Bringing Stability to the World: US Style

Anti-Empire Report

America’s other glorious war

The Pentagon pushes hard for a large increase in troops for Afghanistan. Barack Obama has been calling for the same since well before the November election. Listen to the drumbeats telling us that the security of the United States and the Free World necessitates increased action in this place called Afghanistan. As urgent as Iraq 2003, it is. Why? What is there about this backward, reactionary, woman-hating, failed state that warrants hundreds of deaths of American and NATO soldiers? That justifies tens of thousands of Afghan deaths since the first US bombing attacks in October 2001?

In early December, reports the Washington Post, “standing at Kandahar Air Field in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the United States is making a ‘sustained commitment’ to that country, one that will last ‘some protracted period of time’.” The story goes on to discuss $300 million in construction projects at this one base to house additional American forces, erecting guard stations and towers and perimeter fencing around the barracks area, putting in vehicle inspection areas, administration offices, cold-storage warehouse, a new power plant, electrical and water distribution systems, communications lines, housing for 1,500 personnel who sustain the systems, maintenance shops, warehousesWashington Post, December 25, 2008. … America’s wealth bleeds out endlessly.

Back in April Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez, commander of the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, when asked how long it would take to create “lasting stability” in Afghanistan, replied: “In some way, shape or form … I think it’s a generation.”Reuters, April 29, 2008. “Stability”, it should be noted, is a code word used regularly by the United States since at least the 1950s to mean that the regime in power is willing and able to behave the way Washington would like it to behave. It is remarkable, and scary, to read the US military writing about how it goes around the world bringing “stability” to (often ungrateful) people. This past October the Army published a manual called “Stability Operations.” It discusses numerous American interventions all over the world since the 1890s, one example after another of bringing “stability” to benighted peoples. One can picture the young American service members reading it, or having it fed to them in lectures, full of pride to be a member of such an altruistic fighting force.

For those members of the US military in Afghanistan the most enlightening lesson they could receive is that their government’s plans for that land of sadness have little or nothing to do with the welfare of the Afghan people. In the late 1970s through much of the 1980s, the country had a government that was relatively progressive, with full rights for women; even a Pentagon report of the time testified to the actuality of women’s rights in the country.U.S. Department of the Army, Afghanistan, A Country Study (1986), pp.121, 128, 130, 134, 136, 223, 232-3. And what happened to that government? The United States was instrumental in overthrowing it. It was replaced by the Taliban.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, US oil companies have been vying with Russia, Iran and other energy interests for the massive, untapped oil and natural gas reserves in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. The building and protection of oil and gas pipelines in Afghanistan, to continue farther to Pakistan, India, and elsewhere, has been a key objective of US policy since before the 2001 American invasion and occupation of the country, although the subsequent turmoil there has presented serious obstacles to such plans. A planned Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline has strong support from Washington because, amongst other reasons, the US is eager to block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran.Globe & Mail (Toronto), June 19, 2008. But security for such projects remains daunting, and that’s where the US and NATO forces come in to play.

In the late 1990s, the American oil company, Unocal, met with Taliban officials in Texas to discuss the pipelines.BBC News, December 4, 1997, “Taleban [sic] in Texas for talks on gas pipeline.” Zalmay Khalilzad, later chosen to be the US ambassador to Afghanistan, worked for Unocal;Washington Post, November 23, 2001. Hamid Karzai, later chosen by Washington to be the Afghan president, also reportedly worked for Unocal, although the company denies this. Unocal’s talks with the Taliban, conducted with the full knowledge of the Clinton administration, and undeterred by the extreme repression of Taliban society, continued as late as 2000 or 2001.

As for NATO, it has no reason to be fighting in Afghanistan. Indeed, NATO has no legitimate reason for existence at all. Their biggest fear is that “failure” in Afghanistan would make this thought more present in the world’s mind. If NATO hadn’t begun to intervene outside of Europe it would have highlighted its uselessness and lack of mission. “Out of area or out of business” it was said.

In June, the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives published a report saying Taliban and insurgent activity against the US-NATO presence in Kandahar province puts the feasibility of the pipeline project in doubt. The report says southern regions in Afghanistan, including Kandahar, would have to be cleared of insurgent activity and land mines in two years to meet construction and investment schedules.

