The following is an excerpt from JEWISH SUPREMACISM
MY AWAKENING ON THE JEWISH QUESTION by Dr. David Duke
Free download at http://www.prometheism.net/articles.htm

[QOUTE] Jewish will-to-power pushes them on to domination as it has for the last 2,000 years. Their evolutionary strategy has been perfected to the point that Europeans and all other races now suffer under Jewish hegemony on a global scale. We must acknowledge their present political and social power, but we also know that their power has come at the cost of the devolution of our civilization. Failure to defy this power can only lead to our eventual extinction, and this looming genocide gives our task the importance of a life or death struggle — one that has urgency for our people and truly all peoples and nations upon the earth.[End Quote]

the Entire World

The Quiet Death of Freedom
By John Pilger
t r u t h o u t.org | Perspective

Thursday 05 January 2006

On Christmas Eve, I dropped in on Brian Haw, whose hunched, pacing figure was just visible through the freezing fog. For four and a half years, Brian has camped in Parliament Square with a graphic display of photographs that show the terror and suffering imposed on Iraqi children by British policies.The effectiveness of his action was demonstrated last April when the Blair government banned any _expression of opposition within a kilometre of Parliament. The High Court subsequently ruled that, because his presence preceded the ban, Brian was an exception.

Day after day, night after night, season upon season, he remains a beacon, illuminating the great crime of Iraq and the cowardice of the House of Commons. As we talked, two women brought him a Christmas meal and mulled wine. They thanked him, shook his hand and hurried on. He had never seen them before. “That’s typical of the public,” he said. A man in a pin-striped suit and tie emerged from the fog, carrying a small wreath. “I intend to place this at the Cenotaph and read out the names of the dead in Iraq,” he said to Brian, who cautioned him: “You’ll spend the night in cells, mate.” We watched him stride off and lay his wreath. His head bowed, he appeared to be whispering. Thirty years ago, I watched dissidents do something similar outside the walls of the Kremlin.

As night had covered him, he was lucky. On 7 December, Maya Evans, a vegan chef aged 25, was convicted of breaching the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act by reading aloud at the Cenotaph the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. So serious was her crime that it required 14 policemen in two vans to arrest her. She was fined and given a criminal record for the rest of her life.

Freedom is dying.

Eighty-year-old John Catt served with the RAF in the Second World War. Last September, he was stopped by police in Brighton for wearing an “offensive” T-shirt, which suggested that Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act and handcuffed, with his arms held behind his back. The official record of the arrest says the “purpose” of searching him was “terrorism” and the “grounds for intervention” were “carrying placard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info” [sic].

He is awaiting trial.

Such cases compare with others that remain secret and beyond any form of justice: those of the foreign nationals held at Belmarsh prison, who have never been charged, let alone put on trial. They are held “on suspicion.” Some of the “evidence” against them, whatever it is, the Blair government has now admitted, could have been extracted under torture at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. They are political prisoners in all but name. They face the prospect of being spirited out of the country into the arms of a regime which may torture them to death. Their isolated families, including children, are quietly going mad.

And for what? From 11 September 2001 to 30 September 2005, a total of 895 people were arrested in Britain under the Terrorism Act. Only 23 have been convicted of offences covered by the Act. As for real terrorists, the identity of two of the 7 July bombers, including the suspected mastermind, was known to MI5 and nothing was done. And Blair wants to give them more power. Having helped to devastate Iraq, he is now killing freedom in his own country.

Consider parallel events in the United States. Last October, an American surgeon, loved by his patients, was punished with 22 years in prison for founding a charity, Help the Needy, which helped children in Iraq stricken by an economic and humanitarian blockade imposed by America and Britain. In raising money for infants dying from diarrhoea, Dr. Rafil Dhafir broke a siege which, according to Unicef, had caused the deaths of half a million under the age of five. The then-Attorney General of the United States, John Ashcroft, called Dr. Dhafir, a Muslim, a “terrorist,” a description mocked by even the judge in his politically-motivated travesty of a trial.

