An Open Letter to Cuba

Haneul Na’avi
An Open Letter to Cuba
21 Nov. 2015

Old flags are flying and embassies have reopened since August 14th. On the surface, it seems as if US President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro’s nascent motions for diplomacy were a step in the right direction to reconcile the two countries’ tattered past. To date, a new commission has opened as a platform to discuss key, strategic plans for cooperation and increase dialogue.

A third round of negotiations have also begun, with Cuba firmly resolute to uphold its end of the talks after releasing 53 political prisoners, former American spy Alan Gross, and 3,522 political prisoners prior Pope Francis’s visit. However, in order to make further concessions, Obama must in turn resolve the following grievances: to “leave Guantanamo detention camp; end the blockade; end the “wet-foot-dry-foot” law encouraging Cubans to pursue residency in the U.S.; and end anti-government radio and television transmissions into the island”. Further memorandums of understanding were signed for the preservation of wildlife and marine biodiversity as a measure of good faith.

The Kennedy era was a combative time for the two, as the Western hemisphere’s first Socialist democracy took shape right under the nose of a global superpower. Almost 60 years later, after the fallout of Operation Mongoose, Bay of Pigs fiasco, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Obama became one of the first presidents to address the crippling economic, commercial, and financial blockade on Cuba—a unilaterally imposed motion by the US, and where the US is the only enforcer thereof. Obama’s legacy of bridge building is once again being put to the test, as it had been during the landmark Iran Deal, which sharply contrasts with his failures in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Venezuela, and the Balkans.

On October 27th, Cuban FM Bruno Rodriguez publically addressed the US blockade by mentioning that minimal concessions have been made on America’s part to end it, directly impacting Cuba’s food, medical, and banking sectors. “Barely a week ago, a 1.116 billion dollar fine was imposed on the French bank Credit Agricole, which adds up to the 1.710 billion dollar fine imposed on the German bank Commerzbank in March this year for doing transactions with Cuba and other States,” he explained.

“It will not be able to supply to the National Institute of Oncology and Radiobiology or any other hospital in Cuba the radioactive isotope Iridium-192, […] because its purveyor, the US company Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, refused to sell it to Cuba,” he continued. Commenting on the extensive and painful losses that the blockade has caused, Rodriguez also highlighted that based on “rigorous and conservative calculations, the economic damages it has caused after more than half a century amount to 833.755 billion dollars, based on the price of gold.  At current prices, it amounts to 121.192 billion dollars, a figure of enormous proportions for a small economy like ours”.

I had the luxury of witnessing these “damages” that Rodriguez spoke of first-hand. On my recent tour of eight Cuban cities, I saw the effects of the blockade: while some dire renovations of the Old Town of Havana continued, including the restoration of the Capitol building by MD Projektmanagement, there were large swaths along the Malecon and other regions that remained in disrepair due. Cuba’s reliance on tourism and foreign investment has contributed to its 7.5% growth (2001 – 2007). Nevertheless, due to the Wall Street-inspired global economic crisis and tanking commodity prices, Cuba’s growth rate has flatlined at 2.1% (2006-present). Cuba’s also exudes pride over its excellent medical services, which are first-rate but still inaccessible to USD transactions for some traveller insurance programmes. “Residents in the United States traveling to Cuba will have to take out their insurance policy at their home country of departure from Cuban insurance companies. […] US insurance companies do not provide coverage in the Cuban national territory,” World Nomad states.

Cuba suffers from a lack of international goods and internal food supplies have been rationed for the last 50 years. Furthermore, the transport system was limited to its ageing Viazul and recently installed Transtour intercity bus systems. There was only the Ferrocarilles de Cuba railway, acquired from second-hand purchases from countries not affected by the embargo. There was also the Hershey Electric railway, spanning from Matanzas to Havana, which a local passerby explained that it suffered power shortages from time to time. A slow, but promising upgrade from Venezuelan and Iran was initiated in 2007, but Venezuela’s own struggle with American colour revolutions threatens these bilateral relations.

Nevertheless, Cuba has continued to uphold its commitment to medical internationalism and ecotourism, even in the face of US-imposed sanctions, until new solutions are introduced, either through negotiations on the embargo, or through alternate economic opportunities. However, one opportunity Cuba has completely overlooked is its eligibility in the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank; BRICS’ new multipolar solution and a viable option for a diverse collection of 50 countries dedicated to revitilising their infrastructure. “The AIIB […] will focus on the development of infrastructure and other productive sectors in Asia, including energy and power, transportation and telecommunications, rural infrastructure and agriculture development, water supply and sanitation, environmental protection, urban development and logistics, etc,” the organisation mentions. Countries as poor as Myanmar and as rich as Germany are now shareholders, which rivals the Washington-led World Bank and dwarfs the Japanese ADB, yet Cuba’s absentee membership in the Silk Road belies its desperate need for progress.

Under the AIIB, all financial transactions occur under the Yuan (while China continues to sell off USD), and are backed by 100 billion USD in capital and assets. For the first time, countries will have the option to bypass purchases in USD, offering prospective bargaining power. Furthermore, China’s advantage lies in both its assured entrance into the IMF as a global reserve currency and its inauguration of the China International Payment System—offering an alternative to American SWIFT transactions. Recent sanctions on the Russian economy have made the Ruble more volatile, but nevertheless it remains at all-time highs after lessoning reliance on fossil fuels and diversifying its purchaser base. In turn, China has long established itself as an economic hegemon by surpassing America in terms of purchasing power parity. Next month, the AIIB’s inauguration will certainly shake the foundations of America’s death grip over international markets, and again, Cuba will no longer need USD for direct purchases.

This offers a long-term solution by reestablishing the global order, giving Cuba the advantage of investment and sovereignty; China’s commitment to the 5 Principles of Peaceful Coexistence ensures that any investments Cuba makes within the AIIB will not infringe its right to self-determination. Additionally, Russia’s generous write-off of Cuba’s post-Soviet debt falls squarely in alignment with President Vladimir Putin’s solidarity tour of Latin America. More importantly, historical synergy between the three countries should also prove fruitful than ever, now that the Eastern bloc is on one accord via a 400 billion USD bilateral agreement; the world’s largest. This allows greater autonomy on an unprecedented scale, in the form of military cooperation, raw materials, infrastructure projects, and energy; a necessary contingency in the event America retaliates while losing its hegemony, as well as hedging risk in the fallout for any AIIB shareholders.

