Iran, US and regime-change

As usual when something important happens, I delve into history, facts and all media I manage to get access to. The event that is holding today's front pages is the so-called Iranian revolution and the whole bunch of European and US media are busy like never before protecting "human rights". I was so moved and wondered: since when on earth the West gives a damn about human rights? And then the spectre of the bloody profit came along.

Let's face it, Dr Ahmadinejad is a pain in the neck. He could just agree to let our home-bred loan-sharks in Iran and I'm pretty sure that corporate western media wouldn't have doubted his overwhelming re-election. Can he really not see how free we are with our "free market" and "free usury" values?

Another mistake Dr Ahmadinejad keeps making is bringing up Palestinian people's rights against the Zionist regime. If he had done his homework, the Iranian President would know by now that corporate western media are controlled by Zionists, and that in our free nations supporting human rights never pays off.

Are the rights of Palestinians important to western governments? Zionist regime is carrying out a genocide, with Gaza being a huge concentration camp where people are kept in by Israel's illegal and arbitrary blockade and bombed in Israeli airstrikes, ignoring the protests of the international civil society. What do western governments do? Nothing.

The fact that the president of a nation openly condemns the Zionist regime and is not afraid to face Israel and the US and denounce their crimes is seen by our media as a sign of dictatorship. If that was a dictatorship I truly doubt Mousavi could have done an electoral campaign and demonstrators would have been free to demonstrate.

Never mind that the poorest classes of the Iranian population are with Ahmadinejad, they can't twitter or facebook their opinions so we can't share them. The important is that the US-backed candidate will go to power, ensuring that foreign capitals are welcome and that Iran becomes the umpteenth US colony to support Israel's crimes in the Middle East and loses all its independency.

Our media today report the violent demonstrations taking place in Tehran and what bothers me is that when people in London and all over Europe demonstrate against the various G8, G20 or Nato, if there are a couple of troublemakers, automatically all demonstrators are pictured as violent. Now that in Iran demonstrators have actually burnt cars and buildings, it's not their fault, because the government's police is violent.

Amazingly, people who demonstrate against the wars that our administrations wage are violent. If, instead, people demonstrate against what our governments arbitrarily consider "rogue" governments, they are peaceful.

The practice of regime change is routine in US foreign policy, we can say it's their speciality, they've had plenty of time to improve during the Cold War all over the world and Iran this time was even an easy job if we consider that in 1953 the US intelligence had done what is doing now. History repeats itself but it seems like it never teaches anything.

I refuse to believe that every journalist in Europe and the US is uneducated and with no knowledge whatsoever of the Iranian politics, but unfortunately, reading what they write, this is exactly what it looks like.

As Paul Craig Roberts has written, "Every Iranian knows that the president of Iran is a public figure with limited powers. His main role is to take the heat from the governing grand Ayatollah. No Iranian, and no informed Westerner, could possibly believe that Ahmadinejad is a dictator. Even Ahmadinejad’s superior, Khamenei, is not a dictator, as he is appointed by a government body that can remove him.

The demonstrations, like those in 1953, are intended to discredit the Iranian government and to establish for Western opinion that the government is a repressive regime that does not have the support of the Iranian people. This manipulation of opinion sets up Iran as another Iraq ruled by a dictator who must be overthrown by sanctions or an invasion."

Invasion? I somehow recall Hillary Clinton making not long ago some scary forecast on Iran. But of course, she's the secretary of a state that has the power to teach democratic values with bombs so she only wants to stay in line with her predecessors. The US have been doing this since the end of World War II, different ways depending on which country they were destroying. They have already provoked demonstrations and so-called "revolutions" to place their favourite candidates. What do we need to wake up?

My hope is that they won't export the same democracy they have brought to Iraq, otherwise who is demonstrating in Iran today will regret it for the rest of their lives.

Small memo for who accuses Ahmadinejad to be anti-Semite

Letter from Neturei Karta Anti-Zionist Jews to President Ahmadinejad
Written by www.daily.pk
Saturday, 20 June 2009 01:41

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful,

To the Honorable President of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Mahmoud Ahmedinajad

As Orthodox Jews who oppose the diabolic Zionist state we wish to express our
very best wishes for your success in your next term as the elected President of the
Islamic Republic of Iran.

