The Greatest Crisis of Our Time

I believe today that we face a monumental albatross in our human history to our endeavors for progress. And I believe we as mankind are in the greatest crisis of our time. The disease of corruption and decadence seeps through much of human civilization today. There are many factors that I believe set the stage for potentially the greatest catastrophe of mankind, or at least in the modern age. Back in ancient times, its seems that as one part of the world was experiencing upheaval, another was doing well. But now there seems to be a dark cloud hovering not just over a region, but the entire world. It seems so many wrong things can now potentially engender in numerous locations.

The World Economic Depression and Talk of Austerity
Any one who pays attention, even occasionally, can see that there is a world economic depression. In the United States, it is estimated that the unemployment rate is close to 15%, according to Peter Ferrara of Forbes. From what he implies, this number may be more, considering the people who have given up hope of finding employment, and significantly underemployed that are not counted in the statistics of such government agencies as the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In Europe it is estimated that the unemployment rate is around 11.6%, according to The Guardian, citing their source Eurostat. Again, this may be a little misleading considering other factors.

Protests are happening all around the world, especially in places like Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. The unemployment rates for the youths are even higher. What's even worse in this midst of rampant unemployment is that governments are proposing to cut social programs, otherwise known as austerity. These things haven't contributed a cent to unemployment. People who are significantly underemployed and  those who have given up finding employment altogether rely on some sort of social service to make ends meet. This makes the talk of austerity even more untenable. To add insult to this injury, austerity doesn't even work. It actually deepens the deficit and causes needless and mass suffering. As geopolitical analyst Webster Tarpley once said, austerity is genocide. When you deprive people of basic social services that they need to survive due to their unfortunate circumstances, it amounts to killing them. People will die. Yet our "public servants" in the highest offices of the land (especially in Europe and the U.S) are only interested in servicing their debt to bankers and expanding war by cutting these beneficial social programs that the poor desperately need at this time. I believe this reality helps set the stage for a vast humanitarian crisis on both continents.

Due to inflation (mainly by speculation) of necessities like energy and food, millions are becoming further impoverished in the U.S and Europe. In this video, renounced economist Max Kaiser, speaks of the collapse of all global "fiat" currencies, in other words paper currency. There is certainly currency war taking place in the global economy, that is sure to only end in devastation for the common people of the world. The depression will deepen further to abysmal levels. Nutrition-related diseases can be expected to be on the rise, adversely affecting society in a number of ways.

Globalism, another name for "free trade", which is at the root of this rising wave of massive unemployment is not even mentioned in the slightest. All underlying factors that led to the state of the economic situation we are in now have been omitted from any mainstream conversation, and instead the poor are fear mongered into giving up their economic rights (austerity), or else.

As we all know by observing the 20th century, depressions produce austerity, austerity produces dictatorships, dictatorships produce wars. A vicious cycle perpetuated by the ruling class, much to the detriment of society and the violation of peace.

The Threat of Nuclear War
If you don't think this is a possibility, then I hope you are right. In his superb article, No Wonder China is Nervous as Obama Pivots, F. William Engdahl states, "After almost two decades of neglect of its interests in East Asia, in 2011, the Obama Administration announced that the US would make “a strategic pivot” in its foreign policy to focus its military and political attention on the Asia-Pacific, particularly Southeast Asia, that is, China." The U.S is gearing for a confrontation with China. This is sure to be a very big confrontation. As Russia is the strongest ally of China, it too will be deeply involved, not to mention the fact that the U.S is at odds with Russia over military matters (see this, and this).

 In this video, Dr. Hans-Peter Durr makes the case that the greatest threat of nuclear war comes from the United States, not North Korea or Iran, and believes that its use should not just be banned, but mere threat of its use, since there will eventually come a time where they (the U.S in particular) will have to "show that they really mean it." Another point he makes is that it is "scary" because the U.S believes in preventative warfare (a paradoxical term, to say the least) making their use even more likely and certainly not to be ruled out.

China and Russia are also bearers of nuclear weapons as well. They can defend themselves and they will. The reason I believe a nuclear war is very highly likely is that I don't think for a second that the U.S can win a war against Russia and China. In the event of this unsettling realization, the U.S may entertain the use of nuclear weapons.

We live in a world of 7 billion people and counting. Think of the number of deaths and casualties.

The Destabilization of the Middle East
The destabilization of the Middle East will be sure to be detrimental to the economic well-being of not only the Middle East, but the world in general. The Middle East provides the world with natural resources and is a major center of investment by outsiders, and so has been a center of world affairs for a very long time. Yet violent sectarianism and terrorism, largely funded by the U.S and NATO, and the gulf monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which was revealed by Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his article The Redirection, threatens to plunge the area into a regional war. This will cause massive global economic upheaval since the Middle East is a major provider of necessities like crude oil, etc.
In his article, Seymour Hersh states:

          In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. ---The Redirection

 This sectarianism is already evident as Syria is falling victim to western backed terrorists in NATO's bid to purge Syria of its President Bashar Al-Assad. Libya has already fallen. As we saw in Libya, should Syria fall as well and become a safe haven for terrorists, this will bode well for the region. Syria borders with Turkey and Israel. So this conflict is bound to spill over into these countries, causing a conflict marked by sectarianism for perhaps a long time. This will undoubtedly lead to civil unrest, displaced civilians (as it is already happening right now), the massacre of religious minorities, and a failed state, adding to the ranks of such places as Iraq and Libya.

This will lead to economic instability and uncertainty. China is a major investor in the Middle East. Russia is as well, which is apparent in its partnership with Syria. If Syria falls, Iran, it's closest ally, becomes vulnerable and may react with detrimental actions like shutting down the Strait of Hormuz (choking off 40% of the world's oil supply). The Western objective of destroying the Shiite Crescent (a term coined by King Abdullah II, king of Jordan) will reach further realization. But however there is always a blow-back. The regimes left in the wake of these destabilizations tend to be fascistic (like the example of Egypt and the "Arab Spring") and hostile to outsiders in general (except western corporations and financial institutions, ironically).

I believe this potential regional disaster that will propagate from his sectarian strife fueled by the West and the Gulf monarchs will create a nightmarish environment for ordinary Arab citizens all across the region that is antithetical to true economic and social development. Russia and China are sure to lose major investment as these conflicts will force them to draw out of the region (something the west would gladly welcome) or stay at their own peril. Europe will suffer as well, as access to less markets will further scale back the progress of its economy. The U.S is already going through deep economic woes, and so the the extent/significance of its losses I cannot truly assess (as it seems like it is losing too much already).

A Great Epidemic on the Way?
My biology teacher in college once said it is not a matter of if another devastating epidemic/plague will occur, it's a matter of when. Plagues tend to come when we least expect them. Among all these other factors potential crises, will a great plague sweep across a vast portion of the planet? I hope not. But the possibility is certainly not to be ruled out. And it seems with the way people are working and the amount of stress they put on their bodies (especially in places like the third world and even in the U.S), thereby weakening the immune system, this leads me believe that should the plague arise, it will be far too devastating. Not to mention how such a crisis will adversely affect the economic, social, and emotional condition of the area. There are 7 billion people in the world and counting. So in this sort of event, one can imagine the number of fatalities if quarantine fails (which is a high possibility).

