Friday, September 30, 2011

Thursday, September 29, 2011

ONU 2011: Carta de Chávez

Presidente de Venezuela | Carta de Chávez ante la ONU | Nicolás Maduro, Canciller

HIV: House of Numbers

House of Numbers | What is HIV? What is AIDS? | 2009 | yt | yt : yt : yt |

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

BBC: Alessio Rastani Trader

Alessio Rastani | Anyone can make Money from a Crash | BBC | 26 Sep 2011 | yt! : ws : ws : ws : ws |

Ron Paul: Is Gold Money?

Ron Paul vs Bernanke | Is Gold Money? | Jul 2011 |

Congressman Dennis Kucinich

CNN | Congressman Dennis Kucinich | 2008 | ws : ws |

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Keiser: Pax Americana Pyramid

Keiser Report | Pax Americana Pyramid Nightmare | E189 | 26 Sep 2011 | ws : ws |

AfriSynergy: Why West Wants Fall Of Gaddafi

Jean-Paul Pougala | Why The West Wants The Fall Of Gaddafi | Apr 2011 |
| The Green Book | ws : ws : ws : ws : ws : ws : ws : ws : ws : ws : ws : ws : ws |

ONU 2011: Bruno Rodríguez

Canciller de Cuba | Bruno Rodríguez en la ONU | 26 Sep 2011 |

Al-Jazeera: Televised Propaganda

Wadah Khanfar, Al-Jazeera and the triumph of televised propaganda
by Thierry Meyssan

Al-Jazeera - the Qatari news channel that in the space of 15 years established itself in the Arab world as an innovative news outlet - suddenly embarked in a vast intoxication campaign to overthrow the regimes of Libya and Syria through any means. As demonstrated by Thierry Meyssan, this was not a conjunctural shift but one that was planned long in advance by individuals who shrewdly concealed their personal interests to the public. Revelations follow ...

Voltaire Network

JPEG - 20 kb
Wadah Khanfar

The Qatari-based Al-Jazeera channel announced the resignation of its director general, Wadah Khanfar, and his replacement by a member of the royal family, Sheikh Hamad Ben Jassem Al-Thani on September 20, 2011.

Sheikh Hamad is a Qatargas executive, and spent a year at the head office of Total in Paris. He is the former chairman of the Al-Jazeera Board of Directors.

This development is protrayed by the Atlanticist media in three different ways: either as a forced resignation and a takeover of the channel by the State, as a revenge on the part of the Palestinian Authority following the release of the Palestinian Papers and, finally, as the result of the Wikileaks leak exposing some of the connections between Mr. Khanfar and the United States.

While each of these interpretations may contain some truth, they nevertheless obscure the overriding factor: the role of Qatar in the war against Libya. At this point, a flash backwards is called for.

Al-Jazeera’s origins: a desire for dialogue

Al-Jazeera was conceived by two French-Israeli personalities, the David and Jean Frydman brothers, after the assassination of their friend Yitzhak Rabin. According to David Frydman [1], the goal was to create a medium where Israelis and Arabs could discuss freely, exchange arguments and get to know each other, considering this was prevented by the war situation thereby frustrating any peace prospect.

For the creation of the channel, the Frydman brothers benefited from a combination of circumstances: the Orbit Saudi company had reached an agreement with the BBC to set up a news broadcast in Arabic. But the political demands posed by the absolutist Saudi monarchy quickly proved incompatible with the professional independence of British journalists. The agreement was terminated and the majority of Arabic BBC journalists found themselves out on the street. They were then recruited to launch Al-Jazeera.

The Frydman brothers were eager to have their television perceived as an Arabic channel. They managed to enlist the new emir of Qatar, Hamid bin Khalifa al-Thani, who with the help of London and Washington had just overthrown his father, accused of pro-Iranian sentiments. Sheikh Hamad bin-Khalifa soon realized the potential advantages of being at the center of the Arab-Israeli discussions, which had already lasted for more than half a century and were likely to drag on even longer. At the same time, he authorized the Israeli Ministry of Commerce to open an office in Doha, unable to open an embassy. Above all, he saw the interest for Qatar to compete with the wealthy pan-Arab Saudi media and to own a media that could criticize everyone except himself.

The initial financing package included both a down payment from the Frydman brothers and a loan from the Emir of $ 150 million over 5 years. A boycott by the advertisers, organized by Saudi Arabia, and the ensuing scantiness of advertising revenues finally led to the modification of the initial plan. Ultimately, the Emir became the donor of the channel and hence its sponsor.

