From Eisenhower to Obama: War is Money

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid Galilee of its Arab population."

The above statement is attributed to David Ben-Gurion, the founding father of the State of Israel and First Israeli Prime Minister taken from Ben-Gurion, a Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar (May 1948). I am not a historian, but such transgressions aside, it is not too farfetched to suggest that history often repeats itself. Especially when it pertains to presidential politics and nations like Israel, the United States, Syria, Turkey and Iran. Even considering smaller yet significant events ranging from the slaying of Crispus Attucks during the Boston Massacre in 1770 to the signing of the “Southern Manifesto” by Strom Thurman and a hundred plus democratic members of the house, to the operations run by Kermit Roosevelt that caused a coup in Iran in 1959; to even Eisenhower himself and his conundrum regarding Nasser of Egypt inclusive of France, Israel and the Aswan Damn.

This is a week or more after the first Presidential debate and I am willing to bet most black folk are still talking about it. Subsequently, given that most are caught up with that circus called the Presidential debate, truth be told it is immaterial and all that I mention prior are (albeit) past history more important than the debate when we look at the global predicament and war and our relationship with Israel. You see, although the US has laws that require foreign interests to register as foreign agents, these laws are not equally or always applied to all Israeli lobby groups, such as AIPAC.

Unless you have been behind a rock, you would know that besides the criminal industrial complex, the big industry money maker in America is war. Yes, war drives the economy and amounts to more than all of our allocated GDP spent when compared to all other programs in the United States that is if you don’t include international aid in the form of grants to nations like Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Even as one reads this, Syria is being attacked inside by NATO funded Al Qaeda “Rebels,” China and japan are at each other throats, Shells fly each and every day in the Sudan and Mali is in the middle of a serious conflict.

For a while now, much has been made in political forums of addressing Iran and their quest to become nuclear sufficient (strangely enough by nations who have nuclear weapons - US and Israel). Meaning that regardless of what is being spoken in public, behind closed doors activities show how involved this issue is in both political and economic capital. The US, via NATO and the Saudi’s are funding dozens of training camps that have been set up to prepare for the fight against President Bashar al-Assad’s military. Both US and Saudi millions and Special Forces expertise are engaged covertly in training Al Qaeda terrorist (FSA Syria's rebels) into a disciplined military force. The FSA or “The Free Syrian Army” didn’t exist until Israel, NATO and the US decided that the powers that be needed a war, a major war, to make money and to topple the Syrian leader as well as the state bank of Syria. In fact the same ploy that is being used to break Iran and their independent state bank via the Libyan blue print for the same is being replicated in Syria.

Seems as if those of us in the West, limited by our ignorance and overshadowed by our obsessive ranting on freedom and democracy, cannot comprehend what democracy would mean to a non-Western world dominated by a belief in Islam. We look at what has happened in Libya and what is currently happening in Syria as being singularly about democracy and the development of a secular ideology that includes a pluralistic society run according to democratic principles while those on the ground see it about something completely different - espousing fundamentalism directed exclusive against western aggression and hegemony.

Another issue of concern is confounded when Middle Eastern Nations question the nationalistic approach of the West to their region. For example, the overt hypocrisy of US leadership under President Obama concerned about repression I Syria and Libya but not Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. They wonder how the US continue to evaluate all issues from state perspectives and a monolithic Islam versus Alawite, Sunni and Shī'ah sects of Islam. On the one hand he supposedly is operating a multi-front war, in secrecy against Al Qaeda {Islamic fundamentalism}, particularly in Africa and the Middle East – as evident by the increase in size of the U.S. military's Special Forces Operation Command and the CIA's strike expansion capabilities in the region in places including Kenya, Uganda, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean off East Africa – while at the same time asserting that they do not desire a conflict with Islam. This albeit our policy pursues wars presently on three fronts: Syria, Lebanon and Iran, and Afghanistan.

We have seen this all before when President Gamal Abdel Nasser's, who had come to power in the 1953 nationalistic revolution in Egypt. Nasser's wanted to construction dam at Aswan, to form a massive lake that would aid to control the annual flooding of the Nile, crucial to Egypt's agriculture, as well as generating vast amounts of electricity. First he was offered economic support by Britain and US to finance the Aswan dam. But then the West backed out.

