Tartarstan

"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" 

- Zbignew Brezynski, 

La Monde, 1998 

The Republic of Tartarstan lies on the banks of the Volga.

Right near all the oil Hitler was trying to get to in 1942.

"If I do not get the oil of Maikop and Grozny then I must liquidate this war."

—Adolf Hitler

“One has to understand what the enemy is all about: the enemy's history, the enemy's culture, the enemy's aspirations. If you understand these well, you can perhaps move towards peace.” 

― Zbigniew Brzezinski

Here is a Tartar Mosque:

I quote The Enemy:

"Established in 922, the first Muslim state in Russia was Volga Bulgaria from whom the Tatars inherited Islam. 

Islam in Russia has had a long presence, extending at least as far back as the conquest of the Khanate of Kazan in 1552, which brought the Tatars and Bashkirs on the Middle Volga into Russia. 

Today, Sunni Islam is the most common faith in Tatarstan, as 55% of the estimated 3.8 million population is Muslim."

... by manipulating this "global-zone of percolating violence," 

which happens to be the raw-materials pay-dirt of the entire world, 

Brzezinski proposes to further contain and weaken Russia and China.

Quotes from The Grand Chessboard (1997)

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)   

(Eurasia means Former Soviet Central Asian Republics and partially autonomous ethnic republics withing the Russian Federation such as Chechnya, Dagestan and Tartarstan.)

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

“The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice(casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts.Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult tofashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)

[Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance -- map above] 

"Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people.” (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are alsocongruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent (preempt) the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211) 

I quote The Enemy:

On May 27, 1920 the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of the RSFSR was declared. Under Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union began to place restrictions on the use of the Tatar language, which used a variant of Arabic script. The Tatar alphabet switched to Cyrillic. 

The development of national culture declined significantly and religion in Tatarstan was severely repressed.

According to expert on Islam in Russia Ruslan Kurbanov in modern times, Tatars demonstrated most constructive and most effective way of developing of their religious and national identity and widening their political autonomy within Russia. In the most difficult years of post-Soviet Russian history — in the years of deep economic crisis and two Chechen wars — Tatars demonstrated phenomenal results in economic development of their national republic. 

The majority faith in Tatarstan is Islam.

In 1990, there were only 100 mosques but the number, as of 2004, rose to well over 1000. As of January 1, 2008, as many as 1398 religious organizations were registered in Tatarstan, of which 1055 are Muslim. 

Most of the Muslims in Tatarstan are practising.

Increased religiosity has been evident amongst Muslims and interfaith relations remain very strong.

In September 2010, Eid al fitr as well May 21, the day the Volga Bulgars embraced Islam, were made public holidays.

Despite the holiday, students protested a Kazan Federal University administration's decision to hold classes on Eid with some declaring their intention to skip class and attend mosque services.

Tatarstan also hosted an international Muslim film festival which screened over 70 films from 28 countries including Jordan, Afghanistan and Egypt.

The first halal food production facility opened with foreign companies expressing their interest to expand the project in Tatarstan. The recently opened facility produces 30 halal products and employs 200 people.

The Russian Islamic University is based in Kazan.

In 2010 and 2011 Islamic banking was introduced.

Kazan held the 8th international Quran reader's Contest on the 23rd to the 25th of November which was organized by the Russian Islamic Institute. Ways of facilitating modern religious education in Tatarstan was also discussed.

Kissinger vs. LaRouche - Is Nancy Kissinger a Pædophile Beard?

Get Kissinger!

On February 7, 1982, two LaRouchians met the Devil, not in a graveyard at midnight, but in the well-lit terminal at Newark International Airport. They abandoned their literature table and rushed to exorcise him with a barrage of hostile questions. "Jesus Christ," muttered Dr. Henry Kissinger, their longtime hate figure. He and his wife, Nancy, kept walking toward the boarding area, en route to Boston, where he was scheduled to undergo triple-bypass heart surgery.

"Dr. Kissinger," shouted twenty-eight-year-old Ellen Kaplan, "is it true that you sleep with young boys at the Carlyle Hotel?" It was a standard LaRouchian accusation. Nancy Kissinger would have ignored it on other occasions, but she was distraught by the prospect of her husband's operation. According to her attorney, her hand reached out and came in contact, very lightly, with Kaplan's throat. Others assert that her actions were less restrained. Whatever the truth, Kaplan retreated, and the Kissingers continued on their way.

A trivial event, one might say. Yet its consequences included a warrant for Mrs. Kissinger's arrest, a heavily publicized assault trial, and a LaRouchian harassment campaign against Dr. Kissinger on four continents. This campaign, waged from mid-1982 through late 1984, is unique in the annals of radical protest against public figures. It involved a torrent of propaganda attacks in at least six languages, carefully planned disruptions of Kissinger's public appearances, the planting of defamatory rumors in the international press, scores of malicious pranks, and the expenditure of millions of dollars on network television ads denouncing him.

Some observers have viewed LaRouche's anti-Kissinger campaign merely as an example of irrationalism and cultism—the expenditure of enormous resources on an effort better suited to an insane asylum. Yet there were coolheaded pragmatic reasons for it. LaRouche had gained a measure of credibility with the Reagan administration over the previous year. He had to disguise his anti-Semitism better.

LaRouche's solution was to select a Symbolic Jew. Kissinger, with his thick Central European accent, "Semitic" features, rationalistic worldview, and reputation for secretive highest-level intrigue, was the perfect choice. The fact that he was Jewish was almost universally known—indeed, he was probably the most famous Jew in the world. What's more, he was a controversial one, disliked by many conservatives and by almost all leftists. Even many moderates had questions about his record as secretary of state. A campaign against him, no matter how nasty, could gain an unspoken sympathy across the political spectrum. Building on this dislike of Kissinger, the LaRouchians could turn it into a dislike of his alleged archetypal qualities.

