----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Myers" <myers@cyberone.com.au
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 5:08 AM
Subject: "Blaming the British" for 911 & the War

Michael Moore's film is of the "Blame the British" kind. That is, blame the
CFR, the Illuminati etc - anybody but Israel. It's better than nothing - at
least it makes Conspiracy Theories respectable.

It's called "British" because the CFR is the American branch of the Round
Table, Cecil Rhodes' secretive organization for furthering the British Empire.
The Anglo-American countries, to this day, are united by a secret military
pact called UKUSA, which operates the Echelon surveillance system. Sceptics
should do an internet search on UKUSA.

Despite Anglo-American military hegemony, the mass immigration into these
countries is hardly in keeping with Rhodes' racist ideas, and suggests,
instead, reverse-colonization. The Empire has been subverted to other ends.

Such as the "Open Conspiracy" for world government, which H. G. Wells
described. Wells was a Communist, a promoter of Lenin and Trotsky but an
opponent of Stalin's "Russianised" USSR. After Stalin, Wells envisaged his
version of Communism as based not in Russia but in the "British" Atlantic countries.

Many "British" leaders have been Freemasons.

Israel has its own ideas of world government - from Jerusalem, and the Third

The "British" tried to force the Oslo Peace plan on Israel, but the Zionists
have resisted it. Jews are well represented in both the "British" and Zionist camps.

With regard to 911, "Blaming the British" makes Oil the motive. This
conveniently "writes out" the role of the Jewish Neo-Cons in pushing for war
against Islam, and ignores the stated expansionist goals of the Jewish
fundamentalists in Israel, to which Mossad seems devoted.

But look who else is "Blaming the British":
Henry Makow (item #4), Barry Chamish (item #5), John Kaminski, Gerard
Holmgren, & M. Desmoulins (item #6) - relying heavily on Jared Israel's
editorial spin, at Emperors' Clothes.

Who has the courage to also, or primarily, blame Mossad & the Jewish lobby?
Israel Shamir, Jeffrey Blankfort, John Pilger, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan,
Joseph Sobran.

(1) & (2) Animal Farm meets Perestroika

(3) Makow blames Mid-East war on "Illuminati [who] HATE Israel"

(4) Barry Chamish distances himself from Henry Makow

(5) The Truth About Sept 11, by Gerard Holmgren - writes out Israeli
connection, Jewish lobby

(6) The Saudis Did It is a disinformation campaign deflecting from 9/11 as an InsideJob

(7) Counterbias: Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 reluctance to mention the Neo-Cons

(8) If Fahrenheit 9/11 dealt with Israel-connected issues, it would never have
been shown

(9) ABSENCE of any reference to Israel or Jews in Fahrenheit 9-11 shows the
power of the Jewish lobby

(10) ADL objects to Nader's Calling White House and Congress "puppets" of Israel

(11) Islam & women's issues - rape, adultery, clitorectomy etc

(1) Animal Farm meets Perestroika

Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 07:20:36 +0300 From: "Israel Shamir" <info@israelshamir.net>

1. Dubcek as Stinky.

There are two freedoms - freedom of discourse and economical freedom. In 1968,
we dreamed of freedom of discourse, in 1991, it was economic freedom. Are they
inherently connected? Lenin (in The State and Revolution) replies: other way
around, only if the media is in the hands of people (i.e. in condition of
economic un-freedom, as the rich are not allowed to buy newspapers) there is
freedom of discourse. But it was not realised on the Farm. In our view (maybe
mistaken) Dubcek was not a Stinky, but a fighter for Freedom of expression
that was severely curtailed. I do not agree with limitations even 'in my
interest', like wearing sit-belt or not-smoking; and I did not like these limitations.

Still, in a few years after immigration I would go back to the USSR, but it
was not permitted, alas.

2. As for Afghanistan, the Russian troups entered the country by invitation of
the President and the government of the land. So it is no more 'invasion' than
present deployment of American troups in Georgia and Uzbekistan - maybe
regrettable but not an invasion. Americans succeeded (with help of Usama Bin
Laden) to create insurgency, and in the civil war Russians stood by the legal
government, while America was for the rebels. It was mainly a war between Old
regime backed by the US and Socialist one backed by the USSR - and Tradition
won. Taliban came after Russian withdrawal. I do not exclude that the fate of
an ordinary Afghan would be much better in the material sense if the
pro-Russian government were to survive, even with Russian military support.
But they chose to sustain their fierce independence and fiery faith.

3. You write: The Farm was undone, not by its good qualities (such as you
list), but by its bad ones.

Good qualities are inherently connected with bad qualities and vice versa. Bad
quality is misbalanced good quality, taken beyond its normal limits. For
instance, good quality of ideological anti-judaic attitude (you know my
negative opinion of entire set of Judaic attitudes) was turned into bad
quality of hitlerism in Germany by going too far. By going to another extreme,
it turned into present Judeo-American paradigm, also 'bad quality'. Thus 'good
quality' is a 'bad quality' well balanced.

In the Farm, proper balance was upset; absolute safety of employment made many
people indifferent to their labour; discourse was too 'safe' etc. It was so
good that it was bad :-) Shamir

COMMENT (Peter M):


<<2. As for Afghanistan, the Russian troups entered the country by invitation
of the President>>

It was Speznaz - Russian Special Forces - which entered Afghanistan. According
to the documentary I saw on it, they killed the President and installed their own.

But at a Buddhist temple in Canberra, I met two Afghan men some years ago, who
came here as refugees. One said to me, "Life was better under the Russians. I
don't know why they came; I don't know why they left."

(2) Animal Farm meets Perestroika

Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 11:14:17 +0300 From: "Israel Shamir" <shamir@home.se>

re Russian invasion. There is a very good book by Gai and Snegirev, Vtorzhenie
(Invasion), published in Znamia (Nr 3 and 4, 1991), where they write: Afghan
rulers actually requested Soviet military assistance over twenty times in
course of one year; seven such requests were sent by President Amin during 100
days of his rule. Thus, the Russian troups came in at request of the
legitimate ruler, President Amin. Amin's guard offered no resistance for they
knew that the Russians were invited by Amin. However, Amin was seriously
compromised by his executions of his colleagues; he lost his popularity, and
the Soviet soldiers shot him and established a more moderate (towards
traditional opposition) president. It was an error of judgement. They had to
keep him as a legitimate (bloody or nor bloody) ruler he was, at least for a
while, and only later to opt for moderate Babrak Karmal. I wrote about it in
Masters of Discourse.

