The Free Tibet scam: a mass media disinformation campaign to destabilise China

One political subject which resurfaces every now and then is the question of Tibet. There is much sloganeering on this issue in the West “Poor Tibet! Those poor Tibetans, cowering under the yoke of Chinese tyranny! Free Tibet!” There are hundreds of ‘free Tibet’ organisations scattered throughout today’s distracted globe, ranting and raving about ‘human rights’ ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. These organisations tend to take root among the university educated European bourgeoisie, who enjoy hiking in the Himalayas, Buddhist meditation and the romance of ascetic monks locking themselves away from this cut-throat capitalist world. Given the barrage of Western propaganda in recent years from Hollywood movies to copious Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhist publications, as well as the generous funding coming from the United States and Germany in particular, the Western hysteria regarding China’s nefarious governance of the region is not too surprising.

Almost any one you talk to in Europe will express sympathy with the Tibetan separatists and almost everyone loves the Dalai Lama. But what was Tibet like before those terrible Chinese communists invaded in 1951, a pristine land of prayer and tranquillity, high living standards and deep communal wisdom, a bastion of democracy? I’m afraid not.

Tibet was an absolutist theocracy. Over 90 percent of the population were serfs who were forced to labour for the Dalai Lama (not the present one)and his clerical aristocracy.

The conditions of the ordinary Tibetans were among the worst in the world when the Chinese communists ‘invaded’ in 1951. The Tibetan slaves had no rights and lived in abominable living conditions; torture, rape and execution were the norm for the Tibetan serf. Hands were cut off; people were skinned alive; eyes were gouged out, tongues torn out; hands and legs chopped off and disembowelment was common. Children were often kept as sex slaves by the lamas who enjoyed a Sybaritic lifestyle at the expense of the entire population.

This was the brutal autocracy of the cuddly and lovable Dalai Lamas, the hideous reality which the fanatical idiots of the ‘free Tibet’ campaign routinely ignore. When they talk about the sovereignty of the ‘Tibetan people’ what they unwittingly espouse is the sovereignty of the Tibetan oligarchy. Sure, the Dalai Lama claims he wants a democracy in Tibet and he talks about peace and love. But he also supports the genocidal US-led war in Iraq and Afghanistan just as he supported the US-NATO bombardment of Serbia. He actively intervened on behalf of the former Chilean dictator and mass murderer Augusto Pinochet when he was being protected by Margaret Thatcher, lobbying for him to be released without trial.

The Dalai Lama is the darling boy of the US Congress, receiving the prestigious Congressional medal for his untiring service to ‘human rights’ throughout the world. But the Dalai Lama’s real service to human rights has been to transpose the hideous cruelty of Lama rule in Tibet into a national liberation struggle against the People’s Republic of China. In fact, there may be signs that the extraordinarily successful propaganda campaign against China is coming to an end. The Los Angeles Times published an article on the 15^th of September 1998 stating that the Dalai Lama has been on the CIA payroll for years with an annual salary amounting to a handsome 186,000 dollars. He has also received funding from the George Soros foundation and Indian intelligence. So much for the simple life of Buddhist anti-materialism! So that’s the Dalai Lama. But what about the human rights abuses of the Chinese government against the Tibetan people?

On March 18^th 2008 rioters took to the streets of Llasa looting shops, burning schools and attacking innocent civilians throughout the city. Chinese state television showed horrific pictures of Tibetan rioters stoning people to death on the streets. Smashing peoples skulls was the Tibetan ‘freedom fighter’s preferred form of execution. The Tibetan hooligans set fire to over 200 residential houses and shops and more than 80 vehicles. Even Chinese fire fighters were the object of Tibetan aggression with fire engines set on fire. Meanwhile, our so called ‘free press’ was presenting the Tibetan aggression as a violent ‘crackdown’ by the big bad Chinese government on the ‘peaceful ‘ Tibetan protestors. The BBC and CNN manipulated images to portray the Chinese police as the aggressors. The German newspaper ‘Die Berliner Morganpost’ published pictures of police officers rescuing Han people as from Tibetan aggression as more evidence of a Chinese ‘crackdown’ on the peaceful protestors. German RTL television had to resort to more absurd lies to make their point by publishing picture of police aggression in Nepal! Hard to distinguish those Asians isn’t it!

The Free Tibet scam receives most of its funding from the Frederich Naumann Foundation in Germany and various CIA front organisations in the USA. The point of the Free Tibet campaign is to embarrass and destabilise the emerging Chinese superpower by manipulating groups who have issues with the Chinese government. It has received wide support from the EU and the USA who fear the imminent eclipse of their world hegemony by China. A Canadian-Tibetan by the name of Lladon Tethong is the director of the international Tibet student movement. The 2008 riots marked her first ever visit to her beloved country. When the Chinese People’s liberation army ‘ invaded’ Tibet in 1951, Tibetan serfs were liberated from centuries of brutal Lama tyranny. The Chinese communists built schools and hospitals, the liberated serfs were given land to farm and living standards improved. If anything the Chinese invasion was the liberation of Tibet from theocratic tyranny. To be sure , the Chinese government is no paragon of freedom and human rights. There have been many abuses and excesses but the Dalai Lamas were ten times worse!. The French socialist senator Jean-Luc Mélanchon is one of the few politicians to have debunked the Tibet freedom racket in public. Tibet is and always was part of China’s multicultural society. When will the West stop interfering in other countries about which it knows little and cares less?

An lámh cheilte a mhúnlaíonn eachtraí an domhain

Tá sé fíordheacair a thuiscint céard a tharla san Iaráin cúpla seachtaine o shin. Dearfá go bhfuil sé ‘fíordheacair’ dá ndéanfá tagairt don gcaidreamh tioblóideach idir an Iaráin agus an domhan Iartharach ó tháinig Khomeini i gcumhacht i 1979 agus an cur isteach seasta na Stát Aonaithe agus na Breataine go háirithe ar pholaitíocht inmheánach na tíre. Is miotas mór é go bhfuil mean cumarsáide saor againne san Eoraip. Is mean cumarsáide corparáideach, lúitéiseach ata i gceist don chuid is mó. Cuir i gcás, cé mhéad cláir faisnéise a chonaic tú san RTE nó BBC faoi stair an CIA mar shampla, agus na coup d’état frithdhaonlathach i ndiaidh coup d’état a rinne siad ar fud an domhain ó buníodh é i 1947?

Nuair a chuir an CIA agus an tseirbhís rúnda na Breataine Mohammad Mossadegh, uachtarán daonlathach, as cumhacht sa coup d’etat i 1953(Operation Ajax), ní raibh aon iriseoirí sa domhan iartharach a rá go mbfhéidir go mbeadh an CIA thaobh thiar de, cé go raibh fhios acu céard a bhí ag tarlú. Ag an am sin, bhí na meáin cumarsáide ar fud na Stát Aontaithe ag leathnú bolscaireacht i gcoinne an tAontais Sovéidigh. Toisc go raibh Mossedegh ag iarriadh ola na tíre, an chomhlacht British-Persian petroleum, a náisiúnú ionas go mbeadh an acmhainn nádúrtha sin i seilbh an phobail, bhí sé ina ‘chummanach ‘. Bhí láithreacht na Breataine an lag san Iaráin ó Réabhlóid Bunreachtúil i 1906. Mar gheall ar sin, ní raibh aon rogha acu ach glaoch a chur ar Na Stáit Aontaithe chun cabhair a fháil on CIA chun deireadh a chur ar Mhossedegh.