Exemplary journalists

For years, Al-Jazeera’s audience was captivated by its internal pluralism. The channel took pride in giving free rein to opposing viewpoints. The idea was not to tell the truth, but to have it spring from the debate. Its flagship program - the talk show hosted by the iconoclastic Faisal al-Qassem entitled "The contrary view" - took delight in shaking up prejudices. Everyone could find reason to eulogize certain programs and to deplore others. Regardless, this effervescence prevailed over the monolithism of its competitors and changed the Arab audiovisual landscape.

The heroic role of its reporters in Afghanistan and in the 2003 Gulf War, as well as their exemplary work in contrast to the propaganda of the pro-US satellite channels, catapulted Al-Jazeera from a controversial channel to a acclaimed media outlet. Its journalists paid a high price for their courage: George W. Bush stopped short from bombing the Doha studios, but had Tareq Ayyoub assassinated [2], arrested Tayseer Alouni [3], and imprisoned Sami al-Hajj at Guantanamo Bay [4].

The 2005 reorganization

However, all good things come to an end. In 2004-05, after the death of David Frydman, the Emir decided to overhaul Al-Jazeera completely and create new channels, including Al-Jazeera English, at a time when the global market was changing and all major States were equipping themselves with news satellite channels. The moment had come to leave the excitement and impudence of the early period behind in order to capitalize on an audience now reaching 50 million viewers, and to position itself as a player in the globalized world.

Sheikh Hamad bin-Khalifa called on an international firm that had already provided him with personal training in communication skills. JTrack had especially targeted Arab and Southeast Asian leaders to train them in the language of Davos: how to project an image that the West wants to see. From Morocco to Singapore, JTrack has trained most of the political leaders backed by the United States and Israel, often mere heredity puppets, turning them into respectable media personalities. The important thing is not whether they have something to say, but their aptness to impart the globalized rhetoric.

However, having been assigned to high government positions in North Africa, the CEO of JTrack had to withdraw before completing the transformation of the Al-Jazeera Group. He handed over the rest of the operations to a former Voice of America journalist who had been working for the Qatari channel for several years and who belonged to the same Muslim congregation as him: Wadah Khanfar.

Both professionally competent and politically safe, Mr. Khanfar strove to give Al-Jazeera an ideological tinge. While giving a voice to Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, Nasser’s former spokesman, he appointed Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi - whom Nasser had stripped of his Egyptian nationality - the channel’s "spiritual counselor".

The 2011 shift

With the revolutions in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, Wadah Khanfar dramatically changed Al-Jazeera’s editorial policy. The Group played a central role in lending credence to the "Arab spring" myth, according to which the people - eager to live in a Western-style society - had risen to overthrow their dictatorial regimes and switch to parliamentary democracies. No distinction was made between the events in Tunisia and Egypt, and those in Libya and Syria. As for the popular movements in Yemen and Bahrain, they did not draw enough viewers!

In reality, the Anglo-Saxons tried to take advantage of the popular revolts to replay the same "Arab spring" scenario that they had staged in the 1920s to take possession of the former Ottoman provinces and install puppet parliamentary democracies under Western tutelage. Al-Jazeera’s coverage of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolts was designed to dampen the flames of revolution and to legitimize the governments aligned with the United States and Israel. In Egypt the uprising was harnessed in the interest of a single element of the opposition: the Muslim Brotherhood, embodied by the channel’s star preacher ... Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Outraged by the new editorial policy and the increasingly frequent recourse to lies [5], a certain number of journalists, including Ghassan Ben Jedo, walked out slamming the door behind them.

Who’s pulling the information strings?

Nevertheless, it wasn’t until the Libyan episode that the masks started to fall. In fact, the boss of JTrack and mentor of Wadah Kanfhar is none other than Mahmoud Jibril (the "J" in "JTrack" stands for "Jibril"). This friendly, brilliant yet shallow, manager had been recommended to Muammar Gaddafi by his new American friends to pilot the economic opening of Libya after the normalization of its diplomatic ties. Under Saif el-Islam Gaddafi’s control, he was appointed both Minister of Planning and Director of the Development Authority, thus becoming de facto the number two man in the government, having authority over other ministers. At breakneck speed, he forged ahead with the deregulation of Libya’s socialist economy and the privatization of its public enterprises.

