THE ARAB WORLD IS A GHETTO, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

rebel eating heart

The picture above is a Arab eating the heart of another Arab in Syria. Arab people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, are living ghetto lives.  From Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Bahrain, Jordan, to Palestine it is the same life condition for Arab people.  That kind of life is exactly what the Plutocrats of the West have wanted for them.  It is not my intention to denigrate the Arab world.  I have been to the Arab world many times and I have always enjoyed Arab people and their unique cultures.  My statements are based upon historical, economic, and social facts.

And it may very well be that time has run out for Arab people to save themselves because the context of human life on our planet is changing. For global climate change is now ushering in before Arab peoples a whole new set of problems for which they are not in the least equipped to deal with and as a consequence will cost Arab nations millions of lives in the 21st century.

There are both internal and external causes for the Arab tragedy.  Some of the internal facts are political in nature and some are cultural in nature.  Since the eradication of direct colonial rule, Arab nation states have not grappled successfully with the complexity of neo-colonial control of their natural resources and governments.  Nor have Arab governments been successful at meeting the cultural challenges posed by the West.  The Arab world looks Arab but it is increasingly not Arab.

In fact, in hindsight, it would have been economically and culturally better for Arabs to have remained a part of the Ottoman Empire until they were absolutely unable to do so.  But such a strategy in 1914 would have required Arab leaders to do a rigorous cost benefit analysis of the long term consequences of siding with Great Britain against the Ottomans particularly as it relates to their natural resources.

Arabs’ failure to unite under Islam prior to colonialism and then later in the 20th century under nationalist secular principles evidences the very poor decision making skills of Arab academics and their egomaniacal leaders. Thus Arab leaders, time and again, have not been good at rational decision making at the global level and so now they lay prostrate before the West. All of their wealth can be taken from them at the snap of a plutocrat’s finger sitting somewhere in a New York bar.

Besides western colonial control of Arab territories after the first and second world wars, there was also one other external reason for the ghetto life of Arab people today, particularly the Palestinian people.  That was the colonization of Palestine by European Jews beginning in 1920s and later the establishment and recognition of the State of Israel in 1948 by President Harry S. Truman.

Since then the Palestinian people have been systematically excluded from their own land very much as Native Americans were excluded from their land and put on reservations under colonial policies of the United States.  In both instances rationalizations were necessary to justify the claims made by colonial predators that they deserved what they by acts of larceny took from others.

But Arab leaders then could not see nor exercise the foresight necessary to preempt the colonization of their land by a people who simply said that the land belonged to them as stated by their own writings in their Torah which claimed to be the words of God.

Theodor_Herzl

However, the real theory upon which the state of Israel is based stemmed from a secular political theory proposed by the person above, Theodor Herzl, in 1896.  Herzl was born in Austria- Hungary. He spoke German. His book was entitled: ‘The Jewish State’.  The ideology defined in the book is ‘Zionism’.  Herzl’s basic premise was that: “Universal brotherhood is not even a beautiful dream. Antagonism is essential to man’s greatest efforts.”   He argued that European Jews “…must take possession of the new Jewish country by means of every expedient.” He further states that Zionists: “…should form there a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.” These ideas and others expressed by Herzl define him as a white supremacist.

israel-palestine_map_19225_2469

The world has stood by and watched as Palestinians have lost most of their land to Israel.  As Zionists progressed in their expansion into Palestinian land they ignored United Nations resolutions which asserted the rights of Arab refugees to return to their lands and homes by forcibly preventing Palestinians from doing so. Israeli behavior toward Palestinians evidences the kind of racism at the core of Zionist Israel and their support for the apartheid government of South Africa until its fall.

President Harry Truman did not like Israel or Jews. He probably had cold war strategy in mind when he recognized Israel.  He planned to use Israel as a post to secure middle-east interests against the Soviet Union. It is highly unlikely that Truman liked Jews.  After all, Truman applied for and paid $10.00 to become a member of the Ku Klux Klan in 1924.  The Ku Klux Klan denounced Jews as much as the Nazis.  Nevertheless, Truman set in motion U.S. policy toward Israel for the next 60 years.

