Archive for October 18th, 2007
Black IQ: DNA pioneer Watson says Blacks less intelligent than Whites
Black IQ: DNA pioneer Watson says Blacks less intelligent than Whites
Date Posted: Thursday 18-Oct-2007
The whole issue of Black IQ is an old one.
The first scientific attempts to assess the situation started in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
The whole concept of BREEDING BETTER PEOPLE caught fire in Europe and America.
There were many Americans who were very interested in it. The Germans just happened to be the most ahead on this matter. Remember that Germany prior to and during World War II was probably the most scientifically advanced nation on earth. They led the way in many areas.
Since World War II, everyone has been trying to pretend that *EVERYTHING* the Germans did was evil and wrong, and so people have been myopically trying to pretend that there wasn’t some REAL SCIENCE behind the concept.
Some of the science from a century ago will look amateurish by today’s standards – but then, most science from previous times will indeed appear that way. However, that same science led to atomic science, to heavier-than-air craft, space exploration, etc. It is false to assert that the racial conclusions back then are inherently bigoted or false.
In more recent decades, modern, hardcore American science based on DNA, has discovered that indeed, racial IQ differences are very real.
The most important discovery of modern times is that: Approximately 70% of your Intelligence IS INHERITED BY YOU FROM YOUR PARENTS. That is now a firmly established fact.
I have published earlier articles and details on this subject:-
[Video] Important: Race & IQ: Interview of The Bell Curve & USA Class Structure
In the link below, I link to a HOST of other articles and news items which I have gathered together on the subject in recent years:-
Science: Racial Differences In Average IQ Are Mostly Genetic, Not Cultural
Watson below, aged 79, says there is little hope for Africa because “…all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really…”. EXACTLY! This is the issue, which millions of us whites, who have lived in Africa have been trying to tell everybody in the Western world for DECADES.
In fact, back in the 1950’s, whites in Africa were predicting that, if Africa were to be ruled by blacks, that Africa would continue to go backwards until blacks eventually all live in huts again. Those predictions are proving true and most black countries will probably be in this state within 50 years. Most are close to it now. I have published many news items which show that this has indeed been the trend. In fact, in recent times, Africa has been collapsing at an ever faster rate, and there has also been a massive surge in Black on Black WARFARE as a result.
Whites as PEACE-MAKERS BETWEEN BLACKS is a topic nobody ever mentions – but it is historical fact. Remember, under Colonial/Apartheid rule, Blacks did not fight each other for close on 100+ years. Once white control was removed, all the old tribal hatreds arose anew.
S.Africa: As I predicted: Black Poverty doubled since 1994
The Shocking Truth: Poverty in Africa doubled: 1981-2001
Extreme poverty doubled in Southern Africa in 20 years
Also:
Africa with smaller GDP than Mexico spent £150 billion on Black-on-Black Wars
Africa’s massive Capital Flight: US$150 billion per annum
Just as Watson says, people who live and work with blacks all the time – such as myself – can confirm that indeed there is an intelligence problem. I actually work with: whites, blacks, Asians and coloureds (mixed race – half black and half white). So I deal DAILY with these different groups and one can easily see that blacks are generally the slowest ones.
The best way I can explain IQ is to also remind people that everyone is learning all the time. The issue of IQ is not to say that blacks can’t learn at all. The thing to keep in mind is that whites are constantly learning as are blacks. But the difference is that blacks can’t “catch up” to whites. Sure, blacks are more developed than they were 100 years ago – but SO ARE WHITES AND ASIANS! The issue here is who will LEAD and who will FOLLOW. And Whites and Asians are the leaders – and that is a GENETIC FACT.
What made Colonialism the incredible success that it was was that by having White leadership of Blacks, one actually made up for the primary area where things were lacking – BLACK LEADERSHIP. Intelligence is a most acute problem for blacks, not so much in the lower ranks but in the UPPER RANKS! And this was where White leadership of a Black nation had such incredible results.
