Thursday, July 28, 2011

Financial Crunch! Economic Collapse! (Part 12)

Cash, not Gold, is King in a Crash
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
August 4, 2011
Until we understand the nature of money and reform its creation, we will continue to be punished.
Everyone predicted the market would crash if the US didn't raise the debt limit and defaulted.
Well, the debt ceiling was raised and the market crashed anyway. Even gold went down today. Why?
They crashed because the specter of "lower government debt" meant less spending i.e. The medium of exchange would not keep pace with economic growth. And since the dollar is the world reserve currency, this puts the world economy in a straight jacket.
Until we understand the nature of money and reform its creation, we will continue to be punished. Money can no longer be produced as a debt to the private central banking cartel. It must be produced debt-free.
Here is an explanation of money I posted last Sunday:
Imagine that you were charged a penny for every breath you took. After a month, this would amount to a lot of money. Wait! you would say. Nobody owns oxygen!
The same applies to money. Money is a medium of exchange. It has no intrinsic value.
It is a coupon used to facilitate trade. Each product or service is worth so many coupons.
The economy is like a fire which needs a certain amount of oxygen to burn steadily. The job of the government is to provide this oxygen in terms of spending i.e. injecting coupons.
Just like oxygen, nobody can own a medium of exchange.
But the Illuminati bankers do own it. They create money in the form of a debt to them! Anytime the government wants to stoke the fire, it must go further into debt.
Fiscal conservatives like Ron and Rand Paul perpetuate and legitimize this fraudulent and dysfunctional system by harping on the dangers of "debt."
The economy would collapse if the debt were repaid. There would be no money in circulation. We're not meant to repay it.
Half the US debt is owed to the Fed and should be renounced since the money was created as a book entry. Why should we repay it with sweat and blood?
Fiscal Conservatives are going to tie the hands of government and precipitate a major depression.
Looks like this is coming true.
Gold & Silver Heresy
In an economic collapse, people will seek refuge in paper currency, especially the $US. This happened in 2008 and it is happening again.
As the market tumbled this morning, gold was up $20 but gold stocks went down. Then Gold tumbled $40 from their highs before stabilizing down $14. The same happened with silver. It was up 50 cents and then down almost $3. Gold and silver stocks were down 6-12 per cent.
Gold and silver are just rocks. They are much more expensive to produce than paper and for that reason they are inferior as a medium of exchange i.e. coupon.
A gold bug sent me this:
"The financial crash will render worthless everything that is denominated in paper. Only real things will retain value, and the royalty of real things are gold and silver, for the simple reason that they are the most liquid, i.e. universally accepted."
I replied:
if "universally accepted" and "liquid" are the criteria , the US dollar is far better than either metals... people are going into cash today!
The economy needs liquidity (i.e. an effective medium of exchange that stimulates productivity.) As long as this medium is created in the form of debt, the economy will be severely constrained.
We don't need bankers to create currency based on our government's credit. The government can do that itself.
We must unite and demand debt-free currency creation or suffer the consequences.
Illuminati Planning Another Financial Crash?
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
(Revises and updates an Oct 2009 article)
June 16, 2011
The PBS Frontline Documentary "The Warning" proves the Illuminati bankers deliberately sabotaged the financial system, and continue to do so.
As the talk of sovereign debt defaults roil the markets, it appears the Illuminati bankers may cause another financial breakdown as a way to enact a world currency and New World Order. This certainly was their mantra during the 2008 crisis.
The PBS Frontline Documentary "The Warning" proves the Illuminati bankers deliberately sabotaged the financial system, and continue to do so.
Shortly after Brooksley Born became Chair of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission in Aug.1996, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan summoned her to his office.
There he told her that being a regulator did not include preventing or policing fraudulent activity. He said the "market" would take care of that. Remember this is from the Rothschild's point man in America!
It stands to reason, doesn't it? The Fed itself, and central banks in general, are the biggest fraud in the history of the world. They create our currency in the form of a debt to them. A medium of exchange should belong to no one.
The documentary describes what happened when Born tried to regulate the $495 trillion derivatives market. The four Illuminati Jews running the US financial system -- Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Arthur Levitt read her the riot act and stonewalled her proposals.
In Congressional hearings, Born insisted she was trying to protect the American people's money from the reckless practices of US banks.
But the "committee of four" assured Congress that any regulation would itself bring down the system. Congress, dependent on banking contributions, supinely agreed.
In 1998, right on schedule, the financial system almost collapsed when a hedge-fund, "Long Term Capital Management" went belly up. In a harbinger of the future housing bubble, the banks had made huge derivative bets on the Russian economy with LTCM.
The Fed forced 13 US and international banks to purchase the hedge-fund. Altogether $4.6 Billion was lost.
The documentary magnificently shows that although the American (and world) economies were at stake, and despite this near catastrophe, the Clinton and Bush Administrations refused to regulate the derivative market, and allowed it to grow to an eventual $595 Trillion during the housing bubble.
Not only did they refuse to regulate the industry, they forced Brooksley Born (left) out of her job by removing her powers.
Her prophesy came true in 2008. Because of derivatives called credit default swaps, the US taxpayer was forced to indemnify US and foreign banks for more than two trillion dollars.
At this time, Alan Greenspan was hauled before Congress and asked why he had rejected regulations.
The documentary shows him confessing that he had been "mistaken." The "world view" that had guided him for 40 years --that markets were self regulating-- had been wrong.
What is shocking, and you can see this for yourself in this amazing documentary, Greenspan is making a Masonic "triangular" hand sign as he offers this confession.
He is signaling to his fellow Illuminati that he knew exactly what he was doing. His confession was bogus.
Similarly, in the same documentary, Arthur Levitt, the Chair of the SEC at the time, makes the same sign while confessing he should have listened to Brooksley Born.
In other words, this dangerous high wire act is Illuminati policy. Brooksley Born says that we can expect more financial turmoil until markets are regulated. Or until world government is instituted, I might add.
Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers were in charge in 1998. Their then-deputies, Timothy Geitner and Ben Bernanke are in charge now. All are Fed or Goldman Sachs alumni. This is like asking cocaine addicts to regulate drugs.
The hand signs and the fact that no significant regulation has taken place, suggests market turmoil again will be used to bring down the US (and world?) economies, cause a depression and usher in the New World Order.
PBS is virtually a province of the Rockefeller empire. Yet this Frontline documentary is superb, what journalism should be. Apparently, the Illuminati is willing to operate "in plain sight," after the damage is done. They are also willing to stoke public anger at their mainly Jewish underlings.
Born seems to be a Gentile. Her opponents were all Illuminati Jews. The optics are bad.
Essentially, the American people are being disenfranchised, disinherited and enslaved. Their leaders are Freemasons and Illuminati Jews who are dedicated to integrating the country into a world government run by the central bankers.
This is promised in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And it's happening right on schedule.


Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Nazi Germany, Zionists, Holocaust and More!

Is Adolf Hitler Really the Founding Father of Israel?
by Johnny Punish
Friday, June 17th, 2011
In The Transfer Agreement, Edwin Black’s compelling award-winning story of a negotiated arrangement in
1933 between Zionist organizations and the Nazis to transfer some 50,000 Jews, and $100 million of their assets to Jewish Palestine in exchange for stopping the worldwide Jewish-led boycott threatening to topple the Hitler regime in its first year, exposes historical truth.
This truth threatens to destablize modern Zionism’s stranglehold on the mainstream media propaganda that, in 2011, continues to suffocate U.S. Citizens and the world with “guilt” appeals and billions of US taxpayer “aid” dollars given each year to a state that neither has the best interest of the American people nor the best interests of it’s own indigenous populations that the Zionist so-called democracy claims to represent.
Join with me as we follow the historical journey of Edwin Black as his travels into the truth that was the movement of German Jews into Palestine and their subsequent conquest of the indigenious Palestinian people.
On August 7, 1933, leaders of the Zionist movement concluded a controversial pact with the Third Reich which, in its various forms, transferred some 60,000 Jews and $100 million– almost $800 million in 1984 dollars– to Jewish Palestine. In return, Zionists would halt the worldwide Jewish-led anti-nazi boycott that threatened to topple the Hitler regime in its first year. Ultimately, the Transfer Agreement saved lives, rescued assets, and seeded the infrastructure of the Jewish State.
Fiery debates instantly ignited throughout the pre-War Jewish world as rumors of the pact leaked out. The acrimony was rekindled in 1984 with the original publication of The Transfer Agreement and has never stopped.
Understanding the painful process and the agonizing decisions taken by Jewish leadership requires a journey. This journey will not be a comfortable one with clear-cut concepts and landmarks. The facts, as they unfold, will challenge your sense of the period, break your heart, and try your ethics… just as it did for those in 1933 who struggled to identify the correct path through a Fascist minefield and away from the conflagration that awaited European Jewry.
To discover The Transfer Agreement, Edwin Black took that journey.
His journey began in 1978 when a small bank of misfits preaching nazism and waving swastikas decided to march through the predominantly Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie. Suddenly an unimportant group of bigots provoked an important controversy. The outraged community was determined either to prevent the march or to confront the neo-nazis on the parade route. Many Skokie residents were Holocaust survivors and remembered well that only fifty years before, Hitler’s circle had also started as a small band of social misfits. The Jewish community would not ignore an attempt to reintroduce the nazi concept–no matter how feeble the source.
But establishment Jewish leaders counseled Jews to shutter their windows and pay no attention. And a Jewish attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union rose reluctantly to champion the neo-nazis’ right to freedom of expression–over the survivors’ right to be left alone. In covering the issue as a young journalist and reacting to the crisis as a Jew and the son of Holocaust survivors, he was confused by the response of Jewish leaders.
To prepare for a Chicago Reader interview with the Jewish ACLU attorney representing the neo-nazis, he spoke with Jewish scholar Rabbi Byron Sherwin. He told Edwin Black there were many enigmas about the Jewish response to nazism, one of which was a long-rumored arrangement between the Third Reich and the Zionist Organization involving the transfer of German Jewish assets to Palestine. He added that little was known about the arrangement, if it indeed existed.
Author Edwin Black
Edwin Black couldn’t believe what he had heard. The possibility of a Zionist-nazi arrangement for the sake of Israel was inconceivable for a person of his background. His mother, as a girl, had been pushed by her mother through the vent of a boxcar on the way to the Treblinka death camp. She was shot by nazi soldiers and buried in a shallow mass grave. His father had stepped out of line during a long march to a destiny with death. While hiding in the woods, he came upon a leg protruding from the snow. This was his mother.
Together, by night and by courage, these two Polish teenagers survived in the forest for two years. When the war was over, they cautiously emerged from the woods believing that nearly all Jews may have been exterminated–except them. The question for them was whether there was still any use being “Jewish.” And yet–believing themselves to be among the last of their people–they decided to live on, as Jews, and never forget.
Quickly, his parents learned that others had survived, although almost none from their families. They resettled in the United States.
Edwin Black was born in Chicago, raised in Jewish neighborhoods, and his parents tried never to speak of their experience. Like the other children of Holocaust survivors, his life was overshadowed by his family’s tragedy. And, like other Jews, he saw the State of Israel as the salvation and redemption of the remnant of the Jewish people. He had spent time on a kibbutz and returned to Israel several times after that. For years, he considered emigrating to Israel. The very meaning of Israel was a deep motivation in his life.
Yet there were incongruities he could never understand. Everywhere he looked in Israel, he saw German equipment. The icons of nazi commerce– Mercedes, Grundig, Siemens, Krupp–were thriving in the Jewish State, even as the ban on Wagner’s music was strictly enforced. And so many families were German Jews who had come to Israel during the Hitler era. For a year, he filed Rabbi Sherwin’s rumor in a mental box of imponderables. He had said many times that the most important rule in approaching the Holocaust is that nothing makes sense. And yet he needed to make sense out of it. If he could, then perhaps there was a reason his mother and father had lived, while six million had died.
Working through the staff and resources of Spertus College of Judaica, he was able to obtain some rare Hebrew and German materials that documented in skeletal form that the arrangement indeed existed. After a great deal of personal anguish, he made his decision.