Israel Has Nuclear Weapons

nuclear explosion

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy put pressure on Israel to stop its nuclear program.  Israel didn’t stop.  It is probably because Kennedy reasoned as did Truman that Israel with nuclear weapons and an ally of the U.S. was a threat to the Soviet Union. So, in 1962 Kennedy ordered an inspection of Israeli nuclear facilities. The inspection was done by two European born Jewish physicists. The facilities were approved by them and the Kennedy administration.  Today, Israel has nuclear weapons and given the irrational nature of their beliefs they would use them.

No nation, not even the United Nations, will question the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel let alone call for multilateral nuclear reactor shutdowns or disarmament.  Instead, Israel claims that Iran’s possession of nuclear facilities is a threat to the region. The fact is that Iran has not preemptively bombed nor invaded any other nation in the middle-east whereas Israel has preemptively bombed Iraq, Syria, a U.S. naval vessel, as well as having invaded Lebanon. Israel is the most militarily aggressive nation in the Middle East. In fact, if you count assassinations then Israel is the most militarily aggressive nation per capita in the world.

Israel is a Welfare Queen

israel is a welfare queen

The reality is that Israel has been one of the tools used by the West in the Middle East to ghettoize the Arab world and control all natural resources.  In return Israel gets from the United States under President Bush 2007 to 2018, a $30 billion dollar military aid package. Plus the U.S.’s right to store military munitions in Israel. Without U.S. money, the Israeli economy would collapse. Israel is exactly what Theodor Herzl described it to be in his in his book ‘The Jewish State’, a whore for the Western powers.

Why?

130px-DE_Herzl_Judenstaat_01

One reason why is that Zionists in the United States have very strong lobbies. One example is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC.  AIPAC is a lobby that was founded in 1951. On paper it is worth about 70 million dollars. It commands politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties to get approved by it. Large sums of AIPAC money come from persons holding dual U.S. and Israeli citizenship. That foreign involvement represents a breach in the American democratic process and thus a breach of trust in the selection of senators, congress persons, and presidents.  For example, in 2005, a pentagon employee with access to top secret information pled guilty to passing military secrets to AIPAC employees.

AIPAC Picture

Another reason is that the United States is dependent upon foreign natural resources like oil and minerals in both Africa and the Middle East. Those resources are vital to U.S. high tech industries especially now as the U.S. competes with China for contracts with African nations.  Israel facilitates covert operations for the United States to secure African natural resources by violating international law.

And finally, Zionism is simply racism and racism is inevitably destructive to humanity.  That Zionism was intended to be racist was clearly asserted in the writings of Theodor Herzl at the turn of the 20th century.  That Israel is a Zionist state is irrefutable. Read their new loyalty oath.

Death Camp

death camp 2

Herzl had no idea in 1896 that by incorporating white supremacists’ beliefs into a cheap copy of white supremacy and calling it Zionism it would turn out to be the very ideology used by Nazis to murder Jews for being Jews during world-war II. And how does Israel logically distinguish the picture above from the picture of massacre at Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon (below) in 1982? One was caused by the Nazis and the other was caused by Israel. There has yet to be a Nuremburg trial for them.

Death Camp

Shatila and Sabra

History does repeat itself more or less.  The Jewish scholar, Moses Maimonides, in his book ‘Guide for the Perplexed’ is proof of that. He also sanctioned the genocide of African, Arab, and Turkish people because they are racially on the ‘pale of humanity’.  Herzl didn’t get it there nor did he read Martin Luther’s book ‘The Jews and Their Lies’.  The destructive evidence of racism was all around him.

I think it goes without saying what our United States government has and is doing to people in the Muslim world. President Obama is quoted as having said that he is:”…really good at killing people.” So was President Bush.

While Israel is in its destructive mode, it will be the Arab people who continue to suffer and die in their ghettos as the world stands aside and looks on. It just simply may be too late to alter their course of history.

