Soros and U.S. Trained Activists in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, Etc To Kill Islamic Banking And State-run Central Banks

 

Protesters with the Bahrain Financial Harbor, a center of Islamic Banking (photo Ulf Mar)

PwP Exclusive  ©March 9 2011  (link to this page or give the source)

 Islamic banks have been eating into the profits of conventional banks in the Middle East because: they don’t charge interest (Shariah Law), they are growing very rapidly, and (in these catastrophic economic times) they are more stable than western banks.

The New York Times article “Islamic banking rises on oil wealth, drawing non-Muslims” ( November 22, 2007) reported:   “Rising oil wealth is lifting Islamic banking – which adheres to the laws of the Koran and its prohibition against charging interest – into the financial mainstream. . . . In addition to Islamic loans, there are Islamic bonds, Islamic credit cards …In Islamic banking, financiers are required to share borrowers’ risks, meaning that depositors are treated more like shareholders, earning a portion of profits.  …And while the biggest Islamic banks are in the wealthy Gulf states, the most attractive potential markets are in Turkey and North Africa (emphasis added) and among European Muslims… .” 

  Most people of the world prefer the conventional banking model.   They don’t mind paying 20% interest on small loans (credit card).  They don’t want to share in their bank’s profits: they want their banks to grow even bigger and stronger and more powerful to compete on international markets.  They don’t mind paying income tax to bail out monster banks (i.e. too big to fail) for their bad gambling debts (i.e. TARP in U.S.) [and because that bail out is added to the government’s debt, they don’t mind paying interest on the bail out to the Federal Reserve (whose policies created the crisis)].  They don’t mind children dying in Africa due to third-world usury (countries that can’t pay down the principle have gone further into debt instead of declaring bankruptcy). 

   With the support of their governments, Islamic Finance is the fastest growing sector in the MENA region (Middle East North Africa) with huge business opportunities ahead in the untapped Muslim populations in many countries.  Middle East regimes threaten to derail the forces of globalization and unseat traditional banking because Islam is setting up an attractive alternate model to conventional banking.  Suffering a setback after the “Battle in Seattle”, the globalists have wrapped themselves in the cloak of democracy to further their agenda.  Conventional western bankers see regime change in the Middle East as an imperative to competing with the success of the Islamic banking system (Henry, Clement Moore, PhD. and Robert Springborg.  Globalization and the politics of development in the Middle East, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 2nd edition 2010).

In their  Islamic Finance Outlook 2010 , Standard and Poor’s says,  “Competition Is Mounting, With Conventional Banks’ Islamic Windows Actively Challenging Fully-Fledged Islamic Banks:  Pioneering Islamic banks that have managed to acquire quasi-monopolies in their domestic niche markets are now facing stiff competition in our opinion. Their first mover advantage is shrinking in their domestic markets and we understand they are now looking at business and/or geographic diversification strategies. Conventional banks entering Islamic banking currently constitute the most active competitive threat to established Islamic banks. …”

Late in 2008, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde announced France’s intention to make Paris “the capital of Islamic finance” and said several Islamic banks would open branches in the French capital in 2009.  French sources estimate this area of the financial market is worth from 500 to 600 billion dollars and could grow by an average 11 percent a year.

John Sandwick, managing director of Swiss asset management firm Encore Management, characterized the opening of several Swiss Islamic banks as, “the race to control the rich prize: which today is worth hundreds of billions, but in the future will be trillions of dollars of Islamic wealth.”

  Reporting on material from Wikileaks, The Telegraph (Islamic Finance Key To Ensuring London As Top Financial Center) reported that Robert Tuttle, the then US ambassador to the Court of St. James in London as stating “Should London successfully position itself as a leading Islamic finance center, it could gain an edge on New York, when the global financial markets recover. . . . Prospects for growth from a Standard & Poor forecast [see above], assesses the [Islamic Finance] industry to potentially contain up to $4 trillion of assets. Other estimates put growth figures even higher, since Muslims account for 20 percent of the world population. Presently only about 1 percent of global financial assets are controlled under finance compliant with Islamic law.”

  Islamic banking is not yet established in North Africa (except in Sudan) and Egypt where large Muslim populations represent a very lucrative opportunity for Islamic banking in these emerging economies.  “However, despite the current poor climate, the potential for Islamic banking in Egypt is huge,” states Executive Magazine (Feb 8 2011), “ … Clearly Islamic banks in the Gulf are already anticipating the day when their home markets are saturated. And it appears that Egypt will be on the next front-line in the development of regional Islamic banking and finance.”

“African countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and Sudan are keen on future sukuk exercises (issuing Islamic bonds),”  [International Finance Review (Reuters), 2008]

 

ROTHSCHILDS/U.S.  FINANCE REVOLUTIONS IN PLAIN SITE

(This portion was in the previous post.  If you read it already, please scroll down to the table analyzing the banking profile and activist training in each country)

The MENA (Middle East North Africa) revolutions are from the same playbook as the nonviolent “color revolutions”.  The playbook is From Dictatorship To Democracy by Gene Sharp of the Albert Einstein Institute (funded partially by George Soros).   These revolutions have been successful in Serbia [especially the Bulldozer Revolution (2000)], in Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004), in Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution and in Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution (2005).    Iran’s Green Revolution (2009) was unsuccessful.

The Guardian reported (Nov 26, 2004) that the following were “directly involved” in organizing the color revolutions:  George Soros’ Open Society Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute, and Freedom House.   The Washington Post and the New York Times also reported substantial Western involvement in some of these events.  The network for this strategy is outlined in the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace’s  Fact-Sheet: U.S. Actors Promoting Democracy In The Middle East.   The nature of the programs is described below: 

 

 

Liberal billionaire George Soros and the US government funded training of activists in North Africa.

In 2007-08, Freedom House [funded by Soros and the Middle Eastern Partnership Initiative (MEPI)] ran the following program: “New Generation of Advocates, a MEPI-funded program that supports young civil society activists working for peaceful political change in the Middle East and North Africa, spearheaded the “Lawyers against Corruption” campaign in Tunisia.”(Freedom House website).  The group of “journalists, lawyers, and other activists who advocate for democratic reform” had a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on a trip to Washington on International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2008.  In May 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the group of activist/dissidents.  Freedom House reported on their website that the group also visited “U.S. government officials, members of Congress, media outlets and think tanks . . . After returning to Egypt, the fellows received small grants to implement innovative initiatives such as advocating for political reform through Facebook and SMS messaging.(emphasis added)

 

In 2010, Soros’ Open Society Institute funded a grant called ‘Can It Tweet its way to Democracy? The promise of Participatory Media in Africa’ described on the OSI website as being focused in Ethiopia and Egypt.

Egyptian protesters displaying the Otpor protester's fist originally funded by Soros in Yugoslavia

Facebook and Twitter were the primary means of organizing the revolution in Egypt:  “Activists from Egypt’s Kifaya (Enough) movement – a coalition of government opponents – and the 6th of April Youth Movement organized the protests on Facebook and Twitter . . . .” (Voice of America)

In the Foreign Policy Journal, Dr. D.K. Bolton (Jan 19 2011) writes, “NED [National Endowment for Democracy] and Soros work in tandem, targeting the same regimes and using the same methods. . . . At least ten of the twenty-two directors of NED are also members of the plutocratic think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations . . . .” (The Council of Foreign Relations is the American sister of the Rothschild’s Royal Institute of International Affairs in Britain: both are instruments of plutocratic control hiding in plain sight.)

  NED is funded by the U.S. government and private interests (including George Soros).  The following are quotes from the NED website from a few 2009 projects:     

“Al-Jahedh Forum for Free Thought $131,000 To strengthen the capacity and build a democratic culture among Tunisian youth activists.”

“Mohamed Ali Center for Research, Studies and Training $33,500 To train a core group of Tunisian youth activists on leadership and organizational skills to encourage their involvement in public life.  [MACRST] will conduct a four-day intensive training of trainers program for a core group of 10 young Tunisian civic activists on leadership and organizational skills; train 50 male and female activists aged 20 to 40 on leadership and empowered decision-making; and work with the trained activists through 50 on-site visits to their respective organizations.”

“Association for the Promotion of Education $27,000 To strengthen the capacity of Tunisian high school teachers to promote democratic and civic values in their classrooms.”

“Al-Jahedh Forum for Free Thought $57,000 [in 2008]  To train Tunisian activists.”

 In Egypt, the number of NED grants doubled in 2009 to 33 democracy projects totaling $1.4 million and the focus changed from promoting private enterprise to training young human-rights lawyers, and identifying and training youth activists:

“Egyptian Union of Liberal Youth (EULY) $33,300  To expand the use of new media among youth activists for the promotion of democratic ideas and values. EULY will train 60 youth activists to use filmmaking for the dissemination of democratic ideas and values.”

“Andalus Institute for Tolerance and Anti-Violence Studies (AITAS) $48,900 To strengthen youth understanding of the Egyptian parliament and enhance regional activists’ use of new technologies as accountability tools. AITAS will conduct a series of workshops for 300 university students to raise their awareness of parliament’s functions and engage them in monitoring parliamentary committees. AITAS will also host 8 month-long internships for youth activists from the Middle East and North Africa to share its experiences using web-based technologies in monitoring efforts.”

