Thursday, October 7, 2010

Extreme Munger: Buffett's VP Voices the Creed of Capitalist Cronies

 

Warren Buffet's partner Charles Munger recently told
students people need to "suck it in and cope" with
regard to difficult economic times.

 Bloomberg News and other media outlets recently reported that Charles Munger, Vice Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, better known as the company headed by Warren Buffett, told students that people suffering with economic distress as a result of deteriorating conditions in America should “suck it in and cope," and that “You should thank God” for bank bailouts because they "were required to save your civilization." Munger made these bold claims in a discussion at the University of Michigan on Sept. 14.

He justified his position by commenting on his allegedly "capitalist" philosophy by claiming, “Now, if you talk about bailouts for everybody else, there comes a place where if you just start bailing out all the individuals instead of telling them to adapt, the culture dies." The culture he is talking about is the culture of competition and free markets, the culture of capitalism, a culture that since the end of the 15th century has meant wealth and prosperity for Western nations at the expense of the people it conquers across the rest of the world. This is the civilization that almost ended during the economic crisis two years ago. It is this "culture" that is also the number one enemy of humanity today and Munger's subconscious ignorance or deliberate support for this reality alongside his subsequent justification for today's imperialism is representative of the root problem plaguing the world today. His argument is akin to the general argument espoused by a very real ‘global elite.’ In actuality, we should not be trying to save the "civilization" Munger cites whatsoever, but should instead be working to replace it altogether.

Charles Munger's thinking is a quite common representation of the true sickness of the exceptionalist, American mindset. He, like many other wealthy Americans, lives at a material level incomparable for most and he, like most Americans, attributes this quality of life to some superior culture or civilization deemed 'the American way'. Like other imperialist powers before them however, the American mindset fails to connect this worldly success to the rape and plunder of others all over the world. Here Munger reveals a severe lack of compassion for the poor, suffering due not to their lack of effort s much as to the speculation of banks and an elite. Munger justifies government intervention for the sake of civilization, as if bailouts for the rich are philanthropic, but the poor and impoverished must be left to the survival of the fittest, free market, Social Darwinist doctrine of so-called capitalism. The true tragedy is that the culture that prevails in America props him up as a genius despite the fact that this philosophy of life and business is fascist and little different than the core beliefs of Adolf Hilter, Mussolini, Augusto Pinochet, and unfortunately any other individual with an MBA or working on Wall Street.

It would be wrong to imagine that the American people are upset by this. It would also be wrong to imagine that most of them are even conscious that he said it; the statements were only covered in the business press. However, it is important to mention that this is a narrative that will only increase as bailouts prove to do nothing for the poor and oppressed and start to return the financial speculators to the limelight as an American public wonders what direction their world will turn.

Don’t expect much as a reaction however; it should be apparent to all by now that American people actually like insults like this from their rich, the eroding middle class in America enjoys being reminded time and time again that the reason they are superior to other countries, cultures, and civilizations is because of their individual liberties and freedoms the rest of the world does not have. Meanwhile, for at least a generation, their own economic liberties have been stripped away. They are, of course, too ignorant to realize that it is the "free market" ideology they espouse so much that is directly responsible for keeping other citizens of other countries from sharing similar freedoms but that is beside the point.

Where there should be outrage, there is passive acceptance as the rich prepare yet again to blame the poor for their own plight. This message from the "capitalists" to the peasants, like the message from the FBI to "anti-war" activists the same week, as they raided and invaded their houses allegedly due to provision of terrorist support, is a telling tale that the chickens have indeed come home to roost and that the American consumer, so touted as the lifeblood of globalization is about to experience the same sort of austerity member of other nations have also gone through. Whether it was in the World Bank, IMF privatization programs in South East Asia, Africa, Latin America or wherever else, after the bubbles of consumption and credit explode, deficits run to amounts deemed deep enough for concern, and calls for austerity abound, the western world is facing the same cuts that have propelled so many other hopeful citizens effected by financialized neo-imperialism to their knees in years gone by. The only difference is that there was some resistance to the austerity of these eras, and that remnants of that resistance are still evident in those societies today.

Americans, however, with their sadomasochist tendencies seemingly will take it lying down, accepting their fate and blaming themselves. The only real movement against the norm, the infamous tea-partiers, are merely representing resistance that ignorantly does the bidding of the elite and as the only organized counter political force in America today completely represent the actual illness associated with this imperialist mindset: the reality that it tends to pervade throughout the entire culture. Perhaps it is justice that those that sat silent through baby boomers and generation X-ers as peasants all over the world assembled their consumer goods and suffered under authoritarian regimes will now have to suffer. However, the unfortunate and depressing reality is that without getting Americans themselves to understand this argument, there will be little chance of changing the domination of this doctrine anywhere in the world.