The Dhafir case is not extraordinary. In the same month, three US Circuit Court judges ruled in favour of the Bush regime’s “right” to imprison an American citizen “indefinitely” without charging him with a crime. This was the case of Joseph Padilla, a petty criminal who allegedly visited Pakistan before he was arrested at Chicago airport three and a half years ago. He was never charged, and no evidence has ever been presented against him. Now mired in legal complexity, the case puts George W. Bush above the law and outlaws the Bill of Rights. Indeed, on 14 November, the US Senate effectively voted to ban habeas corpus by passing an amendment that overturned a Supreme Court ruling allowing Guantánamo prisoners access to a federal court. Thus, the touchstone of America’s most celebrated freedom was scrapped. Without habeas corpus, a government can simply lock away its opponents and implement a dictatorship.

A related, insidious tyranny is being imposed across the world. For all his troubles in Iraq, Bush has carried out the recommendations of a Messianic conspiracy theory called the “Project for a New American Century.” Written by his ideological sponsors shortly before he came to power, it foresaw his administration as a military dictatorship behind a democratic façade: “the cavalry on a new American frontier,” guided by a blend of paranoia and megalomania. More than 700 American bases are now placed strategically in compliant countries, notably at the gateways to the sources of fossil fuels and encircling the Middle East and Central Asia. “Pre-emptive” aggression is policy, including the use of nuclear weapons. The chemical warfare industry has been reinvigorated. Missile treaties have been torn up. Space has been militarised. Global warming has been embraced. The powers of the president have never been greater. The judicial system has been subverted, along with civil liberties. The former senior CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who once prepared the White House daily briefing, told me that the authors of the PNAC and those now occupying positions of executive power used to be known in Washington as “the crazies.” He said, “We should now be very worried about fascism.”

In his epic acceptance of the Nobel Prize in Literature on 7 December, Harold Pinter spoke of “a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.” He asked why “the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought” of Stalinist Russia was well known in the west while American state crimes were merely “superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged.”

A silence has reigned. Across the world, the extinction and suffering of countless human beings can be attributed to rampant American power, “but you wouldn’t know it,” said Pinter. “It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.”

To its credit, the Guardian in London published every word of Pinter’s warning. To its shame, though unsurprising, the state television broadcaster ignored it. All that Newsnight flatulence about the arts, all that recycled preening for the cameras at Booker prize-giving events, yet the BBC could not make room for Britain’s greatest living dramatist, so honoured, to tell the truth.

For the BBC, it simply never happened, just as the killing of half a million children by America’s medieval siege of Iraq during the 1990s never happened, just as the Dhafir and Padilla trials and the Senate vote, banning freedom, never happened. The political prisoners of Belmarsh barely exist; and a big, brave posse of Metropolitan police never swept away Maya Evans as she publicly grieved for British soldiers killed in the cause of nothing except rotten power.

Bereft of irony, but with a snigger, the BBC newsreader Fiona Bruce introduced, as news, a Christmas propaganda film about Bush’s dogs. That happened. Now imagine Bruce reading the following: “Here is delayed news, just in. From 1945 to 2005, the United States attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more.” (Thanks to William Blum’s Rogue State, Common Courage Press, 2005).

The icon of horror of Saddam Hussein’s rule is a 1988 film of petrified bodies in the Kurdish town of Halabja, killed in a chemical weapons attack. The attack has been referred to a great deal by Bush and Blair and the film shown a great deal by the BBC. At the time, as I know from personal experience, the Foreign Office tried to cover up the crime at Halabja. The Americans tried to blame it on Iran. Today, in an age of images, there are no images of the chemical weapons attack on Fallujah in November 2004. This allowed the Americans to deny it until they were caught out recently by investigators using the internet. For the BBC, American atrocities simply do not happen.

In 1999, while filming in Washington and Iraq, I learned the true scale of bombing in what the Americans and British then called Iraq’s “no fly zones.” During the 18 months to 14 January 1999, US aircraft flew 24,000 combat missions over Iraq; almost every mission was bombing or strafing. “We’re down to the last outhouse,” a US official protested. “There are still some things left [to bomb], but not many.” That was six years ago. In recent months, the air assault on Iraq has multiplied; the effect on the ground cannot be imagined. For the BBC it has not happened.

The black farce extends to those pseudo-humanitarians in the media and elsewhere who themselves have never seen the effects of cluster bombs and air-burst shells, yet continue to invoke the crimes of Saddam to justify the the nightmare in Iraq and to protect a quisling prime minister who has sold out his country and made the world more dangerous. Curiously, some of them insist on describing themselves as “liberals” and “left of centre,” even “anti-fascists.” They want some respectability, I suppose. This is understandable, given that the league table of carnage of Saddam Hussein was overtaken long ago by that of their hero in Downing Street, who will next support an attack on Iran.