Whenever whites, even in small numbers, move into a black country, the results can be totally SHOCKING! Take for example what happened when about 100 wealthy white farmers from Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe moved to Zambia. Almost overnight, the country BOOMED in a way not seen in DECADES:-
Story of White Zim farmer who moved to Zambia
Let me, as a white person living in Africa, tell you why the UN and the $26 billion which is sent to Africa will not help Africa: The real problems of Africa have little to do with money or resources or infrastructure. The most important thing lacking in Africa are: LEADERSHIP SKILLS AND IQ. Once those factors are supplied (which is what Colonialism did), then all the problems “start solving themselves” – without needing much money. Once you have intelligence on the ground in Africa, directing things here in a way that actually fits in with the demographics, then lots of problems start going away. Africa is in many ways like another planet, and what white Colonists here did was they EVOLVED NEW TECHNIQUES which fitted in with the temperament and demographics that existed here in Africa. So Africa, under White Colonial rule evolved in a whole different direction. The result was extremely successful – despite being total anathema to Europeans and Americans. To this day, NOBODY, anywhere in Africa, has matched the incredible successes of the White Colonialists.
One CANNOT apply the same logic used in Europe and America to Africa for the simple reason that the demographics here ARE DIFFERENT.
Finally, science is able to prove that which those of us who lived here knew all along and have been trying to tell the world for DECADES. Jan]
Nobel laureate James Watson, one of the men who discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, has landed in Britain to promote his new book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science.
No chance that the controversial Watson — who once suggested skin color and sex drive were linked — will ever be considered boring, especially not after stating in London’s Sunday Times that blacks are less intelligent than whites.
The Times writes today about the firestorm that ensued and that’s likely to scorch him at every stop of his tour. Friday, the 79-year-old geneticist is set to face a sold-out audience at London’s Science Museum.
Here are a couple of salient excerpts from the Sunday article, written by a former protege:
He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
When asked how long it might take for the key genes in affecting differences in human intelligence to be found, his “back-of-the-envelope answer” is 15 years. However, he wonders if even 10 years will pass. In his mission to make children more DNA-literate, the geneticist explains that he has opened a DNA learning centre on the borders of Harlem in New York. He is also recruiting minorities at the lab and, he tells me, has just accepted a black girl “but,” he comments, “there’s no one to recruit.”
Source URL:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/10/dna-scientist-w.html
Posted By: Jan
AfricanCrisis Webmaster
Author of: Government by Deception
Belarus is ready to supply military systems to Venezuela, Lukashenka says
Belarus is ready to supply military systems to Venezuela, Lukashenka says Alyaksandr Lukashenka said that Belarus is ready to supply military systems to Venezuela.
“Russia supplies arms to Venezuela and we cooperate with it in this sphere as far as we can,” the Belarusian leader said while meeting with a group of Russian reporters in Minsk on Friday.
According to him, when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was visiting Minsk, “he was shown what is manufactured in Belarus, including in the military sphere.”
“We have no closed areas for cooperation with Venezuela,” Mr. Lukashenka said. “If we need loans, we apply to Venezuela. If we need to sell our products, they give us priorities in their market.”
When asked whether Belarus had really signed a contract to supply $1 billion worth of military equipment to Venezuela, Mr. Lukashenka said that he was not aware of such a contract.
When Belarus was experiencing problems regarding oil supplies from Russia, Venezuela allowed Belarus to extract oil from its fields. “I’ve been asking Russia for 13 years to allow us to extract oil and gas on their territory, just as they have allowed this to be done by other foreign companies,” Mr. Lukashenka said. “At a meeting in Sochi, Putin agreed with me, but eight years have passed since Putin became president and we’ve never settled this matter.” //BelaPAN
http://naviny.by/rubrics/inter/2007/10/12/ic_news_259_278549/
Sarkozy an Ex-Mossad Agent !?
Sarkozy an Ex-Mossad Agent!?
TEHRAN, Oct. 17–
A prestigious French daily reported that an email sent to 100 high-ranking police officials claims French President Nicholas Sarkozy is a former agent of the Israeli intelligence services, Mossad.
Le Figaro added that the letter was sent to French police officials late last winter and reiterated that Sarkozy was the fourth high-ranking spy of Israel.
The letter titled “Infiltration of Mossad in France’s ruling center-right UMP party“ insists that Sarkozy is a spy.
It also writes about widespread corruption in the UMP party.
The letter added that former Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, in 1978 ordered the head of his intelligence services to make former French Leader Charles De Gulle’s one of Israel’s associates.
Putin says Iraq shows need for strong Russia army
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday criticized the United States for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, saying that experience showed the need for oil-rich countries like Russia to build up their armed forces to defend themselves.
“Thank God Russia is not Iraq,” Putin said during a live televised national question-and-answer session.
“Russia is strong enough to protect its interests within the national territory and, by the way, in other regions of the world.”
