France spends over 17 billion annually to maintain overseas territories

France spends over 17 billion annually to maintain its vampires

27.02.2012 11:26

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Shortly before the presidential elections in France the situation in one of its overseas territories, the island of Reunion, has deteriorated. Interestingly, the standard of living on the island is greatly inferior to the French. The same pattern is observed in other overseas territories - Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French Guiana.

The current events in Reunion look very much like the pogroms that now and then occur in the immigrant neighborhoods of Paris, Marseille, Lyon and other cities. The reason for the unrest is normally the actions of law enforcement against young Arabs, blacks, people from Indian or Gypsy origin. The same was true for the distant overseas territories.

On February 23 the court of the administrative center of Saint-Denis, Reunion, sentenced several young people. In response, a group of young people took to the streets and clashed with the police. They set cars and garbage containers on fire. In one case, a Molotov cocktail landed on a policeman's head. In response, law enforcement officers were forced to use tear gas and water cannons. French military units were sent to the island.

While the suburbs of Paris are the disadvantaged centers (albeit large) in a relatively stable French Sea, Reunion, located in the western Indian Ocean, is a zone of prevailing depression. The same situation is observed in the American possessions of France - Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French Guiana.

The bulk of the population of these territories is descendants of African slaves exported there. Nearly a quarter of the population of Reunion came from India. The distance between these islands and the mother country is thousands miles. Nevertheless, their inhabitants are full-fledged citizens of the Fifth Republic, electing deputies to the National Assembly and senators to the Senate. They can easily enter France and do not need visas. They have self-governments, but the senior officials on the islands are prefects appointed from Paris.

The level of GDP per capita before the crisis in Reunion was $6,800 dollars, and in France - over $42,000. According to the statistics of the European Commission, Reunion, Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana are among the poorest regions in the EU along with Bulgaria, Romania and eastern regions of Poland and the Baltic countries. The income level of residents of the overseas departments is nearly twice as low as the EU average.

What is the main source of income in these areas? Reunion grows sugar cane and exports sugar, rum, vanilla, bananas and pineapple.

Approximately the same situation is in Guadeloupe and Martinique. French Guiana has a larger area with mineral deposits. All these areas are located near the equator and are beautiful resort areas. Yet, sugar, bananas, and the beaches will not get them far. Major industries are not even in sight.

Despite the crisis, France transfers into its overseas regions many billions of euros in the form of grants (as of 2010 - 17.2 billion). Approximately 40 percent of the residents living on distant islands are given allowances, compared with 10 percent unemployment in France. Every year, thousands of them move for permanent residence to the metropolis, where they often join the ranks of the unemployed residents of Parisian and other suburbs.

The French ownership of the distant islands is the legacy of the colonial period. Reunion has been controlled by Paris for nearly 300 years. All these islands have movements for independence. But today the residents of the overseas regions do not dream of it. Two years ago French Guiana and Martinique held referendums on independence, and the vast majority preferred to remain under the authority of the former colonizers.

The inhabitants of the overseas regions are relatively well settled. But why France, even in times of crisis, does not cease to allocate many billions of euros to finance the distant poor areas? Sergei Fedorov, a leading researcher at the Institute of Europe RAS shared his thoughts in an interview with "Pravda.Ru".

"Possession of overseas territories and islands scattered around the world and across continents is an essential attribute of a great power, the embodiment of imperial power for France. If we look at the numerous islands in the surrounding marine areas (200-mile zones), we will see that the number of possessions of France is second only to the United States.

France takes full advantage of the geographical location of its overseas territories. The islands host powerful naval bases to monitor the entire world ocean. Guiana is home to space center "Kuru." France has no intentions to renounce its influence and bases and, therefore, is willing to pay all expenses.

The overseas residents are quite satisfied with the current state of affairs. While there are nationalism and independence movements, the majority of people do not want to be separated from the mother country. They are full French citizens, many attached to French culture. The advantages of staying in the metropolis for them are much greater than the disadvantages.

Of course, the overseas territories have their economic issues. The standard of living there is lower than in the metropolis, but it happens in every country. Popular unrest happens once in a while. In general, the French state is coping with its overseas territories quite well and keeps the situation there under control. The French are trying to solve the existing issues."

Vadim Trukhachev

Conspiracy against Syria

03.03.2012 05:48

Syria and "Conspiracy Theories"

Official: It is a Conspiracy

by Felicity Arbuthnot

"We have met the enemy and he is us." (Walt Kelly, 1913-1973.)

