William Blum: Libya and the world we live in.

From Axis of Logic, Friday, Sep 2, 2011

By William Blum. Les Blough, Editor

Killing Hope (William Blum). Additions by Axis of Logic

THE HOLY TRIUMVIRATE -

NATO/EU/UNITED STATES

During Muammar Qaddafi's 41 year long leadership of Libya, the country was brought out of deep poverty and illiteracy. Using Libya's petroleum wealth, his government provided Libyans with free health care, education, housing, water and food sovereignty. Numbered among Qaddafi's many feats was Libya's water system said to be the 8th Wonder of the World, turning desert sand into fertile agricultural land. He led other African nations toward sovereign pride, independent of western governments. The Trimvirate feared Col. Qaddafi and charged him with crimes against humanity. Their stated mission is to kill him.

Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam holds degrees in Engineering Science from Al Fateh University, an MBA from Vienna's IMADEC University and a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics. He was bringing Libya and Africa into a new era of democracy and independence. Saif speaks fluent English, German, French and Arabic and is also an accomplished artist. In Libya's International Art Exhibit, "The Desert Is Not Silent," his paintings were lauded by a host of international corporations in 2002-2005. The Triumvirate refused to allow Saif to lead Libya's offer of a peace settlement in April 2011, demanding his arrest and trial at the ICC.

Libya and the world we live inby William Blum

"Why are you attacking us? Why are you killing our children? Why are you destroying our infrastructure?"

– Television address by Libyan Leader
Muammar Gaddafi, April 30, 2011

A few hours later NATO hit a target in Tripoli, killing Gaddafi's 29-year-old son Saif al-Arab, three of Gaddafi's grandchildren, all under twelve years of age, and several friends and neighbors.

In his TV address, Gaddafi had appealed to the NATO nations for a cease-fire and negotiations after six weeks of bombings and cruise missile attacks against his country.

Well, let's see if we can derive some understanding of the complex Libyan turmoil.

The Holy Triumvirate — The United States, NATO and the European Union — recognizes no higher power and believes, literally, that it can do whatever it wants in the world, to whomever it wants, for as long as it wants, and call it whatever it wants, like "humanitarian".

If The Holy Triumvirate decides that it doesn't want to overthrow the government in Syria or in Egypt or Tunisia or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Jordan, no matter how cruel, oppressive, or religiously intolerant those governments are with their people, no matter how much they impoverish and torture their people, no matter how many protesters they shoot dead in their Freedom Square, the Triumvirate will simply not overthrow them.

If the Triumvirate decides that it wants to overthrow the government of Libya, though that government is secular and has used its oil wealth for the benefit of the people of Libya and Africa perhaps more than any government in all of Africa and the Middle East, but keeps insisting over the years on challenging the Triumvirate's imperial ambitions in Africa and raising its demands on the Triumvirate's oil companies, then the Triumvirate will simply overthrow the government of Libya.

If the Triumvirate wants to punish Gaddafi and his sons it will arrange with the Triumvirate's friends at the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for them.

If the Triumvirate doesn't want to punish the leaders of Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Jordan it will simply not ask the ICC to issue arrest warrants for them. Ever since the Court first formed in 1998, the United States has refused to ratify it and has done its best to denigrate it and throw barriers in its way because Washington is concerned that American officials might one day be indicted for their many war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bill Richardson, as US ambassador to the UN, said to the world in 1998 that the United States should be exempt from the court's prosecution because it has "special global responsibilities". But this doesn't stop the United States from using the Court when it suits the purposes of American foreign policy.

If the Triumvirate wants to support a rebel military force to overthrow the government of Libya then it does not matter how fanatically religious, al-Qaeda-related,¹ executing-beheading-torturing, monarchist, or factionally split various groups of that rebel force are at times, the Triumvirate will support it, as it did certain forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and hope that after victory the Libyan force will not turn out as jihadist as it did in Afghanistan, or as fratricidal as in Iraq. One potential source of conflict within the rebels, and within the country if ruled by them, is that a constitutional declaration made by the rebel council states that, while guaranteeing democracy and the rights of non-Muslims, "Islam is the religion of the state and the principle source of legislation in Islamic Jurisprudence."²

Adding to the list of the rebels' charming qualities we have the Amnesty International report that the rebels have been conducting mass arrests of black people across the nation, terming all of them "foreign mercenaries" but with growing evidence that a large number were simply migrant workers. Reported Reuters (August 29):

"On Saturday, reporters saw the putrefying bodies of 22 men of African origin on a Tripoli beach. Volunteers who had come to bury them said they were mercenaries whom rebels had shot dead." To complete this portrait of the West's newest darlings we have this report from The Independent of London (August 27): "The killings were pitiless. They had taken place at a makeshift hospital, in a tent marked clearly with the symbols of the Islamic crescent. Some of the dead were on stretchers, attached to intravenous drips. Some were on the back of an ambulance that had been shot at. A few were on the ground, seemingly attempting to crawl to safety when the bullets came."

If the Triumvirate's propaganda is clever enough and deceptive enough and paints a graphic picture of Gaddafi-initiated high tragedy in Libya, many American and European progressives will insist that though they never, ever support imperialism they're making an exception this time because ...

• The Libyan people are being saved from a "massacre", both actual and potential. This massacre, however, seems to have been grossly exaggerated by the Triumvirate, al Jazeera TV, and that station's owner, the government of Qatar; and nothing approaching reputable evidence of a massacre has been offered, neither a mass grave or anything else; the massacre stories appear to be on a par with the Viagra-rape stories spread by al Jazeera (the Fox News of the Libyan uprising). Qatar, it should be noted, has played an active military role in the civil war on the side of NATO. It should be further noted that the main massacre in Libya has been six months of daily Triumvirate bombing, killing an unknown number of people and ruining much of the infrastructure.
  
  Michigan U. Prof. Juan Cole, the quintessential true-believer in the good intentions of American foreign policy who nevertheless manages to have a regular voice in progressive media, recently wrote that "Qaddafi was not a man to compromise ... his military machine would mow down the revolutionaries if it were allowed to." Is that clear, class? We all know of course that Sarkozy, Obama, and Cameron made compromises without end in their devastation of Libya; they didn't, for example, use any nuclear weapons.
  