”Egyptian Democracy Institute (EDI) $48,900 To promote accountability and transparency in parliament through public participation, and to build legislative capacity. EDI will produce quarterly monitoring reports and hold seminars to discuss the overall performance of Parliament and offer recommendations on legislation proposed in the People’s Assembly. EDI will monitor, collect, and document evidence of corruption in Cairo and Alexandria.”

“Lawyers Union for Democratic and Legal Studies (LUDLS) $20,000 To support freedom of association by strengthening young activists’ ability to express and organize themselves peacefully within the bounds of the law. LUDLS will train 250 youth activists on peaceful assembly and dispute resolution”

 “Youth Forum  $19,000 To expand and maintain a network of youth activists on Egyptian university campuses and to encourage the participation of university students in student union elections and civic activities on campus. . . .”

—————————————————————————

George Soros is a wealthy, billionaire globalist.  His long-time trading partner was the late James Goldsmith, British banker and cousin to the Rothschilds.   James’ grandfather Adolphe Goldschmidt came to London as a multi-millionaire in 1895 and changed the family name from the German Goldschmidt to the English Goldsmith.   The Goldschmidts, like their neighbors and relatives the Rothschilds, had been prosperous merchant bankers in Frankfurt Germany since the 16th century (Wikipedia).

These revolutions are done under the pretense of bringing democracy and deposing despots, but the real aim is to initially create chaos and a leadership vacuum, then quickly offer a solution: install a puppet that will do the economic bidding of the Rothschilds.   The citizens gain civil liberties, but become economic serfs.

These revolutions are most likely coordinated at the highest levels by the International Crisis Group.  Mohamed ElBaradei is already being touted as a new leader for Egypt. ElBaradei is a trustee of the International Crisis Group.  Another board member of this group is Zbigniew Brzezinski (another frontman for the Rothschilds).  George Soros also sits on the executive committee.

 

TABLE I:   COUNTRY BY COUNTRY ANALYSIS OF ISLAMIC FINANCE AND ACTIVIST TRAINING

(For the exact figures for this table plus oil reserves, and sources see the page on this topic in the menu on the right)

MENA COUNTRIES (MENA is Middle East North Africa)  BANKING PROFILE Population Size 2008  S: <5MM: < 10M  L:<40M

 XL: >40M

TRAINING ACTIVISTS  2006 -2008 [last year available--does not include MEPI ($110M) and Open Society Institute(est.$90M)]
Central Bank controlled by the state  Financial Center for Islamic Finance Number of Islamic Financial Institutions  Is LOW ( < 10) Market Share of Islamic Financial Institutions  Is LOW (< 15%) USAID + State GJD + NED 2006-2008 (million $) (USAID + State GJD + NED)  dollars per 1000 people
Bahrain      Bahrain                   X Small $ 0.6M $550 HIGH 
Egypt                      X                  X XXLarge $ 156M $2100   HIGH – EXTRA
Iran           Iran             Iran     Large $ 38M $1230       HIGH – VERY
Iraq  Until 2004                    X                  X Large $1638M $52840     HIGH – EXTRA
Jordan                      X                 X Medium $ 55M* $9320       HIGH - EXTRA
Kuwait         Medium $ 0.2M $60            LOW
Lebanon                      X                 X Small $ 48M $12000     HIGH – EXTRA
Qatar         Small $0 $0              LOW
SaudiArabia         Large $ 2M $80            LOW
Syria            Syria                    X                 X Large $ 7.5M $380          MODERATE
Turkey                      X                 X  XXLarge $ 5.5M $70            LOW
UAE         Small $0 $0              LOW
Yemen                      X   Large $ 8M $330          MODERATE
TOTAL FOR MIDDLE EAST                2              2 Na                 X   $321M (not including Iraq) $1070 (not including Iraq)   HIGH – VERY
North Africa              
Algeria                     X (2)        X (15%) Large $2M $58          LOW
Libya           Libya                      X (0)        X ( 0%) Medium $ 0.6M $82          LOW
Morocco                     X (1)                 X Large $ 22M $670        HIGH
Sudan           Sudan                     Large $ 171M $4480      HIGH – EXTRA
Tunisia          Tunisia                 X (3)                 X Medium $ 1.1 M $110        MODERATE
TOTAL FOR N. AFRICA              2               1                 X (36)                 X   $197M $1600      HIGH – EXTRA
               
GRAND TOTAL FOR MENA REGION               4               3                304  na Na $518M $1230      HIGH – VERY

* includes similar projects from the Millenium Challenge Corporation

 

 Contrary to popular belief, the world’s finances are controlled by privately-owned “central banks” masquerading as federal government banks in nearly every country in the world  [The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruled that The Federal Reserve (U.S.' central bank) was privately owned in 680 F.2d 1239, LEWIS v. UNITED STATES of America, No. 80-5905].

 

Jacob Rothschild, senior member of the British branch of the Rothschild dynasty

 

 

Though the shareholders of the central banks are guarded secrets, in 1976 a U.S. House of Representatives found that the shareholders of the Federal Reserve (America’s central bank) were the super-elite of domestic and international bankers (Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence, Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 1976, Appendix, Charts 1-5).  One author, Eustice Mullins, traced the ownership of these banks back to the Rothschilds–having the controlling interest in the Federal Reserve (Secrets of the Federal Reserve 1983).

 With extremely little government input, the economies of nearly all countries’ in the world are strictly controlled by private central bankers (and their tool, the International Monetary Fund) ultimately led by the Rothschild’s cartel.  Central bankers in the MENA region complain about less “independence” from the wishes of those dictators and governments.

Some countries without central banks (privately owned operating autonomous of the government) have names like Central Bank of Iran and Central Bank of Libya and appear on lists of central banks, but they are state owned or entirely state controlled.  Countries without privately-owned (or controlled) central banks are: Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and Cuba.  Iraq did not have a central bank until (after the U.S. invasion in) 2004, Afghanistan did not have a central bank until (after the U.S. invasion in) 2002 and Yugoslavia did not have a central bank independent of government control.  Sudan’s central bank may be privately owned but it is totally run by the government which embraced Islamic banking decades ago (According to an IMF study , Sudan’s score for the political autonomy of its bank is zero out of eight).

Countries labeled as “rogue states” by the U.S. in the late 1990s were Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Afganistan, Yugoslavia and Sudan.

 

TABLE 2:  IS THERE A CORELATION BETWEEN THE LACK OF CONTROL OF A NATION’S ECONOMY BY INTERNATIONAL ELITES AND U.S. AGGRESSION—ECONOMIC, POLITICAL OR MILITARY?

No private Central Bank (1990s) Iraq     Iran Afghanistan Cuba North Korea Syria Yugoslavia Libya Sudan
Rogue States (1990s) Iraq Iran Afghanistan Cuba North Korea Syria Yugoslavia Libya Sudan

 

Half the countries in the first column [of the above Table I (no privately controlled central bank)] have been invaded by U.S. forces and most of the rest have been threatened.   Of the MENA countries: 1)  Iraq was subjected to crippling sanctions and then brutally invaded.  In 2002 economic reforms (a private central bank) were forced upon it.  2) Iran is still suffering under sanctions.   Citizens there have been given very high amounts of pro-democracy activist training by USAID, NED and SOROS and they did have an attempted revolution in 2009 after the election and they have had protests in the last months.  3)  In addition to a government-run central bank, Sudan also has many Islamic banks.  It has received extremely high levels of activist training and it has seen protests in 2011.  4)  Syria received moderate levels of activist training and has also had recent protests.

Countries which are financial centers for Islamic Finance (column 2 in Table I) are also targets:   1) Tunisia which had just opened its Tunis Financial Harbor with the ambition to become the financial center of North Africa received moderate levels of activist training and the ensuing protests seemed to catch the dictator by surprise and toppled The Ben Ali regime.  2) Bahrain was establishing itself with two mega-centers, Bahrain Financial Harbor and Gulf Finance House.  Bahrain received high levels of activist training and has experienced sustained protests for many weeks.   3) Iran embraced Islamic banking early on and Western-style banks charging interest are not allowed.   Seven of the ten largest Islamic banks in the world are in Iran.

If a country has an ‘X’ in columns 3 or 4 (in Table I), Islamic finance has a low market share so it represents a lucrative business opportunity (provided the country does not have a small population).  Egypt would be the prime example of a totally unexploited market for Islamic banking:  with a population of nearly 80 million, it has only 3 Islamic banks with a market penetration of only 7%.   Other countries that represent a business opportunity (low market share with a significant population size) are Tunisia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Iraq and Tunisia.

Of all the countries potentially in play (nations mentioned in the text above), based on these figures (do not include MEPI and OSI which are not available by country) for funding of activist training:

1)      Low activist funding means protesters will have the least chance of success in Libya, Algeria and Turkey.

2)     High activist funding means the greatest chance for a revolution to be successful would be in Egypt, Iran and Jordan.