The LaRouchians had attacked Kissinger on an overtly anti-Semitic basis throughout the late 1970s. When New Solidarity called for the "immediate elimination" of the "Jewish Lobby" from American public life, it said the first stage should be "the naming of names, such as Henry A. Kissinger." A subsequent editorial railed against infiltration of Washington by agents of the "Zionist-British organism." Heading the list was the "Israeli-British" agent Kissinger. When Kissinger's The White House Years was published in 1980, a review by LaRouche in EIR used Mein Kampf-style images of infection and contamination. America's moral "rot," he said, was due to "such alien 'Typhoid Marys’ of immorality" as Kissinger. LaRouche then dashed offThe Pestilence of Usury, a pamphlet sold at airport literature tables. Among the villains was Kissinger, said to be the servant of oligarchs "far worse than Hitler . . . nasty, evil."

America's traditional neo-Nazis and white supremacists recognized what LaRouche was doing. The Christian Defense League, a hate group based in Louisiana, developed its own line of anti-Kissinger pamphlets mimicking LaRouche's rhetoric. Robert Miles, the premier theoretician of the Aryan Nation/Identity crowd, stated in a 1984 article: "We agree with LaRouche on . . . his efforts to dislodge the Kissingerites from positions of influence." Miles also praised LaRouche for "exposing the neo-atheist materialism of Kissinger to the dismay of the Talmudists."

LaRouche once again reframed reality so that his Jewish followers could tell themselves that the anti-Kissinger campaign was "anti-Nazi," He called it Operation Nuremberg, an effort to punish Kissinger for alleged crimes a "hundred times worse than Hitler's." The government would never punish Kissinger; only the NCLC could do it. The NCLC might lack the power to exact the ultimate penalty, but it could psychologically torment Kissinger. LaRouche used his vaunted profiling technique to determine what Kissinger supposedly feared the most: ridicule. The NCLC set out to confront him with it, much like the interrogator in Nineteen Eighty-four who confronted Winston Smith with rats. LaRouche called this "psychological terror."

He framed his plan in such a way that no matter what happened, he would look all-powerful to his followers. If Kissinger expressed anger, this would be proof that LaRouche had freaked him out. If he ignored LaRouche, this would be proof that LaRouche had frightened him into silence. In either case LaRouche could claim that the trauma was festering and that Kissinger would sooner or later commit suicide or die of a heart attack.

After the Newark Airport tussle the LaRouchians dispatched Ellen Kaplan to criminal court to swear out an assault complaint. This tactic had gained them media attention on earlier occasions, as when FEF members filed assault charges against Peter Fonda after he ripped up their poster at Denver International Airport calling for feeding his sister Jane to the whales. The New York Post's gossip page took note of Kaplan's assault complaint, but the story would have stopped there except for a simple mishap: The summons was delivered to the Kissingers' Washington home at a time when it was closed up. Mrs. Kissinger did not receive it in time to file an answer before a routine warrant for her arrest was issued.

The LaRouchians were ecstatic. They called a press conference in Manhattan. Kaplan briefly recounted her story, and then NCLC regional director Dennis Speed outlined the plan to psychologically harass Kissinger through ridicule. In an ideal world the press would have walked out at this point. Instead, Kaplan and Speed's remarks—including the canard about the Carlyle Hotel—were given national coverage.

On May 21, Mrs. Kissinger's attorney moved for dismissal in New Jersey State Superior Court, arguing the case was "too trivial" for trial. The judge denied the motion and set a trial date. An editorial in the New York Daily News asked why the courts should be party to schemes that merely "add injury to the original insult."

When the non-jury trial convened on June 10, the media turned out in force. Kaplan took the stand and delivered a litany apparently designed for maximum quotability: Mrs. Kissinger "took her left hand and grabbed my neck. I was very scared. She sneered, bared her teeth, and I thought she was going to bite…." Municipal judge Julio Fuentes found Mrs. Kissinger not guilty. Sometimes, he observed, it is "spontaneous and somewhat human" to assault someone.

Although press columnists denounced Kaplan as "swinish," "lowest," and "filthiest," LaRouche must have felt satisfied. First, he had escaped denunciation himself—most news accounts didn't even mention that Kaplan was connected to him. Second, the public had been exposed to a baseless charge against Kissinger, and it was inevitable the accusation would stick in many people's minds, in that twilight zone where people half believe something because they want to believe it, (Former NCLC security staffer Charles Tate says the Carlyle Hotel story came from a "demented" source who also purveyed hysterical rumors of nationwide homicidal conspiracies.)

The chief significance of the incident was on the level of archetypes: LaRouche had presented the media with a subliminal version of the medieval Christian blood libel—the belief that Jews kidnap and sacrifice Gentile children. In his Newark version, ritual sacrifice was replaced by the contemporary crime of sexual abuse. It was the perfect opener for Operation Nuremberg. In the summer of 1982, the LaRouchians announced the next step—an international campaign to draw the noose of psychological terror around the neck of "Fat Henry."

What followed was a multileveled effort by hundreds of LaRouche's followers. Most important was the planting of defamatory stories about Kissinger with overseas newspapers. This was easiest to achieve in Mediterranean and Third World countries where conspiracy theories are a basic part of the political culture, many intellectuals are anti-American and anti-Israel, and Communists and ultra-rightists subsidize mass circulation dailies. LaRouche's intelligence staff concocted different stories for different audiences. Always there was a plot, and always it reflected anti-Semitic stereotypes. Kissinger and his friends were portrayed as plotting the assassination of prominent Gentiles, collecting usurious debts for the International Monetary Fund, engaging in real estate swindles, betraying America to its enemies, and encouraging moral degeneracy on behalf of a cosmopolitan value system. The supporting cast included, in one version or another, the CIA, the KGB, Mossad, the Mafia, the Freemasons, and a powerful homosexual cabal.