JPEG - 20.4 kb
Mahmoud Jibril with his friend and business partner, Bernard Henri-Lévy, in conquered Tripoli.

Through his JTrack training activities, Mahmoud Jibril established personal relationships with almost all the Arab and Southeast Asian leaders. He had offices in Bahrain and Singapore. In addition, Mr. Jibril created trading companies, including one dealing with Malaysian and Australian timber in partnership with his French friend, Bernard-Henri Levy.

Mahmoud Jibril started his university studies in Cairo, where he met and married the daughter of one of Nasser’s ministers. He later continued his studies in the United States, where he assimilated the libertarian views that he tried to inject into al-Gaddafi’s anarchist ideology. But, more importantly, in Libya Mr. Jibril joined the Muslim Brotherhood. It was in this capacity that he placed his coreligionists, Brothers Wadah Kanfhar and Yusuf al-Qaradawi, in Al-Jazeera ..

During the first half of 2011, the Qatari channel became the preferred instrument for pro-Western propaganda: it went to great lengths to obscure the anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist aspect of the Arab revolutions and, in each country, it picked the actors it intended to support and those it decided to deprecate. Not surprisingly, it supported the king of Bahrain, a student of Mahmoud Jibril, who had his people gunned down, while Al-Jazeera’s spiritual counsellor, Sheikh al-Qaradawi, was calling for a Jihad over the air against al-Gaddafi and el-Assad, falsely accusing them of murdering their own people.

With Mr Jibril as prime minister of the rebel government of Libya, the height of duplicity was reached when a replica of the Green Square and Bab-el-Azizia was built in the studios of Al-Jazeera in Doha, where footage of false images was shot portraying pro-US "insurgents" entering Tripoli. Need I mention the insults I received when I denounced this manipulation in the columns of Voltairenet.org? Yet Al-Jazeera and Sky News broadcasted these false images on the second day of the Battle of Tripoli, sowing confusion among the Libyan people. It was actually only three days later that the "rebels" - almost exclusively from Misrata - entered Tripoli, devastated by NATO’s bombs.

The same goes for the announcement by Al-Jazeera of Saif el-Islam Gadhafi’s arrest and the confirmation of his capture by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Luis Moreno-Ocampo. I was the first, through Russia Today, to warn against the manipulation. And again, I was ridiculed by some newspapers, until Saif el-Islam turned up in person to wake up the journalists holed up at the Rixos Hotel and led them to the real Bal el-Azizia square.

Questioned about such lies by channel France24 in Arabic, the president of the National Transitional Council (CNT), Mustafa Abdul Jalil, chalked it up to a war stratagem and said he was delighted to have thus accelerated the fall of the Jamahiriya.

What future for Al-Jazeera?

The conversion of Al-Jazeera into a propaganda tool for the recolonisation of Libya was not achieved without the knowledge of the emir of Qatar, but indeed under his leadership. The Gulf Cooperation Council was the first to call for an armed intervention in Libya and Qatar was the first Arab country to join the Contact Group. He funneled weapons to the Libyan "rebels" before sending in his own ground troops, especially during the Battle of Tripoli. In exchange, he obtained the privilege of controlling all the oil trade on behalf of the National Transitional Council.

It is too early to say whether the resignation of Wadah Khanfar marks the end of his mission in Qatar, or if it heralds the channel’s desire to recover the credibility that took 15 years to build and only 6 months to lose.

[1] See interviews with the author

[2] "The war on al-Jazeera", by Dima Tareq Tahboub, The Guardian, 4 October 2003.

[3] “The Arab press in the firing line”, Voltaire Network, 15 September 2003.

[4] See our dossier on Sami al-Hajj

[5] For example: "Al-Jazeera staged huge rally in Moscow against Bashar al-Assad”, Voltaire Network, 4 May 2011.

Original Source: Here.

AfriSynergy: About Obama

AfriSynergy | Barack Obama | African Americans, I Want Your Vote, But | 26 Sep 2011 | ws : ws : ws : ws : ws : ws |

Obama: Congressional Black Caucus

Barack Obama | Congressional Black Caucus Foundation | 24 Sep 2011 | ws

Monday, September 26, 2011

Saturday, September 24, 2011

News Analysis: Future of Libyan Rev

News Analysis | Future of Libyan Revolution | 20 Sep 2011 | ws

Why Gaddafi Got a Red Card

Sep 1, 2011
THE ROVING EYE
Why Gaddafi got a red card
By Pepe Escobar

Surveying the Libyan wasteland out of a cozy room crammed with wafer-thin LCDs in a Pyongyang palace, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, must have been stunned as he contemplated Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's predicament.