This led to Britain and France to build up their forces in the Mediterranean, with the secret understand that Israeli troops would move into the Sinai Peninsula. Trying to present a position of peace the European nations asked that both move away from the region and when Egypt disregarded, against the ruling of the UN Security Council and general assembly, Britain and France begin bombing Egyptian airfields. This was under Eisenhower, who although in the open refused to join Britain, France and Israel in an invasion of Egypt, had approved of and knew about such behind closed doors.

Yes the methods of Eisenhower are similar to the methods of Obama presently and well, the role of Israel as agent provocateur is the same – making up a threat that doesn’t exist because a nation attempts to exist in a self-determined fashion. Only difference is that then it was a damn in Egypt and now it is Nuclear power in Iran.

Another common denominator was economics. Then, it pertained to vital shipping routes today; it deals with the Middle East, West Africa as emerging vital oil-producing, mineral rich zones including arable farmland. Then after the US denied funding Egypt, they went to Russia for military support which was granted. Today, the same is happening in Syria, Iran and also Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan-Russia ties are growing under Russian President Vladimir Putin’s who is expected to make the first visit by a Russian president to Pakistan ever supposedly to sign multiple MOU’s (Memorandums of Understanding) on development and investment in the steel and energy sectors of Pakistan. Syria’s central role in the Arab gas pipeline is also a key to why Israel, NATO and the US wants Assad out, in addition to having a direct path to Iran (just as the Taliban in Afghanistan because they are in the way of the Unocal pipeline).

Guess what I am saying, to repeat myself is that without war, America’s economy would already be in the grave as opposed to on its death bed. War is good economics, no matter if it is in the Middle East, China, the Far East or Africa. The question is will we be able to make money before we realize we may not have the financial ability to carry out such efforts? As we speak, The United States military has secretly sent a task force of more than 150 specialists to Jordan be in place in case the turmoil in Syria expand into a wider conflict.

Unfortunately, it is a fallacy to think or believe that America can be taken out of economic crisis via more and more wars given that the most productive part of the US economy has been moved offshore in order to increase corporate profits and capital gains to equity owners. It is not the American people who are at the center of such policy efforts, like I said; historically it is the war machine and the oligarchy of private interests. More wars that we can only afford to pay with debt is trouble. It is just like having a gallon of gasoline, and pouring a half gallon of water into it doesn’t change the fact of how much gasoline remains. Borrowing more debt, quantitative easing, or printing more loot is the same thing as the above example. It is an invisible tax that just steals tax payer’s money through inflation. Simply because basic math wins out in the end and shows that because the act of printing money doesn’t create any more jobs than one already has.

Now, in light of Obama’s “neoliberalism, the federal government is just borrowing more loot from itself, loot it doesn’t have because the Federal Reserve can print as much as it wants and buy government bonds with the new money it has printed. Such practices in concert with America’s "Ad hoc global 'counter-terrorism' efforts that began under President George W. Bush. The way I think it, this means that what can be anticipated in the future is that either the Obama Administration or Romney Administration will in my estimation, by 2013, have the U.S. at war with Iran just because it is the penchant of Israel and its nuclear program will be used as a reason for this attack. Although it is well know that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. We already see posturing visa via Turkey being used as a NATO proxy to get to Syria on a direct path to Iran. As well as evidence that the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is slowly evaporating before our eyes apart. Although we say we desire the impossible dream of secular Islamic or secular Islamic states all across the region that includes a pluralistic society run according to democratic principles, it won’t happen, now given what has manifested in Syria as I stated earlier.

For decades, the Americans indulged and propped up pro-Western dictators in the interests U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Over the last 18 months, four of these dictators have fallen to pro-democracy uprisings, leaving U.S. strategy cold war-esque. And since we broke and can’t make loot via cold war, we will continue to engage in efforts to spark wars around the world, for whatever reason even if they are as petty as what transpired in Egypt and France and Britain – even if we have to adopt the position of David Ben-Gurion, and use terror just to accomplish such.