A number of Orthodox Jews from outside of Iran have had the great pleasure and honor of meeting you and other honorable governmental and religious leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as many ordinary people in your wonderful country, both Jewish and non-Jewish Iranians.

Mr. President, your wonderful leadership in courageously revealing the truth about
the evils of Zionism and condemning it is of immense and immeasurable value,
especially in the face of the campaigns launched against Iran by world Zionism and its
media machine, and with the help of G-d can bring closer the day when that vile
terrorist Zionist regime is dismantled, all the rights of the Palestinian People are
restored throughout historic Palestine, and a Republic of Palestine replaces the
ethnocratic and racist State of “Israel,” which always violates all laws and values of
the international community and all laws and values of the authentic Jewish religion.
Indeed, Jews who oppose Zionism and who live with the borders of the Zionist state
also look forward to being liberated from Zionist control.

We wish to extend our warmest greetings to all the people and leaders of the
Islamic Republic of Iran and our very best wishes for prosperity and success in all
endeavors.

Rabbi Meir Hirsh
NETUREI KARTA PALESTINE

Original link here

On Berlusconi's decline, the Mafia and the Bilderberg Group

It's already crystal clear how much I dislike the current Italian premier, Silvio Berlusconi, and in this blog I have written a few posts expressing my contempt.

That's why, the last thing I would have thought myself, was that one day I would have written something in the opposite direction. Not a proper defence, that would be too daring, but at least some interrogation marks, to try to understand what is going on in Italy and worldwide.

The persisting hammering of the international media against him, the odd case of "Noemi" and the fact that Berlusconi might be a clown but he's not stupid, got me thinking. As for the English press, it's well-known that they usually make fun of important things when they are told to carry out a political agenda, so their mock-chic jokes aimed at the middle-class bankers count nothing or almost nothing.

The latest scandal of the premier involves Noemi Letizia, 18-year-old girl who, according to the media, was first seen at a lunch with the Premier as his official company when she was still under age. Of course Berlusconi has denied any private or sexual involvement with this girl and said she's just his friend's daughter.

What's very weird is how Berlusconi has served himself up on a silver platter to photographers and journalists. He's a media tycoon after all, he does know how the media market works. And he also knew the press, especially his competitors' one, was waiting for some of his ill-considered moves.

This media campaign, both in Italy and abroad, around the Italian premier's clumsiness is becoming boring and somehow uninteresting, the attacks are always the same, and concentrating the whole evil in the world around only one person is ridicolous and misleading.

In fact, what can be found behind the "Noemi" scandal? Noemi's father, Elio Benedetto Letizia, could be close to the infamous Camorra clan of the "Casalesi", operating in Casal del Principe, in the southern province of Caserta. This hypothesis stems from the fact that Benedetto Letizia could be related to two exponents of this clan, Franco and Giovanni Letizia, close to the boss Giuseppe Setola. This possibility, however, is still under investigation of Naples' magistrates.

According to this scenario, Benedetto Letizia (Noemi's father) could be the link between the Camorra and the institutions, represented in this case by Berlusconi. The Italian prime minister could have been forced to appear at that official lunch at Villa Madama with Noemi, when the girl was still under age and completely unaware of the fact that she was used as the sign to publicly show that a representative of national institutions was still in terms with that particular family.

It's well known, in fact, how the Mafia (and its local versions, such as the Naples' Camorra) uses signs, meaningless for most people, to communicate, and in this case the physical presence of a national politician might have meant more than any official declaration. Many allegations of a possible involvement of Berlusconi in the affairs of Cosa Nostra (Sicilian Mafia) and Camorra have been made, but they still are allegations and under the secrecy of ongoing investigations.

In this regard, although Noemi's family refuses to clarify the terms of their relationship with Berlusconi, Italian newspaper Europa believes that the premier got close to the Letizias after the tragic car accident that caused the death of Yuri, Noemi's 19-year-old brother.

The wall of silence around the whole case, carefully protected by both the Letizias and Berlusconi, who preferred to make it appear as a morbid sexual affair, makes at least wonder why the mainstream media don't want to move away from their first account that has proved too simplistic. Berlusconi might be sleazy, as the Daily Mail likes defining him, but he's certainly not a fool, and this story stays wrapped up in a mystery.

