My Weblog

December 14, 2006

Allende: The Untold Story

Filed under: Historie, Left, Media — limewoody @ 5:36 pm

To read the mainstream media lately you’d think Augusto Pinochet’s villainous henchmen, while twirling their pointy black moustaches and snickering maliciously, overthrew a Chilean “President” (Salvador Allende) somewhere on the order of Jimmy Carter. Then they lined up 3000 harmless sociology professors and innocent leftist parliamentarians and shot them, for the sheer heck of it.

The real story, as you might imagine, is a tad more complicated—despite the media/academia Black Legend regarding Chile.

Upon Stalin’s death in 1953, Chilean Communists held a “Homage to Stalin” in Santiago’s Baquedano theatre where Salvador Allende could hardly contain himself: “Stalin was a banner of creativity, of humanism and an edifying picture of peace and heroism!” he gushed while choking back the tears. “Everything he did, he did in service of the people. Our father Stalin has died but in remembering his example our affection for him will cause our arms to grow strong towards building a grand tomorrow– to insure a future in memory of his grand example!” *

After assuming power in 1970 (with roughly the same percentage of votes that Hitler garnered in Germany in 1933), the Allende regime’s true colors soon manifested. In January 1971, Allende’s minister Carlos Altamirano boasted: “We’re following the example of the Cuban Revolution and counting on the support of her militant internationalism….represented by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Armed conflict in continental terms remains as relevant today as ever!”

“Hear me loud and clear!” Salvador Allende himself boasted the following month. “We will employ revolutionary violence!”

This was more than an idle boast by Allende. Among the myriad unreported aspects of the Chilean coup were the dozens of “guerrilla” schools being set up throughout Chile by Soviet bloc agents shortly before that coup. Marxist death squads were also roaming Chile, murdering “bourgeois elements” with impunity or with the tacit support of the regime. When Salvador Allende visited Moscow in December 1972, his longest meetings was with Boris Ponomariev, the Kremlin’s head of “Irregular Warfare” for the Western Hemisphere.

By 1973, 60 percent of Chile’s arable land had been confiscated by the government, often with the aid of these death squads. Rolando Matus and Jacinto Huilipan were among the many farmers who protested Allende’s “Agrarian Reform” and wound up kidnapped and murdered.   

“In the final analysis only armed conflict will decide who is the victor!” added Allende’s governmental ally, Oscar Guillermo Garreton. “Without the complete destruction of the bourgeois character of the state we cannot march on the path of Socialism! The class struggle always entails armed conflict. Understand me, the global strategy is always accomplished through arms!”

Allende’s deputy Economic Minister, Sergio Ramos, didn’t mince words either: “It’s evident,” he proclaimed in mid-1973, “that the transition to socialism will first require a dictatorship of the proletariat.” “We have no choice,” declared Chilean Communist Volodia Teitelboim, “but to act with resolution and a civil war is not a careful affair. It draws targets on both the political and the apolitical.” His Communist comrade Luis Corvolan followed up with: “We have never considered the path of the Chilean Revolution to be exclusively an electoral one.”

By the time of Pinochet’s coup an estimated 31,000 Cuban, Soviet Bloc and Communist operatives infested Chile, including Castro’s top terrorist spymasters, Antonio De La Guardia and his (nominal) boss Manuel “Barbarroja” Pineiro.  Among the hundreds of Soviet personnel were KGB luminaries, Viktor Efremov, Vasili Stepanov and Nikolai Kotchanov.

The Chilean military had kept scrupulously to their barracks through several leftist — Democratic Socialist — regimes. But they recognized Allende’s regime as a completely different animal. Pinochet himself, while serving as an instructor at Chile’s military academy, had specialized in “geopolitics.” What Brezhnev, Castro and their Chilean proxies had lined up for his nation must have struck him as obvious. In light of the proceedings in Poland’s Katyn Forest in 1940 and those in Cuba’s La Cabana prison in 1959, the prospects for the Chilean military must have struck him as equally obvious.

While conservative pundits have been lauding post-Allende Chile’s free-market economic reforms and what in time became a scrupulously democratic government and the freest, most prosperous economy in Latin America, there’s been much hand-wringing by these same pundits about the brutal advance work that made it all possible.

From a cushy media pulpit in 2006, this is all too easy. But in September of 1973 Pinochet’s men weren’t out to score debating points on some fatuous think-thank panel or to win applause on some asinine chat show. They knew their nation was looking up the locked and loaded muzzle of a Stalinist takeover. So they marched into the Chilean OK Corral loaded for (Soviet) Bear. That they managed the messy business with just 3,000 dead, including all collateral damage, will amaze anyone fully informed of what they went up against.

In 1973, Chilean Communists and their Soviet and Castroite proxies were no more inclined to surrender power than Iraqi Baathists are today. The cost of persuading them to do so, as we learn daily in the news, can be onerous–collateral damage and all.

It is comforting to believe that placing daisies into the muzzles of the arms that the Soviets and Castro were pouring into Chile at the time would have persuaded Chile’s Marxist death squads and the tens of thousands of foreign communists and terrorists to take up Swedish Socialism and hold hands in a circle while chanting the Beatles’ “All You Need is Love.”  But 20th Centruy history teaches that Communists are extremely jealous of their power and privilege and extremely pitiless against those who would challenge it, or even question it. The millions who wound up in mass graves and Gulags offer stark and ready proof.