If I were a Conspiracy – The French Connection

One thing that ticks me off is the notion of conspiracy theory. Frankly, I do not know what this means. When it is used, it is often in an attempt to vilify another’s radically different use of observation and reason to formulate a tenable answer to some conundrum. In simple terms, a conspiracy is a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act which is usually grounded in some form of political motivation.


Now, I would ask if any remember reading the Book “The French Connection” by Robin Moore but doing such would only date me. I read the book in the mid 70s, around the time I was in Junior High School and found it fascinating. Based on a true story, eventually it would become a movie about the criminal underworld of the drug trade. It was such a god read. And in this age of internationalism and global economics, it doesn’t seem improbably that a man can be tricked and set up based on personal habits alone.

This week in Manhattan, the Chief of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Dominique Strauss-Kahn on charges of attempted Rape. Now if you listen to my blog talk radio show, you are aware that I reference the World Bank, IMF and the Federal Reserve Banks frequently; as well as to specific individuals and policy positions. Now as a scientist, I like to produce all possible reasons for an outcome and this entire fiasco holds up red flags.

See Strauss-Kahn aint the typical international big banking mogul rich mutha fuca, no he is the Socialist Party of France leading Presidential candidate. He by many estimates had a great chance to replace Mr. Sarkozy and placing his party back on top of French Politics. But this may be over. It was well known by reading the French dailies like Le’ Figaro or Les echos, it was obvious that he was aware of his hurdles. Less than three weeks ago, Dominique Strauss-Kahn met with two journalists from the daily Libération.

He indicated that the biggest issues he would confront in attempting to become president were “women, money and being Jewish.” Regarding women he said, "Yes I like women, so what?" he asked. "For years, there's been talk of photos of a giant orgy, but I've never seen them come out." He also seemingly prophetically proffered a hypothetical situation of something that could destroy his efforts: "A woman raped in a parking lot who is promised half a million Euros to make up her story."

Now I am not saying that he is guilty or innocent, but the timing, the methods and the circumstances are extremely convenient and coincidental. Not to mention there are a host of folks who would benefit from his being incontinently occupied in the US criminal justice system.

Sarkozy: If you follow French politics or even read an online version of their major papers, it was no secret that the current President was in the market for collecting any information or dirt that could be used to discredit Strauss-Kahn. And given the well sustained notion that he loved the ladies, his affair with an IMF economist (Piroska Nagy) and alleged assault on writer Tristane Banon, fabricating an assault based on past events could be easily accomplished, especially with the resources and connection one gets as President of France. Not to mention no telling what he discussed with President Obama when President Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, were having that cozy dinner in the White House last year. It should also be remembered that it was president Obama who helped France assume a more prominent role in NATO’s military command structure.

China, Brazil or Turkey: When we think of the IMF, what is known is that traditionally, the head, just as Mr. Strauss-Kahn is a European. The number two is most always and American. With the increasing wealth and might of once developing nations like China and Brazil, the pressure has been growing for the next leader to be from one of these emerging market economies. And as with Sarkozy, with the resources and connections as the above have economically, anything is possible. Lipsky, the American in the number two spot has indicated that he planned to leave the IMF before the year is out meaning, both the top two positions may be open. We must recall that it was earlier this year when the IMF via the number 2 man John Lipsky said that China, Brazil and other fast-growing nations were “growing too fast.” Brazil and some other nations in return raised taxes on foreign investors attempting to slow inflows of investment money and ward off inflationary pressures. This position was reiterated last week by IMF Western Hemisphere Department deputy director Miguel Savastano. No doubt anyone of these nations would love to see Mr. Strauss-Kahn out of the way.

JP Morgan: Now JP Morgan is a metaphor for US banking interest and can stand to represent Goldman Sachs or Merrill Lynch as well. As I noted prior, the number two is an American and the current Yankee in this position if former JP Morgan banker and US Treasury executive John Lipsky. Like I said, Lipsky said he was leaving, but if he doesn’t he may move up front and have his fingers on the bailouts established by Strauss-Khan for Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Many in America thought that Strauss-Khan showed too much favoritism to Greece. Maybe some big bankers on Wall Street hoped that the arrest of Strauss-Kahn would derail the current austerity approaches the IMF has implemented across Europe. We know where the American banking Industry and Wall Street stand – neither has ever said anything complimentary of the IMF’s bailout, especially related to Greece. Just last week The Wall Street Journal reported that a new $86.1 billion bailout from the European Union and the IMF would be given to the Greek to continue assisting in the nations efforts to restructure its debts.

