Truth Terrorists in London

Truth Terrorists in London

A few years ago, when the FBI detained me at the airport and asked me “are you a terrorist,” I told them no, I was working to expose the real terrorists.

But it all depends on how you define terrorism, doesn’t it?

If terrorism is “politically-inspired dissemination of fear,” then those who terrified the population with the phony “war on terror” are the second-biggest terrorists ever.

Then who are the biggest terrorists?

Us. The truth-tellers.

The lies about the horrific dangers of radical Islamic terrorism may be terrifying. But the truth — that the whole thing is a hoax, and that our own leaders are the real terrorists, meaning the real killers and bombers and purveyors of pain and death — is far more terrifying.

I would have explained this to the customs agent at Heathrow had she asked me. Instead, she just asked what I would be doing in London. I said I was participating in a symposium entitled “Debunking the War on Terror.” She smiled and waved me through with no luggage check.

Had British customs checked my luggage, they would have found some of the most fearsome weapons of truth terrorism ever devised: DVDs and brochures fromArchitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and copies of my book Questioning the War on Terror.

So here I am in London, getting ready for next Thursday’s symposium. My fellow speaker and truth terrorist, Ken O’Keefe, has just published a real bombshell, An American Terrorist in London.

Meanwhile symposium participant Gilad Atzmon passes on the news that CNN editor Octavia Nasr was fired because she expressed respect for the late Grand Ayatollah Mohaamed Hussein Fadlallah in a tweet.

I would like to make it plain to the British authorities, who have me as well as the rest of the 60 million people in England under surveillance, that I also respect the late Ayatollah.

And if expressing that simple truth makes me a terrorist, just wait till you hear some of the other truths I came here to tell.

Kevin Barrett
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

Japanese Democracy–vs–Another Base for the Empire

Weakened Kan Faces Okinawa Deadlines

By DAISUKE WAKABAYASHI And YUKA HAYASHI

TOKYO—After getting badly bruised in a tough national election, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan soon has to turn to the politically charged issue of a U.S. military base on Okinawa, a complex matter that forced the resignation of his predecessor just over a month ago.

While the base wasn’t a prominent factor in the campaign, Sunday’s results could make it harder for the weakened Mr. Kan to keep the promises the Japanese government made to the Obama administration. Mr. Kan told the U.S. government that he would move forward on the plan aimed at keeping a large Marine presence on the southern island.

The first test comes at the end of August, the deadline the last Japanese Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, promised Washington that he would meet to reach agreement over details of the controversial base location plan, including configuration and construction methods. Mr. Kan has pledged to follow Mr. Hatoyama’s commitments on the matter. In the following months, local elections in Okinawa could further lock local politicians into opposing Tokyo’s attempts to move the American base to a new community.

The tensions revolve around a 2006 agreement reached between the two countries to reshuffle U.S. troops in Okinawa to make them more politically acceptable to the local population. The agreement calls on the U.S. to move 8,000 Marines to Guam by 2014 and shift part of an existing Okinawa helicopter facility from a densely populated area to a rural part of the island. The idea is to diminish local hostility to the Marine presence on the island, stoke by a rape case and a helicopter crash.

While the deal does reduce the number of Marines on Okinawa, it leaves thousands of Marines on Okinawa, and it doesn’t go far enough for many Okinawans, who want the base moved off the island entirely. The ruling Democratic Party of Japan had last year endorsed that view and promised Okinawan base opponents it would support their cause. But Mr. Hatoyama changed his position under pressure from the U.S.

The issue didn’t get much attention in an election campaign largely dominated by domestic issues, such as Mr. Kan’s pledge to raise the national sales tax to help cut the national debt. The political parties that Mr. Kan is likely to invite into a new ruling coalition have either endorsed the U.S. plan, or haven’t made an issue of opposing it.

In that sense, Mr. Kan may be more free than Mr. Hatoyama to move forward in implementing the U.S. agreement. Mr. Hatoyama’s coalition included the left-leaning Social Democratic Party of Japan, which strongly opposes the U.S. military presence in Okinawa—and which left the coalition when Mr. Hatoyama reversed course.

But even with support from coalition partners, the issue requires a strong leader to push implantation over powerful local opposition. And Mr. Kan’s political capital appears to have been badly sapped by the vote that saw his party lose seats.

Looking to smooth ties frayed with Washington under Mr. Hatoyama, Mr. Kan pledged at the very outset of his administration that he plans to abide by the latest bilateral agreement and called the decades-old security alliance the linchpin of his foreign policy. But the challenge he now faces is demonstrating a commitment to implementing the base relocation and repairing relations with the U.S., while working to shift public sentiment on the issue in Okinawa where the pact is so deeply unpopular that the DPJ chose not to run its own candidate on the southern island.

Sheila Smith, a senior fellow for Japan at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the sense of betrayal and anger by Okinawans toward the central government is so strong that changing sentiment will be very difficult.

“The situation is probably the worst it has ever been in terms of political sensitivity,” said Ms. Smith, who has followed the Okinawa issue closely.

In a Friday statement asking Japan and the U.S. to review the base-relocation agreement, the Okinawa prefectural assembly said the pact went “over the heads” of the locals and ignored the protests of the people who want the base moved off the island.

On July 2, the mayor of Ginowan City, the current home to the Marine base, said his city was considering suing the Japanese government for neglecting to remove the danger posed on its citizens from the air base. The city also plans to seek financial compensation for the damage it says has been suffered by its residents.

The mayor, Yoichi Iha, has become a national figure with his eloquent opposition to the base. He is among the potential candidates for a November race to choose a new governor of Okinawa, an important role since that person must approve the start of construction for a new facility.

Along with the gubernatorial election, Nago, the coastal city where the proposed base would go, is holding an election on Sept. 27 for its assembly council. If both elections are dominated by vocal opponents of the base relocation, it could undermine the agreement.

For his part, Mr. Kan has sought to ease tensions. Last month, he traveled to Okinawa and apologized to the people of the island during a ceremony at a peace memorial: “From here on forth, I promise to work harder in order to ease Okinawa’s burden and eliminate the danger of hosting the base.”

Mr. Kan tempered his remarks by saying that the U.S. military presence on the island has helped to foster peace and stability in the region. At every turn, Mr. Kan has continued to emphasize the importance for the U.S.-Japan alliance.

“Kan has been very careful not to say anything in public that indicates any daylight between his position and the U.S. position,” said Daniel Sneider, associate director for research at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University. Mr. Sneider sees Washington also making a more concerted effort to address the local opposition with more diplomatic efforts.

Also, both leaders seem eager to improve communication channels. President Barack Obama invited Mr. Kan to the White House for a visit if he chooses to address the United Nations General Assembly in September and Mr. Obama is scheduled to come to Japan for November’s Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Yokohama.

Write to Daisuke Wakabayashi at Daisuke.Wakabayashi@wsj.com

Iran, India Resume Talks on Gas Pipeline Project

Iran, India Resume Talks on Gas Pipeline Project

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian and Indian officials have resumed talks over an underwater gas pipeline project to export Iran’s rich reserves to the South Asian nation, sources said.

Sources said that the two countries’ officials have discussed the underwater pipeline project during a two-day meeting of the two countries’ joint economic cooperation commission in New Delhi on Thursday and Friday.

“This was among the issues discussed. It will be followed by more discussions between technical groups,” an Indian state official said, referring to the agenda of talks between the two delegations in the 16th Iran-India joint economic cooperation commission meeting chaired by Iranian Economy Minister Shamsheddin Hosseini and Indian Foreign Minister S. M. Krishna.

While technical groups in the past few months have been exploring the possibility of such a pipeline, which will help India bypass Pakistan, this is the first time in recent times that the issue has been discussed at this level.

India’s interest is being attributed to a pro-active approach by Krishna himself to keep Iran, a country of immense strategic significance for India, engaged despite the recent setbacks in relationship over Tehran’s nuclear program.

The project proposal had earlier been dismissed as highly expensive, but New Delhi officials now say that whether or not an underwater pipeline is economically viable, India’s interest in it would also help New Delhi counter Islamabad’s claim that India had backed out of the IPI pipeline under pressure from the US.

However, pointing to high costs involved in such a pipeline, Iran had insisted that India should not abandon the IPI pipeline project.

While denying that India had dumped the land pipeline which passes through Pakistan, Krishna pointed out to India’s concerns about security and pricing that have delayed India’s participation.

The land pipeline project was initially due to supply Iran’s gas to India via Pakistan, but New Delhi. In June 2008, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Indian Oil Minister Murli Deora said that the two sides have resolved all bilateral issues.

There was a breakthrough in the talks in April 2008 when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Pakistan and India. Ahmadinejad had said after a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2008 that the two sides had decided to address the issue in 45 days.

Indian and Pakistani officials also announced last year that they had resolved almost all bilateral issues including transit fee which saw New Delhi boycotting IPI pipeline talks for about a year.

India had also announced that it has more or less agreed to give Pakistan a transit fee of $200 million per year, which is equivalent to $0.60 per million British thermal unit for allowing passage of the pipeline through that country.

According to the project proposal, the pipeline will begin from Iran’s Assalouyeh Energy Zone in the south and stretch over 1,100 km through Iran. In Pakistan, it will pass through Baluchistan and Sindh but officials now say the route may be changed if China agrees to the project.

The gas will be supplied from the South Pars field. The initial capacity of the pipeline will be 22 billion cubic meter of natural gas per annum, which is expected to be later raised to 55 billion cubic meter. It is expected to cost $7.4 billion.

According to Indian ministry sources, the IPI gas pipeline is quite crucial for New Delhi as after signing of the agreement, 60 million standard cubic meters per day (mmscmd) of gas is expected to be supplied in phase-I, which will be shared equally between India and Pakistan.

In phase-II, 90 mmscmd of gas will be supplied to India and Pakistan. So far six meetings of the trilateral joint working group (JWG) of the participating countries have been held with the last meeting being held in New Delhi on June 28-29, 2007.

India, Asia’s third-largest economy, can produce only half the gas it needs to generate electricity, causing blackouts and curbing economic growth. Demand may more than double to 400 million cubic meters a day by 2025 if the economy grows at the projected rate of 7 to 8 percent a year, according to the Indian oil ministry.

Iran plans to start exporting gas to Pakistan in 2011. Iran has completed half the pipeline, which can carry 110 million cubic meters of gas a day, National Iranian Gas Company (NIOC) said in April. India uses about 108 million cubic meters of gas a day, according to a BP Plc report.

Iran and Pakistan initiated a Gas Sales Purchase Agreement in 2008.

In a major breakthrough on March 20, 2009, the Pakistani government approved Iran’s proposed pricing formula for gas supplies to the South Asian nation.

Subsequently, Tehran and Islamabad signed a final agreement to launch implementation of the project.

Tehran and Islamabad also sealed a final contract for the start of Iran’s gas exports to Pakistan through the multi-billion-dollar pipeline in spring 2014.

The last annex of the agreement for export of Iran’s gas to Pakistan was signed on June 13 by Iranian Oil Minister Masoud Mir-Kazzemi and Managing Director of Pakistan’s Inter-State Gas Company Naeem Sharafat in a meeting also attended by the Iranian oil ministry’s representative in gas talks with Pakistan Seyed Reza Kassayeezadeh.

Tribal Interests and Pipeline Profits

“Certain people and special interests will never want to move ahead and shouldn’t be able to manipulate the system when everyone else suffers”

BY DIANE FRANCIS, FINANCIAL POST
Inuit leader Nellie Cournoyea says the Mackenzie pipeline should have happened already, but keeps being delayed by different interest groups.
Inuit leader Nellie Cournoyea says the Mackenzie pipeline should have happened already, but keeps being delayed by different interest groups.

Inuit leader Nellie Cournoyea says the Mackenzie pipeline should have happened already, but keeps being delayed by different interest groups.

Photograph by: Leah Hennel, Canwest News Service

Nellie Cournoyea is chairwoman and chief executive of the $300-million Inuvialuit Regional Corp., which has investments in construction, pipelines, trucking, airlines and real estate. She is the former premier of the Northwest Territories and also an ardent and passionate spokeswoman for her region.

She spoke to the Financial Post’s editor-at-large Diane Francis recently at the 10th Inuvik Petroleum Show about the frustration felt by residents of the Western Arctic. She is one of 3,000 Inuit who have special rights to Crown lands in the Inuvaluit Settlement Region along the Beaufort Sea, which is bigger in size than Nova Scotia and contains a treasure trove of natural gas.