Answering a questioner who asked about supposed US intentions to gain control over Russia’s huge, resource-rich interior, Putin said:
“I know that such ideas are brewing in the heads of some politicians. I think it is a sort of political eroticism which maybe gives someone pleasure but will hardly lead anywhere and the best example of that is Iraq.”
“What we are doing to increase our defence capability is the correct choice and we will continue to do that,” Putin added.
Putin also said that direct dialogue was a better way of easing the diplomatic crisis over Iran’s nuclear program.
Criticizing Washington’s lobbying with the Security Council members to pass resolutions to escalate sanctions on Iran, he said, “Direct dialogue with the leaders of states around which certain problems accumulate is always more productive and is the shortest path to success, rather than a policy of threats, sanctions, and all the more so a resolution to use force.”
On the eve of his visit to Tehran to attend the Summit of leaders of the Caspian Sea states held on October 16, Putin said in joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin that he had seen no evidence that Iranian nuclear program has military aims.
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0710187734165253.htm
9 US Troops Wounded in Afghanistan
picture :Britain Soldiers
9 US Troops Wounded in Afghanistan
Oct 18, 2007
KABUL, Afghanistan (Map, News) -
Taliban used heavy machine gun and rocket propelled grenades to ambush a U.S.-led coalition patrol in southern Afghanistan that wounded nine troops, a coalition statement said Thursday.
The insurgents attacked the patrol near Kandahar city Wednesday, the statement said.
“The coalition forces repelled the attempted ambush using small arms fire to counterattack the enemy,” it said.
None of the wounds sustained by coalition troops were serious, the statement said. There were no report of insurgent casualties.
In the east, a roadside bomb on a police vehicle close to the border with Pakistan killed an officer and wounded three others in Khost province, said Sher Ahmad Kochi, a police officer.
Taliban attacks against police have increased this year, with over 600 killed in militant attacks. More than 5,200 people have died this year as a result of fighting, according to an Associated Press count based on official figures, the deadliest year since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.
http://www.examiner.com/a-995997~9_Troops_Wounded_in_Afghanistan.html
Bush accentue ses menaces sur l’Iran: Bush a clairement adopté le point de vue israélien sur la question du programme nucléaire iranien.
Bush accentue ses menaces sur l’Iran: Bush a clairement adopté le point de vue israélien sur la question du programme nucléaire iranien.
Al Jazeera.net
George Bush a monté d’un cran son discours au sujet de l’Iran en disant que la connaissance même de la façon de fabriquer des armes nucléaires pourrait entraîner une troisième guerre mondiale.
Le président américain a déclaré ce mercredi que si l’Iran disposait d’armes nucléaires cela constituerait « une menace dangereuse pour la paix dans le monde » et devrait être empêché de posséder de telles armes.
« Nous avons un chef en Iran qui a annoncé qu’il voulait détruire Israël, » a encore dit Bush (interprétation largement sujette à caution – N.d.T).
« Ainsi j’ai dit aux gens que si vous voulez éviter la troisième guerre mondiale, il semble que vous devrez aussi vouloir les empêcher de disposer de la connaissance nécessaire à la fabrication d’une arme nucléaire. »
Les propos de Bush semblent être une réaction aux remarques faites par Vladimir Poutine, le président russe, qui a déclaré [à l’occasion de la Conférence au sommet de la mer Caspienne qui s’est tenue à Théhéran] qu’il n’avait constaté aucune évidence que l’Iran cherchait à fabriquer des armes nucléaires.
Proposition de Poutine
Quelques heures plus tôt, Poutine avait annoncé une proposition pour résoudre la crise nucléaire lors de ses entretiens à Téhéran avec le président iranien Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Les officiels iraniens ont déclaré que Poutine proposait de sortir de l’impasse concernant le programme nucléaire iranien mais sans donner de détails.
Commentant la réunion, Bush a dit souhaiter que le dirigeant russe « donne connaissance du contenu de la réunion ».
« La chose qui m’intéresse est de savoir s’il continue à partager les mêmes soucis que moi, » a ajouté Bush.
Nouvelle définition
Hillary Mann, anciennement fonctionnaire à la Maison Blanche et spécialiste sur le Moyen-Orient, a déclaré à Al Jazeera que les commentaires de Bush montraient bien que l’administration avait intensifié sa rhétorique pour atteindre un niveau supérieur.