The LaRouchians held press conferences in various world capitals to release official-looking reports on behalf of Lyndon LaRouche, representing him as a leader of the U.S. Democratic Party, international publishing tycoon, friend of Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt, and economist of world renown. Reporters for sensation-mongering newspapers often failed to check whether LaRouche's credentials were really what his followers claimed.

LaRouche's European Labor Party (ELP) presented a legal brief to the Italian government tribunal investigating the Red Brigade's kidnapping and murder of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro. The brief said Kissinger was behind not only the Moro murder but a wide range of terrorist acts—a “strategy of tension" designed to prevent Italian Communist Party participation in the government, A former Moro aide then told the tribunal about a 1974 conversation in which Kissinger, who was secretary of state at the time, told Moro that the U.S, government disapproved of his plan to bring the Communist Party into the government. The LaRouchians said this proved their case. The fact that Moro was kidnapped in 1978, when Kissinger was no longer secretary of state, didn't faze them at all.

This story obviously was aimed at the left, but the ELP also developed a version for the right: Kissinger was a member of the "Homintern," a secret gay brotherhood operating at the "highest levels of several governments." The KGB had learned about this and had blackmailed him into becoming their agent. Just why a KGB agent would have wanted to murder Aldo Moro and keep the Communists out of the Italian cabinet was not explained. The LaRouchians boasted that story number one (Kissinger/CIA) was picked up by Moscow's Literaturnaya Gazeta, while story number two (Kissinger/KGB) was supposedly reported in Italian, French, and Tunisian newspapers and on Venezuelan television.

The 1981 attempted assassination of Pope John Paul was also grist for the mill. To blame Kissinger fit right in with LaRouche's theory that the Jews controlled Europe in the Middle Ages through selective poisoning of popes. The LaRouchians also enticed the Arab media with a story that Kissinger had formed a real estate consortium to buy up the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

In mid-1982 the LaRouchians learned that Kissinger was planning a trip to Argentina, which was in political turmoil following the Falklands fiasco. A press statement was sent to Buenos Aires from the office of "U.S. Democratic Party leader" LaRouche reminding Argentinians that Kissinger had supported the British. The statement also accused Kissinger of murdering Aldo Moro, attempting to murder Helga LaRouche and braining a Rumanian waiter with a whiskey bottle during a sex orgy in Acapulco.

EIR later claimed that the LaRouche statement was distributed by TELAM, the Argentine government press agency, and was printed under banner headlines in a Buenos Aires daily. A follow-up news release said that Kissinger intended to put the squeeze on Argentina for the usurers of the International Monetary Fund and would destroy any politician who opposed him. According to EIR, this release also was distributed by TELAM and printed in at least two Argentine newspapers. LaRouche's Mexican Labor Party joined the act with a demonstration at a Chase Manhattan branch in Mexico City to protest an upcoming Kissinger visit. Kissinger's name was again linked to IMF usury and threats to national sovereignty.

In late 1982 the LaRouchians set up a "special-operations 'Kissinger watch'" in Wiesbaden. This coincided with the arrival in Europe of LaRouche security aide Paul Goldstein (who according to FBI claims was hiding from a Manhattan grand jury investigating the NCLC's harassment of Roy Cohn). EIR boasted that the Kissinger Watch had "tracking capabilities extending from Ireland through the Middle East." In fact, security staffers merely called up Kissinger Associates in New York, posing as journalists, to obtain Kissinger's travel schedule.

The objective was to create a "controlled aversive environment" around Kissinger—schoolboy pranks, crank calls, demonstrations. When he was about to leave Munich for London to meet with British officials, an imposter called Britain to say Kissinger wasn't coming, then called Kissinger's hotel room to say the British had canceled. When he visited Milan, the LaRouchians released a banner supported by hundreds of balloons proclaiming that "Kissinger Killed Moro." When he traveled to Stockholm, Swedish ELP members disrupted his press conference and had to be removed by the police. New Solidarity boasted that this took place "under cascades of flashbulbs and television cameras," and that the story "reached as far as Singapore and Mexico via satellite hook-ups."

When Kissinger gave a speech in Worms on German-American Friendship Day, an ELP leaflet urged the audience to buy Seymour Hersh's biography of Kissinger, The Price of Power. According to EIR, a prankster dressed as Kissinger jumped up as the event began and shouted: "That man on the podium is not the real Dr. Kissinger. I am the real Dr. Kissinger. I will now tell you the truth about Aldo Moro. . ." EIR said that as the prankster was being carried out, a second one, dressed as Nancy Kissinger, jumped up to continue the disruption.

The campaign was no less intense in the United States. When Kissinger appeared on ABC-TV's Nightline in August 1982, the LaRouchians mobilized at the studio in Manhattan. Covering both exits, they pelted his limousine with eggs, forcing him to make his escape hidden in a catering truck. When he spoke at Georgetown University, they passed out copies of EIR containing an article entitled "How Henry Kissinger Will Be Destroyed." When his friends gave him a birthday party, the LaRouchians passed out a fake "medical alert bulletin" alleging that he had AIDS (again, the Mein Kampf theme: contamination). When he addressed the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, picketers carried signs such as "It's Anti-Semitic to Call Kissinger a Jew."