The Ugly Side of Capitalism
I believe that in all this, capitalism rears its ugly heads (that's right, heads). Wars are always fought for economic reasons, economic crashes and instability happen due to mismanagement of the economy by ruling classes who turn around to use the event to strip people of their wealth, further causing social ills. War I believe is inherent in capitalism. Capitalism requires resources in its unhealthy and unrealistic expectation of unlimited growth, and expectantly will be willing to wage war or whatever it takes to acquire these resources or preserve them.  It thrives on poverty due to its unwillingness to pay fair wages in its bid to expand its bottom line (profits). Just an example, in the midst of all this global upheaval and rampant poverty, corporate profits are at an all-time high. Capitalism is always at the mercy of the moneyed and ruling class....it's designed that way. So one can expect the ugliest side of capitalism to always expose itself in the end as the upper class use it as a means to benefit themselves, irregardless of the plight that it causes to the underclass or even society in general. Systems at times ultimately reflect human nature and ambition. None more evident than capitalism itself, as well as its cohorts (autocratic socialism, feudalism, etc).


Undoubtedly there are many more factors that one could identify. These are the ones most significant to me. With the world declining into further economic woe, political and sectarian strife perpetuating, the looming threat of a possible nuclear war, and capitalism rearing its ugly head as it plays a central role in a lot of these problems, the world seems prime for a catastrophe of epic grandiosity. It can come in the form of a devastating war, widespread sectarian conflict that generates unprecedented civil and economic unrest, or an economic catastrophe (or all of the above) that will cripple and destabilize societies, families, institutions, and other bodies, many to an irreparable degree. With the major parts of the world affected, other parts in or around that region or that deal with that region will certainly feel the pain also.

There is Still Hope
It doesn't have to be this way. We can create our own alternatives and reject the corporate paradigm. According to this article by the Christian Science Monitor, there is a flourishing black market/underground economy around the globe estimated to be worth $10 Trillion. This is testament to the resiliency of human nature.

We can revitalize the decrepit anti-war movement. We can reject our incompetent ruling class, and begin to use the leverage  that we have (power in numbers) to get things done through mass struggle and enlightenment. This will also require a reflection of ourselves as a people. Because we are largely responsible for the situation we are in.

It's time to identify, boycott, and replace. It is also time to mobilize and make demands and fight for our prosperity and that of our posterity.

Unmasking the Brotherhood: Syria, Egypt, and Beyond

Geopolitical Analyst Eric Draister of stopimperialism.com.


Dec 12th, 2012

Eric Draitser

StopImperialism.com

The complexities of the Arab Spring and the struggle for political freedom throughout the Arab world should not obscure what has now become an absolutely essential understanding for all anti-imperialists: the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the most powerful weapons of the Western ruling class in the Muslim world.  While that may be a difficult pill for some to swallow for emotional or psychological reasons, one need look no further than the insidious role the organization is playing in Syria and the abuses of power and human rights of the government of Egypt.  In the US-NATO sponsored war against the Assad government, the Muslim Brotherhood has emerged as the leading western-sanctioned force, the avant-garde of the imperialist assault.  While, in Egypt, President Morsi and the Brotherhood government seek to destroy what had been, little more than a year ago, the promise of the revolution.

Muslim Brotherhood in Syria

This week's establishment of the Supreme Military Command, in charge of all military aid and coordination to the rebels, demonstrates unequivocally the leadership role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the drive for regime change in Syria.  As Reuters reported, "The unified command includes many with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Salafists...it excludes the most senior officers who have defected from Assad's military."[1] This command structure, formed at the behest and under the sponsorship of the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey among others, does not simply include members of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is, in fact, dominated by them.  Is it possible that the Western imperial powers simply did not notice that the group they were forming was comprised of these elements?  To suggest so would be to accuse some of the leading "statesmen" of the world (Hillary Clinton, William Hague, Laurent Fabius, Ahmet Davutoglu, etc.) of being stupid.  Alas, they are not so.  Instead, these individuals have collaborated to create a Muslim Brotherhood proxy force in Syria, one that can be controlled and depended on to do the bidding of the West.

However, it is not enough to say that the Muslim Brotherhood is heading this new military structure, for that would be to imply that they have not been playing a critical role all along.  Rather, the organization has been central to the destabilization of Syria since the beginning of the armed conflict.  The Syrian National Council, originally the face of the Western-backed "opposition" was itself dominated behind the scenes by the Muslim Brotherhood. As former Muslim Brotherhood leader Ali Sadreddine stated regarding the SNC, "We chose this face, accepted by the West...We nominated [former SNC head Burhan] Ghalioun as a front for national action. We are not moving now as the Brotherhood but as part of a front that includes all currents."[2] Essentially then, we see that the organization has, from the very beginning, maintained a large degree of control of the foreign-based opposition, as distinctly different from the indigenous opposition of the National Coordinating Councils and other groups.  The Muslim Brotherhood, an international political and paramilitary machine, has come to lead the battle against Assad government.

In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood has provided many forms of leadership and assistance to the foreign-based, foreign-backed opposition beyond simply direct leadership. From providing diplomatic and political cover, to on-the-ground tactical support such as weapons smuggling, fighter recruitment, and other necessary responsibilities, the organization has come to permeate every aspect of what we in the West conveniently refer to as the "rebels".

As early as May 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the center of the organization, was already providing the political and diplomatic support the rebels needed to topple the Assad regime.  As they were poised to win the Egyptian elections, the Brotherhood was busy making public comments about the need for Western military intervention in Syria.  The organization's spokesman, Mahmoud Ghozlan stated, "The Muslim Brotherhood calls on Arab, Islamic, and international governments to intervene...to bring down the [Assad] regime."[3] This brazen public statement flies in the face of all arguments which claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is somehow anti-imperialist, that they stand in opposition to Western dominance of the Arab world.  On the contrary, though they may posture themselves as opposing the West, they are, in fact, tools of the imperial powers used to destroy independent nations which stand in opposition to US hegemony in the Middle East.

This political and diplomatic backing is merely one aspect of the Brotherhood's involvement in the destruction of Syria.  As the New York Times reported in June of 2012, "CIA officers are operating secretly in Southern Turkey helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms...by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria's Muslim Brotherhood."[4] The use of the Muslim Brotherhood to smuggle arms to the rebels in Syria should come as no surprise considering the fact that it is the Sunni monarchies of the region (Saudi Arabia and Qatar primarily) who have been the most vociferous voices championing regime change in Syria by any means necessary.  The relationship between these monarchies and the Muslim Brotherhood is self-evident: they share similar religious convictions and are avowed enemies of all forms of Shiism.  Moreover, they have been part and parcel of the system of US hegemony that has kept the entire region under its vice grip for decades.

Many have argued in the past that, though they share identical ideologies and "brand", the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is somehow independent of the Muslim Brotherhood proper.  This preposterous claim is countered by the simple fact that every public position the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood has taken has been in direct alignment with the public statements from Cairo.  As theCarnegie Middle East Center's article The Muslim Brotherhood in Syriademonstrates, Since the beginning of the revolution, the Brotherhood has maintained that foreign intervention is the only possible solution to the crisis in Syria. In October 2011, it also called on Turkey to intervene and establish protected humanitarian zones in Turkish territory."[5] When two entities bear the same name, have the same sponsors, and take the same positions, it is an exercise in willful ignorance to argue that they are somehow not the same entity or, as is more accurate, taking orders from the same masters. But who are these masters?