From Pilsudski’s victory over Communists in Poland to Horthy’s in Hungary to Franco’s in Spain, history also teaches that when Communists get even a small taste of their own medicine their moaning and whinning and sniveling becomes a worldwide cause celebre. The current anti-Pinochet media orgy shows that nothing has changed.  

*(All above quotes and incidents are fully documented in La Agresion Del Oso; Intervencion Sovietica y Cubana en Chile  by Gonzalo Rojas Sanches, a Fullbright Scholar and visiting professor at Notre Dame who heads the History Department at Chile’s Catholic University.)


November 22, 2006


Filed under: Historie, Left, Terror — limewoody @ 8:20 am


For the Victims of the Holodomor 1932-1933 [Induced Starvation,

Filed under: Historie, Left — limewoody @ 8:15 am

More here:

By Roman Serbyn, Professor Emeritus
Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Canada

Action Ukraine Report (AUR), #791, Article 1
Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, November 19, 2006

During the 70 years of communist rule in Ukraine, this Soviet republic
suffered a number of severe famines, the most destructive of which was
the terrible Holodomor of 1932-1933.

The term “holodomor” was coined from the Ukrainian noun “holod” (hunger,
starvation, famine) and verb “moryty” (to cause to be wasted, to kill).

Since it is now known that all the famines were preventable, many Ukrainians
apply the term to the other Ukrainian famines as well.

Recent studies, based on documentation released since the fall of communism
and the breakup of the Soviet Union show clearly, that throughout the whole
period, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic produced enough foodstuffs to be able
to feed all of its inhabitants.

The famines were the result of Moscow’s diverting of Ukrainian resources to
purposes other than the satisfaction of Ukrainian population’s hunger.

FAMINE OF 1921-1923
The first widespread famine began in the summer of 1921 and lasted for two
years. It affected the grain rich southern half of the republic, where two
consecutive years of drought completely destroyed the harvest.

Approximately one million people died, mostly in the villages but the urban
centres were also affected.

Had Ukraine been truly an independent country with a government which
put the vital interests of the Ukrainian population at the centre of its
preoccupations, this famine could have been avoided.

Ukraine had not yet been completely despoiled by the German occupation of
1918, or by the part of the Russian civil war fought on Ukrainian soil, or
by the White and the Red Russian wars of reconquest of the Ukrainian “bread
basket”. The harvest in the northern half of the republic were adequate and
even in the southern part there were still some, if insufficient, reserves.

An truly independent Ukrainian government would have arranged to have
foodstuffs transferred from the north to the south, and no human lives
needed to have been lost.

But Kharkiv, now the capital of an officially sovereign and independent
Ukrainian SSR was in fact an administrative centre taking direct orders from
Moscow. And Moscow had other priorities than to safeguard the lives of
rebellious Ukrainians.

Drought had also devastated the Volga valley and the Northern Caucasus
regions in the RSFSR and affected several times more people than in
Ukraine. Famine casualties there were also much higher than in Ukraine.

Moscow decided to come to the rescue of the starving population of the
RSFSR. All taxation in the famine regions were suspended while they were
twinned with regions that had a regular harvest, and the latter were ordered
to provide famine relief.

At the same time, Moscow ignored the famine in Ukraine and ordered the
Ukrainian republic, designated as a single unit, to help the starving
population along the Volga . Moscow also appealed to the West for foreign
aid for Russia, keeping silent about the famine in Ukraine.

In fact, when in November 1921, a fact-finding mission of the American
Relief Administration enquired about conditions in Ukraine, it was told by
Moscow that there is no reason to go to Ukraine because that Republic was
providing famine relief to Russia.

What the Russian authorities failed to mention was that Ukraine was doing
this at Moscow’s orders and at the expense of it’s own population’s
starvation and death.

Ukraine was eventually opened to famine relief, due to the perseverance of
the ARA-JDC effort to bring aid to the starving Jewish population of
southern Ukraine.

Since the 1921-1923 famine was a regional scourge, decimating the urban as
well as the rural dwellers, the Jewish population of southern Ukraine also
suffered greatly and alarmed their relatives and friends in Western Europe
and North America. The American Joint Distribution Committee was already
a participant in the ARA relief effort in the RSFSR.

Together with the ARA it prevailed upon Moscow to allow a fact-finding
mission to go to Ukraine and eventually American aid, paid for the most part
by the JDC, was allowed to come to Ukraine. ARA soup kitchens were opened
in Ukraine in April 1922, eight months after their appearance in Russia.

Other charitable organizations were also allowed to set up famine relief in
Ukraine in 1922. In October 1922, the Kremlin declared the famine vanquished
and Moscow began exporting grain from Odessa, to the disgust of
international charitable organizations, which continued to provide famine
relief for another year.

The great famine of 1932-1933 differed from the one in 1921-23 in which
there were important adverse climatic conditions, the harvests in 1932-1933
were adequate.

All serious scholars agree that in spite of the upheavals due to
dekulakization and collectivization, and even grain export, there was enough
cereal grain reserves to feed all the population of the Soviet Union.

The 1930s famine also differed in that its target was the whole rural
population of Ukraine, while the urban centres received survival rations.
The people who died from starvation in the urban centres were mostly
peasants who had come to seek food.