Americans need taught the reality that there is nothing "capitalist" in Mr. Munger's argument and that the message to other "civilizations" should be clear: the "free market" applies when it is good for the anglophile world of business corporatacracy. In the event the free market fails and the most powerful institutions within it fall as a consequence, well then the theories that Western civilization spouts and proselytizes globally, first via politic and then through force if need be are discarded, even if that means wiping out the domestic population's politicians who claimed to be pro
 tecting the general public when they acted so quickly to bail out the banks and corporations in the first place. This form of contemporary capitalism suggests that it is the citizens that must suck it up and deal with it, and only after the elite have been protected. This completely opposes all fundamental axioms associated with the purpose of governance with nation states and democratic doctrine altogether. Therefore, Americans must be taught that they do not actually live in a democracy in its truest sense and that this is why their claims to foreign policy on behalf of democratization have been a hoax.


While many Americans do understand this reality, they will still fight tooth and nail to defend the notion that they have actually done a lot of good for the world. This can be easily countered, just ask them to explain to you when, where and how. If you are enlightened in any way about the public record of foreign policy that accompanies this merger between the elite and government, their ignorance and false assumptions will be easy to point out, and so the necessity that we war with the elite and change the system altogether should naturally come to the foreground of discussion.


It is fitting that such public insults, that should reveal to Americans just how far they can go to rely on their rich, should come from those associated with the All-American institution of Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffet is known for his cowboy hat wearing and Cadillac driving all-American attitude. He goes to great lengths to maintain the perception that he is just your run of the mill capitalist, an All-American living the dream. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is with near certainty that Mr. Buffett is very much unlike most Americans in real life. Firstly, while 1 in 6 Americans lives in poverty, he is a billionaire. Thus his external portrayal is a contradiction, but it serves the purpose of making him seem like an honest, hard-working businessman. In reality he is a shark, and the comments of his Vice President were certainly preplanned as part of phase two in utilizing the most recent global economic crisis in order to build a world where governments serve the rich and tell the dying poor to stop whining about it.



Here is Buffet with Arnold Swarzenegger and Jacob Rothschild.
Swarzeneggar, a fascist, took over California with the help
of Buffet, the All-American

Buffett is famously known for his quote classifying derivatives as financial weapons of mass destruction. In reality, Berkshire Hathaway is a primary dealer and holder of the financial instruments however. Certainly if he were indeed worried about destruction he would not contribute to the problem. Recently Barney Frank, longtime governmental puppet of the elite within the House Financial Services Committee, bragged that Warren Buffett stated with regard to the recent financial reform legislation that it was so tough on derivatives he would have to get out of the business altogether. Yet, to this date he has done nothing to decrease his holdings. This is akin to George Soros arguing that gold was in a bubble when it was priced at $1,000 an ounce during the time he was arranging to transfer large portions of his wealth into the asset.

Buffett is also famous for his contributing his entire wealth to the Gates Foundation for philanthropic work. He is busy trying to get Chinese billionaires to follow suit as we speak. In reality here, this is a convenient way of not having to pay taxes on inheritance and allowing it to go forth and build the sort of world where you call saying one thing and doing another capitalism, and telling people ravaged by bank fraud and manipulation, faced with the prospects of paying billions back in taxes to bail out the perpetrators to “suck it up and deal with it.” It is philanthropy from a fascist to enforce fascism and is the classic “poker face” manipulation via philanthropy that has marked the imperialist capitalist's method throughout American history. It is this form of public relations throughout most of American history tat has helped to keep the majority populace passive enough to perpetuate the fraud while using philanthropy as a means to obliterate any semblance of free markets altogether, and to rather assist in building and maintaining an oligarchy that has always been a part of American history only recognized when reading the traditional accounts alongside the history of Wall Street, its trusts, corporations, and philanthropic associations.

And so American people must be encouraged to realize these realities and to understand the arguments made by their elite for what they really are. Mitch Shylock, blogger at globaleconomicanalysis sums it up like this:

The one thing we desperately need is a culture change. Instead, we made too big to fail, too bigger to fail. We preserved a culture that benefits billionaires like Munger and greedy CEO's that helped cause this mess. That culture benefits no one else.