Therefore, it confounds me why Cuba is not among those in the AIIB, and although I am a proponent of diplomacy, I find it tantamount to failure for the island nation to not capitalise on it. It is not entirely clear whether or not they are on the waiting list or refusing to join due to hidden preconditions with America. Nevertheless, even without AIIB membership, Cuba should at least consider making purchases using via CIPS. It has a real chance to experience growth without preconditions from Washington or reliance on the dollar, and could break free from the embargo without a need for negotiations. Even European AIIB members understand the need to diversify dollar holdings as sanctions on Russia and Cuba continue.

This is critical as it finally gives Cuba the chance to step back onto the global stage as an investor and not as a victim of exploitation; a sentiment experienced under occupation by the Spanish and US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. A more mature strategy President Castro could implement is a multilateral one that recognises the efforts of Washington to normalise relations, but incentivises fairness in the terms of negotiations while finally making progress through the AIIB. It would also be a huge geopolitical advantage for China, Russia, and India to incorporate Cuba into the bank’s framework. In the past, Fidel Castro nationalised exploitative American companies before; now it is time for his brother Raul to internationalise its economic policies. Once the doors open to the bank, I hope that new doors open for Cuba, as well as its citizens, in the near future. I would love to walk through the beautiful streets of Havana and Santa Clara once again; this time with an even more prosperous Cuba on the horizon.

Peering into the Future of a People (Interview with Arthur Goodman)

Arthur Goodman and Haneul Na’avi

Weanalyze the future of Israeli politics with Arthur Goodman, the Parliamentary
and Diplomatic Liaison for Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Europe’s largest
Jewish voice against Zionism. We cover his history with the organization,
explicate the process of the recent Knesset elections, and express our
knowledge and understanding of the situation happening in Palestine, as well as
the international community’s shift in support from Benjamin Netanyahu as he
engages in further dangerous hardline rhetoric and crimes against humanity.

HANEUL: Can you
tell us a little information about yourself?

ARTHUR: I’ve been
handling lobbying for JFJFP ever since it was formed; about 13 years ago. I
grew up in a middle-class Jewish family and used to be 100% supportive of
Israel. I had always assumed that everything Israel was right and Arabs wrong,
without much thought behind it, until my mid-50s. One day, towards the end of
the first Intifada, I looked at a newspaper with a picture of Palestinian
teenagers throwing stones at Israeli soldiers across barren wasteland. I
thought, “It takes guts to throw stones at armed soldiers”. That never occurred
any time before, but it shows how your psychological preconceptions can color
how you look at things.

I thought afterwards that people must have a good reason, and that wasn’t a
comfortable thought. Eventually, I started reading the New (Israeli) Historians,
which was a painful eye-opener; that it wasn’t the Arabs fault, but Israel’s,
and the determination of most Zionists was to have as much control over
Palestine as possible, even though Palestinians were the majority when Israelis
arrived. It went on from there through the expulsions of the Nakbah and 3/67,
with lots of violence.  Here I am today,
lobbying for JFJFP for 13 years now and we are the biggest Jewish peace group
with over 2,000 members.

HANEUL: On your
website, there’s an article where you respond to the [Financial] Times on the plummet
of international support for Israel after [Operation Protective Edge], which
killed more Palestinians in 2014 (2200+ dead) than all the death tolls since
1967 combined. What do you think of this?

ARTHUR: It’s
probably true, and not surprising. I think most people can understand what they
see, even through propaganda. Every time an Israeli PM says, “We have no
partner”, and the next day there are more settlement expansions, people say,
“What’s going here”? On top of that, there were four attacks on Gaza and the
two Lebanon wars, where it’s obvious that most casualties were civilians, and
Israel provoked them.

HANEUL: During recent elections, we
had two parties—the Likud and Zionist Union—fighting for dominion in the
Knesset. Netanyahu won and Israel’s PM for a 4th term. How has the
international Jewish community reacted to this?

ARTHUR: There’s
no single reaction, because opinions in the Jewish community are not
monolithic. Some people on the right will be pleased, some on the left are not
pleased at all, and the biggest group in the middle will not know what to
think. The Jewish community has become more polarized. Those on the left are
for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, which is legally
legitimate. Israel is legitimate only
within them, and Palestine has a right to a state within all of Mandate
Palestine, which is a 78/22 split of the land.

HANEUL: There
have been calls to return to the 1967 borders by the international community…

ARTHUR: …and by
many centrist Zionist Israelis, who would like to expand beyond them, but it’s
not worth it from their own point of view because it would make it difficult
for Israel to remain a democratic country and maintain international support.
They realize that those two things are important, but the right-wing doesn’t,
and wants to continue expansion into the occupied territories.

HANEUL: For you,
how much of the right-winged Israeli population helped win the election? How
does the Israeli electoral system work?

ARTHUR: It’s a proportional system
with a threshold. As long as a party gets over 3.25% of the vote, it can have
some MKs. The votes of those that pass that threshold are calculated and the
proportion of seats is allotted to them. This is why Israel has always had
coalition governments, because no party could get more than 50% of the votes,
which would in turn give them 50% of the seats. You can’t say that most of
Israel is right-wing; it’s split equally between the right wing, center, and
center-left. The remaining far-left and Palestinian parties are much smaller.

What happened is that a large majority of right-wing votes
went to Likud due to Netanyahu’s cynical ploy in the last days of the election,
and became the party with the largest vote with 25 seats; Zionist Union
received 22 or so seats. Ironically, if all of the Israeli-Palestinians that
voted for the [United] Arab List had voted for the Zionist Union, ZU would have
formed that government, but it didn’t happen that way. I don’t blame them for
wanting their own party, but it goes both ways. The Arab Union has got 15
seats, but one of the unspoken rules in Jewish-Israeli politics is that no
government will form a coalition with Palestinian parties. This is why Israel
is not fully democratic.

HANEUL: What exactly
was the platform of the Zionist Union?

ARTHUR: It was for a greater
redistribution of income from the well-off to the less well-off and middle
class. Income distribution in Israel is the most unequal of all OECD countries,
which has happened over the last 10 years as a result of Likud policies,
especially Netanyahu’s. How would that have gone for the Arabs in Israel? I’m
not sure, because one fact of Israeli life is that Israeli towns get more
resources from the state than Arab ones. There was another part about
negotiating with Palestinians, but not precise. Their leader, [Yitzhak] Herzog
even stated that he wanted to keep hold of the Jordan Valley. If he was serious
about negotiations, he wouldn’t have meant that, but overall, there certainly is
a difference in policies on negotiations between Likud and ZU.

Another aspect of discrimination is between the Ashkenazi
(European) and Mizrahi (North African/ Spain) Jews.  They have always been less well-off than the
Ashkenazi. I had even read that the Mizrahi earn less in the same professions.