It was political analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, in November 2006, who wrote in detail(i) of US plans for the Middle East:

"The term 'New Middle East', was introduced to the world in June 2006, in Tel Aviv, by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the "Greater Middle East" he wrote.

Sanity dictated that this would be a U.S. fantasy rampage too far and vast - until realization hit that the author of the map of this New World, planned in the new world's "New World Order," was Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, who, in one of the most terrifying articles ever published, wrote in 1997:

"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines ...The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."(ii) (My emphasis.)

At the time, Peters was assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where he was responsible "for future warfare." His plans for Iraq worked out just fine - unless you are an Iraqi.

A month after Nazemroaya's article was published, William Roebuck, Director for the Office of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, was composing an end of year strategy for Syria(iii) from his study in the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, where he had been based between 2004-2007, rising to Deputy Chief of Mission.

The subject title was "Influencing the SARG (Syrian Arab Regime Government) in the end of 2006."

"The SARG ends 2006 in a much stronger position domestically and internationally (than in) 2005." Talking of President Assad's "growing self-confidence," he felt that this might lead to "mistakes and ill-judged ... decisions ... providing us with new opportunities." Whilst "additional bilateral or multilateral pressure can impact on Syria," clearly he had even more ambitious plans:

"This cable summarizes our assessment of ... vulnerabilities, and suggests that there may be actions, statements and signals, that the USG (US Government) can send that will improve the liklihood of such opportunities arising."

The proposals would need to be, "fleshed out and converted in to real actions and we need to be ready to move quickly to take advantage of such opportunities." (no, not le Carre, Forsyth, or Fleming, "diplomat" in Damascus.)

"As the end of 2006 approaches," wrote Roebuck, "Bashar appears ... stronger than he has done in two years. The country is economically stable ...regional issues seem to be going Syria's way."

However, "vulnerabilities and looming issues may provide opportunities to up the pressure on Bashar ... some of these vulnerabilities (including the complexities with Lebanon) can be exploited to put pressure on the regime. Actions that cause Bashar to lose balance, and increase his insecurity, are in our interest."

The President's " mistakes are hard to predict and benefits may vary, if we are prepared to move quickly and take advantage of opportunities ..."

A "vulnerability," wrote Roebuck, was Bashir al Assad's protection of, "Syria's dignity and international reputation." Pride and "protection," clearly a shocking concept.

In the light of the proposed tribunal into the assassination of Lebanon's former'Prime Minister, Rafic Hariri (14th February 2005) who was killed with his friend, former Minister of the Economy, Bassel Fleihan, and twenty colleagues and bodyguards, with a huge bomb, detonated under his motorcade, this "vulnerability" could be exploited.

Unproven allegations have pointed the finger at Israel, Syria, Hezbollah and a myriad others, as behind another Middle East tragedy, but Roebuck regarded it as an: "opportunity to exploit this raw nerve, without waiting for the formation of the Tribunal."

Another idea outlined under a further "vulnerability" heading, was the growing alliance between Syria and Iran. "Possible action" was to "play on Sunni fears of Iranian influence." Although these were "often exaggerated," they were there to be exploited:

"Both the local Egyptian and Saudi missions here ... are giving increasing attention to the matter and we should co-ordinate more closely with their governments on ways to better publicize and focus regional attention to the issue." Concerned Sunni religious leaders should also be worked on. Iraq-style divide and rule model, writ large.

The "divide" strategy, of course, should also focus on the first family and legislating circle, with " targeted sanctions (which) must exploit fissures and render the inner circle weaker, rather the drive its members closer together."

The public should also be subject to "continual reminders of corruption ... we should look for ways to remind ..." Another aspect to be exploited was "The Khaddam factor."

Abdul Halim Khaddam, was Vice President,1984-2005, and acting President in 2000, during the months beween Bashir al Assad's accession and his father's death. Thought to have Presidential ambitions himself, there was a bitter split between Khaddam and al Assad after Hariri's death. Allegations of treasonous betrayal by Khaddam have validity.

The ruling party, writes Roebuck, "...follow every news item involving Khaddam, with tremendous emotional interest. We should continue to encourage the Saudis and others to allow Khaddam access to their media ... providing him with venues for airing the SARG's dirty laundry."

As a result, anticipated was "an over reaction by the regime that will add to its isolation and alienation from its Arab neighbours."

