Thursday, 31 March 2011

Webster Tarpley and The Libyan Genocide




Add to Technorati Favorites

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

Farrakhan, Waco and Libya

Farrakhan rocks the mic !

Waco was a crime against humanity, undertaken by the Zionist Occupation Government of America under the aegis of the New World Order.

76 people were slaughtered by the American government, of whom 26 were British citizens.

Waco Live.

I watched the faithful of Waco burn,
Live on CNN, by satellite feed,
Amidst the crack and whine of bullets,
I saw a thin black asp of smoke,
That rose forth from the ruins,
Ravening at the wood like a wyvern.

I watched army tanks rumbling forwards,
Squirting white gas from their guns,
And then the first fervent flames,
As helicopters hovered high overhead,
Furiously fanning the sacrificial fire,
That soon consumed each blasphemous building.

Amidst the ashes I saw an ancient evil arise,
Its ebony eyes, alive with plots and plans,
Writhing in the fire and flame of its fantasies,
Of empires and oil, deserts black and burning,
Faith reborn as fear for the rebellious masses,
Pipelines pulsating with the life blood of nations.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Libya, Africom and the Oil

"Operation Libya" and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa

by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, March 9, 2011

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

5diggsdigg StumbleUpon Submit 2869Share

Part II

Click to consult Part I Insurrection and Military Intervention: The US NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya?

The geopolitical and economic implications of a US-NATO led military intervention directed against Libya are far-reaching.

Libya is among the World's largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, more than twice those of the US.

"Operation Libya" is part of the broader military agenda in the Middle East and Central Asia which consists in gaining control and corporate ownership over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas, including oil and gas pipeline routes.

"Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves, depending on the source and methodology of the estimate." (See Michel Chossudovsky, The "Demonization" of Muslims and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, January 4, 2007) .

With 46.5 billion barrels of proven reserves, (10 times those of Egypt), Libya is the largest oil economy in the African continent followed by Nigeria and Algeria (Oil and Gas Journal). In contrast, US proven oil reserves are of the order of 20.6 billion barrels (December 2008) according to the Energy Information Administration. U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves)

The most recent estimates place Libya's oil reserves at 60 billion barrels. Its gas reserves at 1,500 billion m3. Its production has been between 1.3 and 1.7 million barrels a day, well below its productive capacity. Its longer term objective is three million b/d and a gas production of 2,600 million cubic feet a day, according to figures of the National Oil Corporation (NOC).

The (alternative) BP Statistical Energy Survey (2008) places Libya's proven oil reserves at 41.464 billion barrels at the end of 2007 which represents 3.34 % of the world's proven reserves. (Mbendi Oil and Gas in Libya - Overview).

Oil is the "Trophy" of US-NATO led Wars

An invasion of Libya under a humanitarian mandate would serve the same corporate interests as the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. The underlying objective is to take possession of Libya's oil reserves, destabilize the National Oil Corporation (NOC) and eventually privatize the country's oil industry, namely transfer the control and ownership of Libya's oil wealth into foreign hands.

The National Oil Corporation (NOC) is ranked 25 among the world’s Top 100 Oil Companies. (The Energy Intelligence ranks NOC 25 among the world’s Top 100 companies. -

The planned invasion of Libya, which is already underway is part of the broader "Battle for Oil". Close to 80 percent of Libya’s oil reserves are located in the Sirte Gulf basin of Eastern Libya. (See map below)

Libya is a Prize Economy. "War is good for business". Oil is the trophy of US-NATO led wars.

Wall Street, the Anglo-American oil giants, the US-EU weapons producers would be the unspoken beneficiaries of a US-NATO led military campaign directed against Libya.

Libyan oil is a bonanza for the Anglo-American oil giants. While the market value of crude oil is currently well in excess of 100 dollars a barrel, the cost of Libyan oil is extremely low, as low as $1.00 a barrel (according to one estimate). As one oil market expert commented somewhat cryptically:

"At $110 on the world market, the simple math gives Libya a $109 profit margin." (Libya Oil, Libya Oil One Country's $109 Profit on $110 Oil, March 12, 2008)

Foreign Oil Interests in Libya

Foreign oil companies operating prior to the insurrection in Libya include France's Total, Italy's ENI, The China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), British Petroleum, the Spanish Oil consortium REPSOL, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, Hess, Conoco Phillips.

Of significance, China plays a central role in the Libyan oil industry. The China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) had a workforce of some 400 employees. The total Chinese workforce in Libya was of the order of 30,000.

Eleven percent (11%) of Libyan oil exports are channelled to China. While there are no figures on the size and importance of CNPC's production and exploration activities, there are indications that they are sizeable.

More generally, China's presence in North Africa is considered by Washington to constitute an intrusion. From a geopolitical standpoint, China is an encroachment. The military campaign directed against Libya is intent upon excluding China from North Africa.

Also of importance is the role of Italy. ENI, the Italian oil consortium puts out 244,000 barrels of gas and oil, which represents almost 25 percent of Libya's total exports. ( Sky News: Foreign oil firms halt Libyan operations, February 23, 2011).

Among US companies in Libya, Chevron and Occidental Petroleum (Oxy) decided barely 6 months ago (October 2010) not to renew their oil and gas exploration licenses in Libya. (Why are Chevron and Oxy leaving Libya?: Voice of Russia, October 6, 2010). In contrast, in November 2010, Germany's oil company, R.W. DIA E signed a far-reaching agreement with Libya's National Oil Corporation (NOC) involving exploration and production sharing. AfricaNews - Libya: German oil firm signs prospecting deal - The AfricaNews,

The financial stakes as well as "the spoils of war" are extremely high. The military operation is intent upon dismantling Libya's financial institutions as well as confiscating billions of dollars of Libyan financial assets deposited in Western banks.

It should be emphasised that Libya's military capabilities, including its air defense system are weak.

Libya Oil Concessions

Redrawing the Map of Africa

Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. The objective of US-NATO interference is strategic: it consists in outright theft, in stealing the nation's oil wealth under the disguise of a humanitarian intervention.

This military operation is intent upon establishing US hegemony in North Africa, a region historically dominated by France and to lesser extent by Italy and Spain.

With regard to Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, Washington's design is to weaken the political links of these countries to France and push for the installation of new political regimes which have a close rapport with the US. This weakening of France is part of a US imperial design. It is a historical process which goes back to the wars in Indochina.

US-NATO intervention leading to the eventual formation of a US puppet regime is also intent upon excluding China from the region and edging out China's National Petroleum Corp (CNPC). The Anglo-American oil giants including British Petroleum which signed an exploration contract in 2007 with the Ghadaffi government are among the potential "beneficiaries" of the proposed US-NATO military operation.

More generally, what is at stake is the redrawing of the map of Africa, a process of neo-colonial redivision, the scrapping of the demarcations of the 1884 Berlin Conference, the conquest of Africa by the United States in alliance with Britain, in a US-NATO led operation.

The colonial redivision of Africa. 1913

Libya: Strategic Saharan Gateway to Central Africa

Libya has borders with several countries which are within France's sphere of influence, including Algeria, Tunisia, Niger and Chad.

Chad is potentially an oil rich economy. ExxonMobil and Chevron have interests in Southern Chad including a pipeline project. Southern Chad is a gateway into the Darfur region of Sudan, which is also strategic in view of its oil wealth.