HANEUL: This
income disparity is a big problem. I remember that Netanyahu wanted all Jews to
return to Israel after the Charlie Hebdo massacres occurred, that he wanted all
Jews in France and Denmark to “come home”…

ARTHUR: That’s
what he said. He says a lot of things, but you can’t believe many of them. Very
few people actually know what’s going on in his mind. The one thing that is
certain is that he wants to take over as much of the West Bank as possible
without taking too many Palestinians with it. That’s the one constant in his
career.

HANEUL: Right,
and the international community is changing its perspectives on Israel—Sweden
recognizes Palestine as a state, Spain no longer sells weapons to Israel, and
Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats said that he would recognize Palestine
because Netanyahu’s callous remarks.

ARTHUR: Part of
the lobbying I do is to write to his office in order to make that party policy.
I also plan to write to [Labour MP Edward] Miliband… and probably to the
Tories. There was a debate in Parliament last November, where the FM [Philip
Hammond] intervened while his Middle East minister was talking—waffling around.
He stood up and said, “What my colleague means is that the settlements are an
impediment to peace and they are intended to be so”. That was extraordinary to
hear.

HANEUL: [US
President] Barack Obama has changed his point of view on Palestine. If he lifts
the diplomatic shield [from Israel], what will result from [future] meetings in
the UNGA?

ARTHUR: It will
be a very big and important change. I think that Netanyahu’s ultra-cynicism by
frightening members of the right-wing has given politicians the cover to say
what they’ve wanted to say for years—they want to stop giving Netanyahu
protection in the UN Security Council and start talking seriously about
[sanctions] due to the occupation. Few people really believed that Netanyahu
was willing to negotiate.

HANEUL: There’s a
massive worldwide movement through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions
campaign, mainly through the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, JFJFP, and many
others. How will this impact Israel’s economy and policy-making in the future?

ARTHUR: It won’t
affect it very much, and it’s just begun. It’s at the pinprick stage. Regarding
pension schemes, there are only 3-4 of the, but there must be thousands in the
Western world. You have even fewer officials ban G4S and Veolia for contracts,
whom still work in the Occupied Territories. However, even if that movement
becomes big, it won’t impact Israel directly. All it will mean is that an
Israeli entrepreneur or company will have to step in for Veolia or G4S, and
that will be difficult. It would be another warning shot, but a better method
that would hurt Israel directly is if people stopped buying Israeli goods,
which we support and campaign against organizations that support Palestine’s
occupation directly.

The real thing that would hurt Israel economically is if the
EU and US suspended tariff concessions that Israel receives in trade. That is
huge money, and one-third goes to the EU and another to the US. If those
tariffs were suspended, that would bring a heavy cost, and even Netanyahu couldn’t
deny that. However, we lobby for things that are more feasible—accurate
labeling of goods from settlements to help consumers determine if they want to
buy them. We also support the banning of Israeli goods into the EU on the basis
that, because the settlements are illegal, the EU shouldn’t help them prosper.

HANEUL: How do
you feel about this, coming from a Jewish perspective?

ARTHUR: I would
like, just as everyone else in JFJFP, Palestinians, and many, many other Jewish
people, for Israel to become a more normal
country. We would like an Israeli government that accepts that they cannot expand
beyond the 1967 borders and accepts a Palestinian state. Conceding all but 22%
of their land was a huge compromise for Palestinians, but they made it. They
made it in 1988 and Israel never reciprocated, but I do believe that it will
take pressure from the outside to achieve this.

Southeast Ukraine: “We Have Built an Independent State”. Interview with Deputy PM, Donetsk People’s Republic, Mikhail Mnukhin

We have the honor of interviewing First Deputy Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Mikhail Mhukhin. He speaks to us about the ongoing crisis in the DPR, the history of Donbass and its
relationship to Ukraine, and initiatives currently being implemented to
end the conflict. For further correspondence, you can visit the official
MOFA DPR website at mid-dnr.ru/en/.

image

HANEUL: One
year after the US-backed Euromaidan coup, Ukraine is still engaged in a
long and bloody civil war. What progress have you made in the fight
against the fascist Ukranian military, Svoboda, and Right Sector?

MIKHAIL: First and most importantly, we have built
an independent state. Even though some parts of our territory are still
controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the state system of the DPR is
fully functional and controls all vital operations. We can pay salaries
and social dowries, form state budgets, and arrange foreign trade.

At present, the DPR has legitimately elected authorities: the Head of
the Republic, [Prime Minister] Alexander Zakharchenko, and the supreme
legislative body, the People`s Council. The elections for local Councils
will take place soon.

It should be stressed that we have achieved all these goals during
unceasing hostilities and blockades made by the Ukrainian authorities,
in addition to the critical humanitarian situation in the region. In our
opinion, all of these problems are the main arguments in the fight
against our enemy. We managed not only to survive, but also to develop a
full-fledged state.

Militarily, the DPR Army has demonstrated to the whole world its
ability to act effectively, and the number of magnificent victories over
Ukrainian troops vindicates this. One should note that the number of
UAF soldiers exceeds ours, as does their military equipment.

Nevertheless, we will always insist on and continue to desire a
peaceful resolution to the conflict. We have never sought to annihilate
Ukraine and the Ukrainians; however, our key issue is to provide the
security of our people and to create the conditions for a normal,
peaceful life. We are always ready for dialogue, even with Kiev.

HANEUL: After the May 11th referendum, the DPR
declared itself independent from Ukraine, yet the international
community has denounced your right to do so. Can you tell me what this
signifies about democracy building?

MIKHAIL: The issue of DPR recognition remains
urgent, indeed. This is the main priority for our Ministry`s work today,
and we make progress gradually in this direction. The Republic of South
Ossetia has officially recognized the DPR, and we are establishing
diplomatic contacts now. The Republic of Abkhazia also announced its
readiness to recognize the DPR.

Furthermore, we work in other areas of cooperation and with all
countries on any continent. Some of them are officially recognized and
some are not. Additionally, we are now actively promoting cooperation
with other social and political movements to support the
self-determination of their territories. This process is rather long and
complex.

As for the position of a number of Western countries towards us, we
understand extremely well the reasons of it. One should decide whether
or not to recognize our Republic; it does not depend on us. From our
side, we can ensure this process by proving our consistency as a
full-fledged member of the international community. It is paradoxical
that, even though the citizens of our state are similar to those in the
USA, Britain, or Japan, we still have to prove our right to exist. In
this regard, we have huge expectations of the public’s opinion,
especially in western countries, as it starts to change. People from all
over the world are getting to learn more truths about us, and we hope
that your authorities will take an objective stance towards the DPR.

HANEUL: Can you give us a history of the Donetsk
Oblast and its history in relation to Russia? Why did the DPR decide to
remain autonomous instead of integrating into the Russian Federation
like Crimea?