(3) Makow blames Mid-East war on "Illuminati [who] HATE Israel"

As you know, I disagree with this assessment, which relieves Israel & the
Jewish lobby of blame for the war. Makow is taking a "blame the British"
approach like Barry Chamish, General Bates, Hannah Newman et al.

Subject: Zionism: A Conspiracy Against Jews
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 08:01:25 +0300 From: "Peace Seeker" <peaceseek@hotmail.com>

Zionism: A Conspiracy Against Jews Bankers Backed Nazism & Zionism

By Henry Makow Ph.D 6-27-4 http://www.rense.com/general54/bankster.htm

... Now consider the words of an Illuminati defector, Svali. "The conflict in
the Middle East is only to the advantage of the Illuminists. They HATE Israel,
and hope one day to see it destroyed, and are biding their time. One of the
olive branches offered by the UN when it takes over is that they will prevent
war in the Middle East, and this will be greeted with joy by many.

At the same time, the Illuminati covertly supply guns and funds to BOTH sides
to keep the conflict fuelled. They are very duplicitous people... These people
love the game of chess, and see warfare between nations as creating an order
out of chaos."

In a personal email, she added:

"I have always wondered this, though, why some of the highest ranking
financial families in the group (Baron Rothschild of France is one of the 13
European lords, or "kings" that run the group in Europe, and sits on the World
Council) are Jewish, yet the group espouses hatred of their own race." http://www.savethemales.ca/141002.html


COMMENT (Peter M):

If Makow's argument were true, the Illuminati would not allow US media
ownership/management (CEOs) to be Jewish-dominated. Nor would they allow
Israel to hijack the US foreign-aid budget. One would be free to raise the
power of the Jewish lobby in public forums; and failing to confess adherence
to Nazi holocaust dogma would not be the stigma that it is (whereas no stigma
attaches to denial of the 6 million in the Ukraine, or the 30 million in
China's Great Leap Forward). The US would not be cravenly backing Sharon - it
would have cut off aid to make him comply with the Oslo Accord, or with the
Roadmap, or, preferably with a one-state solution. Politicians would not be
competing for the tiny "Jewish vote" - a euphemism for Jewish financial,
organizational, and media backing.

(4) Barry Chamish distances himself from Henry Makow

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:12:22 +0200 From: Barry Chamish <chamish@netvision.net.il>





Simon Wiesenthal received an honorary knighthood today in recognition of his
"lifetime of service to humanity". British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
recommended Mr. Wiesenthal for knighthood for his "untiring service to the
Jewish communities in the UK and elsewhere by helping to right at least some
of the awful wrongs of the Holocaust."

Simon Weisenthal of Vienna received his just reward from the British royal
family for covering up the full story of the Holocaust and making sure that
only a few show trials of minor bureaucrats were ever conducted, worldwide.
Thanks to Weisenthal, the Jews were satisfied that a relentless Nazi hunter
was seeking justice for them. In fact, he was making sure justice for the Jews
was never served. Nowhere is the nazis' mass-escape from justice clearer than
in Israel. In 60 years, with thousands of nazis who murdered her citizens to
choose from, exactly two were tried and one was released on a technicality.
The other one, Adolph Eichmann, was hunted down because he knew too much about
the Jewish Agency's complicity in the murder of 800,000 Hungarian Jews.

For years, people who know people have claimed that Eichmann was not executed
and the ashes thrown into the sea weren't his. I have never repeated the
assertion because it couldn't be proven. But after you read what is known, you
may agree that anything is possible.

I am too often compared to a widely-published Jewish internet writer named
Henry Makow. The parallels are pretty uncanny. At the same time but
independently, we both uncovered the hidden order ruling the life of the
planet, and we both discovered that the Holocaust and Israel's founding were
manipulations by the same forces.

And, as Jews, these discoveries shook us both to our cores. The difference is
that Makow has drawn all the wrong conclusions from our discoveries. He has
joined the ranks of the pro-Arab anti-semites who exploit the information to
slander Israel. The difference between him and me is I live in Israel and know
what's going on intimately, while he lives in the boondocks of Canada and has
to rely on mistaken second-hand research. We will return to the present in
time, but let us first recall the sorry chapter of Labor Zionism-Nazi ties
predating the Holocaust, as recounted my Makow:

(5) The Truth About Sept 11, by Gerard Holmgren - writes out Israeli
connection, Jewish lobby


Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:04:20 -0400 From: John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>
From: "gerard holmgren" <holmgren@iinet.net.au>


compiled by Gerard Holmgren
... {end}

John Kaminski, Gerard Holmgren, and M. Desmoulins write out any Israeli
connection, & do not point the finger at the Jewish lobby.

This doesn't mean that their analysis isn't of value. But when one finds, for
example, that they completely omit to discuss the evidence pointing to the
Jewish lobby's long-term push for the war, and a possible Mossad implication
in 9/11, one cannot endorse it.

Holmgren is big on Jared Isrtael's website Emperors' Clothes (which dismisses
Mossad involvement out-of-hand). More Holmgren material is at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/investigation77.htm

The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin, doesn't even list "Mossad" or
"Jewish" in the index. This book is part of the "Blame the British" diversion.

Admitttedly, the "British" institutions, such as NORAD, were complicit or
penetrated. Don't assume, however, a large number of conspirators. A few key
individuals in decision-making positions would suffice.

The following book writes Mossad back in to the picture. I recommend it above
all other books on 911:

Stranger Than Fiction: An Independent Investigation of the True Culprits
Behind 9-11

By: Dr. Albert D. Pastore Phd.

Published by Dandelion Books: http://www.dandelionbooks.net.

Congratulations to Carol Adler for publishing it.

(6) The Saudis Did It is a disinformation campaign deflecting from 9/11 as an InsideJob

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 15:48:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Editor 911review.org" <editor@911review.org>

The Saudis Did It is a disinformation campaign aimed at deflecting attention
from the fact that 9/11 was an InsideJob. It asserts that Saudi Arabia
deserves a "very large part of the blame for 9/11" because of the funding by
Saudi Arabia of fundamentalist Islamic groups, and points at the fact that
most of the supposed HijackersPatsies were from Saudi Arabia.

