By Ian J. Kagedan
November 26, 1991
In the moral reconstitution of Eastern Europe, coming to the terms with the Holocaust must figure prominently.
The hatred of Jews brought thousands to collaborate with the Nazis in the extermination process; anti-Semitism is still a problem. And today we are witnessing a more generalized racism targeting one group or another. The effective denial of the Holocaust by the Communist regimes made it easy to ignore its lessons.
The Holocaust stands as Western civilization’s greatest failure. It was a natural outcome of centuries of racism and of anti-Semitism.
To deny the Holocaust is to deny racism’s capacity to undercut our civilization’s basic values and to destroy democracy.
Achieving our quest of a “new world order” depends on our learning the Holocaust’s lessons.
Ian J. Kagedan is director of government relations for B’nai Brith Canada.
(TWP: These are documents from the USSR, I have no idea whether they are real or fake)
Link in Tweet:
October 1, 1938
Letter from Polish Ambassador to Germany Jozef Lipski to Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck.
In September 1938, there was a real opportunity to defend Czechoslovakia, subdue the aggressor and prevent World War II. This chance was not taken through the fault of the leading Western powers that believed that Nazi Germany was a lesser evil than the Soviet Union and that hoped to avoid a military confrontation with the Third Reich by inducing it to seize Lebensraum (Living Space) in the East.
While major international events, like nuclear tests carried out by North Korea, affect gold prices and result in a situation when investors prefer to invest their money in the noble metal, economic expert Dimitri Speck believes that there are other, more important factors that play a crucial role in influencing the global financial market.
Gold prices have been subject to constant manipulations since 1993, German expert on the gold market Dimitri Speck told Sputnik Germany.
According to him, the manipulation of gold prices has been presented by the media as if it has been initiated by a couple of malicious traders just recently, but this idea is wrong.
“When the gold price manipulation started on August 5, 1993, these were central banks that initiated the process, and namely the then head of the US Central Bank Alan Greenspan. He did not want to let the gold price rise over $400,” Speck said, adding that Greenspan feared that a significant increase in gold prices might affect the “inflation thermometer.”
The expert noted that the US Fed had arranged an agreement among the central banks to keep the gold price below $400 dollars. This was done for several years by means of sales and loans.
Drivers of Gold Price Manipulation
Central banks, which often belong to the state, do not act alone, but work closely with private banking and financial institutions, Speck continued.
“With the help of price shocks, they [the institutions] shortly knock the prices down to drive other buyers out of the market. The state is the first to get benefit from all this, and this primarily concerns the United States. Well, and the dollar. These are the main beneficiaries of the gold price manipulation. Because the US dollar, as the main world currency, looks good in this case,” the analyst noted.
Explaining how the manipulation process actually takes place, Speck noted that this happens “very simply,” namely by “damaging other competitors.”
In this case, gold is the main rival to currencies based on loans, such as the US dollar and the euro.
“The positive development of the price of gold as such exacerbates the debt and other economic deficits of the United States,” he stated.
Benefits for Banking System
In his book “Secret Monetary Policy: Why Central Banks Manipulate Gold Prices,” Speck also analyzes the benefits that the banking systems themselves get as a result of financial manipulations.
The expert came to the conclusion that the US banking system is one of the main beneficiaries of the gold price manipulation process.
When the gold prices drop, the US dollar rises and its position looks better than it actually is. Banks are then capable of lowering interest rates in order to reduce inflationary expectations and calm depositors.
“They propose lower interest rates to depositors, and this in turn facilitates obtaining a loan. This is beneficial for the state — and, of course, for the banking system,” the expert said, adding however, that this approach was one of the main factors that caused the global financial crisis.
Wow: “Central banks, which often belong to the state,”
Sometimes it is hard to figure out whether people are deliberately lying or are just plain stupid. Never heard of the Rothschild Central Banking System apparently.
FILE PHOTO © Patrick Baz
By Finian Cunningham
The day after US President Trump’s barnstorming speech to the UN General Assembly decrying ‘the scourge’ of rogue states and terrorism, it was reported that his administration is set to greatly loosen American arms exports.
The trade in question is in the private sector of so-called “non-military weapons”. There seems little doubt that unleashing an already massive American export trade in private weapons will further fuel “the scourge” of conflicts and terrorism around the world.
What is also telling is the timing of the move by the Trump administration.