On January 14, 2006, Khaddam had formed a government in exile, and had predicted the end of the al-Assad government by the year's end. He is currently regarded as an opposition leader, and has claimed, on Israel's Channel 2 TV.(iv) receiving moneys to help overthrow the Syrian government, from the U.S. and E.U.

The ever creative Mr Roebuck's further plans included: "Encouraging rumours and signals of external plotting." To this end, "Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to meet with figures like Kaddam and Rifat (sic) al Assad, with appropriate leaking of the meetings afterwards. This ... increases the possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction."

Rifaat al Assad, Bashir's uncle, was in charge of the Defence Brigade, and killed up to thirty thousand people in, and flattened much of, the city of Hama, in February 1982. So much for endlessly trumpeted concerns for "human rights violations." Rifaat al Assad lives in exile and safety in London. Khaddam lives in Paris.(v)

Here is a serious cause for concern for the overthrow-bent: "Bashar keeps unveiling a steady stream of initiatives on reform and it is certainly possible he believes this is his legacy to Syria .... These steps have brought back Syrian expats to invest ... (and) increasing openness."

Solution? "Finding ways to publicly call in to question Bashar's reform efforts." Indeed, moving heaven and earth to undercut them, is made clear.

Further: "Syria has enjoyed a considerable up-tick in foreign direct investment," thus: foreign investment is to be "discouraged."

In May of 2006, complains Roebuck, Syrian Military Intelligence protested "what they believed were U.S. efforts to provide military training and equipment to Syria's Kurds." The Iraq model, yet again.

The answer was to: "Highlight Kurdish complaints." This, however: "would need to be handled carefully, since giving the wrong kind of prominence to Kurdish issues in Syria, could be a liability for our efforts ... given Syrian ... civil society's skepticism of Kurdish objectives."

In "Conclusion", this shaming, shoddy document states: "The bottom line is that Bashar is entering the New Year in a stronger position than he has been, in several years", meaning "vulnerabilities" must be sought out. "If we are ready to capitalize, they will offer us opportunities to disrupt his decision-making, keep him off balance - and make him pay a premium for his mistakes."

The cable is copied to: The White House, U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Treasury, U.S. Mission at the UN, U.S. National Security Council, CENTCOM, all Arab League and EU countries.

The only other U.S. Embassy copied in, is that in Tel Aviv. When William Roebuck worked at the Embassy in Tel Aviv (2000-2003) embracing the invasion of Iraq year, he "narrowly missed assassination." Perhaps someone there, too, thought he was hard to warm to.

In 2009, he was Deputy Political Consul In Baghdad, "leading efforts to support the critical 2009 Iraqi elections." The "free and fair, democratic" ones, where people were threatened with the deaths of their children even, if they did not vote the "right" way.

The result was Nuri al Maliki's premiership, complete with his murderous militias. The man under whose Ministry of the Interior, U.S. soldiers discovered tortured, starving prisoners.

The Damascus cable comes courtesy Wikileaks. Lt. Colonel Peters called, on Fox News, for founder, Julian Assange, to be assassinated. The forty second clip(vi) is worth the listen.

The Colonel also writes fiction and thrillers under the name Owen Patterson. Perhaps he is living the dream.

i. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3882

ii. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3011.htm

iii. http://wikileaks.cabledrum.net/cable/2006/12/06DAMASCUS5399.html

iv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COqBQYcrd9Q

v. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29501

vi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS5h59iZg3o

JEWS IN EUROPE, TODAY

European Jews get itchy feet

22.02.2012 10:43

In recent years, the media are writing increasingly more about the deteriorating situation of the Jewish communities in Western Europe. Current concerns about the increasing anti-Semitism in various forms have led to an increase of relocation intents among European Jews.

However, many politicians and public figures continue to express their determination to defend the economic, cultural and religious interests of the diaspora. Another question is whether it will be possible to preserve the influence of former Jewish communities in modern Europe. 

The largest Jewish community in Western Europe resides in France (483,000 people). Paris alone has dozens of synagogues, kosher restaurants and a number of cultural organizations of the adherents of Judaism. However, it has not always been the case. Only 30-40 years ago one could hardly find a single restaurant with Jewish cuisine in France. Today Paris is home to approximately 350,000 Jews, Marseille - 70,000, Lyon - 25,000, Strasbourg - 16,000, Toulouse - 23,000, and Nice - 20,000.

The community organization is a well-developed structure that began to form in the era of Napoleon Bonaparte. The interests of the Jews are represented by Consistory - religious institutions, as well as a number of public organizations and foundations. The largest of them is the United Jewish Community Foundation.