Yet Munger wants us to “suck it in and cope” and expect to be happy that he did not get wiped out. You know what? It would have been a damn good thing if the culture died and assholes like Munger got wiped out. Munger just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt Wall Street's culture was not worth saving.

In the end, it is also important that we realize not to take out anger and frustrations on the individuals as much as on their ideas. Sense of privilege and entitlement are sentiments that are prevalent and will remain prevalent in all societies. You treat the sociopaths by isolating them, regulating their behavior, and minimizing the risk that they will blow up the world to the best of your ability. Munger also alluded to a post World War I Germany which was unable to stabilize its financial system in the 1920s, about it, Munger said, “We ended up with Adolf Hitler.” In reality, international financiers then as well used a crisis to create Hitler. Hitler was after all funded completely by the City of London and Wall Street.


The “civilization” that the bailouts helped save has only gotten stronger. Today, less too big to fail banks (TBTF) control an even greater percentage of U.S. deposits. This means even more wealth is concentrated into the hands of a few banking institutions and because financial reform in America failed to separate commercial banking from investment banking, these institutions will continue doing business all over the world and in the process will continue protecting and propping up dictators and despotic regimes from China to Africa. Because reform did nothing to address the root cause of complication, this "culture" of usury driven, speculation and extraction can now be perpetuated on a global scale while poor Americans are told to suck it up and deal with the problem. The World Bank is reporting that growth will come from the developing nations in years ahead, who by 2015 will overtake the developed world, but these developing economies are also dependent completely on these same financialized, Western elite. So, "capitalists" like Munger will continue getting rich while poor and oppressed people in every country suffer as a result.


While Americans may actually deserve to be wiped out, the whole world needs to tell the banks and not the people to suck it up and deal with it. Had they done that, unemployment rates would still be 10 percent, the stock market would have tanked and the dollar may very well be in a worse position, but then rather than trying to recreate a speculation driven financialized casino that is the world economy, humanity would be pressed to create something new, a form of globalization that works for all layers of civilization. That is even more unlikely to happen now that banks are salvaged and sitting on free money waiting to invest in the developing economies overseas as taxpayers suffer with unemployment and depressed wages inside a system that consummate academics and journalists properly identify as neo-feudalism.


Unless humanity wakes up and organizes an alternative international order to the one that failed but was bailed out by an American population receiving enhanced enslavement as a result, similar catastrophes will happen in coming years. Americans may applaud the Vice Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway out of ignorance or simply because many of them bought hook, line, and sinker the propaganda of the elite. "You’ve gotta love a man who speaks his mind, even when he’s wrong", reports a Bloomberg commentary about the issue, but that does not mean the world's populace has to fall for the rhetorical manipulation of money madmen supporting banksters unconditionally simply because they are rich.

People like this are a disgrace to "civilization" and should be unauthorized to even use the term. Banking has long since ceased to provide any benefit for a physical economy that develops a middle class and supports an increasing quality of life. Instead, it extracts rent from productive economic activity and exploits real humans in the process calling profitable marginal gains of decreased costs due to exploitation of real human beings. It is inevitable that as long as the axioms that drive contemporary finance continue to exist unchallenged, the system will continue as well. So, as more and more people identify this problem, the real goal is to create not only a coherent argument against idiots like Charles Munger but a comprehensive alternative solution that can replace it.

 
Let people like Mungerand Buffett suck up and deal with the reality that humanity won't take it anymore and that there is a better formula for economic success that creates stability for the whole. Americans could start by putting Goldman Sachs and the other banks into government receivership and then changing their macroeconomic order so that the only inheritance that Warren Buffett will leave is a long list of commentary about how not to build a society based on justice and liberty for all. These "capitalists" are not the enemy as much as it is the ideas they hold as self-evident truths. The problem is that many of those oppressed by the tyranny of the contemporary order hold the ideas as well and therefore are indifferent. In this manner, they are oligarchs without wealth and power. In the event humanity attacks the ideology, we will still have oligarchs, but none of them will have wealth or power and will subsequently become as insignificant as their ideas should be.
  











































Lectures by Hakim Quick from IISNA 2010 Islamic Revival Tour, Melbourne, Australia

Our Golden Past- Our Bright Future
Waking the Lazy Muslim
How to Obtain Contentment

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Osama bin Laden's call for Revolution - in Humanitarian Aid ???

