Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 





The Imperial System: Hierarchy, Networks and Clients - The Case of Somalia
Sunday, 18 February 2007 17:02
by James Petras

The imperial system is much more complex than what is commonly referred to as the “US Empire”. The US Empire, with its vast network of financial investments, military bases, multi-national corporations and client states, is the single most important component of the global imperial system (1). Nevertheless, it is overly simplistic to overlook the complex hierarchies, networks, follower states and clients that define the contemporary imperial system (2). To understand empire and imperialism today requires us to look at the complex and changing system of imperial stratification.

Hierarchy of Empire

The structure of power of the world imperial system can best be understood through a classification of countries according to their political, economic, diplomatic and military organization. The following is a schema of this system:

I. Hierarchy of Empire (from top to bottom)

A. Central Imperial States (CIS)

B. Newly Emerging Imperial Powers (NEIP)

C. Semi-autonomous Client Regimes (SACR)

D. Client Collaborator Regimes (CCR)

II. Independent States:

A. Revolutionary

Cuba and Venezuela

B. Nationalist

Sudan, Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea

III. Contested Terrain and Regimes in Transition

Armed resistance, elected regimes, social movements

At the top of the imperial system are those imperial states whose power is projected on a world scale, whose ruling classes dominate investment and financial markets and who penetrate the economies of the rest of the world. At the apex of the imperial system stand the US, the European Union (itself highly stratified) and Japan. Led by the US they have established networks of ‘follower imperial states’ (largely regional hegemons) and client or vassal states which frequently act as surrogate military forces. Imperial states act in concert to break down barriers to penetration and takeovers, while at the same time, competing to gain advantages for their own state and multinational interests.

Just below the central imperial states are newly emerging imperial powers (NEIP), namely China, India, Canada, Russia and Australia. The NEIP states are subject to imperial penetration, as well as expanding into neighboring and overseas underdeveloped states and countries rich in extractive resources. The NEIP are linked to the central imperial states (CIS) through joint ventures in their home states, while they increasingly compete for control over extractive resources in the underdeveloped countries. They frequently ‘follow’ in the footsteps of the imperial powers, and in some cases take advantage of conflicts to better their own position.

Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.

For example China and India’s overseas expansion focuses on investments in extractive mineral and energy sectors to fuel domestic industrialization, similar to the earlier (1880-1950’s) imperial practices of the US and Europe. Similarly China invests in African countries, which are in conflict with the US and EU, just as the US developed ties with anti-colonial regimes (Algeria, Kenya and Francophone Africa) in conflict with their former European colonial rulers in the 1950’ and 1960’s.

Further down the hierarchy of the imperial system are the ‘semi-autonomous client regimes’ (SACR). These include Brazil, South Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Chile and lately Bolivia. These states have a substantial national economic base of support, through public or private ownership of key economic sectors. They are governed by regimes, which pursue diversified markets, though highly dependent on exports to the emerging imperial states. On the other hand these states are highly dependent on imperial state military protection (Taiwan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia) and provide regional military bases for imperial operations. Many are resource-dependent exporters (Saudi Arabia, Chile, Nigeria and Bolivia) who share revenues and profits with the multi-nationals of the imperial states. They include rapidly industrialized countries (Taiwan and South Korea), as well as relatively agro-mineral export states (Brazil, Argentina and Chile).

The wealthy oil states have close ties with the financial ruling classes of the imperial counties and invest heavily in real estate, financial instruments and Treasury notes which finance the deficits in the US and England.

On key issues such as imperial wars in the Middle East, the invasion of Haiti, destabilizing regimes in Africa, support for global neo-liberal policies and imperial takeovers of strategic sectors, they collaborate with rulers from the CIS and the NEIP. Nevertheless, because of powerful elite interests and in some cases of powerful national social movements, they come into limited conflicts with the imperial powers. For example, Brazil, Chile and Argentina disagree with the US efforts to undermine the nationalist Venezuelan government. They have lucrative trade, energy and investment relations with Venezuela. In addition they do not wish to legitimize military coups, which might threaten their own rule and legitimacy in the eyes of an electorate partial to President Chavez. While structurally deeply integrated into the imperial system, the SACR regimes retain a degree of autonomy in formulating foreign and domestic policy, which may even conflict or compete with imperial interests.

Despite their ‘relative autonomy’, the regimes also provide military and political mercenaries to serve the imperialist countries. This is best illustrated in the case of Haiti. Subsequent to the US invasion and overthrow of the elected Aristide Government in 2004, the US succeeded in securing an occupation force from its outright client and ‘semi-autonomous’ client regimes. President Lula of Brazil sent a major contingent. A Brazilian General headed the entire mercenary military force. Chile’s Gabriel Valdez headed the United Nations occupation administration as the senior official overseeing the bloody repression of Haitian resistance movements. Other ‘semi-autonomous’ clients, such as Uruguay and Bolivia, added military contingents along with soldiers from client regimes such as Panama, Paraguay, Colombia and Peru. President Evo Morales justified Bolivia’s continued military collaboration with the US in Haiti under his presidency by citing its ‘peacekeeping role’, knowing full well that between December 2006 and February 2007 scores of Haitian poor were slaughtered during a full-scale UN invasion of Haiti’s poorest and most densely populated slums.

The key theoretical point is that given Washington current state of being tied down in two wars in the Middle East and West Asia, it depends on its clients to police and repress anti-imperialist movements elsewhere. Somalia, as in Haiti, was invaded by mercenaries by Ethiopia, trained, financed, armed and directed by US military advisers. Subsequently, during the occupation, Washington succeeded in securing its African clients (via the so-called Organization of African Unity according to the White House’s stooge, Ugandan Army spokesman Captain Paddy Ankunda) to send a mercenary occupation army to prop up its unpopular client Somali warlord ruler. Despite opposition from its Parliament, Uganda is sending 1500 mercenaries along with contingents from Nigeria, Burundi, Ghana and Malawi.

At the bottom of the imperial hierarchy are the client collaborator regimes (CCR). These include Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf States, Central American and Caribbean Island states, the Axis of Sub-Saharan States (ASS) (namely Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Ghana), Colombia, Peru, Paraguay, Mexico, Eastern European states (in and out of the European Union), former states of the USSR (Georgia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Latvia, etc), Philippines, Indonesia, North Africa and Pakistan. These countries are governed by authoritarian political elites dependent on the imperial or NEIP states for arms, financing and political support. They provide vast opportunities for exploitation and export of raw materials. Unlike the SACR, exports from client regimes have little value added, as industrial processing of raw materials takes place in the imperial countries, particularly in the NEIP. Predator, rentier, comprador and kleptocratic elites who lack any entrepreneurial vocation rule the CCR. They frequently provide mercenary soldiers to service imperial countries intervening, conquering, occupying and imposing client regimes in imperial targeted countries. The client regimes thus are subordinate collaborators of the imperial powers in the plunder of wealth, the exploitation of billions of workers and the displacement of peasants and destruction of the environment.

The structure of the imperial system is based on the power of ruling classes to exercise and project state and market power, retain control of exploitative class relations at home and abroad and to organize mercenary armies from among its client states. Led and directed by imperial officials, mercenary armies collaborate in destroying autonomous popular, nationalist movements and independent states.

Client regimes form a crucial link in sustaining the imperial powers. They complement imperial occupation forces, facilitating the extraction of raw materials. Without the ‘mercenaries of color’ the imperial powers would have to extend and over-stretch their own military forces, provoking high levels of internal opposition, and heightening overseas resistance to overt wars of re-colonization. Moreover client mercenaries are less costly in terms of financing and reduce the loss of imperial soldiers. There are numerous euphemistic terms used to describe these client mercenary forces: United Nations, Organization of American States and Organization of African Unity ‘peacekeepers’, the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ among others. In many cases a few white imperial senior officers command the lower officers and soldiers of color of the client mercenary armies.

Independent States and Movements

The imperial system while it straddles the globe and penetrates deeply into societies, economies and states is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Challenges to the imperial system come from two sources: relatively independent states and powerful social and political movements.

The ‘independent’ states are largely regimes, which are in opposition to and targeted by the imperial states. They include Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Zimbabwe. What defines these regimes as ‘independent’ is their willingness to reject the policies of the imperial powers, particularly imperial military interventions. They also reject imperialist demands for unconditional access to markets, resources and military bases.

These regimes differ widely in terms of social policy, degree of popular support, secular-religious identities, economic development and consistency in opposing imperialist aggression. All face immediate military threats and /or destabilization programs, designed to replace the independent governments with client regimes.

Contested Terrain

The imperial hierarchy and networks are based on class and national relations of power. This means that the maintenance of the entire system is based on the ruling classes dominating the underlying population – a very problematical situation given the unequal distribution of costs and benefits between the rulers and the ruled. Today massive armed resistance and social movements in numerous countries challenge the imperial system.

Contested terrain includes: Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Somalia, Palestine, Sudan and Lebanon where armed resistance is intent on defeating imperial clients. Sites of mass confrontations include Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Iran where the imperial powers are intent on overthrowing newly elected independent regimes. Large scale social movements organized to combat client regimes and the imperial patrons have recently emerged in Mexico, Palestine, Lebanon, China, Ecuador and elsewhere. Inside the imperial states there is mass opposition to particular imperial wars and policies, but only small and weak anti-imperialist movements.

The Anomaly: Israel in the Imperial System

Israel is clearly a colonialist power, with the fourth or fifth biggest nuclear arsenal and the second biggest arms exporter in the world. Its population size, territorial spread and economy however are puny in comparison with the imperial and newly emerging imperial powers. Despite these limitations Israel exercises supreme power in influencing the direction of United States war policy in the Middle East via a powerful Zionist political apparatus, which permeates the State, the mass media, elite economic sectors and civil society (3a). Through Israel’s direct political influence in making US foreign policy, as well as through its overseas military collaboration with dictatorial imperial client regimes, Israel can be considered part of the imperial power configuration despite its demographic constraints, its near universal pariah diplomatic status, and its externally sustained economy.