       USAID, NED and George Soros have been injecting millions of dollars into the training of MENA pro-democracy teachers, lawyers, journalists and youth activists.  In 2009 they more than doubled their training efforts.   The international bankers are competing with Islamic finance in the Middle East.  They have their eye on MENA’s large untapped markets.    If they get rid of autocratic leaders, they will be able to control MENA countries and their Islamic banks through their privately-owned central banks—they may be able to discredit Islamic finance as an alternate model to usury.

The globalist banksters want Muslims to borrow from their (the globalist’s) banks and pay interest at rates their central banks decide:  they do not want them to borrow from Islamic banks and not pay any interest.  The globalist banking cartel want Muslims to trade their present political oppression at the hands of brutal dictators for a future of economic serfdom under the feudal Lord Rothschild.

A third option is for young, new MENA democracies not to let themselves be groomed by old men in Western business suits.  They should elect governments that are not from the globalist money power and they should nationalize their central banks and set up independent monetary policy that will provide a level playing field for Islamic Finance and Western-style banks. 

Update: On March 28, after only a few weeks of fighting, the rebels opened a privately-owned central bank and an oil company.  This is unprecedented: a group of street fighters still engaged in heavy conflict have the international banking skills to establish a central bank.   Who owns the bank is not available.       

Caution: This site is anti-plutocratic, not antisemitic.  Bigoted comments will not be tolerated.

 

 

 

Wikileaks Is A Rothschild Operation: Rothschilds Use Wikileaks To Wound Rival Bank, Julian Assange’s Bail Posted By Rothschilds’ Sister-in-law, Many Other Links

© Puppetworld Post (Link to this page or at least give the source)

Wikileaks' leader Julian Assange accepts a CD from Rudolph Elmer which reveals tax evation by wealthy clients of Swiss Bank Julius Baer, a rival of the Rothschild Bank in Switzerland.

Puppetworld Post Exclusive, last updated Jan 18 2011

After being made famous, Julian Assange’s first task is to wound a rival bank of the Rothschild Bank in Switzerland.  The rival is Bank Julius Baer, the top Swiss bank for centuries: the competing Rothschild Bank AG opened in Switzerland in 1968.

On January 17, 2011, Assange held a press conference at The Frontline Club where Rudolf Elmer, a former employee of Bank Julius Baer, gave Assange private files from the bank’s Cayman Islands’ operation.  Elmer said he wanted to expose mass tax evasion before he flies back to Switzerland to stand trial for stealing information from a bank.  Although Elmer has not named the tax evaders, he claims the CD files contain information about 40 politicians, many business people, multinational conglomerates and “people who have made their living in the arts.”

Rothschilds’ Swiss Bank Battles: Assange’s press conference was actually a public threat to Bank Julius Baer:  Wikileaks first disclosed some of Elmer’s Julius-Baer material in 2008, naming ten clients.  At the time, Julius Baer sued and got a court injunction to effectively shut down Wikileaks.org at its web host in California.  Subsequently, the law firm Fox Rothschild represented Wikileaks, got the injunction overturned, and got Wikileaks.org back on line.  Immediately, WL commenced leaking more of Elmer’s documents, which was damaging to Bank Julius Baer.

Bank JB got a lot of negative publicity from its attempt to censor the Internet.  When JB lost the suit, their super-elite clients became fearful of being exposed and prosecuted for tax evasion and money laundering.  Julius Baer shares dropped 60% during the next ten months.  On Dec. 4, 2008, the 52-year-old CEO of Julius Baer, Alex Widmer, was unexpectedly found dead.

“He was the most important person in private banking,” said a Zurich-based trader.

“This is a setback for the bank (Julius Baer),” a Swiss trading analyst said.

Reports of the cause of death were contradictory and vague and an autopsy was never released.

Wikileaks' Julian Assange filming a video for The Economist (a Rothschild publication) which gave him its New Media Award

Wikileaks’ many other links to Rothschilds

The recent imprisonment of Wikileaks’ Julian Assange strains credulity.   His arrest by Interpol, his incarceration under draconian conditions for breaking a condom are in themselves highly unlikely events, but the timing of his imprisonment with the release of classified US cables and the campaign against Wikileaks’ funding and website host bear the trademarks of a covert operation.

The Puppetworld Post has uncovered many links between Wikileaks and the international Rothschild network:

–a sister-in-law and second cousin of the Rothschilds posted bail for Julian Assange (Puppetworld Post exclusive)

–The Economist (a Rothschild magazine) gave Assange its New Media Award in 2008

–Wikileaks used the law firm Fox Rothschild to overturn a judge’s ruling to order a web host to shut down the Wikileaks site
– The Guardian and The New York Times, two of Assange’s media partners, are linked to the Rothschilds (PwP exclusive)
–the owner of the mansion where Assange was eventually put under house arrest has links to Rothschilds
–Assange’s lawyer is also Rothschilds’ lawyer
–US Senator Joe Lieberman who was ultimately responsible for making Assange the largest media personality of the decade, is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations (a Rothschild organization)

[The Rothschilds are an international family of bankers at the centre of a web of wealthy families who control most the countries through a worldwide network of: privately-owned central banks (masquerading as federal banks), major news chains, trusts, councils, etcetera.   An unnamed source has put their monetary worth near $100 trillion—dwarfing the net worth of the likes of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, etc.]

Zac Goldsmith (married to Kate Rothschild) winning the election with sister, Jemima Khan (nee Goldsmith)(right), and mother, Annabel Goldsmith

Socialite, heiress Jemima Khan (nee Goldsmith) posted 20 000 pounds ($32 000) for the bail of Wikileaks’ leader Julian Assange.  She’s genetically related to the Rothschilds and she is a sister-in-law (Daily Mail Online, 10 May 2010).  Her father, the late James Goldsmith—British banker, publisher–is a cousin to the Rothschilds.   James’ grandfather Adolphe Goldschmidt  came to London as a multi-millionaire in 1895 and changed the family name from the German Goldschmidt to the English Goldsmith.   The Goldschmidts, like their neighbors and relatives the Rothschilds, had been prosperous merchant bankers in Frankfurt Germany since the 16th century (Wikipedia).
Following the Rothschild’s  centuries-old edict to interbreed,  Jemima Khan’s brother, Ben, wed Kate Rothschild in 2003 and recently her other brother, Zac, a new MP in British parliament had been having an affair with his brother’s sister-in-law, Alice Rothschild (Kate’s sister), up until he divorced his wife four days after he was elected MP.  Zac and Alice are presently living together.   Khan’s brothers are marrying into Rothschild wealth.

The Rothschilds began grooming Julian Assange in 2008, when Wikileaks was awarded The Economist’s New Media Award.  The Economist is the voice of Britain’s establishment (led by the British Rothschilds) which has, for example, on balance, supported Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war.    Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972 to 1989.   His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist’s board. The Rothschild family also has a large shareholder interest in The Economist.
At first blush, it is incredulous that the The Economist, the pinnacle of the establishment, would give their award to Assange knowing full well that he was releasing classified government documents and being overly aware of the havoc this will create in the world.  The Rothschilds’ oft- stated goal (over the centuries) is for a One World Government (i.e. The New World Order).   To this end they engineer conflict between nations, to create crises that will then be utilized to increase the power of international entities – the UN, World Bank, IMF, etc.   For example, they (and other closely-related families like the Schiffs) financed the Bolsheviks.  In the past, the Rothschild empire have profited by bankrolling both sides of war.

US senator Joe Lieberman is the Rothschild’s point man in America.   During the last presidential election, he took his friend, Republican candidate John McCain to Jacob Rothschild’s house for a fund-raiser for McCain.  Lieberman is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (a Rothschild cabal which is essentially the shadow government of the US).   Lieberman’s recent actions resulted in cutting off the money supply of Wikileaks:  Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, stopped accepting donations for Wikileaks.   Lieberman publicly took credit  for censoring Wikileaks’ website by pressuring Amazon to stop hosting the website.  The result was that Anonymous hactivists launched attacks on the websites of companies (above) which had discontinued service to Wikileaks.    Lieberman’s campaign against Wikileaks had the effect of increasing the martyrdom and hence the popularity of Assange and Wikileaks.  Lieberman made  Assange a star, nearly becoming Time magazine’s Man of The Year.
Julian Assange’s lawyer is Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent, a major London elite law firm.   They are the legal adviser to the Rothschild’s prestigious Waddesdon Trust.
Assange’s main media partner is The Guardian.    The Guardian has been infiltrated by  Rothschilds.  The Guardian is controlled by Guardian Media Group whose chairman is Paul Myners a past employee of N. M. Rothschild Limited & Sons Limited.  Guardian Media Group is owned by Scott Trust which became a limited private company in 2008 with all trustees becoming directors of the Scott Trust.  Anthony Salz was appointed as a trustee of Scott Trust in 2009:  He is currently executive vice-chairman of the investment Bank Rothschild.
The Guardian gave the US cables to the current New York Times.   The chairman of the NYT is Arthur Sulzberger Jr., a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  He is the son of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and grandson of Arthur Hays Sulzberger who served as a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation (in cahoots with Rothschilds for One World Government).
After a time in a real prison, Assange was “imprisoned” in a countryside mansion at the home of Vaughan Smith, the owner of Frontline Trust, a news organization that seeks to influence TV journalists.   Frontline is funded by George Soros’ organization, Open Society Institute, and George Soros is intimately intertwined with the Rothschilds.  George Soros has been a frequent business partner with James Goldsmith (father of Jemima Khan and cousin of the Rothschilds).  The director of Soros’ Open Society Institute, Richard Katz was director of N M Rothschild & Sons for 16 years.  Other board members like Nils Taube also hold positions in Rothschild banks, etcetera.    On October 25 and July 27 this year, Assange was a speaker at Vaughan Smith’s Frontline Trust.
Most people seem to believe that current events just happen, that events in the news are chain reactions of accidents, and that people with money and power sit idly by, watching events unfold.    However, The Rothschilds thrive on manipulating the markets by having insider information while propagating contrary misinformation.  In this way, they make huge profits.   Assange has already said that damaging information on one US bank will be released.  In this fragile recovery, the crisis could be pivotal.   The Guardian and the New York Times have this information so it is available to Rothschilds in order to “short” the bank before the information is released.  Wikileaks is an invaluable tool for the Rothschilds to manipulate the financial markets, the whole monetary system, the future of nations, and the public.