“Nobody is going to start putting pipe in the ground unless they are satisfied that there is some reasonable insurance that the workers for the pipeline are going to be safe,” said Howard Brown, the Canadian representative for the Asian Development Bank, the major funding agency for the pipeline.United Press International, July 17, 2008.

If Americans were asked what they think their country is doing in Afghanistan, their answers would likely be one variation or another of “fighting terrorism”, with some kind of connection to 9-11. But what does that mean? Of the tens of thousands of Afghans killed by American/NATO bombs over the course of seven years, how many can it be said had any kind of linkage to any kind of anti-American terrorist act, other than in Afghanistan itself during this period? Not one, as far as we know. The so-called “terrorist training camps” in Afghanistan were set up largely by the Taliban to provide fighters for their civil conflict with the Northern Alliance (minimally less religious fanatics and misogynists than the Taliban, but represented in the present Afghan government). As everyone knows, none of the alleged 9-11 hijackers was an Afghan; 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia; and most of the planning for the attacks appears to have been carried out in Germany and the United States. So, of course, bomb Afghanistan. And keep bombing Afghanistan. And bomb Pakistan. Especially wedding parties (at least six so far).

Israel and Palestine, again, forever

Nothing changes. Including what I have to say on the matter. To prove my point, I’m repeating part of what I wrote in this report in July 2006 …

There are times when I think this tired old world has gone on a few years too long. What’s happening in the Middle East is so depressing. Most discussions of the everlasting Israel-Palestine conflict are variations on the child’s eternal defense for misbehavior — “He started it!” Within two minutes of discussing/arguing the latest manifestation of the conflict the participants are back to 1967, then 1948, then biblical times. Instead of getting entangled in who started the current mess, I’d prefer to express what I see as two essential underlying facts of life which remain from one conflict to the next:

1) Israel’s existence is not at stake and hasn’t been so for decades, if it ever was, regardless of the many de rigueur militant statements by Middle East leaders over the years. If Israel would learn to deal with its neighbors in a non-expansionist, non-military, humane, and respectful manner, engage in full prisoner exchanges, and sincerely strive for a viable two-state (if not one-state) solution, even those who are opposed to the idea of a state based on a particular religion could accept the state of Israel, and the question of its right to exist would scarcely arise in people’s minds. But as it is, Israel still uses the issue as a justification for its behavior, as Jews all over the world use the Holocaust and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

2) In a conflict between a thousand-pound gorilla and a mouse, it’s the gorilla who has to make concessions in order for the two sides to progress to the next level. What can the Palestinians offer in the way of concession? Israel would reply to that question: “No violent attacks of any kind.” But that would leave the status quo ante bellum — a life of unmitigated misery for the occupied, captive Palestinian people, confined to the world’s largest open air concentration camp.

It is a wanton act of collective punishment that is depriving the Palestinians of food, electricity, water, money, access to the outside world … and sleep. Israel has been sending jets flying over Gaza at night triggering sonic booms, traumatizing children. “I want nobody to sleep at night in Gaza,” declared Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert,Associated Press, July 3, 2006. words suitable for Israel’s tombstone.

Israel has created its worst enemies — they helped create Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah in Palestine, and their occupation of Lebanon created Hezbollah. The current terrible bombings can be expected to keep the process going. Since its very beginning, Israel has been almost continually engaged in fighting wars and taking other people’s lands. Did not any better way ever occur to the idealistic Zionist pioneers?

The question that may never go away: Who really is Barack Obama?

In his autobiography, Dreams From My Fathers, Barack Obama writes of taking a job at some point after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as “a consulting house to multinational corporations” in New York City, and his functions as a “research assistant” and “financial writer”.

The odd part of Obama’s story is that he doesn’t mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation.New York Times, October 30, 2007. Equally odd is that the Times did not remind its readers that the newspaper itself had disclosed in 1977 that Business International had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960.New York Times, December 27, 1977, p.40.

The British journal, Lobster Magazine — which, despite its incongruous name, is a venerable international publication on intelligence matters — has reported that Business International was active in the 1980s promoting the candidacy of Washington-favored candidates in Australia and Fiji.Lobster Magazine, Hull, UK, #14, November 1987. In 1987, the CIA overthrew the Fiji government after but one month in office because of its policy of maintaining the island as a nuclear-free zone, meaning that American nuclear-powered or nuclear-weapons-carrying ships could not make port calls.William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, pp.199-200. After the Fiji coup, the candidate supported by Business International, who was much more amenable to Washington’s nuclear desires, was reinstated to power — R.S.K. Mara was Prime Minister or President of Fiji from 1970 to 2000, except for the one-month break in 1987.

