British Palestine Solidarity outfit ‘Palestine Place’ provides a platform for anti-Syrian speakers, while ostracising and banning activists who choose to discuss topics designated as ‘no-go’ by Zionist ideology. This is symptomatic of a wider disease prevalent in the ‘Palestine Solidarity Movement’.
The Palestine Solidarity Movement, not only within the UK but across nations worldwide, is becoming increasingly fractured and impotent. The movement is characterised by swathes of different groups squabbling amongst themselves, and ostracising members(1) who cross certain red lines – red lines which have been drawn by Zionism.
‘Palestine Place’: Symptoms of a Wider Disease
During my own recent experiences at ‘Palestine Place’ in London, I was unfortunate enough to witness acute symptoms of the disease afflicting the Palestine Solidarity Movement. The disease is not unique to Palestine Place; it afflicts the wider Palestine Solidarity Movement and the liberal ‘left’ in the UK. Not only is the Palestine Solidarity Movement paralysed with fear of being branded with the anti-Semitism epithet, but it routinely falls prey to Zionist and imperialist deception, manipulation, and propaganda. The carnal fear of being branded an ‘anti-Semite’ prevents any level of open and honest discussion on anything pertaining to Israel and the Zionist project – especially its founding myths which must be openly discussed and debated in order for truth to see light.
Outlawing Thoughtcrime in the Service of Zionism
During an open discussion at Palestine Place in June 2012, one attendee brought up the subject of Gilad Atzmon’s alleged anti-Semitism. The gentleman proceeded to misrepresent Atzmon’s words in order to paint him as a racist who merely seeks to attack Judaism.
During this discussion the subject of holocaust denial and holocaust revisionism came up. At no point was the holocaust denied by anybody present, however this writer did make the point that we must make a distinction between ‘revisionism’ and ‘denial’. All historical events must be open to investigation and questioning; the very concept of history is based on revisionism. What legitimate reason could we possibly have for shielding any historical event from examination? We are constantly reminded that we must learn from history lest it repeat itself (reminiscent of the ‘never again’ mantra), yet we are prevented from examining these very elements of history!
This particular discussion at Palestine Place continued for ten or fifteen minutes before the next scheduled discussion was due to begin. During this time, dedicated pro-Palestinian activist Ken O’Keefe came to Gilad Atzmon’s defence, drawing attention to Atzmon’s idea that Jewishness and Jewish culture must be part of our investigation of Israeli and Zionist ideology. Are Israel’s tanks, gunships and warplanes not adorned with the Jewish Star of David? Is ‘Israel’ not a self-professed Jewish State? The gentleman who had chosen to accuse Atzmon of anti-Semitism had misrepresented Atzmon’s views and launched into a baseless ad hominem attack.
Immediately before the next scheduled speaker, a spokesman for Palestine Place made an announcement to the following effect: some people have decided to air their views on the holocaust, we must remind you that at Palestine Place we do not tolerate anti-Semitism and we will not be discussing the holocaust any further.
It must be noted that this was after the same spokesperson had emphatically stated that day, that Palestine Place was not affiliated with any solidarity organisation (such as the UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign), purely to avoid the politicisation and control of discussion!
This relatively small incident demonstrates how the Palestine Solidarity Movement is not only subject to Zionist bullying, infiltration, and lobbying, but more importantly cultural indoctrination. We are instilled with a cardinal fear of discussing the holocaust outside of the officially accepted narrative – a ‘thoughtcrime’ in this democracy and beacon of free speech known as Great Britain.
The knee-jerk ‘we do not tolerate anti-Semitism‘ emotional reaction is sadly typical, and it is trotted out before one iota of thought has been given to the content and substance of the discussion.
It is incredibly sad and disheartening to see that the Palestine Solidarity Movement is utterly beholden to Zionism’s biggest rhetorical weapon: false charges of anti-Semitism coupled with a religious observance of and adherence to the dogma of ‘the holocaust’.
As activists and truth seekers, are we actually going to conflate historical revisionism (the practice of investigating and revising our understanding of history based on facts and free debate) with racism? This logic is completely lost on those who have an immediate emotional reaction to this question.
Palestine Place Bars Prominent Pro-Palestine Activist, Backs Foreign Insurrection in Syria
On June 13, 2012, Palestine Place hosted a talk on the subject of Syria. Several guests were invited to speak – all of whom were anti-Assad and pro-’revolution’. Without exception, all of the speakers represented the viewpoint of the corrupt Gulf dictatorships, the USA and Israel, who are jointly seeking the dissolution of all bastions of Arab resistance to Zionism and Western neocolonialism.
