Credit Crunch or rather Zio Punch? - Gilad Atzmon

[Anonymous]

Thanks kolnidre for the link

= = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = =

Gilad Atzmon - Credit Crunch or rather Zio Punch?
By Gilad Atzmon • Sep 30th, 2008 at 20:27

Two weeks ago I took the task of elaborating on this very issue in front of the Cambridge Forum. The following presentation is an effort to disentangle the horrifying tribal plot that accidentally led towards the destruction of the American Empire and Western financial hegemony.

 

Gilad Atzmon Talks About The Credit Crunch at Cambridge Forum (16/9/08)

Dear friends, I am pretty troubled with the talk I am about to deliver this evening. I do understand the devastating implications of my current ideas and I am still trying to find the most appropriate words to address the issue.

As the picture of the current economy disaster becomes ever more clear, it becomes rather obvious, to me at least, that the ideology and the people who are directly responsible for the mass killing of millions of Iraqis and the displacement of many other millions, the people who keep the Palestinians starved behind walls, are unfortunately very much the same people who are responsible for a class genocide of millions of disenfranchised Americans who are now on the brink of total dispossession.

A year ago I was invited to give a talk at this platform. 'Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, What is the Common Thread?' was the title I picked. At the time I gave a talk carrying that topic in a conference in Stockholm, I thought that such a topic would be relevant for a long while. My message in Stockholm was rather simple: the common thread between Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine is our apathy. Millions of people are murdered, displaced, dispossessed and starved while we are more or less nonchalant. However, we cannot be blasé anymore. The people who are destroying Iraq and Palestine are now knocking on our own doors.

As we all remember, two weeks before Britain was taken into an illegal war, millions of us were marching in the streets of London waving placards telling Blair and his cabinet what we thought of them. Interestingly enough, now when it is clear that this war has cost the lives of millions of innocent Iraqis, we do not do a thing. We do not even try to chase Blair and bring him to justice. Similarly, the abuse of Palestinians is now common knowledge, it appears on our TV screens on a daily basis, and again we somehow keep silent.

In case some of you fail to realise, the crime in Iraq has been committed on our behalf. Indeed, we are not as liable as Blair, the Labour Party and the Islamophobic media circuit a la Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch who rushed to support this doomed war. Indeed, we didn't personally send soldiers to the battlefield, we did not launch cruise missiles, nor did we praise the killing in the name of 'democracy' and 'freedom', yet, we are all somehow guilty of being indifferent.

In case you ask yourselves why are we indifferent, I will try to suggest an answer. We are indifferent just because we have a 'good' excuse. When being blamed for not doing a thing, we would all raise our voices and shout righteously: 'We opposed the war, we were there to protest just before the war, we all marched in that big demo.' Yep, as it seems, Anglo-American liberal democracy provides us with a pretext. Due to some 'oldy mouldy' leftist tradition, our political resistance is always taking the embarrassing shape of juvenile scarf waving, badge wearing and slogan shouting. Once every three and a half decades we invade the streets, we shout a bit, we raise some placards. We listen to some decaying politicians, we ejaculate collectively and we then split rather quietly. Some go to the nearest pub, some go the sushi bar and a few, those who can afford it, would use the opportunity and continue to a musical in Drury Lane.

In the long run, we tend to believe that we have paid our political and humanist dues. Sadly enough, it is our apathy towards the suffering of others that makes Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan into a single narrative of Western collective indifference.

However, things are changing in front of our very eyes these days. We cannot be indifferent anymore just because we are the ones that are becoming the next victims of expansionist global Zionised politics.

In case you cannot tell, I will be very clear about it all. The same Ideology that brought carnage on Iraq and Palestine is the same ideology that makes you lose your home tomorrow.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine

Back in 1992. Dick Cheney appointed Paul Wolfowitz (Undersecretary for Defence Policy) and his deputy Lewis 'Scooter' Libby to draft the USA Defense Planning Guidance (DFG) for the 1994-99 fiscal years. The imperialist Zio-centric document that was later named as the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" was soon leaked to the New York Times and raised some harsh criticism. However, as history sadly teaches us, not enough or nothing at all was done to curb Wolfowitz's and Libby's murderous enthusiasm when it was still relatively young.