Indigenous Women Suffering From Zionist Bulldozing of Home in Modern Day Palestinian Terror-Tory
When he told his parents, his mother threatened to disown him and my father threatened to personally strangle him if he dared lend any credence to the notion of nazi-Zionist cooperation. This was done against a background of rising anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli attempts to somehow link the nazi regime with Zionists.
When he later showed his parents a hundred-page summary of his proposed book, his mother cried and said, “now I understand what I could never understand. Write the book.”
His father, who fought in the war as a Zionist Betar partisan, also gave him his blessing with the simple words: “Go write the book.”
His agent said he thought there was only one editor with the stamina to take on this book. That man was Edward T. Chase, editor-in-chief of new York Times Books, a man with preeminent credentials in WWII and Holocaust books.
Chase read the proposal and said yes.
He spent the next several years traveling through Germany, Israel, England, and the United States, locating forgotten files in archives, scouring newspapers of the era, interviewing principals, and surveying government papers. Millions of microfilm frames of captured nazi documents had never been analyzed. Boxes of boycott papers had never been organized. Worse, he found that little had been written about Hitler’s first year–1933.
For months, the information confounded Edwin Black; nothing made sense. There were so many contradictions; nazis promoting Jewish nationalism. American Jewish leaders refusing even to criticize the Third Reich. Principal players who said one thing in public and did the opposite in private. Everything was upside down. And historians of the period told me they were equally confused about what had really occurred.
Finally Edwin Black was able to piece the information together and reconstruct events.
To do so, he had to clear his mind of preconceived notions and stare at the situation through the eyes of those who lived through it. And yet, after all the researching and reading and writing,his intense inner attachment to the Zionist concept and Jewish nationalism and the State of Israel only deepened. That’s because he had finally made sense of it. And anyone who does will understand Zionism for what it is: a national movement, with the rights and wrongs, the ethics and expediencies, found in any other national movement.
The Jews were the first to recognize the Hitler threat and the first to react to that threat.
The fact they were foiled by their own disunity merely puts them in the company of all mankind.
■Who did not confront the Hitler menace with indecision?
■Who did not seal pacts of expediency with the Third Reich?
The Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Supreme Moslem Council all endorsed the Hitler regime. The United States, England, France, Italy, Russia, Argentina, Japan, Ireland, Poland, and dozens of other nations all signed friendship and trade treaties and knowingly contributed to German economic and military recovery. The international banking and commercial community–no less than the Zionists–saw Germany as indispensable to its salvation. The Zionists were indeed in the company of all mankind–with this exception: The Jews were the only ones with a gun to their heads.
Hitler was not unique; he was organized. But among Hitler’s enemies, none were organized–except the Zionists. The world recognized the Hitler threat and hoped it would not arrive. The Zionists recognized the Hitler threat and always expected it. The events of the Hitler era and the Transfer Agreement were ultimately determined by those factors.
Edwin Black ’s belief in the Jewish people, in American Jewish organizations, in Zionism, and in the State of Israel and its founding mothers and fathers was never shaken. Those who sense outrage or anger in his words are hearing but the echo of their agony.
Suppressing free and open discussion on any subject is as bad as telling lies, and knowingly suppressing the truth is the biggest lie of all, because it is based, not on a mistake or a genuine error, but on a deliberate intention to deceive. Having been tortured, Rudolf Höss, who was the commander of Auschwitz from 1940 to 1943, almost certainly lied to save the lives of his wife and children. Even if torture and duress cannot be proven, the overwhelming reason for recognizing the utter falsity of the Höss confession is that the gassing method he described was not scientifically plausible. Yet Höss’s conviction has stood, by inference, as a testament to the cruelty of Germans in general, since he was tried at Nuremberg, in 1947, and subsequently hanged on April 16th, 1947, in Poland. With great respect for those who have tried—though harassed, punished, fined, imprisoned and otherwise abused—to tell it like it really was: Arthur R. Butz, Robert Faurisson, Paul Grubach, Gerd Honsik, David Irving, Kevin Käther, Nicholas Kollerstrom, Fred Leuchter, Horst Mahler, Ingrid Rimland, Germar Rudolf, Bradley Smith, Sylvia Stolz, Fredrick Töbin, Ernst Zündel and many others.
Zionists Led Jews to Destruction in WW2
(originally "Compulsory Suicide for Jews" from Dec. 2002)
By Henry Makow Ph.D
June 15, 2011
Essential Articles
Rabbi Shonfeld calls the Zionists "war criminals" who usurped the leadership of the Jewish people, betrayed their trust, and, after their annihilation, reaped the moral capital.
On Nov. 25, 1940, a boat carrying Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe, the "Patra," exploded and sank off the coast of Palestine killing 252 people.
The Zionist "Haganah" claimed the passengers committed suicide to protest British refusal to let them land. Years later, it admitted that rather than let the passengers go to Mauritius, it blew up the vessel for its propaganda value.
"Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the few in order to save the many," Moshe Sharett, a former Israeli Prime Minister said at memorial service in 1958.
In fact, during the Holocaust, Zionist policy was that Jewish life had no value unless it promoted the Zionist cause. "One goat in Israel is worth more than the whole Diaspora," Yitzhak Greenbaum, head of the Jewish Agency's "Rescue Committee" said.
Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld accuses the Zionists of collaborating in the Nazi slaughter of European Jewry directly and indirectly.
The charges are contained in his book, "Holocaust Victims Accuse" (1977) which is on line.
Rabbi Shonfeld calls the Zionists "war criminals" who usurped the leadership of the Jewish people, betrayed their trust, and, after their annihilation, reaped the moral capital.
Shonfeld states: "The Zionist approach that Jewish blood is the anointing oil needed for the wheels of the Jewish state is not a thing of the past. It remains operable to this very day."
Other books on this theme by Jews include: Edwin Black, "The Transfer Agreement"; Ben Hecht, "Perfidy," M.J. Nurenberger "The Scared and the Damned"; Joel Brand, "Satan and the Soul"; Chaim Lazar, "Destruction and Rebellion"; and Rabbi Michael Dov Ber Weismandel "From the Depth."
The implication, which I will explore later, is that Zionism, at the top, is not a Jewish movement. In the words of veteran Israeli politician Eliezar Livneh, "The Zionist heritage had in it something flawed to begin with."
Shocking ''Highlights'' of Rabbi Shonfeld's Book:
While European Jews were in mortal danger, Zionist leaders in America deliberately provoked and enraged Hitler. They began in 1933 by initiating a worldwide boycott of Nazi goods. Dieter von Wissliczeny, Adolph Eichmann's lieutenant, told Rabbi Weissmandl that in 1941 Hitler flew into a rage when U.S. Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise, in the name of the entire Jewish people, "declared war on Germany". Hitler fell on the floor, bit the carpet and vowed: "Now I'll destroy them. Now I'll destroy them." In Jan. 1942, he convened the "Wannsee Conference" where the "final solution" took shape.
Rabbi Shonfeld says the Nazis chose Zionist activists to run the "Judenrats" and to be Jewish police or Kapos. "The Nazis found in these 'elders' what they hoped for, loyal and obedient servants who because of their lust for money and power, led the masses to their destruction." The Zionists were often intellectuals who were often "more cruel than the Nazis" and kept the trains' final destination a secret. In contrast to secular Zionists, Shonfeld says Orthodox Jewish Rabbis refused to collaborate and tended their beleaguered flocks to the end.
Rabbi Shonfeld cites numerous instances where Zionists sabotaged attempts to organize resistance, ransom and relief. They undermined an effort by Vladimir Jabotinsky to arm Jews before the war. They stopped a program by American orthodox Jews to send food parcels to the ghettos (where child mortality was 60%) saying it violated the boycott. They thwarted a British parliamentary initiative to send refugees to Mauritius, demanding they go to Palestine instead. They blocked a similar initiative in the US Congress. At the same time, they rescued young Zionists. Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist Chief and later first President of Israel said: "Every nation has its dead in its fight for its homeland. The suffering under Hitler are our dead." He said they "were moral and economic dust in a cruel world."
Rabbi Weismandel, who was in Slovakia, provided maps of Auschwitz and begged Jewish leaders to pressure the Allies to bomb the tracks and crematoriums. The leaders didn't press the Allies because the secret policy was to annihilate non-Zionist Jews. The Nazis came to understand that death trains and camps would be safe from attack and actually concentrated industry there. (See also, William Perl, "The Holocaust Conspiracy.')
None of the above is intended to absolve the Nazis of responsibility. However the holocaust could have been prevented or at least alleviated had the Zionist leadership behaved honorably.
What is ''Zionism''?
Lord Acton said, "The truth will come out when powerful people no longer wish to suppress it." Since Sept. 11, more and more people are turning to the "conspiratorial" or "suppressed" view of history.
In 1891, Cecil Rhodes started a secret society called the "Round Table" dedicated to world hegemony for the shareholders of the Bank of England and their allies. These priggish aristocrats, including the Rothschilds, realized they must control the world to safeguard their monopoly on money creation [] as well as global resources. The same folks control the U.S. Federal Reserve and other major central banks.
They were united also by a commitment to freemasonry, which at the top, is dedicated to the destruction of Christianity, the worship of Lucifer, and the rebuilding of a pagan temple in Jerusalem. They see most of humanity as "useless eaters" and pioneered eugenics to decrease population and weed out inferior specimens. The eventual annihilation of non-Zionist Jews was rooted in this English movement.
In 1897, the first Zionist Congress took place in Basel. In 1904, the founder of Zionism Theodore Herzl died at age 44 under suspicious circumstances. The movement was taken over by the Round Table. The purpose was to use it and Communism to advance their plan for world hegemony. During the same week in November 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution took place and the Balfour Declaration promised Palestine to the Jews.
The Round Table group planned three world wars to degrade, demoralize and destroy mankind, rendering it defenseless. The Third World War, now beginning, pitted the Zionists against the Muslims. []
The purpose of Zionism is to help colonize the Middle East, subvert Islam, and control the oilfields. For this reason Israel continues to receive blank checks. (One analyst estimates the US taxpayer has spent $1.7 trillion on Israel.) This is why the founding of Israel took precedence over the welfare of the Jewish people.
Israel has little to do with the Jewish people. Zionism, Communism, Feminism, Nazism, are all creations of the same satanic cabal. These 'isms are all means to the final goal, a neo feudal global dictatorship.
As unwitting overseers, Israelis will continue as victims of "compulsory suicide." Americans too are being fitted for this role. Sept. 11 was an example.
Arab terrorism is also backed by this cabal. [] Osama Bin Laden made more than 260 phone calls to England between 1996-1998. The aim is to contrive a "war of civilizations" as an excuse to grind down both Muslim states and the West to create the global police state.
What I have been calling "compulsory suicide" is satanic "culling." The constant reference by Zionist and other leaders to "blood sacrifice" refers to the practice of human sacrifice. Apparently energy is released when people are slaughtered. Recently U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said the Hezbollah owes the U.S. a "blood debt."
Our rulers design wars as offerings to Lucifer. They find slaughter and mayhem exhilarating, as long as it is someone else who is sacrificed.
Where Does This Leave the Jews?
For millennia, Jews owed their survival to their devotion to "Torah." In the last century they have forsaken this portable spiritual home, and placed their faith in a tangible one, Israel.
Unfortunately, they have been duped.
Israelis are becoming overseers in the global plantation. American Jews, prominent in media, education, government and finance, are also instruments. They will take the blame for the real culprits, the shareholders of the world's major central banks.
Mankind has been betrayed by its leadership. Of Jewish leadership, Israeli journalist Barry Chamish says: "The richest appoint themselves to the highest posts. Thus the greediest and most unscrupulous run the show. [They] ... will sell their souls and those of their people for power and acclaim." See Barry Chamish "Just as Scared, Just as Doomed." []
There are a few hundred thousand orthodox Jews like Rabbi Shonfeld who have always understood Zionism. They have always rejected the state of Israel and remained faithful to the Torah. They could form a core for a genuine Jewish revival. Their websites are, and
In conclusion, a satanic cult governs the world. These people hate God and mankind and want to destroy it. They believe the end justifies the means and are ruthless. They use the Jews, and everyone else, as cannon fodder. We are "children of the matrix," duped, distracted, stunted and sacrificed.