Unlike the 1921-23 famine, the 1932-33 catastrophe affected primarily
Ukraine and the Kuban’ region of Northern Caucasus, while the food
shortages in the regions of the RSFSR contiguous to Ukraine were much
less severe.

As a result of the famine the Ukrainian SSR lost, according to various
estimates, from four to ten million people, overwhelmingly ethnic
Ukrainians, since they made up 90 % of the republic’s agriculturalists.

Perhaps as many as one million farmers died in the RSFSR, but we do
not have a clear idea of their ethnic composition.

One of the most heavily devastated areas was the Northern Caucasus
Territory, where 2/3 of the population of the Kuban region was Ukrainian;
other affected regions were inhabited by Germans, Tatars and other ethnic

The great famine came in the wake of the so-called Stalin’s revolution from
above. Having outmaneuvered his competitors for Lenin’s mantle, Stalin
could finally undertake the transformation of the backward Soviet empire
into a modern industrial and military superpower.

Most of the capital for this endeavor would have to come from agriculture,
which would also have to sustain the growing industrial population with

Tsarist agriculture had shown Stalin that the best providers of marketable
grain were the large estates of rich landowners, while the more recent
Bolshevik experience taught him that door to door confiscation of peasants
produce was a very inefficient method of procurement.

Since most of the arable land was now in the hands of the middle and poor
peasants, most of the food produce was now consumed by the farmers and
little was left for the State procurement.

Collectivization would recreate large agricultural exploitations over which
the State would have a direct control and could squeeze out of them as much
as it wished. Collectivization would also correspond to Marxist ideology and
the satisfy the Party’s quest for better control over the peasant

Stalin and the party hierarchy was well aware that collectivization would be
strongly opposed by the peasantry, especially in Ukraine, the Kuban, and
other regions that did not have the Russian tradition of peasant obshchina
(sort of commune).

They also knew that forceful imposition of collectivization would have very
disruptive consequences for Soviet agriculture and that total production
would undoubtedly decline.

Finally, Stalin and his henchmen could not fail to realize that in Ukraine,
the opposition to the destruction of the peasants’ traditional way of life
would assume national overtones.

In fact, recent documents such as Stalin’s correspondence with Kaganovich
and Stalin-inspired decisions of the Politburo reveal that the “peasant”
and “national” questions became intertwined in Kremlin’s policies during the
early 1930s.

Collectivization was adopted as part of the first Five Year Plan in December
1927 but was not strongly implemented until 1929. In December of that year,
the Politburo ordered the dekulakization of the villages.

Kulaks were rich peasants or those deemed to have a kulak mentality.
Theoretically numbering about 5 % of the peasant population they were
divided into three categories and dealt with accordingly.

The first category, the richest and most ferocious adversaries of the State,
were exiled into special settlements outside Ukraine, after some of the
heads of families were executed.

The second category was exiled to other regions of Ukraine and third
category was allowed to stay in the same village. In both cases they were
prevented from joining collective farms and were allotted poorer lands for
their own use.

In this way several hundred thousand of Ukraine’s most dynamic and
productive agriculturalists were destroyed or marginalized from the
Ukrainian society.

The property confiscated from the “kulaks” was turned over to the
collective farms in order to draw to them the poor peasants.

Dekoulakization thus fulfilled several goals for the regime: it brought
class struggle into the village, it provided property for the new collective
farms, it provided cheap labor in remote desolate regions of Russia, and
it removed the natural leaders of the Ukrainian peasant opposition.

Dekulakization weakened but did not prevent active peasant opposition to
collectivization. This opposition manifested itself in various ways, from
armed resistance to the so-called “babs’ki bunty” (women’s revolts).

Dekulakization was over by 1931, and most of Ukrainian peasants had been
forced to join the kolkhozes by the fall of 1932 when the great famine
began. Throughout the dekulakization, collectivization and the famine
itself, USSR exported huge quantities of grain: 1930 – 5.8 million tons;
1931 – 4.7 m.t.; 1932 – 1.6 m.t.; 1933 – 2.1 m.t.

One million tons was sufficient to feed five million people for one year. It
should also be noted that even with the exports, the State’s grain reserves
never dipped below 1.5 m.t., i.e., enough to save the starving population
from untimely suffering and death.

The first wave of induced famine hit Ukraine in the winter-spring 1932 when
half a million died; the second wave commenced in the fall of that year and
peaked sometime in the early spring days of 1933.

The direct cause of famine were high procurement quotas which most of the
kolkhozes and remaining individual peasants were unable to meet and which
Stalin refused to lower to a manageable level.

Stalin knew very well the situation in Ukrainian villages. He was
continually informed by his envoys to Ukraine Molotov, Kaganovich, Kosior
and Postyshev. He received complaints and requests for lowering of
procurement quotas from the Ukrainian leaders Petrovsky, Chubar, Terekhov.

The OGPU sent periodic reports showing the catastrophic situation in the
Ukrainian villages. Stalin’s response was always the same: there is grain in
Ukraine, saboteurs are hiding it, the grain must be found and the saboteurs
be punished.

During the worst months of the famine, party faithfuls, helped by workers
sent to Ukraine from Russian industrial centres and by local peasant
activists went from house to house, seeking hidden grain and other
foodstuffs, confiscating the last pieces of edibles from the peasant tables.