This campaign tries to avoid the fact that most of the HijackersPatsies gained
entry to the United States through a CIA sponsored program at the US Consulate
in Jeddah ( see SpringmanInterview), and many trained under US military
programs, and all of the other elements that show that 9/11 was an InsideJob:


It goes without saying that an ulterior motive for "The Saudis Did It"
disinformation campaign may be the long standing preparations by the US
military to invade Saudi Arabia. And the only discernible foreign policy
platform of the presumptive candidate for the Democratic wing of SkullAndBones
for the possibly upcoming US "election", is Saudi-Bashing; he appears to be be
gearing up a "The Saudis Did It" disinformation campaign of his own to support
an upcoming Saudi invasion.

See our new page: http://www.911review.org/Wiki/TheSaudisDidIt.shtml

(7) Counterbias: Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 reluctance to mention the Neo-Cons

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:49:10 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort <jblankfort@earthlink.net>


Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 Doesn't Go Far Enough

July 1 2004 Counterbias.com Joseph Cannon

 ... Osama's ultimate goal -- which many on both the left and the right tend
to forget -- is dynasty change in the Islamic holy land. This simple,
all-important fact undermines the oft-heard charge that Saudi Arabia funded
the 9/11 terrorists -- a misperception which may afflict some of Moore's

True, it has been established that the leaders of Saudi Arabia gave Osama Bin
Laden "go play somewhere else" money. No one should doubt that factions within
that country share Al-Qaeda's vision of a change in rulers; history teaches us
that plotters against the throne skulk within every monarchy. So far, though,
I've seen no evidence that the rulers of Saudi Arabia viewed the World Trade
Center attacks with anything other than horror. Moreover, Saudi Arabia offered
strong cautions against Bush's Iraq adventure -- a fact unmentioned by Michael

However, he does discuss the massive Saudi investment in the United States.
That fact alone will give the public good reason to mistrust those voices who
consider Saudi Arabia the real enemy, and who call for "democratization" of
that nation. War and turmoil in that land probably will not create democracy
-- more likely, Saudi assets (representing a huge chunk of our economy) will
fall into the hands of Salafist religious maniacs.

The film's odd reluctance to address the issue of neo-conservatism affects its
coverage of the drumbeat for war. The film offers not a word about the
Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, the Office of Strategic Influence, the
Redon Group, or the little shop of liars run by Ahmed Chalabi. (For more on
these topics, see here.) Neither, if memory serves, does Moore see fit to
mention the Plame scandal or the Niger uranium lie.

Israel and Ariel Sharon rate nary a mention. Had Moore breathed a word about
the convergence of Likudnik aspirations and the neo-conservatives' grand
visions -- well, one can easily guess the response. ...

(8) If Fahrenheit 9/11 dealt with Israel-connected issues, it would never have
been shown


Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:50:06 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort <jblankfort@earthlink.net>

I just returned from seeing a matinee of 9-11 in a large almost filled super
theater in SF, after a half hour of ads and previews that had be wearing my
sunglasses and me and others in the audiences shouting, "Enough!"

The film is obviously very powerful and subversive in such useful areas as
exposing the US Congress, and particularly the Senate, ( and the film should
have ended with the congressman complaining that he couldn't get a single
senator to sign the petition questioning the election), and the deceit used by
recruiters to get young men and women into the army (a group that doesn't want
to appear that they are being played for fools.)

The Saudi connection to 9-11 is never shown, other than the pics of the
alleged highjackers, and can anyone make the argument that 9-11 or what has
followed has been in any way good for the Saudi monarchy? Quite the opposite.

That the neocons, PNAC, the Clean Break, Israel, the lobby and Mossad, nor the
Christian evangelicals, are not included, (and there would be another more
powerful film right there) undermines the 9/11's validity and suggests that
the whole thing is simply done for capitalist profit (if it suggests anything
at all) which isn't all bad but it's only partly true. But, let's face it, had
the film dealt with Israel and Israel-connected issues, it probably never
would have been made and for sure, it would never have received national
distribution such as this one has. And for those who think the power of the
Israel lobby in this country is exaggerated, I think the absence of any
reference to Israel in the film, makes the case that it isn't, far from it.
But better this film at this time than no film at all.

(9) ABSENCE of any reference to Israel or Jews in Fahrenheit 9-11 shows the
power of the Jewish lobby


Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:22:32 -0400 From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@sympatico.ca>

Right you are, Jeff. The very ABSENCE of any reference to Israel or Jews or
Christian Zios in *Fahrenheit 9-11* shows the immense power of the Jewish
lobby and the Jewish-owned media and movie distribution organisations. The
elephant is right there in the living room, and in plain sight - only it's not
safe to MENTION that fact openly.

However, to paraphrase Ben-Gurion: "We ought to fight Bush, the Pentagon, the
US Congress, and the US Senate as if there were no Israel, Mossad or Jewish
lobby in the US ... AND fight Israel, Mossad and the Jewish lobby in the US as
if there were no Bush, the Pentagon, the US Congress, or the US Senate."

(10) ADL objects to Nader's Calling White House and Congress "puppets" of Israel

Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 00:39:44 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort <jblankfort@earthlink.net>

ADL Objects to Ralph Nader's Characterization of U.S. Government as 'Puppet'
to Israel


NEW YORK, July 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today
objected to independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's characterization
of the White House and Congress as being "puppets" of the Israeli government
and Israel lobby in the United States.

In a letter to Mr. Nader, Barbara B. Balser, ADL National Chair, and Abraham
H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said:

"We write to object to your characterization of the White House and Congress
as 'puppets' of the Israeli government. Reasonable people can and do disagree
with American policy related to the Middle East, and specifically American
support for Israel.

"However, there is a line between thoughtful, reasoned, constructive
disagreements and offensive hyperbole. Indeed, one may disagree with America's
Middle East approach, but to assert that U.S. policy in such a complex and
volatile region is the product of wholesale manipulation by a foreign
government fails to take into account important US interests that are
involved. Moreover, the image of the Jewish State as a 'puppeteer,'
controlling the powerful U.S. Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes
which have no place in legitimate public discourse.

"We would have hoped that you might have made a more positive contribution to
this issue."

(11) Islam & women's issues - rape, adultery, clitorectomy etc

Misunderstanding Islam - responses [shamireaders]

Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 08:59:46 +0300 From: "Israel Shamir" <shamir@home.se>

A reader's question regarding John Alden Williams' Misunderstanding Islam
(displayed on http://www.israelshamir.net).