Ba chomoibríocht fhíoréirimúil í Operation Ajax. Bhain an CIA usáid as gach grúpa sa tír a bhí i gcoinne rialtais de Mhossedegh chun ciréibeacha a ghríosú. Fuair roinnt mullánna breab ón CIA chun a lucht leanúna a ghríosú. Chun eagla a chur ar na sluaite de dhaoine chráifeacha a bhí ag léirsiú sna sráideanna , chuir an CIA grúpaí de ghníomhaithe ar na sráideanna chomh maith agus iad ag déanamh aithris ar chumannaigh! “ Deireadh le Islam” an mana a bhí acu. Sa deireadh d’imigh Mossedegh thar lear agus chuir an CIA an Shah ar ais. Sheol Washington Norman Schwarzkoph (sinsearch) chun SAVAK an tseirbhís rúnda cruálach a bhunú. Seo é ráiteas d’Amnesty International a dfhoilsigh siad i 1976 faoi SAVAK ‘highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.

Cé go bhfuilim i bhfabhar na léirseoirí san Iaráin, táim in amhras faoi iontaofacht na meán cumarsáide anseo. Níl ach ionadaithe bréagacha iad do pholaitaíocht an nua-liobrálachais don chuid is mó. Cuireann siad an bréag amach i gcónaí go bhfuil An Eoraip agus Na Stáit Aontaithe ag iarraidh ‘daonlathas’ agus ‘ saoirse’ a chothú ar fud an domhain; a mhalairt ar fad atá fíor! Mar sin, ní léiríonn siad choiche an lámh cheilte a mhúnlaíonn eachtraí an domhain.

Iran's turmoil: what do Iran's Marxists say?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the conflicting opinions circulating throughout more progressive media outlets regarding the Iranian election results. While the mainstream media was predictably unanimous in its accusations of fraud, independent sources were asking deeper questions: what if Athmadinejad actually won? I cited the work of various investigative journalists, intellectuals, who claimed that the furore over the election and the use yet again of a colour to describe it was nothing more than a CIA remote controlled coup attempt. There is no doubt that this has been the strategy of the US National Endowment for Democracy organization for a number of years.

All this sounds a little far-fetched, I know. But then again far-fetched is what the US military-industrial complex does best. The destabilization of Iran has been official US policy for at least over two years. It was even reported in the London Telegraph May 2007. According to the Telegraph Bush had ‘given the CIA approval to launch covert “black” operations to achieve regime change in Iran.” Even ABC news couldn’t keep the secret. According to reporters Brian Ross and Richard Esposito ‘he CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community’. This is still official US policy in spite of the amiable facade of Obamism.

Speaking on Pakistan’s Pashto Radio last week, former Pakistani army general Mirza Aslam Beig claimed that the CIA distributed over 400 million dollars throughout Iran before the elections to stir up unrest. It has also been widely reported that the pseudo-leftist Mujahedeen Al Khalq, a terrorist organisation now exiled in Paris and the Jundallah Sunni terrorist organisation operating the southern Iranian province of Baluchistan are CIA assets. Indeed CIA sponsored covert terrorism in Iran has been the source of significant tension between Pakistan and Iran, with the Iranian government often accusing the Pakistanis of not controlling their Sunni extremists. Given their history of black operations installing fascist dictatorships throughout Latin America and other continents since the 1950s it would be unreasonable to exclude the hidden hand of the American or indeed British secret services in Iran’s turmoil.

So in a sense Athmadinejad and Khatemei are right to blame the Anglo-American establishment for much of the post-election trouble. But this time the Iranian government has turned decidedly Anglophobic. They have blamed the BBC for disseminating lies and anti-Iranian propaganda. Here again there is an element of truth in this. Take the BBC website headline on June 17^th for example ‘Obama refuses to meddle in Iran’. Fine, but what about the picture underneath the heading? They published a picture of an Athmadinejad’s supporters in Tehran while claiming it was a demonstration by his opponents! The fraud was exposed on the website ‘What really happened.com and the BBC later apologised for the ‘error’. It is not the first time that pictures have been manipulated by the Western media for propaganda purposes. When the US and Britain invaded Iraq in 2003, footage was released of a mob dancing around the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein. In reality there was only a few people present, but cleaver manipulation of the camera’s focal length created the impression that there were thousands of jubilant Iraqies present.

The confusion surrounding the Iranian elections is compounded when one considers the fact that socialist leaders like Hugo Chavez support Athmadinejad. To be sure, Venezuela’s president knows a thing or two about CIA dirty tricks; they created chaos in Venezuala for a brief period when Chavez was first elected, having their agents disguised as Chavistas fire on the crowd in order to blame the socialist leader. However, it is still hard to determine which side of the left/right political divide corresponds to Athamadinejad. Privatisation has been favoured by the Ayatollah Khatemei and is central to the five year economic development plan proposed in 2005. But many say that the ‘justice shares’ offered to the lowest income families from newly privatised companies are the key to Athmadinejad’s popularity. Having said that, a high percentage of both neo-liberal and hard left Iranian organisations remain vehemently opposed to Athmadinejad. The Tudah communist party, the Iranian Communist Party(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist )and the Worker Communist Party of Iran all lambast the Iranian leader in their websites. These Marxist parties are all based outside the country as they were forcibly exiled after the Islamic revolution.What is clear from all of this is that the demonstrations in Iran transcend the election issue. The people have risen up against the clerical oligarchy, not in an effort to open Iran up to the world but to open it up to Iranians.

Yet the problem for Iran is that it finds itself governed by a clerical oligarchy split between support for stronger alignment with Russia and China(Athmadinejad and Khamenei) and negociation with the US ( Mousavi and Rafsanjani). It is easy to see how the latter could be manipulated by Washington. Both Rafsanjani and Moussavi were key players in the secret Iran/contra deals during the 1980s. Secret deals with America turned Rafsanjani into Iran's wealthiest man. So, the problem for Iran is that there is conflict on three fundamental levels. Class conflict among the people; conflict regarding the country's geopolitical direction among the ruling class; and conflict between the imperial powers for a say in Iran's natural resources.

Bilingualism in a bi-polar society

Irish language media took a blow this month with the news that Foinse, the Irish language weekly newspaper, was to be taken out of circulation due to financial difficulties. Nevertheless Irish academia published a positive report last week concerning the advantages of bilingual education in Ireland. The research was carried out by Dr. Judith Wylie and Dr. Gerry Mulhern from Queen’s University Belfast’s School of Psychology. The school’s research concerns the cognitive development of children educated in Irish medium schools in Northern Ireland. The cognitive advantages shown in Irish medium schools were particularly striking in the areas of short-term memory and working memory. According to Dr Wylie “Short memory and working memory are centrally important in all learning, indeed everyday tasks such as reading, reasoning and mental arithmetic rely heavily on these processes. Using standardised tests of verbal and visual memory, our research compared
groups of children from Irish-medium schools with children from the more usual English-only schools in Northern Ireland “ .

The Irish language revival movement has proved to be particularly strong throughout nationalist areas of Northern Ireland. But there was also been a significant increase shown among Ulster Protestants in the Irish language and heritage. The divide and rule policy of British imperialism in the North has often led to a warped view of Irish identity on both sides of the political divide. The Irish language is too often seen as an instrument of Irish nationalism, a way for Northern nationalists to dissociate themselves from the hegemony of British culture in the province. In many respects this is true. But there is a significant number of nationalists in the north who are deeply cognisant of the importance of Protestantism to Irish language heritage. After all, the Bible was first translated into Irish by a Protestant clergyman William Bedel in the 17^th century . Queen Elizabeth herself showed a healthy curiosity in Irish. She even asked Christopher Nugent the Baron of County Westmeath to provide her with an Irish primer! The Presbyterian clergyman William Nielson was a champion of the language writing a grammar and phrase book to encourage learning of the language among his congregation. In fact, a significant number of the original Scottish planters in Ulster were Gaelic speakers. The language, then, is as most a feature of unionist Ulster as it is of nationalist Ireland.