LaRouche meanwhile issued a personal attack in Kissinger. Circulated in leaflet form under the title "The Politics of Faggotry," it was a kind of manifesto of the harassment campaign, uniting LaRouche's loathing of Kissinger, Roy Cohn, gays, discotheque music, and the Roman Empire into a single extraordinary vision. To understand Kissinger's evil species-nature, LaRouche said, one must "think back to the Emperor Nero and his court. Think of Studio 54, then of Nero's court, and then of Studio 54 again. Think of Roy Cohn's parties . . . Think of Nero, and then of Kissinger, and then of Nero and then of Roy M. Cohn. That is the kind of faggot Henry Kissinger is." (Questioned about this quote in a 1984 deposition, LaRouche knew he was on shaky ground. He backed down and said Kissinger merely had the "personality of a faggot.")

LaRouche noted the tug-of-war in Washington between hard-liners on the White House staff and State Department moderates. He reasoned that given the bumbling moves of the hard-liners in foreign affairs, it was only a matter of time before the moderates, whose ranks included some former Kissinger protégés, would begin to exert a preponderant influence. By portraying this process as a Kissinger-backed conspiracy, LaRouche could inject his brand of anti-Semitism into the New Right.

A 1983 EIR special report accused Kissinger of "coordinating a drive to consolidate control of the Reagan administration for the Trilateral Commission wing of the Republican Party." When Reagan appointed Kissinger to head the White House Commission on Central America, New Solidarity claimed that "a wave of fear and foreboding is now sweeping through the United States." An accompanying article alleged "intense resistance among Reagan Kitchen Cabinet insiders to Kissinger involvement in administration policy making." (The LaRouchians were in contact at the time with Judge William Clark's assistant, Richard Morris.) But Kissinger was said to hold all the aces. He had supposedly obtained, via the "Israeli mafia," blackmail videotapes of top administration officials in bed with Alfred Bloomingdale's mistress, Vicky Morgan. At this point the LaRouchians downplayed the theme of Kissinger the "British" agent, which always had been too esoteric for most Americans. Now the Symbolic Jew was given a guise the New Right could easily comprehend: a good old-fashioned Commie traitor like the Rosenbergs. New Solidarity announced that Kissinger, although still linked to the British, was also a "secure and long-term asset of the Soviet KGB." This charge was soon extended to other Jews in the U.S. government and to many Israeli leaders.

In 1984, LaRouche adopted the campaign slogan "Vote for the man that Kissinger hates the most." This was a variation on the 1980 campaign theme that LaRouche was the man the Zionists hated the most. LaRouche purchased fifteen half-hour spots on national television, incessantly attacking Kissinger as a traitor. Under federal law the networks had to sell LaRouche the time and could not censor his remarks, for he was a registered candidate. EIR boasted that LaRouche's television chats reached "up to 15 million people." When he referred to "Kissinger and his friends" and "Kissinger and people like him," the real meaning was obvious to many viewers.

A LaRouchian internal briefing of March 7, 1984, reporting on the organization's daily round of telephone calls, alleged that the anti-Kissinger campaign was making headway in important circles. "Republican and military layers in the south and mid-Atlantic states are queasy about Kissinger," the memo said. It cited a "high level military contact who is a former astronaut." This individual supposedly hated Kissinger and believed "the Administration has been going 'downhill' ever since the removal of Clark from the NSC. He wants all our material on Kissinger." (It should be noted that internal briefings routinely exaggerated the NCLC's influence: High-level officials described as enthusiastic allies were sometimes just listening to them out of curiosity.)

The LaRouchian hysteria about Kissinger resulted in a strong indirect warning to the former Secretary of State in July 1982. An EIR news brief quoted a prediction by an unnamed psychic that if any attempt should be made on the life of LaRouche, "a list of 13 well-known political figures, headed by Henry Kissinger, Nancy Kissinger, and Alexander Haig will meet sudden death by either massive heart attacks or strokes." Death fantasies about the Symbolic Jew thereafter became commonplace in LaRouchian publications. When Hersh's The Price of Power was published, New Solidarity reported that Kissinger was on the verge of a "potentially fatal coronary.” EIR boasted that, as a result of Operation Nuremberg, Kissinger had become a "cardio-vascular risk" and might "choose [a] coward's way out" (i.e., suicide). When Hungarian-Jewish writer Arthur Koestler (the author of Darkness at Noon) committed suicide along with his wife in 1983, New Solidarity suggested various ways in which Henry and Nancy Kissinger and Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker (the arch-usurer, in LaRouche's eyes) could follow the Koestlers' example. In what could be read as an allusion to the Holocaust, the article asked: "Why should the worthwhile vast majority of the human race settle for attempts to solve its antisocial problems on a case-by-case basis? Why not get organized to settle with such characters all at once?"

The LaRouchians privately discussed various extreme measures. Former LaRouche bodyguard Lee Fick told NBC Nightly News that Paul Goldstein had asked him to put a bomb under Kissinger's car. Charles Tate recalls a security staff meeting on the lawn of LaRouche's Loudoun County mansion at which members were told Kissinger must die. But this rage ultimately was just sublimated into more nasty leaflets and EIR articles. The LaRouchians had come to believe that really clever conspirators never carry out an assassination themselves, but simply spread hate propaganda about the targeted person which might trigger an attack by some disturbed personality or fanatic. That way, they can never be held legally responsible,

As a result of the menacing rhetoric, Kissinger wrote FBI director William Webster for advice in 1982. He was careful to emphasize that he was not asking the FBI "to interfere in any manner with LaRouche's First Amendment rights." When the harassment escalated, Kissinger sent a second letter. The FBI checked to see if there were grounds for prosecution under the federal statute pertaining to interstate obscene or harassing phone calls. There weren't.