Elle a dit que la nouvelle définition de la menace – la connaissance du domaine nucléaire – était en conformité avec la position israélienne.
Bush a fait savoir qu’il souhaitait que Putin donne des explications sur ses déclarations de la semaine dernière selon lesquelles la Russie n’a aucune information sur des intentions iranniennes de fabriquer des bombes.
« J’attends avec intérêt une clarification », a dit Bush.
« Car quand j’ai eu une réunion avec lui, il avait dit comprendre qu’il était dans l’intérêt du monde de s’assurer que l’Iran n’a pas la capacité de fabriquer une arme nucléaire. »
Le point de friction est le refus de l’Iran de suspendre son programme d’enrichissement d’uranium, ce qui selon l’occident pourrait être détourné vers la construction d’une bombe nucléaire.
L’Iran affirme ne vouloir produire que de l’électricité, mais les Nations Unies ont jusqu’ici imposé deux séries de sanctions à l’Iran à cause de son programme nucléaire.
Sur le même thème :
Plans américains pour refaire à l’Iran ce qui a été fait en Irak
Qu’est-ce qui fait obstacle à la guerre contre l’Iran ?
“Bombardez, bombardez, bombardez l’Iran”
Consultez dans l’actualité :
L’Iran sort grandi de la Conférence au sommet de la mer Caspienne
18 octobre 2007 – Al Jazeera.net -
Vous pouvez consulter cet article à :
http://english.aljazeera.net/
[Traduction : Info-Palestine.net]
Jeudi 18 Octobre 2007
Will we fall for war vs. Iran?
Will we fall for war vs. Iran?
ANDREW GREELEY
It would appear, according to news reports, that the hard-liners in the Bush administration, led by the vice president, are pushing for a war with Iran. The tactics are the same. Once you’ve played the fear card to start one war, the second time is easier.
Iran is a threat to American security and freedom. They are trying to build nuclear bombs to use against us. They are already killing Americans in Iraq. They hate us and our freedom. Eliminating the Iranian government and destroying its nuclear facilities is essential to the security of the United States and part of the international war on terror.
Will the shell game work again? I would like to think that it would not, that the American people will not be won over by “war on terror” propaganda, that Congress would not be taken in this time (not even Sen. Hillary Clinton), and that the national media would raise a loud hue and cry against yet another “preemptive war.”
Yet surely the hawks would shout once again that in a “national security emergency” the commander in chief has the power to go to war without authorization from Congress. The president might argue that Gen. David Petraeus approved the attack. Indeed, those on the dark side could even suggest that a presidential election could be “postponed” until the Iranian crisis is over — and like the Iraq crisis, that might be never.
Once you have stolen one and maybe two presidential elections, it’s relatively easy to steal a third, especially as part of the “global war on terror” and a “national security emergency.”
A year ago, I would not have suspected that such a scenario could possibly be taken seriously. I’m not so sure anymore. The claims made for the almost unlimited power of the commander in chief seem to make anything, however bizarre, possible. Despite intense national opposition to the war in Iraq, there are enough “patriotic” cement heads in the country to provide support for such a project.
Cries like “nuke the Iranians before they nuke us” would be heard in the land. It might tip the national election to a Republican candidate — perhaps the 9/11 candidate from New York City — and to a majority of Republicans in Congress.
The president could even hint that such a war was the right thing to do, a conclusion he had reached after a long conversation with God.
There is precious little that those who are opposed to such a war could do. The president, his vice president could assert, is the commander in chief. He has the inherent power to start a war if he deems it necessary for the security of the country. The National Security Council could eavesdrop on opponents to the war, and the FBI could turn up with “national security letters” to probe into the lives of these “security risks.” The pliant Supreme Court, having permitted the president to seize an election on the grounds of equal rights under the law, could easily phony up an argument that Justices Scalia and Thomas and their allies would support.
Perhaps the House could vote a bill of impeachment but there are not enough votes for conviction in the Senate. And the president could dismiss such an action as a violation of his powers as commander in chief.
Certainly Congress could pass a joint resolution now against such a war. But they would need half a dozen Republican senators to support it. That’s not likely to happen. And the president could claim that he has the inherent power to ignore such a resolution.