China has oil interests in both Chad and Sudan. The China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) signed a farreaching agreement with the Chad government in 2007.

Niger is strategic to the United States in view of its extensive reserves of uranium. At present, France dominates the uranium industry in Niger through the French nuclear conglomerate Areva, formerly known as Cogema. China also has a stake in Niger's uranium industry.

More generally, the Southern border of Libya is strategic for the United States in its quest to extend its sphere of influence in Francophone Africa, a vast territory extending from North Africa to Central and Western Africa. Historically this region was part of France and Belgium's colonial empires, the borders of which were established at the Berlin Conference of 1884.


The US played a passive role at the 1884 Berlin Conference. This new 21st Century redivision of the African continent, predicated on the control over oil, natural gas and strategic minerals (cobalt, uranium, chromium, manganese, platinum and uranium) largely supports dominant Anglo-American corporate interests.

US interference in North Africa redefines the geopolitics of an entire region. It undermines China and overshadows the influence of the European Union.

This new redivision of Africa not only weakens the role of the former colonial powers (including France and Italy) in North Africa. it is also part of a broader process of displacing and weakening France (and Belgium) over a large part of the African continent.

US puppet regimes have been installed in several African countries which historically were in the sphere of influence of France (and Belgium), including The Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. Several countries in West Africa (including Côte d'Ivoire) are slated to become US proxy states.

The European Union is heavily dependent on the flow of Libyan oil. 85 percent of its oil is sold to European countries. In the case of a war with Libya, the supply of petroleum to Western Europe could be further disrupted, largely affecting Italy, France and Germany. Thirty percent of Italy's oil and 10 percent of its gas are imported from Libya. Libyan gas is fed through the Greenstream pipeline in the Mediterranean (See map below).

The implications of these potential disruptions are far-reaching. They also have a direct bearing on the relationship between the US and the European Union.

Greenstream pipeline linking Libya to Italy

Concluding Remarks

The mainstream media through massive disinformation is complicit in justifying a military agenda which, if carried out, would have devastating consequences not only for the Libyan people: the social and economic impacts would be felt Worldwide.

There are at present three distinct war theaters in the broader Middle East Central Asian region: Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq. In the case of an attack on Libya, a fourth war theater would be opened up in North Africa, with the risk of military escalation.

Public opinion must take cognizance of the hidden agenda behind this alleged humanitarian undertaking, heralded by the heads of state and heads of government of NATO countries as a "Just War". The Just War theory in both its classical and contemporary versions upholds war as a "humanitarian operation". It calls for military intervention on ethical and moral grounds against "rogue states" and "Islamic terrorists". The Just war theory demonizes the Gaddafi regime while providing a humanitarian mandate to US-NATO military intervention.

The heads of state and heads of government of NATO countries are the architects of war and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. In an utterly twisted logic, they are heralded as the voices of reason, as the representatives of the "international community".

Realities are turned upside down. A humanitarian intervention is launched by war criminals in high office, who are the unchallenged guardians of the Just War theory.

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo,... Civilian casualties in Pakistan resulting from US drone attacks on towns and villages ordered by president Obama, are not front page news, nor are the 2 million civilian deaths in Iraq.

There is no such thing as a "Just War". The history of US imperialism should be understood. The 2000 Report of the Project of the New American Century entitled "Rebuilding Americas' Defenses" calls for the implementation of a long war, a war of conquest. One of the main components of this military agenda is: to "Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".

"Operation Libya" is part of that process. It is another theater in the Pentagon's logic of "simultaneous theater wars".

The PNAC document faithfully reflects the evolution of US military doctrine since 2001. The US plans to be involved simultaneously in several war theaters in different regions of the World.

While heralding the need to protect America (i.e. "National Security"), the PNAC report does spell out why these multiple theater wars are required. What purpose do they serve. Are they an instrument of peace? The usual humanitarian justification is not even mentioned.

What is the purpose of America's military roadmap?

Libya is targeted because it is one among several remaining countries outside America's sphere of influence, which fail to conform to US demands. Libya is a country which has been selected as part of a military "road map" which consists of "multiple simultaneous theater wars". In the words of former NATO Commander Chief General Wesley Clark:

"in the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.... (Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars, p. 130).

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Vampires and Libya

Libya's Blood For Oil - The Vampire War

By Susan Lindauer

Former US Intel Asset Who Covered Libya At The UN 1995-2003

Who are we kidding? The United States, Britain and NATO don't care about bombing civilians to contain rebellion. Their militaries bomb civilians every day without mercy. They have destroyed most of the community infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan before turning their sights on Libya. So what's really going on here?

According to the CIA, the following never happened

Last October, US oil giants- Chevron and Occidental Petroleum- made a surprising decision to pull out of Libya, while China, Germany and Italy stayed on, signing major contracts with Gadhaffi's government. As the U.S. Asset who started negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial with Libyan diplomats, I had close ties to Libya's U.N. Mission from 1995 to 2003. Given my long involvement in the Lockerbie saga, I have continued to enjoy special access to high level intelligence gossip on Libya.

Last summer that gossip got juicy!

About July, I started hearing that Gadhaffi was exerting heavy pressure on U.S. and British oil companies to cough up special fees and kick backs to cover the costs of Libya's reimbursement to the families of Pan Am 103. Payment of damages for the Lockerbie bombing had been one of the chief conditions for ending U.N. sanctions on Libya that ran from 1992 until 2003. And of course the United Nations forced Gadhaffi to hand over two Libyan men for a special trial at The Hague, though everybody credible was fully conscious of Libya's innocence in the Lockerbie affair. (Only ignorant politicians trying to score publicity points say otherwise.)

Knowing Gadhaffi as well as I do, I was convinced that he'd done it. He'd bided his time until he could extort compensation from U.S. oil companies. He's a crafty bastard, extremely intelligent and canny. That's exactly how he operates. And now he was taking his revenge. As expected, the U.S. was hopping mad about it. Gadhaffi wasn't playing the game the way the Oil Bloodsuckers wanted. The Vampire of our age-the Oil Industry-roams the earth, sucking the life out of every nation to feed its thirst for profits. Only when they got to Libya, Gadhaffi took on the role of a modern-day Robin Hood, who insisted on replenishing his people for the costs they'd suffered under U.N. sanctions.

Backing up a year earlier, in August 2009 the lone Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people, Abdelbasset Megrahi, won a compassionate release from Scottish prison. Ostensibly, the British government and Scottish Courts granted Megrahi's request to die at home with dignity from advance stage cancer-in exchange for dropping a legal appeal packed with embarrassments for the European Courts. The decision to free Megrahi followed shocking revelations of corruption at the special Court of The Hague that handled the Lockerbie Trial. Prosecution witnesses confessed to receiving payments of $4 million each from the United States, in exchange for testimony against Megrahi, a mind-blowing allegation of judicial corruption.

The Lockerbie conviction was full of holes to begin with. Anybody who knows anything about terrorism in the 1980s knows the CIA got mixed up in heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley during the hostage crisis in Lebanon. The Lockerbie conspiracy had been a false flag operation to kill off a joint CIA and Defense Intelligence investigation into kick backs from Islamic Jihad, in exchange for protecting the heroin transit network.