In France over the past half century the community suffered a series of shocks associated with bursts of anti-Semitism, caused both by the events in the Middle East and internal factors. Many analysts link the growth of hostility towards Jews in the 1940-50s with the name of Charles de Gaulle who carried out the anti-Israeli policy.

The beginning of the 21st century was marked by a new surge of hostility towards Jews, which, in turn, was associated with the beginning of the first Palestinian Intifada in 2000. President Jacques Chirac has provided full support to Arab countries, and relations with Israel have deteriorated sharply.

The coming to power of Nicolas Sarkozy marked a change for the better for the French Jews. The current President does not hide his Jewish roots. Even as Interior Minister, Sarkozy firmly suppressed all manifestations of anti-Semitism.

However, the problem today is quite acute in France, and the police are not able to solve it. Two years ago the ranking of the countries with the highest expression of anti-Semitism was topped by Iran and France.

Over 500,000 Jews resided in Germany before the Second World War. Now approximately 200,000 of them live in the country. At some point, the state allocated significant funds for the repatriation of the Jews associated with the full recognition of German guilt for the crimes committed by the Nazis. German citizenship and social welfare payments were guaranteed by the government. Now it is somewhat more complicated than before to obtain a Jewish visa, and the funding for various programs of assistance to returnees was reduced.

The economic situation of the community has certainly worsened. Even more concerning for the followers of the Jewish tradition is the loss of historical and cultural heritage of the Jews in Germany. Many of them moved here from Russia and former Soviet republics soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Prior to 1989, there were about 30,000 Jews in Germany. Later another 200 thousand immigrants from the CIS countries moved here.

"Jewish families would often find themselves in the cities with no Jewish community. Therefore, there is a real danger that in 15-20 years the majority of Russian-speaking Jews who do not have strong ties to their national culture, and even more so the State of Israel, will be fully assimilated. Israeli government has no right to come to terms with the prospect of losing tens of thousands of fellow Jewish people," Alef David Schechter wrote with dismay in a magazine.

If in the 1990s an average of 25,000 people would come here every year, in the beginning of the 21st century the number of immigrants has declined. For example, in 2000 over 17 thousand people came to Germany, in 2001 - 16,000, in 2002 - 15,000, and in 2003 - under 13 thousand.

It should be noted that the "Russian" Jews do not always find common language with the local Jewish community. Religious traditions have been lost for 70 years of residence in the USSR. The traditionalists perceive immigrants from the Soviet Union more as Russians rather than Jews.

One of the largest Jewish communities is concentrated in the UK where 250,000 Jews reside. In England the adherents of Judaism are especially careful about the history and traditions of their people. This was described in a note of Simon Dovzhik - an Israeli immigrant who later moved to London.

Most of the Jews of the United Kingdom are the descendants of Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire who came to the island at the beginning of the 20th century. British Jews, unlike the Israelis, are well aware of their own family trees and recall their ancestors with pride, surprisingly correctly pronouncing discordant for the English-speaking people names of the villages where their grandparents were born.

Just as in Germany and France, there is strong community infrastructure. In addition, thanks to the European Parliament the Jewish community officially defends its political and economic interests before the government.

Large Jewish communities are found in Spain - 40,000 people, Belgium - over 30,000, Italy - 28,000, and Netherlands - 30,000. Luxembourg is home to one of the smaller communities - approximately 600 people. Nevertheless, the Jews there retained their right to defend their interests through the Consistory - the official organization recognized by the Constitution.

Thanks to the European Jewish Congress Jews from 42 countries were able to cooperate with the UN, EU and OSCE at the highest level. More recently, at the initiative of Ukrainian businessmen Vadim Rabinovich and Igor Kolomoisky, a new organization has been created - the European Jewish Parliament.

This event caused significant controversy. To begin with, the creation of this body caused a great irritation on the part of nationalists and anti-Semites of all stripes who are dissatisfied with any attempt to gain influence in the political life of the Jews of Europe. However, the reaction of many in the diaspora to the creation of the parliament also proved controversial.

Despite some attempts to strengthen the position of the Jewish Diaspora in Europe, the current situation of Jews in countries such as France, Belgium and Holland remains shaky. Fear and insecurity are caused by the growth of anti-Semitism and Islamic fundamentalism.

For example, in France, a young Parisian Jew Ilan Halimi was kidnapped and brutally murdered in February of 2006. Then the French police admitted that the criminals had relationship with the Muslim environment. Increasingly, there are anti-Semitic incidents in Belgium and Holland where Jews have preferred not to appear on the streets wearing national attire.