In his book, not only doesn’t Obama mention his employer’s name; he fails to say when he worked there, or why he left the job. There may well be no significance to these omissions, but inasmuch as Business International has a long association with the world of intelligence, covert actions, and attempts to penetrate the radical left — including Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)Carl Oglesby, Ravens in the Storm: A Personal History of the 1960s Antiwar Movement (2008), passim. — it’s valid to wonder if the inscrutable Mr. Obama is concealing something about his own association with this world.

On socialist Cuba’s 50th anniversary, January 1, 2009: Notes on the beginning of its unforgivable revolution.

The existence of a revolutionary socialist government with growing ties to the Soviet Union only 90 miles away, insisted the United States government, was a situation which no self-respecting superpower should tolerate, and in 1961 it undertook an invasion of Cuba.

But less than 50 miles from the Soviet Union sat Pakistan, a close ally of the United States, a member since 1955 of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), the US-created anti-communist alliance. On the very border of the Soviet Union was Iran, an even closer ally of the United States, with its relentless electronic listening posts, aerial surveillance, and infiltration into Russian territory by American agents. And alongside Iran, also bordering the Soviet Union, was Turkey, a member of the Russians’ mortal enemy, NATO, since 1951.

In 1962 during the “Cuban Missile Crisis”, Washington, seemingly in a state of near-panic, informed the world that the Russians were installing “offensive” missiles in Cuba. The US promptly instituted a “quarantine” of the island — a powerful show of naval and marine forces in the Caribbean would stop and search all vessels heading towards Cuba; any found to contain military cargo would be forced to turn back.

The United States, however, had missiles and bomber bases already in place in Turkey and other missiles in Western Europe pointed toward the Soviet Union. Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev later wrote:

The Americans had surrounded our country with military bases and threatened us with nuclear weapons, and now they would learn just what it feels like to have enemy missiles pointing at you; we’d be doing nothing more than giving them a little of their own medicine. … After all, the United States had no moral or legal quarrel with us. We hadn’t given the Cubans anything more than the Americans were giving to their allies. We had the same rights and opportunities as the Americans. Our conduct in the international arena was governed by the same rules and limits as the Americans.Khrushchev Remembers (1971) pp.494, 496.

Lest anyone misunderstand, as Khrushchev apparently did, the rules under which Washington was operating, Time magazine was quick to explain. “On the part of the Communists,” the magazine declared, “this equating [referring to Khrushchev’s offer to mutually remove missiles and bombers from Cuba and Turkey] had obvious tactical motives. On the part of neutralists and pacifists [who welcomed Khrushchev’s offer] it betrayed intellectual and moral confusion.” The confusion lay, it seems, in not seeing clearly who were the good guys and who were the bad guys, for “The purpose of the U.S. bases [in Turkey] was not to blackmail Russia but to strengthen the defense system of NATO, which had been created as a safeguard against Russian aggression. As a member of NATO, Turkey welcomed the bases as a contribution to her own defense.” Cuba, which had been invaded only the year before, could have, it seems, no such concern. Time continued its sermon, which undoubtedly spoke for most Americans:

“Beyond these differences between the two cases, there is an enormous moral difference between U.S. and Russian objectives … To equate U.S. and Russian bases is in effect to equate U.S. and Russian purposes … The U.S. bases, such as those in Turkey, have helped keep the peace since World War II, while the Russian bases in Cuba threatened to upset the peace. The Russian bases were intended to further conquest and domination, while U.S. bases were erected to preserve freedom. The difference should have been obvious to all.”Time magazine, November 2, 1962.

Equally obvious was the right of the United States to maintain a military base on Cuban soil — Guantanamo Naval Base by name, a vestige of colonialism staring down the throats of the Cuban people, which the US, to this day, refuses to vacate despite the vehement protest of the Castro government.

In the American lexicon, in addition to good and bad bases and missiles, there are good and bad revolutions. The American and French Revolutions were good. The Cuban Revolution is bad. It must be bad because so many people have left Cuba as a result of it.