This from the New York Times regarding Bin Laden's recent message, his second in as many days addressing the people of Pakistan:
“We are in need of a big change in the method of relief work because the number of victims is great due to climate changes in modern times,” Mr. bin Laden said, in the first of the messages posted to jihadist Web sites. He recalled his own experience with farming in Sudan, called for creating a “unique relief agency,” and described watching a father in Pakistan holding his two young children above chest-high flood water, according to a translation by the private SITE Intelligence Group in Washington.
In Saturday’s release, Mr. bin Laden, who trained as an engineer, mused about the cost and materials for embankments to control flooding and chastised wealthy Muslim countries for not doing more to help Pakistanis.
While the press is reporting that Osama bin Laden has only recently voiced his opinion of policy in the Muslim world and that he is simply speaking about political issues now in order to garner support for his other, more violent intentions, his call to form a new type of aid agency is one that certainly should be contemplated and headed across the globe, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Most people are totally ignorant of the way that "humanitarian aid" is used to promote Western hegemony in the post-colonialist world.  World Bank loans, for example, during the Cold War were a function of regime support whereby loyal dictators were kept in power with aid as long as they were not siding with the Soviets. Food assistance has long since served U.S. interests as a spot for its subsidized domestic farmer markets and as a public relations campaign. The development of the metropolises in the the third world alongside the prevention of aid for technological advancements for agriculture that could lead to true sovereignty and that have created the type of urban migration that decimates entire nations is another example in a long list of critiques that can be harbored against "aid" today.

The reaction of the Pakistani government to the floods is another example of how skewed and twisted concepts of aid and development are in the contemporary order.  Pakistan has been forced to turn towards the IMF for additional assistance as a result of the catastrophe. Global donations were held off long enough to force Pakistan to privitze yet more of its economy and promise to pull back more public spending while implementing VAT's or value added taxes that eventually are passed on to consumers and tend to have ravaging effects on the poor. This reality represents the latest example of the shock doctrine, progressive Naomi Klein's theory that the world of global finance exploits the economies of nations especially in times of great stress caused by natural disasters (i.e. Haiti earlier this year).  

The call is timely as well. In recent years, Muslims have become more active socially and in the civil sectors, but this participation has usually addressed the symptoms of a disease while ignoring the root cause of disorder. The activism against the siege on Gaza serves as an international example, addressing the siege in a sense legitimizes the existence of Israel as a state while simultaneously ignoring other atrocities.

For an example more representative for Muslims in the West, many campaigns on behalf of Muslim prisoners have come about in the Western world as Muslims write and advocate on behalf of incarcerated Muslims accused or convicted of crimes.  Most of this activism however ignores the policies, both foreign and domestic, that are contributing to the creation of these cases and the law enforcement's tactics and repealing of civil liberties that make it possible for such realities to persist.

The aid organizations of the world share in an inability to address the axioms that create disease and are therefore no exception to this shortcoming. Organizations like the World Food Program may provide food for starving people but never address the macroeconomic irregularities that create the conditions whereby hundreds of millions face hunger each day. Thus, the call from bin Laden is a relevant one all Muslims should actually contemplate in its significance.  

The system of Islam is based on charity of self and wealth, of self sacrifice, of simplistic living and lack of extravagant indulgence.  These axioms added to the macro-principles of extracting speculation and interest from the economic equation while promoting risk-sharing loans and profit sharing mechanisms as an alternative, promote an economic model where lender and borrower share equally in risk and therefore only reap reward where both are successful.  Muslim nations have the ability to set up development banks across the globe that lend on an interest free basis to countries in need. Unfortunately, the corruption and lack of adherence to these principles by the elite of Muslim nations, oftentimes mere puppets to Western dictates, prevent such developments from occurring as so called Islamic organizations oftentimes reproduce the same flawed models of their Western counterparts, albeit with Islamic terms attached. 

While, Osama bin Laden's message is treated as mere rhetoric by so-called counter-terrorism "experts", the truth is bin Laden has as long a record of philanthropy as any in the world, having contributed millions of his own money to help Afghans against the Russians, to help the Sudanese regime with infrastructure development, to call for economic boycotts of Israel and advising the politicians of the Saudi state for years. 

In reality, his change in conversation is only a marked indicator of his increasing belief that he has achieved his goal of cutting off the ability of the U.S. to interfere in the Middle East.  His "rhetoric" marks an increased focus on returning to his actual goal of replacing despotic regimes in Muslim countries.  As U.S. influence wanes, it will be interesting to see if the role of Islamic principles continues to seep into institutions in the Muslim world as people of all ideological persuasions refer to Islam in their public and private lives; from Turkey to the Persian Gulf there is an increasing voice for Islamists in governance. Creating a transnational Islamic aid bank would be a step toward increasing that influence region wide and is a serious possibility in years ahead.  Hugo Chavez's Banco de Sur has posed the possibility that South American nations may wrest themselves form IMF dictate permanently.  