There was, of course, a significant number of Protestant nationalists too who contributed to the revival of Irish, Douglas Hyde being the most obvious example. A survey done by Smith and Robinson in 1991 revealed that 23 percent of Northern Irish Protestants believe that Irish should be a compulsory subject in schools. This is surprisingly high given the level of cultural confusion that exists among Northern Ireland’s divided communities. There have, however, been pockets of Irish learners among Ulster’s protestants, most notably, a group of female Irish learners in the staunchly loyalist Shankill( Sean Cille- Old Church) Road. The Unionist politician Chris McGimpsey is a speaker of Irish and the Irish language daily Lá featured regular columns from the Unionist writer Ian Malcolm.
According to Dr. Reamaí Mathers of Iontaobhas na Gaelscolaíochta

“This groundbreaking work adds further evidence to the increasingly indisputable body of good science that shows that children
who are educated in Irish-medium schools are not only receiving the benefit of two languages but are also receiving tangible educational advantages. Earlier this year, Key Stage 2 assessments (Primary 7),which focus on the areas of English and maths, demonstrated that for the last three years attainment in Irish-medium education has been higher than the Northern Ireland average. What the Queen’s research provides is a deeper insight into the mechanisms at work in the superior performance by Irish-medium children when compared to the more usual English
language schools.”

There is a compelling case for Irish medium education in this country North and South. When one considers the diverse and often paradoxical ideologies that promoted the language throughout our history, it does not seem impossible that Northern Ireland could yet become the leading province promoting Gaelic culture in these Islands.

Coup d’état sa Hondúras: tá faisisteachas na Stát Aontaithe beo beathaíoch

Cé go bhfuil sé follasach go bhfuil coup d’état militeach, fasisteach, tradisiúnta i gceist i Hondúras, diúltaíonn Washington an focail ‘coup’ a rá. Ní chuireann sé sin aon iontas orm. Is stát satilíteach na Stát Aonaithe é Hondúras don chuid is mó agus sin mar a bhí sé le níos mó ná céad bliain anuas. Sna hochtóidí sheol Uachtarán Reagan grúpaí sceimhlitheoirí ann chun na mílte daoine a mharú. An réamhthéacs a bhí ag na grúpaí sceimhlitheoirí ná go raibh siad ag iarraidh dul i ngleic le bagairt an chumannachais! Cosúil le morán cogaí eile a raibh na Stáit Aontaithe thaobh thiar dóibh, ní raibh aon tuairiscíocht cheart déanta ag an meán cumarsáide ag an am.

Anois is cinneál coup d’état da samhail atá i gceist agus níl aon dabht ar bith ach go bhfuil an Teach Bán ciontach as. An fhabhb do Washington anois ná go bhfuil an comhaontas daonlathach sa Mheiriceá Láir agus Theas ag treisiú ó tháinig Chavez i gcumhacht i 2000, agus an ghluaiseacht a theastaíonn uathu a scriosadh? Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América , an comhaontas Bolivar atá ag iarraidh geilleagar difriúil a thógáil do thíortha sa Mheiriceá Theas.

Theastaigh ó Uachtarán Zelaya reifreann a dhéanamh chun tuairim na ndaoine a fháil faoi athruithe don bhunreacht. Bhí tacaíocht d’fhormhór na ndaoine ag Uachtarán Zelaya ach dúirt an cúirt ardcheannasach go raibh an reifreann sin mídhleathach . Mar sin diúltaigh an general Romeo Vásquez na hábhair toghcháin a sheachadadh. Ina dhiadh sin, bhí léirsiú mór sa Tegucigalpa chun tacaíocht a tabhairt don uachtarán.

Ansin fuadaíoch an t-uachtarán Zelaya agus thóg Vásquez an chumhacht. Cé go raibh Washington a rá go raibh siad ‘buartha’ faoi na heachtraí polaitíocha sa Tegucigalpa, bhí alán athbhrí agus neamhciontacht ina gcuid raitis: i bhfocail eile, cur i gcéill! Dúirt an t-aire gnóthaí eachtracha sa Hondúras Paticia Rodas gur ndearna sí roinnt iarachtaí teagmháil a dhéanamh le ambassadóir meiricánach ach dhiúltaigh sé a glaonna a fhreagairt.

Fuair Vásquez agus roinnt gineráil eile sa coup a gcuid oideachais mhileata sa School of the Americas i Georgia USA agus tá láithreacht láidir sheasta na Stáit Aontaithe sa Soto Cano i Hondúras go fóill, an US Joint Task Force Bravo. Eagraíochtaí eile a thugann airgead agus tacaíocht do ghrupaí frith-dhaonlathach sa Hondúras ná ‘National Endowment for Democracy’, the International Republican Institute agus the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. Tá impireacht na Stát Aontaithe an-gníomhach go fóill sa Mheiriceá Láir agus sa Mheiriceá Theas cé go bhfuil uachtarán nua dathúil acu, ní athróidh sé sin faic i ndáiríre agus leanann an ‘golpismo’ rúnda ar aghaidh.

La révolution volée:Colour revolutions and the US National Endowment for Kleptocracy

Colour revolutions are the symptom of our inverted world. If we look at the global map over the past few years, we see a vast series of riots sparked by disputed election results. The countries involved in these struggles all come within the geo-political sphere of Eurasia; that is, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The mass movements of people who contested election results or revolted against their governments in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tibet, Burma, Mongolia and finally Moldova and Iran of this year were all characterised by botanic colours, rose, orange, pink, saffron, crimson,yellow, green and so on. There were also reverberations of these so-called revolutions in Belarus where rumours were spreading of a ‘denim revolution’ as well as violent protests in Azerbaijan and Armenia largely inspired by the colour revolutions in neighbouring states.

So, who is behind all of this? Who is funding, organising and co-ordinating all of these revolutions? Are they really the ‘bottom up’ phenomenon that the Western media would have us believe? Are the colour revolutions a genuinely informed expression of people’s desire for democracy or are there other forces at play? There can be no doubt about the legitimate aspirations of all these people for democracy and human rights. However, the reality is not so simple. The organisational and ideological infrastructure for these revolutions has been consistently provided by the multifarious ‘think-tanks’ and ‘foundations’ emanating from the United States and the EU. The most active of these political organisations has been the US National Endowment for Democracy, a pseudo-philanthropic organisation which works in tandem with the CIA(capitalism’s international agency) to exploit popular discontent in Eurasian countries in order to further US geostrategic interests in the region. Other key organisations include the Soros Foundation, International Republican Institute, USAID, Freedom House and The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.

The reason for this funding is quite simple. The countries bordering the Caspian Sea sit on a potential fortune of untapped oil reserves. That is why the NED sent operatives into the former Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia just before the fall of the USSR to foment nationalist and ethnic consciousness in the name of ‘democracy’. Journalists, human rights groups, trade unions, fascist groups and extreme nationalists, and just about anyone who opposed the Soviet System were funded by the NED and Soros Foundation.

When the USSR fell in 1990, the independent tradition of Titoist Yugoslavia became a problem for the US and NATO. Ethnic conflict and economic collapse was to be the key to NATO’s imperialist intervention. In 1990 the US Congress passed the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act which predicated the allocation of US financial assistance on the breakup of the Federal Yugoslav Republic into separate states. The scene was being set for ethnic conflict and genocide. Meanwhile, the IMF forced the Yugoslav Prime Minister Ante Markovic to make sweeping economic structural reforms in the country. By 1991as a result of IMF policies Yugoslavian GDP had plummeted by 15 percent, industrial production by 21 percent and inflation had risen by 140 percent. The IMF then prevented the Yugoslav government from obtaining credit from its own central bank. In order to speed up the process of destruction, the US imposed an economic embargo on the country in 1992. The result was economic collapse. Unemployment would reach 70 percent with Catholic Croats, Muslim Bosnians and Orthodox Serbs roaming the streets in fascist militias all committing atrocities. By 1999, however, the recalcitrant Serbs would be blamed for the entire mess. The Western Media remained obdurately silent on Bosnian Muslim and Croatian Catholic atrocities. The Bosnian KLA terrorists had been helped by none other than Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda, the CIA’s foreign legion(at the time of course!). The US-Nato intervention in Kossovo had nothing to do with human rights or democracy. It was about the control of the Caspian Sea resources and the projection of Anglo-American/NATO hegemony over a vast region of vital economic and geostrategic interest.