When the LaRouchians obtained copies of this correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act, they immediately released it to the press in an effort to embarrass Kissinger. Jack Anderson, in an archly written 1985 column on the FOIA documents, made no moral distinction between victim and victimizer. He referred to a "decade-long feud" between Kissinger and LaRouche, as if Kissinger had been partly responsible. In 1987, James Ridgeway of The Village Voice rehashed this story, also affecting neutrality: LaRouche had harassed Kissinger, but Kissinger had an "animus" against LaRouche, Ridgeway said. The Voice illustrated Ridgeway's column with pictures of Kissinger, LaRouche, and Webster with the caption "The Three Faces of Evil." This type of press coverage encouraged the LaRouchians, when they came under federal indictment, to use the Kissinger-Webster letters as proof that the FBI and the prosecutors were motivated by a vendetta.

The press was not alone in displaying a curious blindness to the true nature of the anti-Kissinger campaign. None of the major Jewish organizations spoke out, even in the face of blatantly anti-Semitic LaRouchian headlines such as "Kissinger Mafia Pollute the Holy Land.” The Reagan administration also said nothing. Indeed, many administration officials continued to meet with the LaRouchians at the height of the anti-Kissinger campaign, all but egging them on. Kissinger was well aware of this. In a 1984 interview he called the administration's dealings with LaRouche "outrageous, stupid, and nearly unforgivable."

LaRouche's rhetoric against Kissinger sometimes became so wild that it ceased to be effective propaganda. But LaRouche was playing not just to the general public and Washington conservatives, but also to his own followers. On this level, what might have seemed demented to an outsider was often a highly effective tactic for manipulating the NCLC membership. For instance, when New Solidarity said Kissinger had organized a "multimillion-dollar special counterintelligence team" to combat LaRouche, this built up the NCLC's belief in LaRouche's status as an international figure—a man so important that even the famous Kissinger would stay up all night thinking about how to thwart him. It also helped to maintain the NCLC's siege mentality as an organization surrounded by innumerable enemy agents.

Furthermore, the alleged machinations of Kissinger served as a convenient explanation for NCLC setbacks. When LaRouchian candidates did poorly in elections, it was because of vote fraud arranged by Kissinger. When an NCLC member defected, it was because agents of Kissinger had bribed him. When a journalist wrote a scathing article about LaRouche, it was because he was part of a Kissinger psychological warfare network. Thus, by a strange inversion, the setbacks became a proof of the NCLC's success, for Kissinger would only bother to do these things if the NCLC was a real and growing threat to the forces of evil.

Ultimately LaRouche's greatest gain from harassing Kissinger was in making an example of him. In powerful circles in Washington, New York, and Chicago, many people became aware of how much the attacks had upset Kissinger and disrupted his life. And these people recognized just how few options were open to him in fighting back. He couldn't sue: That would just give the LaRouchians an additional forum in which to attack him, as well as the opportunity to go rummaging through his financial records in pretrial discovery. He couldn't call a press conference about LaRouche: That would just be dignifying the NCLC leader's insidious charges (besides, LaRouche would respond with new and nastier charges). He couldn't have LaRouche arrested, since the NCLC chairman acted mostly through intermediaries who either stayed within the law or engaged in telephone mischief too petty to prosecute.

Thus did Kissinger's ordeal become an object lesson for anyone in authority who might be tempted to stand up to LaRouche. Each leaflet and each demonstration helped to solidify LaRouche's public image as an unpredictable wild man who refused to play by the rules. The message—don't mess with Lyndon LaRouche—was received loud and clear. Along with his penchant for filing libel suits and collecting dossiers on his enemies, LaRouche's anti-Kissinger campaign helps to explain why, even in the late 1980s, he continued to enjoy a remarkable degree of immunity from public criticism. 

LAROUCHIAN POLICY OF NAMING NAMES, SUCH AS KISSINGER: "A War-winning Strategy," NS, Mar. 21, 1978.

THE "ZIONIST-BRITISH ORGANISM": "Register the Zionist Lobby as Foreign Agents!," NS, Sept. 5, 1978.

REVIEW OF THE WHITE HOUSE YEARS: LHL, "Henry Kissinger as a Novelist," EIR, Nov. 4, 1980.

KISSINGER'S MASTERS "FAR WORSE THAN HITLER": LHL, The Pestilence of Usury, NDPC pamphlet, 1981.

LEADING NEO-NAZI PRAISES LAROUCHE'S ANTI-KISSINGER CAMPAIGN: Robert Miles, From the Mountain (newsletter), May-June 1984, p. 5.

KISSINGER WATCH ANNOUNCED; AIM IS "CONTROLLED AVERSIVE ENVIRONMENT": Mark Burdman, "Dr. K.'s Career Takes a Turn for the Worse," EIR, Jan. 4, 1983.

SURVEILLANCE, PRANKS, AND DEMONSTRATIONS: "The Growing Tribulations of Henry Kissinger," NS, Nov. 18, 1982; "From Kissinger's Appointment Book," NS, Nov. 12, 1982; "Does Henry Kissinger Have AIDS, at 60?," NS, June 6, 1983; "Does Dr. Henry Kissinger Still Exist?," NS, June 20, 1983; "Henry K. Hops a Catering Truck to Flee Protest," New York Post, Aug. 21, 1982; "Briefly," EIR, Nov. 2, 1982; "'Kissinger--Never Again,'" NS, Sept. 26, 1983.

THE ULTIMATE SMEAR: LHL, Kissinger: The Politics of Faggotry, NCLC leaflet, Aug. 3, 1982; "LaRouche Challenges Kissinger to Sue Him," EIR, Aug. 17, 1982.

