Earth plans. This action is considered to be a politically motivated plot directed by the CIA to undermine and demoralize Iranian people and weaken their position in the international community. Unquestionably, it's unlawful to distort or change geographical names for political purposes.

To Iranians, 'Persian Gulf' is not simply a name referring to a geographical region on the world map. To Iranians, the name of 'Persian Gulf' is interwoven with a sense of national dignity and honor which makes them a united and powerful troupe against the relentless attacks of the enemy. The name of 'Persian Gulf' resembles a feeling of pride and decorum for them which cannot be replaced by any other gift or reward. It reminds them of the impressive days when the flag of ancient Persian Empire honorably fluttered and waved in the sky and there was no other competitor to supersede this mighty empire.

Of course Iranians' attachment to 'Persian Gulf' and the cultural heritage which it carries does not emanate from blind nationalistic sentiments. Iranians know well that today, they are the representative of a greater, broader union that is the Islamic Ummah. They know that it's with the blessing of Islam that they can still take pride on being an unrivaled superpower in such a tumultuous and restless region as the Middle East. However, Iranians are extremely sensitive about those vicious, brutal powers who intend to undermine their national honor and solidarity by encroaching on their national heritage, including the [name of] 'Persian Gulf'.

More »