The astonishing document was there to merge American and global Zionism interests into a unified belligerent practice. It all happened in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, bearing in mind that America was becoming a single super power.

"Our first objective," says Wolfowitz, "is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union."

As much as Wolfowitz may claim to believe in 'freedom' and the free market, America should not bargain over its primacy in the market and the new world order.

"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."

Wolfowitz realized already in 1992 that the world may be reluctant to support his visionary American expansionist philosophy. America, according to him, should therefore adopt a unilateral assertive practice. Rather than counting on international coalitions and UN initiatives, America better get used to the idea that it would have to act alone. Seemingly, already in 1992 Wolfowitz appointed America as the World police.

"Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor."

Hence, Wolfowitz stresses, America should intervene when and where it believed necessary. But then, not before too long, the Global Zionist pops out. Wolfowitz and Libby, at the time still just 'youngsters of Zion' reaffirmed U.S. commitments to the Jewish State. [1]

"In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security."

Needless to say that knowing what we know nowadays about Neocon murderous criminal interventional inclinations, this document shouldn't take us by surprise. Yet, a few questions must be asked:

   1. How is it that America didn't find within its political establishment the means to resist Wolfowitz's foreign political impetus?
   2. How is it that America that had all the 'necessary warnings' had found itself just ten years later acting as an Israeli mission force fighting the last pockets of resistance to Jewish national imperialism?

In short, we should wonder, how did America, once a symbol of freedom, let itself be enslaved by such repulsive ideologies that are associated inherently with some clear foreign tribal interests?

Oil is important

The United States of America is a big country with big roads and big thirsty cars. Consequently, oil is the key for its stability and its general happiness. Wolfowitz and Libby, so it seemed at the time, found the way to heaven. They were about to kill two birds with just a single (cruise missile) shot. They planned to rob the Arab oil and to 'secure' their beloved Jewish state simultaneously. Evidently, America didn't manage to restrain Wolfowitz's appetite. In 2003, by the time youngster of Zion Wolfowitz was on the verge of becoming a proper elder, America was taken into an illegal war in Iraq. Nowadays, we can tell without a hint of a doubt that Wolfowitz, the 'architect of the Second Gulf War', has managed to drag his country into a humiliating catastrophic defeat.

As we all know, the plan didn't work out. America didn't manage to put its heavy hand on Iraqi oil. Reconstruction of Iraq is 'yet' to happen and when it happens, it won't be American company that will take the profit. America is now inherently associated with Israel as the biggest threat to world peace. However, Wolfowitz didn't fail entirely. He indeed succeeded in destroying one fierce enemy of Israel. He toppled Saddam Hussein. But it seems as if Saddam, on his way down, managed to pull the entire American Empire with him. Moreover, by the time the last American soldiers will be evacuated from the green zone (Baghdad) it will be realized that it was actually Wolfowitz's doctrine failure that made Iran into the leading regional super power.

The Greenspan Doctrine - Money Makes The World Go Round

Earlier on I raised a rather crucial question: How is it that America failed to restrain its Wolfowitzes? How is that America let its foreign policy be shaped by some ruthless Zionists? How come alleged American 'free media' failed to warn the American people of the enemy within?

Money is probably the answer, it indeed makes the world go round, or at least the 'American housing market'.

Throughout the centuries, Jewish bankers bought for themselves some real reputations of backers and financers of wars [2] and even one communist revolution [3]. Though rich Jews had been happily financing wars using their assets, Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States, found a far more sophisticated way to finance the wars perpetrated by his ideological brothers Libby and Wolfowitz.

Unlike old fashioned Britain, where Tony Blair recruited Lord 'cash-machine' Levy to encourage his Zionist friends to donate their money by proxy to a party that was just about to a launch a criminal war, in America it was the most underprivileged classes who were set to finance the current wars.