That resource has been trapped underground for 25 years due to endless wrangles, but this fall, the National Energy Board is expected to approve the 1,200-kilometre Mackenzie pipeline to get it out. Next, Ottawa (the ultimate landlord) is being asked to provide loan guarantees to help oil companies finance the $16.2-billion pipeline.

Q Why has this pipeline been delayed for so long?

A We are a pawn in a game. The federal government has the power to just stop all this delay, which has made lawyers and consultants rich, but is hurting innocent people of the North. The game is that the DehCho [a First Nation band along the proposed pipeline route] will never settle [land claims]. They don’t want to. Every time they complain, the federal government throws money at them for studies and consultants. The Berger Pipeline Inquiry [1974-77] took years and imposed a 10-year moratorium. Then gas prices were lousy. Then a joint panel review extended the process years more. The panel has been fearful and [has] not taken responsibility.

The Government of Canada has a perfect right to approve a right of way and take the land. Certain people and special interests will never want to move ahead and shouldn’t be able to manipulate the system when everyone else suffers. The government has been frightened and the same processes have been repeated year after year.

Q What about the environmentalists?

A They should want this pipeline because gas is cleaner and should be considered to be more valuable. The only people who make money are consultants and lawyers and people who sit on boards that keep this game going. Then there are the special-interest guys who want us to save the polar bear and politicians who want us, as a country, to look like we’re doing something. We’re caught in a vicious cycle. It’s demoralizing.

Q Is Alaska ahead on a pipeline and if it goes first, does that ruin the Mackenzie’s chances of finding gas markets?

A Both can happen, but they cannot be built at the same time. The state of Alaska is offering a lot to support a gas pipeline or the LNG [liquefied natural gas] option.

Q Will the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe affect the future of northern development?

A The natural gas is onshore. The offshore is where the oil is and is riskier. Imperial and BP had been having consultations with us to assure us that their blowout preventers are effective and will never fail. We have had two years of this. We never got a comfort level. Then this happened. We now want companies to bring us more assurance that the drilling is going to be safe, that they have methods to clean up on ice.

Q What’s the status of the pipeline partnership now?

A We [the Aboriginal Pipeline Group, with 33.3%] are partners with Imperial Oil/Exxon Mobil [39.6%], ConocoPhillips Canada [15.7%] and Shell Canada Ltd. [11.4%]. They’re saying the pipeline has got to be economic and we need a high rating on money that is borrowed or a loan guarantee. But the federal Conservatives are in a minority situation, so that is a possible problem.

The federal government will get royalties from this pipeline, so why would they want to give up those royalties? There are too many bureaucrats and it’s a very sad story. We have survived a lot of things — the whaling disappeared, the ban on seal hunting, epidemics and a lot of false starts on this project. We are ready to go, take the risk, put up our own money, do the work and do what’s necessary. We desperately need economic development in our region and this is an environmentally safe project. The feds should have the guts to make the decision to get this going. It had better happen.

Financial Post


US Professors Raise Doubts About Report on South Korean Ship Sinking

[Western professors, scientists and other intellectuals are taking steps that will blow the Empire's plans out of the water, if they are followed to their obvious conclusions (SEE: Scientists propose big experiment to study Gulf oil spill).  Intellectual truth movements can undermine the official lies that cover-up the greatest war crimes of the new century.]

US Professors Raise Doubts About Report on South Korean Ship Sinking

Akiko Fujita | Tokyo

South Korean Internet-savvy citizens, such as bloggers, Twitter users and online media reporters, who are invited by the Defense Ministry, visit the wreckage of a warship that the government claims was sunk by a North Korean torpedo in March.

Photo: AP

South Korean Internet-savvy citizens, such as bloggers, Twitter users and online media reporters, who are invited by the Defense Ministry, visit the wreckage of a warship that the government claims was sunk by a North Korean torpedo in March, at the Second Fleet Command of Navy in Pyeongtaek, south of Seoul, South Korea, 08 Jul 2010.

A new study by U.S. researchers raises questions about the investigation into the sinking of a South Korean navy ship. International investigators blamed a North Korean torpedo, raising tensions on the Korean peninsula.

Researchers J.J. Suh and Seung-Hun Lee say the South Korean Joint Investigation Group made a weak case when it concluded that North Korea was responsible for sinking the Cheonan.

Speaking in Tokyo Friday, the two said the investigation was riddled with inconsistencies and cast “profound doubt” on the integrity of the investigation.  “The only conclusion one can draw on the basis of the evidence is that there was no outside explosion,” Suh said. “The JIG completely failed to produce evidence that backs up its claims that there was an outside explosion.”

Suh is an associate professor in international relations at Johns Hopkins University in the United States, where he runs the Korean studies program.

International investigators said in May that an external explosion caused the South Korean ship to sink last March, killing 46 sailors. The report said a North Korean-made torpedo caused the explosion.

Suh and Lee the cracked portion of the bottom of the ship does not show the signs of a large shock that are usually associated with outside explosions. They add that all the ship’s internal parts remained intact and few fragments were recovered outside the ship.

“Almost all parts and fragments should’ve been recovered within about three to six meters within where the torpedo part was discovered,” Lee says, “The fact that only the propeller and the propulsion part was discovered doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Lee is a professor of physics at the University of Virginia in the United States. Lee also points to a blue mark on a fragment of the torpedo to question the validity of the study. South Korean scientists say that part of the torpedo was marked “number one” in Korean, with a blue marker.

Suh and Lee say the writing would not have survived the intense heat of an explosion.  “This can not be taken as evidence. Because any Korean, North and South, can write this mark,” Suh said. “Also, it does not make sense that this blue ink mark could survive so freshly when the paint all around was all burned at the explosion.”

Both researchers say their findings do not prove that North Korea did not sink the Cheonan. But they say it is irresponsible for the South Korean government to reach its conclusions based on an inconclusive study.

They are calling for a new international investigation to re-examine the Cheonan’s sinking. They also want the United Nations Security Council to pressure the South Korean government and request an “objective and scientific” report before the council deliberates on the incident.

The Georgian Dilemma–Pariahdom for Profits

Are Tbilisi and Baku good friends?

6333.jpeg

6333.jpegRelations between republics of South Caucasus play an important geopolitical role for Russia given that this near-border region is ethnically close to citizens of Russia’s south and is highly integrated into Russia’s economy. On one hand, establishment of new states in the territory of Soviet republics drastically changed relations between them making it possible for the West to set up a base to put pressure on Russia’s south. We considered Georgian-Turkish relations and it is much more important how Georgia and Azerbaijan, two close neighbors, communicate.

Traditionally, Georgia and Azerbaijan have been considered allies and partners. These are important links for oil extraction and transportation as well as military transit. Besides it’s the region that the West may take advantage of to put pressure on Teheran and Moscow which brought together the USA, Great Britain, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

The idyll was supplemented by another element – oil, or a pipe, to be more exact. Since 2005 Tbilisi and Baku have been facing serious contradictions started with the end of construction of two crucial supply facilities: Baku-Tbilisi-Jeykhan oil pipeline and Transcaucasian gas pipeline Shakhdeniz – Erzurum  plus old  Baku-Supsa oil pipeline forming the main system of energy communications in South Caucasus that connect Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Despite Azerbaijan’s considerable concessions over distribution of profit from operation of the facilities above, the regional effect from these energy supply systems was absolutely different to the sides. Azerbaijan’s incomes that depend on functioning of the said supply pipelines are tenfold higher than Georgia’s gain as a transit territory in overall energy complex of Caucasus.

If at the design stage the projected income Georgia was supposed to have seemed much higher now this is just a small part of the country’s state treasury. If in 2002 Georgia’s state budget was not more than USD 370 mln – today it is not more than USD 100 mln at maximum transit capacity!

However, as estimated by the International Monetary Fund Azerbaijan will earn USD 175 bn in coming 20 years.

These incommensurable figures were particularly irritating to Georgia that incurred serious economic loss staring severe confrontation with Russia for the sake of construction of energy facilities and oil transportation westward. The damage can’t be compared to the oil and gas transportation incomes.

We have mentioned political damages already. It would seem Azerbaijan depends on Georgia for the operation of oil and gas pipelines while Georgia depends on Azerbaijan’s transit resources. In reality, both countries depend on their Western partners, main owners of oil deposits and relevant transportation infrastructure – not on each other. This circumstance became “a basis” to raise various issues like the status of Azerbaijani population in Georgia, interstate trade, cultural and historic issues.

Azerbaijan treated Georgia’s problems in power and gas supplies rather egoistically especially when gas supplies from Russia were brought into question because of high prices. Upon completion of Shakhdeniz-Erzurum gas pipeline construction Georgia found itself in rather an awkward position since this large enterprise will not be able to furnish even approximate volume of gas Georgia will need in coming years .

Georgia’s political circles are thinking of reconsideration of tariffs for oil and gas transit since when it was decided to construct the said facilities oil prices were twice lower, and gas prices were 4-5 times lower. Surely, this does not sound convincing to reconsider tariffs. But all is fair in making the country’s treasury fatter.

Eventually these steps will lead to stronger contradictions between Georgia and Azerbaijan bringing Western companies and governments into play. Besides, Georgia feels danger to fall under a strong influence of Turkey-Azerbaijan alliance but has to go in this direction having no other way to solve economic and energy issues: Georgia can’t become a transit country of interregional importance otherwise.

Influence from Turkey and Azerbaijan as well as necessity to get extra income accounted for the search of alternative directions of economic partnership in the region. It turns out that despite powerful political and economic presence the Atlantic empires fail to solve problems of the regional states that are on tense terms with neighbors, particularly with much bigger neighbors.

Against this political background Georgian politicians are particularly concerned over strengthening Turkish-Russian relations based not only on geo-economic projects but on mutual interests in opposition to US policies in the Black Sea, Caucasus and Central Asia. Turkish-Russian alliance can be a nasty factor in Georgian politics in long-term perspective.

The transit of oil conflict between Tbilisi and Baku

[Azeri pipelines and gas seem to be the lifeline keeping Georgia from going completely under.  Surely Georgia has something of value to offer the world other than its strategic value as an arena for conflict?]

“Echo”: “The transit of oil conflict between Tbilisi and Baku

“Transit conflict between Tbilisi and Baku
In Georgia, are heating up around the activities of SOCAR, which may cause in Parliament “on the carpet”

In political circles of Georgia discussed the need to revise the rates for the transportation of Azerbaijani oil and gas, since at the time of the decision-making on the construction of these facilities, oil prices were half the current, and gas prices in the region below 4-5 times. This information is circulated newspaper Tbilisi Georgia Times. “Of course, this is not quite sufficient argument to reconsider the tariffs for the transit of energy resources. But in order to replenish the treasury, all means are good, – the newspaper noted. – In the end, such steps will lead to increased conflict between Georgia and Azerbaijan, and this will involve Western companies and governments.

In turn, as the “Echo” Chairman, Centre for Petroleum Research Ilham Shaban, the outcome of this situation depends on the behavior of the government itself. “The last 15 years have shown that, despite all the ongoing processes, and Georgia can be called a more democratic country in the Caucasus, where both in Parliament and elsewhere, there are different opinions.” However, the Government of this country has always conducted himself weighed and respect the international obligations they have signed the documents.

Especially since Georgia and Azerbaijan are traditionally seen as allies and partners. This is an important link in the extraction and transportation of oil, provide military transit, however, our region can be useful to the West to put pressure on Tehran and Moscow. On this basis, and there was a commonality of interests of the United States, Britain, Georgia and Azerbaijan. “But this idyll is interrupted and” woman “- oil, better pipe. Since 2005, between Tbilisi and Baku, there were serious contradictions. The reason was the completion of the construction of two major communications: the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Transcaucasus Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum which together with the reconstructed old Baku-Supsa oil formed the basic system of energy communications for the South Caucasus, linking Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Azerbaijan at the time went to significant concessions in the allocation of profits from the exploitation of data communications, “- wrote the Georgian newspaper.

As the Georgia Times, if the design phase anticipated income to be received by Georgia, seemed very significant, but now it is just a small portion of the proceeds of its public treasury. “If the 2002 state budget of Georgia was no more than 370 million dollars, today – not more than $ 100 million, making the best use of carriers’ power! But Azerbaijan over the next 20 years, according to the International Monetary Fund, will receive 175 billion dollars profits “, – said the Georgian issue. However, the publication of forgot to mention that oil and gas exports, Azerbaijan, and not Georgia, which has not invested in the project of the BTC and BTE penny gets multimillion-dollar revenues only by providing its territory for transit.