According to my own CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who'd been stationed in Lebanon and Syria at the time, the CIA had established a protected drug route from Lebanon to Europe and on to the United States. His statements support other sources that "Operation Corea" allowed Syrian drug dealers led by Monzer al-Kassar (also linked to Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal) to ship heroin to the U.S. ON Pan Am flights, in exchange for intelligence on the hostages' whereabouts in Lebanon. The CIA allegedly made sure that suitcases carrying heroin were not searched at customs. Nicknamed the "Godfather of Terror," Al Kassar is now serving a prison sentence for conspiring with Colombian drug cartels to assassinate U.S. nationals.

Building up to Lockerbie, the Defense Intelligence team in Beirut, led by Maj. Charles Dennis McKee and Matthew Gannon, suspected that CIA infiltration of the heroin network might be prolonging the hostage crisis. If so, the consequence was severe. AP Reporter Terry Anderson got chained in a basement for 7 years, while 96 other high profile western hostages suffered beatings, mock executions and overall trauma. McKee's team raised the alarms in Washington that a CIA double agent profiting from the narco-dollars might be warning the hostage takers whenever their dragnet closed in. Washington sent a fact-finding team to Lebanon to gather evidence.

On the day it was blown out of the sky, Pan Am 103 was carrying that team of CIA and FBI investigators, the CIA's Deputy Chief assigned to Beirut, and three Defense Intelligence officers, including McKee and Gannon, on their way to Washington to deliver a report on the CIA's role in heroin trafficking, and the impact on terrorist financing and the hostage crisis. In short, everyone with direct knowledge of CIA kickbacks from heroin trafficking died on Pan Am 103. A suitcase packed with $500,000 worth of heroin was found in the wreckage. It belonged to investigators, as proof of the corruption.

The punch line was that the U.S. State Department issued an internal travel advisory, warning that government officials should get off that specific flight on that specific day, because Pan Am 103 was expected to get bombed. That's right, folks! The U.S. had prior knowledge of the attack.

Unforgivably, nobody told Charles McKee or Matthew Gannon. But other military officials and diplomats got pulled off the flight-making room for a group of students from Syracuse University traveling stand by for the Christmas holidays.

It was a monstrous act! But condemning Megrahi to cover up the CIA's role in heroin trafficking has struck many Lockerbie afficiandos as grossly unjust. Add the corruption of purchased testimony-- $4 million a pop- and Megrahi's life sentence struck a nerve of obscenity.

It struck Gadhaffi as grievously offensive, as well-The United Nations had forced Libya to fork over $2.7 billion in damages to the Lockerbie families, a rate of $10 million for every death. Once it became clear the U.S. paid two key witnesses $4 million each to commit perjury, spook gossip throughout the summer was rife that Gadhaffi had taken bold action to demand compensation from U.S. (and probably British) oil corporations operating in Libya. More than likely, Libya's demands for kick backs and compensation extended to other European oil conglomerates as well-particularly France and Italy-who are now spearheading attacks on Libya.

I knew last summer there would be trouble. Payback would be a b-tch on both sides. You don't lock an innocent man in prison for 10 years on bogus charges of terrorism, and expect forgiveness. The United States and Britain had behaved with remarkable selfishness. You've got to admit that Gadhaffi's attempt to balance the scales of justice demonstrated a flair of righteous nationalism.

Alas, Gadhaffi was playing with fire, no matter how justified his complaint. You don't strike a tyrant without expecting a tyrant to strike back.

And that's exactly what's happening today.

Don't kid yourself. This is an oil war, and it smacks of imperialist double standards. Two articles by Prof. Chossudovsky at the Global Research Centre are must reading: "Operation Libya and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa" and "Insurrection and Military Intervention: The US-NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya?"

There is simply no justification for U.S. or NATO action against Libya. The U.N. charter acknowledges the rights of sovereign nations to put down rebellions against their own governments. Moreover, many observers have commented that plans for military intervention appear to have been much more advanced than U.S. and European leaders want to admit.

For myself, I know in my gut that war planning started months before the democratization movement kicked off throughout the Arab world-a lucky cover for U.S. and European oil policy. Perhaps too lucky.

As Chossudovsky writes, "Hundreds of US, British and French military advisers arrived in Cyrenaica, Libya's eastern breakaway province" on February 23 and 24- seven (7) days after the start of Gadhaffi's domestic rebellion. "The advisers, including intelligence officers, were dropped from warships and missile boats at the coastal towns of Benghazi and Tobruk." (DEBKAfile, US military advisers in Cyrenaica, Feb. 25, 2011) Special forces on the ground in Eastern Libya provided covert support to the rebels." Eight British Special Forces commandos were arrested in the Benghazi region, while acting as military advisers to opposition forces, according to the Times of London.

We're supposed to believe the United States, Britain and Europe planned, coordinated and executed a full military intervention in 7 short days- from the start of the Libyan rebellion in mid-February until military advisers appeared on the ground in Libya on February 23-24!

That's strategically impossible.

Nothing can persuade me that Gadhaffi's fate wasn't decided months ago, when Chevron and Occidental Petroleum took their whining to Capitol Hill, complaining that Gadhaffi's nationalism interfered with their oil profiteering. From that moment, military intervention was on the drawing board as surely as the Patriot Act got stuck in a drawer waiting for 9/11.

The message is simple: Challenge the oil corporations and your government and your people will pay the ultimate price: Give us your oil as cheaply as possible. Or die.

Don't kid yourself. Nobody gives a damn about suffering in Libya or Iraq. You don't bomb a village to save it. The U.S., Britain and NATO are the bullies of the neighborhood. The enforcers for Big Oil.

Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan have something in common. They have vast and extraordinary oil and mineral riches. As such, they are all victims of what I call the Vampire Wars. The Arab Princes get paid off, while the bloodsuckers pull the life blood out of the people. They're scarcely able to survive in their own wealthy societies. The people and the domestic economy are kept alive to uphold the social order, but they are depleted of the nourishment of their own national wealth.

The democratization movements are sending a warning that I don't think Big Oil, or their protectors in the U.S. and British governments understand or have figured out how to control. The Arab people are finished with this cycle of victimization. They've got their stakes out, and they're starting to figure out how to strike into the heart of these Vampires, sucking the life blood out of their nations.

And woe to the wicked when they do!


This article may be reprinted in full or part with attribution to the author.

Former U.S. Intelligence Asset, Susan Lindauer covered Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria/Hezbollah from 1993 to 2003. She is the author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq

Add to Technorati Favorites

Heroin and Oil

Now the New World Order control both the heroin in Afghanistan and the oil in Libya via their Islamist Al CIAeda puppets.

Every fix of smack funds the Global Jihad.

Every barrel of oil buys a terrorist bomb.

And the soldiers return home, broken and addicted.

Libyan rebels to start oil exports soon

Posted: 27 March 2011 2302 hrs

BENGHAZI, Libya: Oil fields in rebel-held territory in Libya are producing between 100,000 and 130,000 barrels a day, and the opposition plans to begin exporting oil "in less than a week", a rebel representative said on Sunday.

"We are producing about 100,000 to 130,000 barrels a day, we can easily up that to about 300,000 a day," said Ali Tarhoni, the rebel representative responsible for economy, finance and oil, at a news conference.