Regimes in Transition

The imperial system is highly asymmetrical, in constant disequilibrium and therefore in constant flux – as wars, class and national struggles break out and economic crises bring down regimes and raise new political forces to power. In recent times we have seen the rapid conversion of Russia from a world hegemonic contender (prior to 1989), converted into an imperial client state subject to unprecedented pillage (1991-1999) to its current position as a newly emerging imperial state. While Russia is one of the most dramatic cases of rapid and profound changes in the world imperialist system, other historical experiences exemplify the importance of political and social changes in shaping countries’ relationship to the world imperial system. China and Vietnam, former bulwarks as independent, anti-imperialist states, have seen the rise of liberal-capitalist elites, the dismantling of the socialized economy and China’s incorporation as a newly emerging imperialist power and Vietnam as a semi-autonomous client regime.

The major transitions during the 1980’s – 1990’s involved the conversion of independent anti-imperialist states into imperial client regimes. In the Western hemisphere, these transitions include Nicaragua, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Jamaica and Grenada. In Africa, they include Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, Algeria, Ethiopia and Libya, all converted into kleptocratic client regimes. In Asia similar processes are afoot in Indo-China. Because of the disastrous consequences of imperial-centered policies administered by client regimes, the first decade of the new millennium witnessed a series of massive popular upheavals and regime changes, especially in Latin America. Popular insurrections in Argentina and Bolivia led to regime shifts from client to semi-autonomous clients. In Venezuela after a failed coup and destabilization campaign, the Chavez regime moved decisively from semi-autonomous client to an independent anti-imperialist position.

Ongoing conflicts between imperial and anti-imperialist states, between client regimes and nationalist movements, between imperial and newly emerging imperial states, will change the structure of the imperial system. The outcomes of these conflicts will produce new coalitions among the principal forces, which compose the imperial hierarchy and its adversaries. What is clear from this account is that there is no singular omnipotent ‘imperial state’ that unilaterally defines the international or even the imperial system.

Even the most powerful imperial state has proven incapable of unilaterally (or with clients or imperial partners) defeating or even containing the popular anti-colonial resistance in Iraq or Afghanistan. The major imperial political successes have occurred where the imperial states have been able to activate the military forces of semi-autonomous and client regimes, secure a regional (OAS, OAU and NATO) or UN cover to legitimate its conquests. Collaborator elites from the client and semi-autonomous states are essential links to the maintenance and consolidation of the imperial system and in particular the US empire. A specific case is the US’, intervention and overthrow of the Somali Islamic regime.

The Case of Somalia: Black Masks - White Faces

The recent Ethiopian invasion of Somalia (December 2006) and overthrow of the de-facto governing Islamic Courts Union (ICU)or Supreme Council of Islamic Courts and imposition of a self-styled ‘transitional government’ of warlords is an excellent case study of the centrality of collaborator regimes in sustaining and expanding the US empire.

From 1991 with the overthrow of the government of Siad Barre until the middle of 2006, Somalia was ravaged by conflicts between feuding warlords based in clan-controlled fiefdoms (3). During the US/UN invasion and temporary occupation of Mogadishu in the mid-1990’s there were massacres of over 10,000 Somali civilians and the killing and wounding of a few dozen US/UN soldiers (4). During the lawless 1990’s small local groups, whose leaders later made up the ICU, began organizing community-based organizations against warlord depredations. Based on its success in building community-based movements, which cut across tribal and clan allegiances; the ICU began to eject the corrupt warlords ending extortion payments imposed on businesses and households (5). In June 2006 this loose coalition of Islamic clerics, jurists, workers, security forces and traders drove the most powerful warlords out of the capital, Mogadishu. The ICU gained widespread support among a multitude of market venders and trades people. In the total absence of anything resembling a government, the ICU began to provide security, the rule of law and protection of households and property against criminal predators (6). An extensive network of social welfare centers and programs, health clinics, soup kitchens and primary schools, were set up serving large numbers of refugees, displaced peasants and the urban poor. This enhanced popular support for the ICU.

After having driven the last of the warlords from Mogadishu and most of the countryside, the ICU established a de-facto government, which was recognized and welcomed by the great majority of Somalis and covered over 90% of the population (7a). All accounts, even those hostile to the ICU, pointed out that the Somali people welcomed the end of warlord rule and the establishment of law and order under the ICU.

The basis of the popular support for the Islam Courts during its short rule (from June to December 2006) rested on several factors. The ICU was a relatively honest administration, which ended warlord corruption and extortion. Personal safety and property were protected, ending arbitrary seizures and kidnappings by warlords and their armed thugs. The ICU is a broad multi-tendency movement that includes moderates and radical Islamists, civilian politicians and armed fighters, liberals and populists, electoralists and authoritarians (7). Most important, the Courts succeeded in unifying the country and creating some semblance of nationhood, overcoming clan fragmentation. In the process of unifying the country, the Islamic Courts government re-affirmed Somali sovereignty and opposition to US imperialist intervention in the Middle East and particularly in the Horn of Africa via its Ethiopian client regime.

US Intervention: The United Nations, Military Occupation, Warlords and Proxies

The recent history of US efforts to incorporate Somalia into its network of African client states began during the early 1990’s under President Clinton (8). While most commentators today rightly refer to Bush as an obsessive war-monger for his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they forget that President Clinton, in his time, engaged in several overlapping and sequential acts of war in Somalia, Iraq, Sudan and Yugoslavia. Clinton’s military actions and the embargoes killed and maimed thousands of Somalis, resulted in 500,000 deaths among Iraqi children alone and caused thousands of civilian deaths and injuries in the Balkans. Clinton ordered the destruction of Sudan’s main pharmaceutical plant producing vital vaccines and drugs essential for both humans and their livestock leading to a critical shortage of these essential vaccines and treatments (9). President Clinton dispatched thousands of US troops to Somalia to occupy the country under the guise of a ‘humanitarian mission’ in 1994 (10). Washington intervened to bolster its favored pliant war-lord against another, against the advice of the Italian commanders of the UN troops in Somalia. Two-dozen US troops were killed in a botched assassination attempt and furious residents paraded their mutilated bodies in the streets of the Somali capital. Washington sent helicopter gunships, which shelled heavily, populated areas of Mogadishu, killing and maiming thousands of civilians in retaliation.

The US was ultimately forced to withdraw its soldiers as Congressional and public opinion turned overwhelmingly against Clinton’s messy little war. The United Nations, which no longed needed to provide a cover for US intervention, also withdrew. Clinton’s policy turned toward securing one subset of client warlords against the others, a policy which continued under the Bush Administration. The current ‘President’ of the US puppet regime, dubbed the ‘Transitional Federal Government’, is Abdullahi Yusuf. He is a veteran warlord deeply involved in all of the corrupt and lawless depredations which characterized Somalia between 1991 to 2006 (12). Yusuf had been President of the self-styled autonomous Puntland breakaway state in the 1990’s.

Despite US and Ethiopian financial backing, Abdullahi Yusuf and his warlord associates were finally driven out of Mogadishu in June 2006 and out of the entire south central part of the country. Yusuf was holed up and cornered in a single provincial town on the Ethiopian border and lacked any social basis of support even from most of the remaining warlord clans in the capital (13). Some warlords had withdrawn their support of Yusuf and accepted the ICU’s offers to disarm and integrate into Somali society underscoring the fact that Washington’s discredited and isolated puppet was no longer a real political or military factor in Somalia. Nevertheless, Washington secured a UN Security Council resolution recognizing the warlord’s tiny enclave of Baidoa as the legitimate government. This was despite the fact that the TFG’s very existence depended on a contingent of several hundred Ethiopian mercenaries financed by the US. As the ICU troops moved westward to oust Yusuf from his border outpost – comprising less than 5% of the country – the US increased its funding for the dictatorial regime of Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia to invade Somalia (14).

Despite the setbacks, scores of US military advisers prepared the Ethiopian mercenaries for a large-scale air and ground invasion of Somalia in order to re-impose their puppet-warlord Yusuf. Meles Zenawi, the Ethiopian dictator, depends heavily on US military and police weaponry, loans and advisors to retain power for his ethnic ‘Tigrayan’ based regime and to hold onto disputed Somali territory. The Tigrayan ethnic group represents less than 10% of the Ethiopian multi-ethnic population. Meles faced growing armed opposition form the Oromo and Ogandese liberation movements (15). His regime was despised by the influential Amhara population in the capital for rigging the election in May 2005, for killing 200 student protesters in October 2006 and jailing tens of thousands (16). Many military officials opposed him for engaging in a losing border war with Eritrea. Meles, lacking popular backing, has become the US most loyal and subservient client in the region. Embarrassingly parroting Washington’s imperial ‘anti-terrorist’ rhetoric for his attack on Somalia, Meles sent over 15,000 troops, hundreds of armored vehicles, dozens of helicopters and warplanes into Somalia (17). Claiming that he was engaged in the ‘war against terrorism’ Meles terrorized the people of Somalia with aerial bombardment and a scorched earth policy. In the name of ‘national security’ Meles sent his troops to the rescue of the encircled war lord and US puppet, Abdullahi Yusuf.

Washington co-coordinated its air and naval forces with the advance of the invading Ethiopian military juggernaut. As the US advised-Ethiopian mercenaries advanced by land, the US air force bombed fleeing Somalis killing scores, supposedly in hunting ‘Al Queda; sympathizers (18). According to reliable reports, which were confirmed later by US and Somali puppet sources, US and Somali military forces have failed to identify a single Al Queda leader after examining scores of dead and captured fighters and refugees (19). Once again the pretext to invade Somalia used by Washington and its Ethiopian client – that the ICU was attacked because it sheltered Al Queda terrorists - was demonstrated to be false. US naval forces illegally interdicted all ships off the coast of Somalia in pursuit of fleeing Somali leaders. In Kenya, Washington directed its Nairobi client to capture and return Somalis crossing the border. Under Washington’s direction both the United Nations and the Organization of African ‘Unity’ (sic) agreed to send an occupation army of ‘peace-keepers’ to protect the Ethiopian imposed puppet Yusuf regime.

