Les dessous de l’information mondiale-Downside World News

Vaccin : « Pas de preuve scientifique ! »

LE DÉPUTÉ QUI PRÉSIDAIT UNE TABLE RONDE SUR LA VACCINATION EN FRANCE, LE 6 JUIN DERNIER AU SÉNAT, ESTIME « QU’IL N’EXISTE PAS DE PREUVE SCIENTIFIQUE SUR L’UTILITÉ DES VACCINS ».

mardi 13 novembre 2007,

par Jean-Luc Martin-Lagardette

Lors d’une table ronde sur le thème « Les vaccins en France : quels enjeux pour l’industrie pharmaceutique et la recherche ? », réunie le mercredi 6 juin dernier, sous la présidence de Jean-Michel Dubernard, organisé par l’Office parlementaire d’évaluation des politiques de santé (Opeps), nous apprenons maintenant que « l’utilité des vaccins n’est pas prouvée scientifiquement ».

Voici le dialogue dans lequel s’insert cette affirmation :

« M. Nicolas About, sénateur, vice-président, s’est étonné de la couverture vaccinale moyenne de la France, alors qu’il s’agit de l’un des pays les plus contraignants en matière d’obligation vaccinale.

La langue du député Jean-Michel Dubernard, président de la table ronde et alors premier vice-président de l’Office parlementaire d’évaluation des politiques de santé, n’a pas fourché. Il réitère un peu plus loin sa conviction en disant qu’il « manque des données scientifiques permettant d’apprécier l’utilité des vaccins » !

Et c’est même plus qu’une affirmation puisque le député « rappelle » l’absence de preuve scientifique. Cela semble vouloir dire qu’une telle vérité est bien connue des responsables. D’ailleurs, le député n’a pas été démenti par ses interlocuteurs présents lors de cette réunion qui comptait les plus grands experts dans ce domaine.

Pourquoi alors affirme-t-on constamment et fortement le contraire au public ? Que l’action des vaccins est sous contrôle, qu’elle est scientifiquement établie, etc. ?

Les acteurs de la vaccination voudront sans doute fonder l’utilité des vaccins sur les seules constatations d’une régression des maladies concernées. Mais, précisément, les données épidémiologiques qui permettraient une telle analyse sont notoirement insuffisantes. De plus, la sous-notification des effets secondaires des vaccins est connue et reconnue, empêchant le juste établissement de la balance bénéfice/risque. Et la disparition des maladies peut être expliquée par bien d’autres facteurs (hygiène, alimentation, etc.). Bref, de toute façon, la discussion est de droit à nouveau ouverte.

Un grand débat citoyen, précédé ou accompagné de nouvelles expertises contradictoires, est désormais nécessaire.

En effet, soit ce député dit n’importe quoi – et il faut se demander ce qu’il faisait à la tête de cette table ronde.

Soit il dit vrai – et la preuve d’un discours trompant le public (car affirmant que la vaccination repose sur des bases scientifiques irréfutables) est apportée par lui au détour de cet échange parlementaire.

Nous penchons évidemment pour le deuxième terme de cette alternative. En effet, Jean-Michel Dubernard sait de quoi il parle : outre son titre de député (perdu cette année), il est médecin, chirurgien des hôpitaux de Lyon et professeur des universités.

En tout cas, s’il n’existe pas de « preuve scientifique sur l’utilité des vaccins », il est urgent de revoir le « contrat social » autour de notre politique de vaccination… Et encore plus à propos de l’obligation vaccinale.

Les Français ont le droit d’y voir clair !

www.oulala.net

Prince Georges County, Maryland States Attorney Glenn Ivey’s Warning:

“Parents Must Immunize Their Children Or Go To Jail”

[Editor's Note: You need to click the link to see the video clip from a local TV news station in order to hear the words of the vaccine promoters and the adults being used to push the vaccination agenda. You will notice in the TV report that there is not ONE WORD offered in defence of NOT vaccinating these children.

The only comments you get are from the reporters presenting the story and from the people they interview is that it's necessary to crack down on those delinquent and irresponsible parents are are unwilling to PROTECT their children with vaccination Well, "enough is enough" says Maryland States Attorney Glenn Ivey.

He's going to haul these "irresponsible" parents into court and throw them in jail if they don't IMMEDIATELY comply with vaccination ORDERS from the school and state. Doctors and nurses will be standing by with syringes in hand ready to pump up those hapless little children with the mandated vaccines. Working hat in glove with Ivey is Dr. Betty Despenza-Green, described as the Chief of Student Services. Speaking from the press conference microphone-which were set up right in front of the courhouse so there is no mistaking the threat implied-Dr. Despenza-Green wanted the TV cameras to know that " We need those students safe" Yea, right.

I can only HOPE that the anti-vaccine community will make an all-out effort to reach those parents so they can tell them how to immediately file a vaccine exemption form and stop this outrage against the parent's rights. Second, an injunction needs to be filed on behalf of the parents in order to prevent any immediate coercive court action before the parents bow to the pressure being put upon them. Third, a lawsuit needs to be filed against the school and the local school board, similar to the action taken by Dr Len Horowitz in Hawaii when his daughter faced this same dilemma a year ago, and force the school to INFORM parents that they can opt out of vaccinations by filing the EXEMPTION form. As it is, the school do NOT want parents to know that they can opt out.

Lastly, Dr. Betty Dispenza-Green and States Attorney Glenn Ivey need to be run out of office. Anyone who would attempt to use the threat of jail to force parents to vaccinate their children against their will is a Nazi and must be removed from positions of power over the public. ...Ken Adachi]

By Mark Century, TruthNews
November 14, 2007

Forward courtesy of David William Kimball <dwkimball@sbcglobal.net>

Original Title:
Parents Must Immunize Their Children Or Go To Jail

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/141107Immunize.htm

Prince Georges County, MD

1,600 school children and their parents have been ordered to appear in circuit court this Saturday where health workers will immediately force them to receive required shots. Parents who don’t bring their children to court for the shots are to be jailed.

“We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way, but it’s going to have to get done.” said State Attorney Glenn Ivey.

Nazi #1.
Dr. Betty Despenza-Green : “We need those children immunized. We need those children in school. We need those students safe. “

[Tip from Ken Adachi: If you were really concerned about children's safety, Herr Doktor, you would know that there is a MOUNTAIN of documents and studies which PROVE that vaccines are HARMFUL, dangerous, TOXIC to children (http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/)

Nazi #2.
Maryland States Attorney Glenn Ivey: "We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way, but it's gotta get done."

[Tip from Ken: What's "gotta get done", tough guy, is to kick your fascist ass out of the States Attorney office and get you back to doing something like chasing ambulances, where you're less of a danger to society and the rule of law. And when you have a little spare time, maybe you could pick up a copy of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and do some schooling yourself. ]

Related

No Law Says Parents Have To Get Their Children Vaccinated
Government and media propaganda hoax continues as parents in Maryland hoodwinked and threatened into believing it is the law to vaccinate kids, error-strewn Fox news report relays disinformation

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/141107_no_law.htm

By Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, November 14, 2007

News networks and state authorities are once again engaging in mass public deception by claiming that vaccines for children are mandated by law and that parents will go to jail if kids do not take their shots. In reality, there is no law that says you have to vaccinate your children and waiver forms for personal or religious exemptions are freely available.

A situation in Prince George’s County, MD. has attracted media attention and once again provided the platform for a propaganda push that falsely implies it is the law for children to be vaccinated with mass produced big pharma shots that are often not stringently tested and have been linked with dangerous side-effects.

More than 2300 children in Prince George’s County have been expelled from school for up to a month and a half because they have not received their shots for chicken pox and hepatitis B. This Saturday the parents of more than 1600 children have been ordered to attend Circuit court, where medical officials will be on standby to forcibly inject their children in a scenario befitting of a science fiction horror movie.

School officials have said the parents will receive a verbal reprimand from the judge and be ordered to have their children immunized in the courthouse. The students would then be allowed to return to school. Parents who refuse to comply will get fines and could be jailed for ten days.

“If the child is not here Saturday, then we will move on with the process, meaning that the PPWs and the counselors will put together the packet to take before the state’s attorney’s office, asking, requesting that criminal charges be implemented,” Dr. Betty Despenza-Green, the chief of student services, said from the courthouse Tuesday.

“We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way, but it’s going to have to get done. I’m willing to move forward with legal action.” said State Attorney Glenn Ivey.

Letters ordering the parents to show up at Prince George’s Circuit Court for a court hearing and a free vaccine have been issued with the warning “unexcused absences by your child may subject you to a criminal charge.”

Watch a Fox News report: (see link above)

This report is completely riddled with errors and distortions from beginning to end.