Shortly before the talk, I witnessed Ken O’Keefe being asked to leave the premises by organisers who cited a ‘group decision’ that had been made. Hypocritically, not one of the attendees to the talk was consulted about this decision – the decision was made by Palestine Place’s organisers and had no ‘grassroots’ input whatsoever.
After Ken had left the premises the talks continued and the speakers dictated their opinion to the almost exclusively young (18-23) and impressionable crowd. One after another the anti-Assad guests expounded their mythical idea that the ‘revolution’ in Syria was at all indigenous, as opposed to being a foreign-led insurrection, which is now a clearly established reality.
The speakers were Simon Assaf, UK-based Syrian activist Shiar Youssef, activist Dan Gorman, and ‘internet researcher and activist’ Miriyam Asfar.
Simon Assaf’s previous writings shed light on his ideological position. He is a commentator who claims to oppose western intervention in Libya and Syria, while breathlessly parroting the lies and propaganda that enable it. He saw the NATO-appointed NTC’s calls for a ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya as “genuine calls for help”,(2) and he mindlessly repeats the long-discredited claims that Gaddafi bombarded civilian demonstrations from the air. He even claimed that the case for the intervention in Libya was “very powerful”.(3)
At Palestine Place, Assaf continued with his delusional and romantic narrative wherein he painted the foreign-led counter-revolution in Syria as an indigenous people’s and workers’ revolution. He smugly dismissed ‘al Qaeda’ involvement in Syria as paranoid conspiracy theory.
No reasonable person would debate the CIA’s use of what would become ‘al Qaeda’ in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s to achieve its strategic objectives. This is not the stuff of ‘conspiracy theory’, rather it is established historical fact.
Assaf chose to ignore the deeply sectarian, thuggish, and terroristic inclinations of the ‘revolutionaries’ in Syria. Even the mainstream press has been forced to admit(4) that Abdelhakim Belhaj, former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), is providing fighters and assistance to the so-called Free Syrian Army.
The LIFG, still listed as a terrorist group by the US State Department,(5) is a paradigmatic example of one of the CIA’s many proxy armies of brainwashed sectarian drones – commonly referred to collectively as ‘al Qaeda’.
Assaf, as well as the other speakers, reminded the audience that the ‘revolution’ started in Daraa, Syria, in March 2011. What they didn’t draw attention to was the fact that Daraa, like the majority of the hotspots in the Syrian unrest, is on Syria’s border. As a result of calls from short-sighted, hateful and poisonously sectarian-minded Sunni religious leaders (including our new ‘al Qaeda’ boogeyman Ayman al-Zawahiri), ‘jihadists’ in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq have flocked to Syria to fight against the Assad regime(6) (Assad is an Alawi and non-sectarian leader who allows 18 different sects to live in harmony). These ‘jihadists’ include Abdelhakim Belhaj’s men, who were shipped to Turkey in order to allow them to infiltrate Syria’s borders(7) from there. Further to this, the United States and Jordanian militaries began a joint military exercise known as Eager Lion in the summer of 2011.(8) What is the significance of this, and why is the majority of the unrest in border regions?
The Houla Killings – Fruit of the ‘FSA’
Predictably, Assaf and the other speakers accused the Assad regime of committing brutal massacres against the Syrian people. The Houla massacre – an event which is held as the ‘trump card’ by the ‘opposition’ in Syria, is deserving of inspection here.
In the immediate aftermath of the Houla massacre, the Syrian ‘opposition’ and media outlets across the spectrum attempted to blame the killings on artillery attacks by the Syrian Army. When it became clear that most of the victims were killed at close range, many with stab wounds, the narrative became ‘pro-regime militia’. Now however, after the dust has settled, it is clear that pro-Assad elements had nothing to do with the Houla massacre, and in fact it was the so-called ‘Free Syrian Army’ and ‘opposition’ that is most likely responsible.
The Assad regime would have nothing to gain but everything to lose by perpetrating the Houla killings. These murders have played right into the hands of Syria’s enemies – those who seek regime change under the barrel of a ‘humanitarian’ gun. Initial reports from the opposition contradicted the physical manner in which the victims were killed. Three days after the event, Human Rights Watch joined the chorus blaming Assad and ‘pro-government forces’.(9)
However, the facts betray this speculation from the Syrian ‘opposition’ and so-called human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch.