The colour revolutions are nothing but a sham, a sinister and cynical manipulation programme funded by American oligarchies. Zbigniew Brzezinski (the man who created Al Qaeda) and President Obama’s National Security Advisor put it bluntly in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives where he writes ‘For America the chief prize is Eurasia’ The main inspiration for Brzezinski’s imperialist thinking comes from the 19^th century British geopolitical strategist Harold Mackinder, who also inspired Adolf Hitler. Mackinder famously said ‘Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;"who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;"who rules the World-Island commands the world.’ The colour revolutions have been among the most spectacular mass deception operations in history. They are designed to install corrupt US puppets such as Yushchenko in Ukraine and Saakashvili in Georgia.But they have failed in Moldova, Iran and Ouzbekistan. Another ruse may yet be necessary in order to ‘liberate’ the oppressed people of Eurasia.

the G8 versus the rest of the world

As usual the eyes of the world were obsequiously fixed on the fat cats meeting in Aquila Italy recently for the G8 summit. We are, of course, led to believe that these men actually discuss the problems of the world with intentions of solving them. If we had a free media we would already know the agenda for the G8 summit, as it is usually in concert with the deliberations of the world’s financial elite who meet in secret to formulate policies propitious to their interests; clandestine groups such as the Bilderberg Group or the Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission, America’s Council on Foreign Relations or its sister club in Britain The Royal Institute of International Affairs, all fronts for the insatiable megalomania and lucre-lust of the global ‘banksters’

You will probably have read nothing about a meeting of far more importance for the future of the world, a meeting that represents the aspirations of over half the world’s population and over two-thirds of earth’s nations; I’m talking about the Non-Aligned Movement. They met in Havana Cuba from 11^th to the 15^th of July. It was in the Cuban capital that the group made the widely un-mediatised Havana Declaration in 1979, the year when Thatcher came to power in Britain, declaring war on the British working class and the peasants of the developing world with her draconian ‘Third World’ debt collection policies.

The Havana Declaration advocates the "the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries" in their "struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics."^[

The foundation work for the movement was laid in the Bandung Conference in Indonesia in April 24 1955 to oppose the neo-colonialism of the United States and the grouping of countries into blocs represented by the USA and the USSR. The first official non-aligned summit was held in Belgrade in 1961. The founding fathers of the NAM were Nehru of India, Sukarno of Indonesia and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana. Only three of the five progressive leaders would survive however, Kwame Nkrumha, one of Africa’s most popular leaders and the left-leaning president Sukarno of Indonesia were later ousted in CIA sponsored military coups. There greatest crimes were that they favoured the interests of their own impoverished people over those of the US plutocracy.

The NAM is deeply critical of US global hegemony, Zionism, unfair trade practices as well as the tyrannical donor conditionalities of the IMF and the dictatorial decision-making procedures of the UN Security Council. In short, they are calling for an end to neo-imperialism. In 1976 in Colombo Sri Lanka, the leaders of 85 non-aligned states met to discuss proposals for solving the economic crisis in developing countries due to the 1973 oil-price shock. The 1973 oil price shock was the result of the Yom Kipper war between Israel , Egypt and Syria. The US Secretary of State at the time Dr. Henry Kissinger was largely responsible for the escalation of events which led to this war, carefully manipulating both sides. A radical hike in the price of oil had been agreed upon in the Saltsjobaden Bilderberg Conference of 1973 in Sweden in order to increase demand for US dollars and boost returns from Anglo-American North Sea oil investments. War in the Middle East was the result. OPEC imposed an oil embargo in protest at Israeli aggression just as the Anglo-American establishment had hoped, although Britain through Kissinger’s diplomacy escaped the embargo. OPEC conveniently got the blame for their reaction to the fabricated war. Meanwhile third world economies had to double borrowing from Western Banks to pay for the oil imports.

The Colombo meeting of NAM attempted to deal with the devastating consequences Third World indebtedness to western banks due to the oil hike scam by forming closer ties with OPEC. Kissinger was having none of it. Within months of the Colombo initiative the principal leaders involved, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India, Prime Minister Siramavo Bandaranaike (the world’s first female Prime Minister)of Sri Lanka were ousted from power, while Guyana’s minister for foreign affairs Frederick Wills was forced to resign. Foreign interference was largely responsible for the toppling of the Colombo initiative and by the 1980s children were being recruited into sweet shops run by multinationals to pay for the mammoth debt imposed on the Third World by the countries of today’s G8. This barbarous chicanery is called neo liberalism, and it is the real agenda of the G8.

From post-colonial client to post modern dictator. The rise and fall of Robert Mugabe

This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold’ Robert Mugabe.

Critics on both sides of the left-right paradigm generally agree on the appalling legacy of Robert Mugabe’s rule of Zimbabwe. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media beams apocalyptic images of hunger, devastation and disease as the Zimbabwean economy continues to collapse. But the origins as well as the internal and external forces which have contributed to this catastrophe are rarely discussed in detail. Instead, Mugabe is represented as the epitome of the post-colonial, corrupt, African leader oppressing his own people in an insane attempt to preserve his brutal autocracy. Currently ranked as number 7 on Parade magazine’s World’s Worst Dictators list, Mugabe is universally accused of using anti-imperialist and anti-racist propaganda to divert attention from his own oppressive policies, blaming the West for African problems. However, few people in Europe understand the underlying features of these problems

When the Marxist ZANU party finally succeeded in ousting British imperialist rule from Zimbabwe in 1980 Mugabe became the symbol of the new progressive African leader and was copiously rewarded with honorary degrees by many Western universities.

One would be inclined to consider such Western largess unusual for a Marxist leader in the middle of the Cold War, but that is because Mugabe was forced to compromise his revolutionary principles in the interests of ‘realpolitik’. Indeed, it is highly questionable if he ever really had them to begin with. Nevertheless, the best one could hope for when dealing with a rapacious British imperial state was a meagre share for Zimbabweans of their own national resources or nothing. When the Lancaster Agreement was signed in 1979, Mugabe agreed to allow a 20 seat representation for the white minority and a twenty year moratorium on constitutional amendments. This was bad news for the landless peasants, hungry for land redistribution, who made up the majority of the population. Yet, in spite of these drawbacks, Mugabe’s progressive policies in the areas of health and education produced remarkable results. From 1980 to 1990 infant mortality rates had been significantly reduced, malnutrition rates had halved and Zimbabwe had one of the highest literacy rates in the developing world.

One of the problems in understanding the internal politics of Zimbabwe revolves around the conflicting interests of the rural landless peasants (what we in Ireland used to call ‘spalpíní) and the urban working and middle classes. Torn between the competing interests of these classes; his own desire to stay in power, and the voracious drive of multi-national companies to exploit the resources of his country for their own gain, Mugabe tended to rotate in a vortex of competing forces. If he ignored the interests of the imperials powers, they would put measures in place to ruin his economy or assassinate him as in the case of the noble Patrice Lumumba of Congo or his old friend, the great Nkruma of Ghana. Those leaders had made the mistake of putting their own country’s interests first and were consequently ousted by the CIA. On the other hand, he also had to appease the desires of Zimbabweans.