Given Meles precarious internal position, he could not afford to keep his occupying army of 15,000 mercenaries in Somalia for long (20). Somali hatred for the Ethiopian occupiers surged from the first day they entered Mogadishu. There were massive demonstrations on a daily basis and increasing incidents of armed resistance from the re-grouped ICU fighters, local militants and anti-Yusuf warlords (21). The US directed Ethiopian occupation was followed in its wake by the return of the same warlords who had pillaged the country between 1991-2005 (22).

Most journalists, experts and independent observers recognize that without the presence of ‘outside’ support – namely the presence of at least 10,000 US and EU financed African mercenaries (‘peacekeepers’) the Yusuf regime will collapse in a matter of days if not hours. Washington counts on an informal coalition of African clients – a kind of ‘Association of Sub-Saharan Stooges’ (ASS) – to repress the mass unrest of the Somali population and to prevent the return of the popular Islamic Courts. The United Nations declared it would not send an occupation army until the ‘ASS’ military contingents of the Organization of African Unity had ‘pacified the country (23).

The ASS, however willing their client rulers in offering mercenary troops to do the bidding of Washington, found it difficult to actually send troops. Since it was transparently a ‘made-in-Washington’ operation it was unpopular at home and likely to set ASS forces against growing Somali national resistance. Even Uganda’s Yoweri Musevent, Washington’s subservient client, encountered resistance among his ‘loyal’ rubber-stamp congress (24). The rest of the ASS countries refused to move their troops, until the EU and US put the money up front and the Ethiopians secured the country for them. Facing passive opposition from the great majority of Somalis and active militant resistance from the Courts, the Ethiopian dictator began to withdraw his mercenary troops. Washington, recognizing that its Somali puppet, ‘President Yusuf’, is totally isolated and discredited, sought to co-opt the most conservative among the Islamic Court leaders (25). Yusuf, ever fearful of losing his fragile hold on power, refused to comply with Washington’s tactic of splitting the ICU.

The Somali Invasion: the Empire and its Networks

The Somali case illustrates the importance of client rulers, warlords, clans and other collaborators as the first line of defense of strategic geo-political positions for extending and defending the US empire. The Somali experience underlines the importance of the intervention by regional and client rulers of neighboring states in defense of the empire. Client regimes and collaborator elites greatly lower the political and economic cost of maintaining the outposts of empire. This is especially the case given the overextension of US ground forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and in their impending confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Given the ‘over-extension’ of the US ground forces, the empire relies on air and sea assaults combined with regional mercenary ground forces to oust an independent regime with popular backing.

Without the Ethiopian invasion, the puppet Somali warlord Abdullahi Yusuf would have been easily driven out of Somalia, the country unified and Washington would no longer control the coastal areas facing a major maritime oil transport route. The loss of a Somali puppet regime would have deprived Washington of a coastal platform for threatening Sudan and Eritrea.

From a practical perspective however, Washington’s strategic plans for control over the Horn of Africa are deeply flawed. To secure maximum control over Somali, the White House chose to back a deeply detested veteran warlord with no social base in the country and dependent on discredited warring clans and criminal warlords. Isolated and discredited puppet rulers are a fragile thread on which to construct strategic policies of regional intervention (military bases and advisory missions). Secondly Washington chose to use a neighboring country (Ethiopia) hated by the entire Somali population to prop up its Somali puppet. Ethiopia had attacked Somali as late as 1979 over the independence of Ogadan, whose population is close to Somalis. Washington relied on the invading army of a regime in Addis Ababa, which was facing increasing popular and national unrest and was clearly incapable of sustaining a prolonged occupation. Finally, Washington counted on verbal assurances from the ASS regimes to promptly send troops to protect its re-installed client. Client regimes always tell their imperial masters what they want to hear even if they are incapable of prompt and full compliance. This is especially the case when clients fear internal opposition and prolonged costly overseas entanglements, which further discredit them.

The Somali experience demonstrates the gap between the empire’s strategic projection of power and its actual capacity to realize its goals. It also exemplifies how imperialists, impressed by the number of clients, their ‘paper’ commitments and servile behavior, fail to recognize their strategic weakness in the face of popular national liberation movements.

US empire building efforts in the Horn of Africa, especially in Somalia, demonstrate that even with elite collaborators and client regimes, mercenary armies and ASS regional allies, the empire encounters great difficulty in containing or defeating popular national liberation movements. The failure of the Clinton policy of intervention in Somalia between 1993-1994 demonstrated this.

The human and economic cost of prolonged military invasions with ground troops has repeatedly driven the US public to demand withdrawal (and even accept defeat) as was proven in Korea, Indochina and increasingly in Iraq.

Financial and diplomatic support, including UN Security Council decisions, and military advisory teams are not sufficient to establish stable client regimes. The precariousness of the mercenary-imposed Yusuf warlord dictatorship demonstrates the limits of US sponsored UN fiats.

The Somali experience in failed empire-building reveals another even darker side of imperialism: A policy of ‘rule or ruin’. The Clinton regime’s failure to conquer Somalia was followed by a policy of playing off one brutal warlord against another, terrorizing the population, destroying the country and its economy until the ascent of the Islamic Courts Union. The ‘rule or ruin’ policy is currently in play in Iraq and Afghanistan and will come into force with the impending Israeli-backed US air and sea attack on Iran.

The origins of ‘rule or ruin’ policies are rooted in the fact that conquests by imperial armies do not result in stable, legitimate and popular regimes. Originating as products of imperial conquest, these client regimes are unstable and depend on foreign armies to sustain them. Foreign occupation and the accompanying wars on nationalist movements provoke mass opposition. Mass resistance results in imperial repression targeting entire populations and infrastructure. The inability to establish a stable occupation and client regime leads inevitable to imperial rulers deciding to scorch the entire country with the after thought that a weak and destroyed adversary is a consolation for a lost imperial war.

Faced with the rise of Islamic and secular anti-imperialist movements and states in Africa and possessing numerous client regimes in North Africa and the ASS grouping, Washington is establishing a US military command for Africa. The Africa Command will serve to tighten Washington’s control over African military forces and expedite their dispatch to repress independence movements or to overthrow anti-imperialist regimes. Given the expanded, highly competitive presence of Chinese traders, investors and aid programs, Washington is bolstering its reliable allies among the African client elites and generals (26).

James Petras’ latest book is The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity Press: Atlanta). His articles in English can be found at the website – www.petras.lahaine.org and in Spanish at - www.rebellion.org.

  1. Petras, James and Morris Morley. Empire or Republic (NY: Routledge, 1995); Petras, J. and M. Morley: “The Role of the Imperial State” in US Hegemony Under Siege (London” Verso Books 1990).
  2. Petras, James and Morris Morley. “The US imperial State” in James Petras et al Class State and Power in the Third World (Allanheld, Osmin: Montclair NJ, 1981).
  3. (3A) see Petras, James The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity: Atlanta 2006)
  1. see Andrew England “Spectre of Rival Clans Returns to Mogadishu”, Financial Times (London), )December 29, 2006 p.3)
  2. Financial Times January 22, 2007 p.12.
  3. Financial Times December 29, 2006 p.3.
  4. William Church: “Somalia: CIA Blowback Weakens East Africa” Sudan Tribune Feb 2, 2007.
  5. (7A) The Transitional government was restricted to Baldoa, a small town and its survival depended on Addis Abbaba. Financial Times December 29, 2006 p.3
  1. Financial Times January 31, 2007 p.2.
  2. Stephan Shalom “Gravy Train: Feeding the Pentagon by Feeding Somalia” Z Magazine February 1993.
  3. Clinton claimed the pharmaceutical plant was producing biological and chemical weapons – a story which was refuted by scientific investigators.
  4. Shalom ibid.
  5. Mark Bowden Black Hawk Down (Signet: New York 2002)
  6. FT December 31, 2006 p.2
  7. FT January 5, 2007 p. 4
  8. William Church ibid.
  9. “Somalia” Another War Made in the USA” interview with Mohamed Hassan (Michel.Collon@skynet.be)
  10. ibid
  11. FT January 5, 2007 p.5; FT December 29, 2006 p. 3
  12. BBC News “US Somali Air Strikes ‘Kill Many’”, January 9, 2007; aljazeera.net “US Launches Air Strikes on Somalia” January 9, 2007
  13. FT February 5, 2007 p.5 “…there has been no confirmation yet of targeted al-Queda suspects according to Meles Zenawi, Ethiopian Prime Minister.”
  14. aljazeera.net January 23, 2007; BBC News “More Ethiopians to Quit Somalia” January 28, 2007.
  15. aljazeera.net December 29, 2006; aljazeera.net January 6, 2007; BBC News January 26, 2007; Aljazeere.net January 28, 2007, aljazeera.net February 11, 2007
  16. “Looting and shooting broke out as soon as the Islamic fighters left the crumbling capital as militias loyal to the local clans moved on to the streets.” FT December 29, 2006
  17. BBC News January 25, 2007; BBC January 30, 2007; BBC January 5, 2007/
  18. People’s Daily Online “Ugandan Parliament halts bid to rush deployment of peacekeepers to Somalia”. February 2, 2007
  19. Financial Times January 26, 2007 p.6
  20. aljazeera.net February 7, 2007
More from this author:
Texas Versus Tel Aviv: US Policy in the Middle East (11860 Hits)
 By James Petras The struggle within the US power structure between the economic empire builders (EEB) and the civilian ...
US-Latin American Relations: Ruptures, Reaction and the Times of the Past (16357 Hits)
by James Petras Introduction Numerous writers, journalists, public officials and academics on the Right and Left have noted changes in...
An Open Letter to the People and Government of the US - James Petras (12797 Hits)
by James Petras (And a Reply to the FARC) On a November 9, 2006, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples Army, (FARC-EP)...
The US and the Middle East: A “Grand Settlement” Versus the Jewish Lobby (13701 Hits)
by James Petras Chances for a change in the direction of US Middle East policy are extremely unlikely. The reason is the growing power of...
US and Latin America: Overview for 2006 and Perspectives for 2007 - James Petras (11169 Hits)
by James Petras Introduction: Escalation of Warfare To understand US-Latin American relations this year and its likely trajectory ...
Related Articles:
Imperial Default for Dummies (7626 Hits)
by Paul William Roberts   Editor's Note: Our Senior Writer, Paul William Roberts, gives us a rollicking tour of the Bush-induced...
Imperial Default for Dummies (14510 Hits)
by Paul William Roberts   Editor's Note: Our Senior Writer, Paul William Roberts, gives us a rollicking tour of the Bush-induced...
The Price of Imperial Arrogance (11821 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman Lyndon Johnson was a conflicted man about Vietnam almost from the time he took office. As early as May, 1964, he...
Criminalizing Compassion in the War on Terror: Muslim Charities and the Case of Dr. Rafil A. Dhafir (9146 Hits)
By Katherine Hughes   “The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: ‘If I stop to help this man, what...
Abu-Jamal Case at Third Circuit, Prosecutor Admits He Had No "True Defense" (7901 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff It's been 25 years now since Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner was shot dead in a Center City, Philadelphia red-light...