The Fox reporter states “A new law was passed last year requiring children from 5th through to 10th grade to have the vaccine”. This is completely untrue. The vaccine has been mandated by the state but there is no law in the U.S. that requires mandatory vaccinations of any kind. The report mentions the waiver forms only after claiming that it is the law. How can there be a waiver form that allows someone to break a law?

This is why the parents who do not comply will be charged not under vaccination laws (because there aren’t any) but under truancy, neglect or child in need of supervision laws, which state that the parent is culpable after 30 days of a child’s unexplained absence from school.

The school itself triggered the truancy violation by unfairly kicking the kids out of school, and failing to inform parents about vaccine waiver forms.

The news report quotes befuddled members of the public, who claim that kids not getting vaccinations endangers those that have had them. How on earth can that be the case if the vaccination is supposed to provide immunity against the disease ?

In reality, the vaccinated kids are more dangerous to others, considering the plethora of cases (http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/vaccines/index.htm) where vaccines have induced debilitating side-effects as levels of autism soar to unprecedented levels.

There is no law in America, aside from those applying to medical workers, that says you or your child has to take any vaccine whatsoever, no matter what any executive order, requirement, mandate or policy dictates, there is no situation where you can go to prison for refusing a government vaccine under the U.S. constitution and the law of the land.

As in the case of all other vaccines, executive orders and court mandates merely state that the vaccine is “recommended,” yet the mass media drumbeat constantly conditions people to believe that if they don’t take their shots they will be kicked out of school, arrested and thrown in jail. This trick will continue to hoodwink Americans into taking all manner of dangerous and untested vaccines, the number of which rises every year, until they realize that there is no law that forces them to take any vaccine.

Here is an example of a vaccine waiver form (http://edcp.org/pdf/896_form_revised_Dec-2005.pdf) , this particular one is for Maryland, the state in question in this case, proving that enforced vaccination is not the law and that personal and religious objections are applicable.

http://www.vaclib.org/exemption.htm – Here you can find vaccine exemption forms online by state or country.

The good news is that concerned parents across the U.S. are leading a nationwide revolt against unnecessary, untested and dangerous vaccines as CDC records (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view.bg?articleid=1038831) show a growing amount of religious exemptions on vaccine forms.

Earlier this year we reported on the furor surrounding the HPV vaccine (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/060207nolaw.htm) , which experts have slammed as untested and has continues to be linked
(http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=95517) to dangerous side-effects.

A media propaganda campaign along with an executive order issued by Texas governor Rick Perry has had parents in Texas and other areas of the country fooled into believing the vaccine is now the law and young girls must take it. Merck Pharmaceuticals are capitalizing on this fraud by making obscene profits from a crony deal (http://www.theeagle.com/stories/020607/texas_20070206006.php) with Governor Rick Perry, while children are put at risk.

Vaccines and drugs that are not stringently tested and are instead foisted upon populations for the purposes of making obscene profits have a clear history of deadly consequences.

Consider the case of Bayer Pharmaceuticals, who deliberately dumped a vaccine that was known to be contaminated with AIDS virus on the European and Latin American market after it killed people in America. Thousands died from an action that the U.S. government allowed to happen through the FDA.

Peruse the plethora of examples (http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/vaccines/index.htm) where vaccines containing mercury, live HIV virus, live cancer and other horrors have wrought misery after victims were bullied into taking them by government mandates that they were deluded into thinking was the law.

The history alone, a legacy that led former director of the National Institute of Health Dr. James R. Shannon to state, “The only safe vaccine is one that is never used,” implores us to stand up and expose this hoax and ensure that similar executive orders and mandates are not passed elsewhere in the country as a result of cynical greed driven lobbying and corporate crony payoffs.

More parents across the country should rally to denounce this development, which sets the pretext for the state to dictate the health of their children, as well as moving us closer to legislation which would allow Americans to be forcibly vaccinated at gunpoint against their will during a time of manufactured crisis, such as in the case of a human to human bird flu pandemic.

Listen to Alex Jones’ analysis on this topic here.

RELATED: Vaccines: The Deadly Cure – Prison Planet Research Archive
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/vaccines/index.htm)

(Comments posted today at the E-Y forum re. mandatory school vaccinations)

—– Original Message —–
From: “adkspoiledbrat” <adkspoiledbrat@yahoo.com>
To: <Educate-Yourself_Forum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007
Subject: Re: [Educate-Yourself_Forum] Re: No Law Says Parents Have To Get Their
Children Vaccinated

The minute your parents sign the birth certificate you are owned by this country. Owned at birth, they just feel you will do the best raising their property you signed over to them. If you don’t do the best job, they always have child abuse places that will take back their property that you signed over to them at birth and put it where they think best. No one is really free. Braking the Chains of Redemption is probably the only way to free yourself and that is next to impossible.

Owen Britton Troxelle <nottirbnewo@yahoo.com> wrote: Are you sure ??? If you’ve registered the child with the State.. THEY AREN’T YOURS ANYMORE. You are caring for State entrusted property… A Hu-man resource

Margaret Pullen <margaret_pullen@yahoo.com> wrote: Be very careful. A met a pair of twin girls a few years ago. The parents said they had been vaccinated against flu, and the one daughter became immediately and permenately phycially very paralized. They had tired to get compensation. The drug company responsible, lawyers, and courts had all denied them any help! That daughter had to have full time assistance.

There is genocide of Americans going on in America, more than once I have received verbal threats of this in CO these past few months.

God bless and keep your all safe, Margaret

adkspoiledbrat <adkspoiledbrat@yahoo.com> wrote: It was just a matter of telling them that you have a religious exemption and it’s no ones business what religion. Harmoni is in school and parents are not in jail. The law is a lie or at least can be worked around still. So there.

Cheri <Davida_Q@hotmail.com> wrote: Hi Rubi & All, I attended a raw foods/juice fasting seminar where the chiropractor who was speaking told us that the government doesn’t want to mandate vaccines by law because then they would also be liable for the side effects and deaths caused by the vaccines. So it is your free choice whether or not you want to vaccinate, and therefore YOU are responsible for the consequences. But we have all been lied to and coerced into believing that vaccines are required by law so that we will comply with the insanity.

I found the Google ad near the beginning of this article to be quite ironic, considering the purpose of the article:

“Flu Vaccine 2007 In Stock
No Hidden Fees, Syringes and Vials Starting At $7.00 a Dose,Call Today”

LOL! Well, at least it matches the content of the P.P. article.

Cheri

— In Educate-Yourself_Forum@yahoogroups.com, “rubi_ferrere”
<rubi_ferrere@…> wrote:

Dear all,

No Law Says Parents Have To Get Their Children Vaccinated

‘News networks and state authorities are once again engaging in mass public deception by claiming that vaccines for children are mandated by law and that parents will go to jail if kids do not take their shots. In reality, there is no law that says you have to vaccinate your children and waiver forms for personal or religious exemptions are freely available.’

Read more …
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/141107_no_law.htm

Regards,
Rubi

The other side of Irak war news

Iraqi Resistance Report for events of

14 November 2007.

Translated and/or compiled by Muhammad Abu Nasr,

member, editorial board,

The Free Arab Voice. 

The other side of Irak war news

Iraqi Resistance group announces destruction of three US military vehicles in two Iraqi Provinces as part of offensive against American occupation.

In a dispatch posted at 8:09pm Baghdad time Wednesday night, the Yaqen News Agency reported that the Iraqi Resistance Organization the 1920 Revolution Brigades announced that its fighters had destroyed three US vehicles as part of their offensive against the American occupiers code named as-Sakhrah al-‘Atiyah (“the Impervious Stone”).Yaqen reported the 1920 Brigade communiqué as saying that its fighters completely destroyed one American Humvee in a bomb attack in Salah ad-Din Province. The US crew in the vehicle was killed in the course of the operation codenamed al-Matraqah al-Hadidiyah (Iron Hammer).In Kirkuk, 250km north of Baghdad, fighters for the 1920 Revolution Brigades detonated another bomb destroying a US vehicle in the al-Qadisiyah neighborhood. Eyewitnesses told Yaqen News Agency that the vehicle was totally destroyed. No Americans were seen coming out of the stricken vehicle and a curfew was imposed in the area until the corpses of the dead US soldiers could be withdrawn under cover from the scene.In al-Huwayjah, 200km north of Baghdad 1920 Revolution fighters set off a bomb under a US patrol engaged in raids and searches in the city. Residents of the city told Yaqen News Agency that the bomb suddenly exploded under a US vehicle that had been driving along very slowly and carefully. In the blink of an eye the American Humvee was reduced to a shattered hulk and no US troops were seen getting out.