“These disparate values and have become a major irritant for Georgia, in the name of the data structures energokommunikatsy and ensure the transportation of oil to the West came into a tough confrontation with Russia, causing their own country a huge economic losses”, – said Georgia Times. However, the publication must bear in mind that these same confrontation – the result of Georgia itself, rather than pipelines. In addition, Georgia’s economy almost came to the stage of default before the August events. This is the war saved the economy of Georgia, which received nearly $ 5 billion of foreign aid to address the consequences of the conflict.

“Azerbaijan is selfish enough to the concerns of Georgia in the field of electricity and gas supplies, especially when gas supplies from Russia because of high prices had been called into question. Upon completion of construction of the pipeline, the Shah Deniz-Erzurum pipeline, Georgia found itself in a very deprived position because even such a large company would not provide her with gas, in the approximate amount that it needs in the coming years “- indicates publication. However, it should take into account that Azerbaijan Georgia sells gas at a price almost in 2 times cheaper than the market, and in very large quantities. Probably, certain circles in Georgia want to squeeze the maximum possible benefit from the projects where the main role played by Azerbaijan.

Against the background of the information disseminated Georgia Times, there are other messages injected into the Georgian society, negative attitudes towards the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan. Energoombudsmen Georgia accuses a subsidiary of SOCAR in flagrant violation of the rights of consumers. As stated by Valery Pkhakadze in Kakheti, in Lagodekhi region, the company makes new customers pay for natural gas for 12 tetri more than pay the old subscribers, reports the Business of Georgia. This rate, according to his conviction, SOCAR Georgia set arbitrarily. But Pkhakadze also states that the right of arbitrary pricing of the company was back in 2007. According to him, the Minister of Energy issued a decree on the regulation of tariffs of distribution companies. As a result, if the company will build a new network, it assigns itself the right to impose a tariff for accession by subscribers. Already aware that next week energoombudsmen plans to meet with the leadership “SOCAR” to listen to their arguments in connection with the tariff increase.

In addition, according to radio Kommersant, because of higher tariffs to the population of regions, companies may have to give explanations to Parliament. The Deputy Chairman of the Committee of Industrial Economics Temur Tsurtsumia, they need to be listened to arguments from representatives of the company.

However, in the opinion of Shaban, the situation is settled. Since, according to him, from the 12 Tetri Georgian side is unlikely to cause trouble. “For those who advocate the revision of tariffs for transportation of Azerbaijani oil and gas via Georgia, should be invited to be invited into this country,” Gazprom or some kind of Armenian companies. According to him, at one time an American company managed power distribution network in Tbilisi. “As a result of unpaid bills subscribers, the company practically ran out of Georgia.” On the other hand, if consumers stop buying Azerbaijani Georgian drinks, the budget of this country will lose significant funds. For this reason, experts say, there is hardly any reason for the cooling of relations between Azerbaijan and Georgia. “Azerbaijan has put more than a billion dollars of investment in Georgia. Among countries prevail normal relations in all spheres.” According to him, our countries are linked by very strong ties, and are unlikely to some forces can impose on us the deterioration of relations.

Further, according to J. Shaban, the issue of tariffs for transporting oil and gas is reflected in the commercial agreement signed by Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.”Here in unilaterally any party can not do anything to take.” Any change can occur only with the consent of all parties. “It is important to note that in Ukraine and Belarus transmission infrastructure of the Russian oil and gas sent to Europe, is owned by these countries. While the pipelines passing through Georgia, owned by Azerbaijan, in exactly the same terminal at Ceyhan in Turkey belongs to is not this country, and Azerbaijan. After the period of commercial agreements, these facilities would be owned by the Government of Azerbaijan. Since Georgia is not invested in infrastructure for a penny, but at the same time receives multimillion-dollar revenues plus 5% of the volume of transportation, replenishes the state budget ” .

Unfortunately, yesterday the “echo” unable to learn the opinion of SOCAR on the subject.

However, added chairman of the Center research for sustainable development Nariman Agayev, periodically in the Parliament of Georgia offers some sound revision of tariffs for transportation of fuel from Azerbaijan in the framework of international agreements. “Rising on the agenda of such a question should be based on the relevant articles of international agreements”. All parties, he said, must comply with issues relating to the protection of foreign investments.

Dzh.HALILOV, N. Aliyev
№ 121 (2323) Sat 10 July 2010

Source - Echo

New Russian Base, American Special Forces Training Center–Both To Be In Osh

Kyrgyzstan is waiting for second base. Russia may create in Central Asia is another major military center

A. Rezchikov

Kyrgyzstan expects second base
Russia may create in Central Asia is another major military center for the fight against drug trafficking and the general pacification of the situation

Kyrgyzstan agreed in principle to host the second Russian military base. On Thursday said the Foreign Minister of the Republic Ruslan Kazakbaev. Recently, and Russian authorities have confirmed that in Central Asia need another base to combat drug trafficking from Afghanistan. The decision of Bishkek paves the way for implementation of the agreement on the deployment in the region of the new Russian troops, of which Kyrgyzstan and Russia have agreed to it last year.

The Foreign Minister of the Transitional Government of Kyrgyzstan Ruslan Kazakbaev said that Bishkek does not preclude placement in the second republic of the Russian base and the issue “remains relevant. “This issue was discussed with the former leadership of Kyrgyzstan … but formal negotiations on this issue is not carried out,” – said Kazakbaev.

“If in the past year, this base were deployed, it might not have happened riots in Osh”
Indeed, in early August last year, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has signed with the then head of the republic, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, a memorandum on development of bilateral legal base in Kyrgyzstan and the placement of additional Russian troops. It was assumed that as a result of Kyrgyzstan will be thrown an additional Russian military contingent (numbering up to battalion) and will be a training center for training of troops of both countries.
Also planned that the center will be able to enjoy all the members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The documents were supposed to be ready by November 2009, but negotiations have stalled. First of all, a sharp position was taken by Uzbekistan, whose Foreign Ministry expressed concern that the emergence of a new Russian base will provide impetus for the growing process of militarization and the excitation of various kinds of nationalist struggles, as well as the speeches of radical extremist forces that could lead to serious destabilization in the vast region. “

Also, relations between Russia and Bishkek cooled after the incident with the U.S. airbase Manas. Kurmanbek Bakiyev, in exchange for Russian loans promised to close this base, but then changed his mind and allowed the Americans to keep the airfield under a new name – Center for transit.

In Russia in Kyrgyzstan is one air base in Chui region – two kilometers south of Kant. At the airport, I-999 deployed air base from the 5-th Army Air Force and Air Defense.There are currently serving 250 Russian officers and 150 conscripts and contract soldiers. At the airport based Su-27, Su-25 transport aircraft IL-76, Mi-8 helicopters and training aircraft L-39. The airbase is used for the needs of the CSTO.
Note that at the end of June, the anti-drug committee of Russia Viktor Ivanov called for the emergence of a second military base in Kyrgyzstan to fight drug trafficking.Experts estimate that over the past ten years from the Afghan drug killed more than 1 million people die every year and about 100 thousand. About 3.5 million Afghan farmers engaged in cultivation of opium poppies. Since 2001, the production of this crop in Afghanistan has increased 40 times.

In connection with the riots in southern Kyrgyzstan in early June, when the Jalal-Abad and Osh provinces was imposed emergency rule and hundreds of thousands of ethnic Uzbeks fled the republic, Russia sent out a base in Kant reinforced battalion of the 31 th Parachute Assault Brigade Airborne . However, on Thursday, these units have returned to their homeland.

Recall that last year, when Russia announced its intention to arrange a military base in southern Kyrgyzstan, the Russian plan was not implemented, mainly because of objections by neighboring Uzbekistan. Moscow wanted to place the base in Osh, and then leader of Kyrgyzstan Kurmanbek Bakiyev suggested Batken near the Uzbek border. Uzbek President Islam Karimov, publicly and harshly condemned if such plans.

The independent Kyrgyz military expert Leonid Bondarets welcomes the decision of Bishkek. He believes that the appearance of the base will be beneficial to both the Russia and Kyrgyzstan.

“It would be in the interests of Russia’s own post here second base, where it is in the south. If in the past year, this base have placed, you may not have happened either in May or June riots in Osh and Jalal-Abad – said VIEW Bondarets newspaper. – Availability framework for Kyrgyzstan itself is a deterrent. The population of the republic, regardless of nationality, mostly from sympathetic to Russia. If the base near Osh already existed, that those who fled during the riots in Uzbekistan, see to shelter and protection from Russian soldiers. And in general by their presence personnel of such a base would contribute to normalizing the situation. “

Bondarets recalls that back in mid-May, the U.S. government web site Federal Business Opportunities appeared proposal that civil engineering troops of the U.S. is seeking applicants for the “large-scale development projects and construction of building projects in the following countries of Central and South Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

“The U.S. plans to build two different projects in Kyrgyzstan. Estimated cost – from 5 to 10 million dollars”, – says in the ad. In addition, we plan to allocate an amount up to $ 5 million for individual projects to Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The declaration also contains two separate proposals for Tajikistan: one worth $ 5 million, the other – to 10 million dollars.
United States, despite an unrest, not only did not lose focus to the south of the republic, but on the contrary strengthens it.

Previously, the Pentagon has already announced the construction of counter-terrorism training center in southern Kyrgyzstan. Initially, the object to be built in Batken. But now, says Bondarets, he is likely to be located in Osh, despite the fact that the situation in this city remains tense, and most of the city destroyed.
“Americans are going to strengthen its position not only in Kyrgyzstan but also in all the republics of Central Asia – said Bondarets – in Osh, they want to put its troops, roughly the same conditions as on the basis of” Manas “, in which the Kyrgyz The authorities do not control “- warns Bondarets. According to the expert, for Russia to lose such an opportunity here to strengthen its authority and influence would be unforgivable.

“The same Kazakbaev stated that the OSCE currently talks about putting in Kyrgyzstan multinational police force – said Bondarets. – If those powerful forces thousands appear here, they will necessarily be under the auspices of the United States. So, despite the” reset ” , throughout our region is not even competition, but most real confrontation. “

In Moscow, experts also welcomed the decision of Bishkek. The analyst Anatoly Tsyganok believes that the emergence of another Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan is essential. “We need to create this database. I think that first of all, it must obey the anti-terrorist center of the CIS”, – said the newspaper Tsyganok SIGHT.