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Comments (3)add comment

a guest said:

An Anglophile to the core, Wilson didn't care about the fate of the Russians. His concern was in keeping German forces split along two fronts. The payoff worked: Russia's provisional prime minister Aleksandr Kerensky kept the Russians involved in the war.

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected to the presidency chiefly on the strength of a slogan: "He kept us out of war." By 1917, the peacenik prez was leading the charge against Germany, jailing antiwar activists, and exhorting Americans to fight a "war to end all wars." In 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the voters: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Behind the scenes, however, he was maneuvering to do just that – and by the end of 1941, we were fighting a two-front war, embracing "Uncle" Joe Stalin as a fellow "anti-fascist," and planning the internment of the Japanese-American population.

November 1997.

Exploitation of U.S.A. by England and her Agents.

The recent case of an English servant( au pair) by name of miss Woodward being convicted of man-slaughter of an American baby of American parents and yet allowed to walk away Scot free highlights those who did not realize earlier) the complete hold of England and her agents on the affairs of U.S.A. The same english media and her agents in America were doing free propaganda for the girl and even before and after the trial were declaring the convicted girl innocent. It is the same media (B.B.C. And others of same punk types) who have all through last 15 years been doing propaganda against Blacks, Hispanic and what not, and have fully pushed for tough measures against drug takings on the basis that with drug scare a lot of Blacks would be (and have been) put behind bar for more than 15 to 20 years on trumped up charge of possessing !5 dollars worth of Hassis. It is the same British (more specifically english) media and peoples who are pro-capital punishment (as long as victims are non-english) , pro hard line policing( only against non-english peoples), more pro tobacc0,more pro rotten british beef, more pro big british business( but anti-foreigners` business-whiplash against Japanese ownership of a few American concerns but complete silence of American firm being hostile way being taken by british and Canadian firms is one example), more pro pollution, more anti-environment, very pro-english financial institutions` hold on world economy (but against European finance getting strong--anti-European Single currency is for that reason), very anti-cultured( they call it pragmatism) and very anti-foreign countries (Usa, Canada, and Australia excepted as these are regarded by English press as their colony( they call it across the pond, or english backwater))), very anti-blacks, anti-whites of Europe, anti non anglo saxon whites of America and even anti-Scottish
British media--racist-- (BBC was giving vehement
propaganda against Scottish devolution). BBC even suggested that Wales referendum peoples who lost referendum (i.e. english sympathisers in Wales) should revolt against Wales referendum result). These all characteristics you find daily in and out in programmes of BBC, independent channels, satellite english channel, all enlish papers. there is no difference between tabloids and broadsheets in England ,they all are owned, produced, edited, written and read and edited by low life forms). In fact what they try to project to others especially Americans is exactly opposite of what they actually. They deride other cultural things (like French) but would try to impress Americans as torch bearer of culture. In fact in name of pragmatism ( really meaning slimy, low life) they deride all cultural things. They are hardly musical but would make the most of commercial success out of music. In fact when German style techno music started getting popular, because it would eat away british music industry’s carefully orchestrated profit and also because money would probably go to foreign bands, the BBC and all english media started orchestrated propaganda against that music scene falsely claiming that it was full of antisocial elements consuming drugs and doing crimes. That is how the techno music scene was killed in Britain. That propaganda was worse than Soviet propaganda against pop music. That is how one never hears of excellent pop girl group Tic-Tac while
British media-propaganda machine of english race-- BBC and all british media have done full steam propaganda to popularise the names of rubbish pop group like Oasis and spice girls. In fact the English race is only good in propaganda and the sale which results from it. But they would like Americans to believe that they are original thinkers and others steal their ideas to sell¬ The english are sellers, and commercial but because they know it is not a classy qualification, they started talking of class when in reality there has never been true aristocracy in England. they all are pirate cum shopkeepers. Make no mistake about it. It is the british agents in U.S.A. who (through complete hold of media, Hollywood and money) who have been active in spreading racial hatred against blacks, Hispanic, Irish, Italians, Germans, Greeks Russian, Polish Jews -in other words against all those Americans who are labelled ethnic Americans and who constitute more than 70 % of Americans outside anglo-saxon race. The same english which said on one voice to free the murderer girl is the same who goes which daily talks of desirability of tough law and order measures in U.S.A. It the same english media which does propaganda on behalf of biggest drug dealer in the world-B.A.T. And it is the same English sympathisers in States and English Govt. which brought about civil war in America to protect drug (tobacco) interests in U.S. It is the same B.B.C. which opposed in 1988 the sanctions against apartheid South Africa saying it will hurt British jobs. IT openly violated U.N.O. resolutions against South Africa for british interests. Such british interests must be destroyed as it is based on inhuman practices. In fact in the 1988 American election B.B.C. had invited the chief drug dealer of bat (who of course is an englishman) and there was another American there. During discussion of Ducassis' candidature the B.B.C. anchor man suggested to the American that the opponent of bush was hardly an American as he looked to dark and was Greek, the country of geek being too much near Africa. It really happened. This shows a few things. According to B.B.C. not only Blacks were not American but also all those who the english agents have labelled ethnic Americans. In fact B.B.C. openly said (in that program-usually B.B.C. does not reveal its evil intention so easily) that the American means actually anglo-saxons. Don't confuse that it includes Germans either. The same English agents (in America) who created a monstrous film like ``birth of nation`` are the same people who crated prohibition only because many German immigrants were drinking bear and they did not like it. It is the same england sympathiser crowd who went on killing blacks, Irish,
etc -
British propaganda against Europeans races-- The same crowd who pushed U.S.A. Into both World Wars because otherwise England would have lost. It is the same crowd who asked for tough immigration measures against foreigners but have given free reign to English people to come to u.s.a. and work theatre without visa requirement. Those restricted against (from other foreign countries) are not only much more highly qualified specialists in their field but also they have much better standard of living than the English people who come to States. Those foreigners are mostly from elite school and are educated up to Ph.D. level while these english people are all non- PhDs. and almost all school failed. Very few of these english people are university educated. In fact England is a nation of plumbers and fitters. It is a progression from piracy and shop keeping. It shows in their accent that almost all of english immigrants to states are from plumber and fitter class. But they pose otherwise. they have created an accent only to show to Americans that they can sometimes Talk posh but it is a put on. actually they become posh only after they have milked America and taken jobs which would otherwise have gone to Americans. Besides their so called posh themselves have graduated from Pirates-turned _so called gentleman class. The upper class of England always have been pirate cum shopkeeper class. England never had aristocracy in the same the word aristocrat means. Aristocracy is in Italy, in Spain, In Germany, in France and other European nations. But the one country -england which never had true aristocracy talks a lot about that to impress Americans. Example-in all European countries There is a word to describe a lower member( let us say a starting point) of aristocracy-A Man who is mounted on a horse. Chevalier in French and Caballero in Spanish means exactly that. A man on horse. So is it in all European languages. but not in english. The equivalent word knight is not derived from horse
.It has been artificially given the same meaning. The reason is simple. In England there has never been a class of blood’s (though they talk most of all people about it). Anybody could be and can be given entrance to their so called aristocracy. Mostly Pirates turned shopkeepers have been favourites to receive knighthood. It is not true of only pirate queen Elizabeth1 but is has been much before that bandit queen and it is true even today. The point is important. Because by giving false propaganda that they somehow have class they have gained entrance into Hollywood and shaped much of today’s American thinking. In fact enlish people declare themselves classy in england usually they have earned a lot a money in Hollywood. It is america which improves their class and not vice-versa as they would like Americans to believe. There is another word (or lack of it)
which shoes that English race never had class. In all European languages there is an equivalent word for` `Bonn Appetite``. Not in english. Because even after last 200 hundred years of ill-gotten money the English race never developed class to appreciate good food. In the same way english language( u.k.) has a lot of word for sensational and secretive kind but very few words to describe finer things in Life like Philosophy, arts, etc. The point being made is that English people must be prohibited from coming to States to get employment in lucrative jobs when their are more better qualified people in States and elsewhere. Because England is not only controlling American foreign policy but also it’s domestic and economic policy.
british infiltration into American Film industry-- How this state of affairs have come about? Why is a Hollywood film industry become an employment avenue for English parasites? Why for example even in a sci-fiction film is it necessary to employ 3 to 4 Enlish voice over? The provisos point about english race being one and only one in Europe without real blooded aristocracy was given for this very reason. Even TONY Curtis once said as to why is a high Roman supposed to speak in enlish accent and can not in american accent. These english parasites insinuated themselves in Hollywood and started this propaganda( first in background and later openly) that Romans, old Christians etc all need english accent. They did to evict the american from important positions and secondly to get the job themselves. Ho w this came about ? Because it has been so entrenched (thanks to english propaganda) that to unravel it we can see a few recent examples and than we will go to Past.
other industry----The same thing that the english race did in Hollywood ,it did recently in computer industry 2 years ago. When Cd-rom age came about 2 years ,there came about reasonably priced Encyclopaedias, lessons in Sciences like Physics, chemistry, geography and mathematics. Of course most of them were american. Initially the british did bring out high priced low quality( like most of british products) computer educational programmes. And the british media in unison urged the public to buy british products. First they said that british product though costly was better product. When that did not hold then the british media were saying that though american product was as good or even better ,who would buy american product because it did not give british bias rather american bias to things. They were saying that even about Physics and geography programmes. Later on they based that it had cute american accent and not stern british accents. they openly said that real english even in america should be what is spoken by anglo-saxon race in their homeland-that is england. In fact the british media were insistent that in britain one should buy american programmes only because it had american accent (irritating was the word used) and not till it was localized. Suddenly in a computer ,a global market where a particular accent in science matters nothing a new buzz word came into being-localization. The english media and their agents in america were active and pressurised the american company like Microsoft and etc to not only produce for u.k. market in england auto also for whole of non-U.S. market also to be produced in u.k. And they called ed u.k. edition world edition. Considering that in world only in last 50 years have people mostly learned english because of u.s.a. influence and they imitate u.s.a. accent ; it was a misnomer. But the real intention was to take job away from Americans and give the translation, and low tech but highly paid job to English race. In other words they grabbed american jobs. By the way if it was irritating and objectionable for an englishman to read and listen in american accent and bias then why is it o.k. for the rest of world to read and listen in shopkeeper’s accent? This thing happened in last 2 years so you can understand the process how the english shopkeepers and plumbers have taken away american` job in Hollywood and many others jobs. Many go there to be servants and pose as butler and au pair. Can’t Americans not do it? In fact of all the different groups that has made america the immigrants from England have been not only the least educated and least cultured but also the most poor. In fact even Russian Jews who came to america in beginning of this century came with more money than the immigrants from england. It is only by such propaganda that they insinuated themselves in high position and got rich. anglo-saxon race is the Lumpen proletariat of america. Only by default of others has it become rich but could never got class. Let us see how the english race managed to exploit and are exploiting u.s.a.
Total lack of class and culture amongst the english race Let us be frank. though in some places england would like to compare her selves descendent of Romans and Greeks it is more a descendent of Phoenicians. The latter were also pirates cum traders and had equally low culture, trade and money with exploitation being their only passion. Till end of Napoleonic war England has been pariah of Europe. It was always a nation of ugly looking people looking for and trouble among the great powers of( england was never that ) Europe and pirating and doing all criminal activities . In fact Richard ,before going for crusade, killed all the Jews in York and elsewhere so that he and his inklings would not have to pay to those bankers which was owed. This despicable creature has a monument in front of british parliament. He was a coward plunderer who spread the seed of anti Semitism in europe when he passed though Europe. Before that there was never a racism in Europe. But racism was a ploy to not to pay debts. Probably the Third world should learn from that and do to these despicable creatures wat tehy they showed the way. In During Turkish expansion ,while Christians of Europe especially as
Spanish and Austrian were trying to protect Europe, this Pariah of Europe, Elizabethen England were trying to encourage the Turkish empire. Of course it did have no effect because english were not important. Even fact England was one of the most poor country in Europe till very late time. It is only because the prime minister of Louis 15 said that France was not interested in expansion than what is her today’s` boundary, that England could get opportunity But even then it was not in guts nor power of england to expand. Only when the great powers were to fight then england have a chance just like when 2 lions fight it out and get injured then comes a hyena and takes the kill what was lions` originally. England is the Hyena of Europe. Her policy has been through spy network to let real powers fight it out so that it can enjoy the kill. Therefore first it pirated against Spain ,and 50 years later against Holland (who it had tried to help against Spain). Many of Dutch east India company ships were looted in English channel. At the same time it incited France against Spain and after Spain had been neutralized It incited Spain against France. The similar pattern would be repeated it it got empire by default and it would continue even after empire was practically gone after 1st world war and certainly after w.w.2. So we find england a pariah dog at the time of Napoleonic War .IT tried six times to assassinate Napoleon. Such a great man likes of who gets born once or twice in a thousand years. England’s propaganda against Napoleon was the same as it would be against Germany in 1st World war, against Hitler against Gandhi against Lenin and Stalin. Napoleon freed the Jews from ghetto which they got through racism introduced by the English by pirate Richard. Institutionalised racism is very english thing which basically means hatred for all things not belonging to english. Here also comes the role of Jews. Though Napoleon had freed the Jews, for some inexplicable reasons since then Jews put their fate in the hands of English and (suffered from it) What Hitler described as the characteristics of Jew is really very English attributes. In other word , being cheat and doing spying is the very english quality and nothing to do with Jews. It so happens that Jews started working for english cause and used those inhuman qualities characteristic of english race. Anyway after several attempts on Napoleons` life (they were fist terrorists) ,napoleon had to declare him selves Emperor to protect continuity of Republic and revolution. (sounds odd but this exactly how it happened). England had to concede 91801) to give up all ill gotten territories . So after napoleon becoming emperor, england got a chance for propaganda. While Napoleon was meeting the Russian Czar on a Royal barge, hidden underneath the barge was an Enlish spy who overheard everything. Rest is history. Through enlish lies and propaganda and spy work confusion was created which created mistrust between Russia and France and Napoleon attacked Russia and lost 80 % of Grand Armee. Then of course the Prussians and Austrians would attack and Napoleon would lose. The credit of military victory the english take-hyenas taking over from Lion. The similar pattern would be repeated 100 years in 1st world war and also in W.W. 2.. and beyond continuing now. In fact england hardly got anything by military fighting. England has not won a single war own her own. Even Boer war at a time of empire resource. IT is always by cowardly act of crating trouble between two strongest powers and making them fight till bloodied.40 years after Napoleonic war, when in France was installed highly unpopular monarch- a stooge of England- the same erstwhile enemies became friend to attack previous friend Russia in Crimea war. Whosoever is England’s friend is called ally and every generation it changes. After Napoleonic war, in order to make a comrade in loot, England would persuade stooge king of France that it was not bad after all to exploit other countries and ask France to take desert lands of north Africa. One needs accomplices in crime for safety. This pattern of involving a strong country in war till destruction would be followed in W.W.1. against. Basically Germany had grown too strong for England’s liking so it had to be involved in war with some other power. (never england -it will come later when going gets easy). So English spies started giving hint to Germans that if Germany attacked Czar’s Russia , it would be o.k. with England. Remember by 1885, Germany had industrial output higher than england` in spite of all captive market of England where it could sell high priced low quality rubbish goods (it still does the same today with stooge govts. of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait).So Germany was given wrong signal and encouraged to attack Russia while england stated to make pact with Russia as well- That very Russia against it was inducing Germany to attack. To justify back stabbing england had this small clause of sovereignty of Belgium .Of course if it was simply a matter of sovereignty only , Belgium could simply give transit passage to German army and matter ends there. But that was an excuse to declare war against Germany who had been induced to attack Russia by england anyway. IT tells a lot about German army that inspire of 80 % army being at Russian front, The Enlish were loosing by 1917 and that inspire of all empire soldiers (million) , all the help of Americans and all spying work. Of course as was said earlier these cowards have won a single battle, let alone a war in last 100 year on their own strength. And they have won not a single war rr battle by fighting ever, only through cowardly cheating and double crossing. It is interesting that The same racists who were just like Hitler were in America and they were most vociferous in fighting racist Germany of Hitler. Of course they were not fighting for an ideal, they were fighting for England. In America 150 year after independence!