The information (or misinformation) from Wikileaks also serves the Rothschild’s aim to increase conflict among nations in order to further their goal of One World Government.

Caution: This site is anti-plutocratic, not antisemitic.  Bigotted comments will not be tolerated.

The West Cheers On the Protesters Who Occupy Tahrir Square: While THEY EVICT THEIR OWN OCCUPY MOVEMENTS

©Nov 9 2011 (please link to this page)

Historically:  Civil disobedience has been an invaluable tool to democracy.  Without it, people would not have been able to get the right to vote (e.g.  women, racial groups) and other civil liberties.  The environmental movement owes its successes to protest and civil disobedience.   People all around the globe are free from tyranny today largely through protest and civil disobedience.

Controlling Dissent:  Western mayors (and the 1%) control the nature of protests:  you can protest the way we (the 1%) tell you you can protest, only–that is, the traditional way that we know how to control–we will not tolerate any innovative ways to protest (i.e. occupying public space).  Also, the authorities dismiss and demean the validity of any protest as a means of controlling dissent.

Balancing rights:  On one side of the balance is the right of the mayor to enforce restrictions on the use of public (and semi-public) space by the public.  On the other side is the democratic right of people to protest.   At this point, many of the 99% are happy to permit the great sadness of economic inequity in society to continue as long as the right to walk your dog in the park without having to look at an Occupy encampment is protected.

 

The OCCUPY Movement and the ANONYMOUS Hacktivists: New Communities Not Understood By the Media

©Nov 1 2011  (please link to this page or copy an excerpt and link)

The Occupy movement is more than simply a protest movement.   The Occupy movement is also a new social structure.   They are building a sense of community.   They are building their own culture and social order.

Each evening they have a General Assembly where they arrive at decisions by consensus rather than by majority rule (i.e. abandoning the tyranny of the majority).   The Occupy movement’s General Assemblies, across the world, have a similar structure and procedural protocol, and a shared vocabulary.  For example, they call out, “Open mic,” and everyone repeats each sentence the speaker says (to enhance group participation and the ability to hear).   When you like what whomever is speaking is saying, you wiggle your fingers upward and you indicate occasional disapproval by downward finger wiggling.   Arriving at group decisions by consensus is frustrating, hard work.

 Coping with the close quarters of the campground is trying for the Occupiers.   And the schedule of events and speakers makes for busy days.  A sign at the front of the park says, “Will Work For Change.”  And with the frigid temperatures, it isn’t a picnic.

The Occupy movement is (virtually) leaderless by design:  a web of loosely interconnected communities who operate independently, but share common values and goals, though they may differ in the means they use to achieve them.    

The media has relentlessly criticized the movement for not having specific demands.  But that shows a complete incomprehension of the Occupy group—rather than start with demands, they are setting up a community and a decision making process (consensus) that will evolve into whatever the groups decide.  (Some have said that this is a brilliant tactic because it prevents pigeonholing by the media).

 Michael Stone, a speaker who had been to several Occupy camps, encouraged Occupiers to abandon the grand narratives of the “isms” (i.e. socialism, capitalism, liberalism, etc.) and develop their own value system collectively. 

Stone said that Occupy was not a protest movement, but a spiritual movement.  The Occupy movement is foremost a quest for freedom—one street sign near the entrance to the park points toward the park and says Freedom Park, and an adjacent street sign points in the other direction, out toward the city and says Servitude—a quest for freedom from a world run by elites.

Anonymous member with typical Guy Fawkes mask at Occupy Wall Street

The Occupiers are a mixture of many people with different causes who have come together under one umbrella with the ultimate goal of changing the unjust economic and political systems.   So far, the issue that they all agree on is the gross disparity in the manner in which wealth is assigned in the present systems.  The economic mechanisms in place threaten to make that disparity even more ugly for our children and grandchildren.   The Occupiers want the 99% to abandon servitude to the elites and take responsibility for, and control of, their own destiny. 

 Right-wing media outlets of the elites have accused the Occupy movement of class warfare.   That is laughable: the elites who created the chasm between the rich and the rest of us are the ones who set the tables for class warfare—not those who speak up and don’t go along with the unfairness.

The successful formula for the Arab Spring was/is:   Street protesters occupy public spaces + The Anonymous hactivist community  =  the defeat of tough, hardcore elites.     How will this formula work for the other peoples of the world?   Occupy The Planet + Anonymous Hactivists =  ?

 You should not think of Anonymous as an organization.  It has little leadership.  It is better to think of Anonymous as a concept or a meme: that people who believe in the same cause can meet in forums and agree on actionable common goals.  Its members can be anyone who wants to participate, even enemies of the cause may freely participate, so membership in any operation is fluid.

If, through the cocophany of voices in the “hive mind”, you (plural) can decide on a common goal or method of protest, then you can take action.  The easiest means (and the hardest to defend against) available to them is to download software which enables them to overload a website with a flood of data (DDoS – Distributed Denial of Service).  Individuals can do this on an encrypted network (e.g. Tor) so their identity will remain secret. 

Anonymous is a fluid online community which has already developed its own culture community and lingo.  The values of most participants are quite ethical.  The strongest ethos of the Anonymous community is a rabid zeal for freedom of speech.  They don’t have much use for political correctness either: street protesters are called groundfags (not a derogatory term whatsoever to Anons).  Online Anonymous participants also join street protests wearing their Guy Fawkes mask.

Skilled hackers also participate in Anonymous Ops who are able to penetrate most security systems.  They seemed to be highly effective in the revolution in Tunisia.   In Egypt and Libya, Mubarek and Kadaffi had to shut down the whole Internet which would have also been a disadvantage to the dictator’s regimes.

Anonymous participants have been involved in the Occupy movement from the start, but they have not been very active.  Recently they shut down the Oakland police website and released information they hacked on some police officers in response to the Oakland police violence against the Occupy community there (specifically Scott Olsen).

They have issued various promises to retaliate for police actions taken against Occupy participants.  Some members have threatened Fox News for their ridicule of the Occupy movement and they have threatened to hack the NY and TSX stock exchanges.  Some of these are undoubtedly hoaxes.

Anonymous hactivists have the potential to be a very effective ally to the groundfags at Occupy camps.  One can’t help but wonder what they may have planned for November 5th, Guy Fawkes Day.

In the spirit of the Occupy movement, this article will evolve—comments and information provided will be added to the article or incorporated into the text.  Information from participants in the Occupy movement or Anonymous will be given the greater priority to be included in this narrative.

DEMOCRACY PRIVATIZED! Occupy Wall Street Will Expose That The 1% Have Occupied Our Governments

On Oct 9 in Washington DC, protesters occupy the privately-owned Federal Reserve which creates money as debt for the US government.

© PwP 2011 (Do not copy, please link to this page or use an excerpt and link)

Democracy Is A Sham   It takes millions of dollars to get elected as president.  Through campaign donations, the wealthy elites play the elections like a game of poker.  In the 2008 US election, McCain was financed by the senior (Lord!) Jacob Rothschild.   Senator Joe Lieberman took him to a fundraiser at Jacob Rothschild’s house in London.   Hilary was bankrolled by  Lynn  Forester de Rothschild (who later shifted her bet to McCain also).   And most deceptively, Obama was backed by George Soros.  Soros has a close historical relationship with the Rothschilds—his long-time investing buddy was James Goldsmith, a close cousin to the Rothschilds (their families lived as neighbors for centuries).

 The 2012 election will be decided by whom THEY choose to finance with their millions.

 

Obama at fund-raiser at Steven and Judy Gluckstern's home, April 9, 2007. George Soros is seated to the right of the stairs.