But at least 100,000 people left the British colonies in America during and after the American Revolution. These Tories could not abide by the political and social changes, both actual and feared, particularly that change which attends all revolutions worthy of the name — Those looked down upon as inferiors no longer know their place. (Or as the US Secretary of State put it after the Russian Revolution: The Bolsheviks sought “to make the ignorant and incapable mass of humanity dominant in the earth.”Cited by William Appleman Williams, “American Intervention in Russia: 1917-20”, in David Horowitz, ed., “Containment and Revolution” (1967). Written in a letter to President Woodrow Wilson by Secretary of State Robert Lansing, uncle of John Foster and Allen Dulles.)

The Tories fled to Nova Scotia and Britain carrying tales of the godless, dissolute, barbaric American revolutionaries. Those who remained and refused to take an oath of allegiance to the new state governments were denied virtually all civil liberties. Many were jailed, murdered, or forced into exile. After the American Civil War, thousands more fled to South America and other points, again disturbed by the social upheaval. How much more is such an exodus to be expected following the Cuban Revolution? — a true social revolution, giving rise to changes much more profound than anything in the American experience. How many more would have left the United States if 90 miles away lay the world’s wealthiest nation welcoming their residence and promising all manner of benefits and rewards?

William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire. He can be reached at: Read other articles by William, or visit William's website.

22 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Dick Scott said on January 3rd, 2009 at 9:50am #

    Not a completely accurate picture of Afghan history. The ’60s and ’70s were relatively stable and progressive in Afghanistan. The king was overthrown by his cousin in ’73 who established a “republic”. A communist coup took out the republic in ’78 and the Soviets replaced the Afghan communists in’79 rather than let it fall to a rural based uprising against “Godless reforms”. The 10 years of Soviet occupation could not be considered a “progressive” period. Over a million Afghans were killed during this period of “progress”. The US supported the mujahadin against the Soviets until they finally gave up and left in ’88-’89. We lost interest in helping to rebuild a damaged Afghanistan with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The “Taliban” began to fill the power vacuum in ’94 out of Kandahar attempting to end the period of anarchy that followed the Soviet withdrawal.

  2. bozh said on January 3rd, 2009 at 10:47am #

    it seems to me that in ?all countries there r socialists and antisocialists.
    also, some people r adveturous.
    so, a number of people in cuba (let’s say20-30%) will flee or want to leave.
    a number of people of a given country do not know how to handle being ‘poorer’ than cit’ns of some other countries.
    they equate selfworth w. having things in relative abundance. so, they r unhappy and want to leave.
    or r being used as agents for destruction of socialism.
    as a very strong socialist, i wld let such people go. but only after they pay for any education they obtained. thnx

  3. John Hatch said on January 3rd, 2009 at 3:41pm #

    From what I can tell, there is precious little rebuilding going on in Afghanistan (well, maybe fancy new amenities for more American troops).

    As usual, America was willing to do business with the enemy it helped install by default (the Taliban), and can’t afford to annoy the drug/warlords (of whom President Karzai’s brother is said to be one).

    The National Assembly is even more corrupt than the American congress (I know!), and poppy growth and exports are at an all-time high.

    The dumbest thing in the world would be to increase America’s presence in Afghanistan, so of course that’s what will happen.

    Of course people had to get the hell out of Cuba after the Revolution. It was a Batista/Mafia playground, and even more corrupt than the American Congress (I know again!) Mafia casinos were taken over (and later shut down), and hotels (and presumably other Mafia businesses) taken over. Exploitive landowners had to share the land.

    Today, Luis Posada Carriles is a respected and feted member of the Cuban exile community in Miami. American officials apparently don’t care that he was instrumental in blowing up a Cubana airliner, killing everyone on board, including many children. It’s only ‘terror’ if you’re not doing it.

    Thanks to William Blum. Always fascinating.

  4. mass said on January 3rd, 2009 at 3:51pm #

    Dick Scott – I would say your description of Afghan history is not accurate. If the U.S puppet government in Afghanistan started it’s own Hasbara program I would nominate you a candidate. To say that a feudal system, where 75 percent of the land was owned by 3 percent of the population ruled by a corrupt and autocratic king, was a period “relatively stable and progressive” is accurate if you are related to royalty. Which I guess you are. Similarly the rest of your description of Afghanistan history is biased towards American imperialistic hegemonic loyalties.