"What a fool," the Dear Leader predictably murmurs. No wonder. He knows how The Big G virtually signed his death sentence that day in 2003 when he accepted the suggestion of his irrepressibly nasty offspring - all infatuated with Europe - to dump his weapons of mass destruction program and place the future of the regime in the hands of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Granted, Saif al-Islam, Mutassim, Khamis and the rest of the Gaddafi clan still couldn't tell the difference between partying hard in St Tropez and getting bombed by Mirages and Rafales. But Big G, wherever he is, in Sirte, in the central desert or in a silent caravan to Algeria, must be cursing them to eternity.

He thought he was a NATO partner. Now NATO wants to blow his head off. What kind of partnership is this?

The Sunni monarchical dictator in Bahrain stays; no "humanitarian" bombs over Manama, no price on his head. The House of Saud club of dictators stays; no "humanitarian" bombs over Riyadh, Dubai or Doha - no price on their Western-loving gilded heads. Even the Syrian dictator is getting a break - so far.

So the question, asked by many an Asia Times Online reader, is inevitable: what was the crucial red line crossed by Gaddafi that got him a red card?

'Revolution' made in France
There are enough red lines crossed by The Big G - and enough red cards - to turn this whole computer screen blood red.

Let's start with the basics. The Frogs did it. It's always worth repeating; this is a French war. The Americans don't even call it a war; it's a "kinetic action" or something. The "rebel" Transitional National Council" (TNC) is a French invention.

And yes - this is above all neo-Napoleonic President Nicolas Sarkozy's war. He's the George Clooney character in the movie (poor Clooney). Everybody else, from David of Arabia Cameron to Nobel Peace Prize winner and multiple war developer Barack Obama, are supporting actors.

As already reported by Asia Times Online, this war started in October 2010 when Gaddafi's chief of protocol, Nuri Mesmari, defected to Paris, was approached by French intelligence and for all practical purposes a military coup d'etat was concocted, involving defectors in Cyrenaica.

Sarko had a bag full of motives to exact revenge on The Big G.

French banks had told him that Gaddafi was about to transfer his billions of euros to Chinese banks. Thus Gaddafi could not by any means become an example to other Arab nations or sovereign funds.

French corporations told Sarko that Gaddafi had decided not to buy Rafale fighters anymore, and not to hire the French to build a nuclear plant; he was more concerned in investing in social services.

Energy giant Total wanted a much bigger piece of the Libyan energy cake - which was being largely eaten, on the European side, by Italy's ENI, especially because Premier Silvio "bunga bunga" Berlusconi, a certified Big G fan, had clinched a complex deal with Gaddafi.

Thus the military coup was perfected in Paris until December; the first popular demonstrations in Cyrenaica in February - largely instigated by the plotters - were hijacked. The self-promoting philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy flew his white shirt over an open torso to Benghazi to meet the "rebels" and phone Sarkozy, virtually ordering him to recognize them in early March as legitimate (not that Sarko needed any encouragement).

The TNC was invented in Paris, but the United Nations also duly gobbled it up as the "legitimate" government of Libya - just as NATO did not have a UN mandate to go from a no-fly zone to indiscriminate "humanitarian" bombing, culminating with the current siege of Sirte.

The French and the British redacted what would become UN Resolution 1973. Washington merrily joined the party. The US State Department brokered a deal with the House of Saud through which the Saudis would guarantee an Arab League vote as a prelude for the UN resolution, and in exchange would be left alone to repress any pro-democracy protests in the Persian Gulf, as they did, savagely, in Bahrain.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC - then transmuted into Gulf Counter-Revolution Club) also had tons of reasons to get rid of Gaddafi. The Saudis would love to accommodate a friendly emirate in northern Africa, especially by getting rid of the ultra-bad blood between Gaddafi and King Abdullah. The Emirates wanted a new place to invest and "develop". Qatar, very cozy with Sarko, wanted to make money - as in handling the new oil sales of the "legitimate" rebels.

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be very cozy with the House of Saud or the murderous al-Khalifas in Bahrain. But the State Department heavily blasted Gaddafi for his "increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector"; and also for "Libyanizing" the economy.