 Politicians become their puppets (wittingly or unwittingly).  After Obama was elected, many of the people he chose for key positions were people who had helped cause the collapse of the world economy or other international problems.    To ensure the narrow interests of the ultra-rich are enshrined in legislation, they employ hordes of lobbyists to stalk politicians.  Everyone knows this, but no one does anything about it.  Most people accept it as an inevitable part of democracy and they are distracted by the emotions of the endless partisan puppet show—the two-party façade that produces the illusion of democracy.

With the automation of industry and services, productivity has increased exponentially, but the new wealth has gone to the 1%.   They have not shared with the rest of us.  They are able to do this because they control the economy, the politicians and the media.  

 More money in the pockets of the middle class would mean more consumer activity and a big boost for the economy.  The game of the ultra-rich is to use the accelerating Chinese and Indian consumer markets rather than the already exploited, North American market.    

Financial Control

In a similar way, for decades the people of the world were unaware that their government finances had been privatized.

 Someone actually has to create money out of thin air and circulate it for people to use.  Historically, the creation of money and the control of domestic economies was the domain of sovereign governments  who simply created money as an asset.  They didn’t need to borrow the money and pay interest on it.   This was subject to natural controls:  if any government created too much money, it would lead to inflation and the devaluation of their currency with respect to other currencies undermining their foreign trade.

 But in the USA in 1913, a group of international bankers got a bill passed on Christmas Eve when most congressmen were at home.  The bill ceded the ability of the government to create its own currency and to regulate its own economy to a cartel of domestic and international bankers who were closely associated with the Rothschilds.  The Federal Reserve was created as a privately owned bank.  The US government bank had been privatized.  This was nothing less than an economic coup. 

 Since then the privately-owned Federal Reserve has controlled the economy of the US and issued its own currency (Federal Reserve Notes).   These notes are issued as debt to the US government.   In order to pay these debts, it was necessary for the US government to introduce income tax.   Before this the infrastructure of the US (railroads, highways,  bridges, etc) and the waging of wars had been paid for by trade tariffs the government collected.

 The core of the international web of bankers (and their puppets) that control the economies of the world are the Rothschilds whose descendents now occupy many European countries.  The Rothschild’s  nexus of control is The City of London.

Privatized federal banks are called central banks.  Presently,  all countries of the world have relinquished control of their economic destinies to privatized central banks except for Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba.  These countries presently suffer under US sanctions.

Recent History of the Privatizing of Government Banks

In 1990, only 8 countries in the world did not have privatized central banks.  In the 1990s, the US produced a list of countries they labeled as “rogue states”. Compare these two lists:

 

 No  Central Bank in 1990 Iraq    Afghanistan Libya Yugoslavia Iran Cuba North Korea Syria
Rogue States (US, 1990s) Iraq Afghanistan Libya Yugoslavia Iran Cuba North Korea Syria
Central Bank by 2011? Yes, in 2004, US invasion Yes, in 2002, US  invasion Yes, Mar 19, 2011, NATO (US) air invasion Yes, NATO (US)  invasion No No No No

The central banks of the world control the issuing of money as debt to the citizens of the world, they control the interest rates at which the debt will be repaid, they control the interest rates for borrowing all money from them, so they now control the whole economy.  And they also control our(?) politicians.

 We don’t live in a democracy—we live in a plutocracy (rule by the ultra-rich).   Until the 99% do something about it, the plutocracy will thrive and the interests of the average people will be eroded, neglected.  The people’s history books of the future (if they are not written by the plutocracy) will record these times as dark ages of economic serfdom.   This will be the legacy YOU leave your children.

Regaining Control Of Our Destiny

Their system of economic control is so ubiquitous . . . it is presented to us as the inevitable consequence of modernization and uncontrollable economic forces (i.e. globalization).  But this is not true . . .economic forces are the way they are by human design.  By their design.

Follow the money.    Get the money out!    Get the money out of institutions of economic control and out of the political system.  Key goals should be to:

1)      Nationalize the Federal Reserve (and other privately-owned central banks in other countries)

2)      End campaign finance by the rich

3)      End lobbying by the rich

Their plutocratic network is so pervasive that half-measures are doomed to be assimilated.   . . . then, in time, undermined and eventually defeated.

It remains to be seen if non-violent methods can dislodge these parasites.  Be forewarned:  those behind the world’s plutocracy are arrogant with entitlement and will stop at nothing to maintain their power over us.  Nothing.

Yet, we have the power.  People can refuse to cooperate with an unfair economic system.  We can shut down the whole system, bring it to a halt.   Anonymous (hacktivists) can shut down their Internet activity–take down their websites.  WE have the power.

If we can only educate ourselves and see through the distracting puppet show to see the strings attached by the puppet masters–that is the biggest challenge.

   

Rothschilds Stage Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt To Kill Islamic Banks In Emerging North African Markets

PwP Exclusive  ©Feb 9 2011  (link to this page or at least give the source)

Background: Tunisia has undergone increasing economic liberalization over the last decade: In the 2010-2011 World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, it was ranked as the most competitive country in Africa, as well as the 32nd most economically competitive country globally.   North Africa’s large Muslim populations are a vast business opportunity for Islamic banking and other businesses.

Jacob Rothschild, senior member of the British branch of the Rothschild dynasty

Jacob Rothschild, senior member of the British branch of the Rothschild dynasty

Contrary to popular belief, the world’s finances are controlled by privately-owned “central banks” masquerading as federal government banks in nearly every country in the world  [The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruled that The Federal Reserve (U.S.' central bank) was privately owned in 680 F.2d 1239, LEWIS v. UNITED STATES of America, No. 80-5905].

Though it is a carefully guarded secret, the Rothschilds and their associates own most the shares in the central banks (Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence, Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 1976, Charts 1-5) (Mullins, Eustice  Secrets of the Federal Reserve 1983).   With extremely little government input, the economies of Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, and Algeria are strictly controlled by the Rothschild’s central banks and their International Monetary Fund.

————————————————————————————————————————–

THE MOTIVE: FOLLOW THE MONEY

Islamic banks have been eating into Rothschild profits in the Middle East because: they don’t charge interest (Shariah Law), they are growing very rapidly among the world’s exploding Muslim populations, and (in these catastrophic economic times) they are more stable than western banks.

While it is a very good thing that people are freed from the tyranny of dictators, they also need to be freed from the tyranny of economic control and serfdom.  The relevant moral question is: Do the means justify the end?.

Ben Ali's son-in-law El Materi at the opening of his Zitouna Bank, North Africa's first Islamic bank, last May

Deposed Tunisian President Ben Ali’s son-in-law, Sakher El Materi, opened Tunisia’s first Islamic bank, Zitouna Bank, on May 26, 2010.   Zitouna Bank is the first Islamic bank in the Maghreb region [North Africa].   The bank was a first step toward Ben Ali’s new program of extensive reforms, “Tunisia, a Pole for Banking Services and a Regional Financial Centre”, which would have undermined the power and the profits of the Central Bank of Tunisia (privately-owned by the Rothschilds and their associates).

 

Tunis Financial Harbour opened last October 19. Its the first offshore finance centre in North Africa.

The Telegraph (October 19 2010) reported on the opening of the megaproject Tunis Financial Harbour –President Ben Ali’s bid to make Tunisia the regional financial centre of North Africa and beyond: “Islamic investment bank Gulf Finance House (GFH) and the Tunisian government have created the first offshore finance centre in North Africa.  The centre will be part of Tunis Financial Harbour, a $3 billion waterfront development in Tunis . . .  GFH, which is based in Bahrain, hopes the centre will allow Tunisia to take advantage of its strategic position on the Mediterranean sea, and operate as a bridge between the EU and the rapidly growing economies of North Africa [and subSaharan Africa].”

 

“However, despite the current poor climate, the potential for Islamic banking in Egypt is huge, and one should expect more moves from Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank into Egypt, possibly in the form of a buyout,”  Executive Magazine (Feb 8 2011) reports, “A recent Middle East Business Intelligence report said it best, when it opined, ‘If Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank can make a success of offering Islamic products, the whole market will open up. We have already seen some of the local banks start to advertise their Islamic products in view of the competition for customers they see about to begin.’

“Clearly Islamic banks in the Gulf are already anticipating the day when their home markets are saturated. And it appears that Egypt will be on the next front-line in the development of regional Islamic banking and finance.”

“African countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and Sudan are keen on future sukuk exercises (issuing Islamic bonds). Gambia debuted with a US$166m sukuk deal, privately sold in the US in 2006.”  [International Finance Review (Reuters), 2008]

The New York Times article “Islamic banking rises on oil wealth, drawing non-Muslims” ( November 22, 2007) reported:   “Rising oil wealth is lifting Islamic banking – which adheres to the laws of the Koran and its prohibition against charging interest – into the financial mainstream. . . . In addition to Islamic loans, there are Islamic bonds, Islamic credit cards . . . Loans and bonds that conform to the Koran are already available in the United States. . . .

“’This is an industry on its way from a niche industry to becoming a truly global industry,’ said Khawaja Mohammad Salman Younis, the managing director for operations in Malaysia for Kuwait Finance House, the world’s second-largest Islamic bank.  ‘In the next three to five years you’ll see Islamic banks coming out in Australia, China, Japan and other parts of the world.’