Without the vision provided by God, we are lambs being led to slaughter.

Monday, July 25, 2011

What is Happening in Somalia?


Somalia Faces Famine as al-Qaida Threat Halts International Aid
PBS Newshour
July 22, 2011
The United Nations warned Friday that the famine threatening Somalia could cause some 800,000 children to die from starvation. International agencies want to send more food but al-Qaida-linked militants vowed to block aid. Jonathan Rugman of Independent Television News reports.
Part 1
JIM LEHRER: And to the crisis in Somalia, which is facing the worst famine in decades. The United Nations warned today 800,000 children could die from starvation. International agencies want to send in more food, but al-Qaida-linked militants vowed to block the aid.
Jonathan Rugman of Independent Television News traveled to a refugee camp just outside the capital, Mogadishu.
A warning: Some of the images in this report are very disturbing.
JONATHAN RUGMAN: Ahmed is eight months old and close to dying of hunger. He lies in the lap of his father, Abdi. The pair have traveled for four perilous days to Mogadishu from the famine zone of South Somalia in what Abdi knows is a desperate race against time.
These 1-year-old twins, Avshir and Nasir, have just arrived, just two of the half-a-million children the U.N. says are seriously malnourished. The boys' mother says she walked to the capital because there's nothing to live on outside. And she's smiling because she is lucky to have made it this far.
Over 1,000 infants have been brought to this emergency nutrition center since it opened just a few days ago. Their mothers are so busy trying to save their children's lives, that there's barely time to grieve for the dead children they have left behind.
This feeding center is just a few hundred meters from the front line of Somalia's never-ending civil war. And these refugees have risked everything to come here, to cross that front line, to escape from the famine zone in the countryside, where tens of thousands of people have already died.
This is how our journey begins, in the only safe mode of transport U.N. aid workers have, in the backs of armored vehicles manned by peacekeepers from Burundi wielding machine guns -- through the window, glimpses of the failed capital of a failed state. On the road out of Mogadishu, we can see some of the 400,000 refugees living in makeshift camps.
First, they fled the fighting. Now it's famine and drought.
ROZANNE CHORLTON, UNICEF: If you have one of those and you want to travel, what do you do?
JONATHAN RUGMAN: We reach the Badbaado camp, where UNICEF's director for Somalia is dressed as if for battle. She can't know how many in this teeming tent city are sympathizers with militants linked to al-Qaida. And everywhere, there are men with guns, militiamen from squabbling rival clans, as well as Burundian forces keeping watch in case food queues turn into riots.
How old are you?
On this pickup truck, there's what looks like a child soldier. He says he's 18. His cousin says he's 13, the latest recruit to Somalia's decades-old cycle of violence. And if delivering aid amid Mogadishu's ruins is difficult, imagine how hard it may prove where famine has been declared.
ROZANNE CHORLTON: We're hopeful that we can push further into southern Somalia in the coming days and weeks. We have to try. We can't not try. It's just too serious.
JONATHAN RUGMAN: And here's the proof: little boys like Saad, age 7, listless in his mothers arms. She says the Islamists tried to stop them from reaching the capital, the fighters apparently in denial about what the U.N. calls the worst humanitarian disaster in the world.
Tens of thousands are seeking sanctuary in this camp, yet what we have filmed cannot capture the scale of this crisis, with millions of Somalis beyond the reach of anyone's help.
Part 2
JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has more on the growing humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa.
RAY SUAREZ: And for that we turn to Jeremy Konyndyk, policy director for Mercy Corps, which has approximately 50 to 100 people doing relief and development work in Somalia. He was last there in the country in April. And Peter Pham is the director of the Africa Center at the Atlantic Council.
Jeremy Konyndyk, the conditions that we just saw in Somalia don't happen overnight. How long have the problems leading up to a U.N. declaration of famine been building up in Somalia?
JEREMY KONYNDYK, Mercy Corps: By the time it gets to the point of declaring famine, there's been a whole process of degradation of the economy, of people's ability to support themselves, of resources that has occurred and grown and grown to the point where basically the ability of many, many Somalis, of about 11 million people across the entire region -- because we need to remember that Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Kenya are also suffering similar conditions -- it gets to the point where those 11 million people simply have no means what so ever to support themselves.
They have lost their -- they have lost their crops. They have lost their livestock. They have lost any other means of income. And to a large degree, they have either -- well, in the case of people in southern Somalia, no choice but to either find aid, which is scant in that part of the world, or to flee. Fortunately, in Ethiopia, Kenya and some other parts of Somalia, at least there is aid getting in.
RAY SUAREZ: When the early warning system, weather forecasts and other crop forecasts came out of the Horn of Africa, what did the international community do?
JEREMY KONYNDYK: I think the international community's response was slow in this case.
The U.S. government has been ramping up drastically now, and was pre-positioning, but if you look at the amounts of money that are going in relative to the last significant crisis in the region, which was in 2008, what we have seen in this year in terms of donations both from the U.S. government and from the community -- the international community at large, are well, well short.
We estimate that at this point the international community has given about $1 billion less to the drought in the Horn of Africa this year than it gave in 2008, the last major...
RAY SUAREZ: Peter Pham, Jeremy mentioned that there are similar crises right now in Kenya, Djibouti,
Ethiopia. Is one of the key differences that those places have governments?
J. PETER PHAM, Atlantic Council: Yes.
Somalia has a transitional federal government, the 14th or 15th, depending on how you count them, such entity in 20 years. And it's a government in name only. It controls virtually no territory, provides no services. And about the only thing its ministers are good at is stealing the aid that they get.
The last audit report showed that 96 percent of the aid they received had been stolen.
RAY SUAREZ: So, if you look at a map of the region, the problem is concentrated in two parts of the lower part of Ethiopia, Bakool and Lower Shabelle. Who is in charge there?
J. PETER PHAM: Well, in those areas, the Shabab, which is an umbrella group for an Islamist group that has some links with al-Qaida and other radical groups, but also includes clan militias, et cetera, they reign over the area. But you also have competing clan interests, but you don't have a government, per se.
RAY SUAREZ: So how does an aid agency, Jeremy, figure out what to do? Al-Shabab has said that it won't cooperate without with outside efforts to get food to the suffering. And, to be honest, outside governments are not that happy to have to do business with al-Shabab either.
JEREMY KONYNDYK: Well, this is one of the real challenges. I mean, international aid groups have really been caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to southern Somalia.
Almost all the other zones in the east African region that are affected by this, we can get to in some form. But there are two sources of blockages you have identified. One, of course, is the security problems that are posed and the refusal by the militants in Southern Somalia to allow international aid groups back in.
And the other is the policies of many Western governments, particularly the United States, who have really ramped down their aid to Somalia in the last few years because of the presence of Shabab. And we have seen a collapse of about 88 percent in U.S. funding to Somalia from 2008 to 2010, even as other donors around the world kept their funding at basically the same level.
So there is clearly an issue with the U.S. government seeing political issues or -- and legal issues with providing aid to Somalia. And that's been a significant concern as well.
RAY SUAREZ: Well, Peter, what do you do in a case like that? No one wants to give aid if they know most of it isn't going to reach the intended recipients. But you also don't want to stand by while tens of thousands of people die either.
J. PETER PHAM: Well, I think what you have to do in the case of Somalia is step aside from this so-called
government and get the aid to the people who need it, work with civil society within Somalia.
And there are civil society groups that international aid organizations have in the past partnered successfully with. Work with clan elders and get the aid to the people who need it, and let's bypass this corrupt government and also bypass the Islamists and the extremists, and that way marginalize them as well.
RAY SUAREZ: But can you do that? Are there ports that -- where you can actually safely unload ships? Are there roads where you can run trucks with cargo that won't be waylaid, that won't be hijacked?
J. PETER PHAM: No one is saying this is easy. But the port of Mogadishu is open. Other ports are open. Roads, if you know the terrain, work with local partners, they're -- the aid groups are very effective. And the local civil society groups and clan structures are there.
We just have to work with -- get our head around the idea that we can't always work with governments that look like us. We sometimes have to work with traditional authorities and other institutions that do function in
settings like this.
RAY SUAREZ: Jeremy, one UNICEF worker on the ground called Somalia one of the most dangerous places, if not the most dangerous place, to do aid work in the world today. Is that right? And what makes it so?
JEREMY KONYNDYK: Well, I think we need to draw a distinction between the north and the south in this respect.
In the north, which is controlled by a variety of groups depending on where you are, including some fairly developed governance -- governments in Puntland and Somaliland, it is not dangerous at all. I mean, there are security threats as you will find in any developing country, but it's not particularly dangerous for aid workers. It's really concentrated in the south that those challenges have existed.
And we, as aid workers, we know that our security depends on the acceptance of the communities that we work in. And Peter referred to sort of nontraditional approaches to aid work. And I think that's what we -- that's our only chance in Southern Somalia at this point, is working very closely with existing local institutions which are still there which have a lot of capacity.
And, you know, the aid groups and the Somali people want to see aid get to whom it's supposed to get to. They want to see it get to the needy. And so we need to work in a way that makes that -- that makes that possible. The challenge now is for both of the -- both of the obstacles to that, both the policy obstacles and the security obstacles, we need those removed in order to work.
RAY SUAREZ: Jeremy Konyndyk, Peter Pham, thank you both.
J. PETER PHAM: Thank you.

Somalia: the Real Causes of Famine
By Michel Chossudovsky
URL of this article:
Global Research, July 21, 2011
For the last twenty years, Somalia has been entangled in a "civil war" amidst the destruction of both its rural and urban economies.
The country is now facing widespread famine. According to reports, tens of thousands of people have died from malnutrition in the last few months. The lives of several million people are threatened.
The mainstream media casually attributes the famine to a severe drought without examining the broader causes.
An atmosphere of "lawlessness, gang warfare and anarchy" is also upheld as one of the major causes behind the famine.
But who is behind the lawlessness and armed gangs?
Somalia is categorized as a "failed state", a country without a government.
But how did it become a "failed state"? There is ample evidence of foreign intervention as well as covert support of armed militia groups. Triggering "failed states" is an integral part of US foreign policy. It is part of a military-intelligence agenda.
According to the UN, a situation of famine prevails in southern Bakool and Lower Shabelle, areas in part controlled by Al Shahab, a jihadist militia group affiliated to Al Qaeda.
Both the UN and the Obama administration had accused Al Shahab of imposing "a ban on foreign aid agencies in its territories in 2009". What the reports do not mention, however, is that Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen (HSM) ("Movement of Striving Youth") is funded by Saudi Arabia and supported covertly by Western intelligence agencies.
The backing of Islamic militia by Western intelligence agencies is part of a broader historical pattern of covert support to Al Qaeda affiliated and jihadist organizations in a number of countries, including, more recently, Libya and Syria.
The broader question is: What outside forces triggered the destruction of the Somali State in the early 1990s?
Somalia remained self-sufficient in food until the late 1970s despite recurrent droughts. As of the early 1980s, its national economy was destabilized and food agriculture was destroyed.
The process of economic dislocation preceded the onset of the civil war in 1991. Economic and social chaos resulting from IMF "economic medicine" was a "precondition" for the launching of a US sponsored "civil war".
An entire country with a rich history of commerce and economic development, was transformed into a territory.
In a bitter irony, this open territory encompasses significant oil wealth. Four US oil giants had already positioned themselves prior to the onset of the Somali civil war in 1991:
Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside.
According to documents obtained by The Times, nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the
American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. ...
Officially, the Administration and the State Department insist that the U.S. military mission in Somalia is strictly humanitarian. Oil industry spokesmen dismissed as "absurd" and "nonsense" allegations by aid experts, veteran East Africa analysts and several prominent Somalis that President Bush, a former Texas oilman, was moved to act in Somalia, at least in part, by the U.S. corporate oil stake.
But corporate and scientific documents disclosed that the American companies are well positioned to pursue Somalia's most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified. And the State Department and U.S. military officials acknowledge that one of those oil companies has done more than simply sit back and hope for pece.