When the World Bank forced ‘structural reforms’ on the Zimbabwean economy in 1991,unemployment soared, Mugabe lost the traditional support he had enjoyed among the state sector workers and the middle classes. Another complicating factor here was the class tension between the two principal ethnic groups in the country, namely the Shoma majority and the Ndebele minority. The British always tended to favour the minority in order to divide and rule. As a result, the Ndebele tended to produce leaders of the urban trade unions rather than the peasant liberation movement. Mugabe, himself of Shona extraction, had supported the traditional class structure until the rural unrest in the late nineties, evicting peasant squaters from settler-owned land.

According to the Ugandan scholar Mahmood Mamdani, by 1991 the opposition to Mugabe was now quite diverse ‘ containing, on the one hand, public sector workers trying to roll back the tide of Structural Adjustment; on the other, uncompromising free-marketeers such as Eddie Cross, the MDC secretary of economic affairs and a senior figure in the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries, who was intent on privatising almost everything, including education.’ Meanwhile, Mugabe was facing fierce pressure from his landless veterans who wanted radical land distribution. By this stage, however, external funding for the urban trade union opposition from the US Ford Foundation, Heritage Foundation and others steered that movement in the direction of neo-liberalism; these organisations lobbied extensively in favour of a no vote on land redistribution.

Having lost the 2000 referendum on land redistribution the peasants rebelled and invaded the white-run farms. With the land revolution came imperialist sanctions and a freeze on credit resulting in economic collapse. But there were other reasons motivating the West’s desire to oust Mugabe. He had defended the Democratic Republic of Congo against the Anglo-American funded proxy armies of Uganda and Rwanda in African Great War. The imperial powers had used the Ugandan and Rwandan armies to plunder Congolese minerals. This is one of the many Anglo-American ‘little secrets’ of recent African history. Another reason they wanted Mugabe out is because he refused IMF ‘conditionalities’. The Heritage Foundation, one of the chief funders of the opposition movement to Mugabe cite his insistence on subsidies for agriculture and state-owned industries, customs and tariffs on imports and land redistribution as the chief cause of concern. There is therefore an inconvenient truth in Mugabe’s anti-imperialist rhetoric. That is why Mugabe is ‘Hitler’ and the dozens of other dictators the imperial powers support are not.

test

Mixed messages or mexed missages? Is Iran at the end of its twitter?

The occidental media was raving about the possibility a ‘green’ revolution in Iran. Was this another CIA-sponsored postmodern revolution like the colour revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan? The consensus seems to be that the colour was a mere coincidence. It seems that Adhmadinejad chose a red ball when casting his vote while Moussavi chose green. Green is said to be a colour representing Islam but what about red? We know that Athmadinijad was promising to go the Chavez route by taking control of Iran’s oil resources and redistributing the wealth among the poor where his popularity has soared.

But Athmadinejad is no Chavez. His secret police the Bassijis look more like Hitler’s SS and many of the country’s problems are emanating from corruption of the ruling elite. If Athmadinjad has socialist tendencies they are certainly presented in the western media as of the nefarious ‘national socialist’ kind. However, we do not have a clear picture in the West of Iran and its leader.
Iran’s jeuness dorée, the educated bourgeoisie of the big cities took to the streets to express their desire to see an end to Islamic extremism, while the proletariat chanted for Mahmoud, Allah and oil revenue. We know of course that Iran was never particularly Islamic. In fact, one could say that Islamic fundamentalism was thrust upon them in 1979 and it is merely a moment in the complex and profound history of Persian civilisation.

But to come back to all this talk about Green versus Red, what should we make of this? First of all I should point out that Iran’s trouble is pretty much Britain's fault. They were the ones who planned the 1953 coup by convincing the CIA to destroy Iran’s democracy. The CIA duly obliged and Operation Ajax was a success. The Shah was put back in power, the SAVAK, Iran’s secret police, were taught all the newest techniques in covert murder and torture by the CIA; in short, order was restored. However, even the Shah, realising that it was better to be an enlightened and popular despot than a hated one, attempted to build up the country to a certain extent. It was, however, a disaster. His importation of American arms and aristocratic opulence had bankrupted the country. He then made a big career mistake. In order to save the economy he tried to raise the price of oil. “Oh no you don’t “ said Washington.

The Los Angeles Times published an article in October 17th 2008 claiming that recently declassified US State Department documents show that the Ford administration wanted an end to the Shah due to his insistence on raising the price of oil. According to the Arab historian Said Aborish the Muslim Brotherhood had always been an asset of M16 and later the CIA, but we’re not supposed to know that and neither are the Muslims! It seems M16 persuaded the French to shelter Khomeini in Paris before installing him in Tehran. There was even a joke circulating in Iran at the time that Khomeini was ‘made in Britain’. BBC Persia and MI6 flooded Iran with Khomeini’s tapes. Islamic extremists with little economic expertise were always a useful tool of Western imperialists to de-stabilise resource-nationalizing governments so that Standard Oil, PB and others could continue to plunder Middle Eastern petroleum. When the focus of Islamic rebels like Khomeini was on religion and culture they were supported; when their focus was on quasi-socialist economics as in the FLN of Algeria, they were opposed.

Top foreign policy-makers Zbigniew Brezinzski of Carter’s administration knew that Khomeini would rebel and foment a form of Islamic nationalism but the Western powers already had an answer for that: send in Saddam! It was a hugely profitable war for the US, who backed both sides. Remember the Iran-contra scandal? The upshot of all this is that it is difficult to determine what the Anglo-American establishment wants Iran to do right now. It is likely that they really want Moussavi as he seems to support neo-liberal economic policies. My suspicion is that the Israeli extreme right probably wants to see a civil war, as that would weaken Iran for the next decade or so.

So who won the election? According to the French daily Liberation June 19 ('left wing' paper now controlled by Edward de Rothshild!) Moussavi clearly won with Athmadinejad coming in third place! The Sociologist Professor James Petras, however, writes in Reseau Voltaire that this is a lie.

The French journalist Thierry Meyssan in his article 'De Mossadegh à Ahmadinejad:La CIA et le laboratoire iranien' (http://www.voltairenet.org/article160639.html) has pointed the finger at the CIA for the confusion surrounding the Iranian election result, claiming that they manipulated Iranian communications via Twitter and SMS to spread the idea that Moussavi had won. The New York Times and Reuters reported the story of US intervention but with the usual element of spin. The US State Department asked Twitter to delay their planned upgrade of the service so that Iranian communications among protesters would not be disrupted. How thoughtful of them!