Yaqen reported Major Husayn al-‘Amiri of the Baghdad puppet police as saying that the mine produced a very violent explosion that destroyed one Humvee and severely damaged two more patrol vehicles

.Eyewitnesses told Yaqen that the Iraqi Resistance land mine exploded by the side of the road as the joint patrol drove past on its way towards the center of the city. The blast destroyed one Humvee and disabled two more vehicles in the patrol, the witnesses said. They said that US forces closed the road and sealed off the area. They also called in a medical unit to evacuate the casualties, the precise number and nature of which was unknown.Powerful explosion targets US patrol near “Green Zone” in Baghdad Wednesday morning.

In a dispatch posted at 11:05am Baghdad time Wednesday afternoon, the Yaqen News Agency reported that a powerful Iraqi Resistance bomb exploded between the buildings housing the puppet “Iraqi Foreign Ministry” and the as-Salihiyah puppet police station near the entrance to the top security area around the Republican Palace, which the Americans have dubbed “the Green Zone

.”Yaqen reported a source in the puppet police as claiming that the bomb went off by a US patrol, killing one civilian and wounding two more. The source admitted that one US Humvee was damaged in the explosion but said he had no knowledge of any casualties among the Americans.In a dispatch posted at 9:53am Makkah time Wednesday morning, Mafkarat al-Islam reported that the explosion was caused by a car bomb so powerful that it shook buildings inside the “Green Zone.” It was reportedly the most powerful blast heard in the occupied Iraqi capital for weeks.Three more US troops killed in Iraq, US admits Wednesday morning.

In regard to those reports, the Islamic Army communiqué declared

:
“1. Any statement that does not come from our official sources is a lie and fabrication and whoever publishes or broadcasts it bears responsibility for it.“2. Our official sources are the letters of the Amir of the Islamic Army, the official spokesman, the press spokesman, our communiqués, and the announcements on our official Internet website.“3. The Islamic Army in Iraq in its military operations has not participated with any military force other than the jihadi organizations..

Yaqen reported an official spokesman for the Naqshabandi Sufi Resistance Organizations as saying that their strikes killed a number of US soldiers whose bodies were observed strewn several meters from the center where the bombs went off.

Afterwards, US and puppet regime troops launched searches and raids in the area looking for the fighters who carried out the attacks and arrested a number of local residents.Ninwa Province.Al-Mawsil.Resistance bomb targets Deputy Director of puppet police in al-Mawsil.

US presses Turkey against forging energy ties with Iran
 

By: Zamantoday

on: 16.11.2007 

US presses Turkey against forging energy ties with Iran

US Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman, who arrived in İstanbul yesterday, has reportedly suggested once again that Turkey not focus on Iran to meet its pressing energy demands, citing instead the realization of a Turkey-Greece natural gas pipeline project, marking the first flow Azeri gas bypassing Russia, as a source that should relieve Ankara from its domestic supply concerns.

“Iran wants the Turkish private sector to construct a 10,000-megawatt hydroelectric power plant in this country. Once we conclude a deal with the Iranian minister of electricity Fattah, the Iranian petroleum minister Seyyed Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh will visit Ankara. There has been no change in the earlier planned schedule with Iran on energy deals. Thus, both this month and the coming month will be a very important period in this respect in concluding energy deals with Iran,” Güler said in İstanbul.

Meanwhile, the Turkey-Greece natural gas pipeline project to

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=127229

H5N1 in Saudi Arabia
Recombinomics Commentary
November 14, 2007

Saudi Arabia’s Agriculture Ministry announced yesterday that it had culled 50,000 birds after a deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu was detected at a poultry farm in Al-Kharj, 150 kms south of Riyadh

Although there were no reports of this sub-clade for a year, it generated headlines over the summer in Germany when hundreds of wild birds tested positive for a closely related H5N1.  The detection in the summer, when wild bird migration was minimal, strongly suggested that the strain had become endemic in the wild bird population in Europe. 

The recent outbreak in England in free range turkeys suggests that is version of H5N1 is circulating over a wide region.

Details of the H5N1 in Saudi Arabia, including sequence information would be useful.

http://www.recombinomics.com/News/11140702/H5N1_Saudi.html

La Tunisie de Ben Ali ou l’illusion de la réussite

« L’époque que nous vivons ne peut plus souffrir ni présidence à vie ni succession automatique à la tête de l’Etat , desquelles le peuple se trouve exclu. Notre peuple est digne d’une vie politique évoluée et institutionnalisée, fondée réellement sur le multipartisme et la pluralité des organisations de masse »
Zine El ‘Abidine Ben Ali (Déclaration du 7 novembre 1987)

Profsseur Chems Eddine Chitour

7 novembre 1987, Bourguiba devenu sénile ne veut pas lâcher le pouvoir. « L’aube pointe à peine écrit Dominique Lagarde, lorsque sept médecins, un peu surpris d’être là, sont discrètement introduits dans les locaux du ministère de l’Intérieur. Le certificat médical a été préparé par les conjurés, ils n’ont plus qu’à le signer. Après une fin de règne empoisonnée, les déclarations du nouveau président soulèvent un vent d’espoir. Il promet l’Etat de droit, la démocratie, la liberté de la presse, celle des associations… Des mesures suivent, très vite: libération des prisonniers politiques, retour des opposants en exil, réglementation de la garde à vue, interdiction de la torture, suppression de la présidence à vie.. ».(1)
Vingt ans plus tard, le chef de l’Etat tunisien a fêté le 7 novembre 2007 ses 20 ans à la tête de la Tunisie, avec à l’horizon l’élection présidentielle de 2009. Ses partisans espèrent qu’il prolongera la prospérité économique du pays, alors que ses adversaires redoutent un glissement vers un système quasi-monarchique avec le maintien d’un contrôle politique et médiatique strict. Les partisans du président Zine el Abidine ben Ali sont confiants qu’il sollicitera d’être reconduit à la tête de la Tunisie en 2009, à l’expiration de son quinquennat actuel. Les détracteurs du chef de l’Etat tunisien, qui fêtera ce mercredi à 71 ans ses 20 ans de pouvoir, redoutent au contraire la perpétuation d’un règne autoritariste marqué par un contrôle politique et médiatique strict.(2).
A l’occasion du vingtième anniversaire de son arrivée au pouvoir, les rues de Tunis et des autres villes du pays sont pavoisées de portraits du successeur d’Habib Bourguiba et de banderoles proclamant qu’il sera « le meilleur choix en 2009 ». Dès novembre 2006, déjà, des parlementaires l’ont pressé de se représenter pour prolonger la période de prospérité et de stabilité sociale exceptionnelle que le pays a connu sous son règne. “Les Tunisiens ne souffrent pas de la pauvreté. Ils souffrent de famine mentale”, estime l’analyste politique Slah Jourchi, en évoquant le déficit démocratique qui caractérise la vie politique. La longévité au pouvoir est une constante au Maghreb. Le colonel Mouammar Kadhafi dirige la Libye depuis 38 ans. Le roi Hassan II a régné autant de temps sur le Maroc. Et l’armée fait la pluie et le beau temps en Algérie depuis 45 ans ».(2)
« Les adversaires de Ben Ali prédisent que sa reconduction à la présidence ferait glisser la Tunisie dans un système quasi monarchique, faisant peu de cas de son engagement de 1987 d’épargner au pays toute nouvelle présidence à vie. Mais ils le créditent d’un bilan économique positif. “Nous avons assurément bénéficié ces deux dernières décennies de stabilité sociale et de retombées économiques. Mais nous avons aussi connu une régression politique remarquable”, note Maya Djribi, leader du Parti démocratique progressiste d’opposition. « Auparavant, il y avait un véritable débat politique. Maintenant, c’est devenu le désert total. Sans liberté de la presse, sans respect du droit de réunion, sans réhabilitation de la politique, nous risquons de bloquer tout développement durable. » » (2)
Dans leur livre Notre ami Ben Ali les deux journalistes – Nicolas Beau et Jean-Pierre Tuquoi – et préfacé par Gilles Perraut -qui avait écrit quelques années auparavant : « Notre ami le roi »- avaient dressé un réquisitoire sans concession contre le « système présidentiel ». Pourtant les premières décisions faisaient espérer que la Tunisie allait servir d’exemple en terme de démocratie et d’ouverture. Il n’en fut rien Le scrutin de 1989 sera pourtant lamentablement truqué.(3)
Ben Ali va peu à peu instaurer un véritable régime policier. Il lance d’abord, à partir de 1990, une gigantesque traque aux islamistes. Rafles et arrestations se multiplient. Sans que cela choque grand monde. A Tunis, on explique que les islamistes représentent un vrai danger et qu’on «ne fait pas d’omelette sans casser des œufs»… L’opposition «démocrate» et laïque, tout comme les pays «amis», se laisse facilement convaincre. Le plus étonnant, c’est que cette répression est en quelque sorte «gratuite». Car le régime n’est pas menacé. «Mal gouvernée et bien gérée», selon le mot d’un intellectuel tunisois cité par les deux auteurs, la Tunisie aligne des indicateurs économiques qui sont pour la plupart au vert. Le régime pourrait sans risque jouer la carte de la démocratie. Pourquoi, alors, Ben Ali s’acharne-t-il sur des opposants bien trop faibles pour menacer son pouvoir? Un diplomate français confie aux deux auteurs avoir essayé en vain, lorsqu’il était en poste dans la capitale, de convaincre Ben Ali d’«arrêter de se tirer dans le pied». (2)
Le deuxième président de la Tunisie indépendante est né à Hammam-Sousse, en 1936, dans une famille paysanne. Après un passage en France et aux Etats-Unis où il est admis à l’Ecole supérieure de renseignement et de sécurité. Dès 1958, il est directeur de la sécurité militaire. En 1980, il est ambassadeur à Varsovie. Rappelé en Tunisie après la «révolte du pain» de 1984, il est nommé deux ans plus tard ministre de l’Intérieur, poste qu’il conserve lorsqu’il devient Premier ministre, en 1987 C’était il y a vingt ans. Aujourd’hui, 10 millions de Tunisiens vivent sous haute surveillance dans un pays quadrillé par près d’un millier de cellules du Rassemblement constitutionnel démocratique (RCD), l’ex-parti unique, quelque 200 comités de quartier qui sont autant d’annexes locales du ministère de l’Intérieur, et 110 000 policiers.
Comme dans tous les pays arabes où le pouvoir est illégitime, des plumitifs flagorneurs vantent chaque jour, dans les colonnes d’une presse aux ordres, la «hauteur d’esprit», la «clairvoyance» et la vision, «prospective» ou «avant-gardiste», c’est selon, mais toujours «profonde», d’un président omniscient et omniprésent dont le mandat est indéfiniment renouvelable depuis la réforme constitutionnelle de 2002.