The Powers Behind the Muslim Brotherhood

In examining the utterly insidious role that the Muslim Brotherhood is playing in Syria, one must begin with an understanding of the historical relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and Western imperialism.  The organization was founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928 with the intention of reestablishing a purer form of Islam as had existed centuries before.  However, this was merely the religious veneer that was created to mask the political intentions of the organization.  As explained in the Mother Jones article entitled What is the Muslim Brotherhood and Will It Take Over Egypt?, the author explains that, "The Muslim Brotherhood served as a battering ram against nationalists and communists, despite the Brothers' Islam-based anti-imperialism, the group often ended up making common cause with the colonial British.  It functioned as an intelligence agency, infiltrating left-wing and nationalist groups."[6] This indisputable fact, that the Muslim Brotherhood functioned, even its early days, as a de facto arm of Western intelligence, is critical to understanding its development and current political power.

However, there are those who argue that, despite this "coincidence" of objectives and agendas, the Muslim Brotherhood could never be tied directly to the intelligence community.  However, as Robert Dreyfuss, author of the Mother Jones article clearly points out, there is ample evidence tying the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood directly to the CIA:

By then [1954], the group's chief international organizer and best-known official was Said Ramadan, the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna. Ramadan had come to the attention of both the CIA and MI-6, the British intelligence service. In researching my book ... I came across an unusual photograph that showed Ramadan with President Eisenhower in the Oval Office. By then, or soon after, Ramadan had likely been recruited as a CIA agent. Wall Street Journal reporter Ian Johnson has since documented the close ties between Ramadan and various Western intelligence services ... Johnson writes: ‘By the end of the decade, the CIA was overtly backing Ramadan.'"[7]

The fact that the central figure in the international organization was a known CIA agent corroborates the assertions made by countless analysts and investigators that the Brotherhood was used as a weapon against Nasser and, in fact, all Arab socialist leaders who at that time were part of a rising tide of Arab nationalism which sought, as its ultimate goal, independence from Western imperial domination.

In order to fully grasp just how the Brotherhood developed into the organization we know today, one must understand the relationship between it and the royal family of Saudi Arabia.  In fact, the Saudis have been the key financiers of the Brotherhood for decades for the same reasons that the United States and the Western powers needed them: opposition to Arab nationalism and the growing "insolence" of Shiite states.  Dreyfuss writes, "From its early days, the Brotherhood was financed generously by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which appreciated its ultra-conservative politics and its virulent hatred of Arab communists."[8] Essentially, as the United States began to exert its post-war might throughout the region, the Muslim Brotherhood was there to be a willing beneficiary and humble servant sowing the seeds of hatred between Sunni and Shia, espousing a hate-filled Salafist ideology that preached conflict and inescapable war between the branches of Islam.  Naturally, all to the benefit of Western powers who cared little for the ideology and more about the money and resources.

A Tool of the Western Powers Today?

It is often argued that, though the historical record unequivocally shows the Brotherhood as intimately connected to Western intelligence, somehow the organization has changed, that it has become a peaceful force for political progress in the Arab world.  As recent events in Egypt have shown, nothing could be further from the truth.  With the undemocratic attempted power grab by Egyptian President Morsi, the scaling back of civil liberties, the rights of women, and religious and ethnic minorities, the Muslim Brotherhood has shown itself to be little more than a reactionary political force parading itself as a form of "progress".

If one had any doubts as to the true intentions and motivations of the Muslim Brotherhood once in power in Egypt, one needed look no further than its position on the institutions of global finance capital, particularly the International Monetary Fund.  In one of the first decisions taken by Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood government, Cairo established that it would, in fact, welcome conditional loans from the IMF[9] to rescue itself from the prospect of a continued economic crisis.  However, as part of the conditions of the loan, Morsi's government would have to drastically reduce subsidies, regulations, and other "market restrictions" while increasing taxes on the middle class.  Essentially, this meant that the Brotherhood consented to the usual cocktail of austerity medicine that had been administered by the agents of finance capital so many times all over the world.  This, naturally, begged the question: Was this the end of the revolution? Indeed, many in the streets of Cairo are asking themselves this same question.  Or, to put it more accurately, they already know the answer.

In Egypt, as in Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood has made itself into an appendage of the Western imperialist ruling class.  It has dutifully served these interests over the course of decades, though the names, faces, and propaganda have changed over the years.  As we watch the tragic images coming from Syria or the tens of thousands in the streets of Cairo, we must question why it has taken so long for this perfidious organization to be exposed or even understood. The answer is, as usual, because it serves the interests of global capital to keep the rest of the world confused as to who the enemies of progress really are.  By revealing their true nature, the real forces of peace and progress around the world can reject the Muslim Brotherhood and the imperial system in all its overt and covert forms.

Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.com.  He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City.  He is a regular contributor to Russia Today, Press TV, GlobalResearch.ca, and other media outlets. You can reach him at ericdraitser@gmail.com.

---

[1] http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-circle-damascus-airport-russia-u-downbeat-013515100.html

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/06/us-syria-brotherhood-idUSBRE84504R20120506

[3] http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/egypts-brotherhood-calls-intervention-syria

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[5] http://carnegie-mec.org/publications/?fa=48370

[6] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/what-is-the-muslim-brotherhood

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] http://www.albawaba.com/business/morsi-egypt-imf-loan-432065

There Is NO GAZAN VICTORY.

There is this disseminating perspective around the media world (at least alternative media) that the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel is a victory for the people of Gaza. Hamas itself has even declared victory. A statement from a spokesman of Hamas's armed wing in this article states, "From the lion's den, we declare victory." Victory. That is a strong word. If by victory, he means victory over Israel, then I for one, beg to differ. This sentiment of his, however, can be safely asserted to have been shared across Palestine, as "jubilant residents" took to the streets, shouting slogans like "the resistance has triumphed." Hardly. 

As my friend stated regarding this conflict, "Actually, my instincts lead me into wondering how the ceasefire could be beneficial for Israel and only Israel. Their goal has always been to "equalize" proceedings. It's a liberal's wet dream to prattle on about how both sides need to "get round a table", etc. But that is perfect fodder for hiding away exactly how much the Palestinians have lost down the decades. They've never been "equal" or even close to it. 

But when you read between the lines, "peace talk" translates to "a couple of equally badly behaved schoolboys fighting, nothing major here, may the most magnanimous side lead the way". And of course, nothing civilized is ever promoted about Palestinians. Just scary brown men with bushy black beards and pajamas  launching toy rockets. The coverage is totally skewed for a Western audience. This is going Israel's way."

Let's look at the numbers. Number of dead Palestinians: 158. 102 were civilians, 55 militants along with a policeman, 30 children,  and 13 women. These numbers may vary with varying sources. 

How exactly is this a win for the Gazans? As my friend already pointed out Israel will face no international disciplinary action for its egregious violation of international law. 