Conoco Inc., the only major multinational corporation to maintain a functioning office in Mogadishu throughout the past two years of nationwide anarchy, has been directly involved in the U.S. government's role in the U.N.-sponsored humanitarian military effort.(Quoted in The Oil Factor In Somalia
COLUMN ONE : The Oil Factor in Somalia : Four American petroleum giants had agreements with the African nation before its civil war began. They could reap big rewards if peace is restored. - Los Angeles Times 1993)
Somalia had been a colony of Italy and Britain. In 1969, a post-colonial government was formed under president Mohamed Siad Barre; major social programs in health and education were implemented, rural and urban infrastructure was developed in the course of the 1970s.
The early 1980s marks a major turning point.
The IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) was imposed on sub-Saharan Africa. The recurrent famines of the 1980s and 1990s are in large part the consequence of IMF-World Bank "economic medicine".
In Somalia, ten years of IMF economic medicine laid the foundations for the transition towards a framework of economic dislocation and social chaos.
By the late 1980s, following recurrent "austerity measures" imposed by the Washington consensus, wages in the public sector had collapsed to 3 dollars a month.
The following article first published in 1994 in Le Monde diplomatique and Third World Resurgence centers on the historical causes of famine in Somalia.
This article was subsequently integrated in my book The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, first edition 1997, second edition, Global Research. Montreal, 2003
Somalia: the Real Causes of Famine
by Michel Chossudovsky
First published in 1994, Third World Resurgence and Le monde diplomatique
The IMF Intervention in the Early 1980s
Somalia was a pastoral economy based on "exchange" between nomadic herdsmen and small agriculturalists. Nomadic pastoralists accounted for 50 percent of the population. In the 1970s, resettlement programs led to the development of a sizeable sector of commercial pastoralism. Livestock contributed to 80 percent of export earnings until 1983. Despite recurrent droughts, Somalia remained virtually self-sufficient in food until the 1970s.
The IMF-World Bank intervention in the early 1980s contributed to exacerbating the crisis of Somali agriculture. The economic reforms undermined the fragile exchange relationship between the "nomadic economy" and the "sedentary economy" - i.e. between pastoralists and small farmers characterized by money transactions as well as traditional barter. A very tight austerity program was imposed on the government largely to release the funds required to service Somalia's debt with the Paris Club. In fact, a large share of the external debt was held by the Washington-based financial institutions.' According to an ILO mission report:
[T]he Fund alone among Somalia's major recipients of debt service payments, refuses to reschedule. (...) De facto it is helping to finance an adjustment program, one of whose major goals is to repay the IMF itself.
Towards the Destruction of Food Agriculture
The structural adjustment program reinforced Somalia's dependency on imported grain. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, food aid increased fifteen-fold, at the rate of 31 percent per annum.' Combined with increased commercial imports, this influx of cheap surplus wheat and rice sold in the domestic market led to the displacement of local producers, as well as to a major shift in food consumption patterns to the detriment of traditional crops (maize and sorghum). The devaluation of the Somali shilling, imposed by the IMF in June 1981, was followed by periodic devaluations, leading to hikes in the prices of fuel, fertilizer and farm inputs. The impact on agricultural producers was immediate particularly in rain-fed agriculture, as well as in the areas of irrigated farming. Urban purchasing power declined dramatically, government extension programs were curtailed, infrastructure collapsed, the deregulation of the grain market and the influx of "food aid" led to the impoverishment of farming communities.'
Also, during this period, much of the best agricultural land was appropriated by bureaucrats, army officers and merchants with connections to the government.' Rather than promoting food production for the domestic market, the donors were encouraging the development of so-called "high value-added" fruits, vegetables, oilseeds and cotton for export on the best irrigated farmland.
Collapse of the Livestock Economy
As of the early 1980s, prices for imported livestock drugs increased as a result of the depreciation of the currency. The World Bank encouraged the exaction of user fees for veterinarian services to the nomadic herdsmen, including the vaccination of animals. A private market for veterinary drugs was promoted. The functions performed by the Ministry of Livestock were phased out, with the Veterinary Laboratory Services of the ministry to be fully financed on a cost-recovery basis. According to the World Bank:
Veterinarian services are essential for livestock development in all areas, and they can be provided mainly by the private sector. (... Since few private veterinarians will choose to practice in the remote pastoral areas, improved livestock care will also depend on "para vets" paid from drug sales.'
The privatization of animal health was combined with the absence of emergency animal feed during periods of drought, the commercialization of water and the neglect of water and rangeland conservation. The results were predictable: the herds were decimated and so were the pastoralists, who represent 50 percent of the country's population. The "hidden objective" of this program was to eliminate the nomadic herdsmen involved in the traditional exchange economy. According to the World Bank, "adjustments" in the size of the herds are, in any event, beneficial because nomadic pastoralists in sub-Saharan Africa are narrowly viewed as a cause of environmental degradation."
The collapse in veterinarian services also indirectly served the interests of the rich countries: in 1984, Somalian cattle exports to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries plummeted as Saudi beef imports were redirected to suppliers from Australia and the European Community. The ban on Somali livestock imposed by Saudi Arabia was not, however, removed once the rinderpest disease epidemic had been eliminated.
Destroying the State
The restructuring of government expenditure under the supervision of the Bretton Woods institutions also played a crucial role in destroying food agriculture. Agricultural infrastructure collapsed and recurrent expenditure in agriculture declined by about 85 percent in relation to the mid-1970s." The Somali government was prevented by the IMF from mobilizing domestic resources. Tight targets for the budget deficit were set. Moreover, the donors increasingly provided "aid", not in the form of imports of capital and equipment, but in the form of "food aid". The latter would in turn be sold by the government on the local market and the proceeds of these sales (i.e. the so-called "counterpart funds") would be used to cover the domestic costs of development projects. As of the early 1980s, "the sale of food aid" became the principal source of revenue for the state, thereby enabling donors to take control of the entire budgetary process."
The economic reforms were marked by the disintegration of health and educational programmes.'3 By 1989, expenditure on health had declined by 78 percent in relation to its 1975 level. According to World Bank figures, the level of recurrent expenditure on education in 1989 was about US$ 4 Per annum per primary school student down from about $ 82 in 1982. From 1981 to 1989, school enrolment declined by 41 percent (despite a sizeable increase in the population of school age), textbooks and school materials disappeared from the class-rooms, school buildings deteriorated and nearly a quarter of the primary schools closed down. Teachers' salaries declined to abysmally low levels.
The IMF-World Bank program has led the Somali economy into a vicious circle: the decimation of the herds pushed the nomadic pastoralists into starvation which in turn backlashes on grain producers who sold or bartered their grain for cattle. The entire social fabric of the pastoralist economy was undone. The collapse in foreign exchange earnings from declining cattle exports and remittances (from Somali workers in the Gulf countries) backlashed on the balance of payments and the state's public finances leading to the breakdown of the government's economic and social programs.
Small farmers were displaced as a result of the dumping of subsidized US grain on the domestic market combined with the hike in the price of farm inputs. The impoverishment of the urban population also led to a contraction of food consumption. In turn, state support in the irrigated areas was frozen and production in the state farms declined. The latter were slated to be closed down or privatized under World Bank supervision.
According to World Bank estimates, real public-sector wages in 1989 had declined by 90 percent in relation to the mid-1970s. Average wages in the public sector had fallen to US$ 3 a month, leading to the inevitable disintegration of the civil administration." A program to rehabilitate civil service wages was proposed by the World Bank (in the context of a reform of the civil service), but this objective was to be achieved within the same budgetary envelope by dismissing some 40 percent of public-sector employees and eliminating salary supplements." Under this plan, the civil service would have been reduced to a mere 25,000 employees by 1995 (in a country of six million people). Several donors indicated keen interest in funding the cost associated with the retrenchment of civil servants."
In the face of impending disaster, no attempt was made by the international donor community to rehabilitate the country's economic and social infrastructure, to restore levels of purchasing power and to rebuild the civil service: the macro-economic adjustment measures proposed by the creditors in the year prior to the collapse of the government of General Siyad Barre in January 1991 (at the height of the civil war) called for a further tightening over public spending, the restructuring of the Central Bank, the liberalization of credit (which virtually thwarted the private sector) and the liquidation and divestiture of most of the state enterprises.
In 1989, debt-servicing obligations represented 194.6 percent of export earnings. The IMF's loan was cancelled because of Somalia's outstanding arrears. The World Bank had approved a structural adjustment loan for US$ 70 million in June 1989 which was frozen a few months later due to Somalia's poor macro-economic performance. '7 Arrears with creditors had to be settled before the granting of new loans and the negotiation of debt rescheduling. Somalia was tangled in the straightjacket of debt servicing and structural adjustment.
Famine Formation in sub-Saharan Africa: The Lessons of Somalia
Somalia's experience shows how a country can be devastated by the simultaneous application of food "aid" and macro-economic policy. There are many Somalias in the developing world and the economic reform package implemented in Somalia is similar to that applied in more than 100 developing countries. But there is another significant dimension: Somalia is a pastoralist economy, and throughout Africa both nomadic and commercial livestock are being destroyed by the IMF-World Bank program in much the same way as in Somalia. In this context, subsidized beef and dairy products imported (duty free) from the European Union have led to the demise of Africa's pastoral economy. European beef imports to West Africa have increased seven-fold since 1984: "the low quality EC beef sells at half the price of locally produced meat. Sahelian farmers are finding that no-one is prepared to buy their herds"."
The experience of Somalia shows that famine in the late 20th century is not a consequence of a shortage of food. On the contrary, famines are spurred on as a result of a global oversupply of grain staples. Since the 1980s, grain markets have been deregulated under the supervision of the World Bank and US grain surpluses are used systematically as in the case of Somalia to destroy the peasantry and destabilize national food agriculture. The latter becomes, under these circumstances, far more vulnerable to the vagaries of drought and environmental degradation.
Throughout the continent, the pattern of "sectoral adjustment" in agriculture under the custody of the Bretton Woods institutions has been unequivocally towards the destruction of food security. Dependency vis-à-vis the world market has been reinforced, "food aid" to sub-Saharan Africa increased by more than seven times since 1974 and commercial grain imports more than doubled. Grain imports for sub-Saharan Africa expanded from 3.72 million tons in 1974 to 8.47 million tons in 1993. Food aid increased from 910,000 tons in 1974 to 6.64 million tons in l993.
"Food aid", however, was no longer earmarked for the drought-stricken countries of the Sahelian belt; it was also channeled into countries which were, until recently, more or less self-sufficient in food. Zimbabwe (once considered the bread basket of Southern Africa) was severely affected by the famine and drought which swept Southern Africa in 1992. The country experienced a drop of 90 percent in its maize crop, located largely in less productive lands." Yet, ironically, at the height of the drought, tobacco for export (supported by modem irrigation, credit, research, etc.) registered a bumper harvest. While "the famine forces the population to eat termites", much of the export earnings from Zimbabwe's tobacco harvest were used to service the external debt.
Under the structural adjustment program, farmers have increasingly abandoned traditional food crops; in Malawi, which was once a net food exporter, maize production declined by 40 percent in 1992 while tobacco output doubled between 1986 and 1993. One hundred and fifty thousand hectares of the best land was allocated to tobacco .2' Throughout the 1980s, severe austerity measures were imposed on African governments and expenditures on rural development drastically curtailed, leading to the collapse of agricultural infrastructure. Under the World Bank program, water was to become a commodity to be sold on a cost-recovery basis to impoverished farmers. Due to lack of funds, the state was obliged to withdraw from the management and conservation of water resources. Water points and boreholes dried up due to lack of maintenance, or were privatized by local merchants and rich farmers. In the semi-arid regions, this commercialization of water and irrigation leads to the collapse of food security and famine.
Concluding Remarks
While "external" climatic variables play a role in triggering off a famine and heightening the social impact of drought, famines in the age of globalization are man-made. They are not the consequence of a scarcity of food but of a structure of global oversupply which undermines food security and destroys national food agriculture. Tightly regulated and controlled by international agri-business, this oversupply is ultimately conducive to the stagnation of both production and consumption of essential food staples and the impoverishment of farmers throughout the world. Moreover, in the era of globalization, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program bears a direct relationship to the process of famine formation because it systematically undermines all categories of economic activity, whether urban or rural, which do not directly serve the interests of the global market system.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Libya seeks Freedom from Dictatorship (Part 3)

The Libyan Revolution
Part 1
By Dr. Stanley Monteith
July 18, 2011
"The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult but the design. Through all the fire and smoke we perceive the evidence of calculating organization. The managers remain studiously concealed and masked; but there is no doubt about their presence from the first."