Today, Jews in Western Europe are not so afraid of the right of anti-Semitism that does not manifest into the open terrorism. Another thing is the radical Islamists. The latter are incited by the threats of Islamists against European and American Jews from the Middle East. They are threatened by the retribution for the deaths of Palestinians in the Arab-Israeli wars.

The position of European Jews is largely precarious and their desire to relocate is understandable.

Yuri Sosinsky-Semikhat

Hate All Non-Jews, Skvere Rabbis Say

March 4, 2012

Failed Messiah – November 28, 2011

A recently published book written by a Skvere hasidic rabbi and endorsed by the Skvere Rebbe himself tells Skvere hasidim and other Jews to hate all gentiles. Gentiles are wholly evil, the book says. They spiritually pollute the world, and even looking at their faces is harmful.

The book is called Yalkut Shaiylos u’Teshuvos. As the title indicates, it is a collection of questions and answers on halakhic topics. The questions were asked by young Skvere yeshiva students in New Square, New York. The answers are rabbinic.

The section translated below is titled, “Goyyim” and it explains the Skvere hasidic view of non-Jews, citing among other sources, the Skvere Rebbe himself.

The anti-gentile hatred is based on rabbinic sources. Those sources are heavily influenced by kabbalah and by hasidic thought.

A similar attitude toward non-Jews can be found in the Tanya, the so-called bible of Chabad hasidic thought written by the first rebbe of Chabad, Schneur Zalman of Liadi, and reprinted thousands of times by Chabad worldwide.

The translation was made by the noted filmmaker Menachem Daum, who sent it to me along with the scans of the book posted below and requested that I post it.

All remarks in square brackets [  ] are Daum’s. All remarks in these brackets {  } are mine. All text within normal parenthesis (  ) are the book’s author’s.

Question:  Is it appropriate to not love, or to hate, a gentile?

Answer:  A Jew is intrinsically good.  A Jew is a part of God above.  Even if at times he strays it is not because he has become evil.  It is only that there is evil within him that he has to cleanse.

However, to separate with a million degrees of separation, a gentile is an impure thing.  The entire essence of the gentile is evil and impure.  Even if he occasionally does good deeds he does not thereby become good.  As the Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim] says regarding gentiles, even such a one who is very careful in his actions does not obtain any degree of holiness thereby.

As is also well known, even educated gentiles who guarded themselves because of their clear understanding of what is right, nonetheless failed when they were tested, because a gentile has no power for goodness within him.

On the contrary, the evil thoughts of gentiles contaminate the world’s atmosphere and create ordeals for Jewish children. As the Remnant for Pinchos {i.e., the author of the book Sheairit L’Pinchas} says, the thoughts of gentiles, even when they are dead, still linger in and contaminate the atmosphere.

He says that to be protected from this there is only one solution; to completely despise the thoughts of gentiles and to realize that all their thoughts are only evil. (Hate doesn’t mean wanting to do something to a gentile, but it means not being able to tolerate him, not being able to stand him, because of his great impurity, especially when one realizes how harmful this {impurity} is {to Jews and to the world}.) Understandably, loving a gentile is the exact opposite of this.

The Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim} says that for a person to be totally protected from evil he must hate the thing that has caused him to sin. This is why God commanded to uproot the trees of Midian. Since the Midianites caused the Jews to sin with the Peor idol, so therefore Jews must hate everything connected to Midian. Consequently, gentiles, whose thoughts bring upon us ordeals, may be hated.

So also the Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim} writes, in the portion of Vayigash {in his book entitled Oh HaHayyim}, that the nature of the righteous ones is to hate gentiles.

Speaking of gentiles it is worth mentioning two points. First, with respect to conversing with a gentile: a gentile is impure, as we have mentioned, and he defiles one who speaks to him and this brings evil upon a person. (Except when one is forced to do so because then, as is explained by the Enlightener of the Eyes {i.e., the author of the book Me’or Eynayim}, we thereby extract the little bit of good which has fallen into the gentile, since everything in the world is a mixture of evil and good.)

