“Kissinger believes that the Israelis are in a panic and will
attack Iran. Erdogan has made it clear to him that he plans to
break with Israel at some point and reorient toward the Islamic
world. He intends to be their leader. Paul Volcker regards the
Greek crisis as potentially a mortal blow for the EU. He would
like to see an IMF tranche. He also said that Nicholas Brady is
behind both this and the Volcker principles Obama adopted. When
I asked Brady how he expects to get the the U.S. to go along
with an IMF bailout, he shrugged and said they won’t, but that’s
the only choice. Volcker is now doubtful the Euro can survive.
Brady is convinced it will. Kissinger thinks Volcker and Brady
are missing the real crisis which is in Iran and potentially
Russia. Volcker also says that the Bank of England and the
French will go along with the Volcker rules on an international
basis–that is returning to a variety of Glass-Steagal. The
Japanese will do whatever is said, and in Germany only Deutsche
Bank really makes decisions. Sarkozy told him he would come in.
So there may be an international convention on restructuring
banks under way–Volcker is pretty careful in what he says and
doesn’t promote himself more than the average bear, so this may
be the case. Nick Brady thinks so too.”
“Early 2011 was a dramatic period in modern Egyptian history. The
mainstream mediaa**s narrative on the Arab Spring portrayed popular
uprisings as the driving force that swept away the regime of Hosni Mubarak
and opened the door to democracy. But a closer examination indicates that
the rules of the past still apply. Concentration of power, physical
isolation from the outside world, and dependence upon outside forces for
economic security remain the trifecta that drives Egyptian society and
To understand the Arab Spring one must first understand the factors that
led to it. This is a discussion that must begin, not with the aspirations
of those that protested in Tahrir square, but with the strategic
imperatives of the military, the true vanguard of the Egyptian state.
Nassera**s plan to elevate the military as the vanguard of society worked,
but in years after Nassera**s death the military itself shifted position.
Rather than partnering with the Soviets to create a regional sphere of
influence, the military evolved its vanguard position in Egyptian society
into a system of ossified control. The state still owned nearly everything
of worth, but it was managed by and for the benefit of the military brass.
Everything from banks to import/export to agriculture — already heavily
influenced by the military under the vanguard system — was consolidated
into a series of military oligarchies. Rather than working to elevate
Egypt economically, the military oligarchs mostly divvied up the local
spoils and lived large.
This was a stable system from the late-1970s until the mid-2000s.
Egypta**s shielded geography limited the ability of any international
economic interest to challenge the military staffsa** personal fiefdoms.
Egypta**s partnership with the Americans mitigated international pressure
of all sorts, and in many ways even Egypta**s ostracism from the Arab
world due to its treaty with Israel allowed Egypta**s generals to rule
Egypt however they saw fit.
As (now deposed) President Mubarak aged, however, an internal challenge
arose to the military oligarchy in the form of the former presidenta**s
son, Gamal Mubarak, who wanted to transform Egypt from a military
oligarchy into a more traditional Egyptian dynasty. Doing this required
the breaking of the militarya**s hold on the economy. Gamal and his allies
— often with the express assistance of international institutions like
the World Bank — worked to a**privatizea** Egyptian state assets to
themselves. This process was a direct threat to the militarya**s political
and economic position at the top of Egyptian society. The military also
viewed Gamal, who never completed his military service, as a political
neophyte, incapable of understanding and managing the countrya**s security
The result was the a**Arab Springa**. In the months leading up to the
January demonstrations, Egypta**s top generals were delivering very stern
ultimatums to the president to abandon any hope of passing the reins to
Gamal while looking at their options to unseat Mubarak via more
unconventional means. The military strategically positioned itself early
on in the demonstration as the honest broker and guardian of the
protesters, taking care to avoid a violent crackdown on the demonstrators
while Mubaraka**s internal security forces were vilified on the streets.