Dear Sir,

Thank you for this clear and concise article re Islam ("Misunderstanding Islam").

... My problem comes with Islam and some of the practices carried out that
appear to be an accepted part of the faith, such as the stoning to death of
(eg) a raped girl who became pregnant as a result of the rape; the social
unacceptability of any woman who is sexually assaulted; the patently obvious
treatment of women as very second class citizens (freedom of movement,
education, driving etc); the ritual brutality of clitoridectomy; and so on.

These facts are well known in the west, as you know. They "prove" that Islam
is a barbaric and savage faith fit only for the ignorant and backward. ...

B. Turvey. -------------- Maria Hussain replies:

Hello, Bernie!

Israel Shamir asked me to respond to your letter in response to John Alden
Williams' Misunderstanding Islam. I thought everything in the article was true
and gave an accurate representation except the statement about Muslims asking
for the intercession of the Virgin Mary. This is a practice unique to
Palestinian Muslims who live in Christian areas of the Holy Land. I have never
come across it. The more mainstream belief is that Mary was a holy Muslim
woman who would be offended at people making statues of her and praying to
her. Nevertheless, many folk traditions among Muslims throughout the world do
include the veneration of saints' graves and the belief that one's spiritual
state can be elevated through tuning into the holiness of the gravesite. ...

There are two elements to this problem: one, the behaviors of Muslims, and
two, the way that non-Muslims present the behaviors of Muslims to the public
through a biased anthropological lens. Having converted to Islam from a white
European background ten years ago, I can definitely confirm some (but not all)
of your suspicions regarding the subhuman treatment of women. However, the
issues that you discuss are not the issues discussed by Muslim women. The
particular issues are hyped by pro-US/Israel forces as a political tactic to
drive a wedge between Muslim women and feminists. The problems are presented
in such a way so as to guarantee that they will never be solved, but rather
used as a tool of dehumanization to justify killing Muslim men - and by
destroying the family structure of Islamic societies.

The Islamic Law, especially Shiite Law, openly discusses the process of
rehabilitation and assimilation of non-chaste women into Islamic society.
There are definitely huge gaps between Law and practice. While the mainstream
of Muslim culture is very squeamish about loss of virtue it is considered a
good deed for a man to marry non-virgins. The prophet married only one virgin
in his lifetime but his primary marriage was to a widow. He also married a
former Roman concubine and she became a proper Muslim woman. The Muslims led
by the Caliph prayed over her grave, so it is clear that she was considered a
respected part of the community despite having had a "past."

The problems in Pakistan and elsewhere with injust rape laws have to do with
tribal tradition that pre-dates Islam, solidified by the British Laws adopted
in the region. The result is laws that appear to be Islamic but are actually a
deliberate undermining of Islam by British agents. The Islamic Law as stated
in the Quran and Hadith puts the rapist to death and does not punish the
woman. The decision of western media and human rights organizations to focus
on the negative side of the tradition of chastity is a diversion from the even
more patently obvious treatment of women as second class citizens in
non-Islamic, western capitalist countries. The extreme reactions of Muslims to
rape underly the fact that rape is very uncommon in Muslim societies. By
contrast, in America nearly every girl has been raped at least once by the age
of 18, has been forced to do oral sex, or has felt pressured into allowing
violations of her chastity in some way. In American society it would indeed be
cruel to view the degredation of women as a punishable offense, since all the
women have been used. There is no underlying sense of honor or virtue that is
taught by the culture as a whole.

It would be incorrect to say that Muslim women are wishing they could be like
American women. All Muslim women I have known have been very snobbish and
arrogant towards western women, considering them to be dirty and lacking in
civility. The only country I know of that forbids women to drive is Saudi
Arabia, and this is a law that is promoted by political entities sustained by
Britain and the US. It is another fake Islamic British Law that serves to
undermine Islam in the region. In reality, I have never come across any Muslim
family where the woman was forbidden to drive. In all cases where the woman
does not drive it is because she refuses to learn how, because she doesn't
want the stress. However this is not unique to Muslims. The rate of
non-driving women among Hindus would probably be comparable. In Iran, there
are more women than men in the universities and the ratio of women to men
serving in elected positions is higher in Iran than in the US. In countries
where women are illiterate, the men are also largely illiterate.

The clitorectomy is something that is actually very rare among Muslims as a
whole. The Jewish media loves to focus on pornographic negative discussions of
Muslims and loves to make an issue of it. In reality, clitorectomy is
practiced in Africa by Muslims, Christians, and pagans. It is a custom that
pre-dates Islam. Islamic religion does not forbid nor does it recommend
circumcision of women. But it must be made clear (something which feminists
never mention) that the allowed Islamic circumcision of women is NOT a
clitorectomy. It involves removing the foreskin of the clitoris and has no
ritual or spiritual significance other than cleanliness. Islamic religion is
the only religion in the world that validates the necessity and right of women
to orgasm. A man who withdraws from his wife without giving her an orgasm is
considered to be a wife abuser. The prophet forbid castration for men and
never spoke of clitorectomy. There is no serious Islamic scholar in the world
that would defend the castration of women. That being said, the tradition as
it is practiced in certain regions in Africa and Egypt is purely a women's
tradition. It is the women who do it to each other. If there is social
pressure to do it in order to get married, keep in mind that it is the women
arranging the marriages.

The Islamic oral tradition does mention virgins in paradise upon death (or
more accurately, genderless beautiful spiritual creatures that give bliss to
the martyrs after death. Martyrs of either gender get bliss in paradise.)
Since in this world, the closest thing to bliss we understand is during the
sex act, it makes sense that parables involving sensual images (not explicitly
sexual) would be used to make the afterlife sound appealing. I am not sure why
western people find the idea of sexual bliss in paradise to be so repulsive,
given their obsession with it normally. I think perhaps it is the Christian
repressed sex drive that recoils in horror to the idea that sex is a gift from
God and not just a sinful, dirty act. In Islam, as long as it's a legal
relationship, sex is considered an act of worship and enjoyed without the
feelings of shame and guilt that dominate Christian thinking about sex. The
actual Christian laws regarding marriage are much more oppressive than the
Islamic Laws. For example, until the 1960s a woman could not open a bank
account in America without her husband's signature. But 1400 years ago Muslim
women were given absolute right over their own property.