As it was predictable in a country like Italy, where newspapers are at direct service of political parties, the media reporting to centre-left coalitions, whose job is to constantly and mindlessly attack right-wing parties, started complying with their duties: give the kiss of death to Berlusconi's already tottering reputation.

To be honest, here they had a very easy job since the premier himself was not offering any exhaustive explanation about his alleged steamy relationship with an underage Noemi.

So, as it happens, media and people all over Italy and abroad were swift to judge him and treat him as an old paedophile. Actually, the international media campaign against Berlusconi, especially in the UK, has been going on for a very longtime so this seems the occasion they couldn't miss for anything in the world.

But why do English media hate Berlusconi? Do they really care that much about Italy's destiny? If that were the case, I would be truly moved. However, Italian newspaper Libero, whose director is openly pro-Berlusconi, suggests a theory to explain the over-mentioned conspiracy against Italian prime minister. I've always laughed out loud at this theory suggesting an "international conspiracy" against him, but today I laugh much less, if nothing at all.

Why do I take it seriously? A couple of days ago Fausto Carioti from the pages of Libero mentioned a possible connection with the Bilderberg Group, and when it comes to this "club" there really is nothing to laugh about.

The Bilderberg Group takes its name from the Hotel de Bilderberg in The Netherlands, where its first meeting took place in 1954. These invitation-only reunions gather highly influential representatives of the major corporations and political groups, more or less known by the main public, coming from all wealthiest nations.

Some of the Italian attendees to these unofficial meetings are (or have been), among the others, Rodolfo De Benedetti (son of Carlo's, and currently in the Board of Directors of Gruppo Editoriale L'Espresso, publisher of daily paper La Repubblica, that has recently addressed the famous "10 questions" to Berlusconi, immediately backed by the English Guardian), Walter Veltroni (former leader of the centre-left coalition and former mayor of Rome) and economists Mario Draghi and Giulio Tremonti, the latter being the current minister of the economy.

Recently there has been an argument between Giulio Tremonti and Mario Draghi over the long-awaited reforms, with Tremonti pointing out that it's the government's task to carry out economic policies, not of other bodies', because "sovereignty belongs to the people and, for better or for worse, the political responsibility belongs to the government that works for the people." If these intentions are followed by an honest defence of people's interests against banks' and corporations' profits, three cheers for Tremonti.

As for Mario Draghi, his past actions don't really seem to be aimed at protecting Italian people's interests: he would have started in the early 1990s the process of letting Anglo-American major banks take control over big Italian firms, such as Buitoni, Locatelli, Galbani, Negroni, Ferrarelle, Perugina. When, in 1992, the centre-left coalition led by Giuliano Amato came to power, its first move was to privatise national agencies. How this government can be defined "left" is still a mystery to me.

I'm not implying that the centre-right coalition wouldn't have done the same, but in the records this was a policy adopted by the so-called Left. And, in a more recent past, one of the harshest criticisms to the Berlusconi's government has been for its lack of enthusiasm towards liberalising reforms.

After the G20 summit, held in London on April 2nd, all newspapers cheerfully reported on the front page the solution the twenty leaders had come up with: a new world order. Solution that, by the way, hasn't shown its benefits as yet.

I was reminded of the outcome of the G20 by a recent announcement made by Mario Draghi, yes the same Draghi who boasts striking connections with Anglo-American banks: we are on the way towards "a world government of the economy". This, said in the wake of the last Bilderberg Group meeting, is not very reassuring.

Still Libero has mentioned the possibility that the US administration doesn't particularly appreciate the good relationship between Putin and Berlusconi, being Russia's prime minister in not very good terms with the United States, even after Obama (the change we can believe in) took office.

Why is Berlusconi doomed? Because he's already too exposed to the public opinion and his business irregularities are already extensively described in articles and books? After all, Italy, differently from other European countries, is the nation where secrets don't manage to be kept for longtime.

Or because of his closeness with Russia and the dangerous possibility of a good relationship with other "rogue states"? This risk cannot be taken, being Italy a strategic US colony since the end of World War II.

All these possible scenarios, apparently coming from completely different environments, if considered somehow intertwined will open a scary situation.

Berlusconi's political career is at the end, he knows and finds himself having to deal with the choices he has made, very likely quite dodgy ones, and now is probably regretting some of them. Entering the system of corruption can bring only short-lived benefits. What appears from Berlusconi's latest public declarations is an already former prime minister, attacked from every front and ridiculed by the international press, who's trying to keep afloat despite the apparent commitment of not breaking the wall of silence built around him.