MIKHAIL: Donbass was always a place of enormous
accumulated human resources’—the place where people of all nationalities
united in order to labor together and use Russian as their common
language. As a result, a unique political platform has arisen in
Donbass; the consequences of which we can observe today. All this
explains why Donbas has always strived for autonomy and independence.

Crimea has made its own long journey and has finally returned to
Russia. However, we are two distinct regions and have formed
differently. We do not have the goal to join Russia as a priority now,
but instead follow our path to forming an independent state. We have
resolved the social and economic problems brought about by Ukraine’s
military aggression and complete transport and economic blockade of our
land.

HANEUL: Historically, Ukrainians experienced the
1941 pogroms in Lyiv in which the Ukrainian Insurgent Army worked with
the Nazis to murder thousands of Polish and Ukrainian citizens. Do you
believe that you are reliving this nightmare? Who should be held
accountable for this?

MIKHAIL: We stress that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army
(UIA or UPA) did not act alone during World War II. With the support of
foreign states, the UIA successfully existed in some regions from 1946
until 1948 as a local instrument of the Cold War. However, the
ideologies of Ukrainian nationalists have not changed; just their
owners.

Repetition is a peculiar feature of history. The tragedy in
Odessa—the repression of dissidents and multiple war crimes—proves this
fact. The above-mentioned organizations and people unfortunately follow
the examples of their historical leaders and idols. However, they should
remember the fate of the UIA and its leaders, which will partially help
them to predict their own.

You can see throughout history the actions of the UIA and other
nationalist groups, which were directed not only against Poles but also
Russians, Jews and representatives of other ethnicities. Those who
support neo-Nazism in Ukraine should think about where the Nazis would
turn their weapons tomorrow.

HANEUL: Which international organizations are
working with your government to provide humanitarian aid to your
citizens, and how long do you estimate this crisis to last? How can
people around the world become involved in reporting, assisting, or
donating to your cause?

MIKHAIL: We are open to dialogue and are always
ready to accept help from all organizations and private persons. There
are a number of organizations operating in the DPR, such as the International Red Cross, Medicines Sans Frontiers, and dozens of other charity funds and communities.

Our experiences have shown that we are not alone—that many people
from numerous countries are ready to help us sincerely and freely. For
example, we have received a few trucks with medicaments from all over
Germany, collected with the assistance of some Bundestag MPs.

Remember that Donetsk currently has a full economic blockade. The
direct deliveries of financial assets, food products, and other goods to
the DPR are impossible now, but we are trying to solve this problem
everyday. We are very pleased and appreciate the desire of people from
the entire world to help us.

HANEUL: Do you believe that PM Alexander
Zakharchenko should have taken part in the second Minsk agreement in
Belarus? Why didn’t the Normandy Four (Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and
France) include Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea into the peace talks? How
have the peace talks helped ease tensions in Donbass, and do you believe
that there should be separate talks between the DPR and other groups?

MIKHAIL: The situation surrounding the DPR, the LPR
and Crimea cannot be combined in the negotiation process, as Crimea is
already a part of Russia.

The Donetsk People`s Republic is one of several parties in the
conflict, so without Alexander Zakharchenko`s participation, a
negotiated resolution is impossible. However, we can explain Kiev’s
harsh stance and attempts to ignore the DPR and LPR in the Normandy Four
negotiations. Ukraine considers the truce as a period to accumulate
military forces and prepare for further hostilities, and Kiev has never
shown its full readiness for a lasting peace.

The real conflict is between the people of the southeast and
Ukrainian government, whom should actually negotiate. Apart from that,
the DPR’s entrance into the negotiation process means that it will
achieve its new status, which Ukraine is trying to prevent. Alongside
this, Ukraine is trying to expand the number of participants involved in
the conflict, such as Germany and France, in order to supply them
weapons. We hope this will not happen.

We are satisfied with Germany and France’s viewpoint; they have
started to change their positions on events happening in Donbass. We
expect that, instead of more sanctions, they will initiate humanitarian
missions here in order to stop the catastrophe, not deteriorate it.

We are sure that peace will finally come, but we cannot achieve it
with regular concessions from one side and continuous breaches from the
other. Peace is always a compromise and we are ready for it, but only
after ensuring the safety of our citizens.

HANEUL: The UAE has already committed weapons to the
Ukrainian military, and the United States has considered arming the
junta directly. If this occurs, how will this affect the current
situation? Will this escalate to a large conflict between superpowers?

MIKHAIL: According to present information, the
weapons contracts made between Ukraine and the UAE are not a significant
concern, and we personally believe those contracts were made just for
PR. We doubt Kiev managed to convince its partners to supply weapons on
credit, and it does not have enough money to buy them. Another issue is
the USA’s weaponry. According to confirmed information, they never
stopped supplying weapons to Ukraine. Along the whole frontline, after
each Ukrainian force’s retreat, one can easily find weapons made in
America, including heavy artillery. Besides, the large amount of
American personnel training Ukrainian soldiers invokes serious concern.
In what way should we estimate [the outcome]? Exposing Washington`s
participation in the Donbass conflict is difficult, but direct
interventions take place and grow with every passing month, so it is
very difficult to predict such consequences.

For more information, please visit The Last Defense at thelastdefense2012.tumblr.com or following us on Twitter at @thelastdefense

Riding the caliphate interstate with Jeff Steinberg

An interview on the origins of Islamic State and its relationship with regional and global powers.

In order to explore the history of the Islamic State in its
relationship to Saudia Arabia and Turkey, Haneul Na’avi consulted Jeffrey Steinberg,
senior editor and counterintelligence director of the Executive Intelligence Review. Steinberg has 40 years of experience working with the LarouchePAC, and is a member of and
active contributor to the Schiller Institute
in Wiesbaden, Germany. Click here to
listen to the full interview.

Haneul Na’avi: Can you give us a brief history of the Islamic State? How did
they rise to power after the [2003] US-NATO invasion of Iraq?

Jeffrey Steinberg: You have to go back to
when Zbigniew Brzezinski was the National Security Advisor to Jimmy
Carter, and convinced the president to sign a secret authorisation to
begin covert
operations in Afghanistan, six months before the Soviets arrived, around
Christmastime of 1979.

Known as the Bernard-Lewis
Plan, it involved promoting Islamic fundamentalism all across the southern
tier of the Soviet Union. When the Soviets finally moved in, things became
concentrated in building up a radical Islamic terrorist apparatus, sponsored by
the US, British, Saudis, French, and Israelis.

Brzezinski. Demotix/Theo Schneider. All rights reserved.