• The United Nations gave its approval for military intervention; i.e., the leading members of the Triumvirate gave their approval, after Russia and China cowardly abstained instead of exercising their veto power; (perhaps hoping to receive the same courtesy from the US, UK and France when Russia or China is the aggressor nation).
  
• The people of Libya are being "liberated", whatever in the world that means, now or in the future. Gaddafi is a "dictator" they insist. That may indeed be the proper term to use for the man, but it must still be asked: Is he a relatively benevolent dictator or is he the other kind so favored by Washington? It must also be asked: Since the United States has habitually supported dictators for the entire past century, why not this one?

The Triumvirate, and its fawning media, would have the world believe that what's happened in Libya is just another example of the Arab Spring, a popular uprising by non-violent protestors against a dictator for the proverbial freedom and democracy, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia and Egypt, which sandwich Libya. But there are several reasons to question this analysis in favor of seeing the Libyan rebels' uprising as a planned and violent attempt to take power in behalf of their own political movement, however heterogeneous that movement might appear to be in its early stage. For example:

1. They soon began flying the flag of the monarchy that Gaddafi had overthrown
   
2. They were an armed and violent rebellion almost from the beginning; within a few days, we could read of "citizens armed with weapons seized from army bases"³ and of "the policemen who had participated in the clash were caught and hanged by protesters"⁴
   
3. Their revolt took place not in the capital but in the heart of the country's oil region; they then began oil production and declared that foreign countries would be rewarded oil-wise in relation to how much each country aided their cause
   
4. They soon set up a Central Bank, a rather bizarre thing for a protest movement
   
5. International support came quickly, even beforehand, from Qatar and al Jazeera to the CIA and French intelligence

The notion that a leader does not have the right to put down an armed rebellion against the state is too absurd to discuss.

Not very long ago, Iraq and Libya were the two most modern and secular states in the Mideast/North Africa world with perhaps the highest standards of living in the region. Then the United States of America came along and saw fit to make a basket case of each one. The desire to get rid of Gaddafi had been building for years; the Libyan leader had never been a reliable pawn; then the Arab Spring provided the excellent opportunity and cover. As to Why? Take your pick of the following:

• Gaddafi's plans to conduct Libya's trading in Africa in raw materials and oil in a new currency — the gold African dinar, a change that could have delivered a serious blow to the US's dominant position in the world economy. (In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars; sanctions and an invasion followed.) For further discussion see here.
  
• A host-country site for Africom, the US Africa Command, one of six regional commands the Pentagon has divided the world into. Many African countries approached to be the host have declined, at times in relatively strong terms. Africom at present is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. According to a State Department official: "We've got a big image problem down there. ... Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don't trust the US."⁵
  
• An American military base to replace the one closed down by Gaddafi after he took power in 1969. There's only one such base in Africa, in Djibouti. Watch for one in Libya sometime after the dust has settled. It'll perhaps be situated close to the American oil wells. Or perhaps the people of Libya will be given a choice — an American base or a NATO base.
  
• Another example of NATO desperate to find a raison d'être for its existence since the end of the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact.
  
• Gaddafi's role in creating the African Union. The corporate bosses never like it when their wage slaves set up a union. The Libyan leader has also supported a United States of Africa for he knows that an Africa of 54 independent states will continue to be picked off one by one and abused and exploited by the members of the Triumvirate. Gaddafi has moreover demanded greater power for smaller countries in the United Nations.
  
• The claim by Gaddafi's son, Saif el Islam, that Libya had helped to fund Nicolas Sarkozy's election campaign⁶ could have humiliated the French president and explain his obsessiveness and haste in wanting to be seen as playing the major role in implementing the "no fly zone" and other measures against Gaddafi. A contributing factor may have been the fact that France has been weakened in its former colonies and neo-colonies in Africa and the Middle East, due in part to Gaddafi's influence.
  
• Gaddafi has been an outstanding supporter of the Palestinian cause and critic of Israeli policies; and on occasion has taken other African and Arab countries, as well as the West, to task for their not matching his policies or rhetoric; one more reason for his lack of popularity amongst world leaders of all stripes.
  
• In January, 2009, Gaddafi made known that he was considering nationalizing the foreign oil companies in Libya.⁷ He also has another bargaining chip: the prospect of utilizing Russian, Chinese and Indian oil companies. During the current period of hostilities, he invited these countries to make up for lost production. But such scenarios will now not take place. The Triumvirate will instead seek to privatize the National Oil Corporation, transferring Libya's oil wealth into foreign hands.
  
• The American Empire is troubled by any threat to its hegemony. In the present historical period the empire is concerned mainly with Russia and China. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya and elsewhere in Africa. The average American neither knows nor cares about this. The average American imperialist cares greatly, if for no other reason than in this time of rising demands for cuts to the military budget it's vital that powerful "enemies" be named and maintained.
  
• For yet more reasons, see the article "Why Regime Change in Libya?" by Ismael Hossein-zadeh, and the US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks — Wikileaks reference 07TRIPOLI967 11-15-07 (includes a complaint about Libyan "resource nationalism")

A word from the man the world's mightiest
military powers have been trying to kill.

Recollections of My Lifeby Col. Muammar Gaddafi, April 8, 2011 (excerpts):

Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called "capitalism," but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer, so, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following his path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us ... I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it. ... In the West, some have called me "mad", "crazy". They know the truth but continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip.

Axis of Logic: On April 5, 2011, Libyan government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim told western journalists it was ready to negotiate reforms, "What kind of political system is implemented in the country? This is negotiable, we can talk about it. We can have anything, elections, referendums." The US/NATO/EU mercenaries flatly rejected a peace deal that would allow Qaddafi's son, Saif Al-Islam to assume leadership to carry out those reforms. Ibrahim responded, "We think he is very important to lead any transition to a democratic and transparent model." The Triumvirate replied with the ultimatum: Qaddafi must surrender to them for trial before the International Criminal Court or they will kill him.