Instead a Ceasefire was finally reached. Amongst the conditions were things such as halting all fighting, loosening restrictions on the flow of goods and people in and out of Gaza. So what? Israel will most likely decline to honor the terms and conditions of this ceasefire anyway. 

We are right back to square one. Israel will continue with its settlements and further expansion into Palestinian territory as it bulldozes homes, making more room for settlements. It's soldiers will continue to abuse (and murder) the occupied Palestinians. Palestine will continue to suffer unrelenting poverty and perpetual declivity in their standard of living. They will continue to live in fear and contempt of their occupiers. And then there is the rubble laid by Israeli air strike onslaughts. I highly doubt any of the rubble will be cleared and the damaged infrastructure replenished any time soon, within the the next 5 years, even 10.

 Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer, points out that this predictable failure of a campaign by Israel, was to help lend Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey legitimacy as the leaders of these nations harshly decried the Zionist aggression. Note that these countries are helping the West fund, arm, train, and provide logistical support to Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups to destabilize Syria, in the West's long campaign of subversion of secular and non-compliant Arab states, by using "irregular warfare" in its Redirection of the Middle East. 

It would make sense then, that Israel would benefit ultimately, as destabilization which causes partition among its neighbors, renders it the single most important nation in an increasingly unstable and volatile region.   

The Palestinians are not victors by any means. With what is going on in the Middle East, it is safe to say that their problems are far from over, and they could end up along with many other people across the Arab world as the major losers. 

What should be done? 

Hamas, ostensibly the most prevalent militaristic force in Gaza, must be rejected. Palestine must pursue its solutions through more diplomatic means. Hamas is a militant Islamic group, that employs attacks against civilian targets as well as military. It's a clear perpetrator of war crimes. While Israeli aggression is untenable, Hamas's position is unacceptable as well. Hamas during this past conflict which was dubbed by the Israeli Establishment as "Operation: Pillar of Cloud" with its clear biblical reference, has given Israel an excuse for aggression recently proven in its aerial onslaught of innocent Palestinians. 

By employing clever diplomacy, Palestine could put world leaders on the spot, forcing them to put their words into action instead of invoking heavy rhetoric aimed at boosting their PR points and lending themselves legitimacy that would be otherwise unearned. It could find diplomatic ways to put intense pressure on both Israel and its senior partner the U.S into reaching a fair deal towards the Palestinian goal of statehood. 

The fact that this recent ceasefire is dubbed a victory by the Palestinians, shows the low standard of what they perceive to be victory. It shows that they may not exactly recognize a true victory, because perhaps they've never experienced one before, or at least in a very long time.

In any conflict, in any war whatsoever, there is no such thing as a victor. There is simply the side that loses less, and the side that loses more, in one way or another. I hope one day, the Palestinians can experience true victory. 

Netanyahu’s Insane Gaza Adventure Faces Defeat; Need a Cease-Fire Imposed by World and Regional Powers

Dr. Webster G. Tarpley, PhD: Author, Historian, Analyst, Economist and Political Activist.

The Egregious Consequences of Wealth Concentration

(Luke, Chapter 12 verse 16-21): So Jesus told them this story: A rich man's farm produced a big crop, and he said to himself, "what can I do? I don't have a place large enough to store everything." Later he said, "Now I know what I will do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, where I can store all my grains and other goods. Then I'll say to myself, 'you've stored up enough good things to last for years to come. Live it up! Eat, drink, and enjoy yourself.'"

   But God said to him, "You fool! Tonight you will die. Then who will get what you have stored up?" This is what happens to people who store up everything for themselves, but are poor in the eyes of God.

It is seldom that I take quotes from the Bible out of context. In this context Jesus implicates a spiritual--kingdom of God--connotation, but one can't help but realize it's political one as well. Did you ever ask yourself how come the rich get richer while we get poorer? Wealth concentration is not just a futile and reactionary response to the reality of poverty by the well-to-do. This reality also in turn has very detrimental consequences to society. Consequences like destabilization through such factors as civil unrest, rampant poverty, the deterioration of the family unit, the deterioration and neglect of internal infrastructure, and much more. Justice also becomes a victim. Greek journalist Kosta Vaxevanis was arrested for publishing portions of the "LaGarde List." A list that also includes the names of 2,059 Greeks who "spirited money out of the country and into the warm embrace of UK-based HSBC Swiss offices." His arrest hints at a cover up. But why would the ruling class go through such lengths to arrest him? Is it maybe because the wealth is ill-gotten, or because at a time of economic hardship when the rich can bring their capital to the aid of their country, they refuse to do so, much to their chagrin if exposed?

Wealth accumulation undermines the rule of law in society where the rich conduct their affairs, public or private, with impunity. What you then have is a society of, for, and by the rich. In other words, a Plutocracy or a Kleptocracy or both. As Tony Montana, the main character in the move Scarface once averred: "In this country you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money you get the power......" It's human nature to give more importance to those with more things. With this observation, it is safe to suffice that the more money/wealth you have, the more significant you are in the eyes of society, whether good or bad.

 A society where the heirs of the largest retailer in the world, Wal-Mart, can own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans combined is a travesty. But wealth concentration also brings to light that wealth, in a just society, is not supposed to even accumulate to begin with. In other words, it's what I would term as economic hijacking. Those at the upper echelon of society always find some way to take more money from those at the lower echelon. This short video by Credit Suisse gives an idea of the growing global wealth disparity. A report by Tax Justice Network, revealed that the global super-rich, and their families, in a "conservative" estimate, have at least 21 trillion dollars in secret tax havens. The report stated that this is only financial, and not including physical assets like land, yachts, etc.

 There are certain factors that I consider to be the driving force to this massive wealth accumulation. And the solution is very much obvious in my assessment.

Usury
I find the two main economic schools of thought (Austrian and Keynesian) not just deplorable because they are part of a dialectic created by the Elite. But as a very intelligent friend of mine once made the point, that in all their petty squabbles with each other, they never mention one thing: Usury. Usury is at the heart of wealth concentration. When a financial institution lends you money and asks for 15% interest, they basically sealed your financial fate. It's is their way of keeping you poor while they get richer. Usury funnels money out of the hands of average consumers on a mass scale and concentrates it into the hand of the few "moneylenders." By creating and maintaining a network of debtors, they are able to keep a constant and stable source of income, at the expense of the poor and middle class. Usury is slavery. So much so that thousands of years ago, in places like the Middle East and elsewhere, it was normal for a man to sell himself into slavery if he could not service his debts. Slavery has since taken a new form and context. Usury, by its imposition of crushing debt, undermines and threatens the family unit (the basic building block of society) by threatening to drive it into poverty (or abject poverty), and eventually destabilize it by stripping it of the little physical wealth/assets it has and pushing it over the edge. Usury destabilizes society in general by also undermining businesses. It helps drive down the standard of living, creates uncertainty, drives individuals to the point of suicide, and undermines an indebted nation's sovereignty by committing much of its financial obligations to a very wealthy few.