Those killed were nearly exclusively families from the Alawi and Shia minorities in Sunni-majority Houla (while HRW and the ‘opposition’ try to suggest that the victims were Sunni). This included several dozen members of one extended family, which had converted from Sunni to Shia Islam. Also killed was the family of a Sunni member of parliament who was considered a government collaborator by the rebels.
Considering these points(10) and the fact that the massacre occurred as three Syrian Army checkpoints were being attacked by armed gangs around the town, the idea that the Syrian Army was responsible for the Houla killings is asinine. It is now evident that the sectarian terrorists whom people such as Simon Assaf refer to as ‘revolutionaries’, were responsible for this heinous crime.
Another notable moment during Palestine Place’s decidedly anti-Syrian evening was when ‘activist’ Dan Gorman showed the audience a video of an opposition-produced puppet show which ridiculed Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafez. During the few-minute sequence, the puppets of Bashar and Hafez joked about killing Syrians, and bemoaned the propaganda peddled by Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. The entire audience smugly nodded, laughed and clapped as this ‘Two Minutes Hate’ played out before them.
When UK-based Syrian activist Shiar Youssef took the stage, he forged another memorable moment. “This is just how we work in Syria“, he said. He was referring to how Syrian activists work, compared to the way in which the Palestine Place activists were sat around on the floor of the room, gazing at the speaker. I have to confess, this reminded me of when UK Foreign Secretary William Hague admitted that the UK government is training Syrian activists.(11)
Conclusion: Solidarity Demands Intellectual Courage, not Servility & Herd Mentality
Palestine Place is, in every way, a microcosm of the international Palestine Solidarity Movement. Toothless, pseudo-enlightened know-it-alls who are intellectually servile, exclusivist, drowned in ego, and utterly impotent.
Ostensibly it has no individual leaders and is purely democratic, but this is meaningless since it religiously adheres to specific pre-defined boundaries of discussion. Freedom of speech and discussion exists only on paper; ‘thought criminals’ are barred and ostracised. It claims to present the opportunity for “radical change“. It ‘occupies’ a building with the full cooperation of the landowner (this writer confirmed this by speaking to activists on-site).
Frank Barat, a London-based human rights activist tells Mondoweiss about the ins and outs of Palestine Place. Barat, who this writer suspects plays a role in the Palestine Place project, promotes the organisation(12) as a movement that will mean the West will “never be the same again“.
He also insists that Palestine Place is “open to everyone and belongs to everyone“, and that it is a “hub of creativity, discussions and possibility for radical change“.
Palestine Place completely betrays these ideals.
Discussion of historical events intimately linked to Palestine and the history of Zionism, has been stifled. Attendees are banned and ostracised for having a different opinion; discussion outside of the mainstream is prohibited at this ‘radical’ outfit – whether this concerns the attendees or the opinionated, one-sided speakers who are invited to talk.
Palestine Place’s official ‘Safe Spaces Policy’ bars holocaust revisionism(13) (the act of enriching our understanding of history on an ongoing basis by examining and documenting the facts). I must reiterate: what legitimate reason could we possibly have for shielding any historical event from examination? What are they afraid of? What is there to hide? We are constantly reminded that we must learn from history lest it repeat itself (reminiscent of the ‘never again’ mantra), yet Palestine Place chooses to protect this aspect of history from scrutiny!
Interestingly, Palestine Place’s Safe Spaces Policy calls for (emphasis mine) “An end to the occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied since 1967“. Does the land ethnically cleansed and occupied in 1948 not count? Did Israel’s crimes start in 1967? Palestine Place attempts to normalise the Nakba here, accepting the legitimacy of the 1948 land thefts and only referring to the 1967 occupation.
The following passage from the same policy statement is simply staggering in its dishonesty, keeping in mind the practices of Palestine Place:
Palestine Place will not be dogmatic nor prescriptive about attitudes, opinions or beliefs that relate to the political debate around Palestine.
Palestine Place is not an environment that encourages any level of independent or critical thought. Youngsters, keen to learn about the Palestinian cause (and the geopolitical landscape surrounding it – i.e. Syria) are being corralled into adopting a kosher ‘anti-Zionist’ viewpoint that will pose zero threat to Zionism.