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome to Earth Colony: WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE IN CHARGE!

 

war2

Though the moral argument for a ‘just war’ has its roots in older Indian texts; the Western world traces the theory to St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Thomas Aquinas, and later schools of thought in Europe.  The idea is based upon ‘proportionate justice’.  Proportionate justice in turn is based upon the assumption that rewards and punishments can be meted out rationally and thus fairly.

The theory of just war belies yet another assumption.  That assumption is that moral people can determine whether or not an act of military aggression is justified based upon facts and if warranted how much aggression should be acted out on an aggressor.

They also argued that a war is unjust and illegitimate if it is rationalized on the grounds of ‘national self-interests’, ‘individual interests’ or if the people needed to support the war do not want war.  Here, they clearly assumed that a democratic scale of measure would be used to make decisions on war and peace.

One problem the American people face is that the plutocrats who have amassed control of Federal and State governments do not act upon moral grounds unless the consequences of doing so will benefit them.  We are left with this fact.  Plutocrats generally are amoral persons and some of them are evil.  Therefore, theological or philosophical moral arguments against a military strike on Syria would not be persuasive to them.

Yet another problem faced by the American people is the problem of ‘legality’.  One might think that even in the absence of theology and or philosophy at least there can be a consensus on rules or law.  But plutocrats bend, change, and ignore laws so that no matter what the circumstance their purposes are served.

The Constitution vests the American people with the power to declare war and to fund war.  Limited wars must also be approved by Congress.  Neither the President nor the Supreme Court has inherent war power.  That power is solely vested in the People who at the end of the day fight the wars and shed blood.  Nevertheless, the facts of history compel us to be on notice.

5,000 years of human history afford us not only a clear understanding about the nature of war and the kinds of persons who wage it but of the reasons for which war is waged.  War is waged to dominate, control, exploit, and profiteer off more peaceful folk and their resources.  Wars waged for those purposes are not waged on principles of legality.  On the contrary, they are waged outside of civilized law unless those laws benefit those whose intent is to plunder the wealth of others.

Therefore, arguments on the legality of a strike against Syria would not be persuasive to those who intend to wage war.  They push aside all rules of evidence that stand in their way.  For example,

One method used by the plutocrats is the ‘false-flag’ method. It is analogous to a police officer planting a gun on an innocent person or claiming that he or she saw a gun to justify either arresting or killing that innocent person.

Hitler used a false-flag to trigger the invasion of Poland.  Sixty million (60) dead later the Nuremberg War Crimes Hearing had to sort out and weigh the evil involved in World War 2.

Lyndon Johnson used a false-flag to arouse public sentiment for bombing North Vietnam.  Thirty five years later and over 50,000 dead Robert McNamara confessed that it was an unjust war. See the documentary: ‘The Fog of War’.

George Bush used a false-flag to argue that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and to arouse the American people to bomb and invade Iraq.  Now, over 50,000 casualties and 1.5 trillion dollars later it is generally acknowledged that the allegations against Iraq were false. Now, it is President Barak Obama.

The plutocrats in a faceoff with the American people subscribe to a Darwinian world view.  They are persuaded that conflict is a universal law of nature and that the stronger necessarily dominate the weaker in nature and so, too, in politics.  Theirs is an amoral theory of justice in an amoral universe, but they are rational.  It is the zero sum game; it is the game of ‘all or nothing’ they play.  So, what argument must be used by the American people to persuade them to stand down?

Only a utilitarian argument will persuade them. The American people must make a utilitarian argument to the plutocrats who have amassed control over the White House and much of Congress.  That argument to them must be that the cost of them acting against the will of the American people will immeasurably outweigh what they augur their gains or benefits to be from war with Syria.  They must be persuaded to understand that what Congress now knows is that a military strike against Syria is against the will of the people. They must be persuaded that torrents of rage will rain down on Congress and the lobbyist they are financially beholden to if the will of the people is ignored and that the rage will be unbearable.