He said the rebel government had agreed an oil contract with Qatar, which would market the crude, and that he expected exports to begin in "less than a week".

Tarhoni said he had signed the contract with Qatar recently and that the deal would help ensure "access to liquidity in terms of foreign denominated currency".

"We contacted the oil company of Qatar and they agreed to take all the oil we export and market that oil for us," he said.

"We have an escrow account... and the money will be deposited in this account, and this way there is no middle man and we know where the money is going."

Tarhoni said the main obstacle to exporting oil would be finding shipping companies, and other representatives from the Provisional Transitional National Council opposition body have said they are having difficulty finding companies to insure oil tankers taking exports from rebel-held territory.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday, 27 March 2011

The Gates of Vienna - Geert Wilders Speaks

How to Turn the Tide

Below is the speech given by Geert Wilders last night (March 25) at the Annual Lecture of the Magna Carta Foundation in Rome.

The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide

Speech by Geert Wilders, Rome, 25 March 2011

Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture.

Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization — the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.

As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.

It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.

I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.

It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.”

My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots.

Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land.

The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. Because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours.

It is, indeed, appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning.

Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago.

In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival.

Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border.

At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked.

The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote — I quote — “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote.

Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it.

This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.

* The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said — I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”.
* Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said — I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.”
* Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion, stated that — I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.”
* Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said — I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”

Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West.

* In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said — I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” End of quote.
* Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.” End of quote.

Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci.

However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture.

Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote — I quote — a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again.

Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization.

Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” — End of quote.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned

In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to — I quote — “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain.

Ordinary people, however, do not consider the decline of societal cohesion, the rise of crime, the transformation of their old neighborhoods into no-go zones, to be an “enrichment.”

Ordinary people are well aware that they are witnessing a population replacement phenomenon. Ordinary people feel attached to the civilization which their ancestors created. They do not want it to be replaced by a multicultural society where the values of the immigrants are considered as good as their own. It is not xenophobia or islamophobia to consider our Western culture as superior to other cultures — it is plain common sense.

Fortunately, we are still living in a democracy. The opinion of ordinary people still matters. I am the leader of the Dutch Party of Freedom which aims to halt the Islamization process and defend the traditional values and liberties in the Netherlands. The Party of Freedom is the fastest growing party in the Netherlands.

Because the message of my party is so important, I support initiatives to establish similar parties in other countries, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, where they do not yet exist. Last month, a poll in Britain showed that a staggering 48 percent of the British would consider supporting a non-fascist and non-violent party that vows to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists and restrict the building of mosques. In October last year, I was in Berlin where I gave a keynote speech at a meeting of Die Freiheit, a newly established party led by René Stadtkewitz, a former Christian-Democrat. German polls indicate that such a party has a potential of 20 percent of the electorate.

My speech, in which I urged the Germans to stop feeling ashamed about their German identity drew a lot of media attention. Two weeks later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism is “an absolute failure.” Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian-Democrats, was even more outspoken. “Multiculturalism is dead,” he said.

Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the immigrant and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” — End of quote.

Five weeks ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multiculturalism for Islamic extremism. “We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity,” he said. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live […] apart from the mainstream.” — End of quote.

In his speech, David Cameron still makes a distinction between the Islamist ideology, which he calls extremist and dangerous, and Islam, which he says is peaceful religion. I do not share this view, and neither did Cameron’s great predecessor Winston Churchill. Stating that Islam is peaceful is a multiculturalist dogma which is contrary to the truth.

Politicians such as Merkel. Sarkozy and Cameron still do not seem to have understood what the problem really is. Nevertheless, the fact that they feel compelled to distance themselves from multiculturalism is a clear indication that they realize they need to pay lip-service to what the majority of their populations have long understood. Namely that the massive influx of immigrants from Islamic countries is the most negative development that Europe has known in the past 50 years.

Yesterday, a prestigious poll in the Netherlands revealed that 50 percent of the Dutch are of the opinion that Islam and democracy are not compatible, while 42 percent think they are. Even two thirds of the voters of the Liberal Party and of the Christian-Democrat Party are convinced that Islam and democracy are not compatible.

This, then, is the political legacy of multiculturalism. While the parties of the Left have found themselves a new electorate, the establishment parties of the Right still harbour their belief that Islam is a religion of peace on a par with peaceful religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others.

The problem with multiculturalism is a refusal to see reality. The reality that our civilization is superior, and the reality that Islam is a dangerous ideology.

Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. Autocratic regimes, such as that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, and others, have been toppled or are under attack. The Arab peoples long for freedom. This is only natural. However, the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible. As long as Islam remains dominant there can be no real freedom.

Let us face reality. On March 8, the International Women’s Day, 300 women demonstrated on Cairo’s Tahrir Square in post-Mubarak Egypt. Within minutes, the women were charged by a group of bearded men, who beat them up and dragged them away. Some were even sexually assaulted. The police did not interfere. This is the new Egypt: On Monday, people demonstrate for freedom; on Tuesday, the same people beat up women because they, too, demand freedom.

I fear that in Islamic countries, democracy will not lead to real freedom. A survey by the American Pew Center found that 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government. However, 85 percent say that Islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates, and 77 percent say that thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off.

Ronald Reagan was right when he called Kadhafi a “mad dog.” However, we should not harbor the illusion that there can be real freedom and real democracy in a country where Islam is dominant. There is no doubt that the results of the Pew survey in Egypt apply in Libya, too. It is not in our interest to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tripoli and install a khalifate in Libya.

Of course, the world has to stop Kadhafi from killing his own people. However, as UN Resolution 1973 stated last week, this is primarily the responsibility of — I quote — “in particular [the] States of the region.” End of quote. Why does a country like the Netherlands have to contribute six F16 fighter jets to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, while Saudi Arabia does not contribute a single plane from its fleet of nearly 300 fighter jets? Arabs are dying, but the Arab countries are shirking their responsibilities.

And one of the major threats of the current crisis is not even addressed by our leaders: How are we going to prevent that thousands of economic fugitives and fortune seekers cross the Mediterranean and arrive at place like Lampedusa? Now that Tunisia is liberated, young Tunisians should help to rebuild their country instead of leaving for Lampedusa. Europe cannot afford another influx of thousands of refugees.

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is time to wake up. We need to confront reality and we need to speak the truth. The truth is that Islam is evil, and the reality is that Islam is a threat to us.

Before I continue I want to make clear, however, that I do not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The koran commands Muslims to exercise jihad and impose shariah law.

Telling the truth about immigration and warning that Islam might not be as benevolent as the ruling elite says, has been made a hate speech crime in several EU member states. As you probably know, I have been brought to court on charges of hate speech. That is the paradox of the multicultural society. It claims to be pluralistic, but allows only one point of view of world affairs, namely that all cultures are equal and that they are all good.

The fact that we are treated as criminals for telling the truth must not, however, deter us. The truth that Islam is evil has always been obvious to our ancestors. That is why they fought. It was very clear to them that our civilization was far superior to Islam.

It is not difficult to understand why our culture is far better than Islam. We Europeans, whether we be Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, believe in reason. We have always known that nothing good could be expected from Islam.

While our culture is rooted in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, Islam’s roots are the desert and the brain of Muhammad. Our ancestors understood the consequences very well. The Koran, wrote the historian Theophanes, who lived in the second half of the 8th century, is based on hallucinations.