John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, best known as Lord Acton, Lectures on the French Revolution.
"What is still more extraordinary is that a powerful organization that was formed to disseminate the theory and practice of communism should today devote half its resources to destroying the evil it has done with the other half it shows us the first authentic disseminations of subversive doctrines, frightened by their success, now concocting the antidote and the poison in the same laboratory."
French parliamentarian and free market advocate Frederic Bastiat, 1848.
Like dozens of other despots, Muamar Gadhaffi was brought to power with the help of the CIA. He was a young, charismatic, ambitious mid-level military officer blessed with telegenic looks when the CIA talent-scouted him in the late 1960s.
For reasons not obvious to those of us outside the inner sanctum (if that word can properly be used to describe the lair of a degenerate cabal) of the Anglo-American elite, when Libya's King Idris died in 1969, it was decided to allow Washington to take over from London as Libya's colonial master. For whatever reason, however, Gadhaffi proved to be less pliant than expected. He went "rogue" very early, drifting from Anglo-American control into a very loose orbit around the Soviet Union. Ironically - or perhaps not - this was the greatest service he could have rendered to the Anglo-American elite: Gadhaffi was much more useful as a Soviet-allied international terrorist than he could ever have been as another of the CIA's kennel-fed lapdog rulers.
Like so many other Arab dictators, Gadhaffi had huge oil reserves and a secret police apparatus that was built by MI6 and the CIA and perfected by the KGB. For decades Gadhaffi entrenched himself deeply in power, becoming a cinematic caricature of the Arab "Big Man" ruler.
Like so many other rulers in the region, Gadhaffi's military was of little use beyond the borders of the country he afflicted; it was an instrument of domestic suppression, useful primarily for slaughtering domestic rivals or the occasional foray into Chad. His terrorist network was somewhat more substantial, as the retaliation bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 demonstrated. But the regime in Tripoli, although poisonous, was never a global menace. During the Reagan era, the U.S. Navy twice confronted Libyan forces in the Gulf of Sidra, blowing Tripoli's sluggish Soviet-provided MiGs from the sky like overweight clay pigeons.
In March of 1986, President Reagan ordered an airstrike against Libya in retaliation for its suspected role in a terrorist bombing at a Berlin disco frequented by U.S. servicemen. One element of that operation was an attack on Gadhaffi's residence that resulted in the death of his adopted infant daughter; at the time of the attack, the Libyan dictator was asleep under the stars just a few hundred feet from ground zero. That action was hailed as a remedy for Gadhaffi's' sponsorship of terrorism - until the devastating terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103 just two and a half years later.
In 2003, following a decade and a half in which Washington and Tripoli had little to do with each other, the
Bush administration rehabilitated Gadhaffi, proclaiming that his regime was now an ally in the "Global War on Terrorism." A relatively modest but substantial amount of direct military aid began to flow into Libya from the U.S. Government, and the Pentagon began to sponsor training of Gadhaffi's officer corps. As late as 2009, Gadhaffi was in good graces with the most bellicose elements of Washington's ruling elite. Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, who would later endorse the present war with Libya, was personally involved in helping arrange military assistance for the northern African regime.
Of even greater interest is the relationship between Gadhaffi's banking system and the Federal Reserve - the institution that is at or near the depraved heart of the Brotherhood of Darkness.
Several years ago, Bloomberg News Service filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the Fed to disclose the recipients of loans issued by the Central Bank's discount window in a supposed effort to shore up the collapsing financial system in 2008. Among the fascinating details they discovered was a very chummy relationship between the Fed and Gadhaffi's central bank:
"Arab Banking Corp., the lender part-owned by the Central Bank of Libya, used a New York branch to get 73 loans from the U.S. Federal Reserve in the 18 months after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed.
The bank, then 29 percent-owned by the Libyan state, had aggregate borrowings in that period of $35 billion -- while the largest single loan amount outstanding was $1.2 billion in July 2009, according to Fed data released yesterday. In October 2008, when lending to financial institutions by the central bank's so-called discount window peaked at $111 billion, Arab Banking took repeated loans totaling more than $2 billion."
During the same period, the Bush administration requested - but did not secure - a large subsidy for the Libyan military by way of the Foreign Military Financing Assistance Program. The Obama administration increased that request - but this was, once again, an initiative that began under George W. Bush.
All of this is a familiar Washington routine when dealing with its pet dictators: The build-up to the take-down. Apparently, Gadhaffi - who has ruled for more than four decades - has served his purpose, and the Power Elite decided to stage a war to wring the last full measure of usefulness out of this asset. This is why an armed "resistance" group "suddenly" materialized in Libya - led by the improbably named Khalifa Hifter, a former top military adviser to Gadhaffi who defected in the late 1980s following the disastrous invasion of Chad. Since that time, Hifter has been living in suburban Virginia, not far from his handlers at Langley.
If that entirely predictable development weren't enough to give the game away, this one should do the trick: The "ragtag rebel force" headquartered in Benghazi somehow managed to set up a new Libyan central bank and national oil company, despite engaging in a desperate, life-and-death struggle with the nation's entrenched autocrat.
The rebel army organized to fight Gadhaffi draws heavily from jihadist veterans of combat against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Veteran foreign affairs correspondent David Wood observes that "on a per capita basis, no country sent
more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence."
According to the so-called Sinjar documents - a collection of al-Qaeda notes captured in that Iraqi city by Special Forces troops in 2007 - hundreds of Islamic volunteers flocked to Iraq in 2006-2007. Roughly twenty percent came from eastern Libya.
"On a per capita basis, that's more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan 'surge' of young men eager to kill Americans," Wood points out. This isn't the first time Washington was covertly allied with Libyan jihadists, he continues: "The informal alliance with violent Islamist extremist elements is a coming-home of sorts for the United States, which initially fought on the same side as the Libyan fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s, battling the Soviet Union" - at a time when Gadhaffi's regime was supposedly controlled by Moscow.
The U.S. has essentially become the air force of a hard-core militant Islamic insurgency in Libya. This
parallels the last multilateral "humanitarian" war carried out by Washington - the 78-day NATO-led terror bombing of Serbia, in which the United States attacked a socialist-ruled Christian country in order to compel it to surrender sovereign territory to the control of an Islamo-Leninist terrorist outfit called the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Under United Nations supervision, the KLA was transformed from a squalid pack of nominally Islamic (but ideologically Marxist) pimps, dope peddlers, and black market organ smugglers into the "legitimate" government of Kosovo - a province that has been an organic part of Serbia for centuries.
In fact, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the most bloodthirsty commentators in the entire Establishment-aligned punditocracy, made the Kosovo parallel explicit in a March 16 Wall Street Journal op-ed column, writing that it would be possible to "deliver the same kind of potent combined-armed punch that drove the Serbs out of Kosovo when NATO aircraft supported ground operations by the Kosovo Liberation Army."
As was the case in Kosovo, the CIA has been on the ground organizing, training, and aiding the Islamist rebels in Libya long before the announced presidential decision to commit the U.S. government to war on their behalf.
According to the New York Times, this is actually a joint venture between the intelligence assets of
Washington and London: "In addition to the C.I.A. presence, composed of an unknown number of Americans who had worked at the spy agency's station in Tripoli and others who arrived more recently, current and former British officials said that dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from British jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan government tank columns, artillery pieces and missile installations...." This is very similar to the kind of on-the-ground support provided to the KLA leading up to, and during, the NATO assault on Serbia.
Perhaps the most important parallel between the Clinton-era war on Serbia and the Obama administration's Libyan war is the fact that at no time did the president seek congressional authorization of any kind - let alone a formal declaration of war, which the Constitution explicitly demands as a non-negotiable prerequisite for conducting military operations abroad.
In fact, this has been standard operating procedure for Washington since December 1945, when Congress enacted the United Nations Participation Act - a standing declaration of war supposedly authorizing the president to commit American military personnel to combat overseas as dictated by our supposed "obligations" to the UN and its affiliates.
Also See:
Depleted Uranium Used in Libyia!
30 May 2011
Libya seeks Freedom from Dictatorship (Part 1)
21 February 2011
Libya seeks Freedom from Dictatorship (Part 2)
19 April 2011

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

If You Know what's Good for You ... (Part 6)

The Risks of Treating Diabetes with Drugs Are FAR Worse than the Disease
Posted By Dr. Mercola
September 07 2011
Nearly 26 million Americans have diabetes, and up to 95 percent of these cases are type 2 diabetes.
Unlike type 1 diabetes, which is an autoimmune disease that shuts down your body's insulin production, type 2 diabetes is directly caused by lifestyle. Whereas type 1 diabetics need to inject insulin several times a day to stay alive, type 2 diabetics do NOT need drugs. In fact, taking drugs for type 2 diabetes can be far worse than the disease itself!
Diabetes Drugs Increase Your Risk of Death
Drugs are widely prescribed for type 2 diabetics to help lower blood sugar levels, but a new meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials involving more than 33,000 people showed that this treatment is not only ineffective, it's dangerous as well. Treatment with glucose-lowering drugs actually showed the potential to increase your risk of death from heart-related, and all other causes.
Researchers noted:
"The overall results of this meta-analysis do not show a benefit of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality or cardiovascular death. A 19% increase in all cause mortality and a 43% increase in cardiovascular mortality cannot be excluded."
Lessons Learned from Avandia: Diabetes Drugs Can be Deadly
Avandia (rosiglitazone) is the poster child for what is wrong with the drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. After hitting the market in 1999, a 2007 study in the New England Journal of Medicine linked it to a 43 percent increased risk of heart attack, and a 64 percent higher risk of cardiovascular death, compared to patients treated with other methods!
Avandia works by making diabetes patients more sensitive to their own insulin, helping to control blood sugar levels. In fact, most conventional treatments for type 2 diabetes utilize drugs that either raise insulin or lower blood sugar. Avandia, for example, reduces your blood sugar by increasing the sensitivity of your liver, fat, and muscle cells to insulin.
Millions of people have taken Avandia and have been exposed to these unacceptably high-risk side effects, for a drug that in no way treats the underlying causes of diabetes. More than 80,000 diabetics have suffered from strokes, heart failure or other complications including lethal heart attacks from this dangerous drug.
It took nearly 10 years of the drug being on the market for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take action and restrict access to this dangerous drug, whereas the European Medicines Agency banned it altogether.
Since that 2007 NEJM study, data from various trials, studies and meta-analyses have consistently confirmed the dangers of this drug, and based on the evidence amassed over the past three years, the European Medicines Agency is now recommending the withdrawal of rosiglitazone-containing diabetic drugs due to the increased risk of ischemic heart disease.
The only thing rosiglitazone drugs like Avandia do is to help lower blood glucose, which has virtually no influence on the long-term damage due to type 2 diabetes. Most of the damage is caused by elevated insulin levels, which can be remedied with an optimal diet and exercise program alone, if you're compliant.
And Avandia is only one example. Other studies have also confirmed that most drugs given to type 2 diabetics are at best worthless and at worst harmful or even deadly. Last year the New England Journal of Medicine featured not one, not two, but FOUR studies backing up the conclusion that the path of conventional medicine is leading diabetics astray, and doing far more harm than good. The studies revealed:
Using antihypertensives to lower systolic blood pressure below a 120 mm Hg does nothing to lower a diabetic's risk of heart complications
Diabetics receive no health benefit from adding a drug to raise HDL "good" cholesterol levels if they're already taking a statin to lower their LDL cholesterol levels
There were no heart benefits associated with two different drugs given to lower high blood sugar levels
Lowering Blood Sugar is Not the Correct Strategy to Overcome Type 2 Diabetes
Diabetes is not a blood sugar disease. So, drugs that focus on the symptom of elevated blood sugar, rather than addressing the underlying cause, are doomed to fail in most cases. Rather, as explained in this classic article by Dr. Ron Rosedale, type 2 diabetes is a disease caused by insulin resistance and faulty leptin signaling (leptin is a hormone produced in your fat cells), both of which are regulated through your diet.