Outspoken and dedicated pro-Palestinian voices are banned and ostracised. Guest speakers are invited who are exclusively representing a one-sided point of view. Discussion of Zionism’s founding myths are prevented. This supposed ‘solidarity’ outfit has demonstrably positioned itself into an anti-Palestinian standpoint, either wittingly or unwittingly.
The Palestine Solidarity Movement is terminally afraid of discussing subjects that are designated ‘no-go’ areas by Zionist ideology. The incessant false charges of ‘anti-Semitism’ is Zionism’s biggest ideological weapon – and we all know it – but our movement has no defence.
Only with real independent thought and intellectual courage will our movement proceed.
When we are held emotionally hostage by certain ideas, we must ask why.
We must never stop the pursuit of truth, regardless of the level of ‘herd mentality’ around us. We must take a step back and think objectively.
Exposing any and all deceptions which alter perceptions about Israel, anti-Semitism, and Palestine, is our place.
(1) ‘Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon’ – US Palestinian Community Network
(2) ‘Libya: at the crossroads’ by Simon Assaf
(3) ‘How Western Powers Blackmailed the Libyan Revolution’ by Simon Assaf
(4) ‘Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group’ – The UK Telegraph
(5) ‘Foreign Terrorist Organizations’ – US Department of State
(6) ‘Jihadists Declare Holy War Against Assad Regime’ – Spiegel Online
(7) ‘Al-Qaeda Terrorists Airlifted From Libya to Aid Syrian Opposition’ by Paul Joseph Watson
(8) ‘US, 18 other nations, wrap up Eager Lion military exercise in Jordan’ – The Christian Science Monitor
(9) ‘Syria: UN Inquiry Should Investigate Houla Killings’ – Human Rights Watch
(10) ‘Leading German Daily: Houla Massacre Committed by Syrian Rebels’ – EmpireStrikesBlack.com
(11) ‘US fears fresh massacre in Syria’ – The UK Telegraph
(12) ‘‘Palestine Place’ comes to London, and the west will never be the same’ by Frank Barat
(13) ‘Safe Spaces Policy’ – Palestine Place
clear signs of a Cold War against the European currency
Certain wars cannot be formally declared. Pakistan and Israel do not recognize each other. The escalating arms race between them may turn violent in the foreseeable future, but a formal declaration of war between entities that do not recognize each other is unlikely to happen. Other wars are never formally declared. The term Cold War was coined by George Orwell in 1945, and was used to describe the long conflict between the USA and the USSR, which continued until the dissolution of the latter in 1991. Considering the millions that died in it, defining this war as “cold” is difficult; yet, this war never existed formally. Moreover, the two sides never fought directly. All the combats took place among pawn-states; the Vietnam War is probably the best example of that. The difficult reality faced in 2012 by the European currency—the euro—seems to be related to an ongoing currency war.
Yesterday, June 13, 2012, Moody’s Investors Service downgraded Spain’s bond rating, placing it just a notch above being defined as junk-bond. This came days after a massive bailout of Spanish banks by Europe, which secured over 100 billion euros for them as guarantees. Before this, Spain concentrated all its failed loans in a few banks, and then asked for a banks’ bailout, claiming that except for these banks, its economy is sound. This was different from the done in the other European state-bailouts of the last year only in style. Portugal, Ireland and Greece were helped by the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank when they gave up hope of market funding. That turned out not being a good solution, as the ongoing troubles in Greece prove. Moody’s downgrading of Spain clearly shows that the international markets didn’t buy the Spanish thinly-disguised bailout. Following Moody’s decision, Spanish 10-year bond yields hit the 7 percent level; this was the level that triggered full international bailouts of the other euro zone members. In other words, the Spanish economy may soon collapse. If looking closely at the details, it looks that a Cold War was declared on the euro. As with the former Cold War, nothing was declared openly; yet, the odd combats at the European flanks hint at a violent reality.
Spain tried everything before accepting the bailout. In February, I reported in Spain as Western China, how European leaders asked help from China. On February 14, 2012, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao offered co-operation to help stabilize debt-ridden EU nations, but made no specific promise to invest in the proposed European bailout fund. This was especially meaningful considering that China owns much of Spain. During the first week of January 2011, Li Keqiang, China’s Vice Premier visited Spain and was welcomed by then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. The visitor announced that his country would buy $7.9 billion in Spanish bonds, when China already owned 10% of Spain’s foreign debt. China bought debt also from other troubled countries of the EU. The Spanish El País newspaper dubbed Li Keqiang the new “Mr. Marshall,” in a reference to America’s post-World War II Marshall Plan. Yet, just one year later, China refused to help the failing economies of the European Union. This unexpected step indicates that China considers its former investments in Spain almost as lost. Other indicators support this. Spain is important in the current crisis because it is not like Greece, Portugal, Ireland or—still un-bailed—Italy. Spain played by the EU rules, and yet it is collapsing. When it joined the euro in 1999, Spain broke the EU debt rule, with a debt/GDP ratio of 62.3%. However, since then the Spanish government had a balanced budget on average—that means its borrowing was zero—every year until the 2008 financial crisis. Yet, Spain is failing. If Spain fails, it may mean the euro is not viable, and that Germany and France may also collapse.