Alan Greenspan planned to provide his president with an economy boom assuming that prosperous conditions would divert the attention from the war in Iraq. Greenspan is not exactly an amateur economist, he knew what he was doing. He knew very well that as long as Americans were doing well, buying and selling homes, his President would be able pursue implementing the 'Wolfowitz doctrine' destroying the 'bad Arabs' in the name of 'democracy'.

Greenspan advised the American people to buy, he repeated the old mantra: 'spending is patriotic'. He also managed to convince them that if they do not have the money to spend, that should never stop them either. They 'would pay later'.

Without stepping too deeply into economy, it was Greenspan who prepared the monetary ground for the rise of the subprime mortgage companies. A lending market that specialises in high risk mortgages and loans.

"Innovation," said Greenspan in April 2005, "has brought about a multitude of new products, such as subprime loans and niche credit programs for immigrants."

One must admit that it is almost reassuring to find out that Greenspan cares so much about the new immigrants to the USA.

"Such developments," continues Greenspan, "are representative of the market responses that have driven the financial services industry throughout the history of our country ... With these advances in technology, lenders have taken advantage of credit-scoring models and other techniques for efficiently extending credit to a broader spectrum of consumers."

Greenspan admits here that he was leading the American banking system into an 'advanced' experiment. Seemingly.

"Where once more-marginal applicants would simply have been denied credit, lenders are now able to quite efficiently judge the risk posed by individual applicants and to price that risk appropriately."

Did I hear 'Appropriately'?

"These improvements have led to rapid growth in subprime mortgage lending; indeed, today subprime mortgages account for roughly 10 percent of the number of all mortgages outstanding, up from just 1 or 2 percent in the early 1990s."

Just as in the case of Wolfowitz, Greenspan had a plan. Very much like in the Wolfowitz's war it even worked for a while, but disastrously, it somehow didn't work all the way through.

As we all remember President Bush's embarrassing declaration of victory in Iraq, we also realise that it didn't take long for the American people to acknowledge that America would never win in this war. Similarly, Greenspan had some initial numbers to be proud of. The subprime borrowing which he pushed for was a major contributor to an increase in home ownership and the demand for housing. The overall U.S. homeownership rate increased from 64 percent in 1994 to a peak in 2004 with an all-time high of 69.2 percent. Real estate had become the leading business in America, more and more speculators invested money in the business. During 2006, 22 percent of homes purchased (1.65 million units) were for investment purposes, with an additional 14 percent (1.07 million units) purchased as vacation homes.

These figures led Americans to believe that their economy was indeed booming. And when economy is booming nobody is really interested in foreign affairs, certainly they can't be interested in two million dead Iraqis. But then the grave reality embarked upon the very many struggling working class Americans and immigrants who suddenly failed to pay back money they didn't have in the first place.

Due to the rise of oil prices and the rise of interest rates, millions of disadvantaged Americans fell behind. By the time they drove back to their remote, newly purchased suburban homes, there was not enough money in the kitty to pay the mortgage back. Consequently, within a very short time millions of houses had been repossessed. However far more worrying, there was no one around to sell them to and the bank took them back. The poor people of America had become poorer than ever.

It's something like Wolfowitz's toppled Saddam who managed to pull the American Empire with him. The poor Americans that were set by Greenspan to finance the Wolfowitz's war have managed to crush American capitalism, as well as the American monetary and banking system. Greenspan's policy evidently led to class genocide that left America's financial system with a hole that stands now on one Trillion dollars, but may grow far bigger within days. [4]

Kosher Snatch or Zio Punch?

Greenspan and Wolfowitz remind me the joke about insensitive surgeon who comes out of the theatre after a 12 hours heart operation telling the anxious family "the operation was a great success but unfortunately your beloved didn't make it to the end."