The whole idea was to play Islamic fundamentalism
against the ‘godless Soviet Union’, but the problem this created was the
emergence of groups such as al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden himself went to Peshawar
in northwest Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border, as part of this
Anglo-American/Saudi project to create a terrorist organisation against the
Soviet presence in Afghanistan. That effort succeeded somewhat, but the
consequences of that was the birth of an international Jihadi terrorist
apparatus that is haunting the world today.

You had the establishment of al-Qaeda following
the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some of those networks in Pakistan and
Afghanistan spread to other areas, including Somalia, [or] Chechen rebels in
the Caucuses who then moved to Pakistan and Afghanistan and became some of the
leading commanders of al-Qaeda. This in turn created spin-offs such as al-Qaeda
in Iraq, in the Arabian Peninsula, and the Islamic Maghreb, many splits and
permutations such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and the British and
French backed those networks to overthrow Gaddafi, and now we have a mess in
North Africa as a result.

I was frequently on Capitol Hill in the
mid-1980s, and you would see well-known neoconservatives touring with these
so-called freedom fighters who later became leading figures in al-Qaeda. This
is a long collusion between western intelligence agencies and radical Sunni
Jihadist networks.

HN: The Islamic State wants to expand its territory. How legitimate
are their aims and what exactly are they trying to accomplish? Are they just
controlled by the west or is this something more sinister?

JS: Saudi Arabia is a kingdom that shares power between the House of
Saud and Wahhabi clergy who are among the most radical fundamentalists of all
the Sunni branches. In the 1960s, during the crackdown from Egyptian President
Nasser against the Muslim Brotherhood, many of them fled to Saudi Arabia,
joined the Wahhabis and began spreading a form of pan-[Islamism] around the
world, with enormous financing from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. They
began opening up madrasas—special Islamist schools—in Pakistan,
Afghanistan, and parts of Africa as early as 1963.

You had the founding of the Muslim Worldly
[League], the origins of neo-Salafism—a form of fundamentalist Islam with a messianic
caliphate ideology, who received support from Arab Gulf powers, as well as
British and US intelligence services, to be used against the Soviets and China.

Al-Bagdhadi, the nominal head of IS, is
committed to the establishment of a universal caliphate under [IS]
direction.
For that reason, there’s concern on the part of the Saudis with respect
to the IS network, who could potentially overrun Saudi Arabia and
incorporate it into their version of
a caliphate.

You had a merger in Saudi Arabia of the Muslim
Brotherhood and Wahhabism, but later, when the MB entered democratic
electoral politics in Egypt, the Saudis no longer liked that, and this created
splits between different factions of Jihadism. IS inside Iraq contains members
that have fought for over a decade—Chechens, Uighurs, Afghans, Saudis, Libyans,
and Iraqis—who have travelled around the world in this continuous battle, honing
skills in asymmetrical warfare. You also have in Iraq remnants of the old
Hussein military that are deeply resentful that they were removed from any
power-sharing in their country, and who have opportunistically joined the
neo-Salafists.

HN: [Turkey] wants to expand into the European Union, NATO and has
one foot into the Arab world. What exactly are the aims of [Erdogan] related to
these three fronts?

JS: The Turks have been instrumental in the rise of ISIS [over the
last two years]. There were several critical border crossings turned over to
ISIS. They had training facilities inside Turkish territory, and integrated
with smuggling networks that operate into northern Syria and Iraq, and [they]
are integrated into the ruling AKP party and Turkish MIT, the equivalent of the
CIA, headed by [Hakan] Fidan, one of the most trusted right-hand men of
Erdogan. If you look at the AKP, it’s an informal kind of Muslim Brotherhood
with many parallels. There are more radical elements than Erdogan, and former presidents
like [Abdullah] Gül who was a more genuine moderate than him and [Ahmet] Davutoğlu. They’re playing a
dangerous game; they’ve crossed swords with the US, and Washington and the
Pentagon are pissed off at Erdogan.

There was a meeting between military commanders
of the anti-ISIS coalition. Not only did Turkey send a deputy to the meeting,
but carried out a bombing campaign against the PKK along the borders of Syria
and Iraq the day before. Washington and some European leaders quietly made sure
that Turkey didn’t get a seat on the UN Security Council. Frictions are
becoming severe, and some American military personnel asked, “Why is Turkey in
NATO if they’re on the other side”? I think that the neo-Ottoman aspirations of
Turkey in MENA trump its desire to integrate into the EU and are openly
promoted by Davutoğlu.

Demotix/Ashraf Amra. All rights reserved.

They’re not completely out of control. The
Saudis are strong backers of IS and I am not convinced that they are an
existential threat to the House of Saud. In the 1990s, bin Laden was protesting
against the residual US military forces in Saudi Arabia after the first Iraq
War, and then Head of Saudi Intelligence Turki bin Faisal sent a liaison to
Afghanistan and funds once again flowed freely to al-Qaeda, granted they would
attack America, but not the House of Saud. They’re perfectly capable of
negotiating with IS. Things can change, but I’m not persuaded that we’re at
that point yet.

You have a lot of contending forces—Gulf
states—that are working with the Muslim Brotherhood, who are training forces
against Assad. What they’re attempting to do is to use militias with strong
ties to Turkey and led by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. The “elected”
government in Libya has allied with Egypt against the Libyan [Walter] Dorn
Movement, which is backed by Turkey and Qatar. So, within the Sunni world, you
have these fault lines that are becoming militarised, especially between Sunni
and Shiite, which could easily turn into a regional war or even something
bigger.

HN: How will this affect BRICS and western players in the long run?

JS: Several prominent Russians have made statements, one from
[ex-Ambassador Veniamin] Popov that said, “if the US is serious about waging
war with IS, then it has to be a coalition of countries with shared interests”.
This emphatically includes BRICS; particularly Russia and China, for reasons
such as the targeting of the Caucuses and Xinjiang provinces of western China,
where the Uighurs are a part of this “Jihadists without Borders” apparatus.
There are at least 1,000 Chechens that are fighting with ISIS in Syria and
Iraq, who represents some of the most seasoned IS commanders. They’ve been in
combat continuously for over a decade since the Chechen wars.

Popov continued: “A serious alignment would
involve the US, Russia, China, other BRICS countries, Iran and Syria”. You
can’t trust Saudi Arabia or other GCC countries to genuinely try to defeat IS.
If you had an alliance amongst those countries, you would have the resources to
absolutely crush IS in Iraq and Syria. The Russians have a close relationship
with the Syrians and Iranians, which could have genuine, direct coordination
rather than the sneaky ones we have now. Egypt is a channel for feeding
intelligence to the Syrian military, and the Iranians benefit from coordinated
efforts between Iraq and the US, and Shiite militias, whom are some of the most
effective fighters there.