July 8, 2010,

Andrew Rezchikov

Source - Look

Army Taking Bids For $100,000,000 Special Forces Training Center In Mazar-e-Sharif

Y–SOF JOC Compound, Mazar-e-Sharif (MeS), Afghanistan

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers logo

Solicitation Number: W912ER-10-R-0062
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Location: USACE Middle East District
W912ER-10-R-0062
:
Sources Sought
:
Added: Jun 02, 2010 11:22 am Modified: Jun 30, 2010 5:33 pmTrack Changes

Solicitation No: W912ER-10-R-0062
Issue Date: 30-Jun-2010
Response Date: 14-Jul-2010
Set Aside: N/A

NAICS Code: 236220
Classification Code: Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

SYNOPOSIS:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) Middle East District intends to solicit names of construction firms experienced in working in the Middle East region who are interested in submitting a firm-fixed price offer for this project. This announcement is for the construction of Support Facilities for the Special Operations (SOF) Headquarters at Mazar-e-Sharif (MeS), Afghanistan. This is based on US Central Command Integrated Global Presence, Basing Strategy and Master Plan. Mazar-e-Sharif (MeS) is located approximately 275 kilometers northwest of the city of Kabul and 56 kilometers South of Termez, Uzbekistan. The contractor shall comply with all base security requirements. A firm fixed price contract will be awarded to a prime construction contractor. The magnitude of the project is between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000.
PROPOSAL PERIOD: The solicitation is scheduled for release on or about 15 July 2010. The proposals will be due on or about 13 Aug 2010. Contract award is scheduled no later than 28 Sep 2010.
PROJECT SCOPE: The scope of the Project includes a Joint Operations Center (JOC), billeting facilities, communications building, Tactical Operations Center and storage, training facility, medical aid station, Vehicle Maintenance Facility, logistics operations facility, logistics storage facility, dining facility, MWR facility, and a kennel to support working dogs. The SOF Compound will occupy a land area approximately 70,000 SM. Supporting facilities include roads, power production system and electrical distribution, water well, non-potable water production, water storage, water distribution, sanitary sewer collection system, communication manhole/duct system, curbs, walkways, drainage and parking. Additionally, the project will include site preparation and compound security measures. All work identified in the Scope of Work shall be completed within 548 calendar days from the Notice to Proceed. Information on a site visit and instructions to obtain access to the site will be provided in the solicitation.
Supporting facilities include roads, power production system and electrical distribution; water well, non-potable water production, water storage, water distribution, sanitary sewer collection system, communication manhole/duct system, curbs, walkways, drainage and parking. Additionally, the project will include site preparation and compound security measures. Antiterrorism/Force Protection measures will be included.
PROPOSAL PROCEDURES: The Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued only to prime construction contractors. Copies will not be released to suppliers, subcontractors and plan rooms. The Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) contracting method will be used to evaluate proposals. Evaluation criteria will be stated in the RFP. The Government may include options in the solicitation. This acquisition will result in a single fixed price construction contract awarded based on LPTA determination.
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS: This is an electronically issued solicitation. The Government proposes to post the RFP to a file transfer protocol (ftp) site and be password protected. Proposals will be received in hard/paper copies only. Electronic and fax proposals will not be accepted.
POINT OF CONTACT: Ms. Karen L. Johnson, Contract Specialist, Telephone (540) 665-3900 and e-mail Karen.l.johnson@usace.army.mil and Mr. Tino Philip, Contract Specialist, Telephone (540) 665-3953, e-mail Tino.philip@usace.army.mil
REQUEST FOR SOLICITATION AND QUESTIONS: All requests shall be sent to Ms. Karen L. Johnson, Tino Philip, (information above) and Mrs. Pamela Gillum, Telephone (540) 665-3609 and e-mail Pamela.d.gillum@usace.army.mil. Request for W912ER-10-R-0062 must be made in writing and must provide the following information: Name of firm, point of contact, phone number, fax number, mailing address, shipping address for express mail delivery, e-mail address, DUNS number, and reference the RFP number. If any of the information is not provided, the request will be returned or denied. The solicitation will be issued only to one point of contact for the company.

:
USACE Middle East District, P.O. Box 2250, Winchester, VA 22604-1450
:
USACE Middle East District P.O. Box 2250 Winchester VA
22604-1450
US
:
Tino Philip, 5406653953

USACE Middle East District

Chinese engineers in Gwadar escape rocket attacks

Chinese engineers in Gwadar escape rocket attacks

By: B.Raman

(July 10, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) Even as President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan was discussing with the Chinese leaders in Beijing his requests for the construction of an oil refinery in Gwadar and oil/gas pipelines from Gwadar to Xinjiang, a group of Chinese engineers deputed by Beijing to Gwadar to study the feasibility and utility of an oil refinery there has escaped two rocket attacks fired at the hotel in which it was staying.

According to the “Daily Times” of Lahore, unidentified persons fired rockets from the seaside on the Gwadar Port and the elitist hotel of the port city, the Gwadar Pearl Continental , on July 7,2010. The attack, which was launched by unknown persons from a boat, damaged the elevator inside the posh hotel, but did not cause any other serious damage to the hotel infrastructure. No casualties were reported in the attack. The paper reported that the Chinese engineers had arrived in Gwadar recently and were reportedly working on an oil refinery. Official sources believe that they were the targets of the attack. Security officials and paramilitary forces cordoned off the area after the attack and began investigations against unidentified assailants.

Subsequently, a spokesman of the Baloch Liberation Front (BLF) claimed the responsiblity for the attack and warned foreign investors not to invest in Balochistan. He warned that the BLF would also attack the Pakistan navy and coast guards.

The Chinese have already constructed an international commercial port at Gwadar which is being upgraded to serve as a naval base. The commercial port, which was commissioned when Gen.Pervez Musharraf was in power, is not yet attracting foreign ocean-going ships due to the poor road and other infrastructure in the area and the deteriorating security situation caused by Baloch freedom fighters.

It has been reported from Beijing that the physical security of about 10,000 Chinese nationals employed in about 120 projects in Pakistan was one of the issues raised by President Hu Jintao during his meeting with Mr.Zardari.

According to Baloch sources, the Chinese have cut down their presence in Balochistan because of the local anti-Chinese feelings. They have not yet started work on the construction of an airport at Gwadar, which was awarded to them by Gen.Musharraf. They are going slow on the upgradation of the Gwadar port. According to these sources, the Chinese presence in Balochistan is presently confined to the development of the copper mines at Sandak and the construction of a road between Gwadar and Turbet. The Pakistan Government has reportedly asked one of its companies to start the construction of the airport.

There have been unconfirmed reports that the US has shown interest in the utilization of the Gwadar commercial port as a replacement for Karachi for the receipt of logistic supplies for the NATO forces in Afghanistan.

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2010/ … ers-in-gwadar-escape.html

Just who is not a kafir?

Renowned Pakistani writer Khaled Ahmed points to the irony: “Within Sunni Islam, the Deobandis and the Barelvis are not found anywhere outside India and Pakistan. The creation of these two sects was one of the masterstrokes of the Raj in its divide-and-rule policy.”

Just who is not a kafir?

– by Amir Mir

Source: Outlook India

Brothers in arms Family members of victims of the bomb attack at Lahore’s Data Ganj shrine grieve over their loss

War On The Kafirs

The broad Sunni-Shia division does not explain all of it

  • Most Sunnis adhere to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. Only 5 per cent of the country’s population belongs to the Ahle Hadith sect or Wahabis.
  • The Sunnis are subdivided into the Barelvi and Deobandi schools of thought
  • The Deobandis and Wahabis consider the Barelvis as kafir, because they visit the shrines of saints, offer prayers, believe music, poetry and dance can lead to god
  • Barelvis constitute 60 per cent of the population. Deobandis and Wahabis together account for 20 per cent
  • Another 15 per cent are Shias, again considered kafir and subjected to repeated attacks
  • Since 2000, the Sunni-Shia conflict has claimed 5,000 lives
  • Others considered kafir are the religious minorities—Christians, Ismailis, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Ahmadias, etc, who account for 5 per cent of the population
  • So, 20 per cent of the population effectively considers the remaining 80 per cent as kafir

***

When two suicide bombers exploded themselves in the shrine of the revered Sufi saint Hazrat Data Ganj Baksh in Lahore, the ensuing devastation—in which at least 50 people were killed and scores injured—rendered meaningless the promise of Pakistan founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947. Jinnah had said, “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed…that has nothing to do with the business of the state. You are free, free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan.” These stirring words were then perceived as an explicit assurance to the religious minorities of their rights in a country where Muslims constitute over 95 per cent of the population.

Six decades later, as Pakistan remains trapped in the vortex of violence, even the Muslims are in desperate need of assurances such as Jinnah’s. Mosques and shrines of saints are targeted regularly, votaries of different Muslim sects are subjected to suicide bombings, and just about every mullah seems to enjoy the right of declaring anyone who he thinks has deviated from Islam an apostate, a non-Muslim, whose killing is religiously justifiable. In the darkness enveloping Pakistan, it won’t be wrong to ask: who isn’t a kafir or infidel, beyond even the religious minorities of Christians, Sikhs and Hindus?

Shrapnel from every explosion strains the social fabric, tears its rich tapestry, and undermines the traditional forms of devotion inherited over generations. Take the twin suicide bombings of the Data Ganj Baksh shrine of July 1, which has been blamed on the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) even though it has vehemently denied its involvement. This Sufi shrine defines the spirit of Lahore, which is often called Data ki nagri (Data’s abode). Here lies buried Syed Abul Hassan Ali Hajvery, popularly known as Hazrat Data Ganj Baksh, whose shrine is mostly visited by members of the Barelvi sect of Sunni Muslims. The shrine, famous for mystical dancing by devotees, is a Lahore landmark.

However, the adherents of the Deobandi school of thought, to which the Taliban belongs, are opposed to the idea of Muslims visiting Sufi shrines and offering prayers, a practice known as piri-faqiri. The Deobandis deem piri-faqiri to be heretical, a gross violation of Islamic doctrine; ditto mystical dancing. The Deobandis, therefore, consider the Barelvis as kafir whose neck can be put to sword, no question asked.

The damaged mausoleum of Sufi saint Rehman Baba following a bomb attack (AFP, Image from Outlook Magazine

A week before July 1, the TTP had sent a letter to the Data Ganj Baksh administration threatening to attack the shrine, claiming its status was equivalent to that of the Somnath temple in Gujarat, India. The symbolism inherent in the comparison wasn’t lost—the Somnath temple had been repeatedly raided by Sultan Mehmood Ghaznavi, ‘the idol destroyer’, who believed his marauding attacks would sap the fighting spirit of the Hindus. The attack on the Data Darbar was, similarly, aimed at demoralizing the Barelvis, besides striking at the root of Lahore’s religious and cultural ethos. The Daily Times pointed out, “For 1,000 years, the city has been sustained by the cultural openness and tolerance that Data gave us. For 1,000 years, the shrine has fed Lahore’s hungry, clothed its naked and given shelter to the shelter-less. All that was brought to a halt when the night jackals in straitjackets struck like the cowards they are. Pakistan’s Islamic pluralism is now the target.”

“Labelling others infidel has become a preferred task of mullahs. The Quran is wrongly used to disprove others’ faith.”

This isn’t the first time Barelvi Muslims have been targeted. On April 12, 2006, for instance, a Barelvi conference organised to celebrate the perfectly orthodox occasion of Prophet Mohammed’s birthday at Nishtar Park, Karachi, witnessed a suicide bombing that claimed 70 lives. Last year, the Taliban attacked the shrine of the 17th century Sufi saint-poet, Rehman Baba, who is said to have withdrawn from the world and promised his followers that if they emulate him, they too could move towards a direct experience of god. He also believed god could be reached through music, poetry and dance. But then music and dance are unacceptable to the Deobandis, and the Taliban extensively damaged the shrine of Rehman Baba with explosives. Soon, they used rockets to ravage the mausoleum of Bahadar Baba, and then directed their wrath against the 400-year-old shrine of another Sufi saint, Abu Saeed Baba, both located near Peshawar.

Renowned Islamic scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), which furnishes legal advice on Islamic issues to the Pakistan government, laments, “Labelling others infidel and kafir has become a preferred task of the mullahs. It’s clear that every sect considers others heretical, kafirs and dwellers of hell. Even verses of the Quran are wrongly used to disprove others’ faith and sects.”

In a way, a minority of Pakistan’s population has taken to declaring the rest as kafir. Look at the figures—95 per cent of the Pakistani population are Muslim, of which 85 per cent are Sunni and 15 per cent Shia. But for the five per cent belonging to the Ahle Hadith (Wahabis), the Sunnis prescribe to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. They are further subdivided into the Barelvi and Deobandi schools. Most agree on the following composition of Pakistan’s population—60 per cent Barelvis, 15 per cent Deobandis, 15 per cent Shias, 5 per cent Ahle Hadith, and the remaining 5 per cent constituting Ahmadis, Ismailis, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Parsis, etc. This means only 20 per cent of Pakistanis (15 per cent of Deobandis plus 5 per cent of Ahle Hadith) strictly consider the remaining 80 per cent as kafir, even willing to subject them to death and destruction.

Renowned Pakistani writer Khaled Ahmed points to the irony: “Within Sunni Islam, the Deobandis and the Barelvis are not found anywhere outside India and Pakistan. The creation of these two sects was one of the masterstrokes of the Raj in its divide-and-rule policy.” He says the Deobandi school took roots in India in 1866 as a reaction to the overthrow of Muslim rule by the British. This school believes in a literalist interpretation of Islam, and apart from Wahabis, considers all other sects as non-Muslim who must be exterminated. “That’s why they work side by side, from politics to jehad,” says Ahmed, adding that though the Barelvi school of thought is the dominant jurisprudence in Pakistan, “it is not as well politically organised as the Deobandi school.”