Muslim women are not excluded from clergy positions as are Christian women.
Because of the segregation of sexes, there is a large demand for woman Quran
teachers, prayer leaders, and spiritual guides. The existence of patriarchy
per se does not abrogate the rights of women, and in the Islamic context it
places huge burdens of responsibility upon the men to financially support
women. In reality western women often envy Muslim women because while the
western women hand their paychecks to their husband or use them to pay
household bills, the Muslim woman's money is her spending money while her
husband has to pay all the bills. In addition, Muslim women get to extract
huge sums of money from their husbands through the marriage dowry. This is
another reason why western women are considered degraded because they are
cheap and easy to marry in comparison with Muslim virgin women. By losing
their chastity and "dating," Muslim girls gain nothing but lose a great deal. ...

Sincerely Maria Hussain

Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers          ph +61 2 62475187
Mirror site: http://mailstar.net/index.html - check it out too.
I use an old Mac; Windows users can't catch a virus from it. Windows
contains an NSA key:
Emails are sent daily; if they don't arrive, email, write, or phone me.
To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line; allow 1


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Myers" <myers@cyberone.com.au>
To: "clem clarke" <oscarptyltd@ozemail.com.au>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: Chalmers Johnson suggests that US Empire is 5 years away from extinction

(1) Dissing the Republic To Save It - A conversation with Chalmers Johnson, by
Marc Cooper
(2) Israeli Pullout From Gaza Won't Ease Crisis
(3) China to help Nepal in fight against Maoists
(4) Israeli Interrogator at Abu Ghraib Prison Claim on BBC
(5) U.S. Hopes to Reduce Visibility in Iraq
(6) New Iraqi police fight US troops who trained them
(7) Iraq reverts to Saddam-era flag
(8) Greenspan raising interest rates to bail out the debt bubble

(1) Dissing the Republic To Save It - A conversation with Chalmers Johnson, by
Marc Cooper

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:04:30 -0400 From: "David Chiang" <chiang.d@worldnet.att.net>

Dissing the Republic To Save It - A conversation with Chalmers Johnson
by Marc Cooper

In the darkest days of the Cold War, UC Berkeley professor and sometimes
consultant to the CIA Chalmers Johnson heartily denounced anti-Vietnam War
protesters as misguided. Nowadays, Johnson is a hero to a new generation of
peace protesters. One of the most outspoken critics of the Bush
administration, his 2000 best-seller, Blowback, decried the boomerang effect
the U.S. suffered by supporting Islamic fundamentalists in the 1980s. And his
new volume, Sorrows of Empire, is a timely denunciation of the militarization
of American foreign policy. The L.A. Weekly's Marc Cooper spoke with Johnson
recently as he passed through Los Angeles.

L.A. WEEKLY: Your view of American policy has completely reversed itself since
the 1960s. But what about your feelings about your country? Can you still be
patriotic while being such a fierce critic?

CHALMERS JOHNSON: Of course! As Lord Byron said, "I would have saved them if I
could." I mean, I like living here. But I think we are trending like the
Soviet Union was in 1985. If I had said then that the Soviets were five years
away from extinction, you'd have said I had spent too much time inhaling
exotic substances around Berkeley.

L.A. WEEKLY: What provoked your political shift?

CHALMERS JOHNSON: After the Soviets, who I thought were a real threat,
collapsed, I expected a much greater demobilization, a pullback of American
troops, a real peace dividend, a re-orienting of federal expenditures to
domestic needs. Instead, our government turned at once to find a replacement
enemy: China, drugs, terrorism, instability. Anything to justify this huge
apparatus of the Cold War structure.

L.A. WEEKLY: So where does that leave today's authentic patriots?

CHALMERS JOHNSON: The role of the citizen now is to be ever better informed.
When Benjamin Franklin was asked, "What have we got, a republic or a
monarchy?" he replied: "A republic if you can keep it." We've not been paying
attention to what we need to do to keep it. I think we made a disastrous error
in the classic strategic sense when in 1991 we concluded that we "had won the
Cold War." No. We simply didn't lose it as badly as the Soviets did. We were
both caught up in imperial overreach, in weapons industries that came to
dominate our societies. We allowed ideologues to capture our Department of
Defense and lead us off - in a phrase they like - into a New Rome. We are no
longer a status quo power respectful of international law. We became a
revisionist power, one fundamentally opposed to the world as it is organized,
much like Nazi Germany, imperial Japan, Bolshevik Russia or Maoist China.

L.A. WEEKLY: Indeed, your thesis is that since September 11, the U.S. ceased
to be a republic and has become an empire.

CHALMERS JOHNSON: It's an extremely open question if we have crossed our
Rubicon and there is no going back. Easily the most important right in our
Constitution, according to James Madison, who wrote much of the document, is
the one giving the right to go to war exclusively to the elected
representatives of the people, to the Congress. Never, Madison continued,
should that right be given to a single man. But in October 2002, our Congress
gave that power to a single man, to exercise whenever he wanted, and with
nuclear weapons if he so chose. And the following March, without any
international consultation or legitimacy, he exercised that power by staging a
unilateral attack on Iraq.

The Bill of Rights - articles 4 and 6 - are now open to question. Do people
really have the right to habeas corpus? Are they still secure in their homes
from illegal seizures? The answer for the moment is no. We have to wait and
see what the Supreme Court will rule as to the powers of this government that
it appointed.

You know from your study of history that when we traditionally speak of
empire, we have in mind the model of European colonialism - the Brits in
India, the French in Algeria and Indochina. Surely that's not what you mean
when you refer to an American empire.

By an American empire I mean 725 military bases in 138 foreign countries
circling the globe from Greenland to Asia, from Japan to Latin America. This
is a sort of base world - a secret, enclosed, separate world where our
half-million troops, contractors and spies live quite comfortably around the
world. I think that's an empire. Granted, the unit of European imperialism was
the colony. The unit of American imperialism is the military base.

These American bases are an outgrowth of U.S. containment policy from the Cold
War. What's their role now? Are they just pork? Or are they there to defend
U.S. investment?

What they don't do is defend U.S. security. They just grew, whether or not
they had or have strategic value. We have 101 bases today in Korea even though
the war has been over for 50 years. Once created, the military is endlessly
creative in finding new functions for them, long after their real value has
evaporated. This base world becomes part of the vested interest we associate
not with security but with militarism, the danger of the military-industrial
complex that Eisenhower warned against.