As Dr. Rosedale states:
"Much more appropriate names for type 1 and type 2 diabetes would be insulin-deficient or insulin-resistant diabetes respectively, stressing the importance of insulin signaling in this disease. And in this case, the progression and deterioration of so-called type 1 and type 2 diabetes into one another should more appropriately be called Doctor Induced Exacerbation or DIE, stressing the significance of current medical treatment as the cause of … double diabetes."
For the last 50 years or so, Americans have followed the dietary recommendations of a high complex carbohydrate, low saturated fat diet—the exact opposite of what actually works for preventing and reversing diabetes! High complex carbohydrates include legumes, potatoes, corn, rice and grain products. Aside from legumes, you actually want to AVOID all the rest to prevent insulin resistance.
"Conventional wisdom" also states that table sugar is okay for diabetics, as long as you readjust your medications to compensate appropriately. But if you have diabetes, I recommend limiting or even eliminating sugar from your diet, especially in the form of fructose.
Fructose does not stimulate a rise in leptin, so your satiety signals are suppressed. It also raises your insulin and your triglycerides, which effectively reduces the amount of leptin crossing your blood-brain barrier. This interferes with the communication between leptin and your hypothalamus. Your brain senses starvation and prompts you to eat more.
Dr. Rosedale adds:
"I have been incensed about the [conventional] medical treatment of diabetes for decades. Diabetics have been told that they can eat meals multiple times daily that turn into sugar and even sugar itself, as long as they take enough insulin to lower their blood sugar. The importance of limiting the intake of sugar and foods that turn into sugar has been almost totally ignored.
There has been virtually no recognition that high levels of insulin are at least as much of an insult to a person's health as high levels of sugar."
Conventional nutritionists also recommend using toxic artificial sweeteners like aspartame in lieu of sugar for diabetics, despite the evidence showing it rapidly stimulates the release of insulin and leptin (which diabetics need to avoid), and actually leads to greater weight gain than sugar...
When you add drugs to this harmful mix, your pancreas is actually stimulated to produce even more insulin, and this is the last thing that a type-2 diabetic, whose pancreas has been producing excess insulin for some time to try to compensate for being insulin resistant, needs. Dr. Rosedale states:
"With blinders on, drugs have been and are still being given to lower blood sugar, even though they essentially whip the islet cells of the pancreas to produce more insulin. These unfortunate, overstressed islet cells have been producing excess insulin for years and often decades to try to compensate for the insensitivity, the resistance of the body's cells to insulin's signal.
This is much like whipping a horse to run faster at the end of a race; it runs faster for a little while, but if you keep doing it, it collapses and dies. So too do the islet cells that manufacture insulin in the pancreas die when drugs, nay doctors, whip them to keep producing more insulin when they are tired and sick.
At this point, a diabetic, who originally had plenty of insulin being produced, and whose problem was merely one of insulin resistance that is easily remedied via proper treatment and diet, now starts losing the ability to produce insulin and becomes, in addition to insulin resistant, insulin deficient; a much more serious and problematic disorder caused by DIE."
Leptin May be Even More Important Than Insulin
In terms of diabetes, leptin may even supersede insulin in importance, for new research is revealing that in the long run glucose and therefore insulin levels may be largely determined by leptin.
Dr. Rosedale explains:
"It had been previously believed that the insulin sensitivity of muscle and fat tissues were the most important factor in determining whether one would become diabetic or not. Elegant new studies are showing that the brain and liver are most important in regulating a person's blood sugar levels especially in type 2 or insulin resistant diabetes.
It should be noted again that leptin plays a vital role in regulating your brain's hypothalamic activity which in turn regulates much of a person's "autonomic" functions; those functions that you don't necessarily think about but which determines much of your life (and health) such as body temperature, heart rate, hunger, the stress response, fat burning or storage, reproductive behavior, and newly discovered roles in bone growth and blood sugar levels.
Another very recent study reveals leptin's importance in directly regulating how much sugar that the liver manufactures via gluconeogenesis.
Many chronic diseases are now linked to excess inflammation such as heart disease and diabetes. High leptin levels are very pro-inflammatory, and leptin also helps to mediate the manufacture of other very potent inflammatory chemicals from fat cells that also play a significant role in the progression of heart disease and diabetes. It has long been known that obesity greatly increased risk for many chronic diseases including heart disease and diabetes, but no one really knew why."
This is an important distinction but the take-home message remains the same, because both insulin resistance and leptin resistance are caused by the same thing: poor diet. Dr. Rosedale continues:
"High blood glucose levels cause repeated surges in insulin, and this causes one's cells to become "insulin-resistant" which leads to further high levels of insulin and diabetes. It is much the same as being in a smelly room for a period of time. Soon, you stop being able to smell it, because the signal no longer gets through.
I believe the same happens with leptin. It has been shown that as sugar gets metabolized in fat cells, fat releases surges in leptin, and I believe that those surges result in leptin-resistance just as it results in insulin-resistance.
The only known way to reestablish proper leptin (and insulin) signaling is to prevent those surges, and the only known way to do that is via diet and supplements.
As such, these can have a more profound effect on your health than any other known modality of medical treatment."
This is why many type 2 diabetics become worse by following current medical recommendations and treatment. If your physician has not talked to you about the importance of limiting sugars, fructose and grains, and only wants to give you drugs, your diabetes will get worse, not better. Dr. Rosedale adds:
"Your body's cells become desensitized to insulin (and importantly to leptin and other hormones) by being overexposed to these hormones by eating food that causes excessive secretion. This is much like being overexposed to an odor in a room; soon you can't smell it. If you eat a diet high in sugar-forming foods, the excess insulin that is being produced each time causes your cells to eventually become unable to properly "smell" the insulin."
So remember, type 2 diabetes is a perfect example of a health problem best treated without drugs; lifestyle changes are the ticket to wellness you're really looking for. This is a disease that is reversible, and in many cases curable, by paying attention to decades of metabolic science!
Beware of New Statin-Fish Oil Pill Coming to Market
Aside from drugs to lower blood sugar, many physicians will advise diabetics to take a statin cholesterol-lowering drug to lower your heart disease risk. This is wrong on many levels (not the least of which is the fact that cholesterol is NOT the cause of heart disease!), including the fact that statin drugs may actually cause diabetes. A meta-analysis, published in JAMA in June, concluded that those taking higher doses of statins were at increased risk of diabetes compared to those taking moderate doses.
What this means is that the higher your dose, the higher your risk of developing diabetes.
Statins appear to provoke diabetes through a few different mechanisms, the most important being that they increase your insulin levels, which can be extremely harmful to your health. Statins also increase your diabetes risk by raising your blood sugar and robbing your body of certain valuable nutrients, which can also impact your blood sugar levels. Two nutrients in particular, vitamin D and CoQ10, are both needed to maintain ideal blood glucose levels.
It's important that you're aware of this connection because GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of the new prescription-strength fish oil medication, sold under the name Lovaza, has a new combination statin-fish oil drug in the works, which has reportedly already passed the required FDA tests.
While high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fats are essential for preventing type 2 diabetes, prescription-strength fish oil combined with a statin drug is not. So don't be fooled by this new "wolf in sheep's clothing" that's part of Glaxo's "all-natural" PR campaign.
You Can Reverse Type 2 Diabetes
Please don't let anyone tell you that type 2 diabetes has no cure, as this is not true. Type 2 diabetes is not terminal; you don't have to live with it forever! Nearly 100 percent of type 2 diabetics can be successfully treated -- eliminating the symptoms of diabetes, or the high risk of developing health complications -- if you are willing to implement the lifestyle changes discussed below. These same changes will also drastically reduce your risk of the disease, so you can avoid developing it in the first place.
Severely limit or eliminate grains and sugar from your diet, especially fructose, which is far more detrimental than any other type of sugar. This is extremely important! Drinking just one sweetened drink a day can raise your diabetes risk by 25 percent compared to drinking one sugary drink per month, so you really need to evaluate your diet and look for hidden sources of sugar and fructose. Artificially sweetened food and drinks should be avoided as well.
This also means avoiding most processed foods, as they are loaded with fructose. You may even need to avoid fruits until your diabetes is under control.
Following my nutrition plan will help you do this without much fuss. It’s important to realize that nearly all type 2 diabetics need to swap out their grains for other foods, such as healthy sources of protein or vegetable-only carbohydrates.
Exercise is an absolutely essential factor, without which you're highly unlikely to get this devastating disease under control. It is clearly one of the most potent ways to lower your insulin and leptin resistance. Make sure to incorporate high-intensity Peak Fitness exercises. These types of exercises boost fat loss, promote muscle building, and help your body produce human growth hormone (HGH) naturally. Typically, you'll need large amounts of exercise until you get your blood sugar levels under control. You may need up to an hour or two a day. Naturally, you'll want to gradually work your way up to that amount, based on your current level of fitness.
Avoid trans fats as they will actually worsen insulin resistance.
Consume saturated fats, such as grass-fed organic meat, raw dairy products, avocados, and coconut oil. These saturated fats provide a concentrated source of energy along with the building blocks for cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormone-like substances. When you eat healthy fats as part of your meal, they slow down absorption so that you can go longer without feeling hungry. In addition, they act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K.
There are more than a dozen different types of saturated fat, but you predominantly consume only three: stearic acid, palmitic acid and lauric acid. It’s already been well established that stearic acid (found in cocoa and animal fat) has no effect on your cholesterol levels at all, and actually gets converted in your liver into the monounsaturated fat called oleic acid.
The other two, palmitic and lauric acid, do raise total cholesterol. However, since they raise “good” cholesterol as much or more than “bad” cholesterol, you’re still actually lowering your risk of heart disease.
Get plenty of omega-3 fats from a high quality, animal-based source such as krill oil.
Monitor your fasting insulin level. This is every bit as important as your fasting blood sugar. You'll want your fasting insulin level to be between 2 to 4. The higher your level, the worse your insulin receptor sensitivity is. The recommendations mentioned above are the key steps you need to achieve this reduction.
Get enough high-quality sleep every night.
Optimize your vitamin D levels. Maintaining your vitamin D levels around 60-80 ng/ml can significantly help control your blood sugar. In addition, recent studies have revealed that getting enough vitamin D can also have a powerful effect on normalizing your blood pressure, and reduces your risk of heart disease.
Having optimal vitamin D levels can also prevent type 1 diabetes in your children if you are pregnant. It's also vital for infants to receive the appropriate amounts of vitamin D in their early years for the same reasons. Ideally, you'll want to do this by exposing a large amount of your skin to appropriate amounts of sunshine (or a safe tanning bed) on a regular basis, year-round. Your body can safely create up to 20,000 units of vitamin D a day this way. Just remember to get your levels tested regularly by a proficient lab to make sure you're staying within the therapeutic range.
Address any underlying emotional issues and/or stress. Non-invasive tools like yoga, journaling and meditation can be extremely helpful and effective.
What They NEVER Want You To Find Out About Real Butter
By Brian St. Pierre, CSCS, CISSN
If you want to talk about much-maligned foods, butter is right up there at the top of the list. Health authorities have been telling us for years that foods like butter, rich in saturated fat, are clogging our arteries and causing heart disease. So they told us to replace them with trans-fat laden margarine, and how did that turn out? Then came polyunsaturated vegetable oils, and new research is linking these omega-6 rich fats to all sorts of health problems, including potentially increased risk of cancer.
The real question is, was there ever a problem with butter in the first place? The answer just might surprise you.
There is actually a good amount of research, in several populations, that shows that full-fat dairy consumption is associated with lower BMI, lower waist circumference, and lower risk of cardiovascular disease (especially stroke). Low-fat or fat-free dairy is actually often associated with increased BMI and waist circumference.
In fact, Dr. Ronald Krauss, one the world’s leading lipid researchers, directly showed that while saturated fat from dairy does raise LDL, it is an increase in large, fluffy, and benign LDL – not the small, dense, and atherogenic LDL. This actually decreases your risk of cardiovascular disease!