Democracy-a propaganda word-How world wars was started by England----
In fact this talk of democracy and freedom and secularism started soon after start of ww1 when England started losing the war. It begged other nations to help her in name of democracy and freedom. Think of it_ England which had enslaved so much of world population and killed and exploited them( they are still proud of it) asking in name of freedom! In fact what england means by secularism is worship of her kings and kings, by democracy is meant dictatorship of English shopkeepers and by freedom is meant freedom to exploit other nations and people. The same freedom for other nations is not to be granted. the same worship of other Royal peoples is not to be encouraged. Only for English royals or those who have been made stooge royals like those of Saudi-Arabia or Kuwait. Kaiser is to be a villain because He wanted exactly the same things for German peoples as the English wanted for themselves. After all Hitler was evil but what crime did Kaiser did? Soon before w.w.1 the Japanese had attacked and defeated Russia in naval battle. That was arranged and financed in London with help of German Jews who had settled in America. But after ww1,in the league of nations and in american immigration policies, the erstwhile friend-Japanese were not given respectable position on the prompting of Britain . That was the start of anti-Japanese propaganda by the british who in ww2 asked american to block all raw material supply for Japan. In other words ,much before American entry into ww2, U.S. had already done an act of war against Japan in order to help England maintain her ill-gotten colony. In between wars, the english sympathisers had already been doing what Hitler was to do in Germany against Jews. But those very american racist very the first to jump for action against Germany at outbreak of war. Of course from the first days of ww2,America had been giving all arms and help to britain .It was fighting war without declaration. There are unexplained phenomenon of W.W. “ .-of which no satisfactory explanation has yet been given because all explanations and propaganda has been by british-directed and of course british have to be given all possible benefit of doubt. These phenomenon are(a) Why Was Hitler surprised at british declaration of WW2?
(b) Why did Hitler not attack England (if he was supposed to do) and let england have more preparation for more than 1 years?
c) Even later when Hitler acted on western front, why did he allow Dunkirk? Why did he not finish the English army as he could have done? Why did he halt attack for 3 days to let the English cowards flee through Dunkirk?
d) Why was there such a little attack in western front? Why was there virtually no war in Europe or against England? For almost 3 years there was hardly any war in so called western Europe. Why did the war started only when England had enough time to muster resources and when 80 % of German army was on Eastern front?
e) Why did the second in command of Hitler-Hess landed in Scotland and immediately arrested? That was nearly the same time that America openly entered the war. Such a high position man like Hess do not fly to enemy country in time of war as a Spy. Germany could muster many other spy than sending the second in command of Fuhrer. What Hess had to say in prison was never allowed outside but after his death his son revealed British involvement in pact with Hitler was hushed up by british and american media. In fact there are many other incidents which directly point to England masterminding the 2WW. It does not mean that england was to fight. It is too coward for that. Just like before in W.W.1 , It orchestrated the war to let Germany and Russia destroy each other. Stalin recognized this immediately and made a pact with Germany to buy time.