Kolkhozes and individual farmers were put on “balck boards” (black lists),
forbidden to buy the basic necessities of life: matches, kerosene, and other
manufactured goods.

Two documents which have recently come to light reveal that Stalin’s
extermination policy was directed specifically against the Ukrainian people.

On 14 December 1932 a joint resolution of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party and the Council of Peoples Commissars of the USSR
condemned the process of Ukrainization which had been carried out in
Ukraine and Northern Caucasus (especially Kuban) for the problems in
State procurement in these regions.

Ukrainization had allowed, according to the document, Petliurites, Ukrainian
bourgeois nationalists to infiltrate local administrations, educational
establishments and the mass media outlets, create counterrevolutionary cells
and pursue a policy of sabotage and destabilization.

The solution ordered by the Party/State hierarchy was put Ukrainization in
Ukraine on its original track: to integrate the Ukrainian people into the
Soviet system. Petliurites and Ukrainian bourgeois nationalist were to be
removed from Soviet institutions in Ukraine and punished.

The punishment of the 8 million Ukrainians in the RSFSR amounted to
complete annihilation of their ethnic identity: Ukrainian bourgeois
nationalists were to be removed from all public institutions in RSFSR,
the Russian language was to replace Ukrainian in all sectors of social life
where Ukrainian was used: local administration, newspapers and journals.

All Ukrainian schools were to be Russified. In addition, the inhabitants of
many of the Ukrainian stanytsias, settled by descendants of the Ukrainian
Zaporozhian cossacks were to be deported to the north and resettled with
loyal Russian peasants from infertile lands.

The second document, which shows Stalin’s intent to exterminate a part of
the Ukrainian nation, is his directive cosigned by Molotov, and sent on 22
January 1933 to the republican authorities in Ukraine and Belarus, and five
Russian regional administrations along the Ukrainian borders.

The order blames the OGPU for allowing the previous year peasants from
Ukraine and the Kuban to go north, allegedly in search of food, but in fact
to spread propaganda against the kolkhoz system. These Petliurites and
agents of Pilsudski must not be allowed to do the same this year.

A mass movement has already started once more in Ukraine and the Kuban,
and it must be nipped in the bud. The addressed authorities must warn their
peasants against leaving their villages and take all the necessary means to
prevent a peasant exodus. The Railways are forbidden to sell tickets to
peasants in those regions.

The OGPU is ordered to arrest all peasants who do not heed the warning
and try to cross the Ukrainian border. As a result of this directive, in the
ensuing six weeks, the OGPU arrested some 220,000 people, sent about
190,000 back to their starving villages and dealt otherwise with the rest.

These two documents provide convincing evidence that the Stalin-made famine
of 1932-1933 meets the requirements of genocide as defined by the United
Nations Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, adopted by the General
Assembly on 9 December 1948.

The crucial element of the definition, the question of intent to destroy in
whole or in part, is demonstrated by Stalin’s decision to close internal
Soviet borders thus isolating peasants of Ukraine and the Kuban to prevent
them from seeking refuge in the more benign conditions of Russia and

The second element of the definition, that the target group be identified as
national or ethnic is also met. The segregated peasants made up a national
group (in the civic sense of the term) as citizens of Ukraine, while at the
same time 90 % of them were ethnic Ukrainians.

Some three quarters of the Kuban peasants and Cossacks were of Ukrainian
ethnic background and thus compose an ethnic group. The nexus between
the two targeted groups was their Ukrainianness.

The third famine began in the fall of 1946 and reached its peak in the
spring of 1947. The main causes of the famine were similar to those of the
previous famines: exorbitant procurement quotas for grain and other
agricultural produce, which drained the country side of vital resources, and
Stalin’s unwillingness to aid the starving population in those regions that
suffered from drought and a poor harvests.

During the famine period, the Soviet Union shipped cereals to its new
satellites: Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and
even Finland and France. Some 2.5 m.t. of grain was exported.

The famine touched particularly the newly annexed Izmailivs’ka and
Chernivets’ka oblasts, where collectivization of agriculture had dire
consequences for the agrarian population. Other regions of Central and
Eastern Ukraine were also affected by food shortages.

To escape the famine, peasants fled to Western Ukraine, where the climatic
conditions had been more benign and the harvest more plentiful. To prevent
this peasant movement, the authorities posted guards along the main routes
to turn the refugees back.

In Western Ukraine, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and
the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) tried to impede the export of Ukrainian
grain to the West. Soviet authorities provided famine relief only to those
who worked in the fields, where soup kitchens were set up during working

In all, about one million Ukrainians, mostly peasants, perished from
starvation during the famine of 1946-1947.

In conclusion, all three famines, 1921-1923, 1932-1933, and
1946-1947 were the result of Moscow’s deliberate diverting of
Ukrainian resources to purposes other than the satisfaction of
Ukrainian population’s hunger.