While the reality is that the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East are little interested in such populist  solutions, the fact that Osama bin Laden is referencing them is a certain indicator that he believes a form of victory is near, but only in the event the Islamic system can come to drive the political and economic realities of the Muslim world. Certainly an Islamic revolution in Pakistan would contribute to that cause, but one thing is for certain: prior to 9-11 no such call would have been fathomable. That is not so much the case ten years into the War on Terror, another indicator of how much has actually changed.   

As U.S. policy makers and their media approach the bin Laden phenomena deliberately downplaying his significance as a carefully plotted tactic, they continue to ignore reality. The one effect they get from this is that nobody ever listens to what he actually says. We will see if that continues to be the case in the near future. It is looking as if he may get his way in Pakistan increasingly each day.  Were that to happen and stability of any form to arrive, the world may hear much more from its Most Wanted Man, and that has regimes from Riyadh to Kabul in definite fear for sure.  Expect an international Islamic aid agency to be proposed soon, of course with Barack Obama and the Arab Dictators' full fledged support...

Ibn Taymia's Refutation of the Logicians - Al-Raad ala-Mantiqqiyin

Ibn Taymiyya Against the Logicians

In Struggle with the American Mind - William Blum


Since The Great Flood hit Pakistan in July ...
  • many millions have been displaced, evacuated, stranded or lost their homes; numerous roads, schools and health clinics destroyed
  • hundreds of villages washed away
  • millions of livestock have perished; for the rural poor something akin to a Western stock market crash that wipes out years of savings
  • countless farms decimated, including critical crops like corn; officials say the damage is in the hundreds of millions of dollars and it does not appear that Pakistan will recover within the next few years
  • infectious diseases are rising sharply
  • airplanes of the United States of America have flown over Pakistan and dropped bombs on dozens of occasions 1
October 01, 2010 - I direct these remarks to readers who have to deal with Americans who turn into a stone wall upon hearing the United States accused of acting immorally; America, they are convinced, means well; our motives are noble. And if we do do something that looks bad, and the badness can't easily be covered up or explained away ... well, great powers have always done things like that, we're no worse than the other great powers of history, and a lot better than most. God bless America.

A certain percentage of such people do change eventually and stop rationalizing; this happens usually after being confronted X-number of times with evidence of the less-than-beautiful behavior of their government around the world. The value of X of course varies with the individual; so don't give up trying to educate the hardened Americans you come in contact with. You never know when your enlightening them about a particular wickedness of their favorite country will be the straw that breaks their imperialist-loving back. (But remember the warning from Friedrich Schiller of Germany: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens. — "With stupidity even the gods struggle in vain.")

Here's a recent revelation of wickedness that might serve to move certain of the unenlightened: New evidence has recently come to light that reinforces the view of a CIA role in the murder of Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of The Congo following its independence from Belgium in 1960. The United States didn't pull the trigger, but it did just about everything else, including giving the green light to the Congolese officials who had kidnaped Lumumba. CIA Station Chief Larry Devlin, we now know, was consulted by these officials about the transfer of Lumumba to his sworn enemies. Devlin signaled them that he had no objection to it. Lumumba's fate was sealed. 2



It was a classic Cold War example of anti-communism carried to absurd and cruel lengths. Years later, Under Secretary of State C. Douglas Dillon told a Senate investigating committee that the National Security Council and President Eisenhower had believed in 1960 that Lumumba was a "very difficult if not impossible person to deal with, and was dangerous to the peace and safety of the world." 3 This statement moved author Jonathan Kwitny to observe:
How far beyond the dreams of a barefoot jungle postal clerk in 1956, that in a few short years he would be dangerous to the peace and safety of the world! The perception seems insane, particularly coming from the National Security Council, which really does have the power to end all human life within hours. 4
President Eisenhower personally gave the order to kill the progressive African leader. 5
We can't know for sure what life for the Congolese people would have been like had Lumumba been allowed to remain in office. But we do know what followed his assassination — one vicious dictator after another presiding over 50 years of mass murder, rape, and destruction as competing national forces and neighboring states fought endlessly over the vast mineral wealth in the country. The Congo would not hold another democratic election for 46 years.

Overthrowing a country's last great hope, with disastrous consequences, is an historical pattern found throughout the long chronicle of American imperialist interventions, from Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s to Haiti and Afghanistan in the 1990s, with many examples in between. Washington has been working on Hugo Chávez in Venezuela for a decade.