How did England started the w.w.2. It happened like this. Though admirer of Hitler and his despicable views, England got worried of German might. (England always has inferiority complex versus Germans).England made a secret pact with Germany that it was all right for Germany to attack East And later Russia. England will in public make a few sound-bites but inside it will fully support Hitler and his nasty aims. England may offer token resistance for public consumption. Hitler believed it. He should have known better. In fact what Hitler described in ¬¬Mein Kampf¬ about Jews is not Jewish characters tics ,it is rather typical English characteristics_--I.e.- sly, Manipulative, selfish parasite on world, spy and ugly. (most of english and enlish race derived people look like misshapen potatoes (Churchill) or toad or dog( Which is also their national symbol.).
Anyway, Hitler was duped and when he went to Czechoslovakia, England had an excuse (as if it cared) to declare War. The w.w.2 is traditionally supposed to start from that date though war had already started in `38. Hitler was very surprised (as vouched for by his aids).Normally he should not have been surprised if his intention was to destroy england as was alleged. He was surprised because contrary to british secret assurance, England declared and went to war4 against Germany. But England ,though preparing for war, sent a message to Hitler that it was all for public consumption and Hitler can go ahead against Russia. That is why England was celebrating picnic in the summer of 40. Later when Hitler realized that some stern action was necessary against traitor (England-who had done secret pact) ,Hitler ordered His army to throw out from Europe the English army (supposedly the elite among the english army) But then even supposedly elite among the English army turned out to be coward. When The English army was at the point of annihilation, England sent urgent messages to Hitler, pleading for reprieve. Of course Hitler needed ally and his intention was simply to show to the English not to mess with German army and with secret pact. That is how these cowards flew through Dunkirk and later on made it as if were an heroic act. Later on when Hitler had success against Russia (he had no need to-If Germany wanted she could have destroyed England and occupied it without English being able to do anything about it except plotting). But as Russia was the main target and as England entering war was (to Hitler’s eyes simply for public consumption) immaterial (though England had it all pre-planned and is a classical case of back stabbing and double dealing characteristic of English race).

How world war 2 was started by britain-- If Hitler had wanted to act against England he would have attacked England instead of Russia at a time when the Japanese were defeating the English and giving the dose of same medicine to English race which it so much wants for others. Well, when England saw that Hitler and Germany are too much than it could chew, England offered to Germany another pact just before americans were induced to come to war openly. When americans, who had been in the war form day one (IF americans did not fight from start of 2ww. then neither did the cowards English) openly came to war, England again changed her mind and arrested Hess who had come to Britain at british govt request to finalize German-enlish pact in which Hitler was to take over Russia and leave britain have her empire. Hitler was again duped. So, as you see ,forget about Hitler being duped evil man (which he was), the England was very much of same view and actively collaborated with Germany in order to destroy Germany. In fact, when Jews in america were canvassing about start of concentration camps and danger to Jewish life in Europe, It was England and her govt, and media who pooh -poohed the whole thing and actively advised america not to do anything about it-even in public forum. America was( and still is) to fight for no group except the English and english-derived race.
Aryan and racist myth- an english invention-- In fact this mad thinking that Germans are Aryans and so superior is not even German thinking. Remember even today the most hate publications in the world are produced by those so called middle america( so beloved of BBC) who wrongly called themselves Aryans and hate ,besides others, the real Aryans in america who are Immigrants from Indian subcontinent. (And these real Aryans from India are much highly educated and cultured than these plumber cum shopkeepers lot of ugly looking baptist america going by the name (euphemecally) middle america (who usually get visitations from u.f.o.). When the German scientists (and some French) in employment of The Czarina Catherine the great were collecting (for St.Petersburg library) language (among other things) information in far-flung Russian empire, they stumbled across some Tchokhari language near . They found that some of the language resembled German. Later on they were told by French that similar language was the main language spoken in India-Sanskrit and all Sanskrit derived languages of whole India except in South India. Even in South India, the Brahmans spoke Sanskrit. That is how Germans came to know about Aryan language. In fact the shopkeeper’s race -english who already had been trader in India for 125 years, had no inkling about this similarity. Germans studied the Veda, Upanishads and what not and were very impressed by Indians achievement. The English said that Sanskrit was a new artificial invention created by Indians after Europeans came to India. This is how these low peoples` mind works. Anyway undeterred, the Germans studied Sanskrit very well and wrote a lot about it. Then belatedly some English people started studying it to find not knowledge but common Hindu laws and also to find fault with Hindu religion and scriptures. So there was a fundamental difference between Germans (even Italian Jesuit priest and a Frenchman in 16 the century had studied) and the English. Germans studied because it was and is a beautiful language with literature no other in the world, while the english (who after Napoleonic war got real power in her history through default) studied to prove that Sanskrit was a fraud creation. Then even all evidence showed contrary to english view, the english first said that Veda was written soon after Alexander invasion. then the date Veda was pushed back to 55 BC. then 1000BC then (only after Al-Amarna tablet and Bogzhoiki tablet) was it pushed to 1500 years and then 1800 years. In other word ,malicious intention of English race has been to first deny. then malign and make Aryan literature not so old and it really is. This is from a shopkeepers race like English who never had real aristocracy but always talk of heritage and tradition. A tradition of pirate cum shopkeeper turned land grabber and then so called gentlemen with no culture and taste and talking of low life as pragmatism. In fact the Germans said that the Hindus were the Aryan race and Germans were somehow related to them in language. Germans used Indo-Germans while rightly restricting the Aryan word to Hindus. (In all Hindu scriptures there is no word -Hindu; it is always ARYa to denote Hindu race and literature. ). Of course the English jumped into this naming process and said `me too`. That is how Indo-European word came into being.
Basic thing is that when before Alexander the Greek language was considered un barbaric by Indian grammarians (who knew everything about origin-roots of language). Even the Greeks called the old Persian -barbaric (in way of foreign) language. And that old Persians was akin to Sanskrit. IN Persipolis (which Herodotus did not know because as non-Aryan Greek would not be invited in Emperor Darayaush` or his descendents` ceremony )there still is a relief of how Medians (foremost among the Persian Aryans) looked like. WE know how Darayaush the Great and his descendents looked like. There is also coin of other Iranians and Indians in Gandhar region (which has always been populated by Indian descendents). Compare to the =median’s coin( found archeologically) medians, coin profiles with Parsees (who fled Iran in 600 AD.) and with Many Sikhs, Bahamans, And a lot of North Indians-And you know what Aryans looked like. Indira Gandhi, Jubeen Mehta , and such are the typical Aryan faces. In profile, Aryans a have what In Sanskrit literature is called Eagle or Parrot like bent nose. Sides of the nostrils are arched and Eyes have a particular sharp angle with nasal bridge. Aryans are usually very hairy as well especially in Facial department. Besides when the Babylonian scribe about Kassites invasions (who it has been proved were Indians-full stop) they wrote about coming from East. Just by saying that it was Afghanistan does not disprove anything-of course Indians (Kassites) had to cross Afghanistan to come to Babylonia; besides Afghanistan till 600 A.D. had always been in Indian sphere of influence -population wise, culture wise. In fact Aryans homeland was what is today’s UP. and Northern Bihar regions of northern India
up to Narmada valley (Hahehya) in central India from whence they spread gradually to Punjab and then Afghanistan and then Iran. Even Medians called themselves coming from East and the real name of Persians was Persu-A Sanskrit word. Aryans regarded East as sacred and would never have said the region west and north of Afghanistan as derogatory sense if that had been their homeland. In Rig-Veda the 10 kings battle happened ain Punjab but historical background is given not in Rig Veda ( which is a sacred religion book) but in Brahmans (which explains Veda) .Those 10 kings had been fighting for more than 5 generations and it was a battle of kings from Varanasi and Pratishthan (from Narmada). Therefore before that Rig Veda was formed ,The Aryans had already been kings of Central-northern (Madhya Desh). Besides Aryans were not that great in material achievements as compared to their chief enemies (when they attacked Babylon) Asur. What characterised Aryans was their Horse-chariot use. no martial heritage, human warfare, and human attitudes to other peoples. What they hated most was shopkeeper like attitude and people like Panis(Phoenicians0. The enlish race is direct descendant of those hateful Phoenicians-Pirate turned shopkeepers. In fact the Phoenicians had a colony in what is know northern Holland. The English race in form of anglo-saxons came from that very water logged poor region of Holland. The Greeks knew of Celtics and hardly about Germans. Celtics came from same branch as the Latin’s. the Romans were told by the Barbarians( Germans here) hat tribes they constituted of. In none of that is mention given of Angles and Jutes-the two class which made English race. as if even the barbarians were ashamed of these jutes and angles. But Lombardy, Franks were the main tribes. Because Goths were living near Black sea( Till Huns overran them) these Goths came in contact with some of the remnants of Aryan tribes and also probably some of Emperor Ashoke`s Buddhist missionary who were spreading Buddhist religion there (Buddha called his views simply as arya religion). With that was early Christianity mixed and some early Goths adopted Aryan Christianity. That is the only and earliest relation of a German tribe with word denoting arya. As some one said, from German language it appears that German language is an Indo-European language adopted by non-Indo-European race. WELL THE ENGLISH RACE HAS RELATIONSHIP WITH NOT GERMAN RACE BUT WITH Holland. THOGH IT NEVER TALKS ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT WANTS TO ASSOCIATE ITSELF WITH MORE SUCCESFUL RACES. The only Aryan-derived race in Europe are Lithuanians. Irish also have got Aryan name in their country .in fact Irish, French and Latin’s all came from( evidenced by their earlier chronicles) from that what of Today’s Turkey where Indian in fork=m of Mittanis and Kassites and Hittes had established empire. In fact ,due to mountainous region many of the Kurds (descendents of uratu) have been able to maintain their Aryans face and features. One thing more. Many of the Rishis who composed holy of the holiest books of aryans-Ved were themselves labelled as dark-complexioned. and many of the Aryans kings-including ones in 10 kings battle in Veda have got Das surname (Name of non-Aryan slaves by western propagandists.). in fact if you look at world situation for last 500 years ,all these Aryan races have been enslaved by low grade
non-Aryan peoples. One thing more-there is no history of animosity between Aryans and Jews. The great Aryan king Kurush ( Cyrus ) freed Jews from Babylonian captivity. Jews have been well treated in only true Aryan country-India. What the Aryans hated was Panis (Phoenicians whose direct descendents (both mentally and racially) are the English race. In fact english are not an European race. They appropriate others` name Of course se but they are not. In Britannica encyclopaedia they write that Roman empire was nothing to do with Italy and Italians-it was world empire. Would they say british empire has nothing to do with English and britain?. They do not get tired of their 150 years empire but would not give the same credit to Italy. In many Roman ruins in Britain, they would mention in writing that the Romans soldiers were nothing to do with Italians. next to this writing is a few pictures of Romans men and women who certainly look like today’s Italians and certainly nothing like English anyway. Why do these bastards minimize others achievement. Because it gives them false sense of history and besides that is how they land up Hollywood role of Romans in americans film (And taking jobs from americans).Anyway, in 1900, one Griergson, surveyor -
general in India and a Sanskrit scholar wrote very revealing thing which has not been given as much importance. He said `` todays(19oo) many Englishmen have suddenly started calling themselves as Aryan and nothing can be further from fact. only Indians are Aryans.``
German Sanskritologist said that even the blackest Indian is more Aryan than the fairest Scandinavian. Incidentally most of the Germans are not blondes rather red-haired just like supposedly Irish. Point about Griergson` is that these Phoenicians-derived English race had aggressively calling itself Aryan and using it as a kind of racial superiority while exploiting the real Aryans in India. This happened much before Hitler and that explains despicable shopkeepers cum plumber` white superiority jibes in England and america both before and (more) after 2WW. In nutshell, these inferior people through media manipulation, spying and cheating crated 2ww. and caused so much misery with minimal loss of their life and interests. Those would believe such people usually get similar fate as later on it happened to Russia.