Meyssan claims that the US State Department interference with Twitter was so that the CIA could stir up confusion by diseminating anti-Athmadinejad propaganda, leading to protest and chaos, their favourite activities. Many readers on the Reseau Voltaire accussed Meyssan of inveterate'anti-americanism'.His response,however,was cogent:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160696.html

The Achilles heel for Iranian security in these troubled times is clearly the Baluchistan province to the South of the country. The Baluchistan province forms part of Iran, Pakistan and borders Afghanistan. Baluchistan is rich in oil and natural resources and is a key region for the US who have been lauching drone attacks around the city of Quetta. With reports indicating Pakistani ISI,CIA,MI6, the Mossad and Indian intelligence RAW all operating in the Baluchistani region, covert destabilisation strategies emanating from Baluchistan are an impending nightmare for Tehran. But it is unclear if the CIA and MI6 have the capability or desire to destabilise Tehran right now. They are probably too bogged down in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq to contemplate opening up a Persian pandora's box. However, NATO's escalation of violence in Pakistan could have serious implications for Iranian security if the US and Britain continue to use Baluchistani rebels as pawns in their proxy wars. The US army has been well-positioned in Balochistan with bases in Dalbandin and Panjgur. On Baluchistan's importance for the US and Britain, Majeed Javed writes:

'The active involvement of foreign agencies in Pakistan's province of Balochistan has been sufficiently proved. Pakistan's Senate Committee on Defence in June, 2006 had accused British Intelligence of "abetting the insurgency in the province bordering Iran". Also, as per Press Trust of India's press release dated 9 August 2006, Ten British MPs were found involved by the Senate Committee in its closed door session on alleged links of British Secret Service with the Baluch separatists. The British interests in Balochistan were again made conspicuous when its Foreign Policy Centre, sponsored a preposterous one sided propaganda against Pakistan by holding a controversial Seminar in the House of Commons on 27 June 2006. The Centre had collaborated with the so-called Baluchistan Rights Movement then and had invited only anti-Pakistan and self styled activists who only advocated terrorism in the province. No Pakistani scholar or elected representatives from either the central government or the Balochistan province itself, were invited for the seminar'.

http://www.inewsit.com/articles/entry/War-On-Terror-Balochistan-De-Focused-By-Majeed-Javed

The principal geopolitical concern for the US and Britain in Baolochistan is the port city of Gwadar on the Arabian sea. The Chinese in conjunction with the Pakistani government are currently developing this area as it is a key trade route to the Central Aisan republics for the Chinese. The Chinese are also involved in the ambitious gold and copper mining project at Saindak. As Pakistan is a natural ally of China, the US and Britain want to take control of Balochistan. This will inevitably lead to the occupation and disintegration of Pakistan, creating more chaos on the Iran's Eastern border. The key problem here revolves around two proposed pipe lines, namely, the Balochistani Iranian to Pakistani Iranian pipeline proposed by those governments and referred to as the peace line,a plan which is propitious to Chinese interests, or the US backed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline; in other words, the war plan. In terms of geography and natural resources Balochistan is the 'black pearl' of Asia, but politically it is a potential nightmare.

The Israeli daily Haaretz published a story on 18-06-09 concerning an alleged CIA/Mossad joint-terrorist operation to place bombs in various election booths and mosques throughout Tehran on election day. The aim of the terror being to destabilise the country.(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1094007.html) The CIA have been accused of covertly funding the Baluchistani rebels in the South of Iran since the 1980s.

The Paris-based PMOI were taken off the EU terror list this year. Many US senators and UK lords have been lobbying for the PMOI's removal from American and EU terror lists for years. The French president Nikoloas Sarkozy, succeeded in lobbying the EU this year to have the PMOI removed from its terrorism list. It is still unclear what the US-EU strategy is regarding this group.

To come back to the Iranian election again. Did Athmadinejad win or not? The American pollsters Ken Ballen of the Centre for Public Opinion and Paul Doherty of the New America Foundation conducted a rigorous poll in Iran prior to the election. This is what they have to say about the election result

'Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Moussavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
“The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Moussavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over MoU.S.avi.
“Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
“The only demographic groups in which our survey found Moussavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.”

Former Assistant Director of the Treasury in the Reagon administration Paul Craig Roberts knows a thing or two about US scheming. This is what he has to say on the matter:

"As a person who has seen it all from inside the U.S. government, I believe that the purpose of the U.S. government’s manipulation of the American and puppet government media is to discredit the Iranian government by portraying the Iranian government as an oppressor of the Iranian people and a frustrater of the Iranian people’s will. This is how the U.S. government is setting up Iran for military attack.'

"http://mostlywater.org/why_us_wants_delegitimize_iranian_elections

The problem is we just don’t know what’s really going in Iran. So, now we have complex phenomenon of class and cultural conflict in the midst of an information war. It will probably be enough to stoke Persia’s internal fire for the next few months while Washington and London have a chance to think about the next act in the region's petrodollar tragedy.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Obama Doctrine

Six months ago we were all waxing lyrical about the political possibilities presented by the new emperor laurelled on Capitol Hill. But very few actually predicted what an Obama presidency would be like. Now it looks like new mistakes to cover old ones and monstrous lies to cover them all will continue to define US foreign policy as the permanent war economy gears up for more conflict.

Afghanistan would be a good place to start in our assessment of what the Obama doctrine is likely to be. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama’s Foreign Policy Advisor, coined the phrase ‘ the Afghan trap’. He was referring to the way in which the United States lured the Russians into a war in that country which they couldn’t win. It was, as Brzezinski slyly put it, “to give them their Vietnam”.

Brzezinski was one of Obama’s professors at Columbia University and played a key role in his rise to power. He was also instrumental in Carter’s accession to the White House in 1979. Carter is often presented as one of the better presidents in recent times. What people often overlook however is that Islamic fundamentalism was pretty much the brainchild of the Carter administration. As Brzezinski had played such a key role in Carter’s rise to power, he was able to steer the political gunboat of this fine young man.

The Carter Doctrine was proclaimed by the president in his State of the Union Speech in 1980. In this speech Carter articulated what would become US gospel for the next three decades, a policy that would lead to death and torture on a mammoth scale. By this stage Carter had already authorised the CIA and special forces to provoke the Russians into conflict. The Carter Doctrine states:
The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

Next time you hear an idiot say “I don’t think the war is about oil” Ask him/her is they have read the Carter Doctrine and look out for that Sarah Palin vacuity in their eyes!

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, and now the more or less the same in Obama’s regime, was sent to Afghanistan to arm the Mujahedeen, a motley group of illiterate peasants, who might easily have been attracted by Soviet Communism had it not been for Brzezinski’s theological exhortations. “God is on your side” he told them, as the CIA with help from Osama Bin Ladin and Pakistan’s ISI, proceeded to indoctrinate the poor farmers in religious fanaticism. Madrasas were set up throughout the region, where the Mujahadeen were taught to hate the Russians for being non-muslims. They were trained in the use of the latest military equipment while the CIA and Pakstani Intelligence laundered money from the drug harvests of the future Taliban.

The result of the Carter Doctrine was 911 and a Middle Eastern war which has now cost the lives of over a million people. The inclusion of Brzezinski on the Obama foreign policy team is bad news.

In an interview he gave with the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 Brzezinski was asked if he regretted his decisions in Afghanistan. He replied “What is most important to the history of the world? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” Back then he thought the idea of Islamic extremists being a threat to the world was ‘ nonsense’. Now on his advice, President Obama, just like his predecessor, repeats the same phony mantra about US ‘National Security’ and the ‘real threat’ from the Middle East. So what then are the challenges for the Obama presidency? Well one of the problems for the new presidency was outlined by Dr. Brzezinski’s in a chilling remark which he made before a group of elites in Chatam House London on November 2008 “It is easier to kill a million people than to control them”

Resisting technocratic interpellation

I resisted the Credit Card for a long time, until a few months ago, in fact. I used to get friends to book flights for me online but Ryanair put an end to my fiscal simplicity. Ryanair are masters of the art of stealth charges. You are even charged at the airport for the privilege of having booked your flight online! After I had checked in for my Paris-Dublin flight a few months ago I had to queue up again in order to pay my credit card fee of 5 euro.
Having queued up for more than 30 minutes, I finally reached the counter. “bonjour Monsieur” said the pretty lady behind the counter.

“ Bonjour Madame” said I. I reluctantly handed her my five Euro note.

“ sorry, we don’t accept notes, you’ll have to pay with your credit card” she said.