Now there is a clear difference between butter and dairy from grain and corn fed cows on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations that are milked nearly year-round, given growth hormones and antiobiotics, and live in their own waste, compared to cows on small farms that eat grass, get exercise, fresh air and sunshine, and are only milked based on their seasonal reproductive cycle. The quality of life and, therefore, quality of milk and dairy products is vastly different.
Butter from grass-fed cows contains a boatload of powerful vitamins and healthful fatty acids. These vitamins are fat-soluble and they are bonded to the fatty acids in the dairy, and are, therefore, nearly non-existent in fat-free dairy. The fat is where vitamins A, D, E, and K2 are, as well as conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), butyric acid, omega-3 fatty acids, and medium chain triglycerides.
CLA is present in human body fat in proportion to dietary intake, and has been shown to be a powerful ally in the fight against cancer. Meat and dairy from grass-fed animals provide the richest source of CLA on the planet, containing three to five times more CLA than feedlot-raised animals. CLA has been found to greatly reduce tumor growth in animals, and possibly in humans as well.
In a Finnish study, women who had the highest levels of CLA in their diet had a 60% lower risk of breast cancer than those with the lowest levels. Simply switching from conventionally-raised grain-fed meat and dairy to pasture-raised grass-fed versions, would have placed all the women in the lowest-risk category. A good grass-fed butter will contain about 110mg of CLA per tbsp.
Vitamin D is pretty much the best thing since sliced bread and any time you can get some from food is always a good thing. Low blood levels of vitamin D are associated with lowered immunity, increased risk of 17 cancers and counting, increased risk of heart disease, psychological and neurological disorders including ADD and depression, diabetes, stroke, hypertension, bone loss, loss of muscle mass, and strength as we age and more.
Omega-3s are absolutely amazing, as they may improve nerve, brain, eye, heart, and cardiovascular function, as well as decreasing inflammation, joint pain, arthritis, psychological disorders, and risk of breast cancer and heart disease, all while improving mood and body composition! Unfortunately grain-fed butter contains only about 40mg, but a good grass-fed butter will contain about 120mg per tbsp!
Medium chain triglycerides are unique fatty acids that are more readily utilized as fuel rather than stored as energy. Particular ones like lauric acid contain anti-viral and anti-microbial properties. Vitamins A and E are powerful antioxidants. Butyric acid may help with bodyweight regulation, and is a primary fuel source for our intestinal flora.
Notice that I didn’t mention vitamin K2 yet? That is because I was saving what might be the best for last. Several studies have found that a higher vitamin K2 (mostly from vitamin K2-MK4) intake is associated with a lower risk of heart attack, ischemic stroke, cancer incidence, cancer mortality and overall mortality. Men with the highest vitamin K2 consumption had a 51% lower risk of heart attack mortality and a 26% lower risk of all cause mortality compared to men consuming the lowest amount!
One of the ways vitamin K2 improves cardiovascular health is its ability to decrease arterial calcification by 30-40%. And, this only speaks to vitamin K2’s effects of cardiovascular health; it is also crucially important for proper fetal development and bone health, to name a few additional benefits.
Vitamin K2-MK4 is only found in animal products and the best known sources are grass-fed butter and foie
gras (fatty goose liver).
Butter Might Prevent Diabetes?
Yes, it is true. Recently Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian and colleagues at Harvard found that blood content of
trans-palmitoleate was associated with a smaller waist circumference, higher HDL cholesterol, lower serum triglycerides, lower C-reactive protein, lower fasting insulin, and lower calculated insulin resistance.
In fact, people with the highest trans-palmitoleate levels had one-third the risk of developing diabetes over the three years of the study!
Want to know what the dietary sources of trans-palmitoleate are? Dairy fat and red meat are virtually the only sources of this fatty acid. In this study, most of the trans-palmitoleate came specifically from dairy fat.
Well, it seems that consuming butter from grass-fed cows will make your LDL larger, fluffier, and less likely to cause heart disease. It will also provide you with cancer-fighting CLA, as well as artery-clearing vitamin K2-MK4. To top it all off, it might also decrease your risk of diabetes. Sounds like a pretty good food to me!

The Orwellian Truth - Raw milk under attack precisely because it is safer and healthier than pasteurized
Friday, August 19, 2011 by: Nathan Batalion, Global Health Activist
(NaturalNews) Thanks to a survey performed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) we now have sufficient data to evaluate raw milk's safety, and it turns out it's safer than most any other food!
In a talk given at the International Raw Milk Symposium, Dr. Ted Beals outlined the history of the pasteurization scam. This was justified by an industry desperately in need of pasteurization for its economic survival. The proposed health hazards of raw milk were fabricated to support pasteurization. Dr. Ted Beals also examined a compilation of published reports on illnesses attributed to raw milk from 1999 to 2010. These illnesses averaged 42 per year. The CDC's survey showed that 3.04 percent of the population consumed raw milk or 9.4 million people, and this translates into raw milk-attributed illnesses being more than rare. According to Sally Fallon Morell of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Dr. Beals has shown you are about 35,000 times more likely to get sick from other foods than you are from raw milk.
Why then did the CDC, FDA, Department of Agriculture hire guns this year to confiscate raw milk products and arrest and jail proprietors of Rawsome, a California raw organic buying club? Also earlier this year a raw-milk buying club in Kentucky had its products quarantined by local officials. Additionally an armed pre-dawn raid was conducted against an Amish farmer in PA whose crime was the selling of raw milk. So there is a consistent national pattern. Why again do we see such intense efforts to criminalize raw food sellers?
The True Problem With Raw Milk
According to findings of Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the average shelf-life of pasteurized milk held under proper refrigeration - defined as less than 45 degrees F - is 12-16 days.
Like raw vegetable juices, raw milk stays fresh for either just a handful of days or as long as a couple of weeks. This shelf-life uncertainty spells economic disaster for any large dairy operation that culls milk from diverse local dairies. Pasteurization nullifies this differential by creating a more uniform and profitable end product. Freezing will keep milk fresh for a month. However, the flavor and texture will change, so this is not a viable option.
Why Only Raw Milk Was Targeted By Combined Federal Agencies.
Why aren't government agencies also coming together to ban raw meat, fish or eggs? Raw eggs can stay fresh for roughly 3-10 weeks. [viii] Meat can stay fresh in a freezer for 1-2 months and fish for up to 6 months! But unpasteurized milk can sour in as little as a few days (barely enough time to profitably transport at a distance and to stock shelves). If consumers found out the truth - that the real reason for pasteurization had nothing to do with health or safety advantages (and actually denatures milk to form an inferior product), it would spell economic disaster for large corporate dairies. How to resolve this threat? The industry worked to convince the public that raw milk alternatives were scientifically unhealthy and unsafe to drink! The best way to accomplish this public deceit was to engage corruptible scientists and government officials to pronounce the age-old drinking of raw milk to be somehow dangerous. Is there a final follow up step? It is to criminalize and eliminate the competition by governmental force.
Welcome to the new food police state.
Foodborne Illnesses in America
Complex Factory Foods pose the Highest Risk
By Rady Ananda
Global Research, August 14, 2011
A close look at the people behind the raw milk scare, and the actual numbers of foodborne illness, reveals that politics more than science drives the food safety agenda in the U.S.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack just appointed Susan Vaughn Grooters to the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF), which is also served by Dr. Wafa Birbari of junk food giant, Sara Lee Corp.
Lacking a PhD, Grooters will serve her two-year term on NACMCF as a “consumer representative.” She currently works with STOP Foodborne Illness (formerly Safe Tables Our Priority), an organization that condemns raw dairy and urges broad expansion of federal control over food.
Grooters hopes to federalize state reporting of contaminated food, as explained to Center for Science in the Public Interest:
“States’ systematic differences in response to foodborne illness case reporting may also explain variations in rates,” said S.T.O.P’s public health specialist, Susan Vaughn Grooters. “Time differences in surveying cases of foodborne illness and lack of integrated data collection may also affect how well states accurately capture data.”
In a playful charade calling for stricter controls on food, she recently tweeted:
“Really??? Really? I would beg to differ Sec. Vilsack! ..unless of course you’re proposing a change to policies... ;-)
With these opinions, it’s almost a joke to say she represents consumers.
Though the Food Safety Modernization Act is characterized as promoting “science-based” food control driven by “risk-based” analysis, instead, under FSMA authority, the FDA has claimed power to seize food without evidence of contamination.
Evidence is the foundation of science and law; removal and destruction of evidence is anti-science and fraudulent. (See Victor Rawls’ well-argued essay on this.)
Contrary to “risk-based” control, the FDA continues to seize and destroy food that sickened no one, while knowingly allowing tainted meat on the market and doing nothing about it until someone died, as in Cargill’s 36-million-pound turkey recall.
Seizing food without evidence of contamination also violates the Fourth Amendment.
Ranking Foodborne Risks
Statistics tend to put people to sleep, but three important reports were published this year that deserve attention: one by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), one by the University of Florida (UF) to which Grooters contributed, and one by retired pathologist and raw milk drinker, Dr. Ted Beals.
Let’s agree that numbers can be massaged to prove just about anything. However, when opponents of raw milk make outrageous claims about its dangers, and when millions of state and federal dollars are spent eliminating it as a food choice thru armed raids – and yet their own statistics belie the stated risk – we ought to shout that from the rooftop.
How Bad It Is(n’t)
As the Director of Research and Education, Grooters is responsible for the STOP Foodborne Illness page, “Fact vs. Myth.” As if unable to distinguish the two, SFI repeats unsubstantiated, fear mongering propaganda. We’ll start with an easy one:
“There are no documented health benefits associated with ingestion of unpasteurized milk or milk products.”
Quite the opposite is true. In 2006, researchers reported the “competitive exclusion” effect of good bacteria found in raw milk, observing that:
“Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis C-1-92 and Enterococcus durans 152 ... are bactericidal to Listeria monocytogenes or inhibit the growth of L. monocytogenes both in vitro and in biofilms.”
Listeria monocytogenes is responsible for 1,591 illnesses a year, according to the 2011 CDC report (at Table 2). That’s for all foods, not just milk. Dr Beals described it this way:
“Listeria monocytogenes is the most serious and deadly of the contemporary foodborne pathogens. Yet it is also ubiquitous in our environment.”
Based on Dept of Health and Human Services (DHS) data covering 1999 thru 2010, Dr Beals determined, “there have been no cases attributed to drinking raw milk in the last twelve years.”
On the other hand, Lactococcus lactis, a probiotic bacterium found in raw milk of pastured cows, was legislated as Wisconsin’s state microbe last year. Microbiology professor Kenneth Todar explains that Lactococci are associated with grasses, which pastured cows ingest, and which then show up in their milk.
Not only are Lactococcus deadly to pathogenic bacteria, but they are vital to making certain cheeses and other fermented products. And, they have to be added back in when starting with pasteurized milk.
Grooters also advises that:
“Pregnant women, young children, the elderly and those with weakened immune systems should avoid unpasteurized products.”
It’s a wonder the human species survived 200,000 years before the food police came along! We know for certain that humans have been drinking unpasteurized animal milk for at least ten thousand years. Human population certainly hasn’t decreased since then.
The enzymes and “friendly” bacteria destroyed by pasteurization boost our immunity. We know this based on the scientifically accepted “competitive exclusion” principle – the more friendly bacteria you have, the fewer pathogenic ones that survive. Friendly bacteria compose part of our immune system, and competitive exclusion is what the entire probiotics food industry is based on.
Pasteurized Milk Contaminations
Grooters also stated at the Myths and Facts page:
“Raw or unpasteurized milk can transmit many serious infectious diseases to children.”
Then why doesn’t it? Statistics from the UF report to which she contributed show dairy to be the safest of all foods, accounting for 1/100th of a percent of all foodborne illnesses annually. (More on this below.)
In fact, raw milk is much safer than pasteurized. According to Dr Beals, in 2010, DHS reported 90,771 confirmed foodborne illnesses for the period 1999 thru 2010. Based on DHS data, Beals reports you are 35,000 times more likely to get sick from any food other than raw milk.
Beals calculated that 42 people become ill from contaminated raw milk each year, a figure which includes “both ‘confirmed’ and ‘presumed’ cases.”