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II said in 1391, adding: “God is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonable is contrary to God’s nature.”

For 1,400 years, Westerners have been criticizing Islam and its founder because they recognized evil when they saw it. But then, suddenly, in the last decades of the past century, especially from the 1970s onwards, Western intellectuals stopped doing so.

The moral and cultural relativism of Marxism led the West’s political and intellectual elites to adopt a utopian belief in a universal brotherhood of mankind.

Multiculturalism is a culture of repudiation of Europe’s heritage and freedoms. It weakens the West day by day. It leads to the self-censorship of the media and academia, the collapse of the education system, the emasculation of the churches, the subversion of the nation-state, the break-down of our free society.

While today — at last — our leaders seem to realize what a disastrous failure multiculturalism has been, multiculturalism is not dead yet. More is needed to defeat multiculturalism than the simple proclamations that it has been an “absolute failure.” What is needed is that we turn the tide of Islamization.

There are a few things which we can do in this regard.

One thing which we should do is to oppose the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law in our countries. In about a dozen states in the United States, legislation is currently being introduced to prevent the introduction of Sharia. In early May, I will be travelling to the U.S. to express my support to these initiatives. We should consider similar measures in Europe.

Another thing which we should do is support Muslims who want to leave Islam. An International Women’s Day is useless in the Arab world if there is no International Leave Islam Day. I propose the introduction of such a day in which we can honor the courageous men and women who want to leave Islam. Perhaps we can pick a symbolic date for such a day and establish an annual prize for an individual who has turned his back on Islam or an organization which helps people to liberate themselves from Islam. It is very easy to become a Muslim. All one has to do is to pronounce the Shahada, the Islamic creed, which says — I quote “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.”

A third measure to turn the tide of Islamization is to reemphasize the sovereignty of the nation-state. The peoples of the free world will only be able to fight back against Islam if they can rally around a flag with which they can identify. This flag, symbolizing pre-political loyalty, can only be the flag of our nation. In the West, our freedoms are embodied in our nation-states. This is why the multiculturalists are hostile to the nation-state and aim to destroy it.

National identity is an inclusive identity: It welcomes everyone, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people. It ties the individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture.

I want to elaborate a bit on this since we are gathered here today in Rome. Again, it is appropriate that we are in Rome. In this city, in 1957, and — what an ironic coincidence — on this very day, the 25th of March, the Treaty of Rome was signed. This Treaty obliges the member states of the European Union to aim for “an ever closer union.”

Unfortunately, this union, like other multinational organizations, has become one of the vehicles for the promotion of multiculturalism. The EU has fallen in the hands of a multiculturalist elite who by undermining national sovereignty destroy the capacity of the peoples of Europe to democratically decide their own future.

The new government in my country, which is supported by my party, wants to restrict immigration. That is what our voters want. But we are confronted by the fact that our policies have to a large extent been outsourced to “Europe” and that our voters no longer have a direct say over their own future.

On account of international treaties, EU legislation prevails over national legislation and cannot be reversed by national parliaments. Indeed, in 2008, the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, annulled both Irish and Danish immigration legislation. The Court stated that national law is subordinate to whatever is ruled on the European level. In March 2010, the European Court of Justice annulled Dutch legislation restricting family reunification for immigrants on welfare.

The ease with which Europe’s political elite conducts an immigration policy aimed at the deracination of Europe shows the insensitivity of this elite. It willingly sacrifices its own people to its political goal, without any consideration for the people involved.

Lower class blue-collar people have been driven from their neighborhoods. There is no respect for their democratic vote. On the contrary, people who do not agree with the multiculturalist schemes are considered to be racists and xenophobes, while the undefined offence of “racism and xenophobia” has been made central to all moral pronouncements by the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other supra-national organizations. This represents a systematic assault by the elite on the ordinary feelings of national loyalty.

In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the member-states must — I quote — “condemn and combat Islamophobia” and ensure “that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.” — end of quote.

In March 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution criminalizing so-called “defamation of religions.” The resolution, authored by Pakistan, mentions only one religion by name: Islam. With its 57 member states the Organization of the Islamic Conference systematically uses its voting power in the UN to subvert the concept of freedom and human rights. In 1990, the OIC rejected the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states in articles 24 that — I quote — “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” — end of quote.

This “human rights” charade has to stop if Western civilization wants to survive. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies.

The EU’s aim, meanwhile, seems to be to destroy the old sovereign nations and replace them by new provincial identities, which are all clones of each other. Britanistan will not differ from Netherlandistan, nor Germanistan from Italiastan, or any other province of the European superstate in the making.

We must reclaim Europe. We can only do so by giving political power back to the nation-state. By defending the nation-states which we love, we defend our own identity. By defending our identity, we defend who we are and what we are against those who want to deracinate us. Against those who want to cut us from our roots, so that our culture withers away and dies.

My friends,

Twenty years after the ordinary people, Europe’s mainstream conservative leaders, such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, have finally — better late than never — come to the obvious conclusion, namely that multiculturalism is a failure. However, they do not have a plan to remedy the situation.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake.

Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity.

Third, we will have to stop Islamization. Because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because they are our home, because they are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom.

Let me end with a final — and a positive — remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall.

The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe.

I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We, Europe’s patriots, will not allow it.

Thank you very much.

Add to Technorati Favorites

US Marines in Libya - ground invasion begins

The New World Order ground invasion has already begun, do not expect to read this in your papers until the corporate media are told to release this information.

Africom has its first ground war.

The WW3 Oil Wars have begun, US Versus China fought in Africa via invasions and proxy wars.

March 24, 2011

WCTI-TV in New Bern reports those Marines, assigned to the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) at Camp Lejuene, are "preserving the sanctity of the city [of Ajdubiyah] and the safety of the civilians within it."

Capt. Timothy Patrick with the 26th MEU told the station: "In Libya right now they are doing exactly what we need them to do. They are doing what they are told, and right now that's protecting Libyan people against Qadhafi forces."

Evidently the Marines' efforts are being successful. The commanding officer of the 26th MEU, Col. Mark Desens, says that following a second round of strikes by AV-8B Harrier jets, the Libyan dictator's forces "are now less capable of threatening the town than before."

According to the report, the 2,200 Marines with the 26th MEU are nearing the end of their deployment in the Mediterranean area and are due to be replaced with Marines from the 22nd MEU out of Camp Lejeune. A March 7 notice from the commanding officer of the 22nd MEU says that unit was being deployed to the Mediterranean Sea earlier than previously planned.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Libya and the Zionists

"The arrogance and tyrany of Israel has turned the US into a Zionist satellite state of Israel that the US has accepted it with a pride." Raja Mujtaba

By Jonathan Azaziah

It’s happening all over again. Do you hear them? You must be able to. The deaf, those incapable of hearing the sounds of serenity and calamity since birth, could hear them due to their almost wretched loudness. What? What you ask? The drums of war of course. And the drummers are composing their iniquitous cacophony from the same locations that they always do. Tel Aviv. Washington D.C. London, the City of London to be most precise. The audience for their bloodthirsty melody this time around? Libya. Their previous audiences included the ravaged nation of Afghanistan and the devastated nation of Iraq.