November 16, 2006

Gearing up for the War

Filed under: Global Jihad, Historie, Islam, Left, Media, Migration, Multi Kulti, Terror, Western civilisation — limewoody @ 7:55 am

global pot

November 15, 2006

A Civilization in Crisis

Filed under: Asia, Global Jihad, Historie, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Lande, Mellemøsten, Terror, Tyrkiet — limewoody @ 5:58 pm

The Arab and Muslim worlds now confront a civilizational challenge unlike any they have faced since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The terrorists attacks on New York and Washington cost thousands of innocent lives. Millions of other lives will be wasted or lost if Muslims and Arabs respond to September 11th by wallowing even more in their sense of victimhood.
“Anti-Americanism” in the hands of an Osama bin Laden is but the latest and most virulent form of an idea nurtured originally by secular, so-called progressive, nationalist Arab intellectuals under a variety of labels: anti-imperialism, anti-zionism, Arab socialism, pan-Arabism. These took as their point of departure genuine grievances, some more legitimate than others. Among the legitimate grievances, priority must be given to the injustice caused by the dispossession of millions of Palestinians that accompanied the birth of Israel in 1948.
In the hands of Arab nationalists and leftist “anti-imperialists” of my generation, however (of whom I was once one), this sense of grievance failed to get channeled into building civil societies based on any hard-won expansions of civil liberties wrested from tyrannical regimes (such as occurred in Latin America in the 1980s). Our failure to even pursue such goals left a vacuum that was soon filled by a conspiratorial view of history , reinforced by those tyrannies, which ascribed all the world’s ills to either the great Satan, America, or the little Satan, Israel.
The dangerous, unstated corollary of this view was the notion that “we Arabs” had no, or hardly any, power to change the unjust ways in which the world works. Arabs in particular, and Muslims more generally, began to see themselves as the “eternal” victims of the 20th century, consigned to a Sisyphean “struggle” against Satanic injustice. Lost was a sense of ourselves as authentic political agents aiming toward concrete and gradual political gains.
It is important to note that Arabs are not the only people who wrap themselves in victimhood; the modern Israeli sense of identity was, after all, forged on the foundations of the Holocaust just as surely as Palestinian national identity was forged by Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Such symmetries (there are many) created a powerful complex of victimhood, applicable to one degree or another to all peoples of the Middle East (Palestinians, Israelis, Kurds, Armenians, Turkomans, Shi’is, and Sunnis).
In the Arab world, especially after Israel’s victory in the six day war of 1967, this complex turned into the driving force of politics and culture; it became the foundation upon which such murderous regimes as Saddam Husain’s Iraq and Hafez Assad’s Syria were built. From the hands of secular Arab nationalists, the murderous anti-American brew was passed on to (previously marginal) religious zealots. In 1979 it fused with anti-Shah sentiments to become one of the animating forces of the Iranian revolution. In the wake of that seminal event, it overwhelmed major sections of the Islamic movement from Algeria to Pakistan.
The Arab and Muslim worlds today comprise a basket case of collapsing economies and mass unemployment overseen by ever more repressive regimes. But in many ways the greatest failure in the Islamic world is intellectual, specifically a failure of the intelligentsia – writers, professors, artists, journalists, and so forth – who, with few exceptions, fail to challenge the region’s wildest and most paranoid fantasies. If anything they buttress them by refusing to break out of nationalist paradigms (for instance by not extending the hand of solidarity to counterparts in Israel).
Instead they act as “rejectionist” critics, excoriating their rulers for being insufficiently anti-zionist or anti-imperialist. Lost in all of this is the hard work of creating a modern, rights-based political order, one that could form the basis for general prosperity. Absent that alternative focus, in the thick of endlessly self-pitying victimizing rhetoric, is it any wonder that despairing middle class individuals gravitate toward radical and terrorist activities aimed at smiting the demonized other? Their horrific/suicidal actions call forth ever more summary and violent responses, which in turn reinforce that pervasive sense of victimhood, yielding other delusional martyrs. Here is the abyss facing the world’s Arab and Muslim communities today.
To pull back from the precipice, Muslims and Arabs, not Americans, must be on the frontlines of a new kind of war, one worth waging for our own salvation and our own souls . That, as out-of-fashion Muslim scholars will tell you, is the true meaning of “ jihad ,” a meaning hijacked by terrorists and suicide bombers and those who applaud or excuse them. To exorcise what they have done in our name is the civilizational challenge that Arabs and Muslims, within and without the Arab and Muslim worlds (Osama bin Laden has erased the significance of such distinctions) face at the dawn of the 21st century.

Kanan Makiya was born in Baghdad, Iraq and now teaches at Brandeis University. His books include “Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq” (University of California Press, 1989 and 1995), “Cruelty and Silence: War, Tyranny, Uprising and the Arab World” (Penguin, 1993) and “The Rock: A Seventh Century Tale of Jerusalem” (Pantheon Books, 2001).

November 6, 2006

Documentary on Communism 1 – 2 – 3

Filed under: Historie, Left, Media, Western civilisation — limewoody @ 12:12 pm

October 25, 2006

Ancient Jewish treasures in monastery, book says Ancient Jewish treasures in monastery, book says

Filed under: Historie, Israel — limewoody @ 8:33 am

(10-23) 04:00 PDT Mar Theodosius, West Bank — Until today, the main claim to fame of this sleepy monastery on the edge of the Judean wilderness was the tradition that the Three Wise Men slept in the caves here after visiting the infant Jesus in Bethlehem.

But a new book claims that the Greek Orthodox Monastery Mar Theodosius was the last hiding place of one of the greatest treasures of antiquity: the gold and silver vessels of the first century B.C. Temple in Jerusalem, the central shrine of Judaism that once housed the Holy Ark containing the sacred tablets brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses.