This cannot change until we in the West look in the mirror and confront the true aims and narcissism of the power applied in our name, its extremes and terrorism. The traditional double-standard no longer works; there are now millions like Brian Haw, Maya Evans, John Catt and the man in the pin-striped suit, with his wreath. Looking in the mirror means understanding that a violent and undemocratic order is being imposed by those whose actions are little different from the actions of fascists. The difference used to be distance. Now they are bringing it home.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1913851.cms

It was a slightly surreal experience transiting through a series of airports in the week following the British announcement of a discovery of a new conspiracy to blow up a vast number of planes in midair.

British home secretary John Reid’s statement on August 10 declared rather dramatically that his country was engaged in a “long, wide and deep struggle against very evil people”, and also that his government had the total support of all the opposition parties. Who were these “very evil people”?

Reid was careful to note that “this is not a case of one civilisation against another, one religion against another”, but other statements notably one by President Bush once more brought to the forefront that the source of the problem lay in Islam, even if he specified that rather than all Muslims, “this nation (the US) is at war with Islamic fascists”.

Amongst the groups of passengers I saw in Frankfurt was a large one of Muslims from Central Asia, seated on the floor in anticipation of a long wait. Though the airport authorities were tactful enough not to screen them more conspicuously than the average family from Missouri, the tension was palpable.

Once again, this was not a good time to be a Muslim or even to have a beard. British newspapers report, however, that there is some scepticism in that country on the reality of the conspiracy revealed by Reid.

As usual, reporters have been to small towns and suburbs inhabited by British Muslims (usually of South Asian origin) and find them far more questioning of the government’s claims than the rest of the population.

Given the Blair government’s record of spin and outright mendacity, there is surely some basis for this scepticism.

But equally it means that many will find that “the Muslims” have failed once more to rise to the occasion: In weblogs the world over, we will hear of how rather than condemn the terrorists, Muslim opinion in general supports them, and prefers spinning conspiracy theories to facing up to the facts.

It may not be a good time to be a Muslim, but it is a splendid time to be an Islamophobe. In the case of India, such groups of Islamophobes have existed since at least the nineteenth century, and many were a conspicuous part of the nationalist movement, and even the Congress party.

As has been pointed out on more than one occasion, the invention of the so-called “two-nation theory” owes as much to Savarkar as to any leader of the Muslim League, and underlying it was the idea that Muslims and non-Muslims could not coexist in any society despite a vast variety of historical examples to the contrary.

With the rise to prominence of the sangh parivar, an interesting new alliance emerged in the 1980s. Right-wing (at times neo-fascist) European writers had long railed against the migration of Muslims to that continent as “guest workers”.

Their rabid Islamophobia was at times paired with an ostensible admiration for Hinduism, or at least for certain of its ersatz manifestations.

It thus came to be a perfect marriage of convenience between the likes of the Belgian Koenraad Elst (closely associated with the radical Vlaams Blok, condemned legally for its racism and xenophobia, and reincarnated as Vlaams Belang) or the Frenchman Francois Gautier, and the Hindu far right.

Islamophobia provided the perfect cement between these European agitators on the one hand, and Sita Ram Goel and Arun Shourie on the other.

Under their influence, Islamophobic French papers such as Le Figaro began to carry the most absurd claims regarding the greatest genocide in the world, an untold “holocaust” that had been carried out by Muslims on Hindus over the mediaeval centuries.

These authors also produced paranoid theories of a conspiracy of silence, involving both western and Indian academics, and a hydra-headed Marxist network, which was allied in their view to the radical evil of Islam. Ironically, 9/11 has given such views an audience that they would otherwise never have possessed.

An example of how Islamophobia truly pays is provided by the recent case of the Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who after a brief career in the Dutch parliament is about to leave that country for a radical right-wing think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, known for its hand behind the war in Iraq and Republican foreign policy.

Though acclaimed by the likes of Time magazine and Christopher Hitchens, it is now amply clear that Ali gained Dutch citizenship under false pretences, claiming to be a political refugee from Somalia, when in fact she was a long-term resident of Kenya.

In Holland, after flirting with a variety of other tendencies, she was eventually associated with radical Islamophobic movements, and her collaborator Theo van Gogh was murdered in the streets in November 2004 by Mohammed Bouyeri.