KISSINGER INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON ATTACKED: "Kissinger Behind White House Purge," NS, Oct. 21, 1983;Kissinger's Drive to Take Over the Reagan Administration, EIR special report, 1983; "Want to Save Lives? Bury Kissinger!," NS, June 28, 1985.

DEATH WISH FOR KISSINGER: "Briefly," EIR, July 6, 1982; Mark Burdman, "Dr. K.'s Career Takes a Turn for the Worse"; "Is Henry Going off the Deep End?," NS, June 10, 1983; "Koestler Takes His Own Advice; Kissinger to Follow?," NS, Mar. 14, 1983.

ALLEGED CAR-BOMB SUGGESTION: NBC Nightly News, Apr. 7, 1986.

KISSINGER AND ZIONISM: "Kissinger Mafia Pollute the Holy Land," NS, Mar. 18, 1983.

LAROUCHIANS BELIEVE KISSINGER IS OUT TO GET THEM: "Kissinger Behind Attacks on LaRouche Organization," NS, Aug. 8, 1983; "Kissinger Seeks Revenge," NS, July 13, 1984.

This is Not Sparta

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” ― Voltaire

Predictive Programming

The Empire Lovers Strike Back - by Gore Vidal

The Empire Lovers Strike Back

by Gore Vidal

Recently, Norman Mailer and I chatted together at the Royale Theatre in New York, under the auspices of PEN American Center. Part of what I said was reprinted in these pages on January 11, under the title, not mine, “Requiem for the American Empire.” I gave a bit of a history lesson about our empire’s genesis, and I brooded on its terminus last fall, when Tokyo took over from New York as the world’s economic center.

My conclusion: for America to survive economically in the coming Sino-Japanese world, an alliance with the Soviet Union is a necessity. After all, the white race is a minority race with many well deserved enemies, and if the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere don’t band together, we are going to end up as farmers–or, worse, mere entertainment–for the more than one billion grimly efficient Asiatics. In principle, Mailer agreed.

As expected, that wonderful, wacky couple, Norman (Poddy) Podhoretz and his wife, Midge Decter, checked in. The Lunts of the right wing (Israeli Fifth Column Division), they are now, in their old age, more and more like refugees from a Woody Allen film: The Purple Prose of West End Avenue.

Poddy was the first to respond. He is the editor of Commentary (circulation 55,000, and allegedly falling; paid for by the American Jewish Committee). He is best known–and by me loved–for his autobiographical “novel,” Making It, in which he tells us that he has made it because he has become editor of Commentary and might one day be a guest at the White House, as he has already been a guest of Huntington Hartford in Nassau.

Over the years, Poddy has, like his employers, the A.J.C., moved from those liberal positions traditionally occupied by American Jews (and me) to the far right of American politics. The reason for that is simple. In order to get Treasury money for Israel (last year $5 billion), pro-Israel lobbyists must see to it that America’s “the Russians are coming” squads are in place so that they can continue to frighten the American people into spending enormous sums for “defense,” which also means the support of Israel in its never-ending wars against just about everyone.

To make sure that nearly a third of the Federal budget goes to the Pentagon and Israel, it is necessary for the pro-Israel lobbyists to make common cause with our lunatic right. Hence, the virulent propaganda.

Poddy denounced Mailer and me in the pages of the New York Post. According to him, we belong to that mindless majority of pinko intellectuals who actually think that the nation spends too much on the Pentagon and not enough on, say, education. Since sustained argument is not really his bag, he must fall back on the ad hominem attack, a right-wing specialty–and, of course, on our flag, which he wears like a designer kaftan because “the blessings of freedom and prosperity are greater and more widely shared [here] than in any country known to human history.” Poddy should visit those Western European countries whose per capita income is higher than ours. All in all, Poddy is a silly billy.

Significantly, the one Yiddish word that has gained universal acceptance in this country is chutzpah. Example: In 1960, Mr. and Mrs. Podhoretz were in upstate New York where I used to live. I was trying out a play at the Hyde Park Playhouse; the play was set during the Civil War. “Why,” asked Poddy, “are you writing a play about, of all things, the Civil War?” I explained to him that my mother’s family had fought for the Confederacy and my father’s for the Union, and that the Civil War was–and is–to the United States what the Trojan War was to the Greeks, the great single tragic event that continues to give resonance to our Republic.

“Well, to me,” said Poddy, “the Civil War is as remote and as irrelevant as the War of the Roses.” I realized then that he was not planning to become an “assimilated American,” to use the old-fashioned terminology; but, rather, his first loyalty would always be to Israel. Yet he and Midge stay on among us, in order to make propaganda and raise money for Israel–a country they don’t seem eager to live in. Jewish joke, circa 1900: A Zionist is someone who wants to ship other people off to Palestine.

Midge was next to strike. But before she launched her attack, in something called Contentions, she put on her thinking cap and actually read what I wrote. I give her high marks for that. Unfortunately, she found my history lesson hard going. But then, like most of our Israeli fifth columnists, Midge isn’t much interested in what the goyim were up to before Ellis Island. She also likes the ad hominem attack. When I noted that our writers seldom speak out on matters of war and peace because so many of them are paid for by universities that receive money from the garrison state, Midge tartly retorted, “He, after all, is not paid by a university but by those great centers of independence, the film companies.” Since my last Hollywood film, The Best Man, was made in 1964, I have been “paid” by that American public that buys my books about the American past, a subject of no demonstrable interest to Midge and Poddy and their friends.