Note: The image of the EU/NATO/US flags, photos of Col. Qaddafi & Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi, related comments beneath the photos and the last paragraph were added to William Blum's essay by Axis of Logic
Source: Killing Hope

Notes (William Blum)

1. For example, see: The Telegraph (London), August 30, 2011: "Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime." There is a plethora of other reports detailing the ties between the rebels and radical Islamist groups.
   
2. Washington Post, August 31, 2011
   
3. McClatchy Newspapers, February 20, 2011
   
4. Wikipedia, Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war, February 19, 2011
   
5. The Guardian (London), June 25, 2007
   
6. The Guardian (London), March 16, 2011
   
7. Reuters, January 21, 2009

© Copyright 2011 by AxisofLogic.com

Busted Again! Mass Media Mistranslates Another Gaddafi Speech!

From Financial News

By George W. Berry

Breaking news, Tripoli: (Click here) Tripoli occupied? The flag on the vehicle is “rebel”, but WHAT ARE ALL THOSE GREEN FLAGS WAVING IN THE BACKGROUND?

Text of Gaddafi’s 9/1/11 Speech translated: (Click here)
The Mass Media says Gaddafi said “Let Libya Burn”. Where in the Speech does it say that? Where does it say “We are not women”? Gaddafi’s personal bodyguards ARE WOMEN! Gaddafi would NEVER say something like that. NATO–not Gaddafi– is Burning Libya, and again the Mass Media INVERTS THE TRUTH. The Speech does say that Libya WILL NOT BE RECOLONIZED!
Compare what Gaddafi actually said with the AP “report” of what he “said”:  (Here).
Reuters was bought long ago by the Rothschilds. Reuters bought AP. How many differences can you find between what Gaddafi actually said, and what AP “reported” that he said? The Mass Media mistranslates again and again— (Search: “Busted! Mass Media Mistranslates Gaddafi’s Speech” on this web site ).
__________-

Related:
Col Muammar Qaddafi Addresses Libyan People. Also, son Khamis Al Qaddafi was said to have "died in fighting" yet again but showed up as usual.

Libyan Rebels Round Up Blacks, Put Them In Prison Camps
Massacre, torture and abuse of innocents destroys NATO’s “humanitarian” legitimacy

Globalists to Rebuild Libya

CIA Recruits 1,500 Jihadists in Afghanistan to Fight in Libya

Libya, Syria, Russia & Italy- The tangled web

From Penny for your thoughts:
Not to forget France and Britain!!

 Interwoven news- you may not think it is connected, but, it seems it is all interconnected


We shall start with Russia and end with Italy


The western mainstream media is reporting that Russia is going to recognize the "new" Libyan government- You know the NATO created rebels?


Anyway, this is an interesting development, BUT, the "recognition" is not exactly as clear cut as the western media is making it out to be.


There is a caveat-
"President Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday Russia will recognize Libya's National Transnational Council (NTC) as the North African state's legitimate government if it brings the war-torn country together.

"If the rebels have the power and spirit and opportunity to unite the country on a new democratic basis, then of course we will consider establishing relations with them"

This in no way can be perceived as a ringing endorsement of the NATO government. Russia is hedging and I find it curious.


Does Russia think there is a possibility that Gaddafi could make a come back of sorts?


A couple of days ago, a Russian envoy was reported to be visiting Syria

The latest bloodshed came as a senior Russian envoy said after talks in Damascus on Monday that there was no change in Moscow's policy on Syria which has been opposed to Western calls for sanctions, Syrian state media said.


"Russia's position on Syria is unchanged," the official SANA news agency quoted deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov as saying.


"The envoy affirmed his country's support for the reforms launched by Syria in the political and economic fields and expressed hope that its security and stability would be maintained," the agency added.

The Russian envoy, who held talks with both President Bashar al-Assad and Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, underlined the "importance of continued coordination between the two countries in all fields."

For his part, Assad expressed his appreciation for Russia's "balanced approach to developments in Syria," SANA added.


Moscow staunchly opposes attempts by Western governments to push through a UN Security Council resolution targeting Assad, and has circulated an alternative draft urging Syria to expedite reforms.

Russia has so far been maintaining it's position with regards to Syria.


Is Russia hedging on Libya because of this position with Syria?


I don't know, but, their stance on the Libyan rebels is interesting, carefully worded and open to multiple interpretations. Surely, that is intentional.


Just a reminder: U.S. admits funding Syrian opposition


When Syria and Russia and China for that matter, mention outside intervention.... there has been lots of it. Coming in many ways.


This article is interesting in it's entirety, so do read it.


What I found good about it, was the Sarkozy/France/ BANKER angle.


As I have mentioned on a number of occasions Libya is being plundered.


The bankers stand to reap massive windfalls.


Not to mention oil company profits.


Consider this a snapshot in the whole scenario of plunder.

"This war started in October 2010 when Gaddafi's chief of protocol, Nuri Mesmari, defected to Paris, was approached by French intelligence and for all practical purposes a military coup d'etat was concocted, involving defectors in Cyrenaica.

Sarkozy had a bag full of motives to exact revenge..... French banks had told him that Gaddafi was about to transfer his billions of euros to Chinese banks. Thus Gaddafi could not by any means become an example to other Arab nations or sovereign funds.


(Sovereign funds-go back and read on this if you missed it- The wealth of sovereign funds tie Libya and Norway together)

French corporations told Sarko that Gaddafi had decided not to buy Rafale fighters anymore, and not to hire the French to build a nuclear plant; he was more concerned in investing in social services.

Energy giant Total wanted a much bigger piece of the Libyan energy cake - which was being largely eaten, on the European side, by Italy's ENI, especially because Premier Silvio "bunga bunga" Berlusconi, a certified Big G fan, had clinched a complex deal with Gaddafi.

There is more after this including the mention of Bernard Henri Levy- tool of the ptb's


You can read that for yourself

France was out of the picture and lowly Italy was making deals with Gaddafi.


Surely this was enough to drive Sarkozy over the cliff !


And so a "coup" was hatched.


You may recall that Berlusconi balked at the attack on Libya.


It is quite interesting to note that at the beginning of the week Berlusconi was lobbying for a delay on Syrian oil sanctions until December/11

The Italian government has said that pushing back the implementation of an embargo from mid-October to the end of November would have no real impact on the Syrian government, because contracts for the delivery of oil have been paid in advance through to the latter date. But other member states want the sanctions in place as soon as possible.