On April 16, 2012, Spain was hit hard. Argentinean President began then the expropriation of 51% of Class D YPF shares from Repsol, a Spanish oil company operating also in Argentina (see Argentina Endangers Euro). This move transferred the ownership of the oil company from Repsol to the Argentinean government. The Argentinean government took over the administration of the confiscated company, through a government minister overseeing its activities until the ownership transfer is completed. Spain was fast to declare the move was illegitimate and that it will react harshly in the near future. “This is a hostile step by Argentina,” said Mariano Rajoy, the recently elected Spanish Prime Minister. Argentina completed the expropriation and Spain began a judicial process in international courts that will take years. That doesn’t matter anymore; the damage has already been done. Shortly afterwards, a tiny Spanish company in the business of electricity-transport was confiscated by Bolivia, which got envious of its southern neighbor success in the theft of Repsol. Spain probably was relieved by this latter expropriation; a mountainous country, Bolivia is not a profitable location for such companies. Yet, both events sent a message to the markets: Spanish companies operating in Spain’s former colonies may be expropriated without notice at any time. This additional instability may have had an important role in the current troubles.
Few would guess the importance of the companies involved. Moreover, after reading a short summary of Argentinean history, few would be brave enough to invest in the country’s economy. Thus, one cannot help but define Spaniards as the bravest people on earth, since they are the largest foreign investor in Argentina. Over the years, major Spanish corporations had invested major sums in their former colony. Spanish Telefonica—the third largest phone provider in the world—is active in Argentina (see Spain as Western China). Santander Group is a Spanish banking group and the 6th largest company in the world, operates banks in Argentina. The same goes for BBVA, the 7th largest financial institution in the Western world. Overall, more than 400 Spanish companies have substantial investments in what turned out to be nothing more than a robbers den. Two large Spanish companies are involved in the Argentinean energy market: Gas Natural and Repsol. The first is still untouched, the other-which is the 15th largest petroleum refining company-was robbed yesterday by the Argentinean government. After the confiscation of Repsol, Argentina may confiscate the Spanish banks; given this, the reaction of the markets towards Spain is understood, even after the informal bailout of this week. If there is a war on the euro, it hit at Spain’s flank. Given the abovementioned importance of this country one can only applaud Europe’s hidden enemy for its choice. Destroy Spain’s economy and the euro will probably fall.
During the second American attack on Iraq, I was fascinated by the American administration’s rhetoric. We all remember the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lies, but there was much more than that. “Financing the war” was also a key phrase said by frenzied politicians while looking for juice to run their toys of mass destruction. There was no better testimony than this mantra to the fact this was a war of choice—and thus unacceptable—aimed to create financial profits through cheap oil and the revival of American military industries. The phrase also reflected the American mindset as a world financial center and the main printer of a fiat money known as American dollar, the world’s main reserve currency at that moment in time. A very different future awaits America.
The USA won’t disappear from the international arena as a significant player as a result of a military defeat. Granada won’t retaliate for the American crimes; neither would Afghanistan or Iraq. Attacking the weak is another characteristic of America. By the end of 2010, the media was full with articles announcing China having become the second largest economy, after bypassing Japan. The same number of articles tried to predict when China would bypass America. Some said 2020, others 2015. All of them ignored a rapidly changing financial situation which would control the economic development in the near future. Most economists use linear models in their predictions, while reality is often non-linear and non-derivative; this is due to the low-level mathematics learned at financial faculties. The result of this overlook will be dramatic; probably all predictions will fail.