 « Consomme et tais-toi!» telle est la devise : Le régime réprime l’opposition, mais subventionne l’acquisition de tout ce qu’une famille peut souhaiter, voiture, logement, ordinateur…

Près de 80% des Tunisiens sont propriétaires de leur logement.
En 1990 et 1991, la police procède aux premières rafles, en particulier sur les campus. Le drame algérien sert de repoussoir.

Deux ans plus tard, en 1994, Ben Ali est réélu avec… 99,91% des suffrages! Sur le plan économique, en revanche, à partir du milieu des années 1990, la Tunisie joue la carte de l’ouverture. Les milieux d’affaires, tunisiens ou étrangers, sont, eux, convaincus d’une chose: il est impossible d’entreprendre en Tunisie sans s’entendre avec les Trabelsi ( belle famille du président) et «passer à la caisse».

En échange, bien sûr, les beaux-frères jouent les parrains et fournissent les passe-droits nécessaires… «Nous sommes dans une économie kleptocratique», affirme un universitaire français, spécialiste du Maghreb ».(1)

Ahmed Manaï, Tunisien exilé après avoir échappé aux griffes du régime Ben Ali, agronome, ex-expert de l’ONU pense que la Tunisie se porte bien .

Pou lui, le PNB, qui a progressé en moyenne de plus de 5 % au cours des 20 dernières années, ainsi que tous les autres principaux indicateurs macro-économiques, inflation, investissement, déficit budgétaire, endettement, réserves en devises, chômage, etc., attestent d’une économie en bonne santé et assez bien gérée.

« Reconnaissons dit-il à Ben Ali le fait qu’il a placé souvent des gens compétents à la tête des ministères techniques et qu’il a hérité d’une bonne administration.
Mais la bonne tenue de l’économie ne suffit pas à mettre en confiance une société marginalisée et inquiète de la privatisation de l’Etat, du dévoiement de la justice, de la montée vertigineuse de la corruption, du développement des réseaux mafieux et des graves disparités sociales, mais aussi et surtout de l’absence de perspectives d’avenir.

Je crois que les Tunisiens, dans leur écrasante majorité, sont convaincus qu’ils auront « Ben Ali à vie ». « Le tissu économique tunisien est constitué d’un peu plus de 400.000 entreprises dont plus de 98 % sont des petites et moyennes entreprises (moins de 10 ouvriers) qui n’intéressent pas ces « mafias ». Les entreprises étrangères aussi échappent à leur prédation. Mais les « mafias », proches ou non de Ben Ali, existent et contrôlent de nombreuses activités. Elles ont largement profité des privatisations des entreprises de l’Etat et des sociétés mixtes, ainsi que des facilités bancaires. Le jour où elles parviennent à contrôler le système bancaire, toute l’économie tunisienne sera entre leurs mains ».
« Bourguiba a été le précurseur incontestable de l’émancipation féminine. Il lui a ouvert la voie par une législation révolutionnaire sur le « statut de la femme et de la famille » et par la scolarisation des filles. Devant tant d’avancées des femmes tunisiennes, je suis abasourdi, par le traitement aussi humiliant qu’inopérant, réservé, parfois, aux jeunes filles voilées, ainsi que par mille autres tracasseries quotidiennes. …

L’islam politique n’est pas un phénomène passager. Il est consubstantiel de l’islam et sert souvent de révélateur des crises internes de ses sociétés. En Tunisie, l’avenir, après Ben Ali, est pour « un parti politique pour un peuple musulman », c’est-à-dire une formation capable d’apaiser et de stabiliser les rapports entre les sphères religieuse et politique, à l’instar du parti de la justice et du développement (AKP) en Turquie, mais aussi de l’Istiqlal et du Destour au début des indépendances du Maroc et de la Tunisie.(4)

« Vingt ans plus tard écrit Florence Beaugé, les propos sont amers. Si les Tunisiens admettent, du bout des lèvres, que le pays s’est développé et que le niveau de vie a augmenté, ils expriment, pour la plupart, mal-être et frustration. La Tunisie d’aujourd’hui, c’est le pays des illusions perdues. Coupés de la population, les touristes qui se bronzent sur les plages de Mahdia et Monastir sont loin de pouvoir l’imaginer. Selon le professeur Dimassi, les autorités d’utiliser le système éducatif comme “un outil de gouvernance démagogique” depuis près de vingt ans et de délivrer des diplômes “à des quasi-analphabètes”.

Quitter la Tunisie pour trouver du travail et échapper, dans le meilleur des cas, à un emploi précaire et mal payé, c’est l’idée fixe de la plupart des jeunes, encouragés par leurs parents. Nejib s’exprime avec une rage butée : « Je veux aller vivre en Europe, et j’y arriverai !

En Tunisie, l’homme n’a pas de valeur. On est des esclaves modernes ».

Si la peur recule au fur et à mesure que le mécontentement grandit, la prudence reste la règle. On se méfie toujours du voisin et des innombrables indicateurs. “Ben Ali pour l’éternité” ! Ce n’est pas de la science-fiction. Le slogan a fait son apparition, il y a quelques mois, sur une banderole déployée sur la façade d’une entreprise publique. Chaque jour, la presse publique vante “l’image rayonnante de la Tunisie, fruit de la pensée clairvoyante de Ben Ali”. Personne n’est dupe. Pas même ceux qui chantent la gloire du président et le “supplient”, dans une surenchère burlesque, de briguer un nouveau mandat en 2009 ».(5)
C’est malgré tout un pays qui avance et le président sait ce qu’il veut. Ce despotisme éclairé fait des envieux surtout à l’extérieur. Car en Tunisie que l’on soit dans le pouvoir ou dans l’opposition, les intérêts supérieurs de la Tunisie font l’unanimité. Nous ne verrons jamais un Tunisien livré son pays aux chiens. S’il critique c’est avec nuance, il prend soin de compter les bons points et d’attribuer les mauvais points au pouvoir. A l’extérieur pour reprendre une phrase de Chirac : « La Tunisie parle d’une seule voix ». Ce pays a su malgré de faibles moyens miser sur la compétence et sur l’initiative. C’est une réalité la Tunisie est classée 30e par le Forum de Davos. C’est un pays émergent sur lequel nous devrions prendre exemple.
S’il est un reproche à faire à ce pays, c’est de bâtir sa « prospérité » sur le malheur de l’Algérie citée à tout bout de champ aux Européens et au touristes comme le repoussoir , l’anti-tranquillité, bref la jungle en face du farniente de Sidi BouSaid. Le roi Hassan II lui aussi, n’était pas allé de main morte en parlant de la décennie rouge subie par l’Algérie comme le Laboratoire du Maghreb. Ce n’est pas ainsi que l’on construira le Maghreb, en piétinant des passeports d’Algériens. Les autorités algériennes auraient protesté, et le responsable a été mis à pied pendant quelques jours….
En définitive s’il est une unanimité à signaler au Maghreb, c’est l’usure du pouvoir Qu’on en juge ! Le patriarche Kaddafi va allègrement sur ses 40 ans de règne sans partage ; Moubarak et Ben Ali le talonnent. Il semble que les sociétés arabes par atavisme ou par fatalisme en viennent à ne plus croire à l’alternance. Elles ne se sont pratiquement jamais révoltées contre le despotisme , sauf lorsque le despote était sanguinaire, La culture arabo-islamique est celle du zaïm, du chef éclairé et en principe juste. Mieux encore par une véritable jeu de rôle le zaïm fait comme le Calife donnant des bourses en dinars pour service rendu à tout les courtisans jusqu’au jour où les caisses sont vides. Il est tragique de penser que les pays du Maghreb en soient encore là. Elles pensent à tort, le croyons-nous, qu’elles puissent s’en sortir individuellement en face de cette mondialisation –laminoir et de ces grands ensemble (Union Européenne, Alena, Mercosur..). Le temps nous est compté . Seule l’unité donnera au Maghreb une chance d’exister. A quoi sert l’UMA et qu’attendent les dirigeants pour se mettre au travail ? Le Maghreb a d’énormes potentialités. Sa réussite ne peut être qu’endogène. Il serait naïf d’attendre le salut d’une hypothétique Union Méditerranéenne véritable miroir aux alouettes.