Around 90 per cent of Syria's crude oil is bought by EU countries, with half of that arriving at Italian ports. Germany and Italy import 32 and 31 per cent of all Syria's oil respectively. And although Italy's request for a delay was not well received by other member states, one diplomat, quoted by the Financial Times, said that the timing of the sanctions was the only stumbling block and could still be resolved by Friday, when EU foreign ministers meet in Poland.

Then suddenly, today in fact!


Berlusconi under fire for controversial remarks

Citing phone calls that authorities said they secretly recorded, investigators quoted Berlusconi as saying he's frustrated with investigations of him and eager to leave Italy.

Secretly recorded phone calls, leaked. Curious timing?

"I'm getting out to mind my own f---ing business, from somewhere else, and so I'm leaving this sh--ty country, of which I'm sickened."

It is almost as if the pressure is on...

_________

Related:

Unseemly Scrabble for Libya’s Post-Gaddafi Oil Assets Underway

China Sending Envoy to ‘Friends of Libya’ Meeting in Paris
 
Commissioner considers plan to make future oil and gas deals with third countries go via BrusselsOn his Straneuropa blog, La Stampa’s Brussels correspondent Marco Zatterin reports that EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger may next week propose that in future all oil and gas contracts between EU member states and third countries be examined at the EU level before they are concluded. The article notes that Germany has probably been lobbying for this proposal, due to fears of lagging behind France, the UK and Italy in striking deals with the new Libyan government.

Meanwhile, following yesterday’s conference in Paris, competition has kicked off among countries that participated in the military operations in Libya to secure energy deals with the new Libyan government. In an interview with RTL, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said it was “logical and fair” that countries which offered the biggest support to Libya’s National Transition Council received a preferential treatment. On the BBC’s Today programme, David Cameron noted, “I think there’s a big danger today actually of people in the West taking too much credit for themselves.”  WSJ EUobserver EUobserver 2 Independent El País Le Figaro Guardian EurActiv WSJ Brussels Beat RTL: Juppé Straneuropa BBC Today: Cameron FAZ

Libya: NATO Enabling War Crimes : Cutting off a city from food & war is a war crime

Cutting off a city from food & war is a war crime – again the ICC demonstrates its utter worthlessness.

by Tony Cartalucci


According to Fox News, a Libyan rebel “spokesman” recently boasted, “in the end, we will get [the city of] Sirte, even if we have to cut water and electricity and let NATO pound it with airstrikes.” Sirte is one of many cities still standing in defiance of NATO’s operations to seize the nation of 6 million people, impose upon them an “internationally approved” government, and begin pilfering their resources under the guise of “economic liberalization.” Rebels have intentionally surrounded Sirte to cut off electricity as well as the flow of supplies including food and cooking gas in a bid to literally “starve the city into submission,” as reported by the London Telegraph. This latest boast by rebels, now operating openly with notorious Al Qaeda members leading their fighters, and still with full military support from NATO, seems to suggests that water will be cut as well.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the denial of humanitarian assistance is a crime under international law. The Red Cross adds that “a massacre is not necessarily committed only with knives.” While many will attempt to portray the premeditated creation of a humanitarian disaster as “more humane” than taking the city of Sirte by force – rebels have in fact already tried to take the city by force and were soundly repelled. NATO airstrikes have apparently proved ineffective and other cities are now bolstering their defenses and rejecting calls by the NATO-backed Al Qaeda fighters to surrender. As the deadline for NATO’s military intervention grows increasingly nearer, their efforts to seize the nation have become increasingly more desperate and in proportion more depraved.


As has been pointed out and now clearly evident in Tripoli, the Benghazi rebels backed by NATO are not motivated by inclinations of “democracy” but rather tribal, ethnic, and viciously racial prejudices. Reuters has recently tried to whitewash what is essentially wholesale genocide being waged against Tripoli’s black population by the Benghazi rebels led by Al Qaeda’s notorious al-Hasidi. The targeting of Tripoli’s black population has been entirely written off by the corporate media as rebels pursuing “suspected mercenaries.” Why then would Sirte, Bani Waled, or any other city still standing soundly in defiance of these rebels and NATO, surrender and subject themselves to ensured genocide?


We are faced with a textbook case of a very real crime against humanity, yet the International Criminal Court is utterly silent, as are the voices in the UN that were vigorously clamoring to authorize war against Libya back in March of 2011. Silent also are the fraudulent George Soros Open Society-funded Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (page 10) organizations. The ICC and the supporting myriad of contrived rights advocates once again demonstrates they are illegitimate institutions contrived solely to serve Wall Street and London’s interests in a clearly one-sided manner. It is no wonder why the African Union has wholly rejected the International Criminal Court’s decisions made against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi or why nations across the world exhibit increasing hostility toward “independent” NGOs like Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, and Amnesty International. Nations should not be expected to permit such organizations to operate within their borders when in reality their goal is not defending human rights but finding a predicate for foreign military intervention on behalf of the corporate-financier interests that fund them.




Who Watches the “Watchers?”


So who does the world turn to when the “international community” begins recklessly mass-murdering entire populations, shutting off entire cities from food and water to “starve them into submission,” and “pound” civilian populations with airstrikes? The answer is, we turn to ourselves – the individual – who on a daily basis have facilitated in the first place the corporations and banks of Wall Street and London who are the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes. We have created these world-spanning financial and corporate empires, given them the power to act against entire nation-states with absolute impunity, so it must be we the people who rein back in this terrible power.


Just as we gave them this power by dedicating our time, money, talents, and attention to them, we can take it back by denying them likewise our time, money, talents, and attention. Turn to local alternatives, do without when we can, and entirely replace these corporations with local solutions systematically. If these elitists impose regulations to prevent such activity, take a cue from the brave people of America’s Northeast who have passed local ordinances to cancel out US federal dictates. Ultimately, we must remember that these people are not the progressive, enlightened, caretakers of humanity they attempt to portray themselves as.