L.A. WEEKLY: You're saying the real impetus here is more a self-perpetuating
military bureaucracy rather than some grand rational strategy?

CHALMERS JOHNSON: Right. I think Eisenhower was right when he spoke of how we
didn't recognize the unwarranted power of the arms industry. You know, a piece
of the B-2 bomber is built in every one of the continental states.

L.A. WEEKLY: What are the costs of this empire to democracy and the republic?

CHALMERS JOHNSON: There's the literal cost. We are flirting with bankruptcy.
We are not paying for what is now a $750 billion tab. The defense
appropriation itself is about $420 billion. That doesn't include another $125
billion, which is the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq. Then another $20 billion
for nuclear weapons in the Department of Energy. Add in another $200 billion
or so for military pensions and for health benefits for our veterans.
Together, that's three-quarters of a trillion dollars.

We are putting it on the tab, running up some of the most extraordinary budget
and trade deficits in history. If the bankers of Asia and Japan should tire of
financing this, if they notice the euro is now stronger than the dollar, then
all this ends - whether or not they like the Boy Emperor from Crawford. We
would face a terrible crisis.

The greater cost is what the public will lose, if they haven't already lost
it: the republic, the structural defense of our liberties, the separation of
powers to block the growth of a dictatorial presidency.

L.A. WEEKLY: But American history didn't begin on January 20, 2001, or on
9/11. Isn't much of what you describe a situation that dates back a full
century or more? Why blame so much of this on George W. Bush?

CHALMERS JOHNSON: Yes, this goes back a long way - to Teddy Roosevelt
acquiring colonies from the Spanish. But Bush dropped the mask. He comes out
and says we are a New Rome, we don't need the U.N. or any friends. We now put
countries on hit lists. Certainly, if there were some steering committee for
an American imperial project, it would consider Bill Clinton a much better
imperial president than George W. Bush. It's always better strategy to not
show your hand, to take an indirect approach but to know exactly where you are going.

L.A. WEEKLY: In a recent review of your book, leftist writer Ian Williams
chides you for investing too much belief in the evil of the Bushies. Williams
argues that, looking at Iraq, one might conclude that rather than grand
imperialists, the Bush folks are instead spectacular screwups.

CHALMERS JOHNSON: Well, undoubtedly they bungled things in Iraq, from not
using enough troops to misreading the intelligence, and there is more evidence
of it every day. But there was never a plan to leave Iraq because there is no
intention of leaving Iraq. We are currently building 14 bases there. Dick
Cheney can't imagine giving up that oil. And the military can't imagine giving
up those bases. That's why they can't come up with a plan to leave.

L.A. WEEKLY: Yet Bush's policies have provoked international and domestic
backlashes. Does that make you hopeful?

CHALMERS JOHNSON: The political system alone can no longer save the republic.
Even if Congress wanted to exercise real oversight, how can it when 40 percent
of the military budget is secret? All of the intelligence budget is secret.
The only hopeful sign I saw was a year ago when 10 million people demonstrated
in the streets for peace. We also saw the recent election in Spain as a
response to what is happening. If we can see that now in the U.S., in the
U.K., in Italy, then maybe we can have some hope. Otherwise we will soon be
talking about the short happy life of the American republic.

(2) Israeli Pullout From Gaza Won't Ease Crisis

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:58:22 -0700 (PDT) From: rainesco@earthlink.net


Israeli Pullout From Gaza Won't Ease Crisis, Bank Warns Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON, Jun 25 (IPS) - A new World Bank report says that the Palestinian
economy has suffered one of the worst recessions in modern history under
Israel's policy of closing borders and restricting the population's movement,
and warns that a new Israeli plan to forfeit some settlements and withdraw
from Gaza is not enough to improve the situation.

The Bank's conclusion was part of an economic assessment that examined the
potential impact of Israel's Disengagement Plan on the Palestinian economy.

Under the plan, Israel would commit to halting Jewish settlement expansion and
begin dismantling some outposts. Israel will also withdraw from occupied Gaza
but will surround the area militarily.

Israel will not be required to return to the borders that existed before the
1967 Middle East war, in which Israel annexed Arab land, including the West
Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. The Plan also says that Palestinian refugees
cannot return to their homes in the Palestinian areas that existed before the
declaration of the state of Israel in 1948. The World Bank's report argues
that Israel's Disengagement Plan would have "very little impact" on the
Palestinian economy, since it proposes only a limited easing of closure. "A
focus on this over-arching issue is essential if disengagement is to deliver
long-term benefits," the 51-page report says.

The Bank said that Israel's handover of Gaza to the Palestinians should not be
accompanied by sealing Gaza's borders to labour and trade or by shutting off
supplies of water and electricity. If this happens, "disengagement would
create worse hardship than is seen today".

"This could forfeit the international goodwill that Israel's initiative has
created," says the report. "Under such circumstances, the Plan's assertion
that Israel is no longer responsible for the population of Gaza will not
resonate." ...

(3) China to help Nepal in fight against Maoists


Jun. 21, 2004

China has agreed to assist the Royal Nepal Army fight Maoist rebels
campaigning to overthrow the monarchy in the Himalayan kingdom, state radio
and TV reported on Monday. They quoted Nepal''s Chief of Army Staff General
Pyar Jung Thapa as saying on his return from a weeklong goodwill visit to
China that he and his Chinese counterparts had agreed to enhance security
cooperation. This would extend to the military campaign against Maoist rebels,
who since 1996 have been waging a bloody rebellion aimed at installing a
communist republic in Nepal, the general said. He did not elaborate on the
kind of military assistance China would offer. During his stay in Beijing,
Thapa held talks with the Chief of Staff of the Chinese People''s Liberation
Army, General Liang Guanglie, and with Defence Minister General Cao Gangchuan,
a Nepalese official said. Describing his visit to China as successful, Thapa
said he hoped the visit would help further strengthen bilateral ties between
the governments of the two countries.

(4) Israeli Interrogator at Abu Ghraib Prison Claim on BBC

Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:42:37 EDT From: MORRIS434@aol.com


Sat 3 Jul 2004 1:54pm (UK) Israeli Interrogator at Abu Ghraib Prison Claim on


The American general formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib prison has told the BBC
that she has evidence that the Israelis were involved in interrogating Iraqi
detainees at another facility.