In summary, all I am saying is that this has the potential to be one of the biggest political gadfly’s ever. The entire world of global finance and French politics were aware of Strauss-Kahn's weakness – his affinity for women. Strauss-Kahn denies the charges. Truth is in France both consensual extramarital sex and having a mistress isn’t big news. But I do know that this is all too easy with the facts thus far which are:

• A Woman who said Mr. Strauss-Kahn sexually assaulted him selected him
  Out of a line up.
• The alleged victim, a 32 year-old African Immigrant was led out of
  Police headquarters with a blanket over her head
• Mr. Strauss-Kahn called to see if he left his cell phone (which he had not)
• Police coached person taking the call and instructed them to falsely
  State that his phone was indeed at the Sofitel.
• All involved were coached by police, workers of the Sofitel
  

Now Im just thinking outloud, with shows like NCSI and criminal Minds on televison, who am I to say a set up, based on a well documented history of behavior by a one Dominique Strauss-kahn could not be accomplished. I mean any maid, if they were in his room, has acess to DNA if he was or was not in the rom at the time. It is just as easy for a woman to swipe hairs off of the sink, floor, or lay in the bed or even take semen from a condom in a garbage can. Now I offered a few folk who may be interested in a frame up of dude, but more importantly, Im saying I find all of this dificult to believe - I have seen the true life shows where one hair with DNA can send a man to jail for life, even if innocent. Again connubial issues aside, this just don’t seem right – I’m just saying.

Obama Backsteps Made in USA Foreign Policy for Egypt

As the Egyptian people take to the streets of its cities against decades of repression, increasing poverty and unbearable food prices, the Obama administration is in an admitted quandary of either supporting the requested demand for democratic reform of the people or the stable support of a corrupt dictator. The longer he waits to decide in pursuit of his request for an “orderly transition” to democratic reform as stated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the more his hopes of modeling changes as those that occurred in Turkey, the more likely what happened in Iran in 1979 will come to fruition. The conundrum is that he as president in the past has been in bed with Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia too long to adapt or alter American political policy in the region. This in fact is worse than the BP oil spill or the mid-term election losses the democrats suffered this past November.

The citizenry of Egypt know more of the US support of Mubarak’s three decades than the average American and of the $1.5 billion annually gives to his totalitarian regime. This is an overshadowing sticking point since cutting off this aid would likely make the Israeli government uneasy. But being on the wrong side of the history could proffer even more hazardous for President Obama: for again it may result in leadership similar to that in Iran after the overthrow of the shah via popular revolt – but I seriously doubt it.

Yet it could. We have already lost face validity for even asking a man who has ruled for nearly 30 years to be in charge of the democratic conversion of an autocratic state. I would be more fearful of an anti American state more so than an Islamic fundamentalist state that hates the West. I remember seeing the murder of Anwar Sadat on television and remember it was not by Islamic fundamentalist but rather folk who hated the fact that he dealt with the west, particularly the United States and Israel. I also recall that our most hated enemy, Al Zawahiri was forced to leave his home of Egypt because of Mubarak’s preventing such men from being a part of the political process. Thus it is not unlikely that these young secular democracy seeking, twitter and facebook users may be pushed by Obama inaction to hate the US as much or as equal as Mubarak.

Obama seems to need to brush up on his history or risk another Khomeini. The truth is we back step when folk desire liberty and democracy after we talk it up as did the President in his address at the American University in Cairo in 2009. We go after the Saddam Hussein’s of the world while kicking it with the Mubarak’s and King Abdullah’s of the world. This is what creates Islamic fundamental extremist that desire to fly planes into our architecture. Seeing we have not learned anything after support Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Chiang Kaishek in Tiawan or Mobutu Seko in Zaire. Obama needs to face the fact that we support such openly, especially in the case of Mubarak and the sad thing is that we do so for Israel (who just sent three Israeli planes landed at Cairo's Mina International Airport on Saturday carrying hazardous equipment for use in dispersing and suppressing large crowds)not America. I mean we seem to speak more of the Suez canal and what Egypt thinks and feel that the people of Egypt.