War, classically defined, is a state of armed, hostile conflict between nations. But the war of the drummers is different. Their war, in their minds, is waged on children of a lesser God. Women of a lesser state of being. Men of a lesser right. Their war is mass murder of unarmed innocents, occupation, theft of land and resources, desecration and dehumanization. Their war is genocide. These drummers sometimes appear to be of an otherworldly nature; vampires from movies produced in the dregs of the morally destructive institution known as Hollywood. Their aim is to remain. Remain as the sole holders of the globe; the lone controllers; the only existing cabal of masters and elders, who will govern masses of cattle.

20 years of sanctions, occupation and decimation of land, water and natural resources in the shell of a nation known as Iraq left the people, the steadfast and courageous Iraqis, intimate with the inner workings of the drummers and their compositions of mayhem. Add another 10 years to the equation, and the resolute and brave people of Afghanistan could also write essays on the murderous music known as American interventionism. In both cases, the dismemberment of their societies came under the guise of “humanitarianism.” The bullets came wrapped in heroic garb. The missiles and bombs were packaged with false sympathy for the oppressed. The rapes were for liberation. The murders were for freedom. Libyans beware; the drummers want to make your nation their next humanitarian adventure.

Incumbent Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi overthrew King Idris, a monarchical stooge for the Zionist-occupied US war machine and Italy, seeker of re-colonization of Libya in one form or another, in 1969. It was Qaddafi who removed the American military bases from Libya and it was Qaddafi who consistently supported the struggle to reclaim occupied Palestine from the Zionist entity and its ruthless operators (1). Qaddafi’s process of abandoning his revolutionary ideals and selling out to the Zionist entity and its arrogant Western friends in the last decade did not remove these facts from the minds of his new and uneasy allies. Israel wanted revenge. Using the Libyan people as the sacrificial lambs and the wave of protests sweeping the Arab world as the cover, the plot was hatched to remove the 42-year ruler of Libya. The Zionist dragon was deployed into the frame. And the music of Zionism’s chaos began to play.

A Short History: Operation Trojan, Lockerbie and Abu Salim

During the beginnings of the presidency of war criminal Ronald Regan, the Zionist media vociferously promoted what would become a long-running propaganda piece about a Libyan hit squad operating in the United States. This hit squad’s mission was to assassinate Ronald Regan. The source of the story was Manucher Ghorbanifar, a former agent of the overthrown Shah of Iran’s secret police, SAVAK. SAVAK, the notorious apparatus known for its brutal torture techniques, learned everything from Mossad and Ghorbanifar himself had deep-rooted personal ties to the Mossad, the world’s leader in false flag terrorism. The purpose of this hit squad story was to drum up support from the American populace for a strike on Libya (2).

This particular false flag vis-a-vis Ghorbanifar didn’t accomplish the mission to the degree that the Zionist entity designed it to. TheO peration Trojan, Game Theory Specialists illegitimate Israeli state subsequently turned up the heat and put Operation Trojan into motion. The Trojan is an Israeli communications device used by Mossad’s psychological warfare squad, LAP (LohAma Psicologit), as a relay station for misleading intelligence reports emanating from Israeli navy ships in the region. The Trojan is to be planted in nations resisting the Zionist Power Configuration, or in Israeli intel terminology, “hostile environments,” at targets where official state business is conducted, like an embassy. These false reports were to be picked up by states allied with Israel on separate frequencies, wherein the information would be confirmed by Mossad. Little do the ally states know, the reports themselves are being created by Israel.

Operation Trojan was a success as the device was planted in the heart of Libya’s capital, Tripoli, and the American government began retrieving numerous messages from the Trojan and processing intelligence proofs that Libya was closely linked with the planning and execution of terrorism. The chiefs of Mossad were exceedingly pleased (3). On April 5th, 1986, the final stages of Operation Trojan came to fruition when a disco club in Berlin was bombed, leaving two American soldiers and a Turkish woman dead, in addition to the severe wounding of 229 others (4). A heinous false flag blamed on Libya, the 1986 bombing of the La Belle disco was an extensive Mossad operation which was carried out with assistance from its allies in the CIA (5). This event led to the US military’s Operation El Dorado Canyon on April 15, 1986. This murderous violation of Libya’s sovereignty left dozens of Libyan civilians dead, including Muammar Qaddafi’s 15-month old adopted daughter (6).

The murder of Qaddafi’s daughter and so many other innocent Libyans was designed to boost Mossad’s image in the international intelligence community and display to the Arab/Islamic world that the United States stood with the Zionist entity (7), or more accurately, that the USA stood wherever the Zionist entity told it to stand. Colonel Qaddafi was acutely aware of the deception that led to the murder of his child and the arrogance of the powers attempting to break him and the Libyan nation. Qaddafi didn’t budge and his Resistance didn’t end. The illegitimate Israeli state then kicked its next plot into high gear: the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988, better known as the Lockerbie bombing. 270 people died in the attack (8).

Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer, was sentenced to 27 years in the Scottish Greenock prison for the mass murder. Al-Megrahi was innocent. Completely innocent. There wasn’t a drop of evidence against him; concrete or otherwise. His arrest and imprisonment were horrific and deliberate miscarriages of justice that robbed his wife and five children of decades with him (9). Miscarriages perpetuated by a conspiratorial charade enforced incessantly by the Zionist media. Additionally, his conviction deflected the public’s attention from the actual purveyors of the crime on December 21st and the reasons for its execution, most obviously the continued demonization of Qaddafi and Libya (10).

The Lockerbie bombing was carried out with a suitcase bomb, a known signature of Mossad, which has used this explosive weapon in its false flag operations in Kenya, numerous villages and cities in occupied Palestine, Beirut, Dubai, London, Houston and India (11). The Lockerbie bombing was yet another Israeli ‘dirty trick’ used against Zionism’s eternal Arab/Muslim enemy for furtherance of the anti-Islam agenda gripping the world on a daily basis via mass media institutions owned by Zionist extremists.

It has been linked to Abu Nidal, the infamous “Palestinian terrorist” who has been outed as a Mossad agent. Mere hours after the crash, Mossad’s LAP unit unleashed psychological warfare on all international media hotlines, conveying to Israel’s stooges that Libya was behind the bombing, telling them that there wasn’t even the faintest doubt about it. Mossad agents were in Lockerbie, Scotland the day after the atrocity to remove evidence from the scene. The piece of evidence? A suitcase of course. The head of Pan Am’s security at the time of the bombing was Isaac Yeffet, former chief of security at the illegitimate Zionist entity’s airline El Al (12). El Al is known for being a front for Mossad’s most intricate sabotage operations (13).

Not only did the Zionist media’s version of the events behind the Lockerbie bombing bury Mossad’s involvement beneath a mountain of lies, it also buried the CIA’s. Aboard Pan Am 103 were massive amounts of CIA-smuggled heroin and agents from CIA and DIA who were doing the smuggling (14). Mossad’s suitcase bomb eliminated them and protected its terrorism partner’s interests in the global narcotics market.