Especially if one converses with friendship, because the texts tell us that when two people speak with affection then a portion of each one’s soul becomes connected to the other and no one wants to become connected to a gentile, God forbid.  (Understandably, when one must converse one must do so like a human being.  However, in his heart one should not love him.  And it is worth knowing that “it is a well-known law that Esau [the gentile] hates Jacob [the Jew].” The gentile hates you.  It is only because of his ulterior motives that he is talking in a friendly manner, because it is in his best interests to do so at this moment, because of his job or for tens of others reasons. Even the righteous gentiles among the nations are often so because they hate inhumanity and murder but not because they love Jews.)

The second point is; one is not to concentrate on the face of a gentile. As the Willows of the Valley {the author of the book Arvei Nahal} writes on the Talmudic passage, “it is forbidden to look upon the face of an evildoer”, because the other side [the devil] {the sitra achra} cloaks himself in the guise of an evildoer and it is a danger to look at him. This passage refers to a Jew who has, God forbid, become an evildoer. Certainly, beyond any doubt, a gentile whose whole nature is essentially evil, looking at his appearance is defiling.

In the Abbreviated Set Table {Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh} it states that if one sees beautiful creatures, even a gentile, one makes a blessing. The Abbreviated Set Table {Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh}adds this is only if one caught a casual glimpse, however concentrating on a gentile is forbidden.

Once, in middle of the night, The Perfumed Bed {the author of the book Arugot Haboshem} sent a messenger to his son, the Jacob Speaks {i.e., the author of the book Vayagid Yaakov}, requesting he should immediately come over. He quickly came running and the Perfumed Bed {the author of the book Arugot Haboshem} looked upon him and told him he can now leave. He only called upon him since a gentile doctor was there earlier and he didn’t want that the last thing he sees before he sleeps to be a gentile, so he called him only to take a look at him.

Our Honorable Holy Teacher, Our Master, Our Guide, Our Rebbe [of Skver], may he live a long and good life, repeated in the name of the Maharal that gentiles are referred to as “wicked waters” while Jews are akin to fire. Naturally, when fire and water mix the water extinguishes the fire. However, when there is an iron barrier between them, for example, water in a pot, then on the contrary, the fire cooks and evaporates the water.  Similarly, if one has connections to a gentile the gentile can, God forbid, extinguish the fire in the soul. However, if one is separated in all matters then the Jewish soul will triumph.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir : 'Jews Rule World by Proxy'

Malaysian Leader: 'Jews Rule World by Proxy'

Published October 16, 2003

Associated Press

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday told a summit of Islamic leaders that "Jews rule the world by proxy" and the world's 1.3 billion Muslims should unite, using non-violent means for a "final victory.

His speech at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit, which he was hosting, drew criticism from Jewish leaders, who warned it could spark more violence against Jews.

Mahathir, who is known for his outspoken, anti-Western rhetoric, criticized what he described as Jewish domination of the world and Muslim nations' inability to adequately respond to it as he opened the meeting of Islamic leaders from 57 nations.

"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," Mahathir said. "They get others to fight and die for them."

Malaysia, a democratic nation which has a large non-Muslim population and does not enforce strict Islamic law, has long been a critic of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and of U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the war in Iraq and its strong backing of the Jewish state.

Mahathir, 77, who is retiring on Oct. 31, has used almost every international podium to lambaste the West for two decades, winning a reputation as an outspoken champion of Third World causes.

"For well over half a century we have fought over Palestine. What have we achieved? Nothing. We are worse off than before," he said. "If we had paused to think, then we could have devised a plan, a strategy that can win us final victory."

The prime minister, who has turned his country into the world's 17th-ranked trading nation during his 22 years in power, said Jews "invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy" to avoid persecution and gain control of the most powerful countries.

Mahathir added that "1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews," but he suggested using political and economic tactics instead of violence.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Jonathan Peled expressed disappointment in the remarks but said he wasn't surprised.

"It is not new that in such forums there is always an attempt to reach of the lowest common denominator which is Israel bashing," he said in Jerusalem. "But obviously we'd like to see more moderate and responsible kind of declarations coming out of such summits."

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said Mahathir has used anti-Israel statements in the past to prove he's tough on the West. But, he said, Thursday's speech was still worrisome.

"What is profoundly shocking and worrying is the venue of the speech, the audience and coming in the time we're living in," Cooper said during a visit to Jerusalem. "Mahathir's speech today is an absolute invitation for more hate crimes and terrorism against Jews. That's serious."

U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia Marie Huhtala declined to comment on Mahathir's speech. Washington was angered over a speech he made in February, as host of the Non-Aligned Movement of 117 countries, in which he described the looming war against Iraq as racist.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he supported Mahathir's analysis, which also included steps for how Muslim nations can develop economically and socially.