1.Dominique Lagarde Tunisie Le système Ben Ali ‘L’Epress .fr du 31/10/2007
2.Tunisie Ben Ali fête ses 20 ans de pouvoir L’Express.fr 7 novembre 2007.
3. Nicolas Beau et Jean-Pierre Tuquoi. Notre ami Ben Ali . Editions la Découverte 1999.
4.Ahmed Manaï, Propos recueillis par Baudoin Loos « Le Soir », le 5 novembre 2007
5.Florence Beaugé La Tunisie des illusions perdues. Le Monde du 6 11 2007

Professeur Chems Eddine Chitour
Ecole Polytechnique Alger
Ecole d’Ingénieurs Toulouse

Jeudi 15 Novembre 2007

vdida2003@yahoo.fr

Guillaume Weill-Raynal « Les nouveaux désinformateurs »

L’Economiste 455-du 31 Oct. au 14 Nov. 2007

En France, ces dernières années – surtout depuis l’Intifadda II –, tout ce qui touche Israël, les Juifs, l’Islam, les Arabes, les banlieues…, est devenu l’enjeu d’une véritable guerre sémantique.

Des agents d’influence ou des « clercs de service » travaillent à valider des thèses inavouables. Guillaume Weill Raynal, avocat de formation – dans son dernier livre «Les nouveaux désinformateurs » (éd. Armand Colin) – traque dans les détails, exemples à l’appui, la désinformation, et démasque ceux qui sont à l’œuvre dans le paysage médiatique français. Entretien.

L’Economiste Maghrébin : Votre nouvel essai «Les nouveaux désinformateurs» s’attaque à un sujet compliqué et difficile, la désinformation. Comment naît-elle ? Quel est son processus de fabrication ? Et pour servir quelle cause ?

Guillaume Weill Raynal : La désinformation n’est qu’une exploitation, théorisée et mise en pratique sous forme systématisée, des ressources éternelles de la mauvaise foi humaine d’un côté, de la crédulité de l’autre. Voilà pourquoi il s’agit d’un phénomène difficile à cerner. Il recèle une part de spontanéité (l’envie qu’ont les gens d’être trompés, de croire à des clichés), et une part de manipulation qui consiste précisément, pour un petit nombre de personnes, à exploiter cette envie. C’est ce mélange qui rend l’analyse et la critique de la désinformation si difficiles. Il n’y a pas de «cabinet noir» avec des gens qui appuient sur un bouton, et hop, l’opinion est manipulée ! C’est beaucoup plus subtil. Mais il y a effectivement de véritables campagnes de manipulation, pensées, construites et mises en œuvre, où chaque instrument, comme dans un orchestre, joue sa partition. Si vous me permettez cette métaphore, la flûte et le triangle peuvent y avoir autant d’utilité que la grosse caisse ou les cymbales. Volkoff, le disait déjà il y a vingt ans : la désinformation n’est rien d’autre, en définitive, que l’application à la communication politique des techniques du marketing et de la publicité. Lorsque l’on sait, par exemple, que les thèmes de la campagne électorale de Sarkozy ont été définis lors de réunions de groupes « qualitatifs », calqués sur le modèle des réunions de consommateurs, je ne pense pas qu’évoquer la place grandissante que prend la désinformation dans une société de masse relève d’une vision du monde paranoïaque ou conspirationniste. Elle peut être mise au service de n’importe quelle cause. Il est impossible d’en décrire les processus de fabrication en quelques lignes. Une étude sommaire de ces processus couvre déjà un chapitre de mon livre. Pour faire court: le principe est toujours le même. Détourner l’attention, par le biais de l’émotion, des vrais enjeux au profit d’enjeux totalement artificiels. Faire réagir l’opinion aux problèmes de la planète comme s’il s’agissait d’un téléfilm sentimental et manichéen. Il y a une dizaine d’années, un film extraordinaire « Des hommes d’influence », avec Robert de Niro et Dustin Hofmann, mettait en scène ce type d’opérations avec un réalisme saisissant.

Comment expliquez-vous que la lutte contre l’antisémitisme soit instrumentalisée, détournée à ce point en France?

C’est une question que j’ai longuement étudiée dans mon premier livre « Une Haine imaginaire » (éd. Armand Colin), puis dans le deuxième, « Les nouveaux désinformateurs » (même éditeur). Je suis en train de préparer un troisième livre sur le sujet… Disons que la « question juive » hante l’imaginaire occidental. On ne raye pas d’un trait de plume 2000 ans de judéo-christianisme, jalonnés par l’antisémitisme et dont la Shoah a été le point culminant. Le mot « juif » symbolise dans cet imaginaire aussi bien l’image diabolique véhiculée par l’antisémitisme chrétien que la figure de la Victime, avec un V majuscule. L’ambivalence de ce mot en fait un oxymore sidérant : un mot tellement chargé et lourd de sens qu’il en vient à perdre tout sens. On peut utiliser ce mot comme on veut, car il bloque la réflexion. Dans une société qui sacralise la victime et l’émotion dans un registre nivelé à celui de la culture télévisuelle au sens péjoratif du terme, c’est pain béni : les voitures qui brûlent en banlieues, le voile dans les collèges, le conflit israélo-palestinien, la situation en Irak, le nucléaire iranien ne sont plus décryptés qu’à travers le prisme de l’antisémitisme, dont les méchants musulmans, où qu’ils soient à travers le monde, seraient les représentants exclusifs et exemplaires.

Sans pour autant céder à la vision conspirationnisme, qui sert souvent d’alibi, de nombreux intellectuels juifs et parfois non-juifs – Alain Finkielkraut, Jacques Tarnero, Pierre-André Taguieff, et d’autres – participent massivement à valider les argument

C’est l’un des points que j’avais analysés dans « Une haine imaginaire ». Tous ces intellectuels se contentent d’idées toutes faites, maquillées avec de jolis concepts sociologico-philosophiques, et négligent complètement l’examen de la réalité. C’est ainsi qu’entre 2002 et 2005, ils se sont mutuellement cités en boucle pour répéter inlassablement la même affirmation selon laquelle, en France, une déferlante de haine médiatique avait diabolisé, nazifié, Israël et les Juifs. Le problème est qu’aucun d’entre eux n’a jamais cité le moindre exemple précis de ce qu’il avançait. J’ai moi-même cité de très nombreux contre-exemples qui ruinaient totalement leurs thèses. Le rôle de ces intellectuels est particulièrement intéressant car ils constituent ce qu’on appelle, en termes de désinformation, la « caisse de résonance » : en tant que « relais », ils sont à la fois désinformateurs et désinformés. Ils ne sont pas forcément de mauvaise foi car ils partagent avec leur public le besoin de croire à des balivernes. Le problème est qu’ils jouissent sur le plan moral et intellectuel d’un tel prestige que leur public les croit sur parole. C’est la « nouvelle trahison des clercs ».

La frange la plus militante de la communauté juive et ses dirigeants, «travaillés» par des idées néoconservatrices venues notamment d’Amérique, tentent de reproduire en France le modèle d’organisation des juifs US. Tous ceux qui critiquent Israël sont taxés d’antisémite.