While WW2. was still going on, in @43 when the English started their spy work and propaganda against Russia( with whom they had made common cause against Hitler).The same way after cold war the same anti-communist propagandists of England would direct their propaganda against Capitalist Germany and European unity.
How english race has used the Jews for her own benefit------ It is very interesting that the same type of english people (who are anti-communists, anti-blacks, anti-Muslims, anti-Catholics) started the same sort of propaganda (like used against Russians and communists) against The Germans. the French and Europeans in general. First England did not want Germany united though during cold war it suggested that only Russians are against it). soon after German reunification and even before disintegration of Soviet union ,England changed the lie-tactics( through media and government) against Europe. There is one more thing. nato was supposed to counter Warsaw pact, with the latter gone there was no discussion as to nato should be wound up or not. Europe does not need nato. Europe can have and should have her own defence system as is the Germo-Franco_Italian_Spanish collaboration. that European defence pact must be strengthened rather than Germany supporting nato. Actually england needs nato to prop up its nasty influence in military matters. With the help of Usa and nato has england been able to prop up her influence. In fact england is ant-Europe and through nato it wants to keep a tab on European affairs and not let Europe get strong on her own. As england can not do this own her own it has let America involved in it (during empire days england hardly shared power with America but it needs America now). Germany or Europe does not need nato. In fact nato is the greatest enemy (through england) of Germany and Europe. How can england be so much anti-Germany, working so much against German interests and be a major partner in common defence pact? It is a ludicrous situation. England manipulates financial market (in last8 years through recession and what not London market has risen 3 fold while far Eastern markets-who are the main producers of consumer goods-has fallen drastically.). That is why it pumped up the value of pound before joining European system- of course it was unsustainable but for devaluation of pounds the Germans and some Jews (as said by british propaganda machine BBC and sky TVs) were blamed. As england does not want German or any other European country to get economically strong and be financially independent of London market, it opposed Single currency vehemently. Even a so called left-paper like Guardian was suggesting that if Schroeder (of German SPD party) were the chancellor than he would give more say (than others in Europe) to England-so it would have been good. In other word they want special treatment for themselves. Why? When they talk of sovereignty is england not the main country pushing, threatening and cajoling the third world to accept World bank and IMF( created by america for England’s interest) so called structural reform regardless of people's wishes. If other country’s destiny can be controlled by bureaucrats in IMF. then why not England's by European's bureaucrats? England is the most beaurocratic and centralised country in Europe with all the regional making machinery smashed by the government with the help of bbc and all other propaganda machinery. And that England talks of local development and beaurocracy of European commission. Single European currency is a must for Europe not only for European economic advantage and stability but also because it will smash England’s power of financial market manipulation.
what should Europe do now-in '97