Finally, Lockerbie served one more purpose of the Mossad, a purpose with geopolitical implications that quite literally changed the world: the 9/11 false flag attack carried out by Israeli intelligence and its corrosive network of sayanim. Lockerbie was a major LAP psychological warfare operation, embedding the idea of “Arabs hijacking planes and blowing them up out of hatred for the West” into the minds of millions of Westerners, Americans specifically. When the remote-controlled planes of Dov Zakheim’s SPC struck the Twin Towers, Americans (and the rest of the world for that matter) remembered Lockerbie and didn’t bat an eyelash when the Zionist media told them 19 Arab hijackers just struck the USA. They were oblivious to the names of Silverstein, Lauder, Lowy, Eisenberg and Harel, 9/11's primary criminals (15).

With al-Megrahi indicted and the world’s attention focused on Qaddafi for the malevolence of the Lockerbie bombing, the Zionist entity rejoiced over another successful operation. In the first quarter of 1992, right on schedule, the criminal UN imposed crippling sanctions on the nation of Libya for the attack. The sanctions would demolish Libya’s oil-refining capabilities, prevent Libyans from traveling for over a decade and cut them off from their relatives in the United States (16). The UN didn’t lift these sanctions until 2003, while the US didn’t lift its sanctions on Libya until 2004. It is here where Qaddafi reluctantly sold out the interests of his people to the Western nations he despised.
In 1996, a curious event formally labeled by the Zionist media as the “Abu Salim Prison Massacre” occurred. An event lambasted by “human rights” organizations, this event served as as furtherance of the worldwide anti-Qaddafi agenda put in place by Mossad and its LAP, giving credence to the criminal sanctions slapped on Libya by the US and the UN. Despite its own admission that the reports of Libyans slaughtered at Abu Salim Prison in June 1996 were unverifiable and scarce, the world-renowned Human Rights Watch maintained that 1,200 people were murdered (17). Human Rights Watch is the same US-backed NGO that concocted the grossly false story about the gassing of Iraqi Kurds in Halabja to give legitimacy to the Zionist-instigated invasion of Iraq two decades ago, and continued to serve as an excellent tool to create support for the Zionist coalition’s invasion of Iraq 8 years ago. Intelligence reports have debunked the “Halabja Massacre” as nothing but pure wartime propaganda (18).

The false story about Abu Salim Prison has been used by leftists everywhere to justify the “revolution” taking place in Libya. It is pathetic that they have inadvertently fallen into the Zionist trap of playing the drums of war for an invasion. Human Rights Watch is being bankrolled, to the tune of $100 million, by none other than internationalist Zionist war criminal, George Soros (19), who also heavily funds J Street, a pro-occupation, pro-war, pro-ethnic cleansing Zionist Lobby group masquerading as a bunch of peace-seekers (20).

It is by no means a coincidence that Soros, the corrosive billionaire who is responsible for insider trading in France, bankrupting the Bank of England and waging financial war against Malaysia (21), pulled out his oil investments from Libya a mere 3 months prior to the unrest (22), and now the human rights wing of his empire is leading the assault against Qaddafi (23). Soros is also responsible for infiltrating the Egyptian Revolution and using his proxies to draft the new constitution which will enslave the African nation with an enslavement far worse than Mubarak (24). For the people of Libya and Egypt, the Zionist dragon has just begun to torch your existence.

To be continued….


(1) Who Is Muammar Qaddafi? by Antonio Cesar Oliveira, Pravda

(2) US Army Officers – ‘Mossad May Blame Arabs’ by Michael Collins Piper, American Free Press

(3) The Other Side Of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes The Mossad’s Secret Agenda by Victor Ostrovsky

(4) 4 Guilty In Fatal 1986 Berlin Disco Bombing Linked To Libya by Steven Erlanger, The New York Times

(5) CIA, Mossad Links To 1986 Berlin Disco Bombing by World Socialist News Site

(6) Gaddafi’s Turbulent US Relations by Rob Reynolds, Al Jazeera English

(7) Lockerbie Was Mossad “False Flag” Operation by Rehmat’s World

(8) Unanswered Questions: Lockerbie’s Legacy: 270 Dead, No One Behind Bars by Jerome Taylor, The Independent

(9) The Megrahi I Know by Former Labour MP Tam Dalyell, The Times

(10) Wikileaks Is Zionist Poison II: Deconstruction Of The Myth by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(11) 26/11: Mossad Terrorizes Mumbai by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(12) Deception Over Lockerbie by Maidhc Ó Cathail, Dissident Voice

(13) S. African Alleges El Al A Mossad Front by Lionel Slier, The Jerusalem Post

(14) Lockerbie Diary – Gadhaffi, Fall Guy For CIA Drug Running by Susan Lindauer, Veterans Today

(15) 9/11: Israel’s Grand Deception by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(16) The Israeli Deception That Led To The Bombing Of Pan American Flight 103 Over Lockerbie, Scotland by Richard Curtiss, Media Monitors Network

(17) Libya: June 1996 Killings At Abu Salim Prison by Human Rights Watch

(18) What Do Fallujah And Halabja Have In Common? by Ghali Hassan, Uruk Net

(19) George Soros To Give $100 Million To Human Rights Watch by Human Rights Watch

(20) Billionaire George Soros Revealed As Mystery J Street Donor by Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz

(21) Park51: A Zionist PSYOP by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(22) Libya Kicks Out Western Oil… Just As George Soros Planned by Good Sense Politics

(23) Libya: Benghazi Civilians At Grave Risk by Human Rights Watch

(24) George Soros And Egypt’s New Constitution by Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer

Add to Technorati Favorites

Saturday, 26 March 2011

The Libyan 'Rebels'

Image - The face of democracy in Libya

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against 'the foreign invasion' in Afghanistan Photo: AFP
Praveen Swami
By Praveen Swami, Nick Squires and Duncan Gardham 5:00PM GMT 25 Mar 2011

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.

British Islamists have also backed the rebellion, with the former head of the banned al-Muhajiroun proclaiming that the call for "Islam, the Shariah and jihad from Libya" had "shaken the enemies of Islam and the Muslims more than the tsunami that Allah sent against their friends, the Japanese".

Add to Technorati Favorites

Friday, 25 March 2011

The Lazy Pigeons

The Lazy Pigeons.

On rootops gilt with sultry sun,
Far from fox and farmers gun,
The lazy pigeons preen and coo,
Theres really nothing else to do.
Fat as Americans on a TV couch,
They flap a bit and hop about,
A few have sex whilst others sleep,
Or waddle finding food to eat.
Each one smug upon their perch,
Sitting pretty whilst I work,
Awing at will, fledged unfettered
They find freedom with their feathers.
Unbound by any laws or clocks,
Nor captive upon this spinning rock,
Each spends their time in leisure,
Seeking out their every pleasure.
They are really getting on my nerves,
I wish my life was like a birds.

Add to Technorati Favorites






Add to Technorati Favorites





Add to Technorati Favorites

Pat Buchanan on Libya

A Foolish and Unconstitutional War

by Patrick J. Buchanan, March 23, 2011

Email This | Print This | Share This | Antiwar Forum

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

So said constitutional scholar and Sen. Barack Obama in December 2007—the same man who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile strikes on Libya without any authorization from Congress.

Obama did win the support of Gabon in the Security Council, but failed with Germany. With a phone call to acquitted rapist Jacob Zuma, he got South Africa to sign on, but not Brazil, Russia, India, or China. All four abstained.

This is not the world’s war. This is Obama’s war.