  5. Max Shields said on January 3rd, 2009 at 3:59pm #

    Nice piece of analysis William Blum.

  6. MrCynic3 said on January 3rd, 2009 at 5:05pm #

    Thank you Mr. Blum. This is an excellent enlightening article .

  7. giorgio said on January 3rd, 2009 at 5:27pm #

    Essentially and undeniably TRUE!!!
    Fits like a glove what Martin L King said of the US government just a year before his murder:

    the GREATEST HYPOCRITE in the COSMOS, I hasten to add…

  8. John Hatch said on January 3rd, 2009 at 6:15pm #

    ‘the GREATEST HYPOCRITE in the COSMOS, I hasten to add…’

    I dunno…the Cosmos is pretty big, isn’t it?

    Nah, you’re probably right…

  9. rosemarie jackowski said on January 4th, 2009 at 9:11am #

    Thanks, Bill Blum, for another winning article here!

  10. louisa said on January 4th, 2009 at 11:44am #

    In his section on Israel/Palestine, Mr. Blum asks plaintively, “Did not any better way ever occur to the idealistic Zionist pioneers?’ thus perpetuating the Zionist myth that at least the original “pioneers” were pure-hearted idealists however awful they might be today.

    By contrast, Gilad Atzmon’s article which is adjacent on DV to Blum’s goes right to the heart of the matter by using the essential words “stolen land”. The early Zionist “pioneers” were nothing more than an advance party of thieves — cf. the notorious “Village Files” researched by Ilan Pappe — who had only theft and expulsion in their hearts.

    Blum also works to engender inaction by figuratively throwing up his hands with the usual canards: The probem is so old, “nothing changes”; no wait, it’s worse than that, it goes back to “biblical times” thus it has an eternal quality and may never be solvable. Moreover he accuses both sides of being (childishly) equally at fault, so the disposessed, murdered and looted bear equal responsibility along with the thieves and killers in the Blumian view.

    Because of Blum-like gatekeepers, western “progressives” have to date been rendered spineless vis-a-vis the slow motion genocide being carried out in Palestine.

  11. mass said on January 4th, 2009 at 3:41pm #

    louisa – I read your very insightful comment. The impression I got from Blum was that he was describing what everyone else was saying, the general consensus, and not necessarily his personal view point. His last sentence, “Did not any better way ever occur to the idealistic Zionist pioneers?”, strikes me as ironic when put in context.

  12. MrCynic3 said on January 4th, 2009 at 5:02pm #

    Louisa you pointed to very good points although I do not think William Blum is malicious but perhaps is trying to reach what in his opinion is a realist solution.
    May be when he reads your comment , he will have a second thought
    about his thinking.

  13. The Angry Peasant said on January 4th, 2009 at 7:58pm #

    Excellent article, Mr. Blum.

  14. bozh said on January 5th, 2009 at 4:03am #

    william blum does say a few vacuous things. some of the statements r incogruous w. the reality.
    reality, is as gilad said, euros stole the land from indigenes whose ancestors may have inhabited canaan for millennia.

    true canaan was a disputed territory. but only as far hebrews were concerned. here he seems to be blaming the victims, the hated canaanites, and hebrews, the perps.
    noah had cursed ham; his son, the ancestor of canaanites.

    blum also says or implies that the conflict btw pals and euros since ’17 is connected to biblical times.
    in spite of the fact that israelites have totally evanesced. judeans were slain or most fled for their life; only a few hundred may have remained, mostly in j’lem.

    he also needs to clarify what he meant by ‘jews’, a nonshemitic people, not thinking ab a better way to deal w. the shemites or semites, if one will.

    he also fails to tell us whether he is for a twostate ‘sol’n’. if he is, he is, to me, a mini zionist. there is no lngr a second state available if it ever was available.

    there r too many closet zionists on dv. we have levy, zinn, chomsky, hass, blum, et al.
    let us have more of the writers who reject any sol’n save one state one.

  15. Deadbeat said on January 5th, 2009 at 4:39am #


    I’m in agreement with your insight and caution regarding Blum as a “mini” Zionist. Blum has a tendency to blame “oil” as the major impetus of the conflict in the Middle East. This is not to say that oil is not a factor but often times “oil” is used to deflect and to obscure the role and influence of Zionism. Thus some of the cheers I see being hoisted upon Blum here on DV, IMO, is rather misguided.