When it comes to war in this administration, Dick Cheney always gets his way.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/greeley/606071,CST-EDT-greel17.article
ABM: l’Europe sous la menace d’une nouvelle crise de Cuba
ABM: l’Europe sous la menace d’une nouvelle crise de Cuba
Les principaux traits de la crise observée actuellement dans les rapports russo-américains rappellent la tristement célèbre crise des missiles de 1962 (appelée aussi crise de Cuba). A cette époque-là, l’Union soviétique rapprocha ses missiles des frontières des Etats-Unis. A présent, ce sont les Etats-Unis qui ont décidé de déployer leurs missiles à proximité des frontières de la Russie sous prétexte de mettre en place leur défense antimissile. Comme on le sait, la crise de Cuba plaça le monde au bord d’une guerre nucléaire. A quoi conduira la crise actuelle? En 1962, John F. Kennedy et Nikita Khrouchtchev réussirent à s’entendre in extremis. La Maison Blanche et le Kremlin réussiront-ils aujourd’hui à trouver un langage commun?
Par Nikita Petrov, pour RIA Novosti
La visite à Moscou de la secrétaire d’Etat américaine Condoleezza Rice et du secrétaire à la Défense Robert Gates, leur rencontre avec le président russe Vladimir Poutine, ainsi que les négociations au format 2+2 avec les ministres russes des Affaires étrangères et de la Défense, Sergueï Lavrov et Anatoli Serdioukov, n’ont abouti à aucune percée. L’attitude des parties envers le projet des Etats-Unis de déployer la troisième région de positionnement de la défense antimissile stratégique en Europe n’ont pas changé. Il faut dire qu’aucun expert sérieux ne s’attendait à une percée. Il était clair que l’administration Bush n’abandonnerait certainement pas l’idée de protéger son territoire et celui des ses alliés en Europe contre la menace d’une attaque de missiles balistiques de la part des pays voyous, selon le terme employé par Washington.
L’Iran est régulièrement cité parmi ces pays. Les affirmations de Moscou selon lesquelles Téhéran ne disposera pas avant vingt à trente ans de missiles balistiques capables d’atteindre le continent nord-américain, et même la majorité des pays d’Europe, ne sont pas prises en considération. Les Etats-Unis n’ont pas non plus l’intention de renoncer au déploiement de dix missiles intercepteurs GBI (Ground-Based Interceptor) non loin de Varsovie et d’un radar haute fréquence à vision circulaire dans les environs de Prague en échange de l’utilisation de la station radar Darial de Gabala (radar de pré-alerte permettant de détecter une attaque de missiles) que la Russie loue à l’Azerbaïdjan et de la station radar Voronej-M en voie de construction dans la région d’Armavir. Cette variante a été proposée au président américain George W. Bush par le président russe Vladimir Poutine. Les spécialistes américains se sont rendus à la station radar de Gabala, ils ont étudié ses capacités et constaté qu’elle couvrait entièrement le territoire de l’Iran et d’autres pays voisins. Ils sont prêts à utiliser ses capacités, tout en insistant pour que le radar Darial soit inclus dans le volet européen de la défense antimissile américaine.
Naturellement, la Russie ne peut pas l’accepter. La raison est simple. Moscou est persuadé que les missiles intercepteurs en Pologne et le radar en République tchèque sont destinés non pas à avertir et à défendre les Etats-Unis et l’Europe contre des missiles iraniens, mais à affaiblir le potentiel stratégique russe de dissuasion déployé au centre de la partie européenne du pays et à assurer une protection contre les systèmes de missiles stratégiques Topol, Topol-M et Stilet stationnés dans les régions de Tver, Ivanovo, Kalouga et Saratov.
Bien entendu, dix missiles intercepteurs GBI ne pourront pas être un obstacle à une éventuelle riposte, si la Russie est contrainte de l’infliger. Mais les Etats-Unis ne garantissent pas que leur système de défense antimissile en Europe soit limité à ces missiles et au radar dans les environs de Prague. Bien plus, ils affirment que ce système sera étendu, renforcé et modernisé. Il s’agit donc d’une menace directe pour la capacité défensive et la sécurité de la Russie.
Les dirigeants russes ont maintes fois prévenu les Etats-Unis et leurs alliés qu’ils seraient contraints de réagir à une mesure aussi inamicale que le déploiement d’une région américaine de positionnement de la défense antimissile en Europe. Ils ont déclaré que la Russie serait contrainte de braquer ses missiles stratégiques sur ces cibles menaçantes et d’installer des systèmes de missiles opérationnels tactiques Iskander-M à proximité des frontières de la Pologne.