The Big G, a wily player, should have seen the writing on the wall. Since prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh was deposed essentially by the Central Intelligence Agency in Iran in 1953, the rule is that you don't antagonize globalized Big Oil. Not to mention the international financial/banking system - promoting subversive ideas such as turning your economy to the benefit of your local population.

If you're pro-your country you are automatically against those who rule - Western banks, mega-corporations, shady "investors" out to profit from whatever your country produces.

Gaddafi not only crossed all these red lines but he also tried to sneak out of the petrodollar; he tried to sell to Africa the idea of a unified currency, the gold dinar (most African countries supported it); he invested in a multibillion dollar project - the Great Man-Made River, a network of pipelines pumping fresh water from the desert to the Mediterranean coast - without genuflecting at the alter of the World Bank; he invested in social programs in poor, sub-Saharan countries; he financed the African Bank, thus allowing scores of nations to bypass, once again, the World Bank and especially the International Monetary Fund; he financed an African-wide telecom system that bypassed Western networks; he raised living standards in Libya. The list is endless.

Why didn't I call Pyongyang
And then there's the crucial Pentagon/Africom/NATO military angle. No one in Africa wanted to host an Africom base; Africom was invented during the George W Bush administration as a means to coerce and control Africa on the spot, and to covertly fight China's commercial advances.

So Africom was forced to settle in that most African of places; Stuttgart, Germany.

The ink on UN Resolution 1973 was barely settled when Africom, for all practical purposes, started the bombing of Libya with over 150 Tomahawks - before command was transferred to NATO. That was Africom's first African war, and a prelude of thing to come. Setting up a permanent base in Libya will be practically a done deal - part of a neo-colonial militarization of not only northern Africa but the whole continent.

NATO's agenda of dominating the whole Mediterranean as a NATO lake is as bold as Africom's agenda of becoming Africa's Robocop. The only trouble spots were Libya, Syria and Lebanon - the three countries not NATO members or linked with NATO via myriad "partnerships".

To understand NATO's global Robocop role - legitimized by the UN - one just has to pay attention to the horse's mouth, NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen. As Tripoli was still being bombed, he said, "If you're not able to deploy troops beyond your borders, then you can't exert influence internationally, and then that gap will be filled by emerging powers that don't necessarily share your values and thinking."

So there it is, out in the open. NATO is a Western high-tech militia to defend American and European interests, to isolate the interests of the emerging BRICS countries and others, and to keep the "natives", be they Africans or Asians, down. The whole lot much easier to accomplish as the scam is disguised by R2P - "responsibility to protect", not civilians, but the subsequent plunder.

Against all these odds, no wonder The Big G was bound for a red card, and to be banned from the game forever.

Only a few hours before The Big G had to start fighting for his life, the Dear Leader was drinking Russian champagne with President Dmitry Medvedev, talking about an upcoming Pipelineistan gambit and casually evoking his willingness to talk about his still active nuclear arsenal.

That sums up why the Dear Leader is going up while The Big G is going down.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

To follow Pepe's articles on the Great Arab Revolt, please click here.

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Original Source: Here.

Libya: All About Banking?

Libya:

All About Oil, or All About Banking?

 By Ellen Brown

Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, April 18, 2011

  

Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank – this before they even had a government.  Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal:

I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising.  This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.

Alex Newman wrote in the New American:

In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the “[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

Newman quoted CNBC senior editor John Carney, who asked, “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?  It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”

Another anomaly involves the official justification for taking up arms against Libya.  Supposedly it’s about human rights violations, but the evidence is contradictory.  According to an article on the Fox News website on February 28:

As the United Nations works feverishly to condemn Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi for cracking down on protesters, the body's Human Rights Council is poised to adopt a report chock-full of praise for Libya's human rights record.  

The review commends Libya for improving educational opportunities, for making human rights a "priority" and for bettering its "constitutional" framework. Several countries, including Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia but also Canada, give Libya positive marks for the legal protections afforded to its citizens -- who are now revolting against the regime and facing bloody reprisal. 

Whatever might be said of Gaddafi’s personal crimes, the Libyan people seem to be thriving.  A delegation of medical professionals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus wrote in an appeal to Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort:  

[Libyans] are entitled to free treatment, and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 U.S. dollars) of financial assistance.  Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe, and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture. The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink, and are very religious. 