"It is great to hear Prime Minister Mahathir speak so eloquently on the problems of the ummah (Muslim world) and ways to remedy them," Karzai said. "His speech was an eye-opener to a lot of us and that is what the Islamic world should do."

The summit is the first since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks reshaped global politics and comes at a time when many Muslims -- even U.S. allies -- feel the war on terrorism has become a war against them.

"It is well known that the Islamic community is being targeted today more than at any other time before in its creed, culture and social and political orientation," said Qatar's ruler, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, who hosted the U.S. headquarters in the Iraq war.

The status of Iraq also proved a divisive issue. Malaysia resisted inviting the U.S.-picked Iraqi Governing Council, describing it as a puppet of American occupation. But Arab countries that have recognized the interim body prevailed and council representatives were attending the summit.

Leaders attending the summit included Jordan's King Abullah, Syrian President Bashar Assad, Morocco's King Mohammed VI, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo are attending as special observers because of their large Muslim minorities.

 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100234,00.html#ixzz1o3Wg8Pb7

P. Buchanan -Who Wants War With Iran?

Who Wants War With Iran?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Appearing alongside CIA Director David Petraeus before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said of Iran:
“We don’t believe they’ve actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon.”
Before the hearing, as James Fallows of The Atlantic reports, Clapper released his “Worldwide Threat Assessment.” It read, “We do not know … if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”
Clapper thus reaffirmed the assessment of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, reportedly repeated in 2011, that the U.S. does not believe that Iran has decided to become a nuclear weapons state.
In December, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that if Iran went all out, it might be able to build a nuclear weapon in a year, Pentagon spokesman George Little hastily clarified his comments:
“The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon.”
On Jan. 8, Panetta himself told CBS:
“(Is Iran) trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us. And our redline to Iran is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon.”
On Super Bowl Sunday, President Barack Obama told NBC’s Matt Lauer that he hopes to solve the Iranian problem “diplomatically.”
From the above, we may conclude that the administration does not believe that Iran has crossed any redline on the nuclear issue — and President Obama does not want war with Iran.
Who, then, does want war? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
From their actions, it would appear not. If Iran wanted war with the United States, any terror attack inside this country or on U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan could bring that about in an afternoon.
Expulsion of the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from the Natanz enrichment facility, covering up the IAEA cameras, breaking the seals on the low-enriched uranium stockpiled there, or removing the LEU would be a fire bell for the Pentagon.
But the IAEA inspectors and LEU are still there.
When the alleged plot by a used-car salesman in Texas to hire Mexican cartel criminals to blow up a D.C. restaurant and kill the Saudi ambassador was revealed, Iran denied it emphatically and demanded to interview the alleged mastermind.
Moreover, Tehran has yet to retaliate for the assassinations of five of its nuclear scientists and four terror attacks by Jundallah in Sistan-Baluchistan and PJAK, a Kurdish terrorist organization operating out of Iraqi Kurdistan. Iran has alleged Western and Israeli involvement in these attacks.
Now that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has denied any U.S. involvement, Mossad is the prime suspect behind the killing of the nuclear scientists. And U.S. writer Mark Perry, in Foreign Policy, alleges that Mossad agents posed as CIA and used U.S. dollars in London to recruit Jundallah.
If this is true, this would be a false flag operation to provoke Iran into lashing out at America. Apparently, Iran did not take the bait.
Why have the Iranians not followed through on their threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and begun to dial it back?
War with the United States would be a disaster. Though the Tehran regime might survive — as Saddam Hussein’s survived Desert Storm — Iran’s navy, most of its armor, anti-aircraft and anti-ship defenses, and its strategic missile force would be destroyed, as would much of the country’s infrastructure. Iran would be set back years.
Who, then, wants war with Iran?
All those who would like to see exactly that happen to Iran.
And who are they? The Netanyahu government and its echo chamber in U.S. politics and media, the neoconservatives, members of Congress, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
And as the Obama administration is the major force in U.S. politics opposed to war with Iran, its defeat in November would increase, to near certitude, the probability of a U.S. war with Iran in 2013.
Yet if the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community are correct — Iran does not have a bomb and has not decided to build a bomb — why should we go to war with Iran?
Answer: Iran represents “an existential threat” to Israel.
But Israel has 200 atomic bombs and three ways to deliver them, while Iran has never built, tested or weaponized a nuclear device. Who is the existential threat to whom here?
And though a U.S. war on Iran would be calamitous for Iran, it would be no cakewalk for Americans, who could become terrorist targets for years in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Baghdad’s Green Zone, Lebanon and even here in the USA.
Year 2012 is thus shaping up as a war-or-peace election, with Republicans the war party and Democrats the peace-and-diplomacy party.
And as the months pass between now and November, this will become clear to the nation.