The move to boost exports of private American gun makers also follows an investigative report revealing a $2.2 billion arms pipeline run by the Pentagon and the CIA into Syria. Citing incriminating procurement papers, the explosive report shows how American government agencies are funneling assault rifles and rocket launchers, among other munitions, from Central and Eastern Europe into Syria to arm anti-government militant groups.
What the latest move by the Trump administration will do is obscure the potential paper trail of the weapons trade. In effect, the proposed change in US export regulations amounts to privatizing arms dealing.
As Reuters reported, the Trump administration wants to shift the responsibility for issuing export licenses for “non-military firearms”from the State Department to Commerce. The change could be implemented within the next months.
The volume of US privately manufactured weapons that are traded around the world is already huge. Last year, the State Department granted licenses for the export of $4 billion-worth of US-made small and medium arms. These weapons included handguns, assault rifles and even rocket launchers for the more adventurist gun enthusiasts.
Under the proposed Commerce Department’s purview the flow of arms overseas is expected to dramatically increase. That’s because Commerce has less restrictions than State on the risk of illicit weapons proliferation. Commerce is more driven by basic concerns to maximize trade and profit.
“There will be more leeway to do arms sales,” one senior administration official told Reuters. “You could really turn the spigot on if you do it the right way.”
The Trump administration is pushing for the regulatory change on the basis that it will boost America’s trade figures. “Buy American” is part of Trump’s plan to “make American great again”.
One key area to reduce the US trade deficit and supposedly give a fillip to American manufacturing jobs is to expand the export of “non-military” weapons.
Trump’s election campaign was bankrolled by the National Rifle Association to the tune of $30 million. Earlier this year, in April, he told an NRA convention: “I am going to come through for you.”
Some senior US lawmakers have expressed concern that the loosening of trade regulations will fuel conflicts overseas.
As Reuters reported: “Assault rifles like the Bushmaster would be some of the most powerful weapons expected to be more readily available for commercial export under the new rules.”
Democrat Senators Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy reportedlywrote objections to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, pointing out that combat firearms are the “primary means of injury and destruction in civil and military conflicts throughout the world.”
However, the issue is about more than just callous indifference in the pursuit of profit. It is also about obscuring the potential links between US authorities and the arming of terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In the investigative report cited above, published earlier this month by the Balkans Investigative Reporters Network (BIRN), it confirms what many observers have been claiming for a long time. Namely, that the Pentagon and CIA have been covertly running a massive arms pipeline to militants in Syria to overthrow the Assad government.
According to the BIRN, the transfer of arms include Soviet-made assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. The arms were apparently scooped up from suppliers in Bosnia, Czech Republic, Poland, Germany, and elsewhere, and then shipped from Bulgaria and Romania to Turkey and Jordan before final destination in Syria.
The problem for the American authorities is that such industrial-scale trading leaves an embarrassing paper trail, from procurement documents to shipping contracts. The paper trail unearthed by BIRN clearly implicates the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the CIA. The exposure compromises one of the main tenets of the CIA which is “plausible denial”. So serious are the findings of US gun running from Europe to the Middle East that the German authorities have been now reportedly forced to investigate.
The repercussions do not only concern Syria. It concerns any other country where American planners endeavor to covertly arm mercenaries for regime change or some other illicit function.
By shifting the responsibility for overseeing non-military arms exports from the State Department to Commerce, the Trump administration’s move potentially obscures federal government involvement in illicit arms trade. Rather than the Pentagon or CIA having to do paperwork for its ventures, the onus will be on private weapons companies and their private buyers overseas. That inevitably lessens the accountability of the US authorities when weapons end up fueling conflicts.
As noted, the American trade in non-military weapons is already substantial at an annual volume of $4 billion. Under Commerce’s looser regulations that trade figure is expected to jump by 15-20 per cent, according to Reuters.
One of the main importers of American private arms is Saudi Arabia. Which, as Hillary Clinton’s communications leaked by Wikileaks acknowledged, is accused of being the biggest sponsor of “Sunni extremist groups” operating globally.
The Trump administration appears to be primarily motivated by an unscrupulous objective of maximizing profits.
“Commerce wants more exports to help reduce the trade deficit. And State wants to stop things because it sees [arms] proliferation as inherently bad,” one of US official is quoted as saying. “We want to make a decision that prioritizes what’s more important,” he added, pointing to the need to get ahead of international arms competitors based in Europe.