Just like the commercials that warn you "Don't try this at home", I urge you not to waste your time trying to educate the likes of Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who not long ago referred to "the men and women of the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps" as "the most important peacekeepers in the world for the last century." 6 What can you say to such a man? And this is the leading foreign policy columnist for America's "newspaper of record". God help us. The man could use some adult supervision.

A man named Barack Obama

For many years I have not paid a great deal of attention to party politics in the United States. I usually have only a passing knowledge of who's who in Congress. It's policies that interest me much more than politicians. But during the 2008 presidential campaign I kept hearing the name Barack Obama when I turned on the radio, and repeatedly saw his name in headlines in various newspapers. I knew no more than that he was a senator from Illinois and ... Was he black?

Then one day I turned on my kitchen radio and was informed that Obama was about to begin a talk. I decided to listen, and did so for about 15 or 20 minutes while I washed the dishes. I listened, and listened, and then it hit me ... This man is not saying anything! It's all platitude and cliché, very little of what I would call substance. His talk could have been written by a computer, touching all the appropriate bases and saying just what could be expected to give some hope to the pessimistic and to artfully challenge the skepticism of the cynical; feel-good language for every occasion; conventional wisdom for every issue. His supporters, I would later learn, insisted that he had to talk this way to be elected, but once elected — Aha! The real genuine-progressive, anti-war Barack Obama would appear. "Change you can believe in!" Hallelujah! ... They're still saying things like that.

Last week Obama gave the traditional annual speech at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. 7 To give you an idea of whether the man now sincerely expresses himself "outside the box" at all, here's what he had to say about Pakistan: "Since the rains came and the floodwaters rose in Pakistan, we have pledged our assistance, and we should all support the Pakistani people as they recover and rebuild." Does he think no one in the world knows about the American bombs? Did he think he was speaking before sophisticated international diplomats or making a campaign speech before Iowa farmers?

Plus endless verbiage about the endless Israeli-Palestine issue, which could have been lifted out of almost any speech by any American president of the past 30 years. But no mention at all of Gaza. Oh, excuse me — there was one line: "the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams". Gosh, choke. One would never know that the United States possesses huge leverage over the state of Israel — billions/trillions of dollars of military and economic aid and gifts. An American president with a minimum of courage could force Israel to make concessions, and in a struggle between a thousand-pound gorilla (Israel) and an infant (Hamas) it's the gorilla that has to give some ground.

And this: "We also know from experience that those who defend these [universal] values for their people have been our closest friends and allies, while those who have denied those rights — whether terrorist groups or tyrannical governments — have chosen to be our adversaries."

Such a lie. It would be difficult to name a single brutal dictatorship of the Western world in the second half of the 20th Century that was not supported by the United States; not only supported, but often put into power and kept in power against the wishes of the population. And in recent years as well, Washington has supported very repressive governments, such as Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Indonesia, Egypt, Kosovo, Colombia, and Israel. As to terrorist groups being adversaries of the United States — another item for the future Barack Obama Presidential Liebrary; as I've discussed in this report on several occasions, including last month, the United States has supported terrorist groups for decades. As they've supported US foreign policy.
"Yes, of course it's nice to have a president who speaks in complete sentences. But that they're coherent doesn't make them honest." — John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine. 8

The secret to understanding US foreign policy

In one of his regular "Reflections" essays, Fidel Castro recently discussed United States hostility towards Venezuela. "What they really want is Venezuela's oil," wrote the Cuban leader. 9 This is a commonly-held viewpoint within the international left. The point is put forth, for example, in Oliver Stone's recent film "South of the Border". I must, however, take exception.

In the post-World War Two period, in Latin America alone, the US has had a similar hostile policy toward progressive governments and movements in Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, and Bolivia. What these governments and movements all had in common was that they were/are leftist; nothing to do with oil. For more than half a century Washington has been trying to block the rise of any government in Latin America that threatens to offer a viable alternative to the capitalist model. Venezuela of course fits perfectly into that scenario; oil or no oil.

This ideology was the essence of the Cold War all over the world.

The secret to understanding US foreign policy is that there is no secret. Principally, one must come to the realization that the United States strives to dominate the world. Once one understands that, much of the apparent confusion, contradiction, and ambiguity surrounding Washington's policies fades away. To express this striving for dominance numerically, one can consider that since the end of World War Two the United States has:
  • Endeavored to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
  • Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
  • Waged war/military action, either directly or in conjunction with a proxy army, in some 30 countries.
  • Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
  • Dropped bombs on the people of some 30 countries.
  • Suppressed dozens of populist/nationalist movements in every corner of the world. 10
The United States institutional war machine has long been, and remains, on automatic pilot.