Tax Evasion/Tax System
One of the ways the Moneyed Class (Bankers, Politicians, War Profiteers, etc) concentrate their wealth is through tax evasion. Taxes are reflective of a society's justice system. The more fair the tax, the more unlikely it is that wealth is due for concentration. And this has many positive implications. Taxes are not viewed in a favorable tone in general, because people want to keep more of what they make. But most see it as necessary for society to properly function. And now taxes have become a bullet point in the case against wealth concentration. And for good reason. Between the 1940s and 1970s in the Unites States, the tax rate on the wealthy was considerably high. And what was that tax money used for? To build roads and bridges, to fund public institutions like public education and healthcare, to fund social safety net programs that are so widely popular among not just Americans, but Europeans and other peoples of the world. And the wealthy continued to live quite comfortably. There are many ways the ruling class evades taxes: creating tax-exempt "charities," putting their money in offshore or secret accounts, fraudulent tax reports, lobbying politicians for significantly lower tax rates, tax loopholes, subsidies, and other forms of tax policy designed to benefit them.

This deprives the state treasury, and incites talk of austerity. Then governments look for the money elsewhere, especially at the direction of the poor.

Bank Bailouts
Can anyone think of a more moronic economic policy? I think this is self-explanatory. Mainly because these banks are not using the capital to invest, but simply to sit on it and twiddle their thumbs while relishing in how much money they have. This is something known as "Capital Strike." They basically accomplish this through what I would term as economic extortion by fear-mongering the nation-states on the conditions that if their demands for more money are not met, an Economic Armageddon will ensue.

Wages/Globalism
In 1934, in a radio address, U.S Senator Huey Long stated, "We do not propose to say that there shall be no rich men. We do not ask to divide the wealth. We only propose that when one man gets more than he and his children and his children's children can spend or use in their lifetime, then we shall say that such person has his share." The wage disparity between employee and employer is egregious. I can find numerous statistics everywhere. By now I presume it has become common knowledge or awareness. While workers are paid inadequate minimum wages, their bosses at the top echelon of the Corporate Ladder make close to 42 times the amount.
To exacerbate that is the issue of Globalism. Why should a corporation hire you when they can employ someone else on the other side of the world for an exponentially cheaper cost where that person cannot join a workers organization and demand fairer wages and benefits, because perhaps the corporation bribed the government to outlaw collective bargaining? Although it makes business sense, such a ploy is hardly ethical. It is one of the ways of wealth concentration. By off-shoring jobs in pursuit of more profits through cheaper labor, millions are incrementally rendered unemployed, underemployed, and ultimately impoverished, while these supranational corporations accrue more and more money.

Private Central Banks
Private Central Banks have the power to relax and tighten credit. They can help produce inflation and deflation, cause panic and eventually economic ruin. They are a tool created by the Moneyed-Class to manipulate markets and accumulate wealth through detrimental policy. One such primary example is the Federal Reserve (which was largely responsible for the Great Depression of the 1930s) and the Bank of England (which helped create a depression in Britain in the 1920s). And as any knowledgeable individual would know, economic recessions and depressions devastate small investors, allowing for bigger ones to swoop in and take their assets for dirt-cheap prices, further concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few.

Speculation
The reason why food and oil are skyrocketing is due to speculation. As prices increase, this means that people must dig deeper and deeper into their pockets in order to procure the basic necessities and goods that we have become so accustomed to. This means that speculators and the dominant industries receiving all this capital from average consumers are making a lot of money off the backs of suffering individuals. This report by political magazine Counterpunch titled International Speculation and Rising Food Prices, rightly attributes the rise in food to speculation. As the traditional principle of economics is that prices follow the Law of Supply and Demand, the writer of the article, Umberto Muzzei, points out that "from 2006 to 2008 commodity prices rose scandalously, especially rice, wheat and corn. A tonne of rice rose from $600 in 2003 to $1,800 in 2008. After causing popular unrest in the world, prices fell as quickly as they climbed. Further proof that the cause was not supply and demand." 

Same for oil. In this CNN article by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, it is admitted that the Law of Supply and Demand have nothing to do with the rising price of oil: "What's the cause? Forget what you may have read about the laws of supply and demand. Oil and gas prices have almost nothing to do with economic fundamentals. According to the Energy Information Administration, the supply of oil and gasoline is higher today than it was three years ago, when the national average for a gallon of gasoline was just $1.90. Meanwhile, the demand for oil in the U.S. is at its lowest level since April of 1997."

And there's more: "I've seen the raw documents that prove the role of speculators." 

One last quote: "Even those inside the oil industry have admitted that speculation is driving up the price of gasoline. The CEO of Exxon-Mobil, Rex Tillerson, told a Senate hearing last year that speculation was driving up the price of a barrel of oil by as much as 40%. The general counsel of Delta Airlines, Ben Hirst, and the experts at Goldman Sachs also said excessive speculation is causing oil prices to spike by up to 40%. Even Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter of oil in the world, told the Bush administration back in 2008, during the last major spike in oil prices, that speculation was responsible for about $40 of a barrel of oil."

Now are you beginning to see how this amounts to wealth accumulation? I don't think I can make it more clear.

So What?
What do these affluent individuals do with all this money (whether ill-gotten or not)? Don't they share, don't they engage in projects that benefit society? Don't they use the money to employ more people? Of course not. They store these large amounts of grain in their barns, live it up, and enjoy themselves. They lobby lawmakers for even more money. They buy politicians on all levels. They fund think tanks that peddle talking points favorable to them. They spend as much money as they can fighting any and all efforts for true socio-economic and political reform, and so much more.

What people have to understand is that wealth concentration leads to disastrous consequences. It means the poor will likely bear the brunt of any economic burden or crisis. It means that a government supposedly representative of the people now pays a much more significant attention to the needs of the super wealthy, disregarding the voices of the downtrodden, the poor, the disabled/sick, the working class, and so on. It means an overwhelming atmosphere of wealth-favoritism exists that oversees the collusion of wealthy interests and government. Eventually this distorts justice systems.

In a world where wealth is highly concentrated, austerity is the talk of the day. Because someone has got to pay for these social services, and if not the rich, and the poor are going bankrupt due to detrimental economic policy, then what to do? As wealth concentrates, perpetual war and destabilization ensue. The capitalist class with their eventual grip on government will venture anywhere and everywhere to get what they want or preserve what they have. And they usually employ the services of standing armies whether public or private, to places domestic and/or abroad, and propagate and sponsor economic polices that create a disturbing disruption to the lives of the common folk.

Not only is the accumulation of wealth stupid, it is inherently immoral. Because the path it took was one of cheating, abuse, fraud, and other means. Never did the man in Jesus's story consider even giving just a little more to a neighbor or leaving a little more in the fields for poor people to eat their fill (as mandated by Jewish law Leviticus 19 verse 9-10), or even to his workers (if he had any). God telling the man he was going to die, was a reminder of the stark reality that there is no such thing as security. Anything can happen to that man's grain (hailstorm, robbery, etc), and the fact that he came into the world with nothing meant that he was leaving with nothing. Being immensely wealthy, does not make one at peace, nor content.

The super rich always seem to forget who made them super rich. They did not get there on their own merit. Yet these same individuals who have been the greatest beneficiaries of government policy and favoritism, peddle right-wing talking points of lassiez-faire capitalism otherwise known as the "free market." But these recipients of fervent government leniency and favor, along with historical evidence, have proven time and time again that markets are not free. They are man-made. And these markets often times than not, bend to their will at our expense. And that's just it. The rich themselves create these economic hardships to begin with, and then profit from it.