Such a light hand was not due to lack of capacity, but due to lack of
need. The demonstrations provided the generals with the means to dismantle
the Mubarak legacy, the biggest liability to their own livelihood, while
maintaining the paramount role of the military.
But perhaps the most central indication that the a**revolutiona** was
misconstrued comes from the participation levels. On the day that Mubarak
ultimately stepped down the protests reached their peak. By the most
aggressive estimate only 750,000 people — less than 1 percent of the
population of densely populated Egypt a** took to the streets. In true
revolutions such as that which overthrew Communism in Central Europe or
the shah in Iran, the proportion regularly breached 10 percent and on
occasions even touched 50 percent. In short, Egypta**s Arab Spring was a
palace coup, not a revolution.”
Wishing all of you involved with The Resistance, or for even those still ignorant reading this post scoffing who will soon be a member its not too late we accept you, a lovely and merry 2012
Right now the movements against the power elite are losing force, dying out into miniscule fractions, but a worldwide echo of resistance still permeates .
“An echo that turns itself into many voices, into a network of voices that, before Power’s deafness, opts to speak to itself, knowing itself to be one and many. Let it be a network of voices that resist the war that the Power wages on them. A network of voices that not only speak, but also struggle and resist for humanity and against neoliberalism .” – Subcommandante Marcos
Informed by Moshe Hallamish
There are two starting points, one with man (how does mankind deal with evil) and God (what is the relationship between the divine realm and intrinsic goodness). Let’s start off with the three views that will be continually referred to throughout the continuation of 2012, Mere Christianity has a great introduction to views as well
“In the bible, God is portrayed as ‘former of light and creator of darkness, maker of peace and creator of evil’ (isa 45:7). the world is thus seen as the handiwork of a benevolent God, and he, in his thought and plan, assigned a role and a place for evil. Evil is nothing but a medium through which God attains his benevolent ends. In that way, the problem of evil becomes a moot point, although the questionf of divine recompense does remain– why dothe wicked flourish and the righteous suffer?”
“The neoplatonic worldview, which exerted a tremendous influence on Christian mysticism, held that the world originated in supreme goodness. The light descends from the source and through emanation forms the lower worlds, but in the process it gradually darkens and becomes more dense. In its final nullification, it becomes matter, which is evil in its essence;in other words, what was formerly light is no longer an entity, for it has no existence–rather, it is the absenece of light and goodness. Our world is the world of matter, and a place devoid of light is naturally filled with darkness. This, therefore, does not contradict the perception of the divine as a sublime and complete entity. The neoplatonic view is fundamentally monistic, brimming with the optimism that in truth, our world is good and its source is Goodness”
“Gnosticism , in contract, infleunced by persian religious views (zarathrusta/zoaraster, manichieasm) is dualistic. It contends the existence of two autonomous realms. Evil is a real and destructive force; our world is the kingdom of the lord of evil, the Demiurge. In opposition is the lord of good, represented by the human soul. Man’s role is to free the sol, a spark of goodness, from its enslavement to the lord of evil. Gnosticism did offer a solution to the philosophical and theological problem, but it placed man in the throse of a continual and terrible struggle”
Everyone has a duty. Politicians do their job of simultaneously representing an interpertation, a particular worldview, to information on screen, but also sound like legitimate experts on an issue. Think Tanks abound hidden, sometimes asking the questions themselves to the politicians assisting them in creating a certain culture of debate. As they fearmonger during our GOP debates concerning Iran and its nuclear capabilities, they slowly subtley and surely push us in the direction of war.
There must be articially created a narrative to how we got there. Politicians must seem unsure on issues, grow to them stronger as time goes on, and the audience too like a weekly episode of LOST must constantly anticipate what might be the next gesture. At some point the audience begins believeing that this is actually the way political decisions happen. That mitt romney was debating with ron paul, when he announced iran would certainly be a threat and cut off the oil and paul seemed to doubt him. This shouldn’t have anything to do with the congresses later decision to sanction Iran, but before you know it fox news, cnn, and every left/right blog has its neoconservative or neoliberal view on justifying war with iran.
meanwhile THE COMMENTARY a playful supposedly bipartisan magazine, has an article called “how israel’s defense industry can help save america”
Arthur Herman the person writing this is from a think tank called the American Enterprise Institute
Kibbutz Sasa is also the home of the main factory of Plasan, a company that started out making hard plastic containers like garbage cans in 1985. For four years now, American soldiers have driven more safely in Iraq and Afghanistan, thanks to Kibbutz Sasa and Plasan’s CEO, Dani Ziv.