Bonds of faith People from the Ahmadi community mourn the death of their dear ones at the attack on their

It was the Deobandi-Wahabi alliance, says Rehman, which pressured President Gen Zia-ul-Haq to declare the Ahmadis as non-Muslims. At a stroke of the pen, thus, a Muslim sect was clubbed with other religious minorities. Under the Constitution, they can’t call themselves Muslim or even describe their place of worship as a mosque. Wary of disclosing their identity publicly, the Ahmadis were dragged into the spotlight following devastating attacks on two of their mosques in Lahore that killed over a hundred people.

But ‘Muslim’ status doesn’t insulate even mainstream sects from murderous attacks. Ask the Shias, whose Muharram procession in Karachi was bombed in December 2009, killing 33. The Deobandis regard Shias as kafir, claiming their devotion to the clerics and grant of divinely inspired status to them as heretical. The history of Sunni-Shia conflict is as old as Islam, but this has become increasingly bloody in the last decade—over 5,000 people have been killed since 2000—because of the war in Afghanistan. Since Iran had backed the Northern Alliance there, the Deobandis have taken to retaliating against the sect in Pakistan. They also accuse the Shias of assisting the Americans to invade Iraq.

Says historian Dr Mubarak Ali, “One consequence of the war in Afghanistan is the fracturing of Pakistan’s religious patchwork quilt. Whereas once the faultlines lay between the Shias and Sunnis, these have now spread to the Barelvis and Deobandis, who are both Sunni.” Since the Barelvis are moderate and against the Taliban, the Deobandis look upon them as the state’s stooges, who as heretics should be put to death anyway, Ali argues.

Perhaps the complicity between the state and the Deobandis deterred the latter from targeting the Barelvis till now. Lawyer and columnist Yasser Latif Hamdani says, “There is this potent mixture of Pashtun nationalism and Deobandi Islam. Somehow, there is something intrinsic to the very nature of Deobandi doctrine which the Pakistani military establishment is promoting to advance its so-called geostrategic agenda.” Yet, simultaneously, under US pressure, the state had to crack down on the TTP, which, in pique, has taken to wreaking vengeance on the hapless Barelvis.

As long as powerful sections in the establishment persist with their goal of bringing the Pashtun Taliban back to power in Kabul, they will continue, says columnist Imtiaz Alam, “digging the grave of a democratic Pakistan”. Sectarianism and jehadi terrorism will be its consequent wages, he insists. No doubt, the enraged people of Lahore took to the streets protesting against the attack on the Data Darbar, but what’s of greater urgency is that the state must do some really deep thinking.

11 Pakistani Shia Murdered In Afghanistan On the Road To Parichinar

Unknown gunmen kill 11 Pakistani nationals in Afghanistan

Eleven Pakistani nationals were killed Saturday in southeastern Afghanistan by a group of unknown gunmen that attacked their passenger bus, a provincial spokesman said, dpa reported.

The men were en route to Pakistan’s Peshawar city through the Afghan province of Paktia when the assailants stopped the bus in Samkani district, Rohullah Samoon, spokesman for the provincial governor, said.

“The militants opened fire on the bus, killing 11 Pakistanis,” Samoon said, adding that three more men, including two Afghans, were injured in the attack.

The motive behind the shooting was not known. No group took responsibility for the attack.

The men were Shiite Muslims from Parachinar, a town in Pakistan’s Kurram tribal district that is under siege by Taliban-linked Sunni tribesmen.

“By going to Peshawar through Afghan soil, the men were trying to avoid areas where security is not good,” Samoon said.

Russia Experiences Wave of Victimless Bombings

Six attacks hit media stations in Russia's North Caucasus

Six TV and radio broadcasting stations have been attacked overnight in Russia‘sNorth Caucasus republic of Kabardino-Balkaria, Xinhua reported Sunday.

The explosions or fires occurred at various districts of republic, causing neither casualties nor disruption of normal operation of the stations.

Around 02:54 a.m. Moscow time (2254 GMT Saturday), two TV and radio relay stations were blasted in the Elbrus district. At 03:00 a.m. Moscow time (2300 GMT Saturday), a repeater of the Tyrnyauz radio station was blown up in the area of the Tyrnyauz ore-concentration combine.

Some ten minutes later, another repeater of the same radio station was set on fire in the village of Terskol.

Arsonists meanwhile set ablaze some relation stations in the Sarmakova village of the Zolsky district and in the city of Baksan.

It was not clear whether all these attacks were interrelated, as well as the reasons behind them.

An investigation was currently underway.

Meanwhile a car bombing hit the city of Chegem, with no casualties reported, but some property damage to a nightclub called Nebo because of the flames triggered by the explosion.

On May 23, local police foiled a major terrorist act in the city of Tyrnyauz, seizing a home-made explosive device equivalent of 1 kg of TNT at the Eternal Flame Memorial in the city center.

Violence is common in Russia’s mainly Muslim North Caucasus republics, especially Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia, with militants frequently targeting police and officials taken as representing the Russian authorities. Moscow recently made economic improvements in the region to prevent locals from joining terrorists.

Kremlin claimed to tackle the problem of unemployment, clan rivalry and corruption as these are viewed as the reasons for violence in the region.

Explosion in Dagestan had no impact on the movement of Azeri passenger trains

Azerbaijan, Baku, July 11 / Trend S. Aliyev /

The explosion on the railroad, inDagestan, had no impact on the movement of passenger trains from Azerbaijan to the north, told Trend on Sunday, the head of the press-service of JSC “Azerbaijani Railways” Nadir Azmamedov.

“There are not any limitations on the movement of passenger trains. Only on the movement of freight trains is limited,” said Azmamedov.

Suburban train traffic has been halted in Dagestan in Russia’s North Caucasus over a railway blast but passenger trains continue their operation without delays, the North Caucasus Railways reported on Sunday.

A freight train loaded with grain was derailed after an explosive device went off at a railroad in Dagestan early on Sunday, RIA Novosti reported.

A spokesman for the local Interior Ministry said there were no casualties in the blast, adding that a group of investigators was working at the scene of the incident.

This is the second blast at a railroad in Dagestan since the start of this month. Another freight train was derailed on July 2 by a blast on a railroad in Karabudakhkentsky district, near the republic’s capital, Makhachkala. The train driver and his assistant were injured.

Sporadic terrorist attacks and militant clashes are common in Russia’s largely Muslim North Caucasus republics, especially Dagestan, Chechnya and Ingushetia.

India to spend 11 billion dollars on submarine project

[US not invited to submit bids.]

India to spend 11 billion dollars on submarine project

11.07.2010 15:51
India to spend 11 billion dollars on submarine project

India‘s government has allocated 500 billion rupees (about 11 billion dollars) to build and buy six new-generation submarines in what is considered the costliest military contract in the South Asian nation’s history, dpa reported.

The Defence Acquisitions Council, chaired by federal Defence Minister AK Antony, took the decision on the landmark deal for the Indian Navy, the Times of India reported citing military sources.

Describing it the “mother of all (Indian) defence deals”, the daily said the spend on the submarines exceeded the country’s biggest defence deal to date – 9 billion dollars allocated for the purchase of 126 multi-role fighters for the Indian Air Force.

Four submarines will be constructed in India’s western Mumbai and southern Vishakapatnam cities with the help of a foreign contractor, the report said.

“The other two submarines will be either be imported from the foreign vendor directly or constructed at a private shipyard in India,” a defence official told the newspaper.

The submarine project has been called Project-75 India (P-75I). Apart from stealth, land-attack capability and the ability to incorporate futuristic technologies, all six submarines will be equipped with air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems to boost their operational capabilities, the report said.

Conventional submarines have to surface every few days to get oxygen to recharge their batteries.

Invitations to a tender for the foreign contractor were expected to be sent to Russia’s Rosoboronexport, France’s DCNS/Armaris, Germany’s HDW and Spain’s Navantia, the report said.

The decision was taken against a backdrop of concerns in the Defence Ministry that by 2015, the Indian Navy will be left with only half of its present fleet of 15 aging diesel-electric submarines. India currently has 10 Russian Kilo-class, four German HDW and one Soviet-era Foxtrot submarines.

India is in the process of ramping up its defence hardware and equipment to try to keep pace with the military build-ups in neighbouring China and Pakistan. India’s military procurement budget is estimated to double to 30 billion dollars by 2012.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, NIKOLAI TESLA!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, NIKOLAI TESLA!

July 10, 1856 – January 7, 1943

Compiled by:  Maria Galenza

http://www.bayarea.net/~kins/AboutMe/Tesla/Tesla_large.jpg http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/kids/resources/images/Tesla-Dynamo-Electric-Machi.gif

” War cannot be avoided until the physical cause for its recurrence is removed and this, in the last analysis, is the vast extent of the planet on which we live. Only through annihilation of distance in every respect, as the conveyance of intelligence, transport of passengers and supplies and transmission of energy will conditions be brought about some day, insuring permanency of friendly relations. What we now want is closer contact and better understanding between individuals and communities all over the earth, and the elimination of egoism and pride which is always prone to plunge the world into primeval barbarism and strife … Peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment … “ —  Nikola Tesla 1919

MECHANICAL THERAPY by NIKOLA TESLA

In order to convey a clear idea of the significance and revolutionary character of this discovery it is indispensable to make a brief statement regarding ELECTRICAL THERAPY.

Fifty years ago, while investigating high frequency currents developed by me at that time, I observed that they produced certain physiological effects offering new and great possibilities in medical treatment. My first announcement spread like fire and experiments were undertaken by a host of experts here and in other countries. When a famous French physician, Dr. D’Arsonval, declared that he had made the same discovery, a heated controversy relative to priority was started. The French, eager to honor their countryman, made him a member of the Academy, ignoring entirely my earlier publication. Resolved to take steps for vindicating my claim, I went to Paris, where I met Dr. D’Arsonval. His personal charm disarmed me completely and I abandoned my intention, content to rest on the record. It shows that my disclosure antedated his and also that he used my apparatus in his demonstrations. The final judgment is left to posterity.

Since the beginning, the growth of the new art and industry has been phenomenal, some manufacturers turning out daily hundreds of sets. Many millions are now in use throughout the world. The currents furnished by them have proved an ideal tonic for the human nerve system. They promote heart action and digestion, induce healthful sleep, rid the skin of destructive exudations and cure colds and fever by the warmth they create. They vivify atrophied or paralyzed parts of the body, allay all kinds of suffering and save annually thousands of lives. Leaders in the profession have assured me that I have done more for humanity by this medical treatment than by all my other discoveries and inventions. Be that as it may, I feel certain that the MECHANICAL THERAPY, which I am about to give to the world, will be of incomparably greater benefit. Its discovery was made accidentally under the following circumstances.

I had installed at the laboratory, 35 South Fifth Avenue, one of my mechanical oscillators with the object of using it in the exact determination of various physical constants. The machine was bolted in vertical position to a platform supported on elastic cushions and, when operated by compressed air, performed minute oscillations absolutey isochronous, that is to say, consuming rigorously equal intervals of time. So perfect was its functioning in this respect that clocks driven by it indicated the hour with astronomical precision. One day, as I was making some observations, I stepped on the platform and the vibrations imparted to it by the machine were transmitted to my body. The sensation experienced was as strange as agreeable, and I asked my assistants to try. They did so and were mystified and pleased like myself. But a few minutes later some of us, who had stayed longer on the platform, felt an unspeakable and pressing necessity which had to be promptly satisfied, and then a stupendous truth dawned upon me.

Evidently, these isochronous rapid oscillations stimulated powerfully the peristaltic movements which propel the food-stuffs through the alimentary channels. A means was thus provided whereby their contents can be perfectly regulated and controlled at will, and without the use of drugs, specific remedies or internal applications whatever.

When I began to practice with my assistants MECHANICAL THERAPY we used to finish our meals quickly and rush back to the laboratory. We suffered from dyspepsia and various stomach troubles, biliousness, constipation, flatulence and other disturbances, all natural results of such irregular habit. But after only a week of application, during which I improved the technique and my assistants learned how to take the treatment to their best advantage, all those forms of sickness disappeared as by enchantment and for nearly four years, while the machine was in use, we were all in excellent health. I cured a number of people; among them my great friend Mark Twain whose books saved my life. He came to the laboratory in the worst shape suffering from a variety of distressing and dangerous ailments but in less than two months he regained his old vigor and ability of enjoying life to the fullest extent. Shortly after, a great calamity befell me: my laboratory was destroyed by fire. Nothing was insured and the loss of priceless apparatus and records gave me a terrific shock from which I did not recover for several years. The enforced discontinuance of MECHANICAL THERAPY also caused me deep regret. I had evolved a wonderful remedy for ills of inestimable value to mankind and invented apparatus offering unbounded commercial possibilities but when I came to consider practical introduction I realized that it was entirely unsuitable. It was big, heavy and noisy, called for a continuous supply of oil, part of which was discharged in the room as fine spray; it consumed considerable power and required a number of objectionable accessories. During the succeeding years I made great improvements and finally evolved a design which leaves nothing to be desired. The machine will be very small and light, operate noiselessly without any lubricant, consume a trifling amount of energy and will be, to my knowledge, the most beautiful device ever put on the market. The intention is to exhibit it in action at the occasion of my annual reception in honor of the Press which has been, unfortunately, delayed this year, and I anticipate that it will elicit great interest and receive wide publicity. Unless I am grossly mistaken it will be introduced very extensively and, eventually, there will be one in every household.