British archaeologist Sean Kingsley said he has traced the journey of the legendary vessels from the first time they disappeared from public view more than 1,500 years ago to their current location in this walled monastery east of Bethlehem in the West Bank. He said the items include “the central icons of biblical Judaism” — a seven-branched gold candelabra, the bejeweled Table of the Divine Presence and a pair of silver trumpets.

But many people, including Israeli government officials, believe the treasures are hidden somewhere in Vatican vaults. In 1996, Israeli Religious Affairs Minister Shimon Shetreet officially asked the pope to return them.

But Kingsley contends they were taken from Rome when it was sacked by the Vandals in A.D. 455. He bases his theory on new archaeological sources and contemporary accounts by ancient historians.

In his new book, “God’s Gold: The Quest for the Lost Temple Treasure of Jerusalem,” just published in Britain this month and due in U.S. bookstores in the spring, Kingsley describes the odyssey of the priceless haul from Jerusalem to Rome and back again via Carthage and Constantinople, to its final resting-place at Mar Theodosius.

“I am the first person to prove that the temple treasure is no longer in Rome,” he said.

Kingsley said the vessels were hidden in the caves under the monastery to escape the sacking of Jerusalem by Muslim invaders in A.D. 614.

“If you were the Bishop of Jerusalem and a massive Persian force was sweeping down like locusts from the north, you would want to get the treasure out of the city,” he said.

But at least one Israeli expert has scoffed at Kingsley’s theories.

“I’ve been there several times, studying the skeletons of monks who were massacred by the Persians in the seventh century,” said Israeli anthropologist Joe Zias, a former curator for the Israel Antiquities Authority. “It doesn’t have any such treasure — and if it did, it was plundered by the Arabs or Persians centuries ago.”

Kingsley said he was unable to gain access to the monastery to prove his theory, and conceded that he had not discussed the matter with local church officials or archaeologists for fear of tipping them off before publication of his book.

The dilapidated monastery was once home to monks, but today its only inhabitants are 10 nuns. One of them, who declined to give her name, told a visitor that there was no treasure buried at Mar Theodosius, which was destroyed during the same Muslim invasion and left abandoned until the late 19th century. During a visit to the caves beneath the monastery, a Chronicle contributor was told that no precious artifacts had ever been recovered from the site, probably because it was left in ruins for nearly 1,300 years and any valuables were looted by grave robbers.

Although Kingsley may be mistaken about Mar Theodosius, his reconstruction of the odyssey of the temple treasure is compelling.

According to the first century historian Josephus, 50 tons of gold and silver vessels were plundered from the temple by the Roman Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus during the conquest of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

“They used the treasure to help finance the building of the Colosseum in Rome and paraded it through the streets in triumph in A.D. 71,” said Kingsley. The moment, he said, was captured in a frieze carved into the Arch of Titus in Rome, which clearly shows the menorah, the seven-branched temple candelabra that was the symbol of ancient Judaism, being paraded through the streets.

“Contemporary sources show that it survived on public display in the Temple of Peace in the Roman Forum from A.D. 75 into the early fifth century. Then it suddenly disappeared. Who stole God’s gold?”

According to his research, it was Gaiseric, king of the Vandals.

“In A.D. 455, Gaiseric looted and burnt Rome in 14 days and threw everything he could, including the temple treasures, into ships and took them to the temple of Carthage,” he said. “They would not have liquidated the loot. It gave them power.

“In A.D. 534, the emperor Justinian brought the Vandal king into Constantinople. The records show that they resurrected the triumphal procession in A.D. 71. The historian Procopius of Caesarea clearly describes the treasures of Jerusalem being paraded at head of this triumph.”

In Constantinople — today’s Istanbul — Kingsley found the Church of St. Polyeuktos, a unique Byzantine structure which appears to have been built according to the dimensions of the Temple in Jerusalem. Its patron, Princess Juliana, was described in terms that compared her to the builder of the original temple. One church inscription read: “She alone has conquered time and surpassed the wisdom of renowned Solomon, raising a temple to receive God.”

“The relevance of the Church of St. Polyeuktos to the temple treasure is obvious. Where would be more fitting to deposit the birthright of the chosen people than in a temple fit for God?” asked Kingsley.

But the treasure did not remain in Constantinople for long, he says.

“The emperor Justinian was a student of classical antiquity, and he was aware that every civilization that controlled the temple treasure had eventually been consumed by it. Fearful, he sent the treasure back to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in around A.D. 560,” said Kingsley.

“At this point our evidence peters out, and the story becomes a question of interpretation,” he said. “But we know that the Jews of Jerusalem allied with the Persians during the invasion of A.D. 614, and one chronicler describes them violating the cave beneath the tomb of Christ in the Holy Sepulchre. What were they looking for? I can only suppose they were looking for the temple treasure.”

At that point, said Kingsley, a monk called Modestus from Mar Theodosius found himself in charge of the priceless vessels. It would only be natural for him to hide them in the isolated desert caves, not knowing that the location would also be overrun by the invading Persians a few weeks later.

Kingsley said he had peered over the wall of the monastery and seen evidence of archeological looting in the area, but hoped the temple treasures would remain undisturbed.

“It’s very important this universal treasure is not used for political purposes,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to see this deadly treasure come to life. It’s much safer left under the shifting sands of the West Bank.

October 22, 2006

Relentless…Just Watch it.

