The really extraordinary political event in North American
politics as 2008 came to a close was not the remarkable election of the first
US black president, but the collapse of Canada�s parliamentary system.
Canada�s first-past-the-post electoral system allowed the
Conservatives to form a minority government during the past three years with
about one-third of the popular vote, supported by the Canadian equivalent of
the Bushites (hardcore right wingers -- Bible-thumpers and the very rich).
Last month�s election resulted in another stalemate, and
when the Cons presented a budget that did nothing to address the alarming
fallout for average Canadians of the financial crisis, the three left-centre
opposition parties were galvanised into agreeing to defeat the Conservatives in
the next major vote in parliament and, in parliamentary tradition, form a
coalition government. This has happened only once in Canada�s history -- in
Prime Minister Steven Harper realised his goose would be
cooked and called on Canada�s equivalent of the US president, the otherwise
powerless Governor General Michaelle Jean (by the way, a black woman), to �prorogue�
parliament for two months, creating a new first -- the government
avoiding defeat by dismissing the lawmakers. How�s that for democracy? Pundits
joke that this makes Canada a �pro-rogue� state.
The Cons are gambling that the opposition�s plans will fall
apart by the end of January. The uncharismatic Liberal leader Stephane Dion has
already been pressured into ceding leadership of the Liberal Party to the
unproven and reluctant coalitionist Michael Ignatieff, and the separatist,
albeit social democratic, Bloc Quebecois is not the most reliable friend for a
coalition consisting of the Liberals and the socialist New Democratic Party.
But dismissing parliament is precisely what German President
Paul von Hindenburg did in 1933 at the request of another minority conservative
government, making Hitler chancellor and allowing the Nazis to finish off the
democratic system there and begin a fateful rule which still sends shudders
down one�s spine.
Even if the opposition had prevailed, however, the policies
of this fractious centre-left coalition would not have looked startlingly
different. Sure, an economic stimulus package of sorts, maybe slightly better
regulation of shady business practices, some good environmental legislation.
Nothing to sneeze at.
But Canadian troops would continue to murder Afghan patriots
and be blown up by their roadside bombs, despite the desire of 60 percent of
Canadians to bring the troops home immediately; the military budget would get a
hefty boost; health care would continue to flounder; the Cons� corporate tax
cuts would be enacted. The Liberals insisted there was no socialist bottom line
agreed upon, and the neocon-in-sheep�s-clothing Michael Ignatieff, a nasty
silver-tongued American (sorry, Canadian) actually hailed Bush�s criminal
invasion of Iraq. The NDP -- Canada�s sole political party voicing the will of
Canadians to pull out of Afghanistan immediately -- could be decimated if
a sufficiently charismatic Liberal leader called an election at the moment of
his choosing, the public�s fear of a Conservative majority is so great.
Cut to the much slicker US political scene, where liberals,
workers, blacks and Hispanics united to defeat their Bushites, electing a
clutch of Democrats, including the world�s darling, President-elect Barack
Obama. He promises health care reform, better environmental standards, and
promised -- at one point -- to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of next
year. His statements on Iraq were interpreted to mean that there would be no
permanent US bases there.
But even before he has taken office, he has shown which side
of his bread the butter is on. The �change� promisor supported the shameful
bailout of the big banks by US President George W Bush and company, and
proceeded to appoint some of the very culprits in the deregulation madness of
the past two decades to positions in his cabinet and as advisers to implement
the bailout. Not one nod to his promise for change.
He talks about using �soft power� abroad but kept Bush�s
Robert Gates, a hawk if there ever was one, as his secretary of defence. As for
pulling out of Iraq, forget it. And the US military is hard at work building
barracks for an addition 20,000 troops in Afghanistan with plans to increase
this to 40,000 for up to four years.