Ultimately, [IS] has approximately 30-50,000
fighters in the region, and they’re relying on former Ba’athist military
personnel in Iraq and Sunni tribes in Anbar who will go where they think the
winner is. They’re not ideologically committed to the Islamic State and don’t
believe in a caliphate; they’re just pissed off because they’ve been cut out
from the power share in their own country and are demonstrating that they have
more military ability with IS than with the Iraqi government. The minute those
tribes see a fairer power share and are convinced Islamists will suffer defeat…they’ll
switch sides. You’ll have a replay of the Anbar Awakening from the mid 2000s,
so there’s a limit to how far IS can go before overstretching themselves.

They don’t pose a threat to overthrow Putin in
Russia, or Xi Jinping in China, but can make a mess of things. The problem
you’re dealing with is that the British, factions in the US, and the Saudis
still continue to see this as an Islamic card they can play against the
Russians and Chinese. If they are freaked out by what BRICS represent since
the July meeting in Brazil, that’s where you can see these asymmetric
operations—the air-sea battle against China and supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine
targeting Russia—you do see a situation where a general war does become a world war.

Islamic State was born in 1979 with covert operations in Afghanistan

The Last Defense
27 Jan 2015

In order to fully communicate the history of the Islamic State and its relationship with the House of Saud and Turkey, we consulted Jeffrey
Steinberg, Senior Editor and Counterintelligence Director of the
Executive Intelligence Review with 40 years of experience working with the LarouchePAC. He is also member of and active contributor to the Schiller Institute based in Wiesbaden, Germany. Click HERE to listen to the full interview.

HANEUL
: Can you give us a history of the Islamic State? How did they rise to power after the [2003] US-NATO invasion of Iraq?

JEFF:
You have to go to 1979 when Brzezinski was the National Security
Advisor to Jimmy Carter, [when he] convinced the president to sign a
secret authorization to begin covert operations in Afghanistan, six
months before the Soviets arrived around Christmastime of 1979. Known as
the Bernard-Lewis Plan, it involved promoting Islamic
Fundamentalism all across the Southern tier of the Soviet Union. When
the Soviets finally moved in, things became concentrated in building up a
radical Islamic terrorist apparatus, sponsored by the US, British,
Saudis, French, and Israelis.

The whole idea was to play Islamic
Fundamentalism against the “godless Soviet Union”, but the problem this
created was the emergence of groups such as al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden
himself went to Peshawar in Northwest Pakistan, near the Afghanistan
border, as part of this Anglo-American/ Saudi project to create a
terrorist organization against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. That
effort succeeded somewhat, but the consequences of that was the birth of
an international Jihadi terrorist apparatus that is haunting the world
today.

You had the establishment of al-Qaeda [MSC] following the US invasion
of Iraq in 2003. Some of those networks in Pakistan and Afghanistan
spread to other areas, including Somalia—Chechen rebels in the Caucuses,
which then moved to Pakistan and Afghanistan and became some of the
leading commanders of al-Qaeda. This in turn created spin-offs such as
al-Qaeda in Iraq, in the Arabian Peninsula, and the Islamic Maghreb,
many splits and permutations such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group,
and the British and French backed those networks to overthrow Gaddafi,
and now we have a mess in North Africa as a result.

I was frequently on Capital Hill in the mid-1980s, and you would see
well-known neoconservatives touring with these so-called freedom
fighters who later became leading figures in al-Qaeda. This is a long
collusion between Western intelligence agencies and radical Sunni
Jihadist networks.

HANEUL: The Islamic State wants to expand its territory. How
legitimate are their aims and what exactly are they trying to
accomplish? Are they just controlled by the West or is this something
more sinister?

JEFF: Saudi Arabia is a kingdom that shares power between the
House of Saud and Wahhabi clergy, who are among the most radical
fundamentalists of all the Sunni branches. In the 1960s, during the
crackdown from Egyptian President Nasser against the Muslim Brotherhood,
many of them fled to Saudi Arabia, joined the Wahhabis and began
spreading a form of pan-Arabism around the world, with enormous
financing from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. They began opening
up madrasas—special Islamist schools—in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts of Africa as early as 1963.

You had the founding of the Muslim Worldly [League], the origins of
neo-Salafism—a form of fundamentalist Islam with a messianic caliphate
ideology, whom received support from Arab Gulf powers, as well as
British and US intelligence services, to be used against the Soviets and
China. Al-Bagdhadi, the nominal head of IS, is committed to the
establishment of a universal caliphate under [IS] direction. For that
reason, there’s concern between the Saudis and the IS network, whom
could potentially overrun Saudi Arabia and incorporate it into their
version of a caliphate.

You had a merger in Saudi Arabia of the Muslim Brotherhood and
Wahhabism, but later, when the MB became had democratic electoral
politics in Egypt, the Saudis no longer liked that, and this created
splits between different factions of Jihadism. IS inside Iraq contains
members that have fought for over a decade—Chechens, Uyghyrs, Afghans,
Saudis, Libyans, and Iraqis—whom have traveled around the world in this
continuous battle, honing skills in asymmetrical warfare. You also have
in Iraq remnants of the old Hussein military that are deeply resentful
that they were removed from any power sharing in their country, and who
have opportunistically joined the neo-Salafists.

HANEUL: [Turkey] wants to expand into the European Union, NATO
and has one foot into the Arab world. What exactly are the aims of
[Tayyip Erdogan] related to these three fronts?

JEFF: The Turks have been instrumental in the rise of ISIS
[over the last two years]. There were several critical border crossings
turned over to ISIS. They had training facilities inside Turkish
territory, and integrated with smuggling networks that operate into
Northern Syria and Iraq, and [they] are integrated into the ruling AKP
party and Turkish MIT, the equivalent to the CIA, headed by [Hakan]
Fidan, one of the most trusted right-hand men of Erdogan. If you look at
the AKP, it’s an informal kind of Muslim Brotherhood with many
parallels. There are more radical elements than Erdogan, and former
presidents like [Abdullah] Gül that was a genuine moderate than
him and [Ahmet] Davutoğlu. They’re playing a dangerous game; they’ve
crossed swords with the US, and Washington and the Pentagon are pissed
off at Erdogan.

There was a meeting between military commanders of the anti-ISIS
coalition. Not only did Turkey send a deputy to the meeting, but carried
out a bombing campaign against the PKK along the borders of Syria and
Iraq the day before. Washington and some European leaders quietly made
sure that Turkey didn’t get a seat on the UN Security Council. Frictions
are becoming severe, and some American military personnel asked, “Why
is Turkey in NATO if they’re on the other side”? I think that the
neo-Ottoman aspirations of Turkey in MENA trump its desire to integrate
into the EU and are openly promoted by Davutoğlu.