Filed under: Historie, Israel, Mellemøsten — limewoody @ 9:02 am

October 10, 2006

Our World: History’s dangerous repetition

Filed under: Historie, Israel — limewoody @ 4:46 pm

 would seem that Karl Marx got things backwards. History does not repeat
itself first as tragedy and then as farce. Rather, it repeats itself first
as farce and second as tragedy. This, perhaps more than anything else is the
conclusion one should reach from North Korea’s nuclear test on Columbus Day.It was the Clinton administration, which back in the Roaring ’90s began the
policy of appeasing North Korea. Throughout the decade the US wined and
dined the North Korean Stalinists who always responded by pocketing US
concessions and escalating their nuclear and ballistic missile activities
and threats against the US and its Asian allies.

The farce was then US secretary of state Madeleine Albright’s visit to
Pyongyang in late October 2000, two weeks before the US presidential
elections. There, after the North Koreans tested the Taepo-Dong 1 ballistic
missile off the coast of Japan in 1998 and refused to end either their
missile programs or missile exports to Iran, Albright tripped the night
fantastic with Kim Jong-Il. Her buffoonery was a perfect capstone to eight
years of the Clinton administration’s addiction to ceremony over substance.

While America’s tone towards North Korea chilled under the Bush
administration, there was little substantive change in its policies.

Secretary of state Colin Powell met with his North Korean counterpart Pak
Nam Sun and to this day US attempts to strike a deal with Pyongyang have not
ended. And now, Pyongyang, with its medium- and long-range ballistic
missiles, has tested a nuclear bomb.

THERE IS of course also North Korea’s ally Iran. Toward Iran, too, the
substance of the Bush administration policies is little different from that
of his predecessor. Like North Korea, the Iranians respond to US attempts at
appeasement by escalating their rhetoric and redoubling their offensive
military build-ups of missiles and nuclear capabilities.

The great shift, then which occurred under the Bush administration, a shift
for which President George W. Bush has been pilloried by his political
rivals, has been rhetorical.

While hypocritical, the division between rhetoric and substance has
something to recommend it. The benefit of the current US position toward
North Korea and Iran is that the rhetoric has left open the possibility that
the policy itself will finally be suited to reality. Today, unlike the
situation in the 1990s, the American public is at least aware that these
states are a threat to US national security interests.

In the aftermath of North Korea’s nuclear bomb test, the US can support
military actions by Japan and South Korea against North Korea; build up its
missile shield; and perhaps end its 14 year self-imposed moratorium on
nuclear testing and so revamp its nuclear arsenal.

Were the Bush administration to change its policy tomorrow regarding Iran –
begin shaming Europe into ending its appeasement, and threatening Russia
with trade sanctions if Moscow continues supporting Iran, Syria and
Hizbullah, while building up its military options to strike at Iran’s
nuclear installations – the American public would understand why the policy
change was necessary. Indeed, such a move could even help the Republican
Party in the upcoming elections.

DISTURBINGLY, WHILE Bush has paved the way rhetorically for a shift in
policy toward North Korea and Iran, he has done no such thing in the US’s
relations with the terror-ruled Palestinian Authority. And as is the case
with Iran and North Korea, the stubborn and ill-considered continuation of
the Clinton administration’s appeasement policy toward the PA during the
Bush years has only exacerbated and escalated the threat posed by the PA to
US national security interests and to the national security of US allies –
first and foremost, of Israel.

In the 1990s, the father of modern terrorism, Yasser Arafat, was the most
frequent foreign visitor at the White House. The head of the PLO was the
object of adoration by the Clintonites. It didn’t matter to them that Arafat
never revoked the PLO Charter calling for Israel’s destruction. It didn’t
matter that he indoctrinated a generation of Palestinian children to become
suicide bombers in jihad against the Jews. It didn’t matter that he used
billions of dollars of American and European taxpayer money to build the
largest terror army in the world. Arafat showed up at signing ceremonies. He
was the poster child of appeasement.

The Clinton administration tied itself to a policy toward the Palestinians
which, like its policies toward North Korea and Iran, opened it to ever
escalating blackmail. As the terror threat emanating from the PA-ruled areas
rose, empowering Arafat became the obsession of the Clinton White House. He
was showered with money, guns and love. No Israeli security consideration
could hold a candle to the need to strengthen Arafat.

From bombing to bombing, Arafat was enriched and empowered. Israel’s
security became the main obstacle to the signing ceremonies.

After seven years, the myth of Arafat the peacemaker exploded in the faces
of more than a thousand Israelis who would be killed over the next six years
of the Palestinian jihad. But the myth of the PA endured.

For the past six years, each bombing, every clear indication that the PA
itself is a terrorist entity is met by more breathless US
protestations of support for Palestinian empowerment and statehood. The fact
that the last six years have left the State Department unfazed was made
absolutely clear during Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s visit last

Since Arafat appointed Mahmoud Abbas, his deputy of 40 years, PA prime
minister in 2003, the US has upheld Abbas as a man of peace, a moderate and
a respectable leader that the Bush administration wishes to strengthen. To
this end, the Bush administration has overlooked Abbas’s clear support for
terrorism. It has excused his constant appeals to merge his Fatah terror
group with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It has ignored the fact that his Fatah
terror group has committed more acts of terror than Hamas and that Fatah’s
involvement in terror and the sophistication of its attacks has only
increased since Abbas replaced Arafat after the latter’s death in November

During her visit last week, at Abbas’s request, Rice was scheduled to meet
with Fatah commander Hussein a-Sheikh in the American Consulate-General in
Jerusalem. The meeting was cancelled at the last minute when Israeli
activists demanded that Sheikh, who was directly responsible for the murder
of dozens of Israelis and several American nationals, be arrested by Israel
police upon arrival at the consulate. Yet, Rice still met with other Fatah
leaders, like Muhammad Dahlan who has been directly implicated in the murder
of Israelis in terror attacks perpetrated by men under his command.