She has then gone on to use a variety of platforms to promote herself, even finding common cause with anti-immigration parties (despite her own history), and playing the card of Islamophobia in the name of an allegiance to the “Enlightenment”.

The vast number of awards she has garnered, in comparison to a number of genuine feminists, social workers, and other public intellectuals, shows once and for all that Islamophobia does pay, especially coming from a former Muslim. At this rate, Ali will be the Bernard Lewis of tomorrow.

The writer teaches history in UCLA.
http://www.history.ucla.edu/subrahma/

Email: subrahma@history.ucla.edu

About the author

Sanjay Subrahmanyam was born in New Delhi, and after finishing high school in 1977 from Sardar Patel Vidyalaya, went on to do all his college degrees (BA and MA in Economics) in the University of Delhi, where he also received his PhD in Economic History in 1987 at the Delhi School of Economics for his thesis on ‘Trade and the Regional Economy of South India, c. 1550-1650’. From 1983, he had begun to teach economic history and comparative economic development at the Delhi School of Economics, where he continued until 1995 as first Associate Professor (1989-93) and then Professor of Economic History (1993-95).

In these years, his interests broadened from economic and commercial history, to the study of the interplay of political and economic history, to the study of political culture and cultural history. This is already reflected in his first set of books: The Political Economy of Commerce: Southern India, 1500-1650 (Cambridge University Press, 1990), which is a revised version of his PhD; Improvising Empire: Portuguese Trade and Settlement in the Bay of Bengal, 1500-1700 (Oxford University Press, 1990); a joint work with V. Narayana Rao and David Shulman, Symbols of Substance: Court and State in Nayaka-period Tamilnadu (Oxford University Press, 1992), and The Portuguese Empire in Asia, 1500-1700: A political and economic history (Longman, 1993), a work of synthesis reflecting his interest in the history of the Iberian empires.

In the course of the 1990s, Subrahmanyam’s work has embraced new sources and archives, not only those from South India, or of the Portuguese and Spanish empires and the Dutch and English East India Companies, but also materials reflecting his growing interest in the history of the Mughal empire, and the comparative history of early modern empires. This accompanied his move to Paris as Directeur d’études in the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, where his position from 1995-2002 was defined as ‘Histoire économique et sociale de l’Inde et de l’Océan Indien, XVe-XVIIIe siècles’. A second set of books reflects his later interests: The Mughal State, 1526-1750 edited jointly with Muzaffar Alam (Oxford University Press, 1998); The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama (Cambridge University Press, 1998); Penumbral Visions: Making Polities in Early Modern South India (University of Michigan Press, 2001); and another joint work with V. Narayana Rao and David Shulman, Textures of Time: Writing History in South India, 1600-1800 (The Other Press, 2003).

In 2002, Subrahmanyam was appointed as the first holder of the newly created Chair in Indian History and Culture at the University of Oxford. His most recent work, published by Oxford University Press, in 2004, is in 2 volumes, and is entitled Explorations in Connected History (Vol. I is entitled Mughals and Franks, and Vol. II bears the title From the Tagus to the Ganges). He is also the Joint Managing Editor of The Indian Economic and Social History Review, published from New Delhi (www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=241). His current research includes a joint book, nearing completion, with Muzaffar Alam, on travel-writing in the Indo-Persian world from 1400 to 1800. He also continues to collaborate with V. Narayana Rao and David Shulman on other projects of cultural history relating to South India.

Sanjay Subrahmanyam teaches courses on medieval and early modern South Asian history; the history of European expansion, the comparative history of early modern empires, and world history.

Here’s what Ralph Peters,one of our(US)most highly-regarded authors and military-strategists,said on this subject:

“So what on earth might give us cause for hope?

* Israel’s recent defeat, for one thing. Yes, you read that right. The truth is that Israel got a relatively cheap, if embarrassing, wake-up call. And Israel’s a part of Western civilization, not of the Middle East’s decaying cultures. That means that Israel doesn’t just wallow in blame - like Americans, Israelis figure out what went wrong and then fix it. After the post-war soul-searching and investigations are finished, failed leaders will be replaced and Israel will re-emerge with a renewed sense of mission, a stronger government and a powerfully reformed military - the next time the IDF goes to war, watch the way it devastates its enemies!”