“In Islamic banking, financiers are required to share borrowers’ risks, meaning that depositors are treated more like shareholders, earning a portion of profits.  Financing deals resemble lease-to-own arrangements, layaway plans, joint purchase and sale agreements, or partnerships.

“The stampede into Islamic finance is mostly an effort to tap an estimated $1.5 trillion of funds sloshing around the Middle East, largely from higher oil prices.  . . .Those investments have helped ignite an economic revival throughout the Muslim world at a time of increasing religious conservatism among Islam’s 1.6 billion faithful.  A result is expanding demand for financial services that adhere to Islamic law  . . .

“And while the biggest Islamic banks are in the wealthy Gulf states, the most attractive potential markets are in Turkey and North Africa (emphasis added) and among European Muslims. . . .

“. . . even non-Muslims are taking advantage of a growing range of Islamic products offering competitive returns.  For instance, David Ong-Yeoh, a public relations executive tired of fretting over the rising interest rate on his adjustable rate mortgage, refinanced to a 30-year fixed loan from an Islamic financial institution. Now, he pays regular installments that include a predetermined profit margin for the bank.

“’The terms are better than on conventional loans,’ said Ong-Yeoh, 41.

“Islamic finance also avoids other prohibited practices.  Shariah-compliant bankers cannot receive or provide funds for anything involving alcohol, gambling, pornography, tobacco, weapons or pork.  Proponents of Islamic banking say these are limits any socially conscious investor can support, Muslim or not. They also envision wider appeal for Islamic banking’s ban on interest, which stems from the Koran’s prohibition against usury.

“This is a view that has a long religious and historical tradition.  Interest is repeatedly condemned in the Bible. Aristotle denounced it, the Romans limited it, and the early Christian church prohibited it. . . .

“The belief that all interest charges are unjust now underpins Islamic finance. . . .Hoarding is frowned upon in the Koran, so savings earn no return unless put to productive use.

“’Money should be used for creating better value in the country or the economy,’ Maraj said. ‘Money cannot generate money.’

“Nor can Islamic banks simply trade money.  ‘In the Islamic finance model, the banks are supposed to mobilize funds through a fund management concept,’ said Rafe Haneef, head of Islamic banking in Asia for Citigroup.

“Indeed, Islamic banking is supposed to function more like private equity firms than conventional banking. ‘Private equity is an Islamic concept,’ Haneef said.

“Industry proponents say this risk-sharing requirement helps reduce the kind of abuses that led to the subprime mortgage mess in the United States. Scholars consider it un-Islamic to overload a customer with debt or invest in a company with excessive debt.”

The Washington Post, “Islamic Banking: Steady In Shaky Times” (Oct 31 2008), reported:  “As big Western financial institutions have teetered one after the other in the crisis of recent weeks, another financial sector is gaining new confidence: Islamic banking.  Proponents of the ancient practice, which looks to sharia law for guidance and bans interest and trading in debt, have been promoting Islamic finance as a cure for the global financial meltdown.

“This week, Kuwait’s commerce minister, Ahmad Baqer, was quoted as saying that the global crisis will prompt more countries to use Islamic principles in running their economies. U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmet, visiting Jiddah, said experts at his agency have been learning the features of Islamic banking.

“Though the trillion-dollar Islamic banking industry faces challenges with the slump in real estate and stock prices, advocates say the system has built-in protection from the kind of runaway collapse that has afflicted so many institutions. For one thing, the use of financial instruments such as derivatives, blamed for the downfall of banking, insurance and investment giants, is banned. So is excessive risk-taking.

“’The beauty of Islamic banking and the reason it can be used as a replacement for the current market is that you only promise what you own [contrast to western banks fractional reserve system].  Islamic banks are not protected if the economy goes down — they suffer — but you don’t lose your shirt,’ said Majed al-Refaie, who heads Bahrain-based Unicorn Investment Bank.

“The theological underpinning of Islamic banking is scripture that declares that collection of interest is a form of usury, which is banned in Islam. In the modern world, that translates into an attitude toward money that is different from that found in the West: Money cannot just sit and generate more money. To grow, it must be invested in productive enterprises.

“’In Islamic finance you cannot make money out of thin air,’ said Amr al-Faisal, a board member of Dar al-Mal al-Islami, a holding company that owns several Islamic banks and financial institutions. ‘Our dealings have to be tied to actual economic activity, like an asset or a service. You cannot make money off of money. You have to have a building that was actually purchased, a service actually rendered, or a good that was actually sold.’

“Islamic bankers describe depositors as akin to partners — their money is invested, and they share in the profits or, theoretically, the losses that result. (In interviews, bankers couldn’t recall a case in which depositors actually lost money; this shows that banks put such funds only in very low-risk investments, they said.)”

It is easy to see why the Rothschilds and their network of conventional western banks would be threatened by competition from the more appealing, more conservative Islamic banks.

Late in 2008, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde announced France’s intention to make Paris “the capital of Islamic finance” and said several Islamic banks would open branches in the French capital in 2009.  French sources estimate this area of the financial market is worth from 500 to 600 billion dollars and could grow by an average 11 percent a year.

John Sandwick, managing director of Swiss asset management firm Encore Management, characterized the opening of several Swiss Islamic banks as, “the race to control the rich prize: which today is worth hundreds of billions, but in the future will be trillions of dollars of Islamic wealth.”

“According to Standard and Poor’s, Islamic banking assets reached about $400 billion throughout the world in 2009. In November 2010, The Banker published its latest authoritative list of the Top 500 Islamic Finance Institutions with Iran topping the list. Seven out of ten top Islamic banks in the world are Iranian according to the list.” (iStockAnalyst, Feb 8, 2011)

BEN ALI’S SON OPENS FIRST ISLAMIC BANK IN ATTRACTIVE NORTH AFRICAN MARKET

Commenting on the opening of Zitouna (Islamic) Bank, International Business Times (May 28 2010) reported, “North Africa has begun to embrace Islamic finance after years watching from the sidelines, partly to channel more Arab Gulf petrodollars into the region. . . .Tunisia has one of the most open economies in the region and attracts substantial investment from the European Union, something that is expected to accelerate after 2014, when the government has said it will make the currency (the Tunisian dinar) fully convertible.”

Global Islamic Finance News (May 31, 2010) reported, “Zitouna Bank also seeks to impart a regional dimension on its activities, particularly in the Maghreb region [North Africa], all the more so that it is the first specialised bank not belonging to a foreign banking group,” and went on to add, “The Bank will also seek to forge strong relations with the Maghreb and Mediterranean banks to ensure needed flow of financial operations for its customers.  The bank officials stressed that the financial institution has established relations with 12 Islamic banks in collaboration with the Institute of Islamic banks in Bahrain.

Zitouna bank’s formation had been announced earlier in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Tunisia on 10 September 2009.   Tunisia and Morocco authorized Islamic finance in 2007, partly to channel more investment into their fast-growing tourism and real estate industries.

Due to his being the son-in-law of President Ben Ali, El Materi’s Zitouna Bank was expanding in Tunisia to the level of monopoly.   El Materi had built a powerful business empire:  he ran businesses in News and Media, Banking and Financial Services, Automotive, Shipping and Cruises, Real Estate and Agriculture, Pharmaceuticals and last November 22 he  bought a 50% stake in Orascom Telecom for 0.2 billion.

The newly-opened Tunis Financial Harbour was on the brink of becoming the regional financial centre of North Africa and, with its strategic position on the Mediterranean sea, becoming a bridge between the EU and the rapidly growing economies of North Africa and subSaharan Africa.

 On January 20 2011, ZItouna Bank, Tunisia’s first Islamic bank was seized by the Central Bank of Tunisia (Rothschilds).  The bank owned by Sakher El Materi, the thirty-year-old son-in-law of deposed Tunisian leader Zine El Abidine Ben Ali has been placed under “the control” of the central bank.    Materi is presently in Dubai.  The move came a day after 33 of Ben Ali’s clan were arrested for crimes against the nation.  State television showed what it said was seized gold and jewellery.  Switzerland has also frozen Ben Ali’s family assets.

EGYPT’S ISLAMIC BANKS THREATENED BY ROTHSCHILD REVOLUTION:  OLD MAN POTTER VS HARRY BAILEY

A still from the film "It's A Wonderful Life"

The following scenario is right out of the 1946, Frank Capra film It’s a Wonderful Life with Old Man Potter (Rothschild) creating a run on Harry Bailey’s traditional Savings and Loans (Islamic bank):

Islamic (halal) banking products have not made significant inroads in North Africa yet, except in Egypt.   “. . . There are several Islamic banks operating in Egypt: Faisal Islamic Bank, Al Baraka Egypt (Al Ahram Bank) and Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank NBD . . .  There may be others as well,” says Blake Goud, an expert on Islamic Finance (The Review – Middle East, Jan 31 2011), “. . . and the risks of a run on the bank should concern those interested in Islamic banking around the world because it could provide a test of how resilient Islamic banks really are to crisis.