Midge was amazed by my description of how we seized territories from Mexico, including California; annexed Hawaii and Puerto Rico and, of course, the Philippines, where we slaughtered between 100,000 and 200,000 of the inhabitants. Interesting note: American imperialists froth if the figures for those murdered are ever in excess of 60,000 men, women and children, the acceptable statistical minimum for genocide. Then Midge, with that magisterial gooniness that marks her polemical style, told us, “that three of these conquered territories are now states of the United States, and a fourth an independent republic, is evidently beside the point–as, we cannot resist remarking. . . .”

Oh, Midge, resist. Resist! Don’t you get the point? We stole other people’s land. We murdered many of the inhabitants. We imposed our religion–and rule–on the survivors. General Grant was ashamed of what we did to Mexico, and so am I. Mark Twain was ashamed of what we did in the Philippines, and so am I. Midge is not because in the Middle East another predatory people is busy stealing other people’s land in the name of an alien theocracy. She is a propagandist for these predators (paid for?), and that is what all this nonsense is about.

Since spades may not be called spades in freedom’s land, let me spell it all out. In order to get military and economic support for Israel, a small number of American Jews, who should know better, have made common cause with every sort of reactionary and anti-Semitic group in the United States, from the corridors of the Pentagon to the TV studios of the evangelical Jesus-Christers. To show that their hearts are in the far-right place, they call themselves neoconservatives, and attack the likes of Mailer and me, all in the interest of supporting the likes of Sharon and Israel as opposed to the Peace Now Israelis whom they disdain. There is real madness here; mischief too.

“Well, one thing is clear in all this muddle,’’ writes Midge, adrift in her tautological sea, “Mr. Vidal does not like his country.” Poor Midge. Of course I like my country. After all, I’m its current biographer. But now that we’re really leveling with each other, I’ve got to tell you I don’t much like your country, which is Israel.

Although there is nothing wrong with being a lobbyist for a foreign power, one is supposed to register with the Justice Department. Also, I should think that tact would require a certain forbearance when it comes to the politics of the host country. But tact is unknown to the Podhoretzes. Joyously they revel in the politics of hate, with plangent attacks on blacks and/or fags and/or liberals, trying, always, to outdo those moral majoritarians who will, as Armageddon draws near, either convert all the Jews, just as the Good Book says, or kill them.

All in all, the latest Podhoretz diatribes have finally convinced me that the time has come for the United States to stop all aid not only to Israel but to Jordan, Egypt and the rest of the Arab world.* The Middle Easterners would then be obliged to make peace, or blow one another up, or whatever. In any case, we would be well out of it. ** After all, the theological and territorial quarrels of Israel and Islam *** are as remote to 200 million Americans as–what else?–the War of the Roses.

Editors Notes:

* Sounds great, provided US military sales to Israel are duly ceased as well, which are often tied to aid and may be in contravention of domestic US law

** The day the USG stops intervening on behalf of the Israeli apartheid state and lets Israel face its many denials of international law will be a great one

*** It is not a ‘territorial quarrel’ here but outright colonialism and territorial theft, involving horrific ethnic cleansing by a rogue state

JFK50: The Trust Factor

To date, Jack Kennedy is the only real-life person depicted as knowing Superman's secret identity.

JFK50: Lax Presidential Security Precautions in Dallas

Just look at this shit:

GASP! - A rope!

Better hope none o' those crazy crackers brought scissors...

5/11 was an Inside Job

This is the Voice of Fate:- 

Are you sitting comfortably?

Then I'll begin.

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

Gunpowder, Treason and Plot...

Thomas Percy and Robert Catsby are the double-agents and informants - they are reporting into Lord Cecil, architect of the Anti-Papist War on Terror.

Fawkes, the Wright Brothers and the Winter Brothers are the patsies, Bates the servant is probably an informant.

Remember, remember the Eleventh of September, 

Thermite, Treason and Plot...

Atta is the chief US Double agent.

"Al-Hamzi" and Al-Midhar is the chief Saudi Double agent.

US, Israeli and Saudi Intelligence are the architects of the background to the Clash of Civilisations anti-Islamist War on Terror.

Al-Hamzi was alive and well on Septemeber 12th 2001, working on an oil refinery in Saudi Arabia, his identity stolen - the person using his identity had been living in a house in San Diego rented by an FBI informant for over a year, while the CIA hid him in this safe house away from the FBI.

Hanni Hanjour is a documented basket-case and completely insane, unable to take off in a single engine Cessna.

There are at least two Attas and at least two al-Hamzis - doubles everywhere.

There are also two James Earl Rays, two Sirhan Sirhans, two Patty Hearsts and (by one count) -5 least Thirty two different Lee Oswalds, Harvey Oswalds, Lee Harveys, O.H. Lees, A.Hiddels and Lee Harvey Oswaldsetc.

Hardware

The Boxcutter.

This is not an effective weapon with which to execute a hijacking, owing to its total lack of stopping power.

Never bring a knife to a gun-fight - the passengers will beat you to death with their hand-luggage.

The Gunpowder Barrel

The barrels Fawkes and the troupe of dupes were apprehended with in the cellar did not contain gunpowder.

This is some examples of corned gunpowder.

The barrels in the cellar contained corned (that is to say, granulated) gunpowder, resembling dried peppercorns, not black powder in dust form.

Granulated gunpowder was a solution to the problem of safely storing gunpowder in an era when the main form of illumination was the naked flame - individual granules will explode when a naked flame is applied to them, but a progressive explosion or chain reaction will not result; gunpowder is a low-explosive, not a high-explosive, and does not produce a self-sustaining exothermic reaction.

Put another way, if you lit a barrel of corned gunpowder, it would not explode, and certainly not all at once, it would crackle and cook-off the way ammunition in a fire typically does.