J’ai souligné dans « Les nouveaux désinformateurs » comment fonctionnait le «couplage» du thème de l’antisémitisme et de celui de l’antiaméricanisme. La formule n’est pas de moi mais de… Pierre-André Taguieff. Il utilise, précisément, ce couplage (là où je montre comment fonctionne son instrumentalisation, c’est ce qui nous distingue, lui et moi) pour soutenir l’idée que s’opposer à la guerre en Irak ou faire remarquer que George W. Bush n’est pas un génie relèverait peu ou prou d’une démarche antisémite. Cette idée grotesque a été à nouveau exploitée en France, lors des présidentielles. Il s’est trouvé des gens très sérieux pour soutenir que l’antisarkozysme était une forme d’antisémitisme ! Alain Finkielkraut s’est même livré à une démonstration particulièrement tordue pour expliquer que ce qu’il nomme la « passion égalitaire » du parti socialiste (PS) s’apparentait à ce que Benny Levy appelait le « meurtre du pasteur », c’est-à-dire le refus de la loi sinaïtique… Comme disait le sapeur Camembert, quand les bornes sont franchies, il n’y a pas de limites !

Allons plus loin dans l’explication. Dans votre livre, vous vous attardez longuement sur le cas du journaliste d’ARTE, Daniel Leconte, qui serait, selon vous, un « agent d’influence ». Comment fonctionne le « système Leconte » ?

Vladimir Volkoff avait écrit, en 1981, «Le Montage», un roman un peu oublié aujourd’hui (mais qui avait eu le Grand Prix du roman de l’Académie française) consacré à la désinformation soviétique qui sévissait alors en France et en Europe de l’Ouest. On sait que cette fiction avait été nourrie par une documentation très sérieuse sur les agents d’influence que la DGSE avait elle-même fournie à l’auteur. Le héros de ce roman est agent littéraire à Paris. Dessinez son profil sur un calque et superposez celui de Daniel Leconte : la similitude est caricaturale. Daniel Leconte gère un véritable « système », qui passe par une société de production audiovisuelle, qui vend des soirées clés en main à la chaîne ARTE, sur des thèmes toujours très orientés, par une collection de livres qui recycle les reportages diffusés précédemment sur ARTE etc. Daniel Leconte déguise en enquêtes journalistiques des reportages et des livres qui ne sont que des œuvres de propagande. Le tout avec une rare malhonnêteté intellectuelle. Il a été également de ceux qui ont monté de toutes pièces un procès truqué contre France 2 et Charles Enderlin destiné à faire croire que le reportage sur la mort du petit Mohamed Al Dura était un faux.Entretien de HBSource:
l’économiste Maghrébin[
http://www.leconomiste.com.tn/fr/doc.asp?docid=1672&mcat=4&mrub=127]url:
http://www.leconomiste.com.tn/fr/doc.asp?docid=1672&mcat=4&mrub=127

Vendredi 16 Novembre 2007

aea@yahoo.com

___________________________________________

Commentaire :

Daniel Leconte, sioniste grate papier de la désinformation!! colaborateur de la revue néoconservatrice “Le meilleur des mondes”,qui soutien la coalition anglo-américaine dans son intervention contre le peuple d’irak,

la « Voix de l’Amérique » comme les Qualifies les vrai journalistes qui ne sont pas au ordres des sionistes et des imperialistes comme eux !!

Principaux contributeurs à la désinformation, à la stigmatisations des musulmans et à la défense de l’impérialisme Occidentalo-israelien :Olivier Rubinstein (directeur de la publication et des éditions Denoël), Michel Taubmann (rédacteur en chef de la revue, journaliste à Arte), Mohammed Abdi (secrétaire général de l’association Ni Putes Ni Soumises), Corinne Lepage, Galia Ackerman, Antoine Basbous (spécialiste du Moyen-Orient et directeur de l’observatoire des pays arabes), Claire Brière-Blanchet, Pascal Bruckner (philosophe et essayiste), Jean Chalvidant, Stéphane Courtois (directeur de recherche au CNRS, historien du communisme), Brice Couturier, Thérèse Delpech, Susanna Dörhage (journaliste à Arte), Antonio Elorza (universitaire espagnol), Myriam Encaoua (journaliste), Frédéric Encel, Arié Flack, Cécilia Gabizon (journaliste au Figaro), Philippe Gaudin, André Glucksmann (philosophe), Raphaël Glucksmann (réalisateur), Romain Goupil (cinéaste), Gérard Grunberg (universitaire), Philippe Gumplowicz, David Hazan, Olivier Languepin, Max Lagarrigue (historien et journaliste), Michel Laval (avocat), Bertrand Lebeau, Barbara Lefebvre (enseignante), Marc Lefevre, Jacky Mamou (ancien président de médecins sans frontières), Violaine de Marsangy, Jean-Luc Mouton (directeur de l’hebdomadaire La Réforme), Kendal Nezan, Michaël Prazan, Nata Rampazzo, Pierre Rigoulot (philosophe et directeur de l’Institut d’histoire sociale), Olivier Rolin (écrivain), Élisabeth Schemla (journaliste), André Senik, Ève Szeftel, Pierre-André Taguieff (chercheur, CNRS), Jacques Tarnero, Florence Taubmann (théologienne, pasteur du Temple de l’Oratoire, Paris), Bruno Tertrais, Antoine Vitkine (réalisateur, Arte), Marc Weitzmann (écrivain), Ilios Yannakakis (universitaire).

redk

La bataille de Fallouja ou : La défaite américaine en Irak
Ahmed Mansour , Extraits (page 80,81)

Le paparazzo, le Coran et l’Américain
 

Pour aller à Samarra, je m’étais fait accompagner du jeune Souheib Samarraï, un confrère originaire de cette ville, qui travaillait au siège d’Al- Jazeera, à Bagdad. Au bout de deux jours passés ensemble, nous avons sympathisé et il m’a raconté son histoire, que je relaterai ici brièvement.

Traduit de l’arabe par Ahmed Manai : www.tunisitri.net/

Vendredi 16 Novembre 2007

tunisielibre@yahoo.fr

Why Are They So Afraid of Ron Paul ?
 

Neocons and sectarian leftists unite to smear the antiwar Republican

As I predicted last month, the only consistently antiwar

candidate on the Republican side of the aisle is breaking through – but in a spectacular manner that I certainly did not foresee. Suddenly, Paul is everywhere, from the Sunday morning talk shows to the length and breadth of the blogosphere.

His amazing $4.2 million-in-one-day fundraising feat has entered the annals of presidential politics as the long-promised fulfillment of Internet-based political fundraising.

And the myth that it’s all online and not translatable into real people is belied by his recent 5,000-strong Philadelphia rally and similar events in Iowa and elsewhere.

Paul has become the equivalent of a rock star among the young, and his appeal goes way beyond the usual libertarian crowd: liberals and conservatives, all races and cultural types, from home-schooling Christians to San Francisco pagans and everything in between.

On the Internet, and in the streets, the Ron Paul Revolution, as his followers have dubbed their movement, is taking off.

The conventional wisdom, prior to this breakthrough, was that the Paul campaign was political vaporware, existing exclusively online and not in the material world. Yet that meme is quickly falling by the wayside as his polling numbers are rocketing upwards, from New Hampshire to Nevada.

The money windfall – a result that the official campaign had nothing to do with, and which was generated entirely by Paul’s independent supporters acting entirely on their own initiative – has made an advertising blitz possible, with at least two television ads and several radio ads running in early primary states.

All this buzz, however, has generated a counter-buzz, a sinister stream of smears and jeers coming from both Right and Left. What’s instructive is how similar these attacks are in their viciousness, and, in the case of the “serious” mainstream critics, their juvenility.

Whether coming from the liberal and ostensibly antiwar Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly and Matt Yglesias of The Atlantic, or from some neocon hack over at the Weekly Standard, the “Ron-is-crazy” meme is being furiously pushed upstream against the raging current of the Paul phenomenon – so far, to little avail. He’s a “fruitcake,” sniffs Drum, and the beat is taken up by Yglesias, who chimes in with charges of “extremism.” The Weekly Standard takes it a bit further, and, with its characteristic snark, dubs Ron the “don’t tase me, bro!” candidate, complete with an illustration of Paul being hustled off the stage by uniformed thugs – which is what they’d like to do to all of their political opponents.

David Weigel was absolutely right when he predicted it months ago, although the trepidation in his tone was, I think, unwarranted. Yes, the smears are getting really ugly, but precisely because of that the Smear Bund is generating a pro-Paul backlash, particularly among those who consider themselves liberals of the old school. Glenn Greenwald, whose popular “Unclaimed Territory” blog was claimed by Salon a while back, has risen as Ron’s champion on the Left: Paul’s is “a campaign that defies and despises conventional and deeply entrenched Beltway assumptions about our political discourse and about what kind of country this is supposed to be,” he writes. Greenwald “gets it,” in a way that shows his own awareness of the change liberalism is undergoing, as it faces the all-out assault of the neocons and the War Party on every front.

