Untitled

Home - Profile - Archives

What are the characteristics of Fascism?

Posted on Oct. 19, 2009 at 6:24 PM - 0 Comments - Post Comment - Link

[Time on video] 6:18 – Siniša Mihajlović: Mr. Israel, you have been working as a journalist for a long time, and you are very well informed about Fascism and all its forms. You know about these forms of Fascism, and our people may not know enough about this. So, how was Fascism, and also the game machines idea of Fascism, started, and what are its characteristics?

6:42 – Jared Israel: Well, that’s a very big question. But to take the most developed and advanced, so to speak, form of akoya pearl jewelry Fascism, which is Nazism, and the variations, such as the Ustaše in Croatia and the Fascist movements in the Baltic states and so on: at the heart of that Fascism is a mixture of racism, intense racism, especially against the Jews, but not only against them, and, secondly, often religious fanaticism – especially Catholic fanaticism with the Ustaše and in the Baltic states, in Slovakia and so on – often clerical-Fascism. So we have a mixture of clerical fanaticism and also this intense racism, especially, foremost, directed all around against Jews, and then in various areas directed against other groups, especially against Slavs and Roma. So in the Baltic states against Russians and in World War II Croatia of pearl jewelry wholesale course against the Serbs.

Persian Heroes and Western Treachery

Posted on Oct. 19, 2009 at 6:14 PM - 0 Comments - Post Comment - Link

As Iran's nightmare rulers continue to beat, 'arrest' (i.e., kidnap), torture and murder the truly heroic participants in Iran's Democratic Revolution (see videos below), the Western leaders who bombed Yugoslavia over phony stories of   imaginary Serbian terror do nothing about the all-to-real Iranian clerical Fascist terror, with Obama-Clinton leading the pack by begging Ahmadinejad to meet with them, thus effectively puffing up this swaggering Mussolini-remake.

To help understand why, I urge you to read the 2003 TENC article, "How Iran & the West Planned Islamism for Afghanistan." It includes important, buried news about the powerful IDLO (International Development Law Organization), an inter-governmental body that designs and trains people for legal systems in so-called developing nations, and which is controlled by the E.U. (especially Italy) and the U.S. The TENC article reports that the IDLO hosted a December 2002 meeting in Rome, mainly of foreign ministry officials and Islamist jurists, including three from Iran's clerical regime. The purpose? To plan a Shar'ia constitution for Afghanistan, that is, a constitution that requires the government to pearl wholesale adhere to Islamic law.

The meeting was fully reported on the IDLO website and covered by Associated Press, ANSA (the Italian wire service), and other wire services, but searching the Lexis-Nexis media archives, we found that, with the exception of an entirely uninformative piece in the BBC (it managed not to mention either the IDLO, Iran or the Islamist jurists!) no English, German, Italian, Spanish or French-language media picked up this story, and that's including so-called alternative media. It was big news, but the silence was deafening.

Big news, including this AP report on the consensus of this meeting attended by foreign ministry delegations from the most powerful states in the world:

    "The conclusions of that meeting were that Islamic law has 'all the elements that are really required to underpin a human rights agenda and a modern state agenda which are completely compatible with international standards,' said William Loris, director-general of the International Development Law Organization, which trains lawyers and judges in developing countries."

    -- "Karzai Pledges Equal Justice for All at Conference on Reforming Judiciary," Associated Press, December 19, 2002 [1]

So in countries condescendingly (and often ludicrously) described as 'emerging' or 'developing,' Shar'ia is all they akoya pearl necklace need; so says the IDLO of Rome.