Obama has a tough task ahead. He holds the baggage of American foreign policy. This will make it complicated for him to urge a transition from a US supported government that has abrogated any and all other organized political alternatives and elides political freedom. Maybe we should rethink Afghanistan for what we see in Tunisia and Egypt tells us that it does not require a bloody and bellicose illegal invasion and occupation to overthrow a dictator. So get your practice on Mr President, Jordan is likely to be next - so don't blow it.

Why in year 6

Given the preoccupation with the general media distributed information, I certain there is a lot of news that is occurring, or rather information that we may or may not be privy too. And not to dwell on such for the sake of information, as I have been known to do so in the past, I just want to try and put two and two together.

A few days ago the US military implemented a clandestine cloak and dagger operation in Syria in the village of Sukariya to try and catch, not a known, but rather a SUSPECTED al-Qaeda operative.

Thanks to cellphone telephony, we have an amateur video of the operation. But again, as I said with respect to information, this is neither here nor there. First, this was conducted basically two weeks before the general election. Why now, is it maybe because the Bush Whitehouse doesn’t believe that McCain can win, or has a chance to win? Is it their goal to leave the rookie Obama administration with an additional foreign policy conundrum to deal with?

The way I see it, and I have little if any understanding of military protocol, but a remote controlled Drone could have gone five miles across the Syrian border and accomplished the same thing – kill some folks and some civilians. But nope, they used helicopters with military personnel telling me that they went it to get somebody or something.

It may not be much, I mean its not as significant to the general public as the tragedy that struck Jennifer Hudson’s family (albeit if she was not famous we would have never heard about it) or that show about the housewives in Atlanta (and I still say if its on TV it’s acting and no where close to reality), but it does make one think. The way I see it we aint done jack in Iraq (im a rapper now) in the last two years except put pay the awakening councils – the same folks shooting at us, to continue secular neighborhood warfare.

So you tell me, why now, in year six? Are we flexing, or is Bush flexing? Are we trying to add another Middle Eastern headache to the fledgling Obama Administration (if he wins)? And will we ever see the big picture? I mean 12 military deaths in Iraq this month so far, and 12 military deaths in Afghanistan this month too. And Syria is already talking about pulling a drive by in retaliation. So what says you, I mean if you gave it thought or even heard or read about it, because the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas don’t get down like that. Not to mention that Bush and McCain and Obama claim to have top shelf foreign policy game, buttaruh aint none addressed this nor how The U.S. raid into Syrian territory will not assist Turkey's efforts to promote a stable Middle East through mediations it has been holding between Israel and Syria. I mean it’s just a question.

just a though on Iraq

Yo check this. Albeit my foreign policy experience has been limited to running child survival, maternal health and infectious disease risk reduction in prisons, and outside of the frequently penned essay on international affairs issues regarding politic and health, I am a novice. Maybe one reason why I would not be suitable for political office – add that my salacious selection of vocabulary and my predilection for women. That aside, I have reduced the political problems of Iraq into a workable solution. True I do not live there and like the US government, neither have I consulted or requested their approval of my executive order.

I have written extensively on the current circumstance that have placed us at war, from the President, to Don Rumsfeld, Neo-cons (even though have found a neo neocon), Pakistan, Afghanistan and even other assorted variables. But truth be told, we as a country, no matter how long we stay, or how many troops we can deeply, can’t do nothing for the country, the people and the puppet government – I mean democracy we elevated in Iraq.

But If I were afforded the opportunity to use a Republic like a Monarchy this is what I would do. Given my previous failures at attempting to institute an artifact of imperialism, I would look toward the North and away from the green zone and other places I have made desolate with bombs and bullets. I would sit down with All of The Kurds, the Shiite and Sunni and talk about what was going on in that region. I would tell them that, “As a nation they now have to be self-determined. That no matter where enemies come from, this could be a start for a unified Iraq." I would advocate that they all join forces and go to war against Turkey. This would accomplish our goal. We could bring our troops home and unify the country.