A tireless critic of the surveillance state and an informed, fierce opponent of the neoconservatives in the foreign policy realm, Greenwald has watched the rise of Ron Paul in the context of Hillary’s apparent inevitability. Indeed, his spirited defense of Paul is rooted in his contempt for the pro-war and distinctly neoconservative foreign policy stance at the core of her oily evasions. The contrast with Paul’s forthright and principled opposition not only to the Iraq war, but also to the underlying premise and assumptions that govern our foreign policy of global interventionism, can’t be evaded by intelligent liberals, of which Greenwald is one. This is also what seems to be generating Andrew Sullivan’s enthusiasm, among the more intelligent (albeit flighty) of the conservative intellectuals who write about public policy on the Internet. Coming from different directions, and moving toward libertarianism, Sullivan and Greenwald are representative of the many thousands of thoughtful and politically active Americans, on both the Right and the Left, who, brought together under a single antiwar, pro-civil liberties banner, see Ron Paul as a kind of symbol – a hope that real change is possible.

Greenwald clearly sees the Paul campaign as a kind of turning point for American liberals:

“Moreover, circumstances often dictate political priorities. Individuals who historically may not have been attracted to ‘limited-government’ rhetoric and all of the specifics it traditionally entails may find that ideal necessary now after six years of endless expansions of intrusive federal government power.”

Faced with a “choice” between liberal hawks and outright neocons, the anti-interventionist Greenwald has nowhere to turn. Confronted with a Clinton restoration armed with the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and a well-earned reputation for vindictiveness, it’s no wonder the civil libertarian Greenwald is hardly jumping for joy.

As always, the war question is key to understanding how a new generation of liberals is coming to a libertarian understanding of the interplay of foreign and domestic politics. As Greenwald puts it:

“By itself, the ability of Paul’s campaign to compel a desperately needed debate over the devastation which America’s imperial rule wreaks on every level – economic, moral, security, liberty – makes his success worth applauding.”

Two generations of liberals have come to the freedom movement on account of the war issue. Check out my little essay on John T. Flynn, whose critique of U.S. foreign policy in the run-up to World War II and the wholesale violation of civil liberties by FDR’s wartime administration got him kicked out as a columnist for The New Republic and given a place of honor at the Chicago Tribune, the Midwestern redoubt of “isolationist” (i.e., antiwar) sentiment. Flynn, a leader of the antiwar America First Committee, became a leading figure in the postwar conservative-libertarian movement.

The second generation of liberals-come-to-libertarianism came in during the Vietnam War era: it was opposition to that war, and to what seemed to be an emerging police state, that birthed the infant libertarian movement. Recruiting, in turn, from Left and Right was a self-conscious strategy that the movement’s intellectual leader at the time, Murray N. Rothbard, pursued in hopes of building an independent third force that was neither “Right” nor “Left,” but solidly pro-liberty. This effort was embodied in the journal Left & Right, which was devoted to introducing such Old Right anti-interventionists and anti-statists as Garet Garrett to the antiwar New Leftists in search of a comprehensive, coherent analysis of the tumult around them.

These second-generation cadre formed the Libertarian Party and, more importantly, made possible the growth of libertarianism as an intellectual movement, culminating in the boom of the mid-Seventies to mid-Eighties. Paul ran as the party’s candidate in 1988, but by then the LP’s political momentum had peaked prematurely, on account of a debilitating split at the party’s 1983 national convention, when half the activists walked out.

The challenges of the Bush era, when not only our foreign policy of perpetual war but also what Lew Rockwell calls “red-state fascism” is rearing its increasingly ugly head, is inspiring a third generation of liberals to make the transition to a recognizably libertarian stance. On the Right, a similar reaction to Bushism is causing a growing number of conservatives, such as Bob Barr, to join the libertarian ranks, while many others, such as Tucker Carlson, are clearly sympathetic.

The wave of support and publicity for Paul has the neocons enraged, and they are busy trying to discredit him with a campaign of unsurpassed villainy. What they have done is actually kind of funny, if you take your humor black: they’ve simply transferred their usual blather on the foreign policy front to the domestic battlefield. Instead of claiming that Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Hitler and we’re facing another Munich, they’re saying Ron Paul is Hitler and we’re facing another Kristallnacht.

This lunatic ploy, which manages to be at once sinister and ridiculous, is what we might call the Paul-is-a-closet-Nazi meme. It was launched at the ultra-neocon Hot Air – what a perfect name for a site associated with Michelle Malkin! – and migrated, like AIDS on the tip of a used condom, into the liberal precincts of The New Republic’s blog via one Jamie Kirchick, an aspiring leader in the League of Junior Neocons. (The same libel was echoed, with elaboration, on the Web site Jewcy.com, which I’ve written for [and was pleased to do so], in a diatribe written by some “libertarian socialist” guy who surprisingly works for the respectable Jewish Telegraphic Agency. His story of being snubbed by the Paul campaign on account of his being Jewish is debunked here, and by his own editor.)

The Hot Air “scoop” was that some obscure racist who hardly anyone has heard of gave $500 to the Paul campaign. And that is it. That is Paul’s great “sin.” Hillary Clinton is getting millions from the military-industrial-imperial complex; the foreign lobbyists and the special interests buy and sell our leaders like cattle at a county fair – but what really matters is that Ron Paul received a contribution from someone whose opinions the candidate doesn’t endorse and cannot be responsible for. Of course, anyone could be motivated – or persuaded – to contribute to a political campaign for all kinds of reasons. Who’s to say who did the persuading, or actually put up the money? “Dirty tricks” and politics are practically synonymous. However, even taking the source of the contribution at face value, going after Paul over $500 from some unknown wacko with dubious motives is really a stretch. It is, I think, very off-putting to liberals of Greenwald’s sort, who are beginning to understand why this strained yet energetic effort is being made to discredit an honest, principled, and decent man.

To stanch the incipient pro-Paul rebellions at both ends of the political spectrum, the anti-Paul brigades have called out two disparate, albeit strangely congruent, figures to start slinging some real dirt in Paul’s direction. Despite the ideological divide that separates Glenn Beck, who recently did a segment on his show accusing Paul of being a “terrorist” along the lines of Timothy McVeigh, and David Neiwert, a self-proclaimed “professional journalist” and resident left-blogosphere “expert” in right-wingology, both have come out with very similar assaults on the Paul campaign. Neiwert, whose recent series of blog posts attacking Ron Paul takes the same line as Paul’s neoconservative critics, gives the Paul-is-Hitler meme a “leftist” patina. Both explicitly invoke the name of McVeigh, a violent and dangerous extremist, as emblematic of the Paul campaign. That Beck hauled out the ineffably repulsive David Horowitz to pull off his drive-by smearing indicates just how broad this anti-Paul “popular front” is, stretching all the way from the ex-communists of the 1960s turned warmongering neoconservatives to the present-day lefties of Neiwert’s ilk. The Right and Left faces of the Smear Bunds are singing slightly different tunes, but in unison. To Beck, who never mentions that the Paul fundraiser he rails about was based on a movie, and not Guy Fawkes the historical personage, Paul is a supporter of terrorism. To Neiwert, on the other hand, who has run a long list of legislation introduced by Paul that – gasp! Horror of horrors! – demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that Paul opposes a lot of federal programs and doesn’t believe government is the be-all and end-all solution to our problems, he’s worse than a mere terrorist: he’s an authentic conservative! The Republican Establishment must be thrilled.

	Neocon Glenn Beck and leftist smear artist David Neiwert: together at last!

While the neocons’ methods are outrageous and not at all persuasive – after all, how subtle or convincing could Horowitz possibly manage to be? – Neiwert adds his own peculiar spin, which makes even Horowitz’s witch-hunting methods seem reasonable by comparison. Neiwert goes way beyond guilt-by-association, as he admits:

“[T]his isn’t ‘guilt by association’ – first, the argument isn’t that Paul is a racist per se, but that he is an extremist who shares a belief system held not just by racists but other anti-government zealots as well. Paul is identified with their causes not simply because he speaks to them, but because he elucidates ideas and positions – especially regarding the IRS, the UN, the gold standard, and education – identical to theirs. This is why he has their rabid support. There is an underlying reason, after all, that Paul attracts backers like David Duke and the Stormfront gang: he talks like them.”