So what do we do?
Well, one of the obvious solutions is to impose no austerity. In times of economic hardship, one will find that this is the main talking point of the well-to-do, which essentially indicates contempt for the poor and advocates for genocide. A national law against usury or a national cap on interest rates on loans WILL help yield progressive economic results. On top of that, end the private central banking system by nationalizing it or abolish it and create a national bank that will provide loans at zero percent interests rates for the use of manufacturing/production. Another one is a fair and progressive taxation system that does not funnel money from the bottom to the top and levels the playing field. Nations must fight against globalism, especially those from the English-speaking world, mainly the U.S.A. Protectionism when applied tactically and wisely can yield positive economic results. End the speculation on food and oil that is precipitating the impoverishment of millions. This requires an intellectually honest, organized and united front, that will make demands and provide a program that tackles social and political injustice, two inextricably linked paradigms that are responsible for this egregious concentration of wealth.

On top of that people must become pragmatic consumers by boycotting (this is also a form of activism) these corporations that they lend limitless amounts of time, energy, effort, and capital to, and replace them with their own alternatives. This will go a long way, starving these institutions into submission, and sending a message to these super rich individuals that we can stand toe to toe with them. The Lords of Capital versus a United Organized Front, Plutocracy versus a Populist Platform.

It can be done, it should be done. Or else, things will get much worse.

"Obama Supporters Actually Hate Obama's Policies"

It should come as no surprise here. Obama supporters, so-called "liberals" in general, have shown time and time again their ignorance on political affairs, and their outright gut-wrenching hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. This is one of the reason why I argue that Americans themselves are to blame for most of their problems, as they willingly elect into office, representatives of the Global Corporate Financier Oligarchy otherwise known as "The Elites," who enact detrimental policies not in their best interests. And then choose to dismiss any and all facts when confronted with their favorite "candidates." As in the words of Gerald Celente, "Things won't change until the American people change."

Luke Rudowski of We Are Change, employs a brilliant political report tactic to show just how ridiculous the electorate in this country really is.

It's Time to Admit That We Are Part of the Problem

There are many things wrong with the United States. And while people like to call it great, I beg to differ.I really wish they were right. I still do love this country, and I wish the best for it each and every day. But now it is time to admit that "we the people" have become part of the problems of our ailing society. Throughout this country known as the U.S.A, there is a fundamental consensus that things have turned the wrong direction completely, and yet the majority don't want to do anything about it. Ignorance and apathy are as common as common sense is uncommon. It is easy to blame the president, or congress. But now it is time to admit, that we are part of the problem. Our bloated and ill society is a reflection of who we have become. I will identify what the problems are from my perspective, and what ought to be done.

Greed, Materialism, Indulgence.
If you ever take a dollar bill, and pay attention, you can't help but notice the inscription stating, "In God We Trust." Well, I can certainly say it is not the God of the Bible that so many people think it's referring to. For that "God" has come to be replaced with a much more different. The God that the dollar refers to, is itself. Yes, money. Money has become our God. "In God (money) We Trust." We live in a greedy and materialistic culture. People are encouraged to be selfish, put material wealth on a pedestal, and spend, spend, spend because they work hard and they deserve to treat themselves a "little." But it's not little. The fact is, that Americans spend too much on things they don't need. And they always want more. Nothing satisfies their insatiable thirst for material goods. They have been conditioned this way. In turn you have a society that is racked with and wrecked by debt. On top of that we are blessed with the privilege to watch rich people on T.V spend their money away, inducing us with fantasies like maybe one day, we too could be like them. It's one of the primary reasons people gamble away their savings and participate in the lottery, even though winning it is statistically impossible. Our cultural mantra seems to be "drink today for tomorrow we may die." We live in a debt-based society, where our spending has gotten out of control. The holidays (i.e Christmas, Halloween, Thanksgiving), are also indications of how greedy, materialistic and self-indulgent we've become. Obesity is on the rise, and while the reason it is so isn't that simple, it also reflects the self-indulgence of our society. Another indication of materialism and self-indulgence is the music industry that has helped to shape this kind of culture.

This behavior reflects the behavior of our Federal Government that spends money in the stupidest ways possible, while racking up the debt precipitously in doing so (the worst part of all this is that none of that money goes to the American  people).This rampant consumerism that has become part of the American way of life has led to disastrous consequences and will lead to more. With their vast amounts of money, Americans give corporations like Bank Of America, Exxon Mobile and plenty of other institutions a bloated amount of resources, only in turn to have them put into office their rubber-stamped politicians who direct policy against the interests of the American people. On top of that, Bankers are expected to capitalize on this consumerism and should be suspected as the primary beneficiaries  as they are today the main perpetrators of usury and financial fraud, which destroys lives and destabilizes families, and can lead to poverty and eventually civil unrest. Debt and Conflict are the Endgame of our consumerist culture. Funny enough (though it's not really funny) the U.S government with massive debt through a spending habit equivalent to its own citizens has propagated, is propagating, and perpetuating numerous conflicts around the globe.

Violence, Apathy and a Tribalism
We live in a very apathetic society. And as for me I consider apathy a form of moral depravity. A morally sick nation breeds and nurtures morally sick citizens. There is a reason why the issue of guns can be such a heated topic. You can also clearly see by the violent and horror movies of carnage and destruction we so love to watch. The apathy part plays in when Americans clearly don't seem to care about other people on the other side of the world. Two cities can get annihilated by nuclear bombs, yet the citizens of the nation that dropped them cheer with an unprecedented avidity because WWII was over. An alleged mastermind of a terror plot that shook the nation had his compound raided and was killed, and the whole nation cheers at his death, betraying their whole narrative of being a world leader, a Shining Castle on the Hill, a democratic society where criminals stand on trial. As long as the government gives the people their social security, medicare, and other social service programs, Americans don't care or care to know about the egregious contraventions of international law or the violations of human rights that their government constantly commits or is complicit in. They shed a crocodile tear and move on, pretending to care while doing nothing, as their government continues to engage in illegal wars, fund terrorists in Syria and in other countries, conduct murderous drone assaults in which the majority of casualties are non-combatants, while callously referring to them as "collateral damage." It has become obvious what kind of society we are rapidly degenerating into. Our government reflects our trivialization of violence and conflict as we remain in a state of perpetual war (pun intended). One indication is the fact that national sports has been militarized, where military ceremonies can be conducted on sports fields. America is a war culture, and this is even shown in its avidity for sports and a very much tribal fan base. As former President George Bush coined as the slogan for his terrorist campaign which he ironically dubbed the War on Terrorism: "You are either with us, or against us." We stand divided and conquered by the Elites.