The 9/11 Truth Movement

The Truthers have long been pressing me to express my support for their cause. Here's how I stand on the issue. I'm very aware of the serious contradictions and apparent lies in the Official Government Version (OGV) of what happened on that fateful day. (Before the Truthers can be dismissed as "conspiracy theorists", it should be noted that the OGV is literally a "conspiracy theory" about the fantastic things that a certain 19 men conspired to do.) It does appear that the buildings in New York collapsed essentially because of a controlled demolition, which employed explosives as well as certain incendiary substances found in the rubble. So, for this and many other questions raised by the 9/11 Truth Movement, the OGV can clearly not be taken entirely at face value but has to be seriously examined point by point. But no matter what the discrepancies in the OGV, does it necessarily follow that the events of 9/11 were an "inside job"? Is it an either/or matter? Either a group of terrorists were fully responsible or the government planned it all down to the last detail?
What if the government, with its omnipresent eyes and ears, discovered the plotting of Mideast terrorists some time before and decided to let it happen — and even enhance the destruction — to make use of it as a justification for its "War on Terror"? The Truthers admit that they can't fully explain what actually took place, but they argue that they are not obliged to do so; that they have exposed the government lies and that the fact of these lies proves that it was an inside job. The Truthers have done great work, but I say that for me, and I'm sure for many others, to accept the idea of an inside job I have to indeed know what actually took place, or at least a lot more than I know now. It is, after all, an incredible story, and I need to know how the government pulled it off. I need to have certain questions answered, amongst which are the following:
  1. Were the planes that hit the towers hijacked?
  2. Did they contain the passengers named amongst the dead?
  3. Were they piloted or were they flying via remote control?
  4. If piloted, who were the pilots?
  5. Did a plane crash in Pennsylvania? If so, why? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
  6. Did a plane crash into the Pentagon? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
  7. Why do Truthers say that some, or many, of the named Arabic hijackers have been found alive living abroad? Why couldn't their identity have been stolen by the hijackers?
If the Truthers can't answer any or most of the above questions, are they prepared to consider the possibility of 9/11 being a "let-it-happen" government operation?

Do words have to mean something?

"Holocaust denier barred from leading tour at Auschwitz". That was the headline over a short news item in the Washington Post on September 22. The story, in full, read: "British historian and Holocaust-denier David Irving will not be permitted to give tours at Poland's Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, museum officials said Tuesday after the controversial historian arrived in Poland to lead a tour of Nazi sites. Irving told the British Daily Mail on Friday that Treblinka was a genuine death camp but that Auschwitz was a 'Disney-style tourist attraction'."

So how can Irving be called a "Holocaust-denier" if he says that the Nazi concentration camp at Treblinka "was a genuine death camp"? I don't know. Do you? Why don't you ask the Post? They never reply to my letters. And while you're at it, ask them why they and their columnists routinely refer to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "Holocaust-denier". You might even point out to them that Ahmadinejad said in a speech at Columbia University (September 24, 2007), in reply to a question about the Holocaust, "I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not the judgment that I'm passing here."

Indeed, I don't know if any of the so-called "Holocaust-deniers" actually, ever, umm, y'know, umm ... deny the Holocaust. They question certain aspects of the Holocaust history that's been handed down to us, but they don't explicitly say that what we know as the Holocaust never took place. Yes, I'm sure you can find at least one nut-case somewhere.

Speaking of nut-cases, two days after Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R.-CA) introduced legislation "To prohibit Federal grants to or contracts with Columbia University" (HR 3675, 110th Congress). I'm surprised he didn't call for a Predator to fly over the campus and drop a few bombs. Don't ya just love our Congressmembers? Soon to be joined it seems by a few Teaparty types who think that Barack Obama is a socialist. (If Obama is a socialist, what, I wonder, do they call Hugo Chávez? Or Karl Marx?) The new Madame Speaker of the House may be Alice in Wonderland.