The practical application of MECHANICAL THERAPY through my oscillators will profoundly affect human life. By insuring perfect regularity of evacuations the body will function better in every respect and life will become ever so much safer and more enjoyable. One of the most important results will be the great reduction — amounting possibly to seventy-five per cent — in the number of heart failures, which are mostly caused by some acute upset of the digestive process and normal operation of the stomach. Another vital improvement will be derived from the quickened removal of toxic excretions of organs affected by disesse. It is reasonable to expect that through this and other healthful actions ulcers and similar internal lesions or absesses will be cured and relief might be obtained even in case of a cancer or other malignant growth . Skilled physicians and surgeons will be able to perform veritable miracles with such oscillations. They stimulate strongly the liver, spleen, kidneys, bladder and other organs and by these desirable actions they must contribute not a little to well being. Persons suffering from anemia of any form will be especially helped by the treatment. But the greatest benefit will be derived from it by women who will be able to reduce without the usual tantalizing abstinence, privation, sacrifice of time and money and torture they have to endure. They will improve much in appearance, acquire clear eyes and complexions and it may be safely predicted that long continued treatment will bring forth feminine beauty never seen before. It is not to be forgotten that the elimination of countless drugs, patent medicines and specific remedies of all kinds taken internally, by which millions of people doom themselves to an early grave, will be of untold good to humanity.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Review of Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part II–The Critique of Mass Culture

Part II: The Critique of Mass Culture

Review of Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile

Kevin MacDonald

October 28, 2009

One of Wheatland’s strengths is his rich documentation of the strong connections between the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School. Both groups were predominantly Jewish (the first generation Frankfurt School exclusively so), and both were associated with the anti-Stalinist left. However, they had somewhat different theoretical perspectives and overlapping associations. It is common among intellectual historians (e.g., Eric P. Kaufmann) to view the New York Intellectuals as the most important group advocating cosmopolitan racial ideology in the post-World War II era.

Prominent New York Intellectuals include the art critic Clement Greenberg, writer and critic Robert Warshow, philosopher Sidney Hook, Partisan Review editors William Phillips and Philip Rahv, and several forerunners of the neoconservative movement, especially Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. Wheatland shows that the some of the second-generation New York Intellectuals (e.g., Daniel Bell, Irving Howe, and Nathan Glazer) were well acquainted with the work of the Frankfurt School. Howe and Glazer had minor roles in the notorious Studies in Prejudice series discussed in Part I of this review.

The Critique of Mass Culture

These linkages and cross-fertilization were especially apparent in the analysis of culture. The Frankfurt School viewed contemporary Western societies of the 1930s and ’40s as “soft authoritarianism” — a phrase also used by Tom Sunicin describing contemporary Western societies. From their point of view, the basic problem was to explain the lack of revolutionary fervor in Western societies. Quite clearly, orthodox Marxism was wrong: The predicted revolution hadn’t happened.

This lack of fervor was particularly problematic because there was a considerable degree of personal freedom in Western societies: Theoretically at least, people had the freedom to be revolutionary, but instead they passively accepted the evils of capitalism.

These intellectuals developed the theory that control had shifted from obvious forms of external control (like gulags in the USSR) to control via the media — “secondary emanations of authority … namely newspapers, advertising, radio, etc.” (p. 79). Because the media was an expression of “late capitalism,” it prevented people from seeing the world as good leftists should, and as a result they were unable to “break the cycle of injustice and domination” (p. 79).

Early on Erich Fromm gathered survey data showing that working class Germans were not interested in revolution but were passive and prone to escapism. (Incidentally, Fromm seems to have been the originator of the most important ideas of the Frankfurt School. As noted in Part I of this review, he also came up with the disastrous idea of explaining ethnocentrism among Whites as due to family pathology.) The passivity and escapism of the working class were viewed as due to the failure of the culture, and particularly the media, to properly foment revolutionary consciousness. For example, during the 1930s, Herbert Marcuse wrote attacking “all bourgeois culture for its escapism, repression, and concealment of capitalism’s harsh realities” (p. 160). As discussed extensively byElizabeth Whitcombe in TOO, the Frankfurt School criticized culture because it upheld a reactionary status quo.

Eventually, there was a general understanding among both the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals that mass culture — whether in the USSR (both of these groups were anti-Stalinist), National Socialist Germany, or bourgeois United States — promoted conformism and escape from harsh political realities; it “offered false pleasure, reaffirmed the status quo, and promoted a pervasive conformity that stripped the masses of their individuality and subjectivity” (p. 175). Obviously this fits well with the Frankfurt School ideas on the family: Again, there is a plea for individualists free from family and ethnic ties and in favor of non-conformity with the status quo.

These intellectuals promoted modernism in art at least partly because of its compatibility with expressive individualism, but also because they believed that it effectively opposed the culture of capitalism. Modernism was also seen as capable of alienating people from modern Western societies. As Elizabeth Whitcombe points out, “Adorno’s desire for a socialist revolution led him to favor Modernist music that left the listener feeling unsatisfied and dislocated — music that consciously avoided harmony and predictability.”

To be modern is to be alienated from the society of capitalism. The alienation of the New York Intellectuals is legendary. Norman Podhoretz was famously asked by a New Yorker editor in the 1950s “whether there was a special typewriter key at Partisan Review with the word ‘alienation’ on a single key.”

In short, they were trying to make all of America as alienated as they were.

Both the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School had nothing but disdain for traditional art. In Adorno’s words, they sought “the end of the order that bore the sonata” — the end of European high culture. And if the audience failed to appreciate modernism, it was their fault. For example, Adorno wrote that the failure of the audience to appreciate Schoenberg “pointed to widespread alienation and irrationalism that were pervasive in society” (p. 29). Only the revolution would make people psychologically whole again and in tune with a genuine aesthetic sense.

The view that modernism would ultimately usher in the revolution eventually faded when it became obvious that it would never be popular with the great mass of people. The view that, say, Schoenberg, could ever have become popular with the great mass of people can only be described as amazingly naïve. We just aren’t wired that way.

(Incidentally, it’s intriguing that Tim Page, a major promoter of  avant garde music [e.g., Philip Glass], has acknowledged that he has Asperger Syndrome, an autistic disorder associated with lack of social awareness or interest in people, combined with obsessive, repetitive, and [most importantly] idiosyncratic non-social interests. He is wired differently. Unfortunately for the modernists, very few people are wired like Tim Page. The fascinating question is how someone with a psychiatric disorder that puts him outside normal human interests and desires manages to get into a position to influence the cultural tastes of the wider public.)

But of course realistic ideas about natural human penchants and limitations have never been a strong suit of the intellectual left, dedicated as they are to the proposition that people can be shaped into virtually anything.

White Advocates and Cultural Alienation

In reading the views of the Frankfurt School on the importance of cultural control, it struck me that those of us attempting to preserve the traditional peoples and culture of the West are in a similar situation to the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals. Their complaints about the American culture of the 1930s through the 1950s  are mirror images of the complaints that we have now.

Whereas the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School felt alienated from the culture of the West, now we are the ones with feelings of alienation from the culture that has been so strongly influenced by these Jewish intellectual movements.

We are dismayed at the failure of the media to properly address White interests or even to allow expressions of White identity to be seen or heard in the mainstream media.

We are well aware that when there is a failure of media self-censorship (e.g., when media critic William Cash described the Jewish media elite as “culturally nihilist” in the Spectator in 1994), there are powerful campaigns to  punish the guilty parties and to get them to recant.

Just as the Frankfurt School theorized, the West has come under the control of soft authoritarianism. But now the  shoe is on the other foot: Power resides in the soft totalitarianism of the multi-cultural, multi-racial, anti-White left.

These Jewish intellectual movements decried the passivity, escapism, and conformity of American culture. Those of us who are White advocates are horrified that the vast majority of White people passively accept media messages filled with distorted images of Whites and their history. We are appalled that so many Whites are far more interested in escapist entertainment, ranging from sporting events to sci-fi thrillers, than they care about the future of their people. And we are dismayed by the conformity of the great mass of Whites who are terrified of being called a racist or in any way violating the current taboos of political correctness. We deplore the pathetic conformists striving to uphold the rules of a society deeply hostile to their own long term interests.

Rather than see a culture controlled by the “late capitalist” media,” White advocates see the culture of the West as controlled by a hostile media that advocates multiculturalism, the displacement of Whites, and the culture of Western suicide. And many of us believe that a very large influence on this culture stems not only from the influence of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals, but also from Jewish ownership and production of the media.

There is thus a  common ground between these Jewish intellectual movements and those of us attempting to preserve the traditional people and culture of the West. We all agree in the importance of media control. As I concluded in an article describing the psychology of cultural control, paraphrasing a Bill Clinton campaign slogan: “It’s the culture, stupid.”

Control of the media is critical. If there were strong media messages advocating White identity and the legitimacy of White interests, things would turn around rather dramatically and rather quickly. This is because the psychological power behind a movement of ethnic defense is far greater than the motivation that can be mustered for a multi-racial, multi-ethnic communist revolution.

Such media messages would be able to tap into the natural wellspring of ethnic feeling. There is a deep psychological attachment to one’s people and culture — even among us individualistic White folks — that can easily motivate a mass movement of ethnic defense.

Often these feelings are implicit and unconscious rather than explicit and conscious. They manifest themselves in moving to neighborhoods where their children can attend school with other Whites. Or they manifest themselves inactivities where they are able to enjoy the company and camaraderie of  others like themselves.

But these feelings are nevertheless real. And they are potentially very powerful. The revolution needed to reverse the cultural tides of the last decades would therefore be far easier to pull off than the communist revolution so ardently desired by the Frankfurt School.

If there is one central message from the post-World War II world, ethnicity and race matter. As Jerry Z. Muller has shown, there has been a strong trend toward ethnically based nations over the last 150 years, not only in the territorial adjustments in Europe following World War II, but around the world.

European Americans Defend Their Culture

It’s interesting that these leftist critics of the media completely ignored the actual mechanisms of cultural control that were in place during the period when they were writing. The controls on culture had little if anything to do with the culture of “late capitalism.” Instead, the traditional Anglo-American culture managed to retain its primacy during this period because of political activism on the part of Anglos in defense of their culture, often quite self-consciously directed against Jewish influence in the media.

Jewish influence on the media, especially Hollywood movies, weighed heavilyon the minds of people like Henry Ford early in the 20th century. Public outrage at the content of Hollywood movies led to more or less successful controls on the moral and political content of movies until around the mid-1960s. The following passage from Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents discusses this American Kulturkampf (references omitted but are available here):

During the McCarthy era, there was concern that the entertainment industry would influence American culture by, in the words of an overt anti-Semite, Congressman John R. Rankin of Mississippi, “insidiously trying to spread subversive propaganda, poison the minds of your children, distort the history of our country and discredit Christianity.”

The great majority of those stigmatized by the Un-American Activities Committee of the House of Representatives (HUAC) were Jews, many of them in the entertainment industry. A belief that “Jewish Hollywood” was promoting subversive ideas, including leftist political beliefs, was a common component of anti-Semitism in the post-World War II period, and indeed the push for the HUAC investigation was led by such well-known anti-Semites as Gerald L. K. Smith and Congressman Rankin. For example, Smith stated that “there is a general belief that Russian Jews control too much of Hollywood propaganda and they are trying to popularize Russian Communism in America through that instrumentality. Personally I believe that is the case.”