But equally important, it would seem, is the erasing of connection between US authorities and “the scourge of terrorism”, which ironically President Trump admonished the UN General Assembly about earlier this week.
In effect, the Trump administration will make it easier for US weapons to end up in the hands of terror groups. What has been up to now the shady business of the Pentagon and CIA will henceforth become even more darkened through private networks of sellers and buyers.
The move is a corollary of how much of American military operations overseas have been privatized to security contract firms like Eric Prince’s Black Water. In Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, it is estimated that thousands of such private contractors have taken over the role formerly carried out by US troops. There are also suspicions that American-run mercenaries are active in Ukraine, Syria and Yemen. That privatization allows for Washington to dodge questions about its violation of international law.
Similarly, the deregulation of American arms trade involving private manufacturers allows for the Pentagon and the CIA to better invoke plausible denial when they are accused of sponsoring terrorist proxies.
It serves to show how Trump’s touted concern about terrorism at the UN was a cynical “hoax” – to use one of his favorite catchphrases.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
By Citizen Reporter
Dar es Salaam — The government has drafted sweeping regulations to tighten its grip on online content producers and users across popular social media platforms.
The Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) will have unfettered powers to police the web. It will also licence all content providers, including bloggers.
According to the draft regulations, TCRA will deregister any provider and block users deemed to have broken the rules.
A hefty fine of Sh5 million and a minimum of 12 months in jail, or both penalties, is recommended as punishment for those convicted.
The Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations, 2017 (as they are known) will come into force once signed by the Minister for Information, Culture, Arts and Sports Doctor Harrison Mwakyembe.
TCRA director general James Kilaba yesterday told The Citizen that the regulations have been circulated to organisations and members of the public to import their views.
“We will hold public forums in the coming week to share the draft document with stakeholders before the final set of rules are sent to the minister for signing and gazettement,” said Mr Kilaba by telephone.
The rules are a result of the Electronic and Postal Communications Act that was approved recently in Parliament as the government sought to clip growing public influence on online and social media platforms.
Authorities say unchecked use of the cyberspace will lead to moral decadence and endanger national security and cohesion among the various social and political groups in the country.
But the Electronic and Postal Communications Act and the Media Services Act have been heavily criticised by rights activists who feel the government was out to curtail the people’s right of free speech and expression. A number of people have since been charged in court for incitement over posts on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp and online.
In the proposed regulations, online content providers shall not publish material described either as indecent, obscene, hate speech, extreme violence or material that will offend others or incite them.
They will also be held liable for material that “causes annoyance, threatens harm or evil, encourages or incites crime, or leads to public disorder.”
Content providers will be required to ensure their broadcasts do not advocate what is broadly described as hate propaganda, threaten national security or spark a health crisis.
Information reportedly portraying racial tension or violence, touching on possible terror attacks will attract punishment.
Publishing of “content that uses bad language including… use of disparaging or abusive words which is calculated to offend an individual or a group of persons” will be outlawed.
One will not publish false content likely to mislead or deceive the public except when it is clearly stated as satire or fiction.
TCRA defines indecent content as ‘information which is offensive, morally improper and against current standards of accepted behavior, including nudity and sex.” For Obscene content it means “content which gives rise to a feeling of disgust by reason of its lewd portrayal and is essentially offensive to one’s prevailing notion of decency and modesty, with a possibility of having a negative influence and corrupting the mind of those easily influenced.”
As for hate speech, it means “speech that refers to any portrayal (words, speech or pictures, etc), which denigrates, defames, or otherwise devalues a person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, or disability and is prohibited.”
Individual social media users will also be solely responsible for the content which they share and will also be required to secure their own sites and tools against infiltration. Both the content providers and users will admin roles of their space.
Service providers such as those running internet cafes will be required to install user manuals and record proceedings of their business around the clock. They will be required to install CCTV cameras to archive all activities of those walking in and out of the premises.
The regulations will apply to all Tanzanian nationals in and out of the country as well as foreigners living in the country and publishing content meant for local consumption.
The mushrooming online radios, TVs and any digital platforms, bloggers and websites or forum managers will need to apply for registration from TCRA once the regulations officially come into force. They will also ensure no anonymous users in their platforms and will be required to fully cooperate with law enforcers as required.
By Albertina Nakale