Yet, in a single case of contaminated pasteurized milk, over 16,000 people became ill in Illinois and several other Midwest states. Later, up to 5 of them died. That 1985 calamity was called the “worst outbreak of Salmonella food poisoning in U.S. history.” It even beats last year’s half-billion egg recall with just over1,900 confirmed cases of salmonella poisoning.
In a 1983 Massachusetts milk contamination case, 49 people became ill. Later, 14 of them died. An inspection found the pasteurization process up to snuff, leading scientists to question relying on pasteurization to kill listeria.
70% of all foodborne illnesses come from factory foods; Dairy is safest of all food
Here is where a political agenda drives scientific reporting. The 2011 UF report sought to determine which pathogens and which foods pose the highest risk. “Complex foods” (defined as non-meat factory foods with a host of additives) accounts for a whopping 70% of the 3,861,128 annual foodborne illnesses UF considered. (p.9)
Dairy, on the other hand, accounts for 434 illnesses. That’s about 1/100th of a percent, “almost all” of it “due to soft-ripened cheeses” – mostly queso fresco, a soft cheese made from raw milk favored in the Hispanic community. (p.43)
UF developed a ranking system based on various factors including “quality of life,” a term used by DHS. This is where numbers can be massaged to show an increased risk that wouldn’t be obvious from raw numbers. This probably explains how UF ranked dairy risk #5 in a field of 10, despite that factory foods sickened 2,689,877 people and dairy sickened only 434.
Ignoring their qualitative factors and using just the UF numbers of illness and death for each food category, the following charts show which foods sicken or kill people the most:
From UF’s own data, dairy is the safest food on the market, with the least number of illnesses – a number so small (1/100th of a percent of all foodborne illnesses) that it can be ignored when talking about risky food.
Of the 3.8 million incidents of foodborne illnesses UF considered, only 765 people died. That’s one death per five thousand illnesses. You are more likely to die in a car crash – a risk most of us take every single day of our adult lives.
So, fully grasping the minute scale we’re zooming in on now, of the eight food categories, dairy ranks #6 in risk of death. You’re twice as likely to die from a foodborne illness traced to factory foods (18% of all deaths) than you are from dairy (9%).
Keep in mind that “almost all” of those dairy deaths are from soft-ripened cheese, not raw milk. Though made with raw milk, no one knows where in the cheesemaking process the cheese became contaminated. It could have occurred at any of several stages and have had nothing to do with the milk itself.
It takes a pretty strong imagination to justify ranking dairy the fifth riskiest food in the nation when it only accounts for 1/100th of a percent of all foodborne illnesses. But that’s what UF did.
Given Grooters’ fear mongering against raw dairy despite CDC evidence proving otherwise, she is not at all a surprising choice for Secretary Vilsack to have made. But it is rather disingenuous to characterize her as representing consumers, when, clearly, she represents corporate aims to shut down natural dairy.
If Obama truly wanted to develop a science-based food safety policy driven by risk-based analysis, raw dairies would be promoted rather than criminalized. Instead, what we see is support for factory-processed foods adulterated with genetically modified organisms, drugs, chemicals, nanomaterials, rat droppings, and wood – all permitted by the FDA.
Without This, Vitamin D May Actually Encourage Heart Disease
Posted By Dr. Mercola
July 16 2011
Vitamin K2 is thought to reduce coronary calcification, thereby decreasing your risk of cardiovascular disease. However, studies have reported inconsistent results -- possibly because of the different effects of vitamin K1 (phylloquinone) and vitamin K2 (menaquinone or MK). Few studies have included both.
At least one study, however, has investigated the association of intake of phylloquinone and menaquinone with coronary calcification. The intake of both forms of the vitamin was estimated using a food-frequency questionnaire. It was found that K2 had an effect on coronary calcification, but K1 did not.
According to the study:
"This study shows that high dietary menaquinone [Ks] intake, but probably not phylloquinone [K1], is associated with reduced coronary calcification. Adequate menaquinone intakes could therefore be important to prevent cardiovascular disease."
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Vitamin K is an extremely important vitamin to have in your diet; it may very well be the next vitamin D in terms of the numerous health benefits it may provide. But, according to Dr. Cees Vermeer, one of the world's top researchers in the field of vitamin K, nearly everyone is deficient in vitamin K -- just like most are deficient in vitamin D.
Most people get enough vitamin K from their diets to maintain adequate blood clotting, but NOT enough to offer protection against health problems like arterial calcification and cardiovascular disease. Yet, as the study above showed, adequate amounts of the right type of vitamin K may offer immense benefits to your heart health, including reducing coronary calcification and thereby decreasing your risk of heart disease.
Which Type of Vitamin K May be Best for Your Heart?
Vitamin K comes in two forms -- K1 or K2 -- and it is important to understand the differences between them.
Vitamin K1 (phylloquinone): Found in green vegetables, K1 goes directly to your liver and helps you maintain a healthy blood clotting system. (This is the kind of vitamin K that infants are often given at birth to help prevent a serious bleeding disorder.) It is also vitamin K1 that keeps your own blood vessels from calcifying, and helps your bones retain calcium and develop the right crystalline structure.
Vitamin K2 (menaquinone, MK): Bacteria produce this type of vitamin K. It is present in high quantities in your gut, but unfortunately is not absorbed from there and passes out in your stool. K2 goes straight to vessel walls, bones, and tissues other than your liver. It is present in fermented foods, particularly cheese and the Japanese food natto, which is by far the richest source of K2.
Vitamin K3, or menadione, is a third form that is synthetic and manmade, which I do not recommend. Each type of vitamin K has different roles in your body, and emerging research is showing that vitamin K2, not K1, may be especially important. For instance, research published in Atherosclerosis found that high dietary intake of vitamin K2 is associated with reduced coronary calcification (hardening of the arteries), a result that should also lessen your risk of heart disease.
What made this study unique was that it compared dietary intakes of both vitamin K1 and K2, and only K2 showed a benefit. Vitamin K1 was NOT associated with reduced coronary calcification. This is consistent with separate research also showing superior health benefits from vitamin K2, including:
The Rotterdam Study, the first study demonstrating the beneficial effect of vitamin K2, showed that people who consume 45 mcg of K2 daily live seven years longer than people getting 12 mcg per day.
The Prospect Study, in which 16,000 people were followed for 10 years. Researchers found that each additional 10 mcg of K2 in the diet results in 9 percent fewer cardiac events, whereas vitamin K1 did not offer a significant heart benefit.
Why Might Vitamin K2 be so Beneficial for Your Heart?
Vitamin K engages in a delicate dance with vitamin D; whereas vitamin D provides improved bone development by helping you absorb calcium, there is new evidence that vitamin K2 directs the calcium to your skeleton, while preventing it from being deposited where you don't want it -- i.e., your organs, joint spaces, and arteries. A large part of arterial plaque consists of calcium deposits (atherosclerosis), hence the term "hardening of the arteries."
Vitamin K2 activates a protein hormone called osteocalcin, produced by osteoblasts, which is needed to bind calcium into the matrix of your bone. Osteocalcin also appears to help prevent calcium from depositing into your arteries. In other words, without the help of vitamin K2, the calcium that your vitamin D so effectively lets in might be working AGAINST you -- by building up your coronary arteries rather than your bones.
This is why if you take calcium and vitamin D but are deficient in vitamin K, you could be worse off than if you were not taking those supplements at all, as demonstrated by a recent meta-analysis linking calcium supplements to heart attacks.
This meta-analysis looked at studies involving people taking calcium in isolation, without complementary nutrients like magnesium, vitamin D and vitamin K, which help keep your body in balance. In the absence of those other important cofactors, calcium CAN have adverse effects, such as building up in coronary arteries and causing heart attacks, which is really what this analysis detected. So if you are going to take calcium, you need to be sure you have balanced it out with vitamin D and vitamin K.
Vitamin K2 Helps Produce Heart-Protective Protein MGP
Another route by which vitamin K offers heart-protective benefits is through the Matrix GLA Protein (or MGP), the protein responsible for protecting your blood vessels from calcification. When your body's soft tissues are damaged, they respond with an inflammatory process that can result in the deposition of calcium into the damaged tissue. When this occurs in your blood vessels, you have the underlying mechanism of coronary artery disease -- the buildup of plaque -- that can lead you down the path to a heart attack.
Vitamin K and vitamin D again work together to increase MGP, which, in healthy arteries, congregates around the elastic fibers of your tunica media (arterial lining), guarding them against calcium crystal formation.
According to Professor Cees Vermeer:
"The only mechanism for arteries to protect themselves from calcification is via the vitamin K-dependent protein MGP. MPG is the most powerful inhibitor of soft tissue calcification presently known, but non-supplemented healthy adults are insufficient in vitamin K to a level that 30 percent of their MGP is synthesized in an inactive form. So, protection against cardiovascular calcification is only 70 percent in the young, healthy population, and this figure decreases at increasing age."
Four More Reasons to Make Sure Your Diet Includes Vitamin K2
Vitamin K not only helps to prevent hardening of your arteries, which is a common factor in coronary artery disease and heart failure, it also offers several other important benefits to your health.
[1] Fight Cancer …
Vitamin K has been found beneficial in the fight against non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver, colon, stomach, prostate, nasopharynx, and oral cancers, and some studies have even suggested vitamin K may be used therapeutically in the treatment of patients with lung cancer, liver cancer, and leukemia.
[2] Stave off Varicose Veins …
Inadequate levels of vitamin K may reduce the activity of the matrix GLA protein (MGP), which in turn has been identified as a key player in the development of varicosis, or varicose veins.
[3] Improve Bone Density …
Vitamin K is one of the most important nutritional interventions for improving bone density. It serves as the biological "glue" that helps plug the calcium into your bone matrix.
Studies have shown vitamin K to be equivalent to Fosamax-type osteoporosis drugs, with far fewer side effects.
[4] Lower Your Risk of Diabetes …
People with the highest intakes of vitamin K from their diet had a 20 percent lower risk of diabetes compared with those with the lowest intakes, according to the latest research from University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands. Past studies have also shown vitamin K to help reduce the progression of insulin resistance.
How Much Vitamin K2 do You Need?
How many people have adequate vitamin K2? Just about zero, according to Dr. Vermeer and other experts in the field. But at this time there is really no commercial test that can give you an accurate measure of your levels. Vitamin K measurements in blood plasma can be done accurately, but the results are really not helpful because they mainly reflect "what you ate yesterday," according to Dr. Vermeer.
Dr. Vermeer and his team have developed and patented a very promising laboratory test to assess vitamin K levels indirectly by measuring circulating MGP. Their studies have indicated this to be a very reliable method to assess the risk for arterial calcification -- hence cardiac risk. They are hoping to have this test available to the public within one to two years for a reasonable price, and several labs are already interested. They are also working on developing a home test that would be available at your neighborhood drug store.
In the meantime, since nearly 100 percent of people don't get sufficient amounts of vitamin K2 from their diet to reap its health benefits, you can assume you need to bump up your vitamin K2 levels by modifying your diet or taking a high-quality supplement.
As for dietary sources, eating lots of green vegetables, especially kale, spinach, collard greens, broccoli, and Brussels sprouts, will increase your vitamin K1 levels naturally. For vitamin K2, cheese and especially cheese curd is an excellent source. The starter ferment for both regular cheese and curd cheese contains bacteria -- lactococci and proprionic acids bacteria -- which both produce K2.
You can also obtain all the K2 you'll need (about 200 micrograms) by eating 15 grams of natto daily, which is half an ounce. It's a small amount and very inexpensive, but many Westerners do not enjoy the taste and texture.
If you don't care for the taste of natto, the next best thing is a high-quality K2 supplement. Remember you must always take your vitamin K supplement with fat since it is fat-soluble and won't be absorbed without it.
Although the exact dosing is yet to be determined, Dr. Vermeer recommends between 45 mcg and 185 mcg daily for adults. You must use caution on the higher doses if you take anticoagulants, but if you are generally healthy and not on these types of medications, I suggest 150 mcg daily.
Also See:
If You Know what's Good for You
(Part 1)
19 February 2009
(Part 2)
01 August 2009
(Part 3)
02 March 2010
(Part 4)
28 September 2011
(Part 5)
15 March 2011