The Farcical Reality of Voting
It's a farce, plain and simple. Every two to four years Americans get to choose corporate representatives to run their lives. Americans have become so dishonest, it's sickening. They complain about these same people they put in office, but insist on re-electing those same representatives of the Corporate Financier Oligarchy. They never want to acknowledge the fact that no matter who they put in office, things won't change. They know nothing about the candidates they wish to vote for, and seem to disregard the fact that these candidates are funded by corporate interests. By doing this, not only are Americans dishonest, but they are pimping themselves out to the very same interests they claim to be against by endorsing these candidates/representatives of oligarchy with their time, money, energy and effort. The result is an endless cycle of unconstitutional policies, wars, economic ruin, death and destruction. And since it is easy to blame someone else and abdicate all responsibility, Americans have learned to simply shrug their shoulders and blame the president for his failures and/or complain endlessly about his policies. But Americans don't want to admit that they have become complicit in the crimes of their national leaders.

What to do..
All our failing institutions whether they be financial, educational, political, and our crumbling infrastructure give a vivid picture of our continuing failure of character, moral decay, and the break down of the human spirit and subsequently our society. They must reject this blatantly materialistic culture, a culture of hedonism, self-indulgence and commercialism. It is time for Americans to look in the mirror and be honest with themselves.

It is time for Americans to put more emphasis on the things that matter. Things such as service to others, family, outstanding moral character, pursuits in life that bring real joy. It is time to reject a culture hand-fed to them. It is time to leave this false cultural paradigm that the Financier Oligarchy has created for them, and reassess themselves as a country, and who we would like to become and be seen as. They can get active, organized and together with other fellow Americans begin to create their own alternatives rather than allow the ruling class to choose for them. They can begin to read a little more about history and learn from its lessons (in respect to materialism, and greed and other vices do to a society), get more engaged with their community, get in touch spiritually, educate themselves as opposed to being "zombified" by rampant commercialism. It is time to change. And a true change won't come until the American people change.

And if things don't change, things will get a lot worse.

It's World Food Day, but why are so many people hungry?

You know what that means.....it's time for the English speaking world and the rest of the West to pretend they actually give a flying pig about the plight of the starving black and brown poor peoples all over the third world. According to the World Food Program, 1 in 7 people in the world will go to bed hungry tonight. There's more, according to the WFP, hunger "is the number one health risk. It kills more people than AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined." Well I think what they really mean is starvation. Because after all, we ALL get hungry. But not all of us, have the means of having food on the table day in and day out. If you want more hunger stats, you can find them here(World Hunger Problem: Fact, Figures, and Statistics), here (Stopthehunger.com), and here (bread.org), and many more. Throwing statistics about starvation to you all day long is simply redundant. It is safe to assume every adult in the world is aware that there is a global starvation crisis and there has been one for a very long time. Even the disingenuous U.N has acknowledged this in an article by Reuters.

But why are so many people starving? Coincidence will be a dishonest (as well as lazy) answer. So will "untended consequences." Some people will say that overpopulation is one contributing factor. When we go deeper into world starvation, as I'd rather call it, we see that the problem isn't an issue of spontaneity, or naive agricultural policy. Rather it's designed to be this way. There is a systematic meddling by the major financial institutions of the West, to rip up developing nation's economies. The IMF, the World Bank, and other major Western financial institutions have played a major role in the destruction of the food security of many developing countries.

Neo-Liberalism
In an article by Walden Bello titled, Africa's Food Crisis, the Handiwork of IMF, World Bank, Bello asserts that these institutions would infiltrate weaker governments to dictate their role in economic affairs, such as "how fast subsidies should be phased out," or even in the case of Malawi, "how much of the country's grain reserve should be sold, and to whom." Bello also mentions how these weaker African governments (of the West and South) had their markets pried open to European and U.S exploitation by allowing "low-priced-subsidized European beef to enter and drive many West African and South African cattle raisers to ruin." "These dismal outcomes were not accidental," Bello asserts. This is just an example, as Bello asserts many. This is known as Structural Adjustment, as the IMF and World like to call it. It is basically prying open the markets of developing nations to Western vulture capitalism, eventually phasing that nation into a neo-feudalistic corporate state. This is the neo-liberal "free market" doctrine. Also known as Globalism. This is when a nation extradites it's sovereignty to off-shore or supranational entities. The West has been phasing out peasant-based farming systems, replacing it with commercial farming. By obviating the state from the administration of farming, the World Bank and IMF took away "access to land, credit, insurance inputs, and cooperative organization" for farmers. As Bello also points out in a report by Oxfam, the number of Africans living on two dollars a day "more than doubled" between 1981 and 2001. This is 46 percent of the whole continent.

U.S Agricultural Secretary John Blocke, in 1986 at the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations stated: "The idea that the developing countries should feed themselves is an anachronism from a bygone era. They could better ensure their food security by relying on U.S agricultural products, which are available, in most cases at lower cost." So in other words, he is presenting the problem as the solution. If one pays attention, he is actually contradicting himself. "Food security" and the reliance on imports are a juxtaposition of contrasting terms. So one can suspect the West through narrative and policy, to encourage importation and discourage self-sufficiency. To make matters worse, the U.S has decided to start burning corn for fuel (a source of alternative energy not even reliable), a disastrous policy since many countries are inclined to rely on importation. This is contributing to the global food shortage. I believe you get the idea.

The Example of Malawi
Malawi clearly exemplifies the topic. The article, How to Manufacture a Global Food Crisis: Lessons learned from the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, explains how in 1998-99, Malawi engaged in a subsidy program to provide the poorest of families with a "starter pack" of free fertilizers and seeds. This resulted in a surplus of corn. But then something happened.

The World Bank and other donors to the government forced it to slash this program. The IMF even convinced the food reserve agency to" sell off its strategic food reserves to settle it's commercial debts" (a proven tactic of the IMF). A famine resulted in 2001-02. And one can only imagine since the government didn't have any reserves to go to. Nearly 1500 people died of starvation. Subsequently, an even worse food crisis emerged in 2005. The government finally rejected the IMF's policy. It reinstated the subsidy program under its new president, making fertilizers "about a third of the retail price, and seeds at a discount." This returned the food surplus. Malawi is now a supplier of corn to other Southern African countries.

Refusing to own up to its discredited policy, the World Bank's country director insisted that the re-instated subsidy program was "better for food security, but even worse for market development." He is of course wrong. There is hardly any historical evidence or basis that a country dependent heavily on food importation has ever developed a strong economy. These types of catastrophes are not only present in Africa, but also in places like India and parts of Asia.

What should be done
There is a reason why many of the major corporations of the West and other neo-colonial foundations have always had a disdain for a strong Nation-State. Because they can resist the parasitical influences of these vulture institutions, and often eventually do. The IMF, World Bank and other Western financial institutions are not what they seem, as they have shown time and time again to be an anti-thesis to their very thesis---economic development. They represent a neo-feudal model,  based on the impediment of growth of developing countries.

 Agricultural self-sufficiency can do many things. Surpluses can be counted on to occur. This will encourage trade among nations and could eventually lead to economic cooperation (and possibly extended forms of diplomacy). It could drive down the number of cases of nutrition-related diseases, birth-defects, and so on. It could help avoid civil unrest, or other forms of social disruption. As any one knows, control a nation's food, and you essentially control the nation. These nations can start coming together and creating their own alternatives together, boycotting and phasing out Western dictates over the agricultural (and subsequently economic) future of their countries.