They’re not completely out of control. The Saudis are strong backers
of IS and I am not convinced that they are an existential threat to the
House of Saud. In the 1990s, bin Laden was protesting against the
residual US military forces in Saudi Arabia after the first Iraq War,
and then Head of Saudi Intelligence Turki bin Faisal sent a liaison to
Afghanistan and funds once again flowed freely to al-Qaeda, granted they
would attack America, but not the House of Saud. They’re perfectly
capable of negotiating with IS. Things can change, but I’m not persuaded
that we’re at that point yet.

You have a lot of contending forces—Gulf states—that are working with
the Muslim Brotherhood, whom are training forces against Assad. What
they’re attempting to do is to use militias with strong ties to Turkey
and lead by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. The “elected” government in
Libya has allied with Egypt against the Libyan [Walter] Dorn Movement,
which is backed by Turkey and Qatar. So, within the Sunni world, you
have these fault lines that are becoming militarized, especially between
Sunni and Shiite, which could easily turn into a regional war or even
something bigger.

HANEUL: How will this affect BRICS and Western players in the long run?

JEFF: Several prominent Russians have made statements, one
from [ex-Ambassador Veniamin] Popov that said, “if the US is serious
about waging war with IS, then it has to be a coalition of countries
with shared interests”. This emphatically includes BRICS; particularly
Russia and China, for reasons such as the targeting of the Caucuses and
Xinjiang provinces of Western China, where the Uighurs are a part of
this “Jihadists without Borders” apparatus. There are at least 1,000
Chechens that are fighting with ISIS in Syria and Iraq, who represents
some of the most seasoned IS commanders. They’ve been in combat
continuously for over a decade since the Chechen wars.

Popov continued: “A serious alignment would involve the US, Russia,
China, other BRICS countries, Iran and Syria”. You can’t trust Saudi
Arabia or other GCC countries to genuinely try to defeat IS. If you had
an alliance amongst those countries, you would have the resources to
absolutely crush IS in Iraq and Syria. The Russians have a close
relationship with the Syrians and Iranians, which could have genuine,
direct coordination rather than the sneaky ones we have now. Egypt is a
channel for feeding intelligence to the Syrian military, and the
Iranians benefit from coordinated efforts between Iraq and the US, and
Shiite militias, whom are some of the most effective fighters there.

Ultimately, [IS] has approximately 30-50,000 fighters in the region,
and they’re relying on former Ba’athist military personnel in Iraq and
Sunni tribes in Anwar who will go where they think the winner is.
They’re not ideologically committed to the Islamic State and don’t
believe in a caliphate; they’re just pissed off because they’ve been cut
out from the power share in their own country and are demonstrating
that they have more military ability with IS than with the Iraqi
government. The minute those tribes see a fairer power share and are
convinced Islamists will suffer defeat… they’ll switch sides. You’ll
have a replay of the Anbar Awakening from the mid 2000s, so there’s a
limit to how far IS can go before overstretching themselves.

They don’t pose a threat to overthrow Putin in Russia, or Xi Jinping
in China, but can make a mess of things. The problem you’re dealing with
is that the British, factions in the US, and the Saudis still continue
to see this as an Islamic card they can play against the Russians and
Chinese. If they are freaked out by what BRICS represents since the July
meeting in Brazil, that’s where you can see these asymmetric
operations—the air-sea battle against China and supporting neo-Nazis in
Ukraine targeting Russia—you do see a situation where a general war does
become a World War.

The Satire and the Faux: Reflections on Charlie Hebdo

Haneul Na’avi
22 Jan 2015

The massacre of employees at the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris has fostered growing animosity between Westerners and the Muslim world. In nationalist rhetoric, the champions of French Secularity vowed to cheat the death of free speech and never to bow to terrorism, and the agency retaliated with record sales of its publication, with more insults to the Prophet Mohammed.

https://i1.wp.com/www.rador.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/charlie-hebdo1-400x230.jpg

One of many infamous Charlie Hebdo publications blamed for the attack [Photo: Panamza]

Nevertheless, the country did bow, not to the demands of al-Qaeda of the Peninsula (AQAP), the Yemeni sect claiming responsibility for the attack. Seeing their golden opportunity, French government officials capitalized on the assault in order to incrementally impose a wave of draconian policies to stifle the freedoms of its own citizens.

Shortly after the “Je Suis Charlie” demonstrations, French PM Manuel Valls openly announced the Republic would commission “the creation of 2,680 new positions in French military and intelligence agencies to monitor the population”, which would cost “425 mln EUR over three years, and would rise close to 735 mln EUR after personnel costs.

The bill passed amid condemnation of the recent “Law Strengthening the Provision Relating to the Fight against Terrorism”, in which EU Counterterrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove proclaimed “[it struck a] good balance between the demands of internal security and respect for individual liberties”. The bill, passed in the French Parliament last October, would bolster current UK and German anti-terror initiatives.

The law, opposed by the European Digital Rights organization and others, targets terrorism via “anti-democratic measures […] based on vague concepts whose application can easily be extended, such as “apologie du terrorisme” (apology of terrorism), and that restrict the right to freedom of movement (art. 1), freedom of the press (art. 4), freedom of information and communication (art. 9), the protection of journalistic sources (art. 11), the right to a fair trial (art. 13) or that are simply disproportionate (art. 12, 14)”, La Quadrature du Net stated.

The regional attacks were the perfect chance to implement this new law. Unpopular legislature, pushed by an equally unpopular President (currently 8% according to YouGov statistics), achieved several aims for the struggling figurehead: (1) distracting the public from economic and foreign policy misadventures and (2) strengthening support of the current administration by nationalizing sentiment of the French people. Meanwhile, the Charlie Hebdo massacre suspects, the Kouachi brothers, and Mali-born Amedy Coulibaly, the prime suspect in the kosher supermarket attack, reveal startling connections.

Unity: Tens of thousands of people last night joined peaceful rallies in support of the people killed at the massacre in central Paris

Unity: Tens of thousands of people […] joined peaceful rallies in support of the people killed at the massacre in central Paris (Photo: AFP/ Getty Images)

France’s long history with Syria goes back to the Franco-Syrian War, but their open procurement of weapons and cash for “moderate rebels” in Syria and Iraq forms the foundation of the current crisis. A London Guardian article detailed how Hollande’s administration worked to remove Assad, and subsequently, warned about the consequences. “Some of the French cash has reached Islamist groups who were desperately short of ammunition and who had increasingly turned for help towards al-Qaida aligned jihadist groups in and around Aleppo,” Chulov writes.