Neiwert is right: this isn’t guilt-by-association, it’s worse. It’s mass smearing on a scale never before attempted. Neiwert presumes to act as a gatekeeper to authoritatively delegitimize any and all ideas held to be “extremist” or “radical Rightist.” If you question the value of public education, you’re an “extremist.” Hate the IRS? Watch out, or you’ll fall prey to “radical Rightists.” He writes his books, articles, and blogposts – and bases his entire literary reputation – on the supposed existence of a radical Right threat, which he and his fellow “experts” have “studied,” albeit with none of the cold-eyed objectivity of the scientist but rather with a clear agenda in mind: extreme political correctness of the leftist variety.

Neiwert’s is a literary tradition that stretches back to the sociological gobbledygook churned out by Theodore Adorno and his followers, who “diagnosed” all opposition to the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as clear evidence of an “authoritarian personality”: if you opposed the New Deal (and the war) this was evidence, in Adorno’s view, of incipient “fascist” tendencies. John Roy Carlson, Harry Overstreet, the tag team of Arnold Foster and Benjamin Epstein, and a bibliography a mile long are testaments to the growth of this mini-industry, which has existed in this country since the 1930s and experienced an upsurge in the postwar period. The neocons brought out their own rather over-intellectualized version of this smear literature in the early 1960s, in response to the rising Goldwater phenomenon: The Radical Right, edited by Daniel Bell and Seymour Martin Lipset. Their argument was this: anyone who opposed the postwar liberal welfare state was not only a dangerous extremist, but also no doubt suffered from “status anxiety,” i.e., they were crazy. This same Smear Bund brought out a “psychological analysis” by a group of psychiatrists that diagnosed Barry Goldwater as being mentally unstable as well as an “extremist.” A more spurious and disgusting libel was never invented – at least, not until the Smear Bund put Paul in their sights.

Neiwert is a fool who once attacked both Lew Rockwell and myself for not having the “correct” interpretation of what fascism is and how it develops. According to him, my own interpretation of what American fascism might come to look like shows “no understanding” of the reality, which resembles, in his mind, the “patriot” militia groups that burgeoned during the Clinton years. That many of these same people support Paul’s opposition to the IRS and inveigh against the “New World Order” (i.e., American imperialism) is, for Neiwert, proof positive that it isn’t the Bush administration’s militarism and authoritarianism that poses a fascist danger – oh, no, certainly not! In his book, it’s Ron Paul who heralds the rise of fascism.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Yet they are making it up, and they will continue to make it up: anything to divert attention away from the vital issues of war and peace, over which a world – and a way of life – hangs in the balance.

The appearance of an antiwar candidate in the Republican primary, one who is furthermore making substantial gains and a fair amount of noise, stands as a testament to the failure of any of the Democrats to take advantage of what is, after all, the antiwar majority in this country. Even as our soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq, and the administration paves the way – with Hillary Clinton’s help – for a war with Iran, the American people overwhelmingly reject our foreign policy of relentless aggression and serial “regime change.” The majority is effectively disenfranchised. That’s why the Paul campaign has captured the imagination of young people and all those looking for an alternative to the increasingly intolerable status quo. The neocons and the Neiwerts, separately or together, can’t do much about it, as they’ll soon learn to their sorrow: their obviously dishonest and ill-motivated attacks will drive honest liberals and conservatives into Paul’s camp, not away from it.

Why are they so afraid of Ron Paul? In the face of both Fox News and the hard Left hurling anathemas at him, that’s what honest liberals and conservatives are beginning to ask – and I don’t think the Smear Bund is going to like their answer.

Link

Pro-Taliban militants take over key town in NWFP

The Times of India

Link

________________________________ 

Musharraf’s Army Losing Ground in Insurgent Areas

By Griff Witte and Imtiaz Ali
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; A01

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 12 — Across much of Pakistan on Monday, the government was firmly in command — squelching protests, blacking out television stations and picking up dozens more political prisoners to add to the thousands already in jail.

But in vast stretches of the country’s rugged and wild northwest — heartland of the Islamic extremist insurgency — President Pervez Musharraf’s army did not have any more control than it did when the military-led government imposed emergency rule nine days ago. In some areas, it had less.

While Musharraf has justified emergency rule by arguing that he needs a free hand to battle groups including the Taliban and al-Qaeda, local officials, residents and analysts say that so far, at least, the government’s troops remain on the defensive against extremist forces, which have been gaining territory for more than a year.

“For us, it does not make a difference whether it’s democracy, emergency or martial law,” said Maulana Siraj Uddin, spokesman for a radical cleric who has seized control of much of the scenic Swat Valley in the country’s far northwest. “But I can tell you that our mujaheddin are fighting from the core of their hearts, and we have made spectacular progress in the last week.”

Fighters loyal to the cleric, 32-year-old Maulana Fazlullah, have in recent days overrun three additional police stations and now roam unhindered through much of the valley, once known to tourists as “the Switzerland of Asia.”

A military spokesman confirmed that the group had recently forced local security officials to flee several areas. But as of Monday, Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad said, the army had taken control of operations in the valley, and he hinted that it was on the verge of launching an operation to stop the losses.

“We don’t want these militants to be terrorizing the people. So they’ll be taken to task, that’s for sure,” he said.

To date, it has more often been the other way around, with extremist fighters inflicting damaging defeats on the Pakistani military. In the tribal areas that border Afghanistan, insurgents have virtually free rein, using the territory as a base from which to mount attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and beyond, according to military analysts.

When the army has tried to conduct operations in the tribal areas, it has paid a heavy price. In August, for example, Taliban fighters commandeered an entire army convoy, taking 250 soldiers hostage without firing a single shot.

The Taliban held the troops for more than two months. They were released the day after Musharraf imposed emergency rule, when the government acceded to Taliban demands and freed nearly 30 of the group’s fighters, including several who had been involved in planning suicide bombings.

Advisers to Musharraf have conceded that the main reason he suspended the constitution, fired most of the Supreme Court and declared an emergency was that the court was about to rule him ineligible for another term as president.

But Musharraf himself has explained his actions in terms of the widening war against extremist groups in Pakistan, insisting that the country would spiral out of control unless the government did everything it could to counter the threat.

In making his case, he highlighted Swat, saying an emergency declaration allows the army greater latitude to fight in an area where curbing militancy is normally left to local police.

Since the emergency declaration, much of the government’s energy has been devoted to cracking down on mainstream political opponents, not militant forces. That could change if the army launches an offensive in Swat.

But it is not clear whether even the army will have much impact.

Over the past year, Fazlullah’s black-turbaned Islamic fighters have established their own state amid the towering peaks of the Hindu Kush, turning the picturesque valley into a battleground.

Unlike the tribal areas, which are officially semiautonomous and in practice have never been under the central government’s control, Swat is part of Pakistan’s so-called settled areas. The government is supposed to rule there. But in 70 villages throughout the valley, Fazlullah’s extreme interpretation of Islamic law, or sharia, is the only law that matters.

Suspected criminals are publicly flogged. Soldiers are beheaded, their bodies dumped in the streets. Extremist fighters direct traffic and run the hospitals. The white flags of the Taliban flutter above government buildings. Education for girls is discouraged, music is banned and barbers have stopped shaving beards.

“Government institutions are completely nonexistent in our whole area,” said Rahmat Din, 25, a valley resident. “Fazlullah has appointed representatives in almost all villages under his control for dispensing speedy justice and helping solve the people’s problems.”

For many residents, that’s just fine.

“He is fighting for the introduction of sharia, and nothing else, and we are ready to sacrifice ourselves and our sons on his order,” said Mohammad Rehan, a 34-year-old volunteer in Fazlullah’s army, which numbers in the thousands and is headquartered just a couple of miles from the valley’s main town, Mingaora.

Fazlullah rallies his supporters through fiery broadcasts on a pirated FM signal, which has earned him the nickname “Maulana Radio.” Earlier this year, he spoke out against the evils of television, and local residents responded by setting thousands of TVs ablaze.

In sermons that echo for miles, he also calls on Swat’s residents to rise up against Musharraf and his international backers, especially the United States.

“The mission of Fazlullah in Swat is the same as that of the Taliban in Afghanistan and other mujaheddin in Waziristan,” said Shah Abdul Aziz, a former member of Parliament. “All of them have taken up arms for the same task of fighting against the puppets of the United States and introducing the system of Islamic laws.”

Throughout the northwest, the war against the insurgents is unpopular. Many Pakistanis consider it America’s war, though on either side, it’s Pakistani blood that is spilled.

Analysts say they fear that while emergency rule may give Musharraf more power to use the army to put down the insurgency, it will backfire when it comes to changing minds.

“The mullahs’ main slogan is enforcing sharia, and that is popular with the populace,” said Ghulam Cheema, a retired army colonel. “The army, in their heart of hearts, can’t fight such a slogan.”

Ali reported from Mingaora and Peshawar. Correspondent Pamela Constable in Islamabad contributed to this report.