The IMF and World Bank should not only be replaced, but their doctrine of neo-liberalism must also be rejected. These institutions and the policies they represent, are at the heart of many of the economic and social hardships that are so incumbent upon third world nations, and in turn the world. My golden rule for any developing country, is to first attain self-sufficiency in agriculture before they can ever attain true development.  Our world starvation crisis is not an accident.

Hopefully more and more people can come to understand that.

If You DO Vote, You DON'T Deserve To Complain.

Written by Lawrence Laryea

I have often heard from both my peers and my seniors that at the arrival of every electoral event, I should seize the opportunity to vote. Or else, "If you don't vote, don't complain," they say. This line has been subject to brazen repetition that it has helped to distort the true meaning of democracy. By now if you have not realized that your vote does not matter, I don't know what to tell you. The corny, tired, and weak old slogan of "If you don't vote, don't complain" begins to reveal a deeper issue and if I may add, an abysmal reality. First allow me to put all of this into perspective by identifying the two-headed dragon, also known as the two party dictatorship, also known as the Republicans and the Democrats. The two major crime families of United States politics who have their Headquarters in the halls of Wall Street and the City of London. Let's take a look at exactly who we are voting for, and I will give my take on what ought to be truly done.

Meet the Republicans...The reincarnation of Nazism...yet still the Lesser Evil.
If there was ever a political party that bore a striking resemblance to the right-wing regime that ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945, it would be the United States Republican Party. Now this comparison to some may seem harsh or extreme, even hateful. But the fact of the matter is that it's true. The Republicans are brazen Social Darwinists who adulate the likes of Industrialists, hailing them as Captains of Industry instead of the Robber Barons that most of them are or have become. They care little for the poor and as a matter of fact, have led themselves to believe that the poor are in plight due to their own shortcomings. They see a sizable portion of the population (e.g the unemployed, disabled) as "loafers," "freeloaders," "parasites," and so forth who forage on government resources; resources that otherwise could be "expended elsewhere." Remember that the Nazis held similar views regarding the downtrodden of their society.

Hitler didn't just go after Jews, dissidents, and Communists. He also went after Trade Unions. The Republicans are notoriously known for their blatant and unreasonable opposition to organized labor. Thanks partly to their persistence being of the historical contributing factors, participation in organized labor unions has declined sorrowfully especially since the arch-reactionary Republican Ronald Reagan, a student of  Margaret Thatcher, signaled to employers nationwide that Washington was on their side, when he busted the Professional Air Traffic Controllers' Organization (PATCO), an organization that actually supported his campaign. Union membership has been at a 70-year low according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cited by the New York Times.

The Republicans also insist on an economic "concentration camp". In addition to busting organized labor, they believe in abolishing the standard minimum wage, child labor laws, workplace safety and other regulations that they disingenuously claim are "crushing" businesses. The world they will realize if their crazed and crackpot policies take true effect is an environment (much similar to a concentration camp) where the individual will work and work and be worked to death, deprived of their economic freedoms and benefits, reminiscent of Oliver Twist in the Parochial Workhouse. And if this isn't bad enough, they wish to balance the federal budget deficit on the backs of the most vulnerable of our society. In other words, "Austerity"---The systematic, barbaric slashing of social services. People will obviously die. At a critical time when social services may be in dire need, now is the time the Republican Party has an even greater urge to cut them. Their idea of relief for the suffering is in fact, no relief at all. All this while expanding the war and military budget; an obvious trait of militarism. Just as the Nazis were militants, the Republicans are notorious for avidly beating the drums of war and also for their crazed bully pulpit against weaker and defenseless nations. All the while they have led people, in particular reactionary disgruntled members of the white middle and lower class who are fed up with the malaise of government, to adopt their policies as in their best interest when this couldn't be further from the truth. As Hitler once said, "Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see Paradise as Hell, and the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise." It is obvious there is a hidden hand at play here. The only difference between the Republicans and the Nazis, is that one had a profound and irrational hatred toward Jews, and the other has a profound and irrational affection towards the same group of people, in respect to the Zionist Regime in Israel.
So this is Option 1

Meet the Democrats....Simply the Greater Evil.
 Democrats are vastly similar to Republicans. But however they are unique. They maneuver differently and more cunningly. As Republicans are openly genocidal, and simplistic in their intentions, Democrats are still yet a greater evil. While the Republicans mobilize predominantly white, disgruntled and narrow scope of middle class to lower class citizens for the interests of Wall Street, Democrats are effectively able to mobilize a various array of factions (gays and lesbians, unions, and so forth)  for the very same interests, thus representing Anti-theses of the Hegelian Dialectic and neutralizing the vast amount of the population, subjugating them under a controlled opposition. Since the Democrats have been historically accredited with the development of the remnants of the popular government programs we have today, naturally they are perceived and expected to be its preservers. By being portrayed as lesser evil, they are subsequently the more desirable one. Because of the diversity within their party and in turn the influence over various factions, they are able to hijack/co-opt and pacify any true political movement that poses as a threat to the moneyed interests of our society. And thus, this renders them the greater evil. They have the same track record of wars, cater-to-the-rich policies, and other abuses just as much as the Republicans, yet they are able to keep the least amount of opposition through their rhetoric and the stark reality of their alleged opponent. If the greatest trick of all was the devil making people believe he doesn't exist, then the second one would have to be the Democrats making the common man think he had their best interest in mind. This is Option 2

Who in their right mind would take either of these options? It's clear that voting for either one is asking for trouble. As a matter of fact, if you do vote for them, you are agreeing that you know what you are getting yourself into; and ignorance is no excuse. So those who vote are actually the ones who shouldn't complain. Those who DON'T vote are sending a clear message, and in a sense they are voting by not voting. That they will not be a part of this mary-go-round political clown show that the Elites have produced for them every two to four years. Both parties have similar financial backing. Both are for war. Both are for big oil. Both are for globalization--the wrecker of national economies. Both are for the indefinite detention of Americans and Foreigners. Both are union busters. Both are for taxes that redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top. Both are for spying on Americans. Both are one in the same. It doesn't matter who you vote for. The Agenda stays in tact. By not voting, I am refusing their policies, their services. I am rejecting their morally bankrupt dispositions. And so if the consequences of these destructive and reckless pursuits that they are associated with befall upon me or my fellow man, I am actually the one with the rationale to complain.

One may often hear someone saying they will "vote" for Candidate X because he/she is the "lesser of two evils." Whether Lesser or Greater, evil is evil. And it takes a significant declivity in dignity and self-respect to make the implication that you are willing to vote for a "lesser" of two evils. As the reputed Trends Forecaster Gerald Celente once made a point: would you have dinner with the lesser of two evils? And so I would also ask: would you do business with the lesser of two evils, or let them babysit your children, or let them date your daughter? So why in the world would you vote for them to run your country? Things won't change for the better until the people themselves truly change.

What do we do?
It's simple. Don't vote, you can start with that. Get out of your passive political consumerism of waiting for pre-packaged insta-politicians manufactured by the Financier Oligarchs, partly at your behest. They are both part of a controlled opposition. You can continue by perpetually boycotting the current illegitimate and rigged electoral system and system in general, presenting genuine solutions of your own, and even perhaps running for local office. There are so many things you can do or at least try. Your vote doesn't matter, but your attitude does. And your attitude can eventually make it matter.