The substantive basis of the opinion of Rankin and others was that beginning in the 1930s Hollywood screenwriters were predominantly Jewish and politically liberal or radical — a general association that has been typical of Jewish intellectual history in the 20th century. The American Communist Party (CPUSA), which was under Soviet control during the period, sent V. J. Jerome and Stanley Lawrence, both Jews, to Hollywood to organize the writers and take advantage of their political sentiments. Jerome argued that “agitprop propaganda was actually better drama because Marxists better understood the forces that shaped human beings, and could therefore write better characters.”  Writers responded by self-consciously viewing themselves as contributing to “the Cause”  by their script writing. “But as much as the Hollywood Communist party was a writers’ party, it was also . . . a Jewish party. (Indeed, to be the former meant to be the latter as well).”

Nevertheless, during this period the radical writers were able to have little influence on the ultimate product, although there is good evidence that they did their best to influence movie content in the direction of their political views. Their failure was at least partly because of pressures brought to bear on Hollywood by conservative, predominantly [non-Jewish] political forces, resulting in a great deal of self-censorship by the movie industry. The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, headed by Will H. Hays, was created in 1922 in response to movements in over thirty state legislatures to enact strict censorship laws, and the Production Code Administration, headed by Joseph I. Breen, was launched in response to a campaign by the Catholic Legion of Decency. The result was that producers were forced to develop projects “along the lines of a standard Hollywood genre while steering clear of both the Hays and Breen offices and the radical writer who may have been assigned to the project.”

In addition, the HUAC investigations of the late 1940s and early 1950s and the active campaigning of religious (Legion of Decency, Knights of Columbus), patriotic (Daughters of the American Revolution [DAR]), and educational (Parents and Teachers Association) groups influenced movie content well into the 1950s, including a great many anticommunist films made as a rather direct response to the HUAC investigations. The result was, in the words of one studio executive, that “I now read scripts through the eyes of the DAR, whereas formerly I read them through the eyes of my boss.” Particular mention should be made of the American Legion, described as “the prime mover” in attempting to eradicate “Communist influence” in the movie industry during the 1950s. The list of sixty-six movie personalities said to be associated with communism published in the American Legion Magazinecaused panic in Hollywood and a prolonged series of investigations, firings, and blacklistings.

The point here is that there were strong controls emanating from political conservatives and from religious and cultural traditionalists that kept a lid on Jewish influence on culture through the 1950s — doubtless much to the chagrin of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals who prided themselves in their alienation from that culture.

This all ended when the culture of the left finally triumphed in the 1960s. At that point, when the multi-cultural, anti-White left had seized the high ground in the cultural wars, they had far less reason to engage in the types of cultural criticism so apparent in the writings of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals. Hollywood and the rest of the American media were unleashed, and it must have became apparent to many on the left that passivity, escapism and (leftist) conformity weren’t so bad after all.

Indeed, as Elizabeth Whitcombe suggests, there seems to have been some realization among the Frankfurt School intellectuals in the late 1940s and 1950s that popular culture could be utilized to “manipulate the masses in the directions that they wanted — toward liberal cosmopolitanism, breaking down racial barriers, and promoting Black cultural icons.”

Is Capitalism the Problem?

What would have surprised these intellectuals is that the culture of the left could co-exist with capitalism. As Marxists at heart, at least for most of their existence, they felt that it was necessary to destroy capitalism in order to usher in a revolution in culture that would affect the great mass of people.

But it turns out that capitalism was not the problem they faced any more than it is the problem White advocates face now. It is certainly true that capitalism requires control by a racially conscious political and intellectual elite. In the absence of such controls, capitalists may, for example, advocate mass immigration because of the purely economic benefits for individual capitalists.

Political control over capitalism was certainly apparent during the period from 1924–1965 when America reaffirmed that it was a nation of Europeans. Capitalism remained on a strong leash — a leash motivated by a deep desire for ethnic defense on the part of the great majority of European Americans.

Even when the immigration law was finally changed in 1965, business interests were notable for their absence. Far more important was Jewish activismmotivated ultimately by perceptions of ethnic self-interest.

All of the great changes in culture over the last 100 years occurred within the capitalist system. Capitalism co-existed with immigration restriction from 1924–1965, and it co-exists with the open borders reality of recent decades.

Ethnic interests and cultural traditionalism were far more important than capitalism in defending the ethnic and cultural integrity of pre-1965 America. And the ethnic interests of the nascent Jewish elite were far more important than capitalism in undermining the traditional people and culture of America in the post-1965 era.

As Eric P. Kaufmann shows, the best explanation for the enormous shift in culture is that the left was able to seize the elite institutions of society — the media, the universities, and the political culture. In my view, this would not have happened without the intellectual and political activism of Jewish intellectual and political activists who not only identified as Jews, but also saw their work as advancing specifically Jewish interests. Certainly the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals are prime examples of Jewish movements that played important roles in this revolution.

The result of the countercultural revolution is that those who detest the cosmopolitan culture erected by these movements are now on the sidelines, feeling alienated, and decrying the passivity, escapism, and conformity of the contemporary culture of Western suicide.

End of Part 2 of 3. Click here to go to Part 2. Click here to go to Part 3.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

Permanent URL: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-WheatlandII.html

Call the Politburo, We’re in Trouble

Call the Politburo, We’re in Trouble

Entering the Soviet Era in America

by Tom Engelhardt

Mark it on your calendar.  It seems we’ve finally entered the Soviet era in America.

You remember the Soviet Union, now almost 20 years in its grave.  But who gives it a second thought today?  Even in its glory years that “evil empire” was sometimes referred to as “the second superpower.”  In 1991, after seven decades, it suddenly disintegrated and disappeared, leaving the United States — the “sole superpower,” even the “hyperpower,” on planet Earth — surprised but triumphant.

The USSR had been heading for the exits for quite a while, not that official Washington had a clue.  At the moment it happened, Soviet “experts” like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (then director of the CIA) still expected the Cold War to go on and on.  In Washington, eyes were trained on the might of the Soviet military, which the Soviet leadership had never stopped feeding, even as its sclerotic bureaucracy was rotting, its economy (which had ceased to grow in the late 1970s) was tanking, budget deficits were soaring, indebtedness to other countries was growing, and social welfare payments were eating into what funds remained.  Not even a vigorous, reformist leader like Mikhail Gorbachev could staunch the rot, especially when, in the late 1980s, the price of Russian oil fell drastically.

Looking back, the most distinctive feature of the last years of the Soviet Union may have been the way it continued to pour money into its military — and its military adventure in Afghanistan — when it was already going bankrupt and the society it had built was beginning to collapse around it.  In the end, its aging leaders made a devastating miscalculation.  They mistook military power for power on this planet.  Armed to the teeth and possessing a nuclear force capable of destroying the Earth many times over, the Soviets nonetheless remained the vastly poorer, weaker, and (except when it came to the arms race) far less technologically innovative of the two superpowers.

In December 1979, perhaps taking the bait of the Carter administration whose national security advisor was eager to see the Soviets bloodied by a “Vietnam” of their own, the Red Army invaded Afghanistan to support a weak communist government in Kabul.  When resistance in the countryside, led by Islamic fundamentalist guerrillas and backed by the other superpower, only grew, the Soviets sent in more troops, launched major offensives, called in air power, and fought on brutally and futilely for a decade until, in 1989, long after they had been whipped, they withdrew in defeat.

Gorbachev had dubbed Afghanistan “the bleeding wound,” and when the wounded Red Army finally limped home, it was to a country that would soon cease to exist.  For the Soviet Union, Afghanistan had literally proven “the graveyard of empires.”  If, at the end, its military remained standing, the empire didn’t.  (And if you don’t already find this description just a tad eerie, given the present moment in the U.S., you should.)

In Washington, the Bush administration — G.H.W.’s, not G.W.’s — declared victory and then left the much ballyhooed “peace dividend” in the nearest ditch.  Caught off guard by the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington’s consensus policymakers drew no meaningful lessons from it (just as they had drawn few that mattered from their Vietnam defeat 16 years earlier).Quite the opposite, successive American administrations would blindly head down the very path that had led the Soviets to ruin.  They would serially agree that, in a world without significant enemies, the key to U.S. global power still was the care and feeding of the American military and the military-industrial complex that went with it.  As the years passed, that military would be sent ever more regularly into the far reaches of the planet to fight frontier wars, establish military bases, and finally impose a global Pax Americana on the planet.

This urge, delusional in retrospect, seemed to reach its ultimate expression in the second Bush administration, whose infamous “unilateralism” rested on a belief that no country or even bloc of countries should ever again be allowed to come close to matching U.S. military power.  (As its National Security Strategy of 2002 put the matter– and it couldn’t have been blunter on the subject — the U.S. was to “build and maintain” its military power “beyond challenge.”)  Bush’s military fundamentalists firmly believed that, in the face of the most technologically advanced, bulked-up, destructive force around, hostile states would be “shocked and awed” by a simple demonstration of its power and friendly ones would have little choice but to come to heel as well.  After all, as the president said in front of a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in 2007, the U.S. military was “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known.”

In this way, far more than the Soviets, the top officials of the Bush administration mistook military power for power, a gargantuan misreading of the U.S. economic position in the world and of their moment.

Boundless Military Ambitions

The attacks of September 11, 2001, that “Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century,” clinched the deal.  In the space the Soviet Union had deserted, which had been occupied by minor outlaw states like North Korea for years, there was a new shape-shifting enemy, al-Qaeda (aka Islamic extremism, aka the new “totalitarianism”), which could be just as big as you wanted to make it.  Suddenly, we were in what the Bush administration instantly dubbed “the Global War on Terror” (GWOT, one of the worst acronyms ever invented) — and this time there would be nothing “cold” about it.

Bush administration officials promptly suggested that they were prepared to use a newly agile American military to “drain the swamp” of global terrorism.  (“While we’ll try to find every snake in the swamp, the essence of the strategy is draining the swamp,” insistedDeputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz two weeks after 9/11.)  They were prepared, they made clear, to undertake those draining operations against Islamic “terrorist networks” in no less than 60 countries around the planet.

Their military ambitions, in other words, knew no bounds; nor, it seemed, did the money and resources which began to flow into the Pentagon, the weapons industries, the country’s increasingly militarized intelligence services, mercenary companies like Blackwater and KBR that grew fat on a privatizing administration’s war plans and the multi-billion-dollar no-bid contracts it was eager to proffer, the new Department of Homeland Security, and a ramped-up, ever more powerful national security state.

As the Pentagon expanded, taking on ever newer roles, the numbers would prove staggering.  By the end of the Bush years, Washington was doling out almost twice what the next nine nations combined were spending on their militaries, while total U.S. military expenditures came to just under half the world’s total.  Similarly, by 2008, the U.S. controlled almost 70% of the global arms market. It also had 11 aircraft carrier battle groups capable of patrolling the world’s seas and oceans at a time when no power that could faintly be considered a possible future enemy had more than one.

By then, private contractors had built for the Pentagon almost 300 military bases in Iraq, ranging from tiny combat outposts to massive “American towns” holding tens of thousands of troops and private contractors, with multiple bus lines, PX’s, fast-food “boardwalks,” massage parlors, water treatment and power plants, barracks, and airfields.  They were in the process of doing the same in Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, in the Persian Gulf region generally.  This, too, represented a massive investment in what looked like a permanent occupation of the oil heartlands of the planet.  As right-wing pundit Max Boot put it after a recent flying tour of America’s global garrisons, the U.S. possesses military bases that add up to “a virtual American empire of Wal-Mart-style PXs, fast-food restaurants, golf courses, and gyms.”

Depending on just what you counted, there were anywhere from 700 to perhaps 1,200 or more U.S. bases, micro to macro, acknowledged and unacknowledged, around the globe.  Meanwhile, the Pentagon was pouring money into the wildest blue-skies thinkingat its advanced research arm, DARPA, whose budget grew by 50%.  Through DARPA, well-funded scientists experimented with various ways to fight sci-fi-style wars in the near and distant future (at a moment when no one was ready to put significant government money into blue-skies thinking about, for instance, how to improve the education of young Americans).  The Pentagon was also pioneering a new form of air power, drone warfare, in which “we” wouldn’t be within thousands of miles of the battlefield, and the battlefield would no longer necessarily be in a country with which we were at war.