The global elite are essentially violent thugs, dressing up their tyranny with the trappings of religion, civilization, political legitimacy,and faux progress. We must be prepared defend ourselves, our communities, and our nation-states intellectually, politically, socially, financially, and physically. Our denial of this terrible and ever-growing tyranny will not spare us when its attention finally shifts toward our homes, families, businesses, and communities. Just as the Soviets or the Nazis worked their way from foreigners, then the fringes of society, before it began cannibalizing its own people, so too will this global Wall Street-London tyranny. It was the Iraqis yesterday, it is the Libyans today, it may be the Syrians tomorrow, but inevitably it will be all of us. Better to stand up now than allow the tragic wheel of history to make yet another predictable revolution.




landdestroyer

Anti-Defamation League: Speaking the truth about 9/11 is anti-Semitic

From The Ugly Thruth:
 http://mrfriendsblog.blogspot.com/

Being labeled an “anti-Semite” is an honor these days. All it means is someone who is against the Jewish criminal gang that dominates the global power structure. In our Orwellian world, “anti-Semite” and “American patriot” are actually synonymous. Simply accurately describing the most influential faction of the crime gang that sits atop the global power structure, which controls the United States government, media, and banking system, is anti-Semitic according to a lot of people, and that’s fine with me. We need to continue to point out that these are the same people who did 9/11, and if that’s anti-Semitic, so be it.

Stating these obvious facts is not the most politically correct thing to do, but it needs to be said if we are ever going to regain control of our country and our future. I get e-mail updates from the Anti-Defamation League, and in the latest e-mail I came across this article entitled, “Decade of Deceit: Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 10 Years Later.”

Being the raging anti-Semite that I am, I was really interested in this article. In the introduction, the ADL laments the fact that people actually know who pulled off the FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOBon 9/11:

In the ten years since the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks have become an entrenched propaganda industry. These assaults on memory and history attempt to place blame for the attacks on sources other than Al Qaeda, such as the U.S. government. Prominent among such 9/11 conspiracy theories are those that make the anti-Semitic claim that Jews—whether Israeli, American, or both– were involved in planning and executing the attacks. This anti-Semitic faction is only a part of the so-called “9/11 truth movement,” yet it is vocal and pervasive, particularly on the Internet.

That’s right, it’s anti-Semitic to state the fact that the only people actually arrest on 9/11 were Jewish spies and military operatives directly from Israel. It’s now common knowledge that federal agencies of the United States government actually uncovered an elaborate, sophisticated, and state sponsored espionage operation involving Israeli intelligence and military operatives posing as art students as a cover for engaging in espionage at numerous federal facilities, buildings, and military bases.I’d like to present the Detailed Summary (beginning on page 49) of the Gerald Shea Memo, which was prepared for the National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission), the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence in September of 2004 shortly after the 9/11 Commission released it’s report coverup:

Set forth below is a detailed summary of the tentative conclusions reached in this memorandum, which amply illustrate the urgent need for a public inquiry into the activities of the Israeli DEA Groups and the Israeli New Jersey Group. The inquiry must include, without limitation, the examination of members of the Israel Groups and related persons; officials of the Israeli government and certain of its agencies, including Mossad; FBI suspects, agents of the DEA, the INS and the FBI; certain local law enforcement officials; agents of the CIA (in camera to the extent required); other intelligence sources cited by the public press to the extent possible; the boxes of documents and computer hard drives (referred on page 29) seized by the FBI from the Israeli New Jersey Group; and of all other relevant documents, reports, communiqués and information.–

1. The Israeli DEA Groups were spying on the Drug Enforcement Agency and thus upon the United States. The DEA itself has concluded that they were probably engaged in organized intelligence gathering on our soil.

2. A highly regarded American journal knowledgeable about Israeli affairs, has concluded (a) based on its own sources, that the Israeli DEA Groups were spying on radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism, and (b) based on the representations of a former American intelligence official regularly briefed on these matters by law enforcement officials, that (i) at least two members of the Israeli New Jersey Group were Mossad operatives, (ii) Urban Moving, the company used by the Israeli New Jersey Group, was a front for Mossad and its operatives, and (iii) the Israeli New Jersey Group was spying on local Arabs.

3. The intelligence sources of a substantial American television network report that the Israeli DEA Groups may have gathered information about the September 11 attacks in advance, and not shared it with the United States. One investigator said that evidence linking the Israeli DEA Groups to such intelligence gathering was classified and could not be disclosed.

4. The Israeli DEA Groups were comprised of 125 or more Israelis operating on our soil. Their leaders and apparent associates included military commanders and experts with military backgrounds in intelligence, electronic intercepts and telecommunications.

5. The wiretapping and intelligence expertise of members of both Israeli Groups, and the use of vans in local neighborhoods where the future hijackers were planning the attacks, and the extensive use by the hijackers of cell phones and land lines, made the Israeli Groups ideally suited to gather information regarding the hijackers’ plans.

6. The principal operation of the Israeli DEA Groups was located in and around Hollywood, Florida, the central training and staging ground for the hijacking of North and South Tower Planes and the Pennsylvania Plane. The addresses and places of residence of the members of the Israeli DEA Groups in Hollywood itself were within hundreds of yards those of the future hijackers.

7. The operations of both the Israeli New Jersey Group and the hijackers of the Pentagon Plane were centered in Hudson and Bergen Counties in New Jersey, within a common radius of about six miles.

8. All five celebrating members of the Israeli New Jersey Group arrested on September 11 were aware, when the North Tower Plane struck the World Trade Center, based on their immediate reaction to the attack and the information said to be contained in their van, that the attack had been planned and carried out by Arab terrorists.

9. After being questioned by the FBI on September 11, the leader of the Israeli New Jersey Group immediately fled the United States to Israel. His name and aliases appear, along with those of the hijackers and other FBI suspects, on the May 2002 FBI Suspect list.

10. Israeli intelligence officials have reported that two senior officials of Mossad warned the United States in August 2001 that as many as 200 terrorists on American soil were planning an imminent large-scale attack on high visibility targets on the American mainland. One press report states that in August Mossad provided the CIA with the names of future hijackers Khaled al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi.

11. The CIA’s explanation of how Mihdhar’s and Hazmi’s names were placed on the Watchlist through the spontaneous efforts of CIA and FBI agents is not only difficult to follow but, as the sole reason for the Watchlisting, hardly credible.