In Fact the rest of Europe should actively discourage england to join Euro, because then England’s financial power will be smashed and it will be good news for Europe and the rest of the world. Not only England want to eat rotten, viral infected meat but also wants to force feed the rotten thing to the Europeans. When Germany resists this nasty move on part of england to take rotten meat ,then Germany-already a villain in their eyes -becomes a super villain. As soon as the news leaked out of viral infected meats, the first reaction of bbc was not as to why it happened but ''Can Europe ban the export legally?-has it got the right?''. there was never a hue and cry about cruel treatment of cows who were forced fed on infected animal meats (cows are vegetarian). This sort of so called commercial farming is the thing which has been pushed down the through of rest of world through GAT. which was made to suit anglo00saxons' interest. France was right to oppose gat in this form. If the similar thing happened in any other country in the world then this the same british media including bbc would hope said a cruel, primitive practice for rotten meat with no regard for peoples health or animals@ welfare. In fact for showing so much cruelty to animals in this case it is not the animals which should be killed but the peoples (british farmers and their media propagandists). There was and is always a support for such disgusting affairs by the british peoples and it shows what sort of people they are. we will british meat even if it is rotten. in fact there was hardly a influx of foreign meats following disclosure. This phenomenon of using rotten british product is not confined to beef-it extends to everything . in fact protectionism at home and forced infiltration abroad is the name of game in england. And this is the country talking about liberalization. That is why british products, though rotten in quality are high in price. All this because of underlying protectionism. That is also why you will not only not get fresh ,healthy products but also you do not find variety in british life. In the name of traditional (to protect the internal market) britain sells to own people and a few foreign stooges, the same rotten cheese, the same low quality high priced car and same rotten but high price arms (Saudis and others are fed with it). Actually this clone like cancerous feature is very much english way of life. the english live in only 4 or 5 varieties of house, their furniture is the same 4 to five varieties their clothes are they same rotten un smart types and their food is the same rotten type with rotten ingredients. Then why do the english live? for extracting money for money sake. this ia feature of parasitic and cancerous race. the same thing they have exported to where they went. that is why all anglo saxons countries show lack of variety. and it is the english who accused Russians of imposing their culture destroying variety in soviet union. As to talk of this supporting own rotten meat and drug industry (tobacco) for the sake of jobs, why can not the third world support her own industry for their jobs and prosperity. at lest third world still produces better quality food and clothes and even car than the general british Joe is used to. When agitation was going on in South Africa in '86 against apartheid, the bbc reported in support of apartheid that otherwise in case of sanctions against s.africa it would be british profits and jobs which would be lost. Such peoples who benefit by others misery should be made jobless. In fact capitalism and so called freedom for them means freedom to exploit other nations and give them misery. For themselves english never practice free market-it is for foreign suckers. England is a protected and market for themselves and their rotten products. For example, Honda (which rescued B.L. and rovers are the same cars but rovers cost more because it is british car and because they sometimes put a thin veneer of wood in it. Bearing in mind the british homes have hardly got a furniture of solid good wood, the english are selling their cars not on engineering but on carpentry and tatty presentation. And as these shopkeepers never have class, they make a lot of noise about class too. in fact what british media says and what truth is 180 degree apart. For foreign goods (car, consumer items etc) the english would be very fussy and want to get at least price abut for british goods they would create all lies and excuses to pump up the price and sell. That ids why the advanced countries in Europe and far east are in recession and britain and other anglo-saxon countries (which except america is only primary producers of land-oil. timbers. etc-land stolen from others in last 250 years) are in boom. It is not even alive and let live. english like to wreck others ' prospect of prosperity or happiness. For example. england knew that it had no outside chance of staging soccer world cup. but it put forward proposal nevertheless at last minute at a time when Germany was well favourite for that. Why?-to wreck chances for Germany to stage one. So Germany lost not only that glory but also a lot of money to immense satisfaction of english press and people. unemployment in Germany could have eased up if it had got the offer to stage world cup, but no. And it is this Germany who agreed to british request to delay monetary union for 2 years (When britain is not going to be part of it even) . Had that monetary union come about earlier, German chancellor would not have been facing this problem as he is now. But then england has always survived on folly of these suckers who do not know who their real friend or enemy are. nato which ia really an agent for english interest (and broadly anglo saxon interest) should have been rejected by Germany and also euro-fighter in place of truly European (excluding britain of course) military alliance. but Germany lost that chance and new cold war (england has always done cold wars, it is too coward to enter in direct confrontation without first weakening enemy with lies and propaganda machinery like Bbc and others) has begun. For those who do not believe this let me give an example. Soon after fall of Berlin war, the editor of Sunday times (who is renowned racist, anti communist and anti poor, pro capitalist and later came out to be anti Germans and anti French as well) said on bbc that to protect nato and english interests in Europe ,may be americans should get out of Germany and than british garrison can stay there because americans would be resented as occupying foreign forces while britain can simply say that they are European as well and so stay. This from a man who is European hater and is one of leading propagandists against Germany (as he was against Russia).So there you are-cat is out. The english are a foreign intrusive element in Europe through nato. In fact england should not have been allowed in European community ,barring this england must not be allowed to join European single currency if one wants to insure stability and cohesive strength of Euro. It is very interesting that the same editor of Sundays times who rave about like a mad dog against Germans ,French, Europe in general and of course against blacks and socialists was also a sort of adviser to lady Diana. That lady diana@s most of the friends during her fame have been what can be described, for lack of better word, a representative of greedy '80s is significant. Diana was a representative of that greedy shameful period called 80s and her main friends were the same exploiters which made 80s'climate of greed and selfishness possible. Diana was mainly liked by lower class shopkeepers and plumbers class -in other word whose forefathers were Lumpen proletariat only a generation or two. She was neither aristocratic in taste nor her friends were. but the same Diana -a darling of greedy exploiters with no class_ is being pumped up by british people as some angel. This is all to give themselves importance. While bbc and british media always ignore others countries’ important and good news, the other countries should also ignore british media and operate the same voluntary blanket on british news( which in reality are not important anyway). There is no point in giving exposure and importance to the very propaganda machinery (british media) which though belonging to not even a 4th league in military is a dangerous adversary for spreading lies and demoralisation (they call it cold war-the only war they are effective at).Even you see what happened after cold war then you realize that what a shame the cold war was ad only for the benefit of britain. Since then soviet empire is gone but britain still boasts of evil empire called british empire which existed before soviet empire. If it was all right for Russians (as was advised by britain ) to exchange tanks for tractors, to exchange empire for so called freedom the why did not britain disband empire in 1880(the same level of power as enjoyed by Russia in 1970): why britain not stop forcefully imposing a sell of arms on Saudi Arabia? propaganda was that soviet union was governed by a select few without any say of parliament. Who were those western media peoples advising Yelstin to storm the parliaments and if possible kill the parliamentarians if they do not approve of yelstin plan to sell Russia to English tobacco and liquors interests and english pimps? Of course it were mainly english and anglo saxons who were advising yelstin to take all the measures to be sell Russia cheap. soon after storming of parliament yelstin, with the support of anglo saxon media brought a constitutional changes to give himself a dictatorial power. But then he is a western( read anglo saxon stooge) therefore he was hailed for that in western media. The result. There is only one thing selling in all earst while communist country---Anglo-american tobaccos product( drug), british and anglosaxon@whisky and liquors and prostitution. English never was, is or will be a language of culture but certainly it has become a language of prostitution and drugs (cigarettes) advertisement. Therefore through that mad, weak, ill man Yelstin these anglo saxons have made prostitutes of women, wife’s and girlfriends; have left the helpless children on the cold, cruel streets and left the olds (who worked hard for their pension able life) pauper forced to beg on the street. Even full war does not do that. Soviet union had better dropped hundred hydrogen bombs on England and then gone pauper at least it would have satisfaction of having levelled with the enemy. (In fact in cold war Russia did not need to target anywhere, if britain had the first possibility of being annihilated then war( because it was controlled by british and pro-british elements in states) would never have arisen. Cold war against Russia was started for the same reason as cold war against Germany has started. TO keep britain in picture as it gives them a sense of false position, to harass other country and wreck others economy. IN august90, the soviets had captured some persons with british passports who were pumping up False notes of Roubles in Russia. IN other words they were british agents who ,by putting illegal tenders were making rouble go down in value and ultimately wrecking Russian economy. The english are very careful of their savings and pension and economy. their deeds in other countries must be remembered to get even. Therefore english nature is to be cancerous like low form of life’s' like spread and to be very intrusive, and to pass as parasite from one host to another (they call it cold war). Other country have no choice to neutralize this cancer and remove it forcefully and bodily because otherwise the same game would be going on for ever. The main aim of england in Europe is (and has been( to create a rift between Germany and France or Russia or whosoever is strong so that england can play her intrusive role in Europe and bullying role in world. Having failed in creating this rift, the same english propagandists are saying that Europe should not become strong because it will create a rift and possible war between Europe and America. Why? When according to the same english propagandists american culture is( or should remain) predominantly European then why should be such a rift. Gradually with Europe getting powerful, this idea of rift will be instilled into americans just as a cold war was started between earst while allies by the english agents in media in britain and america. But why should america be influenced-it should not but it is : so let us examine the role of english propagandists in shaping up american foreign and domestic policy.
How britain got hold on america after american independence-----This all started soon after Napoleonic war when in 1816 to 1817 The english again attacked america in her southern flanks and the day was saved only because of some French navy mercenaries and French speaking population of Louisiana and such states along with non-english origin americans. But the english invaders infiltrated among that population of Southern america which today calls itself bible belt (whose god has always been english royalty and who worship only stolen money).By 1850 to 1860 England attacked erstwhile friend (in Napoleonic war) Russia in Crimea along with erstwhile foe (now controlled by unpopular english stooge) France.-how the same pattern is so predictable in case of this intrusive, cancerous exploitative race called english and anglo saxons. At that very time England was actively supporting the slave exploitation, in fact all the big plantation owners were english derived and they owned loyalty not to flag of United states of america but to England. -in other words they were agents of foreign country who wanted to keep south america occupy as foreign power again. The civil war in america was not only supported with money and arms by england but rather england was the instigator of american civil war in order to keep whole of america enslaved and if not possible at least those parts (South) where it could call upon filial loyalty. It was truly a war of race-not against whites and blacks but against anglo saxons versus blacks, Irish, other European peoples .The same would be repeated in future. The confederacy was a traitor to america-a british agents; but ironically that same confederacy flag today is being propagandised by their descendents as symbol of american independence and patriotism. Having lost the proxy war england resorted to the one thing it specialises-terrorism and misinformation. Abraham Lincoln was murdered by the person very sympathetic to british cause. (against Napoleon england had sent several terrorist squads-that is why Napoleon had to declare Himself an Emperor to maintain the clear line of succession to protect glorious French Revolution). It is very interesting that most of the american presidents assassinated were those whom England did not want being elected. By the end of civil war ,instead of disinfranchasising the british supporters (of southern states) and taking away their land or at least redistributing evenly the stolen land, the american govt. was persuaded by britain to spare them and let those southern traitors keep all the stolen land so that drug (tobacco) and cotton would be of assured supply to england. Of course by that time because of fall of Napoleon (brought about not by military might but by conspiracy to embroil the Europeans among each other( conspiracy hatched in London-that was the only english contribution to napoleons' fall-forget waterloo where Austrians and Prussians had contributed most militarily):consequently england got free reign to exploit the rest of the world and amassed wealth. With that new loot the english shopkeepers started not only factory but also bought titles (Always a purchasable item in england) and started giving themselves high sounding titles and names. With that they started the rumour that english people had class and aristocracy and america could rub some off it if it was willing to ply right and play right. During that period england started propaganda of herself being friend of america though in britain news it hardly gave any importance to americans except with contempt. When the first world war came, england had already infiltrated in the american decision making process.( Though some of southern traitors had fled to Canada, most had remained to slowly spread their cancerous tentacles tn American govt. The first world war had been started by england to destroy Germany and Russia at the same time. England had got envious of germane prosperity (by 1870 Germany without an empire had taken over england in industrial).Encyclopaedia Britannica writes (anyone can verify that) about Bismarck that Bismarck was aggressive in domestic policy but very peaceful in foreign policy because he did not interfere with Others' empire making process. Try telling that to the then French and Austrian peoples. This only shows how the mind of england and anglo saxon race works even today. The same encyclopaedia hardly gives any credit of roman empire to Romans or Italians saying it was an world empire so Italians ((even of Rome) had little to do with. Take all the credit for a bandit cum shopkeeper's empire (british which lasted 100 to 150 years but no credit to Romans for an empire of much better quality and longer duration. anyway during 1st world war the slogan of england was freedom for world from German aggression who wanted to take away world. This was from a shopkeeper's country who had imposed devastating assault on the whole world not only economically and politically but also environmentally. The evil was giving a slogan to be spared! Though the main intention of Germans was against Russia (to which england had secretly given support) on england@s backstabbing Germans took decision to sort out the English as well. With all the resources of empire (men and arms not to speak of money) England could not do anything against Germans who had been embroiled (as was planned by england-Belgium's sovereignty was an excuse) on two fronts. This shows the inferiority of English military power at the height of her power (but then it never won war on strength but through indiscreet looking spies. What Hitler said of Jews was all wrong, it never applied to Jews. Hitler was barking at wrong tree. What Hitler said of Jews applies only to english race and not to anybody else. The Jews in freemasonry are english agents-in freemasonry are many peoples other than Jews. in fact freemasonry is shopkeeper@s race (english) spy machinery as are all the british journalists who are still working-after clearance from british spy service-mm5-as british spy. The Jews got all the blame because their very small fish-main mastermind of international ring to take over world for its own geed use has been england’s and no one else. Anyway ,English army and navy were so ineffective against German might that by 1917 england was loosing the war. Then come the immense pressure to declare war against Germany by america. -in name of democracy. before that democracy word had not been used to defend anything. Now facing defeat england started talking of democracy just as it started talking of democratic reform 99 years after ruling Hong Kong-an year before departure. Democracy from then will mean not what it is supposed to mean in dictionary meaning-but a special kind of system anywhere in the world which protects english interest and which allows england to exploit others race. A very famous news mogul (Jewish) had been stopped from running american presidency because he might not have been inclined to rescue england in the 1st world war. Anyway, the southern constituency was pressing hard f
February 18, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

Imperialism in the 21st century = global suicide in the 22nd
Nice description of how the imperialists set up their system, except that you tend to omit transnational corporations, financial institutions, the World Bank and the IMF as components in this system.

Bringing the system down begins with the people in the central imperialist states. Unless, Europeans and Americans can undermine the imperialist nature of their corporate states, then the continuing destruction of societies, sustainable economies and the global ecosystem will bring civilization crashing down around all of us in the not too distant future.

Imperialism in the 21st century = global suicide in the 22nd


February 18, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

Thank you
February 18, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger



Top 123