EVEN MORE disturbingly, Rice has officially sanctioned a policy put together
by US Army Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton to expand by up to 70 percent Abbas’s
presidential guard and personal army, Force 17. The administration wishes to
raise some $20 million to fund the training and arming and expansion of
Abbas’s army from 3,500 to 6,000 soldiers. This move comes after the US
transferred 3,000 rifles and 1 million bullets to Force 17 in June. Yet
Force 17 is a terrorist army led by terrorists.
Right after he received the weapons shipment, Abbas appointed Mahmoud Damra
commander of the force. Damra, who like many of the Force 17 officers and
soldiers, doubles as a Fatah terrorist, was wanted by Israel due to his
direct involvement in the terrorist murder of at least 15 Israelis. One of
his deputies claimed that the US rifles were immediately used to attack a
bus carrying Israeli school girls in Judea.

Israel arrested Damra at a checkpoint shortly after he received Abbas’s
appointment. The US immediately began pressuring Israel to release him.

In addition to Damra’s direct involvement in Fatah terror, he also has close
ties with Iran and Hizbullah. In 2002, Arafat reportedly appointed him Force
17’s liaison officer to Iran and Hizbullah forces. The fact that Abbas
appointed Damra Force 17’s overall commander just weeks before Fatah and
Hamas began Iran’s proxy war against Israel by attacking the IDF position at
Kerem Shalom and kidnapping Cpl. Gilad Shalit, should say something about
Abbas’s intentions. Yet, last week, Rice couldn’t praise Abbas enough.

North Korea’s nuclear test and Iran’s nuclear intimidation show us what
happens when failed policies are not abandoned. Due in part to its continued
US-backed legitimacy, the PA is used by Pakistan as an excuse for terror
sponsorship and nuclear proliferation and by jihadists throughout the world
as justification for attacks on Western and Jewish targets.
No doubt the North Korean nuclear test is a turning point in this world war.

The question is whether it will force the US to finally part with
appeasement, or whether Rice will convince President Bush to take his
chances by repeating history a third and fourth time.

October 5, 2006

Yes but on whose side were they fighting…..and on whose side are the fighting now????????

Filed under: Eurabia, Historie, WW2 — limewoody @ 3:20 pm

A campaign by Swedish Liberal MEP Cecilia Malmström to end the monthly Strasbourg session of the European Parliament has led to a row between the speaker of the parliament and the Nordic countries.

The speaker, Josep Borrell, claimed that Sweden did not suffer enought during the Second Ward War to understand the true meaning of the parliament’s Strasbourg base. The claim has enraged leader-writers on Sweden’s newspapers, who were asking whether Borrell really meant that countries who didn’t fight in the war should have less of a say in EU matters.

“Borrell didn’t fight in the war himself – he was born 1947,” wrote Kristian Karlsson in Svenska Dagbladet.

“But nobody has suggested that his entirely peaceful upbringing should exclude him from political debate,”

The row started last Thursday when Borrell, a Spaniard, claimed that the parliament is a symbol of Franco-German reconciliation, adding that “this historic dimension cannot be perceived in the same way in ‘some Nordic country’ which did not participate in World War II.”

The backlash against Borrell started immediately in the other Nordic countries, which lost the gist of Borrell’s attack in translation and failed to see that he was referring to one particular Nordic country, rather than to them all. Finnish MEPs were particularly upset by the perceived ignorance of their country’s suffering in the war.

Borrell’s subsequent attempts to clafify remarks have merely inflamed the debate. While he assured those Nordic countries that had participated in the war of his “friendship and sympathy,” he underlined that he was referring to “one of those countries where there are most petitioners in favour of one single seat – not in Strasbourg – for the European Parliament.”

Dagens Nyheter’s Marianne Björklund reacted furiously to Borrell’s remarks. Should Swedes have less of a say on the EU because we weren’t involved in the Second World War, she asked.

“Borrell doesn’t say how much suffering is required for a person’s vote to count,” she wrote.

Cecilia Malmström herself has now written a letter of protest to Borrell, in which she points out that most of the 1 million signatures on her ‘Oneseat’ petition come from Dutch citizens. She also said she was “confused” by his references to World War II.

“The ‘Oneseat petition is for Europe, for France, and for every other European country,” she insisted.

Meanwhile, even if Malmström’s efforts fail to shut down the Strasbourg parliament, they could still pay dividends for the MEP herself, as she is a hot tip to be named a minister in Sweden’s new government.

The European Parliament has often been referred to as a ‘travelling circus’, for its practice of moving from its normal base in Brussels for meetings three days a month at a separate parliament building in Strasbourg. The practice costs €200 million a year, but can only be ended by unanimous agreement among EU members. France is thought certain to veto any attempt to shut the Strasbourg venue.

James Savage

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at