It was Ziv who, in the 1980s, urged the company to take up the manufacture of protective ballistic vests for soldiers and police. In 1989, Plasan won its first contract to make body armor for the Israel Defense Forces, and then for IDF vehicles. When war came to Afghanistan and then Iraq, orders went through the roof, especially from the United States. Plasan’s profits soared some 1,500 percent, from $23 million in 2003 to $330 million in 2007. Today they stand at over $500 million, with 90 percent of the company’s orders coming from Europe and the United States.”
with Nato being 75 percent paid by american tax dollars this is a significant relationship that has nothing to do with God.
It might, in some weird kaballah/neon evagelion council of 9 way, but for all non-interesting ideas aside, lets say it is just economic gain. The defense companies have been convinced to go from Israel defense to private Israel defense, through a process called liberalization or making it private, so now it only benefits certain Israeli owners of these companies instead of the nation which the US citizen believes it is helping.
Raytheon which used to be the primary company by us is in partnership with Rafael defense systems.
This is the true relationship that undermines all of the bullshit on Television, the only problem is how to expose it. THE COMMENTARY praises it, i’m astonished! They’re already excited about the money to be made by more war. Luckily we have ron paul for now. Spitting the truth, I wonder if he’ll open up completely about the elite when he’s finished? the argument that he’s old is a good one, that will take its toll.
I spent a few hours with the Austin Occupy City Hall movement today. Like much of the movement, most of the time of the meeting was spent with dealing with internal problems, such as sleeping arrangements, camping equipment such as tarps sheets and blankets, rules regarding excess clothes, powerwashers, first aid, food arrangements and other “incidents” that may have happened.
Very little time was spent penetrating the issues occupy stands for, as Pops the leader of the group said very poignantly “we’re homeless, we cant do much. our best hope is to possibly make an impact on an individual” he implied that what the group needed was patronage and financial support of the middle and upper class.
There was a well-rounded documentary film maker, he’s working on a project and we’ll see how it turns out. Otherwise, most of the occupiers more or less believe their best hope is getting people to read signs, become educated, and more informed “on the issues”. basically a liberal progressive means of rebellion. It reminded me of the scene from CHE when he’s camping in bolivia trying to start another revolution, this time a latin american one (in the hopes of emperor BOLIVAR) the revolutionaries find out that the communist party of bolivia does not support an armed struggle and cannot afford to pay their stipends. Most of the men quickly turn despairing “How will I take care of my family?” Most of the urban farmers could only fight the revolution on the terms that the communist party would still continue to support them, and once they found out they would be getting no help the movement quickly died.
What we need is something like the original 80 guys who conquered Cuba (only 12 survived to see it to the end) which simultaneously already works with existing movements but also has members that are completely self-sacrificial without any deep worldly attachments. If Occupy can create an international dialogue with those around the world who are also fighting their ruling classes, international bankers, and global power elite (india/syria/saudiarabia/yemen/libya/south africa/argentina/venezuela/spain/ [parts of the eurozone opposing neoliberal economic policies ]/ the french insurrection/london riots/anonymous/) it might go further than the battle of seattle, and other left leaning egatlitarian democratic movements againts globalization. If it continues to isolate itself, and have general meetings purely on interntal regulatory problems (problems that only deal with perpeuating occupy, not actually DOING a beligerent political action) it will continue to disolve, and will be used to constrain the debate in the future
“…well you saw what happened with OWS, do you really want another movement like that?”