Many are enjoying this moment, I'm not. First of all because things look too fuzzy to draw rushed and final conclusions and especially because I'm afraid of who the financial élite will put in office as Berlusconi's replacement. The media that keep shooting against this too easy target, without considering the bigger picture, might risk to mislead the public opinion and divert the general focus from something potentially crucial for Italy's destiny, and sake.

Faith, myths and mind control

Issues on religion, faith and myths are always very sensitive, and this is because every personal belief comes from very human emotions, such as hope, fear and the need of some sort of protection.

However, it's very important to distinguish between personal faith and religion, being the latter a propaganda tool that exploits the most private human sentiments of trusting people.

One of the easiest examples to understand the difference between faith and religion, is the heinous behaviour of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries and in current times, too. Not only have its highest representatives always hindered scientific and social progress, but very often clerics have been involved in shameful crimes such as paedophilia and in dodgy economic-financial affairs.

Someone might think that it's impossible that those clerics really believe in the Almighty God they go preaching about.

Apart from the fact that there is no historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, I think that if someone needs to believe there is some kind of spirit protecting them, it's no harm as long as they don't impose their views to other people. Differently from what religious leaders have done so far.

Human beings should come into possession of human feelings all over again, releasing themselves from the chains of artificial myths created with the sole purpose of mind control and used to wage strategic wars, inciting peoples against each other.

As stated by historian and expert of religions D.M. Murdock, "We are one family, and we share a small sphere - let us unify as found in the best of futuristic scenarios, not destroy ourselves as in the worst".

Italy's psychosis

The level of disinformation in Italy has reached so high levels that has become surreal.

Italian media have, in fact, overcome the phase of "hidden agendas": now they shamelessly deny the obvious.

Let's take Studio Aperto for example, a TV information show that sistematically provides false and distorted news.

Their latest pearl is that Mr Berlusconi, who just by chance happens to be its owner, has been found not guilty in the trial involving English lawyer David Mills.

Of course this is not true, as David Mills was sentenced guilty and the judgement on Mr Berlusconi was stopped thanks to the so-called Lodo Alfano, according to which the four highest offices of state are untouchable.

Scornful of the fact that the Italian Supreme Court has defined this bill "uncostitutional" (we know, Italian judges are just a bunch of communists, except for the ones he managed to bribe), the Premier is still free to further damage the country, present showgirls as candidate at the European elections and entertain foreign Presidents in his Villa Certosa in Sardinia with a flock of young girls.

This is the freak Italy has as a Premier, the whole world is laughing out loud, the country has been in a deep crisis for so long that this latest worldwide recession has been perceived as tickling and, despite all that, a bold 78-year-old Mr Berlusconi has recently announced: "I will react to this libelling accusations and I will have all Italian people with me again."

Sadly true.

From 9/11 to the decline of the Anglo-american empire

In the wake of the ruthless and immoral exploitation of human suffering (both American and not) carried out by the Bush/Cheney administration, it might be a good occasion for Obama to bring the "change we can believe in" he's been talking for ages and open a proper, independent investigation on 9/11.

Why not? The official version has proved inconsistent and false and there is always a thinner part of the world population that believes it, so what's the harm in saying the truth? Ok, 3,000 American lives "expendable" for the greater good, more than a million Iraqi lives "expendable" for democracy, thousands of American kids sent to die in Afghanistan and Iraq to build a much better world, world that unfortunately they won't have the possibility to enjoy.

Let alone the once-democratic countries being slowly (or not so slowly) transformed in police states, with a rampant fascism spreading all over Europe: English police beating up people just for the sake of it, Italian government banning cartoonists and journalists just because they are not aligned with their totalitarianism.

Recently, I enjoyed a querelle in the travel blogosphere about an article appeared in the Independent about Dubai: all travel writers, who happen to know Dubai very well, from Lara Dunston to Terence Carter to Susan Macaulay agree in saying that the article is unbalanced, with no research behind, full of common places and racism-nuanced. I haven't read that specific article, but honestly, knowing English press, I do believe what the travel writers say. After all, the only purpose of English press is governmental mind-control and brainwash trusting subjects.