Notes

  1. WikipediaDrone attacks in Pakistan 
  2. AllAfrica.comNew Evidence Shows U.S. Role in Congo's Decision to Send Patrice Lumumba to His Death, August 1st 2010
  3. The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (US Senate: The Church Committee), Interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, November 20, 1975, p.58
  4. Jonathan Kwitny, Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World (1984), p.57
  5. New York Times, February 22, 1976, p.55 
  6. New York Times, October 11, 2009
  7. White House Press Office, Remarks by the President to the United Nations General Assembly, September 23, 2010
  8. The Providence Journal, "Obama a very smooth liar", June 17, 2009 
  9. Reflections by Comrade Fidel, "What they want is Venezuela's oil", September 27, 2010 
  10. A link to any of the first five lists can be obtained by writing to William Blum at bblum6@aol.com. The sixth list has not yet been uploaded to the Internet. 

Friday, October 1, 2010

Plan B: The Partition of Afghanistan.


With mounting US casualties in Afghanistan and General Petraeus current counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy heading for near certain failure there has been increasing calls for a new plan in Afghanistan. The united states finds itself in an extremely unenviable position, it can not stay in Afghanistan (due to a combination of factors including Taliban military success, US public opinion and the poor state of the economy) yet it cannot afford to leave either (for fear that victory for the Mujahideen would undermine the stability of other key US allies in the Muslim world).
The new strategy?
As a result of these unfavourable conditions some policy experts have been calling for what amounts to a de facto partition of Afghanistan, separating the Pashtun south from the north which is populated predominantly by the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara. One advocate of this strategy is former deputy national security adviser under George W. Bush Robert D. Blackwill, who in a recent article in Politico ('A de facto partition for Afghanistan') stated the following:
After the administration’s December Afghanistan review, the U.S. polity should stop talking about timelines and exit strategies and accept that the Taliban will inevitably control most of its historic stronghold in the Pashtun south. But Washington could ensure that north and west Afghanistan do not succumb to jihadi extremism, using U.S. air power and special forces along with the Afghan army and like-minded nations”
The strategy in essence means that the US would cede the south of country to the Taliban by withdrawing to north where they would use their allies from the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras to fight against the Taliban. Supplementing this would be the permanent establishment (similar to Iraq) of between 40-50,00 US troops. From their bases in the north the US forces would then using a mixture of air power and special forces attack the Taliban government (both its military and civilian components) .
the sky over Pashtun Afghanistan would be dark with manned and unmanned coalition aircraft— targeting not only terrorists but, as necessary, the new Taliban government in all its dimensions. Taliban civil officials— like governors, mayors, judges and tax collectors— would wake up every morning not knowing if they would survive the day in their offices, while involved in daily activities or at home at night
The Reality on the ground
This strategy ignores the current reality on the ground in Afghanistan. Firstly as pointed out in an article (Empire going mad) by Thomas Ruttig (co-director of the Afghanistan Analysts Network) there is a significant Pashtun population in the north, which would represent a major obstacle to the successful implementation of this strategy.
In contrast, for him [Robert Blackwill], the rather large "Pashtun pockets" in the West (Farah, Nimruz, parts of Herat and Badghis) and even the North (Faryab, Balkh, Kunduz, etc.) simply represent a Pashtun "fifth column." He doesn't articulate what he has in mind for them. Does he want to put barbed wire around their villages and bomb them like the rest of the Pashtun South? Or does he envisage a "population exchange," with ethnic massacres as "collateral damage"? “
Furthermore the situation is rapidly changing in the north with decreasing support for the kleptocratic government of Karzai and an increase in support for the Taliban which cuts across the tribal division in the north. A report by Antonio Giustozzi and Christoph Reuter (The Northern Front, the Afghan insurgency spreading beyond the Pashtuns) examined this trend in more detail, the report concluded:
It seems clear that the attempts of the Taleban leadership in Quetta to destabilise the Greater North is beginning to have an impact.‘Cadres ’from the south are being sent northwards to help train and organise and the IMU [Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan] seems to also be playing a role in this effort. In many parts of the Greater North, the insurgency has advanced well beyond the original phase of infiltration by political agents and in quite a few areas the insurgency is even entering the phase of violent military operations. This does not mean that the destabilisation cannot be stopped, but it does mean that time is running out in order to prevent it from spreading.”

Furthermore:

” The support of the clergy, together with financial and advisory support from Quetta, could be enough to spread the insurgency, particularly in the absence of any effective counter-­‐mobilisation of those sectors of the population most opposed to the Taleban. “
Lastly this strategy like other strategies which envision a permanent US presence in Afghanistan (likewise for Iraq) ignore the perilous state of the US economy. By adopting strategies like this the US plays into the hand of the Mujahideen who have long stated that their aim is to bankrupt the US by engaging it in long drawn out gorilla wars, just like they did, once upon time to another 'superpower' in Afghanistan.