How can this be? The same policies that have driven
Americans and Canadians to distraction over the past decade are being pursued
by politicians both left and right today, after �democratic� elections. You
kick one party out but get much the same policies from the other. There is no
The current war and financial crises, orchestrated by
Zionists Wolfowitz, Greenspan et al remind ex-Israeli writer Gilad Atzmon of
the joke about the surgeon who comes out of the operating theater after a
12-hour open-heart operation and tells the anxious family, �The operation was a
great success but unfortunately your beloved didn�t make it to the end.�
Greenspan�s and Wolfowitz�s doctrines looked promising on
paper. Greenspan claimed in an April 2005 speech: �Innovation has brought about
a multitude of new products, such as subprime loans and niche credit programmes
for immigrants.� Yes to help these humble immigrants buy houses. How
thoughtful. Wolfowitz and his PNAC crew claimed they were invading various
countries to bring them �democracy and freedom.� Greenspan would keep the US
economy afloat long enough for Wolfie to capture Iraqi oil and to secure
pipeline routes through Central Asia, fueling the empire for long into the
As it turned out, Greenspan�s success with his
subprime-primed real estate boom was much like Wolfowitz�s success in toppling
Saddam Hussein. It started out all �shock and awe� (remember the obscene carpet
bombing of Baghdad in 2003?), but ended up pulling the American empire down
with it. However, it is not necessary to claim the credit crunch to be a
Zionist plot (though the intent was a boom to finance their war in Iraq)
so much as a Zionist accident.
The trouble is the patient didn�t make it through to the end. This Zionist
accident shows us that we are all victims along with those other victims --
Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghanis. The operation was carried out but it appears
the American empire is now on life support and headed for the morgue. Unless,
of course, the Zionist answer to its own mad operation -- bankrupt the rest of
the world by printing dollars to keep the patient alive -- succeeds.
The pattern is familiar: these selfless civil servants are
always trying to save the world. They bring democracy to the Arabs, they bring
prosperity to the poor. But somehow, it is their friend, in the first place,
Israel, that always benefits. �One has only to read Herzl to know that this is
what political Zionism is all about: the manipulation of superpowers to serve
the Zionist cause,� writes Gilad Atzmon in �Credit Crunch or rather Zio Punch?�
The events leading up to the current US financial bailout
follow the logic of Naomi Klein�s Shock Doctrine, with 9/11 as the �shock�
that allowed the neocon establishment to railroad through an anti-democratic �homeland
security� system and tax cuts for the super-wealthy. The $700 billion
Paulson bailout merely adds the finishing touch to this breathtaking con. It
was steamrolled through Congress not to �solve� the financial crisis but to
solidify the gains that a tiny, disproportionately Zionist hyper-wealthy class
has stolen through deregulation and war since 9/11.
Obama is surrounded by Zionists, from his VP, Joseph Biden (�You
don�t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist�), down to his lowly (ex-IDF volunteer)
White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. His domestic policy will be presided
over by Zionists Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers, Paul Volker, Peter Orszag,
Jason Furman, not to mention the founder of Rubinomics, the great Robert Rubin
Is this mention of implicit political affiliation impolite?
The question is: do they act tribally, as a cabal, rather than simply as
individuals? Unconditional US support for Israel would evaporate overnight
without their intensive lobbying. There would have been no US invasion of Iraq.
Obama would not be appointing their likes to �change� the disastrous direction
the US is heading in. In business circles, it is well know that it takes as
little as 15 percent of a company�s stock to effectively control company
policy. Thirty percent of the rich and 50 percent of the billionaires in the US
are Jewish (and you can bet they are Zionists), whereas Jews, the inspiration
behind Zionism, constitute only 2.5 percent of the population. It�s as if one
family controls 30 percent of the �stock� in the US government.
Is it possible that this whole electoral system has become a
farce, manipulated from behind the scenes by these very grey eminences to keep
an agenda of war for Israel and economic elitism on track? Why would the
Canadian Governor General refuse to give the centre-left a chance to govern,
and even if she did, why would the coalition Liberals suddenly replace the
one-time critic of Canada�s �mission� in Afghanistan Dion with the more
reliably neocon Ignatieff? How could Obama possibly appoint architects of the
Bush-era war/financial policies, after he was elected to end the war, and with
the culprits now exposed for what they are? Both the Canadian and US political
events of the past few months defy any other explanation and yet are accepted
as perfectly normal by the corporate media.
American politicians are rushing to save the bankers and
their warrior brothers, all in the defence of Israel, with their Canadian
counterparts acting on cue, governed by the same forces, if anything, more so.
But the patient is dead.
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at www.geocities.com/walberg2002.