They maintained that the international community had been misinformed about the struggle against the regime. “Tell us,” they said, “who would not like such a regime?” 

Even if that is just propaganda, there is no denying at least one very popular achievement of the Libyan government: it brought water to the desert by building the largest and most expensive irrigation project in history, the $33 billion GMMR (Great Man-Made River) project.  Even more than oil, water is crucial to life in Libya.  The GMMR provides 70 percent of the population with water for drinking and irrigation, pumping it from Libya’s vast underground Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System in the south to populated coastal areas 4,000 kilometers to the north.  The Libyan government has done at least some things right.

Another explanation for the assault on Libya is that it is “all about oil,” but that theory too is problematic.  As noted in the National Journal, the country produces only about 2 percent of the world’s oil.  Saudi Arabia alone has enough spare capacity to make up for any lost production if Libyan oil were to disappear from the market.  And if it’s all about oil, why the rush to set up a new central bank? 

Another provocative bit of data circulating on the Net is a 2007 “Democracy Now” interview of U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.).  In it he says that about 10 days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq.  Clark was surprised and asked why.  “I don’t know!” was the response.  “I guess they don’t know what else to do!”  Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.   

What do these seven countries have in common?  In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).  That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. 

The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked.  Kenneth Schortgen Jr., writing on Examiner.com, noted that “[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept Euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.” 

According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Lybia – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,” Gadaffi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar.  Gadaffi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.  During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries.  The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States.  The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa. 

And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank.  In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed: 

One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned. . . . Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability.  Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations. 

Libya not only has oil.  According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults.  With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS, the IMF and their rules?   

All of which prompts a closer look at the BIS rules and their effect on local economies.  An article on the BIS website states that central banks in the Central Bank Governance Network are supposed to have as their single or primary objective “to preserve price stability.”  They are to be kept independent from government to make sure that political considerations don’t interfere with this mandate.  “Price stability” means maintaining a stable money supply, even if that means burdening the people with heavy foreign debts.  Central banks are discouraged from increasing the money supply by printing money and using it for the benefit of the state, either directly or as loans.   

In a 2002 article in Asia Times titled “The BIS vs National Banks,” Henry Liu maintained:    

BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies. The BIS does to national banking systems what the IMF has done to national monetary regimes. National economies under financial globalization no longer serve national interests.   

. . . FDI [foreign direct investment] denominated in foreign currencies, mostly dollars, has condemned many national economies into unbalanced development toward export, merely to make dollar-denominated interest payments to FDI, with little net benefit to the domestic economies. 

He added, “Applying the State Theory of Money, any government can fund with its own currency all its domestic developmental needs to maintain full employment without inflation.”  The “state theory of money” refers to money created by governments rather than private banks.  

The presumption of the rule against borrowing from the government’s own central bank is that this will be inflationary, while borrowing existing money from foreign banks or the IMF will not.  But all banks actually create the money they lend on their books, whether publicly-owned or privately-owned.  Most new money today comes from bank loans.  Borrowing it from the government’s own central bank has the advantage that the loan is effectively interest-free.  Eliminating interest has been shown to reduce the cost of public projects by an average of 50%.    

And that appears to be how the Libyan system works.  According to Wikipedia, the functions of the Central Bank of Libya include “issuing and regulating banknotes and coins in Libya” and “managing and issuing all state loans.”  Libya’s wholly state-owned bank can and does issue the national currency and lend it for state purposes.   

That would explain where Libya gets the money to provide free education and medical care, and to issue each young couple $50,000 in interest-free state loans.  It would also explain where the country found the $33 billion to build the Great Man-Made River project.  Libyans are worried that NATO-led air strikes are coming perilously close to this pipeline, threatening another humanitarian disaster.                 

So is this new war all about oil or all about banking?  Maybe both – and water as well.  With energy, water, and ample credit to develop the infrastructure to access them, a nation can be free of the grip of foreign creditors.  And that may be the real threat of Libya: it could show the world what is possible.  Most countries don’t have oil, but new technologies are being developed that could make non-oil-producing nations energy-independent, particularly if infrastructure costs are halved by borrowing from the nation’s own publicly-owned bank.  Energy independence would free governments from the web of the international bankers, and of the need to shift production from domestic to foreign markets to service the loans. 

If the Gaddafi government goes down, it will be interesting to watch whether the new central bank joins the BIS, whether the nationalized oil industry gets sold off to investors, and whether education and health care continue to be free.     

Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute, http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.  In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how a private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back.  Her websites are http://webofdebt.com and http://ellenbrown.com.

Original Source: Here.

Friday, September 23, 2011

DdlN: Gastos Opacos

Detrás de la Noticia | Gastos Opacos | 23 Sep 2011 |

ONU 2011: Dilma Rousseff

Presidente do Brasil | Dilma Rousseff na abertura da Assembleia-Geral da ONU | Sep 2011 | español

ONU 2011: Cristina Fernández

Presidente de Argentina | Cristina Fernández en la ONU | Sep 2011

ONU 2011: Ollanta Humala

Presidente del Perú| Ollanta Humala en la ONU | Sep 2011

ONU 2011: Evo Morales

Presidente de Bolivia | Evo Morales en la ONU | Sep 2011

Palestinian Statehood Bid to UN

Mahmoud Abbas | Palestinian Statehood Bid to U.N. | Sep 2011

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Chomsky: Academic Freedom

Noam Chomsky | On Academic Freedom & the Corporatization of Universities | 6 Apr 2011 | ws

Keiser: Dollar-Trapped

Keiser Report | Dollar-Trapped | E186 | 19 Sep 2011 | ws : ws! : ws! | ws! |

Monday, September 19, 2011

Ruppert: 9/11/11 Portland, Oregon

Michael Ruppert | 9/11/11 Portland, Oregon | Sep 2011 | ws : ws : ws

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Keiser: Obama's Jobs Bill

Max Keiser | Obama's Jobs Bill | 16 Sep 2011 | ws | ws | ws | ws

Keiser: Burned-Out Economy

Keiser Report | Flaming Banks, Burned-Out Economy | E185 | 16 Sep 2011 | ws : ws! |

Friday, September 16, 2011

Human Trafficking

Miniseries | Human Trafficking | 2005 | ws

RT: CIA's European Secrets

CIA's European Secrets | Clandestine Prisons Investigated | 14Mar2010

Thursday, September 15, 2011

RT: Libya, War for Africa

Dan Glazebrook | Libya, War for Africa | 29Aug2011 | ws : ws : ws : ws : ws |

RTAmerica: Peter Joseph

Peter Joseph | New Value Order | 14 Sep 2011 | ws | ws

Keiser: Debt Carpet Bombing

Keiser Report | Debt Carpet Bombing | E184 | 14 Sep 2011 | ws : ws : ws : ws : ws |

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Keiser: Confidence Game

Keiser Report | Confidence Game | E183 | 13 Sep 2011 | ws

Monday, September 12, 2011

9/11: Explosive Evidence

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth | 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out | 9 Sep 2011
| yt | yt | yt | yt | yt | yt | yt

Keiser: Pegging Franc 2 Euro

Max Keiser | Pegging Franc to Euro | 9 Sep 2011 | ws | ws | ws | ws

Sunday, September 11, 2011

TRN: The Man That Shoed Bush

TRN | The Man That Shoed Bush | 2010 | ws | ws

BBC Newsnight: Nassim Taleb

BBC Newsnight | Nassim Taleb | 19 Aug 2011 | ws | ws | ws

Hardtalk: Jim Rogers

Hardtalk | Jim Rogers | 2011 | ws | ws | ws

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Jim Rogers: America's Collapsing

Jim Rogers | America is Collapsing | 2008 | ws | ws | ws

Keiser: Passing Fiat Cash Grenade

Keiser Report | Passing Fiat Cash Grenade | E182 | 10 Sep 2011 | ws | ws | ws | ws

Friday, September 9, 2011

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

RT Interview: Peter Joseph

Peter Joseph | Zeitgeist: Moving Beyond Money | Mar 2011 | vm | ws

RT Interview: Jacque Fresco

Russia Today | Jacque Fresco | Feb 2010 | yt | ws

The Ring of Power

The Ring of Power | Empire of the City | VM:VM:VM:VM | VM:VM:VM:VM | 网页:网页 | 网页 | 网页

Laos: Bomb Harvest

Laos | Bomb Harvest | 2007 | ws | ws | ws

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Keiser: Fake Assets

Keiser Report | Fake Assets | E180 | 6 Sep 2011 | ws | ws

Monday, September 5, 2011

Smedley Butler: War is a Racket

Smedley Butler | War is a Racket | ws | ws | ws | ws | ws | ws | ws | ws