“What I mean is that the Egyptian situation, which could be a fantastic opportunity for the Egyptian people, could expose a weakness within the Islamic banking industry if it is problematic. The main risk to any bank is that there is a run and the bank cannot meet depositor withdrawals with the cash available on hand. This forces the bank to raise cash from other means. In most cases, it can either get an inter-bank loan from another bank overnight that allows it to handle withdrawals. If other banks are hesitant to lend to a given bank because of fears of asset quality, then the bank will usually have access to an overnight borrowing facility with the central bank, which operates as the lender of last resort.

The key for Islamic banks is that they are not able to take advantage of the inter-bank lending market, nor are they able to borrow from (or lend to) the central bank (emphasis added) because those loans are interest-bearing. The only alternative is to find other banks (mostly Islamic banks) willing to extend Shari’ah-compliant, bilateral loans often using commodity murabaha. In a country like Egypt where the Islamic banking industry is a small portion of the total banking system, it does not create a systemic risk if Islamic banks fail, but it does matter a lot to the depositors of other Islamic banks in the country and globally. If there is the potential that a run on an Islamic bank will not be stopped by someone; whether that is a foreign bank, a multi-lateral bank like the Islamic Development Bank or the central bank of Egypt (through emergency measures), then it could hurt confidence in Islamic banks.

“If neither of these options are available, the bank will have to try to raise funds by selling its assets, most of which (loans) are illiquid in the short run. It will have to take a loss on the sale to realize the cash it needs to meet withdrawals. If this continues and the bank sells enough assets at a discount to the value they are held on the balance sheet, the bank’s equity will be negative (the value of assets minus liabilities) and it will become insolvent (having earlier only been illiquid). This is the fundamental danger in banking from a financial stability perspective. If enough banks face runs and have to sell assets, the run could become self-sustaining and contagious. Even a healthy bank facing a run can become insolvent.

“The loss of confidence is more than just a reputational hit and a hit on the egos of Islamic bankers.  It would make it more difficult for Islamic banks to attract and retain depositors and it could raise the cost at which it can attract depositors. This would make the bank, all other things equal, less profitable (it makes profit of the spread between the return on invested funds and the cost of funds borrowed from depositors).  Lower profitability will lower the attractiveness of Islamic banks to equity investors limiting their ability to increase capital through equity offerings (or at least increasing the dilution to current shareholders). It will lower the amount available to supplement capital as well as pay dividends to its shareholders.

“Therefore, it is important that the Islamic banks in Egypt make it through the ‘run’ that is predicted if it materializes, not just for those banks’ shareholders, but also for the Islamic banking industry.”

In contrast, Bloomberg reports, “Egypt’s banks may risk a surge in customer withdrawals when they open for business, placing them among companies worst hit by the nationwide uprising against President Hosni Mubarak. … Central Bank Governor Farouk El-Okdah said in a telephone interview Jan. 29 that his bank has $36 billion in reserves, enough to accommodate investors should they wish to withdraw funds. His deputy, Hisham Ramez, said interbank lending “will function properly” when banks are reopened. He said the security situation will determine when that is possible.

“Asked about the risk of a bank run, Mohamed Barakat, chairman of state-run Banque Misr and head of the country’s banking association, said in a telephone interview that Egyptian lenders are ‘very liquid,’” with average loan-to-deposit ratios of 53 percent. […] “The Egyptian interbank offered rate, the rate banks charge to lend to each other, is at a 16-month high of 8.5 percent.”

THE MEANS: SPONSOR PRO-DEMOCRACY ACTIVISTS

These Rothschild revolutions are done under the pretense of bringing democracy and deposing despots, but the real aim is to initially create chaos and a leadership vacuum, then quickly offer a solution: install a puppet that will do the economic bidding of the Rothschilds.   The citizens gain freedom of speech and association, but become economic serfs.

These revolutions are most likely coordinated at the highest levels by the Rothschild’s International Crisis Group.  Mohamed ElBaradei is already being touted as a new leader for Egypt. ElBaradei is a trustee of the International Crisis Group.  Another board member of this group is Zbigniew Brzezinski.  George Soros sits on the executive committee.  The later two are ubiquitous front men for the Rothschilds.

The revolutions are from the same playbook as the fairly nonviolent “color revolutions”.  These revolutions have been successful in Serbia (especially the Bulldozer Revolution (2000), in Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004), in Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution and (though more violent than the previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution (2005), and Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution.    Iran’s Green Revolution (2009) was unsuccessful.

Liberal billionaire George Soros funded training of activists in North Africa.

The Guardian reported (Nov 26, 2004) that the following were “directly involved” in organizing the colour revolutions:  George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute, and Freedom House.   The Washington Post and the New York Times also reported substantial Western involvement in some of these events.

Activists from Otpor in Serbia  have said that publications and training they received from the US based Albert Einstein Institution staff have been instrumental in the formation of their strategies.   The Albert Einstein Institution is funded by the Soros Foundation and NED. (Wikipedia)

In the article, “Georgia revolt carried mark of Soros” (November 26, 2003), the Globe & Mail reported, “[Soros' Open Society Institute] sent a 31-year-old Tbilisi activist named Giga Bokeria to Serbia to meet with members of the Otpor (Resistance) movement and learn how they used street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Then, in the summer, Mr. Soros’s foundation paid for a return trip to Georgia by Otpor activists, who ran three-day courses teaching more than 1,000 students how to stage a peaceful revolution.”

Egyptian activists wearing Otpor shirts. Otpor was started by Soros in Serbia and has trained activists in other colour revolutions

Several protest organizers on the streets in Egypt last week were wearing Otpor t-shirts.   These t-shirts are given out by Otpor at training sessions.  This is only to say that there may be a link here, between Soros and Tunisian protesters.

In 2007-08, Freedom House [funded by Soros and the Middle Eastern Partnership Initiative (MEPI)] ran the following program: “New Generation of Advocates, a MEPI-funded program that supports young civil society activists working for peaceful political change in the Middle East and North Africa, spearheaded the “Lawyers against Corruption” campaign in Tunisia.”(Freedom House website).  The group of “journalists, lawyers, and other activists who advocate for democratic reform” had a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on a trip to Washington on International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2008.  In May 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the group of activist/dissidents.  Freedom House reported on their website that the group also visited “U.S. government officials, members of Congress, media outlets and think tanks . . . After returning to Egypt, the fellows received small grants to implement innovative initiatives such as advocating for political reform through Facebook and SMS messaging.(emphasis added)

And also from the Freedom House website: From February 27 to March 13 [2010], Freedom House hosted 11 bloggers from the Middle East and North Africa for a two-week Advanced New Media Study Tour in Washington, D.C.”

In 2010, Soros’ Open Society Institute funded a grant called ‘Can It Tweet its way to Democracy? The promise of Participatory Media in Africa’ described on the OSI website as “. . . . Ethiopia and Egypt have been the current focus of the research programme; the OSI funding will allow the project to be expanded to include: Uganda, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, Eritrea and Rwanda. . . . it is hoped that it will contribute to the understanding of the new media in Africa and its links to democratization.  It is also intended that the study will be used as a source material for future research.”

Facebook and Twitter were the primary means of organizing the revolution in Egypt:  “Activists from Egypt’s Kifaya (Enough) movement – a coalition of government opponents – and the 6th of April Youth Movement organized the protests on the Facebook and Twitter . . . .” (Voice of America)

In the Foreign Policy Journal, Dr. D.K. Bolton (Jan 19 2011) writes, “NED [National Endowment for Democracy] and Soros work in tandem, targeting the same regimes and using the same methods. . . . At least ten of the twenty-two directors of NED are also members of the plutocratic think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations . . . .” (The Council of Foreign Relations is the American sister of the Rothschild’s Royal Institute of International Affairs in Britain: both are instruments of plutocratic control hiding in plain sight.

The following is a partial list of grants from the NED website for 2009 (the latest year available):

In Tunisia the focus was on training youth activists:

“Al-Jahedh Forum for Free Thought $131,000 To strengthen the capacity and build a democratic culture among Tunisian youth activists.

“Mohamed Ali Center for Research, Studies and Training $33,500 To train a core group of Tunisian youth activists on leadership and organizational skills to encourage their involvement in public life.  [MACRST] will conduct a four-day intensive training of trainers program for a core group of 10 young Tunisian civic activists on leadership and organizational skills; train 50 male and female activists aged 20 to 40 on leadership and empowered decision-making; and work with the trained activists through 50 on-site visits to their respective organizations.

“Association for the Promotion of Education $27,000 To strengthen the capacity of Tunisian high school teachers to promote democratic and civic values in their classrooms. APES will conduct a training-of-trainers workshop for 10 university professors and school inspectors, and hold three two-day capacity building seminars for 120 high school teachers . . . .”

The above organizations and others have been recipients of ongoing NED grants in Tunisia, as the following list from previous years indicates:

2008:  Al-Jahedh Forum for Free Thought received $57,000 to train Tunisian activists;   Mohamed Ali Centre for Research got $37,800;  Tunisian Arab Civitas Institute, $43,000 for training teachers in “civic values” and  the Center for International Private Enterprise, $163,205 “to inculcate free enterprise doctrines among Tunisian businessmen, which reflects what NED is really aiming for in its promotion of “democracy and civil values”: globalization” (Bolton, 2011)

2007:  AJFFT received $45,000 to develop Tunisian Activists;  The Arab Institute for Human Rights got $43,900;  The Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) $175, 818;  The Mohamed Ali Center for Research, Studies, and Training $38,500; Moroccan Organization for Human Rights $60,000To strengthen a group of young Tunisian attorneys as they mobilize citizens on reform issues.”