IMPORTANT - P. Buchanan - The New Blacklist

The New Blacklist

By Patrick J. Buchanan

My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.

After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after an incessant clamor from the left that to permit me continued access to the microphones of MSNBC would be an outrage against decency, and dangerous.

The calls for my firing began almost immediately with the Oct. 18 publication of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

A group called Color of Change, whose mission statement says that it “exists to strengthen Black America’s political voice,” claimed that my book espouses a “white supremacist ideology.” Color of Change took particular umbrage at the title of Chapter 4, “The End of White America.”

Media Matters parroted the party line: He has blasphemed!

A Human Rights Campaign that bills itself as America’s leading voice for lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transgendered people said that Buchanan’s “extremist ideas are incredibly harmful to millions of LBGT people around the world.”

Their rage was triggered by a remark to NPR’s Diane Rehm — that I believe homosexual acts to be “unnatural and immoral.”

On Nov. 2, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who has sought to have me censored for 22 years, piled on.

“Buchanan has shown himself, time and again, to be a racist and an anti-Semite,” said Foxman. Buchanan “bemoans the destruction of white Christian America” and says America’s shrinking Jewish population is due to the “collective decision of Jews themselves.”

Well, yes, I do bemoan what Newsweek’s 2009 cover called “The Decline and Fall of Christian America” and editor Jon Meacham described as “The End of Christian America.” After all, I am a Christian.

And what else explains the shrinkage of the U.S. Jewish population by 6 percent in the 1990s and its projected decline by another 50 percent by 2050, if not the “collective decision of Jews themselves”?

Let error be tolerated, said Thomas Jefferson, “so long as reason is left free to combat it.” What Foxman and ADL are about in demanding that my voice be silenced is, in the Jeffersonian sense, intrinsically un-American.

Consider what it is these people are saying.

They are saying that a respected publisher, St. Martin’s, colluded with me to produce a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic book, and CNN, Fox News, C-SPAN, Fox Business News and the 150 radio shows on which I appeared failed to detect its evil and helped to promote a moral atrocity.

If my book is racist and anti-Semitic, how did Sean Hannity, Erin Burnett, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs and Ralph Nader miss that? How did Charles Payne, African-American host on Fox radio, who has interviewed me three times, fail to detect its racism?

How did Michael Medved miss its anti-Semitism?

In a 2009 cover story in the Atlantic, “The End of White America?” from which my chapter title was taken, professor Hua Hsu revels in the passing of America’s white majority. At Portland State, President Clinton got a huge ovation when he told students that white Americans will be a minority in 2050.

Is this writer alone forbidden to broach the subject?

That homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral has been doctrine in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.

Is it now hate speech to restate traditional Catholic beliefs?

Documented in the 488 pages and 1,500 footnotes of “Suicide of a Superpower” is my thesis that America is Balkanizing, breaking down along the lines of religion, race, ethnicity, culture and ideology, and that Western peoples are facing demographic death by century’s end.

Are such subjects taboo? Are they unfit for national debate?

So it would seem. MSNBC President Phil Griffin told reporters, “I don’t think the ideas that (Buchanan) put forth (in his book) are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC.”

In the 10 years I have been at MSNBC, the network has taken heat for what I have written, and faithfully honored our contract.

Yet my four-months’ absence from MSNBC and now my departure represent an undeniable victory for the blacklisters.

The modus operandi of these thought police at Color of Change and ADL is to brand as racists and anti-Semites any writer who dares to venture outside the narrow corral in which they seek to confine debate.

All the while prattling about their love of dissent and devotion to the First Amendment, they seek systematically to silence and censor dissent.

Without a hearing, they smear and stigmatize as racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic any who contradict what George Orwell once called their “smelly little orthodoxies.” They then demand that the heretic recant, grovel, apologize, and pledge to go forth and sin no more.

Defy them, and they will go after the network where you work, the newspapers that carry your column, the conventions that invite you to speak. If all else fails, they go after the advertisers.

I know these blacklisters. They operate behind closed doors, with phone calls, mailed threats and off-the-record meetings. They work in the dark because, as Al Smith said, nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.