The French President’s dual imperative of funding rebels in Syria and Libya, but expanding attacks on current IS militants in Iraq, has incited intense anger from IS. “France has suggested that rebels should be given ‘defensive weapons’ to use against the regime and was the first country to recognise a recalibrated political body as the legitimate voice of [the] Syrian people,” the article continues. They were veritably successful, as that ‘recalibrated political body’ is now the Islamic State; an unrelenting enemy with roots in the Mujahideen Shura Council of Iraq.

Shortly after taking office, Holland pushed to invade Mali’s mineral-rich territories under the ruse of fighting terrorism. Just after the Sarkozy’s Libyan invasion, Hollande stepped in to extrapolate France’s imperialist agenda. Using the same tactics as in Syria, France, the US, and UK backed the Salafist, Tuareg al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM), to overthrow Jamahiriya leader Muammar Gaddafi. Asad Ismi writes extensively about this occurrence:

AQIM is closely allied to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), the main proxy used by France, the United States, and Britain in their overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya. The AQIM militants fought alongside LIFG. Currently, France and the U.S. are also arming and financing Islamic fundamentalists in Syria to overthrow the secular government of Hafez Al-Assad.

https://i1.wp.com/www.wespeaknews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Al-Qaeda-in-the-Arabian-Peninsula-400-x-300.jpg

al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Yemeni branch of the terrorist organization (Photo: WSN)

While warned of refusing to cooperate with Syria or Iran, Hollande has deployed the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier in order to follow up on recent aerial assaults on IS targets in northeastern Iraq. Iraqi and Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s sanctioning of the Western-backed intervention has caused further resentment amongst the Islamic State’s Sunni members.

The failures and inertia of France’s intelligence community practically fostered the attack, as they failed to initiate basic protocols for properly monitoring risky security assets. The Kouachi brothers had traveled to Yemen to meet CIA asset Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011, three years after Cherif was released from Fleury-Mérogis prison; experts claim that this was what incited their radicalization. A Telegraph article evidences that they had been monitored since spring 2009 and that “French authorities stopped the surveillance in July – just six months before the Paris attacks – because they were deemed to be of low risk”.

https://i2.wp.com/www.bellenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Cherif-and-Said-Kouachi-Charlie-Hebdo-attack-suspects1.jpg

Saiif and Cherif Kouachi, primary suspects in the Jan. 7 Charlie Hebdo massacre (Photo: Belle News)

Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan opportunistically admonished France for failing to properly monitor the suspects. In a Jan. 17 speech, he harshly condemned the breakdown in intelligence efforts. “These people served 16-17 months in your prisons. Why didn’t you follow these people after they got out of jail? Isn’t your intelligence working? First, these countries should check themselves”, remarked the PM, whom is also guilty of coddling IS insurgents.

France’s tragic deaths were not simply payback for Charlie Hebdo’s satire of the Prophet, but symbolically reflected the anger of victims of France’s imperial ambitions and deteriorating domestic situation. Victims of aggression on both ends will require deep, reflective meditation to mend their troubled passions, and for the French Republic and other European leaders, they must take a step back from their own dark past in order to illuminate the truth.

Westminster Palestinian Vote

Monday, October 13th saw a rather compelling motion by Westminster to recognize Palestine as an independent, sovereign state. Although I was ecstatic about the gesture, it’s more of an emotional band-aid than a cogent solution to the ceaseless oppression of Palestine.

According to a statement from MP George Galloway, he abstained from the vote because he is against Israel’s continued genocide and persecution of Gaza and the West Bank. Additionally, no one mentioned Israel as an occupying force; that it should retreat to the 1967 borders and give up the E1 settlements in the West Bank in order to even begin restitution. Did I mention that the vote was completely non-binding, and that Bitchy-fit Netanyahu gave his normal Zionist, sociopathic response to the poll?

Westminster must also accept that Palestine will seek a tribunal in the International Criminal Court for war crimes, from the Nakba of 1947 to Operation Protective Edge, and the recent unprecedented land grab in the E1 region. That would take some serious prostate power to do so.

[CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING AT ALLRIOT.COM]

INNER PARTY POLITICS

image

The elite are a fascinating species to observe and monitor. When they are not engaged in buggery and fire-buggery in California’s Bohemian Grove, they have a rather scientific and rational approach to what drives them. It is simple to fathom, as Nietzsche and Orwell noted, that the “love of power” is the soul of the Inner Party.

Once bound to this insatiable “demon”, the elite are forever engaged in what scientists call the “Red Queen Hypothesis”. Simply put, to maintain empire and social relevance, social engineers need to evolve faster than their competition. Using the full capability of their reptilian brains, they must work tirelessly to perfect the science of class warfare.

[CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING AT ALLRIOT.COM]

Ebola Blues

image

America is now the fourth country to be significantly impacted by its own patented version of the Ebola virus, along with Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. All other global leaders, including Jamaica and Cuba, allowed common sense to triumph by placing bans on all non-essential travel to and from the plague-ravaged countries.

The Center for Disease Circulation, or CDC, has received a firestorm of international condemnation for allowing Amber Vinson, a Dallas nurse who cared for Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan by cleaning up ceiling high piles of his bloody feces and vomit, to fly on a commercial jetliner after a hard day’s work, possibly exposing around 150 passengers and personnel to the virus.

Vinson, 29, noticed she had symptoms after her Frontier Airlines flight between Dallas and Cincinnati. Her symptoms—diarrhea, vomiting, headache, and chills—were mistaken from common after-effects of eating onboard meals typical of American passenger jets, which caused the delay in treatment.

In a recent congressional circle jerk, House officials took time off from their useless lives to promptly shift the blame to other members of the Administration in order to feel better about themselves. Senator David Vitter (Rep.) of Louisiana did not mince his words in response to the blunders of the White House.

[CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING AT ALLRIOT.COM]

AllRiot Movie Review: CITIZENFOUR

citizenfour edward snowden us flag picture

The eye, one of Man’s most ubiquitous symbols, is the window
to the soul. He who sees, knows, and he that knows, controls. Modern man has
harnessed the power of sight to construct a grid of inverted Providence, and our
every move in the digital nexus of this increasingly interconnected world falls
under scrutiny of the elite’s ever-present stare, guided by the Unseen Hand of
seemingly untouchable superintendents.

But what happens when one rebellious cog in the machine of ever-present
espionage suddenly breaks free? Can it help us, the blind, to regain our sight
into the full extent of our brave new world, and motivate ourselves to regain
control over our privacy and freewill?

CITIZENFOUR is such a story. It takes us on the journey of
self-realization in which the omniscience of political authoritarianism meets
limits, and that the morality of one man, Edward Snowden, made a consequential
decision that would forever alter the course of the Information Age.

[CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING AT ALLRIOT.COM]