Brig Gen Janis Karpinski, who was suspended in May over allegations of
prisoner abuse, said she met a man claiming to be Israeli during a visit to a
Baghdad intelligence centre with a senior coalition general.

"I saw an individual there that I hadn't had the opportunity to meet before,
and I asked him what did he do there, was he an interpreter - he was clearly
from the Middle East,' Karpinski told BBC radio in an interview broadcast today.

"He said, 'Well I do some of the interrogation here. I speak Arabic but I'm
not an Arab I'm from Israel.' "I was really kind of surprised by that ... He
didn't elaborate any more than to say he was working with them and there were
people from lots of different places that were involved in the operation,'
Karpinski added.

Israel's Foreign Ministry told the BBC that reports of Israeli troops or
interrogators in Iraq were "completely untrue.' Israeli officials could not
immediately be reached.

The presence of Israeli forces in Iraq would inflame opinion in the Muslim
world, where many compare the abuse of prisoners by US forces to Israel's
treatment of Palestinian detainees.

Until a 1999 ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court, Israeli secret service
interrogators were allowed to use "moderate physical pressure' - a euphemism,
critics said, for torture.

Among the practices allowed prior to 1999 were sleep deprivation, keeping
prisoners in uncomfortable positions for long periods and covering their heads
with filthy sacks.

Former prisoners say those techniques also were used by US forces in Iraq.

Karpinski was suspended from command of the 800th Military Police Brigade
after the publication in April of photos showing soldiers abusing and
humiliating naked Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib.

She has said she did not know about the abuse and is being made a scapegoat in
the scandal. ------

General Janis Karpinski and Wayne Madsen conveyed the Israeli connection to
the interrogations in Iraq ( http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen05102004.html )
in the BBC 4 radio segment this morning which one can listen to on their
computer via the following URL:


General Janis Karpinski's segment will be archived under July 3rd, 2004 at the
following URL (after today) if you don't pick up this email until Monday:


A full transcript of General Karpinski's interview (which mentioned an Israeli
connection to the interrogations in Iraq and how Rumsfeld conveyed
instructions for the torture/abuse at Abu Ghraib) for 'The Signal' is now
linked at the following URL:


You can hear Jonathan Davis' interview with the BBC via the link which you can
scroll down to at the following URL:


More on Jonathan Davis and his son (Javal) via the following URL:


Abu Ghraib Prison Torture Scandal Goes to the Highest Level:


James Bamford's New Book ('A Pretext for War') on the Neocon Warmongers:


(5) U.S. Hopes to Reduce Visibility in Iraq

Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 00:36:55 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort <jblankfort@earthlink.net>

"As part of the attempt to change its image, the United States will put in a
new team of spokesmen. The 34-member press staff in the U.S. embassy that will
open next week will project a reduced military tone as it tries to convince
Iraqis and the rest of the world that democracy remains the goal and a
possibility in Iraq, the officials said." Satire is working overtime in Iraq.


From Capitol Hill Blue

America at War U.S. Hopes to Reduce Visibility in Iraq By LAWRENCE M. O'ROURKE
McClatchy Newspapers Jun 27, 2004, 07:40

When the United States turns Iraqi sovereignty over to an interim Iraqi
government next week, it hopes to change its image from occupier to invited
security force, Bush administration officials told Congress Friday.

In a deliberate move to change its image, the United States will take steps to
show that "we will no longer be burdened with the considerably weighty label
of being an occupying power," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the
Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Iraqis wanted to be liberated. They did not want to be occupied, and that
label hurts us," Wolfowitz said.

If Iraqi authorities exercise their restored sovereignty by asking the United
States to leave their country, the United States will comply, said Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

As part of the attempt to change its image, the United States will put in a
new team of spokesmen. The 34-member press staff in the U.S. embassy that will
open next week will project a reduced military tone as it tries to convince
Iraqis and the rest of the world that democracy remains the goal and a
possibility in Iraq, the officials said.

As Iraq moves from regaining limited sovereignty to an elected government in
the next six months, "this battle is in no small measure an information
battle," Wolfowitz said.

Even on security issues, where the United States will maintain the dominant
role, the effort will be to play down the U.S. presence, Armed Forces Chairman
Richard Myers said.

Army Gen. Mark Kimmitt, who has been the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad
since early in the military operations, will be replaced by someone whose job
"is not to be out in front," Myers said.

"We want Iraqis speaking," Myers said. The new U.S. military spokesman will be
"more in mentoring and in making sure that the message gets out to U.S. troops
. . . but not in a very public way." ..

(6) New Iraqi police fight US troops who trained them

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:48:59 -0700 (PDT) From: rainesco@earthlink.net

"...a marriage of convenience, bringing together the secular Saddam faithful
and Muslim fundamentalists."



New Iraqi police fight US troops who trained them By Damien McElroy in Baghdad

With american fighter jets and helicopters buzzing the skies overhead, an
officer in Iraq's new police force approaches a group of fighters on
Fallujah's front lines with an urgent call to arms.

"I need a man who can use an RPG," says Omar, who wears the uniform of a first
lieutenant. Four hands shoot up and a cry rings out: "We are ready." He
chooses a young man, Bilal, and they drive to an underpass on the outskirts of
the city.

There, on Highway One, an American Humvee is driving east. Bilal aims and
fires his rocket propelled grenade, turning the vehicle into a smoking,
twisted, metal carcass. The fate of its occupants is unknown.

First Lt Omar is sworn to uphold the law and fight the insurgency that
threatens Iraq's evolution into a free and democratic state. Instead, he is
exploiting his knowledge of US tactics to help the rebel cause in Fallujah.

"Resistance is stronger when you are working with the occupation forces," he
points out. "That way you can learn their weaknesses and attack at that point."

An Iraqi journalist went into Fallujah on behalf of the Telegraph on
Wednesday, a day on which an orchestrated wave of bloody rebel attacks across
the country cost more than 100 lives.

Inside the Sunni-dominated town, he met police officers and units of the
country's new army who have formed a united front with Muslim fundamentalists
against the Americans, their resistance focused on al-Askeri district on the
eastern outskirts of the town.

That morning, US marines had taken up "aggressive defence" positions on one
side of Highway One. On the other side, militant fighters were dug in, ready
for battle.