12. Mossad’s own information appears to have come from its sources inside the United States. All of the facts and circumstances set forth in this memorandum appear to show that Mossad’s two likely sources of information were: (a) the Israeli DEA Groups, comparable in number to that of the Arab suspects and who appear to have tracked the future hijackers in their central places of operation and in other states, and (b) the Israeli New Jersey Group, operating through their Mossad front in another principal locus of operations of the future hijackers, two of whom were Mossad agents, and five of whom appeared immediately aware of the origin of the attacks on September 11.

13. While little direct evidence supports the contention that the CIA was aware of or condoned the Israeli Groups’ tracking of Arab terrorist groups in the United States prior to September 11, the CIA’s pressing for the expulsion of members of the Israeli DEA Groups when they were detained before September 11, their failure to cooperate with the FBI, their circuitous explanation of how the above two hijackers were placed on the Watchlist, and other relevant considerations require that the issue be taken up as a part of the public inquiry into these painful events.

Pointing out these inconvenient facts is clearly anti-Semitic. The article goes on to describe the evolving nature of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists:

The most prominent promoters of these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories today tend less often to be white supremacists and right-wing anti-Semites. Rather they are more commonly members of a group of anti-Israel conspiracists who see the 9/11 attacks as one of a series of “false flag” operations that Israel has carried out to manufacture a war against its Muslim enemies (the term “false flag” operations refers to acts of sabotage or terror conducted by one perpetrator but designed to appear as if conducted by another, with the goal of setting the victim at odds with the false perpetrator).

How irrational that these anti-Semites “see the 9/11 attacks as one of a series of “false flag” operations that Israel” has carried out to frame the Muslim world! Why would anyone think that?Well, the Israelis have a long history of engaging in these sort of false flag attacks. From TheOutrage: The Bombing of the King David Hotel:

On the morning of the 22nd of July 1946 a party of between 15 and 20 Jews, dressed as an Arabs entered the King David Hotel. The hotel housed the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. The terrorists were able to enter the building without arousing too much attention because part of the building was still being used as a hotel and other people frequented it. The Jews pretended to be an Arab working party. Having unloading from their lorry several milk churns filled with 225 kilogram’s of explosive, they placed them in the basement of the wing of the hotel occupied by the Secretariat.

A British officer standing nearby, one Major Mackintosh, became suspicious of this group of Arabs and began to ask questions, but was suddenly gunned down by a member of the Jewish gang and subsequently died. [...]

There was no time to evacuate the building and the charge exploded with devastating effect. Many were killed instantly as the whole wing of the building collapsed about them, others were trapped and many more injured.

Remember the Lavon Affair in 1954?

The Lavon affair (“Esek Habish” – the shameful affair) was one of the most bizarre chapters in Israeli history. In 1954, the Israeli secret service set up a spy ring in Egypt, with the purpose of blowing up US and British targets. The operation was code-named “Susanah.” The terrorist hits were to be blamed on the regime of Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser, with the purpose of alienating the US and Britain from Egypt and Nasser and somehow preventing Egyptian nationalization of the Suez canal. The ring was discovered.

Strict censorship ensured that that the Israeli public officially knew little or nothing of the affair for many years.

Or the Israeli false flag attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, 34 killing American sailors?

When U.S.Navy sailor Phil Tourney saw Israeli planes circling the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, he and his crewmates thought nothing of it. The Israelis waved at the crew and the Liberty crew, waved back. The USS Liberty was a unique vessel, unlike any other in the world, with a large tower and radio dishes used for eavesdropping, so the chance it could be mistaken for an “enemy” vessel were zero. The oversize U.S. flag and the large ID numbers painted on the ship also made identification of the ship possible from miles away.

Imagine the shock and horror when the Israelis attacked the lightly armed intelligence gathering vessel in broad daylight. A torpedo was fired and struck the Liberty dead on. Israeli aircraft strafed the men aboard and dropped napalm on the decks. Torpedo boats machine-gunned the crew as they tried to rescue wounded U.S. servicemen. The Israelis even shot up life rafts to prevent any escape.

The article goes on to describe the evolution of these anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and their main talking points:

The most popular conspiratorial allegations include the following:

The Mossad was behind the attacks. Variations of this theory assert that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, was behind the 9/11 attacks; the “proof” is the “five dancing Israelis” arrested on 9/11 who were allegedly celebrating as the Twin Towers burned. Although this theory has circulated since 2001, the initial scenario painted the five Israelis as “spies” who knew that the attacks were going to happen and chose not to inform the U.S government. Over time, the theory evolved and today proponents claim that the five Israelis were actually directing the attacks and began dancing when they realized that their mission of creating a false flag operation had been accomplished.

Jewish neo-conservatives were behind the attacks. Proponents of this theory claim that neo-conservative American officials of Jewish faith within the Bush administration, particularly Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, methodically worked out a plan, with the assistance of the Mossad, to carry out the attacks in order to benefit Israel. This theory alleges that these officials orchestrated a plan well before 9/11, with the goal of invading Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries to allow the U.S. and Israel to seize control of resources and power in that area.

The Jewish controlled media and government work to prevent the truth from emerging. The “truth” about Israeli and Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attacks will not be allowed to emerge, claim conspiracy theorists, because Jews were in charge of the 9/11 Commission report and actually control the media and government.

In addition to these key themes, a multitude of lesser conspiracy theories also continue to circulate.

These range from an alleged Israeli art student spy ring keeping track of the hijackers before the attacks, to Israeli companies controlling U.S telecommunications, to Jewish owners wanting to gain financially from the destruction of the World Trade Center complex.

Well, we do know that some of the Israeli spies arrested on 9/11 were Mossad operatives (and all of them appear to be former military specialists), including three of the 5 “dancing Israelis” discovered filming the attacks on 9/11. We also know that many of the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, including Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dov Zakheim, Michael Chertoff, and others, were American Jews with direct ties to Israel, and many of them even had dual citizenship with Israel. Many of these individuals have been alleged to have engaged in espionage for the state of Israel in the past, and were involved in publishing various policy papers advocating and preparing for a scenario that just happened to come about on 9/11.