Not long ago I laughed out loud reading an article on the Economist about how Lula ruined Brasil. Of course Mr Economist knows that Brasil has grown 5% last year and that is expected to grow "only" 3% this year, and he also knows that "Great" Britain is not really growing, especially thanks to the artists of the creative finance populating the sacred spot of the City of London. Sorry, Mr Economist, your articles reek of desperation.

It's not the end of the world, just of an empire, one of the many in human history, it's lasted even longer than the American, kind of losing ground too. We know, it's an inescapable process, all empires have gone through their heyday and their decline. Accept it with grace and go back to do some good information, as now you look pathetic.

Obama, "let's start again"

I've listened astonished to the video in which God-instructed Barack Obama opens at Iran's leaders, and I understood why Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed it.

It seems that with Obama, the United States of America have provided the world with a new Messiah who, differently from the first one (Jesus, not Bush), doesn't need to travel on foot or on a horse to reach his audiences. In fact, modern-age world's Saviour has TV, videos, Internet and (last but not least) democratic facebook at his disposal. Good for him, and apparently for all of us.

The problem, I think, is that Obama's politics is way too populistic to be used in semi-official communications with any leader of any country (except for Berlusconi, with him the best bet is to use very easy words and possibly a sketch, as he's likely not to understand anything about politics). Obviously, the recipients of this video were not Iran's leaders, but the population of Western Hemisphere, so that in the next invasion we all are already convinced that our wars are "just." (I can hear already mainstream European gazettes shouting: "Remember the video of Obama!")

Now, at everybody's eyes, Obama has made a massive change in the US approach towards Middle Eastern countries, has offered a clear overture to Iran's leaders, asking candidly "Let's start again," and they dismissed it. Why? Because they are jealous, yes, jealous of our civilisation (sigh), of our values (sigh) and our freedom (sigh!). And, for most Western public mind, because they are warmongers. Because let's face it, we know that Middle Eastern countries are fundamentally warmongers, and that the United States have always sacrificed themselves to protect the world against evil.

Since the end of the Second World War, US administrations (all of them) have invaded, bombed, organised covert actions all over the world, toppling democratic regimes and replacing them with the most heinous dictatorships, in the name of democracy. But the warmongers are the Iranians, how can they dismiss a so whole-hearted video?

Now that Obama is here, fret not, he wants peace as much as we do, he's offering a change in the most populistic of the options, so that everybody can see it, so that nobody has the least doubt that a real revolution is in the air.

And if there won't be any change, the public mind will be already shaped and led to think that it's not Obama's fault, because Obama is not Bush, because since January 2009 the US policy has completely changed direction, and the economic and financial interests no longer exist.

Never mind providing arms to Israel to keep carrying out the genocide of Palestinian people, this is another story.

The desperate show of death

Zygmunt Bauman has defined London as the "dustbin" of globalisation. Never like now could I agree more with him.

As if the circus of Big Brother was not sad enough, now that one of the stars of its latest editions is dying from cancer, a freakish voyeurism seems obsessing the majority of UK population.

From radio and TV shows to the main national tabloids and newspapers, the odyssey of 27-year-old Jade has become everybody's business.

This young woman was diagnosed cancer and the results of the biopsy were immediately of public domain as her UK doctor chose to let her know in the middle of a chat from the Diary Room of the Indian version of Big Brother. As for the share market, the choice couldn't be wiser.

Since she, and everybody in this country, learnt she had cancer, the marathon of common places has started. She is obviously shocked and desperately clings to every little piece of life she has left, but the sleazy pleasure that mediocre people are drawing from witnessing every moment of this girl's death, is degrading and offensive.

What kind of society makes a show out of someone's ultimate suffering? What kind of business enjoys cashing in from someone's death?

Apparently, the arguments, fights and gossip of the Big Brother were not enough entertaining anymore, the public wants more, wants to overcome all taboos, seize the most intimate moment of someone's life.

Nothing is left to intimacy, secret, mystery. Every aspect of life has become a potential subject for circus where the main characters are not tigers anymore but ordinary people.

The lame excuse of entertaining the public hides the constant and ruthless search of profit, where nothing but money has value, and where the limit between public and private is always more elusive.

This is only the latest example of how pathetically poor we are becoming, losing even that small bit of humanity we thought we had left.