In Egypt, the number of NED grants doubled in 2009 to 33 democracy projects totaling $1.4 million and the focus changed from promoting private enterprise to training young human-rights lawyers, and identifying and training youth activists.   It will be interesting to see when (if?) NED publishes its 2010 grants.  From the NED website—a sample of the grants for 2009:

Egyptian Union of Liberal Youth (EULY) $33,300 To expand the use of new media among youth activists for the promotion of democratic ideas and values. EULY will train 60 youth activists to use filmmaking for the dissemination of democratic ideas and values. The Union will lead a total of four two-month long training workshops in Cairo to build the political knowledge and technical filmmaking skills of participating youth involved in NGOs.

Andalus Institute for Tolerance and Anti-Violence Studies (AITAS) $48,900 To strengthen youth understanding of the Egyptian parliament and enhance regional activists’ use of new technologies as accountability tools. AITAS will conduct a series of workshops for 300 university students to raise their awareness of parliament’s functions and engage them in monitoring parliamentary committees. AITAS will also host 8 month-long internships for youth activists from the Middle East and North Africa to share its experiences using web-based technologies in monitoring efforts.

Bridge Center for Dialogue and Development (BTRD) $25,000 To promote youth expression and engagement in community issues through new media. BTRD will train youth between the ages of 16 and 26 in the use of new and traditional media tools to report on issues facing their communities. BRTD will also create a website for human rights videos and new media campaigns in Egypt.

Egyptian Democracy Institute (EDI) $48,900 To promote accountability and transparency in parliament through public participation, and to build legislative capacity. EDI will produce quarterly monitoring reports and hold seminars to discuss the overall performance of Parliament and offer recommendations on legislation proposed in the People’s Assembly. EDI will monitor, collect, and document evidence of corruption in Cairo and Alexandria

Lawyers Union for Democratic and Legal Studies (LUDLS) $20,000 To support freedom of association by strengthening young activists’ ability to express and organize themselves peacefully within the bounds of the law. LUDLS will train 250 youth activists on peaceful assembly and dispute resolution

Our Hands for Comprehensive Development  $19,200 To engage Minya youth in civic activism and encourage youth-led initiatives and volunteerism. Our Hands will hold two public meetings for local youth to discuss challenges and to identify youth leaders who would benefit from additional training courses. Participants will produce a short film on youth political participation, and develop and implement action plans for resolving problems facing youth in the governorate. Our Hands will also provide Minya youth an opportunity to learn from the experience of and network with Cairo-based activists and NGOs.

“Youth Forum  $19,000 To expand and maintain a network of youth activists on Egyptian university campuses and to encourage the participation of university students in student union elections and civic activities on campus. . . .”

NED and Soros have been injecting millions of dollars into the training of North African, pro-democracy teachers, lawyers, journalists and youth activists.  In 2009 they more than doubled their training efforts.  Why, at this time, has the 30-year support of these dictators been undermined?  The prize is the rapidly-rising economies of North Africa.  It coincides with the efforts of Ben Ali to make Tunisia the financial center of North Africa and to promote Islamic banking.  The Rothschilds want North African Muslims to borrow from Rothschild banks and pay interest at rates the Rothschild central bank decides:  they do not want them to be able to borrow from Islamic banks and not pay any interest.  The Rothschilds want Muslims to trade their present political oppression at the hands of brutal dictators for future economic serfdom under the control of banker Lord Rothschild.

Caution: This site is anti-plutocratic, not antisemitic.  Bigotted comments will not be tolerated.

Tunisia Is The First Anonymous Revolution

©Puppetworld Post (don’t copy, link to this page)    Jan 22 2011

 

Tunisians celebrate their victory

Wikileaks played a minor part in the revolution in Tunisia that ended last week with dictator Ben Ali fleeing the country—the information posted on Wikileaks merely confirmed what Tunisians had known all along.  The credit has to go to the Tunisian people themselves.  The most important factor was the help they got from Anonymous – a group of like-minded individuals who put together a well orchestrated online campaign they called Operation Tunisia.

When Tunisian dictator Ben Ali shut down the open Internet, jailed free bloggers, and closed down Wikileaks in Tunisia, people started to take to the streets.  Anonymous, through coordinated DDoS attacks, took down government sites, servers and state-run media channels.  The government’s home page was replaced with a picture of a pirate ship under the words “Payback is a Bitch, Isn’t It?”   Ben Ali could not communicate with the people of Tunisia.

At the same time, Anonymous opened up the lines of communication for Tunisians on Twitter, IRC, Flicker and YouTube.  Operation Tunisia posted videos of support on YouTube.  One of the videos described the motives of Anonymous:  “No media is able to describe the situation in Tunisia:  The (Tunisian) government has jailed the free bloggers and prevented local and international media from getting factual information out of the country.  Anonymous is collecting videos and testimonies directly from Tunisian citizens on the streets and on the Internet.  Because Anonymous thinks YOU NEED TO KNOW, Anonymous will fight against those who are trying to prevent you from knowing the truth.  Anonymous will fight against those who want to steal from Tunisians their right to free expression.  . . .”

 

Anonymous advertises for volunteers

Another Anonymous video on YouTube encouraged Tunisians to, “Join us on the IRC – irc.anonops.ru #opTunisia.   If you live in Tunisia – come out on the streets this January 6 and let your voice be heard!

A Reuters article,  by journalists Marius Bosch and Georgina Prodhan states, “ Thousands of Anons from around the world took it upon themselves to fight for the people of Tunisia and even discouraged locals from taking part due to the danger of government persecution.   ‘If you are Tunisian, do not participate in the DDoS attack,’ One Anon warned on a communications channel.  ‘Chances are that you will get traced and arrested.  Unless you have means to conceal your IP and know what you are doing, do NOT attack.’”

After victory, Tunisians posted a video on YouTube in German.  This is a translation:  “On behalf of all Tunisians, I want to thank Anonymous.  Anonymous were the only ones to help us. Anonymous has blocked all governmental websites because the government has blocked our internet access so we may not get information.  Thank you Anonymous!  We want to let you know that you have found new allies and that there are many more people living in oppression.”

Indeed on January 20, Anonymous launched Operation Algeria in response to escalating protests in that country (see below).

Why Tunisia?   For Anons the highest ideal is freedom of information—they are radically opposed to censorship.   On Jan 21 2010, reporting on the cyber-attacks on Google and computers of Chinese dissidents by the Chinese government, the BBC said that Hilary Clinton said that “China along with Tunisia and Uzbekistan had boosted censorship”.  Among Arab countries, Tunisia had the most political prisoners and jailed journalists.

Compare how Anonymous defeated a dictator in Tunisia (bloodless, nonviolent) to how the US government “brought democracy” to Iraq and Afganistan—a ten year quagmire of destruction of the countries’ infrastructure and massive military and civilian deaths that continue to this day.

 

The dictator of Tunisia, Ben Ali, at the Whitehouse in 2004

The Obama administration has been, at best, ambivalent about Tunisia and, at worst, compliant (by their silence) in the human rights abuses.  Just recently, the Bush Administration was increasing links between the US and Tunisia and downplaying human rights concerns.   In December 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “Our bilateral relationship is very, very strong. . . . We are great admirers of Tunisia and the progress that has been achieved under President Ben Ali’s leadership.”

Despite the fact that freedoms of the press, association, and expression were extremely restricted in Tunisia, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, on a visit to Tunisia in 2006, called the country a “democracy” saying, “We have a very long relationship with Tunisia. . . . Tunisia is a moderate Muslim nation that has been and is today providing very constructive leadership in the world.” (Associated Press)

In their own words, Anonymous says that it is “just an idea – an internet meme – that can be appropriated by anyone, anytime, to rally for a common cause that’s in the benefit of human kind.  This means anyone can launch a new ideological message or campaign under the banner of Anonymous.  Anyone can take up a leading role in spreading the Anon-consciousness.”  While Anonymous began as a group of teenage computer hackers, it no longer is, Anonymous is open to all people.   It now represents average people who want to get involved.

Anonymous is growing in numbers: after the jailing of Wikileaks’ Assange in December and Anon attacks on sites that tried to block Wikileaks—Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, a Swiss bank, etc.—many citizens joined them and they now have 10 000 members.

In their Reuter’s article Bosch and Prodhan say, “Global chaos is not Anonymous’ aim. . . . As the WikiLeaks and Tunisia cases show, the group targets specific institutions and its attacks are designed to temporarily delay more than destroy. . . . ‘This time last week, ex-Tunisian Ben Ali president didn’t think he’d be running for the hills, with Anonymous activists on his heels,’  Jon Newton of P2Pnet writes. ‘There’s no doubt about it.  The bastions of corporate and government dominance are being battered down by People to People Power.’”