It was also embroiled in two disastrous, potentially trillion-dollar wars (and various global skirmishes) — and all this at top dollar at a time when next to no money was being invested in, among other things, the bridges, tunnels, waterworks, and the like that made up an aging American infrastructure.  Except when it came to victory, the military stood ever taller, while its many missions expanded exponentially, even as the domestic economy was spinning out of control, budget deficits were increasing rapidly, the governmental bureaucracy was growing ever more sclerotic, and indebtedness to other nations was rising by leaps and bounds.

In other words, in a far wealthier country, another set of leaders, having watched the Soviet Union implode, decisively embarked on the Soviet path to disaster.

Military Profligacy

In the fall of 2008, the abyss opened under the U.S. economy, which the Bush administration had been blissfully ignoring, and millions of people fell into it.  Giant institutions wobbled or crashed; extended unemployment wouldn’t go away; foreclosures happened on a mind-boggling scale; infrastructure began to buckle; state budgets were caught in a death grip; teachers’ jobs, another kind of infrastructure, went down the tubes in startling numbers; and the federal deficit soared.

Of course, a new president also entered the Oval Office, someone (many voters believed) intent on winding up (or at least down) Bush’s wars and the delusions of military omnipotence and technological omniscience that went with them.  If George W. Bush had pushed this country to the edge of disaster, at least his military policies, as many of his critics saw it, were as extreme and anomalous as the cult of executive power his top officials fostered.

But here was the strange thing.  In the midst of the Great Recession, under a new president with assumedly far fewer illusions about American omnipotence and power, war policy continued to expand in just about every way.  The Pentagon budget rose by Bushian increments in fiscal year 2010; and while the Iraq War reached a kind of dismal stasis, the new president doubled down in Afghanistan on entering office — and then doubled down again before the end of 2009.  There, he “surged” in multiple ways.  At best, the U.S. was only drawing down one war, in Iraq, to feed the flames of another.

As in the Soviet Union before its collapse, the exaltation and feeding of the military at the expense of the rest of society and the economy had by now become the new normal; so much so that hardly a serious word could be said — lest you not “support our troops” — when it came to ending the American way of war or downsizing the global mission or ponying up the funds demanded of Congress to pursue war preparations and war-making.

Even when, after years of astronomical growth, Secretary of Defense Robert Gatesbegan to talk about cost-cutting at the Pentagon, it was in the service of the reallocation of ever more money to war-fighting.  Here was how the New York Times summed upwhat reduction actually meant for our ultimate super-sized institution in tough times: “Current budget plans project growth of only 1 percent in the Pentagon budget, after inflation, over the next five years.”  Only 1% growth — at a time when state budgets, for instance, are being slashed to the bone.  Like the Soviet military, the Pentagon, in other words, is planning to remain obese whatever else goes down.

Meanwhile, the “anti-war” president has been overseeing the expansion of the new normal on many fronts, including the expanding size of the Army itself.  In fact, when it comes to the Global War on Terror — even with the name now in disuse — the profligacy can still take your breath away.

Consider, for instance, the $2.2 billion Host Nation Trucking contract the Pentagon uses to pay protection money to Afghan security companies which, in turn, slip some part of those payments to the Taliban to let American supplies travel safely on Afghan roads.  Or if you don’t want to think about how your tax dollar supports the Taliban, consider the $683,000 the Pentagon spent, according to the Washington Post, to “renovate a cafe that sells ice cream and Starbucks coffee” at its base/prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Or the $773,000 used there “to remodel a cinder-block building to house a KFC/Taco Bell restaurant,” or the $7.3 million spent on baseball and football fields, or the $60,000 batting cage, or a promised $20,000 soccer cage, all part of the approximately two billion dollars that have gone into the American base and prison complex that Barack Obama promised to, but can’t, close.

Or what about the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, that 104-acre, almost three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar, 21-building homage to the American-mall-as-fortified-citadel?  It costs more than $1.5 billion a year to run, and bears about as much relationship to an “embassy” as McDonald’s does to a neighborhood hamburger joint.  According to a recent audit, millions of dollars in “federal property” assigned to what is essentially a vast command center for the region, including 159 of the embassy’s 1,168 vehicles, are missing or unaccounted for.

And as long as we’re talking about expansion in distant lands, how about the Pentagon’s most recent construction plans in Central Asia, part of a prospective “mini-building boom” there.  They are to include an anti-terrorism training center to be constructed for a bargain basement $5.5 million in… no, not Toledo or Akron or El Paso, but thecombustible city of Osh in southern Kyrgyzstan.  And that’s just one of several projects there and in neighboring Tajikistan that are reportedly to be funded out of the U.S. Central Command’s “counter-narcotics fund” (and ultimately, of course, your pocket).    

Or consider a particularly striking example of military expansion under President Obama, superbly reported by the Washington Post‘s Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe in a piece headlined, “U.S. ‘secret war’ expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role.” As a story, it sank without a trace in a country evidently unfazed by the idea of having its forces garrisoned and potentially readying to fight everywhere on the planet.

Here’s how the piece began:

“Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.  Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year.”

Now, without opening an atlas, just try to name any 75 countries on this planet — more than one-third, that is, of the states belonging to the United Nations.  And yet U.S. special operatives are now engaging in war, or preparing for war, or training others to do so, or covertly collecting intelligence in that many countries across Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.  Fifteen more than in the Bush era.

Whatever it is or isn’t called, this remains Bush’s Global War on Terror on an expansionist trajectory.  DeYoung and Jaffe quote an unnamed “senior military official” saying that the Obama administration has allowed “things that the previous administration did not,” and report that Special Operations commanders are now “a far more regular presence at the White House” than in the Bush years.

Not surprisingly, those Special Operations forces have themselves expanded in the first year and a half of the Obama presidency and, for fiscal year 2011, with 13,000 of them already deployed abroad, the administration has requested a 5.7% hike in their budget to $6.3 billion.

Once upon a time, Special Operations forces got their name because they were small and “special.”  Now, they are, in essence, being transformed into a covert military within the military and, as befits their growing size, reports Noah Shachtman of the Wired’sDanger Room, the Army Special Forces alone are slated to get a new $100 million “headquarters” in northern Afghanistan.  It will cover about 17 acres and will include a “communications building, Tactical Operations Center, training facility, medical aid station, Vehicle Maintenance Facility… dining facility, laundry facility, and a kennel to support working dogs… Supporting facilities include roads, power production system and electrical distribution, water well, non-potable water production, water storage, water distribution, sanitary sewer collection system, communication manhole/duct system, curbs, walkways, drainage and parking.”

This headquarters, adds Shachtman, will take a year to build, “at which point, the U.S. is allegedly supposed to begin drawing down its forces in Afghanistan. Allegedly.”  And mind you, the Special Operations troops are but one expanding part of the U.S. military.

Creeping Gigantism

The first year and a half of the Obama administration has seen a continuation of what could be considered the monumental socialist-realist era of American war-making (including a decision to construct another huge, Baghdad-style “embassy” in Islamabad, Pakistan). This sort of creeping gigantism, with all its assorted cost overruns and privateperks, would undoubtedly have seemed familiar to the Soviets.  Certainly no less familiar will be the near decade the U.S. military has spent, increasingly disastrously, in the Afghan graveyard.

Drunk on war as Washington may be, the U.S. is still not the Soviet Union in 1991 — not yet.  But it’s not the triumphant “sole superpower” anymore either.  Its global power isvisibly waning, its ability to win wars distinctly in question, its economic viability open to doubt.  It has been transformed from a can-do into a can’t-do nation, a fact only highlighted by the ongoing BP catastrophe and “rescue” in the Gulf of Mexico.  Its airports are less shiny and more Third World-like every year.  Unlike France or China, it has not a mile of high-speed rail. And when it comes to the future, especially the creation and support of innovative industries in alternative energy, it’s chasing the pack.  It is increasingly a low-end service economy, losing good jobs that will never return.

And if its armies come home in defeat… watch out.

In 1991, the Soviet Union suddenly evaporated.  The Cold War was over.  Like many wars, it seemed to have an obvious winner and an obvious loser.  Nearly 20 years later, as the U.S. heads down the Soviet road to disaster — even if the world can’t imagine what a bankrupt America might mean — it’s far clearer that, in the titanic struggle of the two superpowers that we came to call the Cold War, there were actually two losers, and that, when the “second superpower” left the scene, the first was already heading for the exits, just ever so slowly and in a state of self-intoxicated self-congratulation.  Nearly every decision in Washington since then, including Barack Obama’s to expand both the Afghan War and the war on terror, has only made what, in 1991, was one possible path seem like fate itself.

Call up the Politburo in Washington.  We’re in trouble.

Copyright 2010 Tom Engelhardt

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute’sTomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. His latest book,The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s (Haymarket Books), will be published this week.

Scientists propose big experiment to study Gulf oil spill

Scientists propose big experiment to study Gulf oil spill

BY RENEE SCHOOF

MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON – Frustrated with limited data on the BP oil gusher, a group of independent scientists has proposed a large experiment that would give a clearer understanding of where the oil and gas are going and where they’ll do the most damage.

The scientists say their mission must be undertaken immediately, before BP kills the runaway well. They propose using what’s probably the world’s worst oil accident to learn how crude oil and natural gas move through water when they’re released at high volumes from the deep sea.

Since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank into the Gulf of Mexico in late April, more than 200 million gallons of oil have gushed from the blown well.

The scientists also want to see how the oil breaks down into toxic and safer components in different ocean conditions, information that would help predict which ocean species are most at risk. The experiment also could provide data that would help in dealing with any future spills.

“Without this understanding, we’re no better off when the next one occurs,” said Ira Leifer, a researcher at the Marine Science Institute of the University of California at Santa Barbara who’s leading the team that’s proposed the experiment.

The plan calls for about two weeks of experiments with two research vessels and robotic vehicles at a cost of $8.4 million. The scientist would use monitoring equipment and sampling to conduct experiments at various levels in the water column.

Leifer said BP should pay for it, or the federal government should pay and send BP the bill.

The choice is really up to BP, he said.

“You can either let science happen and everyone wins, or you’re going to find yourself torpedoing that. It’s going to look bad in the history books when people look at it, and maybe in court,” Leifer said.

Scientists from universities, oceanic institutions and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have been tracking the layers of partly dissolved oil. NOAA has six research vessels in the Gulf working on assessing the damage from the spill.

Leifer said that while those researchers were looking for where the oil was, a larger experiment was necessary to test hypotheses and learn how to make better estimates.

It’s not clear whether any federal agency agrees.

The Department of Energy hasn’t been approached about the project, spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller said. Leifer has prepared an 88-page technical report, and he said he could get the experiment under way quickly. It’s not clear, however, whether any funding proposal could clear the necessary scientific review in time.

Leifer said he hoped that BP would see it as in its own interest to fund the study.

BP didn’t respond to queries.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., wrote to BP on June 10 asking for funding for a simpler, earlier version of Leifer’s plan. Markey said through a spokesman that it “could help answer some of the fundamental questions about this catastrophe and help us prepare should there be a next one. It is worth serious consideration by BP.”

Leifer’s team is made up of 15 experts on oil and gas in the ocean. He and some of the others also worked on the federal government’s Flow Rate Technical Group, which was formed to get a better estimate of the size of the disaster. Leifer said the group did the best it could with limited data provided by BP. The latest official estimate is that 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day are flowing from the runaway well.

Leifer’s proposed experiment could help improve the estimate, but because the flow amount can change over time, it would still be impossible to come up with an accurate amount, he said.

“We’re trying to figure out not just how much is coming out, but where it’s going,” Leifer said. “The question is where is it going, why is it going there and what is it killing?”

The information also will help scientists predict what will happen when conditions change; for example, when the loop current shifts and temperatures rise.

McClatchy Newspapers reported July 2 that many experts say the overall scientific evaluation of the spill is surprisingly uncoordinated, as federal officials and BP have failed to mount a speedy, focused inquiry to understand its impact.

Leifer has dubbed the new proposal “Deep Spill 2.” The first Project Deep Spill was an experiment off Norway in 2000 in which mixtures of crude oil, diesel oil and natural gas were released half a mile below the surface of the ocean to simulate a blowout. The study was a joint project by the U.S. Minerals Management Service and 23 oil companies.

Leifer was part of a Department of Energy-funded experiment last summer on a natural oil seep near the Deepwater Horizon site. The earlier experiment looked at the effects of methane seeping into the atmosphere.

“We want to repeat the effort much more thoroughly, because the stakes are much higher with the oil spill,” he said. “It would be inexcusable not to learn from this.”