We also know that the Jewish controlled media and U.S. government work very hard to keep the truth about 9/11 from reaching the American public. But their propaganda efforts are extremely poor, and their effect is wearing off on the American people as more and more of us are waking up each day to these facts.

We also know that there was indeed an Israeli art student espionage and drug smuggling ring operating in the United States prior to 9/11, and that these Israeli military/intelligence operatives were actually surveilling the alleged Arab terrorists blamed for 9/11 in addition to spying on federal agencies of the U.S. government around the country. Further, credible sources have alleged that the Mossad was actually running the Arab hijacker patsy cell that was later blamed for the 9/11 attacks:

British intelligence reported in February 2002 that the Israeli Mossad ran the Arab hijacker cells that were later blamed by the U.S. government’s 9/11 Commission for carrying out the aerial attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. WMR has received details of the British intelligence report which was suppressed by the government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.

A Mossad unit consisting of six Egyptian- and Yemeni-born Jews infiltrated “Al Qaeda” cells in Hamburg (the Atta-Mamoun Darkanzali cell), south Florida, and Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates in the months before 9/11. The Mossad not only infiltrated cells but began to run them and give them specific orders that would eventually culminate in their being on board four regularly-scheduled flights originating in Boston, Washington Dulles, and Newark, New Jersey on 9/11.

Finally, we do in fact know that Israeli telecommunications companies control U.S. telecommunications and that the Jewish owners of the World Trade Center complex profited tremendously from the destruction of the towers on 9/11. It’s telling that the ADL article never actually disputes any of this, just labels it anti-Semitic. How typical. Hey Abe, your tired canards don’t work anymore.

Seeds of a revolution

From Humble Student of the Markets :

I have written extensively about the widening income gap between the rich and poor in America. For examples, see:

1. Which is more elitist? France or America?
2. It's a Class War, Stupid!
3. The Fed's (inadvertent) role in the class war

A number of mainstream figures have jumped on that bandwagon. Consider this article from the Washington Post from June that decried the filthy rich:

It was the 1970s, and the chief executive of a leading U.S. dairy company, Kenneth J. Douglas, lived the good life. He earned the equivalent of about $1 million today. He and his family moved from a three-bedroom home to a four-bedroom home, about a half-mile away, in River Forest, Ill., an upscale Chicago suburb. He joined a country club. The company gave him a Cadillac. The money was good enough, in fact, that he sometimes turned down raises. He said making too much was bad for morale.

Forty years later, the trappings at the top of Dean Foods, as at most U.S. big companies, are more lavish. The current chief executive, Gregg L. Engles, averages 10 times as much in compensation as Douglas did, or about $10 million in a typical year. He owns a $6 million home in an elite suburb of Dallas and 64 acres near Vail, Colo., an area he frequently visits. He belongs to as many as four golf clubs at a time — two in Texas and two in Colorado. While Douglas’s office sat on the second floor of a milk distribution center, Engles’s stylish new headquarters occupies the top nine floors of a 41-story Dallas office tower. When Engles leaves town, he takes the company’s $10 million Challenger 604 jet, which is largely dedicated to his needs, both business and personal.

Henry Blodgett recently wrote Remember "The American Dream?" What A Bunch Of Crap where he decried the lack of opportunity in America by pointing to the correlation of intergenerational earnings, which is a point that I made some time ago by referencing an OECD study that came to the same conclusion.

Now Bill Gross, who can hardly be characterized as a pinko commie, lamented the death of the American Dream in his latest missive [emphasis added]:

This impending divorce in America is not about sex or sleeping around, but more about romancing the now stone-cold notion that anyone could be a millionaire in the good old U.S. of A. if only they worked hard enough. Our Statue of Liberty proclaimed “give us your tired, your poor…” and sent many of them West to build a little house on the prairie or strike it rich in the goldfields of Sacramento, California or Skagway, Alaska. Many of them did and a century later, the option-laden fields of Silicon Valley provided modern-day examples of rags to riches fairytales come true. But this odd couple marriage of rich (and poor hoping to be rich), now seems on rather shaky ground. Instead of boundless opportunity, the nursery rhyme describing Jack Sprat – who could eat no fat – and his wife – who could eat no lean – appears to be the starker of the two realities. There are the poor and there are the very rich, with the shrinking middle class resembling Mr. Sprat rather than his wife.

How Wall Street owns America
The truth is that the top 0.1% really controls most of the wealth in American and even the merely affluent are just making do. Consider this commentary from an experienced wealth management professional. Here is his characterization of the bottom of the top 1% in America today - these are your Horatio Alger stories:

The 99th to 99.5th percentiles largely include physicians, attorneys, upper middle management, and small business people who have done well.

Those in the bottom half of the top 1% are actually rather insecure and not exactly living the life of the rich and famous [emphasis added]:

I’ve had many discussions in the last few years with clients with “only” $5M or under in assets, those in the 99th to 99.9th percentiles, as to whether they have enough money to retire or stay retired. That may sound strange to the 99% not in this group but generally accepted “safe” retirement distribution rates for a 30 year period are in the 3-5% range with 4% as the current industry standard. Assuming that the lower end of the top 1% has, say, $1.2M in investment assets, their retirement income will be about $50k per year plus maybe $30k-$40k from Social Security, so let’s say $90k per year pre-tax and $75-$80k post-tax if they wish to plan for 30 years of withdrawals. For those with $1.8M in retirement assets, that rises to around $120-150k pretax per year and around $100k after tax. If someone retires with $5M today, roughly the beginning rung for entry into the top 0.1%, they can reasonably expect an income of $240k pretax and around $190k post tax, including Social Security.

While income and lifestyle are all relative, an after-tax income between $6.6k and $8.3k per month today will hardly buy the fantasy lifestyles that Americans see on TV and would consider “rich”. In many areas in California or the East Coast, this positions one squarely in the hard working upper-middle class, and strict budgeting will be essential. An income of $190k post tax or $15.8k per month will certainly buy a nice lifestyle but is far from rich. And, for those folks who made enough to accumulate this much wealth during their working years, the reduction in income and lifestyle during retirement can be stressful. Plus, watching retirement accounts deplete over time isn’t fun, not to mention the ever-fluctuating value of these accounts and the desire of many to leave a substantial inheritance. Our poor lower half of the top 1% lives well but has some financial worries.