Greenspan's and Wolfowitz's doctrines looked promising on paper. The operation was very successful but as it appears, the American Empire didn't make it to the end. It is now doomed to die. Greenspan, so he says, did it all for the 'immigrants' and the 'poor'. Wolfowitz appointed Great America to be the global Policing force. Let me tell you, the pattern is familiar, these wonderful people always try to save the world. They 'bring' democracy to the Arabs, they 'bring' equality to the poor. But somehow, Israel is always set to benefit. One has to read Herzl to know that this is what political Zionism is all about: the setting of super powers to serve the Zionist cause.

Have you ever asked yourself how is it that the British Empire found itself promising the Zionists a Jewish National home in 1917? Have you ever asked yourself what Balfour received in return? [5]

Some Americans where fooled into blindly following Wolfowitz and Greenspan, many others were disastrously stupid not to stop them in time. As devastating as it may sound, Greenspan and Wolfowitz should have been restrained at the least, or even not be allowed to occupy their positions in the first place. A Zionist who declares affiliation with foreign national interests should never be appointed by any administration or any other political institution. Already in 1992 Americans should have known about the Zionist infiltrators within the hub of their strategic headquarters. Americans should have been extremely cautious after the exposure of the Jonathan Pollard espionage affair. The AIPAC spy scandal was not a great surprise either. However the exposure of Fibby Libby who leaked a CIA agent (Valerie E. Wilson aka "Valerie Plame") details just to put pressure on her husband, Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson, should have been the last nail in the Zio-con coffin. Seemingly Americans ignored all the necessary warnings. Consequently, the Americans have many wounds to lick. In fact reading the morning papers, America is becoming nothing but a big gigantic wound, far too big to lick.

But it is not just America, Blair paid the ultimate political penalty for his involvement with Zionist Levy, his proxy donator gang and the other 'Labour Friends of Israel'. The issue here is not at all about religious belief, ethnic origin or racial orientation. We are talking here about Zionism which is a Jewish Diaspora ideological affiliation to a foreign national expansionist precept with global interests. As much as America and Britain wouldn't let a Chinese or German nationalist take care of their strategic planning, it should ban Zionists or those who are suspected of being ones from any proximity to their policy making.

Clearly, and this must be said, Jews are not necessarily Zionists. They can also be humanists, universalists, ordinary human beings, plumbers, musicians, shopkeepers and even shoplifters. However, the Zionists amongst the Jews are very easy to trace. They always operate politically as Jews. They run Jewish lobbies, think tanks and pressure groups. For that matter, Jewish American Committee (JAC), AIPAC, Jews For Peace and Anti Zionist Jews are all different forms of Jewish tribal national politics. They are all different forms of racially orientated tribal pressure groups and for that matter they are all rabid Zionists who are set to serve what they regard as Jewish tribal interests.

Lenin and Trotzky were Jews, they were ideologists, yet they didn't operate primarily as Jews. Accordingly, they were not Zionists. The Bund, on the other hand, was a rabid Zionist setting in spite of the fact that it 'formally' opposed Zionism. It was Zionist just because it operated as a tribal political setting. It was Zionist just because it was racially orientated rather than universally motivated.

To sum it up. all Jewish tribal political operations are different forms of Zionist formulas that are set to pressure different sectors and to promote different and sometimes even conflicting Jewish interests.

Please do not misinterpret my words. Jews must be welcome to operate and engage politically, it is just the national tribal Jew that we must be vigilant of. As I said, a tribal Jew can be a musician, he can be a plumber, he can be a poet, he can be a film star or a university teacher, yet you have to make sure that he doesn't take you into a war or even finance a war you mistakenly believe to be your own.

Interestingly enough, Michael Howard, the ex-Tory leader, though being a Jew, never had come across as a Zionist or a Jewish tribal operator. He was a proud Jew, he would even pepper his political arguments with some Yiddish family tales and the odd misery schmaltz, however, as a political leader he went beyond it all. He was an ordinary man like many other Brits. It never appeared as if he was about to sacrifice the interests of Britain to serve some foreign tribal interests. Blair, on the other hand, is not a Jew, but he consciously sacrificed the interests of Britain while being financed by Levy and his proxy tycoons. Bush did the same by implementing the mantra of his Greenspans and Wolfowitzes.