Their preparations were thorough. Along the length of a suburban street in
al-Askeri, they had dug foxholes at the base of every palm tree. Scores of
armed men lined the streets. Most had scarves wrapped around their heads but
others wore the American-supplied uniform of Unit 505 of the Iraqi army, and
carried US-made M-16 rifles. Yet more were dressed in the olive green uniforms
worn by Saddam Hussein's armed forces. Since April, when a US offensive failed
to crush an uprising by Islamic fighters and Ba'athist loyalists, Fallujah has
been effectively a no-go area for American troops.

A newly formed, 2,000-strong force known as the Fallujah brigade, led by a
Saddam-era general, Mohammed Latif, was supposed to disarm the rebels.
Instead, the town remains a hotbed of resistance. Now, once again, US military
pressure is being brought to bear. ...

(7) Iraq reverts to Saddam-era flag

Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:42:41 -0400 From: "MER - Mid-East Realities -
MiddleEast.Org" <MERL@middleeast.org>

Iraq reverts to Saddam-era flag

By Betsy Pisik


Officials of the reopened Iraqi Embassy raise the Iraqi flag at Iraqi Embassy
on 18th and P streets in NW Washington DC, yesterday.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES - 30 June 2004: BAGHDAD - Shortly after the interim
government of Iraq was installed on Monday morning, a huge flag was hoisted
atop a 10-story building at the edge of central Baghdad's green zone, visible
to the traffic-trapped motorists nearby. But it was not the blue, white and
yellow banner introduced with some fanfare in April by the Iraqi Governing

Nor was it the simple red, white, black and green flag that flew over Iraq
before the rule of Saddam Hussein. With no formal announcement or decision,
Iraq's new leaders, like its history-obsessed people, appear to have embraced
the Saddam-era flag - the traditional standard as amended by the dictator
shortly after the 1991 Persian Gulf war with the words "God is great" scrawled
across its face in Arabic.

The same flag was raised over the new Iraqi Embassy in Washington yesterday by
Ambassador-designate Rend Rahim and an aide. The flag revealed in April, with
pale blue stripes on a white field that reminded many Iraqis of the Israeli
flag, appears to have been abandoned with neither comment nor lament.

"I don't think that flag ever had legs," conceded a U.S. official involved in
preparations for Monday's transfer of authority to the new Iraqi government.

U.S. military officials had assumed after the 2003 war that the old flag -
without the writing - would again fly over government buildings as it had
since the early 20th century. They were as surprised as anyone when the
Governing Council in April introduced the new white flag with three bars
running under an Islamic crescent.

Two blue strips were to reflect the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and the yellow
band to symbolize the Kurdish minority, according to officials at the flag's
formal introduction.

Hameed al-Kafaei, the chief spokesman for the Iraqi Governing Council, said
the design had been chosen from among 30 entries by a committee of council

"This flag represents the democracy and freedom of the new Iraq, where the old
one represented killing and oppression and dictatorship [of Saddam]," he said
in April.

But the designer, London-based artist Rifat al-Chaderchi, told the London
Independent newspaper that he was not aware of a contest and simply had been
asked to design a new flag by his brother, a Governing Council member.

The introduction of a new flag infuriated many exhausted Iraqis, who already
had gone a year with increasingly violent streets and fewer than 12 hours a
day of electricity.

"That was the flag of Israel," hissed one man on Baghdad's Saddoun Street.
"Another occupier." Nor does there seem to be much interest in reverting to
the pre-Saddam flag, based on informal conversations and the few small flags
and decals available for purchase in Baghdad shops. ...

(8) Greenspan raising interest rates to bail out the debt bubble

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 03:54:21 -0400 From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@mindspring.com>

What these two odd couple do not understand is that Greenspan is raising
interest rates not to fight pending inflation, but to start inflation to bail
out the debt bubble. But as a central banker, he needs to say publicly that he
is raising rates to fight inflation. Interest is the cost of money. Rising
interest rates cause inflation because the cost of money is a factor in all
prices. Rising interest rates depress asset prices (in real terms and not
necessarily in nominal terms) which is not counted in inflation calculations.
Anti-inflation interest rate policies only work if there is excessive demand
by an overheated economy for money. The US economy is currently facing a
liquidity trap caused by near zero or negative real interest rates after
deflation. Greenspan is trying to raise rates without reducing liquidity. High
rates will force idle money to work by investing since money is no longer free
and cannot stay idle. High interest rates work the same ways as high taxes. As
long as they are not confiscatory, they are stimulative, which is what a
stagnant economy needs. Of course high rates hurts people, but since when is
Greenspan worried about hurting people. His job as he sees it is to keep the
economy humming, over the dead body of debtors if necessary. Globalization
hurts people, but keeps GDP growing.

What we have is neither an inflationary nor deflationary economy, but an
economy of uneven price trends. Some sectors, such as housing, commodities,
services, partuclarly financial and health services, continue to be
inflationary. Other sectors, such as wages, consumer products have been
deflationary. The American middle class has been hollowed out by stagnant
income and kept afloat by debts anchored by home equity and by low interest
rates. Their middle class living standard is maintained by low-price consumer
goods through hedonic pricing.

Though many more families are living a middle class standard of a generation
ago, they are not really the middle class in the traditional sense of the
term, meaning financial security that goes with a middle income. Because of
income stagnation, what statistically counts as middle income now is
equivalent to lower middle income of a generation ago. What globalization has
done is to take income from the American worker and gives them low-price
consumer products in return. In fact, there is no middle income families in
the American economy, only upper and lower income families. Yet the lower
income families are living a life of self deception of still being member of
the the middle class. To enjoy the financial benefits and security of the
middle class of a generation ago, families today will need an income of $300K,
which is way about the mideum income. But with neo-liberal privatization of
all social services, such as education and health care, not to mention
retirement benefits, America has put these costs, which used to be free, back
on the shoulder of the consumer whose income remains stagnant. There is no way
that the middle income family can make it in this game. It is not a pending
cyclical crisis. It is a strucutral collapse that has already happened There
is only one way to restore the middle class and that is to increase average
income from salaries, not capital gains. In macro-economics terms, that means
wage inflation.

Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers          ph +61 2 62475187
Mirror site: http://mailstar.net/index.html - check it out too.
I use an old Mac; Windows users can't catch a virus from it. Windows
contains an NSA key:
Emails are sent daily; if they don't arrive, email, write, or phone me.
To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line; allow 1

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2004 Adelaide Institute