“ I’m sorry madam, I do not have a credit card but I am prepared to pay you with this real money” I retorted, politely keeping my growing frustration in check. Then, predictably, cracks soon appeared in the diplomatic equanimity as negotiation rapidly descended into all out confrontation.
“ I’m sorry but you will have to call a friend and ask them to pay for you as we cannot accept real money” she continued. “ What? This is crazy, you do not accept real money!! What is this, a scene from a Kafka novel? You want me to pay you again for the privilege of paying you invisible money, now I give you real money and you say I cannot board my flight to Dublin unless I pay you more invisible money!”
By this stage I realised I had declared war but I was not prepared to surrender. Meanwhile airport security were beginning to take an interest in the lone protester

“ I’m sorry monsieur", she said coldly, “but I cannot change the system” I was caught in an absurd ideological pincer-grip with airport security slowly advancing. As soon as she mentioned the word system I launched my surface to air missles . I knew I had no chance of winning but I decided to lose all guns blazing. “ change the system you say? Fuck the system” the four letter word is the last resort of the broken man “ and fuck Ryanair and it effing capitalist thuggery, its digital fascism. I’m sick and tired of being treated like cog in the machine, a number in the calculus, a superfluous letter in badly written book. Fuck the whole lot of you, you despicable scum!”

I should point you to you dear reader that I said this in French, so it may have sounded less offensive! By this stage other French customers in the queue behind me began to join in and for a moment I thought “ this could be the storming of the Bastille or a Rosa Parks moment”. Not quite I’m afraid. But they kindly paid the miserable five Euro for me and I boarded my flight.
A few months later, I came back to the same Ryanair counter and met the same lady. This time I decided to take a leaf from President Roosevelt’s book when he said that in negotiation you should speak softly but carry a big stick. My big stick was the threat of another vituperative onslaught. From our initial eye contact I could tell she recognised me. The cashier could probably detect the verbal arsenal behind the clenched teeth of my fake smile. I spoke softly, looked her straight in the eye and whispered “ Madam I do not have a credit card”. Then, as if for the sake of world peace, she took out her own card and paid for my flight herself. I gave her my five euro, thanked her profusely and quietly departed. You might think I was a bit extreme calling Ryanair fascists but aren’t they the airline that taxes fat people and wants to make us pay to use the toilet? Kafka once said ‘in the fight between you and the world, back the world”. I surrendered and now back the banking world by paying them for the privilege of my invisible money!

911 agus na teoiricí comhcheilge timpeall an ghréasáin.

Os comhair ríomhaire le déanaí fuair mé roinnt suíomhanna idirlín faoi 911. I bhfírinne, ó tháinig an t-idirlíon go tithe an domhain tá réabhlóid mhilteanach tar éis tarlú ar fud na cruinne. Anois agus don chéad uair i stair an domhain, tá an t-eolas uileláithreach. Ciallaíonn sé sin go bhfuil deis ag gach duine a bheith ina iriseoir, taighdeoir nó bleachtaire. Is é sin le rá, is féidir le gach duine an tsochaí ina maireann muid a iniúchadh agus a scrúdú ar bhonn gan macasamhail. Is muintir na gúglachta ( google) muid anois, mar a dhearfá. Ag gúgláil timpeall an ghréasáin le cuardach ‘911 cover up, CIA’ agus mar sin dé, chuir sé iontas orm an méid suíomhanna agus físeanna atá ann a chúisíonn an CIA agus Mossad a bheith taobh thiar de na hionsaithe ar na túir sa Nua Eabhrac.

Go deimhin, chualamar scéalta mar sin cheanna agus is fíor go mbíonn conspóid ag baint le gach tubaiste a tharláíonn sna Stáit Aontaithe i gcónaí. Tugaim an t-ainm ‘danbrowneachas’ ar theoiricí comhcheilge mar sin, agus ní bhíonn morán suime agam aon aitheantas a thabhairt dóibh. Ach é sin ráite, tá rud éigin go hiomlán difrúil i gcás 911 os rud é go bhfuil daoine ardcháile den tuairim go raibh an CIA agus Mossad taobh thiar de na hionsaithe.

Cuir i gcás, Francesco Cossiga, Iar-uachtarán na hIodáile agus ollamh le dlí san Ollscoil Sassari. Fear measúil, stuama é Cossiga agus tá sé ina saineolaí faoi cheisteanna a bhaineann le cúrsaí slándála. Dúirt sé le Corriera della Sera cúpla blain ó shin go riabh sé soléir dó agus dón seirbhís rúnda na hIodáile go bhfuil an CIA agus Mossad ciontach as an sceimhlitheoireacht sa Nua Eabhrac. Níl aon dabht faoi sin dár leis. Dúirt Cossiga go raibh na hionsaithe pleanáilte chun casus belli a fháil don chogadh san Afganistáin agus Iáráic. Tá alán taithí ag Cossiga leis an CIA. Bhí siad an-ghníomhach san Iodáil le linn an Chogaidh Fhuair san oibriú Gladio. Ba í sceimhlitheoireacht státurraithe nó, sceimlitheoireacht na brataí bréagaigh a bhí i gceist ansin. Ba é Cossiga an chéad duine a labhair amach faoi.

Deireann iar-stiúrthóir na seirbhíse rúnda i bPacastáin Ginerál Hamud Gul an rud ceannan céanna. Ina theanta sin, dúirt sé go raibh an CIA agus Mossad thaobh thiar na hionsaithe sceimhlitheoireachta arís i Mumba le déanaí. Núair a fheiceann tú rudaí mar sin maile le dúrud mór d’ fíricí aisteacha eile a gheofaidh tú san idirlíon, go háiraithe sa U Tube, tosaíonn tú a bheith beaganín buartha!

Ar ndóigh, tá a fhios ag gach éinne go raibh Mossad ag obair sa Nua Eabhrac roimh na hionsaithe agus go raibh réamheolas acu faoi na sceimhlitheoirí. Agus céard faoi na Five Dancing Israelis’ na céad iosraelaigh ag rince? Gabh na póilíní FBI céad Iosraelaigh sa Nua Eabhrac díreach tar éis na hionsaithe de bharr iompair gur mheas siad a bheith ‘aisteach’. De réir an tuairisc, bhí vean plódaithe de phléascáin ullmhaithe acu. Tharla sé ina dhiaidh sin go riabh na céad fir ina bhaill de Mhossad, an tseirbhís rúnda na hIosraele. Mar sin, níor chualamar móran eile faoin scéal. Bhí tuairisc sa Teilifís na Fraince an bhliain seo caite a rá go raibh Mohammad Atta ina bhall de Mhossad, agus arís níor chuala mé aon tuairisc eile faoi ina dhiaidh sin.

Is fíor go bhfuil a lán ceisteanna le freagairt fós faoi 911 ach bheadh sé saonta an iomarca aitheantais a thabhairt don theoiric chomhcheilge sin. Ba choir féachaint ar gach taobh den scéal. Má fhéachann tú ar roinnt físeanna sa U Tube, cur i gcás, feicfidh tú fianaise a bhréagnaíonn alán teoiricí comhcheilge. Dúirt Noam Chomsky nach raibh aon fhírinne ins na teoiricí sin. Ach maireann na ceisteanna faoi Mhossad fós. Cén eolas a bhí acu? Cad a bhí á dhéanamh acu sa Nua Eabhrac? Scéal contúirteach agus rúndiamrach gan amhras, scéal a fhágann i mbun machnaimh mé go fóill.

How many years must a mountain exist before it is washed to the sea?

Ten years ago I gave English lessons to a German entrepreneur in Berlin, who had set up a successful wind energy company specialising in the supply and construction of wind turbines. The company was rapidly expanding throughout Europe. I remember asking her if she had plans to expand the business in Ireland. “If I we could promote this form of energy in Ireland” she told me “ we could almost double our business. Ireland is perfect for wind-energy production. But I don’t think your Government has really shown interest in this possibility” She was right. The Irish government was, as usual, doing its best to avoid the winds of change! Their chief interests included urban sprawl, environmental and heritage destruction and the sale of our national resources.