This would not blow up Parliament.

It just wouldn't work. 

 

JFK50: An Open Letter to Vimeo

Dear Vimeo,

I'm regret that this circumstance has arisen - at the back of my mind, I suspected that such a decision on your part might be imminent, but considered it a calculated risk worth taking.

In the main, I post both original content short-form documentaries I produce myself, and mirror news and current affairs extracts I feel are important either for their illustrative and educative value to inform current events, or likewise important reportage I feel is being ignored or sidelined by mainstream corporate news source; likewise, I occasionally mirror historically important, rare, or difficult-to-obtain documentaries on specific events that challenge the accepted view of the events themselves or offer a broader or alternative perspective, or valuable additional information.

In all cases, my purpose is primarily educative and intended to create access to a broadly based historical record, both of which fall within the catchment of the Fair Use doctrine, which is one I myself have always tried to personally honour and respect.

At no time was there a profit-motive or any effort to take credit for the work of others.

To date, I have only been flagged for a single previous violation of this, for the documentary A Noble Lie, concerning the Oklahoma City Bombing. 

On that occasion, the content was removed, and at that time, as now, I concur with that decision; the documentary is still a very recent one, and at that time was still (I believe) being shown commercially on the film festival circuit, and as such be in breach of the spirit of the laws governing Fair Use internationally.

That single previous dispute was resolved without further issue.

I have never previously posted a significant portion or excerpt of a dramatic, theatrical feature - for all sorts of reasons, I would normally not consider this in any way or any sense covered by the Fair Use doctrine, since the economics of artist's rights, residuals, etc. can in no way be extended to outweigh these considerations, in the vast majority of most cases.

Yesterday I uploaded a low-resolution copy of the 1973 theatrical feature "Executive Action".

Executive Action is a suppressed film.

Released by Warner Brothers in November 1973, to mark the 10th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F Kennedy, intense pressure on both the studio, theatre chains, distributors and individual theatre owners, as well as critics ensured that it's entire threatrical run lasts less than a fortnight, and it's eventual release on home video nearly two decades later was low-key and perfunctory.

There was (and is) an  enormous effort by both political and government action, and by large elements within the media corporate power structure to ensure that this film was never seen.

I feel that it should be seen. 

I suspected that uploading this particular film would attract some form of punitive action against my account, or prompt a takedown request for that particular film (which I would have been happy to concede to, as in the previous case, were it to have been put to me), but I felt that it was of sufficent importance to take the risk.

And it was a risk, and not one I took without due consideration - as you are surely aware, takedown enforcement of Copyrighted (or allegedly copyrighted) material on rival hosts like YouTube is  far more militantly enforced - and yet a lower-grade, choppier version of this same feature is available in its entirety on YouTube and a number of other hosts, free of charge, with no copyright attribution whatsoever. 

It seems somewhat disproportionate to me to issue a total suspension of my account, with my entire body of content (and I am a loyal, paying VimeoPlus account holder) for the violation of uploading a single theatrical feature that is freely available elsewhere.

I am very prepared to be reasonable and accept the takedown of the feature, if this is indeed what prompted such sudden, unilateral action on your part, but the timing of the incident does give me cause for concern;

As you may know, this month marks the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F Kennedy, and a highly sustained campaign of revisionism (long anticipated) in the mass media has begun in earnest.

One of the reasons I began hosting my content on Vimeo was upon discovery, last Martin Luther King Day, that the Open-Source Documentary, Evidence of Revision, concerning the life and death of Dr. King had suddenly become blocked via copyright takedown notices all across YouTube and a number of other hosting sites - these disputes have apparently been resolved, and the videos are now viewable.

But the takedown notices came into effect directly prior to MLK Day and expired shortly afterwards - Evidence of Revision was not accessible to the public on Martin Luther King Day and I found that to be both unacceptable  and a clear abuse of process by those who did not wish the information to be accessible when it was most relevant.

In this case, the takedown for Executive Action was imposed less than 4 weeks prior to the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination.

I understand as a hosting service that you have responsibilities to shareholders, customers and other stakeholders in such matters.

I understand as a for-profit enterprise, all business decisions must ultimately yield to to the bottom line.

I understand that from your perspective, the decision was a business decision and not politically motivated and I also understand that the advice your receive from copyright claimants you must also take at face value as being a good-faith complaint about the claimed infringement of any copyright or artists' rights.

I also understand, from personal experience, unfortunately, that much of the copyright claims made against hosted video content on other sites are politically motivated bad-faith claims and an abuse of process to control access to information and suppress free speech and informed debate.

I would be delighted to discuss this further with you, since I have always felt the values of Vimeo reflect that sense of openness and innovation that embrace all views and encourage personal expression, and to date, I have never felt any reason to doubt that commitment.

I hope we can resolve this matter, and I am prepared to be flexible, provided my personal access to my uploaded content can be at least provisionally reinstated.

I should mention though however, I operate a personal blog linked to a variety of my Vimeo uploads with over 60,000 readers and I am already being approached by people asking to know what has happened to my content so suddenly - I am more than happy to make concessions, but if we are unable to resolve this matter relatively quickly, I will be forced to explain to them what I believe has happened, and why.

Yours faithfully,

Spike1138

Sent from my iPad

To ensure delivery, add no-reply@vimeo.com to your address book. Dear Spike1138: Your account has been removed by the Vimeo Staff for violating our Guidelines. Reason: Uploading videos from TV, Movies, or something you ripped from the Web. We hope you find a video host more suited to your needs. If you believe this was an error, please reply to this email in a civil manner with your reasoning ("I see other people do it" is not a valid reason). Vimeo Guidelines Regards, Vimeo Staff