In my rally cry I would add, “the North is where most of the love is, and if we can destroy your country under the guise of false stockpiles for oil, then you can unify your blood for oil and for our nation. I figure this will finally unify Iraq and start the rebuilding of a unified nation state, unfortunately like it was under their former leader.

But that why I am not a politician. I don’t know if the rest of my government would go for it, I mean giving them planes, as I did Turkey also. But it would work, and we could have all of our people home and watch out two allies in the region square off. This would be a job well done. LOL

sunni or latter

With all this election stuff, it had almost slipped my mind that we were still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and trying to contrive 5 speed boats as an act of war with Iran. Then there is the northern end of Iraq, where the Turks and Kurds going at it. But as expected they say things are going well when to me they are not.

I mean if I was an Iraqi and running the government of Iraq, I would move to take our state back and urge all, Sunni’s and Shite to join in battle with the Kurds against Turkey. This may engender nationalism of my people for Iraq, and at the same time anger the US, who move for a unified Iraq but really don’t want one – and did I add, would likely be forced to help Turkey if such popped off. But this wont occur for we have effectively divided the country and encouraged secularism in the country with our pre-emptive policies and morosely laconic foreign policy.

We are now, since the surge (what ever that is) recruiting villagers of Iraq that are members of armed Sunni groups known as Awakening Councils. In theory they supposed protect their neighborhoods with the help of the US military. Haven’t we been down that path before? In 2005 The U.S. military command in Baghdad acknowledged that they paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq and we saw what that got us.

Now paying folks that want to see us dead an we know they want to see us dead like that’s gone solve the problem and make the country whole and safe. The Awakening Councils are estimated to be 70,000-strong and growing. Such short sightedness tells me that the US has not even thought of the long-term implications of empowering folks that hate and want us out of their country and who also have sever disdain for the Shiite-led government established by the US. I mean these folks are very well trained and well armed. Which begs to ask what will they do when we eventually withdraw troops (cause they will leave one day – just like the British).

Not to mention in November of last year, audits revealed that some 17K of these folks were being paid but not standing post. But what can one expect when u hire folks 10,000 at a time and pay $10.00 a day (quarter billion dollars a year).

But as I said and back to the main point, the country is divided and I am not the leader of the government nor Iraqi. The Kurds up North, the Sunnis and the Shite down below. We are funding the well-armed folks in the Sunnis who hate us and let a mainly shite government set up in the country. So we funding to rival militaries and expect that we leave, the country will be all peachy keen.

U can’t trust a liar

I was looking at one of those old movie channels. Namely because they don’t write or make movies like the used too. And it happened by chance that I ran across one of my favorite movies of all time – The Battle of Algiers by Kevin Beary.

True, I have other favorite movies like A Clockwork Orange, Malcolm X, and Imitation of Life to name a Few, but this one is an all time classic. It made me realize that I have been thinking a lot about what has passed in recent years and presently in Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey and Lebanon to name a few places and accept that many of the problems that have evinced are the result of typical Colonial rule and imperial Zeal.


The movie details the French in Algeria, and the life of one man, a former boxer and petty criminal named Ali la Pointe. After leaving prison, he is recruited by the FLN (National Liberation Front), the terrorist/national independence group that fought the French and helped to kick them out of the country after 130 years. I learned of most of the Algerian revolution via the works of Frantz Fanon, the noted Algerian Psychiatrist.

The West has traditionally inflamed relations wit Africa and the Arab world via political policies that never served the inhabitants of the countries the attempted to colonize and more importantly, through lies, exploitation and deceit.
Looking at the movie again, reminded me that no matter what one4 does, you can never trust a liar, that you can never trust a person or entity that never keep their word, that you can never trust a person that only lives through their actions to exploit and use you. I was reminded that even people have individualized colonial zeal, that will never allow them to be trust; for they will never be able to keep their word, and will lie so much that they themselves forget the truth, just as the French forgot that the country they occupied and its people were not French, and just as the US realize and should have learned from the British, that the Arab world is not Europe and that maybe they don’t desire to be Europeans, or accept what is told to them by folks who constantly lie all the time.