You may wonder at this stage whether I regard the credit crunch as a Zionist plot. In fact it is the opposite. It is actually a Zionist accident. The patient didn't make it to the end. This Zionist accident is a glimpse into Political Zionism's sinister agenda. This Zionist accident provides us with an opportunity to see that as far as misery is concerned, we are together with the Palestinians, the Iraqis and the Afghans. We share one enemy.

 

Furthermore, the current economic disaster endangers the security of millions of Western Jews who have really nothing to do with global economy, banking and global Zionism. It would be devastating to see innocent Jews being implicated collectively by the crimes committed by a very few tribal nationalist enthusiasts. But I do believe that as far as Jews are concerned there may be a way out of it. It is about time Jews took their emancipation seriously. Rather than celebrating their symptoms collectively and publicly, they would be better off working hard individually in searching for the meaning of universal ethical thinking in order to adopt it. Loving your neighbour and turning the other cheek is no doubt a good place to start. This is exactly what the Wolfowitzes and the Greenspans failed to do or understand and implement. <!–[endif]–>

[1] The following appeared in the amended text (16/41992) that followed the embarrassing earlier New York Times leak.

 [2] http://hubpages.com/hub/Nathan_Rotschil ... f_Waterloo

 [3] Jacob Schiff (the head of Kuhn, Loeb & Company) is credited with giving twenty million dollars to the Bolshevik revolution. A year after his death the Bolsheviks deposited over six hundred million rubles to Schiff's banking firm Kuhn & Loeb. (New York Journal American 1949. February 3.)

[4] Interestingly enough, when the American Administration came to realise the scale of the disaster, an emergency 'bail out' measure was suggested to deal with the rapidly emerging black hole in American finance. Yet, it is not the millions of deprived, dispossessed Americans that are looked after. Nobody within the American government or amongst legislators cares that much about the poor. Instead, the American government is rushing to save the few rich criminal bankers. Seemingly the lesson is not yet learned. The American policy makers care about those who 'roll' the capitalist economy rather than the people whom they are voted to serve.

[5] One may mistakenly assume that the shift of world Jewry lobbying from Germany to America is the product of the rise of Hitler. In fact the Israeli author Amos Elon (The Pity of it All) provides some very interesting historical insight into the subject. Seemingly, upon the eve of the first war, some very powerful Jewish German lobbies were operating in America. Apparently, prominent German American Jews protested against America joining England and France. In a statement to the New York Times on November 22 1914, Jacob H Schiff, head of Khun, Loeb (at the time the second largest private bank in the USA), charged the British and French with attempting to destroy Germany for reasons of trade (Elon, pg. 253). Needless to say, East European Jews who emigrated to the USA, evading the Anti-Semitic Czarist Russia regarded the German army as a liberator. At large, American Jewry was pro-German.

The British Government took these development rather seriously. At the time the British Ambassador to the United States suspected a Jewish conspiracy in America. The 1917 Balfour Declaration was largely an attempt to divert the anti-English feelings amongst World Jewry. To a certain extent this pretty manipulative strategy happened to be successful at least in the short term. Following the declaration, world Jewry, both Zionists and non Zionists, largely embraced the side of the Allies.

Clarification:
In the course of an article entitled "Credit Crunch or rather Zio Punch?" I recently made a comment about Mr John Reynolds, the Chief Executive of Reynolds Partners and chairman of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group.  I suggested that some people may think that his call in The Observer to send more Christians to the City was a plea for the financial world to be "spiritually de-Judified". I want to make it clear that I did not intend to suggest that Mr Reynolds was anti-Semitic or in any way hostile to Jewish people or those of the Jewish faith and I am sorry if my comment was understood by anybody in that way.  Mr Reynolds has asked me to clarify the position and I am happy to do so.  I would like to apologise for any distress caused.