People who are in the top 0.1% or 0.5% generally got their wealth from finance [emphasis added]:

Folks in the top 0.1% come from many backgrounds but it’s infrequent to meet one whose wealth wasn’t acquired through direct or indirect participation in the financial and banking industries. One of our clients, net worth in the $60M range, built a small company and was acquired with stock from a multi-national. Stock is often called a “paper” asset. Another client, CEO of a medium-cap tech company, retired with a net worth in the $70M range. The bulk of any CEO’s wealth comes from stock, not income, and incomes are also very high. Last year, the average S&P 500 CEO made $9M in all forms of compensation. One client runs a division of a major international investment bank, net worth in the $30M range and most of the profits from his division flow directly or indirectly from the public sector, the taxpayer. Another client with a net worth in the $10M range is the ex-wife of a managing director of a major investment bank, while another was able to amass $12M after taxes by her early thirties from stock options as a high level programmer in a successful IT company. The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top 0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial industry and its creations. I find it questionable as to whether the majority in this group actually adds value or simply diverts value from the US economy and business into its pockets and the pockets of the uber-wealthy who hire them. They are, of course, doing nothing illegal.

You need intellectuals and leaders for a revolution
History is filled with peasant revolutions that fizzled and never went anywhere. The ones that are really dangerous to the Ruling Powers are the movements that have 1) leadership; 2) followers; and 3) an intellectual foundation. It may be easy to dismiss the likes of left leaning DailyKos account of Iceland's ongoing revolution, which is the modern equivalent of peasants gathering with pitchforks. It's more difficult when establishment figures like Bill Gross and Warren Buffett stands up for the cause.
 
In addition, we also have George Magnus, of UBS, who has writing an editorial in that pinko website Bloomberg entitled Give Karl Marx a chance to save the world economy. The likes of Gross, Buffett, Magnus et al represent the leadership in this movement to save capitalism from itself. If they aren't careful, they may spark a revolution that goes in an unintended direction. (For example, remember Gorbachev? Where is he now?)
 
What about the intellectual foundation for a revolution? I found an intriguing and disturbing interview with David Graeber, a social anthropologist, who has a new theory of money - that the use of debt and credit is a way to creating a class of debt slaves. He explains that credit came first before currency as a medium of exchange:

So really, rather than the standard story – first there’s barter, then money, then finally credit comes out of that – if anything its precisely the other way around. Credit and debt comes first, then coinage emerges thousands of years later and then, when you do find “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow” type of barter systems, it’s usually when there used to be cash markets, but for some reason – as in Russia, for example, in 1998 – the currency collapses or disappears.

Even in ancient Mesopotamia, there were debt slaves [emphasis added]:

This was the great social evil of antiquity – families would have to start pawning off their flocks, fields and before long, their wives and children would be taken off into debt peonage. Often people would start abandoning the cities entirely, joining semi-nomadic bands, threatening to come back in force and overturn the existing order entirely. Rulers would regularly conclude the only way to prevent complete social breakdown was to declare a clean slate or ‘washing of the tablets,’ they’d cancel all consumer debt and just start over. In fact, the first recorded word for ‘freedom’ in any human language is the Sumerian amargi, a word for debt-freedom, and by extension freedom more generally, which literally means ‘return to mother,’ since when they declared a clean slate, all the debt peons would get to go home.

Graeber said that the idea of debt is deeply embedded in the language of ancient cultures and religions:

In Sanskrit, Hebrew, Aramaic, ‘debt,’ ‘guilt,’ and ‘sin’ are actually the same word. Much of the language of the great religious movements – reckoning, redemption, karmic accounting and the like – are drawn from the language of ancient finance.

Throughout history, we have seen shifts between a credit based economy and commodity/barter based economies, but those shifts are highly disruptive and can cause the fall of civilizations:

Since antiquity the worst-case scenario that everyone felt would lead to total social breakdown was a major debt crisis; ordinary people would become so indebted to the top one or two percent of the population that they would start selling family members into slavery, or eventually, even themselves.

Top one or two percent? Sound familiar? He went on to talk about how the financial institutions are now perpetuating the status quo [emphasis added]:

Well, what happened this time around? Instead of creating some sort of overarching institution to protect debtors, they create these grandiose, world-scale institutions like the IMF or S&P to protect creditors. They essentially declare (in defiance of all traditional economic logic) that no debtor should ever be allowed to default. Needless to say the result is catastrophic. We are experiencing something that to me, at least, looks exactly like what the ancients were most afraid of: a population of debtors skating at the edge of disaster.

And, I might add, if Aristotle were around today, I very much doubt he would think that the distinction between renting yourself or members of your family out to work and selling yourself or members of your family to work was more than a legal nicety. He’d probably conclude that most Americans were, for all intents and purposes, slaves.

Remember that quote, "[Aristotle] would probably conclude that most Americans were, for all intents and purposes, slaves."

The American Revolution was sparked by the theory of natural rights, as espoused by thinkers such as John Locke. Today, Graeber may fill the role of Locke. We have all the ingredients for a revolutions: the intellectual foundation (a new theory of money that concludes that Americans are debt slaves), a leadership cadre (Buffett, Gross, Magnus et al) and dissatisfied peasants with pitchforks.

America needs to be careful. Down that road is Robespierre, Hitler and the disintegration of a civilization.


Cam Hui is a portfolio manager at Qwest Investment Fund Management Ltd. ("Qwest"). This article is prepared by Mr. Hui as an outside business activity. As such, Qwest does not review or approve materials presented herein. The opinions and any recommendations expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions or recommendations of Qwest.

None of the information or opinions expressed in this blog constitutes a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security or other instrument. Nothing in this article constitutes investment advice and any recommendations that may be contained herein have not been based upon a consideration of the investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any specific recipient. Any purchase or sale activity in any securities or other instrument should be based upon your own analysis and conclusions. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Either Qwest or Mr. Hui may hold or control long or short positions in the securities or instruments mentioned.