Au cours de sa récente rencontre avec Condoleezza Rice et Robert Gates, Vladimir Poutine a laissé clairement entendre qu’il éprouvait une grande inquiétude quant au sort du Traité sur les missiles de portée intermédiaire et de moindre portée (FNI) conclu par les Etats-Unis et l’URSS il y a 20 ans, pendant la guerre froide. “Il faut conférer à ce traité un caractère global, a déclaré le président russe. Si nous n’y parvenons pas, il nous sera difficile de nous maintenir dans le cadre de ce traité, lorsque d’autres Etats développent énergiquement ces systèmes d’armements, entre autres, des Etats situés à proximité immédiate de nos frontières”.
L’allusion est claire pour les spécialistes militaires. En réponse au déploiement du système américain de défense antimissile, la Russie dénoncera ce traité qui, rappelons-le, concernait les missiles qui avaient une portée de 500 à 5.500 km, et qui portaient – et c’est là l’essentiel – des ogives nucléaires. Les Etats-Unis et à présent l’Europe sont placés face à la perspective d’un réel retour dans le passé, dans la guerre froide et l’opposition nucléaire.
La crise des missiles fut un tournant dans la course aux armements nucléaires et la guerre froide. Le monde se retrouvait au bord d’un abîme. Les diplomaties soviétique et américaine, les hommes politiques et les militaires des deux pays se rendirent compte qu’il était dangereux de se tenir constamment l’un l’autre dans le collimateur et qu’il était nécessaire de s’entendre sur tous les problèmes cruciaux, afin que les relations entre les deux camps n’atteignent pas le point critique où quelqu’un appuierait sur la détente. Les événements d’octobre 1962 suggérèrent aux deux parties l’idée d’amorcer la détente, ainsi que la compréhension de la vulnérabilité réciproque et la nécessité de réduire les armements offensifs stratégiques et, enfin, de conclure des traités appropriés. Le Traité ABM de 1972 fut le premier d’entre eux.
Mais l’administration américaine actuelle l’a résilié, ce qui a marqué le début de la détérioration des rapports entre Moscou et Washington.
Une question se pose: faut-il pousser les rapports entre les deux pays vers une situation semblable à la crise des missiles, si l’on sait à quoi peut conduire le mépris des intérêts de l’un et de l’autre en matière de sécurité? Si les Etats-Unis visent à entraîner la Russie dans une nouvelle course aux armements en vue de saper ainsi son économie, la Maison Blanche pourrait bien se tromper. La Russie possède suffisamment d’armements pour relever de façon adéquate, mais asymétrique, aux moindres frais et efficacement les défis lancés au Kremlin par l’administration américaine actuelle.
Il est peu probable que quelqu’un gagne à une telle confrontation. Mais c’est l’Europe qui y perdra en premier lieu. Si la Russie dénonce le FNI et si les missiles nucléaires russes sont braqués sur les ouvrages de la défense antimissile américaine en Europe, naturellement, les Européens n’auront pas une vie plus tranquille.
Les opinions exprimées dans cet article sont laissées à la stricte responsabilité de l’auteur.
http://fr.rian.ru
Nikita Petrov
Japan and China lead flight from the dollar
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor
Japan and China led a record withdrawl of foreign funds from the United States in August, heightening fears of a fresh slide in the dollar and a spike in US bond yields.
The US requires $70bn a month in capital inflows to cover its current account deficit
Data from the US Treasury showed outflows of $163bn (£80bn) from all forms of US investments. “These numbers are absolutely stunning,” said Marc Ostwald, an economist at Insinger de Beaufort.
Asian investors dumped $52bn worth of US Treasury bonds alone, led by Japan ($23bn), China ($14.2bn) and Taiwan ($5bn). It is the first time since 1998 that foreigners have, on balance, sold Treasuries.
Mr Ostwald warned that US bond yields could start to rise again unless the outflows reverse quickly. “Woe betide US Treasuries if inflation does not remain benign,” he said.
The release comes a day after the IMF warned that the dollar was still overvalued and likely to face “some depreciation in the medium term”.
The dollar’s short-lived rally over recent days stopped abruptly on the data, increasing pressure on US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to shore up Washington’s “strong dollar” rhetoric at the G7 summit this week.
The Greenback has already fallen below parity against the Canadian Loonie for the first time since 1976 and has touched record lows against a global basket. It closed at $2.032 against the pound.