But in these morose times, it comes as a relief to find out that something positive and uniquely progressive could still happen in Ireland. A new think tank was set up six months ago called Spirit of Ireland to explore the potential of the Irish wind energy industry. On their website they confidently proclaim
‘Ireland has enormous advantages of geography and geology. Every day and every night, truly extraordinary wealth in terms of energy blows across our land. Our place on the corner of Europe tipping into the huge Atlantic Ocean, ensures an endless supply of energy on a massive scale and of enormous value. 98% of our Energy is imported at a cost of over €6.5 billion per year. Every year! Ireland has within its reach a truly enormous and inexhaustible source of Natural Energy and Wealth. By taking energy from the wind and by building large Hydro Energy Reservoirs we can make energy from the wind fully reliable and usable’

The growth of the wind-energy industry has always been hampered by the problem of fluctuations in wind intensity and the storage of the energy. What happens when there is little wind? The Spirit of Ireland project has come up with a compelling solution to this problem. The key here lies in Ireland’s unique geography. A Russian by the name of Igor Shvets, who is professor of physics in Trinity College Dublin, (who says the country doesn’t need immigrants!) has pointed out that Ireland abounds in impervious valleys which are contiguous to the ocean. If the Spirit of Ireland project is implemented, these valleys will be dammed and hydro- storage reservoirs will be built, thereby serving as natural lakes storing water which can be used for electricity generation when the wind is down. The project website states the solution thus:

‘Professor Igor Shvets has identified suitable valleys on the West Coast, which are ideally shaped. Basic rock dams in a few valleys, will provide Hydro Storage Reservoirs at modest cost. Positioned close to the sea, water volume is not an issue. Japan’s J-Power had built a successful sea water storage facility in Okinawa over 10 years ago. Senior executives and engineers from Japan visited Ireland and confirmed the validity of this approach. Filling the reservoirs with wind energy and using it when needed means that the intermittency of the wind problem is resolved. International Consultants from Canada, the US and Norway contributed to other aspects of the design.’

Ireland currently ranks 16th in the world for wind-energy production and 9th in the European Union. But according to the Spirit of Ireland project, Ireland’s unique geology, geography and marine environment has not been adequately exploited. Ireland could become a world leader in wind industry, exporting energy to other countries and saving billions in national energy expenditure every year.

The Spirit of Ireland project aims are to create tens of thousands of jobs, achieve energy independence in 5 years, as well as saving thirty billion by reducing the importation of fossil fuels, thereby effecting a radical reduction in the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. The project includes many financial experts who estimate that a fully developed national wind energy project would add 50 billion Euro to the economy! So, perhaps therein lies the solution to our soaring trade deficit which could yet reach 50 billion Euro. This is an innovative and progressive idea. But national progress requires intelligent governance. Ah, there’s the rub!

According to the European Wind Energy Association EWEA, wind energy accounted for over 43 percent of all new energy generating capacity in the EU last year. If the Government insists on introducing its silly blasphemy laws, perhaps they should consider giving a ‘special’ protection to old Aeolus, the Greek god of the wind, or Danu, the Celtic god of wind, wisdom and fertility!
Who knows, it could yet transpire that the solution to our economic despair lies in what we all breath though none of us see; the answer is blowin in the wind.

For a breath of fresh air (sorry, couldn’t resist) see: http://www.spiritofireland.org/

Introducing 'Papal Pull' the new improved condom

The encouragement to procreate by religious despots is a policy they should seriously reconsider if they want to hold on to power.

Elections are due to be held in Iran in June to decide which leader is going to lead the country out of the first decade of the 21st century. Iran is a fascinating country. The world’s first great empire in the 6th century BCE under Cyrus the Great-who some claim to have instituted the first charter of human rights-the country has nevertheless seen a long succession of despots, with the exception of the progressive Mohammad Mossedegh but the CIA put an end to him in 1953. The first thing that strikes one about Iran is its sheer youth. Over 70 percent of the Iranian population is under 30 and over 60 percent of those attending university are women.

President Obama’s address to the Iranian nation a few weeks ago was astute, particularly his decision to use the medium of the internet which the Iranian government is unable to fully control. When the Ayatollah Khomeini assumed absolute power after the 1979 revolution, he encouraged couples to have big families. He also lowered the legal age of marriage for women to 9 years! Khomeini was following the example of the Prophet Mohammad who married a 6 year old girl named Ayesha and apparently consummated the relationship when she was 9! In other words, Mohammed was a paedophile.

There are currently over 700,000 blogs in Iran and this number is increasing in the thousands every day

The result of Khomeini's procreation policy was a population explosion over the past thirty years during which time the demographical figures of Iran doubled. The problem for the clerical oligarchy now is that the majority of the population is composed of young people eager to escape the stultifying shackles of Islamic tyranny. The difference between Iran now and Iran ten years ago when Khatamei was opening up the country to progress, is the omnipresent internet. The internet has become such a phenomenon among Iran’s youth that the secret service, the notorious ‘etellat’ are no longer able to employ enough people to filter the sites and control the flow of information.

As David Macwilliams has illustratively pointed out in his book The Pope’s Children, the pontiff’s visit coincided with a baby boom

There are currently over 700,000 blogs in Iran and this number is increasing in the thousands every day. The blogosphere phenomenon has become so all-pervasive in Iranian society that both the Ayatollah himself as well as president Athmadinejad now have blogs. If you do a search in Wikipedia you can find a list of Iranian blogs in English both from inside and outside the country. Many of them make for interesting reading. For many Iranians the daily oppression is so intense, that keeping a blog and sharing one’s thoughts with the world is a form of catharsis and relief. The ironic aspect about this surge in the country’s youth is their disillusionment with the clerical oligarchy, the very people who encouraged their creation. One could argue that a similar phenomenon happened in Ireland 30 years ago. Was not the year of the Islamic Revolution also the year of Pope John Paul’s visit to Ireland? As David Macwilliams has illustratively pointed out in his book The Pope’s Children, the pontiff’s visit coincided with a baby boom.

In a sense, the encouragement to procreate by religious despots is a policy they should seriously reconsider if they want to hold on to power. Once you encourage a baby boom there is a strong possibility that that new generation will reject you and all you stand for. This is to a certain extent what happened in Ireland in the case of Catholicism and it is already happening in the Islamic Republic of Iran. On the question of contraception, the Ayatollah Khomenei seemed to have realised the danger of his earlier policy of encouraging procreation. He later came out in favour of contraception and condoms are now widely available in the Islamic Republic of Iran with the divine blessing of the imams.

This mandatory contraception policy would entail the Pontifex Maximus transforming himself into the Pro-durex Seximus, as it were

In this sense it is strange that the present Pope should be spreading disgraceful lies about condoms in Africa and denouncing an innocent sexually abused 9 year old girl in Brazil for having an abortion; strange not in an ideological sense but more in terms of totalitarian strategy. Of course, it is all part of the Big Lie which I spoke about last week. But if the church wants to hold on to power in developing countries for the coming generations, then it should be encouraging contraception and abortion. For the less young people there are, the more power for the religious despots.

For the less young people there are, the more power for the religious despots

The key then for the survival of religious tyranny would be the promotion of these two concepts. This mandatory contraception policy would entail the Pontifex Maximus transforming himself into the Pro-durex Seximus, as it were. Vatican inc. could launch a lucrative contraceptive marketing campaign; they could call the new condom ‘Papal Pull’ with the caption :“Make divine love with Papal Pull, a condom proved and tested to stop the sexually transmitted disease of life. Call your parish priest today ! Terms and conditions apply” They could even publish their message on the condom packets just like the Government warning on cigarette boxes: “Church warning: Pre-marital or extra-marital sex seriously increases your chances of going to hell!”.