America is #1 only because economic output is measured in the current reserve money, i.e. American dollars. There is a simple but excellent way of describing the problematic of these statistics. Bolivia is a producer of coffee. A pound of average coffee in Bolivia costs around one American dollar. In the US, a coffee of similar quality would probably cost around $4. Let’s say that both economies sell just one pound of coffee per year. If measuring the production of each economy in dollars, then the US economy could be claimed as being four times larger than the Bolivian one; however, if measuring by weight, both economies would be the same size. The world’s economy is measured in US dollars and thus it is highly biased toward the American economy, presenting it as much larger than it is.
In order to keep this illusion of economic size, a key goal of the US government is to keep its currency as the global monetary measurement unit. However, this won’t last. It makes no sense calculating the trade between China and India in US dollars; the distortions in such a case are multiple. In the case of Thai products reaching Nepal via India, measuring the events in American dollars is ridiculous. One solution would be adopting a basket of carefully balanced measurements methods; this would probably happen in the next decades. Measuring under a more accurate system, the US would probably rate as the third largest economy in the world. If measuring the EU as one economic unit, then the US would be just fourth. Moreover, not everyone is happy with the ongoing situation. In 2010, Russia and China scrapped the dollar in their mutual transactions. The same applies for a few other countries, mainly in Asia. At the beginning of February 2011, the IMF issued a report on a possible replacement for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The report recommends using Special Drawing Rights that could help stabilize the global financial system. Simply, heavily indebted America cannot provide a stable currency anymore. Roughly at the same time, the Asian Development Bank said in a joint study with Columbia University’s Earth Institute, that the Chinese Yuan could rapidly become an internationally used currency and serve as an alternative to the US dollar in central bank reserves. In fact, China owns not only a substantial part of the American debt, but also the debt of European countries as Spain, forcing a future in which the Yuan would grow in importance. As such, the opening of the Yuan as a floating currency that can be traded everywhere is almost inevitable. Despite some decentralization in its trading during recent years, Yuan is still heavily controlled by the Chinese government. America and Europe are waiting and pushing for this moment; vulture bankers will pray on the new reserve currency and speculate on its future.
The USA is interested in keeping its status as main reserve currency for as long as possible. In 2012, the euro is the second largest reserve currency and the second most traded currency in the world after the dollar. Yet, there are signs the euro was about to take over the dollar in popularity. In February 2012—roughly at the time of the European visit to china abovementioned—the euro surpassed the dollar as the currency with the highest combined value of banknotes and coins in circulation in the world. Alarms shook Washington.
The Pirates Attack
Many years ago, the IDF published a thin but important book. Oddly enough it came out of the Galei Tzahal—Israel Military Radio—prints. The book deals with methods used by the USA to control South American regimes. Apparently I was one of its few readers; years later—when I found myself a refugee in that obscure part of the world—I could appreciate the frightening exactitude of that little book. There were two levels to the American control of their “backyard,” as South America is nicknamed in the book. The first was political and was best defined by the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Monroe—then Secretary of State of the USA—defined an American position regarding the Americas: European powers are to be kept out at all costs. This has been strictly kept: French and Spaniards were ruthlessly sent away with the exception of a small failure at the French Guyana, which is still part of Metropolitan France. The second level is military; the book deals mainly with the situation in Argentina, but it applies also to what is known as the “Southern Cone” (Argentina, Chile and Uruguay). Interestingly, the last is also a dark star in Phillip Agee’s INSIDE THE COMPANY: CIA DIARY. Other South American countries are essentially similar and experienced some of the most ruthless military-terror dictatorships during the 20th century; ignoring human rights, torturing and assassinating citizens were their credentials. This military-terror machinery had been trained by the USA and was designed to perform exactly that: civil terror for the profit of Empire (see Netanyahu: Between Uganda and Argentina for more details on the military characteristics).
Despite the isolationist rhetoric of South American presidents, the Monroe Doctrine is still well and alive. Bolivian Evo Morales may have kicked the American ambassador out in 2008, but that was done for propagandistic goals. The relations and commerce between the countries continued, and a new ambassador was appointed when everybody forgot about the issue. Skirmishes between the countries may happen from time to time, but they all stick to that 19th Century doctrine. Seeing the success of the euro in the international arena, America may have panicked, and quietly asked for help from the South-American puppet-regimes. “Stick a nail on Spain’s flank,” Obama may have said to its Argentinean counterpart in a secret meeting. Argentina lacks the proper technology for oil-extraction; the ongoing talks about the replacement of Repsol by an American oil company further support this view. Considering all these, it is hard not to conclude that America is conducting a quiet Cold War against the euro, in a desperate—and eventually futile—attempt to keep its monetary hegemony.