The U.S. Navy fired almost all the cruise missiles that hit Libya as the U.S. Air Force attacked with B-2 bombers, F-15s, and F-16s.

“To be clear, this is a U.S.-led operation,” said Vice Adm. William Gortney.

“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies,” said Winston Churchill. Obama is a quick study.

In his Friday ultimatum, he said, “We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal—specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.”

Why, then, did we strike Tripoli and Moammar Gadhafi’s compound?

So many U.S. missiles and bombs have struck Libya that the Arab League is bailing out. League chief Amr Moussa has called an emergency meeting of the 22 Arab states to discuss attacks that have “led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians.” We asked for a no-fly zone, said Moussa, not the “bombardment of civilians.”

What caused Obama’s about-face from the Pentagon position that imposing a no-fly zone on Libya was an unwise act of war?

According to the New York Times, National Security Council aide Samantha Power, U.N. envoy Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton flipped him. The three sisters feel guilty about us not invading Rwanda when Hutu were butchering Tutsi.

They did not want to be seen as standing by when Gadhafi took Benghazi, which he would have done, ending the war in days, had we not intervened.

While Obama is no longer saying Gadhafi must go, Hillary insists that has to be the outcome. No question who wears the pants here.

As U.S. prestige and power are committed, if Gadhafi survives, he will have defeated Obama and NATO. Hence, we must now finish him and his regime to avert a U.S. humiliation and prevent another Lockerbie.

The Arab League and African Union are denouncing us, but al-Qaeda is with us. For eastern Libya provided more than its fair share of jihadists to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And jihadists are prominent among the rebels we just rescued.

Yet, even as Obama was announcing U.S. intervention to prevent “unspeakable atrocities,” security police of Yemen’s President Saleh, using sniper rifles, massacred 45 peaceful protesters and wounded 270. Most of the dead were shot in the head or neck, the work of marksmen.

Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad done this in Tehran, would U.S. protests have been so muted?

In Bahrain, 2,000 Saudi soldiers and troops from emirates of the Gulf have intervened to save King Khalifa, whose throne was threatened by Shia demonstrators in the Pearl roundabout in Manama. The town square was surrounded, the Shia driven out, the 300-foot Pearl monument destroyed.

This crackdown on Bahrain’s Shia has been denounced by Iran and Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Sistani, most revered figure in the Shia world, ordered seminaries shut in protest. This is serious business.

Not only are the Shia dominant in Iran, and in Iraq after the Americans ousted the Sunni-dominated Ba’ath Party, they are heavily concentrated in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, where the oil deposits are located.

They are a majority in Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Shia Hezbollah is now the dominant military and political force in Lebanon.

Riyadh must have regarded the threat to Bahrain a grave one to have so exacerbated the religious divide and raised the specter of sectarian war.

Yet, again, why are we bombing Libya?

Gadhafi did not attack the West. He faced an uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have done. We have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.

Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, “If you found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?”

Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans—a few more than have died in Gadhafi’s four-week war.

Good thing we didn’t have an “international community” back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln’s America.


Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, 23 March 2011

Celts and Scythians

A lot has transpired since the ancient ethnographers divided the little-known peoples of the far north into Keltoi and Skythai, or since the Franco-Russian anthropologist Deniker divided the light-pigmented Northern Europeans into a race nordique and a race orientale. So, it is a bit surprising to see that a basic division of northern Europeans into East and West has stood the test of time. (*)

(*) Minus the Finnic peoples of northeastern Europe who, as has become clear, owe their genetic distinctiveness to a Siberian element in their ancestry, tying them to their linguistic cousins in the east.

The White Race though of one origin has two distinct divisions - Celtic Nordic and Slavic Scythian, the two internal divisions of the White Race itself.

Add to Technorati Favorites

My Favourite Blog

My latest favourite blog ;

How about that "it's a flawed concept that doesn't accurately describe human variation" instead of "it has no biological relevance"

The statement that it "doesn't accurately describe human variation" is flawed. The totality of human variation can't be described by race -- and no one has ever claimed it can be.

What race does describe is a part of human variation. Knowing a person's race tells you something about their genotype and phenotype: for a single trait and a single individual often not much; for the combination of many traits or many individuals a lot.

Today, we know a lot about human genetic variation and all evidence points to clinical [sic] variation through a series of bottle necks.

All the evidence points to mankind being distinguished to many genetically distinguishable races and subraces. "Bottlenecks" are a way in which existing human variation may have come about. Accepting that bottlenecks happened in human evolution is not in any way inconsistent with the idea that mankind is divided into races.

Nothing from the past (even educational models) is so holy we can't discard in lieu of new data and even newer models reflect that data.

The newer data is perfectly consistent with the five races of traditional physical anthropology, and is indeed beginning to reveal unsuspected depth of substructure within the major races.

" How about that "it's a flawed concept that doesn't accurately describe human variation" instead of "it has no biological relevance"

The statement that it "doesn't accurately describe human variation" is flawed. The totality of human variation can't be described by race -- and no one has ever claimed it can be.

What race does describe is a part of human variation. Knowing a person's race tells you something about their genotype and phenotype: for a single trait and a single individual often not much; for the combination of many traits or many individuals a lot.Today, we know a lot about human genetic variation and all evidence points to clinical [sic] variation through a series of bottle necks.

All the evidence points to mankind being distinguished to many genetically distinguishable races and subraces. "Bottlenecks" are a way in which existing human variation may have come about. Accepting that bottlenecks happened in human evolution is not in any way inconsistent with the idea that mankind is divided into races.

Nothing from the past (even educational models) is so holy we can't discard in lieu of new data and even newer models reflect that data.

The newer data is perfectly consistent with the five races of traditional physical anthropology, and is indeed beginning to reveal unsuspected depth of substructure within the major races. "

" Another definition: A race is a group within a species, characterized by a set of inheritable traits which other such groups do not possess, as a result of separate selection forces.

It seems there are people who overthink race and fall into the trap of the fallacy of the corrupt continuum: that the observation that the concept is fuzzy means it should be discarded entirely.

Race doesn't have to be rigidly definable in order to be scientifically valid. "

For Libya - The Rot Of Reason

For Libya - The Rot Of Reason.

The pretext is set, the war plans laid,
To glut Libyan ground with graves,
With 'Liberty' the Wests mocking cry,
They send in troops to kill and die.

But all hope of liberty will soon be lost,
As the rebels will learn to their cost,
Whilst screaming jets strafe and bomb,
Descending fast, and firing their guns.

With burning tanks upon their flanks,
And Al Qaeda safe within their ranks,
Democracy will die in the bloody dust,
Veiled in black rags of hate and mistrust.

Now silence settles on the burning sand,
Where lies the wreckage of a dying man,
" Is this our freedom ", are his final words,
As his spirit flees from this tortured earth.

The wet, black gold is Libya's curse,
And all its profits from the devils purse,
For the smiling wolf that offers its paw,
Shall soon devour each witless whore.

And the deadly dust that shrouds the sun,
Will return to kill their little ones,
With tumours on their infant skin,
Who dares find good in such mortal sin.

As hope lies crushed in the city streets,
Beside reason rotting in the heat,
Now rising forth from the fiery East,
A snarling red dragon, bares its teeth.

Add to Technorati Favorites