David Woo, an analyst at Barclays Capital, said Washington was happy to see the dollar slide. “They don’t care so long as the fall is not disorderly. They see it as a way of correcting the deficit. ” he said.
Mr Woo said a chunk of the August outflows may have come from foreigners borrowing in the US during the liquidity crunch to meet needs in euros. “We think it may be a one-off,” he said.
The US requires $70bn a month in capital inflows to cover its current account deficit, but the key sources of finance are drying up one by one.
BNP Paribas said America has relied on “hot money” from abroad to cover 25pc to 30pc of the US short-term credit and commercial paper market over the last two years.
This flow is now in danger after the seizure in parts of the market over the summer and after the Federal Reserve’s half point rate cut, which has shaved the US yield advantage over other countries.
Ian Stannard, a Paribas currency analyst, said the data was “extremely negative” for the dollar. “It exceeds the worst fears. It is not just foreigners who are selling US assets. Americans are turning their back as well,” he said.
Central banks in Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam have all begun to cut purchases of US bonds, or signalled an intent to do so. In effect, they are giving up trying to hold down their currencies because the policy is starting to set off inflation.
The Treasury data would have been even worse if it had not been for $60bn of inflows from hedge funds based in Britain and the Caymans, which needed to cover US positions at the height of the credit crunch.
telegraph.
Comment :
This is officially one of the last stations before the dollar is no more. The next is OPEC, which is now trying to run for cover too but the traitor petrol monarchies set up by Bush around the Gulf are in a tight spot. Either they backstab the US, their masters and financiers, and face their people whom they have aided to genocide with the US beast or keep slurping Bush’s arse, which will soon make them all millionaires (from being billionaires) and after they lose their shirt in the dollar decay, they’ll have to face the angry Arabic people anyway.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we soon see Arab petrol monarchies on the move, securing some area to run to, shifting cash to some other market. To some extent Dubai seems to have been doing just that but it’s hard to see into this. It’s hard to track a dude with a sack full of cash.
But once the OPEC makes news on dollar flight like Japan, it’s over for the dollar, and subsequently the US and the whole western.
L’Egypte exige des explications des pays européens qui n’ont pas soutenu son appel à un Proche-Orient dénucléarisé
VIENNE – L’Egypte a envoyé une lettre de protestation à de très nombreux pays de l’Union européenne pour exprimer sa “stupéfaction et son regret” devant leur refus de soutenir l’appel du Caire pour un Proche-Orient dépourvu d’armes nucléaires, lors de la conférence générale de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA) le mois dernier.
La lettre, datée du 4 octobre et signée du ministre des Affaires étrangères Ahmed Aboul Gheit, dont l’Associated Press a obtenu un exemplaire mercredi, demande également aux Européens d’expliquer leur position.
La missive concerne une résolution non-contraignante présentée par l’Egypte lors de la conférence annuelle de l’AIEA en septembre. Traditionnellement, les pays européens ont soutenu les résolutions appelant à un Proche-Orient dépourvu d’armes nucléaires, mais cette année, 25 des 27 membres de l’UE se sont abstenus lors du vote, qui s’est soldé par l’adoption de la résolution. Seuls les Etats-Unis et Israël, clairement visé par la résolution, ont voté contre.
Israël est effectivement considéré comme une puissance nucléaire malgré le fait que l’Etat hébreu n’ait jamais avoué être doté de la bombe.
Les pays européens avaient voté pour une résolution similaire en 2006, première année où l’objection d’Israël a forcé l’AIEA à organiser un vote. Les années précédentes, la résolution sur l’”Application des garanties de lAIEA au Moyen-Orient” était adoptée par consensus.
L’Egypte a appris “avec stupéfaction et regret (…) que ce soutien n’était plus disponible à la dernière session de la conférence générale” de l’AIEA, selon la lettre. “L’Egypte ignore les raisons de fond qui ont mené votre pays a prendre une telle décision et je voudrais donc apprécier grandement vos opinions sur la question”, écrit le chef de la diplomatie égyptienne.
Aucun pays européen n’a réagi dans l’immédiat, mais l’Italie devrait envoyer une réponse pour expliquer sa position. AP
Comment :
Pathétique :
(nom masculin et adjectif, pathos, « ce qu’on éprouve ») Ce terme qualifie toute scène, dramatique ou romanesque, propre à susciter l’émotion du lecteur. Une scène pathétique définit la situation d’un personnage, souvent écrasé par le destin, qui exprime sa souffrance par une plainte.