Neither the President nor the Supreme Court has war power.  War power is solely vested in the People of the United States who at the end of the day are those who fight the wars and suffer loss of blood.  We the People must make it categorically and unequivocally clear to all that we, the People, are in charge of this government.

 

 

 

Welcome to Earth Colony: THE BIG LIE, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

dead_hadji_91_829small

The Constitution is clear on the power to declare war.  Only Congress can declare war[1] and only Congress can approve funding for war. The Constitution and Federal statutes are also clear on the definition of inherent executive power to use military force against foreign nations without congressional approval if the security of the United States is threatened or it is under imminent attack.[2]

Most United States Congressional legislators are trained to be lawyers.  If they are not trained to be lawyers then at least they are knowledgeable of the United States Constitution and Federal Statutes, particularly the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Since the discovery that some form of sarin gas was used in Syria which resulted in the deaths of several hundred persons, a debate has evolved between Congress and President Barak Obama.  It is a debate on War Power.

The issue presented to the public is whether or not Congress (the People of the United States) should be involved in the decision making process to determine whether or not The People of the United States should commit to bomb the sovereign nation of Syria as ‘punishment’ for the use of sarin gas on its own people.

There are two over arching issues, however. One is whether or not Syria is legally subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government? No reasonable person would make the argument that it is because Syria is not subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government and has not posed a threat to U.S. national security.  For that reason alone President Barak Obama does not have the legal nor moral authority to bomb Syria.

The second issue is whether or not the Government of Syria knowingly, purposely, recklessly, or negligently used sarin gas to kill its citizens?  Now we must ask: what evidence has been proffered by the President to U.S. citizens?

The Obama administration has used straw man arguments and has proffered at most circumstantial evidence that the Syrian Government used sarin gas on its people.  It has proffered satellite data of phone calls near the scene of sarin gas use and satellite data of the use of artillery near the scene of sarin gas use.  And notice, the use of that presumed evidence is peppered by Secretary of State John Kerry with emotive terminology to manipulate the American People emotionally.

However, satellite data on phone calls and artillery use in the area where the gas was used can be simulated by computer programs as it is done in war games for training purposes. Therefore, such evidence cannot be rationally authenticated and thus cannot be used to justify the bombing of a sovereign nation.

If one accepts as credible United Nations scientists that sarin gas was used and that people actually died then the question now is: who used the sarin gas?  The fact is that there is no direct evidence which conclusively proves who used the sarin gas.

If we further assume that Bashar Assad and the U.S., Israeli, and Saudi rebel leaders are rational persons then what a rational Congress ought to ask is: who would benefit by the use of sarin gas on Syrian people?  Certainly, Bashar Assad would not benefit.  He would lose both Russian and Chinese support as well as his government.  Therefore, he didn’t use the sarin gas. That leaves the rebels.

The rebels would gain from the use of sarin gas because it would enlist the overt might of the U.S. military to destroy the Syrian government. The rebels would then get Syria to ghettoize.  The Israelis would gain because Israel would then be able to undermine Hezbullah in Lebanon and that would allow Israel to take Lebanon’s southern territories to ghettoize, again.  The Saudis would gain because they would feel that greater military pressure would be put on Iran, a nation they want to ghettoize.  And of course, U.S. corporations would gain because they could get contracts to exploit resources and rebuild Syria, again.  Therefore, the rebels and their supporters used the sarin gas.

President Obama drew a Red Line.  Now he should be hoping that Congress gives him a way to back down and to save face by saying no to him because if he bombs Syria there will be terrible repercussions as far away as the Korean peninsula.  Korea is China’s trump card.  Expect South Korea to be under extreme military pressure from North Korea if Syria is bombed.  Russia will up support for Syria,too. President Obama is in a mess.  He should step out of it and clean his shoes.

 

 

 

 



[1] Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11

[2] Article 2, section 2; and Article 2, section 2, clause 1; Stat. 838 (1941); 56 Stat 176 (1942), et al