The Italian foreign ministry, which has been overall in charge of creating the Afghan Shar'ia system, hosted another Afghanistan conference in Rome in July 2007. The Bush administration delegation was headed by Richard A. Boucher, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs. The Ahmadinejad-Khamenei delegation was headed by Mehdi Safari, the Islamic Republic's Deputy Foreign Minister for Asia, Pacific and Commonwealth of Independent States. In a speech to the conference, Safari embraced what the so-called international community is doing in Afghanistan and -- I hope you are sitting -- the rule of law:

    [Excerpt from Islamic Republic of Iran representative's speech starts here]

    We [i.e., the Iranian regime -- J.I.] hope this gathering will lead to further cooperation between the international community and the government of Afghanistan for institutionalizing the full rule of law there. We believe that the holding of [this] international conference on Afghanistan provides solutions for the Afghan people and will pave the way for the pearl necklace wholesale realization of their goals and objectives.

    [...] Excellencies, Iran, as an active and responsible neighbor of Afghanistan, has availed the opportunities provided by [the] international community to support Afghanistan, and allocated $560 million for the reconstruction process in that country. The effects of Iran's contribution in Afghanistan, particularly in the Western areas of that country, are very evident.
    [My emphasis -- J.I.]

    -- Speech at the "Conference on the Rule of [Shar'ia] Law in Afghanistan," by Mehdi Safari, Deputy Foreign Minister, Islamic Republic of Iran, July 2-3, 2007, Rome [2]

    [Excerpt from Islamic Republic of Iran representative's speech ends here]

Notice that speaking to his peers, with virtually no chance that his words will be reported by the media, this Ahmadinejad-Khamenei representative shuns the propaganda attacks that create the public impression of intense hostility between Iran, on the one side, and the U.S. and European leaders, on the other. I believe these mutual attacks are staged for dramatic effect, just like the theatrical denunciations one sees in wrestling matches on U.S. TV, to cultured pearl jewelry give people someone to root for while hiding cooperation. Supporting my view, we see that, out of the public view, Deputy Foreign Minister Safari is deferential to the Great Satans, welcoming their invasion of a neighbor, their establishment of what is manifestly an imposed government, their imposition of a Shar'ia legal system (that's the "rule of law," so dear to the Ahmadinejad-Khamenei regime), and, in oiliest tones, anticipates that the international takeover "will pave the way for the realization of their goals and objectives."

My translation: 'By imposing Shar'ia (thus outflanking the many Afghan secularists), by punishing the unruly Taliban so that they will submit to control from Tehran, and by permitting the Iranian mullahs a free hand in Afghanistan, the international community has performed splendidly, just as when they eliminated the mullahs' deadly enemy, Saddam Hussein. For which services the mullahs most graciously exclaim: Thank you, o wondrous beings! Anything else you can do for us, just let us know!'

Why has the 'international community' welcomed Iran into Afghanistan, when, obviously, the Iranian mullahs have the goals of crushing anyone who resists Islamist rule and of establishing regional hegemony, goals already partly achieved in Iraq, thanks to the Western invasion? Why, unless either:

A) The U.S. and European governments (and the Vatican, which basically runs the Italian government) get involved in massively expensive invasions and embrace clerical-Fascist states (i.e., Iran) without giving a thought to the consequences, or --

B) The U.S. and European governments (and the Vatican) are perfectly aware of the obvious consequences but want these consequences, want the Iranian mullahs to achieve hegemony in southwest Asia.

Now why would the establishment want that? Because they consider Iranian-style Islamism, which ruthlessly suppresses critical thought and all secular organizing (for example, by trade unionists), and which disseminates the mind-rotting 'theory' that 'the evil Jews' run the world, as excellent for controlling and suppressing potentially rebellious populations in Muslim-majority countries.

Could this be why Prof. Brzezinski's star pupil Barack Obama has talked out of both sides of his mouth about the struggle in Iran, saying that he regretted all violence but that the U.S. did not have observers on the ground so he couldn't be sure what had happened, while legitimizing Ahmadinejad by begging him to naughty castles meet with the U.S., and this while the Iranian clerical Fascists were murdering more and more people? Did Obama and Clinton bet that the mullah-thugs would be able quickly to silence the Iranian people and that people in the West would quickly lose interest?

If so Obama and Clinton have lost their bet. What are they going to do now?