  16. Deadbeat said on January 5th, 2009 at 4:54am #

    louisa writes …

    Because of Blum-like gatekeepers, western “progressives” have to date been rendered spineless vis-a-vis the slow motion genocide being carried out in Palestine.

    I concur. Excellent analysis.

  17. Max Shields said on January 5th, 2009 at 6:54am #

    Blaming “oil”, as you put it Deadbeat has nothing to do with Zionism (or being a so-called min-zionist).

    Since you fail to see any significant value in oil to the West and particularly the US, and hence it’s particular importance to the whole US way of life as the primary (and perhaps non-interchangeable) energy source, you continue this meaningless argument about “oil”.

    The arrangement FDR made with the Saudis and the deep history of petro in the ME seems to have no sway with your thinking.

    Overall this is a very good article by Blum. He covers a variety of pertinent topics. The use of the term “idealistic zionist” is definitely one I would not use to describe the murderous expansionists who have been so from the very inception of Israel to now. If that word was put in to “gate-keep” I don’t know.

    But you have done what louisa did NOT. You once again tried to connect the use of oil as some kind of “signal” that there is Zionism behind it. This is not only a slanderous reference to all those who are mightily against Zionism but to anyone with half-a-brain who can see how oil (and other energy producing resources) have been the underlying motives for all imperial empires to dominate regions of the world, and how that is primary in the “chessboard” in today’s foreign policy – for the US. History shows that once energy – whatever the dependency is, becomes scarce in relationship to demand, the life blood of empire is destroyed.

  18. MrCynic3 said on January 5th, 2009 at 11:24am #

    Of course oil is the basis for US policies in the M.E. The zionists and
    Israel are tools for that policies.
    The so called zionist influence is there because the zionists aims are
    dovetailing with these US policies.
    The minute there is a divergence between the US policies and the
    zionist aims then watch what will happen to that “zionist influence.”

  19. Hue Longer said on January 5th, 2009 at 7:01pm #

    true Max,

    There was a time that war was waged over beer because it was a way to preserve grain thus enabling armies to move further. Now the people invading breweries surely yelled insults at the people they were attacking and it always helps to have god or gods on your side in matters of life and death, but that beer was valuable stuff enabling you to get more slaves and women (and to give praise to your gods no doubt)…whether the slaves and women came before the beer or the beer came before the slaves and women, you still needed the beer.

  20. Josie Michel-Brüning said on January 7th, 2009 at 5:07am #

    Sorry for having been late. I should have read this excellent article much earlier because of its good arguments, inclusively refreshing history.
    I will copy it.

  21. Phil said on January 7th, 2009 at 10:30am #

    any kind of anti-American terrorist act, other than in Afghanistan itself

    Ridiculous. Terrorism is violence against civilians. Anti-American terrorism can only happen against American civilians. In Afghanistan itself, any violence against Americans is against US soldiers. That’s not terrorism, it’s the expression of the legal and moral rights of the Afghan people to resist occupation.

  22. AEAZ - A. Myers said on January 14th, 2009 at 5:01am #

    Logically you can almost guarantee that all atrocities, war and manipulations come from a power / financial motivation covered in a religious overtone. The big banking dynasties of this millennium are behind all of them it seems. We find the evidence of this in the outcomes of each manipulation; the general populous are lambs to the slaughter in this. We are a blood sacrifice for an ultimate aim of total control. The more hate sown between Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Christians the better. The more one nation rises against another the closer we get to worldwide conflict, the bankers and arms peddlers win again because they supply all sides. The more the worldwide economy collapses the better a single currency will sound. These truths are leaving the arena of theory and entering the realms of fact.

    Using any terms around zionist ideologies, people falsely equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism (more spin). What I mean when I mention zionist ideologies is not Jews (as many Hassidic Jews are abhorrent of these ideologies) but every strata of society, neo-cons, mormons, jehovahs witnesses, christians, muslims, hindus, freemasons – ALL the upper echelons of religions, finance and politics are infested with racist, zionistic idealogies.

    To decide that all Jews are Zionists is to do exactly what they want you to do – they are laughing at you because you are now exactly the same as them, a racists thug! Many Jews are against Zionist ideologies, I am a gentile researcher who has seen much evidence of this.

    anti elitist / anti zionist